Post Realism 7

After 30 Years on Camp David Accords

Will the Mountain Come to Mohamed?

The Egyptian humiliating defeat of 1967 was a hard blow to an era of unrealistic dreams. Unearned dreams, really. An era of Romanticism and seemingly great ideals. Ideals which sadly turned out to be hollow. The 1979 treaty of Camp David between Egypt and Israel put an official end to that era of Romanticism and signified an era of Realism.


The era of Realism recognized that power and military might alone shall reign supreme in our world. With total disregard for justice, legitimacy and other “hollow” ideals. Justice became like a thin shell or a mask. The substance inside is power. And without that internal substance, justice would be easily cracked. It would not stand a chance in the “real” world. Justice is there only to protect the rights of the strong. As for the weak, justice is blocked by lobbies and vetoes. The “weak” is not meant to demand, or even request, justice.


But Realism without Justice, Honor or Vision, led to the events of Sep 11th 2001 and what followed. The irony is that the strong started to use the terms of "International Legitimacy". International Legitimacy became a hard currency. Marred with double standards, past failures and a tall pile of UN SC vetoes, an effective International Justice system was nowhere to be pointed at. The world was just not designed to work in that way.

On Sep 11th 2001, the world entered into a new era, without even realizing what it was. Some called it the “War on Terror” which was more like a “War of Errors”. Errors of diagnosis and judgment. Instead of realizing that military power alone, without justice or legitimacy had given birth to hatred, extremism and terror, therefore shifting focus to designing a new International Justice system to resolve pending conflicts, George W. Bush did the exact opposite, initiating new wars, creating more enemies and fueling more hatred and extremism.


Instead of seeing past Realism to Post-Realism, the Neocons continued the same deadly path towards clash and global conflict as if working towards the old self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon. But as Iraq turned ugly, Iran more radicalized, Hezbollah rising in Lebanon and Hamas reaching power in Palestine, the entire world, perhaps except Bush and a few of his supporters had realized the failure of the NeoCons strategy. The old wisdom of “Realism”, that power alone can impose peace or security, even for the strong, turned out to be false. Values like justice, legitimacy and the rule of law, started to regain weight and thickness. This is a terrific opportunity to work towards ending all conflicts. Not with the old idea of negotiations which would still favor the strong, presenting only a temporary solution and a short-lived peace that would sooner or later break as violence and conflict erupt, but through International Justice. Arbitration. International Courts of Justice, existing or to be erected.


Signing the Camp David Accords in 1979 solved a key problem for Egypt, restoring sovereignty over Sinai and ending a quarter-century state of war, which was meant to pave the way for development, prosperity and democratic transformation. But the key problems were not solved by 1979 agreement. The key conflict was about the Palestinians and not about Egypt or Sinai. Israel, and the world, thought that they could do by neutralizing the biggest Arab country, Egypt, through Camp David. That signing a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel will buy security and peace. But that was a mistake. The core problem remained and the conflict worsened.


I do not think that Egypt needs to demand amendments to Camp David Accords. Israel will soon demand such amendments! The peace treaties to come, if and when they come, will automatically impose new game rules and mandatory changes on the Camp David terms. This time the mountain might just come to Mohamed.

Also See:
If Pakistan Falls
Obama Administration Takes Stronger Line With Israel

Post-Realism 6
Post-Realism Demystified
Post Realism 4
Post Realism 2
Post Realism 3
Isratine or a Swiss Cheese State

Post-Realism 5

Racing Against Time

as the

World Heads Towards Chaos

By:
Wael Nawara

An eventual rift between the new US administration and the right-wing Israeli government may be inevitable. The Obama administration wants to be seen as reclaiming back its right to set the US foreign policy in the White House and the State Department and not in the halls and corridors of AIPAC conventions. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an American lobbying group, has advocated for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive for more than five decades, often against, many would argue, American interests. Obama delayed his meeting with Netanyahu as not to coincide with AIPAC's gathering in a symbolic gesture that the American agenda is no longer at the mercy of the strong pro-Israel lobby. The lobby which had hi-jacked US foreign policy for decades is slowly being realized as a threat to US interests and indeed, although no one will dare to say that, to World Peace and Global Security at large. When Netanyahu meets Obama on the 18th May, he will have to present an Israeli vision towards peace, if indeed a serious one exists.

It is fair, yet unpopular, to say that the situation in Palestine and Israeli discourse for the past few decades fuels, if it is not directly responsible for, the chaotic situation in Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Egypt and the developing worldwide clash between the West and Muslims. The West is seen to have blindly supported Israel with no regard to the indigenous people of Palestine, its neighbors and the Arab and Muslim worlds as a whole. With the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the bad situation in Iraq & Iran, Obama's administration is racing against time as the world heads towards chaos.

Israel itself faces a very uncertain future if it does not quickly resolve the Palestinian issue. Israeli negotiators have been too smart for Israel’s own interests, as they stalled for decades always demanding more from the defenseless Palestinian side while successive Israeli governments strived to change realities on the ground by building more settlements, erecting apartheid walls, confiscating homes, lands and seizing water resources such that the window for a viable two-state solution now has almost disappeared. The table will turn around soon and Israel will have to give many concessions in land, water, labor arrangements and other resources to resuscitate the dead embryo of a Palestinian State back to vitality.

Also See:

If Pakistan Falls

Obama Administration Takes Stronger Line With Israel

Post-Realism Demystified

Post Realism 4

Post Realism 2

Post Realism 3

Isratine or a Swiss Cheese State

If Pakistan Falls

If Pakistan Falls

By:
Wael Nawara

The recent events in Pakistan force me to contemplate a theoretical question: What happens if Pakistan falls into the hands of Taliban or other extremist factions? This 173-million-people country possesses nuclear capability but the nation is largely divided between seculars and extremists. Taliban raised fears in Pakistan by seizing control of the Buner district close to the capital Islamabad and imposed what they consider as “Sharia’a Law”. Scenes of a public flogging of a 17-year old girl on the hands of Taliban early this month alerted the world to the threat. A Washington Post editorial on Sunday said that the Obama administration’s public warnings of Pakistan’s collapse caused panic. Clinton had used the term “existential threat” describing the situation perhaps to urge the Pakistani government to take action. “In the course of three days, the US secretaries of state and defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the commanding general of American forces in the Middle East all publicly warned, in blunt and dire language, that Pakistan was facing an existential threat – and that its government and Army were not facing it,” the newspaper said.

President Asif Zardari’s government officials tried to play down the threat. But it seems that they are afraid that massive confrontation could spark off a wide civil war which the Pakistani army maybe unable to win. “The Threat is certainly real,” it said, however, and the Pakistan Army – “untrained in counterinsurgency and rigidly focused on India” – is either “reluctant to take on” the Taliban or “mostly ineffective”. But as Taliban forces expanded from Swat into the adjacent district of Buner, 100 kms from the capital, the United States made clear that it would attack Taliban forces in their Swat valley stronghold unless the Pakistan government stopped the militants’ advance towards Islamabad. But the key to this war is not the army. It is the divided nation of Pakistan. Like most other “Islamic” countries, Pakistan is divided between the modern and the old. Between the moderates and the fanatics. The seculars and the extremists. The key is how to develop a new cultural balance which will allow both to co-exist peacefully, before a de facto civil war erupts in all of these “Islamic” countries.

In 1947 there were only 189 madrassas or Islamic Schools in Pakistan. By 2002 the country had 10,000-13,000 unregistered madrassas with an estimated 1.7 to 1.9 million students. A 2008 estimate puts this figure at "over 40,000". So, these schools have collectively produced millions of Pakistani graduates who were taught in these “Islamic” schools which mostly teach extremist versions of Islam. Many of those “graduates” become radicalizing elements within their local societies. They command respect and influence people around them. Although you may meet many moderate Pakistanis, I have to admit that I was shocked to observe that some Pakistanis have developed some of the most extremist Islamic interpretations present today. Many of these extremist Pakistanis now live in Britain or other European countries where they teach or preach in local mosques and Islamic centers. Many others mingle with the population and spread their message amongst immigrant communities or Muslim minorities often feeling socially or economically excluded in their new societies.


If Pakistan falls, could this event trigger the official start of a formal World War III? I think the War or skirmishes of such had already started some time in 2001. But if Pakistan falls, knowing the situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Sudan and Yemen, then we have a very unstable position stretching on a potential battlefront covering many thousands of kilometers. Many other countries, Arab, European and otherwise, have large populations of Muslims ranging from moderates to fanatics. Which side are they going to take? And if more wars are to break out, will this trigger internal stability and radicalization in countries such as Egypt which are still dominated by “Moderates”, such that extremists will take control or gain increasing power? Has the self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon finally come to fateful realization? Extremists on both sides have the Armageddon “promise” in their mythology. Each believing that their “own God” will come to their rescue and guide their troops to the path of victory. But what the rest of us can see, is a trail of blood and destruction. Is there an end to this madness?


How does a right-wing-governed Israel fit into this picture? Israel and its atrocities in Palestine is often seen as “the” most potent fuel for radicalization and a major cause of the rise of extremism amongst Muslims around the world. But will the new US administration be able to talk the right-wing Israeli government into a peaceful settlement of a century-long conflict? A settlement with whom, when the Palestinian house is divided? Will such a solution come in time? What pressure can the US exercise over Israel? What is the impact on the internal US political scene?

Meanwhile, the needle of the radicameter in Pakistan as well as in many other places is pushing into the red. And the clock is ticking.

.

.

.

.

Related Stories:


From The Times
April 27, 2009
The threat that forced a fight
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6176004.ece

Google

Taliban bar Pakistan army convoy as tension grows
By ASIF SHAHZAD
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD97PJIVG3


From The Sunday Times
April 26, 2009
‘Stop the Taliban now – or we will’
The US got tough with Pakistan as terrorists moved to within 60 miles of the capital
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6168940.ece

Pakistan Daily Times
US public warning of Pakistan collapse has risks
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C27%5Cstory_27-4-2009_pg1_13

Pakistan Daily Times
PML-N asks Sufi Muhammad to disarm Taliban
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\27\story_27-4-2009_pg1_6

Post Realism - 6

From the Haaretz

So pro-Israel that it hurts

By Daniel Levy

The new (2006) John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt study of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Note: Now a Book published in Britain as no US publisher would take the risk. Incidentally, the Publisher is Jewish.) should serve as a wake-up call, on both sides of the ocean. The most obvious and eye-catching reflection is the fact that it is authored by two respected academics and carries the imprimatur of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. The tone of the report is harsh. It is jarring for a self-critical Israeli, too. It lacks finesse and nuance when it looks at the alphabet soup of the American-Jewish organizational world and how the Lobby interacts with both the Israeli establishment and the wider right-wing echo chamber.


It sometimes takes AIPAC omnipotence too much at face value and disregards key moments - such as the Bush senior/Baker loan guarantees episode and Clinton's showdown with Netanyahu over the Wye River Agreement. The study largely ignores AIPAC run-ins with more dovish Israeli administrations, most notably when it undermined Yitzhak Rabin, and how excessive hawkishness is often out of step with mainstream American Jewish opinion, turning many, especially young American Jews, away from taking any interest in Israel.


Yet their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support (beyond, as the authors point out, the right to exist, which is anyway not in jeopardy). The study is at its most devastating when it describes how the Lobby "stifles debate by intimidation" and at its most current when it details how America's interests (and ultimately Israel's, too) are ill-served by following the Lobby's agenda.


The bottom line might read as follows: that defending the occupation has done to the American pro-Israel community what living as an occupier has done to Israel - muddied both its moral compass and its rational self-interest compass.


The context in which the report is published makes of it more than passing academic interest. Similar themes keep recurring in influential books, including recently, "The Assassin's Gate," "God's Politics," and "Against All Enemies." In popular culture, "Paradise Now" and "Munich" attracted notable critical acclaim. In Congress, the AIPAC-supported Lantos/Ros-Lehtinen bill, which places unprecedented restrictions on aid to and contacts with the Palestinians, is stalled. Moderate American organizations such as the Israel Policy Forum, Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom - each with their own policy nuances - have led opposition to the bill and Quartet envoy Wolfensohn has seemed to caution against it. In court, two former senior AIPAC officials face criminal charges.


Not yet a tipping point, but certainly time for a debate. Sadly, if predictably, response to the Harvard study has been characterized by a combination of the shrill and the smug. Avoidance of candid discussion might make good sense to the Lobby, but it is unlikely to either advance Israeli interests or the U.S.-Israel relationship.


Some talking points for this coming debate can already be suggested:


First, efforts to collapse the Israeli and neoconservative agendas into one have been a terrible mistake - and it is far from obvious which is the tail and which is the dog in this act of wagging. Iraqi turmoil and an Al-Qaida foothold there, growing Iranian regional leverage and the strengthening of Hamas in the PA are just a partial scorecard of the recent policy successes of AIPAC/neocon collaboration.


Second, Israel would do well to distance itself from our so-called "friends" on the Christian evangelical right. When one considers their support for Israel's own extremists, the celebration of our Prime Minister's physical demise as a "punishment from God" and their belief in our eventual conversion - or slaughter - then this is exposed as an alliance of sickening irresponsibility.


Third, Israel must not be party to the bullying tactics used to silence policy debate in the U.S. and the McCarthyite policing of academia by set-ups like Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch. If nothing else, it is deeply un-Jewish. It would in fact serve Israel if the open and critical debate that takes place over here were exported over there.


Fourth, the Lobby even denies Israel a luxury that so many other countries benefit from: of having the excuse of external encouragement to do things that are domestically tricky but nationally necessary (remember Central Eastern European economic and democratic reform to gain EU entry in contrast with Israel's self-destructive settlement policy for continued U.S. aid).


Visible signs of Israel and the Lobby not being on the same page are mounting. For Israel, the Gaza withdrawal and future West Bank evacuations are acts of strategic national importance, for the Lobby an occasion for confusion and shuffling of feet. For Israel, the Hamas PLC election victory throws up complex and difficult challenges; for the Lobby it's a public relations homerun and occasion for legislative muscle-flexing.


In the words of the simplistic Harvard study authors, "the Lobby's influence has been bad for Israel ... has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities ... that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists ... using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy in the Middle East." And please, this is not about appeasement, it's about smart, if difficult, policy choices that also address Israeli needs and security.


In short, if Israel is indeed entering a new era of national sanity and de-occupation, then the role of the Lobby in U.S.-Israel relations will have to be rethought, and either reformed from within or challenged from without.

________________________________________
Daniel Levy was an advisor in the Prime Minister's Office, a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.

________________________________________

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=698051

________________________________________

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: The Israel Lobby, London Review of
Books, 23 March, 2006. Available at:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Available at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724

________________________________________

Is Gaza an Occupied Territory

Is Gaza an Occupied Territory?




The U.N. position


In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded.


The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.


"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.


Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council.





Source:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza.occupation.question/




CIA Factbook


West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005."


Source

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html




The Israeli Settlements


The international community has long recognized the unlawfulness of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. UN Security Council Resolution 465 (of 1 March 1980) called on Israel "... to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem".


However, the international community failed to take any measure to implement this resolution. Most Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories were built after this resolution was passed, with the greatest expansion having taken place in the past decade. The establishment and expansion of settlements and related infrastructure in the West Bank is continuing on a daily basis, contrary to Israel's commitment under the UN-sponsored 2003 Roadmap peace plan. This week the Israeli government confirmed its plan to built 3,500 new settlement houses in the East Jerusalem area of the West Bank.


As well as violating international humanitarian law per se, the implementation of Israel's settlement policy in the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights provisions, including the prohibition of discrimination. The seizure and appropriations of land for Israeli settlements, bypass roads and related infrastructure and discriminatory allocation of other vital resources, including water, have had a devastating impact on the fundamental rights of the local Palestinian population, including their rights to an adequate standard of living, housing, health, education, and work, and freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories.


Source

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/021/2005/en/dom-MDE150212005en.html

Find a Solution or One will be Imposed upon you

Enough is Enough

Our Patience is Running out

By:

Wael Nawara

I look at the decades-long suffering of Palestinians and Gazans and I cannot help it but sympathize with them. I look at the centuries-long suffering and prosecution of Jews and I also cannot help it but sympathize with them as well. I think the whole world one way or another sympathizes with both sides. Each side has a touching story to tell and a number of seemingly good claims, be it religious, Biblical, Quranic, legal, civil, birth-right or otherwise.


But this sympathy, our sympathy, did not seem to have helped either party.


Palestinians and Israelis are somehow like cousins. Many Israelis and Palestinians look alike, cook alike and they even sound alike! But they have been fighting for decades and they seem to be determined to go on. I am not suggesting that they enjoy it, but it just seems that they will still go on fighting like that for a while.


Some friends ask me: “What is it to you? Why do you write or even bother to think about this? It is ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians who suffer and get to lose the most. So, it is up to them to find a solution.” In fact, they sadly point out, that the more they, Israelis and Palestinians suffer, the stronger their urge would be to find a settlement.


The trouble is, the bloody scenes are very disturbing. They haunt you. I mean, if the World will close an eye on murdering Gazan children or blowing up Israeli civilians, where does it stop? If the world had decided to close an eye on gassing Jews on the hands of the Nazi regime, the genocide against the people of Kosovo or Darfur where would we be today? Moreover, we are literally getting injured in the crossfire. When your neighbor’s home is on fire, you are bound to take an interest, lest the fire may spread to your own home and burn your own children too. And this is not just because we, in Egypt, are their next-door neighbors. Neighborhoods much farther away around the world in this global village, where borders and distances are ever diminishing, are also getting injured in the crossfire. The conflict has spilled over to many lands. It is fueling hatred and maniplulating extremist religious sentiments North, East, West and South.


In any conflict, a solution or a PATH, a strategy towards a solution, be it negotiation, arbitration, resorting to the Internal Court of Justice or the UN, should ideally come from the parties in concern: in this case Israelis and Palestinians. But this does not seem to be the case here. It simply does not work. Even wars, for many decades, did not work.


Several countries in the region, including Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Israel waged or got entangled in one war after another but wars never brought about a settlement to the original problem, the Israeli-Palestinian problem. So, they, or some of them, abandoned wars or pretended to be doing so and chose the path of peace, or appeared as if they had made that choice. Yet not a dawn of a solution even seemed remotely apparent at the horizon. We waited and waited, patiently hosting one round of negotiations and mediations after another, yet, the situation seems to only deteriorate.

Israel claims that Hamas is a terrorist organization which fires missiles indiscriminately at Israeli civilian population. That Arafat was a no-good greedy negotiator who showed no gratitude to generous Israeli offers. Palestinians claim that Israelis are using their military advantage to impose an unjust solution. Hamas says that it is a resistance movement which started with kids throwing stones facing armed soldiers who crushed the children's bones. Hamas further reminds us that such violent tactics were first used by the founding fathers of Israel including prominent members of successive Israeli cabinets, such as former Premiere Menachem Begin, also a former Irgun’s member, who was involved in the mass-murder of civilians in incidents such as the one which occurred in Deir Yasin in 1948 as well as the bombing of King David Hotel, Jerusalem, which was filled with civilians including women and children at the time, in 1946. If these were the heroes and founders of Israel, Hamas is following their seemingly successful example. After all, Israel managed to erect a state in 1948 through the use of such tactics and others. The other side claims that several warnings to evacuate King David Hotel prior to bombing were made and ignored. The dispute goes on.


I am personally getting fatigued by this whole situation. I no longer believe that negotiations can bring about a settlement which is deemed fair and acceptable by both parties. Maybe it is because of the power-parity, maybe because each side is clinging to its story and holy claims or whatever. Each party always complains that the other party is the one responsible for the failure of negotiations.


OK, how about we adopt a new direction, settlement through Binding Arbitration, say with the International Court of Justice. Arbitration seemed to have worked well for the Taba dispute between Egypt and Israel. Why shouldn’t it work for Israelis and Palestinians?


I think that the World Patience will one day soon come to an end. It will reach its limit. Our patience will just run out. And if the conflicting parties cannot reach an amicable solution, the WORLD must step in, find and impose a solution on their behalf, through the UN or through ICJ or whatever special court, where both parties are invited to make their claims and substantiate their case and are required to abide by the ruling. The International Community must have enough balls to enforce such a verdict/solution perhaps if necessary through economic sanctions, even blockade or by whatever means deemed fit.


We should tell them clearly and we should tell them now:


Find a solution or a solution will be imposed upon you by the International Community. Patience, sympathy and compassion are all great virtues. But everything has a limit.