• Israel
    Political Pivot in Israel?
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will seek to form a big-tent coalition that could signal a new inward focus at a time of increasing tumult in the Mideast, says expert David Makovsky.
  • Turkey
    Can Israel’s New Coalition Fix Relations with Turkey?
    This article was originally published here on TheAtlantic.com on Monday, January 28, 2013. Since Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party’s surprise showing last week in Israel’s elections, there has been an outpouring of commentary about a new dawn in Israeli domestic and foreign policies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Likud, in conjunction with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party lost a combined eleven seats in the Knesset, will have to form a broader government that includes centrists like Lapid. As a result, a conventional wisdom has developed that this new coalition will lead Israel out of its international isolation. Typically, observers have been asking what the Lapid phenomenon means for the "peace process" -- as if that is something that exists. Yet a handful of commentators have also zeroed in on Turkey-Israel ties as ripe for rapprochement under a new, allegedly more conciliatory, Israeli government. It is a nice idea, but so are rainbows and unicorns. The reality is that, despite Lapid’s rise, nothing has or will likely change to convince Israeli and Turkish leaders that mending ties is in their political interests. To be fair, the Turks themselves have led foreign observers to believe that a change in Turkey-Israel relations was possible. For the better part of the last four years, Turkish officials have indicated that Israel itself was not the problem, but "this Israeli government," meaning, of course, Netanyahu’s outgoing coalition of right-of-center parties. Continue reading here...
  • Middle East and North Africa
    The New York Times Gets Israel Wrong Again
    Just for the record, it is useful to recall the New York Times’s analysis of Israel’s recent election campaign. Here is the prognosis by its chief Jerusalem correspondent, Jodi Rudoren, on the day before the January 22 election. The headlines from Israel’s 2013 campaign have been about the failure of a fragmented center and left to field a credible challenger to Mr. Netanyahu, and the emergence of an emboldened national-religious party with a hard-line position on the Palestinian conflict. As the Middle East’s most stable democracy turns inward, experts say a growing majority of Israelis have given up on the land-for-peace paradigm that has defined the debate for decades, cementing the country’s shift to the right in politics, policy and public discourse.... Many analysts see the campaign as a watershed on two fronts: the collapse of the center-left and the rise of the national-religious community — also called religious Zionists — mainly through Jewish Home, which advocates annexing the part of the West Bank where most settlers live.... On the right, Naftali Bennett of Jewish Home emerged as the darling of the campaign, attracting voters with his hawkish policies and his persona: he is 40, wears a knitted skullcap, was an officer in an elite army unit and made millions in high-tech before entering politics. The Times was not alone in making this entirely wrong analysis and prediction, but that’s part of the problem: the Times was simply presenting the mainstream media view. In that view Israel is always turning to the right and is "hawkish," the center is always collapsing or has entirely collapsed, and we must all deal with a dangerous Israel where democracy is merely "cementing the country’s shift to the right in politics." The surprise of this campaign was, of course, the rise of Yair Lapid and his centrist party, whose showing will produce a governing coalition to the Left of the previous one. I am unaware of any follow-up article explaining why the Times got it all wrong, but part of the problem seems to be the media echo chamber: Times correspondents talk to other Times correspondents and to people on the Left who think as they do. I’ve written about this problem before, in this December blog post. The lesson is simple: read the Times’s coverage of Israel carefully to see what such people are thinking, but not to see what is actually going on in Israel.
  • Israel
    Voices From the Region: Jordan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Israel
    “We don’t want old faces. We tried that…We are worried…We can help Jordan not go the same way as Syria and Egypt.” –Khalid Hammad, 28, a lawyer who voted in Amman, in support of a friend, a fellow lawyer who was a first-time candidate “This assembly has the same credentials of the previous one in its weakness and lack of will in practicing its constitutional role in legislation and making governments accountable.” –Deputy Chief of the Brotherhood Zaki Bani Rusheid dismissing the newly elected Jordanian parliament “Don’t buy our oil? To hell with you…It’s better if you don’t buy...Ten times more money will head to people’s pockets through the inventions of our scientists.” –Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressing a group of Iranians in the western city of Hamedan “We see in the arenas of Arab regions, men who are ahead of us. They fought for and achieved freedom and democracy…But we remain prisoners of a fake democracy that carries with it the ugliest forms of complex dictatorship, horrible sectarianism practices, and wait-and-see and speculative policies.” –Grand Mufti of Lebanon Sheikh Mohammad Qabbani in a statement “I am Kurdish, and as a Kurdish citizen I am fighting side to side with the Free Syrian Army, because you cannot find anybody who was not stepped on by the regime, or was not wronged.” –Yousef Haidar, 72, village elder of Alghooz, Syria  “I didn’t realize until I entered [Syria] and moving around just how much has been destroyed already of the very vital infrastructure for the functioning of a society.” –John Ging, operations director at the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in a news conference in Beirut “If we want to founder from the outset, and embark upon endless internal struggles, then make foreign policy the top priority…If we want the government to be effective and accomplish things, and leave a strong, significant imprint, I think everyone understands the need for domestic changes is dramatic, and that is the order of the day. So leave the foreign issues aside.” –former Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman on Israel Radio “It’s a national wedding in Jordan, with the bride being the new parliament.” –Amman housewife Basma Edwan, 32, as she enthusiastically cast her ballot
  • Israel
    Israel’s 2013 Election: Lapid and the Perils of Third Parties
    Israelis are still digesting the results of yesterday’s national elections, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who fared much worse than anticipated, still likely to be tapped to form the next government. The definitive tally, to be announced tomorrow, could bump a few parties up or down by one of the hundred and twenty total parliamentary seats up for grabs. Netanyahu, who will not wait for that final announcement, is already scrambling to forge a new coalition government comprised of at least a simple majority of 61. The person who will ultimately decide the fate and composition of Israel’s next government is Yair Lapid, a political newcomer and former newsman, who heads the new party Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”). Lapid emerged as the big surprise yesterday with his exceptionally strong showing in which he came in with a second place tally of nineteen parliamentary seats. That number may not seem overwhelming, but it is significant, given that Netanyahu, who only won because he merged his Likud party with Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu, secured just thirty-one seats total. Lapid is the man of the hour who will play a key role in the rough and tumble political horse-trading that will surround Israel’s upcoming coalition formation period. Whether Lapid joins Netanyahu’s government or opts to stay in the opposition will largely determine whether or not Israel will be led by a narrow right-wing coalition aligned with Israel’s religious parties or a broader coalition whose center of gravity is more oriented towards the center. Yesh Atid is the latest of a series of “third parties” that have risen to prominence in the last thirty years, hailing from neither Labor nor Likud (parties that trace their lineage to the pre-state era). Like many of these centrist political predecessors—from Yigal Yadin’s Democratic Movement for Change in 1977 to Shinui, headed by Lapid’s father, Tommy—Yesh Atid came to the fore as a fresh face on the secular Zionist landscape. Lapid campaigned on a secular “middle-class first” social agenda, calling on Israel’s ultra-orthodox population to integrate into national life and share the burden of military service. Yesh Atid largely avoided many key issues, such as the peace process, during his campaign and party formation. While Lapid is basking in his new surprise success, he would also be wise to worry about his longer term prospects if he wishes to realize his goal of eventually becoming Israel’s prime minister. Third parties in Israel have a tendency to see their meteoric rise quickly burn out like a supernova. Indeed, secular Zionist third parties rarely survive beyond one or two electoral cycles in Israeli politics. Yadin’s party, for example, quickly catapulted to prominence when it won fifteen seats in 1977, but was extinct by the time of the next Israeli elections. Such third parties tend to quickly see their novelty fade as they become part of the quickly established landscape sullied by the give and take of daily politics. Their single focus on change quickly becomes a liability when it is clear they lack a comprehensive identity or widespread constituency. Take the example of Kadima, the party that actually earned the most seats (28) in the previous 2009 election, but was then unable to forge a coalition government.  Yesterday, Kadima, now under Shaul Mofaz, barely secured its existence, earning just enough votes to allow it to sit in the next Knesset. Kadima was originally formed around a single candidate—Ariel Sharon—to accomplish a single objective: withdraw Israel from Gaza and perhaps the West Bank. Kadima never successfully took root in the Israeli landscape, however, failing to forge a clear and coherent ideology on the broad range of issues confronting Israel. An effort to remake Kadima as a new third party in the guise of Tzipi Livni’s Ha’tnua (“The movement”) party similarly fared poorly yesterday. Livni had led Kadima to victory in Israel’s last election in 2009. After she was unable to put together a majority coalition, the premiership went to Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu, which had come in second. Livni never recovered politically afterwards, and the six seats her new party won yesterday limits the chances that she will play a prominent role in Netanyahu’s next government, something that would have been more likely had she won ten or more seats. One leader who managed to evade the pitfalls of most Israeli third parties is Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman had earlier broken from Likud to form the Yisrael Beiteinu party. Its agenda had been centered on the secular and right-wing oriented world-view of Israel’s substantial Russian-speaking population. As that population has integrated into the Israeli mainstream, Lieberman wisely recognized that his niche party may be headed the way of other third parties. Hence, he forged a reunion last October with his original party, the Likud, for the purposes of yesterday’s election. That move seems to have saved Lieberman, and ultimately Netanyahu politically. Israel’s political landscape has once again been shaken by its hyper-democracy. Yair Lapid has emerged as the new star who will be instrumental in determining Israel’s upcoming political future. Yet he will have to flesh out his positions significantly and ably navigate the shark-infested waters of Israeli politics if he wishes to be more than a one or two-term leading political player.
  • Israel
    Why No Israeli Government Will Ever Impose Mandatory IDF Service on the Ultra-Orthodox
    This article was originally published on Saturday, January 19, 2013, on 972Mag.com. Washington – Last week the Israeli media reported that Shas spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, suffered a minor stroke. Although his doctors were mum on what might have caused the episode, sources close to Yosef indicated that a contributing factor was the rabbi’s fear of a renewed push among secular Israelis for yeshiva students to be drafted into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) after the January 22 election.  Yosef is so consumed with this issue that five days before he was hospitalized, the rabbi suggested that Haredim youth emigrate rather than serve in the military.  It seems that Rabbi Yosef’s concerns are real and quite clearly run deep, but he should not worry so much.  It is unlikely that Israel’s budding Talmudic scholars will be picking up Galil rifles anytime soon. Although compulsory military service for yeshiva students is popular among Israelis and thus a good issue for secular politicians, Shas and other Orthodox parties will continue to get their way on conscription and a variety of other issues. That is the way it has been and likely the way it will continue to be.  A good part of the explanation for this has to do with Israel’s electoral system, which can best be described as “disproportionate representation,” but there is something else going on that is at the heart of the Zionist project that gives the Haredim and other prominent religious voices far more sway than most Israelis prefer. Continue reading here...
  • Israel
    Israeli Elections Offer Two Paths
    Just days away from parliamentary elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is widely expected to form a new government in coming weeks, but what that coalition will look like is still unclear, says CFR’s Robert M. Danin.
  • Israel
    Voices From the Region: Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, UAE
    “It’s a very big victory for the Islamic groups...They are the strongest in Syria now because the Western countries won’t help.” – The director of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights using the pseudonym Rami Abdulrahman, speaking about the rebel capture of a key military air base last week “I was once asked: If I came to power, would I let Christian women remain unveiled? And I said: If they want to get raped on the streets, then they can.” – Hesham al-Ashry, an Egyptian preacher in an interview with Al-Nahar TV last week “My reading is that they’re waiting till the election, till they get everything. And when they’re done taking over all the seats of power, then they can focus on us.” – Nahed Adly, a Coptic Egyptian on the Islamists’ rise to power “I see a confluence of several factors that altogether can contribute towards a strong push to solve this 65-year-long conflict.” – Jordanian king Abdullah yesterday speaking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “So we rejected that and said it’s better they die in Syria than give up their right of return.” – Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas in response to Israel’s reported agreement to allow Palestinian refugees fleeing Syria to return to the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for signing a statement giving up their right of return to Israel “Whoever wants me as a strong prime minister cannot have a strong prime minister while weakening me…I think there is only one way to guarantee that the right continues to govern Israel, and that is to vote for me.” – Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu “They both want to export the revolution…What the Muslim Brothers are aiming for at the moment is to shred and denigrate the reputation of the Gulf rulers.” – Dubai police chief Dahi Khalfan on the similar threats from the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran “Our purpose is to prevent revenge killings…The best way to do that is to arrest the responsible persons, put them in prison and have them answer to the law.” – Ali al-Azir, one of about three hundred attorneys in the Free Syrian Lawyers Committee working to collect war crimes testimonies “It sounded more like gloating than making promises.” – Alia, a loyalist resident of southern Damascus on Syrian president Bashar’s recent speech  
  • Israel
    Voices From the Region: Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Yemen
    “The Iraqi spring is coming.” – Moqtada al-Sadr, an Iraqi Shiite leader, expressed support for further demonstrations against Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki in a speech in Najaf on Tuesday “The failure of the international community, in particular the Security Council, to take concrete actions to stop the blood-letting, shames us all…Collectively, we have fiddled at the edges while Syria burns.” – UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay “Mubarak knew everything, big and small.” – Habib Adly, former interior minister under Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak reportedly to a commission investigating the killings during the Egyptian uprsing in early 2011 “No one will change my opinion about Abu Mazen…even if they say I cannot express it because I’m the president. [Israel] must complete the task of reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians without further delay.” – Israeli president Shimon Peres in broadcast remarks “America is the only nuclear criminal in the whole world. It is the only country in the world, which has used nuclear weapons against innocent people. It is the only country that has the highest quantity of nuclear weapons at its disposal.” – Saeed Jalili, Iran’s supreme national security council secretary “Everyone knows that Hamas could take over the Palestinian Authority…It could happen after an agreement; it could happen before an agreement, like it happened in Gaza. Therefore, as opposed to the voices that I have heard recently urging me to run forward, to make concessions and to withdraw, I think that the diplomatic process must be managed responsibly and sagaciously and not in undue haste.” – Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday “The message today is that Fatah cannot be wiped out…Fatah lives, no one can exclude it and it seeks to end the division.” – Amal Hamad, a member of the Fatah on the party’s first mass rally in Gaza in five years “The former president [Saleh] will not risk going to Italy, which has granted him an entry visa, due to the ease of his being prosecuted there, as well as fears of being assassinated in a country where the mafia are active.” – An official Yemeni source quoted by Asharq Al-Awsat “The children’s thoughts are in red…Even many of their drawings are done entirely in red.” – Mustafa Shakr, a former principal in Damascus who now runs a school for more than three hundred Syrian children along the Turkish-Syrian border “The plan at the moment is to help over five million people by 2013. That’s a quarter of the Syrian population being uprooted…It is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world right now, so we need an urgent financial response.” – Panos Moumtzis, the UN regional coordinator for Syrian refugees “We suffer from the cold and we are poor here but we are safe…When we came here we thought we would stay one week, maybe one month, but it’s been six months and now we learn to live with the uncertainty.” – Abu Abdel Hadi, a Syrian refugee in Jordan
  • Israel
    A Final Note From 2012
    Last week I posted my take on the most significant Middle East developments of 2012. The ten developments that I identified, in chronological order, were: The cold war with Iran heats up The Muslim Brotherhood’s election in Egypt Syria’s descent into civil war The Innocence of Muslims anti-American riots The killing of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi Political unrest in Jordan The Israel-Hamas November conflict The United Nations recognition of Palestine as a non-member state International failure to stop Syria’s bloodshed The Muslim Brotherhood’s struggle to consolidate power in Egypt Two readers of Middle East Matters provided thought provoking alternatives worthy of mention: One colleague suggested that the death of Saudi crown prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, following the death of his brother and former heir apparent Prince Sultan bin Abdel Aziz the previous year, marked an important generational change underway in the kingdom’s leadership. A second colleague suggested six excellent alternatives: Political paralysis in Saudi Arabia The descent into civil war between the Kurds and other groups in Iraq The diminished Middle East role of Turkey’s prime minister Erdogan The success of Israel’s new Iron Dome system The rise of Middle East Salafists The spread of Qatari influence in the Middle East These were indeed important developments in 2012, a difficult and eventful year for the Middle East. The year ahead promises to be no less turbulent and momentous. In my next blog we’ll look at the year to come. Remembering Chris Stevens: The tragic death of Ambassador Stevens continues to touch those who knew him. He was the best of the best and a friend. His family has set up a very moving website to remember him, share memories, or give to a fund established in his honor to build bridges between the people of the United States and the Middle East. I urge you to take a look: http://RememberingChrisStevens.com.
  • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    Tested by Zion
    A former top National Security Council officer in the Bush White House tells the full inside story of the Bush administration and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • Israel
    American Support for Israel Steady--With Exceptions on the Left
    The newest Pew poll of American opinion about the Middle East shows support for Israel steady, with exceptions. Here is the bottom line: For decades, the public has sympathized with Israel over the Palestinians and that remains the case today. Overall, 50% say they sympathize more with Israel, compared with just 10% who say they sympathize more with the Palestinians; almost a quarter (23%) do not offer an opinion while 13% volunteer that they sympathize with neither side, and 4% say both. Attitudes on this question have been stable over the past six years, after showing more volatility in the middle of the last decade. But within the stable totals, there lie important differences: There continue to be stark partisan differences in Middle East sympathies. Conservative Republicans maintain strong support for Israel with fully 75% saying they sympathize with Israel compared with just 2% who sympathize with the Palestinians. By contrast, liberal Democrats are much more divided: 33% sympathize more with Israel, 22% with the Palestinians. Those are remarkable numbers: conservative Republicans are more than twice as supportive of Israel as liberal Democrats, among whom support for Israel is not very much greater than support for Palestinians. When I point out these numbers, and others like them, to Democratic Party leaders they usually get angry and say "Israel should not be a partisan issue. Stop making Israel a partisan issue." That’s a foolish reply, for every poll I have seen in recent years gives the same general result. Support for Israel on the Left--in Europe, in America, in the Democratic Party--is eroding. That’s an obvious fact. It is visible in Pew’s religious data as well: Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants remain strongly supportive of Israel. Two-thirds (67%) say they sympathize more with Israel; only 5% say they sympathize more with the Palestinians. But among white mainline churches, support for Israel drops twenty points to 47 percent. For Israel’s supporters in the American Jewish community, all this data shows where friends and allies are and where they are not: they are on the right, not on the left. Of great concern to supporters of Israel will also be the age data, showing that support for Israel drops sharply among the young: 58 percent of those over sixty-five but only 38 percent of those under thirty sympathize more with Israel. The Pew poll also asks about intervention in Syria, and finds that it has little support. As fighting in Syria rages on between government forces and anti-government groups, the public continues to say that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to do something about the fighting there. And there continues to be substantial opposition to sending arms to anti-government forces in Syria....Only about quarter of Americans (27%) say the U.S. has a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria; more than twice as many (63%) say it does not....Similarly, just 24% favor the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military supplies to antigovernment groups in Syria, while 65% are opposed. As to Syria, partisan differences are small. The only recent crisis where a majority said the United States had some responsibility to act was Darfur, where 51 percent said yes and only 36 percent said no in 2006--presumably because it was viewed as a case of true genocide, and I would guess because so many churches paid close attention to Sudan. These numbers help explain why the Obama administration has been so passive about Syria: it believes public opinion does not favor action. But what is cause and what is effect? The administration’s passivity reflects but also molds public opinion, and real leadership in Washington might have produced different public views. As to Israel, the polls show that in the president’s own party, and among his best supporters on the left in that party, sympathy for Israel is falling. Here too one may wonder what is cause and what is effect. Has the president’s apparent lack of deep enthusiasm and understanding for Israel moved opinion on the left, or does it reflect that opinion?
  • Israel
    Voices From the Region: Israel, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Turkey
    “For decades the Assad regime was talking about the Palestinians’ rights….But Bashar al-Assad has killed more of us today than Israel did in its latest war on Gaza.” – Abu Ammar, Palestinian resident of Yarmouk camp after it was attacked by Syrian fighter jets on December 16 “I read this as a strong vote against the dismal, confused performance of the Morsi administration.” – Emad Shahin, AUC political scientist on first round of referendum vote “We are not in the business of regime change. Some of the regional players were suggesting to us ’Why don’t you tell President Assad to leave? We will arrange for some safe haven for him’…My answer is very simple: if indeed those who suggested this to us have this in mind, they should take it directly to President Assad. Why should they use us as a postman?” – Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in a television interview “Turkey is now the world’s biggest prison for journalists, a sad paradox for a country that portrays itself as a regional democratic model.” – France-based Reporters Without Borders said in a statement “The opposition cannot decisively settle the battle and what the security forces and army units are doing will not achieve a decisive settlement.” – Syrian vice president Farouq al-Shara “The reason Israel owes us money each month is because we import goods from Israel…So it becomes a legitimate question for me to ask how to minimize the amount of our money that will be subject to Israel’s capricious behavior.” – Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad “If this constitution passed, there will be no stability.” – Mohammed El Baradei, one of the leaders of the Egyptian opposition National Salvation Front before the second day of voting on the draft constitution “The wise and the elite in Europe, the United States, and Turkey should dismantle Patriots and take them away from the region before a fire breaks out.” – General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces
  • United States
    Middle East Matters’ Ten Most Significant Developments of 2012
    Here it is: the second annual Middle East Matters year-end roundup listing the ten most significant Middle East developments of 2012. Since this blog focuses on the interplay between U.S. policy and the region, the items selected were those deemed most noteworthy from an admittedly American foreign policy perspective. This was a tumultuous year in the region, and many items on this list could have been deemed the single most significant. So in roughly chronological order are MEM’s top ten for 2012: 1.     The Cold War with Iran Heats Up International tensions with Iran over its nuclear program escalated dramatically in 2012. At several points, it seemed that military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities was imminent, if not inevitable. The year began with President Obama signing into law “crippling sanctions” on Iran, and the European Union agreeing to impose an unusually strong oil embargo. Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a refrain it would maintain throughout the year. The United States built up its naval forces in the Strait in July, as Israel increasingly warned that Iran was about to enter a “zone of immunity”—a term coined by Defense Minister Ehud Barak to signify a moment when Iran’s program would no longer be vulnerable to Israeli military action. As the summer heated up, so too did the regional sense that an Israeli strike might be impending. U.S. and Israeli national security officials, who sustained a seemingly unprecedented pace of high-level consultations throughout the year over Iran, seemed to differ less over analysis than on policy. As tensions mounted into September, President Obama issued his strongest statements to date before the United Nations General Assembly, declaring, “the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Days later, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu told the same international body that Iran must be prevented from concluding its second stage of enrichment necessary to make a bomb, which he said would be finished by next spring or summer. Israel, in effect, seemed to give key international negotiators until spring 2013 to force Iran to back down before the question of Israeli military action would have to be definitively contemplated. International efforts to bring about a halt to Iran’s nuclear program, one way or another, will likely crescendo, perhaps conclusively, in the year ahead. 2.     Muslim Brotherhood Elected in Egypt The previously-banned Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power this year in Egypt’s first free and fair elections. In January, the Muslim Brotherhood mobilized its supporters and won 47 percent of the parliament’s seats. In April, as Egypt prepared for its presidential elections, the Supreme Presidential Electoral Commission disqualified ten candidates from running for president, including the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief strategist Khairat el-Shater. Instead, the Muslim Brotherhood nominated the relatively unknown Mohammed Morsi, mocked in Egypt as the Brotherhood’s “spare tire.” Nonetheless, Morsi was able to exploit the Muslim Brotherhood’s strong grassroots network and highly organized team, emerging victorious in June by beating former Mubarak prime minister Ahmed Shafiq in a run-off election. Morsi was sworn-in to office as Egypt’s fifth president on June 30, becoming Egypt’s first civilian president and the first democratically elected Islamist Arab head of state. 3.      Syria Descends into Civil War Syria’s already violent uprising became a full-fledged civil war in 2012. Fighting in the conflict that had first erupted in March 2011 had been limited to certain parts of the country, away from the largest population centers. In July 2012, however, full-fledged fighting erupted in Syria’s two largest cities: Damascus and Aleppo. The opposition inflicted a major blow on the regime with its July 18 bombing of the National Security headquarters in downtown Damascus, killing four of the regime’s senior-most officials, including Defense Minister Rajiha, Assad’s brother-in-law and Deputy Defense Minister Assef Shawkat, Security Bureau head Hisham Ikhtiar, and Hassan Turkmani. While the regime immediately unleashed efforts to establish control, it has still failed. Just this week, Vice President Farouk al-Shara conceded that victory was not at hand for the regime. Whereas at the beginning of the year some five thousand Syrians had died, according to U.N. officials, that estimate is now seven to tenfold greater with the number of Syrians killed nearing fifty thousand. Syria’s civil war has had a significant spillover effect on its neighbors. The UNHCR estimates that more than half a million Syrian refugees have registered, or are awaiting registration, in nearby countries, with the number growing by three thousand daily. Violence from the war has spilled across Syria’s borders, with clashes occurring between Syrian and Jordanian forces, mortar and artillery exchanged between Syria and Turkey, and with mortar fire into the Israeli-occupied Golan triggering the first IDF firing into Syria since the 1973 war. 4.     The Innocence of Muslims Anti-American Riots A movie trailer defaming the Muslim prophet Mohammad, posted on YouTube, precipitated a string of violent and deadly anti-American protests that began on September 11 with the storming of the U.S. embassy in Egypt. The demonstrations quickly spread throughout much of the Muslim world. The Arabic-dubbed version of the fourteen minute-long movie trailer titled The Innocence of Muslims inspired demonstrators to breach the U.S. embassy compound in Cairo and burn the post’s American flag. Hundreds of protesters armed with rocks and Molotov cocktails clashed in Tahrir Square the following days, as demonstrations quickly spread across the region to Yemen, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morocco, Gaza, Tel Aviv, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan. Demonstrators stormed U.S. embassies in Yemen, Tunisia, and Sudan, while the American school in Tunis was looted and burned. President Obama telephoned Egyptian president Morsi and urged him to call off government-inspired demonstrations. Obama publicly labeled the film “crude and disgusting,” but noted that the United States could not ban the video because the Constitution protects the right to practice free speech, a message many Middle Easterners found hard to believe. 5.     U.S. Ambassador Killed in Benghazi Terrorists attacked the U.S. Benghazi consulate on September 11, killing ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department official Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Chris Stevens was the first American ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1988. Initially erroneously reported as a spontaneous protest over the anti-Muslim film, the Innocence of Muslims, the attack was later confirmed to have been a planned assault by Islamist militants. To this date the perpetrators remain unknown, though the Libyan Islamist militia Ansar al-Shariah is suspected of having been involved and possibly having led the attack. U.S. intelligence officials are still investigating the possibility of ties between Ansar al-Sharia, which espouses jihadi theology, and other suspected involved militants to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The Benghazi attack took place against a backdrop of instability and violence that has spread throughout Libya in the wake of last year’s uprising that overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. Libya’s General National Congress recently designated seven southern military areas restricted zones with the aim to improve security and stem the flow of weapons, militants, and narcotics that currently flow freely across Libya’s borders. Today, the country’s weak security forces still exert little authority at best, particularly in the south, which has witnessed a dramatic increase in violent tribal conflict. Events in Libya demonstrate the challenge of establishing fully functioning, if not democratic, institutions in countries where dictators had centralized all power and authority in the figure of one person. The events of this year’s 9/11 in Libya continue to reverberate throughout American politics today. 6.     Unrest in Jordan Mid-November demonstrations in Jordan that left at least one demonstrator dead, precipitated by the lifting of fuel subsidies, led to some instant predictions of an Egypt or Tunisia-like uprising in the Hashemite kingdom. With some demonstrators calling for the end of King Abdullah’s rule, a clear and ominous red-line in Jordan’s political discourse was indeed crossed. Demonstrations are, however, part of Jordan’s political culture, and the country clearly faces severe economic and political challenges. At least two hundred thousand Syrians have taken refuge in Jordan, energy expenditures account for over 30 percent of the government’s budget, and overseas assistance has declined, while the country faces the same youth bulge sweeping the rest of the region. What has Jordan observers worried is the fusion of economic discontent, anger at perceived government corruption, and the frustration within some of the East Bank tribes. To date, the Hashemites have been able to deflect popular discontent onto the government; King Abdullah sacked four prime ministers in the past year alone. But Abdullah recognizes that more needs to be done. Jordan will hold new parliamentary elections on January 23 as part of the king’s reform initiative. However, the Islamic Action Front, Jordan’s leading Islamist party, is boycotting the election. The key challenge facing the regime is to ensure that the elections and their aftermath are truly transformative and that Jordanian political institutions are seen as the appropriate fora for addressing political grievances. With Iraq to the east, Syria to the north, Palestine to the west, and Egypt to the south, Jordanians see unrest all around. While a source of inspiration for some, it is a cautionary sign for most Jordanians. Nonetheless, Jordan faces significant challenges and will doubtlessly experience major bumps on the immediate road ahead. 7.      Israel-Hamas November Conflict Hamas-Israel violence erupted into a major military confrontation in mid-November that was quieted after sustained high-level American and Egyptian diplomatic efforts. On November 14, Israel assassinated Hamas’ military mastermind Ahmed Jaabari and other top officials in Gaza following a prolonged period in which hundreds of rockets and mortar were fired into southern Israel. In the ensuing fighting, Israel destroyed much of Hamas’ imported Iranian-produced Farj-5 missiles and other high-value military targets. Undeterred, Hamas sent rockets deep into Israel’s heartland for the first time since Saddam Hussein fired rockets at Israel in 1991. With Israel threatening to send ground troops into Gaza—a move that many feared would test the durability of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty under the new Morsi government—President Obama, traveling in Asia, intervened to help quiet the situation. After at least a half dozen phone calls between Obama and Egypt’s recently elected Islamist president and the dispatch of Secretary of State Clinton to the Middle East, a cease-fire was announced on November 21. That Clinton curtailed her trip with the president to broker a halt to Israeli-Palestinian violence symbolized the conflict’s ability to suck American diplomacy back into the region despite the administration’s attempts to pivot its focus towards Asia. The conflict also drew post-revolutionary Egypt into a central brokering role between Israel and Hamas at Washington’s behest. In doing so, many asked whether the United States and Egypt were lapsing back into the pre-revolutionary compact whereby Egypt acts to preserve regional stability in exchange for American largesse and a blind eye towards Cairo’s domestic conduct. It also fortified Hamas’ centrality as the address responsible for all groups in Gaza, diminishing the organization’s international isolation. While the Israel-Gaza border has subsequently remained largely quiet, the situation there is extremely fragile and could easily deteriorate quickly once again. 8.      The United Nations Recognizes Palestine as Non-Member State The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on November 29 to upgrade Palestine to the status of non-member observer state by a margin of 138 votes in favor, 9 against, and 41 abstentions. The United States and Israel led a vocal minority that included Canada and the Czech Republic, while the United Kingdom and Germany abstained. France led a contingent of EU countries supporting the upgrade. Following the vote, Secretary of State Clinton called the move “unfortunate and counterproductive.” While thwarted in his original effort to win recognition at the Security Council fourteen months earlier, the General Assembly vote marked a symbolic victory for President Abbas and a PLO desperate to demonstrate the benefits of their diplomatic approach in contrast to Hamas’ strategy of “resistance.” Abbas consistently has maintained that his statehood gambit is compatible with a return to peace negotiations. Israel, however, has interpreted Abbas’ move as a punitive unilateral act of confrontation, not as a move to facilitate talks or future cooperation. The confrontational perception was fortified in the vote’s run-up when the Palestinians reportedly rejected U.S. and Israeli efforts to gain assurances that the Palestinians will not challenge Israel and individual Israelis in international fora, most notably the International Criminal Court. Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately announced measures to accelerate settlement activities in the occupied territories and withhold tax remittances to Abbas’ government. With no apparent prospect of imminent reconciliation or negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu, and with Hamas appearing to be on the political ascendancy, it remains unclear whether President Obama intends to once again make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top administration priority for his second term. 9.     International Failure in Syria The international community failed over the course of 2012 to halt Syria’s ongoing bloodshed, bring about Bashar al-Assad’s departure, or effectuate a meaningful political process for ending the country’s civil war. Twice in 2012, China and Russia exercised their veto in the Security Council—in February against an Arab League-backed resolution calling upon Assad to step down, and then again in July against a proposed resolution imposing economic sanctions on Syria. The dual-hatted UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan, proposed a 6-point plan in March to end the fighting and initiate a political transition that was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. A joint Arab League-UN observer team was dispatched to support the Annan effort, but its movements were constrained and their presence seemed only to intensify the regime’s determination to employ brutal violence to end the civil war. The plan never gained any traction on the ground and Annan announced his resignation in early August. Former Algerian foreign minister Lakhdar Brahimi was appointed in his place later that month, though his efforts have faced the same limitations as Annan’s. International efforts towards Syria instead centered largely on supporting Syrian opposition groups. The Free Syrian Army reportedly received significant weapons and financial assistance from the Gulf, allowing it to make some dramatic gains inside Syria. Meanwhile, in November, Secretary of State Clinton helped lead an effort to forge an alternative to the deeply divided Syrian National Council. That new group, the Syrian Opposition Coalition, was recognized by Washington as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people in December, and has also been recognized by more than one hundred other countries. Given the failure of international diplomacy to stave off Syria’s civil war, it seems almost certain that the country’s fate will be determined by developments on the ground. 10. Muslim Brotherhood Strives to Consolidate Power in Egypt On November 22, just one day after garnering international recognition for his role in brokering an Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi shocked Egypt by issuing a decree granting himself broad sweeping powers outside judicial review. Morsi used these new self-appointed powers to ensure that the Islamist dominated constituent assembly tasked with writing a new constitution could not be subject to the judiciary’s scrutiny. Morsi tried to market his move as a temporary measure designed to ensure the revolution’s continued progress. Instead, Morsi precipitated immediate accusations of tyranny and dictatorship, spurring secular oppositionists to form the National Salvation Front, led by Mohammed El-Baradei, Hamdeen Sabbahi, and Amre Moussa. Hundreds of thousands of protesters poured into the streets to demonstrate against the president’s decree. Precipitating further violent protests, the Islamist-dominated constituent assembly submitted a draft constitution that was quickly approved by Morsi, who then put in place a national referendum that is currently on-going. Having put the constitution to a vote, Morsi recently rescinded many elements of his initial decree. Yet he also instructed the military to provide extraordinary security, spurring charges that Egypt was now under martial law. The military’s backing of Morsi and his efforts demonstrated a close working partnership between the Muslim Brotherhood and the armed forces. To date, Morsi has proven to be effective, if not heavy handed, in imposing his will upon the Egyptian people while diminishing popular support for the Muslim Brotherhood along the way. With new parliamentary elections slated for early next year, it is to be seen if Egypt’s challenges will be resolved peacefully through newly revamped institutions, or if rising discontent and seemingly insurmountable challenges will lead to more violence and political action in the country’s streets.
  • Israel
    The UN Closes Out 2012: Nine Resolutions Against Israel, Silence About Syrian Attacks on Palestinians
    The UN General Assembly is closing out 2012 in a blaze of glory. The UNGA adopted nine resolutions against Israel in one day, December 18. They are usefully summarized by Tom Gross in his web site, and I copy his list of them at the bottom of this blog  post. More information about this important UN work for world peace can be found at the UN’s own web site. Perhaps the most striking event in the Middle East this past week was the attack on a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon did mention this in his own statement on December 16:  "Today’s reports of aerial bombing amid intense violence resulting in many casualties among the Palestinian refugee population in the Yarmouk camp in Damascus are a matter of grave concern." But the General Assembly could not find time to get to it, because it was too busy. The day it passed nine resolutions against Israel it also had to handle "Cooperation between the United Nations and the International Organization of la Francophonie," which you can see was urgent; "University for Peace," another pressing matter; and most of all "Question of Tokelau--" a non-self-governing territory, population 1,411 and run by New Zealand, a noted oppressor. But in truth the UNGA was very late on Tokelau: Tokelau’s own web site reveals that on December 9 the voting closed that might have made Miss Tokelau the winner as Miss South Pacific. At the Yarmouk camp in Syria, roughly 100,000 Palestinians are said to have fled after air strikes that killed dozens of people. On this the General Assembly is silent, while it repeats its litany of complaints against Israel. The logical conclusion is the correct one: the UNGA isn’t interested in Palestinians except as a weapon with which to attack Israel. When someone else acts, and actually attacks Palestinians, that’s too bad but isn’t of widespread interest. Perhaps the motto for the General Assembly’s work this month might be "Remember Tokelau!"     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UN General Assembly Resolutions Against Israel on December 18, 2012 A/C.4/67/L.18 – The occupied Syrian Golan "The Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect and demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision…" A/C.4/67/L.17 – Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem "Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power… A/C.4/67/L.16 – Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan "Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development…" A/C.4/67/L.15 – Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories "Demands that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of the Convention…" A/C.4/67/L.10 – Assistance to Palestine refugees "Expressing grave concern at the especially difficult situation of the Palestine refugees under occupation, including with regard to their safety, well-being and socioeconomic living conditions…" A/C.4/67/L.11 – Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities "Reaffirms the right of all persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967…" A/C.4/67/L.12 – Operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East "Gravely concerned about the extremely difficult socioeconomic conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, as a result of the continuing prolonged Israeli closures…" A/C.4/67/L.13 - Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues "Reaffirms that the Palestine refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived there from, in conformity with the principles of equity and justice…" A/C.4/67/L.14 – Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories "Deplores those policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories…"