Israeli-Palestinian Peace: Reasons to Be Optimistic
It was almost surreal to witness how the recent announcement of the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, which otherwise should be regarded as a positive development, has been met with so much negativity and cynicism.
Of course, it is easy to see why many observers are not excited about the prospects of such talks: Long years of disappointment and failed negotiations, the ongoing division between the two Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah, let alone the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party's charter still rejects a Palestinian state.
Cynicism: the lazy option
Whilst one may agree with all the fair points presented by the peace-talks critics, it should be remembered that cynicism is the lazy option. It is far too easy to sit back and dismiss the peace talks before they have even begun. The real question is: Do these critics have an alternative?
With unresolved internal political divisions, a tarnished economy, traditional allies being engaged with their own issues and Israel continuing to dictate the situation on the ground, the situation can hardly get any worse for Palestinians.
In fact, one could say that these peace talks are already too late but does that not mean that any more time wasted will imperil any possibility of conflict resolution?
Wasting time is certainly not in the interest of the Palestinian side. Critics of the peace talks should realize a very simple fact: Negotiations may succeed or fail to achieve peace; but the alternative (not having these negotiations) is guaranteed to fail.
Restoring the U.S.' image
As for U.S. involvement in this matter, many critics say that it is driven by self-interest, given the American administration's tarnished credibility since the 2011 Arab Spring.
The U.S. approach in Syria is seen by many as ham-fisted. In Egypt, it is seen as part of a conspiracy by both the supporters and detractors of deposed president Mohammad Mursi.
Also, with the increasing influence of Russia, the EU and even China, the Middle East is no longer America's stomping ground. The $1.5 billion (Dh 5.50 billion) in aid which President Barack Obama was so careful to protect by refusing to label Egypt's military ouster a "coup," pales in comparison to the $12 billion donated to the interim government by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait together.
There is a theory that the possibility of a peace deal in the Middle East will restore the U.S.'s image. However, even if this was true and Washington did want to use the peace talks as a way to regain some credibility, what is the big deal? At the end of the day, what really matters is getting the Palestinians and the Israelis to finally sign on that dotted line and put years of hatred, occupation and injustice behind them.
Furthermore, just because the American position on Syria and Egypt is unclear and unpopular, it doesn't mean that they should not engage in an area where they can actually make progress.
If anything, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the one Middle Eastern area that the U.S. has a long experience in dealing with. The Americans were the first to extend diplomatic recognition to Israel in 1948 after pushing for a solution to the conflict. Since then, they have been involved in many iterations of the peace process and although they were never successful, they sure came close to sealing a deal several times. Detractors have suggested that Israel may be in the talks to waste time. Certainly, comments like the recent statement by Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli military intelligence, are not encouraging.
"We have to submit a proposal to the Palestinians, a decent proposal, a fair proposal," Yadlin told a group of foreign reporters in February. If the Palestinians will accept it, it's a win of peace. If they refuse as we think they will then at least we win the blame game and we can continue to shape our borders by ourselves without the need to wait for the Palestinians to agree."
However, there are those in the political establishment and in the Israeli public, who want to achieve peace. It makes sense to do it now because of instability elsewhere in the Arab world. Of course, the Palestinians' usual allies are distracted. But for Israel, it is also a time of uncertainty given its rapidly changing surroundings since 2011; it must have realized that the Palestinians are at least an 'enemy they know'.
Changing alliance
It also makes sense for Israel to sign a peace pact with the Palestinians given that its alliances in the region are changing.
However, there is also the idea that being more conservative and right-leaning might be a good idea for Netanyahu domestically. Allying with the hardline Jewish Home party was done out of political necessity, and the Israeli public largely no longer cares about a permanent solution because military occupation now appears sustainable. However, status quo is a disaster for Netanyahu's international image. The timing of the peace talks and the EU sanctions against products from Israeli colonies in the West Bank may be a coincidence, but the sanctions are a reminder of the turning tides of international public opinion against Israel. They may be going in with the intention of marking time, but the international community is getting impatient and will no longer let this behavior slide.
Furthermore, many things in the region hang on the Palestinian issue, and this makes it a good time for everyone. The Palestinian issue is often exploited by other Arab leaders like Bashar Al Assad to talk about a greater U.S. Israel conspiracy and to distract from their own failings. It is possible that sorting out Palestine/Israel, as well as the U.S. reasserting itself through the talks, will have a knock-on stabilizing effect in the region.
'More process than peace'
Of course, we shouldn't jump to any conclusions. Certainly, it makes sense for all three parties to have the talks right now, but such talks have happened before. The Middle East peace process has frequently been more process than peace.
Yet, prior dismissal will get us nowhere, and if the slim possibility of success becomes a reality, there will be people pretending that they knew what was going to happen all along. However, as George Mitchell, who brokered the peace deal in Northern Ireland, knows, the path to peace is by its very nature unpredictable.
"Until it happens, you can't predict with certainty... You can't take 'no' for an answer... You just have to keep at it until peace is achieved," he said.
Hassan Rouhani, Iran's New President, Reaches Out To U.S. In First Press Conference
Iran's incoming President Hassan Rouhani used his first press conference on
Tuesday to offer an olive branch to the United States in protracted talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear
programme, raising hopes of progress after years of stalemate.
Rouhani, seen in the West as a relatively moderate leader, said he was "seriously determined" to resolve the dispute and was ready to enter "serious and substantive" negotiations in order to do so.
Iran's critics say that it has used previous nuclear talks as a delaying tactic while continuing to develop nuclear weapons-related technology - something Tehran denies. Iran says it needs atomic power for energy and medical needs.
Rouhani said Iran would not abandon its nuclear programme, which it would uphold "on the basis of international law".
"We will not do away with the right of the nation," the 64-year-old said. "However, we are for negotiations and interaction. We are prepared, seriously and without wasting time, to enter negotiations which are serious and substantive with the other side."
"If the other party is also prepared like we are, then I am confident that the concerns of both sides will be removed through negotiations within a period which will not be very long."
Hopes for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue have risen with Rouhani's victory over conservative rivals in June, when voters chose him to replace hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A cleric whose watchword is "moderation", Rouhani is however still very much an Islamic Republic insider.
LAST TALKS DEADLOCKED
His words on Tuesday are likely to reinforce that view, although talks over Iran's nuclear programme have long had a habit of frustrating both sides.
The last high-level talks between Iran and world powers - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - were held in April and failed to break the deadlock.
Since Rouhani's victory at the polls, the United States has said it would be a "willing partner" if Iran was serious about finding a peaceful solution to the issue.
Adding to a sense of urgency and opportunity, Russia on Tuesday said fresh talks between Iran and world powers must not be delayed and should take place by mid-September.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking during a visit to Italy, said Russia "absolutely agreed" with Rouhani, and criticized moves to tighten sanctions against Iran, saying it was a time for dialogue, not ultimatums.
"Now it is critical to support the constructive approach of the Iranian leadership," he said in comments carried on Russian news agencies.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin is due to meet Rouhani for the first time as president in Kyrgyzstan in September.
In a letter to the new leader on Tuesday, the European Union said Rouhani had "a strong mandate to engage in dialogue" and added that it hoped for a new round of talks "as soon as practicable."
Both the United States and European Union have imposed sanctions on Iran amid suspicions of its nuclear intentions, and Washington and Israel have said all options, including military action, are open to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear arms.
Rouhani criticised the embargoes, which have had a deepening impact on Iran's economy over the last year and a half as they slashed oil imports, the country's main source of income.
The measures have already cut Iran's oil exports by more than half compared to pre-sanctions levels of about 2.2 million barrels per day, helping to devalue Iran's currency and contributing to a steep rise in inflation.
"The goals of the sanctions in practice are piling pressure on various classes of the people," the president said.
"It is said (that) through sanctions they check Iran's nuclear activities. This is totally unfounded, and they themselves are cognizant of this fact ... It has nothing to do with the nuclear issue. It is pressuring people."
Rouhani, seen in the West as a relatively moderate leader, said he was "seriously determined" to resolve the dispute and was ready to enter "serious and substantive" negotiations in order to do so.
Iran's critics say that it has used previous nuclear talks as a delaying tactic while continuing to develop nuclear weapons-related technology - something Tehran denies. Iran says it needs atomic power for energy and medical needs.
Rouhani said Iran would not abandon its nuclear programme, which it would uphold "on the basis of international law".
"We will not do away with the right of the nation," the 64-year-old said. "However, we are for negotiations and interaction. We are prepared, seriously and without wasting time, to enter negotiations which are serious and substantive with the other side."
"If the other party is also prepared like we are, then I am confident that the concerns of both sides will be removed through negotiations within a period which will not be very long."
Hopes for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue have risen with Rouhani's victory over conservative rivals in June, when voters chose him to replace hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A cleric whose watchword is "moderation", Rouhani is however still very much an Islamic Republic insider.
LAST TALKS DEADLOCKED
His words on Tuesday are likely to reinforce that view, although talks over Iran's nuclear programme have long had a habit of frustrating both sides.
The last high-level talks between Iran and world powers - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - were held in April and failed to break the deadlock.
Since Rouhani's victory at the polls, the United States has said it would be a "willing partner" if Iran was serious about finding a peaceful solution to the issue.
Adding to a sense of urgency and opportunity, Russia on Tuesday said fresh talks between Iran and world powers must not be delayed and should take place by mid-September.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking during a visit to Italy, said Russia "absolutely agreed" with Rouhani, and criticized moves to tighten sanctions against Iran, saying it was a time for dialogue, not ultimatums.
"Now it is critical to support the constructive approach of the Iranian leadership," he said in comments carried on Russian news agencies.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin is due to meet Rouhani for the first time as president in Kyrgyzstan in September.
In a letter to the new leader on Tuesday, the European Union said Rouhani had "a strong mandate to engage in dialogue" and added that it hoped for a new round of talks "as soon as practicable."
Both the United States and European Union have imposed sanctions on Iran amid suspicions of its nuclear intentions, and Washington and Israel have said all options, including military action, are open to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear arms.
Rouhani criticised the embargoes, which have had a deepening impact on Iran's economy over the last year and a half as they slashed oil imports, the country's main source of income.
The measures have already cut Iran's oil exports by more than half compared to pre-sanctions levels of about 2.2 million barrels per day, helping to devalue Iran's currency and contributing to a steep rise in inflation.
"The goals of the sanctions in practice are piling pressure on various classes of the people," the president said.
"It is said (that) through sanctions they check Iran's nuclear activities. This is totally unfounded, and they themselves are cognizant of this fact ... It has nothing to do with the nuclear issue. It is pressuring people."
Fukushima Radioactive Water May Overflow Into Sea
Tokyo Electric Power Co. said some of the water is seeping over or around an underground barrier it created by injecting chemicals into the soil that solidified into a wall.
The latest problem involves underground water which has built up over the last month since the company began creating the chemical walls to stop leaks after it detected radiation spikes in water samples in May.
TEPCO spokesman Yoshikazu Nagai said the company was slow to deal with the underground water leaks because it was focusing on cooling the damaged reactors, which posed greater risks.
Three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant suffered meltdowns after a massive March 2011 earthquake and tsunami destroyed power and cooling systems. The plant is still running on makeshift equipment and has been plagued with blackouts and leaks from underground tanks.
TEPCO has been repeatedly criticized for delays in handling and disclosing problems at the plant. Alarmed by the latest problem, a panel of officials from local towns and villages rushed to the plant Tuesday for an inspection, demanding TEPCO limit the impact on the sea.
Japan's nuclear watchdog set up a separate special panel with TEPCO and met Friday to assess the water problem and discuss ways to resolve it. Watchdog officials have urged TEPCO to pump the contaminated water inland and expand underground and seawater sampling. TEPCO is also building more chemical walls around the plant.
TEPCO officials were unable to answer many of the watchdog officials' questions, including ones about the leaks' origin, their routes and how they can be plugged. They also acknowledged that they have neglected large amounts of highly contaminated water that has remained in maintenance trenches since the crisis, a risk also cited by the watchdog.
"It's a race against the clock," said Toyoshi Fuketa, a commissioner of the Nuclear Regulation Authority. "The top priority is to keep the water from escaping into the sea."
Officials acknowledged last month for the first time that the plant has been leaking radioactive water into the ocean for some time. After a major leak a month after the meltdowns, TEPCO said it had contained the problem and denied further underground leaks into the ocean were occurring, although many experts suspected they were.
While the extent of sea contamination remains unknown, TEPCO has estimated that up to 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium, a water soluble element that can affect DNA but is believed to be less dangerous than cesium or strontium, might have leaked into the sea over the past two years. The company says the amount is within legal limits, but is much higher than is released under normal operations.
The amount of contaminated water at the plant increases by 400 tons a day. TEPCO plans to secure storage facilities capable of holding 800,000 tons more water by 2015.
"For the next two to three years, I think water management would be their biggest challenge," said Dale Klein, a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman who now oversees TEPCO's reform committee. "But there will be more surprises," he said, citing possible power outages, leaks and other "unknowns."
Izumo, Japanese Warship, Largest Since World War II
The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions and to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Though the ship dubbed "Izumo" has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China.
The tensions over the islands, along with China's heavy spending on defense and military modernization, have heightened calls in Japan for beefed-up naval and air forces. China recently began operating an aircraft carrier that it refurbished after purchasing from Russia, and is reportedly moving forward with the construction of another that is domestically built.
Japan, China and Taiwan all claim the islands.
Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best equipped and best trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.
Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.
The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a "ski-jump" ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.
