This is victory

By Tariq Alhomayed

Hamas chief Khalid Mishal has said that the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state by the United Nations [UN] achieved by President Mahmoud Abbas should be seen alongside the eight day war in Gaza, as if both of these things are part of a single bold strategy that could empower the Palestinians in their struggle with Israel. However this is completely untrue.

The Palestinian President secured the recognition of Palestine as an observer state at the UN; the 194th state to join the international body. This is the true victory for the Palestinian Cause that has preoccupied us over long decades, rather than what happened in Gaza. Today, the Palestinians have taken an important step in the quest towards the dreamed for state. The world has recognized the Palestinians’ state, and this is an important recognition, even if it is only symbolic. This recognition demonstrates the extent of the international sympathy towards the Palestinians right for a state of their own, which can be seen in the 138 yes votes, in comparison to just 9 no votes, particularly as the states that voted no are affiliated to America and Israel, and have no importance. In addition to this, 41 states abstained from the vote, whilst these abstentions also represented a victory because this did not hinder the recognition of a Palestinian state. In fact, these states abstained from the vote in order to protect their own political interests, particularly with regards to Israel and the US.

The Palestinian President was victorious at the UN despite everything that US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said. Her speech before this international body was one of the worst speeches that she has ever given, as was the Israeli speech. Rice said that the Palestinians will wake up tomorrow morning and not see any tangible change in their lives, however this is not because the UN recognition of a Palestinian state did not bring them anything, but rather because of the Israeli intransigence in the peace process, and Washington’s support for this approach.

What the Palestinians achieved, politically, is a great success, for the recognition of a Palestinian state, based on the 4 June 1967 borders, means that negotiations with Israel will no longer include this issue. This means that a very important card has been resolved regarding the negotiation file. Whilst the recognition of a Palestinian state also represents an important step in the journey towards the dreamed for state; the Palestinians are also now present within the corridors of the UN in an official capacity, rather than via mediators, as was the case in the past.

When we say that what happened at the UN was a victory, rather than what happened in Gaza, this is for a very simple reason, and was summed up by a high-level Arab diplomat, who said “the Gaza war was a tactical step that serves an unclear and indeed failed strategy, whilst what happened at the UN was a strategic move to serve the greater goal which is to establish the Palestinian state, that is why it is a great victory.”

What Hamas is doing in Gaza, which it claims is a “victory”, is to seek a 30-year truce, whilst what Abbas did at the UN was to establish a Palestinian state, and the first step towards this is securing international recognition, which is indeed what was achieved. Therefore, this is the true victory, rather than what Hamas did and continues to do in Gaza. If Mishal, and others in Hamas, want to establish the dreamed for state, then the most important thing that they can do is implement inter-Palestinian reconciliation, without equivocation, as well as move away from serving Iranian objectives and endangering Gaza with pointless wars. What we must recall here is that Abbas secured recognition of the Palestinian state from the international community, whilst all Mishal is interested in is securing recognition for Hamas and himself, and there is a very big difference between the two, and that is the whole story.

About the author: Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, the youngest person to be appointed that position. Mr. Alhomayed has an acclaimed and distinguished career as a Journalist and has held many key positions in the field including; Assistant Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, Managing Editor of Asharq Al-Awsat in Saudi Arabia, Head of Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper's Bureau-Jeddah, Correspondent for Al - Madina Newspaper in Washington D.C. from 1998 to Aug 2000. Mr. Alhomyed has been a guest analyst and commentator on numerous news and current affair programs including: the BBC, German TV, Al Arabiya, Al- Hurra, LBC and the acclaimed Imad Live’s four-part series on terrorism and reformation in Saudi Arabia. He is also the first Journalist to conduct an interview with Osama Bin Ladin's Mother. Mr. Alhomayed holds a BA degree in Media studies from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, and has also completed his Introductory courses towards a Master’s degree from George Washington University in Washington D.C. He is based in London.

Like it or not, the state of Palestine is semi-officially on the map

Nearly unanimous support for Abbas’s UN bid shows that even some of Israel’s closest allies blame the Netanyahu government for the impasse in the peace process

BY RAPHAEL AHREN

On Thursday night, the world made much more than just a symbolic gesture. In recognizing Palestine as a nonmember observer state at the UN General Assembly — the same status as The Vatican — disregarding Israeli and American warnings that such a step was premature and would impede the resumption of peace talks, the overwhelming majority of nations sent an unambiguous message to Jerusalem: We want a Palestinian state and we’re tired of your obstinacy in preventing it.

