AxisMundi Jerusalem

Effort vs. Action

U.S. President Barack Obama’s surprise Nobel Peace Prize win last Friday has generated mixed and wary reactions from the Israeli and Arab public.

(Read our FACTBOX on reactions from the Arab Streets in Iraq, Iran, and Gaza.)

A Twitter search for ‘Obama’, and ‘Nobel’ in Hebrew returned thousands of Hebrew-speaking users sarcastically tweeting their shock and doubt at the news. @shaiinbal tweeted, “Another proof that the Nobel Peace Prize has been used as a political tool. Obama has yet to help resolve the Middle East Conflict. But he might!”. (Read our Q&A on whether the Nobel is a “Peace” or “Political” prize.)

Another tweeter @CandyFlossGirl wrote, “Hope the peace for which Obama received the Nobel Prize will be a bit more successful than the peace for which Rabin and Arafat received the prize.”

Tariq Alhomayed, editor-in-chief of the Arabic daily newspaper Asharq al-Awsat called Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize a “down payment” for future action:

“When I was at primary school, my maternal grandfather would give us a small amount of money as a gift on the first day of our exams. My grandfather, may God rest his soul, used to say to us, “Whoever fails must give me back the money… it is apparent that Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize came as a “down payment” and as a way of [expressing] encouragement and goodwill, especially as Obama himself said that he considered the prize a “call to action.” If Obama achieves [something] then he will have deserved the prize, no doubt, but if he doesn’t, then who knows whether he should return it just as we had to return our grandfather’s money if we failed [our exams] when we were young!”

Using puns against Obama’s election campaign slogans “Change we can believe in” and “Yes, we can,” an Israeli pundit, Gideon Levy, wrote in a scathing editorial for the left-leaning daily Haaretz that Obama did not deserve the prize at all, only at most “a conditional award, an IOU”. In a more tame editorial, the Haaretz staff called Obama’s win “more an award for the hope of peace than a sign of recognition for making peace”.

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)

Who’s Actually Ready for Syrian-Israeli Peace Talks?

What exactly are the prospects for renewed Syrian-Israeli peace talks now?

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s has called for a new round of Turkish-mediated Syrian-Israeli negotations.  The problem is that it is unclear whether Israelis or Syrians are still on board with the idea.

In a Reuters  article about Erdogan’s proposal, some Israeli officials said they were now sceptical of Turkey’s role: Benny Begin, a Netanyahu confidant, suggested Turkey’s fierce criticism of the Israeli Gaza offensive had damaged Ankara’s role as a neutral negotiator and said any negotiations for a peace agreement would have to be conducted directly between Syria and Israel without a negotiator.

As for Syria, the Turkish paper Today’s Zaman quotes the Syrian political analyst, Sami Moubayed, who argues that the meeting between Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and Erdogan shouldn’t necessarily point solely to an interest in restarting Syrian-Israeli peace talks. Rather, it highlights improved Syrian-Turkish relations (they historically had their own  tensions over a disputed Turkish land grab on the Syrian-Turkish border and Syria’s harbouring of Kurdish Workers’ Party leaders). Zaman also quotes Israeli analyst Shlomo Brom, who argues that the only ostensible mediator in future talks now could be the United States.

Meanwhile recent posts by Joshua Landis, an American analyst of Syrian politics, suggest that Syria’s best strategy may be to sit back and do nothing for now.

As Landis argues, “Syria may be weak militarily but it holds many regional cards.”  Right now, its position is fairly good. Saudi Arabia is making moves towards improving relation. Between improved diplomatic relations with Lebanon, and the current Lebanese political standstill, Syria hasn’t lost its foothold there either. It will also be important in internal Palestinian negotiations.

“[Syria] will likely stand firm,” Landis says, ” allowing Lebanon’s emulous factionalism to paralyse progress in forming a government. Assad can also stand back as Netanyahu and Obama play their game of chicken over settlements and the future of Palestinian land. If Obama blinks and allows Netanyahu to continue to expand Israel’s control over Palestinian land, as most expect him to do, it will be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan — America’s allies — which will take the most heat for America’s failure.”  Best to stay in the clear for now.

Managing the message

Gone were the track suit, the back-slapping and the wise-cracking, all part of Ehud Olmert’s casual demeanor when he used to fly to the United States for White House talks and stand in the back of a chartered El Al plane, fielding questions from the travelling press.

His successor as Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, managed the media very differently this week during his first visit to the White House since taking office on March 31.

It began with a meet-and-greet on the flight to Washington and an admonishment from Netanyahu’s spokesmen that the prime minister would not be answering any questions. ”Bibi”, in a dark business suit, and his wife Sara walked down the aisle and shook hands with each and every reporter. Testing the “no-question” rule drew a “no comment” along with a firm handshake.

With Netanyahu at odds with U.S. President Barack Obama over Palestinian statehood, a cornerstone of Washington’s Middle East policy,  shifting the media focus to common ground appeared to be part of a game plan for message management. For Netanyahu, that meant getting the point across back home that, in his words, he and Obama saw “eye-to-eye” on the need to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

Just hours after landing in Washington, Netanyahu sent his national security adviser, Uzi Arad, to speak to the travelling press in time for the evening TV news in Israel. The prime minister, he said, would stress in his talks with Obama the next day the need for urgency in dealing with Iran.

Score one for Netanyahu when at their meeting on Monday – preceded by preparatory talks between the prime minister’s top advisers and Obama’s team on finding points of agreement — the president for the first time set a rough timetable, of about a year, for his diplomatic outreach to Iran.

Mr. Nyet?

Israel’s new foreign minister, ultranationalist Avigdor Lieberman, sounded a resounding “no” in his inaugural speech to restarting talks with the Palestinians on core issues, such as borders and the future of Jerusalem, leading to peace and the creation of a Palestinian state. Spelling out that position, Lieberman, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, said Israel was no longer bound by understandings reached at a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland in 2007.

Instead, Lieberman said only a U.S.-backed peace “road map“, drawn up under the Bush administration in 2003, was binding on Israel.

That document makes so-called final-status talks contingent on Palestinians meeting their road map commitments, including a crackdown on militants, and Israel carrying out its promises to freeze all settlement activity and uproot outposts in the occupied West Bank built without Israeli government approval.

Take a look at Adam Entous’ analysis, which explains all.

As Adam points out, by embracing the road map — which envisages a “permanent two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — Lieberman took a step towards meeting the international call for the creation of a Palestinian state.

The new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has angered Palestinians by shying away from saying he backed their quest for a state, could point to his government’s acceptance of the road map to try to avoid any conflict with U.S. President Barack Obama, who last week reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to a two-state solution.

from Global News Journal:

Gaza shows Kosovo “doctrine” doesn’t apply

Protesters staged large demonstrations in Western capitals 10 years ago to urge governments to intervene to stop Serb forces killing civilians in Kosovo.Despite having no United Nations mandate, NATO went to war for the first time and bombed Serbia for 11 weeks to stop what it called the Yugoslav army's disproportionate use of force in its offensive against separatist ethnic Albanian guerrillas."We have a moral duty," said then NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana as bombers took off on March 24, 1999 to "bring an end to the humanitarian catastrophe".The intervention helped launch a doctrine of international "Responsibility to Protect" civilians in conflicts. Advocates of "R2P" proposed humanitarian intervention in Myanmar in 2007 and military force in Zimbabwe in 2008.But it never happened and the likelihood of this doctrine being adopted universally now in a UN declaration is slim, as was shown by the Gaza war that began two months ago.On Dec. 27, Israeli bombers went into action over Gaza. As reports of civilian deaths grew, protesters staged rallies in Western capitals to demand leaders act to end the offensive against Islamist Hamas militants in the Palestinian enclave.Critics accused Israel of using "disproportionate" force, just as many said Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic had done.But intervention in Gaza was impossible politically and militarily unimaginable. Unlike Serbia, Israel is not seen in the West as a rogue state and widescale ethnic cleansing was not under way in Gaza.Solana visited the enclave on Friday as foreign policy chief of the European Union, which seeks to foster peace in the Middle East through "soft power" -- diplomacy and aid, not intervention of the kind he advocated as head of the NATO alliance.NATO never embraced the "responsibility to protect" concept, arguing that Kosovo, which most allies have subsequently recognised as an independent state, was a unique case that should not set a precedent.Soft power may eventually mean encouraging talks with Hamas -- which is now shunned by the West. In an open letter published this week, a group of former foreign ministers urged a change in that policy, saying peace depends on talking to the militants.But with rockets from Gaza again being fired daily into Israel, the prospect of a breakthrough soon seems bleak as right-wing prime minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu tries to form a government.Viewing war damage in Gaza on Friday, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store spoke of "senseless destruction." He blamed Hamas for starting the conflict, but said Israel's response "goes beyond what international law allows."Serb forces in the 1998-99 Kosovo war ignored the idea of  "proportionality" on the battlefield. They were sure no army would willingly tie its own hands in the face of insurgency. They mortared, burned and raided "guerrilla" villages to driveoff civilians and deprive the rebels of cover.On Thursday, the U.N. tribunal in The Hague sentenced two Serbian generals to 22 years in jail for war crimes in Kosovo. Serbia handed them over under Western pressure.Israel openly assured its soldiers during the Gaza offensive that they would not face such prosecution. Discussing tactics for a future conflict, one senior Israeli general also dismissed "proportionality" as a deterrent."We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction," said Northern Command chief Gadi Eisenkot."This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has been authorised," he told daily Yedioth Ahronoth ast October.Defending Israel's action in Gaza, President Shimon Peres reminded NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer that NATO's own bombing of Serbia killed "hundreds of civilians".Prime Minister Ehud Olmert mocked the idea that he should ask soldiers to fight an evenly-matched battle in which a few hundred might be killed simply to win international approval for a war in which Hamas was fighting in heavily populated areas.But scholars of international law say proportionality does not mean a "fair fight" or balanced death toll, let alone making sure no civilian dies. It requires belligerents to use weapons that distinguish civilians from military targets and combatants.According to Gaza figures -- which Israel says are suspect-- some 600 of 1,300 Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians. Of 13 Israelis killed during the 22-day war, 10 were soldiers.Human Rights Watch, the U.N. Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Israeli rights group B'Tselem have called for investigations.