Analysis

How Palestinian Christians are being driven out of Jerusalem

In-depth
Alessandra Bajec
13 January, 2022

In-depth: The Palestinian Christian presence in Jerusalem is under threat due to institutionalised discrimination, attacks by radical Israeli groups, and systematic attempts by settler organisations to take over church property in the Old City.

Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank, and Israel are at risk of disappearing in the face of systematic attempts to drive them out of the Old City and other parts of the Holy Land.

Like every year at Christmas, Christian patriarchs and heads of churches warned of the fate of their communities in the region.

In a campaign launched ahead of festivities, Jerusalem’s church leaders issued a joint statement in mid-December saying that “Christians have become the target of frequent and sustained attacks by fringe radical groups” alluding to Israeli far-right settlers who aim to “diminish" the Christian presence.

These groups, the communiqué denounced, are “often using underhanded dealings and intimidation tactics to evict residents from their homes” and continue to acquire strategic property in the Christian Quarter, in the Old City, causing a decline in the Christian community.

"The systematic effort to push the Christian community out needs to be framed within the broader Israeli policy of dispossession towards the Palestinian people in general"

The statement went on to describe “countless incidents” of physical and verbal assaults against priests and other clergy, and attacks on Christian churches. It also reported vandalism and the desecration of holy sites and church properties, and the ongoing intimidation of local Christians as they go about their worship and daily lives.

Britain’s Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby called the Diocese of Jerusalem’s declaration “unprecedented” in a tweet, and co-authored an article with the Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem Hosam Naoum published in the Sunday Times, which outlines the pressures that have led to an exodus of the community.

They noted that a century ago there were an estimated 73,000 Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land making up at least 10 percent of the total population, and 20 percent of Jerusalem, whereas in 2019 barely two percent are Christian and only 2,000 Christians are left in the Old City.

“Religious extremism is on the rise, there are hostile feelings within the Jewish community toward Palestinian Christians,” Omar Haramy, director of Sabeel Jerusalem, a Palestinian Christian grassroots liberation theology organisation, told The New Arab.

RELATED
The role of Palestinian Christians in shaping Palestine
Analysis
Qassam Muaddi

Jewish local groups with extremist ideologies have for years carried out attacks against Christian institutions in Jerusalem and beyond. The Romanian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem was vandalised during Lent in March last year.

It was the fourth time that the holy site had been attacked in just one month. During Advent in December 2020, a vandal set fire to the Church of All Nations in the Garden of Gethsemane in East Jerusalem, the fourth attack against the church.

Attacks against Christian sites are typically perpetrated by groups such as Lehava and “price tag” movements - extremist Israelis who act in retaliation for any policy seen as threatening the settler movement in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Violent incidents have been on the rise in Jerusalem, with at least 24 attacks on churches in the last six years, according to a report published by ICOHS. There have been also increasing numbers of reports of priests and local worshippers being verbally abused, spat at, or aggressed.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. [Getty]

Last May, three settlers assaulted and beat clergymen from the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate on their way to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem for prayers.

Members of the different churches in the city are regularly harassed by Israeli security forces and face restrictions. In late April of last year, Israeli police erected barricades around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre barring Orthodox Christians from accessing the holy site.

In 2018, the Israeli parliament introduced a tax bill in 2018 that would enable Jerusalem’s municipality to amend a religious tax exemption, resulting in heavy taxation on church-owned commercial properties. Local Christian leaders complained, stating that it was a move to weaken the Christian presence in Jerusalem, and closed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the public in protest for three days.

Moreover, there have been attempts by settler organisations to gain control of church-owned properties close to Jaffa Gate, the main entrance to the Christian and Armenian quarters. The Zionist organisation Ateret Cohanim works on populating the Old City and other East Jerusalem neighbourhoods with Jewish residents by buying properties from non-Jewish owners.

The Greek Orthodox church possesses about a third of the land in the Old City and key sites around Jerusalem.

"Religious extremism is on the rise, there are hostile feelings within the Jewish community toward Palestinian Christians"

“Church leaders are very concerned about this development. They see it as a way to undermine the Christian presence in Jerusalem, and disrupt pilgrim routes,” Dorien Vanden Boer, Policy Officer for Israel/Palestine at CIDSE, a network of Catholic social justice organisations, told The New Arab.

Jewish extremists, with the backing of Israeli authorities, are taking steps to change the identity and character of the Old City’s Christian quarters.

“The Israeli government and municipality of Jerusalem have been encouraging regular tours and other activities with Jewish visitors in the area with the intent to change its demographic character,” Sabeel Jerusalem’s director Omar Haramy, a long-time Palestinian Christian campaigner and advocate for peace and justice, said.

He indicated that Christian communities in East Jerusalem are negatively impacted by the Israeli military occupation and illegal annexation in two main ways that accelerate their flight.

Firstly, Palestinian Jerusalemites pay a heavy price for the family reunification law, which prohibits Palestinian citizens of Israel who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza from living within Israel, including illegally annexed Jerusalem.

They must either move to the occupied territories and lose their Jerusalem residency ID or remain separated from their spouses and maintain their residency status - an Israeli measure aimed at preserving a Jewish majority over Palestinians.

Christians, as a minority, are particularly affected by this law as they have to choose their partners from within smaller communities.

(Click to enlarge)


Secondly, as a highly educated population, Palestinian Christians struggle with inadequate educational services, as the Israeli government has continually reduced funding for Christian schools, resulting in higher tuition fees.

Church-based schools, which once provided free education for Palestinian Jerusalemites, and substituted the Jerusalem municipality’s lack of assistance to Palestinians in many areas, have seen an increase in taxation. Consequently, more Christians have moved out of the city to continue their education in Christian schools in the occupied West Bank.

A lack of housing for Christians living in Jerusalem is another factor that leads to the emigration of Christians. Additionally, Palestinian Jerusalemites are denied building permits for new homes or the expansion of their property in the Old City and East Jerusalem.

According to Omar Haramy, Christian Jerusalemites who are financially burdened and deprived of basic services have a greater incentive to live in the occupied West Bank, where they can access job opportunities via Christian networks and feel more integrated into Palestinian society.

"Violent incidents have been on the rise in Jerusalem, with at least 24 attacks on churches in the last six years"

Recent research conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) shows that Christians make up less than 1% of the population in Palestine. Recent surveys estimate that of the 162,000 Palestinian Christians living in Israel and Palestine in 2020, the majority live inside Israel (excluding East Jerusalem) with the remaining 52,000 distributed throughout East Jerusalem (10,000), the West Bank (40,000) and the Gaza Strip (2,000).

Haramy added that Christian Zionists play a detrimental role in disseminating the belief that God gave the Holy Land to the Jewish people, including attempting to convince the Palestinian Christian community of the idea that it is a Christian’s duty to support the State of Israel, and that such support would result in accelerating the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

“Those people try to infiltrate, divide and weaken the Christian community, bringing in their own agenda while hiding behind religion,” he said. “That feeds into fear and ignorance”.

Citing a call issued by Kairos Palestine in 2020, Vanden Boer remarked how the appeal to Christians, churches, and ecumenical institutions challenged the misuse of the Bible through Christian Zionist theology, which legitimises “the right of one people to deny the human rights of another”.

RELATED
Gaza's Christian minority: Israel's unseen victims
In-depth
Emad Moussa

But actions discriminating against Jerusalem’s Christians cannot be isolated from Israel’s ongoing occupation policies against both Muslim and Christian communities across the Palestinian territories. Israel’s adoption of the Nation-State Law in 2018 legalised this institutional discrimination.

“The systematic effort to push the Christian community out needs to be framed within the broader Israeli policy of dispossession towards the Palestinian people in general,” CIDSE’s policy officer highlighted.

Israeli authorities do not take measures to protect the local non-Jewish populations, de facto permitting Israeli extremist groups to assault holy places and church members.

She made it clear that settler violence, fully supported by the Israeli state, has the same goal of displacing all indigenous Palestinian inhabitants from their land, taking over their homes, and continuing the expansion of settlements.

Alessandra Bajec is a freelance journalist currently based in Tunis.
Follow her on Twitter: @AlessandraBajec

Why do Egypt's Christians support Sisi?

January 17, 2022

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (R) is seen during the opening ceremony of the new Coptic Cathedral in Cairo, Egypt on January 6, 2018

 [Egyptian Presidency / Handout - Anadolu Agency]

Hany Soliman
January 17, 2022


There is no doubt that the vast majority of Egypt's Christian citizens support President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and his regime. They were the first to give their backing to Sisi to carry out the 2013 military coup, and the first to support it when it took place. The overwhelming majority have maintained this support, whereas many of the Muslims who supported Sisi and his military coup have changed their position, with some now criticising and opposing him.

Why do Egypt's Christians support Sisi? They are a minority, and like any religious, ethnic, national or other minority, they believe that it is in their collective interest to rally around the ruler of the country. Not out of any love for Sisi, in this case, but in a communal quest for protection from the prevailing majority, which may persecute the minority or may already be doing so.

Even if this ruler is a dictator who tyrannises the whole population without distinction, it is better for a minority to show complete loyalty and obedience without criticising him or his policies. This will help to enable it to live in relative peace and security, even as the ruler tyrannises everyone else.

Sisi's new elite: contractors, ex-militaries and businessmen who support him

Christians in Egypt fear political Islam. When the Muslim Brotherhood won a majority in parliament, and then Dr Mohamed Morsi won the presidential election in 2012, the Christians believed the scaremongering of the biased media and feared the worst. They were ready to believe that the Brotherhood would treat Christians as second class citizens and impose the "jizya" (tribute) upon them; apply Islamic inheritance laws on all communities; close or demolish churches; and prevent the study of Christianity in schools. Rumours spread that Christian girls would be forced to marry Muslim men, and would even be kidnapped to convert them to Islam by force. Moreover, that groups for the "Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" in the streets would be launched to beat or arrest non-veiled Muslim women and immodestly-dressed non-Muslim women. Such were the anti-Brotherhood claims.


Egyptian Coptic Pope Tawadros II (L), Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of Saint Marc Episcopate, receives Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (R), during the opening ceremony of the new Coptic Cathedral in Cairo, Egypt on January 6, 2018

 [Egyptian Presidency / Handout – Anadolu Agency]

No wonder, then, that Christian fears were stoked. It was almost natural, therefore, for the Christians in Egypt to be among Morsi's opponents and supporters of the coup against him.

I do not deny that there are extremists who stir up hatred towards Christians; to do so would be to deny the reality. Take a look at social media and you will find that there are many who are still discussing controversial issues that were raised 1400 years ago and the advent of Islam, regarding Christianity, the nature of Jesus (peace be upon him), Christian religious holidays and celebrations, and about the permissibility or not of congratulating the Christians at such times.

Those who try to prove the error of the Christian faith and accuse its followers of being misguided are unlikely to change Christians' adherence to Christianity; nor are they likely to convert them to Islam. They are, in fact, simply proving to Christians that some Muslims hate them and confirming, in their mind, the persecution from which they claim to suffer.

READ: Egypt releases 3 prominent political prisoners. What about the 65,000 others?

However, although the Christians are a minority in Egypt, led by the Coptic Church they have a loud voice in the West, especially regarding religious persecution, real or imagined, current or historic. Requests for asylum in Europe or the US are generally accepted automatically when the asylum seeker is an Egyptian Christian rather than a Muslim.

The Christian voice is listened to by Western politicians who in turn make Sisi seek the support of Egypt's Christians and the strong Orthodox Church at home and abroad. He needs to convince the West that he protects religious minorities in Egypt if Western aid is to continue to flow into his coffers. As a result, the relationship between the regime and Christian citizens gets stronger because it is of mutual benefit.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor

ITUC concerned at Tunisia's 'autocratic' anti-union repression

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has voiced concern over a wave of repression in Tunisia following a 'coup' by President Saied, with trade unions tuning into another target for authorities.

President Kais Saied has displayed 'autocratic behaviour', 

the ITUC's Sharan Burrow said

 [Olivier Matthys/Getty-archive]

The New Arab Staff
18 January, 2022

A global trade union hit out at Tunisia and its president, Kais Saied, on Tuesday over the alleged mistreatment of unionised workers, amid rising joblessness and impoverishment.

President Saied removed the country's premier and dissolved parliament on 25 July, before bypassing most of the constitution - actions that have been branded a "coup" by opponents.

Tunisian authorities now appear to be quashing the country's unionised workers.

State TV staff, on strike over the government's unwillingness to renew a collective bargaining deal, faced interrogation from police officers on Thursday, according to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

The worldwide union body said that certain staff were subsequently made to broadcast shows in an attempt to end the strike action.

The ITUC revealed its "serious concern over acts of anti-union repression by the authorities under the control of Tunisian President Kais Saied".

General Secretary Sharan Burrow argued: "The hope that sprang from Tunisia's revolution is being dashed by the autocratic behaviour of the president.

"Having refused repeated requests from the trade union centre UGTT [Tunisian General Labour Union] to work together on the problems facing the country, he has resorted to violent repression.

Burrow said that the Tunisian union played a key role in the North African country's 2011 revolution and will continue to support workers.

"The ITUC stands with the UGTT and its members and will do all we can to support them, to stop the repression and to ensure that the country does not simply bend to the diktats of the IMF, which would only increase poverty and unemployment," Borrow added.

The ITUC added that assaults, tear gas and other forms of violence were used against protesters on Friday as the nation marked the anniversary of an uprising which ousted long-time dictator Zine Al-Abidine ben Ali.

The organisation said multiple people were "brutally arrested" with some still being held and "facing charges".

Tunisia is currently consulting with its people on a new constitution before a July referendum.

Absurd ‘antisemitism’ charge against Emma Watson has exposed witchhunt strategy of Israel supporters

The good news of the Emma Watson's smearing is that this time even establishment types questioned Israel advocates' strategy of accusing Palestine's supporters of antisemitism-- and may even have noticed the anti-Palestinian bigotry that animates it.

BY PHILIP WEISS

MONDOWEISS

JANUARY 11, 2022 

EMMA WATSON (FLICKR)

It’s an obvious point, but the obvious bears repeating. The absurd accusations of antisemitism against actress Emma Watson last week for expressing solidarity for Palestinians have backfired against Israeli leaders and in one bright flash helped to discredit an ancient tried-and-true strategy of the Israel lobby: maligning critics of Israel’s policies as antisemites.

Israel’s supporters have been effective for years at muzzling critics by doing just that. The good news of the Emma Watson’s smearing is that this time even establishment types raised an eyebrow over the strategy– and may even have noticed the anti-Palestinian bigotry that animates it.

So we should embrace the Emma Watson moment, as another landmark in the march to the mainstream of Palestinian solidarity.

Back to the episode: On January 2, Watson published a rather anodyne declaration of Solidarity with Palestinians with an image of a demonstration from last May, and Israeli ambassador Gilan Erdan lectured her about supporting “evil” and former Israeli ambassador Danny Danon called her an antisemite.

It was overreach. CNN published criticisms of the antisemitism allegation, including from MSNBC journalist Ayman Mohyeldin.

Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of Indivisible, a US-based progressive political campaign organization, responded to Danon on Twitter. “A perfect demonstration of the utterly cynical and bad-faith weaponization of antisemitism to shut down basic expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people…”

MSNBC host and former CNN journalist Ayman Mohyeldin was another who commented. “No joke, we are at the point where merely posting a vague picture referencing solidarity with Palestinians on Instagram gets you labeled as an antisemite,” he tweeted.

Miriam Margolyes, a Jewish actor who appeared in the Harry Potter movies that made Watson famous, also supported Emma Watson’s stance and called out the bad faith.

“The Israeli treatment of Palestinians is disgraceful. Anti-semitism is not at issue,” Margolyes, who was born to a secular Jewish family in Oxford, said, adding: “What matters is opposing cruelty, speaking out for compassion.”

“Criticizing Israel is not in itself, an anti-Semitic stance. Conflating the two is a form of disguised censorship,” she concluded.

Some Israel supporters recognized the damage of the attacks.

J Street’s political director expressed support for Emma Watson and accused her critics of “throwing around false accusations of antisemitism.” The Jerusalem Post editorial board rushed in to defend Emma Watson. “Fight Real Antisemitism, Not Emma Watson.”

[W]e also should not confuse real threats against Jews and a Hollywood actor’s poor social media choices. Antisemitism is a real threat that requires real action to confront it. Don’t confuse the two.

Though the Jerusalem Post also tried to shore up the Anti Defamation League’s witchhunt against Palestinian solidarity on campus.


ADL experts identified what they said was “a pattern of anti-Israel groups and activists blatantly demonizing pro-Israel and Zionist students,” and on occasion espousing antisemitic tropes, such as those alleging Jewish or Zionist power and control over the media and political affairs.

Several others have noted the Palestinian solidarity movement’s victory here.

Asa Winstanley said it was an important opening at his “Palestine is still the issue” newsletter:

The anti-Semitism smears are beginning to lose their potency…. Danon’s vicious attack on Watson was a bit of a self-own. It gave the game away: Israeli and pro-Israeli allegations of “anti-Semitism” are 99.99% of the time entirely fabricated, simply as a way to attack and undermine Palestinians and their supporters in the West. The bald-faced nature of the lie this time meant that some slightly more “mainstream” public figures felt able to defend Watson — in a way that they probably would not have done for Jeremy Corbyn, for example

Em Hilton, a British Jewish activist in London/Tel Aviv, echoed that view, writing in the British Tribune that Watson’s post shows that Palestinian solidarity is becoming “a part of the mainstream political discourse.” And Danon’s response was equally important.

[I]t showed that allegations of antisemitism levelled at those who have done nothing other than express solidarity with Palestinians are as malicious as they are absurd. We should hope that that fact sticks in the collective memory when the next set of accusations rolls around.

Hilton went on to link Danon’s post to anti-Palestinianism and the legal lies that politicians tell about the BDS campaign.

Danon’s post might have been absurd in its sheer and immediate overreach, but it was a logical extension of a process that seeks to render the very existence of Palestinians antisemitic, let alone displays of solidarity with them. This process has been at the heart of the strategy pursued by apologists of Israeli occupation for years…

Deeming Palestinian identity, imagery, history, and heritage an existential threat to Jews is used to shield Israel from any kind of meaningful scrutiny or accountability for its brutal human rights abuses.

Our publisher Scott Roth made the point in his weekly newsletter. These are the rules: “unless the main thrust of one’s message re Palestinians is that they only have themselves to blame for their own predicament then you are necessarily discounting Israel’s (the Jewish State) position on the conflict and ergo you are antisemitic. This is the thrust of what Israel’s ambassador to the UN, as well as his predecessor, are saying in response to Watson’s original tweet. Do they ever tire of this? Does it ever get old to hurl scurrilous charges reflexively whenever someone highlights Palestinian humanity?”

Well, yes, it is getting old. People are seeing around the corner of the antisemitism charge, to the anti-Palestinian bigotry that’s behind it. Consciousness is rising slowly but surely.

h/t James North and Adam Horowitz, and Dave Reed.

What Gabriel Boric’s victory in Chile will mean for Palestine

Chile's new president, Gabriel Boric, supports BDS and has promised to take an aggressive stance in defense of Palestinian human rights.

 But will he be able to shift Chilean foreign policy?

BY RAMONA WADI

MONDOWEISS

JANUARY 18, 2022 

GABRIEL BORIC GIVING HIS VICTORY SPEECH AT 2021 CHILE 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, DECEMBER 19, 2021

 (PHOTO: FOTOGRAFOENCAMPANA/WIKIMEDIA)

When Chile announced the results of its presidential elections, Israel and its supporters were not at all pleased with the result. Gabriel Boric, Chile’s pro-Palestine, left-wing contender for the presidency, emerged victorious over the right-wing, pro-Israel Jose Antonio Kast.

A former student leader, 35-year-old Boric rose to prominence during the 2011 mobilizations for free, quality education in Chile. In 2013, Boric was elected to parliament as an independent candidate representing the Magallanes region. Running against Kast in the 2021 presidential elections, his rallying cry to bury neoliberalism reflected the nationwide uprisings against outgoing president Sebastian Pinera.

Boric is also a vociferous critic of Israel and supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS). In October 2021, after committing to support a bill to sanction goods from Israeli settlements, Boric pledged to take a stronger stance in defense of Palestinian human rights.

In the end Boric defeated Kast by a vote of 56-44 percent signaling that Chilean voters are ready to make a break from the past.

Chile and Palestine share similarities in terms of their struggle with neoliberal violence. Both indigenous populations – the Mapuche of Chile, and Palestinians – face the horrors of Israeli military weapons and surveillance technology. However, the question at this point is whether Boric will align with international consensus over the two-state compromise or maintain his support for Palestinian liberation.

Israel responds to Boric

In the Israeli press Boric is being described as antisemitic for his earlier pro-Palestine activism, including direct challenges to the Jewish community in Israel which is largely supportive of the Zionist colonial policies. His links to Daniel Jadue, a Chilean-Palestinian who was also a candidate for the 2021 presidential elections and who is very outspoken against Zionism, have also been raised as objectionable by Israeli media.

Emilio Dabed, a Palestinian-Chilean lawyer who also holds a doctorate in political science and who specializes in constitutional matters, international law and human rights, spoke to Mondoweiss about how Israel’s propaganda is manipulating Boric’s stance, and also shed light on the complexities of Chilean foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine.

“Boric has been accused of antisemitism because he has expressed the view that Israel should withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territory, with his detractors implying that calling for the application of international law is unjust or could amount to antisemitism. Also, in an open letter to Boric by prominent Jewish women in Chile, the elected president was criticized for holding ‘Jews responsible for policies of a government in power in Israel.’ But Israeli propaganda and its supporters insist that Israel represents all Jews, and accuse all Palestinians of being antisemites for criticizing the policies of the state of Israel,” Dabed explained.

“Moreover, the President of the Jewish community in Chile has also criticized Boric for supporting BDS, a non-violent, international law-based initiative to force Israel to abide by its international legal obligations. From the perspective of Israel and Israel’s supporters, calling for the respect of international law is almost a crime, supporting Palestinian rights is antisemitic, and the establishment of a just peace in Palestine is a danger threatening them.”

And yet the doomsday headlines in the Israeli media about Chile electing a pro-Palestine president almost entirely gloss over the fact that Israel would have preferred Kast to win the election, despite the fact that his father, German-born Michael Kast, was a Nazi Party member and whose family was involved in the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

Chilean author and investigative journalist Javier Rebolledo, whose research about the Pinochet dictatorship brought many previously guarded secrets to public scrutiny, states in his book “A La Sombra de Los Cuervos” (In the Shadow of the Crows) that both Kast’s father, as well as one of his brothers, Cristian Kast, were involved with the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA). Kast’s brother, Miguel Kast, was one of the Chicago Boys – the group of economists trained by Milton Friedman who were tasked with the neoliberal experiment in Chile. He was also appointed by Pinochet as Minister of Labor and later President of Chile’s Central Bank.

During the 2017 presidential campaign in Chile, Kast shone a spotlight on himself with his staunch support for Pinochet. “If Pinochet were still alive, he would vote for me,” he boasted. He also proclaimed himself against the closure of the Punta Peuco luxury prison, where former DINA agents and torturers are serving their sentences. Kast’s 2017 campaign was funded by Pinochet supporters, among them the daughter of former DINA agent Marcelo Castro Mendoza.

Israeli media confirmed that out of 111 Chileans in Israel, 73 voted for Kast. Speaking about Boric’s electoral triumph, Gabriel Colodro, the president of Israel’s Chilean community, stated, “There is concern for the Jewish community [in Chile], but we wish him success.”

Historic erasure

Israel’s response to the Chilean election is reflective of its own colonial enterprise, and the international diplomatic support it is used to receiving. Israel’s ties to the Pinochet dictatorship, to which it sold weapons when the US decided it was time to distance itself from the crimes against humanity it had funded in Chile, are also part of the legacy between both countries which continues to today.

Both Israel and Chile from the dictatorship onwards, at least until the latter’s previous presidency, thrived upon ignoring the past.

Dabed maps out the impact of this erasure by Israel, and how this played out in terms of the Jewish community’s choice of Kast in the 2021 presidential elections in Chile.

“What the Israeli response to Boric’s election reveals, once again, is the schizophrenic nature of Israeli politics and its supporters. They have created a parallel reality pretending to desire peace but continuing the colonization of Palestine, and the exploitation and oppression of Palestinians. On the other hand, their politics is the reflection of the negative ethics that they have adopted. Negative ethics and politics in the sense that their objective is the negation of the existence of Palestinians, the negation of their rights, the erasure and negation of their history, the negation of the human nature of Palestinians.”

This erasure was also demonstrated by the Chilean community in Israel in its preference for Kast. “The same negative politics operates within a part of the Jewish community in Chile as shown by their choice in the Chilean elections. They mostly voted for Kast. The Chilean community in Israel, for instance, voted almost 70% for Kast, negating the crimes of Pinochet’s dictatorship that Kast supported and still defends, negating the torture, the assassinations, the disappearances of political dissidents during the dictatorship, all of which were carried out with assistance and training from the Israeli state to Pinochet’s security forces,” Dabed explained.

What to expect from the Boric government

Despite Israel attempting to depict the new Chilean presidency as dangerous in terms of its diplomatic relations, Boric will be navigating old and new political terrain, both in terms of Chile’s own turbulent history since the dictatorship and the transition to democracy, as well as its foreign policy.

Chile is home to the largest, and well-organized, Palestinian community in Latin America. Its activism in terms of BDS continues to grow and has influenced Chilean politics. For example, in November 2018 the Chilean congress passed a resolution calling upon the government to review its agreements with Israel and to provide Chileans with information about Israel’s colonial expansion in order to make an informed decision about doing business with Israel or visiting the colonial state.

To view earlier pro-Palestine activism as a game-changer in Chile’s foreign policy, however, is a simplistic view.

“Boric is a young leftist politician who will be confronted during his government by the anti-democratic Chilean right-wing; the same that helped to overthrow the socialist government of Salvador Allende almost 50 years ago, and the establishment of the Pinochet’s dictatorship that they defend until today. In these circumstances it would be very dangerous for Boric to completely alienate the Jewish community of Chile which, by and large, is very influential, supports right-wing politics and voted for Kast. Given the radical changes that Boric has promised and the support that he would need to put them forward, I do not think he would risk more confrontation,” Dabed explained.

