worldpolicy.org

In light of the encouraging reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be moderating his position toward peace, I wanted to bring attention to this revealing New York Times article published on the eve of the one-year anniversary of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Not out of some desire to counter good news with bad. But rather, the juxtaposition of these two stories could easily be described as a lesson in the futility of intransigence.

The Times describes the pervading security mindset within Israel, one which emphasizes the need to “shorten and intensify the period of fighting and to lengthen the period [of relative peace] between rounds.” That is, Israeli security officials make the calculation that because conflict of some sort is inevitable, be it with Hezbollah or Hamas or even perhaps Iran down the road, it is in Israel’s best interest to maximize its firepower in brief bursts to temporarily subdue the enemy, ostensibly ensuring a longer peacetime environment before the next campaign is needed. In a modern era of asymmetric warfare, they view this as preferable to a drawn out guerrilla conflict that would cost countless more lives and drain Israel’s economy.

This formulation has become known as the Dahiya Doctrine, named after the Shi’a district in Beirut destroyed during Israel’s war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. It calls for the disproportionate use of force. It does not distinguish between military compounds and the civilian properties that immediately surround them. It seeks to crush vital infrastructure. But above all, it does these things in order to set a memorable precedent. Attack Israel, and it will respond ten-fold. Read the rest of this entry »

On December 8, the State Department issued the following statement: “The U.S. position on Jerusalem is clear and remains unchanged: that Jerusalem and all other permanent status issues must be resolved by the two parties themselves. It has been official U.S. policy for many years that the future status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue….”

Why did the State Department feel compelled to issue such a statement? Apparently, because in Brussels that same day, the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Council issued a statement on the Middle East Peace Process, and one can only conclude that the U.S. government wanted to distance itself from the EU memo.

On Jerusalem, the EU statement had this, inter alia, to say: “The Council recalls that it has never recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem. If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.”

An earlier EU draft specifically stated that the Palestinian capital should be in East Jerusalem, but intense Israeli lobbying, including and especially among the new EU members from Eastern Europe, resulted in striking that reference in the final version.

Usually, the American phrase that Israeli-Palestinian issues “must be settled by the parties themselves” is, in effect, a code word for allowing the Israelis perpetuate the status quo—the Israelis, of course, being by far the stronger party. At least the U.S. statement declared that Jerusalem remains an outstanding issue, and this is in itself important. It seems clear, however, that Washington, while openly favoring a “two-state” solution, cannot bring itself to advocate a “two-capitals” solution as well. Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. military on Friday began its first major offensive against the Taliban since President Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan on Tuesday. Operation Cobra’s Anger comprises 900 American Marines and British soldiers from Task Force Helmand, and 150 Afghan soldiers. In concert with the combat assault, a small contingent was dropped behind Taliban lines in northern Now Zad Valley—once a bustling market city of 30,000 that after years of fighting is a ghost town, home only to poppy fields—to disrupt Taliban communications and supply lines. Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier reported from Camp Leatherneck in Helmand: “Right now, the enemy is confused and disorganized. They’re fighting, but not too effectively.” Pelletier also reported that the coalition uncovered several arms caches and at least 400 pounds of explosives. Earlier on Friday, after a summit in Brussels, 25 NATO countries pledged 7,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan, which will bring the combined U.S.-NATO forces to about 150,000 by this summer. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told delegates at NATO headquarters that the coming year would “see a new momentum in this mission.” Most of the additional U.S. soldiers will be deployed to the south and east, against the insurgency’s strongholds, whereas most of the additional NATO soldiers will be deployed to the north and west to defend against Taliban incursions and to begin political and economic development. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will host a special summit on Afghanistan for all troop-contributing nations in London on January 28.

