As the dispute on the maritime border between Lebanon and the occupied Palestine edges its final phase, the American friends of ‘Israel’ started lamenting that the final proposal is in favor of Lebanon in general, Hezbollah resistance movement in particular, and claiming that it is depriving the occupying entity from all of the naval resources.
Those comments also echo former ‘Israeli’ premier and opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who started attacking his rival, Zionist PM Yair Lapid, whom he accused of giving away the ‘Israeli’-occupied Palestinian maritime territory to Hezbollah.
In the same respect, former US ambassador to the ‘Israeli’-occupied territories, David Friedman, commented on the final process in a tweet, in which he mourned that:
“We spent years trying to broker a deal between ‘Israel’ and Lebanon on the disputed maritime gas fields. Got very close with proposed splits of 55-60% for Lebanon and 45-40% for ‘Israel.’ No one then imagined 100% to Lebanon and 0% to ‘Israel.’ Would love to understand how we got here.”
For his part, Former US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker told i24NEWS that the chances of an ‘Israeli’-Hezbollah confrontation “still remain very high” despite the advancement of the US-brokered maritime border delimitation issue.
Schenker belittled the proposal, saying it “does nothing to lower or alleviate tensions along the blue line where Hezbollah is digging in.”
The New Jersey native served in the position during the administration of former US president Donald Trump from 2019 to 2021, during which he was assigned as the point man on the ‘Israeli’ occupied Palestine-Lebanon maritime border negotiations.
Seemingly admitting his failure to finish the issue, whose draft proposal was formed under the mediation of the State Department’s senior advisor for energy security, Amos Hochstein, Schenker also said that it appeared that ‘Israel’ agreed to give the Lebanese “100 percent” of what they wanted, while claiming that the Qana gas field that would be under control of Lebanon contains “very little reserves.”
He said that the administration of US President Joe Biden can claim a foreign policy win with the deal and a success in promoting regional stability, while cautioning that questions still remain about long-term calm.
Al Mayadeen refutes the claims of David Schenker that the network misreported his remarks on Lebanon, most notably the US’ role in exacerbating the country’s economic crisis.
Former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker
Former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker spoke, on May 12, on the occasion of launching the latest book by Hanin Ghaddar, Friedmann Fellow in the Washington Institute’s Program on Arab Politics, who focuses on Shia politics throughout the Levant. Robert Satloff, a researcher at The Washington Institute, moderated the seminar.
The former US Assistant Secretary made serious statements, ahead of Lebanon’s parliamentary elections, about the US role played in the country by the administration of former US President Donald Trump in order to accelerate the country’s financial collapse, as well as the administration’s exploitation of the “October 17” movement to distort Hezbollah’s image and weaken it along with its allies.
Al Mayadeen had earlier published a news report about the symposium, but Schenker had reservations about the mechanism of its coverage through other media outlets, accusing the network of misrepresenting his own words. Following are video-supported excerpts from what he said during the meeting, which refutes his claims against Al Mayadeen.
Commenting on the US’ role in supporting the so-called March 14 alliance coalition, Schenker detailed how the US orchestrated a maximum pressure campaign against Hezbollah to target its revenues saying, “So, we [the US] had a sort of multi-faceted strategy – I don’t know if we spelled it out as such – but we undertook a number of activities. So first and foremost, is to deny the organization revenues: We had the maximum pressure campaign which limited funding from Tehran to the organization cutting back, you know, 800-700 million dollars a year provided directly from Iran…”
Elsewhere in his remarks, Schenker boldly stated, “We also sanctioned Hezbollah financial institutions, like the Jammal Trust Bank, we are careful to do so, as we were waiting for Moody’s [Analytics] to come out with their credit ratings first that downgraded Lebanon, and the day after, we piled on and did Jamal Trust but we weren’t responsible for the downgrade, so we raised the cost as well for Hezbollah’s allies. We designated some of Hezbollah’s most corrupt allies including, as pointed out earlier, Gibran Bassil – the president’s son-in-law. The message, I think, in this regard, is clear.”
Video documenting David Schenker’s statements on Lebanon
On the course the US followed to undermine Hezbollah’s very presence, Schenker said, “We [the US] looked for political opportunities: We saw an opportunity to deal Hezbollah a symbolic defeat in the municipal elections. We know about what happened in 2016 with Beirut Madinati in municipal elections, and we wanted to build on this, understanding primarily that it’ll be symbolic. But, nonetheless, you know, affirming that this organization is not 10 feet tall.”
On the US’ attempt to infiltrate Hezbollah’s arena of popular support, he said, “We cultivated Shiite businessmen. So during my tenure as Assistant Secretary of NEA [Near East Affairs], I traveled to Lebanon twice or three times. On all occasions, I had public dinners with Shiite businessmen opposed to Hezbollah that were organized by my dear friend, Lokman Slim.”
He has also affirmed that “the idea was to promote economic opportunities in Shiite areas to help wean the community from its dependence on Hezbollah, and we worked hard at that and I think we made some initial progress, that for a number of reasons, including the port blast, could not be sustained.”
“We supported civil society – Shiite civil society – so I met with creative members of the Shiite civil society opposed to Hezbollah’s’ authoritarianism. I met with Shiite journalists, people who wrote for Janoubia, a great online site in the south that reports on Hezbollah’s corruption and repression,” Schenker claimed.
Fact-checked: Video documenting David Schenker’s statements on Lebanon
The US diplomat admitted that the US funded the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) by saying, “Now, the alternative to that is the default US policy of basically funding the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), underwriting the military in the hope that somehow this will mitigate towards stability in Lebanon. Now, while there’s some merit in funding the institution, it’s not a panacea and won’t be an agent of change in Lebanon.”
Projecting on one of the speaker’s ideas regarding Hezbollah’s status, Schenker said, “So the phenomenon that Hanin describes so well, I think, is an opportunity for, regardless of whether it’s Republicans or Democrats in Washington that the administration should look to exploit.”
“The LAF won’t prevent state collapse or another Hezbollah war with “Israel”. The focus of the LAF absent the approach to Hezbollah is a recipe for continuation of the status quo, or more likely a further deterioration and ultimately the destabilization of Lebanon,” he claimed.
Fact-checked: Video documenting David Schenker’s statements on Lebanon
Regarding the 2022 parliamentary elections in Lebanon, he said, “But, what I do know, is that the opposition is incredibly divided, brimming with narcissistic or individualistic leaders who are more interested in being the head of their individual parties than getting together and overthrowing a corrupt elite. And so they have something like 100 parties running – the normal parties and then all these other smaller parties. And my guess is they’re going to eat their own and we’re not going to see them gain a great deal of seats to shift the balance”.
He concluded by commenting on the US multifront war to shrink Hezbollah’s authority by saying, “That’s exactly my point, which is you have to work to push back on this group [Hezollah] on all fronts. And that part of that is going after them in Lebanon, supporting people who are willing to stand up to them, and then going after Iran economically or in other ways, putting pressure on them. They don’t get a free pass from creating all these militias, planting them that are destabilizing or destroying their countries.”
Several Lebanese parties have long warned against the role the US is playing in the Lebanese arena of politics and the fact that the said county is making every effort to incite strife and favor a party over another based on its whims and own narrow interests. Schenker’s words expose the US interference in Lebanese politics, not to mention the substantial role it played in exacerbating the economic crisis the Lebanese have been under since 2019.
مساعد وزير الخارجية الأميركي لشؤون الشرق الأدنى السابق، ديفيد شينكر، يتحدّث عن الدور الأميركي في لبنان، وعن مشروع الاستثمار الأميركي في قوى “المجتمع المدني”.
المساعد السابق لوزير الخارجية الأميركي لشؤون الشرق الأدنى ديفيد شينكر
استضاف معهد واشنطن ندوة عبر تطبيق “زووم”، بتاريخ الـ12 من أيار/مايو الجاري، شاركت فيها حنين غدار، الباحثة اللبنانية في معهد واشنطن، وديفيد شينكر، المساعد السابق لوزير الخارجية الأميركي لشؤون الشرق الأدنى، وبشار حيدر، الأستاذ الجامعي في الجامعة الأميركية في بيروت. وأدار الندوة الباحث في معهد واشنطن روبرت ساتلوف، قائلاً إنّها تأتي قبل أيام من الانتخابات النيابية في لبنان، لكنها ستركز على قضية حزب الله داخل المجتمع الشيعي، بمناسبة إطلاق معهد واشنطن كتاباً جديداً لحنين غدار، بعنوان “أرض حزب الله: تشريح الضاحية والمجتمع الشيعي في لبنان”.ميناء
وصرّح شينكر بأنّ إدارة الرئيس باراك أوباما “اهتمت بدرجة أقل بلبنان”، على عكس إدارة الرئيس الأميركي السابق دونالد ترامب، التي أولت قدراً كبيراً من الاهتمام بالشأن اللبناني، بحيث “كان الانهيار المالي يترسّخ، وحدث انفجار ميناء بيروت، وكان برنامج لبنان للذخائر الموجَّهة بدقة (مع الجيش اللبناني) يحقق تقدماً كبيراً”.
شنكر: قمنا بتصنيف بعض حلفاء حزب الله بالأكثر فساداً
وفيما يخص العقوبات التي فرضتها الإدارة الأميركية على حزب الله، لفت شينكر إلى أنّ واشنطن “فرضت عقوبات على المؤسسات المالية التابعة لحزب الله، مثل جمال تراست بنك، فكنّا حريصين على القيام بذلك، بحيث كنا ننتظر إصدار مؤسسة موديز تصنيفاتها الائتمانية التي خفّضت تصنيف لبنان. وفي اليوم التالي، جمعنا الوثائق، وقمنا بوصم جمال بنك”. وقال ضاحكاً: “لكننا لم نكن مسؤولين عن خفض تصنيف لبنان”.
وتابع أنّ بلاده “رفعت التكلفة على حلفاء حزب الله”، قائلاً: “قمنا بتصنيف بعض حلفاء حزب الله الأكثر فساداً، بمن في ذلك صهر الرئيس اللبناني جبران باسيل. والرسالة في هذا الصدد واضحة. فالولايات المتحدة لا تقف فقط ضد الفساد الذي يتورط فيه حزب الله على نحو قريب، والذي يؤدي إلى تدمير الاقتصاد اللبناني، لكن هؤلاء الناس سيدفعون الثمن. لن يربحوا من هذا من دون الإضرار بسمعتهم، أو تلقيهم ضرراً مالياً”.
شنكر: حزب الله يؤمن بالرصاص وصناديق الاقتراع
وبشأن استغلال الفرص السياسية من أجل التصويب على حزب الله، قال ديفيد شينكر: “بحثنا عن الفرص السياسية. رأينا فرصة في توجيه هزيمة رمزية لحزب الله في الانتخابات البلدية. نحن نعلم بما حدث في عام 2016، مع حملة “بيروت مدينتي” في الانتخابات البلدية، وأردنا البناء على ذلك، مع معرفتنا المسبّقة بأنها ستكون هزيمة رمزية”.
وأكد أن الإدراة الأميركية قامت بـ”زرع رجال أعمال شيعة”، مشيراً إلى أنّه سافر إلى لبنان مرتين، أو ثلاث مرات، خلال فترة عمله مساعداً لوزير الخارجية لشؤون الشرق الأدنى.
وقال مساعد وزير الخارجية الأميركي لشؤون الشرق الأدنى السابق إنّه كان له عشاء عام مع رجال الأعمال الشيعة المعارضين لحزب الله، نظّمه لقمان سليم، الذي وصفه بـ”صديقه العزيز”، موضحاً: “كانت الفكرة هي تعزيز الفرص الاقتصادية في المناطق الشيعية للمساعدة على وقف اعتماد هذا المجتمع على حزب الله، وعملنا بجد على ذلك. وأعتقد أننا أحرزنا بعض التقدم الأولي. لكن، نتيجة عدد من الأسباب، بما في ذلك انفجار الميناء، لم نتمكن من جعل هذا التقدم مستداماً”.
وأضاف ديفيد شينكر: “لقد دعمنا المجتمع المدني الشيعي. لذلك التقيت أعضاء مبدعين من المجتمع المدني الشيعي المعارضين لاستبداد حزب الله. التقيت صحافيين شيعة، ممن يكتبون لموقع “جنوبية”، وهو موقع إلكتروني رائع في الجنوب، يقدّم تقارير بشأن فساد حزب الله وقمعه. بإيجاز، أعتقد أننا اتخذنا مقاربة رفضت النظر إلى الطائفة الشيعية اللبنانية على أنها كتلة واحدة، وحاولنا إيجاد فرص من أجل الاستفادة من السخط الشيعي”.
شنكر: من المهم أن ننظر إلى ما يحدث في لبنان
وبحسب المساعد السابق لوزير الخارجية الأميركي لشؤون الشرق الأدنى، فإنّه لا يعتقد أنّ الانتخابات ستغيّر الوضع بصورة كبيرة، “على الرغم من كل الاحتجاجات في عام 2019، والاستياء السائد في لبنان”، مضيفاً: “أولاً وقبل كل شيء، وكما نعلم جيداً مما حدث بعد انتخابات عامَي 2005 و2009، فإن حزب الله لا يحترم نتائج الانتخابات، فهو يؤمن بالرصاص وصناديق الاقتراع، على حدّ سواء”.
شنكر: المعارضة منقسمة بصورة كبيرة لا تُصدق
وأكد شينكر أنّ هناك سبباً آخر في عدم وجود أي تأثير للانتخابات، معتقداً أنّ “من المهم أنّ ننظر إلى ما يحدث في المجتمع المسيحي، كما أشار بشار حيدر، الذي قال إنّ من المهم أن ننظر إلى ما يحدث في لبنان، بسبب جبران باسيل والتيار الوطني الحر، نتيجة النظر إليهما بصفتهما فاسدَين، بالتواطؤ مع حزب الله، وهل سيعانيان (أي باسيل وتياره انتخابياً)؟ من يدري إلى أين ستذهب هذه الأصوات؟”.
شنكر: الانتخابات لا تصلح النظام المنتهك في لبنان
وأضاف أنّ “ما أعرفه هو أنّ المعارضة منقسمة بصورة كبيرة لا تُصَدَّق، فهي مليئة بالقادة النرجسيين أو الفردانيين، والذين يهتمون بأنّ يكونوا رؤساء أحزابهم الخاصة، أكثر من اهتمامهم بالتوحّد معاً وإطاحة النخبة الفاسدة. فهم لديهم نحو 100 حزب تخوض الانتخابات، بدءاً بالأحزاب العادية، ثم كل هذه الأحزاب الصغيرة الأخرى. وأعتقد أنّهم سيأكلون بعضهم البعض، ولن نراهم يكسبون حصة كبيرة في المقاعد النيابية من أجل تغيير التوازن” السياسي في البلد.
شنكر: دعمنا المجتمع المدني الشيعي في لبنان
وعبّر شينكر عن عدم تفاؤله بـ”هذه الانتخابات. لا أعتقد أنه يجب على حكومة الولايات المتحدة أن تضع كثيراً من الثِّقل أو الصدقية تجاه ما يحدث فيها. هناك نظام منتهَك في لبنان، والانتخابات، في ظل قوانين انتخابية كهذه الموجودة، لن تُصلحه، للأسف”.
شنكر: إدارة ترامب أولت اهتماماً كبيراً بالشأن اللبناني
وكانت الميادين نشرت خبراً بشأن هذه الندوة، تحفَّظ شنكر، عبر وسائل إعلام أخرى، عن آلية تغطيتها.
David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.
Trump’s Middle East triumphs will soon turn to disaster
29 October 2020 12:11 UTC | Last update: 22 hours 22 mins ago
Palestinian demonstrators burn posters of the US president in Bethlehem’s Manger Square after he declared Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on 6 December 2017 (AFP)
Every US president leaves his mark on the Middle East, whether he intends to or not.
The Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel, the Iranian revolution, and the Iran-Iraq war, launched in September 1980, all started under Jimmy Carter.
His successor, Ronald Reagan, supported then Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein, and went on to witness the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in October 1981; the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the expulsion of the PLO from Beirut in 1982, and the Sabra and Shatila massacres in September of the same year – a period which ended with and led up to the First Intifada.
George H W Bush picked up with the First Gulf War and the Madrid Conference in 1991.
The shadow cast by George W Bush over the region is longer still: the destruction of Iraq, a once-mighty Arab state, the rise of Iran as a regional power, the unleashing of sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia, and the rise of the Islamic State group. Two decades of conflict were engendered by his decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The grand deception
For a brief spell under president Barack Obama, the flame of a fresh start with the Muslim world flickered. But the belief that a US administration would support democracy was quickly extinguished. Those who dared to hope were cruelly deceived by the president who dared to walk away . Once in power, Muslims were dropped like a hot stone, as were fellow black Americans.
Two pillars of US policy emerge: an unshakeable determination to support Israel, whatever the cost, and a default support of absolute monarchs, autocrats and dictators of the Arab world
Obama refused to call the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president a military coup, and his secretary of state John Kerry would have dipped into the same playbook had Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan not narrowly escaped an assassination squad and the coup there succeeded.
The history of US diplomatic and military intervention in the Middle East was one of serial failure and the list of failed states only grew with each inauguration.
The military retreat that Obama sounded after “leading from behind” in Libya and an “intervention-lite” in Syria resembled Napoleon’s long march from Moscow. Throughout the tumult, two pillars of US policy emerge: an unshakeable determination to support Israel, whatever the cost, however much its prime ministers and settlers undermined peace efforts. And a default support of absolute monarchs, autocrats and dictators of the Arab world.
US president Barack Obama walks with Middle East leaders in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, on 1 September 2010 (Reuters)
Wicked witch
Now enter, stage right, the Wicked Witch of this pantomime.
Trump set about tearing up the rule book on the Middle East, by giving full rein to the Jewish nationalist religious right. This came in the shape of two settler ideologists and funders: Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law and senior adviser, and David Friedman, his ambassador to Israel.
Trump set about destroying the consensus on the Middle East, by giving full rein to the Jewish national religious right
Under the guise of blue sky thinking, they tore apart the consensus that had powered each previous US administration’s search for a settlement to the Palestine conflict – borders negotiated on 1967 lines, East Jerusalem as capital, the right of refugees to return.
This meant recognition of 400,000 settlers in nearly 250 settlements in the West Bank beyond East Jerusalem; recognition of laws turning settlements into “islands” of the State of Israel; recognition of a third generation of Israeli settlers. All of this, the UAE, Bahrain and now Sudan have signed up for.
Changing the map
“When the dust settles, within months or a year, the Israeli-Arab conflict will be over,” Friedman boasted. Friedman’s undisguised triumphalism will be as short-lived and as ill-fated as George W Bush’s was after he landed on an aircraft carrier sporting the now notorious banner proclaiming “mission accomplished” in Iraq.US election: Mohammed bin Salman braces for the loss of a key ally Read More »
I part company with those who consign the Abraham Accords to the dustbin of history.
But they are indeed rendered meaningless when Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs found that 90 percent of social media in Arabic condemned the UAE’s normalisation; the Washington Institute recorded just 14 percent of Saudis supported it.
Plainly on these figures, Friedman is going to have to wait a long time before Arab public opinion arrives in the 21st century, as he puts it.
But the absence of public support across the Arab world for normalisation does not mean that it will have no effect. It will indeed change the map of the Middle East but not quite in the way Friedman and the settlers hope. Until he and his like seized control of the White House, Washington played on a useful disconnect between the two pillars of US policy – unconditional support for Israel on the one hand and Arab dictators on the other.
It allowed Washington to claim simultaneously that Israel was the “only democracy” in the Middle East and thus entitled to defend itself in “a tough neighbourhood,” while on the other hand doing everything it could to keep the neighbourhood tough, by supporting the very ruling families who suppressed parliaments, democracy, and preyed on their people.
These are classic tactics of colonial masters, well-honed by the British, French, Dutch and Spanish sea-born empires. And it has worked for decades. Any US president could have done what Trump did, but the fact that they did not meant that they – at least – foresaw the dangers of fusing support for Israel with support for volatile and revolution-prone Arab dictatorships.
Trump is both ignorant and profoundly oblivious, because all that matters to him in this process is him. An adult who displays all the symptoms of infantile narcissistic injury, Trump’s only demand from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was that he, Trump, alone should be hailed as the saviour of Israel.
Speaking to Netanyahu on a speakerphone in front of the White House press corps, Trump asked: “Do you think Sleepy Joe could have made this deal, Bibi? Sleepy Joe? Do you think he would have made this deal somehow? I don’t think so.” Netanyahu paused long and hard. “Uh, well… Mr President, one thing I can tell you is… um, er, we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America… And we appreciate what you have done enormously.”
Going for broke
By going for broke, the era of useful ambiguity in US Middle East policy has now come to an end. Israeli occupiers and Arab despots are now openly in each other’s arms. This means the fight against despots in the Arab world is one and the same thing as the fight to liberate occupied Palestine. Israel’s deals with the Gulf are a disaster for Egypt Read More »
One might think this is of little consequence as the Arab Spring, which caused such upset in 2011, has been committed to the grave long ago. But it would be foolish to think so, and certainly Israel’s former ambassador to Egypt Yitzhak Levanon is not a fool.
Writing in Israel Hayom, Levanon asked whether Egypt is on the verge of a new uprising: “The Egyptian people dreamed of openness and transparency after the overthrow of Mubarak, who was perceived as a dictator. The Muslim Brotherhood are exiled and persecuted. There is no opposition. A change in the law allows Sisi to serve as president until 2030, and the laws make it possible to control by draconian means, including political arrests and executions. Recent history teaches us that this may affect the whole area.”
Another former Israeli ambassador has voiced his concerns about Trump’s effect on Israel. Barukh Binah, a former ambassador to Denmark and deputy head of mission in Washington, observed that the peace treaties Trump signed were with Israel’s existing friends and did nothing to solve the diplomatic impasse with its enemies.
A Palestinian demonstrator holds a sign during a protest against UAE deal with Israel to normalise relations, in Ramallah on 15 September (Reuters)
“Trump is seen by many as Israel’s ultimate friend, but just as he has done in the US, he has isolated us from the Western community to which we belong. Over the past four years, we have become addicted to a one-of-a-kind powerful psychedelic called ‘Trumpion’ – and the moment the dealer leaves the White House, Israel will need to enter rehab.”
An important lesson
In the Camp David accords, Egypt became the first Arab country to recognise Israel in 1978. In 1994 Jordan became the second, when King Hussein signed a peace treaty at the Wadi Araba crossing. It is one more sign of the lack of thought and planning behind the second wave of recognition that the two Arab states who formed part of the first wave are losing out so heavily.
The new alliance between Israel and the Gulf states has generated other alliances determined to defend Palestine and Muslim rights
One wave of recognition is swamping another. This is not the work of a people who have thought this through.
Jordan is gradually losing control of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. Egypt is losing money and traffic from the Suez Canal, which is being bypassed by a pipeline about to transfer millions of tons of crude oil from the Red Sea to Ashkelon. Plans are also afoot to build a high-speed railway between the UAE and Israel. Egypt is about to be bypassed by land and sea.
In 1978 Egypt was the most powerful and populous Arab state. Today it has lost its geopolitical importance. It’s an important lesson that all Arab leaders should learn.
Some regional leaders have understood these lessons. The new alliance between Israel and the Gulf states has generated other alliances determined to defend Palestine and Muslim rights. Just watch how close Turkey is getting to Iran and Pakistan. And how close Pakistan is to abandoning its long-standing military alliance with Saudi Arabia.
The lesson for Palestine
Nor is the West Bank any less volatile than Egypt is. As part of their efforts to coerce Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to accept the deal, Arab aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) had dropped by 81 percent in the first eight months of this year from $198m to $38m.
The PA refuses to accept taxes Israel collects on its behalf, since Israel began deducting the money the PA spent on supporting the families of dead Palestinian fighters. If the PA did accept Israel’s deduction, it too would be dead on arrival. The EU has refused to make up the shortfall.
Abbas would not be minded to suppress the next outbreak of popular discontent, as he has done consistently in the past
With most security co-ordination frozen, and nightly Israeli arrests in the West Bank, the enclave is a tinderbox. Abbas would not be minded to suppress the next outbreak of popular discontent, as he has done consistently in the past.
Palestinians waited a long time after the creation of the state of Israel to get serious about forming a campaign to regain their lost land. They waited from April 1949 to May 1964, when the PLO was founded to restore “an independent Palestinian state”.
They have now waited even longer for the principle of land for peace to deliver their land back to them. Trump, Kushner and Friedman have pronounced it dead, as they have the two-state solution. The two words they were careful to avoid in all the conferences and presentations of their plans were “Palestinian state”.
Once again, Palestinians are on their own and forced to recognise that their destiny lies in their hands alone.
The conditions which recreated the First Intifada are alive and kicking for a generation of youth who were yet to be born on 8 December 1987. It is only a matter of time before another uprising will materialise, because it is now the only way out of the hellish circle of Israeli expansion, Arab betrayal, and international indifference, which remains open to them.
Recognising Israel does not work. Nor does talking.
This is Trump’s legacy. But it is also, alas, the legacy of all the presidents who preceded him. The Abraham Accords will set the region in conflict for decades to come.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
تراجع الحلف السعوديّ – الإماراتيّ ومرتزقتهم في حربهم على اليمن والأزمات التي يتخبّط بها حليفهم الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب تضع حكام السعودية والإمارات في مأزق تاريخيّ.
فلا هم قادرون على الانسحاب بعد خمس سنوات على هجوم قواتهم على اليمن بدعم أميركي بريطاني بالتسليح والتخطيط والتدريب ومرتزقة من السودان وبعض بلدان العالم العربي والإسلامي، مع شراء مفتوح للسلاح من بلدان أوروبية ومشاركات إسرائيليّة متنوّعة ودعم مصري بحريّ.
هؤلاء لم يعد بوسعهم إكمال حربهم التي ادركت في جوانب منها مرحلة الخسارة المتدحرجة، فها هو جيش دولة صنعاء على وشك تحرير منطقة مأرب بما يعنيه من انهيار الدور العدوانيّ السعوديّ في كامل اليمن، والقضاء على طموحه في الاستيلاء على حضرموت والجوف.
كذلك الإمارات التي لم تتمكن حتى الآن من توطيد احتلالها لمدينة عدن وبعض أنحاء الجنوب وجزر سقطرى.
ما أدى الى ولادة معادلة تقوم على ان الانسحاب من حرب اليمن ممنوع بقرار أميركي والانتصار فيها مستحيل لقوة المدافعين عن بلادهم في دولة صنعاء.
هذا الى جانب الذعر الذي أصاب حكام الخليج بسبب تراجع حظوظ وليهم الأميركي ترامب في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية في الثالث من تشرين الثاني المقبل.
هناك الآن فارق يزيد عن ثلاث عشرة نقطة تؤكد مكاتب استطلاعات الرأي الأميركية ان منافسه بايدن يحوز عليها، وقد تزداد في مقبل الأيام لتخوف الأميركيين من الحالة الصحية المتفاقمة لترامب التي يحاول إخفاءها بالتهريج والضجيج والادعاء انه تمكن من القضاء على وباء الكورونا المصاب به.
لذلك يجب الربط بين الانسداد العسكري للعدوان على اليمن ونجاح الحُديدة في إجهاض كل محاولات إسقاطها من قبل السعوديين والإماراتيين، وأزمات ترامب هي من العوامل التي دفعت مفتي السعودية آل الشيخ لمطالبة المسلمين عموماً بالدعاء لشفاء ترامب.
إلا أن السفير الاميركي في «اسرائيل» ديفيد فريدمان كشف المستور مسقطاً التوريات الدينية، فأعلن أن فوز بايدن على ترامب يمثل خطراً كبيراً على جهود واشنطن وحلفائها في حرب اليمن من جهة والتطبيع الإسرائيلي – الخليجي العربي من جهة ثانية.
فإذا كان الأميركيون أنفسهم يتوجّسون على مشاريعهم الاستعمارية، فماذا حال أدواتهم في الشرق الأوسط وهل لديهم سياسات بديلة؟
ليس لدى السعودية والإمارات إلا العمل لإنجاح ترامب بضخ كميات وافرة من المساعدات لحملاته الانتخابية والإعلامية، علماً ان الفوارق في الأهداف بين الحزبين الأميركيين الجمهوري والديموقراطي هي في اسلوب التطبيق وليس في الأهداف، فالطرفان يعملان على السطو على موارد بلدان الشرق الاوسط وافريقيا وآسيا، لكن الحزب الديموقراطي يميل الى الربط بين الدبلوماسية والنفوذ الجيوبوليتيكي والصفقات الاقتصادية، فيما يسطو الحزب الجمهوري على اقتصاد المرتبطين به بشكل مباشر ومن دون حوارات على الطريقة الترامبية المليئة بالغطرسة والاستكبار.
كما أن الحزب الديموقراطي يميل الى حل الدولتين في فلسطين المحتلة مع تسويات لمصلحة الكيان المحتل، فيما يريد الحزب الجمهوري منح «إسرائيل» كامل فلسطين والجولان والأراضي اللبنانية المحتلة، معززاً فرصها في علاقات كاملة مع العالم الغربي على اساس حل بينهما معادٍ لإيران وروسيا والصين.
فأين المهرب الذي قد يفر اليه الخليج لإجهاض التداعيات المحتملة لخسارة ترامب الانتخابات الرئاسية؟
يبدو ان الخليج ذاهب الى تعميق تطبيعه مع العدو الإسرائيلي الى درجة تقديم دعم مالي مفتوح لهذا الكيان مقابل خدمات عسكرية جوية وبحرية وتقنية وتدريبية ويريد السعوديون والإماراتيون التعجيل في التطبيع السوداني مع «اسرائيل» لهدفين: الاول هو الكسر المعنوي لجبهة الأول الرافضة للعلاقات مع «اسرائيل» فيما يذهب الهدف الثاني إلى مسارعة الكيان الإسرائيلي إلى تدريب قوات سودانية بأعداد كبيرة قد تصل الى ثمانين الف جندي، يعمل نصفها تقريباً على حماية العائلات الحاكمة في السعودية والإمارات فيما يجري زج القوات الباقية داخل معارك اليمن للمحافظة على الأقل على «الستاتيكو» القائم في مأرب وبعض الوسط والجنوب وللدفاع ايضاً عن الجهة السعودية في نجران وجيزان المواجهتين لأعالي صنعاء.
هناك ايضاً محاولات سعودية – إماراتية لطلب مساعدات عسكرية أوروبية لها ميزتان: الاحتراف العسكري والتغطية السياسية لحرب الخليج على اليمن، الأمر الذي يزيد من مناعة النظامين السعودي والإماراتي في الاتحاد الاوروبي والامم المتحدة بالإضافة الى الدور العسكري، فهل تنجح هذه المساعي الشديدة الكلفة في زمن يتراجع فيه استهلاك البترول والغاز، وتختفي موارد الحج والعمرة ومختلف انواع العلاقات الاقتصادية؟ الصمود اليمني المتحول الى هجوميّ لن يتيح لكل هؤلاء فرصة ترقب تحولات ميدانيّة لمصلحتهم. لكن عملية طرد الغزاة السعوديّين والإماراتيّين من اليمن أصبحت مسألة وقت بانتظار تشكل موقف جنوبي يمني يلتقي مع الشمال والوسط المحرّر لإنقاذ بلادهم والمحافظة على ثرواتها ودورها اليمني والإقليمي وبالتالي العربي.
US Ambassador to the Zionist entity David Friedman cautioned Sunday that November 3 win for Democratic presidential nominee former Vice President Joe Biden would have an adverse effect on the region and would undermine the progress made by the Trump administration to curb the ‘threat’ Iran poses to the Middle East.
Speaking with the United Arab Emirates-based media outlet Al Ain News, Friedman said that Iran was the “most consequential issue of the election.”
“As you know, Joe Biden was part of the Obama administration that negotiated and implemented the Iran deal, something that President Trump – and I share his view – thinks was the worst international deal the US has ever entered into,” Friedman said in an excerpt from the interview posted to Twitter.
He further warned that a Biden victory could have serious consequences for America’s allies in the Middle East, including ‘Israel,’ Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
“If Biden wins, we will see a policy shift that, in my personal opinion, will be wrong and will be bad for the region, including for ‘Israel,’ Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait,” he told the Emirate daily.
“President Trump thinks was the worst deal the US have ever entered into. It created a path for Iran to get a nuclear weapon,” he explained adding that currently, Washington is “in a very good place in terms of the sanctions we have imposed upon Iran, and we think if we continue down this path, Iran will have no choice but to end its malign activity.
“We worked really hard to get Iran, I think, to a much better place. I would hate to think a new administration would undermine that but, regrettably, if Biden wins, I think they might,” Friedman added.
With the opening of a new era in the region, titled “The Declared Arab Alliances with the ‘Israeli’ Enemy”, the war on Palestine is moving towards more extensive levels, in order to escalate pressure on the Palestinians and force them to accept the fait accompli. The statements –published yesterday- of the American ambassador to “Israel”, David Friedman, in which he claimed that the Arabic-‘Israeli’ conflict has reached “the beginning of the end”, are perhaps a clear proof of that. In parallel, there are continued talks about the intention of other states to join normalization, in the light of exposing further information about the trajectory that led to this result, and which was commanded by the Mossad over the past years
After the Emirati and Bahraini regimes have accomplished their task, which is enhancing political, security and economic supplies to the enemy entity, in the context of the war that it is waging against Palestinians and the region, eyes are now focused on the Saudi regime, which is awaiting its next task to be outlined and waiting for setting the time at which it will take the lead of the Gulf States. These states are working on distorting the direction of the conflict to make it fit the “Israeli” priorities and interests. In this context, Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen repeated, in an interview with the entity’s “Channel 12”, that the deal with Saudi Arabia was “within reach”, expressing his conviction that the deal might be sealed “during the current year”. He reiterated that many states, whether Gulf States or others, will join the normalization deals. “Israeli” reports mentioned that Oman was the next state to normalize, as it dispatched its ambassador in Washington to the signing ceremony for the ‘Israel’-Bahrain-UAE “Peace Deal” at the White House.
This ceremony, with all the following seasons of the same series, are just a result of a secret or declared trajectory that has been ongoing for years. This trajectory was supervised by the Mossad, who has to manage relations with non-normalizing states, as one of its official missions. This is what Cohen himself has confirmed, when he said that “The body was always working on creating relationships at various levels. These relations could be, at the beginning, economic, commercial or reciprocal concerning understanding regional and international security relations.” He added that “We all seek, in the end, official relations with Arab States”. Building on this, Cohen considered the two “Israeli” deals with the UAE and Bahrain to be “the culmination of years of efforts and communications that have been managed in a pretty accurate way.” These efforts are being made by the Mossad which comes under the direct authority of the Prime Minister, so the political level brings their rewards. Besides, the Mossad has many plans that target –as declared in the “Israeli” political and media discourse- the Palestinian cause firstly, then Iran secondly since it is considered to be the strategic depth of the axis of Resistance. Concerning this, Cohen said that the signed agreements with the UAE and Bahrain are a great message which is more important than the idea of supporting “Israel”. He added that the agreements were a strategic change in the war against Iran.
Although the attempts to give the ‘Israeli’-UAE and ‘Israeli’-Bahraini deals a strategic nature seem to be exaggerated given the two States’ size and regional role, the situation will be different when Saudi Arabia joins them. It would be possible then to talk about a new regional map that has a strategic nature. However, the engagement of all these regimes in the normalization has less consequences than Egypt’s exit from the confrontation with “Israel”, through the “Camp David Accords” in 1979, which created a radical transformation in the balance of power to the benefit of the “Israeli” enemy. This transformation needed another one on the opposite side, in the magnitude of the Iranian Revolution, to contain its consequences, and realign the movement of the regional reality in directions that are different from the ones for which the enemy was planning four decades ago.
Concerning the direct consequences of the two agreements, it is highly unlikely that the Zionist entity will play a direct role in protecting the regimes that are newly normalizing with “Israel”, or that it will engage in a military intervention for their sake. Also, it is unlikely that “Israel” will take the initiative, in the foreseeable future, to set up military bases in the Gulf as some are saying, simply because the entity doesn’t want to put direct military targets in front of its enemies, since they could restrict its ability to make aggressive operational choices in the region, especially against Iran. On the other hand, the normalizing regimes will continue playing a military role to the benefit of Tel Aviv, but this time, with a fake political legitimacy.
Regarding the Palestinian cause, it is obvious that the establishment of a new era, titled “The Declared Arab Alliances with the ‘Israeli’ Enemy”, absolutely means the amplification of the attempts to end the Palestinian cause. Accordingly, it seems that the next stage will see an escalating aggression against Palestinians, with the participation of the normalizing regimes that think that the insistence of Palestinians on keeping their cause alive will undermine their efforts and plans, and constitute a durable conviction of them. Hence, they will treat every Palestinian stance that claims one of the Palestinians’ minimum rights as a missile that targets their thrones.
The American ambassador to “Israel”, David Friedman, is the one who opened the direct war against Palestine and its people, by attacking Palestinians again, and considering the Arab-‘Israeli’ conflict to have reached the “beginning of the end” in the light of the normalization agreements. In a clear message to Ramallah, Friedman revealed, in a conversation with the “Israeli” newspaper “Israel Hayom”, that the United States was thinking of replacing the former leader of Fatah movement, Mohammed Dahlan, by the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas; but “they didn’t want to reorganize the Palestinian leadership.” It seems that Friedman wanted to suggest that Ramallah’s insistence on rejecting normalization, and refusing the Palestinian legalization of it, will make Washington more willing to topple the current leadership. Friedman sees that “this leadership didn’t stop upholding the same old complaints, which had nothing to do with this issue.”
In parallel, Washington and Tel Aviv are still refusing to provide the UAE and Bahrain with an umbrella, even a fake one, for their normalization choices. Friedman has stressed that the postponement of the annexation plan was just a “temporary suspension”, pointing out that the current US administration was the first one to recognize the legitimacy of settlement, and to share a “Peace plan” that excludes the evacuation of settlers from their homes across the West Bank. Friedman had previously indicated that the West Bank was a part of “Israel”.
ما بعد التطبيع المجّاني: نحو تسعير الحرب على فلسطين
سيختلف الأمر لدى انضمام النظام السعودي، إذ يمكن عندها الحديث عن خارطة إقليمية جديدة تتّسم بطابع استراتيجي (أ ف ب )
مع افتتاح حقبة جديدة في المنطقة عنوانها التحالفات العربية المعلَنة مع العدو الإسرائيلي، تتّجه الحرب على فلسطين وداعميها نحو فصول أكثر شراسة، بهدف تصعيد الضغوط على الفلسطينيين وإجبارهم على قبول الأمر الواقع. ولعلّ التصريحات التي نُشرت أمس للسفير الأميركي في إسرائيل، ديفيد فريدمان، والتي ادّعى فيها أن الصراع العربي – الإسرائيلي وصل إلى «بداية النهاية»، تُعدّ دليلاً واضحاً على ذلك. على خطّ موازٍ، يتواصل الحديث عن اعتزام دول إضافية الانضمام إلى ركب التطبيع، في ظلّ انكشاف المزيد من المعطيات حول المسار الذي قاد إلى هذه النتيجة، والذي تزعّمه «الموساد» على مرّ السنوات الماضية.
بعدما أكمل النظامان الإماراتي والبحريني مهمّتهما التي أُوكلت إليهما في تعزيز الإمداد السياسي والأمني والاقتصادي لكيان العدو في سياق الحرب التي يشنّها على شعوب فلسطين والمنطقة، تَتوجّه الأنظار نحو النظام السعودي الذي ينتظر اكتمال رسم معالم الخطوة المطلوبة منه، وتحديد توقيت تصدّره القافلة الخليجية التي تعمل على حرف وجهة الصراع نحو أولويات تتماهى مع المصالح والأولويات الإسرائيلية. وفي هذا الإطار، أعاد رئيس «الموساد»، يوسي كوهين، في مقابلة مع «القناة 12» في التلفزيون الإسرائيلي، الحديث عن أن الاتفاق مع السعودية «في متناول اليد»، معبّراً عن اقتناعه بإمكانية تحقق ذلك «خلال هذا العام»، مجدّداً القول إن العديد من الدول، الخليجية وغير الخليجية، سينضمّ أيضاً إلى ركب التطبيع، فيما تحدّثت تقارير إسرائيلية عن أن «الدولة التالية ستكون سلطنة عُمان»، التي أوفدت سفيرها في واشنطن إلى مراسم توقيع اتفاقيتَي «السلام» مع الإمارات والبحرين في البيت الأبيض.
مراسمُ ليست، وما سيعقبها من حلقات إضافية في المسلسل نفسه، إلا نتيجة لمسار سرّي وعلني امتدّ على مدار السنوات السابقة، وأشرف عليه جهاز «الموساد»، الذي من مهمّاته الرسمية إدارة العلاقات مع الدول غير المُطبّعة. هذا ما أكّده كوهين بنفسه، بحديث عن أن جهازه «يعمل دائماً للوصول إلى وضع نقيم فيه علاقات على مستويات مختلفة. ويمكن أن تكون في البداية علاقات اقتصادية، وعلاقات تجارية، وعلاقات تبادلية في فهم الأحداث الأمنية – الإقليمية والدولية. في النهاية، أعتقد أن هدفنا جميعاً هو الوصول إلى علاقات رسمية مع الدول العربية». وانطلاقاً من ذلك، اعتبر كوهين الاتفاقيتين الإسرائيليتين مع الإمارات والبحرين «تتويجاً لسنوات من الجهود والاتصالات التي تدار بطريقة دقيقة للغاية». هذه الجهود التي يبذلها «الموساد»، التابع مباشرة لرئيس الوزراء، يقطف ثمارها المستوى السياسي، ويؤسّس عليها مخططات تستهدف مباشرة، كما هو معلن في الخطاب السياسي والإعلامي الإسرائيلي، قضية فلسطين أولاً، وإيران تالياً باعتبارها العمق الاستراتيجي لمحور المقاومة. عن هذا، قال كوهين إن «الاتفاقيات الموقّعة مع البحرين والإمارات تعتبر رسالة كبيرة جدّاً تتجاوز فكرة دعم إسرائيل. الاتفاقيات هي تغيير استراتيجي في الحرب ضدّ إيران».
من المستبعد جدّاً أن يلعب الكيان العبري دوراً مباشراً في حماية الأنظمة المُطبّعة
وعلى رغم أن محاولات إضفاء الطابع الاستراتيجي على الاتفاقيتين الإسرائيليتين مع النظامَين البحريني والإماراتي تبدو مبالغاً فيها، بلحاظ حجم الدولتين ودورهما الإقليمي، إلا أن الأمر سيختلف لدى انضمام النظام السعودي إليهما، إذ يمكن عندها الحديث عن خارطة إقليمية جديدة تتّسم بطابع استراتيجي. على أن إقدام كلّ تلك الأنظمة على التطبيع لا يوازي في تداعياته خروج مصر من المواجهة مع اسرائيل، عبر «اتفاقية كامب ديفيد» عام 1979، والتي أحدثت تحوّلاً جذرياً في موازين القوى لمصلحة العدو. وهو تحوّلٌ كان يحتاج إلى آخر مقابل بحجم ثورة إيران لاحتواء تداعياته، وإعادة تصويب حركة الواقع الإقليمي في اتجاهات مغايرة لِما كان يُخطَّط له قبل أربعة عقود.
في التداعيات المباشرة للاتفاقيتين الأخيرتين، من المستبعد جدّاً أن يلعب الكيان العبري دوراً مباشراً في حماية الأنظمة المُطبّعة معه حديثاً، أو أن يذهب إلى حدود التدخل العسكري لمواجهة أيّ تهديد تتعرّض له. كذلك، يستبعد أن تبادر إسرائيل، في المدى المنظور، إلى نصب قواعد عسكرية لها في الخليج وفق ما يجري تداوله أحياناً، والسبب – ببساطة – أنها لا تريد وضع أهداف عسكرية مباشرة أمام العدو، يمكن أن تُقيّد قدرتها على اتخاذ خيارات عملانية عدوانية في المنطقة، خصوصاً تجاه إيران. في المقابل، ستواصل الأنظمة المُطبّعة لعب دور أمني لمصلحة تل أبيب، لكن هذه المرّة مع شرعية سياسية مصطنعة.
في ما يتعلّق بقضية فلسطين، من الواضح أن التأسيس لحقبة جديدة عنوانها التحالفات العربية المعلنة مع كيان العدو، يعني بالضرورة تزخيم محاولات تصفية القضية الفلسطينية. ومن هنا، يبدو أن المرحلة المقبلة ستشهد تصاعداً في العدوان على الشعب الفلسطيني، بمشاركة من أنظمة التطبيع التي تعتقد أن إصرار الفلسطينيين على إبقاء قضيّتهم حية سيُقوِّض الكثير من جهودها ومخطّطاتها، وسيشكّل إدانة مستمرّة لها. ولذا، فهي ستتعامل مع كلّ موقف فلسطيني يطالب بالحدّ الأدنى من الحقوق على أنه بمثابة صاروخ مُوجّه إلى عروشها.
تسعير الحرب المباشرة على فلسطين وشعبها افتتحه السفير الأميركي في إسرائيل، ديفيد فريدمان، بمهاجمة الفلسطينيين من جديد، واعتباره أن الصراع العربي – الإسرائيلي وصل إلى «بداية النهاية» في ظلّ اتفاقيات التطبيع. وفي رسالة واضحة الدلالة إلى رام الله، كشف فريدمان، في حديث إلى صحيفة «إسرائيل اليوم»، أن الولايات المتحدة الأميركية تدرس استبدال القيادي السابق في حركة «فتح» محمد دحلان، برئيس السلطة محمود عباس، مستدركاً بأنه «ليست لدينا رغبة في هندسة القيادة الفلسطينية». والظاهر أن فريدمان أراد الإيحاء بأن إصرار رام الله على رفض سياسة التطبيع، وممانعتها إضفاء الشرعية الفلسطينية عليها، سيدفعان واشنطن إلى إطاحة القيادة الحالية التي يرى أنها لا تزال «تتمسّك بنفس الشكاوى القديمة، التي لا أعتقد أنها ذات صلة».
على خطّ مواز، لا تزال واشنطن، ومعها تل أبيب، ترفض توفير مظلّة، ولو شكلية، للإمارات والبحرين، في خياراتهما التطبيعية؛ إذ شدّد فريدمان على أن تأجيل تنفيذ مخطّط الضم ما هو إلا «تعليق مؤقت»، لافتاً إلى أن الإدارة الأميركية الحالية أول إدارة تعترف بشرعية الاستيطان، وتنشر «خطّة سلام» تستبعد إخلاء المستوطنين من منازلهم في جميع أنحاء الضفة، التي سبق أن أشار في الماضي إلى أنها «جزء من إسرائيل».
David Friedman, appearing in an interview with Walla! News, claims that Israel’s settlement enterprise is sanctioned by international law.
What is Donald Trump’s policy towards Israel and the Palestinians? No one from within the president’s administration seems able to say.
During an interview with an Israeli news site, David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador in Tel Aviv, advanced views contradicting decades of US policy, as well as the professed positions of the administration.
The State Department’s response to his comments further suggests a foreign policy in total disarray.
Asked about Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank, Friedman told Walla! News: “I think the settlements are part of Israel. I think that was always the expectation when Resolution 242 was adopted in 1967.”
Friedman, Trump’s longtime bankruptcy lawyer, was referring to a Security Council resolution which, in fact, emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for Israel’s withdrawal from territory occupied in the 1967 War.
Friedman’s interpretation directly contradicts numerous subsequent resolutions that explicitly reaffirm the illegality of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.
Israel’s transfer of its civilian population to territory it occupies is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and is thus a war crime.
Friedman, incidentally, is a major bankroller of one such settlement.
Upheaval
The ambassador downplayed the settlements, stating, “I mean, they’re only occupying two percent of the West Bank.”
He was wildly off mark.
The reality is that Israel has a massive settlement colony infrastructure throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. More than half of the West Bank has been confiscated for the settlements or otherwise prohibited to Palestinians.
For decades US policy has been to view the settlements as an obstacle to an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And last December, the US allowed the Security Council to pass a resolution restating that all the settlements are illegal.
But US verbal opposition to the settlements has never been matched by deed: successive administrations kept writing blank checks to Israel while the settlements kept expanding.
Friedman’s comments represent a complete upheaval of that policy, however toothless it may have been.
Asked by Walla! whether he would ever bring himself to utter the words “two-state solution” out loud, Friedman said that the phrase has lost any meaning because “it means different things to different people.”
As to what it means to him, Friedman shrugged it off. “It doesn’t mean, I’m not sure. To me, I’m not focusing on labels, I’m focusing on solutions,” he said.
“Did he go rogue?”
During Thursday’s press briefing, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert struggled to reconcile Friedman’s comments with the policy of the administration he represents.
Nauert’s exchange with journalists can be watched in the video above.
“His comments – and I want to be crystal clear about this – should not be read as a way to prejudge the outcome of any negotiations that the US would have with the Israelis and the Palestinians. It should also not indicate a shift in US policy,” Nauer states.
“Did he go rogue?” one reporter asks.
“This is at least the second time that from this podium you’ve had to sort of clean up Ambassador Friedman’s remarks when he had upped the ‘alleged occupation,’” another reporter says, referring to a comment Friedman recently made to the right-wing Jerusalem Post suggesting the US does not consider the West Bank and Gaza to be occupied by Israel.
“Even if it’s not a change of position, is the perception that the ambassador to Israel has his thumb on the scale in the view of this conflict creating problems for the US?” the reporter adds.
“We have some very effective leaders and representatives for the US government, including Jason Greenblatt [and] Mr. Kushner, who are spending an awful lot of time in the region,” Nauert replies, referring to two of Trump’s advisors.
Associated Press reporter Matt Lee points out that “The problem arises because [Friedman] is the Senate-confirmed ambassador. Neither Greenblatt nor Kushner are. … Ambassadors to every country are supposed to speak for and with the authority of the president of the United States. Do you not see that causing confusion?”
Another reporter presses the point: “Aren’t you a bit concerned that the ambassador’s comments are detracting or going to harm the efforts by the president’s appointed envoys on this issue?”
Whose ambassador?
They’re fair questions to ask. During the interview Friedman behaved as though he is Israel’s ambassador to the US, rather than the US ambassador to Israel.
Friedman insisted that the Trump administration will move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – another break from decades of US policy and international consensus.
That was a promise made during Trump’s campaign but later backtracked once he took office.
Asked whether the embassy will be moved during Trump’s presidency, Friedman replied, “I sure hope so. That was one of the commitments of the president and he’s a man who keeps his word. … It’s not a question of if, but a question of when.”
Friedman stated that a peace deal may be reached in months but would not share any details of the parameters of the supposed peace negotiations.
Asked about Palestinian distrust due to his financing of settlements, the ambassador boasted of meeting with Majid Faraj, the head of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas’ secret police force, and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.
“I think they understand my views,” Friedman said, adding, “I don’t think it’s a matter of being suspicious, I think they have dealt with people who have those views before.”
Though he says that Trump is the one calling shots in his inner circle, Friedman’s reference to “my views” further suggests that the ambassador is operating on a long leash.
But he still behaves as Trump’s lawyer.
Asked by Walla! about Trump’s much maligned defense of a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville last month that left a counter-protester dead, Friedman replied:
“I have no doubt that he is not the slightest bit in any way, shape or form racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, homophobic or any other horrible adjective you can come up with. It’s not him.”
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 