David abrahams – Blog

Congratulations to the Palestine national football team who last night played their first ever match on home soil. 17,000 crammed into the stadium in Ramallah to see their side take on Thailand in the second leg of an Olympic qualifier. Given the opposition I suppose you could call it a classic cup-thai!

1-0 down from the away leg, Palestine gained a one goal victory, levelling the tie. That set up a penalty shoot-out which Thailand won 6-5, making it a bitter sweet occasion for the Palestinian supporters on an emotional night for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0l_GZhkE3s

In my home town of Newcastle, research has shown that when Newcastle Utd do well, productivity goes up. The success of the Palestinian economy in the West Bank has been a rare good news story to emerge from the Middle East. I hope that with a national football team to rally around and boost local pride, that trend will continue.

President Barack Obama has already aroused much controversy during his short term in office so far. Be it the health reform, the struggle against the economic crisis or him being the first black president, each action and every saying is being scrutinized, analyzed and criticized.

However, I think many will agree that President Obama is prominent in “brave politics”, previously uncommon in the American political system. Indeed, Obama is much less fond of the “double talk” that characterizes many politicians; he says what he believes in without embellishment. At the same time, Obama is a pragmatic politician. He does not subject realpolitik to the demands of religious faith or to the quest for vague geopolitical targets, as his predecessors have done. Moreover, Obama does not hesitate to take off the kid gloves when discussing controversial issues, such as Israel building in the West Bank settlements.

In this context, Obama’s brilliant speech at the 9/11 Pentagon Memorial exemplifies his unique blend of practice and idealism. In my opinion, the key moment of this speech was Obama’s clear cut declaration that America is not at war with Islam, and it will never be.

Due to pure ignorance, people blend together Islam, Muslims and terror. President Obama creates a distinction between religion and extremism, placing the American values of liberty and freedom of religion for all against violent pseudo-Muslim terror.

These political patterns tell us that President Obama is a visionary leader: he makes efforts to actively shape America’s future according to its own interests, while building coalitions with other countries. First, he conciliates with the Muslim world (both Arab and non-Arab), probably in order to gain the support of Muslim countries for his Sisyphean effort to push the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians up the hill. Second, Obama tries to isolate terror, by pointing out the fact that terrorists kill many of their Muslim “brethren”. And last, Obama delivers a message of tolerance to the American people.

It is often said that leaders have a significant role in creating the state of mind that is society. President Obama bears huge responsibility in trying to reshape the American society by presenting Islam in a more positive light; and he does it while knowingly risking his public image and political might. Let us hope he will succeed, and act to make him succeed.

In seeking to resume peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the US & the international community are ignoring two obvious facts: first, that the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad may not be able to deliver and, second, that Hamas remains a major player in the Palestinian political arena.

The Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip now know that Abbas and his ruling Fatah faction are no longer the sole players able to implement a peace agreement with Israel. Abbas and Fatah lost the Gaza Strip elections, and as such have lost direct control over nearly 1.5 million Palestinians living in the area. Their credibility may have also been damaged by their close alliance with the US, and ongoing attempts to overthrow the Hamas regime. Many Palestinians, protective of their democratically elected government, are distrustful of Fatah’s affiliation with international agendas. For all these reasons, it should be quite obvious to decision-makers around the world, that Abbas cannot be the sole addressee for negotiations.

We can no longer ignore the fact that Hamas remains a major player in the Palestinian political arena, whether we like it or not. In ignoring Hamas, are we actually burying our heads in the sand? It may be an illusion to expect Hamas to become a pro-Zionist movement, but some positive changes have occurred within the organisation over the past five years. In 1996,  the movement boycotted the first parliamentary election, condemning participants as traitors, as the vote was held under the umbrella of the Oslo Accords, which envisaged the idea of a two-state solution. However, their readiness to run in the January 2006 parliamentary election has been interpreted by some as acceptance of the two-state solution. Hence, instead of seeking to bring down Hamas, should the international community be looking for ways to engage the movement? Boycotting Hamas has proved to be a failed policy.

It is possible for the Quartet to create a framework for Gaza to flourish like the West Bank through wielding a panoply of soft powered tools which according to Barak Seener, Middle East Director of the Henry Jackson Society, can lead to a heightening of liberal ideals that in the future can advance conflict resolution.