Russia and the United States failed to reach a new agreement on nuclear arms as the midnight expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) looms, but both sides say they want a new weapons reduction treaty to come into force as soon as possible. START, which is set to expire at midnight on December 4, is an arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush in 1991. It has led to the removal and destruction of about 80 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons and has also provided an important framework for verification, which will cease to formally exist when the treaty expires. But the Kremlin issued a statement on behalf of the U.S. and Russian presidents on Friday, emphasizing their “commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter into force at the earliest possible date.” The Russian Foreign Ministry said “intensive work” on a new treaty is ongoing and that “preparations for the signing are coming to a close,” but details of a new agreement have not been finalized. Washington has expressed its determination to establish a new agreement by the end of the year, and hopes to agree on an arms reduction treaty by the time President Obama travels to Oslo next week to accept his Nobel Peace Prize.

Settlers in the West Bank rejected a personal plea from Israel’s prime minister to respect his 10-month construction freeze, vowing to defy the law and resist any attempts to enforce it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a moratorium on building new settlements in the West Bank last week, which settler leaders responded to with a civil disobedience campaign that has blocked inspectors from entering the settlements. “You have the right to demonstrate. You have the right to protest,” Netanyahu told settler leaders in a meeting on Thursday, according to a statement released by his office. “You have the right to express an opinion, but it’s unacceptable not to respect a decision that was taken by law.” He did, however, promise that building work could resume after the 10 month-freeze was lifted. The temporary and limited halt to settlement construction is designed to draw Palestinian negotiators to resume peace talks. In his meeting with the settlers, Netanyahu “stressed that this is the optimum decision for Israel at this time, if you look at the overall strategic reality,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for the prime minister. “This is our confidence-building measure. Now it is in the Palestinians’ court. We have moved in an unprecedented manner, and it is time for them to respond.” The Palestinians contend that the new building restrictions do not go far enough, particularly because they only apply to construction in the West Bank and not to East Jerusalem, as well. But the settlers contend that the moratorium represents “the beginning of the end,” and they have scheduled a mass demonstration for next week in Jerusalem.

The dollar strengthened on Friday against both the yen and the euro after U.S. labor statistics reported that U.S. job losses in November were less than 10 percent of the expected figure. Gold, in turn, which strengthened to a record high on Thursday after rallying for weeks against expectations for a falling dollar, weakened slightly on Friday along with other metals. The dollar appears to be recovering from hitting a 14-year low against the Japanese yen last week, and is likely to continue strengthening as the United States further emerges from the recession, with job growth—and the recent less-than-expected job losses a small but encouraging sign—viewed as a principal indicator of future economic gains. Similarly, the Canadian dollar rose after Canada reported a jobs increase of 79,000, far more than expected. The stock markets responded positively to the labor markets. Upon the opening bell on Wall Street on Friday, the S&P 500, the NASDAQ composite, and the Dow Jones all hit intra-day highs for the year. Overseas, London’s FTSE 100 rose 1 percent and the FTSE Eurofirst 300 added 1.7 percent. UBS’ director of floor operations at the NYSE, Art Cashin, said of the U.S. employment statistics, “Santa Clause may have come early with this number.”

U.S. officials unveiled a new detention facility at Bagram air field in Afghanistan, promising greater openness and better living conditions for inmates. The existing facility at Bagram has been shrouded in secrecy, garnering criticism for human rights abuses after two of its inmates died last year following interrogations. The prison, which holds its roughly 700 detainees without charges, will close by the end of the year, and the U.S. military plans to move its inmates to the new $60 million housing complex. “The new facility…provides improved detainee living conditions…as well as vocational, technical, and other programs to assist with peaceful reintegration of released detainees,” Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, head of the detention facilities at Bagram, told international journalists on a tour of the new facility, tentatively named Detention Facility in Parwan, on Sunday. “You are here because transparency certainly benefits the effort.” Human rights groups have praised some aspects of the new facility, including the separation of hard-core insurgents from those who may be reconciled with society and the move to open administrative hearings, in which detainees are assessed for their readiness to be released, to outsiders as well as to the detainees themselves. But many critics still call for President Barack Obama to further reform the U.S.’ Afghan detention policies. “All detainees in Afghanistan are entitled to minimum protections, including the right to legal counsel, and to be able to challenge the legal and factual basis for the detention before an independent and impartial tribunal,” rights groups Amnesty International, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch said in a joint statement. “The U.S. reforms still fall short of providing detainees with those rights.” Transfers of prisoners to the new facility are expected to begin within the next two weeks.

