Monday, September 08, 2008

If in kitchen, cook a fair meal or get out

Sept.8, 2008


If in kitchen, cook a fair meal or get out

'Inad Khairallah

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was not disclosing any state secret when he reaffirmed this week his belief that chances of working out a peace agreement with Israel by the end of 2008 look scant.
The two sides remain far from each other on the key issues: The future of Jerusalem and the right of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 conflict to return home.
In talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday, Abbas made it clear that while last November's Annapolis meeting had created high hopes for peace, "despite the significant efforts each side has made (in negotiations since then), there is no certainty we can strike a deal by the end of the year because very little time is left."
Abbas also rejected the US-backed Israeli effort to work out a document containing agreements reached on some issues and putting off serious work on key issues such as Jerusalem and refugees to a later date. It is known that the administration of US President George W Bush, who promised at Annapolis that there would be an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord this year, wants such a document which it could present at the UN this month and tout it as one of the most noted accomplishments of the Bush White House.
That was the mission of the visit to the region last month of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Abbas on Saturday reiterated that the "solution that the Palestinians seek will have to include all the issues surrounding a permanent agreement."
Earlier, in a meeting in Italy on Friday, Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres declared that Israel and the Palestinian National Authority were closer to a peace agreement than ever.
However, Abbas remained firm on his rejection of the notion that he and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might release a partial document outlining the areas in which they do agree and leaving open other issues.
"It is necessary for the agreement to address all ... issues," said Abbas. "It is all or nothing, really," he continued.
It is abundantly clear that the so-called peace process would not go ahead unless the two sides work out an agreement on Jerusalem and refugees. Israel is not ready to accept any compromise over its stand that Arab East Jerusalem, which it occupied in the 1967 war, is part of its "eternal and indivisible capital" and that the Palestinian refugees of 1948 would not be allowed to return to their land despite UN resolutions that support their right to do so or accept compensation in lieu.
As far as the Israeli posture is concerned, the problem of refugees is purely an Arab issue and the Arab World solve it without any Israeli input.
Peres, who has had enough experience with failed peace negotiations with the Palestinians during the 1990s, should know well about the political, diplomatic and security situation that exist between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab World in general. Surely, that was behind his call on Syrian President Bashar Al Assad to visit occupied Jerusalem as Egypt's Anwar Sadat did in 1997 or invite the Israeli prime minister to visit Damascus. The Sadat visit to occupied Jerusalem eventually led to the 1978 Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that effectively removed the Egyptians from the Arab-Israeli conflict while it left the Palestinian problem and the Israeli-Syrian conflict in limbo.
The issue at stake for Syria is the return of the Golan Heights, which Israel seized in the 1967 war, and there is no indication that the Jewish state is ready to give up the strategic plateau that accounts for some 70 per cent of its water sources.
The Egyptian territory that Israel returned to Egypt under the Camp David agreement did not hold any strategic importance for the Jewish state as the West Bank. That is not the way the Israelis see the Golan Heights, which they unilaterally annexed as part of Israel in 1981.
At the root of the deadlock in efforts for Arab-Israeli peace is the Israeli quest to have the cake and eat it too through imposing its will on the Arabs with little regard for the rights of Arabs. Not only that, it expects the Arabs to accept it as if it was the best deal they could ever get.
It is inevitable that there would be no Israeli-Palestinian agreement before Bush leaves office in January 2009. And it is also true that any serious US engagement with the two sides could not be expected for at least one year after Bush's successor, whether Republican or Democrat, assumes office.
As Abbas noted on Friday, if no agreement was reached while Bush remained in office, "the new administration should not wait seven years for us to start negotiations."
"It should begin immediately as soon as a new president is in the White House," he declared.
That would seem to be a tough call, given the peculiarities of the political imperatives of any new administration that would simply put a lock on any serious attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
An active US engagement is seen vital to Arab-Israeli peacemaking mainly because of the almost unlimited political, economic, military and diplomatic backing that Washington extends to the Jewish state. It is taken for granted that the only country which could apply any leverage on Israel is the US.
At the same time, the US alliance with Israel is part of the logjam in peace efforts. Israel would have no option but to accept a just and fair agreement with the Arabs if the multitude of international laws, conventions and charters were to form the foundation for peace. But the international community is unable to apply any of them in efforts for peace with Israel because of the protective, all-embracing umbrella that the US offers the Jewish state.
Any hope for just and fair peace in the Middle East hinges on the US opting either to remain neutral and act as an honest mediator or take its hands off and leave it to the international community to deal with its arrogant, instransigent and stubborn protege, Israel.

