Following appeared in the Washington Post

Priority: Statehood
The Palestinian right of return is not what’s holding up a peace agreement.

By Daoud Kuttab
Monday, May 12, 2008; A19

In the spring of 1948, my father, George Kuttab, and his brother Qostandi fled Musrara, a Jerusalem neighborhood just outside the walled city, after their sister Hoda’s husband was killed in front of her and their children. When Dad used to tell us about the Naqba, the catastrophe that befell Palestinians in 1948, he never talked politics or hatred. He would laugh as he told us how his brother secured their home near Damascus Gate. To assure his mother and brother that the house (in what is now Israeli west Jerusalem) would be safe, my uncle joked that he had double-locked the door, turning the heavy metal key twice. He took that key with him to Zarqa, Jordan, expecting to be able to use it again one day.

Continue Reading »

by Daoud Kuttab

Shortly before the convening of the one day Annapolis meeting aimed at giving a push to Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, last November, Condoleza Rice held a much smaller meeting in the state department. Huddling with the authors of a brand new book on negotiating an Arab Israeli peace, the US secretary of state met with former US ambassador Dan Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky. Their book Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East by Daniel C. Kurtzer and Scott B. Lasensky. Putting the book aside Rice asked the two authors to verbally tell her what was the one issue that she should focus on as she prepares for the Annapolis meeting. According to Kurtzer who gave a talk at Princeton University where he is a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School, they pointed to lesson five of the ten lessons in their book.

Lesson 5 states the following “Commitments made by the parties and agreements entered into must be respected and implemented. The United States must ensure compliance through monitoring, setting standards of accountability, reporting violations fairly to the parties, and exacting consequences when commitments are broken or agreements not implemented. ”
Secretary Rice seems to have accepted this particular advise and convinced President Bush to appoint a three state US general to monitor Palestinian and Israeli compliance to their own commitments. US President George W. Bush named in January Lt. Gen. William Fraser III, assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to monitor progress that Israelis and Palestinians sides are making on the peace process known as the “road map.”

In his speech at Princeton, early in April, Kertzer was pleased that their idea was picked up by the Bush Administration. However, Ambassador Kurtzer complained that Washington is not taking this issue seriously. He explained that it is not enough to send the general two days a month and expect that to count as monitoring.

Kurtzer was not the only person who felt that President Bush was not serious in wanting to hold the parties (especially Israel) accountable to their commitments. Jewish settlers in Hebron and to a lesser degree the Israeli government clearly don’t seem to have taken this issue seriously. On Friday May 1, the Israeli daily published the following story:

The American bodyguards of a Bush administration envoy who was dispatched to the region to monitor the implementation of the road map engaged in a violent confrontation with right-wing Israelis who sought to disturb a visit to Hebron on Friday, Israel Radio reported. One of the rightists is reported to have driven his jeep into the convoy accompanying General William Fraser. Subsequently, one of the vehicles in the convoy heavily collided with the jeep, according to Israel Radio. A fracas ensued between the guards and the rightists before the Americans decided to cut the visit short, Israel Radio reported.
It is amazing that a three star general appointed by the US president is physically harassed and denied to do his job by citizens of a country that America has a special relationship with. Until this writing, neither the state department nor the white house have even made a public statement about the incident. IF Washington is silent about the fact that one of its generals whose mission is to monitor the parties commitments is being pushed around by Israelis how can we ever expect this American military envoy or the US government to actually publicly point the finger at the side that is violating the agreement, especially if that side is the Israeli side?

published on the Huffingtonpost.com web site

By Daoud Kuttab
Shortly before the convening of the one day Annapolis meeting aimed at giving a push to Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, last November, Condoleza Rice held a much smaller meeting in the state department. Huddling with the authors of a brand new book on negotiating an Arab Israeli peace, the US secretary of state met with former US ambassador Dan Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky. Their book Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East by Daniel C. Kurtzer and Scott B. Lasensky http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/lasensky_kurtzer_press/index.html . Putting the book aside Rice asked the two authors to verbally tell her what was the one issue that she should focus on as she prepares for the Annapolis meeting. According to Kurtzer who gave a talk at Princeton University where he is a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School, they pointed to lesson five of the ten lessons in their book. http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/lasensky_kurtzer_press/top_ten.html
Lesson 5 states the following “Commitments made by the parties and agreements entered into must be respected and implemented. The United States must ensure compliance through monitoring, setting standards of accountability, reporting violations fairly to the parties, and exacting consequences when commitments are broken or agreements not implemented. “
Secretary Rice seems to have accepted this particular advise and convinced President Bush to appoint a three state US general to monitor Palestinian and Israeli compliance to their own commitments. US President George W. Bush named in January Lt. Gen. William Fraser III, assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to monitor progress that Israelis and Palestinians sides are making on the peace process known as the “road map.”
In his speech at Princeton, early in April, Kertzer was pleased that their idea was picked up by the Bush Administration. However, Ambassador Kurtzer complained that Washington is not taking this issue seriously. He explained that it is not enough to send the general two days a month and expect that to count as monitoring.
Kurtzer was not the only person who felt that President Bush was not serious in wanting to hold the parties (especially Israel) accountable to their commitments. Jewish settlers in Hebron and to a lesser degree the Israeli government clearly don’t seem to have taken this issue seriously. On Friday May 1, the Israeli daily published the following story:
The American bodyguards of a Bush administration envoy who was dispatched to the region to monitor the implementation of the road map engaged in a violent confrontation with right-wing Israelis who sought to disturb a visit to Hebron on Friday, Israel Radio reported. One of the rightists is reported to have driven his jeep into the convoy accompanying General William Fraser. Subsequently, one of the vehicles in the convoy heavily collided with the jeep, according to Israel Radio. A fracas ensued between the guards and the rightists before the Americans decided to cut the visit short, Israel Radio reported.
It is amazing that a three star general appointed by the US president is physically harassed and denied to do his job by citizens of a country that America has a special relationship with. Until this writing, neither the state department nor the white house have even made a public statement about the incident. IF Washington is silent about the fact that one of its generals whose mission is to monitor the parties commitments is being pushed around by Israelis how can we ever expect this American military envoy or the US government to actually publicly point the finger at the side that is violating the agreement, especially if that side is the Israeli side?

by Daoud Kuttab

When approaching a conflict, any world statesperson would consider trying to break up the logjam. A Christian leader who has always stood for justice and human rights and who takes the issue of the sancity of life seriously has no choice but to try and see what he or she can do to stop the bloodshed. In a protracted conflict, adding new ideas from a high-profile figure can help shake up the status quo. While it is unlikely for an ex-president to be able to extract major concessions, what President Carter has done in his meetings with Hamas is to show the world that the issues are much more gray than Israeli and U.S. government spin portray them to be. The visit and seven-hour talks that Carter conducted with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal put to rest the attempts to paint them as merely an al Qaeda-like terrorist organistion that one should never consider talking to. In spite of its indiscriminate violence against civilians, this movement was elected in free and fair elections two years ago that Carter and other international monitors observed.

Carter’s visit also showed that while Hamas, like most Palestinians, are bitter about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, they are pragmatic enough to accept a two-state solution negotiated by the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, so long as the Palestinian public gets a chance to approve it in a popular referendum. It is important that the sitting president take this into consideration when deciding U.S. policy. Keeping 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza under permanent siege is illegal and immoral. Israel, and indirectly the U.S.’s, refusal to accept the offer by Hamas of a ceasefire is illogical.

While Carter has certainly not won over enough concessions from the Palestinian movement, he has shown that they are open for talks. Naturally they would be more willing to make concessions in return for recognition by the U.S. and other world powers.

President Carter should be applauded for his efforts. With the words of our Lord Jesus, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist, professor at Princeton University, and founder of the Arab world’s first Internet radio station, Ammannet. His e-mail is info@daoudkuttab.com.

Appeared in the Daily Princetonian
OPINION
Obama and Palestine
By Daoud Kuttab
Guest Columnist
Published: Thursday, April 10th, 2008
While the U.S. presidential election is being followed closely all around the world, Palestinian appetite for news of this country’s election is insatiable. The feelings of Palestinians in the streets of Ramallah or the Gaza refugee camp is that the policies carried out by the resident of the White House will have a direct effect on their lives.
Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)’s foreign policy doesn’t seem different from the current administration’s unilateral military action, the continuation of the so-called war on terror and refusals to engage in dialogue with the leaders of Syria and Iran.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who had the courage to call for a Palestinian state during her days as first lady, has become a pro-Israeli hawk ever since she ran for the Senate in 2000.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), however, is seen differently.
Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Every day in the Gaza Strip, strategic deterrence – the inhibition of attack by a fear of punishment backed up by superior military power – is being put to the test. The escalating spiral of violence by Israel and Gazan militants indicates not only that deterrence is failing, but also that its effectiveness depends on adherence to fundamental standards of morality.

Some security strategists and just war theorists argue that there may be nothing morally objectionable about deterrence in cases where the lives and welfare of a civilian population are not directly affected. The threat of retaliation that underpins its strategic effectiveness remains implicit and hypothetical. However, when deterrence becomes indistinguishable from collective punishment – barred under international law by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention – it is far less likely to achieve its intended result.

Continue Reading »

The following was written before the breakup of the border wall with Egypt.

VIEW: Gaza then and now

by Daoud Kuttab

When the Gaza Strip was plunged into darkness last week as a result of the Israeli fuel blockade, many people around the world were surprised. But the optimism produced by the Annapolis peace process, which included President George W Bush’s promise of an agreement in 2008 to create a Palestinian state, was clearly unrealistic.
Continue Reading »

This time next year?
Daoud Kuttab, IMEU, Jan 17, 2008
President George Bush, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have committed themselves to give the world a new year’s gift in 2009: an independent state of Palestine. After decades of war and homelessness, oppression and occupation, settlements and walls, this is a welcome move. However, much needs to be accomplished in 2008 for this vision — unlike previous ones — to become a reality.
Continue Reading »

Bitterlemons International January 17, 2008 Edition 3 Volume 6
Syria and the Palestinians: A love-hate relationship

Daoud Kuttab

For an entire century, Syria has had a love-hate relationship with Palestinians. The Palestinian cause has been at the core of Syria’s ideological and political posture. The pan-Arab ideology always placed Palestine at the center of Greater Syria, and the ruling Syrian pan-Arab Baath Party followed the Palestinians in choosing a flag identical to that of early 20th century pan-Arabism. Regionally and internationally, Syria has supported Palestinians and the Palestinian position both rhetorically and in posturing within the anti-Camp David front, the non-aligned movement and in the UN.
Continue Reading »

from the Globe and Mail December 27, 2007
Backward, Christian soldiers, marching as to peace

Daoud Kuttab

During the run-up to the 1998 Christmas celebrations, U.S. president Bill Clinton, along with his wife, Hillary, and daughter, Chelsea, visited the Palestinian town of Bethlehem to light up the Christmas tree in Manger Square, outside the Church of the Nativity. With that symbolic visit, and the understanding that Mr. Clinton was showing to the needs of the region, Palestinians of all faiths had high hopes that the decades-long Arab-Israeli conflict might soon end. It didn’t.
Continue Reading »