Tag: Israel

Reading the Peace Vision

Third-party initiatives to broker peace between Jews and Palestinians have had within them an embedded element of partiality toward one side. The Balfour Declaration, a letter written in 1917 by Arthur Balfour, the-then Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, to Lord Walter Rothschild, a major figure in the British Jewish community, promised Jews a land where the native Arab Palestinians made up 90 percent of the population. The essence of that promise and its potential ramifications was poignantly captured by Edward Said: “It was made by a European power about a non-European territory in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.” The Balfour declaration facilitated a wave of Jewish migration across the world to Palestine. However, it was the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and his subsequent campaign of genocide against Jews that forced an exodus of the latter to Palestine and pushed them to embrace Zionism which promised a homeland for them in historic Palestine.

The UN Plan of November 1947 proposed the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The UN Partition Plan gave the Palestinian Arabs 45 per cent of the Palestinian land, and 55 per cent to the Jews, even though the former constituted close to two-thirds of the total population (69 per cent), and held 92 per cent of the land. The Plan gave the holy city of Jerusalem the status of corpus separatum – meaning it had to be dealt separately, and for the time being remain under international control.

The first Arab-Israel war denied Palestinians even the parts of lands the UN had designated for a Palestinian state. When the war ended and a truce was effected by the UN in January 1949, Israel had control over 78 per cent of Palestine along with West Jerusalem. 750,000 Palestinians, constituting two-thirds of the native Arab population at that time, were displaced and became refugees. The remaining 22 percent of Palestinian lands, comprising of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, came under Israel’s control after the 1967 war. The subsequent UN resolution 242 calling for a two-state solution on the borders of the pre-June 1967 war has been undermined to the point of ‘no-solution’ due to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinians and Israel tried to work towards a solution of peace in the early 1990s. In this regard, the Oslo Accords were signed between Israel and the Arafat-led Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under US mediation. In return for Israel’s and international recognition of a politically emasculated Palestinian Self-Government Authority in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian leadership led by Yasir Arafat capitulated. Real issues of illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, the future of Jerusalem and the return of approximately 5 million Palestinian refugees were left to be discussed in the final status negotiations in a distant future. The West Bank was divided into areas A, B and C respectively. Area C constitutes 60 per cent of the West Bank and is exclusively under Israeli control. The 708 km-long Israeli West Bank barrier, aka the Separation Wall which Israel started building in 2002, separated East Jerusalem from the West Bank, thereby severing cultural and social bonds between the Palestinians living on both sides. Administrative detentions, the grueling process of security permissions and the siege of Gaza continue to make Palestinian lives extremely difficult.

The Peace Vision proffered by Jared Khushner, whose only credential as a ‘peace broker’ happens to be his position of being the son-in-law to President Trump, puts the gloss of American legitimacy on the political developments mentioned above. Under this plan, Jerusalem would remain the exclusive capital of Israel, Jewish settlements in the West Bank will continue and Israeli law will apply to them, and Palestinian refugees will have no right of return. As for a Palestinian state, it would be a geographical archipelago made up of Bantustans and cantons. It would be completely demilitarized, and have no control over its borders and sea lanes.

To add insult to injury, the recognition of this ‘joke of a state’ would be contingent upon the Palestinian leadership meeting a set of security criteria, which, inter alia, includes curriculum reforms ‘that incite or promote hatred.’ It should be mentioned in parenthesis that the Israeli military killed close to 500 Palestinian children during Operative Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip in 2014.

The essence of this peace vision was aptly summed up by Sara Makdisi, a Palestinian-American professor at the UCLA: “As an outline of a genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis, this document amounts to little more than a badly written joke with a dud punch line.”

By putting the last nail in the coffin of the internationally recognized two-state solution, this peace vision further complicates the Israel-Palestine issue. One inadvertent corollary of this vision might possibly buttress voices that call for a one-state solution in which Jews and Arabs live together as equal citizens in a single state. This idea has been gaining increasing traction among a segment of Palestinian people who argue, even if a Palestinian state is established in future on the basis the UNSC Resolution 242, it will not be a viable state and too weak to fulfill the economic, political and cultural aspirations of Palestinians. If there is one thing Israel and Jewish Right is more afraid than a two-state solution, it is a one-state secular, democratic state where Arabs and Jews have equal political and economic rights. As Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem increase, further shrinking land for Palestinians, experts predict that the Israeli state will evolve into either of one ways: it will either be a secular democratic state giving equal political rights to all people irrespective of religion or it will be an apartheid state.

Trump Peace Proposal and Future of Palestine-Israel Conflict

The Palestine-Israel dispute has transformed into the most intractable and interminable conflict in the Middle East. US President Donald Trump unveiled his administration’s “Vision for Peace, Prosperity and a Brighter Future” peace proposal for the solution of Palestine and Israel’s conflict on 28 January, 2020, in a press conference at the White House. This vision has been given the name of Trump Peace Proposal. President Trump has called this peace proposal the deal of the century, which seeks to resolve the most entrenched conflict of the Middle East.

However, critics of this plan have termed it as the devil’s deal and the ‘bluff of the millennium’. Disputed border claims, national security dilemmas, return of Palestinian refugees, Israeli forced settlements, disputed water sharing claims and divided stance over Jerusalem are main issues of Israel and Palestine. These two countries are the principal actors in this conflict. Since 1946, there have been close to 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions in connection with this conflict. This scenario reflects the gravity and complexity of the problem.

This article looks into the details of President Trump’s vision of “Peace, Prosperity and a Brighter Future” for Palestine and Israel. It is a detailed document released by the White House, having 181 pages and 22 sections which cover different subjects under political and economic development framework. It elucidates the peace plan and proposes solutions of security, boundary disputes, refugees, economic development and Jerusalem by keeping in consideration the needs of Israel and Palestine as per its claims. The proposed peace plan is a replication of the long held US-Israel joint strategy of expanding territorial control of Israel and consolidating the confiscated territory in the veneer of Israel’s security and development needs. The document cites security as Israel’s chief concern and economic development as the primary need of Palestine.

The security of Israel has been given primacy in the proposed peace plan. The issue of Israel’s security is resolved through the land for peace strategy. This strategy argues that Israel has genuine security concerns from Palestinian land, therefore, Israel will have legitimate right to ensure demilitarization of Palestinian territory even through the use of force. In the proposed peace plan, the state of Palestine will not be allowed to “develop military or paramilitary force capabilities”. The document outlines that the proposed state of Palestine would have to take Israel’s consent before establishing any formal diplomatic relations with other nations. It makes a point that the state of Palestine would have to withdraw all formal legal pleas taken at different international forums against the state of Israel.

Thus, it seeks to reduce Palestine to an autonomous region whose sovereignty will be subjected to Israel. The document argues, “Sovereignty is an amorphous concept that has evolved over time”. It argues that self-detonation is the hallmark of nations. Therefore, it seeks to replace the sovereignty of the state of Palestine with self-governance which makes it obvious that it will be unacceptable for the people of Palestine who have rendered huge sacrifices for this freedom struggle.

The second important aspect of this document is the attempt to legitimize Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory which is a part of US-Israel Peace for Security Strategy. Peace for Security Strategy argues that Israel will stop construction of new settlements for four years if Palestine accepts Israeli settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem. The document refers to pre-1967 borders as a starting point for giving a considerable size of territory to Palestine but not its own exact territory because of border security concerns of Israel.

The document presents conceptual maps of Palestine and Israel on page 45 as a starting point for resolving boundary disputes but it shows US prejudice for Israel. The document clearly outlines that the issue of Palestinian refugees will not be settled in this peace plan. Rather, a separate mechanism will be devised under separate legal framework for their settlement. Thus, this peace proposal fails to present a solution to the contentious issues between the conflicting parties.

The third important aspect of Trump’s peace proposal is to further dilute the state authority of Palestine by dismantling its legitimacy in the disguise of a new peace accord. This peace proposal presents an economic development plan for Palestine by portraying the development of industry and infrastructure which is critical for interconnecting different parts of Palestine through tunnels and rail-road networks under its security for development strategy.

The US-Israel security for development strategy has produced favourable results for the security of Israel in the past. The US had been able to incentivize Egypt to swap security assurances to Israel in return of economic assistance from the US in the 1970’s Camp David accords. Camp David accords were instrumental in winning peace from the Arab world and recognition of state of Israel from Egypt. 1993’s Oslo accord also served the US-Israeli objective of pacifying PLO’s armed resistance to Israeli occupation.

President Trump’s administration has outlined an ambitious yet biased peace proposal for the solution of this conflict. President Trump announced the proposed peace plan for Palestine and Israel in a unilateral move by holding a joint press conference with Israeli premier Netanyahu. Absence from the announcement and lack of consent of Palestinian leadership on this plan reflects its future impracticality. The President of Palestine, Mahmood Abbas, has officially rejected Trump’s peace proposal. He announced to cut all ties with the US and Israel during his address at the Arab league meeting in Cairo. The Arab league has also rejected this peace plan.

This peace proposal is a unilateral move by President Trump’s administration to legitimize Israel’s territorial aggrandizement of Palestinian territory on the pretext of preserving Israel’s legitimate security interests. Pakistan has also expressed its concerns on this peace plan. Pakistan’s foreign ministry has issued a statement, “We renew our call for the establishment of a viable, independent and contiguous state of Palestine, on the basis of internationally agreed parameters, the pre-1967 borders, and with Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) as its capital”. Islamabad has always maintained that it consistently supports a two-state solution with the territorial integrity of the state of Palestine.

The US appeared as a peace broker in the Palestine-Israel conflict but not an honest peace broker.  This peace plan is conceived and written by President Trump’s advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Kushner is publicly known for his affiliation with international Jewish lobby and Israel because of his idiosyncratic cult as a Jew by religion. He acts as a senior advisor in President Trump’s administration and seeks to secure support of the US Jewish lobby for the funding and electoral campaign of President Trump in US Presidential election which is scheduled in November this year. Therefore, this peace proposal appears more as a political tactic than a concerted effort to resolve this violent conflict.

The timing of announcement of Trump’s peace plan is very selective in its approach and political in its nature as it suits President Trump’s administration to generate new debate in US media and public opinion to deflect the ongoing domestic debate from the impeachment of the President.  This plan is officially announced two years after its public revelation by President Trump which shows domestic political considerations as a compelling factor in the announcement of this proposed peace plan.

Timing of announcing Trump’s peace plan also serves political interests of Israel’s long-time serving Premier Netanyahu. He is struggling at home to keep his office intact, especially after official indictment for bribery, fraud and breach of trust in corruption cases by the attorney general’s office in November 2019.  He has got a fresh mandate after being able to get victory in mid-term election to form government less than a year ago. This peace plan also serves domestic political interests of his party and government to reaffirm his firm commitment with Zionism and greater Israel.

This peace proposal serves the long-term strategic interests of the US-Israel nexus in the geopolitical arena of Middle East as well as political interests of their incumbent regimes. Historically, the international Zionist movement and the state of Israel have been able to garner support of great powers, mainly Great Britain in the form of Belfour declaration and USA in the form of strategic partnership accord, and they have proven instrumental in its success to establish and consolidate a mandated territorial unit as a sovereign and powerful regional state.  Instead of providing peace to the region, this peace formula will further deteriorate the regional security situation by fuelling the conflict due to its partisan approach.

Nuclear Weapons in the Age of Cyber Warfare

Cyber warfare in global warfighting has increased its sphere of operations due to the expanded use of computer networks in militaries. While cyber weapons are now being equated with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), analysing their political properties and applied character lays out the distinction between the two. Nuclear weapons largely serve as a deterrent, essentially providing a means of strategic signalling for communicating the cost of aggression to an adversary. Cyber capabilities, on the other hand, are most effective when they remain covert and are applied as revelation so that the adversary is not able to “patch, reconfigure or otherwise neutralize the threat.” The combination of these two capabilities remains critical strategically, as cyber operations pose serious implications for nuclear deterrence, especially for the nuclear command and control. This article will discuss how potent cyber operations are in the contemporary security environment and to what extent do they influence the debate of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Proponents of cyber operations argue that cyber weapons have matured as “new weapons of mass destruction”, based on their sensitive nature, operational effectiveness, all-time deployment and above all the stealth nature. Moreover, these weapons can paralyze the military operations of an adversary without even escalating the threshold to a confrontation. The contrary school of thought states that operational difficulties and ineffective deterrence vis-à-vis cyber operations limit their scope in the overall security environment. It is also argued that nuclear weapons are more credible in terms of safety as cyberspace is publically available for terrorist cells, non-state actors, and lone or rogue operators. However, for weaker nations, cyber capabilities may serve as a worthy source for deterring their adversaries if announced.

The applicability of nuclear weapons is being debated around the world because of the growing number of conflicts and the use of non-kinetic weapons on the battlefield. Many scholars have claimed that the relevance of nuclear weapons is diminishing as technological instruments are taking over the role of weapons. For example, during a regional war-game scenario conducted by the Israeli government, in which the United States and Russia were two of the primary actors, it was highlighted that non-contact events rapidly turned into kinetic operations where the hierarchy is “ill-prepared” to cope in the cyber domain. Cyber domain was taken as a catalyst for instability in such a confrontational scenario with a broader area encompassing the interaction of both kinetic and non-kinetic options.

The argument also involves a dimension regarding the actors’ response to a threat or challenge and the instruments used in it. The use of traditional military options against non-traditional threats would increase the likelihood of a nuclear environment. Classical deterrence theory explains the notion of nuclear deterrence in a combination of operations under different scenarios. However, the concept of non-contact and non-kinetic warfare is a new one and largely opposes the characteristics of nuclear deterrence. Coupling nuclear weapons with cyber options remains a big challenge as the strategic characteristics of these two remain in contrast with each other.

A major hindrance in cyber operations serving as a primary deterrent is based on the generation of indirect effects: they affect the information systems which in turn damage the critical infrastructure. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, display a wide spectrum of direct effects in the form of deterrence and showing retaliation ability. Hence, deception and transparency in employment is visible for the aforementioned capabilities.

An equally viable third perspective in this regard is the conjunction of these two capabilities where analysts focus on “use it or lose it” and “fog of war” concepts. They state that in a war-fighting scenario, cyber operations can confuse the enemy possessing and wielding deterrence (which has been neutralized) and, subsequently, an attack can be launched. However, attached to this are the feeble but highly dangerous chances of intercepting the cyber-attacks; this would involve pre-emption and escalation at the same time.

The complexity of employing nuclear weapons in a cyber-environment remains visibly elevated. Differences based on strategic characteristics are a major hurdle preventing these two capabilities from being used in coherence. Also, the strategic culture in many countries possessing nuclear weapons is based on traditional warfighting concepts; also, the transformation to a hybrid model of war-fighting has evaded induction in their policies because of the effectiveness of non-kinetic approaches in strategic signalling. Cyber operations cannot be quantified in terms of effects generated, due to which nuclear weapons are preferred in deterring adversaries. However, the cyber environment and its relevance in the contemporary arena cannot be negated. As a cut-off point, it can be stated that for ensuring credibility and consequent strategic competitiveness, both of these capabilities need to be adopted.

Israel and India: Doppelgangers?

The post-Pulwama military crisis and India’s recent move to revoke articles 370 and 35(A), which gave Indian-held Kashmir a distinct constitutional status and administrative structure, have not only raised the ominous prospect of war between the two nuclear-armed South Asian states but has also led to some interesting comparisons between India and Israel, especially in their dealings with the occupied territories of Kashmir and Palestine respectively. These comparisons have been lent credence due to increasing military ties between India and Israel, the significant political shift towards the right in both polities, and the personal bonhomie that Modi and Netanyahu have established over the years. Some analysts have even gone so far as to frame this relationship as an ‘ideological affinity’, in which ideas of the BJP and the Likud converge.

This article attempts to understand and highlight the key similarities and differences between India and Israel, with particular reference to their policies vis-à-vis occupied territories.

Similarities

New Delhi and Tel Aviv maintain military occupations over lands that they forcefully annexed and hold in contravention of international law and conventions. These military occupations entail the use of brute force, humiliation of the occupied people, curfews and sieges (in the case of Gaza, the siege is perpetual), the killing of non-combatants, frequent flexing of military muscle, and, to borrow a phrase from Haaretz, a ‘reality of their lives that includes every element of incitement possible.’ In Operation Protective Edge, waged purportedly in retaliation to rocket attacks from Hamas, Israel killed more than 2,000 civilians, including 500 children. In the Great March of Return in 2018, Israel killed more than 250 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them demonstrators. The purpose of the march was to call for the end of the 12-year blockade of the Gaza Strip; it was non-violent and involved children and women.

Protestors in Kashmir have been dealt with using no less brutality. The use of live ammunition and pellet guns has resulted in the death and blinding of thousands of people, including children and women. Kashmiris remember 2016 as the ‘year of mass blinding’. It has been nearly three months now that Indian-held Kashmir has been under lockdown, and a media blackout imposed.

Both states claim to be democracies. Israel claims it is the only democracy in the Middle East, while India is considered the largest democracy in the world. Notwithstanding their claims of commitment to democratic principles, they have done their utmost to undermine peoples’ political aspirations expressed through free and transparent elections. New Delhi rigged the 1987 elections in Indian-held Kashmir, triggering a violent insurgency which would lead to the death of thousands of people, disappearances and the invention of such terms as ‘half widows’. The political manner in which India revoked articles 370 and 35(A) is a serious indictment against its democratic credentials. A curfew was imposed; the Kashmiri leadership was put under house arrest and more troops were sent to deal with any potential display of public defiance and resistance. Likewise, when Hamas won the second legislative elections in occupied territories in 2006, Israel responded with invading the Gaza Strip. The refusal to recognize Hamas’ political mandate led to internal fighting between Palestinian political factions, which culminated with Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip and the Fatah holding the West Bank.

One of the other commonalities that Israel and India share is their utter disregard for and curt treatment of international law and conventions, further complicating political solutions to these conflicts. Giving short shrift to UN resolutions and global consensus on a two-state solution, Israel has taken measures such as continued construction of Jewish settlements, the demolition of Palestinian homes and dividing whatever little territory they hold into Bantustans and cantons. These policies have not only undermined the cause but also raised questions as to the viability of a two-state solution itself.

Despite being the party that internationalized the Kashmir conflict by taking it to the United Nations, India has refused to comply with its resolutions to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. And New Delhi’s recent move to unilaterally change the status of a disputed region lends credence to the assertion that India has been in flagrant violation of international and bilateral treaties when it comes to Kashmir. What the policies of both states have yielded are a perpetuation of the oppression of occupied territories and a further complication of these disputes, putting regional peace and stability at continuous risk. 

Differences

Important though these similarities are, there are significant differences between India and Israel with regards to their policies over Kashmir and Palestine respectively, as well as in the political aspirations of Kashmiris and Palestinians.

Despite the Indian military occupation of Kashmir and the attendant social and political toll it has taken on the people, India’s has not been a colonial settler project, at least till now. Unlike Kashmiris, Palestinians hold only 22 percent of historic Palestine; even that percentage has been considerably reduced due to Israel’s illegal settlement of Jewish people in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In the initial stages of Zionism, the Jewish leadership propagated this myth: “A land without a people, for a people without land.” The late Edward W. Said used to say that the conventional logic of human rights did not capture the Palestinian predicament, because prior to claiming their rights they had to establish their past experience of continued existence and inhabitancy in lands that Zionists now claim exclusively by invoking biblical references. Despite being under military occupation, Kashmiris can still claim to have control over their lands, though New Delhi’s recent move to change the special status of Indian-held Kashmir raises the spectre of artificial demographic changes in the valley.

Those who have been closely following the trajectory of the Palestinian nationalist movement in recent decades have witnessed a perceptible change of opinion among common Palestinians and intellectuals, both Jewish and Arabs, as to the viability of a two-state solution. Israeli settlements consist of more than half a million Jews living in the West Bank and Israel controls most parts of its territory. These settlements, Israel’s reluctance to vacate them, and the debilitating social and economic cost the military occupation has had on Palestinians and their lands (such as depleting water reserves and severing of cultural ties in a process termed de-development by Sara Roy) has made Palestinians and other intellectuals question the survivability of a Palestinian state even if it is established. That is why the political case of bi-nationalism (two nations- Arabs and Jews- living together under one state as equal citizens) has found increasing traction among Palestinians. As for the majority of Kashmiris, one of their fundamental demands has been that they be given the right to self-determination, and their aversion to the idea of being a part of India is not contested.

Conclusion

Any comparison between Israel and India demands a nuanced approach that explores not just the similarities between military occupations in Palestine and Kashmir respectively but also acknowledges the significant differences between them. This essay has made an attempt to that end. All military occupations entail injustice; each oppressed people experiences it differently and in their own unique way.

Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program – Overview and Analysis

With its inception in 1948, Israel not only pursued a conventional arms race but also a nuclear weapons program to ensure its survival and hegemony in the region. The program is said to have been kept covert until Israel’s first Dimona plutonium production and reprocessing facility was discovered by the United States. In the declassified documents, it is widely argued that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was aided by France. However, after pressure from the United States, French support to Israel came to an end, pressing the country to develop the program on its own. The pace of Israel’s nuclear program intensified after the 1967 Six-Day War during which the country felt threatened: it was reported that the country had assembled several nuclear devices during the crisis. Within six years, it had developed a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs and deployed them for using in case of any contingencies. Shortly thereafter, Israel began a modernization drive backed by vertical proliferation.

Evidence regarding Israeli nuclear tests is scarcely available. However, in 1966, a possible zero yield or implosion test was reported in the Negev desert by US satellites. Likewise, a double flash of light was detected near the Indian Ocean surface by the US Vela satellite in 1979, which was contemplated to be a joint nuclear test by Israel and South Africa but remained unconfirmed. According to information leaked by Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli technician who served in the Dimona nuclear plant, Israel had assembled around 100 to 200 fission weapons by 1986. Similarly, in 1989, the CIA reported that Israel was working on developing thermonuclear weapons as well.

Recently, the Israeli government has laid emphasis on ensuring full-spectrum deterrence. Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu has time and again focused on the nuclear option when it comes to defence. In a statement in 2011 he said, “We won’t be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.” Similarly, Jewish scientist and former director of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission Ernst David Bergmann voiced the opinion that nuclear energy would recompense the country’s low natural resources and small military manpower. Afterwards, Bergmann became the founding father of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. However, the murkiness surrounding Israel’s nuclear weapons program has dually benefitted the country i.e. as a deterrent to the regional countries and in remaining below the American non-proliferation threshold.

Since the last five decades, Israel has continued to modernize and further develop its conventional forces to operate in line with its nuclear technology. According to declassified documents (1968 – 1969), the Israeli purchase of the F-4 Phantom aircraft from the United States clearly depicted that the country could have possessed nuclear weapons at that time. Yet, it favoured Israel to maintain ambiguity regarding nuclear tests and deployment and to  refuse to publically accept possession of such capabilities. The country’s purchase of F-15 and F-16 aircraft in the 1980s and 1990s, in addition to F-35s in 2017, was attached to pledges that Israel would not arm any aircraft supplied by the United States with nuclear warheads.

Former Israeli President Shimon Peres stated that Israel’s has built a nuclear option to deter any eventuality like Hiroshima from taking place. Israel’s nuclear capability is based on addressing the following threats / contingencies:

  • To deter large conventional and all levels of unconventional (chemical, biological and nuclear) attacks;
  • For supporting conventional pre-emption against nuclear and non-nuclear assets;
  • To forestall enemy nuclear attacks and nuclear warfighting;
  • As an independent deterrent or the “Samson Option.”

The aforementioned contemplations clearly depict the contradictions in Israel’s stated policies and applications when it comes to nuclear weapons. In the international geostrategic scenario, Israel is believed to possess nuclear a nuclear arsenal of 75 – 200 weapons composed of bombs, missile warheads and tactical nuclear weapons. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) named Israel as the sixth nuclear power of the world, based on number of deployed nuclear warheads in 2009.

The point of analysis here is based on the pressure exerted on different countries like Pakistan, North Korea etc. for possessing nuclear weapons. Time and again, the security of the nuclear program of these countries has been challenged, unlike Israel on which major powers like the United States and international organizations like International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) never bat an eye, thus showing their bias. Even though Israel has accepted that nuclear weapons would contribute as an alternate to its feeble military, the security of its program has remained unquestioned.

Moreover, Israel’s covertness and opacity in its nuclear weapons program has created both a security dilemma and a security imbalance in the region. Historically, the Arab world and Israel have maintained antagonism towards each other because of Israel’s expansionist and hegemonic posture. It is in the best interest of regional and international stability to cap and then roll back Israel’s nuclear weapons program because of its illegal nature and due to its objectives such as suppressing regional countries.

Pak-US Relations and the Future!

Alliances in international relations are marriages of temporary convenience(John J. Mearsheimer)

Despite the doubts and speculations, Prime Minister Imran Khan has been scheduled to meet the American President Donald Trump on 22 July 2019. This meeting comes in the wake of a humongous shift in the political wavelengths including and surrounding Pakistan. Being the first state visit of Pakistan’s first-time premier to the US, it can either become a turning point for mutual cooperation or the persistence of a bittersweet stalemate.

Realist theorists like Morgenthau and Waltz explain the relations between states as strictly benefits driven. Both sides create and maintain their relationships if they can extract something tangible out of their contact. Today, these tangible benefits are obviously translated in terms of economic deals, security pacts, social exchanges and development of mutual trust for future transactions.

Looking at the history of Pakistan and the US, objectively, it can be easily observed that Pakistan always chose to ignore the negative overtures of US and focused only on the positive aspects. First and most mundane rationale for such a behaviour is that Pakistan is smaller in stature than the other side, so it has to comply with whatever hand it is dealt with. But a more intricate observation reveals that despite several trust breaches by the US, Pakistan has always overlooked such incidents in the hope of a cordial future for the sake of the South Asian region.

Retrospectively if we view Pak-US relations, it took a turn for best or worst with the commencement of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. To contain the spillover of communism to South Asia and defeat its arch-rival; the USSR, the US employed the help of Pakistan. CIA raised the Mujahideen, provided funded and laid the groundwork of guerilla warfare in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s myopic leadership failed to assess the long-term consequences of these actions, whose repercussions we have been facing even now in the form of drugs and gun culture proliferation. Coming back, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear plan for the decade of the 1980s’ because it could not deal with the Soviets without Pakistan’s help. But soon after the end of the war in 1990 and fulfilment of its purpose, the US hit Pakistan with the hideous Pressler Amendment, which halted the delivery of ammunition and aircraft to Pakistan, for which it had already paid.

The decade of the 1990s’ was turbulent for Pakistan, especially after it conducted the successful nuclear tests on 28 May 1998. Pakistan became the first nuclear-capable Muslim state. The US viewed this development as a betrayal of their trust. Inherently ignoring the fact that Pakistan needed to adopt such measures which could restore the balance of power in the region because India had proclaimed itself as a nuclear power in 1974. Pakistan’s attempt at self-defence was translated as a regional offence at the White House. As a result, Pakistan was put under grave economic and military sanctions, until it was needed again.

11 September 2001 became a dark day in American history, the wounded superpower saw its adversary residing in Afghanistan. Pakistan, being Afghanistan’s neighbour and a former strategic ally was once again asked to help the United States secure its interests in the region. Despite being unfairly treated, Pakistan responded positively and was embroiled in a war that was not of its own making.

Being

an immediate neighbour of Afghanistan, the spillover of refugees and extremism had to be borne by Pakistan. It had to pay the price of fighting in terms of civilian and security personnel casiulties, which was far more than the little economic assistance it received from the US. Instead of recognizing these sacrifices, Pakistan was often asked “to do more.”

Since the arrival of Donald Trump and Imran Khan taking over as at the Prime Minister, new issues have emerged. Mr Trump’s Twitter tirade against Pakistan earlier further damaged their bilateral relations, but the American urgency to solve the Afghan issue has led the US to proscribe Baloch Liberation Army as a global terrorist organization, which is a positive development.

Considering that both Trump and Khan are unconventional political figures, and they tend to ignore the established political norms in favour of a more personalized touch, this upcoming meeting can bear many fruits. Trump, as is evident from his policies, and regardless of their outcome, is a man of action. Imran Khan, despite his political shortcomings at home, inhibits the persona of a vocal and practical politician. Therefore, the interaction of two can create unprecedented cooperation, but keeping the precarious regional environment in mind, and taking notes from our past experiences with the US, Pakistan should set some perimeters and convey them unequivocally to its counterpart.

  • Pakistan has been contributing to its utmost abilities for ensuring regional peace in the region and in the world as well. The US should not accuse Pakistan of harbouring terrorists and instead recognize Pakistan as a useful and indispensable ally in the war against terrorism.
  • Pakistan has been rooting for bringing peace in the region by extending a hand of friendship towards India on many occasions, but only to be disappointed every time. Though it has always believed in a diplomatic way of conflict resolution, it cannot let India exert its undue influence in the region. Therefore, it must and will take any action which falls in the domain of self-defence.
  • Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan, in fact, its jugular vein. The Kashmiri people deserve a right of self-determination in the form a plebiscite as suggested by the UN. The Kashmiri struggle for freedom must not be seen as an act of aggression, but retaliation against Indian atrocities for seventy years.
  • Both countries should extend their ambit of social exchange and promote inter-cultural harmony in the form of more exchange programs at student and professional level. This will create a holistic and real-time perspective of both countries for each other.
  • Pakistan holds a sensitive position in the Islamic world. Changing the US approach in the Middle East must not implicate Pakistan in a tight spot because it can act as an influential negotiator, as is evident from its role in the resolution of the Afghan issue.

While diplomacy is an art of making the ‘impossible’ to ‘possible’ a nation should not let its immediate and long-term goals out of sight. We must ensure and strive to help Pakistan reclaim its rightful position in the international community but not at the cost of national sovereignty.

Vyas Ali Rajput is a student at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

Is CTBT the Next Target for President Trump’s Administration?

The CTBT is a binding, yet not an in effect treaty, formulated in 1996. It imposes a moratorium on all nuclear testing for either military or civilian motives. The treaty has not entered into force since it requires the ratification of 44 members with nuclear capabilities (at the time it was negotiated). The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), India, and Pakistan have not signed this agreement, whereas China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the United States have signed but not ratified it. The treaty needs the ratification of these eight countries for its full implementation.

The U.S. Senate declined ratification of the CTBT in 1999. President Obama announced that he would intensify efforts towards its ratification, but the issue was not brought before the Senate over the expectation that it would be voted down since the Democratic Party did not have the required majority.

Allegations of Non-Compliance

In a recent gathering at the Hudson Institute in Washington, Lt General Robert Ashley, the Director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), accused Russia of covertly testing low yield nuclear weapons, which is contrary to the obligations of the CTBT. Ashley stated, “Russia’s development of new warhead designs and overall stockpile management efforts have been enhanced by its approach to nuclear testing. The United States believes that Russia probably is not adhering to its nuclear testing moratorium in a manner consistent with the ‘zero-yield’ standard”.

