Just World News with Helena Cobban – Page 69 – Info, analysis, discussion

Best Lebanese election coverage, from Qifa Nabki

In this post, which he promises to update throughout the day, Qifa gives an excellent description of the voting experience under Lebanon’s “new improved” system, and the general atmosphere in the country.
This is the latest in his series of excellent posts about the whole election process. The guy is a national treasure.
Highlights from today’s post:

One apparent innovation in this election is that voters can write their own ballots– that is, they have the option not to simply vote for an entire preprinted list of candidates in each of the multi-seat constituencies.
QN voted some place south of Saida. Then he traveled to a few polling places in East and West Beirut and wrote this:

More of the same: people making their way to voting centers in an orderly fashion; party representatives passing out ballots to people in cars at intersections; soldiers everywhere. I collected a few of these ballots as souvenirs. As you can see below, there isn’t a whole lot of room on each ballot to scratch out any names and replace them with others; this is, of course the point, such that voters are compelled to vote for an entire slate, “zayy/mitl ma hiyye” (just as it is).

It strikes me that the lack of standardization in the ballot papers can be a cause of huge confusion in the tallying process… Also, his report about the gasoline voucher offer is a huge concern.
Of course, the whole campaign process has been drenched in money, much of it apparently foreign.
But has all this money been poured in to ensure that the voting process actually is a fair and accurate one? Shouldn’t the election authorities in Lebanon have done more to ensure that this is the case?
And why is someone taking very visible steps (the gas vouchers) to subvert the process? Might this scheme actually have been intended, by those organizing it, to create evidence that “proves” that the election process is flawed, and thus a basis on which to challenge its outcome?
Lots of questions.
Let’s hope the election-monitoring teams sent by the Carter Center– headed by the former Prez himself– and other respected bodies will be able to sort it all out.

Longer Meshaal

A longer version of my interview with Khaled Meshaal yesterday is here. Also here.
It covers the most important points he made on current issues in Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking, as well as his reaction to the big Obama speech.
I’m planning to transcribe the full version of the recording I made of the interview, and will publish it here as soon as that work is done.

Meshaal reaction on Foreign Policy website

It’s here. Good exposure, I think.
But now I have so much more writing up to do! (Also, I’ll try to get a few more reactions from Syrian friends to the speech.)
Update: I just did a Google news search on ‘Meshaal’ and the FP piece came out at the top. But where was the JWN post that had scooped it? (Also: The FP version contains two small typos, since corrected in the JWN original.)

Meshaal on Obama speech: Good, but–

A couple of hours ago I finished an hour-long, on-the-record interview here in Damascus with the head of Hamas’s political bureau, Khaled Meshaal.
I started, not surprisingly by asking his reactions to the Speech that Obama made in Cairo earlier in the afternoon.
He replied,

Just for the record, Obama did mention Jerusalem, when he said he wanted to work for the day,

when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The Meshaal interview contained in-depth answers to numerous other questions I posed; but I wanted to get this answer published as soon as possible. The other answers ranged across a broad spectrum of issues related to ongoing political/diplomatic dilemmas.
One of his key answers that really stuck in my mind was this:

We’ll work for the success of any project that ends the occupation, restores Palestinian rights, and achieves the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

I’ll publish a lot more from this interview, and from other interviews conducted here, including with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem, over the days ahead.

Washington’s new tone on Islamist political parties

Two excellent initiatives by the Obama administration in the lead-up to The Speech tomorrow. They’ve made a point of inviting members of the Egyptian parliament affiliated with the long banned and often forcibly suppressed Muslim Brotherhood to attend The Speech.
And Obama himself put an interesting, and potentially helpful, twist on one of the long-standing Three Preconditions that Hamas will have to meet before the US or other Quartet members will deal with it.
In his interview with NPR on Monday, Obama defined the Preconditions in these terms:

without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate

… And he added that if Hamas met these conditions, then ” I think the discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed.”
The “without prejudging” clause there is new and important. As, too, is the impression he conveys that discussions with Hamas are a worthwhile thing to win.
Also notable, of course, in this context is the fact of the longstanding close relations between Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
Marc Lynch has reported that the head of the MB parliamentary bloc has said they will attend– and also that the MB declined to join the anti-Obama protest being organized by the Kefaya movement.
Many aspects of that are interesting. When I was in Cairo in February a couple of well-informed friends there noted how very restrained the MB’s reactions to the Mubarak government’s collaboration with Israel in besieging Gaza had been, and speculated that the MB may well be placing a subtle bet on hoping the ageing Egyptian despot’s son Gamal will succeed him– and that Gamal may give them more space for real political participation than any other possible successor.
Who knows? Anyway, it looks as though Obama is setting a very intelligent new tone.
Another important point in his NPR interview came when he talked about the importance of movements like Hamas making the transition from using violence to renouncing it.
Of course, governments like Israel can be expected to make that transition, too. Just like Britain eventually did, in Northern Ireland.
… I am still in Damascus. I’ll be blogging some reactions from various parties here to The Speech, before I leave Saturday morning. Stay tuned.
Next week, I’ll have a piece in the CSM on the fascinating experience Turkey has had of being governed by a party that is both moderately Islamist and committed to democracy. Turkey’s AKP is such a good role model for other Islamist movements.
By the way, can any reader confirm for me what time– Cairo time– The Speech is scheduled for? Thanks!
And I would be delighted to publish reactions to The Speech, especially from readers who are part of the intended Muslim-world prime audience.

Note to commenters

One of our commenters here, an Israeli-American who anonymously goes by the name of ‘JES’, has been seriously violating JWN’s guideline on discourse-hogging– and others of the blog’s posted guidelines— for quite some time now.
I have therefore decided to ban this person’s from the blog for a period of time.
It is quite possible that this person will find a way round the ban, and he may or may not start posting in a different name. I shall try to delete as many as possible of the comments that I have reason to believe are coming from him during the period the ban is in effect. (Which I have yet to decide. Maybe two weeks.)
I’ve pointed out to JES that if he wants to get his views heard in the blogosphere he can start his own blog. He has no need to be parasitic on our venture here at JWN.

Big days ahead for the Middle East…

Tomorrow, Pres. Obama will give his much-awaited address “to the Muslim world” in Cairo. On Sunday, Lebanon holds parliamentary elections– and Iran holds its elections June 12.
I’m in Damascus this week. Officials and non-officials here are very eager for improved relations with the US, and express some concern that despite all his rhetoric of “change”, Obama has so far done precious little to implement that promise.
The WaPo’s Glenn Kessler reported this morning that Sec. of State Clinton spoke with her Syrian counterpart by phone Sunday, and made plans for both Israeli-Arab peace envoy George Mitchell and a US military team to visit Syria later this month.
The military delegation will be discussing coordination in combatting insurgent forces in Iraq. That is something the Syrian government has an interest in. But it has an even stronger interest in not having this be the only level at which relations improve. Having a political delegation visit is seen as even more important here…
However, Obama still has not returned to Damascus the ambassador who was peevishly withdrawn by Bush some years ago. (A high-ranking official in the Bush White House recently told me that the US was in a state of “quasi-war” with Syria in those years. What the heck does that term mean? A state of war is a clear category in international relations, that imposes certain responsibilities on both sides. And often, indeed, even in a state of war, the sides still have ambassadorial-level representation in each other’s capitals… But ‘quasi-war’???)
Obama has also done, or failed to do, a number of other things that could have started to improve relations with Syria.
One of my concerns is that unless he and his people (including Mitchell) pay serious and sustained attention to any issue– including Syria, but including other key issues in the region, too– then the bureaucrats in the State Department will just continue on the same kind of auto-pilot course they became habituated to adopting throughout eight years of GWB– and prior to that, eight years of the also strongly pro-Israel Pres. Clinton.
Remember that throughout those 16 years, any State Department employees who– like Ann Wright and a few brave others– strongly disagreed on grounds of principle with the course US policy was taking in the region resigned their posts. And those not courageous enough to resign who still dared to raise different views within the department rapidly found their careers sidelined.
Turning that great ship of the State Department’s bureaucracy around until it is seamlessly and effectively following the lead of the country’s recently elected new “Captain” will take some sustained attention and energy.
(Another question: Is Hillary Clinton the right person to actually do this inside the department that she heads?)
Anyway, what I’ve been hearing for many weeks now, in Washington DC and elsewhere, is that Washington has been waiting to adopt some kind of a new, more inclusive policy toward Syria after the Lebanese elections.
Okay, that’s next week.
George Mitchell will be in the region next week– he already has plans to visit Israel and Ramallah then.
It would make excellent sense if he also visits Damascus then, for the first time in his role as peace envoy.
He needs to hear the views and concerns of the government here, which has a lot to contribute to the peacemaking venture– especially if, as I strongly hope, Obama and Mitchell are aiming at securing a serious, sustainable, and comprehensive agreement that will end all outstanding portions of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
My judgment is that there is now very little likelihood at all that a viable peace agreement can be concluded only on the Palestinian track– which is all that Obama and Co. have talked about, as of yet.
We need to hear him say out loud that a “comprehensive” Arab-Israeli peace is in the US national interest– not just a “Palestinian-Israeli” peace.
… Anyway, I don’t have time to write much here. But regarding the prospects around the Lebanese elections, the best commentary so far is still this piece by the astute Lebanese blogger Qifa Nabki.

On settlements

I’ve just been catching up with Helene Cooper’s piece in the NYT yesterday on Obama and the Israeli settlement freeze.
She concludes:

When asked on Thursday what he would do if Mr. Netanyahu continued to balk at a settlement freeze, Mr. Obama said he was not yet ready to offer an “or else.”

My view, for what it’s worth, is that the president should keep up the strongly worded requests that Israel cease its ongoing settlement-building activity but should focus primarily on winning the final Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement, under the terms of which the final status of all settlements will be determined.
The (hopefully successful!) demand for a settlement freeze should be seen as a helpful entry-point into these negotiations rather than an end in itself.
If, as some unconfirmed reports have said, Obama wants to achieve the final peace agreement within two years, that’s what he needs to focus on.

Obama-Mitchell peace mission gains a little momentum

Haaretz’s Barak Ravid had more details yesterday of the meeting an official Israeli delegation held in London last Tuesday with Obama’s special Mideast peace envoy Sen. George Mitchell and his team.
He quoted one senior Israeli official as saying after the meeting,

“We’re disappointed… All of the understandings reached during the [George W.] Bush administration are worth nothing.”

He adds these details:

There’s a lot to comment on there!
Firstly, why should Pres. Obama be at all worried by the prospect that too “tough” a US line might “lead to the dissolution of the Netanyahu government”??
Secondly, why should any Israelis imagine that a possible ruling of their own judiciary should be expected by anyone else to over-ride the clear requirements of international diplomacy and international law regarding the– actually quite illegal– project of planting Jewish-Israeli settlers in occupied land?
Then, toward the end of the piece, Ravid writes this,

Defense Minister Ehud Barak will travel to Washington on Sunday [yesterday– or next week? not clear] in an attempt to put further pressure on the Obama administration.

So Arad, Molcho, and Co. were unsuccessful in snowing G. Mitchell with their arguments– and now, Netanyahu sends Ehud Barak to Washington… to speak with whom?
This does look just the teeniest bit like Netanyahu and E. Barak trying to go behind Mitchell’s back and speak with other heavyweights in washington… Perhaps E Barak also hopes to speak with the president himself?
If it is an attempt to go behind Mitchell’s back, I am pretty certain it will backfire.
Sen. Mitchell had experience of that, after all, during his first go-round with dealing with the Palestine Question, back in 2001. Also, let’s just recall that he is by no means a political lightweight in Washington…
(Small authorial note. I’m in Damascus, having traveled here overland from Capadoccia over the past 48 hours. The combination of travel and being in Syria means I haven’t been as well plugged-in or as timely as usual on these stories. However, I’ve been gathering LOTS of great new material which will appear here and elsewhere over the weeks ahead. ~HC)

Olmert (and Ross?) and a new concept of the Jewish state

Ariel Beery had a very interesting piece in Haaretz yesterday. It describes a new movement among Israelis– and key friends of Israel like Dennis Ross— to fashion a new concept of a state.
Instead of this state being a nation-state, that is, a project that includes all those who live inside its borders, this new kind of state would be what Beery calls

a node-state – that is, … the sovereign element chosen by narrative and collective will at the center of a global network.

Immediately before he introduces that concept he notes this:

it had no desire to integrate other, non-Jewish groups among its citizenry into the Jewish nation

Beery indicates that when Ehud Olmert was still prime minister, he strongly supported this reconceptualizing of Israel:

Ehud Olmert set out to transform the conceptual and practical relationship between the state and the Jewish Diaspora. He began doing so last summer, when, in a speech before the Jewish Agency’s board of governors, he said that, “We must stop talking in terms of big brother and little brother, and instead speak in terms of two brothers marching hand in hand and supporting each other.”

For me, as a US citizen, an even more important part of what Beery writes comes next. He tells us that,

Jewish People Policy Planning Institute

The JPPPI is, of course, the institute that was headed until just a few weeks ago by Dennis Ross, now Sec. of Sate Clinton “special adviser” on the affairs of a swathe of countries, including Israel’s current big nemesis, Iran.
We already knew the JPPPI had a close connection with some international Zionist organizations like the Jewish National Fund. But now we learn that Ross also received a direct “tasking” from the Israeli prime minister to engage in a far-reaching reconceiving of the nature of the Israeli state and its relationship with world Jewry??
How can anyone in the Obama administration think that this man has the objectivity to have any say at all– even if only as an “adviser”– in the fashioning of our country’s Middle East policy?
As another footnote we should, of course, zero in on the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the “herrenvolk” concept that lies at the heart of the transformation of the idea of Israel from being a nation-state to being a “node-state.”
Israel’s 1.3 million Palestinian citizens, and their friends and allies among the country’s Jewish citizenry, all call unequivocally for the definition of Israel to be the state of all its citizens, with no privileging of one group of citizens over others based solely on grounds of religion or ethnicity.
The idea that Dennis Ross, a Jewish person who has stable (and very influential) citizenship in a prosperous western democracy, should have more say in defining what the nature of the Israeli state should be than, say, a Palestinian-Israeli Knesset member or even just an regular–and fully tax-paying– Palestinian citizen of Israel truly boggles the mind.