What Should We Expect From Martin Indyk?

Originally published in The Daily Beast on July 24, 2013.

Ignore those who dismiss Martin Indyk as just another AIPAC guy unconcerned with a viable two-state solution; they haven’t done their research. There’s a reason that right-wing Danny Danon is so nervous that Secretary of State John Kerry might appoint Indyk to oversee the new Israeli-Palestinian peace talks—and why he sent a letter to Netanyahu arguing that Indyk is no “honest broker.” But with the buzz about Indyk’s likely appointment, a reasonable question is, well, what should we expect?

As a pundit, Indyk, who served twice as U.S. Ambassador to Israel and is now Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, left behind a hefty paper trail. In 2009, Indyk published Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peacemaking Diplomacy in the Middle East, which provides a window into his experiences working to negotiate deals with Israelis, Palestinians and Syrians; it notably includes reflections on the mishaps and strategic blunders that derailed such deals. This, coupled with op-eds he has published over the past decade gives us a decent idea of how this man might now behave around a negotiating table.

For starters, we can expect Indyk to be tougher on Israelis than past American diplomats have been. This is promising since he already has established trust with Israel from his ambassadorship. Even so, we can still expect Arab parties to feel frustrated with the American diplomatic approach. Indyk writes that the “easier and more effective” approach to peacemaking will inevitably be perceived by some as showing greater loyalty to Israel than to Palestine. But Indyk argues that “the Arabs cannot have it both ways” and if they’d like to see the U.S. use its influence with Israel then “they should not complain” when that effort means a coordinated response. While histrionic pressure “may provide psychic satisfaction” to Palestinians, it will do nothing serious to make Israel more willing to take the necessary risks needed to relinquish territory.

Indyk writes about how in the past, the United States was too innocent and unsuspecting of ulterior motives that leaders vying for power in Middle Eastern politics had. “It was typical of our naïveté that we never expected Rabin would use U.S. influence for his own purposes,” he writes when reflecting on the failures of Oslo. He argues that the U.S. was blind to the actors and events that disrupted their strategic plans, and that going forward, a more realist approach is needed. “[We showed] a troubling naïveté in the American approach to the Middle East that is in part innocence, part ignorance, and part arrogance.”

Indyk also believes that the United States was soft, “continually backing down” at Camp David–thus ruining their hopes of showing Israelis and Palestinians that they could lead tough negotiations. “Barak and Arafat could only interpret this as a sign of weakness. Unfortunately this would become a familiar pattern.” This time around, hopefully, Indyk has learned his lesson.

We can also expect these talks to be as discreet and private as possible, marking a shift from the public fanfare of previous United States efforts. Indyk notes that “leaks are the lifeblood of the Israeli political system” and that any successful future peace process will necessitate “toning down the rhetoric and allowing the results of American diplomacy to speak for themselves.”

Indyk certainly believes that resolving this conflict is in America’s interest—he sees it directly connected to the strength of America’s bargaining position with the countries in the Persian Gulf. In a sharp New York Times op-ed published in 2010, Indyk criticized Netanyahu for his absence at a U.S. led nuclear security summit to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, arguing that “the real reason” for Netanyahu’s absence was that he was avoiding Obama, who had demanded a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem. Indyk notes that if Netanyahu continues to blow off Obama in favor of Likudniks who oppose peace, “the consequences for U.S.-Israel relations could be dire.”

Indyk also deeply understands some of some of the most seemingly intractable issues of this conflict, namely Jerusalem. Ehud Barak has preached for years now that “the real Arafat” revealed himself at Camp David—a leader who lacked the character to make a historic compromise and who was secretly just looking for the demise of the Jewish state. Indyk categorically rejects this.  “Camp David was hardly a good laboratory for that proposition,” he writes in his book. “It was not reasonable to expect that Arafat, or any Arab leader for that matter, would agree to an end-of-conflict agreement that left sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif in Israeli hands forever.” Later, he also explicitly affirms that Camp David negotiations did not break down over the issue of right of return, despite plenty of rumors.

The timetable on these negotiations is unclear. On the one hand, Indyk says that going forward, goals must be more “modest” and assumptions more “realistic.” But we also should not expect this process to take years, squeezed into the final weeks and days of Obama’s term, like we saw with Clinton’s. Indyk argues, “An attempt to reach a Middle Eastern agreement in the last year of a president’s second term is probably the worst timing of all.” He recognizes that how a president hands over policy to the next administration is critically important to its ultimate survival.

Whether or not Kerry will manage to pull off bringing Israelis and Palestinians to direct negotiations remains to be seen. However, with Martin Indyk’s track record and experience working on this issue, assuming he listens to his own advice, it seems that he might be a pretty good choice.

Arab Spring Keeps Sending Hamas Packing

Originally published in The Daily Beast on July 12, 2013.

The Arab uprisings that have for more than two years roiled the Middle East and North Africa must by now bring a sense of disquiet to Hamas, the Palestinian group that holds up “resistance”—often with terrorist tactics—against Israel. The group’s exiled leadership was already displaced by the Syrian civil war, and lost a key backer in Iran over sectarian tensions. Since January 2012, Hamas’s leadership has been based in both Cairo and Doha. 

Now the latest tumult in Egypt that unseated Mohammed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government again took away access to an allied Islamist group with state power. While analysts disagree on how swimmingly the relationship between the Brotherhood and Hamas was going, they believe Hamas will be sent packing again with the group’s ouster.

“The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood was a gift to Hamas and that they worked together closely is nonsense. It’s absolute nonsense,” said Mark Perry, a journalist and expert on Middle Eastern terror groups, in an interview. “But the situation right now is without question much worse. We’re in a very revolutionary situation in Egypt. And the coup in Egypt—that’s what it was—was not good for Hamas.”

In this volatile see-saw for Hamas’ leadership—sending them careening between various Arab capitals, vulnerable to each country’s fluctuating and unstable political situation—it’s not entirely clear where Hamas will go.

“I think Hamas will continue to operate out of Qatar,” said Perry. “I don’t think it’s any question that it would be very difficult to operate out of Cairo for now, but the future is very much in the air. What’s going on there isn’t over by a long shot.”

David Pollack, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, agreed, but said even the natural gas-rich Gulf Arab sheikhdom may not provide a stable home. “I’d guess Qatar, but sadly Tunisia is also possible, or even Turkey at times,” he said. “Qatar is having second thoughts [about supporting Hamas]. It’s not clear just yet, and they certainly haven’t announced it, but it seems that for Qatar, things are crumbling around them, whether it’s the Syrian opposition or the events in Egypt. Their earlier idea of rebuilding Gaza is just not happening.”Hamas conducted strategic operations from Jordan until 1999, when Jordanian King Abdullah accused the Sunni Islamist group of engaging in illegal activities and attempting to harm the peace treaty between his country and Israel. Jordan expelled Hamas Chief Khaled Meshaal, reportedly at the request of Israel, the United States and the Palestinian Authority, and he moved briefly to Qatar. In 2001, he resettled in the Syrian capital and for the next eleven years the Hamas political bureau would operate out of Damascus. The Syrian government provided the group a safe haven, weapons and financial support for an armed struggle against Israel.The killings of some 7,000 Sunni Syrians in March of 2011 by predominately Alawite security forces forced Hamas to take a stand. Despite their initial attempts to remain neutral, the group ultimately came out against the Assad regime, and thus faced the wrath of the Syrian and Iranian governments. 

Beginning in 2012, it was clear it was no longer feasible for Hamas to operate in Damascus. Deputy Political Leader Moussa Abu Marzouk moved to Cairo and Khaled Meshaal and his aides moved to Doha. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to political power after the revolution provided an ostensible ally—Hamas has roots in the Egyptian Brotherhood. 

But the Brotherhood proved a less-than-stalwart adherent to Hamas’s agenda. When Morsi was elected in June 2012, one of his first promises was to fully open the Rafah crossing, which separates Egypt from the Gaza Strip, where Hamas has ruled since a violent counter-coup in 2007. “For most Palestinians, Rafah is more than a crossing—it is a symbol for the isolated Gaza Strip’s contact with the outside world,” reported McClatchy.  But while loosening travel restrictions and allowing individuals to more easily cross, Morsi never fulfilled his pledge of a full opening.

Egyptian public opinion has soured substantially towards Gaza, compared to the beginning of the revolution. Many Egyptians blamed Hamas members for instability in the Sinai Peninsula. In April, Egyptian soldiers and officers were abducted there, and Hamas was accused of the kidnapping. Hamas denied the allegations, but the situation amplified rising negative sentiments. Other Egyptians hold a general frustration at their leaders for what they see as a trend of helping Gazans instead of their own citizens. A 23-year-old Egyptian student, Ala Mafrouk, who took part in the Tahrir Square protests, told McClatchy, the Brotherhood “sends things to Gaza which we do not have in Egypt. We want to get rid of Morsi and get a new leader who puts Egypt first.”

Hamas’s troubles are compounded by its remaining roster of potential allies and hosts. Hamas has “only two patrons left, and both are Western allies that could be tempted to throw Hamas under the bus for greater financial or political incentives,” wrote Foundation For Defense of Democracies vice president Jonathan Schanzer. Meshaal’s expulsion from Jordan a decade and a half ago gives weight to Schanzer’s warning.Just last year, it seemed as if Hamas—with the Brotherhood dominating Egyptian electoral politics—might be ascendant. But for now, at least, the tumult in the Middle East appears to have left the group adrift.

Andrew Pochter Was Not ‘Delusional’

Originally published in The Daily Beast on July 3, 2012. 
——————————-

It was with incredible sadness that I learned about the death of 21-year-old Andrew Pochter. He was raised in Maryland, studied at Kenyon, and traveled to Egypt to teach English to children for the summer. On Friday he was fatally stabbed in a protest against Mohamed Morsi in Alexandria.

The death of any civilian is terrible. And still, his hit especially close to home for me.

Andrew and I were the same age, grew up in similar towns, were both active in our campus Hillels, and both cared deeply about the happenings in the Middle East. I never met him, but our shared values and upbringings made me react to his death in a particularly visceral way. I just finished my junior year and had so many smart, interesting and idealistic friends study abroad in various Middle Eastern countries. It could have been me. It could have been any of them.

That was why reading Batya and Yisrael Medad’s posts about the death of Andrew Pochter made my skin crawl. For background: Yisrael Medad is a regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post, a member of the Executive Board of Israel’s Media Watch, and a foreign media spokesperson for the settlers’ Yesha Council of Jewish Communities. His wife, Batya, is a newspaper columnist and lives with him in the settlement of Shiloh in the northern West Bank.

In The Jewish Press, Batya wrote an outrageous post entitled, “Why Was Andrew Pochter in Egypt, Not Israel?” She asks, “Are you disturbed by the fact that an American Jewish student is more attracted to Arab society than to Jewish Israeli society?” She wonders if Andrew’s parents “supported his delusion” that he could make a difference in Egypt. And, in the wake of his death, she even asks whether Andrew realized there is “better medical care” in Israel. It “bothers” her that Jewish Americans would truly care about countries other than Israel in the Middle East.

Batya Medad found the situation “disturbing,” but for reasons very different from why I felt so disturbed by Andrew’s death.

Her husband published an equally reprehensible post entitled “Pochter’s Past Left Him No Future.” He snidely points out that Andrew was raised in a family with both Jewish and Christian parents, and concludes:

  • Unfortunately, there are too many American Jewish students with:
  • – no proper knowledge of the Middle East, Arab culture and Islamist custom;
  • – too much enthusiasm and passion;
  • – a progressive/liberal outlook;
  • – too little Jewish background.

Andrew Pochter’s death came far too soon, but he will not die in vain. His life represents the hope of a better, more compassionate and just future. The Medads and others like them still see the world through an “us versus them” prism, still refuse to see how people in the Middle East are interconnected, and still oppose Jewish American interest in any Middle Eastern country other than Israel. But Andrew’s memory, volunteerism, leadership and activism will continue to inspire and guide the rest of us left to further the work he recognized was so important. And I sincerely hope Batya and Yisrael will one day realize that the events, people and conditions in other countries can and will directly impact the events, people and conditions in their own lives. If they refuse to accept this, then they are the ones who are delusional.

Seeing it For Myself: Injustice In the South Hebron Hills

Originally published in The Daily Beast on July 2, 2013. 

Last summer, I traveled with a J Street U delegation to the South Hebron Hills, in the southernmost reaches of the West Bank. Gazing out from an agricultural Palestinian village, we could see two unauthorized Israeli “outpost” settlements, recently erected a few hundred feet away. We saw the outposts’ electrical system and learned they’d been hooked up to a water supply; the Palestinian villagers had neither. This was the face of inequity in Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank.

Twenty years ago, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three parts. On nearly two-thirds of the land, designated as Area C, Israel retained full control—and with that full responsibility for the Palestinians living there. But those Palestinians, who make up about five percent of the territory’s population, do not receive the same services as their Jewish neighbors, who’ve moved in droves into the Israeli settlements that now dot the area. Over the past twenty years, in short, the state of Israel has shirked its responsibilities.

Last month, B’Tselem, an Israeli rights group working in the West Bank, published a new report entitled “Acting the Landlord: Israel’s Policy in Area C, The West Bank.”The report points to a wider effect of Israel’s policies in the areas it controls. “In theory, Israel retains full control in the West Bank only of Area C,” a release for the report said. “In practice, Israel’s control of Area C adversely affects all Palestinian West Bank residents.”

According to B’Tselem, Israeli policy works to serve the water and land needs of Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians. As the group sees it, Israel created a de facto annexation of Area C, and now works to make that a permanent reality through the expansion of settlements.

But water and power are only two concerns: the report also covers the continuing expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. Citing residents who live in South Hebron Hills that the IDF Civil Administration—the Israeli military authority for West Bank Palestinians—refuses to formally recognize, the report states, “Over 1,000 people… currently live under the perpetual threat of expulsion on the grounds of residing in a ‘firing zone.’”

According to Haaretz, the High Court of Justice is now due to consider Israel’s demand to annul a 13-year-old temporary injunction which allowed farmers in the South Hebron Hills to remain in their homes. Israel demanded the expulsion of approximately 1,300 Palestinians, arguing that the IDF needs that land to train in what they designate as “Firing Zone 918.”

This firing zone rationale is a major threat for Palestinians living in Area C. In July 2012, Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated that the area was essential for the IDF’s training, and that Palestinian residents living in eight out of 12 villages must evacuate their homes. The four other villages, located next to illegal Israeli settlement outposts, like the one I visited, were not ordered to evacuate. ACRI, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, filed a petition in response to Barak’s demand.

“It is inconceivable that 1,000 people should be evicted for the sake of military exercises. These evictions, which are tantamount to forced displacement, deny the villagers their livelihood and seize the property of people whose very existence depends upon the land they cultivate,” said Tamar Feldman, an attorney with ACRI, in a statement in January.

Due to the work of ACRI and others, Palestinian villagers won a temporary reprieve from the large-scale eviction. However, their quality of life is highly restricted. The Civil Administration forbids all forms of development, including projects like securing water and electrical systems, setting up additional tents, and digging for water wells.

NGO’s do what they can. COMET-ME is one that helps provide solar and wind power to Palestinians in these areas—but restrictions and changes in status make their work precarious. Without building permits, their projects stand to be wiped away at any moment. That’s because Israel rarely issues such. A study conducted by Peace Now found that, between 2000-2007, 94 percent of Palestinian building permit applications were turned down.

Traveling in the South Hebron Hills, I saw for myself the indefensible conditions in which these Palestinians live, adjacent to Israelis with full water and electricity access. Those who claim liberal outlets like Haaretz and rights groups like B’Tselem take too dour a view of Israeli motives and goals, should see it for themselves, too. Because when one looks over at the land, it’s impossible to ignore the inequities of Israel’s occupation.

Why Jews Should Stop Worrying About Intermarriage

Originally published in The Daily Beast on June 19, 2013.

As the founders and funders of Taglit-Birthright happily embrace the findings of a new study that claims Birthright alumni are more likely to marry other Jews, we’re reminded of the deficient rhetoric that surrounds the Jewish intermarriage conversation.

“It is still surprising to us how effective [Birthright] has been in promoting in-marriage,” said lead researcher Leonard Saxe, the Director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University.       

I recognize that Jewish adults believe they are exerting responsible leadership when discussing the rise of intermarriage, despite whatever awkwardness others might feel as a result. They see themselves as brave enough to talk about the hard issues that perhaps weaker or misguided Jews, who are afraid to fight assimilation, shy away from.

But this is wrong. It’s not just the creepy, micro-managing factor that has young people bothered by efforts to “fight intermarriage.” Their discomfort also stems from those same liberal, egalitarian values that lead my generation to support same-sex marriage by a margin of 81 percent. We want to live in a society where people can and should marry whomever they love. Consequently, we want those partnerships to be welcomed with open arms by our government, and by our communities.

The 1990 National Jewish Population Survey reported an intermarriage rate of 52 percent among American Jews. They later retracted their statements to say a more accurate intermarriage rate would be 38 percent from 1980 to 1984, and 43 percent for 1985 to 1990. The rate remained the same until 1995, then rose to 47 percent by 2001. While the rate of intermarriage has since decreased, the fact is unless you live within a very insular traditional Jewish community, you know, or are close to, or are a Jewish individual living in an intermarried family.

Telling intermarried couples that they are in a less-preferred familial situation than someone with two Jewish parents is offensive. It implies that their lifestyle is inadequate, or insufficient, to raise a proper family. Instead of growing up feeling proud of their pluralistic, American, interfaith situation, children of intermarried couples go on Birthright trips and hear leaders speak about disturbing rates of Jewish intermarriage. That was one of the first things I heard on my Birthright trip. We’re pushing communal messages that on some level, parents in intermarriage relationships have made a mistake.

I understand that the Jewish bias against intermarriage is often rooted more deeply in fear thanprejudice. Especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust, a concern about Jewish survival is understandable. It’s when this concern manifests itself in counting Jewish spouses—and inevitably counting Jewish mothers—that it slips into pathology and alienates more than it embraces.

I’m proud that the Jewish community has been one of the most ardent political proponents of same-sex marriage. But that same compassionate support and vocal understanding is withheld from the thousands and thousands of Jews who have fallen in love and married non-Jews. It’s not even the flawed separate-but-equal rhetoric that plagues the same-sex marriage debate. It’s: we’ll accept you, but one is definitely preferred.

One example that was really disheartening for me earlier this year was when Forward Editor-in-Chief Jane Eisner published an editorial exemplifying this type of discourse:      

Judging by the amount of money spent, and organizations created, and words expressed,   you would think that the most serious problem facing the American Jewish community is the waning attachment to Israel among young adults. But that’s not what keeps me up at night.

What haunts me and the many parents I know who have children in their twenties and thirties is whether they will marry and, if so, whether they will marry Jews.

Jewish communal life is valuable, and it’s something I care about. But perhaps revisiting the way we talk about its future would help keep more young adults interested in staying connected. Ethnocentric marriage rhetoric is not just problematic because it sounds borderline-racist to those who value diversity and free choice. It also misses the point that at the end of the day, we hope to marry somebody who shares the same values as we do. But as anyone who is Jewish knows, not all Jews share the same values and priorities. Different things are inevitably important to different people. This is why I wish we heard more encouragements to marry people who we love, not simply if they’re Jewish.

Eisner acknowledges this problem at the conclusion of her editorial when she writes, “We need to figure out how to honor individual choice and the desire to move beyond ghettoization with the communal need to promote marriage as the foundation for a healthy Jewish culture.” She hints at the values issue, but only remedies it with the same tribal response.

I’m 21 years old and still in college, which means that I’m young enough for marriage to not be quite yet on my radar, but old enough for my Jewish community leaders to have inundated me with unsubtle marriage messages for years now. Both of my parents are Jewish, and I have been involved with both Jewish and non-Jewish guys in my lifetime. I don’t know who I’ll eventually end up with. But I am well aware of what some people expect of me and it’s saddening that my community feels “haunted” by just the thought of me marrying a non-Jew.

We’re living in the age of marriage equality. I hope that as I grow older, my community will genuinely support me, along with whomever I love and choose to marry. I also hope that we can learn how to better support people who have already made that marital choice for themselves.

The Administrative Detentions of Wasfi Kabha

Originally published in The Daily Beast on June 18, 2013.

On June 6, the Israeli military dropped off a Palestinian man at Jubara checkpoint, near the West Bank city of Nablus. Wasfi Kabha, who’d been imprisoned for the past two years, then reportedly collapsed, sustained severe bruising, and went to a hospital in Tulkarem to be treated. The release marked the end of a seven-year ordeal that saw Kabha go in and out of Israeli custody, all without ever being charged with any crime. Kabha, who like all West Bank Palestinians is subject to Israeli martial law, was held under administrative detention orders issued by the Israeli Defense Forces.

Most administrative detention orders come with six-month expirations, but can be renewed indefinitely. The orders usually don’t serve as punishment for past acts, but rather to prevent future violations of the law. Subjects of the orders are guilty until proven innocent, but proving innocence will be elusive for them because they lack judicial rights. Officials frequently justify the practice by arguing that an open court could reveal sensitive intelligence collection methods that threaten national security. And so detainees languish without a trial, or without even knowing why they’re being held. As of April, 155 Palestinians were being held by the Israel Prison Service in administrative detention, according to the Israeli rights group B’Tselem.

“Administrative detention exists in other countries,” wrote the Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf last year, “but is considered a unique and exceptional measure, and its implementation usually leads to a vigorous public debate. In the West Bank, it’s routine.” 

The case of Wasfi Kabha goes a long way toward demonstrating just how routine. But who is Kabha? The short version is: a Hamas politician. The long version winds through university in the West, a technocratic municipal job that propelled him to the top of Hamas’s short-lived Palestinian Authority government, and four rounds of detention that have kept him behind bars 61 of the past 84 months.

Kabha was born in a village near Jenin, in the West Bank, in 1959. After earning a bachelor’s degree in the U.S. and a master’s in Ireland, he took up a job in the civil engineering department for the Jenin municipality. In 2006, Kabha served as the Minister of Prisoner Affairs for the Hamas government. Controversy erupted around Kabha when he joined other senior Hamas officials in endorsing a Tel Aviv suicide bombing attack in April 2006. Kabha told reporters that such attacks occur within “the framework of legitimate right of resistance against Israeli violations and crimes”—making clear that he supported the views that have gotten Hamas labeled terrorists by Israel, the U.S. and others.

Two months later, the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured near the borders of the Gaza Strip. In response, Israeli forces launched Operation Summer Rain on June 29, launching air strikes and capturing over 60 senior Hamas officials, including Kabha. When Kabha was released nearly five weeks later, he told the Associated Press that he was kept in terrible conditions, subject to long interrogations and ultimately released because they lacked proof he belonged to a terrorist organization. “The only rest I got was during the siren when Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel,” he provocatively added. “They would take me down into a cell underground and they would leave to take shelter somewhere in the jail.” The public remarks were something Kabha would keep up; he’s become one of the most vocal critics of Israeli detention policies—and the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority’s complicity.

On March 17, 2007, Hamas and their rivals in the Fatah party finalized a landmark agreement yielding a unity government. Wasfi Kabha took up a post as Palestinian Minister of State. A little over two months later, Israeli forces arrested 33 members of Hamas’s political wing in the West Bank, and then entered Kabha’s home, captured him and took his computer. Kabha remained in administrative detention for three years.

In November 2010, seven months after Kabha was released from detention, the Israeli press reported that low-ranking members of the Shin Bet had taken meetings with select senior Hamas officials, Kabha included, in the West Bank. The meetings, held over coffee, came days before a Damascus meeting between Hamas and Fatah officials to discuss reconciliation. According to the account in Haaretz by unnamed sources, Shin Bet officers visited Hamas officials in their homes late at night seeking to merely discuss their opinions regarding peace talks. Hamas officials said the meeting was less a consultation and more a series of home raids and interrogations. Kabha, whose house was searched, was among them: “It was rather a raid on our homes by Israeli forces and intelligence officers which terrified our children.”

A month later, Kabha was detained again without charges, this time only for a week. An Israeli military court said he was released due to declining health. The Director of the Ahrar Center for Prisoner Studies, Fuad Khuffash, said the judge made the decision following a review of Kabha’s medical records, which detailed the worsening state of his diabetes and high blood pressure. By June, Kabha was again taken from his home in Jenin and placed in administrative detention. Hamas issued a statement urging Kabha’s release, citing the same health problems that got him sprung from detention the year before. A year later, with a hearing coming up, Kabha denounced his imprisonment as part of a “new wave of the extensions of the administrative detention” against top Hamas officials in an attempt to quash reconciliation.

Earlier this month, after his most recent stint behind bars, this time for two years, Kabha was released and taken to the hospital in Tulkarem.

To be sure, Israel must be vigilant about protecting its citizens, and Wasfi Kabha’s condemnable record of defending suicide bombings means he should certainly be monitored for future threatening acts. But that doesn’t justify detaining an individual for years on end without ever charging him for a crime, particularly in a democracy that seeks to respect the rule of law.

Congress Seeks To Strip Waiver From Law On Moving Israel Embassy

Originally published in the Daily Beast on June 10, 2013.

Last week, President Obama granted a six month extension to a waiver on the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, a law mandating the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For almost a decade, events around the propsed move have been repeating themselves endlessly like a broken record. It has become an uneventful, unchanging story—one that reflects the peace process it arguably aims to protect.

And yet, given settlement growth, recent timetables set by Secretary of State John Kerry and renewed efforts in Congress to circumvent the anticipated Presidential waivers (more on that in a bit), it seems naive to assume that these political maneuvers could go on forever.

When Congress passed The Jerusalem Embassy Act on October 23, 1995, it called to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. The law also notably called for Jerusalem to remain an “undivided city” and for the U.S. to recognize it as Israel’s capital. This law sailed through Congress with wide margins, passing the Senate 93 to 5 and the House 374 to 37.

So what happened? Despite the vast majority of presidential candidates on the campaign trail, both Republican and Democrat, promising to move the embassy and to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, once elected into power, they all wisely avoided making their words into deeds. This is not because they were incapable, but because they recognized that the U.S. Congress should not make decisions regarding final status issues outside of bilateral peace negotiations, let alone for such a decision to be one that no other country in the world would accept or recognize.

Every President since 1995 has used the Presidential waiver, arguing that it breaches the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy. They understand that such a move would shrink the United States’ already thin credibility in the Middle East.

In the words of Jerusalem expert, Danny Seidemann, “Many recite the Jerusalem-The-Undivided-Capital-Of-Israel mantra because doing so is electorally expeditious, and inconsequential. But moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of the context of a permanent status agreement would be HUGELY consequential. It would drive the U.S. into abject, unprecedented isolation, put it on a collision course with much of the rest of the world, and not contribute one bit to ‘uniting Jerusalem.’”

Some in Congress are looking to push back against the waiver power. In January, Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) authored a new bill: The Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2013. While the likelihood of such a bill passing in the near future is extremely low, it would seem that as statements from John Kerry increase about various shrinking timetables for already tenuous peace prospects, the Obama Administration’s need to define its policy moving forward on Israel and Palestine will become more pressing. 

These policy shifts could have an impact on the enactment of the Jerusalem Embassy Act.One notable difference between the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2013 is the attempt to remove the executive waiver authority granted by Section 7 of the law. Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) introduced a similar piece of legislation in the Senate, which also strikes the section allowing for the use of the Presidential waiver.

Garrett’s House bill has 23 co-sponsors right now, picking up its latest this past Monday with Representative Gene Green (D-TX). 19 Republicans and four Democrats represent the makeup of the House bill’s co-sponsors. Heller’s Senate version currently has a mere five co-sponsors, all Republican.

It is good news that Obama extended the Presidential waiver on the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Responsible leaders have recognized that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would be a mistake. Given the changing factors in the region, the question is how much longer will the United States be able to waive the law in the name of holding out for direct bilateral peace negotiations?

We’ve just passed the 46th anniversary of the Six Day War, whereby Israel took control of East Jerusalem, among other territories. If there is ever to be a two-state solution, then the Palestinian capital will be there. President Obama rightly passed another six month waiver this time. With the peace process in a shambles and Congress seeking to remove the presidential waiver, it would be a mistake to get complacent, and assume that this can go on forever.

Is Labeling Israeli Products Akin to Labeling Genetically Modified Foods?

Originally published in The Daily Beast on June 3, 2013.
_______________________________

This week, despite pleas from the United States, Germany announced its formal backing of EU efforts to put “Made in Israel” labels on products made within the 1967 borders. Their support to distinguish products manufactured in the West Bank is particularly notable given Germany’s reputation as one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the European Union; they join 13 other EU countries that stand behind such legislation.

The movement to designate Israeli exports that come from the West Bank is happening alongside another labeling movement: demarcating genetically modified food (GMOs). The two, while holding significant differences, also share some interesting characteristics.

By way of background—the proposed EU legislation would make goods and produce from beyond the Green Line ineligible to enter the EU with duty free status, unlike products from within the 1967 borders. Since 2005, Israeli exporters to EU countries have had to include zip codes and place names indicating where things were manufactured on import papers invoiced to EU tax authorities. However, given the rapid increase of settlement expansion, the EU decided that the products themselves must be marked so consumers can identify a product’s origin.

Israel claims the EU is imposing a discriminatory double standard given that there is no similar movement to label products coming from other countries with territorial disputes like Tibet, Kashmir, and northern Cyprus. Yigal Delmonti, the spokesman for the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, even responded to Germany’s announcement saying that “Germany’s policy of labeling is reminiscent of dark days.”

With regards to GMOs, organizations like Montsanso, DuPont, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association have led the political effort to oppose GMO labeling. Montsano argues that “food companies are in the best position to determine what type of information meets the needs and desires of their customers.”

Which brings us to the similarities.

First, both movements are explicit that they are not advocating warning labels. As prominent U.S. legislators introduce federal GMO labeling bills, while over 20 more states consider additional GMO legislation, they, along with supporters of the EU’s proposed “Made in Israel” labels are insistent that these are not meant to editorialize or endorse one position or another, but merely provide the consumers with more information to make their own decisions.

Second, both movements raise concerns of potential worse next-steps. Supporters of GMOs worry that labeling products will cause ill-informed consumers to avoid products that do not actually pose any detrimental effect, leading to massive drops in sales, which would then result in fewer genetically engineered fields and less research into new and improved GMOs. Groups that oppose the EU legislation, like the Israeli government, argue that this would merely be the first step to a full-fledged boycott of Israeli products. However, European officials say that labeling products is far from boycotting products, because it simply provides a service to the consumer. Likewise, advocates of GMO labels insist that given the unanswered questions about long-term health effects and environmental implications, consumers have a right to know where the food they eat is coming from to make that choice for themselves.

Third, large numbers of people support such labels. In the United States, an ABC News poll found that 93 percent of Americans want GMO labels. A more recent HuffPost/YouGov poll found the number to be 82 percent. In the EU, over half of the 27 countries have come out in formal support of such product labeling. (The Netherlands, another one of Israel’s strongest EU allies, has also supported the move.)

And lastly, whether true or not, opponents of labels both appear as though they have something to hide. When GMO supporters declare they are worried that if Americans see a GMO label, they’ll be less likely to buy it, they inevitably raise concerns and strengthen the anti-GMO position. At best, this patronizes consumers by sending a message that the manufacturer knows best. Others argue it could actually give power to conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists, thus hurting the credibility of the scientific community in general.

Similarly with regards to Israeli exports, Israel’s strong opposition to labels raises questions about Israel’s commitment to ultimately disengage from the land outside the Green Line. If Israel adamantly resists “Made in Israel” labels, which refer to Israel proper, then it seems to resist drawing a distinction between Israel proper and the land outside of the 1967 borders. This in turns cast doubt on their commitment to ultimately withdraw from the land for a future Palestinian state.

Perhaps the noise raised by those who oppose labels will prove to be more deleterious than the labels themselves.

Measure to Limit Solitary Confinement Advances in Senate Immigration Bill

Originally published in Solitary Watch on May 29, 2013.

The immigration reform bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week includes an amendment that would curtail the use of solitary confinement on immigrant detainees. While the measure’s reach is limited, its passage by the Committee nonetheless represents a significant step for human rights activists working to help shape the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, which will be debated by the full Senate in June.

The amendment, Blumenthal 2, was drafted by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). It sets limits on the use of solitary confinement for adults–in most cases, 15 days–and bans it for all children under 18 years old. The measure also explicitly prohibits the use of solitary confinement to “protect” detainees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

While the amendment does make it more difficult, it falls short of banning solitary confinement for detainees with mental illness. Detention centers that opt to isolate mentally ill individuals are required to have a medical professional visit with the immigrant at least three times each week as well as weekly visits by a mental health clinician for regular evaluations.

Lastly, the amendment has an oversight component so that detention facilities must submit both the reason for and the duration of all solitary confinement sentences to Congress annually for review.

The Senate’s attention to solitary confinement is relatively historic. Last June the first-ever congressional hearing, led by Richard Durbin (D-IL) was held to discuss the legal, economic and psychological costs of solitary confinement. While a host of local groups have cropped up to fight solitary confinement on the state level, Congress has largely avoided the issue.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations, sent a letter in support of Blumenthal 2 to Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, respectively. The letter said, “The amendment balances the operational needs of facilities that hold immigration detainees with basic respect for the health and human rights of detainees subject to solitary confinement.”

The American Civil Liberties Union also gave vocal support to the passage of the amendment and said, “The adoption of the amendment takes positive steps forward in fixing a serious injustice the extent of which has only recently come to light.”

Due to increased enforcement measures put in place by the Obama administration, the immigration detention population has dramatically increased. There are 85 percent more immigrants detained today than there were in 2005, and these detentions are usually indefinite sentences. Individuals are held, often for months at a time, until either they voluntarily sign deportation documents or until immigration authorities decide whether to deport the immigrants or let them stay.

Observers argue that while placing U.S. prisoners in solitary confinement is problematic, placing alledgedly undocumented immigrants in solitary confinement is even worse because these individuals are not even serving criminal sentences, but are simply waiting for civil deportation hearings. Beyond that, critics argue that solitary confinement hurts detainees’ ability to fight their cases due to highly restricted access to telephones and other means of communication.

In March, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano said that she believes “solitary confinement should be the exception, not the rule.” She asked federal immigration officials to report back with greater detail about the usage and implementation of solitary confinement in federal facilities.

A March 2013 article by the New York Times and The Investigative Reporting Workshop found that on any given day, U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officials hold approximately 300 immigrants in solitary confinement at the 50 largest detention facilities across the country. Their research showed that nearly 50 percent of these individuals are kept in solitary confinement for 15 days or more–a point that psychiatric experts say detainees are at risk for severe mental harm. The study found that about 35 detainees are kept for more than 75 days.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary’s subcommittee on immigration, responded to the report by sending a letter to John Morton, director of ICE urging him to change their use of solitary confinement. “This report suggests an overreliance by the ICE on the harshest forms of incarceration,” Schumer wrote.

In 2012, the Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center and Physicians for Human Rights, surveyed conditions in many detention centers and county jails that work in conjunction with the ICE. This was the first comprehensive study on the effects of solitary confinement on immigration detainees. The research showed that solitary confinement is often arbitrarily and punitively applied, inadequately monitored and damaging to detainees’ health; investigators also found that most immigrants are denied any meaningful avenues of appeal. Additionally, they found that ICE failed to hold detention centers and jails accountable for their use and abuse of solitary confinement.

Blumenthal 2 would be first federal legislation to place limitations on the duration and circumstances under which detained immigrants can be placed in solitary confinement.  It is unclear at this point whether the amendment will pass the full Senate or the House.

The measure would apply only to those held in immigrant detention, and not to all federal prisoners. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons is estimated to hold at least 10,000 individuals in isolation in prisons across the country, and is not subject to any laws that that regulate, monitor, and restrict the use and abuse of solitary confinement in federal prisons.

Where are the STEM jobs?

Originally published in the Baltimore Sun on May 24, 2013. 
———————————————————————–

Republicans and Democrats appear to agree on at least one thing: that the United States is facing a STEM (science, technology engineering and math) crisis. In his most recent State of the Union address, President Barack Obama declared that he wants to “reward schools” that focus on STEM classes, for they are “the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.” And as far to the other end of the political spectrum as you can get, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas deemed May 6-12 to be the first ever “Celebration of STEM Education Week in Texas.”

I’m an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins University — by all measures, a very STEM-oriented institution. I’m studying history and sociology, and it’s quite common for students like me to envy those with academic talents enabling them to major in fields like chemical engineering or neuroscience. Bleak job reports and doomsday rhetoric from our nation’s leaders reinforce this idea that maybe the remainder of us studying the liberal arts are somehow putting a drain on our society, and preventing the United States from “competing effectively” with other nations.

And yet, it turns out that the job prospects for my STEM-oriented classmates may not be so great either.

Recently, the Economic Policy Institute released a report that challenged conventional wisdom; the report says that over half of students with STEM degrees each year are unable to find STEM employment upon graduation. Additionally, STEM wages have not budged in over a decade. Stagnant wages and low rates of STEM job placement strongly indicate a surplus of STEM workers, not a dearth. The problem points to a lack of jobs, not of qualified workers.

Of course, science, technology, engineering and math are important fields, and we should aim to provide exemplary education for students interested in such subjects. But there is a danger in creating a false hope that if only we got everyone to switch from English to math, our economy would suddenly soar. Unemployment in the United States is at 7.5 percent, which is 3.2 points higher than the pre-recession low. The deep-seated unemployment in our country will require not only job training in STEM fields but also things like monetary and fiscal stimulus to boost employment during this rough period.

The alleged STEM crisis has also been a popular point of agreement among lawmakers and tech moguls as Congress struggles to draft an immigration reform bill. It’s been politically safe to say that we must carve an easy path for STEM foreign workers to come to our country in order to boost our global competitiveness — in fact, one of the few amendments accepted in the Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration bill this week was a provision to increase the number of visas for such high-skill workers. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently launched a new organization, called FWD.us, to bolster support for, among other things, an increase in the number of visas granted to foreign skilled workers.

However, Science Careers, a branch of Science magazine, reported that the bill would make already congested labor markets even more competitive with the influx of foreign workers. Additionally, STEM labor force expert Ron Hira of the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York, who spoke in April at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the proposed immigration legislation, adamantly refutes the notion that there is an overall STEM shortage in the United States. He argues that H1-B and other worker visa programs have lowered wages and allowed for more labor exploitation in domestic STEM markets.

The 844-page immigration bill would quadruple or quintuple the number of high-skill visas currently allowed in the United States. As Bloomberg Businessweek’s Elizabeth Dwoskin writes, “If you’re a recent college graduate, a doctoral candidate, or a highly skilled professional who has been in the job market the past few years, you know it’s rough out there. But if the immigration overhaul proposed in the Senate … becomes law, it’s likely to get a lot rougher.”

The bill would be great for businesses like Mr. Zuckerberg’s that are looking to hire talented workers at lower prices. However, for American citizens graduating with STEM degrees and struggling to find employment today, it may not look so great.

Science, technology, engineering and math are important skills in the 21st century economy. But unfortunately, even they turn out to be no guarantee.