An Old Kind of Change

With the ongoing wave of transformative change sweeping across the Middle East, we hear the voices of the usual suspects calling for Israel to join the wave and sign away a major chunk of its territory, before it's too late.

Yes, you heard that right! While millions of Arabs are rising to kick out the same kind of autocrats who western liberals have been siding with over any issue rather than with Israel, the same western lierals are calling upon Israel to create the same kind of archaic, cleptocracy that Arabs are finally trying to rid themselves off. 

Why should Israel do it? So when the citizens of 'independent Palestine' do away with Abbas, they will nullify any written agreement because 'Israel should have made peace with the Arab people, not with their dictators'. The same line of argument goes for Syria. Assad's Alawite autocracy will fall from grace this generation, so why should Israel simply shit away it's most important strategical asset?

Truth be told, the land for peace paradigm is dead. The Palestinians are looking at a dimilitarized autonomy for many years, not a state. 

-QP

Barry Rubin: Palestine Papers: We Know the Real Story

By Barry Rubin

We now know what actually happened in the negotiations mischaracterized by the "Palestine Papers," but before I tell you the true story, let me say some words about how it has been distorted.

Maybe it's just me out of step with the rest of the world, but someone tell me where the following paragraph is wrong:

The world is judging and condemning Israel on the basis of incomplete notes taken by people many of whom are not fluent English-speakers (of statements made by people who are not native-speakers of English) and who are passionate partisans of the Palestinian cause and who hate Israel; documents that have not been authenticated by anyone and whose translation has not been checked; documents that leave out much of what the Israelis said and leave out the concessions they made; then are filtered through the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, anti-Palestinian Authority (PA) al-Jazira (whose record of reportage is marked by some amazing lies) and the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas, anti-PA Guardian (which is more  radical sect than newspaper); which then misinterpret them in ways that seem deliberate to make Israel and the PA look bad; and then are quoted by journalists around the world who know little or nothing about the issues, haven't read the documents, have never seriously considered the possibility that they aren't 100 percent accurate, and ignore every other previous negotiation and public statement by Israel and the PA that contradict the claims being made; and who then add on even more claims that are neither in the documents nor in al-Jazira and the Guardian!

Sorry that paragraph was so long but it had to be to cover everything. Now have I missed something here?

The reaction to all of this in an age supposedly fixated on tolerance is more like that of a lynch mob than anything else. And have no doubt that before this is over there will be people who are lynched.

And now what actually did happen? The story is told here from interviews with then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before the papers came out. Briefly, Israel offered concessions; the Palestinian side talked about concessions. Olmert suggested they make a deal. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas hesitated and said he needed a few days, and then never responded, making public statements rejecting Israel's position.

So this does not prove that the PA made a generous offer of peace and Israel rejected it, the spin put on it by the media and by selective release of badly flawed documents. The PA rejected peace, as usual. Of course, a big reason for doing so was the fact that they knew they could not sell it to their people (who would denounce it as a sell-out), or Hamas, or even the Fatah Central Committee.

Note the new spin will be that if only Olmert remained in office and Netanyahu had not been elected there would have been a two-state solution. In other words, it will still be portrayed as Israel's fault. But this is ridiculous since the PA did not, and could not, agree on the conditions it had discussed. This is the structural problem with the peace process and it has not changed. The latest affair has made it worse.

No Israeli prime minister could make peace with the Palestinians when the Palestinian leadership isn't ready to make peace.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Freedom of the Press: PA Style

Earlier thousands of confidential Palestinian Authority documents were leaked to the press. While many states had to deal with the embarrassing revelations of the the recent WikiLeaks affair (which made Israel seem like the only straight shooters in international politics), the PA is far too proud to withstand such an assault ;)

The PA is a completely corrupt, draconian regime, that actively tortures its subjects, jails them for arbitrary periods of time for as little as a dissident Facebook update. Not to mention the big bucks its top dogs are making out of their people's misery.

While I plan to go more deeply into the content of the documents at a later post, what's most telling is how the PA reacted to their publication.

