Archive for December, 2007

Two states — for one people?

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

The slogan “Two States for Two Peoples” is supposed to express the position of ‘moderate’ Israelis and Palestinians that peace can be achieved by establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Supporters of this ‘two state solution’ often say things like “we already know the general lines that an agreement will take, it’s just a question of working out the details”.

I’ve often pointed out that the ‘details’ — Jerusalem, refugees, etc. — are not as simple as they seem. But there is really a much greater problem.

The ‘moderate’ Palestinian leadership — the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad — do indicate by this slogan that they want there to be two states (at least for a while), but they make it quite clear that they expect both states to be for the Palestinian people.

This is why they categorically refuse to agree to accept Israel as a Jewish state, and why they insist that the 5 million descendents of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 have the right to ‘return’ to Israel.

Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel also insist that the Jewish character of the state be ended, and that Israel be defined as “a state of its citizens” (although with special rights for the Arab minority). This is the ‘Israel’ part of the “two states”. Here is what Muhammad Barakei, chairman of the Israeli Arab Hadash party said recently:

The movement will fight against any population swap plan. We were the first to come out with the slogan of ‘Two states for two nations’ and just because [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni are distorting this slogan, it doesn’t mean we have to give it up.

The population swap idea was supposed to solve some of the ‘mere details’ mentioned above by allowing Israel to keep some areas in the West Bank that are heavily populated by Jews, ceding Arab-populated land within the Green Line in return. Israeli Arabs are violently opposed to this for various reasons (they see what it’s like in the West Bank and Gaza), but from an ideological point of view, they believe that they are the rightful owners of what is called ‘Israel’, not some to-be-created Palestinian state.

Nothing can be clearer than the consequences of accepting the Arab demands. There is a fundamental difference in the way the two sides understand “two states” which is a much greater obstacle than the way the final border will be delineated.

There is no more important part of any peace agreement with the Palestinians or with any of Israel’s neighbors than recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

And in opposition to the demand of the racist Saudis, this recognition must come first, before any territorial concessions.

Technorati Tags: ,

The NIE: Read past the first line

Friday, December 7th, 2007

The release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) a few days ago created quite a stir, as it included a statement to the effect that Iran had stopped developing nuclear weapons. Many suggest that therefore the US should back off on its aggressive stance toward the Iranian nuclear program. An editorial in our local newspaper is a good example:

But whether Bush wants to acknowledge it or not, the NIE fundamentally changes things. The intelligence community has weighed in, as the principal deputy director of national intelligence told Congress, “to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.” This information should stop irresponsible talk of unilateral U.S. attacks on Iran.

The report’s message is unmistakable. Its first line reads, “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” There is no Iranian “rush to a weapon,” a view corroborated by others, including International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed El Baradei. — Fresno Bee Editorial, Dec. 7, 2007

But maybe it’s best to read beyond the first line. Here are some more excerpts from the NIE:

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons…

  • We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
  • We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)
  • We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
  • We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon…

We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them…

  • We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
  • We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame…

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons…

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities— rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007. [emphasis is mine]

In other words: there was a program to build a nuclear weapon that appears to have been halted in 2003, but the production of highly enriched uranium continues, as do other technical developments that are relevant to weapons. Even if a program was halted, it is not clear that all programs have been halted; and even if so, they can be restarted to produce a bomb between 2009 and 2015.

On top of this, it’s even possible that the alleged halt in weapons development is simply a bit of Iranian disinformation! The New York Times reports that

[officials] said that the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies had organized a “red team” to determine if the new information might have been part of an elaborate disinformation campaign mounted by Iran to derail the effort to impose sanctions against it.

In the end, American intelligence officials rejected that theory, though they were challenged to defend that conclusion in a meeting two weeks ago in the White House situation room, in which the notes and deliberations were described to the most senior members of President Bush’s national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

“It was a pretty vivid exchange,” said one participant in the conversation.

The NIE is in no way the (pardon the expression) bombshell that it has been made out to be. It is interesting to compare Israeli intelligence estimates:

As [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak later told Israeli Army Radio, “It seems Iran in 2003 halted for a certain period of time its military nuclear program, but as far as we know it has probably since revived it.” He added: “We are talking about a specific track connected with their weapons building program, to which the American [intelligence] connection, and maybe that of others, was severed.” The Israeli defense minister implied that the new U.S. assessment was “made in an environment of high uncertainty.”

Israeli intelligence sources told Time that for the past five years, Mossad, Israel’s equivalent of the CIA, had made spying on Iran its top priority, and that its assessment is that Iran would be weapons-ready by 2009. — Time [my emphasis]

The release of this report along with the spin being placed on it suggests that the US is losing its appetite for taking a strong stand against Iran. This is apparently a manifestation of the new American strategy of appease — er, engagement.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Arab racism is fundamental to the conflict

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

Not everything is amenable to compromise:

The Hamas-dominated Palestinian Legislative Council Thursday passed a law that makes any concessions on Jerusalem illegal.

The law, which was approved by first reading, also defines such concessions as a crime of high treason…the law is expected to pass in second and third readings in the coming days…

…many Fatah legislators have made it known that they too support the law, which states that Jerusalem is a Palestinian, Arab and Islamic city and that it is totally forbidden to give up or conduct negotiations about any part of the city…

The law is intended to embarrass Abbas and ties his hands on the eve of the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on core issues, including the future status of Jerusalem. Hamas officials said Abbas would have no other option but to endorse the law…

“The Palestinian people want a state in the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem,” [Abbas] stressed. “We also want a solution to the problem of the refugees in accordance with the Arab peace initiative and United Nations resolution 194.” — Jerusalem Post

This racist point of view, in which Arabs must be permitted to live in Israel, enjoy full rights of citizenship, and even demand that Israel’s Jewish character be eliminated — while Jews must evacuate the Palestinian areas and must accept the definition of Judaism’s holiest place as “an Islamic city” — should be totally unacceptable to the civilized world.

It seems, however, that racism and intolerance are permitted to Arabs. How else to explain the lack of an outcry from such centers of enlightenment as the UN, which has multiple commissions and sub-organizations to fight racism?

Why is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia allowed to institutionalize discrimination against Christians and Jews, and even to insist on Jim Crow treatment of Jews at the recent Annapolis conference, where Jews were not allowed to enter by the same door as Arabs?

The Arab position on ‘details’ flows from their racist assumption of superiority and absolute refusal to accept a Jewish right to self-determination. This has not changed since the beginning of the conflict; in fact, it has gotten stronger with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Unless this changes, there will never be a possibility of agreement on things like borders.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

The end of the American era

Wednesday, December 5th, 2007

How come the United States invited Mideast leaders, including those of Saudi Arabia and Syria – and even Iran, although they refused to come – to a meeting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when the real priority is to find a solution to the situation in Iraq?

It’s a long story.

US policy since 9/11 has been remarkably bad, and the Bush Administration – which I admit, with regret, to having voted for – may well go down in history as the one that finally ended the golden age of America.

President Bush declared total war on 9/11, but he was fuzzy about who the enemy was. In war you have to kill the enemy, and if you don’t know who that is you end up killing people arbitrarily. Lots of deaths but no victory.

The President said that he would take steps to dry up funding for terrorists and bring down governments that support terrorism. Some steps were taken against financial networks, but today Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, etc. are swimming in money. We did not kill the enemy.

He did depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but depended on Afghan warlords and Pakistani troops to trap Bin Laden. Unsurprisingly, Bin Laden bought his way to safety, and the Taliban is still fighting after six years.

Despite the ‘total war’, most Americans – with the exception of those in the military and their families – found their lives unchanged. The war was financed entirely by borrowing.

Then Mr. Bush chose to overthrow Saddam in Iraq, who – while certainly a sponsor of terrorism and an all-around rat – had nothing to do with 9/11. That may or may not have been a good idea, but the execution by the political echelon was disastrous (the military did fine – they wiped up the Iraqi army as ordered).

The combination of unpreparedness, lack of good sense, incompetence, cronyism and sheer corruption that characterized the administration of conquered Iraq allowed our real enemies to take advantage of local antagonisms and unsettled scores to trap us between multiple insurgencies.

So far, the administration has managed to confine the damage to, as before, military people, but when the bill for the enormous cost of the war comes due, inflated as it is by corruption, the consequences for average Americans will be devastating. The fact that all of the same weaknesses that caused the occupation of Iraq to fail have resulted in massive failures here at home hasn’t helped.

