The Trump administration unveiled Sunday its first significant move in a plan to forge peace between Palestinians and Israelis. It will lead a two-day “economic workshop” conference in Bahrain next month where U.S. officials will reveal more of their plan to resolve the decades-long impasse between Israelis and Palestinians, while raising tens of billions of dollars in investment for the occupied territories. Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and the White House’s designated lead on brokering peace, appears to believe that working to improve Palestinian livelihoods and cultivating Palestinian businesses should take precedence over political solutions.

That may make sense, given the political abyss into which the prospects for a viable independent Palestinian state have fallen.

But the abiding impression among Palestinians is that Trump and his lieutenants aren’t honest brokers. Instead, they see a series of debilitating moves enacted by the administration — from the unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to cuts in Palestinian aid to the shuttering of diplomatic offices that cater to Palestinians — as part of a campaign to confirm Israeli hegemony and undermine Palestinian political aspirations. With Trump firmly allied with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads the most right-wing government in Israeli history, Palestinians see no end to the Israeli military occupation over their lands.

“Attempts at promoting an economic normalization of the Israeli occupation of Palestine will be rejected,” said Saeb Erekat, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s chief negotiator, in a statement. “This is not about improving living conditions under occupation but about reaching Palestine’s full potential by ending the Israeli occupation.”

Numerous Palestinian business executives invited to Bahrain by the Trump administration have already signaled they won’t be coming. “It looks like they’ve invited many business people, but it’s an issue related to our national interest,” Ibrahim Barham, a founder of a Palestinian electronics and engineering company, told my colleagues. “We can’t divide it from what’s going on in the political arena.”

Speaking to the New York Times, one Palestinian American entrepreneur described the invitation as a “blatant payoff” and likened Kushner’s offers of investment to “trying to strangle a woman while giving her a manicure.”

Another argued that relief from the encirclement of Jewish settlements and the overweening control of Israeli security forces, not financing, is what Palestinians need. “We don’t lack money, know-how and interest,” Sam Bahour, a Ramallah-based consultant, told the Times. “We lack the resources: land, water, movement, access and frequency. It doesn’t require a grand plan, nor does it require a grand workshop. It requires Israel getting its boot off at least the economic part of our neck.”

Experts pointed to earlier false dawns, when grand plans of enterprise in the West Bank came to naught amid turmoil and destruction. “When political negotiations collapsed, violence erupted, and investments went up in flames,” wrote Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution. “To assume that the promise of economic improvement would outweigh ordinary human aspirations of a people who have painfully struggled for decades is to miss the nature of the human condition.”

Netanyahu is explicitly disinterested in lifting the occupation and has left open the possibility of annexing Palestinian lands. Israeli officials and their American supporters blame the failure of the peace process on the Palestinian leadership and the continued hostility of Islamist militant groups such as Hamas, which governs the beleaguered Gaza Strip. The Israeli and U.S. officials urge the Palestinians to view the Kushner-led process with an open mind and to give peace, or at least the Trumpist version of it, a chance.

On social media, Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s chosen negotiator on Israeli-Palestinian matters, insisted that the White House had a viable political plan in place, not just an economic one.

https://twitter.com/jdgreenblatt45/status/1130586673312686083?wpisrc=nl_todayworld&wpmm=1

But critics cited Greenblatt’s rhetoric — he frequently berates Palestinian officials and commentators on Twitter — as evidence of the Trump administration’s bad faith. “In [Goldblatt’s] telling, Israel is under attack by fanatical Arabs brainwashed with hatred,” wrote Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. “He has never acknowledged the impact of the Israeli occupation or Palestinian dispossession, disenfranchisement and exile.”

Kushner’s adventure in peacemaking is either willfully or naively leading Israelis and Palestinians down a path that cements the former’s suzerainty over the latter. Supporters of the two-state solution fear that it may doom the last fleeting hopes for a meaningful agreement. “Kushner’s attempt to find an economic solution to this long-running political conflict is destined for failure,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel advocacy organization in Washington, said in an emailed statement. “It risks paving the way to disastrous steps such as formal annexation, which would undermine any future efforts to reach a lasting peace,” he added.

Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, lamented the White House’s dismissal of “expertise” in its rush to hatch a deal, as well as the narrow, transactional mind-set that Trump and Kushner, schooled in the cutthroat world of New York real estate, bring to the proceedings.

“Unlike a real estate transaction in which one party gets the property and the other party gets the cash, a Middle East peace deal starts and ends with the two parties as neighbors, stuck with each other sharing a duplex for eternity,” Satloff wrote.

As the White House’s efforts lurch forward, the focus may turn to what that living arrangement looks like. And that conversation — about equal Palestinian rights in a single state — is one very few people in Washington or Tel Aviv want to have.

“Trump is now not only burying the two-state solution, which was not viable anyway, but he’s gladly dancing on its grave, thus forcing people to end their denial,” Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, told Politico. “It’s important for us to respond very clearly that we need equal rights in one state.”

• Meanwhile, Netanyahu, who faces three criminal cases, is hoping to save his political hide through legislation that would give him immunity from prosecution. On the campaign trail, he denied that he would seek such measures, but a political ally seems to have happily obliged. My colleagues Loveday Morris and Ruth Eglash report:

“Late Monday night… Israel’s parliament announced that an ‘immunity bill,’ filed by a Netanyahu loyalist, was among 200 measures slated for a vote in the current session.

“A draft of the bill says members of the 120-seat Knesset cannot be charged with a criminal offense committed during or before being voted in as a Knesset member unless a house committee and the wider body both waive immunity. Netanyahu is a Knesset member.

“Alongside proposals to roll back the powers of the Israeli Supreme Court to overturn bills passed by the Knesset, the immunity legislation has drawn a sharp rebuke from Netanyahu’s rivals, including some within his own party, who accuse the longtime leader of sliding toward authoritarianism to avoid prosecution. Israel’s attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, announced in February that he would proceed with the indictment process against Netanyahu on charges that include breach of trust, corruption and bribery.

“The furor over efforts to shield Netanyahu from prosecution echoes the debate in the United States, where the question of whether a leader can be indicted has also been a contentious issue. Justice Department guidelines state that a sitting U.S. president should not be indicted, and consequently special counsel Robert S. Mueller III decided not to come to a determination on whether President Trump obstructed justice. Mueller instead laid out evidence on both sides of the issue in his final report.”

• You didn’t think we would forget about Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May urged British lawmakers on Tuesday to back her “new” Brexit deal, which would include a binding vote by Parliament on whether to hold a second Brexit referendum, reported my colleague Karla Adam:

“In a speech in London, May said lawmakers will have ‘one last chance’ to deliver Brexit in a vote early next month. But, more accurately, it probably will be May’s last chance. She has signaled that she will step down if her thrice-rejected divorce deal fails again in the House of Commons, as it is widely expected to do.

“In a sign that the British public has already moved on, many of the questions May fielded during Tuesday’s news conference had to do with when she will resign and what might happen after that.

“Parliament is scheduled to vote again on the Brexit deal she negotiated with the European Union during the first week of June — which, coincidentally, is when President Trump will be making a state visit to Britain…

“Offering a binding vote on a second referendum, as well as on whether Britain should remain in a temporary customs union with the E.U., represents a shift in strategy for May. She said she recognized ‘the genuine and sincere strength of feeling’ on the referendum issue. But she also reiterated her long-held views that a second referendum was not her preferred way out of the Brexit impasse. Extending the Brexit debate, she said, ‘risked opening the door to a nightmare future of permanently polarized politics.’

“May hopes that with those additional voting opportunities and some tweaks to her deal — including pledges on environmental protections and workers’ rights — she can win support from enough lawmakers to get it over the line. But early indicators were not looking good.”­

• The administration’s Iran strategy was debated on the Hill on Tuesday, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other administration officials briefed lawmakers on what they perceive as the imminent threat posed by Iran. But they faced pronounced skepticism:

“Top administration officials briefed the House and Senate in two closed-door sessions for all members, presenting evidence that Iran may be poised to attack U.S. military and diplomatic personnel in the Middle East.

“But some Democrats said that none of the information showed Iran was appreciably more of a threat now than in the past, and they accused the administration of being ready to attack at the slightest provocation.

“U.S. and Western intelligence officials also have debated whether the intelligence, which includes photographs of Iranians loading missiles onto small boats, indicates that the nation is ready to strike or is responding defensively to economic pressure from Trump administration sanctions and a perception that the White House is eager for a fight.”

• Read this powerful piece from the Style section on how San Francisco, seat of America’s tech revolution, now embodies an American social nightmare:

“For decades, this coruscating city of hills, bordered by water on three sides, was a beloved haven for reinvention, a refuge for immigrants, bohemians, artists and outcasts. It was the great American romantic city, the Paris of the West.

“No longer. In a time of scarce consensus, everyone agrees that something has rotted in San Francisco.

“Conservatives have long loathed it as the axis of liberal politics and political correctness, but now progressives are carping, too. They mourn it for what has been lost, a city that long welcomed everyone and has been altered by an earthquake of wealth. It is a place that people disparage constantly, especially residents.”

Rights at risk

Afghans often express fears that a Taliban return to power would bring a reversal of the gains in democracy and women’s rights made during nearly 18 years of civilian rule. But in the past two weeks, a woman’s murder on a Kabul street and a chaotic brawl in parliament have exposed the tenuous nature of these gains, the permanent specter of violence, and the stubborn grip of male pride and ethnic rivalry in this traditional, conflict-steeped society.

Mina Mangal seemed the perfect symbol of a successful, urbanized Afghan woman. The former TV news presenter and active social media commentator was working as an adviser in parliament. She spoke with poise and wrote with boldness. On May 11, as Mangal was leaving home for work, she was shot dead at close range. Police ascribed the killing to a family dispute, and it soon emerged that, according to her family, Mangal had been unhappily married to an abusive man in an arranged match. Her family sought legal protection, the couple separated, and she filed for divorce. After she was killed, her mother said she was certain the enraged ex-husband had done it.

In a conservative Afghan village, where women have little freedom, such a crime might have gone unnoticed. But this brazen attack took place in the capital, where Afghan women hold legislative office, cover the news, work and study without fear. Mangal’s murder, coming as women’s groups have been sounding the alarm about a Taliban comeback, made such gains suddenly seem ephemeral.

The macho mentality, entrenched in Afghan society during decades of conflict, also pervades a political culture that President Ashraf Ghani hoped to turn into a modern technocracy. On Sunday, it was on hotblooded display as the new parliament held its first session to elect the speaker of the house. A chaotic argument erupted. A man brandishing a hammer rushed up.  No one was injured, but the fight continued Monday.

The contretemps illustrated the internal obstacles — especially ethnic and personal power struggles — that continue to undermine Afghanistan’s aspirations to democratic order despite years of international support and coaching.  

One social media commentator, pointing out that a group of female legislators had tried to calm the parliamentary brawl, suggested a sensible way to avoid recurrences, although it would be unprecedented in Afghanistan: Elect a woman as speaker of the house. — Pamela Constable

Across Europe, voters and politicians alike are preparing for European Union Parliament elections from May 23 to 26. The elections are hotly anticipated, with many people wondering how the results will affect the future of the E.U. and the bloc’s dealings with the rest of the world. We’re here to explain how those elections work and what’s at stake. (Make sure to send us questions or feedback over the next week!)

Far-right Euroskeptic parties are poised to win more seats than ever when the results start to pour in on Sunday. Some of these parties are not only notable for running on nationalist, anti-immigrant platforms but also for their sympathy toward Russian interests. In fact, the Kremlin — well known for its efforts to meddle in both the 2016 Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. presidential election — has much to gain from a stronger far-right presence in Parliament. Some of you wanted to know whether Russian influence is a threat in European Parliament elections. Our Brussels bureau chief Michael Birnbaum has the answer. 

It doesn’t seem like it. At least yet. Days before crucial elections for the European Parliament, politicians, security services and social media companies that were bracing for an onslaught from Russia are surprised that, so far, they seem to have avoided one. Lawmakers say they haven’t seen what they once feared: a flood of hacked, embarrassing documents, or Twitter accounts calling for street protests that post only during Moscow business hours.

They are cautious about saying Russian meddling has been neutralized, but the anxiety has shifted somewhat inward, as many of the disinformation tactics pioneered by Russia have been domesticated, replicated on both extremes of the political debate in Europe.

That said, Russia is still working openly to promote divisive political narratives within Europe. The Sputnik news agency has offered wall-to-wall coverage of the “yellow vest” protests that have shaken France. The German-language homepage of RT, formerly Russia Today, recently featured a banner debunking “myths” that the former West Germany was superior to Communist East Germany. But the scale of what’s been identified is nothing compared with the past — or with what the Europeans had anticipated.

In part, far-right parties in Europe haven’t needed Russia because some of their domestic supporters have mimicked Russia’s strategy of promoting disinformation and amplifying it with automated accounts. Ahead of Spanish national elections last month, Facebook took down networks that spread disinformation automatically. And analysts have questioned whether automation may be playing a role in online support for the far-right Alternative for Germany party. In a sample of German online political content examined by research firm Alto Data Analytics, less than 1 percent of the users generated 10 percent of the posts, most of them in favor of Alternative for Germany. — Michael Birnbaum

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *