Land before Peace: Israel Threatens to Demolish Palestinian Homes in East Jerusalem

A United Nations report, released Friday, has found that up to 60,000 Palestinians are at risk of eviction in East Jerusalem.

The legal pretext for the demolition of up to 1/4 of the Palestinian homes is that they have been built without permits. Behind that claim, however, is the broader issue: up to 1250 new houses are needed each year to accommodate the population growth of Palestinians, but the number of permits issues has remained at about 100 to 150 per year.

Between 2000 and 2008, the Israelis have only razed 75 houses a year, but with the accession of the new Government of Benjamin Netanyahu, there are concerns that either the national or municipal governments might expand the demolitions. The official line of the city's mayor is that he is “committed to addressing the issue of affordable housing throughout the entirety of Jerusalem,” but this should be placed beside the cold numbers of land distribution: only 13 percent of East Jerusalem is zoned by the Israeli authorities for Palestinian construction, while a third has been reserved for Israeli properties (22 percent is zoned for green areas and public infrastructure and 30 percent remains “unplanned").

In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned the Israelis that threatened demolitions are “not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the ‘road map'" for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

Further information on the status of Palestinians in East Jerusalem can be found at the B'Tselem website.

Video: Clinton Warns Iran, China, Latin America at State Department Town Hall Meeting

Full Video of Hillary Clinton Speech to State Department Town Hall Meeting

Earlier this week, it was "engaging" Hillary, setting out the American desire to work with partners and negotiate with former foes. On Thursday, it was "power politics" Hillary, making sure leaders such as Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai knew where they stood with Washington. And on Friday, it was "get tough" Hillary, strapping on her shoulder pads for a contest with Beijing and Tehran in Latin America.

Secretary of State Clinton told a meeting of State Department officers:

What we are doing hasn't worked very well and in fact, if you look at the gains, particularly in Latin American, that Iran is making and China is making, it is quite disturbing.

Of course, there will be political and economic competition, even between the closest of allies, but Clinton whipped out some Cold War memories to warn of a new Axis of Challenge:

We are looking at how to deal with [Nicaraguan President Daniel] Ortega. The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua. You can only imagine what it's for.

This seems to be a bit of posturing, balancing President Obama's recent appearance at the Summit of the Americas, but it does raise the question: if Washington wants to frame relations with Latin America as a battle with outside powers, how exactly does it propose to wage the political contest?

Aid and Warning: Clinton Backs Abbas, Gives Zardari Space, Puts Karzai on Notice

Video and Transcript: Robert Gates Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)
Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)

Quick question: which of these three --- President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai (pictured), or former President of the West Bank Mahmoud Abbas --- should be feeling most secure this morning about support from Washington?

If you went for one of the two who are legally in office at the moment, you need to do some homework, maybe watching the entire 140 minutes of the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. On the other hand, if you voted for Abbas (something will not be occurring in Palestinian elections in the near-future), take a bow and join the Clinton/Gates team.

The clear backing of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, unnoticed by the media this morning, came in Clinton's opening statement:

At Sharm el-Sheikh last month, on behalf of the President, I announced a pledge of $900 million for humanitarian, economic, and security assistance for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.

Notice, not to Gaza, which suffered the damage from the recent war --- as we have pointed out repeatedly, 2/3 of this aid is earmarked for the West Bank. And most definitely no assistance which benefits or has any connection with the Gaza Government of Hamas: "[There are] stringent requirements to prevent aid from being diverted into the wrong hands."

Put bluntly, this aid is not primarily, as Clinton claimed, for "humanitarian" purposes; the objective is political and the primary beneficiary is Mahmoud Abbas.

As we wrote yesterday, President Zardari in Pakistan might want to watch his back, but he did get off lightly yesterday. Clinton and Gates played nice with him in their statements. Their primary purpose was to get Congressional support for the initial tranche of $500 million in military and economic assistance, so they did not raise doubts that America's partner in Islamabad might not be reliable. Instead, they stuck with general references for "diplomacy and development, to work with the Pakistani Government, Pakistani civil society, to try to provide more economic stability and diminish the conditions that feed extremism".

The recent Pakistani military operations to push back Taliban operations in Buner province seems to have given Zardari a bit of breathing space, even if he's not the prime mover behind that offensive. Clinton said:

The Government of Pakistan, both civilian and military leadership, is demonstrating much greater concern about the Taliban encroachment. We're getting a much more thoughtful response and actions. It was heartening to see  the military sent into Buner province this weekend.

Afghanistan President Karzai was not so lucky. Consider this from Clinton's opening statement:

Bringing stability to [Afghanistan] is not only a military mission; it requires more than a military response. So we have requested $980 million in assistance to focus on rebuilding the agricultural sector, having more political progress, helping the local and provincial leadership deliver services for their people.

Hmmm, which level of government is not mentioned in that passage? I'm thinking "national".

And, if you believe that was just an oversight, Clinton made her distrust of Karzai more than clear in response to a question from Senator Barbara Mikulski about "cronyism and corruption", narcotics, and "the status and security of women" 50 minutes into the hearing. Clinton responded:

With respect to the Government, its capacity, its problems providing services, its perception of being less than transparent, straightforward, honest: it's a problem, I'm not going to tell you it's not.

Clinton immediately mentioned "significant pockets of progress we want to build on", such as the building up of the Afghan Army, but then returned to putting Karzai on notice: "We have made it very clear that we expect changes. We expect accountability, and we're going to demand it."

This, however, was not the stinger in Clinton's response. That came instead in this phrase, "Several members of the Cabinet are doing an excellent job.". It's notable and far-from-subtle that Karzai, facing re-election in August, was not named amongst those members.

Of course Clinton was shrewd enough not to name any of the "excellent" members. Open American endorsement of any Cabinet Minister who challenges Karzai would be the kiss of electoral death, and Clinton made clear, "We are not taking a position in this Presidential election. We are neither for nor against

However, when Mikulsi asked if Karzai would co-operate with the US in its effects against the Taliban and narcotics, Clinton was not so cautious: "That is what we are demanding of him."

So, in Ramallah in the West Bank, an ex-President can breathe easily this morning. A current President in Kabul, however, best be sleeping with one eye open tonight

Clinton/Gates to Israel (and Congress): Back Off on Iran

Video and Transcript: Robert Gates Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)
Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)

One of the headlines from the joint appearance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before a Senate committee came not from the opening statements but from an exchange much later in the hearing.

Asked about a military option to curb or destroy Iran's nuclear programme, Gates firmly rejected airstrikes in favour of diplomacy to deter Tehran from an arms race: ""Their security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons. They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now."

Gates' statement is a clear indication that, for the foreseeable future, the Obama Administration is committed to an "engagement" to get a resolution: Iran renounces any intention of pursuing nuclear weapons, the US eases economic sanctions, and the two countries co-operate in some areas and reduce their conflict in others.

I suspect that Gates and other officials are now building policy on a "Libya precedent". In 2003, after talks pursued by European countries, Tripoli gave up its long-time pursuit of a nuclear device in exchange for the dropping of US sanctions and closer economic links and opportunities.

Clinton did make a reference to the possibility that talks with Tehran will only lead, after they stall, to an American pursuit of tougher sanctions: ""We do have intensive consultation efforts going on with our friends and like-minded nations, not only in the region but elsewhere in the world, concerning the threats that Iran poses." However, unlike her signals last month, the Secretary of State offered this as a sop to tough-minded Senators rather than as a likely development.

Video and Transcript: Robert Gates Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)

Full Video: Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing on $83.4 Billion Supplemental Request
Related Post: Hillary Clinton Remarks to Senate Appropriations Committee (30 April)

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Their immediate purpose was to speak for $83.4 billion in "supplemental" funds beyond the Federal Government's budget for this year, but in defending that request, they offered important clues to future US policy from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Iran to Israel-Palestine. Clinton's opening remarks are posted in a separate entry, and we'll have an analysis later.

GATES: Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, members of the committee:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the Fiscal Year 2009 Supplemental Request.

I am honored to be here with Secretary Clinton. Our joint appearance symbolizes the continuing improvement in relationships and close collaboration between the Departments of State and Defense. As Secretary Clinton said, this is intended to be the last planned war supplemental request that the administration will make. Future budgets, starting with FY10, will instead be presented together – with money for overseas contingency operations clearly marked as such.

On that subject, some of you may have heard about my FY10 budget recommendations to the President. I look forward to coming back here next month to discuss some of those details with you.

Of the $83.4 billion in this request, approximately $76 billion is for the Department of Defense – most of it to directly support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This covers a wide range of activities, whose highlights include:

· $38 billion for every-day costs associated with maintaining forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, from pre-deployment training, to transportation to or from theater, to the operations themselves. I should note that this supplemental takes into account planned reductions in troop numbers in Iraq this year, and increases in Afghanistan.

· $11.6 billion to replace and repair equipment that has been worn-out, damaged, or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes money for four F-22s to replace one F-15 and three F-16s classified as combat losses.

· $9.8 billion for force protection, which includes, among other things, money for lightweight body armor, surveillance capabilities, and $2.7 billion for sustainment, retrofit upgrades, and new procurement of 1,000 MRAP All Terrain Vehicles to meet the latest requirements in Afghanistan.

· $3.6 billion to expand and improve the Afghan National Security Forces. We have not requested, and will not request in the future, any money for Iraq’s security forces. The government of Iraq has taken on that financial burden.

· $1.5 billion to continue to deal with the threat posed by Improvised Explosive Devices – a threat that, considering its effectiveness, we should expect to see in any future conflict involving either state or non-state actors.

· [$500 million] for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) – a program that has been very successful in allowing commanders on the ground to make immediate, positive impacts in their areas of operation. It will continue to play a pivotal role as we increase operations in Afghanistan and focus on providing the population with security and opportunities for a better life. I should note that the Department has taken a number of steps to ensure the proper use of this critical combat-enhancing capability.

· Finally, there is $400 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF). This program will be carried out with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and will complement existing and planned State Department efforts by allowing the CENTCOM commander to work with Pakistan’s military to build counterinsurgency capability. I know there is some question about funding both the PCCF and the Foreign Military Financing program, but we are asking for this unique authority for the unique and urgent circumstances we face in Pakistan – for dealing with a challenge that simultaneously requires wartime and peacetime capabilities. General Petraeus, General McKiernan, and the U.S. ambassador on the ground have asked for this authority, and it is a vital element of the President’s new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.

The supplemental also includes money for programs to support the warfighter and ease strain on the force:

· Due to higher-than-expected recruiting and retention rates, we are well ahead of schedule to expand the Army and Marine Corps – which will help ease the burden on our troops and help reduce, with the goal of ending, stop-loss. Currently, we expect the Marine Corps and Army to meet their respective end-strengths of 202,000 and 547,400 by the end of this fiscal year. The supplemental includes $2.2 billion to that end.

· There is also $1.6 billion for wounded warrior care and programs to improve the quality of life for our troops and their families. On that note, I thank the Congress for funding in the stimulus bill programs that provided infrastructure improvements, including $1.3 billion for hospital construction.

· I should mention that in the FY10 budget, I am proposing to move funding for programs like these to the base budget to ensure long-term support for the programs that most directly affect our nation’s greatest strategic asset: our troops, and the families that support them.

As was the case last year, the Department of Defense will have to be prepared for continued operations in the absence of the supplemental or another bridge fund. Currently, some operational funds will begin to run out in July – which has historically affected the Army and the Marine Corps first. After Memorial Day, we will need to consider options to delay running out of funds. We also expect to run out of money to reimburse Pakistan by mid-May. I urge you to take up this bill and pass it as quickly as possible, but please not later than Memorial Day.

As Secretary Clinton discussed, the supplemental also includes $7.1 billion for international affairs and stabilization activities, including economic assistance for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Needless to say, I strongly support this funding. As I have said for the last two years, I believe that the challenges confronting our nation cannot be dealt with by military means alone. They require instead whole-of-government approaches – but that can only be done if the State Department is given resources befitting the scope of its mission across the globe. This is particularly important in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where our ability to provide resources beyond military power will be the decisive factor.

One of the most interesting and thoughtful discussions I’ve had during a hearing was almost exactly a year ago when Secretary Rice and I sat before the House Armed Services Committee to discuss Section 1206 and 1207 authorities – both of which have improved levels of cooperation between State and Defense. Secretary Clinton and I are also dedicated to figuring out how best to bring to bear the full force of our entire government on the pressing issues of the day. So I ask you to continue supporting not just our men and women in uniform, but the men and women at the State Department who are just as committed to the safety and security of the United States.

Let me close by once again thanking you for your ongoing support of our troops and their families. I know you share my desire to give them everything they need to accomplish their mission – and to support them and their families when they come home.

Thank you.