Jonah Kanter

Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu grudgingly uttered the word “state” when referring to the future of the Palestinians. It’s been no secret that his entire right-wing coalition is fundamentally opposed to the idea so it is definitely a significant step on his part. Nevertheless, he quickly slapped a whole slew of unreasonable conditions on such an arrangement, including the recognition by the Palestinians that Israel is strictly a “Jewish” state—code, as the Economist points out, for preventing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in Israel. He also refuses at this time to even consider allowing East Jerusalem to become Palestine’s capital and does not want to freeze or roll back Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the Daily Star out of Lebanon reports that Defense Minister Ehud Barak is working on a plan that would freeze the growth of settlements for 3 months so that negotiations could resume. While the details have yet to be finalized, Netanyahu’s coalition partners are not happy and seem adamant about not letting it get approved.

“It is out of the question for a party like the Likud to accept such a thing,” said Environment Minister Gilad Erdan.

“If indeed there is such a plan by Barak, it is wrong. I’ve heard him suggest such plans in the past, but we’re still making a distinction between natural growth and new settlements,” said Interior Minister Eli Yishai, the head of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party.

Natural growth? Isn’t growth, growth?

While there remains several issues on both sides that require heavy negotiations, including the Jerusalem issue and border security for Israel, and extremist violence and Israel’s right to exist for the Palestinians, the issue of West Bank settlements absolutely must come first. In my opinion, the settlements amounts to Israel rubbing salt in a 40-year old wound. They are not needed for Israel’s security and probably exist only to satisfy the religious desires of hard-line conservatives that dream of recreating ancient Israel from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. The land needs to be given back so that the idea of Palestinian statehood has some credibility. Former British Prime Minister and current representative of the Quartet of Middle East mediators Tony Blair agrees:

From Hareetz.com

Former British prime minister Tony Blair said Friday that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be within reach if Israel compromises on issues such as halting settlement expansion.

“There is a virtual consensus across the international community not just as to what needs to happen, but how…which was not the case a couple of years ago,” Blair, who represents the Quartet of Middle East mediators, told Reuters.

“If Israel were to join that, we could get an agreement and an agreement in my view that protects completely the state of Israel.”

Even if Barack Obama can get Netanyahu to back down on certain things like the general idea of Palestinian statehood, I sincerely pray that he does not dig in his heels regarding the settlements. For I doubt that there will be any negotiations unless a big move like that occurs. The last time that happened, in 2006 when Ariel Sharon pulled Israel out of Gaza, everyone’s hopes were very, very up.

Neda Agha-Soltan was shot and killed by Iranian police Saturday. Not because she was violently protesting against the recent fraudulent election. Not because she committed a crime. Instead, because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And perhaps fittingly enough, the whole event was captured on camera and posted all over the internet.

If I knew nothing, I know this: the mullahs are clinging to power at all costs and, to them, not for one human life is it worth giving it up.

I don’t intend on watching the video, but the Toronto Star published a freeze frame showing Neda’s terrified eyes following the camera, holding the rest of her body as utterly still as possible as bystanders pleaded with her to stay with them. It’s horrifying.

Only 26 years old, Neda’s name ironically enough means “voice” in Farsi, as her death appears to be re-energizing the protest movement. While at this point I believe that there will be no recount or any overturning of the election at all, at least through Neda’s story, the movement and all it stands for will never be forgotten.

The situation in Iran following Friday’s election continues to deteriorate. As thousands of people have taken to the street in protest, the government declared that such an act is now illegal. Police were given authority to open fire with real bullets on anyone protesting. Some unconfirmed reports indicate that as many as 4 people have been killed in the skirmishes. The government has also attempted to prevent any information from leaving the country by shutting down cell phone networks and social networking sites. It appears that Mousavi is not under arrest after all as he made a brief appearance at the rally, proving that information about the crisis is definitely being bottled up.

It’s amazing to see such unified action from a population whose rights have been suppressed for decades by a multitude of dictators, but part of me can’t help but wonder if they’re receiving support from foreign governments. Google “Operation AJAX” and learn about how street protests in 1953 were really a cover for an American-led covert operation, which ultimately set forth a chain of events that leads us to where we are today, including both Gulf Wars, the hostage crisis, and of course, 9/11. Not since then, have Iranians tasted democracy so their demonstrations these last few days are extremely significant.

So the question is: how much intervention is actually going on? I’m not talking about Ahmadinejad’s typical rantings about things like the media; I’m talking about the real actions that are most likely occuring on the ground. Iran simply matters too much in the grand scheme of things so, unquestionably, every major Western intelligence agency has agents further instigating the conflict in hopes of destabilizing the government. Ironically, such activities are what killed Iranian democracy over 50 years ago. People were bought off with sacks of cash to oppose Mohammed Mossadegh. Now, they are most probably being encouraged to do just the same with the Ayatollahs.

Despite my hope for the people to finally be free, ultimately they might lose no matter what. Either they submit to the electoral fraud carried out by their rulers or they might yet again become pawns of foreign powers caught up in another game of geostrategic chess.

Update (6/17): Barack Obama declared that it is important for the US not to be perceived as “meddling” in Iran’s affairs. John McCain blasted this approach claiming that the election was clearly fraudulent, but Republican Dick Luger rightly pointed out that if the US were to get actively involved, then Iran’s government could deflect attention away from the issue. Information continues to be very difficult to find.