Tag: Israel/Palestine
This is not a loyal American
President Trump, noting that Putin is KGB, says he’s fine:
I might even end up having a good relationship [with Mr Putin], but they’re going ‘well, president Trump, be prepared, president Putin is KGB’, this and that…Do you know what? Putin’s fine, he’s fine, we’re all fine, we’re people. Will I be prepared? Totally prepared – I have been preparing for this stuff my whole life, they don’t say that.
Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, one of the organizations that helped assemble the list of his possible Supreme Court nominees, is warning that Trump is wrong:
Things to remember before
@realDonaldTrump travels to Europe: -Russia is the aggressor—Ukraine is the victim -Crimea belongs to Ukraine -NATO & US troops in Europe serve our national interests -Europeans must spend more on defense -Putin’s track record shows he can’t be trusted
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Pompeo is in Pyongyang, trying to turn a vague one-page statement from the Singapore summit into a serious plan for denuclearization of North Korea. That would require first an inventory of their nuclear and missile programs as well as years if not decades to dismantle them. There isn’t much chance it is really going to happen. Kim Jong-un is continuing to expand his missile and nuclear capacities, even as Trump was announcing that the danger has passed. There is no record of the North Koreans telling the truth about their strategic weapons, which they regard as guaranteeing the survival of their regime.
As if that were not enough, the US kicked off its trade war with China today, provoking the anticipated (and permitted under international rules) retaliation. So US exports to China now face more serious barriers, while the price of imports from China to American consumers will rise. Both moves hurt core Trump constituencies: agriculture and manufacturing. The trade war also means that China will not maintain strong sanctions on North Korea.
On the home front, the Administration will fail to meet a court-ordered deadline to reunite migrant children with their parents, as it appears to have no idea which children belong with which parents. Even when it succeeds, it hopes to hold even asylum-seeking parents and children together in prison, not free them pending court hearings (for which most asylum-seekers in fact do appear). To boot, EPA Administrator Pruitt has finally resigned. He faced 15 or so ethics investigations, most due to his use of public office for private gain. That is the textbook definition of corruption, though no doubt he’ll drag out the proceedings and eventually be pardoned.
While Trump addresses adoring crowds that cheer his bravado, the United States is declining rapidly in the world’s estimation, especially among America’s friends. Our European allies are girding themselves for the upcoming NATO summit, where Trump is expected to make it clear he has little regard for them (as he did at the recent G7 meeting). They in turn will do everything they can to maintain the nuclear deal with Iran, straining the Alliance further. Trump has abandoned America’s friends in southern Syria, putting Israel and Jordan at risk. His move of the US embassy to Jerusalem has effectively killed any hope of progress with the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.
Relative American power was bound to decline as other countries prosper and acquire more advanced technology. Trump is accelerating that process by abandoning allies, cozying up to adversaries, weakening America’s moral standing, and damaging America’s exporters as well raising prices for its consumers. The President has visited golf clubs more than 100 times while in office but has not once visited US troops in a war zone. What more evidence do we need that he is not a loyal American?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
American independence compromised
All you need to know on July 4, 2018 about American independence is that a bipartisan report confirms Russian interference in the 2016 US election. The Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that
- Moscow in 2016 escalated its long-standing effort to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order;
- Putin ordered an influence campaign that sought to support Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton;
- The campaign included cyber operations, in particular against the Democratic National Committee.
The Committee also suggested that assertions about Moscow-run propaganda in the assessment had not been appropriately updated from 2012 and that historical context on Russian efforts in the original intelligence assessment was thin, but that nevertheless the assessment was “sound.”
When this report was released, a 100% Republican (that’s unusual) Codel was in Moscow to meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov (President Putin let it be known he didn’t have time for them). Senator Shelby of Alabama told the Russians, without raising Russian interference in the election:
We don’t necessarily need to be adversaries.
True enough, in the abstract and at a friendly moment. But definitely not what you want to be saying on the day your colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, have concluded that we are in fact adversaries, because Russia saw fit to attack the United States.
Of course they had their reasons. They didn’t like Hillary, whom Putin blamed for fueling anti-government demonstrations in 2011 and 12. Trump in 2016 hired a Russian agent as his campaign manager. His real estate empire depends heavily on Russian money. Several of his foreign policy advisers were close to the Russians, including son-in-law Jared Kushner and future, if briefly, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Collusion is not really the issue. There is no need to collude if you and your staff agree with the Russians on most things. Shelby wasn’t colluding, he was just kowtowing. Trump doesn’t really care if Putin was trying to undermine the liberal democratic order, because he is against it too. You might expect however a bit of embarrassment when it turns out the Russians have hacked your opponents and supported your candidate’s election.
Not from Trump, who plans to meet one-on-one to start his summit with Putin July 16. This is a big and dangerous moment. Mike McFaul, President Obama’s ambassador to Moscow, reminded us yesterday:
In last 2 weeks Trump has invited Russia to join G7, denied Russian interference in 2016 election, hinted at recognizing Crimean annexation, pulling out of Syria & reducing US troops in Germany. In return for these monumental concessions Trump has asked Putin to do…?
#Artofdeal
Trump is already turning over southern Syria to the Russians and Iranians, who are cooperating with the Syrian army in driving hundreds of thousands of people to take shelter near the borders with Israel and Jordan, causing these two American allies real concern. He can’t invite the Russians to rejoin the G7 without the other members agreeing, but the Pentagon is already studying withdrawal of US troops from Europe, which Trump claims is worse than China when it comes to trade. Just smaller, he said, though Europe’s economy is bigger than China’s.
The worst would be recognizing the annexation of Crimea, which would set off a string of partitions worldwide and help Putin to justify his occupation of parts of Georgia and Moldova. Kurt Volker, my very capable former colleague at SAIS who is now the point man for the Administration on the Ukraine, quoted the White House spokesperson saying this yesterday:
“We do not recognize Russia’s attempt to annex Crimea… And our Crimea sanctions against Russia will remain in place until
returns the peninsula to
.”
That’s really good. Now all he has to do is to make it stick in Helsinki, where Trump will be freelancing and trying to impress his paymaster and comrade.
Sad to say, American independence on this July 4 is compromised, at the top.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Israel’s “center”
On Monday, the Brookings Institution hosted M.K. Yair Lapid, founder of the centrist Yesh Atid party, the largest opposition party in the Knesset. Lapid shared his views about current Israeli domestic and foreign policy, including its relationship with the US, as well as his vision for the country’s future. John R. Allen, president of the Brookings Institution, gave introductory remarks, and Tamara Coffman Wittes, senior foreign policy fellow at Brookings Center for Middle East Policy, moderated the discussion. Below, I discuss key takeaways from Lapid‘s remarks.
Foreign Policy Flashpoints
At a time when regional conflict threatens Israel’s relative stability, Lapid described how his country and the international community should approach Israel’s main foreign policy challenges to ensure future Israeli security. On the Palestinian front, Lapid stressed the importance of breaking the silence that has stalled negotiations on a two state solution since the Trump embassy move. A return to dialogue represents the only road to peace. A Palestinian Jerusalem, however, is off the table. Lapid stated that “Jerusalem is a capital; if someone came to DC and asked [the US] to share it with Mexico, they would refuse.” Lapid also criticized UNRWA, arguing that having a refugee agency solely for Palestinians allows Arab countries to maintain a false moral high ground in the conflict.
Lapid blamed Hamas for the recent killing of hundreds of protestors in Gaza by Israeli snipers, saying that the violent protests threatened national security. Although it is not at fault for the violence, Israel must work quickly to solve the humanitarian crisis; after all, Gazan sewage contaminates Israeli water. However, any Israeli efforts to solve the crisis must be predicated by Hamas’ fall from power, clearing the way for humanitarian aid to reach Gazan hands without funding terrorist activities.
Lapid also used national security to defend his country’s controversial position in the Golan Heights. In addition to their strategic importance in fending off the rising Iranian and Hizbollah threat, giving the Golan Heights back to Assad is simply not an option, as it would put 22,000 Jewish lives at risk. Similarly, opening the northeastern border to Syrian Arab refugees also represents an unacceptable security risk. Instead, Lapid called on the US to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Heights, arguing that this move would allow the US to send the message that it does not tolerate Assad’s human rights abuses.
Israeli-US Relations: Troubling Times Ahead?
While Lapid lauded the Trump administration’s goodwill towards Israel, he expressed concern that positive relations on the executive level are papering over fissures that will emerge after Trump leaves office. Chief among these is American Jewry’s increasing disinterest in Israel. Orthodox Jews in Israel have criticized American Reform Jews too much, causing them to feel alienated. Increasing anti-Israel discourse on US college campuses has prevailed over American Jews’ ties to their ancestral homeland. Lapid also linked heightened partisanship under Trump to the erosion of the bipartisan support Israel has enjoyed in the past. As a consequence, bilateral relations could deteriorate during the next democratic administration, leaving Israel more exposed than ever to national security threats from within the Arab world.
Careful Optimism: A Winning Call?
