Connect with us

Middle East

French led peace initiative: Arab League debates Israel-Palestine conflict

Published

on

When the international media outlets flashed the news about a French sponsored peace conference to find a credible solution to the Mideast crisis, denying the Palestinians a home of their own to improve their life conditions, world looked at the new development with a lot of hopes.

An international peace conference, sponsored by France, will take place in Paris on 3 June, a move that was welcomed by the Palestinians and opposed by the Israelis who fear if they let the besieged Palestinians make a fully independent state, it would lose the aid and all military support from USA and EU and it won’t be able to make false complaints about Palestinians. Earlier this year, the French government began efforts to host an international conference planned for this summer to restore peace talks between Palestinian and Israeli authorities. It also vowed to recognize a Palestinian state if peace talks failed.

However, in order to promote peace in the region, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have been invited to the first phase of the process, in which more than 20 ministers will gather in Paris to discuss ways to jump-start negotiations that have been frozen for more than two years.

Arab conclave

Recently the Arab nations converged in Cairo to discuss the new developments regarding establishment of Palestine state and the problems affecting peace development in Mideast.

Foreign ministers from the Arab League states met on May 28 in Cairo for a heated debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, as their preparation for the international conference to be held in Pairs this week. After the failure of USA to successfully and honestly mediate between Palestinians and Israeli regime, France has decided to mediate for a possible quick solution to the vexed and most complicated international problem, causing continued blood bath in Palestine due to Israeli terror attacks as its birth right. .

The 22 Arab League members were all present at the Cairo extraordinary meeting including representatives from Palestine and the Libya Unity Government. The Cairo meeting stressed the latest development between Israel and Palestine and deliberated on how the Arab countries could make contributions to reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at the international conference in Pairs.

Arab ministries of foreign affairs are supporting the French initiative to revive the peace talks between Palestine and Israel and have urged for an established timeframe for the talks. Participants agreed that they would use the 2002 Arab peace initiative as the basis for negotiation and demand total pullout by Israel from all the Arab territories it has occupied since 1967. The participants also agreed on working with Israel and Palestine to accept the two-state solution for peaceful coexistence. According to the Palestinian envoy, Abbas updated Arab foreign ministers on the recent developments of the Palestinian issue and meet with the Arab League’s Secretary General Nabil Arabi.

The final statement of the Arab ministries’ urgent meeting put an emphasis on creating a multi-sided way to end the Israeli occupation and establish the Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s arrival in Cairo closely follows a visit by an Israel Foreign Ministry delegation, which the ministry said was there for a routine meeting with their counterparts. Abbas said that Palestine will participate in the international peace conference if it aims to achieve the vision of the two states. Abbas added that the negotiation should have a known timeframe. Arab League Secretary General Nabil Al-Araby said the aim is not to bring the two parties together but rather to identify a timeframe and techniques to impose what they will agree on.

The Palestinian news agency Ma’an speculated that Israeli officials were in Cairo hoping to organize a tripartite meeting between PM Netanyahu, President Abbas and General Sisi ahead of the June 3 meeting in Paris. Its agenda having been failed, Israel has denied this report. Meanwhile, Sara Netanyahu, wife of the Israeli prime minister and a favorite for criticism and ridicule in local media, is now facing scrutiny by legal authorities after the police recommended indicting the first lady for her actions in three separate affairs relating to the running of the Prime Minister’s Residences. Each of the irregularities being investigated appears to have in common the spending of government funds for personal benefit by the Netanyahu family.

According to a Channel 10 report aired earlier this week, moderate Arab governments in the region have communicated to Netanyahu their willingness to engage in negotiations with Israel over possible changes to a 2002 Arab peace initiative so it may serve as the agreed-upon basis of renewed talks with the Palestinians.   Arab regimes led by Egypt and the wealthy Gulf sheikdoms have signaled their desire to publicly change their posture toward Israel. But, according to Channel 2, Sisi, who had called out equally to Israelis and Palestinians to make peace, is strengthening his ties with Abbas now that Yisrael Beytenu head Avigdor Liberman who is known to be a hawkish anti-Palestine illegal settler leader has joined the government as defence minister.

Arrogance and ultra fanaticism

Clearly, fanatic and criminal minded Israel does not want an independent and soverign Palestine to emerge in West Asia and it obstructs it by all terror tactics, including bogus talk. Peace and prosperity is the last thing Israel wants in Palestine or in Mideast. Jewish strategists in Israel and USA think if Palestine is legally established leading to a peaceful and safe Mideast region, Israel won’t be able kill Palestinians as freely as they do now or expand its fake territories on false claims and western military strength. Also, the USA would drop Israel as a finished case. This may be untenable and unacceptable for the Jews.

English educated but highly fanatic Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu commented on the French initiative saying that the only way to progress is to conduct direct negotiations with Palestinians. Israel wants to impose its own laws and dictates on Palestinians and USA.

Egypt will participate in the Paris conference, said the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sameh Shoukry. “We hope that the conference will revive the first steps in the negotiations track between Palestine and Israel,” Shoukry added. President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi said Monday that Egypt will support any initiative that asserts that rights of the Palestinian people. He also called on both sides to take advantage of this opportunity to achieve a peaceful solution.

Though it does not have any real intention of letting Palestinians establish a soverign nation, Israel falsely insists it alone can negotiate with Palestinians and no mediators are necessary. The Israeli side expressed earlier its concerns over the conference as Netanyahu told the French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault that Israel still opposes holding an international conference on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. “I told him the only way to advance genuine peace between us and Palestinians is through direct negotiations between us and them, without preconditions,” said Netanyahu.

Unity deficit

The lack of unity among Fatah and Hamas is considered by many to be the most pressing problem facing the Palestinian people and the primary road block to statehood. After signing six reconciliation agreements but failing to implement any tangible evidence of rapprochement, Fatah and Hamas are trying it again with a new twist: international supervision. On June 30, the two factions will meet in Geneva as guests of the Swiss Foreign Ministry along with representatives from the Quartet (United States; United Nations, European Union and Russia), Sweden, Norway, China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in an attempt to find the formula for ending the bifurcation between the Fatah-controlled West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. The key goals could be to unite Fatah and strengthen it against Hamas, weaken Hamas, complete a peace agreement with Israel and seize control of sovereign Palestinian institutions in the West Bank.

Of the failed agreements signed but not implemented, it is the Cairo Agreement of 2014 that will be the focus for implementation. Unlike the French initiative to reconcile the Israelis and Palestinians that is set to kick-off with a preliminary conference of foreign ministers in early June, the USA is not planning to attend in Geneva. The post Fatah, Hamas would try new reconciliation with international mediation.

The United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Jordan are reportedly planning to have former Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan replace Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Citing unnamed senior Palestinian and Jordanian sources, Middle East Eye reported Friday on the joint plan to bring Dahlan, the former leader of Abbas’ Fatah party in the Gaza Strip, back from exile in the Gulf. The plan was discussed with Israel, according to the article, which did not indicate Israel’s reaction.

Fatah leader Dahlan, a bitter rival of Abbas, was driven from Gaza after Hamas seized control of the coastal enclave in 2007. In 2011, he was expelled from Fatah amid allegations of corruption and accusations that he had poisoned longtime Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat. Abbas, 81, has headed the Palestinian Authority since 2005. Dahlan who is 54 and headed the Palestinian police in Gaza in the immediate aftermath of the 1993 Oslo Accords, “has close ties to” the UAE’s royals, according to the Middle East Eye.

Sources say Hamas is weaker than Fatah in Gaza and that Fatah is weaker than Hamas in the West Bank and that Fatah could win if it were to be united whereas Hamas is likely to win if Fatah remained disunited. The parties -the UAE, Jordan and Egypt – believe that Mahmoud Abbas has expired politically and that they should endeavor to stop any surprises by Abbas during the period when Fatah will remain under his leadership until the elections are held. According to a report, Jordan has concerns about Dahlan, however, namely his reputation for being unpopular among Palestinians and allegations that he is corrupt and has ties to the Israeli security services.

Once Palestinians get united they would get a soverign state to plan for better future for the ir children and as such they would be busy making Palestine an Islamic democracy which would be free from corruption and liquor.

Observation

Israel has been systematically disallowing peace to take charge in West Asia; it arm-twister USA not to push beyond certain point as Americans are duty bound to shield the Zionist crimes by their own choice; Israel used USA to object to Russian proposal for peace talks; it attacked the aidship from Turkey seeking to make Gaza strip trouble free. Israel does not allow any foreign dignitary to visit Gaza Strip of Palestine. Israel collects taxes form Palestine and uses it as a powerful blackmail tool to force Palestinians to keep fighting amongst themselves, killing each other.

So, Israel opposes the involvement of a veto power France in the world’s longest conflict.

The Israeli side seems to be afraid of any international intervention that may dictate terms. Israel replied formally last month on the French initiative saying that anything other than bilateral negotiations “will give the Palestinians an escape from recognising Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people”.

Peace talks between Palestinians and an arrogant and Israel unwilling for any peaceful settlement stalled following the collapse of a US-led initiative two years ago as it wants to kill every Palestinians and throw the body into the sea as the Jewish hawkish leaders have declared time and again..

Colonialist Israel occupies Palestine and considers its prerogative to deal with people of Palestine, even their children the way the military wants, brutally treating the Palestinians by creating terror blockades blocking Gaza people to move freely within Palestine territories and, worse, to let them go out of Palestine even for urgent and important matters. Israeli military, backed by pentagon, regulates the movement of Palestinians. Yet Israel also calls itself a modern democracy. Perhaps, by democracy Israel means the illegal nukes it has obtained from the USA and allies. How can a terrorist, fascist nation be a democracy as well? Hopefully the France sponsored peace conference would yield fruits, pawing way for constructive dialog for speedy establishment of much delayed Palestine state. Other veto members should join France in pushing for a settlement of the dispute cum crisis in Mideast.

Let a new peaceful era dawn in Mideast with the establishment of Palestine that would in turn help establish global peace in a better manner. Let Israel be willing to make a soverign Palestine state possible by wholeheartedly supporting the Palestinians who has lost thousands of their brethren in bloody battles, defending themselves with a powerful enemy who is backed by veto and fellow nuke powers. . .

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

The Turkish Gambit

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

The only certainty in war is its intrinsic uncertainty, something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could soon chance upon.  One only has to look back on America’s topsy-turvy fortunes in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Syria for confirmation.

The Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria has as its defined objective a buffer zone between the Kurds in Turkey and in Syria.  Mr. Erdogan hopes, to populate it with some of the 3 million plus Syrian refugees in Turkey, many of these in limbo in border camps.  The refugees are Arab; the Kurds are not.

Kurds speak a language different from Arabic but akin to Persian.  After the First World War, when the victors parceled up the Arab areas of the Ottoman Empire, Syria came to be controlled by the French, Iraq by the British, and the Kurdish area was divided into parts in Turkey, Syria and Iraq, not forgetting the borderlands in Iran — a brutal division by a colonial scalpel severing communities, friends and families.  About the latter, I have some experience, having lived through the bloody partition of India into two, and now three countries that cost a million lives.   

How Mr. Erdogan will persuade the Arab Syrian refugees to live in an enclave, surrounded by hostile Kurds, some ethnically cleansed from the very same place, remains an open question.  Will the Turkish army occupy this zone permanently?  For, we can imagine what the Kurds will do if the Turkish forces leave.

There is another aspect of modern conflict that has made conquest no longer such a desirable proposition — the guerrilla fighter.  Lightly armed and a master of asymmetric warfare, he destabilizes. 

Modern weapons provide small bands of men the capacity and capability to down helicopters, cripple tanks, lay IEDs, place car bombs in cities and generally disrupt any orderly functioning of a state, tying down large forces at huge expense with little chance of long term stability.  If the US has failed repeatedly in its efforts to bend countries to its will, one has to wonder if Erdogan has thought this one through.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 is another case in point.  Forever synonymous with the infamous butchery at Sabra and Shatila by the Phalange militia facilitated by Israeli forces, it is easy to forget a major and important Israeli goal:  access to the waters of the Litani River which implied a zone of occupation for the area south of it up to the Israeli border.

Southern Lebanon is predominantly Shia and at the time of the Israeli invasion they were a placid group who were dominated by Christians and Sunni, even Palestinians ejected from Israel but now armed and finding refuge in Lebanon.  It was when the Israelis looked like they were going to stay that the Shia awoke.  It took a while but soon their guerrillas were harassing Israeli troops and drawing blood.  The game was no longer worth the candle and Israel, licking its wounds, began to withdraw ending up eventually behind their own border.

A colossal footnote is the resurgent Shia confidence, the buildup into Hezbollah and new political power.  The Hezbollah prepared well for another Israeli invasion to settle old scores and teach them a lesson.  So they were ready, and shocked the Israelis in 2006.  Now they are feared by Israeli troops.   

