Mahmoud Abbas

Jared Kushner Appointed US Senior Advisor on Middle East

Jared Kushner’s appointment is a sign of politics changing in their favour.

Trump’s son-in-law, Kushner’s appointment is a sign of politics changing in favour of West Bank settlers.

Senior staff at the White House Kellyanne Conway, Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon (L-R) applaud before being sworn in by Vice President Mike Pence in Washington, DC January 22, 2017. Credit: Reuters

Bet El: For many in the Israeli settlement of Bet El, deep in the occupied West Bank, Donald Trump’s choice of Jared Kushner as his senior adviser on the Middle East is a sign of politics shifting in their favour.

They regard Kushner, whose family’s charitable foundation has donated tens of thousands of dollars to their settlement, as part of a diplomatic rebalancing after what they view as eight years of anti-Israel bias under the US administration of Barack Obama.

“He will stand up for our interests. I suppose he will lean in our favour,” said Avi Lavi, 46, who has lived in Bet El for more than 40 years. “He’ll be fair, as opposed to Obama, whose policy leaned always towards the Arabs.”

New US President Trump says his son-in-law Kushner, 36, is capable of brokering the “ultimate deal” to deliver peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Roi Margalit, manager of the Bet El Yeshiva, a seminary complex with around 400 students, said Kushner, an Orthodox Jewish father of three, understood the position of Israeli settlers better than previous envoys.

“At least now we have someone who knows us,” the 43-year-old added. “He will now have to study the other side (the Palestinians) and see if there is any common ground.”

Trump’s pick for Israeli ambassador has sparked particular enthusiasm in the community – David Friedman, who chairs the American Friends of Bet El Institutions fundraising group.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Kushner and Friedman.

Kushner, a businessman who built his career on real estate and publishing, has said little about his views about one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, either during the campaign or since Trump took office.

The big question for the Palestinians is whether he can be an impartial actor given his family foundation’s past financial ties to Bet El.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been careful to say he looks forward to working with the Trump administration, but others are less optimistic.

Wasel Abu Youssef, a senior official at the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the main Palestinian political umbrella body, said Kushner could not be a neutral envoy if he was supportive of Israeli settlements.

Hani al-Masri, a political scientist and director of the Palestinian Center for Policy Research and Strategic Studies, said Kushner would be a representative of Israel rather than of the US.

“If he attempts to resume negotiations, he will seek to hold them at a lower level than previous negotiations. It will be more biased to the Israeli position in an era where Israel is more extreme.”

‘Natural dealmaker’

Palestinians want the West Bank and Gaza Strip for an independent state, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel has built about 120 settlements in the West Bank. About 350,000 settlers live there and a further 200,000 in East Jerusalem, among about 2.6 million Palestinians.

Most countries consider the settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace as they reduce and fragment the territory Palestinians need for a viable state.

Israel disagrees, citing biblical, historical and political connections to the land and security interests.

Bet El, a community of 1,300 families perched on a hillside where many believe God promised Jacob the land, has been financed in part by donations from American backers.

Among its donors have been the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which gave $10,000 in 2003, and the foundation of Charles and Seryl Kushner, the parents of Jared, which gave $38,000 in 2013, US tax records show.

The New York-based American Friends of Bet El Institutions hosts dinners to raise funds for the settlement, which overlooks the Palestinian city Ramallah.

Kushner has left it up to his father-in-law to comment on what role he might play.

“Jared is such a good kid and he’ll make a deal with Israel that no one else can,” Trump told the Times of London newspaper last month. “He’s a natural dealmaker – everyone likes him.”

Middle East analysts say the settlement donations by Kushner’s family foundation are not necessarily deal-breakers.

After decades of failed negotiations, the real test is whether he is prepared to rethink the way the Middle East peace process is conducted, said Hugh Lovatt, a fellow of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“If he reverts to pushing for a process for the sake of process and diplomatic prestige, then he will prove no more successful than his predecessors,” Lovatt told Reuters.

“If he acquiesces to Israeli territorial demands and gives a green light to more settlement activity, he could even do irreparable damage to the prospects of long-term peace.”

A key diplomatic factor will be whether the Trump administration commits itself to a two-state solution – Israel and an independent Palestinian state living side-by-side.

This remains firmly the goal for the Palestinians and, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israelis.

But some of Kushner’s supporters in Bet El appear to be heading in a different direction – and the political voice of hardliners could prove a significant obstacle should peace talks resume.

“The two-state solution is a scam,” said Shai Alon, the head of the local council, who describes himself as optimistic about the “Trump era”.

“It’s not going to happen.”

(Reuters)

Trump Lowers Expectations for Quick Embassy Move in Israel

In a statement issued by Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer lowered expectations of an imminent move that could anger the Arab world.

A Palestinian woman walks past a banner against a promise by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, in the West Bank city of Nablus January 19, 2017. REUTERS/Abed Omar Qusini/Files

A Palestinian woman walks past a banner against a promise by US President-elect Donald Trump to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. Credit: Reuters/Abed Omar Qusini/Files

Jerusalem/Washington: During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s team spoke often about moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But since taking office, the contentious issue has become more nuanced and may already be moving to the back-burner.

In a statement issued before a first post-inauguration phone call between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday and later reinforced at a White House news briefing, Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, lowered expectations of an imminent announcement of a move that could anger the Arab world.

“We are at the very beginning stages of even discussing this subject,” Spicer wrote in an email on Sunday. “There’s no decisions,” he then told reporters on Monday.

Some Israeli news outlets and Israeli pro-settlement groups have taken it as a positive sign, interpreting the words of the new Trump White House team as an indication that talks have begun on a move they long for, even if it could have profound repercussions for regional stability.

But Israeli officials said the issue was barely discussed on the 30-minute call, and diplomats said their understanding was that it was being pushed down the agenda, at least for now.

“Sounds more like walking it backwards,” one Israeli official said in a text message after Spicer’s statement.

Another said that during the call Netanyahu had not sought a commitment from Trump on the relocation or a time frame for it.

The former spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry suggested Spicer’s line was age-old diplomatic code for “not now”. “This really means: ‘Don’t call us, we’ll call you'” Yigal Palmor said on Twitter.

Netanyahu’s spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

No embassy in Jerusalem

While the Israeli prime minister cannot be seen to oppose the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem – Israel considers the city its eternal and indivisible capital and wants all countries to base their embassies there – there is an awareness that such a move could be destabilising.

Currently, no country has its embassy in Jerusalem, the Israeli foreign ministry said. Costa Rica and El Salvador did until a few years ago, but they are now in Tel Aviv.

The reason is that the final status of Jerusalem is supposed to be determined via direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, who want to have the capital of an independent Palestinian state in the east of the city.

If the US were to relocate its embassy, it would be an explicit recognition of Jerusalem belonging to Israel, pre-determining the outcome of negotiations and taking a side in a process in which the US is a critical actor.

Trump has suggested that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, could take on the job of mediating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. To do that, Kushner and the US would have to be seen as scrupulously independent. For the Palestinians, moving the embassy would cross a red line.

Jordan and Egypt, the only two Arab countries with peace treaties with Israel, have warned against the move, as have former President Barack Obama and former secretary of state John Kerry, saying it could be explosive for the region.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas held discussions on the issue with King Abdullah of Jordan in Amman on Sunday. Palestinian officials said the king, who oversees the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, expressed concerns about any relocation. Abbas and the king agreed on a list of steps they would take if the embassy move is made, one official said.

It is not clear what steps Jordan would take, but withdrawing its ambassador to Israel, halting security cooperation or suspending its 1994 peace treaty are all possible, analysts say. It also wants to ensure the large Palestinian population in Jordan does not react angrily.

Egypt, which signed a peace deal with Israel in 1979 and cooperates with it on security, also has reservations about any move, calling it a “very inflammable issue”.

“I don’t want to indulge in speculation about what might or might not happen, but I think everyone recognises the importance of this issue,” foreign minister Samed Shoukry told members of the foreign media at a briefing on January 4.

“This is one of the final status issues that has to be addressed between the two sides … it is our interest that all issues are resolved through negotiations.”

Wider concerns

Another consideration for Israel is the stronger relations it has quietly been building with the Sunni Muslim world. Netanyahu speaks frequently about the “new horizon” Israel has with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states. If the US were to shift its embassy, it could rock those ties.

Israeli officials say they don’t want any move to be rushed. They believe the US embassy should be in Jerusalem, and Trump has said he will live up to his promise, but the decision has to be carefully thought through.

Spicer said on Monday that Trump had the power to make the embassy move by executive order. But he said: “His team’s going to continue to consult with stakeholders as we get there.”

Still, the practicalities alone are difficult. While the US government has several buildings in Jerusalem, including a consulate-general dealing with the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, it cannot create an embassy overnight.

The incoming US ambassador, David Friedman, has told Israeli media he intends to live in Jerusalem, where he has an apartment. But shifting the entire embassy with all its security arrangements and commercial, trade, cultural and economic units from Tel Aviv to a new site in Jerusalem will take time.

In the interim, Netanyahu has other political considerations. He is under investigation in two criminal cases and he faces a growing challenge from the far-right, pro-settlement Jewish Home party in his coalition.

The announcement on Sunday that Israel will build more settlements in East Jerusalem was in part a move by Netanyahu to satisfy voters on the far-right pushing for more rapid settlement expansion now Trump is in office.

(Reuters)

Israel’s Netanyahu to Visit US in February to Meet Trump

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement came hours after delaying a crucial vote on an proposal to annex one of the West Bank’s largest settlements..

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Sunday, Jan. 22, 2017. (Ronen Zvulun/Pool Photo via AP)

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. Credit: Ronen Zvulun/Pool Photo via AP

Jerusalem: Israel’s prime minister on Sunday accepted an invitation to visit the White House next month in hopes of forging a “common vision” for the region with President Donald Trump that could include expanded settlement construction on occupied territories and a tougher policy toward Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his plans to head to Washington in early February hours after delaying a vote on an explosive proposal to annex one of the West Bank’s largest settlements, apparently to coordinate his policy toward the Palestinians with the new administration.

The move put on hold legislation that threatens to unleash fresh violence and damage already faded hopes for Palestinian independence. It also may have marked Trump’s first presidential foray into Middle East diplomacy.

After eight years of frosty relations with President Barack Obama, Netanyahu has welcomed Trump’s election as an opportunity to strengthen ties between the two allies. Israeli media reported that Netanyahu was gearing up plans to expand settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem — a policy that had been condemned by Obama.

Late Sunday, the two men held what Netanyahu’s office described as a “very warm conversation” by phone. It said they discussed the international nuclear deal with Iran, which both men have harshly criticised, and the Palestinian issue.

“The prime minister expressed his desire to work closely with President Trump to forge a common vision to advance peace and security in the region, with no daylight between the US and Israel,” the statement said. It said a date for Netanyahu’s visit would be finalised in the coming days.

The White House said Trump told Netanyahu that peace with the Palestinians “can only be negotiated directly between the two parties” and that the US will work closely with Israel on that goal.

Trump also affirmed his “unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security” and his administration’s focus on countering terrorism, the White House added.

With Trump signaling a more tolerant approach toward the much-maligned settlement movement, Israel’s nationalist right now believes it has an ally in the White House, and Israeli hard-line leaders make no secret they will push for aggressive action in the occupied West Bank.

Education Minister Naftali Bennett, leader of the pro-settlement Jewish Home Party, has been pushing Netanyahu to abandon the internationally backed idea of a Palestinian state and to annex the Maaleh Adumim settlement near Jerusalem.

But after convening his security cabinet on Sunday, Netanyahu said his cabinet ministers, including Bennett, had decided “unanimously” to delay action on the annexation plan until he goes to Washington to meet with Trump.

In order to placate Bennett, Israeli media reports said Netanyahu had promised the ministers to clear the way for expanded settlement construction in east Jerusalem and in major West Bank settlement “blocs” that Israel hopes to keep under a future peace deal. He was quoted as saying his “vision” is to place all settlements under Israeli sovereignty.

In Washington, Trump described their phone call as “very nice.”

Netanyahu, a longtime supporter of the settlements, has nonetheless been cautious about expanding them in the face of strong opposition from the international community. In a final showdown with Israel last month, the Obama administration allowed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning settlements as illegal.

But Bennett and other hard-liners believe there is no longer any reason for restraint.

“For the first time in 50 years, the prime minister can decide: either sovereignty or Palestine,” Bennett wrote on Twitter.

Annexing Maaleh Adumim, a sprawling settlement of nearly 40,000 people east of Jerusalem, could cause a major clash with the Palestinians and the rest of the international community.

The Palestinians seek all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — for a future state. The Palestinians and the international community consider all settlements illegal, and unilaterally making Maaleh Adumim part of Israel would deal a powerful blow to hopes for a two-state solution.

To the Palestinians, it would be seen as undermining negotiations. Maaleh Adumim is also strategically located in the middle of the West Bank, potentially hindering the establishment of their state.

“If they are serious about making it part of Israel and closing it down, then it is actually cutting the West Bank into two,” said Hagit Ofran of the anti-settlement group Peace Now.

While Trump has not expressed an opinion on the annexation, he has signaled a softer approach toward the settlement movement than any of his predecessors.

His designated ambassador to Israel has close ties to Jewish West Bank settlements, and a delegation of settler leaders attended Friday’s inauguration as guests of administration officials.

Trump also has already said he supports one of Israel’s key demands — moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The president ignored a question Sunday from reporters about the issue.

The US, like other countries, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv, saying the conflicting claims to Jerusalem must be worked out in negotiations.

Trump, however, faces heavy pressure from the Palestinians and Arab countries against moving the embassy. The fate of east Jerusalem, home to the city’s most sensitive religious sites, is deeply emotional, and disagreements have boiled over into violence in the past.

The White House dispelled rumors that Trump had imminent plans to announce the move. It said it was only at the “very beginning” of discussing plans to move the embassy.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has sent a series of messages to Trump urging him not to move the embassy and warning that he would revoke recognition of Israel if the move takes place.

Abbas met Sunday with Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Amman. Jordan, which serves as the custodian of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, has warned that moving the embassy would cross a “red line.” Jordan is a key Israeli and Western ally in the battle against Islamic militants.

“We discussed the possibility of moving the embassy, and we say that if this thing happens, then we have measures that we agreed to implement together with Jordan,” Abbas said. “And we hope that the American administration will not do that.”

Also Sunday, Jerusalem city officials granted building permits for 566 new homes in east Jerusalem. The permits had been put on hold for the final months of the Obama administration.

“We’ve been through eight tough years with Obama pressuring to freeze construction,” said Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. “I hope that era is over.”

Unlike other West Bank settlements, Israel annexed east Jerusalem and considers its neighborhoods inseparable parts of its capital. But the annexation is not internationally recognized.

Palestinian official Nabil Abu Rdeneh and condemned the building plans and called on the UN to act. “It is time to stop dealing with Israel as a state above the law,” he said.

(AP)

Israel-Palestine Issue Loses Focus As Obama’s Tenure Nears an End

US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, said that Obama had no plans to pursue a new Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative before leaving office.

US President Barack Obama listens to applause following his address to the UN General Assembly in New York September 20, 2016. Credit: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque

United Nations: In his first major UN speech eight years ago, President Barack Obama said he would not give up on Israeli-Palestinian peace.

In what was likely his last UN speech, on Tuesday, he spoke little about the conflict beyond voicing the unsurprising sentiment that matters would improve if Israel let go of Palestinian land and if the Palestinians rejected incitement and embraced Israel’s legitimacy.

While US officials have said Obama could lay out the rough outlines of a deal – “parameters” in diplomatic parlance – after the November 8 presidential election and before he departs on January 20, many Middle East analysts doubt this will have much effect.

