Prince Hassan: Neocons and Israel Plan “New 100 Years of War” in the Middle East

Monday March 26th 2007, 6:46 pm

Do a Google News search on “Prince Hassan Bin Tallal” or “Talal” and the results will point to the Daily Star of Lebanon and Today’s Zaman out of Turkey, but not one result over at the New York Times, ABC News, CNN, Fox, et al. Of course, this is hardly surprising, because you’re not supposed to know what Prince Hassan Bin Talal knows, in fact what millions of Arabs know. Here in America, we have more urgent concerns—for instance the “news” that the drug addict Anna Nicole Smith died of an overdose.

And what does Bin Talal and millions of Arabs know?

“After a keynote speech at the European Policy Centre in Brussels on the ‘coexistence of civilizations’ Prince Hassan Bin Tallal, crown prince of Jordan in the final days of the late King Hussein, spoke to Today’s Zaman…. Prince Hassan made it clear that the idea of breaking Iraq into pieces, as is circulating in some US and Israeli circles, would be a fatal mistake. The Jordanian prince warned that a possible break-up would play into the hands of Israeli ‘extremists,’ making Israel the dominant minority in a region of minorities.”

Prince Hassan “is now one of the leading intellectuals and activists of the Islamic world,” and yet his comments go unreported in this country. “I want to cite the Clean Break paper of 1996 attributed to the conservatives in the US. It seems to me that the concept of pan-Arabism, pan-Islamism, supra-national identity was actually taken to pieces by this paper, arguing somehow that fragmentation was taking place in that part of the world, so let us take full advantage of this. Muslims and Arabs do not need enemies as they are doing an excellent job of destroying each other. Of course this plays into the hands of Israeli extremists that believe Israel should emerge as the dominating minority in a region of minorities or a mosaic of minorities.”

The idea of taking “to pieces” Arab nationalism is hardly revelatory. “This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking,” writes Khalil Nakhleh in the publisher’s note to Israel Shahak’s transation of Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. “Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme,” going back at least to the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former prime minister of Israel, as documented by Livia Rokach (Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary). Of course, until the Israelis hit the jackpot with the neocons, who were able to infiltrate the Bush administration and drive U.S. foreign policy, they were unable to carry out their master plan on the scale envisioned.

“End of the Westphalian system, the end of the Middle Eastern community of states, the beginning of a Balkanization that could lead, in the words of the former Iraqi Defense Minister Ali Allawi, to a new 100 years of war,” Hassan continues.

In short, a plan perfect for the Israelis and their neocon helpers.

Of course, none of this matters—as we are essentially deaf, dumb, and blind here in America, a condition facilitated by the corporate media—and it appears quite plain we are headed for what Hassan characterizes as a “new 100 years of war,” not simply in the Middle East but across the board.

But never mind. Former topless model and potential heiress Anna Nicole Smith has died from an overdose of prescription drugs. A TSA baggage screener stole a $100,000 watch from Paris Hilton’s bag. And most important of all, Britney Spears is back in the hospital again, this time with a toothache.

US to support major Fatah troop boost

Related
US to support up to 10000 extra Abbas troops
---
US to support troop boost

Feb 4, 2007 [Sunday]

The United States will expand assistance to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to include about 8,500 members of his national security forces and possibly 1,000 Fatah fighters based in Jordan, US documents show.

Providing non-lethal equipment and training to units of Abbas's National Security Forces, and possibly the Jordan-based Badr Brigade could increase Washington's role in the power struggle between Abbas's Fatah faction and the governing Hamas movement.

US assistance has largely been limited until now to around 4,000 members of Abbas's presidential guard. But documents obtained by Reuters on Sunday showed that the US government's US$86.4 million security assistance programme could cover at least 13,500 troops loyal to Abbas.

The National Security Forces (NSF) is the largest security force under Abbas's control and is viewed by many Palestinians to be the equivalent of an army, though it is poorly trained and equipped compared to the smaller presidential guard.

Under the US security programme, US$76.4 million will fund "projects to transform and strengthen elements of the Palestinian Authority's security structure, specifically the National Security Forces and Presidential Guard in an effort to improve public order and fight terror in the West Bank and Gaza," the documents said.

"These projects have been developed in coordination with the office of the PA president (Abbas), and the overall plan enjoys the support of the government of Israel," said the documents, marked "sensitive but unclassified".

Another US$10 million would fund security improvements at the Karni commercial crossing between Israel and Gaza.

Western officials involved in the programme said security service members who participate in the US-funded programme will undergo a vetting process to ensure they are qualified and have no ties to militant groups.

Hamas has denounced US security assistance as part of a coup against its government. Hamas gunmen on Friday attached a truck convey in Gaza that it said was meant to resupply Abbas's presidential guard, triggering a wave of fighting.

US officials say they will only provide training and non-lethal equipment to forces loyal to Abbas. Guns and ammunition are being supplied by key US allies Jordan and Egypt, with Israeli approval, Israeli officials say.

Under the US$86.4 million programme, US$35.5 million will be used to provide non-lethal equipment, including riot gear and communications equipment, to about 8,500 members of Abbas's National Security Forces.

Another US$15 million in US funds would provide at least one NSF unit, estimated to have 668 members, with an initial six months of training to counter "civil disorder", most likely at a facility in Jordan, the documents say.

The funds will be used "in support of NSF deployment throughout the West Bank and Gaza so that the NSF may establish a visible public presence, improve public order and help improve border security," the documents said.

The United States expected other donors to provide extra training, the documents said, but gave no further details.

Palestinian officials estimate that the National Security Forces have as many as 40,000 members. Western diplomats say the number of active members is closer to 20,000.

Badr brigade

The US$86.4 million also includes US$25.9 million to provide non-lethal equipment to Abbas's elite presidential guard, which is expected to grow to 4,700 members with US help near-term. Palestinian officials say the force could eventually top 10,000.

The documents said up to US$8 million of these funds may be used to provide equipment to the Badr Brigade, a Fatah-dominated force, "in the event of a deployment in Gaza". Badr would fall under the presidential guard's operational command.

The United States and Israel have backed a proposal by Abbas to let about 1,000 members of the Badr Brigade, into the Palestinian territories, though no date has been set.

Diplomats say Abbas's military build-up was meant to counter strides by Hamas in smuggling more powerful weapons into Gaza for its fast-growing "Executive Force" and armed wing.

Some analysts have warned that fighting between Hamas and Fatah could turn into a proxy war, with the United States supporting Abbas and Iran backing Hamas.

Elliot Abrams’ uncivil war

Is the Bush administration violating the law in an effort to provoke a Palestinian civil war?

Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams — who Newsweek recently described as “the last neocon standing” — has had it about for some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and “graduated” from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen’s security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media — and in Israel. Thousands of rifles and bullets have been poring into Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan, the administration’s designated allies in the program.

At first, it was thought, the resupply effort (initiated under the guise of “assist[ing] the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the road map to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza,” according to a U.S. government document) would strengthen the security forces under the command of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Officials thought that the additional weapons would easily cow Hamas operatives, who would meekly surrender the offices they had only recently so dearly won. That has not only not happened, but the program is under attack throughout the Arab world — particularly among America’s closest allies.

While both Egypt and Jordan have shipped arms to Abu Mazen under the Abrams program (Egypt recently sent 1,900 rifles into Gaza and the West Bank, nearly matching the 3000 rifles sent by the Jordanians), neither Jordan’s King Abdullah nor Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak believe the program will work — and both are now maneuvering to find a way out of it. “Who can blame them?” an administration official told us recently. “While Mubarak has no love for Hamas, they do not want to be seen as bringing them down. The same can be said for Jordan.” A Pentagon official was even more adamant, cataloguing official Washington’s nearly open disdain for Abrams’ program. “This is not going to work and everyone knows it won’t work. It is too clever. We’re just not very good at this. This is typical Abrams stuff.” This official went on to note that “it is unlikely that either Jordan or Egypt will place their future in the hands of the White House. Who the hell outside of Washington wants to see a civil war among Palestinians? Do we really think that the Jordanians think that’s a good idea. The minute it gets underway, Abdullah is finished. Hell, fifty percent of his country is Palestinian.”

Senior U.S. Army officers and high level civilian Pentagon officials have been the most outspoken internal administration critics of the program, which was unknown to them until mid-August, near the end of Israel’s war against Hezbollah. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld learned about it he was enraged, and scheduled a meeting with President Bush in an attempt to convince him the program would backfire. Rumsfeld was concerned that the anti-Hamas program would radicalise Muslim groups among American allies and eventually endanger U.S. troops fighting Sunni extremists in Iraq. According to our reports, Rumsfeld was told by Bush that he should keep his focus on Iraq, and that “the Palestinian brief” was in the hands of the Secretary of State. After this confrontation, Rumsfeld decided there was not much he could do.

The Abrams program was initially conceived in February of 2006 by a group of White House officials who wanted to shape a coherent and tough response to the Hamas electoral victory of January. These officials, we are told, were led by Abrams, but included national security advisors working in the Office of the Vice President, including prominent neo-conservatives David Wurmser and John Hannah. The policy was approved by Condoleezza Rice. The President then, we are told, signed off on the program in a CIA “finding” and designated that its implementation be put under the control of Langley. But the program ran into problems almost from the beginning. “The CIA didn’t like it and didn’t think it would work,” we were told in October. “The Pentagon hated it, the US embassy in Israel hated it, and even the Israelis hated it.” A prominent American military official serving in Israel called the program “stupid” and “counter-productive.” The program went forward despite these criticisms, however, though responsibility for its implementation was slowly put in the hands of anti-terrorism officials working closely with the State Department. The CIA “wriggled out of” retaining responsibility for implementing the Abrams plan, we have been told. Since at least August, Rice, Abrams and U.S. envoy David Welch have been its primary advocates and the program has been subsumed as a “part of the State Department’s Middle East initiative.” U.S. government officials refused to comment on a report that the program is now a part of the State Department’s “Middle East Partnership Initiative,” established to promote democracy in the region. If it is, diverting appropriated funds from the program for the purchase of weapons may be a violation of Congressional intent — and U.S. law.

The recipients of U.S. largesse have been Palestinian President Abu Mazen and Mohammad Dahlan, a controversial and charismatic Palestinian political leader from Gaza. The U.S. has also relied on advice from Mohammad Rashid, a well-known Kurdish/Palestinian financier with offices in Cairo. Even in Israel, the alliance of the U.S. with these two figures is greeted with almost open derision. While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has hesitantly supported the program, many of his key advisors have made it clear that they want to have nothing to do with starting a Palestinian civil war. They also doubt whether Hamas can be weakened. These officials point out that, since the beginning of the program, Hamas has actually gained in strength, in part because its leaders are considered competent, transparent, uncorrupt and unwilling to compromise their ideals — just the kinds of democratically elected leaders that the Bush Administration would want to support anywhere else in the Middle East.

Of course, in public, Secretary Rice appears contrite and concerned with “the growing lawlessness” among Palestinians, while failing to mention that such lawlessness is exactly what the Abrams plan was designed to create. “You can’t build security forces overnight to deal with the kind of lawlessness that is there in Gaza which largely derives from an inability to govern,” she said during a recent trip to Israel. “Their [the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority] inability to govern, of course, comes from their unwillingness to meet international standards.” Even Middle East experts and State Department officials close to Rice consider her comments about Palestinian violence dangerous, and have warned her that if the details of the U.S. program become public her reputation could be stained. In fact, Pentagon officials concede, Hamas’s inability to provide security to its own people and the clashes that have recently erupted have been seeded by the Abrams plan. Israeli officials know this, and have begun to rebel. In Israel, at least, Rice’s view that Hamas can be unseated is now regularly, and sometimes publicly, dismissed.

According to a December 25 article in the Israeli daily Haaretz, senior Israeli intelligence officials have told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that not only can Hamas not be replaced, but that its rival, Fatah, is disintegrating. Any hope for the success of an American program aimed at replacing Hamas, these officials argued, will fail. These Israeli intelligence officials also dismissed Palestinian President Abu Mazen’s call for elections to replace Hamas — saying that such elections would all but destroy Fatah. As Haaretz reported: “Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin told the cabinet Sunday [December 24] that should elections be held in the Palestinian Authority, Fatah’s chances of winning would be close to zero. Diskin said during Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting that the Fatah faction is in bad shape, and therefore Israel should expect Hamas to register a sweeping victory.”

Apparently Jordan’s King Abdullah agrees. On the day this article appeared, December 25, Abdullah kept Palestinian President Abu Mazen waiting for six hours to see him in Amman. Eventually, Abdullah told Abu Mazen that he should go home — and only come to see him again when accompanied by Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh. Most recently, Saudi officials have welcomed Haniyeh to Saudi Arabia for talks, having apparently made public their own views on the American program to replace Hamas. And so it is: one year after the election of Hamas, and one year after Elliot Abrams determined that sowing the seeds of civil war among a people already under occupation would somehow advance America’s program for democracy in the Middle East, respect for America’s democratic ideals has all but collapsed — and not just in Iraq.

Posted: January 7th, 2007 under CF REPORTS, Hamas, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Neocons, Palestinians, Bush Administration.
Comments: 3 | Permalink | home

An unclassifiable identity

Dana Shalash writing from Ramallah, occupied Palestine, Live from Palestine, 15 December 2006

Palestinian students participate in a graduation ceremony at Birzeit University near the West Bank town of Ramallah, 23 June 2006. (MaanImages/Mushir Abdelrahman)

I have just found out that I studied in Jordan. I swear I did not know that. Well, that is not the only recent discovery I've made about myself. I have been learning many new things about myself as a Palestinian individual, all by coincidence. For instance, a few minutes ago I learnt that I took my BA degree from Jordan. No, I am not losing my mind. Or maybe I am.

It is funny how when we Palestinians are striving to prove and maintain our Palestinian identity others still perceive us as aliens. It is as if the concept of "Palestine" only exists in our heads. Well, that was actually a comment I heard by a Jewish American comedian several ago. I can never forget that show. It made me feel as an invisible entity although I was still in elementary school. But since then, lots of struggles to try to make our voices heard have materialized. Nevertheless, our attempts to make the world recognize us as Palestinians seem to be all in vain.

Two weeks ago, a colleague from work asked me for some help with a visa application. The place of origin was filled with the word "Jordan," though he is purely Palestinian, and has never left Palestine. Apparently he noticed my astonished facial expressions, and before I uttered anything, he said, "all the travel agencies consider us Jordanians." I did not spend much time thinking it through nor arguing it.

However, for the past month or so, I have been filling out some schools' applications. Most of them are American. It gets easier by time to repeat what you first have trouble in articulating and then jotting down. All follow the same pattern, yet not when it comes to the nationality part. Of course, "Palestine" is never provided as an option. It crushes one's feelings to find out that you are not considered what you believe you are. It is like hallucinating while the whole world mocks you.

For some schools, I have to select "Israel," for others "the Palestinian Authority," or "the Palestinian Territory." Note that it is singular -- territory rather than territories.

Anyhow, we have got used to those variations. And finding that the notion of "Palestinian," whether authority, territory, or any other affix is provided, lightens us up. It still somehow reveals part of our identity, as long as it is declared. It entails that we are visible, and we Palestinians are accepted and respected as well. It brings back the feeling of being an internationally acknowledged national.

But what really struck me the most is this last joke: we are Jordanians. According to this last application in my hand, Birzeit University (my school) is in Jordan, and my BA degree is awarded, for that matter, from Jordan. For someone who has never been outside the West Bank, it makes me really wonder just how I got my degree from abroad.

The concept of being nameless and without an identity once sounded surreal to me when I was submerged in the world of literature and novels. It is like the classic English literature during Queen Elizabeth's reign when women were nameless, or the African-American literature where human beings are alienated. I heard that history repeats itself, but didn't realize that literature could be made literal.

Dana Shalash is a student of English at Birzeit University. Her blog is Stranger than Fiction.

Bush: Maliki’s snub reverberates through Mideast

Rebuff to Jordan seen as sign of rising Shiite-Sunni tensions in the region
NEWS ANALYSIS
By Sally Buzbee
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:25 p.m. MT Nov 30, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - Iraq’s Shiite leader was firm, his aides say — he would not talk to President Bush with Jordan’s Sunni king listening.

That startling show of mistrust in a neighbor led to a cancellation of a meeting between the three leaders Wednesday night and sent a cold shiver across the Middle East on Thursday, raising fears of a region-wide Sunni-Shiite split that the United States may be powerless to control and Iran could benefit from.

Few things would harm the region more than for Iraq’s hostilities to infect other Arab countries, some of them U.S. allies already clutching at stability amid new signs of extremism.

It would also be detrimental to Iraq if its neighbors begin taking sides in its internal fight, intensifying the march toward all-out civil war.

Yet both appear to be happening, as moderate Sunni governments like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, long known as the region’s powers, exhibit rising distrust toward newly influential Shiites in the region — and vice versa.

Amman downplays incident
Jordanian officials played down Wednesday’s flap, saying there had been no plans for a formal three-way meeting among Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, only a brief social call. The U.S. asserted the same.

Al-Maliki said he meant no snub to either Abdullah or Bush and noted he already had met separately with the king. “That was not part of our agenda, a trilateral meeting,” he said.

But two senior officials traveling with al-Maliki, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the information’s sensitivity, said the prime minister had not wanted to travel to Jordan in the first place and decided, once in Amman, that he did not want “a third party” in talks with Bush.

“We insisted that the meeting be canceled,” said one official. “Iraq does not need a third party to be involved.”

In part, al-Maliki may have feared looking weak to Shiite hard-line supporters back home who already had suspended government participation to protest the talks and a leaked U.S. memo that questioned his resolve.

Al-Maliki's stratagem
As head of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, al-Maliki also may have feared something of an ambush if Bush and Abdullah jointly pressed him to reach out to Sunni hard-liners and rein in Shiite militias.

Or, he may simply have disliked looking like the junior partner in front of the Sunni king, said Jordanian political analyst Labib Kamhawi.

Abdullah angered many Shiites when he warned two years ago of a Shiite “crescent” extending from Iran to Lebanon. Earlier this week, he said the region soon could face three civil wars — in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Abdullah, with much to fear in an Iraqi civil war, may have meant to just raise alarm bells worldwide.

But “the Shiites look at that declaration ... as anti-Shiite and anti-Iran,” Kamhawi said.

Ominously for the region, the Amman flap was not isolated. The same night, the leader of Iraq’s largest Shiite political group was quoted by Arab TV stations as saying that Iraq’s Sunni Arabs would be the biggest losers if civil war came.

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim immediately denied he made the remark and issued a statement saying a civil war would be a “a loss for everyone and not a particular sect.” But sharp retorts from Sunni leaders topped TV news programs across the Mideast.

Iran remains the constant
Iran is the subtext in all these quarrels.

Sunnis both inside Iraq and across the region have long claimed that Iran is meddling in Iraq. They have watched with worry as Iran’s influence has expanded not just to Iraq but to countries like Lebanon, where it backs the Shiite militant Hezbollah group.

Shiites in Iraq counter that while they may naturally have ties to Iran, which is also majority Shiite, they are not its stooge. Instead, they believe Sunnis both inside and outside Iraq simply resent their new power in Iraq and the general Shiite momentum in the region.

The Bush administration had hoped to calm Iraq in part by getting Sunni insurgent sympathizers into talks with al-Maliki’s Shiite-led government. It has pushed Sunni allies like Jordan to take the lead.

The events of the last few days show that may be dicey.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL

At risk from the flames that are engulfing Iraq

Leading article

Published: 28 November 2006

President Bush is tacking a rather unusual destination on to his two-day sojourn in Latvia for the Nato summit. He is flying to Jordan to meet the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and others may be on the guest list. The hope is that the scene could be set for some grand diplomacy at a time when grand diplomacy is sorely needed.

The choice of Jordan makes two points about the Bush administration's failures in the Middle East. The first is that the US now considers Iraq too dangerous for Mr Bush to risk even a fleeting visit. At the weekend, the Iraqi president had to postpone a trip to Iran because of security concerns. There can be no question of the US President being exposed to similar risks.

The second is that, at present, Jordan is probably the only country in the immediate region where a US president will be welcome and where it is relatively safe for him to stay. Security concerns, however, are crowding in. King Abdullah warned yesterday that without urgent international action no fewer than three civil wars could break out on Jordan's doorstep.

It is not easy to gainsay the King's pessimism. Lebanon has just witnessed its second high-profile assassination in two years. The government is disintegrating. This summer Israel and Hizbollah waged war on its territory. Pro- and anti-Syrian factions are at loggerheads. One more killing could tip it into war.

Iraq, for its part, looks already beyond the point of no return. The insurgency has fragmented as local militias fight each other for ascendancy. Corruption and bootlegged oil sustain the warring factions. The police, newly armed and trained by the invaders, have reverted to their earlier tribal and religious loyalties. It is questionable how much power, if any, the heavily protected central government exerts.

The third area of concern is the one source of better news. A ceasefire has just been agreed in Gaza, which may be extended to the West Bank. Whether it will hold, is another matter. With a weak government in Israel, a still more fragile one in Lebanon and Syria sending conflicting signals about its intentions, the landscape even here is not greatly consoling. It is a cheap observation, but telling. Until Israel and the Palestinians began talking to each other secretly in Oslo, Jordan was the regional power broker: a relatively agreeable haven in a dangerous neighbourhood. The present King's father, King Hussein, had perfected the diplomatic balancing act. He constituted the pivotal regional power.

Jordan fulfils few of President Bush's one-time ambitions for his greater Middle East. It is not by any manner of means a democracy; civil rights are restricted. It is one of the countries that obliged Washington by receiving prisoners under the programme of "extraordinary rendition". At times like these, however, Jordan is useful: geographically central, politically stable, cosmopolitan in its make-up, it is unique.

Jordan's return to the international stage is one illustration of how regional diplomacy is going back to the future. Another is the revived focus on the Palestinians, described by King Abdullah as "the core" that links all the other disputes. There are rumours that while in Amman, Mr Bush will meet, as well as Mr al-Maliki, the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. Might there also be a representative from Syria. Dare one speculate, even, an envoy from Iran?

The flames from Iraq must be prevented from consuming the Middle East as a whole. It is a time for grand designs to be broached and all options to be explored. If there is to be any prospect of a solution anchored in the region, Jordan is the obvious place to start.

President Bush is tacking a rather unusual destination on to his two-day sojourn in Latvia for the Nato summit. He is flying to Jordan to meet the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and others may be on the guest list. The hope is that the scene could be set for some grand diplomacy at a time when grand diplomacy is sorely needed.

The choice of Jordan makes two points about the Bush administration's failures in the Middle East. The first is that the US now considers Iraq too dangerous for Mr Bush to risk even a fleeting visit. At the weekend, the Iraqi president had to postpone a trip to Iran because of security concerns. There can be no question of the US President being exposed to similar risks.

The second is that, at present, Jordan is probably the only country in the immediate region where a US president will be welcome and where it is relatively safe for him to stay. Security concerns, however, are crowding in. King Abdullah warned yesterday that without urgent international action no fewer than three civil wars could break out on Jordan's doorstep.

It is not easy to gainsay the King's pessimism. Lebanon has just witnessed its second high-profile assassination in two years. The government is disintegrating. This summer Israel and Hizbollah waged war on its territory. Pro- and anti-Syrian factions are at loggerheads. One more killing could tip it into war.

Iraq, for its part, looks already beyond the point of no return. The insurgency has fragmented as local militias fight each other for ascendancy. Corruption and bootlegged oil sustain the warring factions. The police, newly armed and trained by the invaders, have reverted to their earlier tribal and religious loyalties. It is questionable how much power, if any, the heavily protected central government exerts.

The third area of concern is the one source of better news. A ceasefire has just been agreed in Gaza, which may be extended to the West Bank. Whether it will hold, is another matter. With a weak government in Israel, a still more fragile one in Lebanon and Syria sending conflicting signals about its intentions, the landscape even here is not greatly consoling. It is a cheap observation, but telling. Until Israel and the Palestinians began talking to each other secretly in Oslo, Jordan was the regional power broker: a relatively agreeable haven in a dangerous neighbourhood. The present King's father, King Hussein, had perfected the diplomatic balancing act. He constituted the pivotal regional power.

Jordan fulfils few of President Bush's one-time ambitions for his greater Middle East. It is not by any manner of means a democracy; civil rights are restricted. It is one of the countries that obliged Washington by receiving prisoners under the programme of "extraordinary rendition". At times like these, however, Jordan is useful: geographically central, politically stable, cosmopolitan in its make-up, it is unique.

Jordan's return to the international stage is one illustration of how regional diplomacy is going back to the future. Another is the revived focus on the Palestinians, described by King Abdullah as "the core" that links all the other disputes. There are rumours that while in Amman, Mr Bush will meet, as well as Mr al-Maliki, the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. Might there also be a representative from Syria. Dare one speculate, even, an envoy from Iran?

The flames from Iraq must be prevented from consuming the Middle East as a whole. It is a time for grand designs to be broached and all options to be explored. If there is to be any prospect of a solution anchored in the region, Jordan is the obvious place to start.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2021210.ece

Refugees Are The Key

Related

Jordan Doesn't Want Palestinian Influx

---

SPEAKING OUT:


Israel should admit its historical responsibility to the Palestinian people and recognize the rights of the refugees.

by SAM BAHOUR

The Palestinian refugee problem has its roots in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which ended in the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinian Arabs.Palestine, November 27, 2006-- -->The Bush Administration’s insistence that the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel’s existence may seek to achieve a moderate Palestinian leadership to enable a peaceful political process between the sides, but what about Israeli leadership and moderation?
For five months Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip have been subjected to an incessant Israeli military campaign that has left over 500 Palestinians dead. While the provocation of Palestinian crude rocket attacks from Gaza into Israeli towns is well cited in US media, much less emphasized is the fact that most residents of Gaza are refugees from inside what is now Israel. These refugees, along with their brethren in other parts of the region, have been denied their basic human rights solely on the grounds of their ethnicity since their displacement nearly 60 years ago. If American officials really want to advance the peace process, they should apply equal pressure to Israel to recognize Palestinian rights, starting with the refugees.

The Palestinian refugees symbolize the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The refugee problem has its roots in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which ended in the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (approximately half of the Arab population). According to historical accounts of the War, including from recent Israeli historians, Jewish Zionist forces precipitated the flight of the Palestinian Arabs as part of a campaign of population transfer. The nascent State of Israel subsequently enacted laws to expropriate the refugees’ property and bar their return. The refugees were left homeless and destitute, mostly dependent on foreign aid for survival. The subsequent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip resulted in the further displacement of around 200,000 Palestinians.

Today there are over 5.5 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons who have never been allowed the choice to return to their homes or given redress for their losses.Today there are over 5.5 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons who have never been allowed the choice to return to their homes or given redress for their losses. The continued denial of their rights encapsulates the decades-long strife, disenfranchisement and dispossession the Palestinians have suffered.