To return to the present, it is not entirely clear as to what transpired in the telephone call between Erdogan and Trump.  Various sources confirm Trump has bluffed Erdogan in the past.  It is not unlikely then for Trump to have said this time, “We’re leaving.  If you go in, you will have to police the area.  Don’t ask us to help you.”  Is that subject to misinterpretation?  It certainly is a reminder of the inadvertent green light to Saddam Hussein for the invasion of Kuwait when Bush Senior was in office. 

For the time being Erdogan is holding fast and Trump has signed an executive order imposing sanctions on Turkish officials and institutions.  Three Turkish ministers and the Defense and Energy ministries are included.  Trump has also demanded an immediate ceasefire.  On the economic front, he has raised tariffs on steel back to 50 percent as it used to be before last May.  Trade negotiations on a $100 billion trade deal with Turkey have also been halted forthwith.  The order also includes the holding of property of those sanctioned, as well as barring entry to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the misery begins all over again as thousands flee the invasion area carrying what they can.  Where are they headed?  Anywhere where artillery shells do not rain down and the sound of airplanes does not mean bombs.

Such are the exigencies of war and often its surprising consequences. 

Author’s Note:  This piece appeared originally on Counterpunch.org

Continue Reading

Middle East

Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?

Published

on

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the contingent alongside Kurdish militias controlled the vast territories. Trump clarified that the decision is connected with the intention of Turkey to attack the Kurdish units, posing a threat to Ankara.

It’s incredible that the Turkish military operation against Kurds – indeed the territorial integrity of Syria has resulted in the escape of the U.S., Great Britain, and France. These states essentially are key destabilizing components of the Syrian crisis.

Could this factor favourably influence the situation in the country? For instance, after the end of the Iraqi war in 2011 when the bulk of the American troops left the country, the positive developments took place in the lives of all Iraqis. According to World Economics organization, after the end of the conflict, Iraq’s GDP grew by 14% in 2012, while during the U.S. hostilities the average GDP growth was about 5,8%.

Syria’s GDP growth should also be predicted. Not right away the withdrawal of U.S., French, British, and other forces, but a little bit later after the end of the Turkish operation that is not a phenomenon. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict has been going on since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when Kurds started to promote the ideas of self-identity and independence. Apart from numerous human losses, the Turks accomplished nothing. It is unlikely that Ankara would achieve much in Peace Spring operation. The Kurds realize the gravity of the situation and choose to form an alliance with the Syrian government that has undermined the ongoing Turkish offensive.

Under these circumstances, Erdogan could only hope for the creation of a narrow buffer zone on the Syrian-Turkish border. The withdrawal of the Turkish forces from the region is just a matter of time. However, we can safely say that the Turkish expansion unwittingly accelerated the peace settlement of the Syrian crisis, as the vital destabilizing forces left the country. Besides, the transfer of the oil-rich north-eastern regions under the control of Bashar Assad will also contribute to the early resolution of the conflict.

It remains a matter of conjecture what the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia agreed on during the high-level talks. Let’s hope that not only the Syrians, but also key Gulf states are tired of instability and tension in the region, and it’s a high time to strive for a political solution to the Syrian problem.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Turkey and the Kurds: What goes around comes around

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Turkey, like much of the Middle East, is discovering that what goes around comes around.

Not only because President Recep Tayyip Erdogan appears to have miscalculated the fallout of what may prove to be a foolhardy intervention in Syria and neglected alternative options that could have strengthened Turkey’s position without sparking the ire of much of the international community.

But also because what could prove to be a strategic error is rooted in a policy of decades of denial of Kurdish identity and suppression of Kurdish cultural and political rights that was more likely than not to fuel conflict rather than encourage societal cohesion.

The policy midwifed the birth in the 1970s to militant groups like the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which only dropped its demand for Kurdish independence in recent years.

The group that has waged a low intensity insurgency that has cost tens of thousands of lives has been declared a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

Turkish refusal to acknowledge the rights of the Kurds, who are believed to account for up to 20 percent of the country’s population traces its roots to the carving of modern Turkey out of the ruins of the Ottoman empire by its visionary founder, Mustafa Kemal, widely known as Ataturk, Father of the Turks.

It is entrenched in Mr. Kemal’s declaration in a speech in 1923 to celebrate Turkish independence of “how happy is the one who calls himself a Turk,” an effort to forge a national identity for country that was an ethnic mosaic.

The phrase was incorporated half a century later in Turkey’s student oath and ultimately removed from it in 2013 at a time of peace talks between Turkey and the PKK by then prime minister, now president Erdogan.

It took the influx of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s and early 1990s as well as the 1991 declaration by the United States, Britain and France of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq that enabled the emergence of an autonomous Iraqi Kurdish region to spark debate in Turkey about the Kurdish question and prompt the government to refer to Kurds as Kurds rather than mountain Turks.

Ironically, Turkey’s enduring refusal to acknowledge Kurdish rights and its long neglect of development of the pre-dominantly Kurdish southeast of the country fuelled demands for greater rights rather than majority support for Kurdish secession largely despite the emergence of the PKK

Most Turkish Kurds, who could rise to the highest offices in the land s long as they identified as Turks rather than Kurds, resembled Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, whose options were more limited even if they endorsed the notion of a Jewish state.

Nonetheless, both minorities favoured an independent state for their brethren on the other side of the border but did not want to surrender the opportunities that either Turkey or Israel offered them.

The existence for close to three decades of a Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq and a 2017 referendum in which an overwhelming majority voted for Iraqi Kurdish independence, bitterly rejected and ultimately nullified by Iraqi, Turkish and Iranian opposition, did little to fundamentally change Turkish Kurdish attitudes.

If the referendum briefly soured Turkish-Iraqi Kurdish relations, it failed to undermine the basic understanding underlying a relationship that could have guided Turkey’s approach towards the Kurds in Syria even if dealing with Iraqi Kurds may have been easier because, unlike Turkish Kurds, they had not engaged in political violence against Turkey.

The notion that there was no alternative to the Turkish intervention in Syria is further countered by the fact that Turkish PKK negotiations that started in 2012 led a year later to a ceasefire and a boosting of efforts to secure a peaceful resolution.

The talks prompted imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan to publish a letter endorsing the ceasefire, the disarmament and withdrawal from Turkey of PKK fighters, and a call for an end to the insurgency. Mr. Ocalan predicted that 2013 would be the year in which the Turkish Kurdish issues would be resolved peacefully.

The PKK’s military leader, Cemil Bayik, told the BBC three years later that “we don’t want to separate from Turkey and set up a state. We want to live within the borders of Turkey on our own land freely.”

The talks broke down in 2015 against the backdrop of the Syrian war and the rise as a US ally of the United States in the fight against the Islamic State of the PKK’s Syrian affiliate, the People’s Protection Units (YPG).

Bitterly opposed to the US-YPG alliance, Turkey demanded that the PKK halt its resumption of attacks on Turkish targets and disarm prior to further negotiations.

Turkey responded to the breakdown and resumption of violence with a brutal crackdown in the southeast of the country and on the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP).

Nonetheless, in a statement issued from prison earlier this year that envisioned an understanding between Turkey and Syrian Kurdish forces believed to be aligned with the PKK, Mr. Ocalan declared that “we believe, with regard to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the problems in Syria should be resolved within the framework of the unity of Syria, based on constitutional guarantees and local democratic perspectives. In this regard, it should be sensitive to Turkey’s concerns.”

Turkey’s emergence as one of Iraqi Kurdistan’s foremost investors and trading partners in exchange for Iraqi Kurdish acquiescence in Turkish countering the PKK’s presence in the region could have provided inspiration for a US-sponsored safe zone in northern Syria that Washington and Ankara had contemplated.

The Turkish-Iraqi Kurdish understanding enabled Turkey  to allow an armed Iraqi Kurdish force to transit Turkish territory in 2014 to help prevent the Islamic State from conquering the Syrian city of Kobani.

A safe zone would have helped “realign the relationship between Turkey’s Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its Syrian offshoot… The safe-zone arrangements… envision(ed) drawing down the YPG presence along the border—a good starting point for reining in the PKK, improving U.S. ties with Ankara, and avoiding a potentially destructive Turkish intervention in Syria,” Turkey scholar Sonar Cagaptay suggested in August.

The opportunity that could have created the beginnings of a sustainable solution that would have benefitted Turkey as well as the Kurds fell by the wayside with Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria.

In many ways, Mr. Erdogan’s decision to opt for a military solution fits the mould of a critical mass of world leaders who look at the world through a civilizational prism and often view national borders in relative terms.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin pointed the way with his 2008 intervention in Georgia and the annexation in 2014 of Crimea as well as Russia’s stirring of pro-Russian insurgencies in two regions of Ukraine.

Mr. Erdogan appears to believe that if Mr. Putin can pull it off, so can he.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy