Who is New Iranian President Hassan Rowhani?

The news is full of stories proclaiming that new Iranian President Hassan Rowhani is a real moderate and that with him replacing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad there is opportunity for renewed relations and a solution to the Iranian nuclear program difficulties. Oh if only that were so. Even a cursory review of the pre-election schemes and actions taken to prepare the ballot which was finally placed before the people will disavow any rational person from such thoughts. Initially there were literally hundreds of candidates who wished their names to be on the ballot so, as in any nation, there was a primary of sorts. These names are listed and sent to the Assembly of Experts which is made up of leading Imams and Ayatollahs where the list is selectively narrowed to a list of names these Clerics approve. There are those who believe that in all honesty the Assembly of Experts never even bothers to view the list and simply puts together a list of the names of whoever they think should hold the office of President. The possibility of a true liberal who believes in separation between the religious hierarchy and those who run the political functions of the State have absolutely no chance making past this review. The list formulated in the Assembly of Experts is passed along to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei who then prepares the final list of five to eight candidates who make up the actual ballot. So, in the end only those whom the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei feels would best support his views and desires before the people and the world are allowed to even be on the ballot thus removing any possibility of a true moderate becoming President of Iran.

 

But what is known about now Iranian President Hassan Rowhani. We know he is sixty-four years old and his first statement announced a “new opportunity” for the West to treat the Islamic Republic with respect and to recognize its rights. Treat the Islamic Republic with respect and to recognize its rights was also a favorite grouping of words used by the preceding Iranian President and he used them to mean for the world to prostrate themselves before their betters and permit Iran to do whatever they pleased and be happy about it. I suspect it still means the same thing. We know that Rowhani was the country’s former nuclear negotiator under the former President Mohammad Khatami and also served as top security official under former moderate President, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. There were no cracks in the Iranian insistence to the right to develop nuclear projects as they desired during his time in either position. To his credit, Rowhani recently accused his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of needlessly incurring crippling economic sanctions though such was very likely simple campaign rhetoric. In his first speech as Iran’s new President, Hassan Rowhani showed his true colors when he launched into a diatribe almost immediately against Israel, blaming the Jewish state for Iran’s economic problems. He defiantly pointed out, “The Iranian nation has done nothing to deserve these sanctions. Our activities are in line with international norms. If the sanctions help anyone, it is Israel. They are directed only at us. The Western nations do not have sanctions against anyone else.” He concluded his tirade claiming it was all part of the Israeli plan to “ruin” Iran.

 

Across the world it appears that all the players are lining up salivating at the chance to prostrate themselves before the new great hope in Iran. The United States said it was prepared to engage Iran directly. The White House said such engagement would seek a, according to reports, “diplomatic solution that will fully address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.” Along similar lines, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said she was committed to working with Rowhani towards finding a “swift diplomatic solution” over concerns about the Iranian controversial nuclear program. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated he hoped Iran will now play a “constructive role” in regional and international affairs. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said France is eager and “ready to work” with Rowhani, on issues including the country’s nuclear program and its involvement in the Syrian conflict. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle welcomed the election of Rowhani as a vote which may provide for “a constructive foreign policy.” He added, “We hope that the country’s new administration collaborates in this sense in order to reach solutions on international and regional questions.” The British statement urged Rowhani to set “a different course” for the future of the Iranian Islamic Republic. Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said Italy hoped that Iran and Italy would find a “relationship of renewed comprehension and constructive dialogue.” And lastly, the Syrian National Coalition representing the rebels in the Syrian Civil War hoped that Rowhani will review Iranian support for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. This is almost reminiscent of the press and world’s stated praises for newly elected United States President Barack Obama upon his first winning the election in November of 2008. Let’s hope that everybody takes the eventual letdown when this person fails to live up to the hype better than they did when President Obama proved to be merely a fallible human-being. On a more sane reaction, Israel issued a blunt reaction to Iran’s new president Saturday saying, “Iran’s nuclear program has so far been determined by Khamenei, and not by Iran’s president. After the election, Iran will continue to be judged by its acts, in the nuclear field as well as that of terrorism.” During a meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, Netanyahu was quoted yesterday saying, “Iran should not be allowed to gain time by holding drawn out talks” with the nations of the international community thus gaining precious time to complete their nuclear intentions. “Today, it is indispensable to keep the pressure. We should not surrender to illusions.” Israel was simply pointing out through the cacophonic din that, in reality, nothing has changed once again. There really is no great new hope on the Iranian horizons or especially in the office of the President.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Abbas Should Draw a Map Just Like Netanyahu

One of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s now world infamous preconditions is the insistence that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu deliver a map showing what the Israeli leaders foresees as the borders between Israel and Palestine. Abbas claims that until he is able to actually visualize the borders which Netanyahu is suggesting he will be unable to determine whether or not it would be worthwhile for him to meet and restart negotiations. Abbas is using this ploy so he can continue to reject one map after another claiming that Netanyahu is not serious about making peace as the map does not come anywhere near the minimal area which Abbas feels is required for the Palestinian State. By having Prime Minister Netanyahu draw such a map Abbas excuses him from having to make any demands or claims as to what he would accept leaving him to simply reject any map proposed without stating what would be acceptable. So, perhaps in all fairness Prime Minister Netanyahu should offer to exchange maps with Abbas thus having both men draw up their idea of what would make a fair border from which to begin the final border negotiations. Of course Mahmoud Abbas will refuse to exchange maps while continuing to demand that Netanyahu must submit a map to Abbas.

 

There is no doubts as to why Palestinian President Abbas will refuse to present a map of the final borders he envisions as acceptable to the Palestinians for the establishing of a final solution to the question of borders. His reason is simply as such a map already exists and is available for anybody to see. All one need do is look at the maps of Palestine in the Palestinian schoolbooks or the map behind Abbas’s desk in his office and the map of Palestine that they consider their minimal requirements are there for anybody to see. These maps all depict all of Gaza, Judea, Samaria (West Bank) and Israel as the borders for their state of Palestine. That is correct; everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is their envisioned state with no Israel whatsoever. That is the reason that Abbas would reject any request for him to also present a map of his vision for final borders and also why no matter what map Netanyahu might present, as long as it depicted any of the land as belonging to Israel as a Jewish State would be unacceptable to Abbas. Along with offering to present Abbas with a map if and only if Abbas returns the favor and presents his ideal map in a mutual exchange, why not also do similar offers on some of the other preconditions which Mahmoud Abbas is currently hiding behind using them as a means to avoid negotiations.

 

Where Mahmoud Abbas demands that Israel accept the Right of Return for as many as five to six million refugees, Israel could demand that Abbas admit to how many Jews who own lands in Judea and Samaria will be allowed to remain on their lands after a settlement has been reached. It is unlikely that Abbas would surprise the world and admit that the Palestinians intend to dispossess the Jews who are living or own land beyond the Green Line and refuse to allow even a single Jew to remain and become a citizen of the Palestinian State. Once Abbas has made the situation clear that there will be no Jews allowed to remain within Palestine then the Israelis can hardly be condemned for not accepting the refugees, especially all five to six million, within Israel and demanding that they only be allowed to settle in Palestine. In all truth, Israel actually holds the moral high ground on this issue as there are already sizeable Arab sectors within the Israeli population who have full rights and are found throughout Israeli society. There are Arab doctors and nurses working right next to Jewish doctors and nurses in every Israeli hospital, Arab members in the Knesset even to include some who act more for the Palestinians than they do the Israeli Arabs who elected them. There are Arab judges, Police, and soldiers in the IDF, though the Arab Israelis are not required to serve in the IDF as Israeli Jews and Druze are required to serve. You cannot find a single Jews even allowed to reside in Area A of the West Bank or within any of the Arab villages under Palestinian Authority rule.

 

While President Abbas has demanded that Israel issue a building freeze once again in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, perhaps in exchange Abbas will freeze all Palestinian building within East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and Areas B and C of the West Bank in a gesture of equality and fairness. Just as the Israelis would still be entitled to build within the Green line and only cease building in the contested lands, the Palestinian would continue to build in Area C and they would also not build within the contested lands. As for the Abbas demand that Israel agree to utilize the 1967 Lines as a reference for final borders, these are actually the Armistice Lines from 1949 which the Arabs demanded could never be used to denote a border, that the Israelis could demand that Abbas recognize that the original British Mandate was presumably for the establishment of a Jewish State and that all the lands east of the Jordan River were already ceded by the Jews to the Palestinian Arabs when they forfeited those lands for the establishment of Jordan. Should that be too difficult a pill for Abbas to swallow then there is always the compromise position that at the establishment of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 Israel possessed the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, Judea and Samaria and as required by Resolution 242 Israel had surrendered territories by returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and the disengagement from Gaza thus Israel is not technically or legally required to surrender any further lands except by mutual agreement and should Israel wish to fully exhaust their rights they could annex all of Judea and Samaria and still have satisfied all legal international requirements. There has to be a point where the truth is stated and a requirement that the actual International legal requirements are made obvious and that Israel has technically met every International requirement proposed by the United Nations and accepted by International bodies.

 

Proposing that for every precondition which Israel is requested to meet to jumpstart the peace process the Palestinians also meet a like precondition would be simply an equalizing and fairness measure. The examples above are simply that, samples, suggestions. It would be up to Israeli leadership to present proposals which they would deem as evenhanded. There are other preconditions such as the releasing of large numbers of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons, including some of those who have committed the most grievous crimes, is one demand for which I am unable to find anything which would balance such out to pose in return. The other problem with this idea is that I have little doubt that Mahmoud Abbas would not simply keep adding more preconditions to the list while ignoring the Israeli answer of preconditions of their own. Still, by proposing such return preconditions they would add into the discussion a review of what are the demands and positions on each subject the Palestinians hold. Any turning of the tables that potentially reveals the truth of the Palestinians refusal to negotiate works in Israel’s favor. Trying to tell the world that these preconditions are merely excuses not to negotiate is not accepted and will not be accepted unless Israel actually gave in on them and the Palestinians still refused to negotiate. The problem is once Israel surrenders on any point there will be no backtracking away from the conceded point. For example, if Israel commits to a building freeze for a period, say six months, in order to allow for negotiations we all know exactly what would be the response as we already danced this dance. Abbas would simply ask about another set of preconditions such as agreement on the 1967 lines for borders and the acceptance of the Right of Return for all five to six million Palestinian refugees and the prisoner release. Israel would have allowed the building freeze to be established as something that Israel is obliged to commit to in order for negotiations just as it has been pushed ever since it was introduced and forced down Israel’s throat by United States President Obama. We also need to remember that the concept of the building freeze and using the 1967 lines as the starting point for borders were both brilliant ideas introduced and proposed by President Obama, not Mahmoud Abbas. Ever since their introduction they have stuck and Abbas realizes that these two gifts from the American President are in his pocket ad infinitum. As these preconditions will never depart the scene on their own, Israel has to find some tactic to turn them back on the Palestinians and use them to reveal the duplicity behind these demands being used deceptively by the Palestinians. Turnabout is only fair as all’s fair in love and war, and if this is not one it must be the other.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Palestinian State a Concealed Islamic Arab Weapon

Bring up the subject of a Palestinian state and you are virtually guaranteed to begin a heated debate at any gathering. Everybody has their own idea of who is to blame for the frozen negotiations, what it would take to restart the negotiations, where to place borders, all the way to whether the Palestinians who resort to violence terrorists or freedom fighters and millions of arguments inbetween. What is almost never discussed is the period after such a state would be formed and what a future with a country Palestine formed and independent alongside of Israel. This should be a situation that should be given serious consideration before even thinking of entering any negotiations which could result in allowing such a state to come into existence.

 

Everybody gets all stuck on things such as placement of borders, control over the Holy Basin and the Old City of Jerusalem. Another important debate concerns the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees into Israel, a really hot button issue. But it is rarely discussed except as an alternative to the Right of Return is allowing the refugees to return into the newly founded Palestinian state. This issue should not be seen as an alternative to the Right of Return for refugees to inside Israel but what allowing them to return from the numerous camps into Palestine would mean going forward. The Palestinian state will have sufficient problems becoming economically viable with its current population but should another five plus million Palestinian refugees who likely have few employable skills after spending their entire lives sequestered in camps where they were denied virtually all basic rights with extreme limitations on employment positions that were permitted. The plight of the Palestinian refugees who were kept almost in prison camp conditions in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and others have been denied any opportunities to live a normal life. Considering the population of Palestinians currently in the West Bank and Gaza is currently approaching five million so if all the refugees kept in camps in other countries were to return the population would basically double. With the current unemployment in the Palestinian population approaching twenty percent, adding in such a large number of new refugees who would also pose a challenge to find appropriate employment along with the fact that once the Jewish businesses are moved back behind the borders, many of the Palestinians employed in these industrial parks will end up losing their jobs as the border between Palestine and Israel will not likely be very porous. But the real problem would come much later down the road.

 

The one prediction which many people hold is that whatever form the Palestinian state ends up taking, if it is designed to be a stand-alone entity then it very likely will become a nonfunctional state as the foreign aid from the world began to dwindle. As the state began to experience life without the financial support it currently enjoys there would be those who would turn to terrorism as old habits die hard. Should things get really bad, desperate even, and terrorism rose to a level similar to either intifada, then it may become necessary that Israel make an incursion into the Palestinian state even if it meant causing a war. The likelihood of such  becoming a reality is increased when one recalls that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Salafist groups, and even Fatah and the PLO which make up much of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have all reserved the right to continue the struggle until they have liberated all of Palestine from the River to the Sea. That alone is a guarantee that terrorism is planned to continue even after the Palestinian state has been established. So, with this as the likely scenario, what would be the result?

 

Should Israel face an ever growing terrorism problem where the attacks of any form, be they suicide bombers, rockets or full-fledged incursions by armed groups raiding and terrorizing Israeli citizens, destroying property, burning crops, and stealing herds, eventually Israel would have to respond with the IDF. Once the Palestinians are living in their own universally recognized state then any terrorist attacks would be tantamount to an act of war. A repeated and growing terrorist threat would definitely be interpreted as acts of war. What would be the result if Israel had to take military interventions to attempt to destroy terrorist infrastructure? How would the world react in such an instance? Taking into consideration how the world reacts to current uses of force by Israel in response to terrorist attacks, any such endeavor by Israel would probably result in the United Nations holding panicked meetings to determine how to prevent Israel from simply annexing the Palestinian areas undoing everything that it took to establish the Palestinian state. And what might be even worse is if Israel intervention did result in the annexation of the Palestinian areas sending everything back to square one, there would be a dangerous difference as the Palestinian population would be double resulting from the refugee influx. This would mean that Israel would find it necessary to monitor and police twice the number population while attempting to pacify any terrorist cells or forces. Such a situation would be today’s problems on steroids with demonstrations and riots reaching levels and sizes which would eventually result in a situation where the resultant casualties could easily become horrific. Such a calamity would be guaranteed if the Palestinians used a similar tactic as was utilized during the second intifada where men with semi-automatic and full-automatic assault rifles stayed concealed behind youths both male and female and would open up when the from behind the youths throwing rocks and bricks waiting to get in close range and then open fire. These situations potentially become high casualty clashes with very unfortunate results. Simply put, allowing a Palestinian state has problems of unimaginable proportions should the full numbers of refugees be allowed to be repatriated into the Palestinian state. It would be advantageous to address this potential situation before allowing the formation of the Palestinian state and set a reasonable number on the refugees allowed to return while making as many as possible to be finally absorbed by their host nations just as Israel absorbed and repatriated the nearly eight-hundred-thousand plus refugees who entered Israel from the combined expulsions and other violent actions taken by the Arab and Muslim world in the first decade after the formation of Israel. This is something that should have been addressed long ago but instead the Arab and Muslim world made the fateful decision that the Palestinian refugees and their families for the ensuing generations were to be utilized as a bludgeon with which to pound Israel rather than accept them as fellow human beings and shown them the respect due any person, especially those who turn to you for help. But we must deal with things as they are, not as we would have wished them to be. The problem is that now these unfortunate victims have swelled in numbers to the point that they are now potential human threats to the possibilities for a successful Palestinian state in the future.

 

Beyond the Cusp