Middle East Press on Israel’s Nation-State Law, Emiratis in Jerusalem and Biden’s Policies on Israel: New Age Islam's Selection, 23 December 2020
By
New Age Islam Edit Desk
23 December
2020
• Israel’s Nation-State Law Aimed to Discriminate
against Minorities, and It Does
By Yossi Mekelberg
• The Emiratis In Jerusalem Are A Slap In The Face For
Palestinians
By Jalal Abukhater
• What Will Biden’s Policies on Israel Look Like?
By Richard Silverstein
• Palestinian Spirits Sag As Coronavirus Steals
Christmas
By Aziza Nofal
• Is There Still A Place For Polls In US Politics?
By Kerry Boyd Anderson
• Reviving Russia’s Gulf Security Proposal Faces More
Hurdles
By Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg
• Israeli-Palestinian Peace-Talk Effort Continues
After Biden Victory — But It Is Too Early To Succeed
By Osama Al-Sharif
------
Israel’s
Nation-State Law Aimed to Discriminate against Minorities, And It Does
By
Yossi Mekelberg
December
22, 2020
A common
human trait is the need for vindication, which often manifests itself in the
post-facto, fleetingly satisfying though entirely futile expression: “I told
you so.” This temptation to self-congratulate is best resisted, because what
does it matter when the damage has already been done?
Yet there
are those cases when the “I told you so” comes as a warning that if not
reversed, the situation could get worse, much worse. One of these instances is
Israel's wretched nation-state law, which was passed by the Knesset in 2018 and
anchored in law the already widespread discrimination against Palestinian Arab
citizens of Israel. Increasingly, we are witnessing the rotten, racist fruits
of this poisonous piece of legislation.
Last month,
an Israeli judge cited the contentious nation-state law in rejecting a lawsuit
brought to court by two siblings aged 6 and 10, through their lawyer uncle, who
asked to be reimbursed for their daily expenses incurred while traveling to an
Arabic-speaking school outside the Galilean city of Karmiel.
In
dismissing the suit, the chief registrar based the ruling on the nation-state
law, stating that “Karmiel, a Jewish city, was meant to establish a Jewish
settlement in Galilee,” and that to fund such transport raised the concern that
it would lead to an influx of Arab-Israeli citizens and consequently change the
demographic makeup of the city.
Hence this
ruling is my rare occasion of “I (in this case some of us) told you so” after
we had warned that Israel’s nation-state law was from the outset a legal
license for discriminatory and racist policies deliberately aimed to put the
Jewish character of the country above the equality of all its citizens.
It could be
argued that above all, the nation-state law was merely the legal rubberstamping
of an already existing, daily discriminatory state of affairs for millions of
Arab-Israeli citizens. In this case, the plaintiffs sued the Karmiel
Municipality for 25,000 shekels (about $7,500), probably more in hope than
belief that the solemn promise of the 1948 Declaration of Independence — that
the new Jewish state “will foster the development of the country for the
benefit of all its inhabitants” — would be applicable to them too as they are
after all Israeli citizens, apparently with the same rights as the Jewish
population.
The
country’s founding fathers promised to establish a nation that guarantees
equality of social and political rights “to all its inhabitants irrespective of
religion, race or sex,” as well as freedom of religion, conscience, language,
education and culture. To ensure that children belonging to a minority that
comprises more than a fifth of the population would be able to learn in an
Arabic-language school is the epitome of respect for such values.
But
instead, the court’s ruling put the nation-state law and its bold racist
overtones above the notion of equality and respect for diversity. And as a
matter of fact, the nation-state law unashamedly states that the country’s
ethos “views the development of Jewish settlements as a national value and
shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening.”
Hence, as
abhorrent as the decision by the court is, it follows the law to the letter,
not to mention its spirit. Therefore, the politicians who were so callous in
voting for such a xenophobic statute should first and foremost be held
accountable for legalizing racism.
Yet what
kind of a judge in a country fashioning itself as a liberal democracy could,
without feeling a deep sense of shame, justify his ruling by defining Karmiel
as a Jewish city intended to “solidify Jewish settlement in the Galilee part of
Israel,” and claiming that establishing an Arabic-language school there or even
funding school transportation for an Arab student would jeopardize the
demographic balance and with it the city’s Jewish character?
How could
the judge’s hand not have been shaking as he wrote such xenophobic and bigoted
words? No political or judicial system in a country calling itself a democracy
would so cynically deprive young children of exercising their basic right to
study in their own language, one legally approved by Israel’s Ministry of
Education, with the aim of maintaining “ethnic purity.”
This law is
no more than a tool to deter other Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel from
exercising their natural right in a free society to live wherever they choose
to and enjoy the same services as everyone else. It is a further demonstration
of the Jewish population’s paranoia and obsession with making the country
exclusively Jewish, while sacrificing the values of universal human rights in
doing so.
