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

Getting Away With Murder: The New U.S. Intelligence Report on the Khashoggi Affair

Published

on

It was October 2, 2018 when a man walked into the Saudi Arabian consulate to collect some documents he needed for his impending marriage.  He had been there earlier on September 28, and had been told to allow a few days for them to prepare the needed proof of divorce from an earlier marriage.

So there he was.  His Turkish fiancée had accompanied him and he asked her to wait outside as it would only take a minute or two.  She waited and waited and… waited.  Jamal Khashoggi never came out.

What went on inside is a matter of dispute but US intelligence prepared a report which should have been released but was illegally blocked by the Trump administration.  Mr. Trump is no doubt grateful for the help he has had over two decades from various Saudi royals in addition to the business thrown his way at his various properties.  “I love the Saudis,” says Donald Trump and he had kept the report under wraps.  It has now been released by the new Biden administration.      

All the same, grisly details of the killing including dismemberment soon emerged because in this tragic episode, with an element of farce, it was soon evident that the Turks had bugged the consulate.  There is speculation as to how the perpetrators dispersed of the corpse but they themselves have been identified.  Turkish officials also claim to know that they acted on orders from the highest levels of the Saudi government.  They arrived on a private jet and left just as abruptly.

The egregious killing led to the UN appointing a Special Rapporteur, Agnes Callamard.  She concluded it to be an “extra-judicial killing for which the state of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible.”  She added, there was “credible evidence”  implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other senior officials.  

Now the US report.  Intelligence agencies conclude Jamal Khashoggi was killed by a Saudi hit squad under the orders of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.  They add that the latter has had unitary control over Saudi security and intelligence organizations and thus it was “highly unlikely” an operation of this nature would have been possible without Prince Mohammed’s authorization.

Mr. Biden’s reaction is plain.  Although the Crown Prince is the de facto ruler with his father the King’s acquiescence, Mr. Biden has not talked to him.  He called the king and emphasized the importance placed on human rights and the rule of law in the US.

President Biden is also re-evaluating US arms sales to the Kingdom with a view to limiting them to defensive weapons — a difficult task as many can be used for both, a fighter-bomber for example.

There are also calls for sanctions against the Crown Prince directly but Biden has ruled that out.  Saudi Arabia is after all the strongest ally of the US in the region, and no president wants to jeopardize that relationship.  Moreover, the US has done the same sort of thing often enough; the last prominent assassination being that of the senior Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani,  by the Trump administration.  

Continue Reading

Middle East

US intelligence report leaves Saudi Arabia with no good geopolitical choices

Published

on

The Biden administration’s publication of a US intelligence report that holds Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi creates a fundamental challenge to the kingdom’s geopolitical ambitions.

The challenge lies in whether and how Saudi Arabia will seek to further diversify its alliances with other world powers in response to the report and US human rights pressure.

Saudi and United Arab Emirates options are limited by that fact that they cannot fully replace the United States as a mainstay of their defence as well as their quest for regional hegemony, even if the report revives perceptions of the US as unreliable and at odds with their policies.

As Saudi King Salman and Prince Mohammed contemplate their options, including strengthening relations with external players such as China and Russia, they may find that reliance on these forces could prove riskier than the pitfalls of the kingdom’s ties with the United States.

Core to Saudi as well as UAE considerations is likely to be the shaping of the ultimate balance of power between the kingdom and Iran in a swath of land stretching from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Central Asia’s border with China.

US officials privately suggest that regional jockeying in an environment in which world power is being rebalanced to create a new world order was the key driver of Saudi and UAE as well as Israeli opposition from day one to the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran that the United States together with Europe, China, and Russia negotiated. That remains the driver of criticism of US President Joe Biden’s efforts to revive the agreement.

“If forced to choose, Riyadh preferred an isolated Iran with a nuclear bomb to an internationally accepted Iran unarmed with the weapons of doom,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and founder of the National Iranian American Council. Mr. Parsi was summing up Saudi and Emirati attitudes based on interviews with officials involved in the negotiations at a time that Mr. Biden was vice-president.

As a result, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel appear to remain determined to either foil a return of the United States to the accord, from which Mr. Biden’s predecessor, Donald J. Trump, withdrew, or ensure that it imposes conditions on Iran that would severely undermine its claim to regional hegemony.

In the ultimate analysis, the Gulf states and Israel share US objectives that include not only restricting Iran’s nuclear capabilities but also limiting its ballistic missiles program and ending support for non-state actors like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Yemen’s Houthis. The Middle Eastern states differ with the Biden administration on how to achieve those objectives and the sequencing of their pursuit.

Even so, the Gulf states are likely to realize as Saudi Arabia contemplates its next steps what Israel already knows: China and Russia’s commitment to the defence of Saudi Arabia or Israel are unlikely to match that of the United States given that they view an Iran unfettered by sanctions and international isolation as strategic in ways that only Turkey rather than other Middle Eastern states can match.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE will also have to recognize that they can attempt to influence US policies with the help of Israel’s powerful Washington lobby and influential US lobbying and public relations companies in ways that they are not able to do in autocratic China or authoritarian Russia.

No doubt, China and Russia will seek to exploit opportunities created by the United States’ recalibration of its relations with Saudi Arabia with arms sales as well as increased trade and investment.

But that will not alter the two countries’ long-term view of Iran as a country, albeit problematic, with attributes that the Gulf states cannot match even if it is momentarily in economic and political disrepair.

Those attributes include Iran’s geography as a gateway at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe; ethnic, cultural, and religious ties with Central Asia and the Middle East as a result of history and empire; a deep-seated identity rooted in empire; some of the world’s foremost oil and gas reserves; a large, highly educated population of 83 million that constitutes a huge domestic market; a fundamentally diversified economy; and a battle-hardened military.

Iran also shares Chinese and Russian ambitions to contain US influence even if its aspirations at times clash with those of China and Russia.

“China’s BRI will on paper finance additional transit options for the transfer of goods from ports in southern to northern Iran and beyond to Turkey, Russia, or Europe. China has a number of transit options available to it, but Iranian territory is difficult to avoid for any south-north or east-west links,” said Iran scholar Alex Vatanka referring to Beijing’s infrastructure, transportation and energy-driven Belt and Road Initiative.

Compared to an unfettered Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE primarily offer geography related to some of the most strategic waterways through which much of the world’s oil and gas flows as well their positioning opposite the Horn of Africa and their energy reserves.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s position as a religious leader in the Muslim world built on its custodianship of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, potentially could be challenged as the kingdom competes for leadership with other Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim-majority states.

On the principle of better the enemy that you know than the devil that you don’t, Saudi leaders may find that they are, in the best of scenarios, in response to changing US policies able to rattle cages by reaching out to China and Russia in ways that they have not until now, but that at the end of the day they are deprived of good choices.

That conclusion may be reinforced by the realization that the United States has signalled by not sanctioning Prince Mohammed that it does not wish to cut its umbilical cord with the kingdom. That message was also contained in the Biden administration’s earlier decision to halt the sale of weapons that Saudi Arabia could you for offensive operations in Yemen but not arms that it needs to defend its territory from external attack.

At the bottom line, Saudi Arabia’s best option to counter an Iran that poses a threat to the kingdom’s ambitions irrespective of whatever regime is in power would be to work with its allies to develop the kind of economic and social policies as well as governance that would enable it to capitalize on its assets to effectively compete. Containment of Iran is a short-term tactic that eventually will run its course.

Warned former British diplomat and Royal Dutch Shell executive Ian McCredie: “When the Ottoman Empire was dismantled in 1922, it created a vacuum which a series of powers have attempted to fill ever since. None has succeeded, and the result has been a century of wars, coups, and instability. Iran ruled all these lands before the Arab and Ottoman conquests. It could do so again.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Back to Strategic Hedging and Mediation in Qatar Foreign Policy after the Gulf Reconciliation

Published

on

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt ended the land, air and sea blockade on Qatar last January. While the way how the crisis ended revealed the control of the Saudi and Emirati decision-makers on the evolution of the issue, the process of isolation by its GCC neighbors reconstructed Qatar foreign policy within a loss of trust mode and directed the Qatari decision-makers to question the country’s hedging strategy in the region. Following the reconciliation in January 2021, Qatar seems to practice its mediation policy again at the regional conflicts beside bringing back to the hedging strategy towards Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

The blockade, which lasted three years and half, since the June 2017 increased the level of distrust of the Qatari decision-makers to the regional states, and to realize the significance of strengthening Qatar’s regional security standing and international status. While economic wealth helped the country to utilize the outcomes of the blockade for political purposes, it pushed the country to establish, or strengthen, relations with alternative allies and economic partners, particularly Iran and Turkey.

Strategic hedging, as a concept developed after the Cold War period in contrast to the bandwagoning, balancing or buck-passing, has been the major foreign policy tool of Qatar as a small state aware of its security needs. It illustrated the Qatar’s aim of finding a middle ground while insuring the potential security risks of the regional actors to its national security. By hedging the risky adversaries,namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, in the region, Qatar avoided a security dilemma and minimized the risks of being threatened.The Qatar foreign policy discourse revealed not only cooperative elements but also the confrontational ones which gradually paved the way forSaudi Arabia and the allies to build a rationale to imply blockade on the country in June 2017.

