Veto?

The so-called "peace process" had ground to a halt.  The White House was diverted by other issues, for instance the sputtering U.S. economy, Libya, Afghanistan to name a few. The principal US officials still involved processing peace, not least the affable but ineffectual Dennis Ross, were occasionally trying to bunt their way to first base, but they typically struck out.

Now the Palestinian initiative at the UN has jarred the US into action, but what is the Obama White House doing other than corroborating its diplomatic isolation with Israel?  The prospect of the US casting a veto to thwart a step that will likely increase pressure on Israel to negotiate responsibly is a stunning paradox, especially at the time when Israel is led by a government that has demonstrated little, if any commitment to a feasible two-state solution.  The US is using its sharp diplomatic elbows to deter support for the Palestine initiative, but there is no evidence that the US is doing much poking in Israel.

Of course, there is an attempt to deter Mahmoud Abbas with a statement by the Quartet, but that statement, at least as presently drafted, it is deeply flawed and it is unlikely to win Palestinian assent.  

US and Israeli interests are not identical, and it is worrying that that simple reality is contentious in Washington.  Given the wider US interests in the Middle East, especially considering the momentous political upheavals in the Middle East, it will be very damaging for the U.S. to cast a veto, which is why Obama and Co. are trying to kill the issue before it gets to the UNSC. What the US should be working to attain is a context in which the issue of Palestinian membership in the UN is met by a US abstention rather than a veto.  

James Carroll reflects on the Palestinian's U.N. gambit and the opportunity that it offers to Israel and to the U.S. to accept the obvious

Just as the broader Arab world is in the midst of an extraordinary time of transition, Palestinians living under occupation sense that the techtonic plates of history are moving. Adam Shatz offers thoughtful essay about the shifts in strategy and practice that he encountered in a recent visit to the West Bank.

Shatz discovers pockets of creative thinking, and quite a lot of skepticism about the two-state mantra even as the PA aims to gain United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state (the quest for which may be more valuable before the fact rather than afterwards).  A few excerpts follow, but the essay (which runs 19 pp.) deserves a full reading:

"[On the security apparatus established by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad with lots of help from the U.S. and to the satisfaction of Israel:]  It is an extraordinary arrangement: the security forces of a country under occupation are being subcontracted by third parties outside the region to prevent resistance to the occupying power, even as that power continues to grab more land. This is, not surprisingly, a source of considerable anger and shame in the West Bank. The question is whether Palestinians will grow exasperated enough to confront the Sulta."

 .........

"[On the al-Nakba demonstrations of May 15, 2011:]  The PA had no part at all in the main event of the day: an unprecedented march to the border by thousands of Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Occupied Territories, co-ordinated by activists on Facebook and Twitter. At least a dozen people were killed by Israeli soldiers, but more than a hundred succeeded in crossing into the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the Golan, including a 28-year-old man called Hassan Hijazi, who made it all the way to Jaffa, his ancestral city, travelling there on a bus with Israeli soldiers who had no idea they were sitting next to a ‘security threat’; he turned himself in to the Israeli police after visiting his grandparents’ house. A spectacular enactment of the drama of return, shown live on TV news broadcasts, the crossings electrified people in the West Bank. ‘For 63 years, Israel has tried to un-nation us, to turn us into West Bankers, Gazans, East Jerusalem residents, “Israeli Arabs” and refugees, but on Nakba day we were united,’ Husam Zomlot said."

..........

"Palestinians inside Israel, like Palestinians in the West Bank, are learning the effectiveness of mass, non-violent mobilisation; young people in particular are starting to communicate with people in the Occupied Territories and in neighbouring Arab countries, using Facebook and Twitter to organise themselves. People who a few years ago were admirers of Sheikh Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, are now saying that they ‘don’t need his rhetoric of resistance because they have discovered their own power and their own voice’."

The plates of U.S. policy in the Middle East are beginning to shift as well.  Zvi Ba'rel ruminates on the possibility that the U.S. may soon be talking to Hamas.  Recall that since the Hamas electoral victory of 2006 the U.S. has devoted considerable diplomatic, financial and military energy to marginalizing Hamas.  The effort has failed profoundly, as demonstrated by the steps toward PA-Hamas reunification, steps made possible by the toppling of Husni Mubarak.

Also of note: a report by the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams that reportedly addresses the violent Israeli response to the May 15, 2011, al-Nakba demonstrations.  The report was distributed early this week by Ban K. Moon, the Secretary-General, to the members of the Security Council.  Williams notes that on the Israel-Lebanon border 7 unarmed demonstrators were killed by the Israeli army and 111 were wounded.  The demonstrators were attempting to cross the border.  Israeli soldiers shot the demonstators on Lebanese soil, it should be added. Special Coordinator Williams is appropriately critical of Israel's excessive use of violence.  I have not yet been able to get a complete copy of the report.  When I have a copy, I will post it here.  Israeli officials are in a tizzy about the chutzpah of the U.N. official that he would use the most "the moral army in the world" of using unnecessary deadly violence as opposed to non-lethal crowd control measures.

Full Text of UNSC 1973, March 18, 2011

17 March 2011

Security Council SC/10200

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Security Council

6498^th Meeting (Night)

SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES ‘NO-FLY ZONE’ OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING ‘ALL NECESSARY

MEASURES’ TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOUR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

Israel's deadly fiasco at sea condemned but what next for the U.S. and its "eternal ally"?

Even with overnight arm twisting by the U.S. the U.N. Security Council "Presidential Statement" leaves no doubt that Israel is being condemned for its seizure--in international waters--of the Gaza-bound flotilla.

Middle East Report Online provides by far the most valuable brief on the flotilla and Israel's response.

Notwithstanding Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's claim that the Israeli commandos were armed only with paint guns and side arms, Israel has once again demonstrated its penchant for disproportionate force and its contempt for international law. While the "Free Gaza" flotilla has been prevented from reaching Gaza with its cargo of humanitarian supplies, the political purpose of the convoy has been largely achieved. Israel (with Egyptian complicity) blockades Gaza from sea, land and air, and has done so since 2006 when Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. Israel's commando fiasco at sea draws world's attention to the blockade and its humanitarian consequences for the 1.5 million civilians of Gaza (Israeli officials claim the situation in Gaza is good). Here is the relevant paragraph from the Presidential Statement:

The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

This is moment when Barack Obama's diplomatic mettle will be put to the test. Will he seize the moment to deliver a stern wake-up call to the "eternal ally"? Even Israel's Mossad head, Meir Dagan, recognizes that Israel is becoming a burden for the U.S. Will Obama?

A host of highly respected international figures renew the call for a commission on war crimes to investigate the Gaza war

The Gaza War: Antecedents and Consequences

The article is also available en Español.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni: world opinion be damned

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni: 'Israel Is Not Going to Show Restraint' - washingtonpost.com

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967

Richard Falk's August 25, 2008 report.
2008 Developments - HRC Plenary (HRC) - Reports - Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, Richard Falk

UN chief: Israel's use of violence in Gaza is 'disproportionate'

UN chief: Israel's use of violence in Gaza is 'disproportionate' - Haaretz - Israel News: "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council on Saturday he condemned what he described as Israel's 'excessive and disproportionate' use of force in the Gaza Strip.

Speaking at an emergency session of the council on the escalation of violence in Gaza, called by Security Council member Libya on behalf of the Arab League and at the request of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Ban also condemned Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel.

'While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children,' Ban told the emergency session of the council."

Bolton on the UNSC reso. 1701 negotiations

He claims that the Qana attack by Israel led to a reappraisal by Sec. of State Rice, who then pushed hard for a resolution to end the fighting in August 2006 to Bolton's presumed chagrin.

Bolton: IDF ground push did not influence UN cease-fire - Haaretz - Israel News

"Bolton is not very proud of his final product. "Resolution 1701 wasn't as good as the first draft, and even it hasn't been fully implemented - just like previous resolutions that sought to impose order in Lebanon and reduce Syria's influence on its neighbor," he said. "Hezbollah hasn't been disarmed. The Lebanese army does not control the entire country. UNIFIL [the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] was not expanded sufficiently."

"In his view, "Hezbollah still constitutes as big a threat to Israel as in the past, and the threat it poses to the Lebanese government has only grown since the war."

"Was this an Israeli failure? "The problem was the disconnect between the goals you set and the military operation," he said. "Hezbollah survived, and could portray itself as the victor. You should have said from the start that the goal was to exact a price for the soldiers' abduction." "

This article is also relevant.

"According to media reports over the weekend, [Yehezkel] Dror [member of Winograd Commission] gave in to pressure from his fellow members of the Winograd Committee, which is examining the performance of decision makers in the Second Lebanon War. The others pressed for less harsh language in the final report, scheduled to be released next week. He also relinquished his demand to append his own minority opinion to the document.

"In fact, Dror has already expressed his view concerning Ehud Olmert's decisions in the final stages of the war. Just days before the committee was assembled, Dror published a document entitled "A Breakout Political-Security Grand-Strategy for Israel," under the auspices of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. In that paper, Dror addressed the premier's claim that the result of the last 60 hours of fighting, when those 33 soldiers were killed, was United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war.

""The wording of Resolution 1701 does include components which constitute an Israeli achievement," Dror writes, "but this is more the result of U.S. pressure than the results of Israeli achievements on the battlefield... Moreover, it remains doubtful whether Resolution 1701 will have long-term significance, and deducing that Israel has genuinely succeeded in improving its international standing [thanks to] the resolution requires one to strain one's imagination."

"Dror argues that the lack of success in wiping out the bulk of Hezbollah's ranks, the fact that the organization's leaders were unhurt, and the damage that Israel had sustained on the military front and in terms of economical infrastructure have weakened Israel's deterrence capabilities. "

Keeping the UN at arm's length

U.S. withdraws Mideast resolution - Los Angeles Times: "Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said he was surprised to hear Thursday afternoon that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad had distributed a draft resolution to the council. So, reportedly, was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who called Khalilzad in the middle of the council meeting to ask what he was doing, said a State Department official who asked not to be named."

Newsday's account.

The de Soto report

UN was pummelled into submission, says outgoing Middle East special envoy | Israel and the Middle East | Guardian Unlimited

The complete report.

Somehing else to think about during the long two years to come

Just reminder of how precarious the Democrats grip on power in the Senate is.

"But regardless of Sen. Johnson's health, the president may yet be able to tip the balance. With a single stroke, he could restore control of the Senate to the Republicans, fill an embarrassing vacancy in his administration and score bipartisan points -- by appointing Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Should Lieberman be nominated and accept that position, Connecticut's Republican Gov. Jodi Rell has the constitutional authority to name a new senator.

"In many ways, Lieberman provides a perfect choice for Bush to replace John Bolton, the departing ambassador who resigned recently because the Senate wouldn't confirm him. Nominating a longtime Democrat who has endorsed many of the Bush administration's foreign policy positions, especially on the war in Iraq, would give the appearance of bipartisanship without requiring any real compromise with the opposition.

"Just this week Lieberman joined a congressional delegation to Iraq that included John McCain, R-Ariz., providing moral support to the Arizona senator's call for an escalation of the American military effort. He has repeatedly denounced the "partisanship" of Democrats who criticize the war and the White House, a favor repaid by Karl Rove with open Republican support for his reelection campaign this fall. More broadly, Lieberman shares the world outlook of the Bush White House concerning not only the Mideast and Israel but also the global "war on terror," belligerence toward Iran and Syria, and a strict embargo against Cuba. He is quite comfortable with the GOP's neoconservative wing, as evidenced by his participation in organizations such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Committee on the Present Danger.

"Although Lieberman vehemently disagrees with the president on the issue of climate change, his overall perspective wouldn't require any great adjustment to conform with administration policy. (Indeed, Lieberman cheerfully submitted to much more challenging adaptations in 2000 when he moved leftward to run as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.) He is somewhat less obnoxious personally than Bolton, but not so very different in substance."