The Israeli
authorities are making it next to impossible for Palestinian Arab citizens of
Israel to purchase land or obtain building permits in the cities, towns and
villages where they constitute an absolute and complete majority. The
authorities are also imposing draconian measures to prevent them from moving to
places where the population is more or less entirely Jewish.
Beyond the
concern that Israeli society is turning into one that habitually discriminates
against religious and ethnic minorities, this also raises the fear that at
least for some, this is part of a grand strategy to make the lives of its
Palestinian Arab citizens so miserable that they either submit to whatever
whims the state feels inclined to inflict on them, or conclude that their
future lies elsewhere.
I am
allowing myself one further, final “I told you so” moment: That the rot of
racism and discrimination currently spreading in Israel is closely correlated
to more than half a century of submitting millions of Palestinians to a regime
of occupation and blockade, where violations of basic human rights are
corruptly enshrined in both Israeli law and customary behavior.
To oppose
the subjugation of a people to life under occupation because it also destroys
the occupier could hardly be the main reason for objecting to such daily
violations of the human, political and civil rights, including the right to
self-determination, of millions of people. However, it adds to the moral
argument and is a practical reason to oppose such behavior.
It is an
especially poignant point, as Israel has embarked on a course of self-inflicted
destruction of its democratic system, as made clear by the nation-state law and
its interpretation by the courts.
-----
Yossi
Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University
London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences
Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1781321
------
The
Emiratis In Jerusalem Are A Slap In The Face For Palestinians
By Jalal
Abukhater
22 Dec 2020
This past
year was full of adversity and hopelessness for many around the world. But for
we Palestinians, it was even harsher – we were forced to face a deadly pandemic
in an apartheid state, amid a collapsing economy, and a general feeling of
hopelessness and abandonment.
In the
second half of the year, a series of Arab states added to our collective misery
by announcing their decision to normalise their relations with Israel. By
effectively abandoning their supposed commitment to supporting Palestinian
self-determination for money, weapons and a few short-term political gains,
they sent us a clear message that our suffering and struggle for the most basic
human rights no longer matter to them.
While every
normalisation deal Israel clenched with an Arab state undoubtedly hurt us, none
of them was as painful for us as the one signed by the United Arab Emirates.
After the deals, popular displeasure was evident on the streets of Morocco,
Sudan and even Bahrain. We knew that the masses in these countries were
overwhelmingly opposed to the decision made by their political leaders, and
this was a consolation for us. But the situation was different in the UAE. The
Emiratis, across every level of their society from political leaders to regular
citizens, came out forcefully in favour of a warm and cozy relationship with
Israel.
One of the
most shocking and enraging developments in the fast-paced love affair between
the UAE and Israel was the mutual visa waiver agreement – a first between
Israel and an Arab country. After the signing of the agreement, Emirati and
Israeli airlines were quick to announce direct flights between the two
countries. This is it, we thought, the Emiratis are coming!
And they
did come, with much fanfare and propaganda. The photos of Emirati tourists in
their traditional outfits posing in historic Jerusalem next to Israelis were
plastered across newspapers. The Israeli government started sharing on its
official social media accounts testimonies of Emiratis explaining how “safe and
secure” they feel in the country.
But almost
no one wondered what we, the Palestinians, are feeling about all this.
The arrival
of hundreds of Emiratis in Israel to enjoy the historic sites of Jerusalem and
pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque was a slap in the face for us. After all, millions
of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, just two dozen kilometres
away from Al-Aqsa, can only dream about stepping foot in the mosque that is the
third holiest site in Islam.
Of course,
we Palestinian Jerusalemites were already used to seeing Muslim pilgrims from
Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia or other non-Arab Muslim-majority countries at
Al-Aqsa. Over the years, Palestinians rarely had any problem with these
visitors, as they overwhelmingly believe this holiest of mosques should not be
monopolised by any subset of Muslims, even under the devastating conditions of
an occupation.
But the
Palestinian Jerusalemites were not as accepting of Emirati tourists as others.
While some still took the position that all Muslim tourists, whatever their
citizenship, should be welcome in Al-Aqsa, many others protested against
Emirati tourists being awarded with the right to easily visit Jerusalem’s holy
sites for betraying the Palestinians and forming an alliance with their
oppressors.
We have
every reason to be frustrated when we see Emiratis and Bahrainis in Jerusalem,
roaming freely under the protection of the Israeli police, taking pictures and
buying souvenirs as if they are visiting just another tourist site.
For a
start, it might sound unbelievable to those not familiar with our reality, but
millions of Palestinians living in Palestine are denied access not only to
Al-Aqsa but the entirety of Jerusalem by Israel’s occupying regime. Over the
past two decades, Israel has built a complex system of checkpoints, supported
by the Apartheid Wall, to deny Palestinians freedom of movement within their
own homeland. An entire generation of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
grew up without ever stepping foot in Al-Aqsa.
And this
Israeli “travel ban” is not only targeting Palestinians living in Palestine.
Palestinian refugees and members of the diaspora living in neighbouring
countries are still denied their right to return, even for a brief visit.
Another
point of frustration is the fact that Emiratis can now simply take a direct
flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv, and walk freely into the country. And Israelis
can now directly fly in to the Emirates, with almost no questions asked. This
is not an option for most Palestinians. A Palestinian living in Ramallah, for
example, would have to first cross into Jordan and then take a flight from the
Queen Alia airport in Amman to reach Dubai. This is an arduous journey that
involves many checkpoints and takes almost an entire day. Even Palestinians
holding American passports cannot just fly into the Tel Aviv airport, if they
are also in possession of a Palestinian ID card. So you can see why visa-free
travel between the UAE and Israel is irritating to many of us, the natives who
are denied that same right in our homeland.
I do not
believe that anyone, including we Palestinians, deserve unconditional love and
support from any nation. But the Emiratis are not even brave enough to openly
say that they do not care about us and support our struggle. Instead, they
repeatedly claim that the normalisation between the UAE and Israel will
eventually be “beneficial” for the Palestinians. I struggle to see any logic in
this assumption. All the current evidence points to these normalisation deals
further emboldening Israel and its apartheid. After all, none of the
normalising states, and especially the UAE, are challenging Israel on its
decades-long illegal occupation of Palestinian territories or its inhumane
treatment of its Palestinian citizens and occupied subjects.
It is a
criminal injustice bestowed upon us by Israel – we have no freedom of movement
in our own historic homeland. We cannot support an Emirati citizen having the
right to walk in and out of our lands at our expense, as we continue to
languish in open-air prisons and struggle to survive under Israel’s illegal
occupation. Whatever leaders of the Arab states normalising relations with
Israel may say, their actions are not aimed at helping peace and none of these
deals will ever benefit Palestinians. Those sovereign countries chose to sign
those deals to serve their own national interests; they do not have the
Palestinians in mind, and they should be honest about this fact.
-----
Jalal
Abukhater is a Jerusalemite. He holds an MA in International Relations and
Politics from the University of Dundee, Scotland.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/12/22/the-emiratis-in-jerusalem-are-a-slap-in-the-face-for-palestinians
------
What
Will Biden’s Policies On Israel Look Like?
By
Richard Silverstein
22 Dec 2020
As
President-elect Joe Biden announces the final choices for his cabinet, many in
the American political establishment are breathing a sigh of relief.
Predictability, moderation and centrism in policymaking are the words of the
day.
Though
progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez loomed
large in efforts to bring Democrats out to vote in record numbers, Biden seems
to have turned his back on them and their progressive agenda as he fills
federal agencies and cabinet positions.
That holds
true in foreign policy as well. Many pundits are expecting continuity with the
Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. This middle of the
road approach was recently confirmed by Biden’s pick for secretary of state –
Antony Blinken – who has an impeccable Democratic pedigree. Blinken’s father
and uncle served as ambassadors under Clinton and his step-father served in the
Kennedy administration.
Blinken has
been described as a “multilateralist” and “internationalist” who believes in
close ties with European allies. He is also known to firmly stand by Israel and
support the Iran nuclear deal. So what does this mean for Washington’s closest
ally in the Middle East – Israel?
“Status
quo” in Palestine
Given the
dysfunctional federal government Biden will inherit from outgoing President
Donald Trump, including a massive COVID-related economic and public health
crisis, his administration will have to concentrate on resolving domestic
issues.
US foreign
policy will most likely focus on countering China’s expansionism, Russia’s
interference in European, and American affairs and Iran’s antagonism provoked
by the Trump administration. These issues pose a major challenge to US
policymakers and will absorb much of the energy of the Biden foreign policy
team.
?This means
the Biden administration is unlikely to put forward any major initiatives to
resolve the conflict in Israel-Palestine. It may reverse some of the pernicious
policies of the Trump administration, reopening the Palestine Liberation
Organization’s office in Washington and the US consulate in East Jerusalem,
which serves Palestinians, and resuming funding for UNWRA.
However,
Biden will not move the US embassy to Israel back to Tel Aviv, as he made clear
ahead of the elections. Blinken, his secretary of state pick, has also said
such a move “would not make sense practically and politically”.?
Blinken has
also made a number of controversial statements regarding the Palestinians,
accusing them of being responsible for the failure of negotiations. “In the
category of ‘Never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity’, I think a
reminder to Palestinians … that they can and should do better and deserve
better and that requires leadership: leadership to make clear the reality of
the Jewish state; leadership to make clear the need to end incitement and
violence; leadership to bring people along for the prospect of negotiating,” he
said in May, using the words of former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban.
The Biden
campaign has also made its stance on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
movement quite clear. Ahead of the election, it released a statement saying it
“firmly reject[s] the BDS movement, which singles out Israel – home to millions
of Jews – and too often veers into antisemitism, while letting Palestinians off
the hook for their choices” – although the latter part referring to the
Palestinians was later removed after it provoked controversy in the
Arab-American community.
Biden is
likely to revert to the historic US position on Israeli settlements – that they
are illegal and an obstacle to peace – but he and Blinken are unlikely to do
anything about it. They will likely favour the “status quo” in Palestine, which
means the Israeli government will continue undisturbed to move farther towards
its goal of absorbing the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel proper,
leaving Palestinians stateless aliens in their own land.
No
cheerleader for Netanyahu
Unlike
Sanders, who has advocated for tying US military assistance to restraining
Israeli settlements, Biden fully supports unconditional aid for Israel. Both he
and Blinken have declared to Israel lobby audiences that withholding aid would
be a hostile act against Israel and rejected it outright.
That said,
Biden is unlikely to serve as a cheerleader for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu or the Israeli radical right, as Trump did. There will be no Israeli
election campaign banners featuring Netanyahu and Biden, hanging on
skyscrapers.
Although
relations with the Israeli prime minister may not be as icy as they were under
Obama – who personally disliked him – Biden is unlikely to go out of his way to
maintain Likud in power. He will not produce electoral gifts for Netanyahu, by
backing Israeli annexation of the West Bank or recognising Israeli sovereignty
over illegal Israeli settlements, as Trump did.
Thus, if
Israel goes to the polls – as many observers expect – for the fourth time in
two years, Netanyahu may not be re-elected. He will likely face court on the
three corruption counts he is charged with and may get sentenced to prison.
But even if
he loses power, this is unlikely to moderate Israel’s current policies. Given
the lack of real ideological diversity in the choices for prime minister, Biden
would eschew any intervention on behalf of any candidate.
His
administration will probably support the process of Arab normalisation started
under Trump and championed by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. But given that
Kushner spearheaded this effort with the close cooperation of Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates, normalisation may decelerate under Biden, as US relations
with these states may become quite tenuous. One of the main reasons for that
will be Biden’s declared aim of returning to the nuclear agreement with Iran.
The Iran
deal challenge
Policy on
Iran will be one area in which the incoming Biden administration will clash not
only with Gulf allies but also with Israel. Netanyahu campaigned tirelessly
against the nuclear agreement before it was signed. After Trump took office,
the Israeli prime minister urged Trump to reject it, which he did.
Biden has
repeatedly said he wants the US to return to the original Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action. He is seeking a return to a more stable, less contentious
relationship with Iran – one which guarantees it will not develop nuclear
weapons in the foreseeable future in return for lifting punitive economic
sanctions.
Israel –
with the help of Trump – is trying to prevent this from happening. The recent
assassinations of a senior al-Qaeda figure in Tehran and the country’s leading
nuclear scientist, Moshen Fakrizadeh, are designed to box Biden in and
undermine his efforts to reach out to Iran. Israel hopes this killing, as well
as the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by a US drone in
January, will convince Iranian hardliners to reject a return to nuclear negotiations.
Given Blinken and Biden’s exceedingly close relations with the Israel lobby,
they will be torn between pursuing their own policy agenda and mollifying
Israel’s hawkish demands.
They will
also have to restrain Israel’s military adventurism, including its oft-stated
goal of regime change and attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. Obama
restrained Netanyahu from such attacks, but the Israeli leader has shown
nothing but disdain for Democratic presidents and their warnings.
Can Joe
Biden say no to Israel? And if he does, will Israeli leaders accept such a
rejection? Or will they continue their reckless policy of assassination,
sabotage, and perhaps even an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? All of these
challenges will show what Joe Biden is really made of.
-----
Richard
Silverstein writes the Tikun Olam blog, devoted to exposing the excesses of the
Israeli national security state. His work has appeared in the Middle East Eye,
The Nation, Jacobin, the New Arab, the Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. He
contributed to the essay collection devoted to the 2006 Lebanon war, A Time to
Speak Out (Verso) and has another essay in the collection, Israel and
Palestine: Alternate Perspectives on Statehood (Rowman & Littlefield).
