Tag: Israel
Peace picks, October 5-9
- Toward a “Reaganov” Russia: Assessing trends in Russian national security policy after Putin | Monday, October 5th | 10:00 – 11:30 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | During their recent speeches before the United Nations General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama traded strong words on issues from Ukraine to arms control to Syria. The exchange between the two presidents unfolded as questions about Russia’s long-term foreign policy ambitions and grand strategy return to the forefront of policy debate. To better understand what lies ahead in Russian foreign and security policy, analysts must explore variances between Russian strategic culture and the agenda put forward by President Putin. Disentangling these differences will be crucial for U.S. policy planning of the future. Brookings Senior Fellow Clifford Gaddy joins Michael O’Hanlon, author of “The Future of Land Warfare,” to discuss their research on the issue, focusing on five possible paradigms for the future of Russian grand strategy. Former ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, presently the director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at Brookings, will also participate in the panel.
- United States and China: Trends in Military Competition | Monday, October 5th | 12:00 – 1:00 | RAND Corporation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Over the past two decades, China has poured resources into upgrading its military. This modernization, coupled with China’s increasingly assertive position in the waters surrounding the mainland, has caused concern in Washington and capitals across Asia. Recently, a team of RAND researchers led by Eric Heginbotham released The U.S.-China Military Scorecard report. This study is the broadest and most rigorous assessment to date of relative U.S. and Chinese military capabilities based entirely on unclassified sources. Join us to discuss the evolution of Chinese military capabilities in specific domains (air and missile, maritime, space, cyber, and nuclear) and the overall trend in the regional military balance over time; how Chinese relative gains could affect the strategic decision-making of Chinese leaders; steps the United States can take to limit the impact of a growing Chinese military on deterrence and other U.S. strategic interests. Eric Heginbotham is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation specializing in East Asian security issues.
- Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East | Tuesday, October 6th | 10:00 – 11:30 | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join The Center for Transatlantic Relations in a discussion on nuclear Middle East. This discussion with feature Yair Evron, professor emeritus, Department of Political Science, Tel-Aviv University and senior research associate for the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel-Aviv. Additionally, Ambassador Robert E. Hunter, senior fellow for Center for Transatlantic Relations will participate in the discussion.
- The Pivotal Moment: How the Iran Deal Frames America’s Foreign Policy Choices | Tuesday, October 6th | 12:00 – 1:00 | The Heritage Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | At the core of the debate over the Iran deal are two distinct visions of what American foreign policy should be. In contrast to the politicized efforts to frame foreign affairs as a choice between isolationism, regime change, or some nebulous choice in between, the controversy over the efficacy of the Vienna Agreement represents the real difference between the alternatives being offered to the American people. This discussion aims to frame the distinctions between progressive and conservative foreign policy and the choice they represent for the nation as it considers what kind of statecraft to expect from the next administration. Speakers include: Colin Dueck, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and Kim Holmes, Distinguished fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
- Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators | Tuesday, October 6th | 1:00 | Institute of World Politics | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be the child of a Stalin or Hitler, a Mao or Castro, or Pol Pot? National Review’s Jay Nordlinger asked himself this. The result is Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators, an astonishing survey of the progeny of 20 dictators. Some were loyalists who admired their father. Some actually succeed as dictator. A few were critics, even defectors. What they have in common, Nordlinger shows, is the prison house of tainted privilege and the legacy of dubious deference.
- India and Pakistan: From Talks to Crisis and Back Again | Wednesday, October 8th | 8:30 – 10:00 | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The last few months have witnessed nascent efforts to restart high-level bilateral talks between Delhi and Islamabad dashed again by political maneuvering in both capitals. In addition, there has been an uptick in violence along the Line of Control in Kashmir and muscular signaling from both sides. Why has the latest effort between India and Pakistan to talk about the myriad issues between them fallen apart? What can we discern about the approach of Indian Prime Minister Modi toward Pakistan? How do civil-military politics in Pakistan inform its approach toward India? Are the two states doomed to a perpetual state of ‘not war, not peace,’ or is there hope for a way forward? Huma Yusuf , Wilson Center, and Aparna Pande, Hudson Institute, will discuss. Carnegie’s George Perkovich will moderate.
- What can Myanmar’s Elections tell us about Political Transitions? | Wednesday, October 7th | 9:30- 11:00 | Advancing Democratic Elections and Political Transitions consortium | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Elections are critical junctures in many transitions, providing clarity on whether a political transition is advancing or retreating – and Myanmar’s November 8, 2015 parliamentary elections promise to be such a watershed moment for the country’s potential democratic transition. Speakers Include: John Brandon, Senior Director at The Asia Foundation, Jennifer Whatley, Division Vice President, Civil Society & Governance at World Learning, Robert Herman, Vice President for Regional Programs at Freedom House, Jonathan Stonestreet, Associate Director of the Democracy Program at The Carter Center, Eric Bjornlund, President of Democracy International.
- A Saudi Arabian Defense Doctrine for a New Era | Thursday, October 8th | 10:00 – 11:30 | CSIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Saudi Arabia has in recent years consolidated its place as the preeminent Arab leader, regional stabilizer, and critical bulwark against terrorism and a nuclear Iran. The Kingdom’s growing security responsibilities require rapid and substantial military investments. Prince Sultan bin Khaled Al Faisal and Nawaf Obaid, visiting fellow and associate lecturer at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, will outline a comprehensive Saudi Arabian Defense Doctrine for a new era and explain why the Kingdom is likely to double down on defense and national security capabilities in the next decade.
- The EU Migration Crisis | Thursday, October 8th | 2:30 – 4:00 |Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Dean Vali Nasr and The Human Security Iniative of the Foreign Policy Insitute Invite you to a panel discussion on The EU Migration Crisis. Speakers include: Michel Gabaudan, president, Refugees International, Reka Szemerkeny, Ambassador, Hungary, Peter Wittig, Ambassador, Germany.
- Democracy Rebooted: The Future of Technology in Elections | Friday, October 9th | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As technology plays an increasingly dominant part of our lives, its role in elections has come under scrutiny. We are at a crucial moment to review the policies that influence elections and the technology we use to execute them. Why can we call a car, book a hotel, and pay bills on our phones, yet elections are often still implemented with pen and paper? Legitimacy, access, credibility, and trust are the issues that will require policymakers and technologists to carefully script the implementation of technology in our elections. Speakers include: Governor Jon Huntsman, Chairman Atlantic Council, Secretary Madeline Albright, David Rothkopf, CEO and Editor-in-Chief FP Group, Pat Merloe, Director, Electoral Programs, National Democratic Institute, Mark Malloch Brown, Former Deputy Secretary General, UN, Matthew Masterson, Commissioner, Electoral Assistance Commission, Tadjoudine Ali-Diabacte, Deputy Director, Electoral Assistance Division, UNDPA, Justice Jose Antonio Dias Toffolio, President, Supreme Electoral Court, Brazil, Manish Tewari, Former Minister of Information, India.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Palestine’s way forward
With Palestine’s flag now flying at UN headquarters, the Middle East Institute held a discussion last week of Palestinian Politics and Strategy in Challenging Times. The event featured Husam Zomlot, Ambassador at Large for Palestine, and moderator Matthew Duss, President of Foundation for Middle East Peace. While Palestine has recently been overshadowed by other hot topics like the Islamic State and the Iranian nuclear deal, Zomlot shed light on current Palestinian thinking and options for the US.
Zomlot described Palestine as in limbo. The 1988 Palestinian offer of a two-state solution failed to deliver results. It was misunderstood to be a starting point for further negotiation rather than a compromise solution in which the Palestinians were giving up most of their territorial claim. Thereafter the Oslo accords, institution-building from the ground up, and the “peace process” have all failed.
It is time, Zomlot suggested, to give up on the current process. Things have changed for both populations. Israel today is not the same Israel it was thirty years ago and should not be treated the same. Nor is Palestine the same. The two sides cannot resolve the situation on their own. The “peace process” as currently pursued is designed to prevent rather than reach a peaceful outcome. The US generally has the right goals, but cannot reach them unilaterally.
That said, where to now? Palestinian political unity is vital. It will enable Palestinians to demand their rights even before they have a state. But is also high time that the US recognize the Palestinian state and cooperate with an effort to impose a two-state solution through a UN Security Council resolution.
Matt Duss asked how the idea of fighting for rights rather than land fits into current Palestinian politics.
Zomlot responded that the notion that a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interest so that it can be both Jewish and democratic may not be true any longer. Current Israeli decision makers may want the West Bank and East Jerusalem more than they want to be democratic. A second false premise is that Israel has to create a Palestinian state so that it can be accepted as part of the region. But Israel doesn’t want to be part of the Middle East. It associates itself with Europe.
Zomlot suggested the Palestinians now have to reassert their own identity and demand their rights. They should not abandon the goal of a two-state solution, but should insist first on their rights. US recognition and cooperation in passage of a UN Security Council resolution imposing an outcome on the parties would be a big step forward.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Anti-Semitism in present-day Europe
CSIS hosted a panel Wednesday on “Understanding and Combating Anti-Semitism in Present-Day Europe” featuring Gilles Clavreul, the French inter-ministerial delegate for the Fight Against Racism and Anti-Semitism; Rabbi Andrew Baker, personal representative of the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Chairperson-in-Office for Combating Anti-Semitism; and Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent with The Atlantic. The panel was moderated by CSIS Vice President Europe Program, Heather Conley.
Clavreul and Baker highlighted the increase of anti-Semitism in recent years in public discourse, in political parties, and in minority groups. They are eager to push back and ensure Europe remains a safe and healthy environment for Jews. Goldberg had a more pessimistic outlook, believing that “there’s not much hope for the future of European Jewry.” Not only has it seen demographic decline, but Europe is now an inhospitable environment for Jews.
Clavreul highlighted that hate speech and hate-based acts have become more common in France since 2000. Jews are not the only target. The rest of Europe has also witnessed this increasing hate and xenophobia, which divide the national body politic and are antithetical to Republican values shared by a broader Atlantic community. Clavreul hopes to be able to mobilise all sectors of French society to combat hate.
Baker agreed, noting that people were slow to recognize resurgent anti-Semitism for what it was. Jewish anxieties have been growing, and recent anti-Semitic attacks across Europe have driven the point home for the public. One reason for slow identification of the problem is that in recent years many perpetrators behind hate speech and acts have been Muslim Europeans. There remains a lingering political correctness wary of highlighting crimes committed by a minority community. The panelists agreed there are two primary strains of anti-Semitism in Europe today: the old guard of right-wing Europeans, and the more recent phenomenon occurring among Muslim communities.
Goldberg has written on this issue before. Hitler accomplished the destruction of European Jewry as a vibrant and feasible community. There was no real post-war recovery, and the nature of the community has changed: three quarters of French Jews, for instance, are of North African descent. Today’s anti-Semitism, in his view, should make Jews leave Europe behind; today, North America and Israel are the centers of Jewish culture. Goldberg, together with Baker, pointed out the European tendency towards anti-Zionism, or anti-Israel sentiments that often bleed into outright anti-Semitism, especially given Europe’s historical relationship with it. Goldberg believes such an environment encourages those – mainly within Muslim extremism – who have violent impulses to act, and validates certain trends within the Muslim community.
Conley highlighted the potential implications of the migration crisis, given that the majority of refugees are Muslim: will it lead to an increase in anti-Semitism in Europe, exacerbating intercommunal tensions? The panelists and moderators agreed that the refugees needed to be assimilated, in order to provide for the security of Europe in general and Jews in particular. Baker emphasized that it is inevitable that Jews feel a degree of empathy for the plight of the thousands who find themselves forced to leave their homes, and are often confronted with closed doors. The panelists agreed that this major demographic movement will present cultural and security challenges to the Europe.
There are positive voices in Europe against anti-Semitism today. Clavreul works directly with French PM Manuel Valls, who insists that Jews are an integral part of the French community. France aspires to be an environment hospitable to Jews (and other minorities). German Chancellor Angela Merkel is another important voice. Baker highlighted the diversity of contexts and experiences within Europe. One should not paint a broadly negative picture. Clavreul believes that with increased education about the Jewish experience at the childhood level, paired with increased regulation of hate speech and especially the internet, France (and Europe overall) can begin to roll back the tide of hate.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Who makes the case for peace?
Last Friday, the Middle East Institute in conjunction with the Conflict Management Program at SAIS, Johns Hopkins held an event entitled “After Israel’s Election, Who Makes the Case for Peace?” Speakers included: Lara Friedman (Americans for Peace Now), Ghaith Al-Omari (WINEP), Ilan Peleg (MEI) and Shibley Telhami (University of Maryland)
Daniel Serwer opened the panel with the observation that since Netanyahu’s sweeping win, silence has descended upon the government formation process. What can we expect from Netanyahu’s fourth term? What can we expect from the Palestinian Authority? Is international recognition the Palestinians’ best alternative to a negotiated agreement? Are settlements Israel’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement? This discussion is taking place against the backdrop of major upheavals and uncertainty in the Middle East. How does this context affect the Israel/Palestine equation?
Ilan Peleg gave an overview of the forces at play during Israel’s latest election. Most surveys predicted that Netanyahu would loose, due to Bibi fatigue’, to the unprecedented rift with the White House, to the increasing socio-economic gaps in Israeli society, and the lack of progress on the peace process. Yet, Netanyahu prevailed.
Peleg attributes this to personality. Netanyahu’s charisma and oratory skills far outweighed those of his rival, Herzog. Netanyahu had a keen understanding of his right-wing constituency. In the final days of the election, he executed a clear cut plan, pulling out all the stops, whereby he was able to steal seats from his more right-wing rivals. Naftali Bennet’s party, Bait Hayehudi suffered, winning only 8 seats, down from 12 in 2013. Through statements like “there will be no Palestinian state under my watch”, and a call to action on the day of the elections with “Arab voters are moving to the polls en masse, and left-wing NGOs are bussing them in”, he reached out to the radical right. Peleg doesn’t see much change in policy likely during the next 2 years.
Gaith Al-Omari believes that is impossible to understand the current Palestinian situation without a broader regional understanding. He attributes the lack of Palestinian interest in the recent elections to two reasons: engaging with the left has proven only to empower Netanyahu, and secondly, they believe they have nothing to gain, as whether Likud or Labor win, it will not translate into political change, especially with regards to Israel’s settlement policy.
Al-Omari feels that Palestinians have no good BATNAs, as all ‘solutions’ will have problematic consequences. Joining international treaties and organizations has lost it’s attractiveness to the Palestinian street, as it has not led to any major advancements. Palestinians are also wary of an ICC bid, as it will have major implications for their relationship with the US, and they don’t want to use their last bullet.
A major issue arises with regards to a possible UN Security Council Resolution setting out the parameters of a peace agreement, including the right of return. Al-Omari says there is no way to ensure what this would entail. Palestinian Authority security cooperation with Israel presents a quandary, as does the lack of national unity. This must all be viewed agasint the backdrop of fears of a potential future intifada, which has a tendency to happen when you least expect it.
Shibley Telhami provided an overview of shift in the US-Israel relationship since the beginning of Obama’s tenure. Obama spent his first years in office trying to discern whether or not Netanyahu was capable of making peace. Kerry’s peace package was built to incentivize Netanyahu to create a coalition that would support a peace deal. The effort failed. After six years of trying, the US is not likely to gamble again anytime soon.
Currently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dwarfed by more pressing issues: the Iranian negotiations and the fight against ISIS. The Administration still believes the conflict is of long-term importance and remains steadfast in favor of a two-state solution. It is conceivable that Obama may support or abstain from a UNSC vote on the issue. Telhami‘s recent polling shows that there is broad opposition to settlements across party lines, and that with regards to the Jewish-Democratic binary, the majority of Americans support Israel as a democratic state. However, when it comes to Congress, there is great divide between Democratic and Republican congressman and their constituencies.
Lara Friedman discussed the future likelihood of US administration efforts towards peace. The State Department has launched a reassessment of it’s policy. They are at a loss for how to proceed. At the end of the day, it will come down to Obama’s personal interest in making a difference. She takes hope from the recent rapprochement with Cuba and believes that the President will make some personal attempt to solve the Palestinian issue before he leaves office in 2016.
RSS - Posts
