Yourish.com

The administration was winding down. It wanted to make its mark on history. A legacy. What better legacy could there be than peace in the Middle East? And so the adminstration worked to make it happen.

Shultz Expects Some Progress From Mideast Shuttle

By returning so soon to the Mideast, while the bloody uprisings in the West Bank and Gaza Strip continue, Mr. Shultz hopes to find some opening among leaders whom he believes increasingly want regional stability. In the long term, he hopes that by keeping the momentum going, he will deflect criticism that he has not taken an active enough role in promoting peace in the region during his long tenure. Even if he can make little progress before the Reagan Administration leaves office, he is eager to leave behind the legacy of having tried. Mr. Shultz said that after discussions with Arab and Israeli leaders during his last shuttle in February, he came away convinced that they recognized the need for more stability, which can only be achieved with a peaceful resolution of conflicts. ”The problem is there,” he said. ”Everybody recognizes it. And the problem isn’t going to go away.” He conceded that President Hafez al- Assad of Syria, as well as the Soviet Union, are likely to oppose any American initiative. Yet he said: ”I can feel it in my bones that there’s an answer out there if you can only find it. And you can only find it if you can get the right people together to talk about it and negotiate it, so that’s what we’re trying to do.”

At this point the PLO was a terrorist organization, not having officially (and mendaciously) accepted Israel’s right to exist.

The PLO was still in exile in Tunis. Israel controlled Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

The administration was winding down. It wanted to make its mark on history. A legacy. What better legacy could there be than peace in the Middle East? And so the adminstration worked to make it happen.

WHOSE HOLY LAND? NEWS ANALYSIS; Falling Short of Peace

And Mr. Clinton, who had devoted more time to Middle East peacemaking than any other American president, saw little risk and possibly big gains, his aides said. If he failed, he would be given points for trying; if he succeeded, his legacy as the Middle East peacemaker would be unchallenged. Now, with three months’ hindsight and having witnessed the startling speed with which an elaborately woven peace effort can unravel, officials and diplomats are considering whether those risks were greater than the Clinton administration had anticipated. Diplomats from moderate Arab nations have said that they were startled by the alacrity with which the summit meeting was called, and they said afterward that the White House had neglected to prepare the ground with them, something that proved crucial particularly as proposals were put forth over the fate of Jerusalem, which is a priority not just for Mr. Arafat and the Palestinians but for the entire Muslim world. If the Americans had consulted them fully beforehand on the scope of their ambition, those diplomats said, they might have been able to give greater support to Mr. Arafat during and immediately after the meeting.

At this point:

Arafat and the PA had jurisdiction over Gaza and a number of cities in Judea and Samaria, including Tulkarem, Jenin, Bethlehem, Nablus, Kalkilye and Ramallah.

The PLO was no longer considered a terrorist organization by most of the world.

There was an official Palestinian police force.

Hamas was flourishing though it was still second to Fatah.

The administration was winding down. It wanted to make its mark on history. A legacy. What better legacy could there be than peace in the Middle East? And so the adminstration worked to make it happen.

Rice Drops Hints on Time, Place and Tone of Middle East Talks

With time running out on his tenure, President Bush has called for an international conference to be held in the United States this fall as part of a renewed push to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, trying to leave a legacy that has enticed and eluded his predecessors. In Ramallah, Ms. Rice, on her seventh trip to the region this year, described Mr. Bush’s initiative as ”the most serious effort to end this conflict in many, many years.” In some of her strongest language yet, she said, ”Frankly, it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

At this point:

Hamas controls Gaza where there are no more Jews living there.

Sderot is under regular rocket attack.

Arafat is dead, replaced by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad (and Hamas.)

Does it sound like Groundhog Day yet?

Inarguably the Palestinians should be in better shape than they are now. The idea of forcing Israeli Jews from their homes to allow for Palestinian self-government was a pipe dream of the extreme left in Israel when Secretary Shultz was seeking his legacy. But that very action was carried out by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, never had been known as a leftist.

The political landscape in Israel has shifted tremendously in the past 20 years. And yet it’s debatable that the Palestinians have moderated their views at all in the same time.

The Palestinians refuse to define Israel as the Jewish homeland — a major point of contention in recent talks — and identify east Jerusalem, annexed by Israel after its capture in the 1967 Mideast war, as the capital of the future Palestinian state. Palestinians think that offering recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would imply they are dropping one of their key demands in any peace deal — the right for Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to return to former properties in Israel. Israel opposes a return

No it’s not debatable. The Palestinian position has not changed at all. And it’s been quite a bit longer than 20 years.

Article 20:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Denying that Israel is a Jewish State, isn’t a matter of negotiation. If the PA doesn’t accept it, it doesn’t accept Israel’s right to exist. The PA insists on this because it isn’t strictly or even mostly a movement national liberation, rather it is a movement of national destruction.

Even now the Quartet’s envoy Tony Blair has announced a series of initiatives for the Palestinians including

Another is the repair of a sewage system in Beit Lahiya, in the northern Gaza Strip. Though Hamas’s takeover of Gaza has meant that most of the projects are earmarked for the West Bank, the sewage system was put on the list because it is on the brink of collapse and represents a serious health hazard to Gaza residents.

And why is that sewer system in such a state of disrepair? Could it be because the pipes were scavenged to make Qassams?

Once again, the evidence shows that the Palestinians are more devoted to destroying Israel than to building their own society. And Israel is expected to concede more and more. (The problem isn’t only with the Palestinians either.)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

In an innocuously title article, Israel Allows Some Gaza Exports, Isabel Kershner of the NY Times reported:

Israel has approved the transfer of 25 armored personnel carriers from Russia to the Palestinian Authority and will allow the export of some agricultural produce from Gaza for the first time since Hamas took over the area, Israeli government officials said Wednesday.The moves come as part of a general effort to create a positive atmosphere leading up to the American-sponsored peace gathering scheduled for Tuesday in Annapolis, Md.

Also according to other reports Israel will be transferring some 1000 rifles and 2 million rounds of ammunition to the Palestinian Authority. (And yes, Israel will allow some exports from Gaza too.)

Kershner at least shows that she might be attention with this:

Israeli government officials said Israel had agreed to the transfer of the armored vehicles to bolster the Palestinian Authority security forces and “their actions to prevent terror.”

Given the tenor of the rest of the article, I suppose that she’s just quoting an Israeli press release. Still the scare quotes are appropriate, because given recent events, it’s pretty clear that the PA security forces haven’t been so effective in preventing terror.

Guess who approves of this transfer.

Hamas took over Gaza in June after routing Fatah forces loyal to Mr. Abbas in a brief factional war. Its military wing called the authorization of the delivery “a Zionist gift.” A Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, said it showed that Mr. Abbas worked “hand in hand with the occupation” against the Palestinian “resistance.”

And who disapproves

Israeli legislators from the right-wing opposition also criticized the move, raising fears that the Palestinian Authority’s weapons could be turned against Israel or fall into the hands of Hamas. Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of the Likud Party, told Army Radio, “According to all the security services, Olmert is endangering the lives of Israeli civilians.”

Actually it was the IDF that objected to the transfer. Netanyahu wasn’t simply being part of the “right wing opposition,” he was supported organizations whose professional responsibility is to evaluate such risks. Unfortunately, Kershner did the weaselly thing and attribute it to politics.

As Elder of Ziyon, Daled Amos and Israel Matzav have pointed out, these confidence building measure are, by themselves, risky, so why does Israel resort to them when they demonstratively achieve nothing.

Nothing?
Yes, nothing.
Today Kershner reports Pact Unlikely Before Talks in U.S., Palestinian Insists

A senior Palestinian official said here on Thursday that it would be a “miracle” if the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating teams agreed on a joint document, as they had hoped, to present at the American-sponsored Middle East peace gathering set to start Tuesday in Annapolis, Md.

Why would that be? Didn’t Israel do enough to build Palestinian confidence? Apparently not.

But the brinkmanship could also be seen as reflecting a longer term Palestinian goal: Mr. Hamad suggested that the difficulties in agreeing on a text underscored the need for more international involvement in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

More international involvement = more pressure on Israel.

Apparently, the Israelis are cognizant of this:

Israel has always rejected the idea of outside mediation. “Israel is very clear that this is a bilateral process,” said an Israeli government official who asked not to be identified by name because of the delicacy of the negotiations. “There is no need for outsiders telling us what to do.”

Israel, as usual, made concessions to build confidence. The Palestinian are all too happy to receive the concessions and all too happy to continue pretending that they never happened.

At what point will the Israeli government say “enough” and wait for some sort of reciprocal action? This isn’t a matter of politics, it’s Negotiations 101 and Israel is failing it miserably.

UPDATE: A similar point is made at This ongoing War’s Lethal Gestures.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Isabel Kershner writes about the current controversy over Israeli’s judicial system in Friends’ Clash Reflects Battle Over Israeli Court

In recent days, Aharon Barak, the internationally esteemed jurist and retired chief justice of Israel, has broken a self-imposed silence and spoken publicly against an old friend, Daniel Friedmann, Israel’s minister of justice.The struggle between the men is part of an intense battle playing out across Israel’s political and legal landscape. As Mr. Barak described it last Friday, it is “a struggle over the country’s soul,” specifically over the independence of the court, the separation of powers and the fundamental question of who is in charge.

Both sides fervently believe that Israeli democracy is at stake. Mr. Friedmann, an eminent law professor who came into office in February, contends that the Supreme Court has become a law unto itself, extending its powers into the purviews of the other branches of government and trying to make itself immune from legislative oversight.

In a recent interview, Mr. Friedmann, 71, said he wanted “to restore the balance between the various branches of government,” which had been “completely upset in recent years.” He has argued that unelected judges are waging an antidemocratic revolution.

In case you don’t know which side Kershner is sympathetic to, note the description “internationally esteemed jurist.” “Eminent” doesn’t quite measure up.

After partially describing Judge Barak’s revolution in jurisprudence, Kershner writes:

The Supreme Court has used these powers very sparingly. Still, Mr. Friedmann wants them curbed.His allies include legislators as well as other sectors of Israeli society who want to see the legal establishment restrained, among them politicians and business figures who have been investigated or indicted, and the religious and nationalist camps, which eschew the Supreme Court’s liberal approach.

American conservatives have also weighed in. Robert H. Bork, a key theorist of the American legal right, has complained that Mr. Barak’s ideas are “a textbook for judicial activists” and that Mr. Barak has established “a world record for judicial hubris.”

Richard A. Posner, a senior American appeals court judge, called Mr. Barak “a legal buccaneer.”

Posner doesn’t easily fit into categories, but notice the opposition is characterized as being from “conservatives” and those who have an interest in restraining the court.

That someone could have reason to be disturbed with the Israeli Court’s reach and not have a selfish or political interest isn’t considered.

While she mentions in passing that Friedmann wants to open up the process of appointing judges, the focus of the article is on personalities and politics rather than substance. Others, in analyzing the Israeli judicial system, put more emphasis on the court’s notion of perpetuating (and imposing) its beliefs.

Jonathan Rosenblum, who, admittedly, has an issue with the courts – religiously he’s Chareidi, politically he’s conservative – wrote about one of the problems that Kershner ignores:

Israel, by contrast, has developed one of the most efficient judicial selection procedures in the world: the Chief Justice and Justice Minister sit down together and pick new justices, whose selection is then rubber-stamped by the remaining seven members of the judicial selection committee.In practice, Chief Justice Barak dominates the process. Over the last decade, he has played a decisive role in the selection of not only every Supreme Court justice but also in appointments to Israel’s lower courts. Israeli newspapers routinely describe new judicial appointments as “Barak’s picks.”

Before Americans embrace the efficiency of this system – the judicial equivalent of Mussolini’s getting the trains to run on time – however, they should consider the system’s drawbacks. As one would expect, it has resulted in a Court remarkable in its ideological uniformity. The titanic struggles between rival judicial philosophies that characterize American Supreme Court history – e.g., Hugo Black vs. Felix Frankfurter – are absent from Israel. There is not one justice on the Israeli Supreme Court who serves as a mediating influence on Justice Barak’s jurisprudence, and it is rare for a decision of major impact in Israel to be decided by a narrowly divided Court.

Barak’s dominance of the judicial selection process chills dissent throughout the legal system. Any lower court judge, academic, or attorney-general who aspires to judicial advancement knows that his or her fate is in Barak’s hands.

Prof. Ruth Gavison, who’s no rightist, also objects the Barak court’s overreaching. Unfortunately, Kershner didn’t see fit to interview her. However, back in 1999, Ha’aretz reporter Ari Shavit did interview her. This is how she summarized the problem of the Israeli Supreme Court (or to translate the Hebrew more precisely – the High Court of Justice)

“In Germany, Italy and South Africa there are constitutional courts that have far-reaching powers. But those courts are subject to a clear constitution and were established especially to fulfill that function; accordingly, their members are chosen by the political branches and are appointed for a limited period. In the United States there is a Supreme Court that has taken on itself the power to overturn laws, but it does this in a lengthy process and on the basis of a crystallized constitution, and its justices are appointed in a political process.“In Israel, by contrast, there is no crystallized constitution, there is no lengthy process and there are no justices who represent the entire society or who serve for a limited period. The result is a situation in which one court, which effectively appoints itself, creates the constitution by means of its interpretation of the basic laws. And this occurs without any of the control mechanisms that exist in the United States. So from this point of view our situation is quite distinctive. The combination of judicial criticism of Knesset legislation, in a state where there is as yet no crystallized constitution, by a court whose justices are not elected but are appointed for life by the judicial system itself, creates a very problematic situation, in my opinion. From the point of view of democracy and the democratic decision-making process, there is a not inconsiderable problem.

“What is equally serious is that this process is not accompanied by public discussion worthy of the name. In the United States, where there are activist courts, there is an ongoing, lively debate. Opinions are voiced on both sides of a question. Whereas in Israel, some sort of rhetoric is generated that creates the feeling that anyone who is critical of the court is the enemy of the rule of law. I do not accept that. I think the very opposite is true. I think that within the judicial community there are deep disputes today over all the questions on the public agenda: over a constitution, the basic laws, the status of the court, the Or commission reforms [referring to a panel headed by Supreme Court Justice Theodor Or to revamp the structure of the courts system]. All these questions are in dispute, but generate no public reverberation because of the attempt to close ranks and create a front of homogeneity toward the outside.

The one substantive issue that Kershner deals with is

It abolished the principle of standing, meaning that petitioners need not have a direct stake in the outcome of a case they bring. This opened the court up to civil rights groups and a flood of public petitions. Because of a historic anomaly dating from the British Mandate, petitioners appeal directly to the Supreme Court, without the filter of a lower court.The Supreme Court also broadened the rules to the point where practically every government decision is open to review.

Well yes it has. And it can reasonably be asked if this is a good thing. Certainly there are quite a few results that liberals cheer that occur because of this. But should the Supreme Court be second guessing the military when it comes to routing the security fence? I don’t think so, but it has.

Kershner covered an important topic, unfortunately she paid attention mostly to the personalities and politics involved in the controversy over Israel’s courts. The substance of the issue was left largely untouched.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Voters are headed to the polls in Jordan.

Tuesday’s elections for the 110 seats in the lower house are marked by rising expressions of cynicism from among the country’s 2.4 million voters, and from political analysts. Eighteen years after Jordan’s ruling family lifted martial law and restored parliament, King Abdullah II faces growing charges that the parliament in this Middle East monarchy is only superficially democratic.

Oh really. You think that might have something to do with the fact that the country is ruled by a monarch who came to the throne on the strength of hereditary?

Parliament has the power to introduce legislation. In practice, the government drafts most laws, and parliament only rarely intervenes to frustrate government plans. Abdullah appoints all 55 members of parliament’s upper house.

So the vote, then, is to elect a lower house that serves as a rubber stamp.
In Lebanon where the Parliament is set to choose a president, exercising the franchise could be hazardous to your health.

Lebanon does have a government of the people but the election of president hasn’t been easy. More than 40 members of Lebanon’s parliament have spent the past month in the gilded luxury of a five-star hotel in Beirut, trying to avoid assassination so they can elect the country’s next president.Access to their wing of the Intercontinental Phoenicia is sharply restricted, police keep watch from nearby rooftops, and the politicians are told to stay away from the hotel’s windows lest they draw a sniper’s bullet. The plush upholstery and buttery pastries do little to soothe the isolated legislators.

“I would rather, a million times over, enjoy the comfort of my house and family than be locked in a jail-like hotel,” said Wael Abou Faour, a newly married member of parliament who is anticipating the birth of his first child, a daughter, due in February.

Abou Faour and others want to escape the fate of Antoine Ghanem, a member of parliament killed in a car bombing Sept. 19, a day after returning to Lebanon from refuge abroad. He was the fourth member of the present parliament to be assassinated since the killing of former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. All five politicians opposed what they saw as Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs, as have the targets of other recent acts of political violence.

For all the international uproar over Israel’s defensive “occupation” of southern Lebanon, there’s relatively little outrage over Syria’s continued domination of Lebanon, even after its occupation, officially ended a few years ago.

I guess it is interesting because in some ways, the Palestinians have more open elections than either Jordan or Lebanon. No doubt that’s because of the close contact with Israel. What democracy hasn’t done for the Palestinians is moderate their politics. No doubt part of it is the education system. The other part of it is the international encouragement of the Palestinian grievance. As long as the Palestinian grievance against (and hatred of) Israel is (are) encouraged to continue, the politics of Palestine will continue to be the politics of hatred.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.