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

________________________________________

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.

Post-Realism Demystified

Post-Realism:

What does it Mean?

By
Wael Nawara

In simple and short words, Post-Realism refers to a new "realization", that force and military might alone have not managed to provide security for the "strong".

Political Romanticism
In the fifties and sixties, many politicians, specially in the "Third World Countries", relied on rhetoric using terms such as "Justice", "Equality", "International Law", etc., to demand what they believed to be their nations' rightful dues. After a long era of colonialism, Third World Countries were demanding self-determination and natural justice.

The Heroes of this period of "Political Romanticism", were leaders like Nasser and Nehru. Their argument amounted to the proposition that "stronger" and "richer" states should adhere to such concepts on moral grounds. Third World countries, suddenly made a majority in the U.N. General Assembly! All kinds of UN resolutions sponsored by "Third World Countries" and "Non-Aligned Movement" were passed in the UN General Assembly. UN General Assembly had no "Veto Powers" for any member state, big or small and its resolutions of course were non-binding !

Nasser was promoting the end of colonialism and imperialism and insisting that "Peace" can only be built on "Justice". He even sought to promote what he thought as "social justice" at home, through successive waves of land re-distribution, nationalization, fixing of the prices of food, basic commodities, and housing rents, expanding government employment to accommodate every graduate of a free education system, and a package of socialist laws and measures which practically ruined and crippled the Egyptian Economy for decades to come. But these populist measures and the sort of romantic rhetoric which characterized that period, fueled the passions of hundreds of millions of dreamers around the world.

So, in summary, during the era or age of Political Romanticism, politicians just referred to terms and concepts like Justice, Equality and Peace, as principles all states should adhere to, on moral grounds!

An Era of Realism
Egypt's humiliating defeat in 1967 proved the romantic dreams which Nasser had promoted, in fact ended as dreadful nightmares, at least for Egyptians, Arabs, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese and other Arabs. Romanticists were awakened by a sobering reality, that "force", and not "justice", wins land and redraws national borders. Sadat, who became President after Nasser's death in 1970, was the champion of the new period. An age of "Realism" started.

This "Realism" had started to show itself in Egypt's foreign policy as early as November 1967, when Nasser formally accepted UN Security Council resolution. In the summer of 1972, Sadat asked the Soviets to withdraw their troops and military experts from Egypt. The Americans were surprised that he never consulted with them before making such a decision. He never asked for a price or attempted to draft even a memo of understanding with the Americans of the arrangements which would follow such an evacuation. Kicking out the Soviets, I believe, was an early turning point in the cold war. A point which signified perhaps a small victory for the West, but it was a small victory of far-reaching consequences as it started to permanently upset the power balance favoring the United States and the West. That turning point sent the curve of the Cold War on a one-way route which ended some 17 years later when Berlin Wall was demolished by the People of East and West Germany in 1989.

Egypt has seen this before. The British and French Empires signed their own death warrants in Portsaid, Egypt in 1956, when they attacked Egypt, employing Israel as their Bullying Agent, and were forced to withdraw primarily as a result of American pressure but also Soviet displeasure that the weaker allies of the Second World War would double-cross them and continue to act as a Great world powers without consulting the new world powers countries which really decided the fate of World War II, the USA and the USSR.

In November 1973, immediately after the seize fire was affected on the wake of the 1973 October War, Yum Kippur War, Sadat took yet another step into the "Age of Reason", the "Age of Realism", when he consorted with Kissinger in November 1973, and gave him his vision of the peace in the region and of the power shift in the cold-war world. Sadat, acknowledged the Arab defeat and wanted to create peace and prosperity based on new power balance. He realized that Egypt and the Arabs would be unable to defeat Israel either by their own weakness or because the world powers simply would not allow it. So, he became a "Realist".

What is "Realism"?

Realism is that we ask Palestinians to negotiate with Israelis under gun-point and demand that they (the Palestinians) be content with the outcome of such negotiations despite the power parity. Imagine a thug who stops you in the street, points a gun to your head and strips you off your wallet. You go to the police to file a report and the police tells you to go and negotiate with the robber to get back your wallet, some of your money, credit cards and ID cards. "But the robber is armed, officer?"

Realism is that we ask the Tibetans to calm down because China is a Superpower. Realism is that we ask Kuwait to accept the invasion of its strong neighbor, Iraq, gracefully!

In short, politicians of the Age of "Realism" adopted the approach that "force" and immediate "self-interest" alone govern foreign policy and the behavior states towards one another. Realism is the opposite of the rule of law, it is to accept that we shall be ruled by the law of the jungle. Force and might alone can protect you and yours. But even a bully goes to sleep. Even the strongest of us blinks. Even the strongest has weak children?

Post Realism
In 1978, Egypt formally made peace with Israel. But we must ask ourselves today, has this peace paid dividends? The state of War between Egypt and Israel ended. Egypt regained Sinai. But the problem was neither Egypt nor Sinai. The problem was, is, always has been and will remain for many years to come, Palestine.

Hundreds of millions of Palestinians, Arabs, Israelis, Citizens of New York, London, Madrid, & even Visitors of Bali have had to pay for the Palestinian problem until this very day.

We have learned from bitter experience the same lessons which made individuals, our ancestors, devise and submit to local laws thousands of years ago. Osiris, or Aser, it is said, gave Egyptians Laws of Maat and took them out of their savagery. Now, we see that "security" (in relation to, and against, terrorist attacks) has become the highest item on every nation's "interest", specially the "strong" and "rich" who have much more to lose. What sadly happened on the morning of 9/11 and the chain of events which followed, have proved that "the strong" is vulnerable to terrorism and terrorism is fueled by injustice.

The battle against terrorism, unlike traditional warfare, can not be won through armies or hi-tech weaponry alone. As knowledge of simple yet devastating technologies became available to everyone, it became easy to breach security if one is disgruntled enough to be so determined to trade his or her own life with the lives of "targets", civilians or otherwise, but usually civilians who are most vulnerable at their workplace, during traveling, in the streets, in the tube, in a supermarket or a shopping mall, in a restaurant, in a bus or even sitting at home minding their own business.

This experience suggests that the war against terror can only be won though re-establishing and re-instatement of the principles of justice, this time not as a moral necessity, but as security prerequisite!

Anyone of us can fall a victim to terror. There is no guaranty. No insurance. The only insurance, which does not eliminate, but considerably reduces the risk, is to erect an effective and efficient "International Justice System".

We learned to install "Justice Systems" on local and national levels. This was the basis of civilization. For civilization is built on accumulation. Such accumulation would not have been possible unless stability, security, safety and property are protected. Why would anyone work or build or farm, if he or she knows that their hard-earned fortunes can be taken away by some robber who will go unpunished, with no law, no enforcement to deter the perpetrators?
The League of Nations and its upgrade version, The United Nations and its institutions such as The International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as other Independent International Institutions affiliated with the United Nations, such as International Criminal Court (ICC) were meant to play that role, but unfortunately, as we have pointed out in a previous article, the United States, being the "strong", has consistently worked towards undermining the United Nations and any attempt to install or develop an effective system for International Justice.

Good News?

The good news is, even inside the United States, more and more people are now realizing the necessity of reforming the United Nations. Senator Obama, who is the Democratic Party Nominee in the Presidential Elections due in a few weeks' time, has showed "some" support to the concept of working towards reforming the United Nations.
،،

America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

…

In addition, we need effective collaboration on pressing global issues among all the major powers -- including such newly emerging ones as Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Africa. We need to give all of them a stake in upholding the international order. To that end, the United Nations requires far-reaching reform.

In fact, President Bush, in his farewell speech to the United Nations also called on the UN to

،،

open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose.

But as you may guess, the reform which Bush seeks for the United Nations is slightly a wee bit different from that which is required to truly minimize injustices, conflict and terror.

Conclusion

Post-Realism is a new realization, that the principles of Justice are not just words or moral rhetoric, they represent "behavioral solutions" which the evolution of our civilization and cultures have provided us with for "survival". In business terms, accepting to submit to a "Justice System", local or international, is like an insurance policy which reduces the "risk" of being victimized, both to the strong and the weak alike. Should we decide now to neglect these principles and resort to "might" and "strength" alone, we might just as well stop complaining about terrorism, violence or international conflicts, demand that beauty pageant contestants stop babbling about "world peace" and accept the world as dangerous as it is, can and will become.

،،

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

—Matthew 26:52, King James Version

Post Realism 2

A Quest for International Law:
UN Version 3.0



Realists tell you it does not exist. That there is no such a thing as International Law. And even if there was, there was no way of enforcing it. Their arguments make a lot of sense. Their logic is pure Realism at its finest :

• There is no International Law.
• Laws are made by the stronger.
• the UN is Useless, can not & should not have a role in resolving conflicts or promoting justice
• Because there are dictators who might sign international treaties we should not have treaties

Realism is great. But Guess what. It did not work. It did not protect the strong. The minute that the strong decided to break the spirit of International Law, which it did not really acknowledge as a concept, the strong became weak, exposed and vulnerable ... we all become vulnerable in absence of the law ... because the law, JUSTICE, is an insurance policy for all of us ...

So. Realism did not quite seem to work.

Hence, comes this notion of Post-Realism. A Search for International Law. A Pursuit of Happiness, not just for the Americans, Europeans or Japanese but for every nation. A Quest for Justice not just for Egyptians, Palestinians & Syrians but for Israelis, Tibetans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Cubans, Russians, Armenians, Ethiopians, etc., ... justice for all ... justice for everyone. For we have learned that no Nation can be happy alone ... while the rest of the world suffers.

Realism talks about what's possible in terms of our own past experience of how things used to happen.

At one moment of Man's journey ... there were no states ... there was no law, there was no electricity or telephones.

When one man, possibly code name Osiris, or Azer, but he really represents the civilizing spirit in every society, had the idea, that Man should not kill another man for food ... that a concept of "property" exists ... at that precise moment ... the concept of LAW was Born:

"
And Aser gave his fellow men (probably Egyptians :) Laws, taught them how to farm and how to make wine ... and taught them how to honor the gods (do good really) .. he took them out of their savagery.

If MAN insisted on being realist all along that journey of civilization ... we would never have LAWS or States ... or Electricity ... or wine ... :)



الواقعية تشبه إلى حد بعيد المنهج السلفي
أن نفعل
كما رأينا آباءنا يفعلون

والمحافظون ما هم إلا نوع مودرن شوية من السلفيين
سلفيين ببدل وكرافتات يعني



But luckily, Man has never given up the gift of "Dreaming" ... for he was endowed with imagination and vision , the ability to see things ... not only as they are ... or as they used to be ... but as they COULD BE.

This is the power of Vision my friends ... we should never lose sight of that ... and we should never let anyone tell us that things can't get better on the grounds that things are indeed dire ... for when things are bad ... this is the best time when Man can install something better ... only when it is bad ... that traditionalists and conservatives will accept a new solution which may allow things to be less bad ... or simply better ...




But most of all, we should never fall victims of Realism at bad times, because when things are bad ... Realism really becomes another word for pessimism.



Now, we have to ask ourselves: is this the best Man can do?

International Justice: is it really "No-can-do"?

I am not talking here about Palestine or Israel, I am talking about everything ... about Kyoto and the Ozone Layer ... I am talking about kids starving in Africa and conflicts breaking in Georgia. I am talking about it all. Wouldn't be nice to have something, an international institution, which can actually provide a framework for International Law, including arbitration, letigation and enforcement?

Guess what. Such an institution exists. In fact, version 2.0 of that institution does exist. It is called the United Nations. Version 1.0 (the League of Nations, rest-in-peace) was full of bugs, and because it was so buggy it did not manage to prevent the horrors of World War 2. World Peace "Crashed" and 40 million people died. So in 1945, the warring nations, after the war, developed version 2.0, and sat on its Security Council. And it did manage to prevent War again between the five.

But guess what. It had no room for the weak. It did not listen to the poor. So, the weak decided, to take the Law in its own hand, launching a "Parallel War", using terror and killing civilians instead of engaging in a formal conventional war for which the weak had no capacity to handle or chance to win.

Isn't this always the case? When the Law fails to deliver justice, people resort to violence, hire thugs and take the law in their own hands?


So,I say that now, it is time for UN version 3.0

And please, this time, we need the weak to sit on the table with the strong.

The poor with the rich.

This is how we can rid ourselves of this Bad Karma which seems to be haunting us. Catching up with us where we least expect it.

Let us work on UN Version 3.0 and improve our Karma a little. Shall we?

:)

Post Realism 3

Bush Calls for Reforming the United Nations!

Wael Nawara

Yes. It is true. This is not a joke or a make-blieve post or a wishful-thinking sort of article. Bush on Tuesday (23 Sep 2008), called for the reform of the United Nations!

Jay Allbritton: Sep 24th 2008 12:49 AM

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/24/bush-calls-on-united-nations-to-reform/

During President Bush's farewell speech to the United Nations Tuesday, he called on the UN to reform. Despite running what many critics refer to as the most secretive administration in American history, Bush called on the UN to "open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose."

The UN didn't exactly extend Bush a rousing ovation. According to the Associated Press, the President received "less than 10 seconds of polite applause at the end of [the] speech".

I think Bush will be remembered as the President who made a mockery of the United Nations. In 2003, ordered the invasion of Iraq despite a Security Council refusal to approve it. President Bush also had his own sideshow act on global warming. Instead of working with the international community and signing the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by 172 countries, he insisted on opposing international constraints aimed at curbing carbon emissions. In 2004, on the wake of the Tsunami disaster, Bush was accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief.

Under Clinton Administration, the United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998. But the Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002 under the Bush administration. The U.S. opposition to the ICC was in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.
In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. The Bush administration then went requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC !

The U.S Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush, which prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC; allowing the U.S. to "invade the Hague, Netherland, seat of the ICC" by authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC, in addition to punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies), etc.

Why does the U.S. Oppose Development of an "International Justice System"?

The United Nation's Security Council is already flawed. The five permenant members of the Security Council are: the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China. Britain and France are close allies of the United States, although France sometimes votes against the United States' wishes. These permenant members have "Veto Powers" which can stall any Security Council resolution which "any of them" does not like! The U.S., in this position, already has a disproportionate influence on the United Nations and on the Security Council decisions. An influence it has often used to prevent even symbolic gestures of "International Justice" to be made against Israel for instance.

On Sept. 10, 1972, for the second time in its UN history, the U.S. its veto, this time —to shield Israel. (Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html)

That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.

Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same
period.

The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three
more.

I believe that George Bush [Sr.] had realized the importance of having a balanced approach in the Middle East region, to be able to act in situations such as the first Gulf War with some Arab backing. Ironically, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, brough about a decade of positive progress in the Palestinian Front. Oslo accords were signed in 1993 and the few years that followed saw hope and optimism.

In my view, this hope and optimism was brought about by this slight change of policy on the U.S. part. Blind support of Israel undermined U.S. credibility as a "broker", but most importantly, it had given Israel the comfort that it can get away with murder with U.S. shielding it from International blame. This unconditional backing created a monster. And that "monsterous" approach, in my view, sabotaged Israel's ability to co-exist peacefully in the region. Israel became like a bully whose mum was the headmistress of the school. When bad behavior goes unchecked for years, it develops into bad attitude, which stays with one for life, a life marked by repeated offences and jail time. Eventually, when the mother is no longer there to protect the now-grown-up bully, the poor bully finds it hard to adjust to the real world which no longer forgives such misconduct.

I believe that the U.S. policy of undermining the United Nations and opposing development of International Justice institutions such as ICC, also works against U.S. best interests. Only when an effective International Justice System is developed, can the world be a more safe place. The United States needs to play a strong role in that process, which can never be successful if the U.S. refrains from supporting it, or worse, work to undermine it.

Senator Obama wrote an article last year which was published in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007, where he said:

America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

I have only one word to say in response to that:

Amen.

Palestinian Refugees - Right of Return 1

http://weekite.blogspot.com/

الحفاظ على حقوق

اللاجئين الفلسطينيين

بدائل إستراتيجية

التفاوض كبديل عن اللجوء لأدوات العـدالة الدولية
جاء الطرح الأمريكي - بدءاً من السبعينيات - بضرورة حل الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي عبر التفاوض الثنائي المباشر بين كل من دول المواجهة وإسرائيل لتحقيق عدة أهداف:
1- التفاوض المباشر يعطي اعترافاً ضمنياً بحق إسرائيل في الوجود والعيش بسلام، ويكسر الحاجز النفسي بين أطراف النزاع.
2- التفاوض الثنائي وليس الجماعي يعظم من القوة التفاوضية لإسرائيل على حساب العرب.
3- اتخاذ التفاوض – وليس مرجعيات وأدوات العدالة الدولية – كوسيلة وحيدة لحل الصراع يضمن أن يأتي الحل متماشياً مع الأمر الواقع، ويعطي للطرف الأقوى عسكرياً – إسرائيل – الفرصة في التهام الحقوق العربية، عكس اللجوء لأدوات العدالة الدولية - مثل محكمة العدل الدولية – والتي غالباً ما سوف تنتصر لأصحاب الحق – العرب – على حساب الغاصب – إسرائيل – بصرف النظر عما تملكه الأخيرة من مزايا تفضيلية تفاوضية ناشئة عن احتفاظها بالأراضي العربية كأمر واقع، وامتلاكها لأكبر قوة عسكرية في الشرق الأوسط مدججة بأحدث الأسلحة الأمريكية علاوة على أسلحة الدمار الشامل، بالإضافة إلى التأييد الأمريكي المطلق لإسرائيل، وكلها أمور ترجح كفتها التفاوضية. والتفاوض مع الطرف الغاصب في غياب الشرعية الدولية وانعدام إرادة فرض تلك الشرعية، أشبه بأن تلجأ ضحية لا تملك القوة أو السلاح للشرطة لاستعادة حقوقها التي سلبها "بلطجي" مدجج بالسلاح، فتأمرها الشرطة بالتفاوض مع المجرم تحت تهديد السلاح.

وقد جاء هذا التوجه الأمريكي احتراماً لتعهدات الولايات المتحدة لإسرائيل قبل حرب 1967، بأن الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية سوف تضمن التفوق الإسرائيلي العسكري على الدول العربية مجتمعة، وأنها لن تضغط على إسرائيل لإعادة الأراضي العربية التي كان من المقدر أن تكتسبها نتيجة لتلك الحرب، مع الأخذ في الاعتبار حجم المخاطرة التي أخذتها إسرائيل على نفسها بشن الحرب على ثلاث جبهات في وقت واحد، وقيامها بتنفيذ سياسة أمريكا بإسقاط أو إضعاف نظام عبد الناصر. وهذا التعهد الأمريكي جاء لضمان ألا تكرر أمريكا ما فعله إيزنهاور أثناء حرب 1956، عندما "انتصر للمبادئ على حساب الصداقات"، مما سمح لعبد الناصر أن يحرز نصراً سياسياً رغم هزيمته العسكرية أثناء العدوان الثلاثي.

دروس من إستراتيجية السادات التفاوضية
ومن الملاحظ أن مصر قد أدركت عدم جدوى اللجوء للشرعية الدولية، فجاء السادات في السبعينيات واستخدم تقنيات تفاوضية جديدة أثبتت نجاحاً ملموساً في تحقيق الغرض منها:
1- وضع السادات أمريكا في صورة الشريك النزيه والأوحد، فحيد الرأي العام الأمريكي وقطع خط الرجعة على من يدعون أن مصر تعمل لمصلحة السوفييت في الحرب الباردة.
2- بذهابه للقدس وحديثه للمجتمع الإسرائيلي مباشرة، وندائه بجعل حرب أكتوبر هي آخر الحروب، اكتسب السادات تأييداً واسعاً داخل المجتمع الإسرائيلي وبالتالي داخل اللوبي الصهيوني في الولايات المتحدة ووضع الإدارة الإسرائيلية في موقف حرج داخلياً وخارجياً، لا تستطيع معه إفشال هذه الفرصة التاريخية.
3- خاطب السادات الرأي العام العالمي من منطلق الدعوة للسلام من موقف القوة بعد ما أنجزته مصر في حرب أكتوبر (سلام الشجعان – سلام الأقوياء).
4- لم يتفاوض السادات باسم أحد، ولم يتنازل عن حقوق الفلسطينيين – باعتبار هذه الحقوق هي السبب الأصلي للصراع – بل أن اتفاقية "كامب ديفيد" ذكرت 3 مراحل لحل القضية الفلسطينية، بدءاً بالحكم الذاتي، وصولاً لترتيبات الوضع النهائي.

ودون أن ننتقص من قدر السادات كزعيم وطني ذي رؤية مستقبلية ثاقبة وخيال واسع، فهناك أيضاً أخطاء منهجية وتكتيكية وقع فيها السادات(Telhami, Shibley; Raiffa, Howard; etc.) ، ويجب أن تعيها الأجيال الحالية والقادمة من المفاوضين العرب، مثل "الثقة" الزائدة في نزاهة "شركاء" التفاوض، ووضع كل الثقل التفاوضي في يد شخص واحد على قمة صنع القرار – السادات نفسه - بدلاً من وجود طبقات مؤسسية وفنية متتالية للوصول إلى التفاصيل النهائية، مع ضرورة تصميم "أبواب خروج" Exit Strategies وخطوط دفاع تفاوضية ثانية وثالثة.

وقد مشي عرفات على درب السادات – وإن جاء هذا متأخراً 12 عاماً، عندما أقر بحق إسرائيل في الوجود، وقام بقبول المفاوضات المباشرة، وصولاً لاتفاقية أوسلو في سبتمبر 1993، وتلاها انسحاب إسرائيل من الضفة الغربية وغزة، وقيام "السلطة الفلسطينية"، تمهيداً لإعلان الدولة الفلسطينية في غضون 5 سنوات. وأدرك اليمين الإسرائيلي أن الدولة اليهودية على وشك أن تدخل في نفس القفص الذي سبق وأن حوصرت فيه على يد السادات، فقامت قيادات الليكود بانتقاد رابين – (حكومة حزب العمل) بشدة، ووصمته بالتخلي عن الحقوق التاريخية للشعب اليهودي، وعلى أثر ذلك قام المتطرفون باغتيال رابين.

اليمين الإسرائيلي يتراجع
ثم جاء نتنياهو إلى الحكم، وألقى بكل ثقله لإلغاء اتفاقية أوسلو، وبذل مجهوداً كبيراً في إقناع المنظمات اليهودية الأمريكية بأن عرفات ليس بشريك سلام يعتمد عليه، ولكن الشعب الإسرائيلي لم يكن مستعداً للتخلي عن حلم السلام بعد أن لاحت ثماره، فأطاح بنتنياهو (الليكود) وجاء بباراك (العمل مرة أخرى)، وبدا أن باراك مستعداً لإتمام صفقة رابين، واقترب الطرفان الإسرائيلي والفلسطيني للغاية من التوصل لاتفاق سلام في كامب ديفيد في أغسطس 2000، حتى توقف الطرفان عند نقطة "حق العودة للاجئين"، ففشلت المفاوضات، وأعلن باراك وكلينتون أن عرفات لم يكن مستعداً لقيادة شعبه نحو تقبل التضحيات اللازمة لحل الصراع، فنجحت خطة نتنياهو في إثبات أن عرفات ليس شريك سلام Not A Peace Partner (سوف نعود لهذه النقطة فيما بعد). واتبع اليمين الإسرائيلي سياسة استبدال اللاعبين وتصعيد الموقف، فدخل شارون – وهو خارج السلطة - الحرم القدسي محاطاً بثلاثة آلاف جندي مدججين بالأسلحة، لتندلع عقب ذلك انتفاضة الأقصى في 28 سبتمبر 2000 (يوم الذكرى الثلاثين لوفاة عبد الناصر)، وجاء شارون إلى الحكم، لينتهي فصل "أوسلو" بإعادة احتلال الأراضي الفلسطينية، وحصار عرفات، ثم بناء السور العازل.

الشرك الليكودي
ويلاحظ أن الفلسطينيين قد وقعوا في الشرك الذي رسمهما لهم نتنياهو وشارون، عندما تحولوا من الرفض السلمي – انتفاضة الحجارة – للعمليات الاستشهادية / الانتحارية ضد المدنيين الإسرائيليين – فحدث تحول للرأي العام العالمي بعد أن كان يؤيد الحقوق الفلسطينية على طول الخط، ودعم هذا التحول لغير صالح الفلسطينيين وقوع أحداث 11 سبتمبر الدامية، والربط بين الإرهاب الدولي والعمليات الاستشهادية – أو الانتحارية – ليتم تصنيف العديد من منظمات المقاومة الفلسطينية كمنظمات إرهابية، وأعلنت الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل بصورة نهائية أن عرفات "ليس بشريك سلام" ووصمتاه برعاية الإرهاب أو على الأقل السكوت عليه، علاوة على الفساد واحتكار السلطة.

هل كان يجب على عرفات أن يتنازل عن حق اللاجئين في العودة؟
مبدئياً، ومن الناحية الفنية، أشكك في أهلية عرفات رحمه الله – أو أهلية أي رئيس للسلطة الفلسطينية – للتنازل عن حق اللاجئين في العودة، للأسباب التالية:
1- رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية هو رئيس منتخب من أهالي الضفة الغربية وغزة، وليس لديه أي تفويض بتمثيل اللاجئين.
2- ما الذي سوف يحصل عليه اللاجئون مقابل تنازلهم عن حق العودة؟ ليس من المنطقي أن يتنازل اللاجئون عن حق العودة مقابل أن تحصل مجموعة أخرى من الفلسطينيين على حق إقامة دولة لهم، فهنا التنازل لا تقابله أية مصلحة للطرف المتنازل.
3- بفرض حصول رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية على تفويض أو توكيل قانوني من اللاجئين ليتفاوض باسمهم، فهذا التوكيل في طبيعته توكيل "خاص" بشروط محددة، يلتزم معها المفاوض باستعادة الحقوق والأراضي والحصول على تعويضات مناسبة، وليس من ضمن هذا أن يتنازل عن حق "المواطنة" الخاص بمن وكلوه، لأن حق المواطنة هو حق أصيل من حقوق الإنسان لا يمكن التنازل عنه. وإذا قبل اللاجئون الفلسطينيون التنازل عن حق المواطنة، فماذا تصبح جنسيتهم بعد ذلك؟ هل يصبحون عديمي الجنسية؟

من الأفضل إذن أن نسأل السؤال بصور أخرى. من هم الذين يمثلهم رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية؟ والجواب هنا في رأيي، أن رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية يمثل من انتخبوه، وهم أهالي الضفة الغربية وغزة. والسؤال التالي هو: ما هي المجموعات الأخرى الفلسطينية؟ والجواب في تصوري هو:
1- عرب 48 الذين يعيشون داخل إسرائيل ويعانون من التمييز العنصري المقنن.
2- اللاجئون الفلسطينيون الذين نزحوا عن أراض تقع اليوم داخل إسرائيل بحدودها "التقريبية".
3- اللاجئون الفلسطينيون الذين نزحوا عن أراض تقع اليوم داخل نطاق الأراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة.
4- علاوة على الفلسطينيين الذين يعيشون داخل الأراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة.
هل يجب أن يسعى رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية لتمثيل كل الفلسطينيين؟
في تصوري، يجب أن يتجنب رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية تمثيل المجموعتين (1) و (2)، ويقتصر على تمثيل المجموعتين (3) و (4)، وبهذا، فإن انتخابات رئيس السلطة يجب أن تمتد لتشمل ترتيبات خارج الأراضي المحتلة، ليشارك فيها كل من يعيش في - أو نزح عن - أراض فلسطينية تقع داخل نطاق الحدود "التقريبية" للدولة الفلسطينية المقترحة. لماذا؟ لأن المجموعات الفلسطينية الأخرى لها مصالح مختلفة وتعاني من مشاكل أكثر تعقيداً، ولابد من حلها بوسائل أخرى. ومن حسن الحظ، أن هذه المشاكل بطبيعتها من النوع الذي تقل درجة تعقيده بمرور الزمن، وخاصة بعد التوصل لاتفاق سلام بين السلطة الفلسطينية والمجموعات التي تمثلها ](3) و (4)[.

من يمثل عرب 48؟
الإجابة البديهية هي أن عرب 48 قادرون الآن بالفعل على تمثيل أنفسهم، ومن منطلق وضعهم "كمواطنين إسرائيليين"، فلهم دور فعال وأساسي في الوصول لحل عادل للصراع. ورغم أن إسرائيل تفاخر بكونها دولة "ديمقراطية"، فإن قوانين الهجرة والجنسية الموجودة بها الآن تكرس وضعها كدولة "عنصرية دينية" تعطي لليهود في كافة أنحاء العالم أفضلية في حق الهجرة لإسرائيل والتجنس بجنسيتها، مما لا يتماشى مع القوانين الأوربية مثلاً، ويتعارض مع الاتفاقيات الدولية الخاصة بمكافحة التمييز العنصري ومبادئ إعلان حقوق الإنسان. وليس من المستحيل أن يستطيع عرب 48 مع وجود الدعم المناسب، أن يحتكموا لأدوات الشرعية الدولية بحيث يتم في المستقبل غير البعيد "توفيق أوضاع" القانون الإسرائيلي، ليعطي حقوقاً متساوية للمواطنين الإسرائيليين بصرف النظر عن انتمائهم الديني أو العرقي، وكذلك "توفيق أوضاع" قانون الهجرة الإسرائيلي.

تأجيل التفاوض على حق العودة
ومع نزع فتيل الصراع، فإن التطور الطبيعي للأشياء سوف يضع إسرائيل أمام مفترق طرق، إما أن تصبح دولة ديمقراطية علمانية، أو تستمر كدولة "يهودية" يشوبها العنصرية، وأتصور أن الشعب الإسرائيلي نفسه، ونتيجة لأسباب داخلية ودولية، واعتبارات سياسية واقتصادية واجتماعية عديدة، سوف يستقر على الخيار الأول – العلماني – مما سوف يكون في صالح عرب 48 وأيضاً في صالح اللاجئين الفلسطينيين من المجموعة (2). وهنا تظهر فكرة جديدة وإن كانت مؤلمة، وهو أنه يجب التريث قبل حسم مشكلة اللاجئين، وربما يجب تأجيل التفاوض في هذه القضية بالذات لفترة من 15 – 25 عاماً حتى تعطي النتائج المرجوة، وحتى لا يضيع حق اللاجئين في العودة والتعويضات المناسبة.

البديل الآخر، هو أن يقبل الفسلطينيون بحق عودة مؤجل لمدة 50 عاماً مثلاً. بمعنى أن إسرائيل توافق على حق عودة اللاجئين، ولكن اللاحئين أو أبناءهم لايصبح من حقهم العودة إلا بعد 50 عاماً. وفي النهاية هذا حل وسط، يعيد الحقوق لأصحابها، ولكنه يؤجل استحقاقها.

من يمثل اللاجئين الفلسطينيين؟
لابد من قيام منظمة أهلية في إحدى الدول الأوروبية، ذات فروع في الدول العربية والولايات المتحدة وكندا وأوروبا واستراليا Australasia، لتمثل بصورة مؤقتة مصالح اللاجئين الفلسطينيين المقيمين في تلك الدول، وتطالب بصورة سلمية، وباستخدام كل أدوات العدالة الدولية وبالتعاون مع حكومات الدول العربية والصديقة، بحق العودة والمواطنة، واستعادة الأراضي والممتلكات المسلوبة، وبالتعويضات المادية المناسبة عن الأضرار المادية والأدبية الناشئة عن تشريدهم ومعاناتهم الطويلة. وقد يكون من المناسب أن يتم التعاون بين هذه المنظمة ومنظمات حقوقية إسرائيلية ويهودية، بحيث تتضامن هذا المؤسسات جميعاً في مخاطبة الرأي العام العالمي وأدوات العدالة الدولية (مثل محكمة العدل الدولية والأمم المتحدة). وقد يقول البعض، أن منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية تقوم منذ عقود طويلة بهذا الدور، وهذا صحيح، ولكن في تصوري، لقد وصلت المنظمة لمفترق طرق وعليها أن تأخذ القرار، إما الاستمرار كمنظمة تمثل الفلسطينيين بعيداً عن السلطة، وإما أن تنغمس في السلطة وتتداخل معها فتخضع لاعتبارات سياسية وضغوط دولية، قد تعوق حرية حركتها على المدى الطويل.

التحكيم الدولي عند الاختلاف
من المهم الوصول بسرعة لاتفاق مبادئ Framework Agreement بين السلطة الفلسطينية المنتخبة وبين الحكومة الإسرائيلية – يجسد مبادئ خارطة الطريق تحت إشراف الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وبحضور مصري أردني. وإذا استطاع الفلسطينيون نزع الفتيل من مشكلة اللاجئين بالأسلوب المقترح هنا أو بأي أسلوب آخر، فسوف يكون من السهل الاتفاق على النقاط الأخرى بما فيها وضع مدينة القدس، والمستوطنات والجدار العازل. ومن المهم أن توجد آلية تحكيم يلتزم بها الطرفان عند حدوث اختلاف في التفاسير أو التفاصيل أو عند التطبيق، مثلما فعلت مصر في قضية طابا، لأن التحكيم الدولي سوف يكون عادة في صالح الفلسطينيين لأنهم أصحاب الحق الشرعي والتاريخي. وبالطبع فإن إسرائيل لن توافق بسهولة على اللجوء للتحكيم الدولي في أية قضية لنفس الأسباب، وهنا يجب حشد الرأي العام العالمي حول هذه النقطة.

المكاسب الصغـيرة مقابل "كل شيء أو لا شيء"
خلال المراحل الرومانسية في "إدارة" الصراع العربي الصهيوني عانى العرب، لفترة طويلة من أسلوب "كل شيء أو لا شيء". والآن، قد يقول البعض، لماذا يجب على الفلسطينيين أن يقنعوا بمكاسب صغيرة، ويتنازلون عن حقوقهم التاريخية مثل حق العودة؟ وهنا يجب أن نوضح شيئاً هاماً، إن قبول المكاسب الصغيرة لا يعني التخلي عن الحقوق الأخرى. فإذا كان أحد الأشخاص مديناً لك بمائة جنيه، وتعثر في السداد وماطل طويلاً، ثم أتى يوماً ما وعرض عليك أن يعطيك عشرة جنيهات وتنسى الموضوع، فأماك عدة بدائل: إما أن ترفض، أو أن تقبل، أو أن تقبل العشرة جنيهات شاكراً وتعطيه إيصال مخالصة بعشرة جنيهات مع التأكيد أنك تنتظر باقي المبلغ كاملاً مع الفوائد والتعويضات في المستقبل القريب. في حالتنا هذه، يحصل الفلسطينيون في الأراضي المحتلة على حق إقامة الدولة، ويشيرون أن هناك حقوقاً أخرى لجماعات أخرى يجب التفاوض عليها مع تلك الجماعات لتسويتها.

الرفض السلمي كبديل عن العنف
السيطرة الأمنية – أو انعدامها – في الأراضي المحتلة تمثل مشكلة ضخمة وعقبة في طريق السلام. وفي نفس الوقت، فلابد أن تظل الخيارات مفتوحة لجماعات غير رسمية للضغط السلمي ورفض ما تراه في غير صالح القضية من وجهة نظرها، ولكن يجب أن تتحول المقاومة الفلسطينية لمرحلة جديدة وذكية، يمارس فيها الفلسطينيون الرفض عبر وسائل ضغط سلمية، باستغلال الرأي العام العالمي لصالحهم لسبب رئيسي، وهو أن القوة في يد إسرائيل والحق مع الفلسطينيين، وبالتالي فإن استخدام منطق القوة مع إسرائيل في المرحلة الحالية لن يؤتي ثماره، بل يجب أن تختار المقاومة الفلسطينية نوع المعركة وتوقيتها وأسلحتها، وقد جرب الفلسطينيون النتائج الباهرة للرفض السلمي – أو شبه السلمي – أثناء الانتفاضة الأولى، فقد تعاطف العالم مع القضية لتصبح في بؤرة الاهتمام العالمي، مما أدى في النهاية لاتفاقية أوسلو. أما الانفلات الأمني الموجود حالياً، فهو ليس في صالح القضية الفلسطينية بل إنه يهدد مستقبلها بصورة مفزعة. ولا نود التدخل في الشأن الداخلي الفلسطيني باقتراح ضرورة نزع أسلحة الفصائل المختلفة للمقاومة بصورة تدريجية، لأن هذه هي أصعب مهمة تنتظر الرئيس المنتخب، ألا وهي مهمة تنظيم البيت الفلسطيني من الداخل، بما في ذلك تنمية المؤسسات ومكافحة الفساد وعلاج التشوهات الإدارية في بنية السلطة.