Entangled Alliances

photo credit: Stewf

It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that Iran has its own agenda in Afghanistan, but U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates seems to be cross about it anyway. From the Guardian:

It must have felt very uncomfortable for President Hamid Karzai to have his guest and “brother”, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, use a press conference in Kabul to attack Afghanistan’s main donor and ally, the United States. “They themselves created terrorists and now they’re saying that they are fighting terrorists,” said Ahmadinejad, accusing the US of playing a “double game” in Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad was in fact returning a compliment by the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, who only hours earlier had accused Tehran of “playing a double game” of offering friendship to the Afghan government while at the same time giving “low-level support” and money to the Taliban.

Of course Iran is playing a double game, though as the article points out it’s not actually the Taliban that Iran are likely to be funding but instead anti-Taliban warlords. But in any event Iran shares a border with Afghanistan – a fact that someone should remind Robert Gates of – so obviously Iran are going to want to fund the various factions that might at some point take  control of the country, so that whatever the future holds for its government Iran has some influence over it. An even more obvious point is  that Iran are hardly going to ignore the fact that there are American soldiers prowling round the Iran-Afghahnistan border and since the relationship between Iran and America is not exactly tip-top, they’re probably going to want to make sure they have some connections in that area.

One lesson from this is that U.S. Defence Secretaries say silly things. The more  important point though is that so many of the clashes the U.S. has with Iran are a result of the deep fear and suspicion of what America has in store for it in terms of military intervention. If you’re going to sort out the relationship between the two countries, you’ve got to do something about that.

photo credit: premasagar

In a few hours time, American President Barack Obama will welcome Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks that may well signal the start of a series of negotiations that will result in that most elusive of political outcomes: an independent Palestinian state.

Of course, we’ve been here before. The history of the Middle East over the past twenty years is a series of stuttering half-chances for peace; the promise of a solution just round the corner inevitably giving way to mixed progress and disappointment. But this time the signs are really there that the time has come for a peaceful resolution. In Barack Obama, America has a president who seems to be committed to getting his hands dirty and to doing more than just utter platitudes about the peace process. Around the Middle East, leaders are beginning to show signs of being ready and willing to play a meaningful role in a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine. Moreover, there seems to be a growing sense amongst most of the parties involved that the current situation is no longer sustainable; that the region has run out of second chances and that there will never be a better time for an agreement that results in two states – the only solution where everybody wins.

But hanging over today’s meeting is a series of questions that that we don’t yet know the answer to: How willing is America to really apply pressure on Israel? Does Netanyahu believe in two states and if so how far is he willing to go? And the question that haunts everyone: how does Iran figure in all this? The answers to such questions may well determine whether today is the beginning of a new era, or just another false dawn.

Read more…

photo credit: U.S. Department of State

Israel’s next Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu – leader of the right-wing Likud party and staunch opposer of the two-state solution – has just about finished assembling his government. His coalition now includes the right-wing racist Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak, leader of the centre-left Labour party – a combination that must surely make Netanyahu favourite for this year’s “Weirdest Team-up” award.

Lieberman, leader of the extreme right-wing nationalist party “Israel is our home”, has been appointed Foreign Minister.  Foreign minister. This is a man who campaigned on a platform of forcing Israeli Arabs to sign loyalty oaths; a man so opposed to any concessions to Palestinians that in 2003 he reacted to a commitment made by Ariel Sharon to give amnesty to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners by opining that  “It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world”. In January 2009, during Israel’s military operation in Gaza, Lieberman argued that Israel “must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary”… Yes, that’s right. He’s referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and he’s also under investigation for corruption and has been convicted of beating up a twelve year old boy. Even “The New Republic” editor Marty Peretz – a vocal member of the Pro-Israel lobby – has  denounced Lieberman, calling his party a “neo-fascist” outfit and the man himself a “certified criminal” who is “the Israeli equivalent of Jorg Haider of Austria and Jean-Marie LePen”.

The idea of Lieberman being the face of Israel’s diplomacy is the kind of thing that makes you wonder whether the Joker from Batman is controlling Israel’s foreign policy. This guy is going to negotiate peace with the Arab governments of the middle east? You’re kidding, right? I can’t wait to see what kind of reception he gets in Europe!

What about yesterday’s entry of the centre-left Labour party into the new government, including the appointment of its leader Ehud Barak (pictured, with Hillary Clinton) as Defence Minister? Labour was split right down the middle on whether this is a good idea – seven of its 13 MPs opposed joining Netanyahu’s coalition and the vote of  Labour’s central committee was a fairly narrow victory for its leader: 680-570. Barak claimed that they would not serve as anyone’s fig-leaf and they would “ensure there will not be a narrow right-wing government, but a real government that looks after the State of Israel”. However opponents of the coalition within Labour felt that this was simply an unprincipled grab for power on Barak’s behalf; a case of being “bought off with portfolios and empty promises”.

Read more…

photo credit: reubenaingber

There are two pro-Israel lobbies in America.

One is a modest group of think tanks, politicians and generally liberal media commentators who, though strongly supportive of Israel, are nevertheless extremely critical of its policies towards Palestine and of the opinion that these policies hurt not just the Palestinians but Israel itself.  They support Israel in the true sense – looking after its objective interests rather than instinctively supporting the illogical mania of its politicians.  They are not very powerful, nor are they that influential, especially in political circles.

The second group is the “pro-Israel” lobby, and if my use of quotation marks to distinguish them isn’t clear now, then I hope by the end of this post it will be.  The “pro-Israel” lobby is a vast network that includes numerous political and public committees,  right-wing media commentators and members of Congress – both Democratic and Republican.  They believe in the literal sense of supporting Israel – in other words America must back Israel in everything it does, even if it does something that is not only bad for the peace process but harmful to its own interests as well. If Israel does it, it must be right – this is their logic. Anyone who dares to criticise Israel’s policies, no matter how reasonably, is labelled as an anti-zionist or, worse, anti-semitic. This is regardless of the source of the criticism – you may be an Ivy League professor and respected expert on the Middle East, but dare to challenge Israel policy and you’ll become the victim of a ferocious campaign to discredit and smear you. Being Jewish won’t save you from these modern day McCarthyites either : you’ll simply be dismissed as a self-hater. The “pro-Israel” lobby has a stranglehold on U.S. Middle East policy and prevents any meaningful debate of the issue, at least any debate that involves criticism of Israel itself. Indeed, genuine political criticism rarely survives the co-ordinated assault of lobbyists and powerful “pro-Israel” Congressmen. This point cannot be emphasised enough. It is almost impossible for even-handed critics of Israel to play a political role in America’s handling of the issue, so powerful is this lobby and the politicians who serve it. As far as America’s crucial role in the Middle East goes, it is therefore one of the greatest threats to the peace process.

All of the above has been correct for a long time. But it is particularly relevant right now, as a recent victory by these modern day McCarthyites has cast into doubt whether Barack Obama can really change the tone of America towards the Israel/Palestine issue and whether the U.S. can escape from the grip of the “Pro Israel” lobby in time to rescue any hopes of a successful peace process.

I am talking about the withdrawal of Charles Freeman from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, an issue which the traditional media largely ignored but which has been analysed in admirable detail across the blogosphere (choice highlights:   Glenn Greenwald’s detailed accounts here and here;  Stephen Walt’s eloquent, expert take here and here)

Read more…

photo credit: premasaga

Read more…

photo credit: josef.stuefer

In my last post “Netanyahu will be Prime Minister: What now for Israel?” I discussed the decision by Israel President Shimon Peres to let right-winger Binyamin Netanyahu form Israel’s new government, but left open the crucial question of whether, following Netanyahu’s likely formation of an exclusively right-wing coalition, the two-state solution is off the table – and what happens if it is. (for a primer on what the two-state solution actually is, check out the Wikipedia entry)

