Of course you will not read about this abject American surrender in the New York Times, although a Reuters report that appeared on the Times’ web site did characterize the summit as a “dud.” However, the self-described pro-peace, pro-Israel organizations and their spokespeople outdid the mainstream media in spinning the summit in a positive direction. J Street, for instance, called Obama’s recent statements a “move in the right direction” in an email sent to its mailing list. They also praised the President’s performance at the summit in a public statement declaring that they, “applaud the serious commitment President Obama has demonstrated since the first days of his Presidency to personally engage in a sustained and active pursuit of a negotiated, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Daniel Levy (New America Foundation) interprets Obama’s capitulation with some tortured logic which whimsically concludes that the chastened President will eventually stiffen up and actually confront the Israelis in the future.

When I was growing up in a tough neighborhood in the Bronx, we all believed that if you were attacked and the attacker intended on using a weapon, he would show it during the initial phase of combat. Applying the same logic, I have to conclude that Obama will never use the weapon of cutting Israeli military aid or of curtailing US diplomatic support. If he intended to do so, he would have shown that weapon before now, instead of suffering the humiliation of dropping his demand for a full freeze on Israeli settlement expansion.

It is generally understood by even the least perceptive and biased of Middle East pundits that if Obama does not compel Israel to make peace with the Palestinians, it ain’t gonna happen. That is why in an internal memo, a top official in one of those pro-Israel, pro-peace Jewish organizations, who understands Obama’s weakness, wrote that the “odds of [Obama’s policy] success are very low.” Despite this gloomy prognosis the organization over which he presides continues to tell its members what a wonderful job the President is doing in the peace negotiations and to encourage its donors to contribute more money to help them support the President’s peacemaking efforts.

Referring to Israeli Benny Morris’ groundbreaking book about the Nakba (the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in 1947-49), the Palestinian academic and politician Hanan Ashrawi said at a lecture I attended in the 90s: “When we [Palestinians] told you about it, you said we were crazy, but now that one of your own says it is true, you start to believe it.” In order to find out how ineffective Obama is, you do not have to watch al-Jazeera or read Palestinian-American journalists like Ali Abunimah. Just listen to one of our own. And who could be more “our own” than the Israeli-American newspaperman Larry Derfner. Derfner wrote in the Jerusalem Post that Obama has been played for a sucker (freier pl. freierim in Hebrew/Yiddish) by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and that the whole of Israel is laughing at our beloved and venerated young President.

Derfner is an Israeli, but not one of those sensitive “shoot and cry” writers, native-born peace party types, who have Hebraicized names like Avraham Hazak.¹ Those guys always bail out when the going gets tough. During the Gaza war, they could never get it together to call a war crime a war crime and instead justified Israeli aggression as understandable self-defense.

No, Derfner is no Avraham Hazak, just check out the sunglasses he sports and the brash expression he wears in that photograph that appears with his column. The guy is pure New York, in the tradition of Jimmy Breslin, straight talk journalism. And unlike the beautiful Israelis like Hazak, he knows America. You can believe him when he says Obama has “caved in to the Netanyahu government on the peace process.”

The truth is that the real Obama is not the idealist he portrayed himself to be in his Presidential campaign. He is a clever politician who has learned how to accommodate the powerful and not appear too obsequious. He is the Obama that pandered to the members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) by stating he believed in an undivided Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. He is the Obama who informed the press in Iowa that he would permit Israel to dictate his policy decisions on the Iranian nuclear issue. Both of these declarations of fealty occurred after signing on Dennis Ross as Middle East campaign advisor. After a period in the wilderness, the blatantly pro-Israeli Ross has become President Obama’s closest adviser on Middle East foreign policy.

The real Obama will not be the hero of Palestinian/Israeli peacemaking, but may be the first American President who has an illegal outpost named after him. As Derfner predicts, do not be surprised if a settlement soon appears on the West Bank called “Havat Obama.”

Make no mistake about it. The chutzpah that the American President initially demonstrated by raising expectations about a new American peace initiative in the Middle East by appointing George Mitchell as envoy and then by making the freeze demand and then suddenly throwing out the bit, is not the audacity of some dope. It is the calculation of a politician who knows how to cater to the powerful in US/Israeli relations, and the name of that game is the Israel lobby.

Let me make another thing perfectly clear. Barack Obama’s Israel/Palestine initiative will make many understand the futility of hope for a just two-state solution.

The interesting question, however, is who are the real freierim here?

1. Avraham Hazak is not a real person. Any resemblance my characterization of him has to any living or deceased Israeli writers is completely intentional.

The disputed site is owned by billionaire and settlement supporter Irving Moskowitz who bought the property in 1985. Mr. Moskowitz hopes to construct 20 residence units at what is currently the site of the Shepherd’s Hotel. The location was once used as a residence by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. It was also was once the home of author and Palestinian nationalist, George Antonius. The location borders an historic and wealthy Palestinian neighborhood which has many opulent villas. The proposed building site was described at the Israeli (Hebrew) Channel One web site as a “ticking time bomb since 1985.” The municipality of Jerusalem has prevented the development of the site because of Palestinian sensibilities until recently.

During Benjamin Netanyahu’s previous tenure as Prime Minister, two long-contemplated controversial construction projects in East Jerusalem were begun despite intense Palestinian and international protest. The first was the opening of an exit for a tunnel to the Muslim quarter near the Via Dolorosa which runs under the Haram-al-Sharif or the Temple Mount. The second was the construction of a Jewish settlement on Jabal Abu Ghneim or Har Homa on a hill overlooking the city which is located in Israeli-occupied territory.

Despite delays caused by opponents, these projects have been completed as planned. Today the excavated tunnel is one of the most popular Jerusalem tourist attractions, where visitors can use the once controversial Via Dolorosa exit to enter the Arab market located in the Muslim quarter. Jabal Abu Ghneim is today the site of an Israeli settlement containing 4000 housing units. It is difficult for many to recall that in 1997 the General Assembly voted 132 to 3 to recommend a halt to construction of the settlement. The countries that voted against the resolution were Israel, the United States, and Micronesia.

The opening of the tunnel exit (and the tunnel excavation) and the building of the Jewish settlement on Jabal Abu Ghneim were both delayed by previous Israeli administrations, at least, partially because of the many legitimate Palestinian concerns. Benjamin Netanyahu ignored these concerns which resulted in rioting and international condemnation. Now in his second turn as Prime Minister Netanyahu has again chosen to ignore Palestinian sensitivities and international opinion. His government has decided to allow construction of settler residences at the site known to the Palestinians as Karm al-Mufti (Vineyard of the Mufti) when previous Israeli governments have refrained from doing. This new settlement is only a fraction of the size of the one built on Jabal Abu Ghneim and is not as strategically located. The planned construction site, although historic, is not nearly as sensitive as the tunnel construction which caused significant danger to the structure of the Haram (Mosque Compound) which is located above it.

What makes construction at the Shepherd’s Hotel site so controversial is that it demonstrates Israel’s policy of not only generally rejecting the U.S. request to cease building in the territories, but also to refuse a U.S. plea to halt a building at a specific site. An entreaty to stop the planned building on the property was delivered to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren by State Department officials within the last few days. According to Ha’aretz, Oren told the Americans that Jerusalem is no different than any other part of his country and that Israel would not accede to their demand.

In his speech to the cabinet on Sunday, Netanyahu declared, “Jerusalem is united, it is the capital of the Jewish people, and its sovereignty is not open to debate.” He further added that any Jew has the right to build anywhere in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister’s statement received support from opposition member of parliament Yoel Hasoon (Kadima), who said,”the American request to refrain from building in Jerusalem is not legitimate. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the Jewish people, and is not a settlement…”

Further evidence that Israel and the United States are far from resolving settlement expansion dispute was the postponement of this week’s scheduled meeting between Special Envoy George Mitchell and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. There has been no official confirmation of when the next meeting between the two will occur.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to obey the U.S. demand to halt construction in East Jerusalem and in the “settlement blocs” has wide support among Israelis, who are mostly dug in against what they consider a betrayal by the Americans. Even politicians that are against the occupation have not spoken out in behalf of the Obama demand for a settlement freeze, according to Israeli journalist Aluf Benn. But if the Americans want to be a credible force for peace in Israel/Palestine it is important that they hold firm on their demand that Israel cease all settlement construction in all of the West Bank including Jerusalem. Each new Israeli structure designated “for Jews only ” prejudices a future settlement and makes a mockery of the “peace process.”

As the journalist and blogger Philip Weiss wrote about the confrontation over Karm al-Mufti, “Isn’t this the whole enchilada? Isn’t this what Obama promised in his Cairo speech, a shared Jerusalem? Harvard professor and blogger Stephen Walt wrote me a couple days ago that he thought that Obama and Netanyahu “are headed for an eyeball to eyeball situation, and …[he has] no idea who will blink first.” Who knows, maybe this is the confrontation Walt just predicted.

The assumption that any disputes would occur behind the scenes became open to question during the Netanyahu-Obama press conference, when the two leaders claimed they were basically in agreement, but then made statements which demonstrated that the opposite was the case. But it is the recent acrimonious wrangling over the U.S. demand that all new construction in the occupied territories must halt, that has revealed that differences of opinion between Obama and Netanyahu have become more public, more quickly than expected. This surprising flare-up between the two close (I would say, too close) allies will undoubtedly be resolved with some diplomatic compromise, however, the brouhaha over the freeze may signify the first sign of possible problems ahead. Israel could be less willing than the Americans believe to agree to the type of peace that the Obama administration may envision.

Certainly all Israeli settlement activity must cease and George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy currently involved in the discussions, should not accept any compromise on halting all building in the territories. But I am not really surprised that on Tuesday he listened to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s compromise proposals for a temporary limited freeze. The meeting apparently ended with no agreement, but avoided any further public confrontation. If the Americans do not stand firmly behind the freeze demand, they will not help their already suspect credibility as a fair mediator in the peace process, although they will assuage Israel’s many powerful supporters in the United States.

In Mitchell’s view expanding the settlements is not compatible with pursuing peace negotiations, since the Palestinians claim the land upon which new housing is being built as part of their future state. According to Mitchell’s analysis, which is apparently presently the view of the Obama administration, who will get which territory should be decided in future negotiations. Any new construction and increased settler population would only make future agreements more difficult. And very importantly, although never mentioned by the Americans, according to international law, all settlements built in territory acquired as a result of war are illegal.

The Israelis have not worried about obeying international law for some time now and so a call for them to freeze all settlements has come as a great shock. It seems that the Americans badly miscalculated the Israeli reaction to their permanent freeze demand. Mitchell’s team should have known that no leading Israeli politician, especially the hard line Netanyahu, would publicly assent to an indefinite halt to building on land a majority of Israelis consider to be as much part of Israel as Tel Aviv.

Israeli expectations have changed and hardened over time. George Mitchell was originally sent to the region by President George W. Bush to produce guidelines for reviving the failed Oslo peace process. He first introduced the idea that a settlement freeze should be a precondition to negotiations in the 2001 report, which bears his name. The report states, “The GOI [Government of Israel] should freeze all settlement activity, including the ‘natural growth’ of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation [from the Palestinians] desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity.”

Despite U.S. efforts following the Mitchell Report to restart the peace negotiations, no significant agreements were reached between the parties. In 2003, Mitchell’s call for a freeze was incorporated into the Road Map, the Bush administration’s peace plan, which included the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Barack Obama has adopted the Bush Road Map as a guide in his attempt to establish an end to the conflict.

Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Prime Minister, signed the Road Map, although he made his acceptance of the agreement conditional on 14 restrictive reservations which were appended to the agreement, some of which made the successful implementation of the plan impossible. The first reservation declares that

Both at the commencement of, and during the process, and as a condition to its continuance, calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace).

The second reservation states that, “The first condition for progress will be the complete cessation of terror, violence and incitement.” The bottom line is Sharon never intended to implement the Road Map, that is why he added conditions which he could later claim that the Palestinians were not fulfilling, e.g., “educating for peace.” Since the Palestinians would never meet his conditions as set forth in his reservations, the threat of a settlement freeze was negated. Even with the inclusion of Sharon’s reservations, the Road Map authorization passed through the cabinet with seven dissenting votes out of 19 in a particularly stormy session, according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz.

During the Bush years, neither Sharon nor his successor Ehud Olmert took the freeze provision of the Road Map seriously. Last week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak proposed a temporary freeze of three to six months, with some territorial exclusions. The extension of the freeze would be conditioned on Palestinian and Arab responses. This is reminiscent of Sharon’s strategy of negating the Road Map by placing requirements upon others that can always be said to be unmet at some future time, thus freeing the Israelis from any obligation. Like the Israeli cabinet debate on acceptance of the Road Map, there was significant dissent among a small cabinet group that discussed the temporary freeze proposal. In what was described as a heated debate, three of the six members of the cabinet group expressed strong opposition to even a temporary freeze.

The political situation in Israel is very different today than it was during the days of the Oslo peace process of the nineties and during the turbulent time of the second intifada which followed. It is a mistake to assume that what was acceptable to the Israelis in those days is equally acceptable now. The Americans ignore this at their peril.

Two of the main reasons for the Israeli amenability to peace with the Palestinians no longer exist. Firstly, as Naomi Klein explains in her book, Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Israel had an economic incentive to pursue peace in the nineties. Israel hoped that a treaty with the Palestinians would enable it to become a center of commerce for the region. Today with the new reality of a global economy and the burgeoning Israeli technology and military industries, the idea of becoming a regional commercial center has lost much of its appeal. Secondly, Israelis were more willing to make concessions in exchange for a peace treaty because they were exhausted from the daily violence that they experienced as civilians and as soldiers in the occupied territories. Presently, many Israelis are of the opinion that no treaty with the Palestinians is possible, many believing that the Palestinians refused the best possible offer which was given by Barak at Camp David (untrue). They also are enjoying a lower level of violence because of the forceful repression of the Palestinians (true now, but probably will not be true indefinitely).

After the uncritical support that the Israelis enjoyed during the Bush years and the current public mood there, it would be a mistake to predict an Israeli willingness to work with the U.S. toward a peace agreement. The Israelis are going to be much less compliant with U.S. demands than they were during the Clinton administration. Neither Netanyahu nor Barak are now constrained by the Oslo agreements which they both publicly rejected but were forced to adopt during there respective terms as Prime Minister. In addition, the present right-wing government coalition, encourages its leaders’ most inflexible tendencies.

Given the present situation, it is hardly a surprise that Israel will not acquiesce to a complete freeze of the settlements. Mitchell and Obama will probably agree to a compromise in an attempt to avoid a crisis. In doing so they will lose credibility among Palestinians. If the United States wants a viable two-state solution, it will have to force the Israelis to cooperate. The measures required to halt all Israeli settlement activity, such as cutting military aid, are not ones to which the Americans will presently commit. But if the Americans are not prepared to employ harsh measures and take on their reluctant “peace partner” publicly, at some point, there will be no peace in the future.

This year’s al-Quds celebration was scheduled to include events in Jerusalem (al-Quds), Gaza, Nazareth, Ramallah and a refugee camp in Lebanon. According to the Israeli newspaper web site YNet, Interior Minister Avi Dichter ordered the police “to forcefully suppress” any attempt by the Palestinian Authority to stage any event in or around Jerusalem or the rest of Israel, which is connected to the festival. Israeli authorities view all external demonstrations of what they consider expressions of Arab sovereignty to be illegal within what they consider to be their borders.

On Saturday morning, March 21, 1000 Israeli police were deployed in the Old City of Jerusalem to stop all events associated with the festival. Most of the originally scheduled events had either been moved or cancelled as a result of the Israeli orders. However, according to the Israeli daily Ma’ariv, eight different smaller events were closed down by the authorities during the day. In addition, there were 20 arrests of either organizers or participants.

Events associated with the festival which were shut down by police included a football game, a meeting of youths inside a club building and an attempt by schoolchildren carrying Palestinian flags to enter the area around the al-Aqsa mosque. Hundreds of young students accompanied by their teachers who attempted to stage some modest artistic events in the Old City of Jerusalem were prevented from doing so by police. The authorities also arrested two employees of al-Quds University who were distributing T-shirts commemorating the festival.

In Ras al-Amud, a neighborhood in East Jerusalem, police shut down an event in which there were hundreds of participants, according to Ma’ariv. In a separate incident, a ceremonial torch which was brought from Damascus the site of last year’s festival was confiscated by police. In addition to the closings in and around Jerusalem, a conference associated with the Al-Quds Capital of Arab Culture celebration which was scheduled in the Palestinian-Israeli city of Nazareth, was prohibited by police order.

The official opening event, which was supposed to take place in East Jerusalem, was relocated to Bethlehem, where on Saturday evening Palestinian officials appeared live and via a television hook-up which was broadcast, apparently illegally, from East Jerusalem. President Mahmoud Abbas was present and addressed those gathered in Bethlehem for the opening ceremony. The International Middle East Media Center web site reported Saturday that Hamas had refused to host the scheduled events associated with the festival in Gaza.

Member of the Israeli Parliament Haim Oron, in remarks pointedly critical of his government, said, “Israel must encourage cultural pluralism both Israeli and Palestinian.” He added that “East Jerusalem is the cultural capital of the Palestinians and that does not constitute any threat to Israel,… Jerusalem is the cultural capital of the Israel and also that of Palestine.”

In relation to the horrors of the Gaza War and the recent revelations about the conduct of the Israeli army in that war, all this may seem insignificant. But it is hard to envision a peace between Israelis and Palestinians when 1000 Israel police are being deployed to grab flags out of the hands of children and stop teenagers from playing football in a event organized by the Palestinian Authority.

Dennis Ross is a bright shining lie. He is the type of brilliant bureaucrat that can lie the US into a war with the credibility of a Colin Powell and the blind dedication of a Douglas Feith. His war of choice is Iran, and if all goes according to his envisioning, he will be a prominent player in an Obama administration when the first American-supplied smart bomb is dropped in a US-sanctioned Israeli attack on Iran in 2010.

Ross claims to be an accomplished diplomat, and an objective and dispassionate analyst of the Middle East. He was in fact an abject failure as Bill Clinton’s Middle East coordinator1 and is a zealous advocate on behalf of the Israeli government and its American supporters. As Clinton’s envoy and negotiator, Ross’ forte was justifying Israeli non-compliance with their own previous agreements, (many of which were formal and signed) and then renegotiating those agreements on Israel’s behalf. This tactic directly led to the breakdown of Syrian/Israeli peace talks in 2000. Ross’ duplicitous style also proved extremely deleterious in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians, and even some American diplomats, asked President Clinton to replace Ross because of his dishonesty and bias, but Clinton always refused to do so. Somehow, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, Ross has been able to successfully cultivate and maintain his false public image as a successful and dispassionate mediator.

A couple of weeks ago, Ross, who is presently advising and campaigning for Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, gave a lecture at Colgate University, a small liberal arts school in Central New York. It was during the question and answer period that I brought up a prominent report in the Israeli press which said former member of parliament and former cabinet minister Ephraim Sneh, speaking for his government, sent identical memos to both Senators Obama and John McCain. The memos declared that Israel would attack Iran in 2010 unless the “Iranian nuclear threat” is negated by a US attack or a regime change in Tehran.¹

Subsequent to having received the memo, Barack Obama was asked at a campaign stop in Iowa if Israel felt it had the “green light” from the US to attack Iran. Obama chose not to answer the question directly, claiming any answer would be speculation. Instead the candidate responded, “my job as President would be to try to make sure that we are tightening the screws on Iran… before Israel feels its back is to the wall.”²

My question to Dennis Ross, a logical choice for a senior foreign policy appointment in a Democratic administration, was whether he believes it was wise for Obama to imply that he would create US foreign policy on the basis of what Israel perceives or threatens to do. This is especially important since we are apparently talking about a massive Israeli military assault on Iran which could escalate into a wider war and have a grave impact upon American interests and armed forces in the region.

Ross’ answer was astounding. He said he sees nothing wrong with Obama’s statement since the candidate was only stating a fact. Ross then said if the Israelis want to attack Iran there is nothing the U.S. can do to stop them. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity for a follow-up since a visibly agitated Ross concluded his response with his back toward me and quickly went on to the next questioner. If I had had a chance for a follow-up, I would have pointed out to Ross that to say that the US cannot stop Israel from attacking Iran is simply not true. One proof is that the Bush administration prevented such an attack just last summer. This has been widely reported and publicly confirmed by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Is Ross saying that although the Bush administration blocked Israel, our Barack will not consider stopping their Barak if Israel chooses to assault Iran? Didn’t the American people vote for a less militaristic approach to foreign policy in 2006, thinking that by electing a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives they were voting for peaceful solutions? Is anybody in the Democratic Party listening?

Ross’ bellicose stand on Iran actually comes as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with his slavish obeisance to whatever is the current Israeli policy. Last week Ross wrote that the Bush administration is failing in regard to Iran, opining that we cannot afford “four more years of US policies that are tough rhetorically but soft practically.”³ In a recent Wall Street Journal article⁴ co-authored with Richard Holbrooke and James Woolsey, with whom he has founded the group called United Against Nuclear Iran, Ross and his colleagues beat the drums for war with the usual exaggerated warnings of imminent danger and a dubious list of past and future Iranian transgressions.

In an article in the Financial Times⁵, Daniel Dombey and James Blitz wrote that Ross, working with the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think-tank, has produced a report calling for the Americans and Europeans to bypass the United Nations and impose tougher sanctions on Iran. In addition to the sanction campaign, the report, which is titled “Meeting the Challenge: US Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development,”⁶ recommends taking military steps such as “pre-positioning additional US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers [and] emplacing other war materiel in the [Gulf] region.” The report further urges that these military actions should be taken by the new President on his first day in office!

During the Oslo peace negotiations, far from being an honest broker, Ross was actually Israel’s lawyer, working tirelessly to achieve what he believed to be the best possible outcome for his client, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. After negotiations failed, like any good lawyer, he praised his client and immediately and deceptively placed all fault for the breakdown of the Camp David summit on Yasser Arafat, despite a prior agreement not to do so. Arafat had been reluctant to participate in the summit since he correctly believed that the timing and the “make or break” nature of the planned meeting would be disadvantageous for his side. The Palestinian leader only agreed to attend when President Bill Clinton promised that neither side would be publicly held responsible if the talks failed. Ross has been violating that agreement continually and vociferously for the past eight years by unjustifiably blaming the Palestinians for the failure of Camp David. Mercifully, this was not a part of his stage show at Colgate.

At Colgate, Ross was introduced as a Soviet scholar and diplomat who has been devoted to pursuing peace in the Middle East. No mention was made of his long association with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) which is a prominent pro-Israel think-tank founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The introduction did not state that Ross is currently an advisor to Barack Obama and that he is campaigning for the candidate among Jewish voters using a talking point that Obama will stop Iran from threatening Israel. Finally, the introduction did not mention that Ross is Jewish, with many professional and personal ties to the State of Israel. Interestingly, Ross himself did not voluntarily allude to any of these very relevant details during his talk, which was mostly about Middle East diplomacy, although some of these facts surfaced during the question and answer session.

Dennis Ross bristles when he is characterized as a member of the pro-Israel lobby. He was, however, one of the public intellectuals who were prominent in the vociferous and disingenuous attacks on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two academics whose recent book, The Israel Lobby, angered many in the pro-Israel camp. Yet Ross differs with many in the American pro-Israel community in that he always seems to side with the current Israeli government even when most members of pro-Israel American organizations such as AIPAC, do not. Ross will advocate territorial compromise if the present Israeli government supports it. Thus he was a champion of the Oslo peace process, is a supporter of talks with Syria and was an advocate on behalf of Ariel Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza. On the other hand, a vast majority of pro-Israel American organizations and their members are more in tune than Ross is with the settler movement and right-wing Likud party line, and are prone to reject any Israeli negotiation or territorial compromise.

Before I arrived at Colgate, I considered raising some issues during the question and answer session about Ross’ unsuitability to represent US interests in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and with the Arab world generally. In addition to his affiliation with WINEP, a lesser known conflict of interest and one that may be an even greater indication of Ross’ bias, is his chairmanship of the Jerusalem-based think-tank the Jewish People Planning Policy Institute (JPPPI). JPPPI is a part of the Jewish Agency for Israel. The Jewish Agency or the Sochnut (Agency), as it is usually referred to in Hebrew, is an important Israeli quasi-governmental entity which originally was the government-in-waiting under the British Mandate. Today the Jewish Agency has a more limited role but still is an important well-funded institution in Israeli-Jewish society.

On the subject of Iran, Ross is a fervent and active advocate for Israel and their ill-conceived planned military attack. Like Vice President Cheney did with Iraq, he ignores all evidence which does not support his preconceived view. Like Cheney, he even ignores the reports of the U.S. intelligence community. (The National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 casts doubt on the view that Iran will shortly possess nuclear weapons.) He also ignores the fact that Israel wants to destabilize Iran because of Tehran’s support of its enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah. This may be the main reason for any Israeli aggression against Tehran and not the alleged nuclear threat.

The U.S. Secretary of State Robert Gates has stated that a US or Israeli attack on Iran at this time would not be in the best interests of the United States. Gates averred that such an attack would play havoc with the price of oil and cause massive Iranian retaliation, possibly coordinated with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria against US forces and against Israel. Not everyone in Israel wants to attack Iran. Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit cautioned that “Israel must on no account attack Iran, speak of attacking Iran or even think about it…. [A]ttacking Iran on our own initiative is a megalomaniacal reckless idea.”⁷

The current decision-makers in the Israeli government, however, are willing to either ignore or accept the disastrous consequences of an attack on Iran even though they have agreed to delay it. If elected, Barack Obama probably will have to decide whether the United States will regard Iran’s “nuclear threat” from an Israeli perspective and agree to their planned attack. If he has to make that decision, let’s hope Dennis Ross will not be one of his key Middle East advisors.

1. For a particularly good account see Swisher, Clayton, E., The Truth About Camp David, Nation, 2004.
2. Bohan, Caren, “Obama: World Must Press Iran Or Israel May Respond,” Reuters, August, 25, 2008.
3. Ross, Dennis, “Why I Support Barack Obama,” The Jewish Journal, October 9, 2008.
4. Ross, Dennis, et al., “Everyone Needs To Worry About Iran,” Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2008.
5. Dombey, Daniel and Blitz, James, “US and EU Plan Iran Sanctions,” Financial Times, October 13, 2008.
6. Coates, Daniel et al., “Meeting The Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development,” Bipartisan Policy Center, September 19, 2008. To download, right click on “Download Report.”
7. Mualem, Mazal and Verter, Yossi, “Israel Must Not Attack Iran, Except In The Line Of Defense,” Ha’aretz, n.d. (but within the last two months). The page also contains a video reporting that the Bush administration refused to send Israel equipment that would improve its ability to attack Iran.

The recent CBS broadcast of the Sixty Minutes segment “The Israeli Air Force” provides a rather startling example of how the American news media will permit the Israelis to present their point of view to the exclusion of any competing narrative. The report, which is presented by correspondent Bob Simon, first aired on April 27 and was rebroadcast on August 10.

The message of “The Israeli Air Force” is clearly and succinctly communicated by the CBS report as: Iran is a threat to Israel’s existence and to the rest of the world; Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon soon; when it does, it will use it to destroy Israel. Thus it is apparent that if Iran does not quickly agree with the demands of Western powers to cease its uranium enrichment program, the Israeli Air Force can and will attack and incapacitate the Iranian nuclear facilities.

In order to produce this segment, CBS, by its own admission, accepted the “rigorous censorship” requirements of the Israeli Air Force (IAF). For a news organization to agree to censorship when covering a story is rather unusual. The explanation Mr. Simon gives for this arrangement is to quote the IAF’s dubious justification that “[i]f the Israelis blow their secrets, they insist, they’ll lose the next war.” Maybe Simon should have just confessed that because CBS believes that these Israeli pilots are such amazing men, Sixty Minutes let them tell their own story, in their own way, without network interference.

In “The Israeli Air Force,” Simon interviews Israeli pilots who are the “best and brightest.” We are told they are destined to become heroes and some even legends. The report recounts the great IAF victory in the 1967 War and the difficult but “necessary” military air strikes in Gaza. No mention is made of the two disastrous air campaigns in two Lebanese wars. We also hear interviews with the pilots who bombed and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

Yiftach Spector, who participated in the Iraq bombing, humbly rejects Simon’s compliment that he returned from the mission as a hero. Spector claimed “[w]e postponed a threat, a real threat. … I mean, the heroes were not us. The “decision makers were the heroes on this because they showed the world what’s right and what’s wrong,” Simon then comments, “[t]oday, Israel’s decision makers are faced with a similar choice, will they take out Iran’s nuclear facilities?” You really wonder if this little play was written by someone at CBS or rather was actually composed by an Israeli government press assistant or an official of the IAF censorship board.

In Bill Moyer’s documentary about the news coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Buying the War, Bob Simon correctly criticizes the media for only reporting the Bush-Cheney administration’s propaganda while ignoring all contradictory evidence. Well ironically, when it comes to Iran, it appears that Simon’s reporting ignores all contradictory evidence while solely presenting the Israeli government line.

The 2007 U.S National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which states that there is a high probability that Iran has discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was never mentioned. Neither were the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which have contradicted Israeli claims.

Additionally, the segment never addressed the fact that Israel views Iran as its main competitor in the region and as a financier and supporter of its enemies Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. This may have as much to do with the Israeli bellicosity toward Iran as any fear of nuclear weapons.

Finally, numerous high ranking officials in the American government including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen, are currently on the record as saying that any attack on Iran at the present time, whether it be American or Israeli, would be extremely harmful to U.S interests. Some of the likely consequences of an attack would be: a further endangering of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, a skyrocketing price of oil, and a wider U.S. war in the region. Bob Simon did not mention the opinions opposing an attack on Iran or any of these very relevant possibly disastrous consequences.

Any news program which deserves special citation for being produced from an Israeli perspective should follow these rules: never mention the word “occupation”, nor the conditions that Palestinians are forced to endure when speaking about the West Bank and Gaza; if you address the issue of casualties suffered by innocent Palestinians as a result of Israeli military offenses, always give the Israelis time to appear “aware and troubled” and to claim they do everything possible to minimize collateral damage; never mention anything negative or embarrassing about the Israeli armed forces which cannot be dismissed as an unfortunate mistake. Finally, and this is key, always express that the targeted enemy is “Hitler” and that the military action under consideration will prevent another Holocaust. I can attest that Bob Simon’s report more than adequately meets all these requirements.

The Sixty Minutes segment is not a news report, but a paean to “The Israeli Air Force” which also explains, justifies and advocates the use of military force against Tehran. It sells the idea of bombing Iran to the American people, just as the mainstream media sold the Iraq War, without reporting the complete story. It is frightening that CBS could produce a program which ignores any evidence which does not promote Tel Aviv’s world-view. What is even more terrifying is that even if the United States decides against the military option and advises Israel to do likewise, the same power and influence which enables “Israeli occupied news coverage,” can make it possible for Israel to ignore American wishes and proceed with their plan to bomb Iran.

On May 19, 2008, a 12-member House delegation led by House Speaker Pelosi met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. At that lunch meeting, Olmert proposed that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran in order to stop its uranium enrichment program. Present at this meeting were Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, and AIPAC loyalists Reps. Nita Lowey and Gary Ackerman. Three days after this meeting, Mr. Ackerman introduced the resolution H. Con. Res. 362 in the House.

The legislation calls for “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; and imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” This certainly sounds as if the resolution is seeking the blockade which Prime Minister Olmert had requested. A military blockade is an act of war. The passage of this resolution would add the voice of the United States House of Representatives to the growing calls for armed intervention against Iran.

AIPAC, the highly influential advocate for the Israeli government on Capitol Hill, is the author and tireless promoter of H. Con. Res. 362. Israel has openly declared that it seeks armed intervention in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. There are many in the Bush administration who are known to favor bombing either Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons sites or their military bases, among them, Vice President Dick Cheney. It was reported in Israel, and has since been corroborated by Time, that, during the President’s May visit to Israel, the U.S. delegation convinced the Israelis that America would attack Iran before the Bush term expired. Time claims that the administration has reversed its policy and now favors negotiations, although the U.S. government’s true intentions are not actually known.

Over 5000 AIPAC activists went to The Hill at the beginning of June where in 500 separate meetings they lectured our representatives and Senators about the great importance American supporters of Israel attribute to the swift passage of their Iran legislation. Initially, the results were predictable based on past performance. Congressman rushed to offer their support. As of today, 259 members of Congress have co-sponsored the legislation in a truly extraordinary show of loyalty to the pro-Israel lobby. An unnamed AIPAC official predicted the legislation would quickly and easily become law with no amendments, “like a hot knife through butter.” But strangely that did not happen.

The legislation is presently stalled. Mark Weisbrot reported that the Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Howard Berman, has promised that H. Con. Res. 362 will not be reported out of the committee until the “blockade” clause is removed. Ghandi Peace Brigade activist Leslie Angeline wrote, after lobbying on the Hill, that Berman indicated he had “no intention of moving the bill through his committee unless the language is first altered to ensure that there is no possible way it could be construed as authorizing any type of military action against Iran.” My requests to the House Foreign Relations Committee for information about the immediate future of the resolution and to verify statements attributed to Berman did not receive a response.

Many people, already alarmed by U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling, were startled at the aggressive tone of the AIPAC resolution. They reacted especially adversely to the clause prohibiting imports of refined petroleum which appeared to demand a blockade. Even if a blockade did not materialize, passage of the resolution could be understood by the Bush administration as a Congressional authorization for the use of force against Iran. At the very least, passage of H. Con. Res. 362 would indicate a lack of Congressional resolve to prevent the U.S. from expanding America’s Middle East war to Iran. This is especially worrisome in light of the fact that, as Seymour Hersh has written in the New Yorker, a Congressional delegation led by Nancy Pelosi has already authorized 400 million dollars for covert operations in Iran aimed at arming dissident groups and subverting Iranian nuclear sites.

Galvanized by the extreme language of the AIPAC resolution and the growing evidence that both the U.S. and Israel are considering an attack on Iran before the end of Bush’s presidency, activist groups started asking their members to send emails and make phone calls to their legislators in order to express concerns about H. Con. Res. 362. Among the groups that had formal actions were Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, the National Iranian-American Council, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Code Pink, Just Foreign Policy, the Madison Institute for Peace and Progressivism, Jstreet, Voters for Peace, AfterDowningStreet, and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. According to reports, members of the House of Representatives received tens of thousands of messages asking lawmakers to oppose the legislation, many specifically citing the “blockade” clause.

The non-binding resolution is built on a series of assumptions which selectively and inaccurately reflect the conclusions of American and UN intelligence sources. The legislation ignores the key conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which state that there is no hard evidence that Iran has an active nuclear program. The NIE report, which was published in November 2007, states that evidence indicates that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Rep. Gary Ackerman has written two separate letters to the members of the House which explain the importance of his resolution. He described as “nonsense” the claim that the legislation calls for a blockade of Iran. Ackerman stated that the qualifying clause which expressly says that the resolution should not be taken to assert that military force should be used against Iran, makes it clear that no use of such force could be implied by the resolution. The problem is that if the resolution is quoted by those seeking to use military force, as an indication of Congressional support, it would be very easy for them to selectively quote the “blockade clause” and omit the denial of authorization of force clause. Ackerman also stated that the prohibition of refined petroleum clause is meant to be enforced voluntarily in the exporting countries and not in the Persian Gulf. The phrase “entering or departing Iran” in the resolution tends to contradict that claim.

Reps. Robert Wexler and Barney Frank have publicly said that they will attempt to alter the legislation in order to eliminate all ambiguity about its demanding the use of military force. Neither has withdrawn his co-sponsorship, however. Three Congressman have withdrawn their co-sponsorships and others have expressed concern about the legislation in general and about the “blockade clause” in particular. Rep. Ron Paul went further in a speech on the House floor in which he warned that the resolution is indeed a call to war.

Senator Barack Obama met with House Democrats on July 29. At that meeting, Rep. Howard Berman, who is so far refusing to report H. Con. Res. 362 to the House for a vote, asked about the candidate’s opinion of the current state of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The Democratic candidate, reflecting a reluctance many share about appearing “soft” on Iran said, according to Rep. Shelly Berkley, “if the Iranians don’t accept a deal now because they think they’re going to get a better deal from the next president, they’re mistaken.” If Berman thought he was going to get a statement from Obama supporting negotiations and/or opposition to military threats, he was mistaken. Obama has been making a major effort to court the Jewish vote, so he is not about to criticize the Bush administration’s or anyone else’s use of a military threat against Iran.

Non-binding legislation initiated and supported by AIPAC usually passes in the House quickly with only 15 to 20 dissenting votes. The unexpected delay in committee and the growing opposition to the legislation may reflect the increasing and understandable concern about the role of AIPAC in creating American foreign policy in the Middle East and the alarm that Iran will be the next target of America’s expanding war in that region.

What will be the fate of H. Con. Res. 362? Even if it is held up indefinitely in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the fact that it has 259 co-sponsors means that it expresses “the sense of the House” regarding the alleged threat posed by Iran and a willingness of a majority of members of the House to support AIPAC’s Iran foreign policy.

It is clear that the antiwar movement has emerged as a voice in the ongoing debate concerning Iran. However, if military confrontation with Iran is to be avoided, the peace movement must convince our politicians not only to oppose legislation like H. Con. Res. 362, but, more importantly, to renounce the world view of AIPAC and the neo-cons which has been the foundation of the Bush administration’s Middle East policies. This means the work has just begun.

Now the same people that gave us Iraq, and remain just about the only supporters of their own failed policy there, are signaling that it is necessary to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat. And again, one problem is that this threat may not exist.

This time, however, the opponents of the threatened attack are surprisingly few, even as the signs of a coming air assault on Iran continue to increase. This lack of articulated opposition to military action against Iran, especially by members of the Democratic Party and their supporters, increase the chances that the Bush/Cheney administration will widen the war in the Middle East either directly or by using Israel as a proxy.

“Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran’s nuclear complex,” according to David Martin of CBS News. Martin quotes Michael Oren, a CBS analyst, who is an American-born Israeli and well-connected to his government’s reliable sources, as stating, “[t]he Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize [sic].”

While Israel pressures the Americans via diplomatic and military channels, the U.S. Congress will shortly give its overwhelming support to two identical non-binding resolutions that will demand that President Bush impose a military blockade on Iran. H.Con Res. 362, the House version, and S.Res. 580, the Senate version, demand:

[T]hat the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program . . .

These resolutions are a direct result of the efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who shortly after their annual convention in early June, deployed 5000 activists to 500 separate meetings on Capitol Hill, using their vast influence to promote this anti-Iranian legislation among U.S. lawmakers.

Both resolutions will have the wide bipartisan support in both branches of Congress that AIPAC-sponsored bills invariably receive. Even if the idea of the blockade goes nowhere, the resolutions signal that the vast majority in Congress will either support or will not object to military action against Iran.

Rumors and threats of either an imminent U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran have been increasing during the past month. According to the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Army Radio quoted an unnamed senior member of President Bush’s entourage as saying, during the President’s visit to Israel, that Bush and Cheney were “of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.” The White House immediately denied the report. President Bush had just given a particularly bellicose speech to the Israeli Knesset where he bluntly pledged that the U.S. would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Reminiscent of his “Axis of Evil” speech, the President listed Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda as enemies and spoke about a “battle of good and evil.”

The Asia Times claimed that Bush plans an air attack in Iran before August. The source is an unnamed former assistant U.S. Secretary of State who is active in the foreign affairs community. The article goes on to say that Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Lugar have been briefed about the planned attack. Both Senators denied receiving any briefing, but since the information is classified it would be impossible for them to verify the existence of such a plan without violating the law. According to the Asia Times, the target of attack would not be the Iranian nuclear installations but rather the Quds force, which are the elite forces of the Iranian army. Time magazine in an article titled, “A Clamor for War,” treats the possibility of an attack against Iran as worrisome and real. The piece says that many in the Congress think that the administration will “bomb Iran between November and January.”

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had a 90-minute meeting with President Bush in Washington at the beginning of June. It had been widely reported that Olmert would make the case for an American air attack against Iran. After their talk Olmert proclaimed, “we reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less [sic] question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House.”

When Michael Gordon reported in the New York Times on June 20, that Israel had a dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran that involved 100 fighter planes using NATO airspace off the coast of Greece, neither the U.S. nor Israel denied the report. Prior to that report Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Transportation Minister, who is in the inner defense cabinet, told the Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, that Israel would attack Iran since the sanctions are not working.

One thing is certain: there is a clear possibility of a strike against Iran in the near future. The CBS story claims that Israel is now telling the United States, either you do it or we will. Unfortunately, whoever does it is courting a major disaster. An attack on Iran could provoke a retaliation that could quickly widen into a third American war in the region. Vulnerable targets include Israel, shipping in the Gulf, and American troops in Iraq. The reasons for attacking Iran are clearly less about that country’s nuclear threat and more about the neo-con project for American hegemony in the region, as well as what the current Israeli government perceives as its security interests. It is all too reminiscent of the false reasons given for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, just as before the Iraq war, many American political opposition voices are reluctant to criticize an aggressive Iran initiative for fear of being labeled weak or unpatriotic.

It is disappointing that the Democrats who came to power in 2006 by purporting to be antiwar, are proving yet again that just as they have been incapable of stopping the Bush/Cheney debacle in Iraq, they are equally ineffectual in opposing the looming next war, the one with Iran.

It is difficult to know whether Bush’s exaggerated bellicosity derives from his desire to please the Israelis, play to his political base in the United States, or is simply another occasion for him to engage in the type of ominous saber-rattling that has been characteristic of his administration. President Bush emphasized his dedication and resolve to press on with his aggressive foreign policy by proclaiming that the war on terror is “an ancient battle between good and evil.” Considering the current unstable political situation in both Gaza and Lebanon, plus the diplomatic crisis in US-Iranian relations, one has to wonder if the President’s words signify that the US has immediate plans for an increased military engagement in the region.

Bush began his remarks by praising Ariel Sharon as “one of Israel’s greatest leaders” and reiterating his provocative statement that the former Israeli Prime Minister was “a man of peace.” Sharon, who is considered the major architect of the Israeli settlements, is reviled among Palestinians. Apparently oblivious to how his Sharon statement compromised his credibility, Bush compounded his flight of fancy by telling his listeners that “Israel has always worked tirelessly for peace.” I imagine that many of the members of the Knesset in their self-serving obtuseness may actually believe that this is true, but to the rest of the world this is simply a statement that Israel will not, at least under Bush’s watch, be required to make any concessions to its enemies.

The present practice among American politicians is to shamelessly pander to Israeli and Jewish-American interests as they are understood and transmitted by lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Bush, rising to the celebratory occasion, did not disappoint his listeners. First Bush substituted the name “Eretz Yisrael” for Israel. This biblical term is generally associated with the settlers who believe that Israel should retain all of the West Bank. He then reiterated the false argument, albeit popular among Israelis, that to be against a Jewish state is anti-Semitic. This is obviously not true, since all Jews do not support the State of Israel, especially as it is represented by its current policies of occupation and human rights violations. Bush further endeared himself to his audience by comparing the futility of negotiating with the groups he labeled “terrorists” with trying to negotiate with the Nazis in 1939. The Israelis often recall the British appeasement of the Nazis when attempting to counteract criticism of their own actions. Ariel Sharon famously employed the appeasement argument to criticize the US for opposing his 2002 reinvasion of the West Bank. In that case, President Bush backed down from his blunt admonitions to the Israelis to withdraw their invading troops from Palestinian-controlled areas.

The Palestinians were notably excluded from Mr. Bush’s speech except for one brief mention of a future state. In the context of this speech, such a state could be easily interpreted as the truncated mini-state that many in the Israeli establishment would be willing to consider. There was no mention of the so-called Annapolis Peace Process that the Americans are currently sponsoring, and which Bush occasionally trumpets as his Israeli-Palestinian plan for peace. There was no mention of the ongoing creation and expansion of settlements, which the Bush administration sometimes timidly proclaims are not helpful in moving the peace process forward. These omissions surprised and delighted many of the Israelis who were present. The fact that Bush was so effusive in his praise of the Israelis and basically neglected the Palestinians was a clear signal that the President is not committed to the peace negotiations in which his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is now involved.

The best Bush could come up with as a rosy future for the Middle East in 60 years was decidedly modest. He described the relationship among nations there by stating “it doesn’t mean Israel and its neighbors will be the best of friends.” The American President’s hope for the region in the future is a Pax Isra-Americana over which the Arabs will have no choice.

What was most startling about the speech was Bush’s aggressive talk about Israel’s enemies and how the US was ready to act against the many groups that both countries consider “terrorists,” groups that in the US President’s mind, are beyond redemption. One such group is the Iranian government. The US administration’s war drums are beating louder and louder for military confrontation against Iran. There have been reports that the neocons in the government feel that now is the time for at least a “surgical” attack against that country’s nuclear sites. In Lebanon there is an increasingly unstable political and security situation where Hezbollah forces are flexing their military muscle. In 2006 Israel, with American backing, tried to vanquish Hezbollah, but failed. Will Bush now use the American military in Lebanon or encourage the Israelis to do so? In Gaza, Hamas is gaining support due to the failure of its opponents to deliver on their promise to improve conditions and achieve statehood. Could this bellicose tone from Bush signal that the Israelis have a green light for a massive reinvasion of the Gaza Strip, as proposed by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak?

In a speech filled with hyperbole and emotional appeals, Bush derided those who cannot “fathom the darkness in these men [the terrorists]” and those that harbor the “foolish delusion” that we can negotiate a peaceful settlement. This latter statement has been interpreted to be an implied criticism of ex-President Jimmy Carter who met with Hamas leaders recently. It has also been seen as directed against Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who, despite the pointed objection of administration officials and his Democratic primary opponent Senator Hillary Clinton, has continually expressed a willingness to negotiate with Syrian and Iranian leaders. Obama issued a statement which said that he has never advocated negotiating with terrorists. The Illinois Senator does not perceive the governments of Iran or Syria to be terrorists, as Bush does. Additionally, by criticizing those who want to talk to the terrorist enemy, Bush is again telling the Israelis that the US will not pressure them into engaging in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians, since Hamas is part of the evil enemy. Unfortunately, like Bush Obama also considers Hamas a terrorist organization who is not an appropriate negotiating partner, despite its standing as a legally and democratically-elected government.

As we learned from the “Axis of Evil” speech, tough talk from George Bush can foreshadow disastrous consequences for both his enemies and the people of the United States who will be paying for his military adventures in countless ways for many years. Hopefully, Bush’s term will expire before he can act militarily against those whose names he called out during his speech. However, even if Bush does not order US forces into another ill-conceived military engagement, the next President will inherit not only the armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a huge war lobby with a very effective propaganda machine, that will make it difficult for any US leader to avoid staying the same horrific course.

(Full text of speech)

Fatah, the secular party which has headed the Palestinian Authority from its creation in accord with the 1993 Oslo Agreement, were voted out of office in a parliamentary election in January 2006. Although they signed a peace treaty with Israel, militias loyal to Fatah have been responsible for violent attacks against Israelis, which have included suicide bombings. Israel and the US have often accused Fatah of condoning these violent attacks. Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly condemned all violence but is not able to control all the militant organizations within his camp.

Hamas is an Islamic party who won the 2006 election on the basis of a pledge of clean government and Palestinian disappointment in Fatah’s lack of progress toward a negotiated settlement with Israel. Hamas opposes the Oslo peace process and instead advocates armed struggle. They have been responsible for a violent campaign against both Israeli military and civilian targets both in Israel and within the territories. Since Hamas’ election, they have significantly reduced the number of attacks against Israel and have often adopted a much more conciliatory tone. From its inception in 1989, Hamas has been a growing force in Palestine. They have developed a vast network of hospitals, schools, mosques and welfare organizations which are a major source of their popular support.

The history of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas has been characterized by both conflict and attempts at unity. The conflict, which has been driven by both ideology and a struggle for power, has at times turned extremely violent. Trying to end the violence, last February, Fatah joined a unity government led by Hamas. That government was dissolved by Mahmoud Abbas in reaction to Hamas’ recent expulsion of Fatah security forces from Gaza last month. Hamas does not recognize Abbas’ new government and continues to maintain its own legitimacy. Presently, Fatah controls the West Bank and Hamas rules in Gaza.

Just as the Americans underestimated the capabilities of the Iraqi Sunnis to resist the Shiite and Kurdish-dominated government, as well as the US occupation, both the Israelis and the Americans are underestimating the power of Hamas vis-à-vis an opposition US-Israeli sponsored Fatah party. As Aaron Miller wrote in the Los Angeles Times web site on July 15, Abbas barely controls Fatah, and his hold on the West Bank is even more tenuous. In Miller’s opinion, Abbas lacks the power to successfully negotiate with Israel. Israeli officials have often concurred, even ridiculing Abbas publicly.

This week, 178 battle-hardened Palestinians who were on the Israeli “kill or capture” list, agreed to a clemency deal. None of them are affiliated with Hamas. The agreement was presented as simply a good faith gesture which indicated Israel’s desire to show a new willingness to cooperate with Abbas and his newly appointed (with the US seal of approval) Prime Minister Salam Fayad. In exchange for the clemency, the Palestinians purportedly agreed to relinquish their weapons and renounce the armed struggle against Israel. However, Israeli news sources later disclosed that the fighters who signed the agreement will join with Abbas’ security forces in an attempt to disarm the West Bank military apparatus of Hamas, which is significant.

Most of those who were included in the clemency deal are members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades or other militias who are under the Fatah umbrella. Although these fighters are associated with Fatah they have never foresworn the armed struggle against Israel. Among those who have signed the pledge is Zakaria Zubeidi, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades commander in Jenin. Last April, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) shot him in the shoulder in a failed “targeted assassination” operation. Only weeks ago, the IDF killed Zubeidi’s deputy, Mahmoud Abu el-Hija, who the Israelis claim was involved in weapons manufacturing.

It is difficult to believe that the fighters who are included on the clemency list will give up their arms or renounce violence against Israel. When Abbas recently demanded that all West Bank militias turn in their weapons, Zubeidi was quoted in an Israeli newspaper as saying, “[The decree] has nothing to do with the Brigades. It’s meant for Hamas. Abbas recognizes the Brigades as a legitimate source of resistance.”

The sudden willingness of Israel to ally themselves with fighters like Zubeidi not only seems cynical, but has the odor of desperation. It may be an indication of the IDF’s fear that Fatah security forces will need additional fighters to confront Hamas militarily. A direct confrontation between Fatah and Hamas could be ongoing and very bloody, which would only worsen the already harsh conditions in the territories. The Israeli demand that the Hamas government renounce violence as a precondition for recognition appears to contradict its deal with the Fatah militants who also will not give up what they consider their right of armed resistance against an occupying power. Apparently, Israel feels that a temporary alliance with the militants will help defeat Hamas and they that they will deal with the Fatah militants at a later date.

The clemency agreement between the Fatah militants and the Israelis will surely be short term. It is driven by the joint US-Israeli strategy of destroying Hamas, who they have labeled a terrorist organization. This strategy began immediately after Hamas’ surprising electoral victory. It has included an economic boycott, withdrawal of financial aid, withholding of tax and customs revenues, diplomatic isolation, arrests of Hamas legislators and direct military actions. The campaign against Hamas has also included US-financed training of military forces loyal to Abbas, who were specifically tasked to undermine the Hamas government. None of these tactics weakened Hamas, as is indicated by their recent military victory in Gaza.

Ironically, the policy of isolating Hamas makes Abbas and Fatah less popular since they are increasingly perceived by the Palestinian public as allied with the US and Israeli enemy. Additionally, since the Israelis have shown no indication that they will ease the conditions of the occupation or begin to negotiate an equitable settlement leading to the promised two-state solution, any Abbas commitment to negotiation seems futile. Although Israel has previously written him off as too weak to be a peace partner, the sudden ascent of Hamas, despite all efforts to suppress them, has suddenly made supporting Abbas appear to Israel and the US as the best of some bad choices.

They have temporarily gone underground so the actual strength or intentions of the Hamas security forces in the West Bank are unknown. Many members of Fatah are convinced that Hamas is a strong military presence there and will attempt to repeat their Gaza success in the West Bank in the near future. Any military confrontation between these two factions would surely be bloody, ruinous for the Palestinians and deleterious to any future prospects for an Israel/Palestinian peace agreement.

The US and Israel should listen to Saudi Arabia and Egypt who are supporting a return to the Hamas-Fatah unity government. Hamas has an almost two decade history of political and social activism in Palestinian territories. They have significant support among the population as their election victory showed. They have demonstrated diplomatic flexibility and a willingness to compromise in the past. Additionally, they have already stated that they are willing to restore the broken partnership with Abbas. It is time to recognize that Hamas is a political reality that should not be dismissed.

If the US and Israel continue to exclude Hamas; if they support a policy which will lead to military confrontation among Palestinians; it will be taking a giant step toward creating anarchy in the territories. If the Israel and the US want to work toward peace, they should not arm Fatah fighters in order to destroy Hamas but rather talk to Hamas and help work to reconstitute the unity government that they have misguidedly helped destroy.