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/12/22/what-can-israel-expect-from-the-biden-administration
-----
Palestinian
Spirits Sag As Coronavirus Steals Christmas
By Aziza
Nofal
Dec 22,
2020
While
visiting Taybeh, a village northeast of Ramallah in the West Bank that is known
as the only town in Palestine where all residents are Christan, I found myself
outside Zahra Thalji’s grocery shop on the main roundabout in the center of
town. Thalji greeted me with a warm smile, until I asked why she had not put up
a Christmas tree.
“What
celebration? We live in a coronavirus nightmare,” she said.
Thalji, 72,
has been working since 1978 alongside her husband in the grocery store in front
of their house.
This has
been the couple's hardest Christmas season. “Even during the intifada, when
young men were hiding from Israeli soldiers, we did not experience moments of
fear like these days. For me, the true Christmas is when this pandemic is
over,” Thalji lamented, her concern clear on her face.
Thalji
recalled traditional holiday celebrations that have not changed since she was a
child in her home village of Zababdeh, inhabited by both Christians and Muslims
in the northern West Bank. She vividly remembers Christmas after the June 1967
Nakba and the occupation of her village and others.
She spoke
of how her family celebrated the holiday and quoted her father, “We resist by
continuing living our life and by being joyful despite the occupation.” After
she got married and moved with her husband to Taybeh, Thalji continued to
celebrate Christmas amid the uprisings and unrest. She said that Christmas was
special in Taybeh, whose residents are all Christians.
“COVID-19,
however, defeated us all and put fear in our hearts. We were never afraid to
leave the house. I cannot receive any of my family members or even visit them
in the northern West Bank. Could it get any worse than this?” she asked with
tears in her eyes.
Thalji’s
concerns are shared by the rest of Taybeh's residents, who have historically
gone all out in celebrating Christmas. The village is usually vibrant during
the holiday season, with every house decorating its own Christmas tree. All the
residents, young and old, normally get together to put lights on a big one in
the center of the town.
This year
is different. The village tree was lit Dec. 12 with only clerics and
representatives of the municipality present.
Youssef
al-Basir, 74, recalled past holiday seasons. He said that his town was special,
with collective celebrations and joy filling the village, and Muslims from
neighboring towns visiting to participate in the festivities.
“This year
we will not be able to go to the church to attend Christmas mass, as we are
concerned over the coronavirus,” Basir told Al-Monitor.
Basir did
not decorate his house, not even a tree. He said he will not leave the house
and will only host his son’s family for Christmas eve.
“I will be
exchanging holiday greetings with friends and family over the phone or via
social media, which I learned how to use during [lockdown] because of the
pandemic,” he said.
His son
Raafat concurred as he told Al-Monitor that Christmas greetings will be
exchanged over the phone with friends and family because the coronavirus
outbreak in Ramallah, which is close to Taybeh, has reached their town. “I
cannot put my father’s and my children’s health at risk,” he said.
Youssef
Basir recalled his childhood, when he used to collect flowers from the nearby
forest and his mother’s garden to decorate the Christmas tree in the village
center, opposite the historic Khodr Church.
After
lighting the tree, families used to gather in diwans (meeting houses) or large
homes, where women would distribute cakes filled with dates. These gatherings
would continue until dawn throughout the season.
With the
Palestinian government’s Dec. 17 announcement of new measures against COVID-19,
the village is bracing for new restrictions to be imposed on the celebration of
Christmas.
The
government said that it would allow prayers to be held in places of worship,
including churches, during the holiday season, but according to health
protocols that have yet to be announced.
Johnny Abu
Khalil, the pastor of the Latin Church in Taybeh, told Al-Monitor that the
church and the municipality are obeying health guidelines. He said plans are
being explored to allow all congregants to participate in the church service
while respecting social distancing in the church’s hall, which can fit 200 people.
The clergy hopes to conduct prayers and facilitate the participation of as many
worshipers as possible by holding masses several times a day for small groups
of people.
“We will
not allow the Easter scenario to play out again, when people were locked out of
churches on Easter Sunday. This was an unprecedented event not just in Taybeh
but in the entire world,” Abu Khalil said.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/12/palestine-taybeh-christians-christmas-coronavirus.html
-----
Is There
Still A Place For Polls In US Politics?
By Kerry
Boyd Anderson
December
22, 2020
In the wake
of the US elections in November, pollsters have been reviewing what went wrong
with many of their predictions and what it means for the future of polling.
After the 2016
presidential election, there already were accusations that polling was proving
inaccurate. The criticisms often exaggerated the errors, but there were
certainly some problems in a few states and with specific demographic groups.
Many pollsters worked hard to correct those errors in the hope of providing
more-accurate forecasts this year.
Instead,
the 2020 election raised further profound problems for polling companies. The
polls this year were not significantly less accurate than the ones in 2016,
especially at the national level. However, the adjustments pollsters had made
since 2016 failed to produce better results, which has led to more urgent
questions being asked about the value of polling in the future.
On the
national level the 2020 polls were off by about four percentage points, in Joe
Biden’s favor — this is not a major error, historically, in terms of national
polls. However, the US president is not chosen by the national popular vote but
by votes allocated by individual states in the Electoral College, and so polls
conducted in the key battleground states that determine the outcome are
particularly important.
In some of
these states, such as Arizona and Nevada, polling tended to be accurate.
However in others, such as Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio, many of the polls
missed the mark significantly.
This led to
much soul-searching by pollsters and the political media. There are always
challenges involved in polling: members of some demographic groups are more
likely to respond than others, for example, and polls always lag somewhat
behind election day. Pollsters have developed tools to manage those challenges,
such as weighting the data for underrepresented groups and providing
transparency about a poll’s likely margin of error.
The 2020
electorate presented challenges that went beyond the usual tools pollsters use
to tackle them, however. The analysis is ongoing but some trends are already
clear. In particular, many polls failed to sufficiently reflect the voting
intentions of Latino and rural voters, and polls struggled in several
Midwestern states.
There are
several potential reasons for the polling mistakes this year. A fundamental
challenge that will extend far beyond this year is technological changes.
Decades ago, pollsters knocked on doors to get their answers. Then they used
landline telephones, which was an effective way of gaining random samples in
specific areas.
The
proliferation of cell phones created significant problems for pollsters,
including the ease with which people can take their cell phone, and their
exiting number, with them when they move. In addition, pollsters must now
compete with campaign fundraisers, telemarketers and other callers — many
people are weary of all these “cold calls” and so much less likely to answer
and respond to a pollster’s call than used to be the case. Some pollsters have
employed digital tools, which also present multiple methodological concerns.
Another
potential problem is that Democrats might be more likely to participate in
polls than Republicans. There are several possible reasons why this might be
true, including the fact that Donald Trump has frequently portrayed polls and
the media as untrustworthy. Polling firms work hard to try to ensure that their
samples accurately represent Democrats and Republicans, but they may have
failed to do so. It is also possible that the Republicans who did respond to
polls perhaps were less likely to strongly support Trump than those who did
not.
A constant
challenge pollsters face is determining who are “likely voters.” Polls stop
before election day, so they try to identify who is most likely to actually
show up and cast a ballot. This may have been particularly challenging this
year.
Another
theory is that the polling challenges in 2020 were specific to the pandemic.
Many states allowed more mail-in ballots and early voting than normal, because
of public-health concerns. Democrats strongly advocated for mail-in voting and
early voting, and so Democratic voters were more likely to use those methods
than Republicans.
Trump was
openly disdainful of mail-in voting, and so Republicans were more likely than
Democrats to vote in person on election day. This complicated the ability of
pollsters to identify likely voters, and may have favored Democratic turnout in
their polling forecasts.
Some of
these problems might be fixable. Polling companies might be able to make
adjustments. Some are certainly considering new ways to weight populations.
However, some of the challenges might fundamentally alter the accuracy of
polls.
Furthermore,
modern-day US politics might simply be too competitive for polling. If
presidential elections frequently come down to a couple of percentage points or
less in key states, or congressional races are often tight, they might fall
within unavoidable margins of error in polls.
For
example, two Senate races in Georgia next month will determine which political
party controls the Senate — but polls offer limited insights into the Jan. 5
runoff elections, because the likely outcomes are so close they are expected to
be well within the margin of error for most surveys.
Polls will
probably continue to have some value in the future, however. They help inform
media narratives about politics, for example. They can also identify
significant changes in the electorate. In a large, diverse country, polls
provide data on what the population is thinking. There is no reliable,
alternative source of such information.
Nonetheless,
the media and political strategists might need to reduce their reliance on
polls, particularly when analyzing tight races. Polls still have an important
place in journalism and campaign strategy — however, reports based on them need
to clearly communicate their limitations and should include other forms of
political journalism.
Campaign
strategists need to rethink the extent to which they use polls to guide them on
where they focus resources. Meanwhile, pollsters must consider what they can
fix and what limitations they must accept.
-----
Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and
political risk consultant with more than 16 years of experience as a
professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political
and business risk. Her previous positions include deputy director for advisory
with Oxford Analytica and managing editor of Arms Control Today.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1781371
----
Reviving
Russia’s Gulf Security Proposal Faces More Hurdles
By
Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg
December
22, 2020
When Joe
Biden is sworn in as US president in January, one of the critical issues his administration
will have to address is superpower rivalry in the Gulf. The Obama
administration’s toolbox may no longer be adequate to do the job; competitors
may have some contrarian views on the matter, including Russia, China and
Europe.
After four
years of apparent rapport between the Kremlin and the White House, Biden might
initiate a reset. Revelations last week about a massive cyberattack against the
US, blamed on Russia, could make such a shift inevitable.
Furthermore,
Moscow’s view of Gulf security appears to conflict with that of Washington,
regardless of who is the president, as a recent discussion at the UN Security
Council revealed. The security of the region could therefore become a thornier
issue of disagreement if the US-Russia cold war intensifies under Biden.
Moscow has
long sought a greater role in the Gulf. It has authored several permutations of
its view of regional security and its role in it. In August 2019, Russia’s
representative to the UN revealed his nation’s latest blueprint for a collective
security system in the Gulf. The long-term objective of the proposal, he said,
was the creation of a security and cooperation organization in the region that
would include “in addition to the Gulf countries, Russia, China, the United
States, the EU, India and other stakeholders as observers or associated
members.”
In October
this year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov presented an abbreviated
version of the proposal, which he said was premised on the “assumption that
ensuring peace in the Gulf region is an important goal for the entire
international community” and that “the unhealthy situation in this area
destabilizes international relations.”
In an
indirect reference to the assassination in January of Qassem Soleimani,
commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,
Lavrov said the incident could have triggered a “large-scale war in the Gulf,”
thus highlighting the need to work collectively to de-escalate.
His choice
of example was curious, as many thought that Iran’s massive attack on Saudi
Arabia in September 2019 was a greater potential trigger for war, compared with
taking out a master terrorist in the field of his operations. But that choice
revealed some of the weaknesses of the Russian view.
Lavrov went
on to say that “blackmail, … demonization and accusation of only one party are
wrong and dangerous,” clearly singling out the US pressure on Iran for
criticism, and not the latter’s destabilizing behavior in the region.
He asserted
that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the
Iran nuclear deal, “made it possible to avert the threat of an armed conflict.”
However, there is evidence to the contrary - that the nuclear deal unleashed
greater destabilizing activities from Iran in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen,
as hardliners thought expanding Tehran’s influence in the region was their
reward for acquiescing to the deal.
Lavrov also
mentioned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to hold an online
meeting of the heads of state of the UN Security Council’s P5 nations (China,
France, Russia, the UK and the US), plus Germany and Iran, to “develop measures
aimed at preventing further escalation and forming a reliable collective
security system in the Gulf."
Note that
at this initial meeting there is no mention of representatives from the Arab
nations of the Gulf. At a later stage, Lavrov said he envisages the participation
of “the coastal countries, the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and
other stakeholders” in “the practical steps to implement these concepts.”
In other
words, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and/or the organization itself
will be involved only in the implementation stage of what others have already
decided.
Critics
have raised important questions about the Russian proposal. Firstly, there is a
serious problem with imposing a security system from the outside, or excluding
GCC countries during the planning stages of a proposed system and expecting
them to take part only in the implementation phase.
Secondly,
the Russian proposal is quite similar to one that Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani proposed in 2007, when he was secretary of Iran’s Supreme National
Security Council, for the establishment of a security and cooperation
organization in the Gulf. This indicates some alignment between the two
countries on this idea, as a way for Iran to shed its rogue-state image.
Thirdly,
the proposal in its current form is quite invasive, overlooking the mistrust
that exists among the parties — not only between the two sides of the Gulf, but
also between international players, especially the US, Russia and China.
Faced with
this skepticism from key players in the region, Moscow has recognized that the
goal of establishing a collective security architecture “won’t be short, nor
will it be easy,” as Lavrov told the UN Security Council in October. He said
that “the countries of the region must travel it themselves. The external
players’ job is to help them create proper conditions.” This was an important
recognition that previously was overlooked.
Lavrov also
added an important new element: that confidence-building measures must be the
starting point for improving the situation in the Gulf region, which is
something the GCC has stressed for some time. He said that those measures
should be “based on respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial
integrity of states, in strict accordance with international law and the UN
Charter.”
In its
communications with Iran, the GCC has stressed that a commitment to these
principles is necessary to establish trust and prepare the way for more-constructive
engagement. Commitment to those principles means that Iran should stop using
force to meddle in the affairs of its neighbours, and cease funding, arming and
training terrorists and sectarian militias to wreak havoc in the region, from Iraq
to Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. It also means that Tehran should halt missile and
drone attacks against Saudi Arabia, and stop harassing oil tankers in the Gulf
and the Red Sea, whether directly or through its proxies.
When Moscow
succeeds in persuading Tehran to commit to the UN Charter and restrict its
regional destabilizing activities, as a way to rebuild trust with its
neighbours, the proposal for a new collective security organization might
become more acceptable.
----
Dr.
Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC assistant secretary-general for political
affairs and negotiation, and a columnist for Arab News.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1781381
-----
Israeli-Palestinian
Peace-Talk Effort Continues After Biden Victory — But It Is Too Early To
Succeed
By
Osama Al-Sharif
December
22, 2020
Ahead of
the transition next month to a new US administration, Jordan, Egypt and the
Palestinian Authority are intensifying their diplomatic efforts to prepare the
ground for a common stand on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
A
trilateral meeting in Cairo last Saturday that brought together the foreign
ministers of the three countries resulted in a joint statement calling for the
resumption of peace negotiations.
Palestinian
Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Malki urged Israel to return to the negotiating table
for peace talks based on the two-state solution. He said that the Palestinian
Authority is ready to cooperate with US President-elect Joe Biden to achieve a
Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, on territory captured by
Israel during the 1967 war. He added that coordination with Cairo and Amman is
a “center point” that would establish a “starting point” in dealing with the
incoming Biden administration in Washington.
Jordanian
Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said the challenges faced by the Palestinians
“make coordination a necessity so that we can work together to serve the
Palestinian cause, which we all agree is the Arab first and central cause.” He
added that “there is an absence in the political horizon, and there is a
stalemate in the negotiations process.”
Both King
Abdullah of Jordan and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi have made
statements in the past few weeks reiterating support for the Palestinians and
for a just and lasting solution to the conflict that delivers a Palestinian
state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The recent
flurry in diplomatic activity comes in the wake of the US presidential election
last month. During a conversation with King Abdullah last month, president-elect
Joe Biden expressed his support for the two-state solution — something that
President Donald Trump had deviated from. The Trump administration’s peace
plan, which was unveiled in January, had few takers in the region or beyond.
Peace talks
have been stalled for years under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
who has abandoned the two-state solution and expressed reservations about the
prospect of allowing the Palestinians to have their own state.
In fact,
under Trump’s presidency Netanyahu’s right-wing government accelerated the
building of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and was
close to formally annexing the Jordan Valley last May. Jordan and Egypt
rejected the Israeli move, while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who had
already severed ties with Washington, suspended security coordination with
Israel.
While
Trump’s peace plan did not move forward, a number of Arab countries have
formalized normalization-of-relations agreements with Israel under US auspices.
Now the
Palestinian leadership feels there is room to build regional and international
consensus for a new peace initiative. Abbas met King Abdullah in Amman and
El-Sisi in Cairo last month. He renewed his call to convene an international
peace conference, and for a bigger role for the Quartet on the Middle East (the
UN, the US, the EU and Russia) in sponsoring the talks under the umbrella of
the UN.
Abbas hopes
that the Biden administration will reopen the Palestine Liberation
Organization’s office in Washington and the US consulate in East Jerusalem,
resume key aid to the Palestinian Authority, support the work of the UN Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and commit to the
two-state solution.
Jordan and
Egypt are backing the Palestinian position and hope to use their ties with
Washington to encourage the new administration to adopt such steps.
The
announcement last week of the appointment of a new UN envoy to the Middle East
will add to the fresh activity in the months ahead. Veteran Norwegian diplomat
Tor Wennesland will replace Nikolay Mladenov, who held the position for six
years and will step down next month.
Wennesland
is an experienced diplomat who served as an assistant to Norwegian official
Terje Rød-Larsen, one of the architects of the 1993 Oslo Accords between the
Israelis and the Palestinians, and has been involved in efforts to resolve the
conflict since then.
Jordan,
Egypt, France and Germany had hoped to kick-start informal talks between the
Palestinians and the Israelis in Cairo this month. Safadi held a rare meeting
with Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi at a Jordan River border crossing
this month and is believed to have invited his Israeli counterpart to a meeting
in Cairo on Dec. 20 but no representatives from Israel showed up.
Israel is
facing a political stalemate that could lead to new Knesset elections next
year, as Netanyahu’s partnership with Kahol Lavan leader Benny Gantz appears to
be breaking down. But even as his Likud Party undergoes splits, polls show that
Netanyahu may still be able to form a right-wing government.
Netanyahu
and his far-right partners continue to represent the main obstacle to a
resumption of peace talks. For them, the two-state solution is unacceptable. In
contrast, Gantz told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper last week that that
Palestinians should have an independent “entity” with territorial continuity,
and that there is room in Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital — but reiterated
that Israel “won’t go back to the 1967 borders” and “Jerusalem must stay
united.”
If peace
talks are to resume, however, two key players will have to state their
positions. The first is President Biden and his foreign-policy team. The second
is Netanyahu, who during the time of President Barack Obama was able to
challenge and neutralize the White House.
The
diplomatic stage might be set but it is still too early for a new push to bring
the Palestinians and Israelis to the negotiation table.
-----
Osama
Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1781326
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/middle-east-press-israel’s-nation/d/123847
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism