Syria, war and negotiation

by Paul Rogers

Secretary of State John Kerry, right, confers with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a meeting Aug. 9, 2013, at the Department of State in Washington, D.C.(photo: Wikimedia Commons)

The unexpected Washington-Moscow diplomacy - made possible by London's parliament - creates space for progress in ending Syria's "double proxy war".

The British parliament's vote on 29 August 2013 against a motion giving effective permission for an early military attack on Syria set off a chain reaction in international decision-making and diplomacy. This took time to become clear, since at first Barack Obama's administration remained committed to action and had strong support from the French president, Francois Hollande. But Obama's decision to consult Congress, explicit concerns from retired senior military on both sides of the Atlantic, and strong public critisism combined to stall the momentum to war, showing that the House of Commons's vote had had an effect.

The Russian offer of a process to dispose of Syria's stock of chemical weapons, following United States secretary of state John Kerry's suggestion at a press conference that this was the only way to avoid intervention, then filled the space that had been opened. The negotiations now underway between Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, mean that for the moment at least, the probability of armed confrontation with Syria is much diminished. The situation remains uncertain, however, and the danger most certainly has not gone away: Bashar al-Assad's regime may prevaricate in a way that brings crisis to the boil, or there may be one of those “AIM” events (accidents, incidents and mavericks) that can rapidly escalate.

In a longer-term perspective, the real question is whether this positive development in one aspect of Syria's war could be the start of more general progress. At first sight this looks unlikely, but there are reasons for a small measure of optimism.

The Russian factor

A key feature of the devastating civil war in Syria - as several columns in this series have argued - is that it is a double proxy war. This is clearest in the way that the Saudis and Qataris support the rebels with funding and armaments, while the Iranians and Hizbollah support Assad. At an even higher level, the Americans and some western European states back the rebels while the Russians back the regime.

Since the evolution of the war in the course of 2011, its proxy nature has bedevilled any chance of externally mediated progress. This context alone makes the chemical-weapons agreement between Kerry and Lavrov a significant change. But whether the initiative can be turned into broad diplomatic pressure on the rebels and the Assad regime may depend on a particular feature of how the conflict has developed in 2012-13 - the rise of extreme Islamist elements among the rebel paramilitaries. These elements have become ever stronger, especially in northern Syria, to the extent of offering the most dedicated and effective opposition to the regime.

This is a major problem for the Obama administration, since its aid to the rebels risks enabling al-Qaida-linked paramilitaries to achieve power in the event of the regime's fall - or at least leaving parts of a post-Assad Syria in the hands of such groups. But the real measure of change, which so far is scarcely recognised, is the new Russian predicament - for the more the Russians sustain a regime that is facing increasingly powerful Islamist opposition, the more this could affect Russia's own domestic security.

Since the Chechen wars of the late 1990s, Russia has faced a continual problem of violent Islamist opposition in the north Caucasus. In recent years this has been centred on a vigorous counter-terrorism operation against the "Caucasus Emirate". A conflict little reported in the western media has seen the Emirate conduct over 2,200 attacks, kill 1,500 Russian state officials and 400 civilians. Its campaign shows few signs of ending.

The host city of the winter Olympics of 2014 is Sochi, a Black Sea city on the western fringe of the north Caucasus. It is intended to provide an international showcase for Russia's president, Vladimir Putin. There are, though, plausible (if unconfirmed) reports of young paramilitaries from the region - from Chechnya and Dagestan in particular - joining some of the Islamist groups to fight in Syria. The possibility of a "blowback" is being taken very seriously.

In short, the United States may be deeply troubled by the prospect of Islamist paramilitaries active in a post-Assad Syria, but Russia has its own worries. The more Moscow supports Assad, the more Islamist propagandists can advance the idea that Russia is equally part of the “far enemy”. Thus, both Obama and Putin have a vested interest in a compromise that could end the war.

The missing link

Even good cooperation between the former cold-war adversaries, however, would leave in place the other ingredients of the double proxy. Iran and Saudi Arabia are in the forefront here. In this respect too, there is some cause for optimism in that Iran's new president, Hassan Rowhani, is willing to engage with the United States. Tehran's calculation is that it is in Iran's interest to end the war by a negotiation which leaves its Hizbollah ally intact and constrains the rise of Sunni Islamists who see Iran as a nation of apostates.

But the position of Qatar and especially Saudi Arabia presents a difficulty to this evolving equation, for their support for Islamist rebels has a strong strategic basis. These states believe that Assad has to be defeated, as part of a wider war to prevent the establishment of a powerful Shi'a crescent stretching from the Mediterranean through southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran to the Indian Ocean.

In this complex diplomatic process, the extent of Washington's influence with the Saudis may determine the chance of further advance. It may just be that previous experience, namely Rowhani's involvement in negotiating with the Saudis earlier in his career, may come into play - just as the Kerry-Lavrov relationhip has been important in the chemical-weapons negotiations.

Even taken together, all these factors offer only a small dose of optimism. Yet they cannot be discounted. If they do cohere and are built on, the UK parliament's decision on 29 August could yet be seen as a historic turning-point.

Paul Rogers is professor in the department of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He is openDemocracy's international-security editor, and has been writing a weekly column on global security since 28 September 2001; he also writes a monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group. His books include Why We’re Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007), and Losing Control: Global Security in the 21st Century(Pluto Press, 3rd edition, 2010). He is on twitter at: @ProfPRogers

This article first appeared on openDemocracy 19 September 2013.

US Congress to debate and vote on Syria war

by Patrick Martin

President Obama’s announcement Saturday that he would seek congressional authorization for military strikes against Syria sets the stage for a two-week campaign of media propaganda and political intimidation. Its goal is to browbeat the American people into accepting yet another imperialist war in the Middle East.

Obama’s announcement was an abrupt reversal, after a week in which US officials suggested that a unilateral American attack on Syria was imminent, using the pretext of an alleged chemical weapons attack August 21 in the suburbs of Damascus.

The announcement incorporated what Obama described as two separate decisions: to “take military action against Syrian regime targets,” and to seek authorization for such action beforehand from Congress.

Obama’s language was carefully constructed to allow maximum flexibility in escalating the military action. “Syrian regime targets” is specifically not limited to the Syrian military, but includes the political leadership, up to and including President Bashar al-Assad, who is likely to be targeted by US drones, already active in Syrian airspace, as well as cruise missiles.

As for going to Congress, Obama made it explicit that, in his view, he was not bound to abide by the results of a congressional vote. He could launch missiles strikes and bombing raids even if Congress rejects the measure. He also acknowledged that the attack on Syria would not be authorized by the United Nations.

In other words, while disguising his intentions in the language of restraint—noting that in addition to being commander-in-chief, he is “president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy”—Obama is asserting essentially unchecked power to attack any nation, at any time, regardless of either US or international law.

No evidence has been offered to support the US claim that Syrian President Assad ordered the attack, while credible reports now suggest that the Syrian rebels are responsible.

Russian President Vladimir Putin flatly asserted Saturday that US-backed opposition forces staged the atrocity to bring about a US attack. “I am convinced that it is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict,” he said.

Even if the Assad regime carried out a chemical weapons attack, the US government has no authority under international law to act as judge, jury and executioner. Washington is itself the leading user of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons like white phosphorus bombs and depleted uranium shells, which have killed thousands in Iraq and are causing a catastrophic level of birth defects.

In multiple appearances on television interview programs Sunday, US Secretary of State John Kerry refused to reply to Putin’s criticism of the US pretext for war in Syria. His compliant media interviewers never pressed him over the likelihood that the US-backed “rebels,” not Assad, were the likely perpetrators of attacks using poison gas.

There is no democratic content to the official debate over going to war against Syria. The entire Congress—Democratic and Republican, House and Senate—is a political instrument of the US financial aristocracy. Every member accepts the basic premise that the US government has the right to invade any country it chooses, without any regard to national sovereignty or international law.

Obama himself claims that he retains the power to order an attack on Syria even if Congress votes against it. Administration spokesmen and congressional Democrats cited the precedent of the Kosovo War in 1999. At that time, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted against a resolution to authorize US air strikes, but the Clinton administration ignored the vote and continued the bombing.

The corporate-controlled media echoes administration lies about chemical weapons even more shamelessly than eleven years ago, when the Bush administration launched a similar campaign on “weapons of mass destruction” to prepare for the invasion and conquest of Iraq.

Key Democratic congressional leaders have announced their support for war with Syria, even before the official debate begins on September 9. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement backing “the limited use of American military force” in Syria. Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Senator Charles Schumer have all indicated their support.

In the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gave her support for a US strike on Syria last Thursday, after a conference call between Obama administration officials and 26 top congressmen and senators. “It is clear that the American people are weary of war,” she said. “However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security.”

Congressional Republicans were divided in their expressions of support or opposition, with many declining to comment until the administration communicates its actual battle plan for the attack. The top four House Republican leaders issued a joint statement Saturday praising Obama for going to Congress for support, but taking no position on the substance of the issue.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a leading witch-hunter of Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers who have exposed illegal government surveillance and war crimes, called for approval of the resolution for war with Syria, warning that a vote “denying the President authority to respond with military force” would undermine the world position of the United States.

The calculations behind Obama’s reversal of course and decision to seek congressional authorization are suggested in a front-page analysis in the New York Times, pointing to Obama’s preparation for several unpopular, large-scale wars in the Middle East. It quotes an unnamed aide who was present at the meeting Friday night at the White House where Obama announced his decision.

“He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.

“If he made the decision to strike Syria without Congress now, he said, would he get Congress when he really needed it?”

There are already reports that the British government will seek a second vote in Parliament if the US Congress votes to authorize attacks on Syria. “It opens a very important new opportunity,” Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the parliamentary intelligence committee and a former defense secretary, told the BBC.

The Wall Street Journal reports intensive contingency planning between the US, Turkey, Jordan and the Syrian rebels on a possible collapse of the Assad regime within 24 hours of air strikes, suggesting that the attack will be far more intense and far-reaching than the one currently suggested by the White House.

This article firstappeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 2 September 2013, and was republished with permission.

German politicians, media defend the Egyptian army

by Peter Schwarz

The reaction of German politicians and the media to the massacre carried out by the Egyptian army against supporters of ousted President Mohamed Mursi ranges from subdued criticism to outright support.

All comments, including those critical of the army, refrain from calling for the resignation or overthrow of the military-controlled regime. Instead, they call on the Muslim Brotherhood to reconcile itself with the military and work with them. Their aim is to maintain the power of the military as the Egyptian bourgeoisie’s main instrument of class rule.

This stance is common to all the commentaries—from the conservative to the liberal press, from the ruling coalition parties to the opposition Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Left Party. Not a single commentary defends the democratic rights of the Egyptian masses, which are the ultimate victim of the army’s brutal intervention and the government’s declared state of emergency.

Instead, the media and political pundits fear that the violent repression by the military, the return of old Mubarak loyalists to leading government posts, and an open civil war between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood could reignite the revolution and undermine imperialist influence over the country.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (Free Democratic Party) responded to the massacre by calling upon “all sides” to “immediately return to a political process involving all political forces.” This demand is based on the recognition that the military and the Muslim Brotherhood represent different wings of the Egyptian bourgeoisie, which are both profoundly hostile to the working class.

The German Foreign Ministry summoned the Egyptian ambassador after the security forces killed hundreds of mostly unarmed protesters, with thousands injured. A spokeswoman for the ministry announced subsequently that they had put forward the attitude of the German government “in no uncertain terms” and given notice of consequences that would be coordinated with Germany’s European partners. This is far from a clear condemnation of the massacre, however.

In fact, Westerwelle is poorly placed to do so, as he was one of the most consistent defenders of longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak, whose followers are now back in power. In a visit to Cairo in May 2010, nine months before Mubarak’s overthrow, Westerwelle praised the incumbent president as “an anchor of stability in the region” and a “man of enormous experience and great wisdom”, who had “the future firmly in sight”.

After Mubarak’s ouster, Westerwelle backed the military junta that replaced him, and after Mursi’s election he supported the new president. In July 2012, he was the first European politician to travel to Cairo, where he welcomed the “clear commitment by the first democratically elected president to democracy, the rule of law, pluralism and religious tolerance.”

After mass protests erupted against Mursi, and the military took power in a coup aimed at forestalling a new revolution, the new rulers treated Westerwelle with barely concealed contempt. When he visited Cairo again on August 1 this year, he had to take a bus from the plane to the airport terminal because his limousine was denied entry to the airfield. During his entire trip, he was received with marked coolness.

Westerwelle reacted by refraining from any criticism of the military coup and dropping his original call for Mursi’s release. “At the present time we are not entitled to make a legal qualification of what has taken place in Egypt,” he said of the coup.

Westerwelle’s stance is shared by all parties in the Bundestag. Their priority is to preserve the stability of bourgeois rule in Egypt and maintain imperialist influence in the country. This requires, firstly, that the military remain a factor of power, secondly, that civil war between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood is avoided if possible, and, thirdly that the Egyptian working class, the driving force of the revolution, be held in check.

The foreign policy spokesman of the SPD parliamentary group, Rolf Mützenich, called for joint action by European governments. Berlin should give a mandate for intervention to EU High Representative Lady Ashton, who “still has the confidence of all the Egyptian players,” he said. Mützenich tried hard to award equal responsibility for the massacre to “representatives of the old Mubarak system” and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood “must not further incite and exploit its followers,” he said.

Similar arguments were put forward by the foreign policy spokesperson for the Greens in the European Parliament, Franziska Brantner. Speaking to German radio, she declared that the military and the Muslim Brotherhood were equally responsible for the massacre and called for international intervention to reconcile both sides. “I think it is now really time for the various international players to bring together the various sides,” she said.

The Left Party’s Rosa Luxemburg Foundation had already presented a document calling for reconciliation with the rule of the military and to relinquish the call for early elections. “Our aim is rather to find a way to introduce social justice in a manner the military leadership can accept,” wrote Peter Schäfer and Mai Choucri, of the RL Foundation in Tunis.

Most press commentaries also call for reconciliation between the Brotherhood and the army to stabilize the Egyptian state. Die Welt advises the Muslim Brotherhood to comply with the military and seek a compromise: “Under military rule the struggle against current conditions can only end in defeat. It would be wise to seek talks.”

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung complains that “the basis for a consensus has crumbled” in Egypt.

The faz favors public condemnation of the massacre, because otherwise “there will no longer be an argument for Islamists in favor of engaging in democratic processes.” Then every Islamist would “feel that going underground is the only choice. It is in the interest of the whole world to prevent this.”

The Handelsblatt criticizes Western politicians for being too passive in Cairo. “Genuine commitment looks very different.”

For its part, the Stuttgarter Nachrichten dismisses talk of compromise between the warring bourgeois camps and recommends full support for the military to suppress every manifestation of social opposition.

“Instead of quoting moralistic clichés, the West needs to make a sober analysis of its own interests,” the newspaper writes. “Civil war creates poverty and a power vacuum, i.e. the best breeding ground for fundamentalists, terrorists and an expansion of the sphere of influence of the Iranian mullahs.”

“The only real concern of the West is stability in Egypt,” the paper concludes. “At the most the US and its allies have influence over the military. They are perhaps no better than the other side, but are possibly susceptible to pressure and arguments. Morality has nothing to do with this, it is rather a question of sober political interests.”

The defense of the Egyptian military by politicians and the media is a warning to the German and European population. In future social conflicts they are prepared to respond just as ruthlessly as the army in Egypt.

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 16 August 2013, and was republished with permission.

Het Israel-Palestina overleg: optreden voor de publieke tribune

 
Op 18 januari 2013 valt een Israëlische soldaat een Palestijnse activist aan tijdens de wekelijkse demonstratie tegen

de Israëlische muur in het Palestijnse dorp al-Maasara op de Westelijke Jordaanoever. Als de muur er volgens plan

komt zou die de bewoners afsnijden van hun akkers. (foto: Ryan Rodrick Beiler / ActiveStills)

“Geen voorwaarden vooraf, geen bouwstop op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en geen vrijlating van gevangenen voor de gesprekken beginnen. En ik heb me niet vastgelegd op de grenzen van 1967.” Dat vertelde een triomfantelijke premier Netanyahu zijn ministers op 20 juli, nadat de Amerikaanse buitenlandminister John Kerry had aangekondigd dat Israel en Palestina opnieuw aan tafel gaan. Dat overleg gaat vandaag in Washington van start. De Israëlische delegatie wordt aangevoerd door minister Tzipi Livni van Justitie. De Palestijnen worden vertegenwoordigd door Saeb Erekat, de omstreden onderhandelaar die uit de Palestina Papers naar voren komt als iemand die veel te vergaande concessies op tafel legde maar geen enkel gehoor vond bij zijn Israëlische tegenstrevers. Het is moeilijk in te zien welke nieuwe elementen sinds de vorige mislukte onderhandelingsronde van 2010 tot succes kunnen leiden.

De traditionele Westerse pers reageerde positief op het nieuws. In België namen de media kritiekloos het bericht van Belga over dat spreekt over een akkoord om de vredesgesprekken te hervatten. Maar in werkelijkheid zijn partijen slechts overeengekomen te onderhandelen over procedurele aangelegenheden rondom een eventuele hervatting van echte onderhandelingen. Volgens Belga moet het akkoord wel nog “geformaliseerd” worden, maar de pers plaatst daar geen enkele kanttekening bij. In Nederland doet NRC-correspondente Leonie van Nierop in een commentaar dat wel. Een niet-geformaliseerd principe-akkoord kun je geen doorbraak noemen. Er mogen dan binnenkort onderhandelingen plaatsvinden, het blijft de vraag of die succes opleveren, aldus Van Nierop.

Terugkijkend op een al twintig jaar vruchteloos voortslepend “vredesproces” en gegeven de manier waarop betrokkenen zich de afgelopen tijd opstellen kan men de hervatting daarvan enkel met de nodige scepsis bekijken. Israel staat onder geen enkele druk om concessies te doen. Het praat enkel met Mahmoud Abbas, maar namens wie spreekt die eigenlijk? Sinds begin 2006 heeft Abbas geen enkel electoraal mandaat meer. Niet enkel praat het democratisch verkozen maar verketterde Hamas, dat de 1,6 miljoen Palestijnen in Gaza bestuurt, niet mee. Maar ook grote groepen Palestijnen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever zijn niet akkoord met de hervatting van vrijblijvende gesprekken onder leiding van Washington, dat men absoluut niet als “honest broker” beschouwt. Twintig jaar “onderhandelen” heeft de bezetter enkel de gelegenheid gegeven zijn sluipende expansie verder te zetten, en het verdeel-en-heers spelletje met de Palestijnen te blijven opvoeren.

De hervatting van de gesprekken is vooral een middel voor Israel en de VS om hun gezicht te redden. Kerry heeft Abbas, die de afgelopen jaren steeds het opschorten van de illegale bouw van nederzettingen in bezet Palestijns gebied als voorwaarde heeft gesteld, onder zware druk gezet. Daarbij slaagde hij erin de Arabische Liga voor zijn karretje te spannen (“the Arab League … made an important difference with their statement of support”) waardoor Abbas gewoon voor een voldongen feit stond. Bovendien werd Abbas er nog eens ondubbelzinnig aan herinnerd dat hij en zijn “regering” door de VS worden gefinancierd. Het zijn dus opnieuw de Palestijnen die hebben moeten inbinden. Israel zegt wel de gesprekken in te gaan zonder voorwaarden vooraf, maar men kan het ongebreideld mogen voortzetten van de bouw in Palestijns gebied toch enkel zien als een Israëlische voorwaarde vooraf.

Aan het Israëlische “gebaar van goede wil” om gevangenen los te laten moet men weinig waarde hechten: dat gebeurt maar mondjesmaat en in functie van de mate waarin de onderhandelingen vorderen, waarbij Israel natuurlijk alle troeven in handen heeft. In het verleden is gebleken dat zo’n vrijlating al bij herhaling gevolgd werd door het oppakken van gelijke aantallen Palestijnen, waaronder sommige van de betrokken. En aan de internationale Boycot, Desinvestering en Sanctie-campagne (BDS) heeft Israel geen boodschap. Op de Europese BDS-maatregel die wetenschappelijke en financiële samenwerking met Israëlische instellingen met banden met de illegale Joodse nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever blokkeert volgde ijskoud een strafmaatregel: EU-diplomaten en medewerkers van hulporganisaties mogen niet langer vanuit Israël de Gazastrook in- en uit. Een maatregel die regelrecht de in Gaza gegijzelde Palestijnse bevolking treft.

Met het hervatten van de gesprekken probeert Amerika zijn blazoen in de moslimwereld op te poetsen. Het imago van de enig overgebleven supermogendheid staat de afgelopen jaren sterk onder druk: de omvangrijke militaire, financiële en diplomatieke steun aan Israel, de verloren “oorlog uit noodzaak” in Afghanistan, de illegale Irak-oorlog, het verboden want kankerverwekkend gebruik van munitie met verarmd uranium in Irak, de elf jaar aanslepende wrede detentie van gevangenen in Guantanamo Bay zonder tenlastelegging of proces, de folterpraktijken waaronder waterboarden, de illegale omverwerping van Gadaffi in Libië, de steun aan buitenlandse gewapende inmenging in Syrië met vandaag 100.000 doden, de samenwerking met autocratisch bestuurde sjeikdommen als Saudi Arabië en de Golfstaten, de droneaanslagen met de handtekening van Obama, de manier waarop Washington omgaat met klokkenluiders als Bradley Manning en Edward Snowden, de cyberoorlog tegen Iran, en ga zo maar door.

Wat moeten we verwachten van de zoveelste gespreksronde tussen Israëli’s en Palestijnen? Men moet vooral vrezen voor het perverse effect van het “vredesproces”. Dat gaat steevast gepaard met toenemende mensenrechtenschendingen. “Tijdens dergelijke gesprekken komt Israel zowat met alles weg: confiscatie van Palestijnse gronden, uitbreiding van nederzettingen, zelfs de operatie Cast Lead[1] vond plaats tijdens lopende onderhandelingen”, aldus de Israëlische mensenrechtenadvocaat Michael Sfard. En de verklaring van premier Netanyahu na het nieuws over het vlottrekken van het “vredesproces” laat aan duidelijkheid niets te wensen over. De gesprekken moeten “het ontstaan van een binationale staat die de toekomst van de Joodse staat zou bedreigen, of een nieuwe, door Iran gesponsorde terreurstaat aan onze grens, die ons evenzeer zou bedreigen, voorkomen”. Geen woord over een leefbare Palestijnse staat op basis van de grenzen van 1967, geen greintje empathie voor de onderdrukte Palestijnen.

De Palestijnse delegatie zal hooguit extra economische steun uit de brand slepen. Daarmee kunnen de Palestijnse leiders misschien nog wat langer aan de macht blijven. Maar de Palestijnse bevolking ziet een echte oplossing voor hun dagelijkse ellende[2] enkel in een internationalisering van het conflict: de internationale gemeenschap moet Israel ter verantwoording roepen voor de voortsdurende schendingen van de mensenrechten en het internationaal recht. De Palestijnen wantrouwen hun leiders, die vooral de veiligheid van Israel garanderen. Zo beschermen Palestijnse ordediensten de Israëlische kolonisten, die zelf al bewapend zijn, tegen Palestijns verzet. Maar het Midden-Oosten kwartet (VS, EU, Rusland en VN), dat voor de internationalisering van het conflict zou kunnen zorgen, doet niet meer mee. Dat wordt nog altijd geleid door de vroegere Britse premier Tony Blair, met wie Nobelprijswinnaar aartsbisschop Desmond Tutu niet op één podium wil. “Dit is een oorlogsmisdadiger die moet worden aangeklaagd bij het Internationaal Strafhof in Den Haag wegens de invasie van Irak”, aldus Tutu.

Washington, dat in het verleden telkenmale blijk gaf van partijdigheid, heeft dus het laken naar zich toe getrokken, en dat voorspelt weinig goeds. Net als de afgelopen twintig jaar zullen de gesprekken gericht zijn op conflictbeheersing, maar geen echte oplossing bieden. In 1992 woonden er 200.000 kolonisten op Palestijns gebied, vandaag zijn dat er al 600.000. Een tweestatenoplossing is niet meer mogelijk. De Westelijke Jordaanoever bestaat vandaag uit losse Palestijnse “Bantustans” waar men met de beste wil van de wereld geen leefbare Palestijnse staat uit kan smeden. Alles op het terrein duidt erop dat Israel op de Westelijke Jordaanoever wil blijven. Het bouwt niet enkel koortsachtig voort aan de nederzettingen, maar ook aan infrastructuurwerken als snelwegen en spoorlijnen die enkel voor Israeli’s toegankelijk zijn.

De oplossing is dus gelegen in de door Netanyahu zo gevreesde binationale staat: één land voor Israëli’s en Palestijnen, met gelijke rechten. De Palestijnen zitten niet te wachten op een “eigen” ministaatje onder streng toezicht van Israel. Het fundamentele probleem is dat de Palestijnen onderworpen zijn aan een koloniale bezetter die hen als inferieur beschouwt. Zelfs de Palestijnen in Israel, die over volledige burgerrechten zouden moeten beschikken, staan bloot aan hetzelfde racisme en dezelfde discriminatoire wetten. Of Netanyahu ooit de kolonisten kan opdragen de nederzettingen aan Palestijnen over dragen is uiterst twijfelachtig: er zitten prominente kolonisten in zijn kabinet. Maar toch zal er iets grondig moeten veranderen. De Europese boycot moet versterkt worden voortgezet. Israel moet worden gedwongen mensenrechtennormen en internationaal recht te respecteren.

De Amerikaanse buitenlandminister John Kerry heeft verklaard dat de gesprekken binnen 18 maanden tot een Palestijnse staat moeten kunnen leiden. Waarom zou hij partijen dan niet een deadline opleggen en bij uitblijven van zo’n oplossing aankondigen dat de VS dan alternatieve oplossingen zal steunen? De werkelijkheid is dat Kerry samen met Netanyahu optreedt voor de publieke tribune. Een serieuze conflictbemiddelaar zou pas in gang schieten na een bouwstop op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en als de Palestijnen in één delegatie kunnen optreden. Hij had Israel dus onder druk moeten zetten, en Fatah en Hamas, die Israel al zoveel jaren tegen elkaar opzet, verenigen. Net als alle vorige pogingen wordt deze ronde dus weer een maat voor niets.

---

[1] Israëlische militaire operatie tegen Gaza in 2008/2009, waarbij 1.300 Palestijnse doden vielen, in meerderheid burgers

[2] Citaat uit Obama’s Cairo-toespraak op 4 juni 2009: “They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”