The result, they say, is likely to be a legacy of failure on an issue Obama made a priority when he came into office in 2009 and declared in his first UN General Assembly address: “I will not waver in my pursuit of peace.”

Obama has little to show for his two efforts – one spearheaded by George Mitchell in his first term and another by US Secretary of State John Kerry, in his second.

“He has not made an impact on this issue at all, and he wants to,” said Elliott Abrams, a Middle East adviser to former President George W. Bush, a Republican. “So I think the question that he is asking is really a legacy question, rather than asking a pragmatic question of what will really help the parties.”

Obama raised concerns about Israeli settlements in the West Bank when he met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York on Wednesday. A senior US official told reporters afterwards those concerns included the “corrosive effect” settlement activity during 50 years of occupation had had on prospects for negotiating peace based on two states, Israeli and Palestinian.

The CIA Factbook online says about 371,000 Israelis live in settlements scattered among an estimated 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank, captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Neither figure includes East Jerusalem, which both sides claim.

After November 8

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said earlier that Obama had no plans to pursue a new Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative before leaving office, though he could take unspecified steps.

A US official who tracks the issue said he does not expect the White House to decide whether Obama might make a speech on the issue or seek to pass a new UN Security Council resolution, until Americans elect his successor.

“They are waiting to see what they can get the boss to do after the election pressure is over,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They have been toying with the idea for months.”

The US presidential election pits Democrat Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of state and his choice for the top job, against Republican businessman Donald Trump. Several analysts believe Obama will consult Clinton if she wins.

It would not be the first time a US president took action on the Middle East at the end of a term.

In December 1988, weeks before leaving office, President Ronald Reagan broke with Israel to authorise the start of talks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. George Bush, his vice president and the president-elect, backed the dialogue.

Then in January 2001, just before leaving office, Bill Clinton brought together Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in a failed bid to make peace and laid down his own “parameters” for a solution.

Progress unlikely

The political climate between Israelis and Palestinians makes progress unlikely. Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have no plans to meet this week at the annual UN gathering of world leaders.

“We don’t expect much from Abu Mazen,” Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, told reporters on Monday, referring to the Palestinian leader by his nickname.

Palestinians say Israeli settlement expansion in occupied territory is dimming any prospect for the viable state they seek, with a capital in Arab East Jerusalem.

Israel has demanded tighter security measures from the Palestinians and a crackdown on militants responsible for a string of stabbings and shootings against Israelis in recent months. It also says Jerusalem is Israel’s indivisible capital.

With US efforts to broker a deal on a Palestinian state on Israel-occupied land in deep freeze for two years, France has tried to revive interest in the issue, with one senior French diplomat arguing that letting matters drift even during a US election year is like “waiting for a powder keg to explode.”

‘In your dreams’

In his eighth speech before the UN General Assembly, Obama gave little time to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

“Surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognise the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognises that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land,” Obama said in his lone direct reference to the conflict during the 48-minute speech.

The lack of progress has frustrated Arab and Western officials, some of whom were not shy about voicing their dismay.

“On this issue, you hear everything and nothing from the Americans. One says Obama is ready to do something, another says ‘no way’; one says a resolution is the way forward, another says ‘in your dreams,'” said a senior Western diplomat.

Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington said Obama tends to act as a “mandarin” who offers rational solutions rather than as a politician who moves public opinion.

As a result, merely sketching out the contours of a deal would do little to change the political realities on the ground.

“What the US thinks has never been the missing link,” he said. “The weak link has often been a question of implementation. The White House hasn’t been very good at persuading people to see things their way and act accordingly.”

(Reuters)

Israel-Palestine Conflict Slipping Into One-State Reality: UN Offical

A report released on July 1, by the so-called ‘Quartet’ – US, EU, UN and Russia – called on Israel to stop its policy of building settlements on occupied land and restricting Palestinian development.

A Palestinian protester holds a Palestinian flag as others take cover during clashes with the Israeli army at Qalandia checkpoint near occupied West Bank city of Ramallah, October 6, 2015. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

A Palestinian protester holds a Palestinian flag as others take cover during clashes with the Israeli army at Qalandia checkpoint near the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah. Credit: Reuters/Mohamad Torokman

Jerusalem: A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is slipping away, the UN special coordinator for Middle East peace warned on Sunday, July 4, after both sides shrugged off criticism by international mediators.

Israeli policy “is steadily eroding the viability of the two-state solution,” it said. It also urged the Palestinian authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank, take steps to end incitement to violence against Israelis, condemn “all acts of terrorism” and do more to combat them.

“The Quartet report sounds an alarm bell that we are on a dangerous slope towards a one-state reality that is incompatible with the national aspirations of both peoples,” wrote Nickolay Mladenov, UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, in a commentary emailed to journalists on July 3.

He also addressed Palestinian and Israeli criticism of the Quartet report. “Who will make the argument that more cannot be done to end incitement?” he asked. “Can anyone question that illegal settlements…are not undermining the prospect for a two-state solution?”

Israel welcomed parts of the Quartet report but signalled no change in settlement building, saying the document “perpetuates the myth that Israeli construction in the West Bank is an obstacle to peace”.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state is at the heart of the impasse.

A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expressed disappointment that the Quartet did not call for full Israeli withdrawal to lines that existed before the Israel captured the West Bank and east Jerusalem in a 1967 war.

The Palestinians want an independent state in those areas and in the Gaza Strip, a coastal enclave controlled since 2007 by the Islamist Hamas group. Peace talks collapsed in April 2014 and Israeli-Palestinian violence has surged in recent months.

Mladenov appealed to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to implement the report’s recommendations, offering the help of the international community to do so.

“I urge leaders on both sides not to miss this opportunity,” he wrote.

(Reuters)

Foreign Policy Re-Evalvation Sees Turkey Renewing Strained Relations With Israel, Russia

The move comes as new Turkish government packed with Erdogan allies re-evaluates its foreign policy.

Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan (2nd from right) walks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin prior to their meeting at the Group of 20 (G20) leaders summit in the Mediterranean resort city of Antalya, Turkey, November 16, 2015. Credit: Reuters/Kayhan Ozer.

Istanbul/Moscow/Jerusalem: Turkey announced the restoration of diplomatic ties with Israel on June 27 after a six-year rupture and expressed regret to Russia over the downing of a warplane, seeking to mend strained alliances and ease a sense of isolation on the world stage.

The deal with Israel after years of negotiation was a rare rapprochement in the divided Middle East, driven by the prospect of lucrative Mediterranean gas deals as well as mutual fears over growing security risks.

“With this agreement, economic relations will start to improve,” Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said of the deal with Israel, echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said it would have “immense implications” for Israel’s economy.

In his comments following a dinner to break the fast in the holy month of Ramzan, Erdogan also said Turkey aimed for a quick normalisation of ties with Moscow.

“I believe we will normalise our relations with Russia rapidly by ending the existing situation which is not in the interest of both sides,” he said.

The Kremlin earlier said Erdogan had apologised to Vladimir Putin over last year’s shooting down of a Russian air force jet by Turkey‘s military, opening the way for Russia to lift economic sanctions.

A spokesman for Erdogan, Ibrahim Kalin, confirmed a letter was sent to Putin, though he did not refer explicitly to an apology, something Turkish officials had long ruled out. Kalin said Erdogan had expressed regret and asked the family of the pilot to “excuse us.”

The moves come as the new Turkish government packed with Erdogan allies re-evaluates its foreign policy. Ankara has seen relations strained not only with Israel and Russia, but also with the US and the EU in recent months.

Turkey‘s worst nightmare in Syria has come true: Russian support has enabled its enemy President Bashar al-Assad to remain in power, while Kurdish militia fighters have benefited from the US support as they battle ISIS, bolstering their position in territory adjacent to the Turkish border.

Days after taking office last month, new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Turkey needed to “increase its friends and decrease its enemies”, in what appeared a tacit admission that his predecessor’s policies had left the NATO member isolated.

“It seems to me, Turkey is undertaking a reprioritisation of foreign policy,” said Brenda Shaffer, a visiting professor at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Atlantic Council.

“In both of these cases, it is practical realpolitik overriding ideological considerations. There were never any bilateral disputes between Turkey and Israel, just the opposite, there were only mutual interests. The same is true for Russia.”

Turkey and Israel will exchange ambassadors as soon as possible, Yildirim said on June 27.

Netanyahu sees economic dividend

Relations between Israel and what was once its principle Muslim ally crumbled after Israeli marines stormed an activist ship in May 2010 to enforce a naval blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip and killed 10 Turks on board.

The mending in relations with Israel raises the prospect of eventual cooperation to exploit natural gas reserves worth hundreds of billions of dollars under the eastern Mediterranean, officials have said. Netanyahu said it opened the way for possible Israeli gas supplies to Europe via Turkey.

Speaking after meeting US secretary of state John Kerry in Rome, Netanyahu said the agreement was an important step.

“It has also immense implications for the Israeli economy, and I use that word advisedly,” he told reporters.

Both Kerry and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon welcomed the deal. Kerry said, “We are obviously pleased in the administration. This is a step we wanted to see happen.”

Netanyahu made clear the naval blockade of Gaza, which Ankara had wanted lifted, would remain in force, although humanitarian aid could continue to be transferred to Gaza via Israeli ports.

“This is a supreme security interest of ours. I was not willing to compromise on it. This interest is essential to prevent the force-buildup by Hamas and it remains as has been and is,” Netanyahu said.

But Yildirim said the “wholesale” blockade of Gaza was largely lifted under the deal, enabling Turkey to deliver humanitarian aid and other non-military products.

A first shipment of 10,000 tonnes will be sent next Friday, he said, and work would begin immediately to tackle Gaza’s water and power supply crisis.

Erdogan said he had been in touch with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas about the deal.

“We have never accepted and we will never accept any conditions or impositions that will harm the rights of Palestinians,” Erdogan said.

Hamas in Gaza issued a statement thanking Turkey and Erdogan for their support “to help our people … and to alleviate the blockade” and said it hoped Turkish efforts would achieve its complete lifting and would force Israel “to stop its attacks against our people and our land.”

Yildirim said that Israel and Turkey would exchange ambassadors as soon as possible.

In a television interview late on June 27, he suggested the resetting of ties could also extend to Egypt. “There isn’t any obstacle to improve our economic relations with Egypt. Minister-level visits may start,” he said.

Hopes for end to Russia sanctions

A resolution in the dispute with Russia could ease some of the diplomatic tensions around the Syria conflict. Moscow supports Assad, while Ankara backs the rebels who are trying to oust him.

