Is Mahmoud Abbas’ peace plan achievable?

First published by TRT World on 5/6/2018

The US has effectively removed any facade of its status as ‘mediator’ between Palestinians and Israelis. Will it be possible for any peace process to move forward in the face of US and Israeli belligerence?

The Palestinians are at a crossroad, as they commemorate the 51 anniversary of the Naksa (day of the setback) when Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Sinai desert – prospects for a peace treaty with Israel that would bring any form of justice appear further today than ever.

The intransigence of an extremist settler-led Israeli government has been strengthened by a US Administration that not only has Israel’s back, but is prepared to be isolated at the United Nations if it means protecting its ally.

If confirmation of this was needed, then the recent theatre at the UN Security Council should be sufficient.

The US vetoed a resolution that sought to bring protection for the Palestinian people from Israeli violence—in which at least 118 have been killed since March—mostly at the hands of Israeli snipers positioned high above the fence between Gaza and Israel, using lethal explosive bullets. If the bullets did not kill, the injuries they caused were devastating, resulting in many amputations.

Yes, the Security Council, which is mandated to ensure security, let the Palestinian people down at the behest of US UN envoy Nikki Haley’s raised hand. America’s isolation was compounded when Haley failed to secure a single vote for her resolution condemning Hamas for a volley of 70 rockets, which left the Gaza strip a few days earlier in response to Israel’s killings and frequent air raids on Gaza.

The US secured exactly one vote: that of the US itself.

The US had been isolated earlier in 2018 after US President Donald Trump decided to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and in record time moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city, absent of any peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Nikki Haley again had to raise her hand to veto a resolution rejecting its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. However, the US lost heavily when the same text was put to the UN General Assembly, where it has no veto. Haley resorted to threats to those that “disrespected” the US and indicated there would be consequences for doing so.

The Palestinian response to the US Embassy move, its subsequent defunding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and threats to close the Palestinian mission in Washington DC was to suspend all contact with the US administration.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has since refused to meet any American officials, specifically Jason Greenblatt and US Ambassador David Friedman. He even recently shunned a delegation of Democrats on a visit to the region.

The Americans claim to be close to releasing “the ultimate peace deal”, which will apparently be presented for implementation after the holy month of Ramadan. With Trump declaring he has taken Jerusalem “off the table”; no prospects for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes; no plans to dismantle or evacuate any of the illegal settlements in East Jerusalem or the West Bank; it is likely to be a very thin document, which no Palestinian leader could sell to his people, whose sacrifices before and since Israel’s creation have been immeasurable.

There have also been major geopolitical changes in the region that weaken the Palestinian position. The threat of Iran has sent a number of Gulf States to seek US protection, which in turn has been used as leverage to cajole them into developing clandestine relationships with Israel and in some cases those relationships are out in the open. They even responded to Trump’s call to control the anger that his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital ignited, leaving Haley purring that the sky did not fall in after the announcement.

In the face of such monumental challenges, Abbas has developed his own peace plan, which he put to the UN Security Council and more recently to the Palestinian National Council. It is based on a “multilateral international mechanism”.

The plan would be based on the two-state solution, with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. In addition, it includes an international peace conference by mid-2018 that would recognise Palestine as a state; the implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative; and the refraining of all parties from taking any unilateral actions during the negotiation process.

In essence, this plan is dead in the water unless the US approves it because it would have to eventually be put to a vote in the UN Security Council. It’s a safe bet to assume the Haley hand would be raised to veto.

In any case, there is no evidence that either the EU, Russia or China are willing or capable of holding a peace conference in mid 2018 as Abbas asks. We are already there and there is not a whisper of a possibility of this taking place.

It is therefore likely that the situation will revert to the status quo—which Israel can live with—but which the Palestinians have been unable to change.

Two options the Palestinians can pursue to raise the cost of the occupation to Israel are to continue to pursue criminal charges against Israelis in the International Criminal Court, and to escalate the popular non-violent resistance, which caught Israel off-guard and struggled to deal with except through violence. The third strand is to adopt and escalate the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as the Palestine National Council agreed at its recent meeting in Ramallah.

These are actions Palestinians can take themselves and with the help of supporters around the world, rather than relying on Arab or western governments to support them.

It is only once the cost of the occupation has risen to a level which troubles Israel that it will negotiate seriously for a just peace.

In his current mindset Abbas is unlikely to effectively develop an alternative strategy, along these lines. However, the 84 year old has health issues and may abruptly exit the political scene. That might just  open the way for a new approach that delivers freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people.

Israel, Occidente y la hipocresía

Publicado por primera vez por Monitor de Oriente el 21/3/2018

La actual crisis entre Reino Unido y Rusia nos presenta un ejemplo más de la flagrante hipocresía de Occidente a la hora de lidiar con Israel y, prácticamente, la de todos los demás países. ¿Por qué mencionar a Israel en el caso del intento de asesinato de dos personas en las calles británicas en el que está involucrada Rusia, no Israel? Lo hago para señalar la preocupación repentina por las leyes internacionales que ha reaparecido dentro de los círculos políticos occidentales.

Junto con el secretario general de la OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, el secretario de Exteriores británico, Boris Johnson, pronunció unas declaraciones acusando a Rusia de utilizar un agente químico militar, y afirmó que ambos tenían claro que “el uso de este agente es una clara violación de la Convención de Armas Químicas y de las leyes internacionales”. Un día antes, declaró en el BBC’s Andrew Marr Show que Rusia llevaba 10 años incumpliendo las leyes internacionales, acumulando reservas del agente químico nervioso. Brendan Lewis, presidente del Partido Conservador, en una entrevista en Pesto on Sunday, también se refirió a las acciones de Rusia como una ruptura con las leyes internacionales.

Johnson fue respaldado por los ministros de Exteriores de la UE, que emitieron un comunicado de apoyo al Reino Unido. “Todo uso [del agente nervioso] supone una violación de la Convención de Armas Químicas, de las leyes internacionales, y del orden reglamentario internacional”, declararon.

Poco después del envenenamiento de Sergei Skripal y su hija, Estados Unidos, Francia, Alemania y Reino Unido emitieron un comunicado conjunto condenando el ataque, que se produjo en la pequeña ciudad inglesa de Salisbury: “Es un ataque contra la soberanía británica, y cualquier uso de este agente por parte de un Estado es una clara violación de la Convención de Armas Químicas y de las leyes internacionales”.

Rusia ha sido acusada antes de saltarse la ley internacional respecto a sus acciones contra Ucrania y a lo que Occidente considera la ocupación de Crimea, que Rusia niega. En marzo de 2017, la Misión Estadounidense en la Organización para la Seguridad y Cooperación en Europa declaró que “Estados Unidos se muestra profundamente preocupado por las constantes violaciones de las leyes internacionales por parte de Rusia y de los principios y compromisos de nuestra misión en Crimea.”

El comunicado también acusó a las autoridades de ocupación rusas de “cometer continuos abusos contra los tártaros de Crimea, los ucranianos étnicos y demás grupos que se oponen a la ocupación rusa de la península”.

Cuando el fallecido Saddam Hussein envió a sus tropas a Kuwait en 1990, la comunidad internacional sólo permitió que esa ocupación durara siete meses. El dictador iraquí había anexionado Kuwait, declarándolo la 19ª provincia de su país. Sin embargo, se formó una coalición de fuerzas de 35 países para liberar Kuwait, con la que se expulsó a los iraquíes a principios de 1991. En aquel entonces, nadie se refirió a la resistencia kuwaití contra la ocupación iraquí como “terrorismo”.

Tanto Irak como Rusia recibieron sanciones por lo que la comunidad internacional consideró actos ilegales en Kuwait y Ucrania, respectivamente. Ahora, hay quien habla de más sanciones impuestas a Rusia tras el ataque en Salisbury. Incluso se ha pedido que el equipo de fútbol inglés boicotee el Mundial de Fútbol de la FIFA, que se celebrará en Rusia este verano. Respondiendo a una pregunta formulada en la Cámara de los Comunes, Boris Johnson declaró ante sus compañeros diputados que si Rusia está implicada, “será complicada una representación normal de Reino Unido en el Mundial”.

En Occidente, muchos se preguntan cómo Rusia puede seguir ocupando un asiento como miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, gracias al cual tiene permitido ejercer un veto cuando lo desee. Eso significa que puede rechazar cualquier resolución que critique a Moscú o a sus aliados, o incluso que simplemente considere imponer sanciones contra, por ejemplo, el gobierno sirio por sus acciones.

Aquí nos encontramos con la hipocresía de Occidente, que parece estar dispuesto a todo con tal de otorgar a Israel una protección especial ante las críticas o ante sanciones, a pesar de llevar 50 años ejerciendo una ocupación ilegal de territorios palestinos, sirios y libaneses, y 70 llevando a cabo una limpieza étnica del pueblo palestino. Al igual que Rusia e Irak, Israel ha anexionado tierras ocupadas ilegalmente, incluidos Jerusalén Oriental y los Altos del Golán.

Estados Unidos ha criticado duramente a Rusia por utilizar su veto respecto a Siria e Irán. En 2015, la entonces embajadora estadounidense en la ONU, Samantha Power, afirmó que los vetos rusos “ponen en peligro la legitimidad del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU”. Su sucesora, Nikki Hayley, llegó a amenazar con que, si Rusia continúa utilizando su veto, Estados Unidos tendría que tomar medidas unilaterales en Irán. Hayley hizo esta advertencia después de que Rusia vetara una resolución que condenaba a Irán por violar un embargo de armas a los líderes hutíes en Yemen. La hipocresía particular de EEUU reside en su propio uso del poder del veto en 43 ocasiones para apoyar a Israel. En la última ocasión, lo usó para protegerse de las críticas contra su propia decisión de reconocer Jerusalén como la capital del Estado sionista en diciembre del año pasado. Esto no incluye todas las veces que la amenaza del veto estadounidense ha resultado en que ni siquiera se haga una votación respecto a las resoluciones en el Consejo de Seguridad, entre ellas una ocasión en la que la OLP intentó conseguir el reconocimiento de Palestina como Estado en 2014.

La hipocresía de Reino Unido se refleja en su apoyo a las sanciones contra el régimen de Saddam Hussein en Irak y contra Rusia, pero su absoluta negativa a la hora de considerar sancionar a Israel por cualquiera de sus acciones, incluida su ocupación colonial y sus asentamientos ilegales, los crímenes de guerra y crímenes contra la humanidad de los que ha sido acusado. Reino Unido se ha opuesto a todo boicot o sanción contra un Estado acusado de Apartheid por un informe de la CESPAO que fue retirado bajo presión de Estados Unidos e Israel.

Importantes miembros del gobierno británico y de los Amigos Conservadores de Israel trabajan horas extra para proteger a Israel. El secretario de Medio Ambiente, Michael Gove, para su total desgracia, describió como “antisemita” al movimiento pacífico de Boicot, Desinversiones y Sanciones (BDS), cuyo objetivo es presionar a Israel para que cumpla las leyes internacionales. Gove ha llegado a pedir a Reino Unido que desplace su embajada a Jerusalén, algo que violaría todas las leyes y convenciones internacionales.

Ahora, el Reino Unido ha indicado que, probablemente, no enviará a miembros de la familia real al Mundial de Rusia, pero ha anunciado que el príncipe William – segundo en la línea de sucesión del trono – hará una visita oficial a Israel este año, a pesar de la ocupación ilegal que ejerce el país en terreno palestino, su anexión ilegal de Israel, su muro de apartheid y su asedio ilegal de Gaza, que constituye un castigo colectivo y, por lo tanto, se trata de un crimen de guerra.

Por lo tanto, los palestinos y sus partidarios tienen muchas razones para increpar a la comunidad internacional por su hipocresía a la hora de tratar con Israel, cuyas acciones ilegales y violaciones de la ley internacional han sido constantes durante sus 70 años de existencia. Recuerden esto la próxima vez que un político occidental defienda las rupturas de Israel de las leyes como un “acto de defensa propia”. Es el único país del mundo al que los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU y demás países de Occidente proporcionan una inmunidad excepcional.

Israel, the West and shameless hypocrisy

First published by the Middle East Monitor on 20/3/2018

UK British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson [Financial Times/Flickr]

The current crisis between Britain and Russia offers yet another example of the shameless hypocrisy of the West when dealing with Israel and almost any other country. Why bring Israel into the attempted murder of two people on the streets of Britain in which Russia, not Israel is implicated? I do so because of the sudden regard for international law that has resurfaced in Western political circles.

Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson accused Russia of using military-grade nerve agent and stated that the two were clear, “that the use of such agent is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a flagrant breach of international law.” A day earlier, he claimed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that Russia had been in breach of international law for the past 10 years because it had been stockpiling nerve agent during that period. Conservative Party chairman Brendan Lewis, speaking on Peston on Sunday, also referred to Russia’s action as being in breach of international law.

Johnson was backed by the EU’s Foreign Ministers who adopted a statement of support for Britain. “Any such use [of nerve agent] is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a breach of international law and undermines the rules-based international order,” they said.

Shortly after the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, the US, France, Germany and Britain issued a joint statement condemning the attack, which took place in the small English city of Salisbury: “It is an assault on UK sovereignty, and any such use by a state party is a clear violation of the chemical weapons convention and a breach of international law.”

Accusations that Russia has been in breach of international law have in the past related to its action against the Ukraine and what the West sees as its occupation of Crimea, which Russia disputes. In March 2017, the US Mission in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) stated that, “The United States remains deeply concerned about ongoing Russian violations of international law and defiance of OSCE principles and commitments in Crimea.”

The statement further accused the Russian occupation authorities of “continuing to commit serious abuses against Crimean Tatars, ethnic Ukrainians, and all others who oppose Russia’s occupation of the peninsula.”

When the late Saddam Hussein sent his troops into Kuwait in 1990, the international community only allowed that occupation to stand for seven months. The Iraqi dictator had annexed Kuwait, declaring it to be his country’s 19th province. However, a coalition of forces from 35 countries was formed to free Kuwait, which ejected the Iraqis in early 1991. No one then talked of the Kuwaiti resistance against Iraq’s occupation as “terrorism”.

Both Iraq and Russia faced sanctions for what the international community regarded as illegal acts in Kuwait and Ukraine respectively. There is talk now about further sanctions against Russia following the attack in Salisbury. There are even calls for the English football team to boycott the FIFA World Cup, due to take place in Russia this summer. Responding to a question in the House of Commons, Boris Johnson told fellow MPs that if Russia is implicated then he thought it would be “difficult to see how UK representation at the World Cup can go ahead in the normal way.”

Some in the West are questioning how Russia can continue to hold a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which allows it to wield a veto whenever it chooses. This, it is argued, means it can vote down any resolution that criticises Moscow or its allies, or even considers imposing sanctions on, say, the Syrian government for its actions.

Here, then, is the hypocrisy of the West, which seems hell-bent on singling Israel out for exceptional protection from criticism or meaningful sanctions despite its 50-year long illegal occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese land, and its 70-year ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. Just like Russia and Iraq, Israel has annexed illegally-occupied land, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

The US has been severely critical of Russia for its use of the veto when it comes to Syria and Iran. In 2015, the then US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, claimed that Russian vetoes were “putting the UN Security Council’s legitimacy at risk.” Her successor Nikki Hayley even threatened that if Russia continues to use its veto then the US may have to take unilateral action against Iran. This was after Russia vetoed a resolution that had been watered down from a condemnation of Iran for violating an arms embargo on Houthi leaders in Yemen to “noting with particular concern”.The particular hypocrisy of the US lies in its own use of the veto power on 43 occasions in support of Israel, the last of which was against criticism of its own action in recognising Jerusalem as capital of the Zionist state in December last year. This does not include the number of times that the threat of the US using its veto resulted in resolutions not even making it to a Security Council vote, including an attempt by the PLO to secure recognition of Palestine as a state in 2014.

Britain’s hypocrisy can be demonstrated in its support for sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and its support for sanctions against Russia but its absolute refusal to consider sanctioning Israel for any matter, including its illegal colonial-settlement enterprise and alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UK has actually worked to oppose any boycott or sanction against a state that stands accused of Apartheid by an ESCWA report which was sanctioned by the UN but was then taken down under pressure from the US and Israel.

Prominent members of the British government and long-established members of Conservative Friends of Israel work overtime to shield Israel. Environment Secretary Michael Gove, to his utter disgrace, labelled the peaceful and moral Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), designed to pressure Israel to comply with international law, as “anti-Semitic”. Gove has even called for Britain to move its Embassy to Jerusalem in a move that would be against international laws and conventions.

Britain has now indicated that it might not send members of the Royal family to the World Cup in Russia but has announced that Prince William — second in line to the throne — will make an official visit to Israel this year despite its continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land, its illegal annexation of Jerusalem, its Apartheid Wall and its illegal siege on Gaza which has been said to constitute collective punishment and is thus a war crime.

Palestinians and their supporters, therefore, have ample reason to call out the international community for its hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to dealing with Israel, whose illegal actions and breaches of international law have accompanied its whole 70-year existence. Remember this fact the next time that a Western politician defends Israel’s breaches of international law as “acts of self-defence”. It is the only country in the world to which the permanent members of the UN Security Council and others in the West grant such exceptional immunity.

 

Le pire accord de l’histoire ? Trump veut faire de Jérusalem la capitale d’Israël

Middle East Eye 6/12/2017

Année terrible pour les Palestiniens, 2017 pourrait s’achever sur une note encore plus amère puisque Trump s’apprête à offrir Jérusalem à Israël sur un plateau

Les Palestiniens espéraient que l’année 2017, qui marque le centenaire de la déclaration Balfour, les 70 ans de la Nakba et les 50 ans de l’occupation de la Cisjordanie, de Jérusalem-Est et de Gaza par Israël, serait également marquée par les excuses du Royaume-Uni pour la déclaration Balfour et par la reconnaissance internationale de la nécessité de mettre un terme rapidement aux injustices qu’ils subissent depuis si longtemps.

Leurs espoirs ont été balayés.

Plutôt que de faire des excuses, la Grande-Bretagne a exprimé sa grande fierté quant au rôle qu’elle a joué dans la création d’Israël, dans le silence assourdissant de la communauté internationale.

La déclaration Trump

Tandis que les Palestiniens pansaient leurs blessures et menaçaient à nouveau de poursuivre les responsables israéliens devant la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), les pays arabes ont fait pression pour les en dissuader. L’administration Trump a menacé de fermer les bureaux de l’OLP à Washington si les Palestiniens entamaient leur démarche auprès de la CPI.

Le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas a été convoqué à Riyad pour se voir annoncer sans ambages qu’il n’avait d’autre choix que d’accepter l’accord de paix formulé par l’administration Trump ou de démissionner.

Il semblerait que l’annus horribilis 2017 puisse se terminer sur une note encore plus amère pour les Palestiniens. Et les spéculations vont bon train : une « autre déclaration » serait en préparation.

Selon plusieurs médias, le président américain s’apprêterait à émettre ce que l’on pourrait appeler la « déclaration Trump », selon laquelle les États-Unis reconnaissent Jérusalem comme capitale d’Israël. Un seul autre État considère cette allégation comme vraie : Israël.

Ce faisant, Trump va « offrir » la ville, sacrée pour les trois religions monothéistes, à un État extrémiste et colonisateur pour en faire sa capitale, au mépris du droit international et du « consensus international sur son statut ».

Les Palestiniens considèrent que Jérusalem-Est est leur capitale et la plupart des États considèrent qu’elle est actuellement occupée illégalement.

Lors de son discours à la conférence de l’AIPAC en 2015, Trump avait promis : « Nous transférerons l’ambassade américaine dans la capitale éternelle du peuple juif, Jérusalem ». Toutefois, lorsque l’opportunité de passer à l’action s’est présentée en juin, il s’est abstenu.

Pour ce faire, il avait signé une dérogation reportant le transfert de six mois. Trump a suivi en cela les pas de Bill Clinton, George W. Bush et Barack Obama qui avaient signé des dérogations similaires (35 au total) depuis l’adoption, à une écrasante majorité, du Jerusalem Embassy Act par les deux chambres du Congrès en 1995.

À mesure que le choix entre la dérogation et l’autorisation du transfert de l’ambassade approchait, Israël et le lobby pro-israélien américain ont exercé une pression croissante pour que Trump respecte la promesse qu’il avait faite avant d’être élu. Son ambassadeur en Israël, David Friedman, est sur le point de devenir le premier ambassadeur des États-Unis en Israël à opérer depuis Jérusalem.

« Si Trump reconnaît Jérusalem, sacrée pour les trois religions monothéistes, en tant que capitale d’Israël, il offrira la ville à un État extrémiste colonialiste » (AFP)

Jérusalem-Est et Jérusalem ouest

Dore Gold, ancien directeur-général du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères, a déclaré devant le Congrès qui siégeait sur « les défis et les opportunités du déplacement » de la capitale : « le président Donald Trump s’est engagé à cet égard et je crois qu’il s’en tiendra à ce qu’il a dit », en référence à la promesse de Trump de transférer l’ambassade.

Le vice-président américain Mike Pence a fait naître l’espoir d’un possible transfert de l’ambassade lors de son discours à l’occasion d’un rassemblement en commémoration du 70e anniversaire de la résolution 181 de l’ONU qui prévoyait la partition de la Palestine mandataire en un État juif et un État arabe.

Il a choisi cette occasion pour annoncer que « le président Donald Trump étudi[ait] sérieusement quand et comment transférer l’ambassade des États-Unis de Tel-Aviv à Jérusalem ».

Si cette spéculation se réalise, Trump décidera peut-être de reconnaître Jérusalem en tant que capitale d’Israël, avec quelques réserves, tout en reportant à nouveau le transfert effectif.

Il envisagera même peut-être de faire la distinction entre Jérusalem-Est et Ouest comme le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères en avril dernier dans une déclaration en ces termes : « La Russie réaffirme son attachement aux principes approuvés par l’ONU pour un règlement du conflit israélo-palestinien, avec Jérusalem-Est comme capitale du futur État palestinien. En même temps, nous devons affirmer que, dans ce contexte, nous considérons Jérusalem-Ouest comme la capitale d’Israël. »

Toutefois, Trump est toujours imprévisible et pourrait aller jusqu’au bout en déclarant, en une trentaine de mots : « en tant que président des États-Unis, je suis fier d’annoncer que j’ai décidé de transférer l’ambassade américaine en Israël de Tel Aviv à Jérusalem, la capitale éternelle du peuple juif ».

Il pourra soutenir qu’il ne fait qu’appliquer l’un des nombreux engagements qu’il a pris lors de la campagne électorale de 2016.

Les réactions arabes et musulmanes

Quelle serait la réaction en Palestine, en Israël et dans le reste du monde ? Cela enflammera-t-il les rues de Palestine, du monde arabe et du monde musulman ? Cela nous rapprochera-t-il d’une confrontation entre l’Iran et Israël ?

S’agira-t-il de la dernière goutte qui fera déborder le vase pour les dirigeants palestiniens ? Cela provoquera-t-il une rupture des relations entre l’OLP et les États-Unis, voire l’exécution de la menace souvent brandie d’une autodissolution de l’AP et de l’abandon par Mahmoud Abbas des clés de la Mouqata’a, son quartier général, à Benyamin Netanyahou ?

La colère sera-t-elle dirigée contre les États-Unis et leur président impulsif, contre la puissance occupante israélienne ou contre l’Autorité palestinienne et son président ? Nous vivons dans une époque tellement truffée d’incertitudes que n’importe lequel de ces scénarios est possible, voire une combinaison entre ces scénarios, alors qu’ils auraient été considérés comme impossibles autrefois.

Traduction : « La reconnaissance par Trump de Jérusalem comme capitale israélienne malgré les résolutions de l’ONU détruirait tous les efforts déployés en faveur de la paix. Les tentatives d’annexion et les colonies doivent être condamnées et non encouragées. »

Le monde arabe, en proie aux troubles et dont le leadership est transmis à la prochaine génération dans certains pays, a relégué la question palestinienne derrière la menace de l’Iran, la « lutte contre le terrorisme » et le chaos qui continue de toucher un certain nombre de points chauds du « Printemps arabe ».

L’Autorité palestinienne a déjà formulé des mises en garde contre les conséquences désastreuses qui résulteraient d’une telle initiative et le président Abbas est entré en contact avec des dirigeants arabes et d’autres dirigeants mondiaux pour demander leur soutien afin de dissuader Trump d’agir de la sorte.

Peut-être a-t-il été rassuré par la déclaration du ministre saoudien des Affaires étrangères Adel al-Joubeir, qui, lors d’une récente session du Dialogue méditerranéen à Rome, a affirmé que tout changement apporté au statut de Jérusalem-Est ferait enrager le monde arabe.

Poignée de mains entre le président américain Donald Trump et le Premier ministre israélien Benyamin Netanyahou à l’issue de déclarations faites à Jérusalem, en mai dernier (AFP)

Cependant, les rapports décrits comme étroits entre le gendre et conseiller de Trump Jared Kushner et le prince héritier saoudien Mohammed ben Salmane semblent destinés à accabler davantage les Palestiniens afin de les forcer à céder du terrain à la place d’Israël. Si le prix du soutien américain apporté à l’Arabie saoudite contre l’Iran est la cession de Jérusalem, le jeune prince sera-t-il capable de résister ?

Même si Abbas a recueilli du soutien auprès de la plupart des destinataires de ses appels, il convient de se demander si cela se traduira par une pression suffisante. Les Palestiniens qui attendent une réponse plus ferme de l’Iran risquent d’être déçus.

Une stratégie de libération

Il est quasiment certain que les 193 pays qui reconnaissent la Palestine rejettent l’initiative. L’UE devrait la rejeter et maintenir sa position ; ses États membres devraient garder leur ambassade à Tel Aviv et peut-être même refuser de faire des affaires dans une ambassade américaine installée à Jérusalem.

Cependant, certains États qui se sont rangés du côté d’Israël à l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies, dont l’Australie et le Canada, pourraient être tentés de suivre le mouvement. En 2014, le procureur général australien a déclaré au Sénat que son pays ne reconnaîtrait plus Jérusalem-Est comme étant « occupée » et la considérerait de ce fait comme un territoire israélien.

Les premières indications nous orientent certainement vers des manifestations à Gaza et en Cisjordanie ; néanmoins, la plupart des Palestiniens ne peuvent atteindre l’ambassade américaine à Tel Aviv dans la mesure où ils ont besoin de permis pour entrer en Israël, ce qu’ils n’auront pas s’ils souhaitent y entrer dans ce but.

Les citoyens palestiniens d’Israël, qui constituent un cinquième de la population israélienne, tout comme d’autres Israéliens qui voient à quel point cette situation est problématique pour les perspectives de paix à long terme, pourraient rallier l’ambassade, mais ces protestations ont peu de chances d’être prolongées.

Cela représenterait un grand défi pour les Palestiniens de Jérusalem qui se sont soulevés l’été dernier contre la fermeture de la mosquée al-Aqsa en protestant pacifiquement jusqu’à la réouverture du lieu saint et jusqu’au retrait des mesures de sécurité qu’Israël souhaitait mettre en œuvre.

Ils pourraient protester devant le consulat américain à Jérusalem-Est, mais cela ne sera efficace que si une campagne organisée, qui exhorterait Trump à revenir sur sa déclaration et qui les inclurait, prend de l’ampleur et rencontre un succès rapide.

Les protestations seront donc plus probablement virtuelles, avec des « tempêtes de tweets » et des hashtags appropriés, ce qui pourrait permettre initialement de soulever le problème, sans toutefois donner lieu à un revirement de décision.

L’Autorité palestinienne a fondé toute sa stratégie pour résoudre le conflit israélo-palestinien sur une solution à deux États avec Jérusalem-Est comme capitale d’un futur État palestinien, ce qui fait de Jérusalem-Est une ligne rouge.

À LIRE : EXCLUSIF : Pour les Palestiniens, l’« accord ultime » de Trump est un ultimatum

Si celle-ci est franchie, qu’offrirait donc réellement l’« accord ultime » de Trump ? Des fuites ont indiqué que les questions de Jérusalem et du droit au retour des réfugiés seraient reportées, mais que les colonies israéliennes seraient maintenues et qu’aucun colon ne serait obligé de partir.

Le moment semble venu pour Abbas de s’inspirer de la fameuse politique du Brexit employée par la Première ministre britannique Theresa May, selon laquelle l’absence d’accord est meilleure qu’un mauvais accord, et de s’en arrêter là.

S’il doit être question aujourd’hui d’un « mercredi noir » et si Trump reconnaît Jérusalem en tant que capitale d’Israël, alors il sera sûrement temps pour l’AP de se dissoudre et pour les Palestiniens de développer leur stratégie de libération et de quête de leurs droits.

À moins, bien sûr, que l’Autorité palestinienne n’ait un plan « malin » qu’Abbas cacherait si bien contre sa poitrine qu’il n’en aurait discuté avec personne pour éviter les fuites.

 

How long before the Israeli flag flies over Riyadh?

First published by the Middle East Monitor on 22/11/2017

A general view from the Arabic Islamic American Summit at King Abdul Aziz International Conference Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 21 May, 2017 [Bandar Algaloud/Anadolu Agency]

A general view from the Arabic Islamic American Summit at King Abdul Aziz International Conference Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 21 May, 2017 [Bandar Algaloud/Anadolu Agency]
At a recent MEMO conference entitled “Crisis in Saudi Arabia: War Succession and Future”, I asked Professor Madawi Al-Rasheed of the London School of Economics if she thought that the Israeli flag would be flying over Riyadh within the next two years.