Al Jazeera, which published the lion's share of the recent document dump is branded by our dear friend Saeb Erekat, as declaring a 'war' on the Palestinian people. Al Jazeera may have comrpomized their relationship with the PA:

Asked if the PA was now considering measures against Al-Jazeera, the official said he did not see how a TV station that "incites" against the Palestinians would be able to continue operating in the West Bank. However, he said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is currently in Cairo, would decided on the PA's response to the exposure of the documents in the coming hours

It looks like the world's largest Arab language news network will have to cover their Palestinian brothers out of Israel ;)

-QP

Russia's Embrace of a Palestinian State: an Exaggeration?

Last week, President Medvedev visited Jericho in the West Bank in a much publicized visit. During the visit, president Medvedev reaffirmed his country's decision  to recognize a Palestinian state, that was originally adopted in 1988 (when the Fatah declared an independent state).

The Arab media were quick to celebrate this victory. However, JPost points out that Medvedev's visit was devoid of much substance and its rather small, ceremonial visit is in a way an expression of disappointment over the cancelled presidential visit to Israel:

The city hadn’t seen such pomp and range of highest political officials for a long, long time. President Vladimir Putin paid a visit to Ramallah in 2005.

However, this current visit was very different: this time Medvedev visited only Jericho, crossing the Allenby Bridge from Jordan.

It was not supposed to be this way, as the Russian president was scheduled to visit Israel as well and only canceled this visit due to the ongoing strike in the Foreign Ministry. This detail was omitted in the many ecstatic reports by the Palestinian media that flocked to Jericho.

The commentators were quick to interpret this as another sign of the “superb” relations between Russia and the PA, and received an endorsement of this theory during the speech of the honored guest.

Addressing the dignitaries and the journalists, Medvedev said that it was a “unique event, a solo visit.”

Then a festive ceremony of signing agreements between the Russian and PA Ministries of Agriculture, news agencies and Olympic committees took place. When you don’t have anything important to sign, you have to produce something, one of the Russian journalists whispered. “I’m certain that tremendous opportunities for expanding the cooperation lie ahead,” the Russian president smiled.

This might be true. However, the fact that hundreds of influential businessmen and lobbyists didn’t join Medvedev in his Palestinian-Jordanian tourney points to the disappointment of the Russian side with the cancellation of the visit to Israel. As affectionate as the meeting between Medvedev and Abbas was, it was no substitute for the important economic and political relations with Israel.

So it turns out the warm, highly publicized visit, was just that, a warm visit to show 'solidarity', thus gaining street cred in the hood :)

Did Russian policy towards the peace process or towards the Palestinians change? All signs lead to no:

And here comes the million-dollar question: Did Medvedev officially recognize the Palestinian state or didn’t he? Many analysts in the PA ruled that he did: in fact Jericho Mayor Hassan Saleh announced that “Russia is going to recognize Palestinian independence” even before the Russian president had made his speech. And indubitably, that is exactly what Palestinians would like to hear.

Yet that was not what Medvedev actually said. In fact, there was not one single word, not one single fact regarding unilateral Palestinian independence.

Medvedev affirmed that in 1988, the Soviet Union supported the declaration of independence made by Yasser Arafat in Algiers, and that the Russian Federation today backs the struggle of the Palestinian people for independence – but so do the US, EU and UN. 

Almost immediately, Medvedev said Moscow strongly opposes any unilateral acts and that as a member of the Middle East Quartet believes that negotiations are necessary and that the current framework of the Oslo agreements, the road map and the Annapolis declaration is still viable.

This last part was omitted by Arab commentators, who were quick to adapt the message to their own dreams and ambitions 

So essentially, nothing to see here, let's move a long! The Russians have long been considered allies of the Arab world. To maintain good relationships they cannot be appearing to go back on their position. On the other hand, modern Russia has been fostering good relationships with Israel, relationships that have taken a strategic nature in the last few years.

-QP

Who's Violating Palestinian's Human Rights?

I have encountered in my life many groups who's prime concern is 'protecting Palestinian Human Rights'. At least when their human rights seem to be violated by Israelis. Or when the Palestinian population of the West Bank of Gaza are inconvenienced due to legitimate security concerns of Israel.

Shouldn't they also be concerned with things like this? Or this? Imagine the media brouhaha if Israel decided to jail an Israeli-Arab for expressing opinions that are unfavourable to the current government.

Once again, it is equivocally shown that pro Palestinian Human Rights groups are not concerned with protecting the rights of Palestinian Arabs, but of denying those of Jews in their homeland.

-QP