Such measures can include students participating in exchange programmes from Gaza to the UK where they will be exposed to Western liberal ideals in university courses. These students will export back to Gaza Western ideals that will threaten radicals.

Furthermore, an independent judiciary, which is an indication of an empowered civil society can help break the surge of fundamentalism and radicalism that can be seen in Gaza and the region at large. Relying solely upon aid is inadequate as it should be used to complement forces of liberalisation. Adopting a posture of conflict management as opposed to conflict resolution can create spaces in society which will in the future be conducive to creating a moderate base that will be increasingly willing to reconcile with their Israeli counterparts. Creating such spaces empowers moderates and undercuts radicals. These spaces entail a decentralised economy which has the effect of protecting individuals and promoting an increase of industries in the financial sector. In turn an independent judiciary which is a key component of civil-society, is needed to formulate legislation and monitor its implementation while devolving power from the central government which in Gaza is occupied by radicals. EU states can facilitate the growth of civil-society in Gaza by linking with it. This can include Trade Unions joining with their Palestinian counterparts. An example of how this can promote moderation is through advancing the concept of workers’ rights. When conscious of their rights, Palestinian workers will not be that willing to risk their lives to dig underground tunnels across the border with Egypt which are used to smuggle weapons and other illegal materials.

More broadly, merely focusing upon the framework of the conflict through a mechanism of ‘management’ will create a shift in the strategic environment in which the conflict plays out. As civil-society would be empowered, Gaza would be exposed to the forces of globalisation which will bring it closer to the West and diminish the influence that both internal and external radicals currently enjoy. Merely the changed cultural perspectives will lead to a more Westernised context in which both sides can resolve their differences. Empowering the people of Gaza will create openings to achieve political change. This will take a generation to achieve with sustained activities on the part of the West.

Israel was recently excluded from joint air force exercises in Turkish airspace causing in turn for the U.S. to back out of it too. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called Ankara’s step “a blow to NATO, European and American interests.” The U.S. is increasingly concerned that strained relations between Ankara and Jerusalem threaten American interests in the region. Tensions between the two states may hinder U.S. efforts to create an international alliance to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Turkey however is withdrawing from the West’s sphere of influence into Syria and Iran’s orbit. This explains Turkey’s stance towards Israel.

The day the joint exercise was due to start, Turkey signed a civil and defence co-operation deal with Syria, which included an agreement to abolish mutual entry visa requirements. Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi has praised Turkey’s decision to exclude Israel from the Anatolian Eagle joint military exercise, which was scheduled to be held last week. Foreign affairs analyst Soli Ozel stated, “Turkey’s influence in the region is expanding rapidly and it no longer feels it needs Israel as much as it did in the past.” Turkey’s tilt away from the West is reflected in its rapid growth of trade to the Arab world. Turkey’s total trade with the Middle East and North Africa has grown from 11.4 per cent of total volume in 2002 to 16.2 per cent today. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently flew to Baghdad to sign more than 40 memorandums of understanding, including one to export Iraqi natural gas to Turkey. Suat Kiniklioglu, deputy chairman of external affairs for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) noted that, “At an international conference in Sharm el-Sheikh this September, a number of countries, including Turkey, pledged sizeable donations” for the reconstruction of Gaza.

Turkey and Israel had previously been united by their mutual mistrust of Iran and Syria, which sheltered Kurdish rebels until 1998. To that end, Israel had provided Turkey with intelligence and software in its war against Kurdish separatism. This strong association had been downgraded during Israel’s military Operation Cast Lead against Hamas earlier this year in Gaza when Turkey harshly condemned Israel. It was thought that the AKP which is an Islamic led party was the reason for Turkey’s reorientation towards the Islamic world. In the aftermath of the cancellation of military exercises Turkey’s state-run television channel, TRT, screened the first episode of a new series, Separation. Set in the Gaza Strip the programme was replete with graphic scenes of Israeli soldiers shooting children and newborn babies dead. Kadri Gursel, a columnist has noted has that Turkish-Israeli relations would have been slowly downgraded even if a secular-minded government was in power in Ankara. “The difference is that the AKP, for ideological reasons, has pushed through that change more brutally.”

The tripartite meeting that took place between US President Barack Obama, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is an example of constructive flexibility on the part of all sides involved. This is an essential attitude and prerequisite for negotiations to be conducted.