And the blunt way that the administration hacked away at the constitution in order to prevent terrorism – or at least to look as though it is preventing terrorism while really protecting its own interests – may well come back to haunt us when the destabilizing effects of the coming economic crunch start to hit.

The various insurgencies in Iraq are supported by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Defeating them would mean fighting Iran and Syria as well as forcing the Saudis to do our bidding. We believe that we can’t afford – in blood or money – to do the first, and for at least 35 years we have not been able to go against the wishes of the House of Saud (“Israel lobby” conspiracy theorists please note). We are unable to fight our true enemies.

So the administration has chosen a different approach, that of ‘engagement’. This means asking the sponsors of the insurgents what we need to do to get them to turn down the heat – which, by the way, looks like it is already happening – and then give it to them.

Syria has simple needs: we need to stop annoying them with questions about who killed Rafiq Hariri and enough anti-Syrian members of the Lebanese parliament to change the balance of power; we need to not interfere with the takeover of the Lebanese government by Hizbullah (and we must prevent Israel from interfering); and we need to make Israel give them the Golan heights in return for nothing.

Iran would like us to be more understanding of her aspirations to be a nuclear power. And we are already beginning to back off on the rhetoric; maybe they’re not developing weapons after all.

All three nations are marking out their spheres of influence in the soon-to-be dismembered Iraq. Why not? They have defeated the United States, with its massive military power, by forcing us into a corner which they are betting that we will not try to fight our way out of. And…oh yes. There is one more thing.

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves far less territory, far fewer people and far less natural resources than any number of conflicts flickering around the globe, it has enormous mind space. It has been presented as a titanic clash between the villains of history, the Zionist Jews, who are crushing an Islamic people in pursuit of their goal of destroying all of Islam (never mind that there are more than 100 Muslims for every Jew in the world).

The boundary between cynical employment of this myth and acceptance of its truth, even by sophisticated Arabs (and Persians) has long been crossed. The removal of the Jewish state from the Mideast is a major goal for them, and the Iranians and Saudis are both cooperating and competing to be responsible for it, even though none of them likes the Palestinians much. But they are to be one of the tools for the job.

And this is why the US convened a conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is what the Saudis wanted. In the background there are secret agreements with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia; in the foreground, a process that will – in keeping with promises made to the Saudis in the 1970’s – force Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines, hand her capital to the Palestinians, and probably end in a regional war whose goal will be, yet again, to destroy the Jewish state.

So whether or not the Bush Administration makes a graceful exit from Iraq, the shape of the Middle East in the future will be one in which the dominant power is not the US, but probably Iran, with Russian backing.

With all of its macho posturing, this administration may be the one that marks the beginning of the inglorious end of the American era, and possibly the republic as well.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Eat your heart out, Abu El-Haj

Wednesday, December 5th, 2007

Excavation of Helena's PalaceAs if any more evidence for Jewish provenance in Jerusalem is needed:

Israeli archeologists have uncovered a monumental Second Temple structure in a parking lot just outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem opposite the Temple Mount which was likely the ancient palace of Queen Helena, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday…

According to the director of the dig, the elaborate edifice, which is an anomaly in the landscape of the Lower City at the end of the Second Temple period – which was marked with modest buildings – was probably a palace built by Queen Helena, a wealthy Iraqi aristocrat who converted to Judaism and moved to Jerusalem with her sons…

The well-preserved structure being uncovered in the ongoing excavation is an impressive architectural complex that includes massive foundations; walls, some of which are preserved to a height in excess of five meters and built of stones that weigh hundreds of kilograms; halls that are preserved to a height of at least two stories; a basement level that was covered with vaults; remains of polychrome frescoes, water installations and ritual baths…

The large edifice was overlain with remains that date to later periods: Byzantine, Roman and Early Islamic, while below it there are remains from the Early Hellenistic period and even artifacts from the time of the First Temple. — Jerusalem Post

Incidentally, the Queen Helena we are talking about is also referred to as “Queen Helena of Adiabene” and “the Nazarite Queen” (because she took Jewish religious vows; a nazir is a monk), and is not the same person as the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine who lived a few hundred years later.

Nadia Abu El-Haj will probably tell us that she was really a proto-Muslim. It’s interesting to keep in mind, when the Palestinians talk about their illustrious civilization that was displaced by European Jews in 1948, that Helena lived about 2000 years ago, more than six centuries before The Prophet was a gleam in his father’s eye.

Technorati Tags: , ,