Sixty-five years after the United Nations decided to divide British Mandate Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, and nearly 20 years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, even many of Israel’s friends and allies have grown tired of what they perceive as the government’s lack of initiative and good intentions when it comes to the future of this region. If you want us to say no to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s initiative, then offer us something that we can say yes to, Western diplomats are saying.

Officially, the Israeli government supports Palestinian statehood.

“Israel is prepared to live in peace with a Palestinian state,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday before the vote at the UN General Assembly, “but for peace to endure, Israel’s security must be protected.” The Palestinians must first recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and since this is not mentioned in the resolution, we cannot accept it, he said. “The only way to achieve peace is through agreements that are reached by the parties directly… and not through UN resolutions that completely ignore Israel’s vital security and national interests.”

Addressing the delegates to the General Assembly directly, Netanyahu said: “No decision by the UN can break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel.”

But Netanyahu misses the point when he implies that all countries that voted against his recommendation did so because they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is true for large parts of the Arab world, of course, but the West merely wants to see Israel living in peace next to a Palestinian state, and many countries don’t understand why it’s taking so long.

By defying Israel and the US, the Western capitals that agreed to “accord to Palestine Non-member Observer State status in the United Nations,” expressed their frustration with the lack of progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They no longer find it justified to be paying lip service to a two-state solution but then voting against a Palestinian state, just because Israel and the US are asking them to do so.

The Europeans are not stupid. They are painfully aware that the Palestinians’ status upgrade will change very little on the ground, at least not immediately.

“Only a political solution to the conflict can bring lasting security, peace and prosperity to Palestinians and Israelis,” European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Thursday. The foreign ministers in Paris, London, Berlin and elsewhere likewise said that nonmember state status for Palestine does not end the conflict. But by delivering a collective slap in the face, they hope to get the powers-that-be in Jerusalem to understand that they expect serious moves toward a peace agreement — or else.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague, for example, said he asked the Palestinians not to go ahead with the statehood bid as it is “divisive” and could endanger the future of the peace process. In explaining why the UK wouldn’t vote against the resolution, however, he said Wednesday that London was also “very critical” of Israel, especially for continued settlement construction and for failing to make a “generous enough offer to the Palestinians.”

Britain’s envoy to the UN made plain that Britain would have voted for the resolution, had it won assurances from Abbas that he would resume peace talks immediately and not seek to exploit the entry of “Palestine” to UN forums to harm Israel. But no such assurances were forthcoming.

The question of who’s at fault for the impasse in peace talks — so important to Israel — played a minor role in many nations’ decision to vote yes. They were sending a wake-up call to Jerusalem that time is running out for a two-state solution.

Israel may argue that Abbas failed to respond to former prime minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer to relinquish the entire West Bank — with one-for-one land swaps to enable Israel to retain major settlements — divide Jerusalem and even relinquish sovereignty in the Old City to international trusteeship. Israel may point out that it dismantled the entire settlement enterprise in Gaza and pulled out in 2005. Israel may assert that Abbas is not serious about peace, refuses to negotiate without preconditions, formally still insists on a “right of return” that would flood Israel with millions of Palestinians, and says nice things to Israelis in English but terrible things about Israel to his people and the Arab world in Arabic — notably including at the UN on Thursday.

Much of the international community registers some or all of this. But Israel, particularly under Netanyahu, is perceived to be the stronger party, the party with the responsibility to make a greater effort, and the party whose ongoing commitment to the settlement enterprise is gradually taking the ground away from under a Palestinian state.

Israeli officials are surely troubled by the nearly universal show of hands in favor of Palestine, yet they downplayed the Palestinians’ upgraded status. It is merely symbolic and nothing is going to change on the ground, they reiterated in the last few days (in stark contrast to several months during which Israel vigorously campaigned against the Abbas plan, threatening to cancel all previously made agreements).

What exactly will happen on the ground remains to be seen. Palestinians have indicated their readiness to turn to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to sue Israel for alleged war crimes.

‘Even pro-Israeli [governments] are very bitter about Israeli policies and don’t understand and don’t accept it. So this [resolution] is the result. There is a general belief that Israel is the one that prevents genuine negotiations’

But the fact remains that just nine countries sided with Israel, despite so many efforts and passionate arguments about why it was wrong to recognize a Palestinian nonmember state. This has been described as a “humiliating political defeat,” although Jerusalem doesn’t see it that way. “Of course we’re disappointed with certain countries, the UK for example,” a diplomatic official told The Times of Israel. ”But we’ll live with it.”

The Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry made a grave strategic mistake by even attempting to fight Abbas’s statehood gambit, the official admitted. “As if we could win or even get a draw,” he said. “Hey, this is the UN, where November 29 is officially the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People; where they pass anti-Israeli resolutions year in and year out, without anyone even looking at the text.”

True, every anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian initiative at the 193-member General Assembly will have an automatic majority. But the fact that the US, Canada, Palau, Micronesia and four others were the only states that voted with Israel against the resolution shows that even Israel’s friends are fed up with Jerusalem’s schizophrenic avowals to want a two-state solution but pursue policies that, as they see it, make it more difficult to implement one.

“Even pro-Israeli [governments] are very bitter about Israeli policies and don’t understand and don’t accept it. So this [resolution] is the result,” says Avi Primor, a former Israeli ambassador to Germany and the EU and president of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations. “There is a general belief that Israel is the one that prevents genuine negotiations.”

For example, Germany, usually one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the international arena, did not vote against the resolution because Jerusalem has not taken the necessary steps to advance the peace process, a senior German official, who took part in the discussions in Berlin, told Haaretz. “The Israelis,” this official said, “did not respond in any way to our request to make a gesture on settlements.”

If it weren’t for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal policy to “support Israel even if Israel is wrong,” Berlin would have voted in favor of the resolution, Primor said, basing his assessment on a long conversation he had last week with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

Many of Israel’s friends in Western capitals supported the Palestinian proposal because they truly believe that it’s the right step to take at this time, Primor added. “I don’t think they consider their vote anti-Israel. The way they see it, they vote in favor of the Palestinians, believing that this is also good for Israel.”

Palestinians wave their national flag during a rally in Ramallah on November 29 (photo credit: Issam Rimawi/Flash90)

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who is currently in New York but decided not to attend the vote, believes that the step is actually bad for both sides. Despite the celebrations in Ramallah after the vote was announced, the Palestinians “will end up being the greatest losers on the ground,” he said. “This process only enhances the dispute and pushes both sides further apart.”

One thing seems certain: The day after Thursday’s vote, the settlements will still be there; Israeli security forces will continue operating just as they did before; Hamas will still be running Gaza; and Abbas — partner or not — will still be in charge of the PA in the West Bank. The conflict will still be there, but something will have changed.

Until now, there was no such thing as “Palestine,” at least not for Israelis. People spoke about the Palestinian Authority, or the Palestinian territories, but rarely uttered the word “Palestine.”

Many in Israel will continue to refuse to refer to the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine, but Thursday’s vote made it clear that in the eyes of nearly the entire world, the state of Palestine is on the map, whether Israel likes it or not.

Iran is the elephant in the Middle East room

The elephant in the Middle East room is Iran. Stopping the Islamic Republic of Iran from reaching a nuclear capability is the most important issue facing the international community. If we fail to do so, the implication on many issues, from energy to stability in the region to terrorism and to nuclear proliferation, will be profoundly negative and dangerous.

On the other hand, if the U.S. and others succeed in preventing Iran from going nuclear, as President Obama has committed to, then a series of positive developments could flow. Included are a strengthened American image in the region, a tilt away from the Islamic extremists, and possibilities for progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front.

We see this in microcosm when we look at what has been in happening in Gaza.

It is impossible to understand what’s going on in Gaza and with Hamas without recognizing Iran’s role. It is hard to comprehend Israel’s reaction to Hamas without seeing the role of the looming threat to Iran. It is impossible to find a solution in Gaza without taking Iran into account. And it is critical that very soon the world must move its attention from Gaza to Iran itself as the clock toward an Iranian nuclear weapon keeps on ticking.

When Hamas began to take control in Gaza, many took comfort that at least it was a Sunni regime that unlike Hezbollah in Lebanon, would not draw too close to the Shiite Iranians.

It was false comfort. Iran has become the major supplier of weapons, increasingly sophisticated, flowing to Hamas. Iran provides full diplomatic support to Hamas. And Iran works to strengthen the Islamist Hamas against the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas.

The first necessity for the international community is to openly identify and expose Iran’s role in building up Hamas. The Palestinian terrorist group has now been able to launch missiles that can reach Tel Aviv and cause great damage simply because of Iran. Iran ships its Fajr-5 and many Grad missiles through Sudan and, in the words of the head of the Republican Guard, Major General Mohammad Ali Ja’afari, “we have given them (Hamas and others in Gaza) the necessary technology for the Fajr-5 and today mass quantities of this missile are being produced.”

And make no mistake about it: Iran is determined to up the ante, to increase both the weaponry and training for Hamas that will allow it to become the same level of threat to Israel from the south as Hezbollah is from the north.

Any solution to the threat of Hamas to Israel must provide a way to interdict that flow of arms from Iran. The cease-fire agreement reached through the good offices of the U.S. and Egypt and follow-up negotiations will focus primarily on what role Egypt will play to stop that arms flow. Based on past experience, even with a Mubarak regime that was far friendlier to Israel than the current Morsi government, stopping weaponry will at best be a sporadic business.

And so, inevitably, when it comes to truly reversing the dynamic in Gaza (Israel may have regained some deterrence and some reasonably quiet time, but it didn’t change the fundamentals) it is what takes place with regard to the Iranian bomb that could play the pivotal role.

First, as if we need it, the latest conflict in Gaza reminds us of what a priority it is to stop Iran from going nuclear. A resurgent Iran, after obtaining nuclear weapons, would undoubtedly multiply its destructive options manifold. Keep in mind the comments of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius about the Gaza conflict: “What’s new is that now there are long-range arms…and there are Iranian arms. Iranian responsibility is heavy in all of this.”

Second, preventing Iran from going nuclear, whether through diplomacy, sanctions or the military option, will embolden more moderate forces in the region to stand up to the extremists. Indeed, the balance of power within the Palestinian camp could shift toward the Palestinian Authority and away from Hamas.

All in all, it would make it less likely that Iran could see itself as the expansionist power arming its terror-prone allies and causing destruction everywhere.

So let’s keep things in perspective. Let’s encourage any agreement that in the short-term will stop the launching of rockets from Gaza into Israel.

If we truly want to change the dynamic in the long run, however, dealing with the main address -- Tehran -- is the way to go. That’s what “keeping your eyes on the prize” means in today’s Middle East.

Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

Look for signs of Iran in what is happening

21/11/2012

by Emad El Din Adeeb

Iran is playing the role of the saboteur in the Arab arena, exploiting issues of regional tension at the time of the Arab Spring revolutions. This is in order to heat up the region so as to disturb Tel Aviv and Washington, prompting them – at the end of the day – to accept negotiations with Tehran on Iranian terms.

This Iranian behavior, based on trading and bartering at times of crisis, is a fundamental philosophy of the Revolutionary Guards, who control the joints of the state in Tehran. The Iranian principle is based on the following simple premise:

“Stoke up a regional fire until the world complains of the flames, and then they will come to you with their calls to intervene. Here, and only here, can you barter with them and take what you want”. So, the Iranian merchant, who traditionally dealt in pistachio nuts, carpets and caviar, has now become adept at trading in crises.

The question that comes to mind is what crises will be exchanged for what Iranian demands?!

From the Iranian perspective, Tehran is searching for three main things:

1. Recognition of its right to nuclear capabilities, not to manufacture a nuclear bomb.

2. An end to the international trade and economic embargo on the Iranian state.

3. The re-integration and acceptance of Iran into the international community at all levels.

As for Israel and the US, they are trying, with all their might, to do the following:

1. To pressure the Iranian regime from the outside until it starts to erode from the inside.

2. To encourage an “Iranian Spring” to shake the authority of the supreme leader and the religious state, and to support the democratic and liberal forces there.

3. To reign in Iran’s territorial expansions in Lebanon and Gaza, Bahrain and Yemen.

As for the countries that are now bearing the brunt of Iran’s policies, they see Tehran as the new “Great Satan” which has ignited the fires of tension in the region. Some believe that Tehran is preparing to engulf the entire Arab region by heating up all its regional issues, closing down its oil straits, provoking small wars, increasing sectarian strife and providing extremist groups with money, weapons and training, in order to use all of this as a bargaining chip when it comes to negotiating with Washington.

We are just a trivial piece in the Iranian chess game, and it does not matter to Tehran if it inflames the entire region, destroys its economy, and puts everyone on the brink of a devastating war!