No evidence was provided by Ashley to support his statement.  When the moderator asked him to elaborate and further clarify his stance, Ashley only pointed out that DIA intelligence indicates that the Russian Novaya Zemlya nuclear testing facility has the capacity to operate in something other than zero yields. On the contrary, according to Time Magazine, a senior U.S. intelligence official later clarified there was no consensus in the intelligence community regarding the conduction of a low yield test by Russia, but that it is assembling the facilities necessary to do so.

Despite the fact that the CTBT has not entered into force, many signatories including the U.S. and Russia, have established an international monitoring system to detect very low yield explosions. The verification regime is equipped with 300 monitoring stations deployed around the world. In response to Ashley’s statement, the Head of the CTBT has issued a statement saying, “The CTBTO’s International Monitoring System (IMS) is operating as normal and has not detected any unusual event”. The statement also reasserted that the full implementations require the treaty to be in effect; legally binding for all through effective site verifications and visits on short notice.

This gives rise to the question that if seismic readings have not signalled defiance by Russia, what compelled the U.S. to point towards Russia for a possible non-compliance of the CTBT?

On 13th June, the remarks passed by General Ashley were reasserted in the statement issued by the DIA: “The U.S. government, including the Intelligence Community, has assessed that Russia has conducted nuclear weapons tests that have created nuclear yield”.

John Bolton and the CTBT

John Mearsheimer rightly points out that President Trump has illiberal tendencies and embraces a cynical approach towards international institutions and agreements. Likewise, there are many in Washington, such as National Security Adviser John Bolton, who are quite contemptuous of multilateralism and international agreements. Speaking on the CTBT, Bolton has used remarks such as “illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties”. Moreover, in his article for the New York Times in 2009, Bolton staunchly asserts that arms control agreements are more advantageous to Russia then they are for the U.S. According to him, arms control agreements fracture U.S. defensive and offensive strategic capacities, and he opposed President Obama’s efforts to push for ratification of the CTBT.

Consequently, there is a likelihood that he is attempting to influence Donald Trump to do away with this treaty, just like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Michael Krepon, in his article, ‘Taking aim at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty’, has highlighted a very interesting aspect. Krepon has stated that even though it is yet uncertain whether John Bolton is involved in the assessments made by the DIA or not, there is a dire need to probe any “Intelligence Fixing” in the respective case, keeping in mind his role in fabricating intelligence for erecting a case to wage war against Iraq. Since Bolton has a track record of sifting intelligence that makes it to the White House, the possibility of the same manipulation being repeated cannot be ruled out in the DIA findings.

Russian Response

The Russian Foreign Ministry has dismissed the allegations of Russia violating the CTBT and stated, “All these accusations are completely groundless. They cannot be regarded as anything other than an attempt to justify Washington’s preparations to withdraw from the CTBT and to resume full-scale nuclear tests”. Similarly, the Ministry also conveyed that it anticipates further such allegations by the U.S. in an attempt to renounce the CTBT, repeating the same steps which were taken to abandon the INF.

Russia has also reaffirmed that it has abided by the terms of the CTBT and has forestalled nuclear testing since 1991.

Implications

On 5th August 1963, President John F Kennedy secured the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), banning nuclear testing in the atmosphere, space and under water. Kennedy considered this agreement the greatest achievement of his presidency since it minimized tensions with the Soviet Union and at the same time averted the prospects of future testing in the respective avenues. Indeed, the PTBT was the initial step towards arms control; however, the CTBT can serve as the potential framework to further cement endeavours towards of the NPT.

President Trump won’t confront the challenge that his predecessor had to face, with respect to the ratification of the treaty, since the Republican Party is in the majority in the Senate and the Democrats will surely join in voting it through. However, the Nuclear Posture Review 2018 indicates that this will not be pursued by the Trump Administration.

When critics of the CTBT raise the issue that the modernization/upgradation of stockpiles alters their nature and therefore, testing becomes mandatory, they tend to overlook the core aim of the NPT. If the constant improvement of nuclear weapons is not terminated by states, then proliferation would be difficult to control.

The following data can be used to get a basic overview of the role the CTBT has played in helping restrict nuclear testing.


John Bolton and those of like mind are indeed misguiding the White House. Deserting an arms control agreement on the assumption that Russia is not complying with it is highly erroneous. Moreover, the inference that Russia “might be” violating the obligations of the CTBT is not concrete enough grounds to let go of such a significant framework. Even if Russia is violating the terms, it should be engaged in a constructive dialogue and on-site verifications should be conducted, which will only be feasible when the U.S. ratifies the CTBT.
The U.S. can streamline this process by taking the monumental step of ratifying the CTBT. This action can pave the way where cooperation between nuclear giants can be observed. Moreover, this scenario can potentially lead towards Chinese ratification of the CTBT. Consequently, these three major powers can coordinate and toughen mechanisms to curtail any act of defiance by other states. This cooperation (coupled with positive incentives) can underpin diplomatic measures to convince North Korea to ratify the CTBT and relinquish nuclear testing.Ergo, the CTBT, despite not being ratified, has been instrumental in helping cap nuclear tests for over two decades. The U.S. doing away with the CTBT would inflict more damage than good to the U.S. itself, which has been a stalwart advocate of nonproliferation. Pulling out of the treaty will not resolve the issues of proliferation, rather it will intensify them. The essential demand of the time is the reinforcement of verification regimes which can track any act of non-compliance.

Earlier in April this year, President Trump raised the prospects of a new arms control agreement with China and Russia. However, the precipitation of a new arms control agreement cannot be materialized in the remaining period the Trump Administration has in office; the actual stratagem of this is to hamper the extension of the New START agreement.

With the INF gone, the JCPOA abandoned, the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons rejected, no intimation of an extension of the New START, and the looming threat of relinquishing the CTBT, the Trump Administration is leaving behind a dangerous legacy. No other American President has caused this much danger to arms control in such a short period. Reversing these trends would require several years of hard work to build a global consensus, which seems difficult, in an increasingly chaotic international security environment.

 

The U.S. and Iran Again on the Verge of a Dangerous Standoff

Relations between the U.S. and Iran have quickly gone downhill since the United States withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) on 8th May, 2018. Last month, President Donald Trump designated the key branch of Iran’s military forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, as a terrorist organization. The two countries seem to be moving closer to conflict with each passing day. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group has been ordered to move to the Middle East. The U.S. also has deployed the nuclear capable B-52H bomber in Qatar. The senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander said that the United States’ military presence in the Gulf was a ‘target’ and ‘opportunity’ raising the rhetoric another notch. The risk of a full scale war is aggravated since there is no diplomatic channel between the two which can be used to diffuse an accidental flare up.

The Iranian Navy has about 400 vessels. Though this number is considerable, the quality leaves a lot to be desired. Their Navy is considered a brown water navy and operates mainly within the 50km exclusive zone. A large percentage of the fleet is made up of small patrol vessels, apart from which there is a small Submarines forces, some frigates and a few Corvettes. The most potent submarine in the fleet is the Russian Diesel-electric Kilo class which displaces around 2,325 tons; Iran has three of these. The other submarines are much smaller and none of them are nuclear powered. This submarine force is nowhere close to what the U.S. brings to the table. It has 17 Virginia class, 32 Los Angeles class submarine, 3 Sea Seawolf class attack subs in active service, apart from 18 Ohio class Ballistic missile Submarines. All of these are nuclear powered with a displacement upwards of 6,000 tons, and are technologically far superior.

Iran neither has a destroyer nor an aircraft carrier. There are 6 frigates and 3 Corvettes. The most powerful of these is the Sahand class that displaces around 2,000 tons. However, they are no match for the advanced U.S. surface combatants. America has 66 Arleigh Burke class destroyers and 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers in active service. These displace more than 8,000 tons and are multi role warships capable of Anti Aircraft warfare (AAW), Anti submarine warfare (ASW), Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) and Ballistic Missile Defence BMD. The U.S. Navy is expected to dominate any potential conflict and may be able to impose a naval blockade.

On paper, the Iranian Air force possesses more than 300 combat capable aircraft, but all of them are either 3rd generation or 4th generation. There are around 190 fighter aircrafts such as the U.S. made Northrop F-5s, F-4 Phantom II, Grumman F-14 and the Russia made Sukhoi Su-22, Sukhoi Su-24 and MiG-29; of these, the MiG-29 is the most modern fighter and Iran operates approximately only 25 of these. The air to air missiles equipping fighters are outdated in technology compared to what the U.S. possesses. The F22 and F35 are a generation ahead of MiG-29 and are stealthy. In this scenario, the Iranian pilots will find it very difficult to detect and target them. The U.S., with more sophisticated fighters coupled with far better pilot training and aerial strategy, is expected to quickly get air superiority over Iranian skies.

Iran has 525,000 active personnel and around 350,000 in reserves. Iran’s military reportedly has 1,600 tanks. This includes some 100 basically produced Zulfiqar, about 100 very old British made Chieftain, around 200 U.S. made M-60 Patton, as well as around 1,000 T-72 tanks of different variants. Technically, the T-72 is the best of the lot. It could be noted that in the 1991 Gulf war and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the T-72s were quickly swept aside by American M1 Abrams and the British Challenger II. Tehran also is thought to possess around 2,300 armoured fighting vehicles, around 550 self-propelled artillery, around 2,150 towed artillery pieces and approximately 2,000 rocket projectors.  While the equipment is available in decent numbers, almost all of these are technically far less competent when compared to American counterparts. A ground invasion will be bloody but American forces will be able to make quick inroads.

Iran has approximately 1,000 strategic missiles that are controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. It consists of 300 km short range ballistic missiles, including the Iranian made Shahab-1 (Scud B), Shahab-2 (Scud C), as well as the Tonder-69 (CSS-8). It also has Shahab-3 strategic intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBM) with a reported range of up to 1,000 km, the Ghadr-1 with an estimated range of 1,600 km, and Shahab-3 variants known as Sajjil-2 with a reported range of up to 2,400 km. These cannot reach the American mainland but these do represent a significant threat for regional American allies like Israel. But the reliability of these missiles is suspect; none have nuclear warheads and all of them are land based, which makes them inherently vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike. A diverse range of surface to air missiles are deployed to protect these sites but none have the capability to detect, track and engage American stealthy aircraft like the B52 Spirit and F-22 Raptor. The U.S. is expected to quickly neutralize these sites with air and sea launched precision strikes.

The Iran nuclear deal, JCPOA, involved the UK, Russia, France, China, Germany, the U.S. and Iran. None of these stakeholders have favoured the unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the deal. Diplomatic negotiations are still under-way, but it can be estimated that in case the U.S. pursues any military action against Iran, there won’t be major push-back apart from diplomatic sabre-rattling. If one looks at it from Iran’s perspective, it is most likely that these stakeholders will be bystanders at the very best or even support the U.S. in the worst case. It has also been seen that NATO as a whole has been able to keep aside difference in the past, and there is no possibility of it actively opposing the U.S. In this situation, it can be said that Iran will not find any ally which will genuinely support it in the event a conflict occurs.

Furthermore, Iran may have to face aggressive maneuvers from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran and Israel have been long-time rivals and several incidents during the current Syrian civil war has strained their relations further. Iran and Saudi Arabia have no diplomatic relations since an attack on the Saudi Embassy in Tehran in January 2016. Bilateral relations between the countries have always been strained due to several issues, like differences in oil export policies. On 13th May, Saudi Arabia stated that two of its oil tankers were attacked while sailing towards the Persian Gulf. As reported, in one case an unknown object seemed to have torn a hole into the hull of the tanker. While Saudi Arabia didn’t directly accuse Iran, things could heat up quickly if sabotage by Iran is proven.

A war efforts require massive reserves, not only in men but also in material. The American annual military budget is around 50 times that of Iran. Napoleon is known to have said, “An army marches on its stomach.” In August last year, the Trump administration sanctioned Iran, which has adversely affected its economy. The sanctions have been expanded to include a ban on Iran’s oil exports which is its major source of foreign revenue inflow. More than 150 foreign corporations have stopped doing business with Iran; many countries like India and Japan have reduced oil imports from Iran and may eventually stop buying completely. The economic squeeze has resulted in a severe crunch. The Iranian rial lost more than 60% of its value against the dollar last year and inflation is predicted to reach 40% this year. The economy shrank by as much as 3.9% last year and as per the International Monetary Fund; it could nosedive by another 6% this year. Keeping this view, it will not be possible for Iran to fight a sustained war against the most well-funded military in the world.

The author is undergraduate student at the National Defense University, Islamabad

 

Israeli Elections and the Palestinian’s Plight

The unpredictable April 2019 Israeli elections for the 21st Knesset (parliament) between rightest Benjamin Netanyahu led Likud, and Centrist Blue and White party (a coalition of three parties) led by Benny Gantz were hotly contested. Though it showed divided mandate but Netanyahu’s Likud got a slim majority to form the next government. He would become a record fifth-time prime minister and longest-serving leader, surpassing nation’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion. The hardline and nationalistic approach of Netanyahu to annex the Palestinian lands with ‘One State Policy’ does not augur well for the people in West Bank and Gaza. Therefore, this analysis highlights the nature of the Israeli electoral system, Netanyahu’s policy towards Palestine, support of the United States for Israel, and the plight of Palestinians after the elections.

The Israeli electoral structure is based on the proportionate system, where each contesting party has to secure a designated electoral threshold to qualify for the membership of the Knesset. The Knesset elections were to be held in December 2019, but Benjamin Netanyahu called the elections a year earlier to stave off his possible indictment in the corruption cases. This election was contested by over 40 political parties, and the electoral threshold was 3.25 per cent. According to the preliminary results, the following is the party position in the Knesset;

From the Leftist Labor, which ruled Israel for over 30 years, the nationalistic ideology, regional strategic environment, and global uni-polarity has given birth to right-wing parties. This has led one expert to comment that ‘there is no Left; only a Right in different forms.’ The United Torah (7), Shas (8), Yisrael Beiteinu (5), Union of Right-Wing (5) and Kulanu (4) support Netanyahu and his vision for the Jewish State; whereas, Labor (6), Meretz (4) Hadash (6) and United Arab (4) support Gantz’s coalition. The numbers game clearly gives Netanyahu’s Likud, a leading position in the next coalition government. After consulting the main parties, the Israeli President Reuven Rivlin has asked Netanyahu to form a government for the next four years.

Netanyahu’s approach towards Palestine has galvanized the right-wing Israeli political parties to support his vision of the Jewish State. The ‘Law of the Return’ has increased Jewish Settlements in the occupied Palestinian lands, forcing Palestinians to become refugees in their own homeland. Replacing the ‘Two State Solution’ with Netanyahu’s ‘One State Policy,’ his annexation of East Jerusalem and declaring it the ‘Eternal Capital’ of the Jewish State, the control over West Bank, and the de-facto sovereignty declared over the Golan Heights are all serious causes of concern for the Palestinians. Foreign Policy Analysis states that ‘for two decades, Israel’s prime minister has sought to destroy the prospects for a Palestinian state. With a fifth term, he can finally do it.’  According to the Haaretz Daily, ‘the new Netanyahu government will have two main goals: ‘to get rid of the indictment looming in his future and to annex the settlements to Israel, in coordination with the Trump administration.’ More than 600,000 settlers are occupying the West Bank. Therefore, the victory of right-wing parties under Netanyahu would prove another obstacle to securing the future of the Palestinians.

Thanks to the strong Jewish Lobby on Capitol Hill, every successive U.S. Administration has shown its unflinching support to Israel, creating space for Israel’s unilateral geographic and political moves. However, ever-since Donald Trump took over the White House, the U.S. support has become more pronounced. Unlawful acts committed by the Israeli government under Netanyahu – declaring Jerusalem the eternal capital, continued annexation of Palestinian territories, and the assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights – have all been fully endorsed by President Trump.

In fact, many observers believe that the rise of right-wing political parties in Israel and their support to Netanyahu’s Likud has been boosted by Trump’s unflinching support. The rise of nationalism through ‘America First’ and populist movements across Europe studded with the pressure of Jewish Settlers have bolstered the anti-Palestine approach of Israel’s right-wing segment, particularly that of Netanyahu. This situation has made the U.S. an unjust power-broker in the Israel-Palestine conflict and Middle Eastern peace.

The Palestinian people are the ultimate victims in this ultra-nationalistic Israeli approach, a chaotic regional environment and the lack of international support. This situation has led one Palestinian analyst to comment on Netanyahu, ‘The message that the Israeli public has sent is very clear. They support him, they support his policies of apartheid, they support his policies of colonization.’ The Palestinian leader, Saeb Erekat expressed the view that ‘the Israelis have voted No to peace and Yes to the occupation.’

The ultimate loss is the possible Palestinian State. An Arab commentator expressed his disappointment by stating that ‘it closes all doors for any possible peace settlement and any chance for the Palestinians to have a state of their own.’ First, they were colonized by Israel and ejected from their own homes by the Jewish settlers, and now the forceful annexation by Israel has pushed them to the wall, forcing them to resort to violence. Serious concerns for the Palestinian people include a divided Palestinian leadership, the lack of Arab support (both financial and political), and international isolation. Therefore, the Jared Kushner Peace Plan for the region appears to be ‘dead on arrival.’

In an age of globalization and democratic practices, it seems unjustified that Israel exercises the ‘Law of Return’ and denies the same to the Palestinians. Israelis are given the right to choose their leaders with right-wing ideology, but Palestinians are thrown out of their own homes and lands through annexation and ejection. Democracy is the best form of governance if it enshrines the rights of all. Otherwise, it becomes a brute majority imposing its will. For decades, Palestinians have been denied their rights, peaceful living, and a secure future, and their desire for peaceful coexistence has been met with force. The latest Israeli election results have reinforced their frustration and anguish which could provide justification for the violent approach of militant organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and would lead the region towards more uncertainty, chaos, and violence.

 

Dr. Nazir Hussain is Professor and Director School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. He has over 30 years of teaching, research, and administrative experience. He has a Post-Doc Research Fellowship from the French Institute of International Relations, (IFRI), Paris-France, a Post-Graduate Diploma in Conflict Resolution from the University of Uppsala-Sweden, a Visiting Fellowship of the Henry L. Stimson Centre, Washington DC., and is a Research Associate with the International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC). He has over 70 research publications in international and national academic journals.

Related Posts

Conflict Between India and Pakistan

Kashmir: A Brief Consideration of the Economics of War