“I do not think there will be important changes in the Chilean foreign policy. Regardless of political leanings, Chilean governments have retained the same foreign policy regarding Palestine/Israel. It repeats the mantra established by the international community about the fact that it supports a two-state solution for the conflict. It does so, even when we all know that this strategy has not led Palestinians anywhere. Negotiations for a two-state solution have become the name for maintaining the colonial status quo subjecting Palestinians until today. This discourse has allowed Israel to ignore its commitments during the Oslo negotiations in the sense of exchanging land for peace, and to reach its objective of conquering the land and imposing peace terms that consolidate their colonial project.”

However, Boric’s impact in terms of activism and politics should not be discarded. While the two-state diplomacy dominates political discourse, Chile now has a president that is outwardly aligned with the Palestinian cause, and Chile is well-placed to influence the regional political debate about the Israeli colonization of Palestine.

Dabed concludes, “I also think that Boric coming to power represents tremendous support for Palestinians and the Palestinian community in Chile. Even though he may not change Chilean foreign policy in this respect, he and his team and supporters are aware of the Palestinian colonial condition, they oppose it, and they are not shy in expressing these views. Not only Boric, but many others in his circle know the injustices and crimes that Palestinians are subjected to by the Israeli state, and they are prepared, I hope, to make at least discursive changes in the way Palestine/Israel is viewed and spoken about, and this is not without importance. This could lead to the creation of initiatives at the international level that could bring Palestinian back to the public debate, after so many years of silence in the mainstream media and international forums.”

FREE PALESTINE
The Negev uprising and the lie of co-existing with the occupation

January 18, 2022

Arab Israelis shout slogans as they stage a protest in the mostly Arab city of Umm al-Fahm in northern Israel in solidarity with Bedouin communites in the Negev Desert on January 14, 2022 [AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP via Getty Images]

Majed El-Zebdah
January 18, 2022


The recent events at the Negev, which were punctuated by popular Palestinian confrontations with the occupation army, in which men and women alike participated in the steadfastness of the Palestinian people on their land in the occupied Negev, brought back to our memory the scenes of Palestinian steadfastness in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of occupied Jerusalem, and the events of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. It was also reminiscent of the Intifada of the Stones, and the events of Land Day, in which the Palestinian people rose up in defence of the land of Palestine, and in rejection of the occupation's plans to uproot the Palestinians from their land and expel them from their homes as part of a settlement plan that has been ongoing for the past century. However, it has still been unsuccessful in persuading the Palestinians to emigrate from their land voluntarily.

The recent razing operations carried out by the extremist right-wing occupation government, which targeted the Naqa area, east of the city of Tel El-Saba in the occupied Negev, under the pretext of forestation of barren lands, is an extension of the occupation state's anti-Palestinian policy. This policy consists of repression, arrests, raiding homes and assaulting innocent people, with the aim of pushing the Palestinians to surrender – and, thus, not confront the racism of the occupation, or thwarts its ongoing settlement plans in the occupied Negev region.

The successive occupation governments refuse to recognise the right of the Palestinians of the Negev to live in their villages, which are over 45 in number. They are also being deprived of infrastructure and electricity and the occupation is forcing them to live in a crowded manner in a very tight area of the Negev land, which makes up over half of the geography of historical Palestine. It is practicing a racist policy that contradicts the claims of the occupation governments that the Israeli state is an oasis of democracy and a model for coexistence between the Palestinians and the Occupation.

The occupation government's attempts to control, by armed force, the six Palestinian villages in the Naqa area, east of Beersheba, and its insistence on expelling its more than 30,000 Palestinian residents confirms, once again, the impossibility of coexistence with the occupation's racism and the continuous policies of Judaisation of the Palestinian land. It also exposes the falsehood of the claims made by some who believed that, if they offered political support to the extremist Bennett-Lapid government, in return the occupation would agree to establish an infrastructure for the Palestinians in the occupied Negev. The recent events in the Negev confirmed that the Palestinian supporters of the extremist occupation governments live in illusions far from reality.



Israel is trying to steal more Palestinian land in the Negev – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/Middle East Monitor]

The scenes of steadfastness that we all followed through the uprising of our people in the occupied Negev in the face of the occupation army, the solidarity vigils in support of this national movement in Gaza, Umm Al-Fahm, Haifa, Jaffa and Nazareth, and the statements of support issued by the Palestinian forces in support of the Negev uprising, confirms the unity of our Palestinian people in confronting the occupation. It also proves that resistance, in all of its forms, including popular and armed resistance, is a national means around which the Palestinian people are rallying, and they now see comprehensive confrontation as the only way to uproot the occupation from the land of Palestine.

READ: Israeli police arrest 41 Arabs in the Negev, amid protests

Although the Fatah movement issued a statement rejecting the occupation's aggression against the people of the Negev, it is worth noting that the PA and PLO, along with their official bodies which are meant to represent the Palestinian people, have remained silent in the face of the heated events in the occupied Negev, as if these events do not concern them. It is as if they are afraid to denounce the extremist actions of the Bennett-Lapid government for fear of the government depriving them of the economic privileges enjoyed by its leaders from occupied Ramallah.

In conclusion, we declare our solidarity with our people in the occupied Negev, and we consider their support a national duty that should be performed by all Palestinians. The Palestinian people, wherever they are, are being targeted for expulsion by the Zionist occupation governments. The victory of our people in the Negev in this confrontation that was imposed on them by force is a victory for all Palestinians and the Palestinian cause.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Israel arrests dozens of Palestinians, including children, in Negev

The 41 latest arrests bring the total number of Palestinians arrested in the Negev to more than 130 since Monday last week, according to one activist.

More than 130 Palestinians have reportedly been arrested in the Negev since Monday last week [Menahem KAHANA/AFP/Getty]

The New Arab Staff
18 January, 2022

Israel arrested dozens of its Palestinian citizens in the flashpoint Negev ("Naqab") Desert region on Tuesday following protests over forced displacement.

Children were among the 41 Palestinians taken into custody in the region, where local families are facing displacement from their land to allow a forest to be planted.

Youths were detained across the Negev and police raided several villages, including Tel Al-Saba, the Arabic-language news site Arab 48 reported, citing witnesses.

At Tel Al-Saba, 12 people were taken into custody, according to the Al-Jarmaq news outlet.

It follows Israeli police disrupting locals' demonstrations against the threatened destruction in Sawah village.

RELATED
Nakba in The Negev: Israel ramps up Palestinian displacement

The 41 latest arrests bring the total number of Palestinian Bedouins arrested in the Negev to more than 130 since Monday last week, according to Negev-based activist Riya Al'Sanah.

There are 55 Palestinians, including 11 children, who are still detained, she added.

Lawyers from the Negev and beyond have offered free legal assistance to those arrested.

They have claimed Palestinians are being kept in poor conditions and questioned the fairness of the judicial process.

"Despite being Israeli citizens, who should, in theory, have access to fair legal proceedings, it is clear that detainees are facing structural and systematic racism and discrimination embedded in the Israeli legal system," lawyer Shahda ibn Bari said.

Another, Marwan Abu Frieh asserted: "What's happening in the courts resembles what takes place during interrogations at police stations and detention centers.

"Detention extensions are carried out without any legal justification."

He said a child aged 14 has had his extension prolonged on three occasions "without justification", adding that "judgments are seemingly handed down without due consideration of facts".

Meanwhile, the Higher Steering Committee for Arabs in the Naqab (HSCAN) slammed Israel's police, accusing them of perpetrating abuses against protesters in the region, the Arabi 21 news website said.

Many Palestinians have been reportedly wounded by Israeli security forces since protests began last week.

Demonstrations will be held by the HSCAN every day to secure the freedom of those being held.

The body has also urged religious leaders to act, including by discussing the Negev's plight at Friday prayers.

Israeli General calls for a repeat of 1948 massacre against Palestinians in Negev

January 18, 2022 

Israeli police arrest a Bedouin man in the village of Al-Atrash

 in the Negev desert on 13 January 2022 

[MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images]

January 18, 2022 

An Israeli General has urged for a repeat of the 1948 military massacre that resulted in Israel's occupation of the Naqab Desert, also known as the Negev, and the forceful expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinian residents.

Major General Yom-Tov Samiah, who served as commander of the Southern Zone in the Israeli Army during the Second Intifada, wrote on Twitter: "Operation 'Yoav' will soon return to liberate the Negev. Luckily General Shaike Gavish, who led the operation at the time is alive. He will pass on some lessons."

Operation Yoav was one of the two large-scale operations launched by the army in October 1948, which opened a road to the Negev.

Nearly 120,000 Palestinians, including the elderly, women and children resided in the area; however, following Israel's massacre, only 30,000 Palestinians were left.

"If we continue at this rate of loss of control we will have to retake the Negev and Galilee. Civil war is on the doorstep," added Major General Yom-Tov Samiah.

Many Negev Bedouin, Arab residents who have Israeli citizenship, live in unrecognised townships scattered across the southern desert.

Hundreds of local Arabs demonstrated in the Negev in recent days in protest of the confiscation of their lands by the Jewish National Fund, an organisation that collects money from Jews around the world to seize Palestinian property.

The police used sound bombs, rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse people, causing several injuries, according to the statement.

Arab citizens in the Negev region are estimated at around 300,000, living on 5 per cent of their land, 95 per cent of which they say has been confiscated by Israel since 1948.

Enbridge and Michigan renew Line 5 hostilities in court
By James McCarten | January 18th 2022

An aboveground section of Enbridge's Line 5 at the Mackinaw City, Mich., pump station. THE CANADIAN PRESS/John Flesher

WASHINGTON — Enbridge Inc. and the state of Michigan are renewing their legal hostilities over the future of the controversial Line 5 pipeline — and their latest court battle looks an awful lot like the last one.

Attorney General Dana Nessel and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer were dealt a setback last November when District Court Judge Janet Neff granted Enbridge's request that the case be removed to federal court, a decision that prompted Michigan to abandon that particular challenge.

Instead, the state is focusing its efforts on a separate but similar circuit court action filed in 2019 that spent last year in a state of suspended animation, and which Enbridge is once again arguing should be heard by a federal judge because it comprises an important foreign policy question.

Too late, Nessel argues in her latest tract of court documents, filed Friday with the very same judge who heard the original arguments.

"The present action was pending in state court for nearly two and a half years before (Enbridge) removed it to this court," she says. Federal law makes it clear that cases can only be removed to federal jurisdiction within 30 days of a complaint being filed, the documents note.

"It is more than two years too late, and federal courts do not condone this type of gamesmanship and abuse of the removal statutes."

By Nessel's logic, Enbridge knew perfectly well it could have petitioned to have the case removed when it was originally filed but opted not to do so until now — a "remarkably dilatory" act based on an argument that "defies the facts, the law and basic common sense."

Enbridge has yet to file a response to Nessel's latest brief. However, the company has repeatedly indicated it has no plans to shut down Line 5 voluntarily and will continue to fight in court to keep it running.

The overarching question — whether a dispute over the lawful operation of an international, cross-border pipeline should be heard by a federal judge or at the state court level — is a carbon copy of the battle the two sides fought in front of Neff for the better part of last year.

The clash first erupted in November 2020, when Whitmer abruptly revoked the 68-year-old easement that had long allowed Calgary-based Enbridge to operate the line. She cited the risk of environmental catastrophe in the Straits of Mackinac, where Line 5 crosses the Great Lakes.

"If Enbridge's gamesmanship is successful, it would allow Enbridge to circumvent Michigan's ability to protect the Great Lakes and to tie the case up in federal court by months, if not years, leaving the Great Lakes in great danger." #Line5

The pipeline ferries upwards of 540,000 barrels per day of crude oil and natural gas liquids across the Canada-U.S. border and the Great Lakes by way of a twin line that runs along the lake bed beneath the straits linking Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

Proponents call Line 5 a vital and indispensable source of energy, especially propane, for several Midwestern states, including Michigan and Ohio. It is also a key source of feedstock for critical refineries on the northern side of the border, including those that supply jet fuel to some of Canada's busiest airports.

Enbridge and its allies, including the federal Liberal government, insist that the pipeline is too vital an energy artery to both countries for it to be suddenly shut down, and the question of its continued safe operation is one to be settled between Ottawa and the White House.

Central to that argument is a 1977 bilateral treaty that was conceived to avoid disruptions to the cross-border flow of energy, one that proved to be a key element in Enbridge's strategy to convince Neff that the controversy should be adjucated by a federal judge.

Canada said late last year that planning was "well underway" for bilateral treaty talks between Canada and the United States in the dispute over the pipeline, although the timeline for formal negotiations has never been publicly disclosed.

Last year, lawyers for the federal government also filed a statement in court expressing support for Enbridge's argument, known in legal parlance as an amicus brief. It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether Ottawa expects to do so again.

The White House has acknowledged that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting an environmental assessment on Enbridge's plans to encase the underwater portion of the twin pipeline in a deep, fortified underground tunnel. But they have so far resisted pressure to get involved in the dispute itself.

Critics want the line shut down, arguing it's only a matter of time before an anchor strike or technical failure triggers a catastrophic environmental disaster in one of the area's most important watersheds. Michigan has every right to take whatever steps are necessary to protect it, the National Wildlife Federation said in a statement.

"This motion is critical because if successful, it will allow the state courts to consider for the first time whether the risks of a rupture of Line 5 in the Great Lakes justify the continued operation of the pipeline," said federation attorney Andy Buchsbaum.

"If Enbridge's gamesmanship is successful, it would allow Enbridge to circumvent Michigan's ability to protect the Great Lakes and to tie the case up in federal court by months, if not years, leaving the Great Lakes in great danger."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 18, 2022.

Russia threatened a “military-technical” response for unmet demands. What could that mean?


By Pavel Podvig | January 18, 2022
BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS


Russian military pilot in 2016. Credit: Министерство обороны Российской Федерации. License CC BY 4.0. Accessed via Wikimedia Commons.

Russia recently presented the United States and NATO with two draft treaties that outlined Moscow’s vision of “ironclad” security guarantees for itself. The only elements of surprise of the demands were their urgency and the fact that they were made against the backdrop of what appears to be a significant concentration of military hardware in western Russia. Otherwise, the draft treaties’ key points are not entirely new. And their forceful nature appears to have produced a high-level meeting between US and Russian diplomats followed by a session of the NATO-Russia Council and a discussion at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Given Moscow’s ongoing frustration with feeling unheard, that was no small thing. But none of these meetings produced a tangible result. And the chasm between the parties’ positions on nearly every issue is unlikely to be bridged soon.

Nominally, the conversation is not yet over as Moscow awaits a formal counterproposal from the United States and NATO. But the response is unlikely to satisfy the Kremlin. NATO will not withdraw back to its 1997 borders, and a pledge to stop the expansion is politically impossible, even if it is the actual policy. Western diplomats expressed interest in discussing elements of the proposal, such as limits on military exercises and missile deployment. Yet Russia insists that its drafts cannot be divided into separate pieces. Take them whole or leave them.

Moscow may be opening with a deliberately tough negotiating position. Yet one cannot rule out that this is the firm last word. If the attempt to extract the guarantees fail, Russia said it is prepared to “take appropriate military-technical reciprocal measures” in response to the West’s “unfriendly steps.” Russian officials have been guarded about the specifics, keeping everyone guessing as to what these measures could be. Many of Moscow’s options involve difficult political choices or risky or costly investments and therefore are likely impractical. But one option—deploying an intermediate-range ballistic missile that would be able to reach Europe—appears possible and dangerous, even if eventually counterproductive.

Speaking of things that are unlikely to work, Russia could certainly increase its military presence in Europe. But doubling the number of missile brigades or dramatically increasing its naval presence in the Baltic, for example, would be just a quantitative increase. Besides, building up forces takes time and significant resources.

In terms of a qualitative change, Russia could announce the deployment of intermediate-range cruise missiles, which it pledged not to deploy in Europe as long as the United States did not as well. But that might require Russia to acknowledge having worked on missiles in conflict with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). While this is not entirely impossible, Moscow is unlikely to want to admit that it bears at least some responsibility for the treaty’s demise.

Moscow may be counting on a surprise along the lines of the nuclear-powered underwater drone or nuclear-powered global cruise missile it unveiled in March 2018. But outdoing those “wonder weapons” is difficult. Something hypersonic would probably be noticed, but it appears that all systems of this kind that would be relevant in the context of Europe, such as the Tsirkon cruise missile or the Kinzhal air-based ballistic missile, are known quantities.

Russia would certainly draw attention if it took measures related to non-strategic nuclear weapons, but its room for a dramatic maneuver in this area is also limited. In theory, it could abandon its long-standing policy of storing all of its non-strategic weapons in centralized storage facilities and declare that it is moving to deploy. This sort of measure would be symbolically important but is unlikely to change the reality on the ground much. Assuming that all of the country’s weapons today are stored in the twelve national-level facilities, such a deployment would only mean that weapons would be sent to twenty or so base-level storage sites located closer to operational units. Russia’s nuclear weapon deployment procedures simply do not have an option of missile launchers roaming around with nuclear warheads attached or aircraft going on patrol with actual nuclear weapons. Sea-based weapons might be an exception, but the United States and NATO are likely to have taken that possibility into account anyway. So, the effect of this move would be minimal.

Russia could take a rather dramatic step of deploying nuclear weapons abroad, but this seems largely theoretical. The country has always made a point that all its nuclear weapons are located on its national territory and urged the United States to move all its weapons home as well. In the heat of a dispute, the Kremlin could probably sacrifice this principle, but cooler heads would hopefully realize that abandoning a long-standing position for uncertain gains is not a good trade.

This leaves Russia with an option that does not seem to require making difficult political choices or risky investment in exotic weapons. Or much of an investment at all, for that matter. That is, Russia could deploy an intermediate-range ballistic missile that would be able to reach all of Europe. Now that the INF Treaty is no longer in force, such a missile is not limited by any agreement. That missile would be what was known as RS-26 Rubezh—apparently a ballistic missile that uses only two first stages of the intercontinental RS-24 Yars. This missile was tested between 2011 and 2015, at which point it was very close to deployment, but Russia pulled it out at the last moment. If it reappears, it would be declared a new missile, of course, to avoid a conflict with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. And it would play more or less the same role SS-20 did about four decades ago—a nuclear-armed ballistic missile that could threaten all of Europe.

RELATED:
The Genius Under the Table: A poignant children's book set in the Cold War

Unlike back then, however, the United States and its NATO allies would have limited abilities to respond in kind. The alliance already announced that it has “no intention to deploy land-based nuclear missiles in Europe”—a promise it will most certainly keep as deploying new nuclear weapons in Europe is not politically feasible. Russia, of course, would publicly object (as it already has) if the alliance were to deploy non-nuclear missiles as well, but it would also know that such a threat is incomparable.

Still, Russia is unlikely to prevail in this dispute. Yes, European NATO states could find themselves in a rather difficult situation, but Russian security is also unlikely to improve. If there is any lesson from the Euromissile crisis in the 1980s, it is that there are no winners in a confrontation.

Popular Western opinion suggests that the Soviet Union was brought to the negotiating table and forced to sign the INF Treaty (that eliminated SS-20) by the firm NATO response and the deployment of Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe. By this line of reasoning, NATO might solve the problem by reminding Russia why the Soviet Union signed the treaty in the first place. But that is a wrong reading of history. Yes, the Soviet Union did worry about Pershings, but Europeans worried about them too (and about SS-20 of course). Eliminating these missiles was not a calculation of some balance of warheads or the time these missiles would take to reach their target. The INF Treaty was a practical, shared expression of the dangers of the confrontation and the willingness to leave it behind.

Today does not even closely resemble the end of the Cold War. But the opposing sides may share an understanding of the risks posed by new missiles in Europe, whether nuclear or not. Russia’s proposal to ban these missiles has been on the table for some time. The United States appears to have finally read it and shown some tentative signs of interest during the recent talks. A joint effort to unbundle it from the rest of Russia’s package would not be easy but is worth trying. No one wants to see a Russian “military-technical measure” that includes new missiles in Europe.

Ukraine: Russia amasses 127,000 troops in 'almost complete' buildup

Moscow's military buildup includes air and sea components and its ally Belarus "should be considered as a full-fledged theater of operations," says Kiev's new intelligence assessment, according to CNN.