With the advent of the peace process in the early 1990s, hopes were ignited that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip would end and the plight of the refugees would be resolved. These hopes were dashed as the negotiations reached an eventual deadlock, leading to a stalemate and Israeli military onslaught on Palestinian areas that continues to plague the region.

Following the breakdown of the talks, there was much debate about who was to blame for the failure. But this debate obscures the larger problem stoking the flames of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians: Israel’s unwillingness to comply with rules of international laws, including the rights of the Palestinian refugees, and third party failure to enforce them.
Taking the Palestinian refugee issue as a case in point, the State of Israel, who controls the key to solving their problem, has refused to recognize the right of the refugees to choose whether to return to their homes and denied any responsibility for the problem since 1948. Israel has adopted this position in violation of international law, including UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which affirmed the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation. The General Assembly has affirmed this most basic human right of the Palestinian refugees every year since 1948. Additionally, admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948. At the time, Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution.

Israel has defended its refusal to concede the right of return on the grounds that the massive return of Palestinian refugees would spell the death of the Jewish state. But admitting its historical responsibility to the Palestinian people and recognizing the rights of the refugees could in fact deliver security and prosperity to Israel. Indeed, Israeli recognition of these basic principles would improve the atmosphere on the ground, help create more parity between the parties, and provide a fair framework for working out the details of a peace plan for resolving the conflict.
Israel’s first Prime Minister said that “the old [refugees] will die, and the young will forget." A few days ago, Israel’s current Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, explicitly stated that Palestinians must “relinquish your demand for the realization of the right of return.” Following these ill-fated desires, Israel has sought to deny or delay addressing the refugee issue. However, the amount of bloodshed since 1948 proves the fallacy and the immorality of the Israeli position. Adhering to it will only lead to more bloodshed.
The rights of the Palestinian people, and in particular the refugees, should be recognized alongside any legitimate rights of the Israeli people. Ultimately, it is through the evenhanded application of international legitimacy that we may be able to get out of the current stalemate and reach real grounds for peace. Otherwise, the failed Israeli practice of “might is right” will prevail and prolong needless death and destruction on all sides.
The writer is a Palestinian-American businessman living in the besieged Palestinian City of El-Bireh in the West Bank. He co-edited with Staughton and Alice Lynd HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and can be reached at sbahour@palnet.com. Read more:

Related stories from Google News
-->
Copyright © 2006 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.
This story was published on November 27, 2006.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/112706BAHOUR.html

Jordan King: 3 Mideast Civil Wars Possible in 2007

Abdullah Calls U.S. Diplomat James Baker An 'Honest Broker'


Nov. 26, 2006 — - The week's flare-up of violence in Iraq has been met by a flurry of new diplomacy. Vice President Cheney has just returned from a one-day visit to Saudi Arabia, and President Bush is heading to Amman this week for a summit with the Iraqi prime minister, hosted by King Abdullah of Jordan. ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos spoke with King Abdullah on "This Week."

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Welcome back to "This Week," Your Majesty.

KING ABDULLAH II OF JORDAN: Thank you very much, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is this Amman summit the last chance to save Iraq?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, we hope that this is an opportunity for both President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki to be able to come together in a common understanding on how to bring the sectarian conflict much lower.

We are very, very concerned for the future of all Iraqis, and we hope that there will be something dramatic.

The challenges, obviously, in front of both of them are immense.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say, "something dramatic." What could that be?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, we have to make sure that all parties in Iraq understand the dangers of the ongoing escalation, and I hope that Prime Minister Maliki will have some ideas to be provided to the president on how he could be inclusive in bringing all the different sects inside of Iraq together.

And they need to do it now, because, obviously, as we're seeing, things are beginning to spiral out of control.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Many here in the United States say that, if Prime Minister Maliki doesn't come forward with that kind of a package, President Bush should issue an ultimatum: It has to happen now or we're going to begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Would that be useful?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, I'm not exactly privy to what the discussion points will be between both sides. But there needs to be some very strong action taken on the ground there today.

Obviously, the indicators are of tremendous concern to all of us, and I don't think we're in a position where we can come back and revisit the problem in early 2007.

There needs to be a strategy. There needs to be a plan that brings all the parties together, and bring them today and not tomorrow.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it a civil war in Iraq right now?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, George, the difficulty that we're tackling with here is, we're juggling with the strong potential of three civil wars in the region, whether it's the Palestinians, that of Lebanon or of Iraq.

And I hope that my discussions, at least, with the president will be to provide whatever we can do for the Iraqi people. But at the same time, we do want to concentrate ourselves on the core issues, which we believe are the Palestinians and the Palestinian peace process, because that is a must today, as well as the tremendous concern we've had over the past several days, what's happening in Lebanon.

And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands. And therefore, it is time that we really take a strong step forward as part of the international community and make sure we avert the Middle East from a tremendous crisis that I fear, and I see could possibly happen in 2007.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That is a frightening prospect, the prospect of three civil wars. All three of those societies -- Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority -- have had elections over the last couple of years. And now we're seeing the prospect of civil war.

Could the United States push too hard, too fast for democracy?

KING ABDULLAH: The issue is not whether you're pushing one agenda or another. The issue is we have not been able to deal with the core problem of the Middle East.

Now, I know people will say that there are several core problems in the Middle East. Obviously, the closest to American minds, because of your commitments of soldiers is Iraq.

But for the majority of us living in this part of the world, it has always been the Israeli-Palestinian, the Israeli-Arab problem.

And I fear that if we do not use the next couple of months to really be able to push the process forward, I don't believe that there will be anything to talk about. In other words, there will not be enough of circumstances to create a two-state solution -- in other words, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and harmony.

If we don't solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, then how can we ever solve the Israeli-Arab problem?

And I don't believe that beyond mid-2007, if we don't get the process going, there will be anything of a Palestine to talk about. And therefore, do we resign this whole region to another decade or two of violence, which none of us can afford.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary of State Baker is considering just that prospect, pushing for a comprehensive peace plan as he looks at solutions for Iraq, as well.

But help me out here. Doesn't the situation in Iraq now have a logic of its own, the Sunnis and the Shiites killing each other in an uncontrolled manner?

What does that have to do with what's going on in Palestine?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, the thing is, as we look at the three potential flash points, before, I believe, the Lebanese war this summer, I would have put Iraq in the number one position. After the Lebanese war, the Palestinian scenario was in the number one position, followed very closely in the past several weeks. I would say that the Lebanese problem and the Palestinian ones are neck-in-neck.

They're all extremely important. Solving all three of them are going to be critical.

But the priority I believe today in the long term is the Israeli-Palestinian one, because it resonates beyond the borders of Iraq, beyond the borders of the Arab and the Muslim world. ...

And you know, you've been with this issue for many years. It is still the emotional core issue for our part of the world.

The problem when we discuss this sometimes with the American public, they say, no, this is just an excuse, because there are other problems in the Middle East.

But the emotional impact that the Israeli-Palestinian problem has on the ground can be translated to the insecurity and the frustrations throughout the Middle East and the Arab world. For me, that is the priority.

When it comes to things exploding out of control, I would put today, as we stand, Palestine and probably a close tie with Lebanon. Iraq, funny enough, although as concerned as I am with Iraq and the major problems that that might bring to us, is in third position. Obviously, this is all relative.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, one of the ideas for dealing with all three of these conflicts is an international conference that would include Jordan, would include Saudi Arabia, would include Egypt and include the United States, but also Syria and Iran.

Do you think it would be useful to include Syria and Iran in that kind of a conference right now? And what kind of leverage does the U.S. have over that?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, look. We always believe that dialogue is a way of reaching out to each other.

As we continue to push each other into corners, then the only alternative is to have more of a violent reaction than common sense leading the way.

I do believe that there are feelers going to different countries to see if we can come together on the issue of Iraq.

But I think, the problem is, is that America needs to look at it in the total picture. It's not just one issue by itself.

I keep saying Palestine is the core. It is linked to the extent of what's going on in Iraq. It is linked to what's going on in Lebanon. It is linked to the issues that we find ourselves with the Syrians.

So, if you want to do comprehensive -- comprehensive means bringing all the parties of the region together.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And does it also mean -- when you talk about a reinvigorated U.S. effort, what are you looking for exactly? What kind of a sign are you expecting from the United States to prove that the Bush administration is serious about seeking this kind of comprehensive effort?

One idea being floated right now is that former Secretary of State Baker be appointed a special envoy by President Bush. Would that be useful?

KING ABDULLAH: Well, from my point of view, I've known Secretary Baker for many years. He was a good friend of his late Majesty King Hussein. He has a tremendous, strong reputation in this part of the world as being an honest broker.

Obviously, that's a decision for the American president and his administration. But he is probably -- Secretary Baker is one of the qualified ... people I've ever come across in being able to deal with Middle East issues.

STEPHANOPOULOS: King Abdullah, thank you very much for your time this morning.

KING ABDULLAH: Thank you.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2679914&page=2