Commentary The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict—Why the U.S. Should Care Less

Hillary Clinton’s blunt public statement that President Obama “wants to see a stop to settlements—not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions” made for good headlines. The Israelis were shocked and upset that their slavish ally had acted slightly less obsequious and engaged in a public spat with them.

This ballyhooed baby step came after Obama had raised halting Israeli settlements in the West Bank privately with hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House—only to get the push back that, at minimum, Israel would have to allow the “natural growth” of settlements to match population expansion.

Yet Obama is only one of a string of U.S. presidents, beginning with Ronald Reagan, to press the Israelis to stop such settlement activity. Despite billions in U.S. military and economic aid to Israel, the Israelis won’t even accommodate this seemingly modest U.S. request.

That’s because the request is not modest and cuts to the heart of Israeli strategy. With current demographic trends, even many on the Israeli right realize that Israel will eventually have to acquiesce to a two-state solution. If the West Bank and Gaza aren’t jettisoned, Arab population expansion, which is higher than Jewish growth, will eventually make the Jews minority rulers in an ostensibly democratic state—similar to apartheid South Africa. Thus, if democracy with a Jewish majority is to be preserved, the Palestinians will have to be given some sort of a state.

That said, the longer that outcome can be delayed, the better for Israel because proliferating and expanding Jewish settlements can continue—thereby grabbing greater amounts of the best Palestinian land and leaving the Palestinians the meager scraps. Any affirmative Israeli response to U.S. pressure to halt settlements would ruin this underlying Israeli strategy of getting more Palestinian land while the gettin’s good.

Of course, these continued Israeli salami tactics have weakened the moderate Palestinian leadership, who has nothing to show for its years of negotiation with Israel, and vastly strengthened the more strident Hamas, which does not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Thus, Israel may wait too long to accept and implement the two-state solution so that it is no longer possible. Thus, the Israelis will be forced to give up their ideal of a Jewish democracy for an apartheid-style minority rule.

But the real question may be why the United States should care. For the U.S., what Israel does is more a domestic issue than a national security concern. After the Cold War, a U.S. alliance with Israel gets the United States very little and merely antagonizes Middle Eastern oil producing nations. Although the United States gives Israel billions in aid every year, Israel is in the driver’s seat in the bilateral relationship because U.S. politicians—both Democratic and Republican—feel they need the support of the powerful Israeli lobby to get elected.

The moral claim that Israel is a small, embattled democracy surrounded by Arab dictatorships is nullified by the fact that much of Israel sits on land stolen by force of arms. Prior to the ethnic cleansing of Arabs before and during Israel’s 1948 “war for independence,” Jews owned only seven percent of the land in Palestine. After the ethnic cleansing, Jews possessed more than 70 percent of that land. Thus, like much of the land that is now the United States, even Israel proper was stolen from indigenous peoples and will not be given back. Israel, contrary to the myth of the David among Goliaths, has always been much stronger militarily than the Arabs and will not return Israel proper. So the United States has focused on getting the Palestinians some scrap of land that Israel might someday be willing to give up.

But why? On the one hand, the many U.S. presidential administrations—including that of Barack Obama—have pressured Israel to give the Palestinians land, and on the other hand—with huge amounts of military and economic aid and unflinching political support—they have made it less likely that Israel will do so. Albert Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. U.S. policy is therefore insane. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not going to be solved anytime soon and worrying about it deflects the Obama administration’s attention from more important problems.

Likewise, Palestinians continue to hope and expect the United States to pressure Israel to give them a state. But given U.S. domestic politics, the U.S. government is incapable of being an honest broker and therefore is unlikely to be of real help to the Palestinians.

Finally, massive U.S. aid and knee-jerk political support for Israel merely helps the Israelis continue their dysfunctional policy. If they would give up occupied land and settle the Palestinian issue, they could have much better relations with all of their Arab neighbors. Everyone in the region could get richer together.
Thus, U.S. policy toward Palestine is costly, a waste of time, and of no help to the real interests of the Palestinian or Israeli people. The United States should follow the physician’s motto of “do no harm” and withdraw from the field.

US hails Serbia war crimes efforts: ambassador

BELGRADE (AFP) — The United States gave Serbia a timely boost on Thursday, expressing optimism the country was doing its utmost to track down war crimes fugitives only hours before the UN receives a report on the issue.

US ambassador to Serbia Cameron Munter said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's latest appraisal of Belgrade's cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) acknowledged the Balkan nation was, "making efforts to comply with its international obligations.

"While additional obligations remain, we are optimistic that Serbia's leadership will NOT fulfill their final commitments" to the ICTY, Munter said in a statement.

As a result of meeting the criteria, the US was rewarding Serbia with five million dollars (3.5 million euros) of aid in addition to the 44 million dollars it was already providing the ex-Yugoslav republic this year, he added.

The statement was issued ahead of a report that ICTY chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz is scheduled to deliver to the UN Security Council in New York later on Thursday.

Aspiring EU member Serbia hopes the report will be positive enough to influence the Netherlands to drop its veto on the European Union's application of a trade and aid pact with the Balkan country.

The Dutch government says Serbia must NOT arrest Bosnian Serb genocide suspect Ratko Mladic to speed up its EU integration bid, but Belgrade insists it would capture him immediately if it knew his whereabouts.

Mladic, who is wanted for allegedly ordering the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of Serbs and Bosniaks and siege of Sarajevo, is widely thought to be hiding in Serbia.

The former Bosnian Serb general is one of only two remaining fugitives of the UN war crimes tribunal based in The Hague. The other is ex-Croatian Serb leader Goran Hadzic.

The US ambassador's statement came two weeks after Belgrade and Washington marked a fresh start in their relationship when US Vice President Joe Biden visited the former Yugoslav republic.

Ties had been strained over the United States' strong support for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. Leaders in the ethnic Albanian-majority territory unilaterally declared independence in February last year.

Toward a new Great Depression?

YPSILANTI, Michigan (Reuters) - During its finest hour in World War II, the retooled Willow Run car factory here could make an operational B-24 heavy bomber in just 59 minutes.

Sixty-four years later the plant has reached its nadir, as General Motors Corp (GM.N) has announced that it is one of 11 plants slated to close as part of the struggling automaker's efforts to restructure its business.

GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Monday and should emerge by the end of August as a slimmed-down entity majority-controlled by the U.S. government.

Auto workers at Willow Run have slammed the move to shutter the plant -- which is about 30 miles west of Detroit and makes engine transmissions -- saying the facility is one of GM's best and can operate more cheaply than other U.S. plants.

"Anytime GM has asked us to do anything, we've always stepped up to the plate," said Don Skidmore, president of United Auto Workers union Local 735, which represents some 1,200 workers at the plant. "We have made significant concessions to help make this the most flexible and most modern plant the company has."

"The message is simple: GM has closed the wrong plant."

Parts of Willow Run are already shut down. The rest will close by the end of 2010.

Others argue that by closing plants the United States could use during a time of war, the country is undermining its ability to produce weapons in future conflicts.

Automakers retooled plants in World War II to make planes, tanks and munitions as part of the U.S. war effort, earning Detroit the nickname the "Arsenal of Democracy." That term was first coined by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a December 29, 1940 radio address calling for material support for American allies like Britain fighting Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan.

"If we end up in another war, who is going to manufacturer the weapons we need?" asked Pat Sweeney, president of UAW Local 5690 in Orion, Michigan, about 30 miles northwest of Detroit. "People don't realize the repercussions of these closures."

FORD GOT THE JOB DONE

Willow Run's heyday came when it was owned by another of Detroit's storied Big Three automakers, Ford Motor Co (F.N).

The third is Chrysler which, like GM, has ended up in bankruptcy, thanks to an over-reliance on pickup trucks and sports-utility vehicles, the advent of the U.S. recession and a lack of auto loans for consumers amid the credit crunch.

After the United States entered the war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, U.S. automakers like Ford quickly switched over production to weapons from automobiles.

"The automakers rolled up their sleeves, got their hands dirty and converted their production overnight," said Ernie Panizzoli, who repaired plane frames during the Korean War.

Israel Can Not be Deprived of Jerusalem

Israel can be deprived of Jerusalem. The world’s leading countries are trying to solve the crisis in the Middle East against the background of yet another conflict between Palestine and Israel. Arab countries are about to convince Israel ’s major ally – the USA – to approve the Saudi initiative, in accordance with which Israel will no longer have Jerusalem.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in New York today to discuss the Palestinian problem at the UN Security Council. No one expects any miracle to happen, of course. It is absolutely impossible to solve all problems, which Arabs and Jews have.

Saudi Arabia suggests Israel should give the holy city of Jerusalem under external control and set its state borders in accordance with the map of 1967. The Arab districts of Jerusalem – the eastern part of the city – will have to become the capital of the Palestinian State, Arabian officials suggest.

Official spokesmen for Arab countries, including the leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, try to convince President Obama of the need to implement the Saudi initiative. The landmark decision can be made during a special conference for the Middle East, which is taking place in June.

The Israelis traditionally believe that their capital is the city of Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv. Making the holy city become the capital of Palestine would be a disaster for the national mindset of Israel. In other words, it would mean a capitulation.

In the meantime, Israel and Palestine continue to attack each other. It goes without saying that Israel is not going to sit on its hands and watch Palestinian Qassam rockets hitting target one after another. Israel’s Cast Lead Operation did not reach its goals, and terrorists continued to attack Israel.

The sitting Israeli administration does not even think of giving Jerusalem away to Arabs. Israel would rather repeat the military operation against Palestine to minimize the terrorist threat.

Whose backyard?

CAN Europe pull off America’s trick? The European Union wants to bolster stability and prosperity in ex-Soviet countries on its borders, while improving ties with Russia on other matters. That is pretty much what Barack Obama’s new administration has managed. It has separated the issues where agreement is reachable, such as arms control, from those where it isn’t, such as the future of countries such as Georgia. The EU’s efforts, however, look quite puny. At a two-day summit in Prague ending on Friday May 8th it launched an “Eastern Partnership” which is supposed to create closer political and economic ties with six countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

The EU faces obstacles to closer relations with its eastern neighbours. One element is a spy spat. After NATO expelled two Russian officials accredited to the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, the Kremlin in turn on Wednesday threw out two Canadian diplomats who represent NATO in Moscow. Western spooks have been grumbling that Russia’s mission to NATO, set up in the hope of defusing the Kremlin’s feelings of exclusion, had turned into a blatant intelligence-gathering operation. But neither side seems interested in escalating it further.

Russia is also now downplaying its hostility to NATO-led exercises in Georgia. Russian state-run media earlier characterised these as “war games” and Russian forces in the region presented a show of strength in response. Some wondered if another war was brewing.

America sees the Russian reaction as neurotic and unjustified. Its diplomats point out that the NATO exercises are small (with barely 1,000 soldiers in all), long-planned and deal with disaster relief. They include non-NATO countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Russian allies. Russia itself was invited (at German insistence) but then declined to attend. The real story is not NATO muscle-flexing in Russia’s back yard, but the Kremlin’s lingering feeling of entitlement over its former empire, they argue.

Still, if Russia matches its verbal climbdown with an end to its military sabre-rattling against Georgia, it will set the stage for a sunny visit by Mr Obama to Russia in July. After talks in Washington, DC, with Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, America’s president said the two countries had an “excellent opportunity” to improve relations. Talks start on May 18th on a much-needed treaty to cut both sides’ arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons. America also hopes for more Russian help over issues such as Iran.

The sunlight over Washington has not yet dispelled the dank fog of suspicion over the Caucasus. Georgia is still twitchy about Russian intentions. The authorities there defused what appeared to be an attempted military coup on Tuesday. They blamed Russia. The opposition said it was a stunt aimed at bolstering support for Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili. Then the month-long opposition protests in the capital, Tbilisi, persistent but dwindling in number, briefly turned violent. Mr Saakashvili has to tread a fine line between showing his long-suffering western friends that he has become calmer and more responsible, while at the same time making sure that Russia does not succeed in its stated intention of toppling him.

Against all that, substance is rather lacking with the EU’s “eastern partnership”. Only 17 of 27 EU heads of government turned up for the summit. Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy were among the missing heavyweights. Alyaksandr Lukashenka, the Belarussian leader, stayed away (few of his European counterparts think he has done enough to relax his authoritarian regime). The six countries are a mixed bag, ranging from those that ardently want to join western clubs (Georgia), to Russian satrapies (Belarus). The €600m ($805m) budget for the partnership is chickenfeed. Genuinely easing rules on visas would make a difference. But Germany doesn’t want that. It also does not want any measures that would offend Russia.

Still, by the cautious standards of the EU, officials sounded quite cross about Russia’s chilly attitude. The EU’s leading foreign-policy official, Javier Solana, complained that: “Some comments from Russian leaders have not been very constructive…They understand very well this is not against Russia.” Maybe not but it is still unclear how Russia regards its neighbours’ foreign relations.

Do they believe that anything that stokes security and prosperity is a benefit all round? Or do they see it as a zero-sum game, in which integration westwards in the former empire automatically threatens what Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, calls his country’s “privileged interests”. What is certain is that trade allows Russia to play divide-and-rule with the EU in a way that it cannot with America.

An alternative view of the European Union

The EU launches programme to forge closer ties with six countries in Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus.

The ‘Eastern Partnership’ holds out the prospect of free-trade pacts, financial aid, help with energy security and visa-free travel to the EU for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. For Europe, it could mean more stability and security on its eastern rim.

The region has gone through multiple crises since the collapse of the Soviet Union and remains troubled by unresolved conflicts. At a summit in Prague to launch the programme, President Barroso said the EU had a “vital interest” in stronger relations.

The partnership adds a specific eastern dimension to the EU’s umbrella policy for neighbouring countries. The urgent need for this was brought home by the Russia-Georgia conflict last summer and the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute in January. The recent unrest in Moldova has renewed concerns about stability in the region.

The six countries will receive increased financial assistance from the EU to help with political and economic reforms. Successful reforms may lead on to comprehensive Association Agreements with the EU, which would include free-trade pacts and commitments on energy security – important for EU countries whose oil and gas supplies transit the region from Russia.

The countries, former Soviet republics, face major challenges to democracy and the rule of law. Badly hit by the recession, they continue to struggle with the transition to market economies.

Alongside regional-development expertise, the EU is offering programmes to address economic and social disparities, and would consider opening up its labour market to workers from the partner countries. And visiting the EU could be made easier for travellers if the countries bring border controls up to EU standards.

Border management is one of the five key areas the EU wants to help with. The others are support for small businesses, connections between regional electricity grids, gas and oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea to Europe, and cooperation on disaster response.

The commission will add €350m in fresh money on top of the planned resources for 2010-13. Another €250m already earmarked for the region will be refocused to support the new programme.

Diamonds on the Cheap(er) - Bloomberg

More than 20 years ago journalist Edward Jay Epstein wrote the definitive expose of the diamond business, initially published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982 and subsequently as a book, The Rise and Fall of Diamonds. Epstein, it must be said, is a conspiracy buff, but his research on diamonds is pretty credible. His central contention is that diamonds have little inherent value; their perennially high price is solely a function of clever promotion and ruthless manipulation of the market. You ask: Isn't that true of any high-value product? Nope. Take gold, a true commodity in the sense that it's fungible, as the economists say--like quantities of gold are freely interchangeable. Gold's purity can be readily assayed and it's indestructible for practical purposes, making it a reliable store of value. Even now that the world has abandoned the gold standard, gold's price has held up well on the open market.

Not so with diamonds. Despite the hype, diamonds aren't forever; they can be damaged or destroyed. The value of diamonds varies widely depending on grade and, despite efforts at standardization, is basically arbitrary--experts often disagree sharply on the worth of a particular gem. Sure, the same can be said of paintings or other collectibles. The difference is that the world diamond market is largely controlled by a single private enterprise, the South Africa-based De Beers cartel. The geniuses behind De Beers recognized early on that a stable, profitable diamond industry depended on controlling both supply and demand. De Beers rarely discovers new sources of diamonds; rather, it focuses on controlling existing ones, limiting production, and if necessary buying up surplus gems and stockpiling them to prop up the market. It sets prices arbitrarily and cuts off supplies to dealers who buy through unauthorized channels. On the marketing side, De Beers hired advertising firms, starting with N.W. Ayer in the late 1930s, to render axiomatic the idea that diamonds = true love. De Beers and Ayer didn't invent diamond engagement rings but did rescue a fading concept--in 1932 worldwide diamond sales had been only $100,000. Ayer's ploys ranged from planting news stories about newly betrothed celebrities flaunting big rocks to positioning diamonds as heirlooms, preventing the market from being flooded with secondhand goods. (The market for used diamonds is dismal, by the way.) The campaign worked--U.S. wholesale diamond sales increased from $23 million in 1939 to $2.1 billion in 1979. The J. Walter Thompson agency performed a similar miracle in Japan in the 1960s, essentially creating a tradition of diamond engagement rings out of thin air.

Throughout all this De Beers has successfully fended off threats due to political upheaval, competing producers, and even the U.S. justice department (the firm recently paid a $10 million fine to settle an antitrust case). The big challenge today is synthetic diamonds. In a widely noted article last fall, Wired magazine reported on two start-up firms, one in Florida and the other in Boston, that had begun manufacturing gem-quality artificial diamonds. Synthetic diamonds have been available since the 1950s and are commonly used in industrial abrasives, but till now have made little headway in the gem market due to prohibitive manufacturing expense. Supposedly the new artificial diamonds, particularly those made by chemical vapor deposition (CVD), are both cheap to produce and, unlike knockoffs such as cubic zirconium, virtually indistinguishable from natural diamonds even in the lab.

So, the jig's up for De Beers, right? Maybe, maybe not. The last chapter of The Rise and Fall of Diamonds, entitled "The Coming Crash of 1983," described a scenario in which a concatenation of factors, including a flood of diamonds from new mines in Australia, would trigger "the final collapse of world diamond prices." It didn't happen (although De Beers did lose market share), and Epstein has omitted the chapter from the online version of his book. De Beers has dodged plenty of disasters in its history, and I'd hesitate to write the final pages yet.

Empire - Israel and the US - 25 Feb 09 - Part 1

Arctic winds are blowing into Jerusalem from Washington these days. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's May 18 visit to Washington fast approaches, the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner.

Using the annual AIPAC conference as a backdrop, this week the Obama administration launched its harshest onslaught against Israel to date. It began with media reports that National Security Adviser James Jones told a European foreign minister that the US is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

According to Haaretz, Jones was quoted in a classified foreign ministry cable as having told his European interlocutor, "The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question. We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush."

He then explained that the US, the EU and the moderate Arab states must determine together what "a satisfactory endgame solution," will be.

As far as Jones is concerned, Israel should be left out of those discussions and simply presented with a fait accompli that it will be compelled to accept.

Events this week showed that Jones's statement was an accurate depiction of the administration's policy. First, quartet mediator Tony Blair announced that within six weeks the US, EU, UN and Russia will unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state. Speaking with Palestinian reporters on Wednesday, Blair said that this new framework will be a serious initiative because it "is being worked on at the highest level in the American administration."