The Obama administration shifted from a previous hardened position of Israel having to freeze all settlements before negotiations were to be conducted between Israel and the Palestinians. American officials intended to stop not just residential building for Israelis in the West Bank but even in eastern Jerusalem, a territorial legally part of Israel for nearly 30 years.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched the initiative on May 27, announcing that the president of the United States “wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions,” adding for good measure, “And we intend to press that point.”  On June 4, Obama added: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements…. It is time for these settlements to stop.” A day later, he reiterated that “settlements are an impediment to peace.” On June 17, Hilary Clinton repeated: “We want to see a stop to the settlements.”

This in turn hardened the position of the Palestinians that they were unwilling to talk with the Israelis unless Israel was to freeze settlement growth. Abbas responded by saying, “The Americans are the leaders of the world…. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements.” This was not previously the stance of the Palestinians who had never made negotiations that they had held with the Israelis contingent upon the cessation of settlement growth.

The Israelis in turn had also significantly slowed construction activities in settlements and are considering future steps of curbing settlement growth. Thus prompting President Obama to declare that Israel, “has discussed important steps to restrain settlement activity.” Jonathan Freedland has commented in the Guardian, that “Obama’s friends worry that he has (in the past) lost face in a region where face matters.” For this reason this flexibility on all sides is a coup for the Obama administration enabling the U.S. to regain its stature in the Middle East.

Abbas should be commended for his continued flexibility as the Palestinian Authority agreed in Geneva in the beginning of October to defer a vote in the United Nations Human Rights Council on a resolution that would have condemned Israel’s failure to cooperate with a U.N. war crimes investigation led by South African jurist Richard Goldstone. The vote in the United Nations Human Rights Council would also have forwarded the Goldstone report to the UN Security Council. This has placed Abbas under considerable pressure from Hamas of letting down his people by being subjected to U.S. pressure and averting pressure that would be placed on Israel for its military offensive in Gaza. This may even impact upon Fatah’s electoral prospects negatively.

Furthermore, heightened engagement on the part of the Obama administration to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict enables the U.S. to more effectively put together a coalition of the international community that will effectively counter the Iranian threat. Currently European states as well as Arab states are united in their realization of the nature of the nuclear threat that Iran poses. Continued flexibility on the part of all the parties involved will lead to Obama’s vision that was expressed in the UN General Assembly, “two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

I was happy to read the other day that President Obama has finally taken the reigns in the faltering carriage of the peace process in the Middle East. Obama decided to take advantage of the coming UN General Assembly that will take place in New York late September, in order to coordinate a tripartite meeting with Netanyahu and Abu Mazen (both will attend the UN Assembly). Maybe by putting those two rivals in one room, until white smoke is seen, Obama will achieve a breakthrough.

 
I am a strong believer in dialogue in the Middle East, and I think one should talk first and foremost with one’s bitter rivals. Being a peace activist, I have followed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for quite a while. In recent years, I was very sorry to see how both sides are entrenched in their positions, refusing to talk with the other side. Alas, they even fail to reach a dialogue with their own inner opposition – Netanyahu with the extremists among the settlers, Abu Mazen with Hamas.

 
I recall a beautiful allegory originally said in the context of Northern Ireland: let’s suppose that you live in a room, and in the same room there is a cage with a lion caged in it. Now, let’s suppose that in two weeks time, the cage door is going to be opened. Well, don’t you think it’s time to start talking with the lion?

 
If we ignore the problems, they do not disappear; on the contrary, they grow more complex. Both Netanyahu and Abu Mazen are indeed brave leaders, but they have not yet walked the extra mile. Netanyahu did not freeze settlements or free Palestinian prisoners, nor has he recognized the Palestinian tragedy at 1948. Abu Mazen has not given up the idea of “Right of Return”.

 
Maybe now, with an American leader that puts cold interests prior to fierce ideology or religious belief (as Bush did), the stalemate will be broken.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, following the Palestinian Conference, expressed his objection to future evacuation of Israeli settlements. Referring to the fourth anniversary of the unilateral disengagement from Gaza Strip, Netanyahu described the disengagement as a “mistake”, and made it clear that Israel is interested in a bilateral agreement with the Palestinians.  At the same time, other senior Ministers including Defense Minister Ehud Barak fiercely attacked the rhetoric and the anti-Israeli statements spread by the Palestinian leaders at the Fatah Sixth Congress in Bethlehem.

In his speech to the Palestinian Conference delegates, Abu Mazen resented the moderate Fatah political platform, which stresses peace as the relevant strategic option for Palestinians whilst simultaneously reserving the rights to armed struggle. Moreover, the delegates approved the political platform which contains blurred and not unequivocal references to some of the core issues of the Palestinian struggle mainly by mentioning the ‘Right of Return’ which has always been a sticking point in negotiations. The delegates also accused Israel of assassinating Arafat (View my previous post).

The core problem is the unwillingness of each side to better understand the other side’s motives and fears; the Palestinians and Israelis create a fantasy of an imaginary peace partner. Many amongst Israeli political leaders conceive Israel as a European “enclave” in “Levantine” surroundings, besieged by hostile, homogenous Arab states. This concept has been expressed by many Israeli leaders, and it reflects a historic Jewish consciousness of external threats combined with a lack of real understanding of Israel’s immediate geo-political neighbourhood, Israel feels that as a country with a unique blend of military power drenched in existential fear. When Ehud Barak served as PM in 2006, he compared Israel to a “villa in the jungle”. The subtext is clear: as long as the Middle East in general and the Palestinians in particular are the “jungle” – that is wild, untamed, and unruly – there is no reason for the inhabitants of the “villa” to open up the gates.

The Palestinians, on their side dream of Israeli governments that will be just happy to evacuate all settlements and give up Jerusalem. Moreover, many Palestinian leaders still cling to the “Right of Return”, an idea which Israel consider to be socially unreasonable as they see the lion’s share of the Palestinian Diaspora was born after 1948.

This distorted perception of reality leads, eventually, to unavoidable disappointments that create a dialogue of two deaf political entities.

I think it is high time that both sides begin “reading between the lines”, that is: to listen carefully not only to the rhetoric, but also to the content; to understand the specific political contexts of the statements that are made; to analyze speeches; and most importantly – to pay attention to what kinds of things were not said or done, especially when the contrary was anticipated.
Only by doing so – by listening without prejudice – will both sides be able to hear mutual motives, fears and aspirations.

The cause of death of the Yasser Arafat is once again on the Middle East radar. Ever since he died on 11th November 2004 in Paris, there have been accusations that Israel killed Arafat. Another claim was that Arafat died from AIDS. Only recently, the news network Al-Jazeera added on another (sub) theory, accusing the Palestinian Authority Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), of helping Israel to kill Arafat. Having visited Arafat 9 months before he died, I think I have my own insight about these theories and their so-called claims.

So what is the basis for each theory?

- Israel poisoned Arafat: according to this theory, Israel carried out the assassination of Arafat by means of poisoning his food or his medicine. The poisoning was carried out with the approval of the US and with the help of French doctors who concealed the truth, since they believed this was safer to ensure some stability between Israel and the Palestinians. The main advocate of this theory is Arafat’s former political advisor, Bassam Abu Sharif. Abu Sharif claimed in an interview to the Palestinian TV that 2 years prior to Arafat’s death, he was tipped about a conversation between Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Prime Minister and Shaul Mofaz, then Israeli Chief of Staff, in which Sharon approved a “clean” assassination of Arafat. Needless to say, other supporters of this theory involve the Mossad as well.
- Abu Mazen assisted Israel: This is a secondary theory to the assassination theory. This new theory has recently re-ignited the argument when it was presented by Farouk Kaddoumi, formally a Fatah and PLO senior official and in practice a fierce opponent of Abu Mazen. Kaddoumi claimed in a press conference in mid-July that Abu Mazen and Mohammed Dahlan, Fatah leader in Gaza Strip, took part in a 2004 meeting with Ariel Sharon and American officials in which the assassination of Arafat was discussed.
- Arafat died of AIDS:  this theory was presented in 2007 by Ahmed Jibril, a senior PLO figure and the founder & head of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Jibril referred to a French medical report which allegedly reported AIDS as Arafat’s cause of death.

As mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to visit Yasser Arafat 9 months before he died. He was in deteriorating health but he was still strong mentally. On top of a table behind his chair was an oxygen machine, which was removed from the official photo we were given after the visit. We were not allowed to take our own photographs during the visit since the oxygen machine would have been in view. He confided in me how every afternoon he went downstairs to his premises in the basement for some rest to regain his strength and enable him to carry on. It was obvious he was ill, with a frail frame and gaunt face.

The memory of that meeting resurfaced due to the recent debate, as if Arafat’s death could be compared to the open-ended JFK assassination.
On the one hand, some of the main actors refuse to reveal their cards, a situation that easily triggers conspiracy theories. The known examples are the refusal of the French intelligence to reveal Arafat’s medical report, and the refusal of his widow, Suha, for an autopsy shortly after his death.
On the other hand, we must remember that the deceased was a 75-year old sick man, who spent his last years besieged in his Ramallah headquarters, placed under great political and military pressures. And, contrary to JFK, he was not shot from a distance but died in a hospital bed surrounded by excellent physicians.

Moreover, we must understand the creation of these theories in the right political context. Arafat’s public figure was never perceived as a religious-immortal one, unlike the Dalai Lama. Nor was he perceived as a Palestinian version of North Korea’s Kim Il Sung “eternal president”. Nevertheless, because Arafat never nourished political inheritors, his death caused a huge political and emotional void in the minds and hearts of the Palestinian people. This psychological shock, along with his history of surviving assassination attempts and other accidents, has made the simple possibility of natural death indigestible. As of the other theories, we must remember that they were distributed by fierce political rivals of Arafat and Abu Mazen. Jibril may have hinted to the ongoing rumours regarding Arafat’s homosexuality, thus slandering Arafat’s image. Kaddoumi uses the new allegations as a weapon in his battle with Abu Mazen on the leadership of the Palestinian political systems.

Indeed, it is time that the truth about Arafat’s death would be revealed. Being an important political and public figure in his life, his death cannot be hidden from the public eye. Nevertheless, I think it is high time that the Palestinian political leadership should focus on present challenges and future opportunities than on past occurrences.

For there to be peace inside and along the borders of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has to negotiate one or more peace deals with Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian authority. The courting of Syria by the West is on track, and a deal with them will provide momentum towards a deal with the Palestinians.

The Syria peace deal does not need to be done until the Palestinians are ready to talk peace. And until the turmoil in Tehran is resolved, it will not become clear to the leadership of Hamas whether Iran will let them negotiate at all. For, by contrast to the courting of Syria, the west attempts to court Hamas have been disastrous.

When secret “Proximity” talks took place in London recently between western intelligence officials, Israelis and advisers to the Hamas Prime Minister Haniyya, President Abbas condemned the talks (worried that Hamas was outmanouevering Fatah). But the talks made no progress not because of anything said by Abbas, but because of the influence of Tehran over the leadership of Hamas.

Since the West’s attempt to court Hamas, one of Hamas’ lead in the talks, Dr. Yusuf, has been deposed of his position as advisor to PM Haniyya and moved to a marginal position in the foreign ministry. His colleague and partner Gazi Hamad was deposed as Haniyya’s spokesman and moved to the position of the closed Rafah crossing station. The forces in Hamas that do not want a dialogue with the West are stronger than the proponents of this dialogue.

The reason they do not want a dialogue is because they are propped up by Tehran, which has its own agenda – to build a nuclear bomb. To achieve this, Tehran needs to deter Israel from launching a unilateral attack on their nuclear facilities, and they need Gaza as part of that deterrence. Any Western influence in Gaza will detach Hamas from playing a part in Iran’s deterrence wall. The message Tehran is trying to send is, If Israel attacks Iran, then Israel can expect retaliation from Gaza and Lebanon.

Any leadership that emerges in Tehran in the next few weeks – be that the weakened old guard or the reformists – will persist with this message and with strategy to use people living in Gaza as pawns in Iran’s attempts to become a nuclear power. Talking to Hamas is not enough to bring about peace for Israel because they will only act on Tehran’s orders.

If weakened President Ahmedinejad stays in power, the prospects for peace look bleak. He does not want to engage with the West, and we would have to look to Russia – and the lead negotiator for the quartet, Mr. tony Blair – to try to broker a deal.

As President Obama said, “The world is watching”. This year’s events in Tehran will determine the peace prospects across the Middle east for a generation.