The 2003 death of Evergreen student Rachel Corrie still seems to stir debates and outrages from both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate. Corrie protested Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip and attempted to stop an IDF bulldozer by standing in its path. The IDF claims that the bulldozer could not see Corrie, who did not move and was killed. The IDF also claims that the target of the bulldozer was a building that housed openings to tunnels used for weapons smuggling.

At the screening of a film depicting the event, comments from a pro-Israel advocate received heckles and caused quite a commotion. Even though film festival organizers sought to encourage dialogue, the reception of the pro-Israel advocate indicates the polarized views of individuals on both sides of the debate.

Two prominent publications ran op-eds on settlements, with one writer slamming the settler movement and another editorial board citing the Obama Administration for mismanagement of the issue.

Tel Aviv University Professor Asher Susser wrote a damning op-ed in Haaretz today, condemning the settler movement for considering itself guardians of the State of Israel. The settlers compare their actions to those of early kibbutzim that fortified land in the Negev desert for eventual inclusion in the Jewish state. However, Susser expands upon a distinct difference between the the early kibbutzim and today’s settler movement. The kibbutzim sought to settle land as part of a two state solution, land that would, under international agreements, likely go to Israel. However, the settlers seek a one state solution by forcefully annexing land.

Moreover, Susser contends that the settlers are actually harming Israel by attempting to fortify the West Bank into Jewish hands. Due to the change in demographics of Israel with the inclusion of the West Bank, Israel would no longer be a Jewish state. Susser writes,

“It is patently apparent that, beyond the issue of basic justice, dividing the land is also in the clear interest of Zionism and anyone who wants to maintain the State of Israel as the state of the Jews. In the arrogance of their position, which tramples on the rights of others, the settlers are compromising the foundations of the justice of the Zionist enterprise, and acting against the State of Israel’s existential interests. By making the Land of Israel the supreme value over and above the State of Israel, they are joining, in a bizarre way, their left-wing post-Zionist “brothers,” who also propose a single state that will succeed the state of the Jews. ”

Also, a Washington Post editorial accuses the Obama Administration of missteps involving pressure of Israel on settlements. The article’s authors contend that recent U.S. mandates for a settlement freeze weaken U.S. posture towards both Israel and the Arab world. Because the Israeli government will only agree to a partial settlement freeze, the Arab world could see President Barack Obama as a weak figurehead. Meanwhile, the policy also weakened support for the Obama Administration by the Israeli public, thereby reinforcing the right-wing Netanyahu government’s stances. The editorial reads,

“At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him — and he must be tough on more than one country.”

The Iranian and Russian governments pegged an upcoming military exercise as an anti-pollution and search and rescue operation. However, the joint maneuver, involving 30 naval units from the two countries, is likely a show of strength and joint cooperation in order to warn countries intending on striking either nation.

Israel recently made its own overtures threatening Iran, such as the mobilization of ships through the Suez Canal. The recent military maneuvers, Israel and American insistence that Iran would not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons, and Iran’s dismissal of the Obama Administration’s negotiation attempts may lead to an escalation of the conflict.

The inclusion of the Russians, particularly due to recent tensions between the U.S. and Russian government, could reignite a Cold-War-style influence battle in the Middle East. During the Cold War, both the United States and Russia sought to align themselves with different governments in order to have a foothold in the region and combat the spread of either capitalism or communism. Countries within the region often played the Untied States and Russia off of each other in order to obtain favorable terms in various negotiations. If Russia re-introduces itself in the region through ties with Iran, a renewed influence race is likely to erupt. Moreover, the weight of the nuclearized Russian military could complicate any attempts by Israel or the United States to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

Assumptions and a lack of patience have sunk prospects of obtaining a stable Middle East, according to a new book co-written by one of the architects of U.S. policy towards the region over the last 20-years. Myths, Illusions, & Peace, the sweeping Middle East analysis work released last month from White House Special Assistant Dennis Ross and Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow David Makovsky, received significant press for attempting to debunk the ‘linkage’ argument. This theory states that regional problems would immediately disappear through a resolution of the Israel-Palestine problem. However, other parts of the book should receive considerable examination due to the depth and nuances illuminated by the authors.

The book’s intricate examination of the need for democratization in the region –particularly through an evaluation of the Palestinian Authority- dismantles serious myths held by the Bush administration and provides an outline for future U.S. efforts to introduce democratic reforms. Even though U.S. and Israeli commentators and analysts recently amplified their arguments against the need for sustained cooperation, the authors also defend the U.S.-Israel partnership as vital for both nations.

The authors do not dismiss the need for democratization in the Middle East; they simply condemn the methods used by the Bush Administration, strategies that they claim failed to grasp the regional context. Instead of forging the institutions need for proper democratic reform, previous U.S. efforts focused on the need for early elections that often, such as with the 2006 Palestinian elections, resulted in popular support and legitimacy obtained by terror organizations. The election victory of Hamas in 2006 led the United States to distance itself from the electoral process in the Palestinian territories, thereby leaving the United States prone to criticisms of hypocrisy. The U.S. government failed to consider all the potential outcomes of the elections, and therefore backed away from support for the premature electoral.

The authors further contend that the previous administration failed to address the fact that rulers in the region fought democratic reform in order to maintain centralized power. Moreover, democratic reform mandates -first and foremost- the military, political, and judicial force necessary to maintain stability. The authors write,

“Certainly that has been the case for the Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas, as president of the Palestinian Authority, might declare a policy of one authority, one law, and one gun, but he lacked the capability to enforce it.”

Instead, the authors urge the United States to discard its “one size fits all” approach to democracy promotion in exchange for a multi-tracked, malleable tactic. The United States should focus efforts on establishing and maintaining democratic institutions, such as non-governmental organizations and the free press, while supporting grassroots activists that promote a democratic agenda. Further, the authors urge U.S. officials to initiate democratic reforms that enable freer speech and provide broader rights to all citizens in the region. Moreover, the authors contend that elections can only occur after other democratic initiatives take root and must include preconditions, such as the omission of militant parties from the electoral process. In order to achieve ballot eligibility, organizations like Hamas must dismantle their militias.

The authors express the need to bolster the regional standing of certain regional democracy proponents, notably Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. They applaud his efforts for transparency within the Palestinian Authority, an institution plagued by corruption and thieves. Serving as various positions within the government, Fayyad received international acclaim for embarking on economic reforms that prevent embezzlement and abuse of funding. In a recent poll of Palestinians, the most recent Fayyad-led government received a 46-percent legitimacy rating compared to Hamas’ 20-percent. These figures show that Fayyad carries at least some weight within Palestinian politics.

Through all these initiatives, the United States can foster an environment that would support a young democracy. This stance clearly mirrors a previous doctrine encouraged by Ross, the ‘ripeness’ theory. He previously contended that Arab-Israel peace can only occur when the conditions are ‘ripe’ for peace. Any U.S. attempts to impose peace would fail without ‘ripe’ conditions, although the government could encourage policies that would help create an environment to foster peace. The authors apply this same ripeness theory to democratization; the United States must encourage the creation of an appropriate atmosphere for democracy to fully take root, not impose it blindly.

In the wake of recent policy clashes between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, the authors of the book also provide an impassioned defense of the U.S.-Israel relationship. They dismantle arguments suggesting that U.S. support for Israel contradicts national interests. The two countries share various interests, including the need to dismantle terror infrastructure and prevent nuclearization in the region, requiring close cooperation between the two governments. The authors contend that U.S. military support for Israel maintains stability in the region because Arab nations know that joint U.S.-Israel force could destroy any joint-Arab military initiative. Moreover, an Israeli nuclear weapon has not initiated of an arms race; conversely, an Iranian nuclear weapon would require other Arab nations to commence a nuclear program. The book shares the following anecdote:

“As one Arab official told us confidentially, ‘We know Israel has a bomb in the basement, but Israel keeps it in the basement. On the other hand, if the Iranians get the bomb, they will wave it. This will cause problems.’”

Moreover, they defend the “shared values” argument for the need to maintain close ties between the two nations. The authors describe Israel as a “sister democracy in a region that has largely been hostile to democracy.” They contend that the U.S. government should be supporting democratic regimes, especially when they flourish in regions predisposed to authoritarianism. Moreover, they support the argument by citing public opinion, noting that the population of Israel remains adamantly pro-America. However, the authors neglect to include a laundry list of shared values and how they are represented within Israeli society.

Overall, the book provides a clearly pro-Israel posture to regional relations. However, the rationale for recommended policy solely represents the interests of the United States. Advancing democratic ideals, pursing Middle East peace, and maintaining a strong relationship with Israel, ensures stability in the region that only serves to support U.S. security, both militarily and economically. These initiatives would likely transform extremist organizations into fringe elements, thereby limiting the chance of additional terror strikes on Americans. Moreover, by ensuring security and stability in the region, investors and financial institutions could invest in the Middle East without fear from the consequences of today’s fickle regional situation. The book clearly demonstrates that democratization and the resumption of a peace process require patience and multi-pronged approaches that avoid the sinkholes of previous misconceptions on the region.

Photo taken from Amazon.com

See David Makovsky’s website at http://davidmakovsky.com.

New York Times Correspondent Taghreed El-Khodary describes the current situation in the Gaza Strip in an interview with Middle East Progress. Her account provides an interesting look at the mentality of many Gazans, some of which remain pleased with the overall situation because of the infrastructure set up by Hamas to provide social services. However, Hamas has also slowly begun introducing Sharia law, a move that will likely begin to alienate additional segments of the population. Notably, she states:

“Yes, it’s a new structure they are creating, and it makes a segment of society happy. Who is happy? Hamas supporters. Who else? Poor people, because they benefit from the international aid organizations and at the same time from Hamas, which has supported the poor all along, but now the international community is focusing on humanitarian aid to them also. So, it’s the best arrangement for them because never before have they gotten so much assistance. So, there is a segment of society that is happy, the ones who are praising the new awareness campaign that Hamas is using instead of imposing the veil and Sharia, by force. Before they used to be in the mosques, but now they are ministers, they’re in the schools—they have so much access to society.

There was a tendency within an element of Hamas to impose Sharia law, but the stronger tendency was against it. That was smart on the part of the current senior political leaders, because if they do so, it will undo their progress among the international community and so far Hamas are not keen to undermine themselves with the international community because they seek contact with it. From my observations, I would say that they would be interested in getting direct contact with the American administration. So, indirectly, they are working on it. They are not imposing anything. So you have a segment of society that is happy, about Gaza being a conservative place. In Palestinian society, if you go to the West Bank—the West Bank is not only Ramallah—if you go to Nablus, if you go to Hebron, if you go to different villages in the West Bank, they are very conservative. So, that speaks to the public.”

Comparing a topographical map of Palestine in the early 1900s to a modern Google Map of Israel, one striking differences juts out. No, not the separation fence (wall, hedge, whatever you want to call it). The Dead Sea is shrinking at an alarming rate primarily due to over-mining from both Jordanian and Israeli companies. Even though both nations receive significant revenues from tourism to the site, the export of minerals from the Dead Sea -most famously in bath and beauty products- caused the sea to shrink to half its previous size.

In order to remedy this shift, the governments of Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority intend to embark on a pilot project that would examine re-filling the Dead Sea with water from the Red Sea. A new committee would test the feasibility of running a canal between the two bodies of water and determine the effects of mixing water from the Red Sea with the Dead Sea, a much saltier marine basin. Complicating the initiative could be environmental damaged caused by the canal. However, seeing that the Dead Sea is the ‘lowest place on earth,’ gravity is on the side of engineers in making the water flow hundreds of kilometers north.

Photo taken from geotimes.org.

The first Fatah conference in 25 years may cause significant tensions between the Palestinian Authority, Israel, the United States, and Egypt, according to a news report. Next week’s conference is expected to boost the legitimacy of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, but recent hurdles may torpedo the event while taking Abbas and the peace process with it. In order for the conference to succeed, Israel would have to concede to allow many extremists from abroad and the Gaza Strip into the West Bank to attend the conference, an act that could potentially threaten Israel, Knowing that a failed conference would force Abbas to resign, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak reportedly pressured U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell to urge Israeli cooperation with the event. The United States embarked on a serious Israel-Palestine peace process centered on Abbas, whose removal from office would hinder the entire effort. At the conference, Abbas is also expected to appoint Maher Gneim as his successor and second in command. Gneim repeatedly called for armed resistance against Israel and attempted to sabotage the peace process in the mid-90s. 

Notably, the report reads,

“The Israeli government therefore finds itself in the hugely anomalous position of being squeezed by the United States, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to help launch a Palestinian conference which is certain to be as radically anti-Israel as the Islamist Hamas to give the US-promoted “peace process” a necessary lifeline.”

New figures from the Israeli Defense Forces estimate that over 300,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank, with numbers increasing at a rate of 2.3 percent this year. The rate of growth is expected to inch higher due to family re-locations to the settlements during the summer. The figures do not include Jewish populations in East Jerusalem, which  some estimates place at 190,000, thereby increasing the total number of settlers to just under half a million. A new article from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs expands on East Jerusalem construction, focusing on last week’s dispute over the conversion of a a small building in the Arab sector into Jewish housing. A pro-settlement group also posted flyers in settlements urging the creation of 11 new outposts that the international community and Israeli law deem illegal.

The high-level U.S. officials visiting the region could narrow the gap on disputes regarding settlements between Israel and the Obama Administration. Special Envoy George Mitchell, who is currently in Israel, reportedly negotiated with Israeli officials on settlements and nearly reached a deal. Officials expect a finalize a compromise following this week’s visit by other U.S. officials, including White House Special Assistant Dennis Ross.

An interesting piece from today’s New York Times explores two settlements that constitute approximately half of the total settler population. While ultra-religious, the population of these two cities do not harbor the same nationalist and territorial aspirations of many of the other settlers in the West Bank. Moreover, these two settlements only barely cross the green-line and would likely be annexed to Israel in a final settlement in exchange for other land.

Photo taken from the New York Times.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unequivocally stated that the United States would not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, she said this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press. Her comments come amidst speculation that Israel is preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Moreover, Iranian officials have dismissed the overtures of the Obama Administration to engage the regime on its nuclear program. Notably, she said on MTP today:

“What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen,” Clinton said.

“First, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. … We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

Earlier this month speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton used much softer language to address Iran, stating that the regime only had the right to civil nuclear power. She said at CFR:

“Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.”

U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell and Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu

In the midst of the Israel-U.S. dispute over settlements and a potential Israeli strike on Iran, four senior American officials will arrive in Israel this week, although U.S. officials contend that the high concentration of American presence in the region is purely coincidental.

U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday in order to encourage the Israeli leader to resume peace negotiations and freeze, at least, the bulk of settlement construction. Mitchell met a month ago with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in lieu of meeting with Netanyahu, reportedly at the request of Israel.

Mitchell traveled today to Syria for meetings with Syrian President Basher al-Assad and declared the need for a resumption in peace negotiations with Israel. Last week, Turkey also expressed an interest to resume its role as a moderator in those discussions.

On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will visit Israel reportedly to dissuade Israel from military action against Iran in order to halt the Islamic country’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s recent  anti-ballistic missile tests and military mobilization, coupled with Iranian officials’ comments that they would strike Tel Aviv in retaliation to an attack on their territory, sparked concern that Israel would unilaterally attack Iran. National Security Advisor James Jones and White House Special Assistant Dennis Ross will also visit Israel this week.

Photo taken from the State Department website.