What Kerry wants

To be honest, I have big doubts about John Kerry's diplomatic skills and it is my right as citizen of the world to doubt it. In the last decade, the representatives of the American diplomacy in general are nothing but diluted shadows of what the function of State Secretary used to be. Hopefully, the main diplomats preparing the memos and representing the US interests abroad didn't change, but this is another good story.

As for Kerry, the benchmarks of his glorious mandate are not glamorous. During his first speech dedicated to the foreign-aid, an important instrument of branding America abroad, and not only, he branded a new country 'Kyrzakhstan'. Last August, while in Pakistan, he praised the merits of the Egyptian Army in preserving democracy - probably he watched the wrong movie a couple of years late. His speeches about Syria where confusing and created a lot of problems to the White House and other professional diplomats, fighting to correct for hours his risky statements made without watching the files prepared by the specialists.

No wonder that the White House sent a special help for the chief of the diplomats, Jen Psaki, the former spokesperson of Obama during 2012 elections, where will occupy a similar position.

New York Times diplomacy

The practice to use the media for sending diplomatic messages is not new and not invented by the US. However, in big serious issues, the recommendation will be to use the normal channels. Such a tactic is usually employed when someone wants to test certain ideas and initiatives. Somehow, when the ideas and projects are very important, it is not a very smart idea to play such media games.

However, the same Kerry did it by using the pen of the close friend of Obama administration, Thomas Friedman, in the case of the Middle East peace plan.

Due to the stakes and the implications, I humbly think that it is a very childish idea, to keep the diplomatic language.

You don't need to write books about the Middle East to know that most of the ideas presented by Friedman as part of the plan are not acceptable and will never work out. If Washington wanted to know how the political allies of Netanyahu will react, they only needed to hire a good Hebrew reader to watch for a week or 10 days the local media. And if they think that without Netanyahu - who is a skilful politician, to keep the same diplomatic language - they will get any 'deal', they underestimate seriously the situation.

But, remember, Kerry was the one who had a nice dinner with Bashar al-Assad when the same Assad was butchering his people. No comment.

The 'plan'

According to the well informed Friedman, the 'plan' includes: a phased Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank; an increased security arrangement in the Jordan Valley (Obama and King Abdullah are expected to meet the 6th of February in California, anyway); an Arab capital in the East Jerusalem; the recognition of the Jewish state by the Palestinian Authority (whose head, Abu Mazen has big problems not only with recognizing Shoah, but also with managing the extreme militant Islamist elements); the maintenance of a couple of settlements, under the condition of compensation from the Israeli state; the right to return of the Palestinian refugees will not be recognized.

Dan Shapiro, the US Ambassador of Israel, said on the occasion of his participation of a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies that the ideas were mostly expressed by the Israeli and Palestinian representatives and does not reflect a strict 'American authorship'. On the other hand, one day before, Benjamin Netanyahu said that the ideas reflect the American ideas. During the government meeting the last Sunday, Netanyahu said that the Jews living in the West Bank might be under the authority of the Palestinian Authority. 

Right now, the security of the settlements is in the majority of cases guaranteed by the IDF, not becaue they like it, but due to the often serious security threats from their Palestinian neighbours.

Consequences

Present at the same discussion of the Institute for National Security Studies, Stephen Hadley, the former national security advisor under the former US president George W. Bush, an experienced diplomat and security expert, outlined that there might be a coincidence between the 'peace plan' and the negotiations with Iran. Most specifically, Benjamin Netanyahu needs serious guarantees that the deal with Iran will be strong enough to do not expose Israel to an atomic danger and thereafter will consider the peace options at home.

On the Israeli home front, the situation turns to be problematic. Local politicians supporting a peace, like the Finance minister Yair Lapid, warns that the EU sanctions - that were never so fast and serious when it was about dealing with the human rights violations in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Syria and many other parts of the world - will affect seriously the Israeli economy. 

The local economy is going through difficult times already, but mostly to the some disfunctionalities of a primarily socialist system non fully adapted to the market economy. 

The possibilities of local elections are quite high, due to the fact that part of the Likud party as well as the bloc party of HaBayt HaYehudi, will never accept the deal. Naftali Bennett, a young leader with a lot of support in the settlements, and the minister of Economy, warned that the deal will over expose Judea and Samaria to serious security threats. 

This Friday, around 2,000 persons gathered in the Old City of Jerusalem to oppose the main points of the 'peace deal' as appeared in the media. 

As for Mr. Kerry, his office declined the possibility of a visit, the 11th within one year, in the region in the next days. 

The peace in the Middle East is a honest wish for many citizens of the Jewish state and probably for many Palestinians too. But it should be done realistically, understanding the needs of the region and the possibilities of the local elites. Something that the NYTimes diplomacy will most likely fail to address. And a dinner with Bashar al-Assad will not bring good inspiration either. 

About Facebook states

This is a post I was thinking about a very long time the last year, but because too busy with other conflicts, I delayed the documentation.

I was thinking about the latest Latin American spontaneous moves to declare the recogniziting of a Palestinian state "within the 1967 borders": (alphabetically) Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay. Chile and Paraguay are preparing to do it soon. And I was thinking, again, about the situation of Kosovo, a state who self-declared independence in February 2008, facing various system and structural problems, as well as the lack of elites. There are, of course, different shapes of the cups of tea, and the regions are having a different profile. But I was curious if the pioneers of independence proceeded similarly in the case of Kosovo, where most part of the current political leaders used to be part of the UCK, with a limited record of terrorism and repression in comparison with Hamas.

Let's have a look at the arguments:

Argentina declared that it will not recognise it because "it supports the principle of territorial integrity".

Brazil pledged that a peaceful solution for the issue of Kosovo must continue to be sought through dialogue and negotiation.

Bolivian president Evo Morales, refused, on February 2008 to recognize Kosovo's independence and compared the separatists with the leaders of the Bolivian states who have demanded greater autonomy.

Ecuadorian authorities promised they would carefully examine the developments in the area.

Uruguay expressed its official point of view in March 2008, according to "Ultima Noticias", as follows: "Uruguay has not recognized Kosovo's declaration of independence, because doing so would not be in in accordance with its required three pillars of recognition: the principle of territorial integrity of states, achieving a solution through dialogue and consensu, and recognition by international organisations".

Diplomacy, intelligence and caution are required in both cases and Che Guevara-like games might have unexpected boomerang effects.

A possible explanation of the Latin American moves

from the Jerusalem Post, by Caroline Glick.
The trends were already there, our understanding of the dangers was missing.

Manipulation and reality

Or how the Arab states are using the "Palestinian" case for very political purposes.

Fighting their own demons

Again, a realistic piece of article about the Middle East, from a perspective outlining a dangerously denied side of the story. I am wondering how much ignorance or propagandistic messages - or both - in the sayings of all those who are lecturing about peace, restrain to the use of force, understanding and humanism. States are not intending to do good or wrong, in ethical terms, but to follow their objectives of survival, as much as possible in accordance with the international legislation. In order to have a dialogue, you need two - dia - persons/institutions/entitites respecting each other/recognizing their equal legitimacy to talk. This double life of some representatives of the Palestinians - preaching the victim the day, while sleeping in peace during the night being sure the rockets are continuing to harm people and the territory of Israel - is at least mentally damaging. For sure, it is hypocritical.

I think the syntagm "useful idiots" from Cohen's article, used during the Cold War to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries might be used very well for many of the "innocent" peace doves addressing the issues of the Middle East.

Rashid Khalidi on the new US policies in the Middle East

The interview is enforcing and outlining several old or less old perspectives:

- it is coming from one of the few proeminent Palestinian intellectuals, but it failing to address from an intellectual and critical - of all parts involved - including the one he is belonging to

- it is expressing a certain sense of hope - wishful thinking - for a relative reshaping process of the US interests in the Middle East. He is having a certain tone of telling things from the source.

- in many respects it is reflecting some changes already in process regarding the relationship between US and Israel, and the question is if this change is the result of a certain Palestinian lobby at the level of the current administration.

- it is not too much - or almost nothing - about the possibilities of a certain cooperation on the ground between Israelis and Palestinians.

- he is insisting of the end of the Cold War understanding of the Middle East, but his ideas are tributary to this kind of logic, with third-world accents and the attitude of asking the help and support only because it is assumed belonging to the good side of the story.

What offer to the Middle East?

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) counting professionals with connections to the US military establishment published a couple of days ago a very interesting report regarding the possible and recommended security direction for a prospective Palestinian state.

Following the lessons learned from the analysis of three international peace missions - in East Timor, Kosovo and Lebanon - the authors are drafting the possibilities of creating a security environment in the Middle East, starting from the application of the two-state solution. An interesting proposal is to create a NATO-led military force, complemented by a civilian-led organism, able to handle political, governance and development matters.

NATO is assigned a big role in creating the premices for peace. but if at the military level this solution could be viable - given the long experience of the Alliance in dealing with difficult environments, from the political point of view, creating consensus for supporting a new mission - after the various discussions regarding the situation from Afghanistan would be more difficult.

US Middle East envoy George Mitchell is these days in the region with meeting scheduled with representatives of the the state of Israel and of the Palestinian authority. Since the beginning of this year, the political relations between Israel and US suffered several set-backs. In advance of the visit of the Washington representative, Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed the standpoints expressed in his June 2009: the state of Israel needs the necessary security guarantees in order to accept the creation of a Palestinian state.

The optimism regarding the area must continue to be extremely moderated. But, in the same time, thinking about solutions and possibilities of implementation could open a door to a new level of the discussions. Given the failures of the last decades, any optimism is counter-productive if not a dangerous illusion.

Speed control in foreign affairs

Diplomacy and diplomats are rarely in love with speed. Sometimes, they look like living completely out of time. Your "now" could mean, in terms of diplomatic efforts, at least one year or so. Achieving concrete results is always a matter of patience, thinking more than ten times and mostly, avoiding to show off too soon the results.

This pace is visible in what you could call the big international "files". An example. During the last presidential campaign, president Barack Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. But, of course, it is not only a political decision and behind the curtains, lots of diplomatic negotiations were necessary in order to secure a safe final deal.

When it comes to the issue of the Middle East peace process, from outside it is a neverending process, not yet reaching its final solution. But, as long as you have to deal with complicate partners and with weak or lack of coherent institutional frameworks, it is not a wonder we are still far from a solution.

The communications in this issue are extremely delicate, as long as any declaration could, in fact, create expectations or disappointments and, in fact, complicate the diplomatic process. But, making declarations on this issue is a guarantee of winning the attention of the public opinion. And, in some situations, it is hard to avoid this temptation.

It is how I am trying to read the latest French declarations regarding the Palestinian state. In an interview for Journal de Dimanche, published February 21, the French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, declared:

What’s important at the moment is to build facts on the ground: France is training Palestinian police officers; businesses are being set up on the West Bank… Then we can envisage the rapid proclamation of a Palestinian State and its immediate recognition by the international community, even before its borders are negotiated – I’d be tempted by that – by [recognition by] European countries. I’m not sure of being followed or even of being right.

The declaration was made ahead of the visit in Paris of the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas. After the meeting with Abbas, February 22, not other declarations were made. The declaration from Journal de Dimanche could be considered more than fortuit: police officers and business interest are not, by far, the conditions to talk about a state. You need, for example, legal institutions, reliable fiscal authorities, law enforcement authorities etc. And, what is more surprising for somebody who, as Kouchner had a certain experience with "new" states, is the danger of talking - at the official/diplomatic level - about a state without knowing what the borders of this state are.

The experience he apparently gathered in the Balkans, as first UN Representatives and Head of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), between 1999-2001, was not illustrative enough of the difficult process of building a state? Very hard to understand this concern for "speed" instead of looking for realistic solutions.

February 23, he is back. Together with the Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, Kouchner signed an article: "A Palestinian state, when?". Stressing the need for a "tough, credible reform based on financial transparency and fighting corruption", to be implemented by the Palestinian Authority, the authors are stressing "the inexorable outlines of the final settlement: absolute security for Israel, recognition when the time comes of a Palestinian State on the basis of the 1967 borders with land swaps, and Jerusalem as the capital of the two States". "Recognition when the times comes". "(...) when the times comes". No speed here.

Spain is currently holding the EU six-month presidency and have a long experience in dealing with the conflict in the Middle East. The diplomacy chief Moratinos was between 1996 and 2003 the European Union special Representative for the Middle East Process. The experience of Spain with the Middle East was controversial in some respects.

Spain continued to consider itself as a bridge between the Arab world and Western Europe, and adopted frequently a pro-Arab stance in most Middle East conflicts. For years, Spain was the only West European country that did not recognize Israel. The Spanish government finally established diplomatic relations with the state of Israel in January 1986. Shortly after, Spain accorded diplomatic status to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) mission in Madrid in August 1986. This political support turned at the end of the 1980s into an expanded trade and cultural relations and Spain intended to profile itself as a bridge between different cultures.

Spain hosted in October 1991, the Madrid Conference, who made possible, for the first time ever the reconsidering of the dialogue formula between the main stake-holders in the Middle East, by focusing on an intensive multilateral and bilateral level of negotiations. In 2005, Spain launched together with Turkey the Alliance of Civilisations aimed to bring together the European heritage and to create bridges between Europe and the Middle East. In the same year, during the OSCE chairmanship-in-office, Spain hosted in Cordoba the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism and on Other Forms of Intolerance. Shortly after taking the EU presidency, this January, Spanish authorities supported any kind of efforts "to ensure that Middle East peace negotiations resume as soon as possible".

Everybody is waiting for results in the Middle East. So many years of waiting, so many negotiations started and shortly after aborted, so many public declarations. But, in the same time, pondering a final solution, could be The Solution in the area, and not a solution. Working under the pressure is specific to diplomats. But their main capacity should be to be able to find the best answer. A combination of intuition, general culture and wisdom.

Solution for the Middle East

tell the truth.

Free Marriage Counseling

Thomas L. Friedman

NYT

August 2

Israel and America are having one of those periodic marital spats they have had over the years, replete with “I-am-not-taking-any-more-of-your-guff” outbursts by Obama officials at American Jewish leaders, and, yes — it wouldn’t be a real Israel-U.S. dust-up without it — Israeli accusations that Jewish Obama aides are “self-hating Jews,” working out their identity crises by working over Israel. Having been to this play before, and knowing both families, I’d like to offer some free marriage counseling.
Here’s what Israelis need to understand: President Obama is not some outlier when it comes to Israel. His call for a settlements freeze reflects attitudes that have been building in America for a long time. For the last 40 years, a succession of Israeli governments has misled, manipulated or persuaded naïve U.S. presidents that since Israel was negotiating to give up significant territory, there was no need to fight over “insignificant” settlements on some territory. Behind this charade, Israeli settlers bit off more and more of the West Bank, creating a huge moral, security and economic burden for Israel and its friends.
As Bradley Burston, a columnist for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, put it last week: “The settlement movement has cost Israel some $100 billion. ... The double standard which for decades has favored settlers with inexpensive housing, heavily subsidized social services, and blind-eye building permits has long been accompanied by a kid-gloves approach regarding settler violence against Palestinians and their property. ... Settlers and settlement planners have covertly bent and distorted zoning procedures, military directives, and government decrees in order to boost settlement, block Palestinian construction, agriculture, and access to employment, and effectively neutralize measures intended to foster Israeli-Palestinian peace progress.”
For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it.
The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner, captured the we-are-untouchable arrogance of the settlers last week when he quoted Rabbi Yigael Shandorfi, leader of a religious academy at the settlement of Nahliel, calling Mr. Obama in a speech “that Arab they call a president.”
So if Mr. Obama has bluntly pressed for a settlements freeze, he is, in fact, reflecting a broad sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon and among many Americans, Jews included. Haaretz quoted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as calling two Obama aides pushing the freeze “self-hating Jews.” Bibi’s spokesman denies he said that. I hope he didn’t. When you have to trot that one out, you’re really, really out of ammo.
What about Mr. Obama? He has nothing to apologize for policy-wise. The president is working on a deal whereby Israel would agree to a real moratorium on settlement building, Palestinians would uproot terrorists and the Arab states would begin to normalize relations — with visas for Israelis, trade missions, media visits and landing rights for El Al. If the president can pull this off, it would be good for everyone. But going forward, if peace talks get under way, there are a few style points Mr. Obama should keep in mind.
One is: Don’t get into the business of apportioning historical blame for this conflict, which his Cairo speech veered into. Palestinians don’t believe they are to blame for this problem; neither do Israelis. A religious Israeli professor friend of mine said it well: “People will give a lot if they think they are not guilty. My mother says to me: ‘Look, I am ready to give them Jerusalem, but don’t tell me that I started it.’ ”
The other point is: Israel has real enemies. Iran’s president says the Holocaust is a myth, that Israel should be wiped away. And, he’s trying to build a nuclear bomb. Israel unilaterally withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. Its leaving was messy, but it got out. And the first thing it got back was rockets. Israelis are like most people; they listen through their stomachs. That is, connect with them on a gut level that says you understand where they live, and you can take them anywhere. Don’t connect on a gut level, and you can’t take them anywhere.
Bottom line: Israelis need to understand this is not the Bush administration anymore, where they had the run of the White House; they have a real problem with America on settlements. Mr. Obama needs to understand that on Arab-Israel affairs, the less you say and the more you do, the better off you are. Every word in this conflict has its own history. Get the deal done — a settlement moratorium for some normalization — and that breakthrough will do the talking.

See also, related to the last evolutions on settlements and the Middle East:

Palestinian Fatah faction refuses to recognize the State of Israel

Lieberman - Police recommends its indictement for bribery and corruption

US diplomatic efforts, not too many results, on both fronts

Does peace have a shape?

Netanyahu's speech

at Bar Ilan University.

The American reaction, supportive but not in full

Analysis and reactions

The Guardian

Various reactions - academic, Palestinians, settlers

Ha'aretz

Obama's speech

an analysis by David Horovitz, from the Jerusalem Post.

For a new American policy in the Middle East

Obama's speech in Cairo.

A couple of observations:

- what during the electoral campaign was rather an argument against him, was used as an element of unity and common understanding with the Muslim world - his personal story, the Muslim ties and the youth spent in Indonesia

- it is time for a partnership between America and Islam

- criticism against some "liberal" Western countries trying to impose to the Muslims what to wear

- Israeli government should stop the policy of settlements (while denouncing the "inacceptable" situation of the Palestinians) and accept a Palestinian state it is in its interest too. Hamas should stop violence and play a role in unifying Palestinian people and recognize the state of Israel. Jerusalem should be the place of praying for Jews, Muslism and Christians

- the discourse was rather faced on the religious aspects and the need for an inter-faith dialogue, rather than on the variety institutionalized Islam took in the Muslim world

Reactions in the Muslim world

The two-state solution waiting game

and the Obama administration.

The two-state solution

between the Israeli projects and the possible American outcome.