JVP News Roundup September 30

Jewish Voice for Peae. The United States' military action in Iraq as well as the simmering conflict between Israel and Syria, the worsening situation with the Palestinians and on top of last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah have greatly increased the instability in the never-stable Middle East. The prospect of an attack on Iran would greatly magnify the already considerable instability even by Mideast standards. While a strike on Iran is still much less likely than one might believe from the headlines, those pressing for such an attack have increased their efforts greatly, so the possibility is greater than ever.

When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to Columbia University and the United Nations in New York this week, the response was powerful. Many protests and calls for Ahmadinejad to be barred from entering the country were heard. Columbia president Lee Bollinger embarrassed both the university and the country with his scathing attack on Ahmadinejad when he was supposed to be introducing him to the audience. No matter how deep the enmity is for a visiting foreign dignitary, this was inappropriate behavior. Either don't invite him or maintain an air of civility. Bollinger need not have praised Ahmadinejad, but his behavior was unnecessary and, in the end, it didn't stop petitions from circulating that he be fired for having allowed Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia anyway.

On September 21, Iran challenged the international community to devote the same scrutiny to Israel's nuclear arsenal, the worst-kept secret in the world, as it does to Iran's nuclear efforts. One actually wonders what took Iran so long to issue this challenge. Israeli officials responded by not responding, simply repeating that Iran just hates Israel and should not be heeded, but not denying its own nuclear ability nor admitting that it escapes standard scrutiny.

In the end, the hysteria over Ahmadinejad is misplaced; whatever he is or is not (and it is obvious that the man is a loose cannon, a Holocaust denier, and dogmatic but not very learned religious fundamentalist), he does not control Iran's military or its foreign policy. That is left to Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Moreover, Iran has never attacked another country directly, and its posture against Israel, while certainly hostile, has remained within the confines of defensive statements. The oft-repeated threat to "wipe Israel off the map" was a mistranslation and, while the statement (which was actually Ahmadinejad quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini) was certainly belligerent, it was not a threat. In any case, the Iranian president does not have the power to back any of this up and both history and current actions indicate that Iran's political elite, which disapproves of Ahmadinejad in any case, has not changed its historically defensive orientation.

For a more detailed exposition of the tensions with Iran, click here.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government is tightening the squeeze on the Gaza Strip. By declaring Gaza a "hostile entity," Israel now has the option to diminish or cut off completely all the services on which Gaza depends, such as water and electricity. It is a sharp reminder of why Jewish Voice for Peace has long insisted that a complete separation of Israelis and Palestinians is neither possible nor practical. Israel needs a healthy Palestinian entity if it is ever to find peace and security and both Gaza and the West Bank will take many years to be able to survive completely independently as both areas have relied on infrastructure from outside those areas for many decades, since well before the occupation began.

If you did not get a chance to act on the JVP action alert last week calling on the US government to ensure that Israel does not cause further suffering for innocent Palestinians in its quest to combat Hamas, you can still act on it by clicking here. It seems far more likely that this move will harden feelings in Gaza in support of Hamas, and it is certain to make Hamas more resolute.

The raid on Syria earlier this month remains shrouded in mystery, but it has also continued to breathe and create fallout. An exceedingly foolish resolution supporting an Israeli action whose goals and circumstances are still completely unclear was introduced in Congress this week by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL). While the resolution would have no effect other than issuing a statement, it is highly irresponsible for Congress to make such a statement based, as Wexler himself said, only on the scant reports that have appeared in the media, many of which are unconfirmed.

The attack on Syria can be taken as fact, at this point, but the circumstances, and especially the target, remain unclear. The Times of London published a report that alleged that elite Israeli commandoes had slipped into Syria and confirmed the presence of nuclear material, at which point Washington gave the go-ahead for an Israeli operation. But the Times report remains unconfirmed and the sources ambiguous.

The November Peace Conference

Mahmoud Abbas has reaffirmed his commitment to attend a peace conference this fall despite pressures from some quarters and the absence of a clear set of goals and an agenda. Abbas also believes that Saudi Arabia will attend after all.

The United States finally cleared up whether or not Syria would be invited to the conference, saying it would be. It might have been interesting to see how Syria would have reacted to such an offer before the Israeli attack. In the event, Israel as well said it welcomed Syrian participation. But Syria stated that it believed Israel's overtures were insincere and that it would not attend the conference.

The conference continues to appear to be little more than a showpiece for the Bush Administration to seem like it is making a genuine effort at peace, and perhaps a bone being thrown to Condoleezza Rice. The content appears questionable, although Ehud Olmert, realizing that his earlier statements were clearly diminishing the significance of the conference, has started to talk a bit more about the concessions he is willing to make. His statement regarding making "heavy concessions" shows once again the vast difference between an Israeli generous offer and minimal Palestinian requirements. While Olmert assures everyone he will not give up all of the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas continues to talk about the borders being the same or very close to those that existed before the 1967 war. It was this same disconnect that doomed the Camp David II talks before they ever started. Those who fail to learn from history...

Gaza Truce Offers?

An unconfirmed report that Israel had explored opening dialogue with Hamas with the goal of attaining the release of Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas since June 2006 and achieving a truce were quickly followed by more solid reports of a Hamas appeal to Israel for a cease-fire. Israel rejected any such talks with Hamas. The approach was Hamas' response to Israel's declaration that Gaza was a "hostile entity."

Soon after this, a group of Israeli intellectuals led by A.B. Yehoshua, Amos Oz and David Grossman (whose son was killed last year in Lebanon) sent an open letter to Ehud Olmert urging him to engage Hamas in talks. "In the past Israel has negotiated with its worst enemies," the petition reads. "And now, the correct course of action is to negotiate with Hamas in an effort to foment a general cease fire that will prevent further suffering on both sides."

Dividing Jerusalem

Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon caused something of a stir when he presented a plan for dividing Jerusalem as part of a future agreement with the Palestinians. The issue remains a sensitive one, which only shows how difficult it will be politically to reach an agreement on an issue which must be resolved if there is ever to be peace. The plan Ramon presented was similar to plans that had been discussed after the Camp David talks and lines up well with the Clinton Parameters and the subsequent discussions at Taba in 2001.