AxisMundi Jerusalem

“An intifada of the wealthy”

Living conditions seem to be improving in the West Bank. Thanks to a recently gained sense of security and availability of funding, Palestinian farmers are diversifying their crop portfolio away from staples like tomatoes, for a competitive edge. Palestinians have announced the launch of one of their most ambitious real estate projects to date in the central West Bank. Nablus, long the industrial hub of the West Bank, the city’s once ubiquitous soapmakers who have survived a sharp decline in sales are eyeing new markets abroad for their all-natural product. A recent International Monetary Fund report projects real GDP in the West Bank to rise by about 7 percent this year, provided that remaining Israeli military restrictions are lifted. This growth will mark “the first substantial increase in living standards since 2005″, the IMF says. Cafes in Ramallah are bustling with business, and unemployment is down.

Five years ago, such positive economic climate could not have been imagined. The West Bank’s economy had been weak and dwindling under checkpoints and roadblocks imposed by Israel following the Palestinian uprising of 2000. Things started changing this summer, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu easing travel within the West Bank as part of an “economic peace” that he described as a prelude to a fuller accord with the Palestinians. Consolidating that vision despite his own reservations about Israel’s long-term intentions, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad unveiled a 65-page plan for building the institutions and infrastructure of the future state of Palestine.

Many Palestinians, like Nimmer Nazal, acknowledge the economic improvements but are still wary of how long this trend might last. Israel has ultimate control of roads, energy, water, telecommunications and air space, and “there were checkpoints on the roads everywhere,” he said. “They stopped us going to market. We could take all day just getting into Jenin, which is only a few minutes away now,” Nazal told Reuters. “But everything still depends on the security situation. If the atmosphere goes sour, everything will collapse overnight.”

There has been no major violence and Palestinians are enjoying an economic recovery, but some Israeli pundits say this is too reminiscent of the fleeting stability enjoyed just before past outbreaks of violence. A columnist for the leading Israeli daily Yedioth Aharonoth wrote: ”The statistics are clear and frightening: Every time the standard of living in the Palestinian parts of the West Bank reaches a new zenith, an Intifada (revolt) breaks out and turns back the wheel. This was the case in 1987, this is what happened in 2000, and this may be happen now.”

“Again, just like 22 years ago and nine years ago, the Palestinian economy is completing a period of impressive growth… What else can the Palestinians aspire for when they have advanced autonomy and when their standard of living skyrockets?

“The economic normalization threatens the revolutionary and radical elements within Palestinian society, and they swore not to allow this normalization to take root. It’s perceived by them as indirect reconciliation with the occupation… The reinforcement of a Palestinian middle class, which may fall in love with a routine life, reject the ongoing struggle, and enjoy its proximity to the large Israeli market is anathema in the view of the militant leadership, and not only there…

“The next Intifada, should it break out, may focus on Temple Mount, yet its logic will not really be related to religious feelings. Just like in previous times, its origin will be the volatile cocktail of a diplomatic dead-end coupled with an economic tie. As it turns out, the two don’t go well together.”

The Opportunity Cost

(Read the English transcript of Shalit’s video message here.)

It’s been two days since the exchange of the captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit’s proof-of-life video for Israel’s release of 20 Palestinian female prisoners. The final prisoner of the 20 was freed today as the last step to the soldier-video swap.

After being made public, the video has been replayed nonstop on television, radio, and video web-hosting sites. As of Monday, the endless number of video uploads by individual users on Youtube had each been viewed over at least 40,000 times.

Israeli newspapers Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv dedicated more than half of their pages to the Shalit video. Under the headlines “Broken Smile” and “May I fulfill my dream of going free, at last”, the newspapers’ extensive coverage ranged from an analysis by former prisoners of war, emotional comments by the Shalit family, to piercing commentaries on “how Israel has failed its son, Gilad”.

There have been conflicting reports on the significance of Friday’s exchange and the prospects of Shalit’s release and Israelis and the Hamas reaching a deal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was encouraged by the video and President Shimon Peres said, “The tape is an important step, but there is still a long way to go”. Israeli media quoted one Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip said reaching a deal is “a matter of weeks, or at the most – months”. Father of the captive soldier Noam Shalit expressed fear that negotiations might take years.

Looking at the recent swap, Newsweek‘s Adam B. Kushner wondered how much “mere proof of life” is worth. According to Kushner, analysts argue that these swaps could encourage more attempts to capture soldiers because the return or the “exchange rate” is very high as long as they seize “somebody valuable enough” – enough to make Israelis want to trade.

The Iran question, again

It seems last week’s focus, settlement expansion, has given way to this week’s prime focus: Might Israel attack Iran?

Last week the Arab media found Israel’s refusal to cease settlement expansion unsurprising and affirmative of what they said was Israel’s unwillingness to pursue a peace settlement with the Palestinians. An op-ed in Al Ahram Weekly, an English-language newspaper in Egypt, questioned the Arabs’ ability to challenge Israel: “Will they have the courage to shift the focus back from the Israeli-instigated ‘Iranian threat’ to the clear and present Israeli danger to the region?”

Lebanon’s Daily Star echoed the argument that Israel was using a perceived Iranian threat as a diversion to its greater “Machiavellian design”.

“The strategy that they employ is simple: Draw attention away from the issue of Israeli occupation and toward Iran, which they portray as a far greater threat to regional security,” the paper wrote in an editorial. “Campaigns that rely on this method tend to downplay the destabilizing impact that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory has on the region, and argue that the Islamic Republic is the main – or indeed the only – source of regional violence.”

Former Israeli deputy defence minister Ephraim Sneh said Israel might be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear sites if international powers had not agreed to impose sanctions by the end of this year, while the current Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said a nuclear Iran would not constitute a threat to Israel’s existence – since Israel would act first to pre-empt such a threat.

Hopeless or Hopeful?

The trilateral summit tomorrow at the United Nations in New York will be the first time the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian president will be meeting since the suspension of peace talks last December, but nobody’s waiting with bated breath. According to our latest article, the inability to reach an agreement on a settlement freeze and Israelis and Palestinians accusing each other for the lack of efforts to revive peace negotiations, continue to be the bumps in the road to peace. (Read our FACTBOX about Israel’s settlements.)

After the U.S. envoy George Mitchell’s week-long shuttle diplomacy ended last week without obvious result. He had attempted to break the negotiation deadlock between the two sides, any chance of bringing three leaders together for dialogue – albeit “without preconditions” and promise for resumption of negotiations – should seem to be an occasion worth anticipating. (Read more of our coverage here.) Israeli newspapers, however, were not encouraged, calling the summit “the flight to nowhere” and projecting it would be “solely symbolic”.

Prominent Israeli commentator Nahum Barnea called the trilateral summit “not a meeting; not even half a meeting,” and “a joke at the expense of an American president who tried to get involved in Mideast politics and was stung”.

Avi Issacharoff in a news analysis for Israel’s left-leaning Haaretz, called the summit “a much sought-after photo-op” for the Obama administration:

“… Three leaders shaking hands, seemingly getting back to negotiations. This would come against the backdrop of the White House’s resounding failure to force Israel’s agreement to a complete settlement freeze or to persuade Arab states to make even tentative steps toward normalization with Israel, so a picture of the three leaders together will look like an extraordinary achievement,” wrote Issacharoff. “It might even help Obama and his administration to get the stalled peace process moving, however slowly.”

Generation gap?

In a speech in which he again voiced his five conditions for peace with the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had this to say about prospects for real change in the Middle East:

“… it will still take a whole generation before Palestinians internalise recognition of the state of Israel and its permanent legitimacy”.

In other words, Netanyahu seems to believe that on an emotional level — after decades of conflict — Palestinians will not fully accept Israel for about another quarter-century. That means, Netanyahu said, that a future Palestinian state must be demilitarised, with international guarantees to safeguard Israel’s security.

Netanyahu, in his speech, made no reference to Israeli attitudes towards the Palestinians.

What do you think about his comments?

(PHOTO: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (2nd L) speaks to the media during a visit to the Israeli-controlled Allenby Bridge crossing between the occupied West Bank and Jordan, July 28, 2009. Netanyahu announced he would extend the opening hours of the crossing to facilitate the passage of Palestinian goods as part of his plan to ease Israeli restrictions and boost the Palestinian economy. REUTERS/Jim Hollander/Pool)

The Mysterious Mr. Mitchell’s MacGuffin

It’s a bit like a Hitchock thriller. Nobody knows where he is — not even the U.S. State Department — and nobody knows when he will show up in Israel. All we know is, suspense is building and it’s time to watch out for surprises.

President Barack Obama’s Middle East peace envoy Senator George Mitchell is somewhere in transit — probably – and expected in Israel and the Palestinian Territories next week –  sometime.

A State Dept. spokesman at Wednesday’s regular briefing could not say much at all about Mitchell’s movements beyond he has left Washington.  Could he be in London meeting the Syrian foreign minister? Don’t know.  Is he going to Turkey as well? We will try to find that out. When is he going to be in Israel? Can’t say exactly.

Mitchell is famous for playing his cards very close to his vest and his vest very close to his skin. He gives out very little information when he is engaged in high-stakes mediation.

There is an unmistakable aura of mystery about what is going on at this delicate stage of talks with Israel and the Palestinians to get stalled peace negotiations started again, by resolving what looks like a standoff between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and Washington’s demand that it cease.

Insulting the intelligence

Good morning, children.

Today we are going to learn about two common rhetorical tricks that help greatly with the cynical manipulation of arguments.

First, disingenuousness. The Oxford Shorter English Dictionary defines disingenuous as “lacking in frankness, insincere, morally fraudulent”, in the sense of pretending not to know what you in fact know very well.

Second, the straw man argument.  Wikipedia defines this as misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the straw man) and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original proposition.

Today, thanks to Mr Netanyahu, we have one handy slice of well-worn rhetoric to illustrate both rhetorical tricks.

Man with a plan

Israel’s annual political exercise of passing a budget reached a successful conclusion on Wednesday, albeit a few months behind schedule given that 2009 is already more than halfway through.

Another plus for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is that he was able to make history without much diplomatic risk, but by getting Israel’s fractious parliament to back the nation’s first two-year spending plan.

The new budget totals 316.5 billion shekels ($80.7 billion) for 2009, and an additional 325.3 billion shekels ($82.9 billion) earmarked for next year, 2010.

The final budget vote (it had to pass three) took an amazingly brief amount of time — just four and a half hours – about half of what was expected. The unanticipated brevity was made possible when Kadima, the largest, centrist, opposition party obliged by lifting a series of budgetary amendments from the agenda, removing the need to hold a list of additional tedious roll-call votes.

Netanyahu had to be present for the duration of the voting, as he couldn’t afford to leave the plenum before the budget passed, without risking the possible breakdown of his carefully stitched ruling coalition that passed the measure within hours of a Cinderella deadline. Under the law, Netanyahu had to get the budget passed by Thursday or his government would have fallen – according to a Parliamentary measure of a few months ago that extended the deadline for getting the state budget passed.

So wearying was the process that some votes were done by show of hand, instead of the customary electronic push of a button, just to give lawmakers some exercise, the Ynet Web site said. Netanyahu was seen whiling away the more boring moments by busying himself with a book about Napoleon, and Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab lawmaker, perused a volume by the late Palestinian author, Mahmoud Darwish.

5 Years On: The ICJ and Israel’s Separation Barrier

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the International Court of Justice’s ruling against Israel’s controversial separation barrier, which  is still under construction in and around the West Bank. According to a report from the UN High Commission for Human Rights, about 60 percent of the barrier has been constructed.

Israel says the barrier is aimed at preventing Palestinian terrorism, and says that since the wall has been built there has been a significant drop in attacks. However, the ICJ condemned Israel’s construction of the barrier on land within the West Bank-land Palestinians want for a future state-instead of on the Israeli side of the green line (the 1949 armistice line).

The separation barrier leaves some 80 percent of Jewish settlements on the Israeli side, leading the the ICJ to conclude that “the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, . . . [the construction of the wall] would be tantamount to de facto annexation” of Palestinian lands. (Read the entire text of that decision here).

In response to the ICJ’s ruling, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued this statement, where it argued that the ICJ’s ruling on the barrier was the result of a “politically motivated maneuver.” It denies the permanence of the barrier: “The fence is reversible, whereas the lives taken by terrorism are not. Moreover, the fence works. It is a temporary, non-violent security measure and it saves lives.”

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told Reuters this week that thanks to the barrier there’s been a “90% plus” reduction in suicide attacks by Palestinians in Israel.

Many Palestinians reject that idea and say the reduction in suicide attacks has nothing to do with the barrier which, after all, they say, is not yet complete and the border between the West Bank and Israel is still porous in many places.

from Global News Journal:

Peace is no kiss, Israeli aide says

A top adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used an odd turn of phrase to explain what some see as a puzzling demand put to Palestinians by the right-wing leader as a condition for any any Israeli agreement to establishing a state in the occupied West Bank.

Netanyahu wants Palestinians to recognise Israel explicitly as a Jewish state, in addition to their having recognised Israeli sovereignty as part of an interim peace deal in 1993. He feels this would symbolise an historic end of conflict, his aides have explained.

At a briefing summing up Netanyahu's first 100 days in office, advisor Uzi Arad and several other officials rejected criticism from centrist Kadima party leaders who accused the Israeli leader of achieving little on the diplomatic front since his government was sworn in late in March.

Netanyahu had clearly laid out the terms for any future peace deal, they said.  Arad emphasised what he saw as the importance of seeking further Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence, before Israel would agree to Palestinians achieving statehood in territory Israel captured in a 1967 war.

"Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, which they have so far refused to do, is not a matter of a kiss on the forehead, but a declaration of intent," Arad said.

"If they don't do it, they will have a serious problem, something everyone understands," Arad added, alluding to what would be Israel's refusal to reach the two-state deal the United  States and Europe have been seeking, unless the condition were met.

Palestinians dismiss Netanyahu's condition as inconsistent with international law and say it isn't up to any nation to define the nationality of another.