As he discussed his chances for beating Netanyahu in the next parliamentary elections, Lapid emphasized that Israelis are more hesitant about large political shifts than US voters. For that reason, Lapid argued that emphasizing satisfaction with the status quo while calling for gradual crackdowns on corruption and moving towards a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict will be a winning call in 2019. In addition, Lapid advocated for a move away from using empty rhetoric to avoid confronting issues head-on, saying that “we need a government that actually does stuff, not [one] that just eloquently describes the problem.” While his strategy of emphasizing continuation and subtle changes might mean that Yesh Atid does not differentiate itself enough from Likud enough to win in 2019, Lapid hopes that centrist success in Germany and France might bode well for Israel.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Levant: from bad to worse
The Wilson Center hosted a panel yesterday entitled “The Middle East: A Region in Chaos?” to discuss the current situation in the Middle East and the U.S. government’s reaction to this situation. Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO of the Wilson Center, introduced the speakers before the moderator, Michael Yaffe, Vice President, Middle East and Africa at the U.S. Institute of Peace, provided a brief summary of the many developments in the region in 2018. The panel included:
Robin Wright – USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow
Bruce Riedel – Senior Fellow and Director, Brookings Intelligence Project, Brookings Institution
Mona Yacoubian – Senior Advisor, Syria, Middle East and North Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aaron David Miller – Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center.
This post will focus on the panel’s analysis of recent developments in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Syrian Conflict. A previous post focused on the Iran/Saudi Arabia dimension.
As the conversation shifted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miller painted a bleak picture of future prospects for a two-state solution. At a time when Syria, Iraq, and Egypt – traditional, vocal allies of the Palestinian cause – are projecting less power across the region because of unrest at home, the US-Israel relationship has reached unprecedented strength. This realignment is a central premise of Jared Kushner’s peace plan strategy. Kushner hopes that aligning fully with Israel on previous roadblocks, such as the governance of Jerusalem, will take these issues off the table while heaping pressure on Netanyahu to accept concessions made to the Palestinians. At the same time, Palestinian demoralization with the current state of affairs will push them back to the negotiating table if any unexpected compromises are made. Miller argued that Kushner’s moves will have the opposite effect; Palestinian trust in America to be an honest broker has evaporated over the last six months, leaving them less inclined than ever even to engage with the United States to find a viable two-state solution.
Miller and Yacoubian also highlighted the diminishing US leadership as power vacuums emerge across the region due to the dysfunction of many Arab states. As Trump continues the Obama administration’s hands-off approach to the region, these voids are being filled by Russia, Turkey, Israel, and non-state actors. US aversion to conflict has also allowed Iran to dramatically increase its influence in Syria, leading to direct military engagement between Israel and the Islamic Republic. Yacoubian argued that a possible Israeli airstrike on Iranian positions close to the Syria-Iraq border could mean that more escalation is on the horizon. Paradoxically, continued hostilities could drag the United States into a proxy war between Israel and Iran fought in Syria and Iraq.
On the southern front, the Syrian Arab Army’s ongoing siege of Dera’a and Al-Quneitra provinces could force even more refugees to flee to Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom is already reeling from the political blowback to tax hikes designed to combat the country’s ailing economy, and another refugee influx would further inflame internal tensions. Yacoubian argued that recent US inaction in Syria suggests that the State Department’s promise for “firm and appropriate measures” in response to cease fire violations in Southern Syria is also bluster, so Jordan is on its own. Yacoubian also revealed that efforts to convince the Kurds to leave Manbij and move east of the Euphrates in northern Syria could easily derail, leading to more violence, while Trump’s desire to quickly withdraw US. troops could leave a power vacuum that ISIS would exploit.
The Bottom Lines: The political situation in the Levant has gone from bad to worse over the last six months. Increased US support of Israel at the expense of Palestinian goodwill appears to have driven them away from the negotiating table completely, at least for now. In Syria, immediate US withdrawal will only lead to further destabilization. While the train has left the station for Trump to intervene in the south to limit further economic and political strain on Jordan, maintaining a presence in the east could prevent a resurgence of ISIS in this sparsely populated, US-controlled region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Shaping a New Middle East Balance of Power
The Conflict Management Program and the Aljazeera Centre for Studies
are pleased to invite you to
Shaping a New Balance of Power in the Middle East:
Regional Actors, Global Powers, and Middle East Strategy
Tuesday June 12, 2018 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM
1740 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Kenney Auditorium
Register
The Gulf and the Middle East are suffering a paroxysm of conflict involving virtually all the regional states as well as the US and Russia and many different non-state actors. What dynamics are driving this chaos? What can be done to contain or reverse the damage? How might a new balance of power emerge?
9-9:30: Registration
9:30-9:45: Opening Remarks
Ø Ezzedine Abdelmoula, Manager of Research, Aljazeera Centre for Studies, Aljazeera Media Network
9:30-11:00: Dynamics of Political Geography in the Middle East
Ø Chair: Daniel Serwer, Director, SAIS Conflict Management Program
Ø Ross Harrison, Non-resident Senior Fellow Middle East Institute
Ø Kadir Ustun, Executive Director, SETA Foundation
Ø Khalid al Jaber, Gulf International Forum
Ø Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director, Foreign Policy Program and Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy and Energy Security and Climate Initiative, Brookings Institution
11:00-11:15: Coffee Break
11:15-12:45: Non-State Actors and Shadow Politics
Ø Chair: Paul Salem, Senior Vice President for Policy Research & Programs, Middle East Institute
Ø Randa Slim, Director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute; Fellow, SAIS Foreign Policy Institute
Ø Fatima Abo Alasrar, Senior Analyst, Arabia Foundation
Ø Crispin Smith, Harvard Law School
Ø Anouar Boukhars, Non-Resident Scholar, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Associate Professor of International Relations, McDaniel College
12:45-1:30: Lunch
1:30-3:00: New Balance of Power
Ø Chair: Mohammed Cherkaoui, Aljazeera Centre for Studies, and George Mason University
Ø Jamal Khashoggi, independent writer
Ø P. Terrence Hopmann, Professor of International Relations, SAIS, Conflict Management Program
Ø Camille Pecastaing, SAIS, Middle East Studies
Ø Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar, Arab Gulf States Institution in Washington
Tuesday June 12, 2018 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM
1740 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Kenney Auditorium
photo ID will be checked at the door
For disability accommodations, please contact saisevents@jhu.edu or 202-999-3332 at least one week prior to the event.
Have questions about Shaping a New Balance of Power in the Middle East: Regional Actors, Global Powers, and Middle East Strategy? Contact SAIS Conflict Management Program
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next year in Jerusalem?
A SETA Foundation panel on Tuesday discussed the impact of the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. The SETA Foundation’s Kilic B. Kanat moderated a panel comprised of Geoffrey Aronson (The Mortons Group), Lara Friedman (Foundation for Middle East Peace), Ghaith al-Omari (Washington Institute), and Kadir Ustun (SETA Foundation) to analyze this historic development and its impact on the Middle East.
Aronson connected the embassy move to the Balfour Declaration. In both cases, the world’s pre-eminent power of the time lined up behind the Jews. It also acknowledges reality: in the case of the Balfour Declaration, it was the staying power of the Zionist movement and in the case of the embassy move, the staying power of the settlements. Both the declaration and the embassy move claimed it would not offend other parties, yet this has been shown to be untrue. Aronson believes that, at least in theory, Israel could pay a price later for the embassy move. However, at the moment, Arab leaders see the costs and benefits of not obstructing the embassy move as acceptable for the sake of focusing on Iran. The reality is Arab states are at one of their weakest points in history with few assets to bring to the diplomatic table. Arab states are forced to accept these shifts.
Friedman believes the embassy move confirms the end of the Oslo Era and that we must take Trump at his word. His policies may be reckless, but they are in fact coherent. Trump’s advisors see US and Israeli interests as identical. With Jerusalem off the table, chaos has been injected to reframe the concept of Middle East peace and stability based on a US-Israeli version. Expect Kushner’s plan to be utterly unacceptable to Palestinians and to lay out new US positions on permanent status issues. With Israel’s religious right emboldened, there will be real or perceived threat to sacred space in Jerusalem. This will lead to instability and force Arab leaders and people to take action.
Al-Omari focused on how, at an official level, the embassy move has forced Arab leaders to take hardline stances and limit their diplomatic maneuvering. Although the Palestine issue has become dormant among many Arab publics, no Arab leader wants to cast aside the issue for fear it could re-emerge. The move also shows limits to the anti-Iran coalition, the unspoken alliance between the US, Israel, and several Arab states about confronting Iran. Some lines, like the Jerusalem issue, cannot be crossed. If the Arab states try and cross that line, the Palestinians, with a strong sense of nationhood, will call them out and force them to focus on the issue.
Ustun took a different approach from Al-Omari. He argues that the unspoken anti-Iran alliance is a strong regional dynamic and Arab states are in practice more focused on confronting Iran as opposed to Israel-Palestine issues. Any statements or public lines they take on recent Palestine developments are therefore hollow and meaningless. Countries outside this anti-Iran grouping are putting more serious effort into the Israel-Palestine issue and the issue matters more in countries with some type of electoral process (like Turkey) than countries without one (like Saudi Arabia). In the long-term, Ustun believes lack of attention on this issue could undermine the legitimacy of the states that do not focus on it.
The US decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem has negated its ability to act as an honest, objective peace-broker. It is up to other countries such as European ones to continue the push for a negotiated, acceptable two-state solution and to continue to uphold international law, organizations, and norms. American Jews, led by increasingly vocal and progressive youth, are troubled by Trump’s stances and actions on the Israel-Palestine issue, especially in context of his other reckless decisions. It remains to be seen how the increasing anger of the American Jewish community can be used to promote positive change.
RSS - Posts
