Tag: Israel/Palestine
Peace Picks|February 3-9
- Making the Case for Sustained U.S. Engagement in a Transitioning Afghanistan| February 5, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM | CSIS | Register Here
In the United States, there is a sense of “Afghanistan fatigue.” While there are certainly valid criticisms that can be levied against U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, a significant amount of social, economic, political, and public health progress has resulted from our engagement and Afghans’ own hard work and commitment.
The under-five mortality and maternal mortality rates have nearly halved since 2000. Virtually no one in Afghanistan had electricity in 2000, but by 2016, nearly 85 percent of the population did. Women’s education was practically non-existent under Taliban rule, but 3.5 million Afghan women are now enrolled in school. 170 radio stations, hundreds of print media outlets, and dozens of TV stations have opened since 2001 as free media, cell phones, television, and the internet have transformed Afghan society. GDP per capita has tripled since 2001, and official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of central government expenditure decreased from 206 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2015. The Afghan National Army is now the primary group fighting the Taliban, and U.S. troop presence has dropped from 110,000 in 2011 to the current plan of 8,600. But Afghanistan’s political progress and social gains are at risk of collapse if the United States chooses to completely disengage from the country. Given the mix of gains and disappointments, how do we establish the correct framework for U.S. engagement with a transitioning Afghanistan in 2020 and beyond?
Speakers:
Representative Michael Waltz: U.S. Representative for Florida’s 6th Congressional District
Rina Amiri: Senior Fellow, NYU Center for Global Affairs and Steering Committee Member, Alliance in Support of the Afghan People (ASAP)
Peter Bergen: Vice President of Global Studies and Fellows, New America
Earl Gast: Executive Vice President for Programs, Creative Associates International and Former Afghanistan Mission Director, USAID
- A Women’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11 Policy Roundtable| February 5, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Stimson Center | Register Here
We will be joined by Dr. Joana Cook, author of the new book “A Woman’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11,” Seamus Hughes of the George Washington University Program on Extremism, and Lauren Protentis, communications and national security expert.
- United States Strategy for Central Asia: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity| February 5, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Heritage Foundation will host a moderated discussion to launch the United States’ new Strategy for Central Asia (2019-2025). Deputy Assistant to the President Lisa Curtis will join Ambassador Alice Wells and Acting Assistant Administrator Gloria Steele for a public address and discussion on the administration’s priorities and future prospects for U.S. engagement in Central Asia. Remarks will outline how the United States will support the five countries’ efforts to improve regional security, bolster economic connectivity, and ensure sovereignty and independence across the region.
Speakers:
Lisa Curtis: Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for South and Central Asia, National Security Council
Ambassador Alice: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State
Gloria Steele: Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Luke Coffey: Director, Douglas & Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
- Accountability in Syria: Achieving Transitional Justice in A Postconflict Society| February 5, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
Join us for a book discussion on the challenges of achieving accountability and justice in postconflict Syria. Gross violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Laws have been committed in Syria. After a full cessation of violence, launching transitional justice processes will signal to the victims that those responsible for committing these crimes will be brought to reparation and that the time of impunity is over. This book discusses the available options of justice and how accountability will be achieved through international systems and a new hybrid court system.
Speakers:
Mai El-Sadany: Legal and Judicial Director, The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy
Mohammad Alaa Ghanem: Syrian Academic and Pro-democracy Campaigner
Radwan Ziadeh: Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
- Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East| February 6, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 12:45 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The civil wars racking the Middle East have torn
the political, social and economic fabric of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
and Yemen. MEI has released a pathbreaking book, Escaping the Conflict Trap:
Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East, to deal with these difficult but
important issues. The book was co-edited by MEI President Paul Salem and MEI
Senior Fellow Ross Harrison, and includes contributions from former senior
diplomats, MEI experts and academics.
This half-day
conference will address the insights and findings from this important book.
Contributing authors will share their views about the individual civil wars, as
well as their regional and global geopolitical backdrop.