Prior to the 2017 crisis, hedging strategy helped Qatar to compensate its smallness and offset the potential security threats from Iran. Qatar had signed a security cooperation agreement with Iran in December 2010 including the exchange of specialized and technical committees, expand cooperation in training and naval exercises, as well as conducting joint campaigns against terrorism and insecurity in the region. Beside cooperating with Iran at the security and economy fields, Qatar avoided to challenge Saudi Arabia and shared the common regional security worries of the GCC towards Iran. It aimed at balancing its relations between these two regional powers and at the same time remaining neutral as much as it can by employing a discourse of mediation as a foreign policy tool.

While simultaneously positioning itself alongside the GCC, Qatar decision-makers gave credits to keeping ties with Iran. Qatar allowed Turkey to open a Turkish military base in its territory even before the crisis. While already securing its national security through a US military air base, Qatar’s decision for opening a Turkish military base was highly criticized by its GCC neighbors and its removal became one of the demands of Saudi Arabia and the allies to end the blockade. Qatar’s decision to boost domestic defense capabilities was understandable to enhance its security during the crisis. Resuming its dialogue with Iran helped Qatar to maintain the peaceful development of the natural-gas fields of Qatar shared with Iran. Moreover, getting militarily, economically and politically close to Turkey allowed the country to diversify its military dependency from the US and the Europe. At the domestic sphere, the economic wealth helped Qatar to survive and keep the Qataris more attached to the regional desires of the country, during the crisis, all of which worked for breaking free from the Saudi influence on the foreign policy decisions of Qatar.

The GCC crisis was an opportunity for Iran to present itself as an alternative ally to Qatar than the GCC members which was observed in the enhancement of the Iranian export to the country as well as Iran’s decision to allow the Qatar airways to operate by Iranian airspace. In 2017, the Iranian exports to Qatar was $250 million,$225.25 million in 2018, and $214.17 million in 2019, according to the United Nations database. China also upgraded its security partnership including selling military technical exports, major importer of LNG of Qatar.

As a result ofregionally being isolated, Qatar had a break from hedging strategy in the region while callingSaudi Arabia and the allies for a diplomatic dialogue to solve their problems. The crisis raised the sense of respect to state sovereignty at Qatar foreign policy, and eventually increased the loss of trust at the perception of the Qatari decision-makers towards the GCC members. Ironically, the chronicsecurity threat perception of Qatar towards Iran was replaced with the distrust to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates at security realm.

The crisis enabled Qatar to gainmore security and influence in the region than before as a small state. As the regional conjuncture does not promise to go back to the conditions in pre-Gulf period giventhe more multifacedregional threats, Qatar became aware of the fact that it cannot rely on the GCC or the US alone military and economically. Hence, it announced the resume of its dialogues and cooperation with Iran which signaled the continuity of the hedging strategy of the Qatar foreign policy. Despite this strategy can be considered as part of escaping the possibility of new threats from Iran,it works for undermining the regional power of both Saudi Arabia and Iran through economic, diplomatic and institutional instruments.

In post-reconciliation period, it seems that Qatar manages to gain a high degree of freedom of sovereign action within the GCC. This helps Qatar to maintain its strategic interests and decide with whom to cooperate at the times of crisis or peace. Qatar is more aware of the impact of the structural features of power in domestic politics and regional security, hence pays importance to build counter alliances towards its neighbors at the same time cooperating with them, and without challenging them rhetorically or materially. The Gulf reconciliation did not weaken the Iran’s potential ally status to Qatar, in contrary, Qatar announced that it will keep Iran in the game and, moreover, willing to mediate with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Qatar is not anymore looking for minimizing threats to its stability and survive in the multipolar dynamics of the region. The decision-makersarenow motivated to pursue the Qatar’s own strategic interests, and mediate Saudi Arabi and Iran, Iran and the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Qatarwould to like to achieve the rewards of its bilateral military and economic establishments during the blockade over the changing attitude of the Gulf neighbors towards its rights as a sovereign state beside strengthening its regional status and international standing. As the al-Ula GCC summit in January was far from directly addressing the major roots of the Gulf crisis, it is exposed to give birthto the new conflicts at the foreign policy and regional security perception of the states at different shapes, and pave the way for the Qatari decision-makers to present the country as a mediator of the region again.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending