Zehava Gal-On New Leader of Meretz Party

On Monday night Zehava Gal-On was declared the new chair of the Meretz party.  She won majority support of about 950 members of the party central committee with 60.6% of the vote.  MK Ilan Gilon won 36.6%, and Ori Ophir won 2.8%.

In her victory speech, Zehava promised to re-energize the party, and bring back its sharp, smart, brash, against-the-stream spirit.  She said the party would be the party of the Left, and would not court the 'Center' or choose its positions based on what was easily marketable.  Y-net sums up her speech with this quote:

For a constructive response to Fatah-Hamas unity

It is reported that the Palestinians are on the verge of a unity government once again.  History argues against this as a lasting arrangement, but regardless, Israel's reaction is predictably and unnecessarily negative.  Prime Minister Netanyahu repeats the mantra that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority can have peace with Israel or unity with Hamas but not both.  While I understand this view, I think that Israel should have a more creative response. 

Why not critique this deal by suggesting that peace can be had with Israel if Hamas fully endorses the principle of peaceful coexistence?  If, as some argue, Hamas is moving toward accepting Israel, why not suggest that this be a component of the Palestinian unity process?  Instead of simply dismissing them as "terrorists," challenge Hamas to definitively and explicitly change from a movement rooted in "armed struggle" and antisemitism into one that makes history by breaking with its past. 

I know, Hamas sometimes hints at a long-term truce or armistice with Israel and at accepting Israel along the pre-1967 borders.  But a truce is not a peace, and demanding a particular end-point of a territorial agreement is not the same thing as negotiating a deal.  The many contentious issues between Israel and the Palestinians need to be hammered out in an overall treaty.  Moderates and progressives on both sides have long known that a territorial settlement will be based on the old '67 boundary but would also include a substantial exchange of territories.  Unfortunately, Israel is neither politically nor physically capable of removing over a half million Jews from all post-1967 neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and each and every West Bank settlement.  But, if both Israelis and Palestinians can summon the wit and the will, a deal is there to be made.

Israel vs. Iran: The Debate Rages On

Here are some recent news items and editorial comments:

1. Nuclear Inspection Visit to Iran Deemed a Failure By Robert F. Worth and David E. Sanger (NY Times): This assessment came as Iran’s supreme leader lashed out at the United States, vowing to retaliate against oil sanctions and threats of military action. The IAEA delegation, returned from its three-day visit to Iran, is reported as dissatisfied with the level of access and cooperation afforded them: ".... diplomats briefed on the trip said that Iranian officials had not answered the questions raised in an incriminating report issued by the agency in November... [that] cited documents and evidence of experiments with detonators that strongly suggested Iran might have worked on technologies to turn its nuclear fuel into working weapons and warheads. Tehran ... has refused to engage in substantive discussions or inspections."  
2. Trading Threats With Iran (NY Times editorial): Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but a military attack would backfire. “Israel must defend itself. This country’s alliance with Israel is crucial. We hope for everyone’s sake that Israel’s leaders weigh all of the consequences before they act. A military attack would almost certainly make things worse. Tough sanctions and a united diplomatic front are the best chance for crippling Iran’s nuclear program” 
3. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius warned on the looming threat of an Israeli attack, while its editorial page voiced the same line as the NY Times, for sanctions and diplomacy rather than an attack.  Click to watch How Will Iran's Threats Affect U.S.-Israeli Ties?,  the discussion last week on the PBS Newshour between David Ignatius and David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Alternatives needed now for 2 states? (Not yet)

Some people are saying that since Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are a non-starter, the settlements are continuing, and the international community seems to be unable to jump-start the peace process (President Obama’s preoccupied with the elections, and the Europeans with the fate of the Euro-zone), the two-state solution is dead and we--who believe in the necessity of an end to the occupation and a non-violent political resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--should begin to explore alternative solutions: Like a Palestinian state in the West Bank with provisional borders, a unilateral Israeli “convergence” (disengagement), a confederation of Israel-Palestine-Jordan, or a bi-national one state solution.

Anyone who doubts the importance of the international community in the achievement of progress, or who challenges the Palestinian application for membership in the UN, would do well to recall that the basis for the legitimacy of the State of Israel was UNGA Resolution 181, otherwise known as the Partition Plan.  That served as the basis for Ben-Gurion’s declaration of the independent State of Israel. Thus the international community played a key role in the establishment of the state.

The Partition Plan called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state in place of the British Mandate. The State of Israel was established, fulfilling one half of the call, and unfortunately for all of us, the Arab state was not established.  There are many reasons why the Palestinians and the Arab world were incapable of accepting the idea that only 45% of the land was to become an Arab state in 1947.  Today there are senior Palestinians who regret this, and explain why they were incapable of doing it at the time. 

Responses to NY Times Mag Article on Iran

Gary Sick, a veteran foreign policy analyst currently associated with Columbia University, has written a sharp rebuttal on his blog, which begs a number of questions: Is Prof. Sick correct that international nuclear monitors maintain an ongoing presence in Iran? If so, do we know that this presence includes all of their nuclear facilities or are there some beyond their reach?  Finally, is Prof. Sick's contention contradicted by the news report that Iran’s foreign ministry has offered to extend a three-day visit of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors?

Robert Wright has written his highly skeptical response at The Atlantic website.

Prof. Stephen Walt advises in his commentary at Foreign Policy's website: 

Palestine-Israel Journal issue on 'Arab Spring'

This is a message from the British-Jewish Mideast analyst and activist, Tony Klug:

I thought you might like to know that an extraordinary compendium of articles on the Arab uprisings -- more than 20 altogether -- specially commissioned by the Palestine-Israel Journal, has just been published in its latest volume under the rubric 'Arab Spring'.  The Israeli, Palestinian and international authors -- comprising public figures, prominent academics and veteran writers -- examine from diverse viewpoints just about every aspect of the recent turmoil in the Arab world, its causes, significance and future implications, including the place and role of Israel in the emerging regional order.

Most of the articles are available online at http://www.pij.org/current.php. My contribution, 'Have the Arab Uprisings lost their Spring?', may be accessed direct at http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=1409. Over the next few days I plan to read every single article. I am sure it will be fascinating. You are welcome to join me!

And here is the letter from the editors:

Israel vs. Iran: Who is threatening whom?

Cover story, Jan. 29, 2012.

As you should know by now, I'm very much against an Israeli attack on Iran to forestall its nuclear development; and I agree with Prof. Shibley Telhami that moving toward regional nuclear disarmament may facilitate a solution.  But I take Iran's nuclear program seriously as a security threat to the region. I fervently hope that a diplomatic resolution is found, but (speaking only for myself) because of the gravity of this threat, I support cyber warfare and covert sabotage as alternatives to an all-out attack. 

For example, the crisis would be considerably alleviated if Iran formally proclaimed its recognition of Israel's legitimacy, rather than not even mentioning Israel by name.  It's generally referred to as the "Zionist regime" or some such.  (I'd similarly favor Israel and the US stating their peaceful intentions toward the Islamic Republic.) 

Aside from inviting a catastrophic war, an Israeli attack would not deter Iran.  Part of the problem is the hardened and dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear facilities; another part is Israel's limited capacity as a military power.  Back in August 2006, I blogged about the myth that Israel is a military superpower, beginning as follows: