Commemorating Nakba Day

Every year on May 15, millions of Palestinians around the world commemorate Nakba Day, or the catastrophe that befell them in 1948. This catastrophe resulted in the dispossession of an estimated 750,000 refugees from historic Palestine, and the uprooting of two-thirds of the Palestinian Arab population and their society in the process of the creation of the State of Israel. 

73 years later, the Nakba remains central to Palestinian national identity and political aspirations, as evidenced by the 2018-19 Gaza March of Return and even the recent protests in Jerusalem. However, despite being a core Palestinian grievance, the Nakba continues to be whitewashed or denied outright by pundits, lobbyists, and even policymakers. 

Commemoration of the day has been taught by Arab citizens of Israel who were internally displaced as a result of the 1948 war has been practiced for decades, but until the early 1990s was relatively weak. Initially, the memory of the catastrophe of 1948 was personal and communal in character and families or members of a given village would use the day to gather at the site of their former villages. Small scale commemorations of the tenth anniversary in the form of silent vigils were held by Arab students at a few schools in Israel in 1958, despite attempts by the Israeli authorities to thwart them. Visits to the sites of former villages became increasingly visible after the events of Land Day in 1976.

As early as 1949, one year after the establishment of the State of Israel, 15 May was marked in several West Bank cities (under Jordanian rule) by demonstrations, strikes, the raising of black flags, and visits to the graves of people killed during the 1948 war. These events were organized by worker and student associations, cultural and sports clubs, scouts clubs, committees of refugees, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The speakers in these gatherings blamed the Arab governments and the Arab League for failing to "save Palestine". By the late 1950s, 15 May would be known in the Arab world as Palestine Day, mentioned by the media in Arab and Muslim countries as a day of international solidarity with Palestine.

In the wake up of the failure of the 1991 Madrid Conference to broach the subject of refugees, the Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced in Israel was founded to organize a March of Return to the site of a different village every year on 15 May so as to place the issue on the Israeli public agenda.

By the early 1990s, annual commemorations of the day by Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel held a prominent place in the community's public discourse.

It is believed that Israeli Arabs taught the residents of the territories to commemorate Nakba Day. Palestinians in the occupied territories were called upon to commemorate 15 May as a day of national mourning by the Palestine Liberation Organization's United National Command of the Uprising during the First Intifada in 1988. The day was inaugurated by Yasser Arafat in 1998.

The event is often marked by speeches and rallies by Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, in Palestinian refugee camps in Arab states, and in other places around the world. Protests at times develop into clashes between Palestinians and the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 2003 and 2004, there were demonstrations in London and New York City. In 2002, Zochrot was established to organize events raising the awareness of the Nakba in Hebrew so as to bring Palestinians and Israelis closer to a true reconciliation. The name is the Hebrew feminine plural form of "remember".

On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event. At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army. The Israeli army opened fire after thousands of Syrian protesters tried to forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights resulting in what AFP described as one of the worst incidents of violence there since the 1974 truce accord.

The IDF said troops "fired selectively" towards "hundreds of Syrian rioters" injuring an unspecified number in response to them crossing onto the Israeli side.

According to the BBC, the 2011 Nakba Day demonstrations were given impetus by the Arab Spring. During the 2012 commemoration, thousands of Palestinian demonstrators protested in cities and towns across the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Protesters threw stones at Israeli soldiers guarding checkpoints in East Jerusalem who then fired rubber bullets and tear gas in response.

Why backdoor talks with India?

Apprehensions about the backdoor diplomacy with India are growing because it is being seen as an ‘absence of strategic clarity’ on Pakistani side. Concerns are growing due to scanty details about the talks being made public in Pakistan. 

There is growing perception that Pakistan is being made to negotiate on the insistence of certain external forces and Kashmir issue is once again likely to be placed on the back bumper.

These concerns were voiced in Islamabad at a Think-Tank meeting. The talk of the three speakers at the webinar — former Defence Secretary retired Lt Gen Asif Yasin Malik, former Permanent Representative at the United Nations and Ambassador to the UK and the US Dr Maleeha Lodhi, and former envoy to India and Ambassador to Germany Abdul Basit — revolved around India’s possible motive behind opening the back door diplomacy, nature of discussions on Kashmir, and the utility of a front channel resulting from these behind-the-scenes talks between intelligence chiefs of the two countries that have reportedly been continuing since last December.

Since details have been made public, I will avoid repeating those. I will talk about some questions coming to minds of people of average wit.

A question arises, if this back door diplomacy, courtesy some friendly countries, has been going on for a long time why the details were not made public? Another question is why the need has been felt to discuss the details of the undisclosed agenda and modalities now?

I have all the reasons to believe that no details were made public for a long time to let the negotiators prepare the ground. As some ‘terms of reference’ have been finalized, an effort is being made to seek public opinion.

I am sure hawks in Pakistan will be too keen to put Kashmir issue on the top, but hawks from India would not like to make even a cursory mention of the issue. In such a scenario the ‘mediator’ will have to play a crucial role, to bring some balance for the satisfaction of respective domestic constituencies.

Let me also say that lately so much dust has been created by the hawks on both the sides that it may take long time to settle.

Please also allow me to refer to the Cabinet’s decision disallowing import of cotton from India. It had exposed lack of coordination among various government functionaries.

Having said all this, the fate of negotiations will depend on how much influence the mediator has on both the countries.

In normalization of Israel’s relations with Morocco and Jordan this reward policy has played a key role.

Will the mediator be able to reward both the countries in monetary terms or accepting control over certain territories?

GSP plus status for Pakistan: An incentive or exploitative tool

The European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling for a review of the GSP plus status granted to Pakistan. The resolution calls on the Government of Pakistan to unequivocally condemn incitement to violence and discrimination against religious minorities in the country. It also expresses deep concern at the prevailing anti-French sentiments in Pakistan.

The EU Parliament calls on the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to immediately review Pakistan’s eligibility for GSP plus status and whether there is sufficient reason to initiate a procedure for the temporary withdrawal of this status and the benefits that come with it, and to report to the European Parliament on this matter as soon as possible

The EU resolution expresses particular concern about Ms. Shagufta Kausar and Shafqat Emmanuel, who were sentenced death penalty on blasphemy charges in 2014.

The couple remains in jail pending a court ruling on their appeal against their death sentence. The appeal was due to be heard in April 2020, six years after they were sentenced, but has been postponed multiple times, most recently on 15^th February 2021, according to the resolution.

The resolution says Pakistan has benefited from trade preferences under the GSP plus since 2014, while the economic benefits from this unilateral trade agreement for the country are considerable. However, the GSP plus status comes with the obligation to ratify and implement 27 international conventions including commitments to guarantee human rights and religious freedom.

"In its latest GSP plus assessment of Pakistan on 10 February 2020, the Commission expressed a variety of serious concerns on the human rights situation in the country, notably the lack of progress in limiting the scope and implementation of the death penalty," the text says.

It says the EU Parliament considers the violent demonstrations against France as unacceptable and is deeply concerned by the anti-French sentiment in Pakistan, which has led French nationals and companies to have to leave the country temporarily.

It may be said that be it textile quota regime of the past or current GSP plus status for the developing countries, it is sole aimed at getting the supplies at huge discount as well as twisting the arms as and when desired by attaching certain frills, the most common being human rights and religious extremism.

One is amazed that the member countries of the EU allow printing of blasphemous content on the pretext of ‘Right of expression’, despite knowing that these have been instigating violent reactions.  However, this time, the sole objective of this resolution seems to be pressurizing the Government of Pakistan to release the couple facing death sentence. The west has achieved its desired objectives in the past by following ‘arm twisting’ policy.

It may not be inappropriate to remind the developed countries that for ages they have been exploiting the developing countries, rich in natural resources. Ongoing proxy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen and economic sanctions on Iran are the most naked examples of their aggressions. People living in these countries as well as many other countries are losing patience and at times even the smallest incident leads to heavy loss of human lives and properties. 

 

Oxygen for strengthening Indo Pakistan diplomatic relations

Today, I received a message, “Two nuclear powers, one without Oxygen and other without vaccine”, the two countries referred to were India and Pakistan. For a second I was traumatized, but soon gathered the courage to write this blog.

I am of the opinion that Pakistan can play a role in saving the lives of Indians who are dying due to acute shortage of Oxygen. My suggestion is well supported by the efforts of employees of Pakistan Steel Mills, working to bring its Oxygen plant back into operations.

Luckily, Pakistan enjoys road as well as rail links and gas cylinders can be swiftly transported to India, within a very short span of time. India can complement the supply chain by sending empty cylinders to Pakistan.

In this endeavor the border forces/customs can also play their role by ‘clearing’ cylinders expeditiously, may be round the clock for a while. To reciprocate Pakistan’s good will gesture, India may also consider supplying COVID-19 vaccine to Pakistan.

Both the countries have lost hundreds and thousands of people due to COVID-19 and the near and dear will face the trauma for a long time to come. This must also brighten a fact that in case the two countries indulge in another war, with high probability of using atomic warheads, the death toll may run into millions.

Therefore, both the countries have to make concerted efforts to resolve all the long outstanding issues, including Kashmir. A huge percentage of population on both the sides on the border lives below the poverty line.

It goes without saying that both the countries enjoy potential to complement each other’s economy. Trading between the two countries is still going on through third country, which added to cost and extends transit time. India has already granted Pakistan ‘Most Favored Nation’ status and Pakistan has yet to reciprocate.

Though, the Government of Pakistan decided not to import cotton from India, but no word is the last word in politics, it can be reviewed. To ease the tension India can also reduce number of troops deployed in Indian Administered Kashmir.

Friendship between two countries flourishes, when their social and economic goals become common. In the prevailing circumstances, both India and Pakistan face a mammoth task of saving precious human lives. They can take the first step by exchanging Oxygen and vaccine.

Does change in MBS tone mean change of heart also?

Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) has expressed desire to mend ties with Iran for the first time in years, but refrained from offering any goodwill gesture to build confidence between two rivals, Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a dramatic change in his views on Iran, MBS called for a ‘distinguished relationship’. 

“At the end of the day, Iran is a neighboring country. All we ask for is to have a good and distinguished relationship with Iran. We do not want the situation with Iran to be difficult. On the contrary, we want it to prosper and grow as we have Saudi interests in Iran, and they have Iranian interests in Saudi Arabia, which is to drive prosperity and growth in the region and the entire world,” the Saudi crown prince said in a recent televised interview.

He also expressed hope that his country would be able to overcome some challenges affecting Iranian-Saudi relations. “We really hope we would overcome them and build a good and positive relationship with Iran that would benefit all parties,” MBS pointed out. 

Public diplomacy between Iran and Saudi Arabia came after several Western media outlets reported that the two countries held direct talks in Baghdad in early April for the first time in at least five years. These talks are widely expected to continue in the coming weeks especially after Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited a number of regional countries ‑ Iraq, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait ‑ enjoying good relations with Tehran and some of them with both Tehran and Riyadh. 

During his regional tour, Zarif once again presented the long-standing Iranian peace initiative Hormuz Peace Endeavor (HOPE), which is mainly intended to foster dialogue among regional states on security. 

Zarif’s tour raised speculations over a possible exchange of messages between Tehran and Riyadh. The Arab Weekly, a publication close to the United Arab Emirates, has put Zarif’s visits into a broader context of de-escalation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, implying that the tour is aimed at bridging the divide between long-standing rivals and launch a dialogue between them.

Regardless of the motivation behind Zarif’s visits, relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia seem to be experiencing a period of de-escalation of tension, at least for now. Whether this easing would continue for a long time or advance to a full-fledged restoration of diplomatic ties remains to be seen.

Saudis demonstrated little enthusiasm about mending ties with Iran beyond a change of tone that was more likely necessitated by the changing dynamics of the region’s politics after Joe Biden moved into the White House. The Saudi apparent flexibility came amid renewed US diplomatic efforts to put an end to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen. 

Right from the start, Joe Biden made it clear to the Saudis that the days of full US support for their regional adventurism are over. He started his new Saudi policy by focusing more attention on the Yemen crisis, naming a special envoy for the war-torn country. He then announced that his administration would pursue diplomacy with Iran to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which the Trump administration withdrew in May 2018.

Saudis first called on the United States to include them in the ongoing Vienna nuclear talks and expand the JCPOA in a way that encompasses other thorny issues such as Iran’s missile program and its regional influence. The US rejected the call to include the Saudis in the nuclear talks, while assuring them that these talks will not harm their interests. 

Facing a changing international environment, the Saudis seem to have decided to tone down their rhetoric against Iran and increase diplomatic contacts with the US and other Western powers. The diplomatic maneuver of MBS is not likely to heal the wounds Iranian-Saudi relations suffered in the past few years because this move is not driven by a genuine desire to change, but to realign him with the Biden administration.

Iranian presidential elections and fate of JCPOA negotiations

The next elections in Iran are scheduled for 18th June 2021. It is but obvious that the best efforts of President Rouhani’s team would be to get the sanctions imposed on the country removed and make a place for themselves in the history. He has stated that within the last 100 days of his presidency he would be able to get the sanctions lifted and relieve the economy.

As against this, the European countries, especially those not too keen in removing the sanctions may chose to slow down the process. Their choice would be to pressurize the newly elected regime to agree on revised terms and conditions.

The Vienna negotiations entered their third week on Tuesday 27th April 2021. Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s top negotiator, described the last meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) ‘on the right track’.

 However, it is evident that a confrontation is going on. Iran, China and Russia unanimously and unequivocally called for the immediate lifting of the sanctions. Iran is patiently waiting for E3 (Germany, France and Britain) to call on the US to lift all the sanctions.

But that is unlikely to happen, as E3 has shown in the past that they have no free will of their own. Time and again, they have followed what the US has said.

The Biden administration is said to be looking into possibilities of easing banking, oil and finance sanctions on Iran. Immediate removal of all sanctions in a verifiable way is the only demand Iran has.

The JCPOA experience proves that when sanctions are lifted on paper, nothing practical is done. After the JCPOA, Iran kept struggling with issues such as transferring its money withheld in other countries. 

The Biden administration must understand that delaying tactics will not help. Leader of the Islamic Revolution is asking all sides not to engage in ‘erosive and prolonged’ negotiations, but expedite the process. Yet, the United States keeps saying that they do not want to rush into a deal. 

“We expect this to be a long process. And we're very much at just the beginning period,” Jen Psaki, the White House spokesperson, said on April 8.

The US seems to be insisting that the negotiations would take longer than expected. History suggests that the US is likely to wait and see what happens in the elections, as they reportedly did in 2013, when John Kerry halted the negotiations. 

There are many details that need to be ironed out. For example, the sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with the sanctions on the office of Ayatollah Khamenei, Leader of the Islamic Revolution, need to be resolved. According to the Wall Street Journal, there is a big difference of opinion about the removal of sanctions on these two sides.

As regards stance of potential presidential candidates, they have announced their plans for the continuation of negotiations, if elected.

Rostam Ghasemi, former Minister of Petroleum during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration and a presidential candidate, stated that sanctions removal is his first priority, and he will take the control of the negotiations himself if elected. 

Making the sanctions ineffective is his next priority. “If I want to negotiate, I will strengthen the country’s economy,” Ghasemi said.

“We should change the ‘imploring diplomacy’ to the diplomacy of power,” he said on his possible government’s diplomacy.

He added that the United States “must return to the JCPOA without any preconditions.”

Saeed Jalili, another potential and highly anticipated presidential candidate, is expected to continue the negotiations if elected. Based on his past experience as the Secretary General of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and him being Iran’s Chief Nuclear Negotiator between 2010 and 2013, it is likely that he would continue the negotiations. 

Saeed Mohammad, the former Director of Khatam-al -Anbiya Construction Headquarters and a mysterious figure to many Iranians, has officially announced that he is running for president.

He has also declared that he is open to negotiations, on the condition that Iran “strengthens itself internally.” 

Saudis and Israelis don’t approve JCPOA talks

According to media reports, with Iran and world powers resumed nuclear talks, Saudi Arab and Israel also intensified consultations. Washington and Tel Aviv on the one hand and Washington and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council on the other hand are having extensive talks. 

Both, Israel and Saudi Arabia wants to influence any US move to return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which they have publicly opposed right from the beginning.

As the Iranian negotiating team head to the Austrian capital of Vienna, a senior Israeli delegation comprising of Mossad Chief Yosef Cohen, Head of Military Intelligence Tamir Hayman, and National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat also arrived in Washington for talks. Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army Aviv Kochavi was also supposed to join the delegation but the recent hike in Israel-Gaza tensions forced him to cancel his trip to Washington.

The visiting delegation met with several high-level Biden officials including National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and senior US military and intelligence officials. The focus of the conversations is squarely on the terms of the US return to the 2015 nuclear deal. 

Sullivan and Ben-Shabbat held their first in-person meeting since Joe Biden entered the White House. The US and Israeli officials discussed their serious concerns about advancements in Iran’s nuclear program in recent years. The United States updated Israel on the talks in Vienna and emphasized strong US interest in consulting closely with Israel on the nuclear issue going forward. The US and Israel agreed on the significant threat posed by Iran’s aggressive behavior in the region.

Following the meeting of Sullivan and Ben-Shabbat, the White House said the US and Israel agreed to establish a new group to counter Iran’s drones and missiles.

The United States and Israel agreed to establish an inter-agency working group to focus particular attention on the growing threat of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Precision Guided Missiles produced by Iran, claiming that these weapons are being provided to proxy groups in the West Asia region. 

Also US Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley held talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan alongside officials from the countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Malley said he discussed the Arab officials the situation around the JCPOA and the Vienna nuclear talks. 

The US discussions with Saudi Arabia aim to persuade them the US return to the 2015 nuclear deal will not harm their own interests. But this is exactly what the Obama administration told the Saudis and the Israelis after signing the JCPOA in 2015. Instead of supporting the deal, the Saudis and Israelis joined forces to kill the deal and the Trump came into power, they saw a new opportunity to scrub the deal. They may have even thought that the JCPOA would never be revived given the blows the Trump administration delivered to it. This may explain why they are so anxious about the JCPOA being revived after four years of anti-JCPOA rhetoric from Washington. 

If the Biden administration is really keen to revive the JCPOA, it needs to be aware of any possible unconstructive efforts on the part of the Saudis and Israelis because they have never been proponents of the deal and they are unlikely to change their mind just because there is a new president in the White House. Of course, they may stop short of calling on the Biden administration to refrain from rejoining the JCPOA but they will certainly ask the U.S. to at least make some amendments to the original deal, something that will be opposed by other signatories to the JCPOA namely Russia and Iran. 

Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, has recently said that the negotiators in Vienna have come to conclude that regional security and missile production are different from curbing Iran’s nuclear program.

Curbing Iran's nuclear program is a different matter from regional security and missile production. At the end of two rounds of talks in Vienna to revive the JCPOA, it was clear to all participants that only by reviving the original agreement could achieve the goals. No new terms or clauses needs to be added. Iran has strongly rejected any attempt to expand the JCPOA, while calling on the US to remove its sanctions.