The Russian jet was shot down, with the loss of the pilot, in November while it took part in the Kremlin’s military campaign in Syria. Ankara said it acted lawfully because the plane entered Turkish air space; Moscow denied that happened.

The Kremlin responded to the downing of the plane by slapping trade restrictions on Ankara, including freezing work on a pipeline to ship Russian gas to Europe via Turkey and advising Russian tourists to avoid Turkish resorts.

Putin had said those measures would only be lifted if Erdogan personally issued an apology. There was no word from the Russian authorities on Monday on ending the sanctions.

“For the peace of the region, I believe in the importance of an effort to improve strategic relations that we have built with this close neighbour,” Erdogan said about Russia.

The Kremlin statement said Erdogan had expressed his readiness to do everything necessary to restore the traditionally friendly relations between Turkey and Russia, and also to jointly fight terrorism.

After the Kremlin revealed the existence of Erdogan’s letter, the Turkish lira firmed to 2.9330 against the US dollar from 2.9430 beforehand. It later lost some of the gains to trade at 2.9350 at 16:38 GMT.

(Reuters)

Palestinians Say Push for UN Rebuke of Israel Settlements Aimed at Peace

A renewed Palestinian drive to persuade the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli settlements is aimed at removing the biggest obstacle to peace and boosting French efforts to broker an agreement, the Palestinian UN envoy has said.

Ariel, one of Israel’s largest settlements on the West Bank. Credit: Salonmor/ Wikimedia Commons

United Nations: A renewed Palestinian drive to persuade the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli settlements is aimed at removing the biggest obstacle to peace and boosting French efforts to broker an agreement, the Palestinian UN envoy said on Tuesday, April 12.

Riyad Mansour, permanent Palestinian observer to the UN, told a small group of reporters that Arab delegations have received the draft resolution.

He said the point of putting the draft about Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank forward was “to keep the hope alive, to remove this obstacle from the path of peace, to open doors for peace, [and] to try to help the French initiative to stand on its feet.”

With US efforts to broker a two-state solution in tatters since 2014 and Washington focused on this year’s election, France has been lobbying countries to commit to a conference that would get Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations about ending their conflict.

Mansour said Washington vetoed a similar resolution about Israel‘s settlements five years ago because of fears it would undermine peace talks. But now, he noted, there are no peace talks.

In February 2011, the US voted against a draft resolution condemning Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, though it said at the time its opposition should not be misunderstood as support for settlement activity.

The US considers Israeli settlements on land the Palestinians want for a future state to be illegitimate.

Washington has not offered substantive comment on the new Palestinian draft, which has fuelled speculation in Israeli media the US is undecided about whether to use its veto this time.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will be in New York the week of April 18, 2016, to sign the Paris climate agreement. He is expected to meet with French President Francois Hollande on the sidelines, diplomats say, and will likely discuss the Palestinian draft resolution.

So far Egypt, the sole Arab council member, has not formally introduced the text.

Israel‘s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon last week reacted sharply to Israeli media reports about a possible Palestinian draft resolution on settlements.

“The Palestinians must understand that there are no shortcuts,” he said in a statement. “The only way to promote negotiations starts by them condemning terrorism and stopping the incitement, and ends with direct negotiations between the two sides.”

(Reuters)

With New Decree, Palestinian Leader Tightens Grip

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has established a constitutional court that analysts say concentrates more power in his hands.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas makes closing remarks at the end of the 5th Extraordinary Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Summit on Palestinian issues in Jakarta, Indonesia March 7, 2016. REUTERS/Garry Lotulung/Files

Gaza/Ramallah: Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has quietly established a constitutional court that analysts say concentrates more power in his hands and may allow him to sideline the Islamist group Hamas in the event of a succession struggle.

The nine-member body, which will have supremacy over all lower courts, was created without fanfare by presidential decree on April 3 and will be inaugurated once its ninth member is sworn in at a ceremony on Monday, officials said.

Critics say the body is packed with jurists from Abbas’s Fatah party and risks deepening Palestinian political divisions. Fatah says it is Abbas’s right to create the court, which it says is independent of the 81-year-old president.

“Neither the president nor any of the leaders (of Fatah) has a private agenda regarding this issue,” said Osama al-Qwasmi, the spokesman for Fatah in the West Bank. “The prime task of the constitutional court is to monitor laws. By the law, it is a completely independent body and we have full confidence in it.”

Abbas’s decision comes at a time of worsening splits between Fatah and Hamas and as questions are raised about what will happen when the president steps down or if he were to die in office without a successor. Abbas took office after the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, and was elected to a four-year term as president in 2005.

But new elections were not held in 2009 and he continues to govern by decree. Parliament has not sat since 2007. In theory, the speaker of parliament, a Hamas member, would take over as president on an interim basis were Abbas to die in office, although Fatah disputes whether that remains constitutional.

While Abbas may have the authority to create the court, which is being established 14 years after the Palestinians drafted a basic law, a form of constitution, some analysts see it as a way of circumventing opposition at a critical time.

“It’s a blatant power grab at a time when he knows he can get away with it,” said Grant Rumley, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC.

“From Abbas’s standpoint, this is his way of both thwarting his rivals in Hamas and securing his Fatah party’s hold on the Palestinian Authority once he is gone,” Rumley told Reuters.

Block on rivals?

Palestinian commentators also see the court, whose decisions would be binding on the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, as a means of bolstering presidential authority and marginalising Hamas. All nine members are either Fatah members or seen by Hamas and others as being allied with Fatah.

“It is as if you are confiscating everything and putting all the institutions in your hands,” said Hani al-Masri, an unaffiliated political analyst based in Ramallah.

Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in 2006 and seized control in Gaza a year later, saw itself sidestepped during the swearing-in process. Two of the nine members are from Gaza. Fatah said Hamas prevented them from leaving the territory to be sworn in at a ceremony in the West Bank on April 5. So instead they were sworn in via video link on Sunday.

“This is a factional court,” said Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas’s spokesman, arguing that it gave Abbas the ability to sidestep parliament – if the current one ever sits again – or if a new parliament is eventually elected.

Abbas’s legal adviser, Hassan al-Awry, said the court was needed in part because parliament’s legal status was in question given the lack of elections. “It is not a shame if the constitutional court would debate this issue,” he told Reuters, adding that the justices on the court were all legal experts and independent. “We want a judicial reference should such an issue be brought up.”

Yet Palestinian scholars say the court raises problems. Issam Abdeen, a law professor at Birzeit University in the West Bank, said it would have little check on its authority.

“It can be a lethal weapon if misused,” he told Reuters, pointing out that Abbas’s political opponents, such as Mohammad Dahlan who now lives in exile, have a new hurdle to clear in efforts to mount legal challenges to his authority.

Rumley, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, regards the court as a potential barrier to reform. “Rather than reforming his party, preparing for elections, or reactivating the defunct parliament, (Abbas) is creating another judicial body by presidential decree in order to, among other things, approve presidential decrees,” he said.

(Reuters)

India Votes Against Israel on Key Settlements Resolution, but Abstains Again on War Crimes

While Israel may be heartened by India’s abstention on the Gaza resolution this year too, it will not be overjoyed as New Delhi voted in favour of a new resolution that sets up a database of Israeli and international firms working in the illegal Israeli settlements.

While Israel may be heartened by India’s abstention on the Gaza resolution this year too, it will not be overjoyed as New Delhi voted in favour of a new resolution that sets up a database of Israeli and international firms working in the illegal Israeli settlements.

File picture of Palestinian boy looking at an Israeli soldier along the wall Wikipedia commons

New Delhi: For the second consecutive year, India has abstained from the Palestine-sponsored resolution which supports a probe by the International Criminal Court against Israel for war crimes during its last Gaza offensive. At the same time, New Delhi voted in favour of four other resolutions criticising Israel, including one that calls for blacklisting firms operating in Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.

On the last day of the four-week long 31st session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, there were five resolutions related to Palestine up for vote. While three of them were adopted early on Thursday, intense negotiations went on late into the night to persuade the Palestinian delegation to soften its language on the draft resolution on accountability in Gaza and on compilation of a database of firms working in the Occupied West Bank.

Just as in 2015, Palestine brought a resolution aimed at bringing Israel before the ICC for violations of international humanitarian law during the 2014 Gaza war codenamed ‘Operation Protective Edge’ This year, the resolution was adopted with 31 countries in favour, 15 abstentions and none against.

Last year, a similar resolution had garnered 41 votes in favour and only five abstentions, including India. The United States had caste the lone vote against the resolution in 2015, but it is no longer part of the council this year.

Not the whole truth

A senior Indian official said that India’s abstention was again due to the reference the resolution made to the ICC in the “operational” portion of the resolution, as New Delhi is not a party to the Rome Statute – the charter of the criminal court.

Operational para 5 in resolution A/HRC/31/L.38 [PDF] calls upon “the parties concerned to cooperate fully with the preliminary examination of the International Criminal Court and with any subsequent investigation that may be opened”.

India had claimed last year that it had abstained on similarly worded resolutions against Syria and North Korea which referred to the ICC. However, this was a selective explanation, as India had voted in favour of other resolutions which referred Libya and Mali to the ICC, without any such qualification.

India’s abstention in 2015 – which followed a telephone call to Prime Minister Narendra Modi from his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu – had led to an outcry, with the Palestinian envoy to India expressing shock and the Israeli ambassador welcoming the non-vote.

Opposition MPs slammed the abstention as a reversal of India’s traditional position on Palestine. External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj was forced to make statement in parliament to explain that there while New Delhi acknowledged Israel as a friend, there was no change in support for the two-state policy.

Fear of business boycott

While Israel may be heartened by India’s abstention on the Gaza resolution this year too, it will not be overjoyed as New Delhi ended up voting in favour of a new Palestine-backed resolution that sets up a database of Israeli and international firms working in the illegal Israeli settlements.

As per the settlements resolution [PDF], the UN high commissioner for human rights would have to produce a database of “all business enterprises involved in activities” in the Israeli settlements, which will be updated annually.

It further called on the UN Secretary General to report on implementation of the resolution “with particular emphasis on the human rights and international law violations involved in the production of settlement goods and the relationship between trade in these goods and the maintenance and economic growth of settlements, at its thirty-fourth session”

India voted in favour of this resolution which was adopted with 32 ‘yes’ votes and 15 abstentions. There were no negative votes.

The resolution is considered especially dangerous by Israel because the compilation of businesses involved in the settlements will make it easier for the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory to target individual companies.

Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch published a report on how “settlement businesses contribute to Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights.”

Sources said that there were efforts led by European Union which went on till midnight to tone down the language.

The Israeli paper Ha’aretz reported that US secretary of state John Kerry called up Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday afternoon in an attempt to persuade him to soften the draft before its adoption.

In his statement on the passage of the resolution, Israel’s UN envoy, Danny Danon said that the UNHRC had “witnessed another absurd performance”.

While most of the Organisation of Islamic Conference members voted in favour, the abstention category mostly included European countries.

The other three resolutions also passed on Thursday were on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. India voted with the Palestinians in all three.

A Man Driven by Hatred and Contempt for Palestinian Arabs

When Netanyahu blames the recent outbreak of violence on Palestinian incitement against Jews, as if incitement had no context and no real cause, he is being deliberately disingenuous, or worse.

Benjamin Netanyahu. Credit: Wikimedia commons

Jerusalem: These are hard days in Jerusalem, a city which for some three millennia has had no dearth of hard days. Something like a third Intifada may have broken out – not surprisingly, given the history of the last five decades and, in particular, of the last five months.

For over three weeks now, there have been stabbings in the streets, mostly carried out by Palestinian adolescents. Israeli mobs, sometimes led by the violent, ultra-nationalist organization known as Lehava (“Flame”), have assaulted innocent Palestinian passers-by in the city center. Ordinary people, both Israelis and Palestinians, are afraid to go into town. The violence is still largely random and episodic, but there are already indications that, as happened with the first Intifada, the extremists on both sides are organizing for larger-scale killings. Attacks have taken place outside Jerusalem as well, deep inside Israel and deep inside the occupied West Bank. It is more than likely than things will get worse.

The causes of this present wave are apparent to anyone with eyes. We might think in terms of the root cause and the immediate trigger. The former, simply put, is the brutal reality of the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian lands – soon to enter its 49^th year. We have seen half a century of a massive, continuous land-grab; Israeli settlements, the last of the world’s large-scale colonial projects, cover more than half of the West Bank. Theft of Palestinian land is the true, indeed the only, rationale for the Occupation, but it also entails leaving several million Palestinians disenfranchised, without even minimal human rights, with no effective legal recourse, and subject to daily humiliation, to the usually hostile whims of the army bureaucrats, and to constant harassment, sometimes to the point of murder, by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

I have long first-hand experience of the Occupation in the southern West Bank, and I can attest personally to the nature of that reality. When Netanyahu blames the recent outbreak of violence on Palestinian incitement against Jews, as if incitement had no context and no real cause, he is being deliberately disingenuous, or worse.

A mini-Intifada has been unfolding night after night in Palestinian neighbourhoods of east Jerusalem over the last several months. It’s not been a secret, but most Israelis chose to ignore it. Now it can no longer be ignored.

The proximate trigger, in my view, was the not entirely unjustified fear by Palestinian Muslims that the Israeli government was intending to change the status quo in the Haram al-Sharif, the site of the ancient Jewish Temples and one of the holiest shrines for Islam. Within the present Israeli government and Parliament there are crack-pot messianic nationalists who want to establish a permanent Jewish presence in the Haram. One of the most dangerous of them is Moshe Feiglin, a settler and member of Knesset who heads a large faction of extremists still nominally in the Likud Party. In 1997 Feiglin was found guilty of sedition by the Israel Supreme Court and sentenced to six months in prison (he didn’t serve the sentence). He is the unashamed author of such noble statements as “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers.” His designs on the Temple Mount are public knowledge—also among Palestinians. Feiglin was allowed to enter the Haram less than a year ago, setting off a wave of violence in east Jerusalem. He is constantly pressuring the government and the police to let him go there again.

In short, it seems we are moving toward catastrophe in Israel-Palestine, perhaps in a slow but unstoppable zig-zag downward into hell. Or it may be the fast track. In any case, this is a situation of extreme danger; precisely this configuration of public panic fanned by a cowardly and cynical leadership is what all too often leads to full-fledged Fascism – a much greater threat to the survival of the state than any conceivable combination of Arab armies.

You can also be certain that so long as Netanyahu is in power, there will be no peace and no hope for peace. He is a man clearly driven by hatred and contempt for Palestinian Arabs, as you can see from his press conference last week, where he made the absurd and outrageous claim that the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1930’s and 1940’s, the notorious Haj Amin al-Husseini, planted the idea of genocide in Hitler’s mind.

The statement is a kind of historical science fiction, but it does shed light on what goes on Netanyahu’s mind. He has, it seems, failed to notice that a majority of the Palestinians of 2015, including the moderate leadership in Ramallah, are very remote from the extremist vision of the Mufti eighty years ago. For some people, especially those who savour, above all else, a sense of self-righteous victimhood, time stands still. In any case, Netanyahu is hardly in a position to complain about incitement; he himself trades only in the coinage of hysteria, fear and hate.

These are dark days in Jerusalem. Innocents are dying. Everyone is at risk. There is no reason to think that anyone from outside will save the Israelis from themselves. We had our chance, and we wasted it. The Palestinians, for their part, may soon replace Mahmoud Abbas with someone far less committed to a non-violent struggle for statehood. If and when that happens, Netanyahu and his followers will undoubtedly feel vindicated, as if they had no part in all of this. After all, he’s sure to tell us, you can never trust a (Palestinian) Arab.

David Shulman is an Indologist and an authority on the languages of India. A professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he is an activist in Ta’ayush, Arab-Jewish Partnership. His latest book is More Than Real: A History of the Imagination in South India  , published in April 2015