Arab News Blog

The Cable | FOREIGN POLICY

“…The settlements issue is the most pressing item on the agenda, because the current moratorium is set to expire by the end of September. Without some new agreement on even a limited settlement freeze, analysts fear, the new talks could break down only weeks after they begin — dealing a perhaps mortal blow to President Obama’s Middle East ambitions.
Peled indicated that there was a deal to be worked out, and we’ve heard that a compromise is in the works that would expand exemptions for building in areas that are expected to fall on the Israeli side of the line after final borders are established.
But for now, the Israeli government is making clear that the settlement freeze in place, which the Palestinians have argued is not being strictly enforced, is not guaranteed to continue. Netanyahu is under pressure from members of his coalition to let the freeze expire.
“The latest moratorium that this government took about 10 months ago was a one-time gesture with the aim of jumpstarting the process,” Peled said….”

Go to Source

CNN/ here

Go to Source

Israel must go beyond easing its blockade of Gaza and throw open its border, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has said.
Go to Source

AP – The EU foreign policy chief launched a tour of Gaza Strip on Sunday by urging Israel to throw open the territory’s long-blockaded borders.

Go to Source

Israel confirms details of its new policy to allow more goods to enter the Gaza Strip with the easing of its blockade.
Go to Source

Here are a few responses that buttress my earlier post about what’s important in the flotilla crisis. They emphasize the need to end the Quartet-backed blockade of Gaza. For the last 24 hours, Israel has putting forward the argument that the blockade stops rockets from reaching Gaza. This is a ridiculous and patently untrue argument. As countless NGOs and the UN have shown, Israel is engaging in a policy of deliberately withholding construction materials and basic necessities in what one senior official under the previous Israeli government described as a policy of “putting the Palestinians on a diet” back in 2006:

Israel’s policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. ‘The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,’ he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.

This is a policy of collective punishment, it is what the flotilla was fighting against, and what must end.

? International Crisis Group - link to Norman Finkelstein’s site, for some reason it’s not their main site. ICG (whom I worked for 2007-2009) has had a good line on Gaza, and this is emphasized here: 

Brussels/Washington/Jerusalem, 31 May 2010: The International Crisis Group condemns Israel’s assault on a flotilla of humanitarian aid bound for Gaza, which resulted in a tragic loss of life.

At the same time, the incident is an indictment of a much broader policy toward Gaza for which Israel does not bear sole responsibility.

For years, many in the international community have been complicit in a policy that aimed at isolating Gaza in the hope of weakening Hamas. This policy is morally appalling and politically self-defeating. It has harmed the people of Gaza without loosening Hamas’s control. Yet it has persisted regardless of evident failure.

“The flotilla assault is but a symptom of an approach that has been implicitly endorsed by many”, says Robert Malley, Director of Crisis Group’s Middle East Program. “It is yet another stark illustration of the belated need for a comprehensive change in policy toward Gaza.”

? The Guardian’s editorial ended along the same lines:

The blockade should end, but that will only be the start of the U-turn which is now required. Closely allied to Gaza’s physical isolation is its political one. The international consensus is also crumbling on isolating Hamas by insisting it recognise Israel before it is allowed to join a national unity government with Fatah. Russia broke the taboo first two week ago when its president, Dmitry Medvedev, met Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader in Damascus, but other countries in Europe are now planning to follow suit. Brick by brick, this policy is coming apart, and in a strange way Israel is helping.

? William Hague, UK Foreign Secretary – I’m surprised with this one, it’s excellent! Better than anything Labour would have said.

This news underlines the need to lift the restrictions on access to Gaza, in line with UNSCR 1860. The closure is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis.

I call on the Government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians .”

? On the Arab front, Syria has called for an emergency meeting of the Arab League (there will be a press conference tonight). Kuwait’s parliament has voted to rescind its endorsement of the Arab Initiative. Qatar was the first Arab state to condemn the flotilla murders, perhaps they came so soon after an Israeli cabinet minister was in Doha. And Egypt is reopening the Rafah border:

(Reuters) – Egypt opened its border with the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, letting Palestinians cross until further notice amid a storm of international criticism of Israel’s blockade of the enclave, officials in Egypt and Gaza said.

It’s not clear exactly what will happen, but at a minimum humanitarian aid should be allowed in directly through Rafah without going through the Kerem Shalom or Karni crossings controlled by Israel.

? Last but certainly not least, my friend Ethan Heitner — a cartoonist dedicated activist for justice in Israel/Palestine — has produced a comic strip leaflet calling for attendance at US protests:

Do check out his new comic blog, Freedom Funnies.

Go to Source

Zakaria/ here

Go to Source

Hi everyone — I am almost, but not quite, dug out of the hole in which I’ve been buried for the last month or so. Over the last two days I hosted the inaugural conference for a the Project on Middle East Political Science, a major new initiative I’m directing aimed at building the professional, public and policy impact of academic political scientists specializing in the Middle East.  We had 25 political scientists from all over the country, along with several current and former top policy officials talking about the state of the field.  I’ll have much more to say about this soon.   POMEPS is also hosting a book launch event this afternoon at 4:00 for Thomas Hegghammer, of Jihadica fame, who will be discussing his newly published book Jihad in Arabia – come join us at 4:00 at the Elliott School for Hegghammer, wine and cookies! 

In the meantime, I wanted to let those of you who are interested know that I have the lead article in the new issue of Studies in Conflict and Terrorism:  "Islam Divided Between Salafi-Jihad and the Ikhwan."  From the abstract:

The Muslim Brotherhood poses a unique challenge to efforts to combat Al
Qaeda and like-minded groups. It is one of the key sources of Islamist
thought and political activism, and plays a significant role in shaping
the political and cultural environment in an Islamist direction. At the
same time, it opposes Al Qaeda for ideological, organizational, and
political reasons and represents one of the major challenges to the
salafi-jihadist movement globally. This dual nature of the Muslim
Brotherhood has long posed a difficult challenge to efforts to combat
violent extremism. Does its non-violent Islamism represent a solution,
by capturing Islamists within a relatively moderate organization and
stopping their further radicalization (a “firewall”), or is it part of
the problem, a “conveyor belt” towards extremism? This article surveys
the differences between the two approaches, including their views of an
Islamic state, democracy, violence, and takfir, and the significant
escalation of those tensions in recent years. It concludes that the MB
should be allowed to wage its battles against extremist challengers,
but should not be misunderstood as a liberal organization or supported
in a short-term convergence of interests. 

The full article is behind a paywall, and I can’t post it for copyright reasons but if you’re not a subscriber and you want to read it then drop me an email I may be able to help you out.  

Go to Source

Noam Chomsky drives a lot of people crazy. Sometimes, he drives me a little crazy. Some of his critiques of US foreign policy seem cogent; others seem ideological, intemperate, or just plain extreme.

He’s a well-known (Jewish) critic of Israel. There’s a flap going on at the moment because Israeli border guards prevented him from crossing into the West Bank at the Allenby Bridge, to speak at Birzeit University near Ramallah. More here, including Chomsky’s assertion Israel behaved like a “Stalinist” regime.

I have real mixed emotions on this one since I gather Chomsky can be really infuriating to those who have to deal directly with him, but I also think turning back a dovish intellectual of Chomsky’s stature makes Israel look like it’s 1) unable to abide criticism, or at least let Arabs hear it; 2) way to sensitive about Western critics, especially Jewish lones; and/or either trying to alienate external observers (not impossible), or just plain ignore new celestial developments.

My attitude towards Chomsky has to be the Voltairian “I disagree with what you say but I will defend tl the death your right to say it,” combined with a certain Schandenfreude.

Go to Source

Veteran Yemen specialist Sheila Carapico has a piece today on Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel criticizing the focus of US policy toward Yemen almost entirely on counterterrorism. Read it all, but here’s a sample:

A policy dictated by the punctuated, unpredictable rhythm of terrorism is not likely to create a long-term, stable Yemen that aligns with U.S. interests or values. The United States has not been a patron of Yemeni democratization. Nor has it been a major donor of socioeconomic or humanitarian aid to combat grinding poverty or catastrophic ecological degradation. To the contrary, America has turned a blind eye to both human rights and human needs. The current policy of ignoring acute social, economic, and political problems while bolstering special operations forces, offering satellite surveillance, and rationalizing extrajudicial executions might possibly net a few terrorist suspects but will not stabilize the country, encourage the democratic opposition, or advance the rule of law.

Go to Source