The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East

It strikes me as no coincidence that an article appears in today’s New York Times regarding the situation of Palestinian refugees. With Condoleeza Rice engaging in the first serious attempts at reviving significant peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab League just about to re-issue the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, the question of the refugees is about to take center stage.

The Times article presents the refugee issue as difficult and divisive, but essentially resolvable. While I do believe that the refugee issue can be resolved in the long run, I also think the Times article paints far too rosy a picture.

Let’s be clear: the issue of Palestinian refugees is, ultimately, the very core of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is the point at which the irresistible force of Palestinian nationalism confronts the immovable object of Zionism. It is the single issue that binds the Palestinian nation, wherever its members may be living. It is also the one issue that, however much any Israeli may care about Jerusalem or the settlements, unites Israelis in fear of the loss of their country.

A colleague of mine recently told me of a conversation he had just had with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni stands out in this government as being more capable and more rational than most of her current colleagues. But when the refugees came up, she was quite firm: Israel could not admit any responsibility, nor allow even a single refugee to come back behind the Green Line. For, she said, if Israel gives even an inch on this issue, the floodgates would be opened and Jews would quickly become a minority in Israel. (more…)

The recent House of Representatives vote to extend $100 billion in funding for the war in Iraq has managed to once again feed the myth of the all-powerful AIPAC/Israel lobby. This time, it was the late exclusion of a clause in the bill that would have required Congressional approval for any military action against Iran.

The measure, of course, would have been a welcome bit of prudence. Even many of his one-time supporters have come to realize that George W. Bush’s administration cannot be trusted. And from all reports, AIPAC did indeed lobby vigorously for the removal of that clause. But to say they were the reason for, or even a major factor in that clause being rescinded flies in the face of the facts. (more…)

The Palestinian unity government has finally been assembled, and with it comes an interesting set of opportunities.

I have to admit I was mistaken a year ago. I was quite convinced that the Hamas government would not be able to sustain itself against the massive opposition it faced. With the EU, UN, and most of the Arab world joining Israel and the US in boycotting the Hamas government, and with Fatah working hard to both confront Hamas on the ground and undermine them in the government, I believed and predicted that the Hamas government would not survive the summer.

In fact, they did, and the unity government just assembled marks a major victory for them. Immediately after their election last year, Hamas called for a unity government with Fatah, an offer Fatah considered and refused. Fatah’s acceptance of it now shows they have given up trying to regain power by undermining Hamas or confronting it militarily, at least for the time being. (more…)

For the second time in a span of six months, the United States has expressly forbidden Israel from pursuing a potential peace deal with Syria. This time, it was Condoleeza Rice doing the dirty work and she brought a simple message on the subject: Don’t even think about it.

The action is not surprising. Despite the fact that peace between Israel and Syria is in the best interests of Israel, Syria AND the US, it’s not necessarily in the best interests of the Bush Administration.

The US would benefit because a Syria at peace with Israel would be likely to use other measures instead of backing Hizbullah to influence matters in Lebanon and it would be much more reluctant to act in congress with Iran.

But the Bush Administration’s entire program is based on regime change in “enemy” countries; diplomacy is not desirable except as a last resort, as in Iraq. If they can work with previously antagonistic countries, it undermines the very basis of their entire Middle East strategy for the past six years. Also the needs of the moment play into this. As the US sits down with Syria and Iran to try to find some way to fix the mess the Bush Administration has made in Iraq, they need an absolutely antagonistic Israel to hold over Syria. The idea is that this will make Syria more open to working with the US, lest the Bush Administration let the Israelis loose upon Syria. (more…)