Linkage, anyone?

“After another decade of wars and disappointments, it's tough to sell the "New Middle East" in a new wrapping to cynical populations that have long since lost all belief in impassioned speeches promising peace and change. But Obama's declaration will have immediate strategic importance. By presenting a two-year timetable for the peace agreements, the president will make it clear that dealing with Iran is more urgent than establishing an independent Palestine alongside Israel.

“That will be a major diplomatic achievement for Netanyahu. In his visit to the White House in May, the prime minister's main aim was to persuade Obama of "Iran first and the Palestinians afterward." It was convenient at the time for Obama to present a disagreement with Netanyahu in order to strengthen U.S. credibility in the Arab world. One hundred days later, it turns out that on the crucial issue - setting the foreign affairs agenda - Netanyahu's view prevailed.

“Next year, 2010, will be the "year of Iran." The Palestinians will have to wait their turn and pass the time in empty talks until Iran is restrained. Under the quid pro quo principle, in return for advancing action on Iran, Netanyahu agreed to freeze construction in the West Bank settlements for a period of nine months, according to leaks from his talks with U.S. envoy George Mitchell.

“Netanyahu will have to play a delicate political game with Israel's right wing. It's a safe bet that the dismantling of outposts will be removed from the agenda, on the grounds that preserving internal cohesion against Iran is far more important than violent, media-intense spats with the settlers on the West Bank hilltops.”

(www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112316.html) paste in google

Something restful truths to help you fall asleep peacefully whilst reading from the Guardian tonight/tomorrow morning. Note particularly para 11 from the main body of the article which I can't help feeling goes staight to the heart of Martyn's confusions on this matter:



* Comment is free
* Cif America

Strong-arming Ahmadinejad

Obama's firm approach is a risky one. A nervous Iran may not react well to being pushed too hard over its nuclear programme


* Massoumeh Torfeh
*
o Massoumeh Torfeh
o guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 October 2009 17.30 BST
o Article history

The face-to-face meeting of Saeed Jalili, Iran's national security chief and William Burns, the US under secretary of state for political affairs, moderated by Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, has provided a first glance at that "engagement" that US officials have been keen to initiate.

Solana said Iran had given an undertaking to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), over the inspection of the newly announced nuclear enrichment plant near Qom. This morning Iranian radio reported that IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei will travel to Iran soon to discuss "a few issues with officials".

In a statement after the meeting, US president Barack Obama called for "swift action" from Iran, stressing that ElBaradei had his full support.

So, the ball seems to be rolling. But the next few days will reveal how Iran is going to respond to Obama's firm statement.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday in a press conference in Tehran that "these talks are for testing the sincerity of the negotiators", sounded hopeful and even volunteered to attend the next meeting, proposing a summit. However, he must have shaken his head when he heard the US president demanding "concrete steps" and stressing "we are not interested in talking for the sake of talking."

Details of yesterday's exchanges are scarce, but official Iranian websites sounded positive as the talks closed and Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, described the talks as "constructive". However, Iran is looking for a broad discussion including international economy and security while the American president seems far more focused on nuclear inspections and "transparency", saying the US "will not continue to negotiate indefinitely".

Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who has never been too keen on talks with the United States, will not like Obama's reaction. He is likely to condemn the threatening language of "full unfettered access" to Iran's nuclear plant coming not from the IAEA but from the US, and Obama's pronouncement that "our patience is not unlimited".

Obama may be right in adopting a firm approach, but this could be a risky path. With negative assessments of the military situation in Afghanistan and lingering instability in Pakistan and Iraq, the US does not have the luxury of a fast, risky reaction. Iran is now more dangerous than ever before. That is not only because of Iran's potential nuclear capability but the fact that it is in a nervous state, under pressure at home and isolated internationally. In talks with the US it was looking for a face-saving solution rather than further humiliation.

Another idea that is not going to find any support in Iran is the shipping of Iran's uranium to a third country, possibly Russia, for enrichment. Iran is proud of its uranium enrichment as a huge scientific achievement and will not part with it to Russia. Instead, Iran will want to know why – if the international concern is over nuclear weapons – Israel's resistance to joining the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) is not seriously addressed. It will probably ask why the US president has only made one small mention of the need for Israel to sign up to the NPT. Jalili said after the talks on Thursday that Iran believes that "no one should have nuclear weapons".

Israel is a nuclear power with delivery systems that can reach Iran whereas Iran, according to US experts, is still two years away from creating a nuclear strike capability of its own.

So Obama is right to say that in talks with Iran "hard work lies ahead". The strategy sought for dealing with Iran would probably work better if it proposed concrete small steps that had the support of Russia and China, neither of whom will accept "severe additional sanctions". President Obama's stress on meaningful engagement would work only if applied as a real give-and-take rather than directives of a kind that have failed in the past.

While Iran will continue to insist on its right to nuclear energy, it could be asked, perhaps during ElBaradei's visit or soon after, to guarantee that it will not develop nuclear arms. In exchange, the 5+1 (the UN security council's permanent members plus Germany) should give Iran a regional military and nuclear-reduction guarantee. Iran feels seriously under threat from both Israel and the US military presence in the region. Moreover, it is fully alerted to the fact that on its doorstep is a very unstable Pakistan with nuclear arms.

Three more points are worth consideration. First, "deception" will probably continue on the part of Iran but this has to be managed. If pushed too far Iran may opt to withdraw from the NPT. Second, if future agreements are to be applicable, they must be made with special representatives of the supreme leader rather than the government, which is facing a crisis of legitimacy and has no power over foreign and military policy.

There is also the Iranian parliament, which that will have the final right of approval, and this could be used as a delaying tactic. So the parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, who was formerly the chief nuclear negotiator, must somehow be brought on board. And last, any future talks must be packaged in such as way that they would be backed by the people in Iran, who are struggling equally hard against an increasingly authoritarian regime.

Martyn, one more try, hopefully not lost in translation. My two points are linked to the one problem e.g. escalating a dangerous situation. Iran has two issues 1. Israel and its treatment of palestinians. 2. American foreign policy towards Iran, and how to react.
My previous postings give examples in my opinion how to proceed on a peace process.

Tancred, I think we're talking different languages here. The way I read your post, it's contradicting itself.

You again link the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and we agree on that. They are both following the same path for the same reasons.

Then you say that American foreign policy towards both countries has persuaded them to build a nuclear bomb as a matter of self-defense. And we both agree on that.

The suddenly you ignore North Korea and America, and single out Israel as the reason that Iran is building a bomb, and baldly state that if Israel hands back the West Bank to the Palestinians, the problem is solved.

Are you seriously suggesting that if Israel does that, Iran will abandon its bomb ?????

If you can't "make it any easier to explain" then maybe we'd just better agree to disagree LOL

Martyn, My original post and points.
"The USA could have put an end to Israeli expansion and agression a long time ago, but did not choose to. American foreign policy is adding to further tension around the globe, and is actually fuelling a nuclear arms race. Countries that have a nuclear weapon are treated with respect by the USA e.g. North Korea. So is it any wonder that Iran is now pursuing this route, they are a country that do not take kindly to being bullied. Israel is the key to this and pressure should be brought on them by the UK and USA"
Two points american foreign policy, hence some countries gaining nuclear weapons as a defense. North Korea and Iran as examples.
Second point Iran obviously involved in the region and as a muslim country sympathetic to palestinians.
Conclusion change of USA foreign policy, end to aggression and expansion of israel into palestinian territory. Peace negotiations to dampen tension in region, and reversal of territorial gain by Israel. I cannot make it any easier to explain.

Tancred, the point I'm making is that Israel is NOT the key to resolving the "Iranian bomb" problem, indeed I'm suggesting that Israel is irrelevant to it.

I assume we agree that the world will be better off without the Iranians having the bomb. And just to avoid the debate going off at a tangent, I assume we also agree that the same is true of the Israeli bomb; but of the two bombs, I would judge that most people in the world view the Iranian as the more urgent problem for the reasons I gave in my last post.

If we are going to attempt to persuade the Iranians to give up their bomb, we must at least be clear on why they want it. I thought from your earlier post that you and I did agree on that - it is for EXACTLY the same reasons that North Korea have developed THEIR bomb. After all, it was you who raised the comparison with North Korea.

Those who believe that the Iranians are making a bomb as a counter to Israel's bomb are, I think making a serious mistake. Those who believe that if Israel abandoned their bomb then Iranian would abandon its bomb are, I believe, making an even more serious mistake. And those mistakes are likely to lead to failed negotiations.

"Is Israel the key also to the North Korean problem?
Martyn, That is a ludicrous argument"

Perhaps it is not so ludicrous, although it is obviously a literary conceit made with that intention in mind.

Israel, as an American backed expansionist ethno-biological settler state founded at the insistence of the United States and located on Palestinian land at the the expense of four generations if Palestinians in blood and death and suffering, is a profound example to any country of the price that Americans are more than willing to extract from any people or nation or country which it doesn't wholeheartedly approve of.

Other examples are North Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cuba, the People's Republic of China before Nixon saw the light, the Soviet Union, &c, oh... and North Korea. Some win, some lose, and some lose everything just like the Palestinians. So not as ludricous as Martyn hoped it would be. Still, out of the mouths of babes, &c.....

Is Israel the key also to the North Korean problem?
Martyn, That is a ludicrous argument, however if you believe that Israel with its expansion and aggression towards palestinians. Fuelling massive tension in the area has not involved Iran gaining nuclear weapons, then at best that is naivety.
My main points remain i'm afraid namely USA foreign policy and inactivity towards Israel a long time ago.

"The inference that Iran has developed a bomb because of the Israeli nuclear capability is fanciful. Israel is a good (and quite valid) EXCUSE for Iran, but the real reason they want to build a bomb is firstly because THEY CAN, and secondly for exactly the reason you have given - they want a bargaining chip at the table of world power, they want world influence, they want the respect of the nations of the world."

Iran is isolated in its region by enemies of both the Revolution and the Persian nation, and it is surrounded by entrenched and prodigious American (and one or two fairly irrelevant UK) bases. Iranians lie under the informal but absolutely believable Israeli terrorist threat of military action and the prospect of being called "anti-semitic" if they object or in any way respond to the most idiotic statements about their country and its intent.

"If Iran was a stable nation, I would have no problem with that - I think it's a waste of their resources, but it's up to them. My objection to the Iranian bomb is that they are a highly UNSTABLE nation, and an acknowledged supporter or worldwide terrorism."

Iran is stable, and certainly more stable than in 1953, when it lay under the same threat from the USA and the UK which its neighbours supported. This threat was realised in a coup d'etat which overthrew the legal government and destroyed the prospect of any form of popular democratic government for a generation, much as the most recent variant of the modish passion for a colour revolution is as much the result of external terrorism from the US and Europe as of the inclinations and activities of the selfsame famiies who did very well out of the Shah, thank you very much.

A more sensible view is that, if Iran were to have a deliverable nuclear weapon, the politics of the region and, thus, the world, would be much more stable - as would the internal politics of Iran. Indeed, as the most destabilising and utterly irresponsible forces for terrorism in the world, your argument suggests that it would be wise if the USA, the UK and Israel had all their armanents removed from their grasp as if they were five year olds playing "gangsta terrorists" with a freshly sharpened carving knives.

Tancred, the motivation for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb is self-evident. Of course they WANT one, the question is whether the rest of the world dares let them HAVE one. Ahmedinejad (in my view) is a dangerously unstable individual. I believe he is capable of exploding his bomb. How certain are you that he's not?

You say that "Israel is the key to this" but I disagree with that. As you made quite clear yourself, North Korea has developed a bomb for the same reasons that Iran is developing ITS bomb. Is Israel the key also to the North Korean problem?

The inference that Iran has developed a bomb because of the Israeli nuclear capability is fanciful. Israel is a good (and quite valid) EXCUSE for Iran, but the real reason they want to build a bomb is firstly because THEY CAN, and secondly for exactly the reason you have given - they want a bargaining chip at the table of world power, they want world influence, they want the respect of the nations of the world.

If Israel dismantled their nuclear weaponry and made peace with the Palestinians, Iran would continue to build their nuclear bomb. If Iran was a stable nation, I would have no problem with that - I think it's a waste of their resources, but it's up to them. My objection to the Iranian bomb is that they are a highly UNSTABLE nation, and an acknowledged supporter or worldwide terrorism. If the world can stop them, it should, and if not then we'll just have to get used to the idea of living in even greater fear than we do right now.

This is now becoming a serious and dangerous situation and could quite easily escalate. The USA could have put an end to Israeli expansion and agression a long time ago, but did not choose to. American foreign policy is adding to further tension around the globe, and is actually fuelling a nuclear arms race. Countries that have a nuclear weapon are treated with respect by the USA e.g. North Korea. So is it any wonder that Iran is now pursuing this route, they are a country that do not take kindly to being bullied. Israel is the key to this and pressure should be brought on them by the UK and USA. However don'y hold your breath, they will just send Tony Blair.

It has everything to do with it. The chief obstacle to peace in Israel-Palestine is that the Israelis are so much more powerful than the Arab states that they feel no serious pressure to make meaningful concessions. For a two state solution to work the vast majority of the illegal settlers would have to be evicted by the Israeli army. This is far too politically painful for Tel Aviv to contemplate. Indeed to do so might risk civil war with the quasi fascist Zionist fundamentalists just as de Gaulle faced terrorism from the French right when he gave Algeria independence.

Much better simply to carry on stealing Palestinian land and respond to resistance with the utmost brutality then calling anyone who objects anti semitic.

But a nuclear Iran would change the rules of the game. The threat to Israel from an Iranian nuke is not that there is any danger that Tehran would use it but that there would be a levelling of the imbalance of terror in the Middle East. The strategic deadlock that a situaton of nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction tends to foster, the inhibitions against adventurous aggression it imposes on military planners - that is what the state of Israel fears. The Begin doctrine would be a dead duck.

How could the Zionists denigrate states backing the Palestinian people as unworthy of consideration in drawing up borders or dictating peace terms if one of them has a nuclear option? How could it casually let off missiles in Syria's direction if its ally Iran has a nuclear bomb? To have such restraint foisted on Israel would shake the very foundation of its power to bully the region and continue to subjugate the Palestinian people.

"Iran's development of a nuclear bomb is an issue quite separate from peace between Israel and the Palestinians."

And elephants have wings...

That's quite shocking when you reflect that the countries concerned are democracies.

"Israel is going to challenge the US and Obama with this and go ahead without their agreement. Is there any truth in this? "

I think the reality is, Frances, that we won't know until it happens. And even if it does, we won't know for 30 years whether or not it was without the US's agreement. I'm not sure we know even now whether or not the US and other countries were complicit in Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1988.

Iran's development of a nuclear bomb is an issue quite separate from peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Russian premier said "Israel had reassured Russia it had no plans to attack Iran"

Israeli spokesman said a few days later it had given no such assurances in respect of Iran.

Paul

Informed friends in the Middle East tell me that the Israeli PM disappeared recently and was in Moscow and was negotiating Russian complicity in a strike Israel intends to make on Iran before Christmas.

Israel is going to challenge the US and Obama with this and go ahead without their agreement. Is there any truth in this?

"I hope I'm wrong, but I think that the only thing that will change the current (and long-running) policy of the Jewish State is firm action from the international community and America in particular."

I think it goes beyond policy. Israel is a state founded and strictly organised on ethno-biological principles, much as the Nazis desired for Germany, the white settlers for Rhodesia and Kenya, the fractured dream of the Ulster plantation, and which the Boers achieved temporarily in South Africa.

The problem this creates is that Israeli Jews have an absolute need to subjugate the Palestinian population because, firstly, Israel's "legitimacy" as a state, such as it is, depends on the physical control of territory ceded to it by the United Nations at its founding, and control of the territories Israel has illegally occupied since 1948 and which the UN has chosen not to act upon and liberate; and secondly, like Nazi Germany, on the one hand, and settler states like the US, Australia, New Zealand, &c, it requires lebensraum for the expanding population essential to maintain Israel's ability to subugate the native population, which in turn demands control of more territory and so on in a vicious cycle, until it controls enough territory to have the power to force other nations to accept that what is de focto is de jure.

The problem with this strategy is evident from even the most cursory glance at the atlas. Unlike the US, Australia and New Zealand there are few obvious natural boundaries limits to the expansionist needs of a Jewish state in Palestine and thus to its neighbours' concern and sense of involvement in the problem posed by a Jewish state. This is why Israel, as a nuclear power, got ever so humpty about Sadaam's nuclear ambitions and is so terribly humpty (in fact, humpty squared) about Iran's, much as South Africa and Rhodesia were worried about their neighbours as sources of, and bases for effective military opposition to a racist regime.

But you're right: the US is the key but less because it will become more pro-active in support of a settlement than because it will forced by circumstance - defeat and withdrawal from Iraq, the reduction of the dollar's importance as a reserve currency, defeat and retreat from Afghanistan, the rise of China and India &c - to re-define its global position and its ability to maintain it militarily, politically and economically.

The key is going to be convincing Israelis that the continued subjugation of the Palestinian people makes them weaker, not stronger, and less- not more- secure.

If One Voice is committed to educating the people of Israel to this reality, then I wish them the very best of luck. It's hard not to be cynical, however, when you watch how the current Israeli government resists even the most basic of concessions to the oppressed Palestinians (like freezing settlements). How can you believe that Israel is serious about granting the Palestinians a state, when they're busy further colonising what's left of the Arab West Bank?

I hope I'm wrong, but I think that the only thing that will change the current (and long-running) policy of the Jewish State is firm action from the international community and America in particular. Cut military aid ($3bn per year i believe) and threaten economic sanctions. Then we'll see the real 'sea change' that the people at One Voice are looking for

Interesting to see that our very own tuppenny bit Torquemada of hysterical anti-semtism, Martyn Rosen, has as little shame as the grubbiest member of the New Labour project.

I'd like to be able to say that, at the very least I expected an apology for his irrational and false accusations against me, along with a wholehearted grovel to all the contributors to this blog who found his remarks so distasteful, but I find that Martyn has slumped even lower than my already charitably low expectations were capable of sinking so that, in one sense at least, he can be described as a more than capable over-achiever in the role he has chosen for himself.

I think that OneVoice's route to peace is absolutely right in principle. It is only through the application of true democracy on both sides that this conflict can ever be resolved. For over 60 years we have seen a leadership on one side living in the past, trying to deal with a leadership on the other side acting without a democratic mandate. The result has hardly been a surprise.

It doesn't surprise me that 77% of Israelis are willing to freeze West Bank settlement - indeed, I expect that the same 77% would also support disbandment of all the EXISTING settlements in exchange for peace.

The settlement programme was (I suspect) designed to convince the Palestinians that time was not on their side, and to give them aome motivation to make peace quickly. Well it hasn't worked. Instead, the programme has spiralled out of control, and has become a huge obstacle to peace.

I'm not surprised that 77% of Palestinians would stop rocket attacks, which are astonishingly similar in purpose and effect to the West Bank settlements.

As John Lyndon says, the fact that the people on both sides seem to talking AT THE SAME TIME with one voice is significant. The mere publication of these numbers will have a huge impact on the Palestinians and the Israelis, perhaps convincing them for the first time that they both share the same willingness to compromise in exchange for peace.

I do agree with Mr Minimalist that the peace process should not be sullied by raising the spectre of a "common enemy". A shared fear of Iran is a poor foundation for agreement. Ahmedinejad is an excuse of a leader who makes a poor excuse as an Aunt Sally.

I wish OneVoice success in their continuing efforts to use democracy and the voice of the people to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

John Lyndon refers to "controversial issues" such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees, borders and settlements. I suggest that there is nothing remotely "controversial" about these issues. They have been set up as bargaining chips (by both sides) and everyone knows perfectly well what the agreed outcome has to be. No-one surely has any doubt about the outcome. It's just a question of which of the leaderships wants to play the game of brinkmanship, which side wants or needs the greater kudos, and who pays the bill.

"The people" on both sides of the divide have been subdued by mutual fear for 60 years from making their true opinions heard. I also get the feeling, as John Lyndon does, that there is a growing insistence by the people that their voices be heard.

"There is, for the first time, a perceived common threat amongst Israelis and Arabs, in the shape of Iran; who the Saudis would dread to see join the nuclear club almost as much as the Israelis do."

How very convenient, but the threat to Israel's regional nuclear hegemony, or a flaky perceived threat to Israel's existence (wrong translation of Ahmadinejad's speech) are no excuses for stalling the peace process. Playing the blame game and using a perceived antagonist as a basis for unity is like burying your head in the sand as the world around you collapses. Peace requires mutual respect.

Actually, apart from Cyrus the Great giving the Jews passage into Jerusalem once upon a time, Iran and Israel have something else very much in common, and that is we are both, in a strong sense, outsiders in the region. The problem is the regime in Iran, Israel, and Gaza. Once this current regime in Iran collapses under the weight of the Green Movement opposition, the popular and democratic will of the people, and through its own miscalculations, Iran as a responsible regional power will become an integral factor in resolving the conflict.

END THE OCCUPATION

"there appears to be something happening within the grassroots, something common within both Israeli and Palestinian society, something that has historically proved to be both a catalyst and engine for transformative political events: people demanding change."

I really hope you're right. PEOPLE in the Mid East need to change the game, because their leaders- particularly, I'm afraid, the current Israeli govt, won't be brave and unless they're forced to be by the will of the people

77% of Israelis willing to stop settlements+ 77% of Palestinians will stop rocket attacks?! Congratulations to One Voice in highlighting how ordinary people in Israel + Palestine are light-years ahead of their leaders. Keep up the good work!

Sounds like a brilliant and common sense initiative in a region where that has been a rarity. I wish you every success.