Israeli officials on Monday continued to denounce the Palestinian Authority’s intention to unilaterally declare statehood and seek formal recognition from the United Nations. Senior Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, announced the gambit on Saturday and, on Sunday—the twenty-first anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s declaration of statehood—President Mahmoud Abbas added, “God willing, we will soon have an independent state with its capital in [East] Jerusalem” under 1967 borders. Many observers consider the proposal a political tactic to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to reengage peace negotiations, stalled since the Gaza war last December, and restrict further settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. An Al Jazeera reporter in Ramallah relayed, “What [Palestinians] want [now] is something a lot more concrete. They know it won’t immediately result in the withdrawal of Israeli occupation troops from their territory, but they want the Israelis to stand in front of an international collective will that says this is what needs to be done in order for peace to be realized.” The statements incited a furor of criticisms from the Israeli government. Netanyahu declared, “Any unilateral action will undo the framework of past accords and lead to unilateral actions from Israel.” Transport Minister Yisrael Katz later added, “Let them not threaten us with unilateral measures; we can also take unilateral measures such as annexing the settlement blocs.” Without U.S. support, the Palestinian proposal is not likely to be approved by the requisite two-thirds of the UN General Assembly.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull offered a landmark apology to hundreds of thousands of “forgotten Australians” and former child migrants who were abused or neglected in state facilities. In an emotional ceremony in the capital of Canberra, Rudd apologized for what he called “an ugly chapter” in Australia’s history. “The truth is this is an ugly story, and its ugliness must be told without fear or favor if we are to confront fully the demons of our past,” he said to a crowd at Parliament House. “We are sorry. Sorry for the tragedy—the absolute tragedy—of childhoods lost,” he continued. Between 1930 and 1970, approximately 500,000 children were abused or neglected in orphanages or homes in the Australian institutional care system. Of these, many were part of the Child Migrants Program, a scheme designed to bring “good white stock” to Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada. Under the program, the United Kingdom sent poor children to these countries promising a “better life.” But, in many cases, families were never notified that their children had been sent away, the children were falsely informed that they were orphans, and, once they arrived, they faced extreme cruelty and neglect while in state care. “You were failed by the system of care,” Turnbull added, choking back tears. “Today we acknowledge that, already feeling alone, abandoned and left without love, many of you were beaten and abused, physically, sexually, mentally—treated like objects not people—leaving you to feel of even less worth…For far too long, your stories were not believed when they should have been, and for that too we apologize, and we are sorry.” Roughly 7,000 survivors of the program currently live in Australia, including Laurie Humphreys, who attended Rudd’s apology. “The word ’sorry’ doesn’t mean much. You can’t say sorry for a lost childhood,” the former child migrant worker told Time magazine. “But you can acknowledge it, and that’s what I needed.” U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to offer a similar apology sometime in the new year.

As Taliban militants raided a house used by UN personnel in the Afghan capital, reports were circulating that the Obama administration plans to secure 10 major population centers in Afghanistan as part of its shift in strategy in the eight-year war. President Barack Obama will make his final decision “in the coming weeks,” according to a White House spokesman, which could entail more troops in the country’s largest cities, but not necessarily more soldiers overall. October has become the deadliest month for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. With just a month before the presidential runoff between President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah, the Taliban again attacked Western officials, this time a guest house where about 20 UN election workers were staying. Six were killed. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying three militants wearing suicide vests carried out the assault. “This is our first attack,” a Taliban spokesman told the Associated Press. In a related story, The New York Times reported that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Karzai, has been paid by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for most of the past eight years for services such as fielding recruits for a paramilitary force operated by the CIA. Ahmed Karzai denied any involvement.

The systematic killing and raping of protesters in Guinea in September was “premeditated and pre-planned at the highest level,” the U.S.-based human rights organization Human Rights Watch reported on Tuesday. Last month, thousands of demonstrators gathered at a large sports stadium in Conakry, Guinea, to protest the expected presidential candidacy of junta leader Captain Moussa Dadis Camara. Activists say 157 people were killed and over 1,000 were injured when soldiers opened fire on the crowd, though government officials put the toll at 57. Following an in-depth investigation, Human Rights Watch concluded that the killings, as well as widespread sexual violence that included the brutal public raping of dozens of women, were organized and committed by the elite Presidential Guard, known commonly as “red berets.” The group also found evidence that the armed forces attempted to hide evidence of these acts by seizing the bodies and burying them in mass graves. “There is no way the government can continue to imply the deaths were somehow accidental,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “This was clearly a premeditated attempt to silence opposition voices.” Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for an international United Nations-led inquiry into the violence, with which Captain Camara has promised to cooperate. Workers in Guinea are now holding a nationwide strike to commemorate the victims of the violence.

Ex-Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, on trial for war crimes in the Hague, is being accused of directing an ethnic cleansing campaign to rid his state of Muslims. In its opening remarks, the prosecution portrayed Karadzic as a man “who harnessed the forces of nationalism, hatred and fear to implement his vision of an ethnically separated Bosnia” and had direct contact with those carrying out the killings. Karadzic is facing two charges of genocide and nine charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). He is refusing to cooperate with the trial, however, saying he needs nine months to prepare his defense. But though Karadzic was not present at the trial’s opening, his chilling words recorded on phone taps during the conflict were entered into evidence by the prosecution. “They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo…it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die,” read the transcripts. “They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.” Karadzic was indicted in 1995 for crimes committed during the 1992-95 war, which left more than 100,000 people dead. Among other incidents, he is accused of masterminding the killing of more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995. Officials are worried that Karadzic is attempting to draw out the proceedings, much like former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic did during his trial, which ended without a verdict after four years. Milosevic died in custody.

Senior U.S. officials will travel to Honduras Wednesday to try to salvage negotiations between ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and interim President Roberto Micheletti, which collapsed just days ago over the issue of Zelaya’s return to power. The Micheletti administration had said they were open to talks and would consider withdrawing from the presidency—but only if Zelaya, who was ousted in a coup in June, gave up his claim to the nation’s highest office. Zelaya flatly rejected this, saying “it would be unseemly, indecent for the Honduran people if I was to negotiate on the position which they elected me to.” Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon; his deputy, Craig Kelly; and Dan Restrepo, the White House’s special assistant for Western Hemisphere affairs; were expected to meet with each leader individually in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa to try to facilitate a solution. “It is important that it be a Honduran solution,” a spokeswoman for the State Department told the Wall Street Journal on the eve of the talks. “Everything is on the table.”

Hamas has instructed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to refrain from voting in the upcoming January elections. President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the rival Fatah movement (which governs the West Bank), has called for parliamentary and presidential voting, and is reportedly attempting to unite rival Palestinian factions against Hamas, the militant Islamic group that rules Gaza. The Interior Ministry in Gaza said it “rejects the holding of elections in the Gaza Strip because they were announced by someone who has no right to make such an announcement and because it came without national agreement.” According to a report in the Arabic newspaper al-Ayyam, Abbas wants all Palestinian factions and some independents to appear in one electoral list to show unity against Hamas. The latest dispute between the two rival factions threatens to further sour relations, which have been testy since Hamas routed Fatah from Gaza in 2007. Egypt has made attempts at reconciling the two parties via a pact that would have set June 28, 2010, as the next date for elections. Though Abbas has called for a January ballot, he may consider delaying the elections. In the past, Abbas has said he would agree to a summer vote if Hamas agreed to reconcile, and Hamas has also hinted that it would participate then. But with tensions rising, some Hamas leaders have countered that the group may hold a separate election of its own in Gaza this coming January.

It’s safe to say that many who study the Israeli-Palestinian conflict view the current situation as dire. Just look at the facts on the ground. Hamas is in firm control of the Gaza Strip after a Palestinian unity government broke apart in 2007. Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestinian president in the West Bank, is viewed favorably by the West but is often considered an ineffectual leader among Palestinians. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues approving settlements in the West Bank, seemingly pushing the hopes of a Palestinian state next to Israel further and further down the road.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir sees it differently. The World Policy Institute senior fellow and author believes that some of the issues most analysts view as problems could actually help bring lasting peace to the region. Speaking in midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, Ben-Meir laid out five elements he believes have changed the dynamics of the region and took both Israel and the Palestinians to task on failing to move Arab-Israeli peace forward. But his talk focused primarily on Hamas and its relations with the Arab World.

“Hamas needs to be told that the continued violent resistance against Israel will bring about its own demise,” Ben-Meir said. “It is Hamas that will be destroyed, not Israel.” But, he noted, only the Arab World as a whole can push Hamas to officially give up violence. “They’re the only ones that can create change within Hamas,” said Ben-Meir, citing statistics that estimate 70 percent of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia. “Without Saudi money, Hamas would collapse.”

According to Ben-Meir, there are five elements that have changed regional dynamics. Two, in particular, some may find counter-intuitive: most analysts view Netanyahu’s right-of-center government as being opposed to peace talks, and see the split within the Palestinian community between the center-left Fatah Party and the militant party, Hamas, as an obstacle to eventual statehood.

But Ben-Meir believes that with Netanyahu in power, Israeli hawks will be forced to work with the Palestinians. He called on the Israeli government to follow in the footsteps of the Kadima party in 2005, when then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (a longtime hawk himself) removed settlements from the entire Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. “Israeli settlers must be told that there is no future for Israel short of a two-state solution,” he said. “Israel needs to understand that it can’t expand settlements indefinitely.”

As to the political divisions within Palestinian politics, Ben-Meir believes that Hamas is beginning to recognize that progress is being made in the West Bank, which is governed by Fatah. He noted that recent polls show a growing disillusion with Hamas’s more militant politics. “Hamas is not blind,” he said. “They see that moderation pays off. If the election were held today in the West Bank and Gaza, Fatah would win handily.”

Hamas has not recognized the existence of Israel, which Israeli officials have insisted on for years as a precondition to peace talks. But Ben-Meir does not believe this is necessary. There is another way out for the Islamic group—accepting the Arab Peace Initiative, which was introduced in 2002 by Saudi Arabia, and calls for normalized relations with Israel and an end to the conflict. It has been discussed as part of the Obama administration’s plan for peace, but Hamas has yet to sign on.

“Hamas is not just a band of killers,” he said. “They have an agenda. They have a social and political system. And they know there is no way they can be part of the political process unless something changes. You have to provide Hamas a face-saving way out. And the Arab Initiative does just that.”

Above all else, Ben-Meir sees the Obama administration’s immediate focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the possible tipping point. President Obama quickly appointed George Mitchell as a special envoy to the MIddle East, and he has been very active in trying to get both sides talking. Mitchell has repeatedly met with Prime Minister Netanyahu recently regarding Israeli settlements.

“The Obama administration has a golden opportunity to achieve what others couldn’t,” Ben-Meir said. “The role of the U.S. remains indispensable. But I don’t feel there would be peace in a second term. It must happen now.”

Josh Sanburn is a graduate student at New York University studying international relations and an editorial assistant at World Policy Journal.

One in three votes cast for Afghanistan’s incumbent President Hamid Karzai in last month’s election was fraudulent, say EU election observers. According to EU Election Monitoring Commission, about 1.1 million votes in favor of Karzai, as well as 300,000 cast for his main rival Abdullah Abdullah, met Afghanistan’s criteria for electoral fraud. The findings were released as official election results now show Karzai winning with 54.6 percent of the vote. But if the suspect ballots to be excluded, Karzai’s share would fall to 47.2 percent–short of the 50 percent needed for a win and triggering a run-off election. Karzai furiously condemned the Commission’s claims as “partial, irresponsible and in contradiction with Afghanistan’s constitution.” Instead of publicizing their findings, Karzai continued, the monitors should be referring them to Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission (IEC) and the UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). The EU team accused the IEC, which is chaired by a pro-Karzai appointee, of abetting the fraud, saying that it has ignored its own rules on identifying and eliminating suspect votes. The ECC ordered a recount of about 10 percent of the votes, as well as an audit of election staff.

A long-awaited UN probe found both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes in last year’s Gaza conflict. The four-person investigative team, led by South African war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone, reported that both sides violated international human rights and humanitarian law during the three-week operation in the Gaza Strip last December and January. The report condemned Palestinian militant groups for their repeated mortar attacks targeting Israeli citizens. But the focus was primarily on Israel’s use of “disproportionate force” against densely populated Gaza in Operation Cast Lead. In addition, the report said that Israel’s blockade of Gaza amounted to a collective punishment of civilians, and suggested that Palestinians had been deprive of substinence, employment, and movement–which could constitute a crime against humanity. The group recommended that the Security Council refer the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if independent, “good-faith” proceedings do not occur within six months. Israel denounced the report, rejecting it as one-sided and anti-Israeli. President Shimon Peres said that in practice, the report’s findings “[grant] legitimacy to terrorism, premeditated shooting and killing while ignoring the duty and the right of a state to defend itself.”

Somali rebels have called for all Muslims to join the fight against the U.N.-backed government after a U.S. helicopter raid killed one of the region’s most wanted al Qaeda suspects. The raid on Monday was an unusual one for the United States, which had previously targeted militants using long-range missiles rather than helicopter-borne troops. The operation killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was wanted for a 2002 truck bombing that killed 15 people at an Israeli-owned beach hotel in Mombasa, Kenya and was suspected of trying to shoot down an Israeli airliner the same year. Following the attack, a commander for al Shabab insurgents in Somalia called for Muslims to fight the weak transitional government as well as the African Union, which has troops there. The last American strike in Somalia was in May 2008, when an al-Shabab military leader and at least 10 others were killed. There were also reports quoting witnesses as saying that the troops involved in the Monday operation were wearing uniforms with French insignia, but the French military has strongly denied any involvement.

Yukio Hatoyama, the newly elected Japanese prime minister, took office Wednesday alongside a defense minister who, some reports are suggesting, will pull Japanese troops from the NATO-led military campaign in Afghanistan. An article in the Times of London suggests that the appointment of Toshimi Kitazawa, who is a strong opponent of the country’s military support for the United States, makes it increasingly likely that the Hatoyama-led government will withdraw forces from Afghanistan early next year. Japan’s Maritime Defense Forces only deployed a supply ship and a destroyer to assist in providing fuel and water to American and British naval ships in the Indian Ocean. The minimal Japanese assistance is one of only a handful of overseas military operations where the country has been engaged since World War II, largely due to its pacifist constitution. The new government is taking power after pledging to make domestic demand the engine of growth (rather than exports) and promising to pull Japan from the worst recession since World War II.

Following its submission of a brief proposal on Wednesday, Iran scheduled a meeting with the P5+1 for negotiations October 1. A spokesman to EU policy chief Javier Solana confirms that the P5+1—which includes the U.S., U.K., China, Russia, France, and Germany—requested the meeting, which was then arranged with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. Iran wants to discuss stabilization efforts in Afghanistan, ways to combat illicit drug trafficking, and “alleviating concerns over the nuclear issue,” said a spokesman for Iran’s ministry of foreign affairs, though it defends its right to maintain a civilian nuclear program. The United States has expressed cautious optimism about the potential of the discussions, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted that talks with Iran must address the nuclear issue “head-on.” Earlier this week, the U.S. distributed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution barring any nation in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (such as Iran) from enriching uranium for any purpose, either energy or weapons.

The United Arab Emirates is lobbying the U.S. Congress to approve a transfer of nuclear materials to Abu Dhabi.  Indeed, an opinion piece in the U.A.E. newspaper Al-Ittihad suggests that a bilateral agreement between the two countries on peaceful nuclear cooperation will be approved. Last week the crown prince, Sheik Mohammaed bin Zayed al-Nayhan visited President Barack Obama to discuss cooperation on energy and security, among other topics. Last year, both countries signed a preliminary agreement paving the way for nuclear exports. The U.A.E. has pledged to maintain transparency in any nuclear program. But there are fears that a nuclear program in the U.A.E., while peaceful, could set in motion proliferation throughout the Middle East. Many states are uneasy over Iran’s continued defiance toward the West regarding its nuclear program. However, the United States, Britain, France and Russia—all nuclear powers—it could win some trade opportunities and big business. France has also been talking with the U.A.E. on a nuclear energy cooperation agreement, and Saudi Arabia has signed a preliminary agreement with the United States on nuclear technology.

THE BIG QUESTION is a new multimedia project on the World Policy Blog. Every week, our editorial team will investigate a pressing global question, provide context and analysis, and feature answers from internationally renowned experts. Today, THE BIG QUESTION looks at Israel’s continued building of settlements in the West Bank.

(For best viewing, click on the permalink)

Formatted and written by our editorial assistants: Max Currier, Mary Kate Nevin, and Josh Sanburn

Further reading:

“The Big Question: What are Israeli settlements, and why are they coming under pressure?” The Independent

“Netanyahu risks U.S. anger by building settlements” The New York Times, September 9, 2009.

“Resolve of West Bank settlers may have limits” The New York Times, September 14, 2009.

Economist Debates: Honest broker

John Zogby, James Zogby, and Amjad Atallah, “American Perceptions of an Arab-Israeli Peace” Event at the New America Foundation, May 18, 2009.

David Makovsky, “No Expansion vs. Freeze: Obama’s Dilemma over Israeli Settlements” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, PolicyWatch #1564, August 7, 2009.

Dr. Meachem Klein, “A New Approach to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” Remarks at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, April 1, 2009.

Saeb Erakat, “The New Israeli Government, Palestinian Reconciliation, and Prospects for Peace after the Gaza War” Remarks at the Brookings Institution, March 31, 2009.

Paul Salem, “Fatah Congress Strengthens Abu Mazen and Rejuvenates the Movement” Web Commentary, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 17, 2009.

One of the meanings of “facility” in English is now rare: “a tendency to be easygoing, yielding, etc.” But in French, “facilité” is very much a live word. “Solutions of facility,” which Charles de Gaulle inveterately decried, means taking the easy way out. This the United States has done with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli “peace process” for the last 40-plus years, indeed since the Six Day War of 1967.

Bland statements to the effect that the international community does not recognize the annexation of Arab East Jerusalem, or flaccid pronouncements that the building of settlements in the Arab West Bank are “unhelpful” for the peace process, have essentially been all that Washington has been able to muster by way of reining in its Middle East ally.

Is this now changing? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has remained—so far—very much on Barack Obama’s playbook, has described the president’s position in categorical terms: “He wants to see a stop to settlements—not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though he has now accepted—grudgingly and with caveats—a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, nevertheless cannot accept ruling out “natural growth” in settlements. After all, babies are babies! They keep coming!

Read the rest of this entry »

The irony—and the tragedy—is that the solution to the Arab-Israeli problem has been known for the last 40 years. Always, the answer is the same, as shown in the following commentary from The Economist in May 2007: “To arrive at peace, Israel would have to give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians would have to give up their dream of the right of return and assure the security of Israel as a Jewish state. All the rest is detail.”

There is one detail that should be added to this tableau: the settlement must be accompanied by an international security force, including American and European troops. It would be unthinkable, given Israel’s territorial exiguity, that an international force run by troops from the West would not remain for many years in order to protect against Arab irredentism and Israeli expansionism.

Allowing the Palestinians to return to Israel, even in small numbers, would have a harmful effect on the state of Israel and on the future of that country. Just as the Germans are not going to return to East Prussia, and Mexico is not going to retake California, the Palestinians should not expect to return inside the armistice lines concluded as a result of the 1948–49 War.

The Six Day War of June 1967 constituted a clear break in American policy towards Israel. Before then, American aid to Israel was not excessive. Afterward, the situation was completely reversed, notably in the War of 1973 when the United States, faced with a desperate situation in Israel, sent in extremis and in plain sight a massive resupply of arms and ammunition into Lod Airport, in Tel Aviv, putting paid to the already tattered image of American even-handedness in the Middle East.

For Israel too, 1967 constituted a break with the past. Read the rest of this entry »