The EU Resolution on East Jerusalem
The Wailing Wall and Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem | Image Credit: PoliticalTheatrics.net
The EU has taken a stand, of sorts, on Jerusalem, stating that it needs to be shared between Israel and Palestine and that it must be the joint-capital of both states:
“If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states,” EU foreign ministers agreed in a statement released on Tuesday, diplomats said.
Antony Loewenstein sorta kinda assumed they were referring to East Jerusalem, but The Majlis points out that it was not mentioned and that this means something:
That was Israel’s main concern: There was a lot of fear that the EU would demand the 1967 borders be locked in place. If those borders were fixed, then major Jewish settlements like Gilo would become part of a future Palestinian state — an unacceptable outcome for the Israeli government. The original policy document, drafted by Sweden, made just that demand, but it was watered down in last-minute discussions this morning.
To be fair, the wording of the original statement was pretty rigid:
“The EU will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem,” said the [original] EU ministerial draft. [Haaretz]
I don’t think it necessarily warrants some of the Israeli rhetoric though, like comparing Sweden’s approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace to IKEA furniture, as one official said:
“The peace process in the Middle East is not like IKEA furniture,” one official said, making a reference to the do-it-yourself Swedish furniture chain. “It takes more than a screw and a hammer, it takes a true understanding of the constraints and sensitivities of both sides, and in that Sweden failed miserably.” [FP]
FP makes a good point on this:
Please. The original draft praises both Israel’s settlement freeze and U.S. mediation efforts. You can debate whether or not it’s productive for Sweden to be issuing proclamations on where the Palestinian border should be drawn, but in the end, these declarations have only about as much weight as the parties involved choose to give them. Which, judging from the righteous outrage out of Avigdor Lieberman’s shop, seems to be quite a lot. This sort of thing might play well to Lieberman’s political base, but internationally it just gives the EU’s East Jerusalem critique way more publicity than it would have had before.
The Swedes hold the EU rotating presidency at the moment, and the EU is an entity that people listen to, it’s not one of the unfortunately irrelevant minor countries of the UN General Assembly. If Israel chooses to respond to Swedish declarations in this manner, it just gives them more prominence and ensures that more people listen. While the EU obviously doesn’t have the same sort of international clout as the US, it’s definitely not irrelevant and the Israelis are only making it more relevant, particularly in the international press.
Interestingly, Haaretz also calls the claims over Jerusalem “the most intractable issue” in the conflict which to me seems a bit of an exaggeration. I’m pretty sure right of return, overall borders and demilitarisation of the Palestinian state are also pretty important issues. Oh and, Gaza/Hamas. I don’t think Israel’s going to let up on that one without a fight.
The Israelis have reacted in typical fashion to the resolution, ignoring the content of it itself and accusing it of not being productive for the ‘peace process’ (I’m starting to forget what that is meant to refer to) and calling “the Palestinian refusal to return to the negotiating table” the main factor halting peace negotiations at the moment. The settlement freeze notwithstanding, I’m pretty sure there are bigger factors than this one. Like maybe, Abu Mazen’s growing irrelevance? The US State Department has toed the line and, in not so many words, told the EU to stay out of it.
Meanwhile, Israel is attempting to further isolate Gaza by imposing an unofficial block on officials entering the territory. It’s run by terrorists y’all! Why would you want to go there? Go to Egypt instead, it’s nicer!
In other news:
- Check out the interview/eyewitness account of Cast Lead over at PoliticalTheatrics
- Iraq elections have been shifted to March 7th
- Lady Gaga met the Queen of England. ZOMG!
Iraqi Election issues ironed out
Tariq al-Hashemi [EPA
Iraqi Elections in 2010 haven’t gotten much coverage on this blog but they have been covered fairly extensively elsewhere. The problems have been mostly sectarian in nature and dealing with perceived fairness in election law in preparation for a crucial poll that needs to be held next year, as per the constitution. While it doesn’t look like the poll will now go ahead in the month of January as it was supposed, February and March are being mooted as more likely months for it to happen.
The important thing is that it actually is happening, and I’m sure Obama is breathing a sigh of relief somewhere in the Oval Office at this one. Iraqi stability is important considering combat operations there are due to end next year and a successful run for the poll is a key precursor to the withdrawal of US troops.
