Latest news with #RobertMalley
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Palestinians don't need a state. We need justice
There are few things the pro-Israel side gets right. But on one point – the Palestinians' rejection of two states – they've been more-or-less correct. For me, and many others, the fundamental injustice of the establishment of the state of Israel – which occurred through massive, deliberate and purposeful ethnic cleansing designed to create a Jewish majority in historic Palestine – meant that Israel never really attained moral legitimacy among Palestinians. As Robert Malley and Hussein Agha write in their new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday: 'deep down, most Palestinians, though ready to accept Israel's existence, have not accepted its historical legitimacy', a statement whose veracity I can attest to. I remember being a 15-year-old in Palestine. I remember being held up at checkpoints in the West Bank, and being unable to visit Jerusalem or Israel because of the color of my ID card, in effect, because of my race. I could see how unjust, how retrograde, the entire basis of Israel was. No amount of German or western guilt over the Holocaust would make accept the idea that Jewish supremacy in Palestine was somehow desirable, or just. I think that continues to be true for the overwhelming majority of Palestinians. Possibly, for the overwhelming majority of humanity in the post-colonial global south. That's not to say that the political process – which commenced in Madrid and Oslo –wasn't undertaken in good faith by sincere and earnest people. I know some of the negotiators on the Palestinian side, like Diana Buttu, a principled advocate for Palestinian rights for decades now. Daniel Levy, who negotiated for the Israelis, has been an outspoken opponent of Israeli apartheid and the genocide in Gaza, and a formidable critic of the peace process in the past 20 years. At its height in 1995, the Oslo process, which was supposed to produce a Palestinian state, but more importantly, an end to claims, commanded the support of two-thirds of Palestinians. Many of them, like my parents, were prepared to close a chapter on history, to swallow their grievances so that their children may live. Similarly, the Palestinian negotiators I've met in the past two decades each understood the basic deficit of justice, the imbalance in the ledger, but they sought to abort a conflict which has ravenously claimed the future at every turn. In many cases their intentions were honorable. And yet, the failure of the Peace Process was pre-ordained, readily apprehensible to anyone who lived in the Occupied Territories in the 1990s, when the settlements truly metastasized. It should have been obvious to anyone with a map and a history book, too. That's because Zionism, Israel's animating ideology, adheres to classically European colonialism, which continues to be the best framework for understanding Palestine/Israel. Writing in October 2003 in the New York Review of Books, the moral thinker and historian Tony Judt described Israel as 'an anachronism', essentially a throwback to the Belgian Congo or 18th century Australia. Israel's extermination of native life in Gaza is anachronistic, too. It rhymes, in the worst way. There were glaring structural reasons for Oslo's failure as well. The fact that many of the American negotiators were Zionists was under-reported, and under-appreciated. Dennis Ross, who led the American team, is a Zionist, indistinguishable to my eyes from Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, two former Israeli prime ministers. Bill Clinton, who was president at the time, recently referred to 'Judea and Samaria', coded Zionist language for the occupied West Bank. In effect, Oslo pitted a stateless people against two nuclear-armed states led by people who were fundamentally invested in Jewish supremacy in Palestine. Emmanuel Macron's decision to recognize a Palestinian state in September amounts to little, as Donald Trump noted. I do not know Macron's intentions, but the Palestinians have never really warmed to European and American condescension, which is implicit in every conditional statement, every contingent incrementalism. Mark Carney's strange, confused statement that Canada would only accept a 'Zionist Palestinian state' is grimly entertaining for anyone with a basic grasp of the issues. Anyone who isn't a dilettante, in other words. Now, in the midst of a genocide, the Palestinians are best served by abandoning any effort to attain self-rule in the Occupied Territories. A reorientation towards basic rights is overdue, along with recognition the Palestinian struggle was never really about a seat at the United Nations, representation in Unesco, or Fifa. The force of the Palestinian cause rests in one principle: justice. Two years ago I thought justice meant a single state with equal rights between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. But now, the Palestinians are confronted by a difficulty: no one is able to articulate what justice means in the wake of so much slaughter, of so many dead men, women and children, dead babies. The genocide has changed my perspective on the majority of Jewish Israelis, and once they retire their guns and mortars – as one day they surely will – we will have to reckon with the moral, and actual, wreckage of their century-long Sturm und Drang, their violent ejaculations, in Palestine. Ahmed Moor is a writer and fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Palestinians don't need a state. We need justice
There are few things the pro-Israel side gets right. But on one point – the Palestinians' rejection of two states – they've been more-or-less correct. For me, and many others, the fundamental injustice of the establishment of the state of Israel – which occurred through massive, deliberate and purposeful ethnic cleansing designed to create a Jewish majority in historic Palestine – meant that Israel never really attained moral legitimacy among Palestinians. As Robert Malley and Hussein Agha write in their new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday: 'deep down, most Palestinians, though ready to accept Israel's existence, have not accepted its historical legitimacy', a statement whose veracity I can attest to. I remember being a 15-year-old in Palestine. I remember being held up at checkpoints in the West Bank, and being unable to visit Jerusalem or Israel because of the color of my ID card, in effect, because of my race. I could see how unjust, how retrograde, the entire basis of Israel was. No amount of German or western guilt over the Holocaust would make accept the idea that Jewish supremacy in Palestine was somehow desirable, or just. I think that continues to be true for the overwhelming majority of Palestinians. Possibly, for the overwhelming majority of humanity in the post-colonial global south. That's not to say that the political process – which commenced in Madrid and Oslo –wasn't undertaken in good faith by sincere and earnest people. I know some of the negotiators on the Palestinian side, like Diana Buttu, a principled advocate for Palestinian rights for decades now. Daniel Levy, who negotiated for the Israelis, has been an outspoken opponent of Israeli apartheid and the genocide in Gaza, and a formidable critic of the peace process in the past 20 years. At its height in 1995, the Oslo process, which was supposed to produce a Palestinian state, but more importantly, an end to claims, commanded the support of two-thirds of Palestinians. Many of them, like my parents, were prepared to close a chapter on history, to swallow their grievances so that their children may live. Similarly, the Palestinian negotiators I've met in the past two decades each understood the basic deficit of justice, the imbalance in the ledger, but they sought to abort a conflict which has ravenously claimed the future at every turn. In many cases their intentions were honorable. And yet, the failure of the Peace Process was pre-ordained, readily apprehensible to anyone who lived in the Occupied Territories in the 1990s, when the settlements truly metastasized. It should have been obvious to anyone with a map and a history book, too. That's because Zionism, Israel's animating ideology, adheres to classically European colonialism, which continues to be the best framework for understanding Palestine/Israel. Writing in October 2003 in the New York Review of Books, the moral thinker and historian Tony Judt described Israel as 'an anachronism', essentially a throwback to the Belgian Congo or 18th century Australia. Israel's extermination of native life in Gaza is anachronistic, too. It rhymes, in the worst way. There were glaring structural reasons for Oslo's failure as well. The fact that many of the American negotiators were Zionists was under-reported, and under-appreciated. Dennis Ross, who led the American team, is a Zionist, indistinguishable to my eyes from Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, two former Israeli prime ministers. Bill Clinton, who was president at the time, recently referred to 'Judea and Samaria', coded Zionist language for the occupied West Bank. In effect, Oslo pitted a stateless people against two nuclear-armed states led by people who were fundamentally invested in Jewish supremacy in Palestine. Emmanuel Macron's decision to recognize a Palestinian state in September amounts to little, as Donald Trump noted. I do not know Macron's intentions, but the Palestinians have never really warmed to European and American condescension, which is implicit in every conditional statement, every contingent incrementalism. Mark Carney's strange, confused statement that Canada would only accept a 'Zionist Palestinian state' is grimly entertaining for anyone with a basic grasp of the issues. Anyone who isn't a dilettante, in other words. Now, in the midst of a genocide, the Palestinians are best served by abandoning any effort to attain self-rule in the Occupied Territories. A reorientation towards basic rights is overdue, along with recognition the Palestinian struggle was never really about a seat at the United Nations, representation in Unesco, or Fifa. The force of the Palestinian cause rests in one principle: justice. Two years ago I thought justice meant a single state with equal rights between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. But now, the Palestinians are confronted by a difficulty: no one is able to articulate what justice means in the wake of so much slaughter, of so many dead men, women and children, dead babies. The genocide has changed my perspective on the majority of Jewish Israelis, and once they retire their guns and mortars – as one day they surely will – we will have to reckon with the moral, and actual, wreckage of their century-long Sturm und Drang, their violent ejaculations, in Palestine. Ahmed Moor is a writer and fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace
Arabian Post
29-04-2025
- Business
- Arabian Post
Iran Seeks Economic Rewards in New Nuclear Talks
Iran is offering its sanctioned economy as an investment opportunity to the United States, presenting an unconventional proposition amid ongoing negotiations over its nuclear programme. With diplomatic discussions showing momentum, Iranian officials are openly pitching economic engagement with Washington as a path toward a more durable and beneficial agreement, marking a shift not seen in decades. Talks have gained ground as both sides weigh the possibility of reviving elements of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , abandoned by former President Donald Trump in 2018. Iranian authorities now argue that a stronger, longer-lasting deal would require tangible economic benefits for Tehran, in addition to nuclear restrictions that satisfy American and allied security concerns. According to officials familiar with the matter, Iran's message to the US administration is clear: mutual concessions must deliver measurable gains, particularly in trade and investment. Iran's approach reflects a broader strategy to demonstrate that its economy, despite layers of sanctions, holds untapped potential. Senior figures in Tehran have underscored that easing punitive measures could unlock access to energy resources, manufacturing opportunities, and regional markets. By promoting its market to the US, Iran is trying to reshape the negotiating framework, focusing not only on sanctions relief but also on future economic cooperation. Washington, however, remains cautious. While US officials acknowledge the diplomatic shift, they insist that Iran must first meet strict verification standards regarding its nuclear activities. Talks led by Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley have stressed that compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards remains non-negotiable. Analysts note that although the economic overture is novel, it may not easily sway sceptical factions in the US Congress, where any new agreement could face intense scrutiny. See also OPEC+ Faces Internal Strain as Oil Price War Looms Iran's pitch is bolstered by subtle changes within its economy. Over the past five years, despite facing significant hurdles, Iran has made strides in reducing its dependence on oil exports by fostering domestic industries and diversifying trade relationships, particularly with Asia and parts of Africa. Government figures claim that sectors such as petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and mining have expanded, creating a foundation for future growth if international barriers are lifted. Economists caution, though, that structural challenges persist, including inflation, unemployment, and banking system weaknesses. President Ebrahim Raisi's administration appears determined to frame Iran's economy as resilient and primed for integration into global markets. During closed-door briefings and public statements, Iranian officials have described an economy that, while constrained, remains capable of offering significant returns to investors willing to navigate complexities. They argue that the US could benefit strategically by encouraging American businesses to tap into this potential, fostering mutual interests and reducing long-term hostilities. The political backdrop in Washington complicates the prospects for Iran's investment offer. With President Trump signalling a firm stance on trade disputes globally, and elections looming, any engagement with Tehran could be politically risky. Republican lawmakers and some Democrats remain critical of providing Iran with economic relief without extensive, permanent curbs on its nuclear and missile programmes. Meanwhile, hawkish elements in Israel and Gulf Arab states continue to lobby against any agreement that might revitalise Iran's economy without guaranteeing security assurances. Diplomatic insiders suggest that Iranian negotiators are prepared to offer robust monitoring and transparency measures as part of any new arrangement, aiming to assuage Western fears. However, Tehran also insists that it expects proportional economic returns, including access to frozen assets and the restoration of key banking links to the global financial system. In parallel, Iranian state media has been crafting narratives about a post-sanctions boom, painting a picture of a country eager for a new era of international commerce. Energy remains a cornerstone of Iran's appeal. As a country with the world's second-largest natural gas reserves and significant oil resources, Iran's integration into global markets could, under different circumstances, help stabilise energy prices. Iranian officials argue that their re-entry into energy markets could serve mutual interests, especially amid volatile global energy dynamics exacerbated by conflicts and supply chain disruptions elsewhere. Nevertheless, the gap between economic ambitions and political realities remains substantial. Sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, human rights concerns, and regional interventions complicate any immediate thaw. The Biden administration faces a delicate balancing act, weighing potential benefits of renewed diplomacy against the domestic political cost of engaging with a government widely viewed as adversarial. Iran's economic pitch also underscores a broader geopolitical calculus. By framing itself as a viable economic partner, Tehran seeks to position itself as a stabilising force rather than a spoiler in regional affairs. Some advisers close to the Iranian leadership believe that deeper economic ties with the West could, over time, lessen Iran's dependency on China and Russia, offering a more balanced foreign policy stance.