Belarus says Russian troops are in the country for joint military drills only. (AFP)

 Russian troops arrive in Belarus for combat drills

Russia has reportedly deployed more than 127,000 troops and "almost completed" its buildup, Ukraine has said, raising fears of an imminent invasion of the eastern European country.

"The full strength of RF AF (Russian Federation's Armed Forces) land group at the Ukrainian direction — (is) over 106,000 personnel. Together with the sea and air component, the total number of personnel is over 127,000 servicemen," US broadcaster CNN reported citing Ukraine Defence Ministry's latest intelligence assessment.

The assessment said the current situation in the region is "difficult" and added that it believes Moscow is "trying to split and weaken the European Union and NATO."

Ukraine's assessment also said that Russia was using its ally Belarus to "expand aggression" against Kiev.

"The territory of Belarus should be considered as a full-fledged theater of operations that Russia can use to expand aggression against Ukraine," the intelligence document added.

READ MORE: UK sends anti-tank weapons to Ukraine

Russia could attack 'at any point'

On Tuesday, the US also upped its threat assessment, saying Russia is ready to attack Ukraine at "any point."

"We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack on Ukraine," Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters.

"I would say that's starker than we have been."

Psaki's characterisation of the situation around Ukraine came as Secretary of State Antony Blinken was scheduled to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday in Geneva.

Meanwhile, a senior US State Department official said Russian troops being deployed in Belarus for what Moscow and Minsk say will be joint military exercises are raising concerns that they "potentially" could be used to attack neighbouring Ukraine.

The US is also worried that draft constitutional reforms in Belarus could lead to the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in the country, a senior State Department official told reporters.

Serving The Purpose: Diplomacy Versus War In Latest US–Russia Talks – Analysis

 January 19, 2022  Observer Research Foundation  

By Observer Research Foundation

By Nandan Unnikrishnan

The contrasting coverage of the US–Russia talks in the international media is probably an indication that it is too early to consign diplomacy to the dustbin. The western media is awash with a ‘gloom and doom’ analysis, suggesting that hostilities are about to break out. Russian media, on the other hand, are not yet beating the drums of war and are focussing on the possible contours of an agreement and its possible time frame.

The emergence of two different stories in the Western and Russian media is reflective of the divergent approaches the two parties have to the talks.

The West see the talks primarily as a road to de-escalation of the situation around Ukraine, while rejecting Russia’s demands for security guarantees on NATO expansion, limits to deployment of offensive missiles in its neighbourhood, and reducing US and NATO military infrastructure in Eastern Europe to 1997 levels.

Russia, on the other hand, sees the talks primarily as negotiations on these security guarantees, while the situation around Ukraine is secondary. It will keep upping the ante as a means to keep pressure on the US to stay engaged with Russia.

At first glance, the Russian insistence on written guarantees, preferably in Treaty form, on its demands may appear to be an insurmountable obstacle. But a closer look at the substance of the demands shows that there is scope for finding the middle ground.

Any realistic assessment of the situation in Europe would show that NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia is not on the anvil in any foreseeable future. Neither the US nor Europe has the stomach to fight a war over Ukraine or Georgia given that Russia has existential security concerns in these areas as well the military and political will to defend these interests, whereas the US and its allies have neither any overwhelming security interests nor the political will to go to war with Russia over these territories.

Russia also probably understands that it would be impossible for the US or its allies to sign documents dismissing Ukraine’s or Georgia’s NATO membership, or to allow Russia a veto on future memberships. Moscow also understands that it would be impossible to get such an agreement ratified by the current US Congress given the divisions in Washington.

As for missile deployments, the US has encouragingly declared that it is willing to discuss this issue with Russia. In any case, the sticking point is likely not to be the question of US missiles in Ukraine or Georgia as this does not appear to be a critical goal for Washington. As prominent Russian analyst Dmitry Trenin suggests, the hypothetical appearance of US missiles near Kharkhiv (a major city in Ukraine) will be tantamount to Russia arming its nuclear submarines navigating near US shores with hypersonic missiles. In other words, this will not be a problematic issue to resolve.

What could put a wrinkle into the negotiations is the placement of US missiles in Romania and Poland, but this could probably be tackled by restarting regular arms control parleys, which could also deal with the issue of regulating deployment of large forces and military exercises in border areas.

A few thousand US or NATO personnel posted in some Eastern European areas, including the Baltic states should not in theory pose an existential threat to Russian security. This suggests, as Trenin says, that the requirement for restoring the 1997 levels of NATO deployment is a negotiable demand. It could also be a demand that the Russian side would be ready to withdraw to show its flexibility.

But while there is still scope for an agreement between Russia and the West, it must be understood that Russia would be looking for agreements primarily with the United States and not NATO or the EU, who in Russia’s view are secondary actors subservient to the US.

Second, that Russia’s demands are strategic and long-term and should not be dismissed out of hand. Russia probably has a Plan B on how to escalate the crisis using what the Kremlin calls “military-technical means”. These are probably deployments of missiles and other platforms across the globe that would increase insecurities in the West, including the US; something the West couldn’t afford to ignore and would require countermeasures.

Such escalations would run the risk of getting out of hand. “The gap in perceptions is so broad that a new and dangerous escalation could be necessary to make the parties open up their imagination and search for agreements,” Fyodor Lukyanov, the head of the Moscow-based Council for Foreign and Defence Policies said. Here it would be useful to remember that any war between the US and Russia is unwinnable by either side.

But before the world faces nuclear annihilation, it may face an unprecedented economic crisis brought on by the danger of war. The imminence of war would not leave markets unaffected; they would crash. In fact, this is something that Russian Deputy Minister Ryabkov mentioned recently in response to a question.

Meanwhile, Yevgeny Buzhinsky, a retired lieutenant general and a regular Russian television commentator, told the New York Times that Russia would win any war with Ukraine in short order through devastating airstrikes. “There will be no columns of tanks,” General Buzhinsky said in the interview. “They will just destroy all the Ukrainian infrastructure from the air, just like you do it.”

Additionally, analyst Gilbert Doctorow notes in his blog that Russia’s capacity to decimate the Ukrainian military infrastructure without deploying a single soldier on Ukrainian soil would render wasted the Western billions poured into modernising and arming the Ukrainian armed forces as well as end any NATO plans to deploy forces in Ukraine.

All in all, it is a better prospect to have an understanding between the West and Russia on the nature of the security changes required in Europe rather than have to follow these arrangements without an agreement. So far from beating the drums of war, it appears the omens are suggesting that the role of serious diplomacy is only beginning but the road ahead is long and tortuous.

The views expressed above belong to the author(s).

US President Joe Biden speaks on telephone with Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Photo Credit: The White House