The deadlock has been over representation for Sunnis, and also partly over the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk (disputed by Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Turkmen). Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi threatened to veto the proposed changes to the electoral law but reportedly agreed at the last minute and the vote was passed unanimously. The law will reportedly expand parliament from 275 seats to 325 seats, 310 of which will be allotted to Iraq’s 18 provinces, with the remainder reserved for religious minorities and blocs that garnered national support but did not win seats. [Al Jazeera]
Pretty much everyone is predicting a rise in attacks from insurgents in the lead-up to the election and the tabled US withdrawal, the world will be watching Iraq next year with greatly renewed interest to see if the US occupation and ‘nation-building’ can in any way be vindicated. You can expect to see more Iraq-related coverage and opinion on this here blog also.
The new set of Sanctions against Iran
Ahmadinejad's "Armpit of Evil", thanks Guardian for the pic
I’ve been facing a combination of writer’s block, laziness and slow news days cropping up precisely on the days that I do have time to blog, a dangerous cocktail that helps explain my general lack of postage on this blog. I realise that the new set of Iran sanctions has already been heavily discussed, for those that haven’t heard
I’m not going to say a great deal on this issue except that I don’t particularly like it. I don’t remember when sanctions have ever been effective in getting a Government to do what people want them to do, they usually only serve to isolate and entrench despotic governments further (Saddam). In addition, while the specific set of sanctions hasn’t been finalised yet, there already has been a reasonable amount of opposition to specific measures that have been mooted.
Talking about the political implications, as The Majlis has mentioned, it seems that the Iranian regime is ready for these sanctions and looking to confront them head on. The amount of baiting that has been going on has been ramped up a great deal, especially with the announcement of building a further ten nuclear plants by the regime. How they intend to finance this with the Iranian economy in the doldrums that it’s in is of no consequence, the rhetoric here is what seems to be important. The Majlis also discusses the effect on the current rift in the Iranian political establishment. It seems to me that the conservative wing of Khamenei/Ahmadinejad is further entrenching itself in a position where the nuclear program is its baby and its baby alone. Reformists like Rafsanjani will not oppose the program either because they realise it would be political suicide after how much pro-nuclear propaganda has been effected on the population.
It seems that Obama’s unclench-your-fist rhetoric has failed and he’s now erring on the side of sanctions to preserve his own political capital. This spells bad news. Even if Russia and China do support the sanctions, no good will come of them. Sanctions will further serve to entrench the regime’s position against the West as “the Great Satan” and further entrench the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad axis in power, helping it out of its current political quandry. I may not have any helpful suggestions on the matter, but I don’t like sanctions.
Gilad Shalit, and Obama uses Israel as attack dog to scare Chinese
photo credit: politicaltheatrics.net
Been a while since I last blogged, exams got the better of me and being in Sydney chilling has been counterproductive to blogging, but I’m back!
Despite discussions stalling somewhat and it now being said that a deal is more likely to take place after Eid al-Adha (Eid Mubarak to Muslims, by the way!) there have been reports of progress on the negotiations over the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap. Ismail Haniyeh even cancelled his Hajj! According to Haaretz, Israel is none too thrilled about certain prisoners that Hamas wants released:
Hamas is demanding, among other the prisoners, the release of Ibrahim Hamad, head of the group’s military wing in the Ramallah area, Abdallah Barghouti, a bomb engineer, and Abbas a-Sayad, the Hamas head in Tul Karm who planned the 2002 massacre during Passover in Netanya’s Park Hotel. These three prisoners are considered responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israelis.
Other names mentioned in the Arab media are Hassan Salame, who was involved in planning the suicide bus bombings in the mid ’90s, and Jamal Abu al-Hijla, head of Hamas in Jenin, who was convicted of taking part in planning and funding several suicide attacks during the second intifada.
Israel’s trepidation at having these prisoners freed is understandable, and the fact is, that political pressure from within Israel to have Shalit freed has been strong but not overwhelming so you can expect Israeli’s to hold out a while longer to get a better deal, politically especially (apparently having key suicide bombing planners freed can be harmful to one’s political standing). Most people are watching the fate of one Marwan Barghouti, considered a key possible successor to the increasingly beleaguered and probably-resigning Abu Mazen. You can expect Barghouti to be freed, Obama has been putting pressure on Netanyahu to make concessions that would bolster Fatah in the lead-up to PA elections and Abbas’ increasingly likely resignation.
The other major news is that during Obama’s visit to China, he put some pressure on the Chinese to do something about the whole Iran nuclear thing, which they have normally stayed clear out of (their policy of political non-involvement in the affairs of trading partners). The scare tactic used was the threat of Israel bombing Iran unilaterally (thus implying tacit US support) and the damage that would do to Iran as an energy source for China. The other scare tactic was the implication that other states could go nuclear, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, implying that Japan was another possibility (something China would not view kindly). [Thanks WashPo] [Check out a condensed report from Political Theatrics here.)
Antony Loewenstein is getting into a bit of a tizzy about it, suggesting that these talks imply Obama will certainly acquiesce to Israel bombing Iran, I disagree. While the jury is still out on how far Israel will go to defend against the ‘existential threat’ and how far the US will go in trying to stop them, I don’t think these statements to the Chinese should all be taken seriously. They are scare tactics and meant as such, Obama needs the Chinese to either support (or at least not veto) resolutions against Iran in the UN and given their mostly self-interested political philosophies, he needs to frighten them into submission. I mean a nuclear Egypt? Never happen. But bringing up a nuclear Japan is pretty damn scary, as is linking bombing Iran with energy security.
So here we have Obama clearly using Israel as an attack dog, or rather hinting at the possibility of it breaking its chains. Remember the Suez War in 56 when the British and French used Israel as an attack dog? Yeah, that didn’t end well for them.
Jalaluddin Haqqani rails against the US and Bush-era “fires”
Have just finished reading the Jalaluddin Haqqani interview that was linked to on Jihadica. (Urdu readers can find the whole interview here. ) While it doesn’t offer anything new – there’s lots of railing and ranting against the US’ highhandedness and dominance over the world, and praise of mujahideen – there are some interesting questions that were posed to him.
My translation is rather rough so please excuse any errors. Also, these are Haqqani’s terms – these would not be the terms I would use.
On the comparison b/w the Soviet and US invasions, Haqqani says that during the Soviet war the credit was mostly given to American Stinger missiles and weapons, but in the US invasion its been the fighters who have managed to do it on their own.
On the US plans to send more troops to Afghanistan: “I have said this before and am saying it again, that in the Afghanistan problem the US rulers are comparable to a gambler, who at the gambling table ends up losing everything after getting all warmed up.”
On the plan to negotiate with the Taliban: “Yes! After eight years Americans have realized that their current policy for Afghanistan is not favourable, and it needs to be changed. There will be different stages to this:
- An increase in troops
- Spreading discord between different tribes/groups
- Talking to the mujahideen in Afghanistan
Haqqani says the first two have already been acted on and that the US will use the talks as a cover for the following
- Spreading distrust among the mujahideen. By distrust he says that the talks will be a propaganda tool that will be given extensive media coverage and every element of the discussions will be disclosed to give a feeling that talks are happening
- Starting talks would give Karzai’s puppet government a legal standing.
- If the talks fail, the US would hold the Taliban responsible and say they want to continue the war.
- The Taliban wanted to talk to the US eight years ago, but they didn’t want to and chose to invade instead. Now after a war that has killed thousands, destroyed villages, and further destroyed an already destroyed Afghanistan, and spending billions of dollars, they still don’t understand that military force is not the solution to everything.
On AfPak
Q: South Afghanistan borders Pakistan. The Karzai government spreads propoganda that the planning for jihad activities in this area is actually done in Pakistan and that you are in control of foreign fighters?
A: The Karzai government’s basis is of 27 occupying countries. They baselessly propagandize, in response to which I only say this that if in reality the planning of activities in southern Afghanistan are being done in a neighbouring country, then where is the planning of activities in the northern and main regions being done? In the central zone of the country there have been country-level military operations. That is where the most occupiers are killed, but those are not affiliated to a certain country. In the same way in the country’s northern zone Qunduz, Baghlan, Balkh, Badakshan and Jozjan are very far away from the country’s south, so where are the activities on foreign occupiers and their allies being planned on there?
In reality, if support from neighbouring country to Afghanistan can be called a victory, then the Karzai government – which has the military and political support of 37 countries, including neighbouring ones – would rule over Afghanistan. Yes! In the bordering areas, some religious youngsters have a spirit for jihad, whose fathers and grandfathers fought side by side with their Afghan brothers to fight against British and Russian occupiers. Some were martyred here while others were victors. That same spirit is still prevalent today against American occupation amongst brave people. We appreciate their support in the jihad and expect them to fulfill their jihad duties.
On Obama
Q: In America, the Democrats have come to power under Obama. What effect will this have on the war in Afghanistan?
A: “….The American public trusted Obama, and voted him into power. Hence Obama should save his country from the fire that Bush had shoved it in.”
This is what the war does to children: it robs them of their innocence
I have thought quite a bit about whether to post this story. Its possibly one of the most heartrending reports about the impact of suicide bombings on Pakistan, where a suicide bomber seems to blow himself up on an almost daily basis. But in the midst of the inane debates and Denialistan and the general sense of ‘how the hell do we get out of this situation?!’, does anyone realize what is happening to the children of this beleaguered country?
Eight-year-old Abid Mehmood was sifting through the debris of the bombed market in Pakistan’s north-western city of Peshawar for metal and plastic pieces when he found something unusual – a human eyeball. The remains of a body that the powerful blast might have burnt or even dissolved a day earlier had enough shine and colour to attract the child, who immediately collected it in a plastic bag.
Hours later, he found a plastic jar and dipped the eyeball in the water and started to pick through the rubble to find more.
“I have collected seven eyes but there should be one more. After all, every person has two eyes,” said Mehmood as he showed the jar to a reporter.
“They look beautiful, don’t they?” he said in the Meena Bazaar, the once-busy market where a suicide bomber killed 119 people and injured over 200 on October 28.
Indifference to death is increasingly becoming a defence mechanism for psychologically tormented children in Peshawar, where Taliban have killed several hundred people in dozens of suicide bombings over the last two years.
“We are seeing more and more children who show little reaction to death and the dead ones,” Peshawar-based psychiatrist and social worker Dr Khalid Mufti said.
“The other day an 11-year-old child whose father died and brother lost his legs in a recent blast told me that he was waiting for his turn like everyone else in the town,” added Mufti.
“The kid was smiling. You know, this is what the war does to children: it robs them of their innocence.”
Read the rest here. Link via the Pakistan Conflict Monitor.
Welcome to Denialistan
Welcome to Denialistan. Leave your brain at the door, and hand rational thought over to the bouncer, and have a drink of that delightful forgetfulness-serum that’s being handed out.
That, dear readers of this blog and those who come here via strange Google searches, seems to be the correct name for the place I currently inhabit. The state of denial that seems to have gripped the country I live in has become ridiculous, even for those used to the inanity exhibited here on a daily basis.
Several people – particularly XYZ at Cafe Pyala and Naveen Naqvi – have blogged about the state of denial in Pakistan recently. And I’ve had several encounters in the past few days that have left me put off news channels and politics altogether. The denial really is about who is to blame for Pakistan’s current state. As exemplified by several opinion surveys, the rather ridiculous statements given by Pakistani musicians and by the various conversations I’ve had and overheard over the past few weeks; no one really wants to accept that the Taliban – or any other militant group - are our problem. That they are to blame. That despite the fact that there exists evidence of their involvement and that they proudly take responsibility for bombing everything – from schools and hotels to military and intelligence facilities – a large majority of Pakistanis are ready to blame anyone else. Blackwater, DynCorp, India, US, Israel, CIA, RAW, Mossad – anyone but us, our mistakes, our decades of involvement in other countries, our military training, our intelligence, our public support, our governments, our funding.
Welcome to Denialistan.
Pakistan gets surveyed III: No major surprises
Welcome to another edition of Pakistan gets surveyed! This time, its via the folks at Gallup Pakistan. The survey was conducted for the Gilani Research Foundation (not to be confused with the current Prime Minister of the country, Yousuf Raza Gilani).
The survey of 2700 people, conducted last week, proves the same old points.
51% of people surveyed support the current military operation in South Waziristan, while they also don’t think this is a Pakistani problem – 35% blame the USA and 31% blame the Pakistani government and politicians. Only 25% blame the Taliban. Though the way the question was framed was rather ridiculous too.
Oddly enough, when asked whose war this was, 39% responded that it was America’s war, while 37% thought it was Pakistan’s. Now if only they had included a question on that other great bone of contention, the Kerry-Lugar/Berman bill..
Previous posts about surveys on Pakistan:
- August 2009: The Al-Jazeera and Pew Group surveys
- October 2009: The International Republican Institute survey
Hillary backpedals over settlement praise, Goldstone Report is buried in Congress
Hillary Clinton. Photo: AP.
In Israel-related news, the media today had to make a decision over what was more relevant. Do we report on Hillary Clinton’s furious back-pedalling over her statements regarding the fairly irrelevant, and existent in name only, peace process? Or do we instead report on US Congress predictably landslide-voting to bury the Goldstone Report, the irrelevance of which seems to be growing by the day? Predictably, the media felt that a foreign policy gaffe by the Secretary of State was an opportunity too good to pass up, and happily plumped for the former. And why not? Didn’t anyone else think that Clinton falling all over herself to appease AIPAC was amusing? As in, depressingly amusing, but hey this is Israel-Palestine we’re talking about, it’s always going to be somewhat morbid amusement.
So Clinton says to Al-Jazeera in Morocco:
“I think, as you know, President [Barack] Obama clearly said he wanted to see an end to settlement activity,”
“That had never been requested prior to any negotiation entered into by any representative of either the Palestinians or the Israelis.”
After her trip to Morocco, Clinton flew to Cairo to deal with the aftermath of her gaffe committed in previous days, to talk to “Egyptian leaders” as the Star Tribune reports. VOA reports that she’s meeting Uncle Hosni.
The NZ Herald has the following to say:
Clinton’s comments in Jerusalem appeared to reflect a realisation within the Obama Administration that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government will not accept a full-scale settlement freeze and that a partial halt may be the best lesser option. Her appeal seemed designed to make the Israeli position more palatable to the Palestinians and Arab states.
But the ever-present question begs. If the settlements are illegal, and if the Obama administration ‘unequivocally’ opposes them, then why can’t the Obama Administration put more pressure on the Netanyahu Government to halt them entirely. There has been precious little evidence of any real pressure on Netanyahu, in fact Bibi, and other pro-settlement folk, have been glowing with pride over his constant ‘victories’ over Obama. So why bother saying that you’re against something ‘unequivocally’ but do nothing tangible to actually stop it? Ah yes, well, that’s called empty rhetoric, ladies and gentlemen, and Obama’s Administration seems to be very good at it… until now when the rhetoric spills over into weird fawning, as Clinton’s statements the other day indicate. What Clinton terms ‘positive reinforcement’ to the rest of us looks like diplomatic genuflection.
As per the words of the Hillary, “We need to work together in a constructive spirit toward this shared goal of a comprehensive peace.” Indeed, the Netanyahu Government’s spirit has been very constructive – constructive of settlements in the Occupied West Bank, not sure how ‘comprehensive’ the peace is going to be though, unless the Palestinian residents of the West Bank are simply built over with cement.
Oh and about that Goldstone report? Yeah Congress voted 344-36 to bury that baby, something that Mondoweiss called “Pyongyang-style”. That linked post also contains a list of the “Nays” in case you’re American and want to write a letter to your local congressman congratulating him or her for possessing some modicum of cojones. I believe Gregg from The Majlis, who live-blogged the debate from Congress, pretty much sums up how the rest of us feel about this vote.
But it’s not all bad news, folks. Mondoweiss:
My sources tell me that the total of 36 No’s and 22 voting Present is actually a giant improvement over, say, the Lebanon votes that typically were in the 400 range, Yes-wise.
Progress!
Morbid Monday: Rawalpindi & Lahore Motorway attacked
Today is the first of the month – a day where people get salaries, plan for the month ahead, pay bills, pay their children’s school fees.
Today on the Lahore-Islamabad Motorway, a couple of suicide bombers detonated their jackets near the police checkpost on the Babu Sabu interchange. The attack happened after the two were stopped. The attack saw both suicide bombers killed. 15 people are reportedly injured, which includes several police officers. The attackers are reported to have been less than 20 years old.
The Motorway also saw an attack on October 24, when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-laden car near the Lillah interchange, killing one police officer.
Today in Rawalpindi, Pakistan - a planted bomb exploded suicide bomber detonated a bomb laden motorcycle, killing 30 people and injuring 40. 25 people (this is an unconfirmed number as the death toll keeps rising) and injuring 30. Eyewitness reports gathered by Pakistani news channels say that there were several military officers who were at the National Bank of Pakistan collecting their salaries, and that the blast took place in the parking lot. The area is one of those ‘highly sensitive’ ones – the Pearl Continental hotel was next door and the Army’s General Head Quarters a few kilometers away. Schools have been closed in the city.
Today in Pakistan, the Government is obsessed not with the security situation in the country, not with the military operation in Waziristan, but with aid conditions in the Kerry-Lugar/Berman bill and the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance.
Today in Rawalpindi and Lahore, as families try and get news and innocent people die and are injured, as news channels scramble for visuals, as the empty condemnations from political leaders pour in, as the country’s ever-increasing sense of fear grows, everything is in short supply: leadership, effective governance, security and stability.
