Palestinian Territories

Today the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (or PCBS) commemorated World Refugee Day by releasing new statistics on Palestinian refugees. Therein lies a tale. The PCBS reported that there are now 5.1 million Palestinian refugees. Here is what it said about their age: The Palestinian Refugees are characterized as young population where 41.7% of them are under the age of 15 years for Palestinian refugees in Palestinian territory, 35.9% of Palestinian  refugees in Jordan in 2007, and 33.1% for Palestinian refugees in Syria in 2009, while 30.4% for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in 2010. This means, for example, that more than a third of Palestinian "refugees" in Jordan were born after 1997. That is either thirty years (if after the 1967 war) or almost fifty years (if they fled when Israel was established in 1948) after their parents or more likely grandparents arrived in Jordan. Those in Jordan have full Jordanian citizenship and vote in Jordan, which means this: a young Jordanian of Palestinian origin, whose family has lived in Jordan for thirty years and who has himself or herself always lived in Jordan, is still considered a "refugee." This is bizarre, and the new statistics are a reminder of the unique definition applied to Palestinian "refugees." For every other category of refugees in the world, the 1951 UN Convention on the status of refugees clearly applies to the refugee only and not subsequent generations. This is the definition used by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees today. Only in the Palestinian case does a separate organization, the UN Relief and Works Agency, count not only those who actually left their homes but those in succeeding generations, presumably forever, and regardless of whether those progeny were born and are settled elsewhere with full citizenship. So a young American boy of, say, ten years of age born in Chicago to American parents, but whose grandparents were Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948, is counted by UNRWA as a "Palestinian refugee." It is not surprising that the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate on May 31 adopted an amendment defining Palestinian "refugees" the way all other refugees are defined, and rejecting the definition that produces the number 5.1 million today and who knows how many more millions as the years roll by. What’s surprising is that this effort, led by Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois--who would represent the young boy in my illustration, and his parents--was widely held to be controversial. It is common sense.

Significant Middle East Developments Egypt. The Presidential Elections Commission officially announced Monday that there will be a run-off between Mohammed Morsi and Ahmed Shafiq for the presidency. The announcement has been greeted with dismay by many revolution supporters, with thousands taking to the streets, setting Shafiq’s Cairo headquarters on fire just hours later. The low turnout rate of 46 percent for the first round is expected to decrease for the run-offs scheduled on June 16-17 as many parties are threatening to boycott. While no candidate won a majority, Morsi led the pack with 25 percent of the vote, followed by Shafiq with 24 percent, Hamdeen Sabbahi in third with 20.7 percent, Abdul Muniem Abul Fotouh with 17.47 percent, and Amr Moussa with 11.12 percent. Demonstrators continued to gather and protest on Tuesday and Wednesday, naming both candidates “enemies of the revolution” and calling for a million-man march against Shafiq on Friday. Meanwhile, the decades-old emergency law expired today and was not renewed. Egypt had been under a state of emergency since Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981. It remains to be seen how the military will now act as a result. Syria. Last Friday witnessed the single bloodiest incident yet of the uprising in Syria: a massacre of over one hundred civilians in the village of Houla, including at least forty-nine children. Most of the victims were executed, while the others died from shelling. The violence prompted an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Sunday that produced a unanimous statement condemning the massacre and the Syrian government for employing tanks and artillery against civilians. The United States and ten other countries expelled Syrian envoys on Tuesday in a coordinated move, while Kofi Annan visited Assad in Damascus to appeal for an immediate end to violence and “bold steps.” After meeting with Assad, Annan described Syria as at a “tipping point.” Evidence of another massacre was uncovered Tuesday night with the discovery of the bodies of thirteen civilians who had been executed with bullets to the head in the Deir es-Zor province. The UN Security Council met again Wednesday to be briefed by Jean-Marie Guehenno, Annan’s deputy, who offered a bleak assessment. U.S. ambassador Susan Rice responded by saying that the worst, but most probable, case is the failure of Annan’s plan, and a spreading conflict that would result in a “major crisis” region-wide. Also following Wednesday’s meeting, Russian deputy foreign minister Gennady Gatilov called any further Security Council measures “premature.” Secretary of State Clinton accused Russia today of “propping up” Assad’s regime, while explaining that “the factors are just not there” for an intervention. Meanwhile Syrian rebels Wednesday gave Assad a deadline of Friday to abide by Annan’s peace plan or they would consider themselves free from any commitments. Noteworthy U.S. Foreign Policy Developments Iran. The United States and Iran traded accusations this week over Iran’s nuclear development. On Tuesday, Iran warned the West that pressuring Tehran with sanctions during talks would threaten finding a solution. Foreign ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast told a news conference: "This approach of pressure concurrent with negotiations will never work. These countries should not enter negotiations with such illusions and misinterpretations." Meanwhile, the UN nuclear watchdog showed satellite imagery suggesting that Iran may be cleaning the Parchin site, where inspectors had suspected that tests relevant to atomic bomb development had been carried out. Quotes of the Week “[A] return to the old regime is unacceptable. So is exploiting religion in politics.” – Former Egyptian presidential candidate Amr Moussa told a press conference on Monday "(There was) no significant achievement except for the Iranians having been given another three weeks or so to pursue the nuclear project until the next meeting in Moscow." – Israeli vice prime minister Moshe Yaalon told Israel’s Army Radio in an interview on Tuesday “It is the start of a process to rectify the flawed historical situation that saw Western countries supporting dictators in the region, whose people hated those countries for their support.” -- Rached Ghannouchi quoted by Qatar’s state news agency QNA at the opening of a conference in Doha on relations between the United States and the Muslim world "Let me state plainly, however: The UN did not deploy in Syria just to bear witness to the slaughter of innocents… We are not there to play the role of passive observer to unspeakable atrocities." – UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon on Thursday “U.S. drones do not actually kill terrorists as they are supposed to do, but instead they kill women and youths.” – Nobel Peace Prize Winner Tawakul Karman said Thursday While We Were Looking Elsewhere Gaza. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh agreed Monday to allow the Central Elections Commission (CEC) to operate in Gaza in order to start preparing for elections. The CEC will start updating the electoral roll in Gaza on July 2 and plans to open two hundred and seventy-four centers to register voters. CEC chairman Hanna Nasser said that registration would take six weeks, after which PA president Mahmoud Abbas would set a date for presidential and parliamentary elections. Algeria. The inaugural session of Algeria’s new parliament on Saturday was interrupted by Islamist opposition members of parliament when they held up a placard reading “No to fraud!” The lawmakers, many of whom were part of the Green Algeria Alliance, proceeded to walk out of the session, announcing “an official protest against the election results.” The May 10 elections saw Algeria’s ruling party, the FLN, win two hundred and twenty of the available four hundred and sixty-two seats, while the allied RND party took an additional sixty-eight. Protesting parties filed one hundred and sixty-seven appeals, but the Constitutional Court only upheld thirteen. Tunisia. Tunisian prime minister Hamadi Jemali warned today that authorities would deal firmly with any groups that “believe they are charged by God to purify society.” The statement follows attacks in the past week by Salafi Muslims against police stations and liquor stores. Meanwhile, Tunisia’s judiciary went on strike Wednesday to protest the removal of eighty-two judges accused of corruption and ties to the previous government. This Week in History This week marks the 104th anniversary of the first big oil discovery in the Middle East. Englishman William D’Arcy obtained a license to explore for oil in Persia in 1901 and he, with the Burmah Oil Company, financed oil hand George Reynolds to search for petroleum there. After seven unsuccessful years of exploration, Reynolds made a last ditch attempt at digging on May 26, 1908. He was rewarded with a seventy-five foot gusher at Masjid-i-Suleiman. As a result of the huge find, D’Arcy and the Burmah Oil Company reorganized their holdings in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the first public offerings of which sold out in London within a half hour. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company would become the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1935 and then British Petroleum in 1954. Statistic of the Week According to a recent Jerusalem Media and Communication Center poll, Fatah would win an election if it were held today. While nearly half of the respondents said that Fatah has failed to implement reforms or combat corruption, 42 percent said they would still vote Fatah compared to the 19 percent that said they would support Hamas. Fifty-one percent of Palestinians interviewed in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip support presidential and parliamentary elections, but only if reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is reached. Fifty percent of those polled said that they would vote for jailed Fatah Marwan Barghouti if he decides to run for president, while only 20 percent said they would support Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Nearly half of the Palestinians interviewed said that they prefer a two-state solution, while 25 percent said prefer a one-state solution.  

This week’s Time magazine cover story features Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and attempts to divine the Israeli leader’s true ambitions. Time asks: Now that he has formed Israel’s strongest coalition in the country’s history, what does he plan to do with it? Analyzing Netanyahu’s “true intentions” has become a virtual cottage industry, both in Israel and abroad. Over the years, many commentators have scoured the Israeli leader’s personal history, speculating on the respective influences of his father, his wife, his fallen brother, and his childhood in the United States. This exercise at psycho-historical analysis, while fascinating, is largely pointless. I have had the opportunity to spend a considerable amount of time with the Israeli leader. But I would not profess to have gleaned special insight into what path his country will take under his leadership as a result. But I would say the same thing applies after having been exposed to other statesmen in my experience in public service. Indeed, one conclusion I have drawn observing world leaders is that most of them avoid tipping their hands prematurely or making decisions before they have to. They often have a strong sense of the direction they would like to point their ship of state. But they also know that they cannot predict, much less control, developments as they unfold. Therefore, given the stakes and consequences of the choices they must make, they will usually defer the hardest decisions until they absolutely must make the call. Journalists may indeed write the first draft of history. But they will not likely learn what historic decisions a given leader will take by interviewing them. The coherence and trajectory of where leaders are going are often only clear in retrospect, not at the time. Having been trained as an historian, I have spent years of my life in historical archives. Pouring through the private papers, correspondence, and minutes recording historic figures’ decision-making, it is impossible not to be struck by the complexity and even contingency of many momentous decisions. While many leaders have a strong sense of history, and operate in the knowledge that their actions will be the subject for future historians, most if not all entertain the same doubts, uncertainties, and questions the rest of us do. They are, after all, human. Momentous decisions can be literally a matter of life and death for thousands of people. It should not be surprising, therefore, that most leaders’ bottom lines on such issues can only truly be discerned at the decisive moment. They will only make the hardest choices when they absolutely have to, or when faced with an unpalatable situation in which the price of inaction forces them to act. The decisions they take are usually based on conviction, incomplete and imperfect information, and ultimately instinct. We can’t know what Bibi Netanyahu will do either with regards to Iran or the Palestinians. Whether or not Israel strikes Iran will ultimately depend on a host of elements, some international, some domestic, some personal. The actions of Iranians, Europeans, Americans, and other Israelis will all affect the calculus. But these variables are constantly changing, and it is impossible to know where they will be at some decisive moment that may well not be that of the Israeli leader’s choosing. Similarly, when it comes to what Netanyahu may do in negotiations with the Palestinians, the Israeli leader’s current intentions are much less important than the realities he will encounter down the line. In his previous stint at Israel’s helm, Netanyahu surprised many by becoming the first Likud leader to deploy Israeli deploy troops out of the historic land of Israel by signing the Hebron Accords with Yassir Arafat in 1997. This suggests that those who believe Netanyahu’s path is predetermined are mistaken. Moreover, realities change over the course of leaders’ tenures. Prime Minister Sharon took office in 2001 seeking to halt the negotiations with Yassir Arafat that had resulted in a second Intifada. Sharon later took the historic decision to withdraw Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 after he saw that other diplomatic efforts, such as the Geneva initiative, were starting to gain traction internationally. Sharon was not sure that the United States would not resume a full court diplomatic press, even under George Bush. Seeking to initiate rather than react, he put forward and executed his Gaza plan. Sharon’s successor, Ehud Olmert, came to power seeking to continue the unilateral disengagement effort but apply it to the West Bank. Instead, Olmert wound up negotiating intensively with the Palestinians within an American-sponsored framework launched in 2007 at Annapolis. How Netanyahu proceeds with the Palestinians ultimately depends on the realities he will confront in the future and the choices he will be asked to make. Many actors and variables will affect those choices. Intentions are important. But ultimately, timing is everything.

Significant Middle East Developments Syria. Earlier today, Burhan Ghalioun offered to resign as head of the Syrian National Council, the country’s primary opposition group. In making the announcement, Ghalioun called on the Syrian opposition “to break the cycle of conflicts and preserve unity.” Ghalioun’s resignation, just two days after he was reelected to head the SNC, was nonetheless reportedly due to the mounting criticism of Ghalioun’s leadership within the opposition. Some constituents threatened to leave if their concerns were not properly addressed. Meanwhile, violence within Syria continued with reports that fifteen people were killed by army shelling today in Rastan, and dozens more reportedly killed earlier this week. Some twenty-three Syrian soldiers were killed by rebels in Rastan on Monday. Syria’s fighting also spilled over into Lebanon this week with Tripoli in the north the scene of days of bloody clashes between Bashar al-Assad supporters and backers of Syria’s uprising, leaving at least six dead and some one hundred wounded. Despite the violence, President Assad announced in a rare interview on Tuesday with Russian television that Syria faced no real domestic opposition. He attributed recent violence to foreign-backed terrorists saying, “We have an acute problem with terrorism.” Noteworthy U.S. Foreign Policy Developments Israel. Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta in Washington today and reportedly discussed Iranian developments. The two officials discussed the United States providing $680 million in additional funding over three years for Israel’s Iron Dome missile system. The money would be enough for Israel to buy three or four more batteries and interceptors for the short-range rocket defense program. Barak thanked the United States at the meeting for its “complete commitment to Israel’s security” and said that additional missile defense would provide Israel’s leaders the political and diplomatic leverage to "prevent a significant escalation." Yemen. President Obama signed an executive order on Wednesday providing the Treasury Department the authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who undermines Yemen’s stability. Obama administration officials explained that the order will help them to sideline and remove relatives and supporters of former president Ali Abdullah Saleh from positions of power. It is applicable to anyone who has “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen” and reflects concerns that political instability could be taken advantage of by members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Quotes of the Week “Egypt will offer an example to the world of free and fair presidential elections that (reflect) the will of the people.” – Egyptian field marshal Hussein Tantawi on Wednesday “The great dream of the peoples of the region is to see the day when borders disappear with a union that creates one Gulf.” – Bahraini prime minister Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa on Sunday prior to a meeting of Gulf Cooperation Council leaders “If the world community set the threshold that even if fully accepted, let alone only partially accepted by the Iranians, to keep moving toward nuclear military program, that’s ridiculous, a delusion.” – Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak in a CNN interview on Wednesday “We have seen nothing in the past months except political incompetence in the SNC and a total lack of consensus between its vision and that of the revolutionaries.” - Syria’s Local Coordination Committees in a statement today While We Were Looking Elsewhere Iran. Iranian officials met with IAEA representatives in Vienna on Monday for the first time in three months. Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, called on the West to end its “pressure strategy” and said the Iranian people await actions to secure their trust. The Vienna talks were in preparation for the resumption of the upcoming P5+1 negotiations next Tuesday (May 23) in Baghdad. Meanwhile, a panel of UN experts submitted a report on Wednesday to the UN Security Council’s Iran sanctions committee detailing illegal Iranian arms shipments, including two seized shipments to Syria in the past year. The report also said that sanctions on Iran are slowing its procurement of essential items for its nuclear program. GCC. The leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states met on Monday to discuss a Saudi proposal to turn the bloc into a union, a process that would likely begin with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The group did not reach agreement to integrate the six GCC states, with talks on that proposal postponed until the next GCC meeting in December. However, the discussion stirred a public row between Bahrain and Iran as Iranian parliamentarians condemned the potential Saudi-Bahraini union. Officials in Tehran urged Iranians to protest on Friday against “the American plan to annex Bahrain to Saudi Arabia and express their anger against the lackey regimes of Al-Khalifa and Al-Saud.” Bahrain’s Foreign Ministry sent Iran a letter of protest in response. West Bank. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas swore in a new cabinet on Wednesday consisting of eleven new officials. The appointment came more than a year after the last cabinet resigned in February 2011. Salam Fayyad retained his role as prime minister, but relinquished his second role as financial minister to Nabil Kassis, a former Bir Zeit University president and political independent. Today, Abbas issued a decree authorizing the new government to hold municipal elections in stages in the West Bank. The last round of local elections was held in 2005. Both moves drew harsh criticism from Hamas, with spokesperson Fawzi Barhum saying that the steps “strengthen the division” and called on Abbas to implement the Doha agreement between Fatah and Hamas calling for a new interim unity government. Abbas replied, “If we have an agreement with Hamas tomorrow or afterwards, this government will not have any role… But I cannot wait forever.” Egypt. The leader of Egypt’s ruling military council, Field Marshal Tantawi, vowed on Wednesday to secure a fair vote in Egypt’s upcoming presidential elections which begin on May 23. Tantawi said that the military would retain its “duty” to safeguard Egypt from internal disturbances as well as external threats. This Week in History This week marks the eighty-ninth anniversary of Britain’s formal recognition of the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. The Emirate of Transjordan was established as a British protectorate in April 1921 following the historic Cairo Conference. Transjordan and Palestine were placed under one mandate, although Britain administered the land west of the Jordan River as Palestine and the land east of the river as Transjordan. In May of 1923, Transjordan was formally recognized as an independent mandate under Emir Abdullah. Under this arrangement, the British loosened some of its mandatory control, limiting its role to financial, military, and foreign policy matters. The first Anglo-Transjordan treaty was completed in 1928, which granted Transjordan nominal independence, though Britain maintained a military presence and control of foreign affairs. Transjordan finally became an independent kingdom in 1946, when it was officially established as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. Statistic of the Week According to a Rasmussen Reports survey, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of U.S. voters polled believe there is a conflict today between Western civilization and Islamic nations. The survey also found that only 27 percent of the respondents believe that it is at least somewhat likely that countries such as Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia will become free and democratic over the next few years. Of that group, only 3 percent think it is very likely to occur. Sixty-two percent think such a democratic transformation is not likely.

Israel’s political landscape was just redrawn last week with the surprise agreement between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Kadima party head Shaul Mofaz to form a new government rather than hold national elections in September. I discussed the implications of this development with former New York Times diplomatic correspondent Bernard Gwertzman in an interview featured on CFR.org and published below. Domestic Focus for Israel’s Coalition May 14, 2012 Interviewee: Robert M. Danin, Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies, CFR Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Shaul Mofaz, the head of the Kadima Party, announced on May 8 a national unity government that will be the largest coalition in Israel’s history and will remain in power until elections in 2013. The sudden agreement by Israel’s two leading parties, which forestalled new parliamentary elections that had been scheduled for September, was made primarily for domestic reasons, not to prepare for war against Iran, says CFR Middle East expert Robert M. Danin. Danin says Israelis’ priorities are "economic and social." While Iran is something to which the Israeli security establishment led by Netanyahu pays close attention, says Danin, "there is not a widespread clamoring for a strike against Iran at a popular level within Israel." The emphasis on domestic issues also eclipses the peace process with the Palestinians, says Danin, noting that "there is a widespread and shared sense that the system of governance needs to change. Only then do they talk about promoting a peace process." What’s the most important aspect of this unprecedented arrangement between Netanyahu and Mofaz? The most significant aspect is that you now will have the largest coalition government in Israel’s history. Some 94 members of the Knesset’s 120 members will be inside the government. This makes it a very strong government, and it means that no one party can bring down the government. This gives Prime Minister Netanyahu tremendous stability and tremendous room to maneuver. He and Mofaz had a press conference in which he outlined four areas they wanted to work on. Could you outline these? The four elements were: 1) promoting legislation to bring the ultra-Orthodox into national service within two months; 2) changing the system of government in Israel by the end of the year; 3) passing a budget; and 4) promoting what they called a "reasonable peace process." What’s significant and interesting about this--and I have just returned from Israel--is that if you read outside commentary you would think that Israel is at the center of a regional tsunami because of the Arab uprisings, the Syrian bloodshed, and instability all around. But the priorities in Israeli politics right now are domestic, economic, and social, and that’s reflected in those four agenda items. Three out of the four items are purely domestic issues having to do with governance and the way Israel is run, either in terms of bringing one segment of society into national service or passing a budget or actually reforming the system of governance, which is a recognition that there is a widespread and shared sense that the system of governance needs to change. Only then do they talk about promoting a peace process. I’m always confused about the fact that there are so many parties in the Israeli government. Is this an effort to narrow the number of parties? Not necessarily, but we have yet to learn exactly what they have in mind. Overall, what you’ve had in Israel is a system in which, because of the precariousness of the parliamentary system, it’s very difficult for the prime minister and his ruling party to carry out its agenda. It needs a coalition to bring that about, and what you’ve had are coalitions of not necessarily like-minded parties, but rather a coalition in which deals are made, in which smaller interests are addressed. There’s a large-scale consensus amongst "middle Israel," the vast majority of the Israeli populace that lives in the coastal plain of Israel, that special interests get a disproportionate amount of attention and resources thrown at them in order to maintain political coalitions. That’s what they want to try to change. The ultra-Orthodox have been exempt from national service. Will it be difficult to change this, or is bringing them into the national service something the new coalition can achieve? There is the potential for significant change. Israel has changed its system several times. Israel originally had the electoral system it has today, but from 1996 to 2001, they changed it. They enacted a system in which the prime minister was elected separately from the party list. This proved to be worse than the previous system, and so they went back to the status quo ante in 2001. Still, the fact that they were able to change the system before shows it can be done. Now there’s a yearning for even more dramatic change. The fact that Mofaz and Netanyahu basically have an agreement that this government will last until the end of its tenure, which is late next year, means that there’s a significant amount of time. One of the significant elements of Israeli politics is that for the last several years, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s been looking over his shoulder at the Yisrael Beiteinu party, headed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, which has had fifteen seats in the Knesset. This agreement frees up Netanyahu from being dependent on any single party anymore for his government. It means that he has a lot of space and power to really bring about dramatic change, and he’s identified domestic change as the real national agenda. Mofaz in the past has been more publicly eager for an agreed solution with thePalestinians than Netanyahu has seemed to be. Will this open the way for substantive new negotiations with the Palestinian Authority? There are two important elements here. First, the center of gravity within the coalition now has shifted more towards Israel’s center. Bringing in a centrist party of twenty-nine really tilts the scales towards the center, and the fact that Kadima does want an active peace process is going to enable Prime Minister Netanyahu to pursue a more activist approach. He won’t be hamstrung by the far right. The second element is that Mofaz has reportedly been anointed to explore possibilities with the Palestinians. So that argues for renewed efforts with the Palestinians. That would be welcomed in the United States, where the administration has seemed to shelve its prior interest in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Another significant international issue that has been the topic of speculation is whether this accord will reduce the likelihood of Israel pursuing military action against the Iranian nuclear establishment on its own. I don’t think this accord was done necessarily to set the stage for action against Iran. That’s the way many observers are reading it. I see the accord more in terms of domestic politics, but it does give the prime minister much greater freedom of maneuver on foreign policy, and traditionally Israel has formed strong national unity governments on the eve of wars. This is a peacetime, broad-based national unity government, so Israel is better placed politically to take military action if it wants to, but I don’t think that this is necessarily an indicator. But it means that Prime Minister Netanyahu has a broad-based support for not taking military action if that’s what this government decides to do. So you don’t see Iran as the basis for this accord? It’s very hard to extrapolate meaning vis-à-vis Iran from this agreement. The arrangement was driven by domestic considerations. A majority of Israelis polled as Israel was preparing for elections did not want elections right now. So the move itself is actually popular. Israelis did not necessarily want to go to the polls right now. There had been an intense debate in Israel on why he [Netanyahu] was going for elections right now. One school had it that he wanted to have elections prior to the American elections, because either electorally he’d do better now or he’d be able to renew his mandate and still have time to take action on Iran with a new mandate. But the more compelling explanation has to do with Kadima [an offshoot of the Likud party and founded by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005 to support his unilateral withdrawal from Gaza]. The Kadima leader, former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni, had just been replaced by Mofaz. Kadima was polling extremely badly. It looked as though, if elections were held in September, Kadima would be reduced significantly in size in the Knesset. Netanyahu saw an opportunity to achieve what he had long wanted, which was to bring Kadima back into his government. Originally, Netanyahu wanted to do it through elections, by destroying them electorally, but this agreement does the same thing, without elections. It re-empowers and re-strengthens Likud, and I wouldn’t be surprised if in 2013, when Israel does go to elections, Kadima may no longer exist. Kadima may actually be part of Likud again, which is one of the reasons many people are upset by this. Mofaz is an Iranian Jew himself. How eager is he to attack Iran? There is not a widespread clamoring for a strike against Iran at a popular level within Israel. What was so striking in visiting Israel is there was just no sense that you’re visiting a country that is about to go to war, which is not to say that’s not the case. But the point is that Iran does not dominate popular sentiment. There’s not a sense of either "We’re about to go to war " and that either we should or we shouldn’t. It just isn’t a top-level issue on the national agenda. But as reflected in those four pillars of the coalition agreement, it is not at the top of national priorities at a popular level. To be sure, this is something that’s consuming the prime minister and his national security team, and they feel a tremendous weight of responsibility for dealing with this. So I don’t want to diminish it either. But at a popular level, Israel does not feel like a country that’s about to go to war, nor are Israelis consumed with this issue of Iran either way.

I just returned from Israel and the West Bank where I accompanied the Quartet Representative, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, for meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Israelis and Palestinians already were already absorbed by the impending election campaign, having rapidly internalized an apparent decision by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dissolve his government and hold elections on September 4. Several hours ago, early Tuesday morning Israel time, Netanyahu surprised everyone in Israel by reaching agreement to form a national unity government with the new leader of Kadima, Shaul Mofaz. Instead of holding elections on September 4, the prime minister instead reportedly plans to serve out the remainder of his term, which is set to expire late in 2013.  Under the agreement, the centrist Kadima party will join Netanyahu’s government with Mofaz, who just took over as party head two weeks ago, likely to become deputy prime minister and minister without portfolio. Israelis will awake in a few hours to the surprise news. While many Israeli politicians will denounce Netanyahu’s decision to abort the elections, in reality, many of them will be relieved. Netanyahu was taking Israel to the polls right now precisely because his political standing is extremely strong right now. For Mofaz’s Kadima, the agreement provides relief, given that polls suggested that it would lose two-thirds of its current 28 Knesset seats. It could mean the end of the party, however, if Netanyahu succeeds in reintegrating some of the former Likud members who had joined Kadima when Prime Minister Sharon formed the party in 2005. It is within the hard right in Israel that some of the greatest dissatisfaction could emerge. Kadima and Likud combined now hold almost a simple majority in the Knesset. Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu just lost its three-year-old veto over any Netanyahu initiatives. Some within the prime minister’s own Likud will be also displeased, particularly if they are forced to give up cabinet seats or other prized positions to make room for their new Kadima partners. Those to the right of Netanyahu will also now worry that the prime minister may tack to the center on issues related to the Palestinians. For Defense Minister Barak, the agreement provides a new lifeline, since it was not clear that his new breakaway faction from Labor would pick up a single seat in the next election. Labor, now headed by Shelly Yacimovich, had picked up a number of seats in the polls, but was nowhere close to being able to pose a serious challenge to Netanyahu. With Kadima now in the government, Labor will return to the role it has mainly played since 1977, that of being the leader of the opposition. This could help awaken the somnambulant left in Israel. As Israel enters its summer, Netanyahu’s greatest challenge could emerge from elements within the country not represented in the Knesset: the social protest movement. Last summer, Israel witnessed unprecedented social protests that brought hundreds of thousands of Israelis to the streets for a number of months. These demonstrators rallied against skyrocketing housing and living costs, government corruption, and increased income disparities. In recent days, the grass-roots leadership of the social movement had begun to be courted by some of Israel’s political parties in the hope that these largely unaffiliated demonstrators could be mobilized behind the traditional parties. With elections no longer impending, the social activists may see the only alternative open to them this summer as being a return to the streets. Such a development will be no boon to Netanyahu’s free-market oriented Likud could leave the prime minister wishing he had proceeded with his plan to hold early elections at a time when a relatively easy victory appeared almost assured.

Significant Middle East Developments Syria. The United Nations announced today that the three-week old truce in Syria "is not holding." Major General Robert Mood, chief of the UN Supervision Mission to Syria, told Britain’s Sky News that “This is not easy and we are seeing--by the action, by explosions, by firing--that the cease-fire is really a shaky one.” He went on to say that “what we are also seeing on the ground is that where we have observers present, they have a calming effect and we’re also seeing that those operating on the ground, they take advice from our observers.” His remarks follow UN under secretary for peacekeeping operations Herve Ladsous’s statement on Tuesday that Syrian forces have kept heavy weapons in cities and that both the Syrian military and rebel forces have violated the truce. He also said the UN had recruited only about half the number of the three hundred monitors it had hoped for in Syria but that commitments were still coming in. Meanwhile, a protest on a university campus turned deadly when Syrian security forces stormed a dormitory at Aleppo University last night. Syrian activists report that security forces fired tear gas and live ammunition to disperse students gathered in protest; at least four have been killed and more than fifty students were arrested. Aleppo province saw further violence yesterday when rebel forces ambushed Syrian soldiers in the village of Al-Rai, killing fifteen troops. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch released a report on Wednesday which accuses the Syrian military of committing war crimes in Syria’s northern Idlib province just before a ceasefire went into effect on April 12. Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu has come under unusual criticism of his handling of Iran by a number of former intelligence and security officials. Yuval Diskin, who recently retired as head of the Israeli Shin Bet security service, said on Friday that he had “no trust in the current Israeli leadership" and condemned the “messianic leadership” of Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak, saying they were “presenting the public with a mirage” concerning the policy options on Iran’s nuclearization. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan echoed these statements at a conference in New York on Sunday saying that Diskin had “spoke his truth” when he attacked Netanyahu’s leadership. Dagan has also declared that “an aerial attack against Iran’s nuclear reactor would be foolish.” Gabi Ashkenazi, a former head of the Israeli Defense Forces, called Dagan and Diskin his partners in “stopping Bibi and Barak” from setting out on “any dangerous adventure.” Current IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz told Haaretz last week "Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily ’go, no-go,’” a statement that notably contrasts with Netanyahu’s stated timeline. The wave of criticism comes at a crucial time as Israel’s Knesset appears poised to call for new elections. A Likud official said this week that Netanyahu will announce on Sunday that national elections will be moved up to September 4. Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced yesterday that the prospect of imminent elections would not affect Israel’s strategy for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. All this falls against the backdrop of personal grief for the prime minister; Netanyahu’s father, the renowned historian Benzion Netanyahu, passed away on Monday at the age of 102. Egypt. Egypt’s campaign for the presidential election officially began on Monday with the news that the Salafi party al-Nour had endorsed Abdul Muniem Abul Fotouh. The former Muslim Brother Fotouh was also endorsed by Wael Ghonim, the young Google executive who became famous during the uprising last year. Al-Nour’s announcement is an apparent setback to Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi’s campaign. Meanwhile protesters camped out in Abbasseya Square were attacked Saturday night by an unknown group who threw rocks and Molotov cocktails into the crowd, killing one and injuring one hundred and nineteen. Violence has flared every night since then with twenty people killed in clashes Tuesday night and at least another eleven Wednesday night. Both Abdul Muniem Abul Fotouh and Mohammed Mursi called off campaign events on Wednesday in protest of the authorities’ handling of the events. Meanwhile the Freedom and Justice party called for a cabinet reshuffle within forty-eight hours on Sunday and then suspended all sessions of parliament for a week. SCAF members responded on Monday by denying any intention of a cabinet reshuffle, but did announce on Wednesday that the military may hand over power on May 24 if the president wins in the first round. Noteworthy U.S. Foreign Policy Developments The UAE. U.S. officials announced on Monday that the United States had deployed a number of highly advanced F-22 fighter jets to the Al-Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates amid deepening tensions between the UAE and Iran. Air force major Mary Danner-Jones said in a statement: "The United States Air Force has deployed F-22s to Southwest Asia. Such deployments strengthen military-to-military relationships, promote sovereign and regional security, improve combined tactical air operations, and enhance interoperability of forces, equipment and procedures." Iran criticized the move saying that it will “endanger the region’s security.” Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast continued saying: "We do not in any way approve the presence of foreign forces in the region. We advise the regional countries against providing a basis for their presence." Syria and Iran. The U.S. Treasury Department announced today that Daniel Glaser, the assistant secretary for terrorist financing, will visit Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates during a ten-day visit to discuss the threat of terrorist financing and efforts to implement sanctions against Iran and Syria. A Treasury Department statement announced that Glaser will "highlight the need for governments and financial sectors to remain vigilant against attempts by the Syrian and Iranian regimes to evade multilateral sanctions." Quotes of the Week "We stress that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the council countries are standing in a unified line with Bahrain and the UAE to protect sovereignty and stability, considering their security a part of the council’s security as a whole." – Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Nayef in a speech at a meeting of GCC interior ministers in Riyadh on Wednesday “The Persian Gulf region is the home of all of us, and the nations on its southern and northern shores are permanent inhabitants and inevitable neighbors, and should accept that facts of geography and proximity are unchangeable and that peaceful and brotherly coexistence is an undeniable necessity.” – Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi wrote in a message to the National Persian Gulf day celebration in Bushehr on Sunday "The cease-fire, announced on the basis of Kofi Annan’s plan and supported by the UN Security Council, is not being stable yet, mostly because the armed opposition groups are trying to stage provocations, explosions, terror attacks and shootings," – Russian foreign minister Lavrov told the Rossiya-24 TV channel last Friday “The (Egyptian ) army is weakening, losing its autonomy to the benefit of the government. That is bad for us. It is vital that we maintain the relationship with Egypt at any price." - former Israeli defense minister and national infrastructures minister, and current Labor Party MK, Benjamin "Fouad" Ben-Eliezer said in an interview with Haaretz While We Were Looking Elsewhere Jordan. King Abdullah swore in a new thirty-member cabinet on Wednesday following the resignation of his prime minister Awn Khasawneh last week. The new prime minister, Fayez Tarawneh, has been tasked with preparing for parliamentary elections at the end of the year. His appointment has been met with criticism. Jamil Abu Baker, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, called it “a set-back for reforms. It entrenches a pre-Arab Spring mentality... The prime minister is conservative and his views and position on reform are well-known.” Bahrain. A Bahraini appeals court on Monday approved a retrial for twenty-one opposition activists, including hunger striker Abdulhadi al-Khawaja. Eight of the activists, including Khawaja, were given life sentences in June by military courts for their roles in last year’s uprising. The judge ruled that those currently in prison will remain there until a verdict in a new trial. No date has been announced for the retrial. On Wednesday, King Hamad accused foreign media of exaggerating the unrest in Bahrain and inciting violence. Libya. The head of the electoral committee, Nuri Abbar, announced the opening of voter and candidate registration centers on Tuesday. He said that there are over 1,350 centers spread across the country. Elections for a constituent assembly that will choose a panel of experts to draft a constitution are scheduled for June. Libyan authorities also passed a law on Thursday that granted immunity to former revolutionaries for any act “made necessary by the February 17 revolution.” Meanwhile, on Monday Libya formally requested the ICC to declare the case of former dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s son Seif al-Islam’s case inadmissible and quash the surrender request so that he may be tried in country. Libya and the International Criminal Court have been at odds over who has the right to try Seif since his apprehension in November. Hamas. A meeting in Cairo between Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and senior Fatah official Azzam al-Ahmed in Cairo failed to make any progress toward a unity deal, according to Palestinian officials. One negotiator, speaking anonymously, said that two hours of talks Wednesday night, a bid following up on the unity agreement reached in Doha on February 6, produced “nothing new.” This Week in History This week marks Iran’s celebration of National Persian Gulf Day, commemorating the expulsion of the Portuguese from the Strait of Hormuz in 1622 under the Safavid king Shah Abbas I. The holiday also celebrates the “Persian” aspect of the Gulf’s name, in response to perceived attempts to erode its ancient imperial history by neighboring Arab states and their Western allies through attempts to change the name to either the “Arabian Gulf” or simply “the Gulf.” In 2004, Iran banned the sale of the National Geographic’s Eighth Edition Atlas of the World because it included “Arabian Gulf” as an alternate name in parenthesis underneath “Persian Gulf” on a map. Iranian newspapers note that the “Persian Gulf” has been thus named since the Achaemenid Empire and is the waterway’s only legitimate name. This year’s celebration of National Persian Gulf Day comes amidst a diplomatic row with the states of the Arabian Peninsula over territorial rights to the islands of Abu Musa, the Greater Tunb, and the Lesser Tunb. A ceremony was held in the coastal town of Bushehr complete with a parade of naval warships and vessels. Statistic of the Week According to the 2012 ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller Arab Youth Survey, being paid a fair wage and owning a home have supplanted living in a democratic country as the top two priorities for young people living in the Middle East. Eighty-two percent of respondents chose being paid a far wage as very important followed by 65 percent that chose owning their own home. In 2011, nearly 70 percent of respondents selected living in a democratic state as one of their top priorities, but this year the number dropped to 58 percent. The poll also found that 40 percent picked the UAE as the preferred role model for their own country, compared to 28 percent that chose Turkey and 18 percent that chose Saudi Arabia.