“In terms of an Israeli flag in Makkah or in Riyadh,” she replied, “well, you don’t need to raise the flag to have contacts.” She distinguished between the rush to normalisation with Israel by Gulf leaders, and their citizens, referring to a recent anti-normalisation conference in Kuwait, which she hoped would contribute to the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. “At least it means that those rulers who are doing that [normalising relations with Israel] do not represent everybody in the Gulf. There are people who are worried and still care about Palestinian rights.”

My question was of course about the symbolism of the Israeli flag flying in Riyadh. Would the young pretender to the Saudi throne, Mohammed Bin Salman, actually establish formal, above the table relations with the Zionist state? For a man who has just carried out a purge, during which he held some of his key rivals and the wealthiest and best-known Saudis under house arrest, raising the Israeli flag would not be such a big deal in the absence of any tangible opposition.

There have, of course, been robust reports of growing normalisation between Israel and Gulf States, essentially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They have included an “unofficial” visit to Israel by retired Saudi General Anwar Eshki in 2016; he met the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Director General and a group of Knesset members to “encourage dialogue in Israel on the Arab Peace Initiative.” The initiative offers Israel normalisation with the Arab and Muslim world in exchange for an end to the occupation of Arab land; it was launched in Beirut in 2002 by the then Saudi Crown Prince (and now late King) Abdullah.

Israel has not agreed to the proposal, while the international community failed to exert sufficient pressure on it to accept what it has craved since its establishment on Palestinian land in 1948. Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted as much in response to my question at the aforementioned conference. Had he done enough while in office to put pressure on the Israelis to accept the Arab Initiative? No, he replied, we should have exerted more pressure.

Another prominent Saudi keen on normalisation with Israel is Prince Turki Bin Faisal Al-Saud. The former chief of Saudi intelligence and Ambassador to the US and Britain now has a history of engaging with Israeli officials and former officials. It started with a handshake with the then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon in Munich in 2010. His most recent encounter was as a member of a panel organised by the Israel Policy Forum along with Efraim Halevy, the former director of the Mossad spy agency; the event was held in a New York synagogue. The conversation was not about the Arab Peace Initiative or how peace might be brought to the holy land, but about US President Donald Trump’s approach towards Iran. While Al-Faisal has shared platforms with Israeli officials before, this was his first panel in a synagogue; he hoped “it would not be the last.”

It seems that meetings between Israelis and Saudis are taking place at the very highest level. Israeli media reported that Mohammad Bin Salman himself made a visit to Israel in September, which included a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This was denied by non-other than General Eshki, who claimed: “The Crown Prince did not visit Israel, and I did not visit Israel. Everyone should know that according to Saudi law, no Saudi official is officially allowed to shake hands with an Israeli.” In fact, he certainly has visited Israel. According to Haaretz, “While this wasn’t an official visit, it was a highly unusual one, as Eshki couldn’t have travelled to Israel without approval from the Saudi government.”

While Saudi Arabia continues to deny any contact with Israel, evidence is mounting to the contrary. In an interview on Army Radio, Israel’s Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, a member of Netanyahu’s security cabinet, confirmed but did not characterise the contacts or give details when asked why Israel was “hiding its ties” with Saudi Arabia. “We have ties that are indeed partly covert with many Muslim and Arab countries,” he explained, “and usually (we are) the party that is not ashamed. It’s the other side that is interested in keeping the ties quiet. With us, usually, there is no problem, but we respect the other side’s wish, when ties are developing, whether it’s with Saudi Arabia or with other Arab countries or other Muslim countries, and there is much more … (but) we keep it secret.”

In exchange for cooperation with the Trump Administration and Israel to combat the perceived threat from Iran, Saudi Arabia seems to be willing to sacrifice Palestinian rights. In fact, it is ready to throw Palestinians to the dogs. It is reported that when Bin Salman recently “summoned” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to Riyadh it was to tell him either to accept the “ultimate peace deal” —which will be made in Israel and marketed by Trump — or resign.

Saudi attracts US attention by singing Israel's tunes - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

What the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince and all other normalisers appear to ignore is that Israel takes and never gives. It will take normalisation but give nothing in exchange. If they think that Israeli jets will ever fly over Riyadh or Abu Dhabi to protect its newly found allies from a fictitious Iranian air strike, then they are deluded. They only need to look at Egypt and Jordan, the two Arab states which have long normalised relations with Israel, to see which party has benefited from their peace deals.

Mohammad Bin Salman would do better to support the BDS movement against Israel rather than normalise Saudi Arabia’s relations with the Zionist state; that is, if he is serious about supporting the Palestinians to attain their rights. Moreover, if Mahmoud Abbas has to choose between accepting an unacceptable deal or resign, then I say to him resign now with honour, before the Israeli flag is indeed flying proudly on the Riyadh skyline.