US spying — cest la vie

Sept.8, 2008

US spying — cest la vie

IS ironic that the Iraqi government is upset that US spied on Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki, and has warned that future ties with the US could be in jeopardy if the report were true.
It is ironic because the Iraqis should have known that spying/information gathering is an integral part of the functions of any state and the US has proved itself to be the leader of the field.
According to a new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008," by journalist Bob Woodward, the United States spied extensively on Maliki, his staff and other government officials.
On its own, the revelation does not mean much except affirming the obvious. It becomes all the more relevant when one considers how the information gained through spying was used.
The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali Dabbagh, has warned of future bad relations between Iraq and the US if the allegations proved true. It shows a lack of trust, he said.
"It reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spy on their friends and their enemies in the same way," Dabbagh said.
That the White House declined direct comment on Woodward's revelation is an implicit confirmation that it is true. But then, there should never have been any doubt at all since it would have been naive to expect the US to handle Iraq without having "inside" information of how its politicians felt, talked and acted in given situations.
The Iraqis, who have lived for long under the reign of Saddam Hussein's highly effective intelligence network which did not spare his closest confidants, should have taken for granted that the US would follow the same track. Keeping close tabs on the Iraqi prime minister and indeed every member of his cabinet and members of the Iraqi parliament enables the US to be forewarned of their thoughts, ideas and actions and outsmart them by taking pre-emptive action.
A bonus, if indeed it is one, of spying is that it could yield surprising and perhaps shocking revelations that could in turn be used to pressure the person concerned and even resort to blackmail as and when needed.
Iraqi politicians are now demanding that the US deal with their country on equal terms and as a partner. Well, that is the last thing the US would be ready to do. The leaders and people of Iraq might not consider themselves to be a vassal nation within the US empire, but US President George W Bush and his administration consider Iraq to be a conquered nation and an American colony. That should explain why they are going ahead with plans to build the largest US embassy in Baghdad and set up permanent military presence in the country.
Whether the Iraqis like it or not, US spying/intelligence gathering has become part of their life and there is practically little they could do to eliminate it completely even in the unlikely event that the US decides to pack up and go home.

Israeli-American pipe dream at best

Sept.9, 2008


Israeli-American pipe dream at best

FOR the first time, some details have emerged of what Israel is offering the Palestinians in return for an agreement that it hopes would close the Palestine file once and for all.
The details of the so-called "shelf agreement" — meaning that it would not be implemented until later — were released in a report carried by the Israeli Haaretz newspaper.
The draft accord says that Israel will withdraw from some 93 per cent of the occupied West Bank while retaining all the large settlements, including those surrounding occupied Jerusalem, and some land in the northern West Bank adjacent to the 1967 "green line." In total, the land Israel will retain will represent about seven per cent of the West Bank.
In return, the Palestinians would receive alternative land in the southern desert, adjacent to the Gaza Strip, equivalent to 5.5 per cent of West Bank.
Israel will offer free passage between Gaza and the West Bank without any security checks.
Israel would immediately receive the settlement blocs, but the territory to be transferred to the Palestinians and the free passage between Gaza and the West Bank would only be delivered after the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) gains control of the Gaza Strip, which is currently ruled by Hamas, which is not a party to the negotiations.
Scepticism is high that the PNA would ever gain control of the Gaza Strip. Some even suggest that chances are better of Hamas taking control of the West Bank.
As Israeli commentator Ran Cohen notes, "this only makes the proposal more attractive for Israel: we take the goods now, but we pay only after the Messiah comes."
Israel is also proposing "security arrangements" that clearly establish that its notion of an independent Palestinian state is that of a Bantustan under total Israeli control.
We don't know how accurate the reported details are. However, we do know that the two most difficult issues, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem, are being put off for negotiations at a later stage.
The reported proposal rejects the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees, but includes a "detailed and complex formula" for solving the refugee problem. However, the report provides no details.
The report also says that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed that negotiations over Jerusalem will be postponed.
In the meantime, a joint panel of the Israeli parliament (Knesset) committees has adopted a proposal amending a bill that originally called for a national referendum on any "concession" over the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights of Syria. With the amendment, the bill now states that a vote must be held before concessions on any territory under Israeli legal jurisdiction, including Jerusalem.
What then is the relevance of the draft accord? Furthermore, whatever has been reportedly agreed upon also loses relevance because that agreement is reached in negotiations under the supervision of Olmert, who is on his way out of office anyway.
We know that Israel and the US need to maintain the image of "continuing negotiations with the Palestinians" while piling up pressure on the latter to accept Israeli-dictated terms and conditions.
In all probability that is what has been and is happening during the negotiating rounds since last year's Annapolis conference. Nothing has been agreed on, but the Israelis and Americans claim otherwise. And that raises the prospect that they are hoping to twist the Palestinian arm to an extent that the Palestinians would have no choice but to nod and that would be taken as acceptance of the Israeli terms.
However, it has to happen before the end of November so that it could be called the realisation of US President George W Bush's pledge at Annapolis in November 2007 that there would be an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in place in one year from then. It was always a pipe dream and it remains very much so today.