Questions on the future of Israel and Palestine don’t come much bigger than this. Ever since Camp David in 2000, the two state solution has been appreciated by all sides as the eventual desired outcome. Back in 2002 The Arab League endorsed Saudi Arabia’s Arab Peace Initiative which was, essentially, a two-state solution. Successive Israel Prime Ministers Barak, Sharon and Olmert have all accepted that it must be the goal to work towards. But with Netanyahu’s victory, it might be time to start wondering whether it’s simply no longer an option. Whether you’re an optimist, a pessimist or a realist, it’s not the kind of question that the main players in the peace process can ignore for long, unless they want to find themselves up the proverbial creek without a paddle, while facing a raging whirlpool and a bunch of hungry alligators. You get my point.

Read more…

photo credit: ZoomGalaxy

The big news today is that Israel’s President Shimon Peres has selected Binyamin Netanyahu – leader of the right-wing Likud Party – to form the next government. This announcement comes two weeks after the results of the Israel elections, where the moderate Kadima party, headed by Tzipi Livni, beat Likud by one seat. Despite Livni’s victory, however, it was obvious from the start that Netanyahu (pictured, on the left) would likely be the one chosen to form a government, as he is able to scrape together a bigger coalition of right-wing parties than Livni can of left-wing ones. This outcome became near inevitable yesterday when extreme right-wing leader Avigdor Lieberman -whose party “Israel is our home” came a decent third place in the elections – fulfilled his kingmaker role by vowing to support Netanyahu. Following Peres’s decision today, we now know for certain that  Netanyahu will be the next Prime Minister of Israel.  (For more on the election results and  the coalition alternatives, see my post Israel Election Results: Your guess is as good as mine)

The key question now is what the government he chooses to form will look like. Netanyahu has already reached out to  Livni, as well as Ehud Barak of the left wing Labour Party, no doubt realising that a fringe right-wing coaltion government will be unlikely to accomplish much and receive little support from the U.S. – at least not from the new Obama administration. Indeed, he is reportedly ready to offer Livni the job of  foreign minister and deputy prime minister, as well as the role of defense secretary to her deputy Shaul Mofaz. However, both Livni and Ehud Barak have signalled that they would rather stay in opposition than form a government with Netanyahu – Livni unwilling to be a “figleaf” for a right-wing administration- and thus a unity government must be considered the less likely option.

If Netanyahu does end up having to form a right-wing government, then the prospects for the two-state solution – and thus a real peace process – could be disastrous. In my next post I will explore why the two-state solution would be off the table and, more importantly, what happens if it is. (Hint: nothing good)

In what can only be described as an unhelpful result, it looks like Israel’s elections, with 99% of the votes counted, have produced a tiny lead for the moderate Kadima party over the right-wing Likkud. Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni, (pictured) have 28 seats while Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s Likkud has 27, with seriously right-wing candidate and potential King-maker Avigdor Lieberman at 15 seats and Ehud Barak’s Labour party with a disastrous 13. The rest of the seats in Israel’s parliament – the Knesset – will be divided between a seemingly endless array of left wing and right wing parties, with what looks like a substantial seat advantage for the right-wingers.

photo credit: Tzipi Livni Gallery ציפי לבני גלריית

The first observation to make is that, even by the standards of most complicated proportional representation systems, Israel would probably have been better off just drawing lots. The second is that you might well expect Livni’s chances of helming any coalition to be very strong, given her victory, however narrow. But you’d be wrong. What happens next is that President  Shimon Peres will meet with all the party heads and choose someone to come up with a coalition – that someone being chosen not for their party’s numerical lead but for the likelihood of them being able to put together a majority alliance. Given the gains for the right-wing parties, that someone could just as easily be Netanyahu as Livni- which as we shall see is not a pleasant thought.

Read more…