Netanyahu is redefining ethnic cleansing not pursuing genuine peace

First published on the Middle East Monitor on 10/11/2017

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [Benjamin Netanyahu/Facebook]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not known for missing an opportunity to push peace further into the distant future. The dust had not even settled on the Balfour Centenary, which the Palestinians marked with anger and Israel and its supporters celebrated, before Netanyahu took to the air to absolve Israel of any fault for the lack of progress towards peace. Israel is in a difficult neighbourhood and therefore its security needs are such that meeting these is almost incompatible with a Palestinian state.

In an interview with the well-known BBC broadcaster Andrew Marr, he trotted out the usual talking points. Israel, he said, “stands out as a beacon of democracy, a beacon of self-restraint in a sea of trouble”. As for the Israeli army, “there is no more moral army in the world,” he said. The settlements “are an issue but I don’t think they are the issue”. Instead he believes the issue “is the 100-year-old refusal of the Palestinian leadership to recognise a Jewish state in any boundary”.  Netanyahu took issue with Marr regarding the settlements, saying “the idea that Jews cannot live in Judea [the West Bank] is crazy”. When challenged that it is Palestinian territory, which the UN says is a flagrant violation of international law, he said that it is “disputed territory”. He even claimed that the settlements are “a side issue for Palestinians too,” arguing that he is continuing to work for the liberation of the whole of historic Palestine.

On the prospects for a Palestinian state he said that the Palestinians “should have all the powers to govern themselves and none of the powers to threaten us”. Marr pushed him on whether this means the end of the two-state solution and the move to a different solution – one state. “No,” he replied, “I don’t want a one-state solution. I’ll be clear about that”. He argued that it was about the kind of state that emerges. To him it would have to be demilitarised and recognise the state of Israel. In fact, the Palestinian Authority has already met both these conditions. In signing the Oslo Accords, the PLO recognised the state of Israel while Israel did not recognise a Palestinian state, but rather the PLO as the “sole representative of the Palestinian people”.

In the wider context, the real threat to Israel is the Iranian threat. In a Chatham House interviewearlier in the same week, Netanyahu argued that Iran was a “cause”; an expansionist country that wanted to gobble up small and medium-sized states as it moved towards the “larger states”. To him, Israel shares this fear with Sunni-majority countries. He presented Israel as the only example in the Middle East of what he called “modernity” vs. the “Medievalists,” which were both Shia and Sunni Islamists.

Netanyahu again reiterated his belief that the conflict would be finished if the Palestinians recognised a Jewish state. When challenged that in fact the Palestinians will not get a state but an “entity,” Netanyahu came clean. He argued that it was time to “to reassess whether the model we have of sovereignty and unfettered sovereignty is applicable everywhere on the earth”. He pointed to the British not wanting “outside control” on their economy, hence Brexit, and pointed to the lack of “economic sovereignty” that Greece has, referring to his “friend” Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. He argued that in the complex world we live in, there are constraints on what are considered sovereign powers.

His argument was that in the case of historic Palestine, the land was too small to divide. He said that he had presented to US President Donald Trump a map which showed the distance from the West Bank to the Mediterranean as 50 kilometres which he said was the same distance form “Trump Tower to the George Washington Bridge”. If Israel leaves the West Bank, then “militant Islam” would move in as happened in Gaza and Lebanon. It is either a “green flag” or a “black flag’. While not wanting to “govern the Arabs,” he wants overall security from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean: “For us the critical thing is to have the overriding security responsibility.” The demilitarisation of the West Bank would be done by Israel.

In other words, no Palestinian state will emerge but an entity which would have governing sovereignty but no security sovereignty.

At the same Chatham House event, Netanyahu described the demand for the removal of West Bank settlers as “ethnic cleansing,” comparing the settlers to Palestinian citizens of Israel. “From the Palestinian point of view, why do I have to take out Jews for peace? Do I have to take Arab citizens out of Israel for peace?” The comparison between Palestinian citizens of Israel and the illegal settlers is absurd. The Palestinians were there before Israel was created while the settlers were moved into the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights in breach of international law. Their removal would correct a wrong.

This is not the first time Netanyahu has used this analogy. In 2016 he was rebuked for using it by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and the Obama administration. The Obama administration described it as inappropriate: “We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful,” State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said. Perhaps Netanyahu feels that with Donald Trump in the White House, this approach will find favour.

Another term that needs adjusting according to Israel is refugee. The claim now is that Jews that migrated to Israel from Arab countries at its inception are refugees in the same way as Palestinian refugees deliberately driven out of Palestine in 1948 are regarded as refugees, despite the fact that they are not formally recognised as refugees by the UN.

In Netanyahu’s eyes, rather than Israel work towards meeting its obligations under international law for peace, he is attempting to create confusion and change the discourse to make ending the occupation and creating a sovereign Palestinian state a threat to Israel’s very survival. The two terms he is out to remould are now sovereignty and ethnic cleansing.

I wish he was using the brain power around him to pursue genuine peace with the Palestinians instead of thinking that the status quo and redefining a couple of terms will bring Israel peace or security.