Speakers:
Nadia Bilbassy: Senior Correspondent, Al-Arabiya TV and MBC TV
Chester Crocker: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of African Affairs; James R. Schlesinger Professor of the Practice of Strategic Studies
Ambassador (ret.) Robert Ford: Senior Fellow, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Syria
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald Feierstein: Senior Vice President, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Yemen
Ross Harrison: Senior Fellow, MEI
Anne Patterson: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Paul Salem: President, MEI
Dan Serwer: Non-resident scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim: Senior Fellow and Director, Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, MEI
Marvin Weinbaum: Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
Jonathan Winer: Non-resident scholar, MEI
- Is War Over| February 6, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | CATO Institute | Register Here
A scholarly debate has emerged over trends in global conflict and the future of warfare. Is the international system becoming more peaceful, or is it just as violent and war-prone as it always has been? Is great-power war a thing of the past, or has it merely been dormant under changing technological and institutional conditions? Crafting an appropriate U.S. foreign policy is dependent on accurately measuring the state of war and peace in the world. Please join us for a discussion of these vital issues.
Speakers:
Paul Poast: Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
John Mueller: Political Scientist, Ohio State University; Senior Fellow, CATO Institute
Christopher Fettweis: Professor of Political Science, Tulane University
Bethany Lacine: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester
John Glaser: Director of Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute
- NATO and the New Decade: Assessing the Transatlantic Alliance| February 7, 2020 | 11:45 AM – 1:00 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Last year, NATO marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the alliance. At the start of the new decade, a united, flexible, and future-minded NATO is needed more than ever.
Join Hudson Institute for a discussion with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana. Mr. Geoana has served as the minister of foreign affairs of Romania, the president of the Romanian Senate, and as ambassador of Romania to the United States. He has held his current role since July 2019.
Calls for a reexamination of NATO’s relevance and effectiveness come amidst a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. President Trump has been a vocal proponent of burden sharing to ensure the organization’s lasting success. Speaking in December at the NATO Leaders Meeting, he said the alliance had taken positive steps and “increased the numbers that other countries are paying … by $130 billion.”
How is NATO delivering on burden sharing and what impact does this have on the alliance’s ability to carry out its missions and operations? How is the organization adapting to a new security environment? What are the key challenges facing the alliance in the decade ahead?
Speakers:
Mircea Geoană: Deputy Secretary General, NATO
Peter Rough: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Ken Weinstein: President and CEO, Hudson Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Acquitted, not exonerated
You’ll be hearing a lot next week about how the Senate is exonerating President Trump of false charges brought by the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. Nothing could be further than the truth. Senator Lamar Alexander had the temerity to speak the truth:
There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ …It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law….
The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.
It was Alexander’s judgment (contained in the areas I’ve marked with…) that what Trump did, including in refusing all requests for documents and testimony, did not rise to the level required for removal from office.
If Alexander and other Republican Senators believe that the President is guilty as charged , they should have no problem with a motion of censure against the President, denouncing his undermining of the principle of equality before the law and warning him off from further efforts to enlist foreign help in the 2020 election.
Failing that, it seems to me the Democrats need a way of expressing their displeasure at the State of the Union address Tuesday. They might “take a knee,” for example, but then a lot of them might not be able to get up. Other possibilities come to mind: wearing black armbands in mourning for American democracy, turning their backs as the President enters the room, walking out as soon as he claims exoneration, or boycotting the event altogether. I rather like the idea of a boycott or walkout, but either would leave Speaker Pelosi alone with her adversaries, as she formally invited the impeached President to address the Congress and will preside over the event.
No doubt impeachment alone is a stain on Donald Trump’s presidency and ample warning for any normal politician against seeking or accepting foreign assistance in the next election. But Trump is a man who feels no shame, so that hardly matters. What matters, as Senator Alexander suggests, is how Americans vote in November. I am already convinced he will lose the popular vote, likely by a margin wider than the 2.8 million or so votes he lost it last time. New York and California, which voted against him in 2016 by wide margins, will tilt even more heavily to the Democrats, if only because the Trump tax cut actually raised taxes on many voters in states with high state income taxes.
Trump can however still win in the Electoral College, which gives a voter in a less populous state like Wyoming several times the weight in choosing the president than a voter in New York or California. This powersharing arrangement with less populous states was a necessary distortion of “one-person, one-vote” in forming the Union in the 18th century. It is now a grossly unfair anachronism that is difficult to fix, as it requires either a constitutional amendment or approval by more states of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Neither is going to happen before November.
Americans supported impeachment by a narrow margin. Now the Democrats have to make lemonade from the lemons of their defeat in the Senate. Defeating Trump in the election will require either winning back Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (which Hillary Clinton lost by less than a total of 80,000 votes), or beating him Florida and Texas, where the 2016 results were close and demographic trends favor the Democrats but not yet by enough to make victory there likely.
Trump’s trade wars have brought little benefit and much harm to the US, the economy is slowing, the Administration’s main foreign policy initiatives (with North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, and Israel/Palestine) are failing, its immigration and voter suppression policies are racist, America’s allies are hedging, and a candidate who promised withdrawal from the Middle East as President is sending more troops there. Failure to hold Trump accountable in November would be an inexcusable error. He should not be acquitted again.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Worse than I thought
My initial reaction to the Administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan for settling Israel/Palestine issues was negative, but insufficiently so. The “peace” plan is far worse than I thought.
First, there is the map. President Trump claimed the Palestinian state would be contiguous. It is not. Even on the West Bank that isn’t true, and there are several enclaves in the Negev Desert completely separated from the main populated areas, not to mention an infeasible tunnel linking Gaza with the West Bank. Palestine would be like ink drops on a greater Israel:
Second, Israel would maintain overall security control of Palestine, or should we call it Palestan, as well as the Jordan River valley. De-militarization of Palestine I understand, and in principle Mahmoud Abbas has agreed. But that is different from allowing Israel to intervene whenever and wherever it wants, as it does today, in the West Bank (and presumably Gaza in the future). Nor do I understand why Israeli tanks are needed on the Jordan River: the Kingdom on the other side depends heavily on Israel for its security and isn’t going to attack. What is the purpose of holding on to the Jordan River valley? How defensible would it be if something were to happen, with Palestinians in the rear? If the purpose is border control, there is really no need for territorial control but only an Israeli presence at Palestinian border posts.
There is more, because the plan not only imposes unreasonable limits on Palestinian sovereignty but also gives Israel just about everything it has ever asked for: all of Jerusalem, all the main settlements on the West Bank constituting about 30% of the territory, and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. No wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted this plan out in public before the next Israeli election: it is a wet dream for the Greater Israel chauvinists.
The economic portion of the plan is mostly smoke and mirrors. Lots of OPM (other people’s money) going not just to the Palestinians but also to several Arab countries to buy their silence. The million jobs created is just aspirational. There is no real plan for that or other economic benefits.
Besides: nothing happens to implement this wretched deal until Hamas is gone from Gaza. I suppose that may happen some day, but there are no indications it will be soon. The plan is counterproductive to that end, as it provides a strong incentive to vote for more radical political forces.
The Israelis it should be noted get what they want right away. Trump has greenlighted the annexation of the West Bank settlements, which the Knesset intends to pass into law promptly. This is a real estate deal in which the land grab comes first, with vague promises of payment in the future, if the Palestinians behave themselves and accept a less than sovereign and independent state. That’s worse than I thought.
For those who may wonder what the Jewish community in the US is thinking, here is a video from J Street, which is closer to the majority liberal and conservative factions than the more often cited AIPAC:
PS: One reader reports that the video doesn’t work for him. If you are having trouble, it is also up on the J Street website.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 29
– President Trump unveiled his vision for Arab-Israeli peace. NYT says the Arab reaction was “muted.”
The only money figure I noted was “$50 billion” in “investment” in Palestinian territories, presumably only from Muslim nations. The Netanyahu government plans to seize the moment by annexing territories the Trump plan would allow.
– CNAS has a new report on how to deal with China, commissioned by Congress. It tracks the proposals by CFR and others. There seems to be a consensus on using foreign and domestic policies to compete vigorously with PRC.
– In class we’ll talk a lot about organizational cultures. There’s a new SOCOM report recognizing a need for some changes in its culture.
– Jim Lewis of CSIS analyzes the impact of the UK decision to use some Huawei products.
-FT warns that India and China are both facing stagflation.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No real deal
President Trump’s much-vaunted “deal of the century” landed with a thud today. Conceived and developed without input from the Palestinians, it gives Israel the territory it has sought in Golan, the West Bank, and Jerusalem in exchange for a $50 billion aid package and a supposedly contiguous Palestinian state.
There are lots of ambiguities, which I suppose will be resolved only once we study the 80-page text (not yet on the White House website):
- The President claimed in his announcement that Jerusalem will be undivided but also said there would be a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. That doesn’t make sense.
- He also said Palestinian territory would be “doubled,” which by my calculation suggests that at least 10% of the West Bank (and possibly much more) would be taken by Israel without land swaps.
- There would be a four-year period during which Israel would not encroach further on the West Bank, but it is not clear whether this would require prior Palestinian acceptance of the plan, which is not forthcoming.
- The President did not mention the Jordan River valley, but given his claim that Israel’s security would not be even marginally compromised it is likely the idea is for Israel to hold on to it.
- The plan is said to be “conceptual” and will now be elaborated further in a joint committee, which isn’t going to happen as the Palestinians won’t go along.
What happens now? Nothing much. Most of the Arab world seems to have shunned the announcement–the President mentioned only that the Omani, Bahraini, and Emirati (he said Emiratris) were present. That would mean most of the political heavy hitters, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, stayed away.
The main destinations for this peace plan are the political campaigns of President Trump–whose impeachment trial was ongoing while he made the announcement–and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who today was indicted on corruption charges (specifically fraud, breach of trust, and bribery). They are both hoping to get a bit of political boost out of the White House peace plan, which will likely be forgotten within days.
There is however a broader significance: the playing field has tilted against the West Bank Palestinians in recent years, in part because they have mostly abandoned violence against Israelis and internationals. It would be surprising if no one noticed how their cause has suffered from resorting to nonviolence.
Trump and Netanyahu are trying to supplant the “land for peace” formula that has prevailed in negotiations since 1967. They want “money for peace” instead. It should be no surprise that Trump views the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as requiring a real estate deal for its resolution. But then remember: Trump was no good at real estate and made most of his money franchising his name. Like so many of his deals, this one is a sales gimmick. There is no real deal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 27
The big Washington news today is the NYT report that John Bolton’s forthcoming memoir confirms that President Trump specifically linked Ukraine aid to investigations of the Bidens and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Analyzing a leak is like figuring out a murder mystery. First ask cui bono — who benefits? The answer: Bolton himself, since his book was due to be published March 17; also the House Managers of the impeachment trial, though they presumably did not have access to the manuscript; and the administration officials who believe that the president should be removed from office [people like Anonymous, who has always been vaguely cited as a “senior official”]. The Times story identifies who has copies of the manuscript:
drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Of course the publisher also has copies. While it could have been someone in the WH, my guess is it’s more likely to be a Bolton friend who supports impeachment. And he didn’t mind that it got reported.
Curiously, the Haberman-Schmidt story has no actual quotes from the manuscript, suggesting that they relied on descriptions or agreed not to use quotes. Another curiosity is that only a second NYT story, by impeachment reporter Noah Weiland, quantifies the sourcing, saying
Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account. This suggests that the original recipient of the leak got others to admit that they had seen it and confirmed the account. But what’s important is that many people knew and were willing to talk.
Despite the hype, in fact Bolton merely confirms — though at first hand — what his subordinates have already testified.
This morning, Peter Baker has an analysis.
In other news, SecState Pompeo is being properly chastised for mistreating an NPR reporter — and for poor management of State.
NYT has background on the development of the administration’s Arab-Israeli “peace plan,” which will be discussed with leading Israeli politicians this week.
Fred Kaplan reports on Congress’ truncated effort to understand presidential controls over nuclear weapons.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
