Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is officially a suspect in two criminal cases, Israeli police officials said last week. Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud party, has been under investigation for months. His alleged crimes: accepting illegal gifts from wealthy friends, and floating a quid pro quo deal with a newspaper publisher in a bid for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu’s fortunes appeared to turn last week, when his former chief of staff Ari Harrow agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. Harrow, according to police, revealed damaging information about his former boss, who is suspected of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The probes into the prime minister, known as “Case 1000” and “Case 2000,” deal with two separate instances. In “Case 1000,” Netanyahu is accused of accepting cigars and bottles of champagne from wealthy and powerful friends, including a Hollywood producer.

“Case 2000” concerns a phone call Netanyahu allegedly had with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu reportedly asked Mozes for more favorable coverage. In exchange, Netanyahu would curtail the circulation of Israel Hayom, a competitor that is traditionally pro-Netanyahu. Israel Hayom is backed by an American casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court said Netanyahu must reveal the dates of his phone calls with Adelson and Amos Regev, the former editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

According to legal analysts in Israel, it is likely Netanyahu will face charges, potentially forcing him to end his fourth term as prime minister years before scheduled elections. An indictment, which could still be months off, does not necessarily mean Netanyahu will step down, according to analysts and those familiar with Israeli law. And though Israeli prime ministers have been taken down by corruption investigations, a sitting prime minister has never been indicted.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was released from prison last month after serving a 16-month sentence. Olmert was forced from power in 2008, leading to early elections in 2009, when Netanyahu was elected to the premiership.

For his part, Netanyahu has called the investigations as “background noise,” vehemently denying any wrongdoing. “We cannot go without a ‘weekly affair’, so I want to tell you, citizens of Israel, I’m not referring to the background noise, I’m continuing to work for you,” Netanyahu said in a video published on his Facebook page last Friday.

But according to a recent poll by Israeli broadcaster Channel 10, Netanyahu’s popularity might be dwindling. According to the poll, 66 percent of Israelis say Netanyahu should resign if he is charged.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Investigations into Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backtracked on an agreement he made last year to create an egalitarian space at the Western Wall. He said he would seek what he feels is a better compromise between liberal progressive Jews and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Netanyahu decided to scrap the bill despite previously calling the solution a “fair and creative solution,” according to the Washington Post.

The Western Wall, or the “Kotel” in Hebrew, is one of the holiest sites in the world, and the holiest site for the Jewish people. It marks the only remaining ruins of the second Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE, according to the biblical account. A second temple was built a few decades later, and was ransacked and destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

For years, Jews and tourists from across the globe have traveled to the last remaining wall of the second temple in order to pray and stuff personal notes into the wall’s cracks. But one issue that has stemmed from this tradition is the wall’s gender divided prayer space. Men are allotted about 75 percent of the space, while women are granted a much smaller section.

Israel’s reform and conservative movements, together with Women of the Wall, an Israeli feminist organization, filed an official petition in September to reconfigure the prayer space. This action angered the ultra-Orthodox and decreased the chances for compromise, Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said.

Senior minister Tzachi Hanegbi has been appointed to seek an alternative solution. Netanyahu plans to meet with senior officials of the bipartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC President Lillian Pinkus and CEO Howard Kohr made an emergency visit to Jerusalem on Wednesday in order to meet with Israel’s leader, according to Haaretz.

AIPAC released a one-sentence statement expressing its faith in Israel’s democracy as “the best hope for a productive outcome,” according to Haaretz. Netanyahu opted not to meet with American reform and conservative Jewish leaders despite them being in Jerusalem for the Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors summit, according to Times of Israel.

While the ultra-Orthodox community was delighted by Netanyahu’s backtracking, the decision was met with outrage from many Jews in Israel and around the world. In recent years, Women of the Wall has emerged to campaign for changes. The progressive group has advocated for a more egalitarian space at the Western Wall where husbands, wives, and children can pray together instead of being separated by a barrier. Anat Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, wrote:

This is a bad day for women in Israel. The Women of the Wall will continue to worship at the women’s section of the Western Wall with the Torah scroll, prayer shawls and phylacteries until equality for women arrives at the wall as well.

The reason the barrier is there in the first place is to appease ultra-Orthodox Jews who adhere to the separation of the sexes. At Orthodox synagogues there are “mechitza’s” which separate the men and women during prayer.

Women are not permitted to read aloud from the Torah, wear prayer shawls (talit) or sing at the Western Wall. Women of the Wall also considers it a priority to change those restrictions.

Even some within the Israeli government spoke out against Netanyahu’s decision. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the prime minister’s choice “causes terrible harm to Jewish unity and to the alliance between the State of Israel and Diaspora Jewry,” according to the Washington Post.

Yaakov Katz, the editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote a column saying, “Sunday will go down in history as a shameful day for the State of Israel, another nail in the coffin of Israel’s failing relationship with Diaspora Jewry.” Clearly, many Jews in Israel and those living outside the country have had strong negative reactions to Netanyahu’s decision.

Multiple Jewish groups have announced that they will reconsider their relationship with Israel. The board of directors for the non-profit Jewish Agency canceled a dinner that was planned with Netanyahu, according to San Francisco Gate. Additionally, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said he felt betrayed. Since Jacobs sees no point in meeting with Netanyahu at this point, the Union would instead prepare for future debates, according to Times of Israel.

Newly minted ambassador to Israel David Friedman spoke about the controversy while at an event in Jerusalem. Friedman said he understood the frustration, but called for unity and understanding between the two sides, according to Haaretz.

Netanyahu’s decision on the Western Wall represents a huge divide between ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews and non-Orthodox Jews in Israel and around the world. Many American Jews have become frustrated with Netanyahu and the Israeli government in recent years, so this abandonment will only fuel those flames.

Now, the two sides must sit back down and find a compromise. It remains to be seen when a new deal will be reached, but the path there will surely be contentious.

“These negotiations were reached by listening to each other, mutual understanding… The [prime minister] initiated the negotiations and promised us and inspired us and now in one quick swoop without any warning stopped it all,” Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israeli Government Stalls Plans for an Equal Space at the Western Wall appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner will attempt to re-ignite peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians while on his trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah this week. He would be laying the groundwork for what President Donald Trump calls the “ultimate deal.” The trip is Kushner’s first to the region in his capacity as Trump’s chief envoy for the peace process.

For over two decades, American diplomats have been flummoxed by the peace process. Successful mediation of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has eluded even the most experienced and well-respected diplomats. Evidently, experience alone has not worked, leading some experts to believe Kushner’s inexperience could be beneficial.

Immediately upon landing in Israel on Wednesday, Kushner visited the parents of Hadas Malka, a 23-year-old Israeli police officer who was stabbed to death by a Palestinian last Friday.

Kushner arrives in Israel, visits family of slain border guard https://t.co/14UkeWSkxj

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) June 21, 2017

 Later, Kushner met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his office in Jerusalem. He was joined by Jason Greenblatt,Trump’s other envoy for the peace push, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, and his American counterpart David Friedman. Greenblatt has been particularly exhaustive in his efforts, speaking with representatives from both sides of the conflict. He also regularly live tweets his endeavors in the region:

Spending time w/families who r breaking the #Ramadan fast at Pediatric Cancer Ward @ Makassed Hospital. I pray for the kids’ quick recovery. pic.twitter.com/xHIggTxPuk

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

Back at the Kotel for much needed prayer. Inspired by the constant stream of warm wishes for success in bringing peace from others praying. pic.twitter.com/bPTMXVEOeT

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

According to the Associated Press, before the meeting began Netanyahu told Kushner it was “an opportunity to pursue our common goals of security, prosperity, and peace.”

On Thursday, Kushner is expected to travel to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

Deep divisions exist between the negotiating parties, including the status of East Jerusalem and the nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. The Palestinians are adamant that East Jerusalem be the capital of their future state, which would largely exist in the West Bank. Israel captured both areas, along with the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip, which is governed by the terrorist group Hamas, during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Trump’s ascendence to the White House initially overjoyed the far-right elements of Netanyahu’s governing coalition. His embrace of Israel, a far warmer public posture than former President Barack Obama, led many to believe his administration would be a blank check for settlement building. But he has since made it clear that he thinks settlements are, at least in part, an impediment to peace.

Could Trump’s flexibility–his ignorance and inexperience, critics might say–benefit him in a realm that has proven intractable for decades?

“President Trump is at his point of maximum leverage,” Daniel Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under Obama, told The Washington Post. “He has gained respect in the region. He is seen as serious. Add to that, his known streak for being unpredictable. This might make it very difficult to say no to him or to a member of his family.”

But still, Shapiro warned, “This creates an opening. Not more than an opening. One shouldn’t be irrationally exuberant. But the opening is real.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kushner Heads to Israel, West Bank for First Crack at Peace appeared first on Law Street.

Few cities have caused as many headaches as Jerusalem. On Thursday, President Donald Trump continued in the tradition of his predecessors in keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel’s metropolis on the Mediterranean, rather than moving it to Jerusalem, Israel’s proclaimed undivided capital. In the wake of Trump’s announcement, social media has seemingly come to a consensus: Trump broke a campaign promise. Sure, he did. But like everything else involving Jerusalem, it’s not that simple.

Status of the Holy City

When the United Nations officially recognized the State of Israel in 1947, it also sought to designate Jerusalem “corpus separatum,” or an international protectorate, apart from the Arab and Jewish states being created between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean to the west. That did not happen. Instead, after Israel officially declared itself a sovereign nation in May 1948, an attack was launched–Arab armies assaulted Israel, which eventually won the war.

But Jerusalem, which saw heavy fighting in the war, was split: Jordan captured the eastern half, which contains Judaism’s holiest sites (as well as Islamic and Christian holy sites), while Israel held onto the western half. Jordan governed the Holy City for nearly two decades. Under Jordanian rule, Jews were not allowed to visit their holiest site, the Western Wall. Jewish synagogues and cemeteries were destroyed or deconstructed. In the 1948-49 war, Jordan also captured the West Bank.

The Six-Day War in 1967 changed the status of Jerusalem, and shifted the conversation for decades to come. Israel captured a number of land parcels during the war: the Gaza Strip from Egypt; the Golan Heights from Syria; and the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan. Soon after, Israel annexed the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, moves that the international community did not–and still does not–recognize. Since then, all of Jerusalem–save the Temple Mount, a holy site for all Abrahamic faiths, which remains in Jordan’s hands–has belonged to Israel, which deems the city its undivided, eternal capital.

The U.S. Embassy

The U.S., like all other countries, has kept its embassy in Tel Aviv for decades. Israel has urged U.S. presidents to move the embassy to Jerusalem, home to Israel’s parliament, Supreme Court, and numerous cultural and business institutions. In 1995, the Clinton Administration signed a bill that set a clear path for the embassy move.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 found that the U.S. “maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.” The bill continued: “The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.”

The bill dictated that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. However, it also allowed presidents to waive the move, if it “is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” Like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Trump made a campaign promise to move the embassy. But on Thursday, despite his firm insistence he would buck the trend and actually go ahead with the move, Trump decided to renew the waiver, which will last for six months.

Despite delaying the embassy move, a White House statement said, “no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance.” It continued: “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests.” The White House said “the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed disappointment, but reiterated the U.S.-Israel partnership. A statement from his office said: “Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future.”

To Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, Trump made the right decision:

1. Trump was right to issue the Jerusalem embassy waiver today. But I hope it’s the last waiver, allowing the move later this year.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

He said Trump has leverage in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and a hasty move could have squandered trust. Shapiro said that once all sides, including Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are on the same page, then the embassy move would be prudent:

6. Then establish the embassy in W Jerusalem. Shatter Pal myth that Israel has no Jerusalem claims & treat Jerusalem as the capital it is.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Keep U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

For a quarter century, the U.S. has exhaustively tried to broker the deal of all deals: an independent Palestinian state. And it has been seeking lasting peace in a region that has been rife with violence for a century. On Wednesday, during a meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, President Donald Trump expressed confidence that he would achieve what none of his predecessors have been able to.

“We will get this done,” Trump said. Striking a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of Trump’s more consistent priorities. He has appointed a former Trump Organization lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, as the liaison for negotiations. Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew, has garnered wide praise for his willingness to listen to all of the involved parties–Israelis, Palestinians, and leaders from nearby Arab states like Jordan and Egypt.

Trump insisted he is “committed” to brokering an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that “allows both people to live, worship and thrive and prosper in peace.” During a February meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump did not explicitly support a two-state solution–sovereign states for both Israel and Palestinians–instead saying he favors “the one that both parties like.”

Abbas, speaking in Arabic, said a Palestinian state is the only solution to the decades-old conflict, calling on the pre-1967 borders–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–as the template for a future state. Ceding East Jerusalem, home to Judaism’s holiest sites, to the Palestinians as their future capital has long been a contentious point for the Israelis. The last stab at peace, mediated by former Secretary of State John Kerry, folded in 2014 after the two sides could not agree to the specifics of a peace deal.

According to Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, in a private sit-down with Abbas after their public remarks, Trump told the Palestinian leader that a key to lasting peace is for the PA to stop sponsoring terrorism. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the PA, which receives foreign aid, including from the U.S., pays $315 million each year to the families of “martyrs,” or men who commit suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

For Abbas, the “occupation of our people and of our land” must end before a peaceful solution can be reached. “After 50 years,” he said, referring to Israel’s capture of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, “we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation.” Abbas, like Trump, expressed confidence the quest for peace is not finished. Switching to English, he turned to Trump and said: “now, Mr. President, with you, we have hope.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Deal: “We Will Get This Done” appeared first on Law Street.

At a convention center on the banks of the Jordan side of the Dead Sea on Wednesday, leaders of 21 Arab states reaffirmed their commitment to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 28th Arab League Summit had a simple, unifying message: ties with Israel will not be fully normalized until a peace deal with the Palestinians is reached.

As the Arab world deals with a coterie of conflicts–civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya; Islamic State and other terror groups; Iran’s proxy adventures and missile program–leaders showed the decades-old conflict still serves as a unifying force in the region.

The summit meeting comes as the Trump Administration mounts an aggressive campaign to strike a peace deal. President Donald Trump has not thrown his whole weight behind the two-state option, instead opting for whatever approach “both parties like.” And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has broadened his language as well; in recent speeches, he eschews the “two-state” label while still saying he supports peace.

Trump is set to meet with a trio of Arab leaders–Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas–in the coming weeks. Trump’s envoy for the conflict, Jason Greenblatt, was an observer at Wednesday’s gathering. A statement from the U.S. Embassy in Jordan said Greenblatt “listened to their views and ideas, and held a round of bilateral meetings with Arab leaders and other foreign delegations to discuss U.S. perspectives and policies.”

“He reaffirmed President Trump’s personal interest in achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and his belief that such a peace agreement is not only possible, but would reverberate positively throughout the region and the world,” the statement added.

Affirming their support for normalizing ties with Israel in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state, the Arab leaders referenced the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for a future deal. That initiative calls for a “just and comprehensive peace,” including “full Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since” the Six Day War in 1967, in which Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem.

Israel has rejected the initiative, because it fails to recognize the Jewish people’s ties to east Jerusalem, which contains the religion’s holiest site, the Temple Mount complex. Jordan is a custodian of the fiercely contested site; Jews are currently allowed to visit, but not pray at the site. The initiative also failed to include land swaps for areas of the West Bank inhabited by Israeli settlers, which lay beyond the pre-1967 boundary, a condition Israel says is a pre-requisite for any peace deal.

But for Arab leaders, the West Bank settlements are illegal intrusions on Palestinian land. “Israel is continuing to expand settlements and undermining the chances of achieving peace,” Jordan’s Abdullah said at the summit. In their closing statement, the Arab leaders seemed to recognize the importance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has for region as a whole, saying “peace is a strategic option” for Arab nations.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arab Leaders Throw Support Behind Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

In the words of President Donald Trump, it would be the “ultimate deal.” But it is a deal that has flummoxed the negotiating partners for 70 years: the elusive partitioning of historic Palestine into two states, Israel and Palestine. For decades, the U.S. has been a vital broker for and backer of a two-state path. But with Donald Trump in office, the standard, seemingly immortal U.S. position may be in question. In a Wednesday press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said he is “looking at two-state and one-state” solutions, and he prefers “the one that both parties like.”

Trump’s statements cannot be chiseled in stone to represent a permanent shift in the U.S. stance. For one, Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations directly contradicted Trump on Thursday at a Security Council session on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We absolutely support a two-state solution,” Haley said. “But we are thinking out of the box as well, which is–what does it take to bring these two sides to the table, what do we need to have them agree on?”

David Friedman, Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, also expressed support to the two-state solution in his confirmation hearing on Thursday. “It still remains the best possibility for peace in the region,” he said. And despite the fact that Friedman has poured millions of dollars into an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, he said settlements “may not be helpful” for peace, adding that it “makes sense to tread very carefully in that area.”

Present Dilemma: Waning Desire for a Two-State Solution

So while Trump’s envoys say one thing, he says another. Though he has not decisively aborted the two-state route, he has said he is open to other, less popular routes. But as we have seen, a fleeting statement at a press conference might not always coalesce into a sturdy position for Trump.

For instance, after he won the election, he accepted a call from Taiwan, infuriating China, which worried he would abandon the decades-old “One China” policy. Trump further compounded China’s fury when he explicitly questioned the wisdom of “One China.” But then Trump backtracked. He recently told Chinese President Xi Jinping the U.S. will recognize the longstanding policy. The threat of an unprecedented U.S. pivot subsided.

Now, a rogue Taiwan provoking Trump into undermining “One China” is not quite on the same scale as a true shift in U.S. policy regarding the two-state solution. But Trump has shown that he can be in flux, and say one thing on Monday, and another thing on Thursday.

Regardless of the American position on the intractable conflict, alternatives to the two-state solution seem to be gaining steam. It is unclear what other paths to peace would look like, but one thing is fairly clear: a slim majority of Israelis and a large minority of Palestinians still support two states. According to a Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll, 55 percent of Israelis, and 44 percent of Palestinians back a two-state solution. Support for a single, bi-national state is fractured in Israel, as 19 percent of Israeli Jews and 56 percent of Israeli Arabs support that idea. Thirty-six percent of Palestinians support a single state.

But despite popular support on both sides, the political will to strike a deal is withering. The Palestinian leadership is fractured among the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas–a designated terrorist group by the U.S., Europe, and Israel–in the Gaza Strip. And in Israel, an emboldened right-wing government that is calcifying its position that a two-state solution is an impossible by encouraging more settlement growth. Netanyahu still supports two states, though of late he has primarily alluded to his position than thrown his full weight behind it.

Past Failures

It is useful to understand the history of the two-state ordeal. In 1937, before Israel was established as a state, a British commission recommended partitioning the land of Palestine into two states–one for Jews, one for Arabs. In terms of land mass, the proposed Arab state would have dwarfed the Jewish state. The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs declined. A decade later, in 1947, the U.N. voted for a similar partition plan. Again, the Jews accepted the internationally-backed plan; the Arabs did not, instead deciding to launch a full-scale war against Israel, after it was established as a state, in 1948.

Israel won the War of Independence but ceded the territory now known as the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt respectively. In June 1967, Jordan and Egypt prepared to launch a second war against Israel, with the promise of obliterating the Jewish State. Israel launched a preemptive strike, won the war, and control of the West Bank and Gaza changed hands: from that point on, Israel occupied the territories that would make up any future Palestinian state.

The next opportunity–and the last true glimmer of peace–came in 2000 during the Camp David Summit. In late July, President Bill Clinton, the first U.S. leader to attempt to broker a two-state solution, announced the two sides were unable to reach an agreement. Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital, was the ultimate, insurmountable obstacle to lasting peace.

Future Success?

And now, nearly two decades later, here we are: Israeli settlements are slowly creeping along the hills of the West Bank; Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately into Israel; the PA glorifies violence against Israelis and praises martyrs. The two-state solution is looking more dim and unlikely than ever before.

So where does the U.S., the most important international player in the conflict, stand? Of course, before Trump, there was President Barack Obama, who, like previous U.S. administrations, steadfastly supported two states. Trump has shown less opposition to Israeli settlements than his predecessors, and he has expressed an openness to other solutions in a way that is unprecedented for a U.S. president.

But, though reading the tea leaves of Trump’s mind is a precarious business, it seems that he is in favor of two states. As many people still believe, and as U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently said, “There is no Plan B to the situation between Palestinians and Israelis but a two-state solution.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does the U.S. Stand on the Two-State Solution? appeared first on Law Street.

Standing next to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Wednesday afternoon, President Donald Trump said that Israel can expect strong support from the U.S., but also cautioned further settlement building in the West Bank, calling it an impediment to peace. But in stark contrast to the decades-long U.S. position on Israel and Palestine, Trump said he is open to a one-state or two-state solution to the conflict, as long as it’s one that “both parties like.”

The press conference, which preceded a closed-door meeting between Trump and Netanyahu, was a highly anticipated litmus test to see where Trump stood, not only on the two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, but also on other regional issues, like Iran’s nuclear program, and whether he would move the U.S. embassy currently in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Trump’s ascendence to the presidency has been a hopeful development for Netanyahu, who had a fairly terse relationship with President Barack Obama. As Israel continues to construct settlements in the West Bank–Netanyahu recently approved an entirely new settlement for the first time in 25 years–many see the two-state solution, in which an Israeli and Palestinian state exist side-by-side, as the folly of a bygone era. Israeli lawmakers to the right of Netanyahu have been ramping up the pressure to annex the territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967, after it defeated Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states in the Six Day War.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Netanyahu insisted his official stance on the conflict (he supports two states) “hasn’t changed.” But he did not explicitly express support for the idea. And neither did Trump. “I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one that both parties like,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. “will encourage a peace, and really a great peace deal,” regardless of what that deal ultimately looks like.

Trump did say continued settlement building is an obstacle to peace, which has been the mainstream U.S. position for decades. He told Netanyahu to “hold off on settlements for a little bit,” then, tilting his head to the right, looked at Netanyahu and said: “Both sides will have to make compromises. You know that, right?” Netanyahu chuckled and responded: “Both sides.” Netanyahu, in his comments, called on the Palestinians to hold up their end of the bargain. Trump stressed that in the end, a deal could only be struck directly by the two negotiating partners.

Netanyahu named two “prerequisites” for peace. “First, the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish State,” the prime minister said. “They have to stop calling for Israel’s destruction. They have to stop educating their people for Israel’s destruction.” Second, Netanyahu said, Israel must retain security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River, which includes Israel and the West Bank. Otherwise, he said, there will be “another radical Islamic terrorist state.”

Welcome to the United States, @IsraeliPM Benjamin & Sara!#ICYMIJoint Press Conference: https://t.co/GN6ALWUusN pic.twitter.com/bH60nBL5FP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

Trump has recently embraced the so-called “outside-in” approach to solving the conflict. According to this strategy, Israel would forge deeper relationships with Sunni Arab states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan. Concentrating on common issues like trade, and common enemies like Iran and Islamic State, the Arab world would then come together to pressure the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis and, ideally, forge a state of their own. But this is still somewhat of a fringe idea, as many Arab states are experiencing crises of their own, and the Palestinian issue is hardly at the front of their agendas.

The two leaders discussed other pertinent issues as well. One reporter asked Trump about his plans to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Israel claims as its capital and the Palestinians claim as the capital to any future state. Without much detail, Trump said he would “love to see that happen.” It is not clear if that sentiment is mutual in Israel, both among the populace and the government. Many Israelis see it as a move that can wait; it could incite Palestinian violence as well.

Toward the end of the press conference, an Israeli reporter asked Trump about the rising anti-Semitism in the U.S., and about the xenophobic elements of his campaign. Trump responded by gloating about his election victory: “Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had.” In response to the rise in anti-Semitic incidents since his election win, Trump pointed to his daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is an Orthodox Jew. “You’re going to see a lot of love. Okay? Thank you,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Says He’s Open to a One-State or Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

Israel is one step closer to exporting medical marijuana to countries that have legalized the drug for medical use. On Sunday, Yoav Kisch, a lawmaker from the ruling Likud party, introduced legislation that would allow Israel to export medical marijuana.

Medical marijuana is legal in Israel, but its local market isn’t exactly what you’d call a cash cow. Roughly 23,000 patients have permits to buy from the country’s nine licensed suppliers, and the market is projected to be worth between $15 million to $20 million.

“Exporting medical cannabis is pushing forward the economy and developing the agricultural sector,” Kisch said. “My bill defines for the first time the whole field of medical cannabis and allows regulating its export.”

Kisch also noted that Canada and Australia began exporting medical marijuana last year, and reaped the economic benefits. The bill, which could spend months navigating the Knesset (Israel’s lawmaking body), would likely expand Israel’s net marijuana profits. Citing recent research, Kisch said Israel stands to make over one billion NIS (or nearly $267 million) by exporting medical marijuana.

With its envelope-pushing research and relative government support for legalization, Israel is a beacon for marijuana investors around the world. As of 2016, the country had attracted roughly $100 million in investments. But it’s not just the scientists, business people, and lawmakers that place Israel at the forefront of a still nascent global industry–it’s the people.

In Tel Aviv Saturday night, thousands of Israelis showed up to encourage the Knesset to legalize recreational marijuana. Two members of parliament were also in attendance: MK Sharren Haskel of the Likud party, which is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and MK Tamar Zandberg of the opposing Meretz party.

“This is a health campaign, a campaign for quality of life,” Zandberg said.

Last month, Israel’s Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan announced that he would be adopting the “Portugal Model,” in which marijuana is treated as a health issue, not a criminal offense. The new model has yet to go into effect, but a majority of lawmakers support the policy shift.

As it fully implements its decriminalization laws and aims to begin exporting medical cannabis, Israel is poised to continue breaking ground in the cannabis field.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Israel Start Exporting Medical Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

Late Monday, Israel’s Parliament passed a law to retroactively legalize settlements on about 2,000 acres of Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank. Passed with a vote of 60-52, the bill is widely expected to be struck down by Israel’s Supreme Court; the attorney general also recently said he would refuse to enforce the law. The vote reflects the growing influence of the settler movement in Israeli politics, and a new political reality for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who previously opposed retroactive legalization of settlements.

Under the law, a few thousand housing units in 16 different settlements would be deemed legal. Palestinian landowners would be compensated for the land, but would not be able to reclaim it. Some settlements in Israel, because they are located on private Palestinian land, are considered illegal by the Israeli government, as well as the international community, which condemns all Israeli settlements. In fact, last month, the United Nations passed a highly contentious resolution that called settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law.

Reactions to the passing of the bill exemplify the increasingly polarized climate of Israeli politics, especially as it concerns the settler movement. “Today Israel decreed that developing settlement in Judea and Samaria is an Israeli interest,” said Bezalel Smotrich, a right-wing lawmaker, referring to the biblical names of the West Bank. “From here we move on to expanding Israeli sovereignty and continuing to build and develop settlements across the land.”

Much of the ethos behind the settler movement is tied to the Jewish claim to the land of Israel including, most notably, the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria). Israel captured the Palestinian territories–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–from Jordan and Egypt after it won the 1967 Six-Day War. For 50 years, settlements have remained a flashpoint in Israeli-Palestinian relations, and in Israel’s broader relationship with the international community.

But many Israelis oppose settlements, and support a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Parliament members on the left and the center (and even many on the right) condemn settlements, and see them as an impediment to peace. Yair Lapid, head of the Yesh Atid party, and a leading contender to succeed Netanyahu, called the law “unjust.” He added: “They are passing a law which endangers our soldiers, will undermine our international standing and undermine us as a country of law and order.”

As of a few months ago, Netanyahu opposed passage of the law. But things have changed very quickly. For one, President Donald Trump’s election victory signaled a less harsh U.S. stance on settlements than Netanyahu experienced with President Barack Obama. Trump also appointed David Friedman, a pro-settlement lawyer who has donated millions of dollars to the settler movement, as his ambassador to Israel.

Netanyahu’s ambivalence on Monday’s vote also reflects his precarious position with the settler movement, and in his broader political standing. Netanyahu is currently being investigated on corruption charges, and is under constant pressure from lawmakers to his right to support the settlers.

Last week, 40 settler families were evacuated by Israeli police from the settlement of Amona. The Supreme Court ruled the Amona outpost was illegal, as it was built on private Palestinian land. After the evacuation, Netanyahu swiftly approved the construction of a new settlement, something that has not been done in over 25 years.

Trump said approving new settlements “may not be helpful” to peace, a noticeably milder critique than those from past U.S. administrations. Trump is meeting with Netanyahu in Washington D.C. on February 15, and a clearer picture of the current U.S. stance on settlements should emerge soon after. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has other things to worry about: the same day the settlement bill passed, rockets were fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into Israel.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel Passes Law to Retroactively Legalize Illegal West Bank Settlements appeared first on Law Street.

Representatives from 72 countries will be in Paris on Sunday, discussing a highly contentious issue that has befuddled the international community for decades: a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the conference was “rigged,” and suggested that it could push the prospect of peace further away.

During a meeting in Jerusalem with Norway’s foreign minister, Netanyahu, who declined an invitation to the Paris conference, said: “It’s a rigged conference, rigged by the Palestinians with French auspices to adopt additional anti-Israel stances.” He added: “This pushes peace backwards. It’s not going to obligate us. It’s a relic of the past.”

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict captured the world’s attention last month, when the U.S. abstained in a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution that called Israeli settlement activity a “flagrant violation” of international law. Secretary of State John Kerry, who will be leaving office next week, followed the contentious abstention with a longwinded speech that called Israel’s West Bank settlements a major impediment to peace, and an obstacle to forging an eventual Palestinian state.

The speech drew the ire of Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership. Trump nominated David Friedman, a New York bankruptcy lawyer, as his ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an staunch advocate for West Bank settlements, and has donated to the settlement movement in the past.

He has also suggested moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which could inflame tensions even further–the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of a future state. Trump’s team recently said they might have Friedman live and work in Jerusalem while keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv.

In a recent speech, French President Francois Hollande, addressing the Paris conference, said: “I cannot accept the status quo, letting people think that the conflict would resolve itself. It is not true. That is why France took the initiative of a conference on the Middle East.”

Hollande acknowledged that peace can only come through bilateral talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Paris conference is meant to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to a two-state solution. The last round of bilateral talks came in 2014. Those talks, brokered by the U.S., quickly fizzled.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Netanyahu Calls Paris Peace Conference “Rigged” and “Anti-Israel” appeared first on Law Street.

In a lengthy and detailed speech on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the U.S.’s decision to abstain from a vote condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and advocated for a two-state solution as the path to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Kerry affirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to Israel, describing the relationship as a friendship but declaring that friends “need to tell each other the hard truths.” He then went on to assert that the U.S. did indeed vote in accordance with its values, declaring that a vote against the settlements would jeopardize a two-state solution, which he described as the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The speech comes in the wake of a wave of criticism from President-elect Donald Trump and the dismay of pro-Israel advocates who called upon the U.S. to veto the U.N. resolution. The U.N. resolution declared the settlements a violation of international law, and were not vetoed by any of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

Simply the announcement of Kerry’s planned speech was enough to draw ire from many public figures, who believed the U.N. vote showed a disloyalty to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

After allowing this anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN, Secretary Kerry has no credibility to speak on Israeli-Palestinian peace.

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) December 28, 2016

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but…….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

Kerry said he felt “compelled” to respond in the wake of the backlash, stressing the U.S.’s continued support for Israel but taking a hard stance against the West Bank settlements. He also said that if Israel went down the one-state path, “it will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world.” He outlined principles for negotiations between the two parties, declaring that both sides must be actively involved in the peace process in order for it to be effective.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech a “deep disappointment” during a news conference on Wednesday, saying that it “was almost as unbalanced as the anti-Israel resolution” passed by the U.N. last week. He also allegedly vowed to work with the Trump administration to repeal the U.N. resolution.

While it is unlikely that the speech could substantially change Israeli policies in the region, it sent a powerful statement that the Obama administration was standing by its vote at the U.N. despite opposition from Israel.

While the Trump administration has vowed to strengthen the alliance between the two countries further, Secretary Kerry’s speech has essentially cemented the Obama administration’s legacy as one with a tenuous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu: keeping amicable terms, but refusing to bend to its every demand.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post John Kerry Outlines Middle East Peace Plan in Controversial Speech appeared first on Law Street.

In defiance of the United Nation’s condemnation of its settlement program last week, Israel’s government will issue permits for 618 new settlements on Wednesday. The first installment of 5,600 new homes is expected to be erected in East Jerusalem in the near future.

The settlement planning committee said the permits were being discussed before the UN Security Council passed the resolution last Friday. The resolution called Israeli settlement activity a “flagrant violation under international law” that was “dangerously imperiling the viability” of a future peace settlement establishing a Palestinian state.

“I won’t get worked up over the UN or any other organization that might try to dictate to us what to do in Jerusalem,” Deputy Mayor Meir Turgeman, the planning committee chairman, told an Israeli newspaper. “I hope that the government and the new administration in the United States will give us momentum to continue.”

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the resolution by halting aid and canceling meetings with foreign diplomats. He canceled a meeting with the prime minister of Ukraine, one of the 14 countries that supported the resolution. Netanyahu, angered by the U.S.’s decision to abstain rather than veto the resolution, summoned Daniel Shapiro, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, to clarify the U.S. position.

For decades, it has been standard practice for the U.S. to veto anti-settlement measures, but last week it elected to abstain for the first time. Netanyahu claims that the U.S. colluded behind the scenes with the countries that sponsored the resolution, including New Zealand, and played a more direct role in drafting the resolution. He said he had evidence of the U.S.’s involvement and would share it with President-elect Donald Trump.

“Israel is a country with national pride, and we do not turn the other cheek,” Netanyahu said on Monday, adding that Israel’s response is “responsible, measured and vigorous.” It was the “natural response of a healthy people that is making it clear to the nations of the world that what was done at the UN is unacceptable to us,” he said.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have long rankled the international community, and Palestinian leadership. Many consider the settlements a key impediment to peace, though Israeli officials say it is a bargaining chip for negotiations of a two-state solution.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., told The New York Times that the Palestinian strategy is to wage a “diplomatic and legal war against Israel.” He added: “Their strategy is not to negotiate an agreement with Israel because a deal is give and take. They want take and take.”

Netanyahu’s conservative government has high hopes that Trump, who will take office in a few weeks, will bring a friendlier relationship to Israel and help change the UN-Israel relationship as well. In a tweet Monday, Trump called the UN “a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel Issues New Settlement Permits, Defying UN Resolution appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, 80 miles off the Israeli coast, in the Mediterranean Sea, Israeli soldiers raided a Turkish ship that was on a humanitarian mission to the Gaza Strip. The soldiers killed ten workers onboard. The bloody episode aboard the Mavi Marmara–which was attempting to breach Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip–resulted in  severed ties between Israel and Turkey. On Monday, in a deal that has garnered praised from Gaza to America, Israel and Turkey announced intentions to thaw their diplomatic relationship, ushering in a new era of cooperation. The deal will be officially signed on Tuesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the deal in Rome, where he was meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. In a speech broadcast from Rome to Jerusalem, Netanyahu touched on the primary tenets of the partnership moving forward: Turkey will be allowed to move aid to the Gaza Strip–a tiny parcel of Palestinian territory that is controlled by Hamas, a Palestinian group which the U.S. deems a terrorist organization–via the Israeli port of Ashdod. That means the naval blockade of Gaza–the point of contention in the 2010 IDF raid–will remain in place. Netanyahu called the blockade “a supreme security interest,” and said he was “not prepared to compromise on it.”

Turkey can deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, but shipments must stop through Ashdod for Israel’s approval first. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, in his announcement of the deal in Ankara on Monday, said Turkey intends to send an aid ship of 10,000 tons of materials on Friday. He also said Turkey aims to build a 200-bed hospital, new residential buildings, a power station, and desalination plant in Gaza. The new deal also stipulates that Israel will pay $20 million to the families of the Mavi Marmara victims, and for their part, Turkey will not pursue legal action against the IDF soldiers who participated in the killings.

Netanyahu said an Israeli ambassador will be sent to Turkey, and a Turkish counterpart to Israel, “as soon as possible.” Because of normalized relations, Turkey will likely become a customer of Israeli natural gas, and Netanyahu said the deal would have “immense implications for the Israeli economy.” The partnership is especially important considering the calamity in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, which shares a border with both countries. Some analysts peg the deal as a tool against Iran, a rival for both countries in  regional prominence.

In Rome, Kerry congratulated Netanyahu on the deal. He said: “I think it’s a positive step, one of, I hope, the beginning of others.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel and Turkey Re-establish Diplomatic Ties appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Iran, along with a number of other world powers, reached a tentative deal on April 2, 2015, that would prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. The deal required a tremendous amount of time and work to come together. With all these moving parts it’s not surprising that there have been varied reactions around the world. Regardless, if finalized, the deal will have wide-reaching ramifications both regionally and across the globe. Read on to learn about the current agreement, its impact, and what could happen if it falls through.

The Deal

So what exactly is this “deal” to which Iran, the U.S., and the other nations agreed?

Iran’s Requirements

To begin, Iran will reduce its number of centrifuges and lessen its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Excesses of both will be handed over to the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for safe storage. Iran will also stop enriching uranium at its Fordow facility and will not build any new enrichment facilities. Only one plant, Natanz, will continue to enrich uranium, although in lesser amounts. Additionally, Iran will halt research on uranium enrichment concerning spent fuel rods and will either postpone or reduce research on general uranium enrichment and on advanced types of centrifuges. Iran, by following through with these commitments, will abide by its requirements as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, Iran will open itself completely to IAEA inspections. The overarching goal is to change the timeline of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon from a few months to at least a year.

U.S. and E.U. Requirements

On the other side of the deal are the U.S. and the E.U. These parties will begin lifting sanctions on Iran once it has been verified that it is complying with the agreed conditions concerning the nuclear framework agreement. These sanctions include a number of limitations that have hurt the Iranian economy. Specifically, the E.U. sanctions include trade restrictions on uranium-related equipment, asset freezes, a ban on transactions with Iranian financial institutions, and a ban on Iranian energy products. The U.S. has been levying sanctions on Iran since 1979; these include most of those imposed by the E.U. as well as sanctions on basically all types of trade with Iran, other than aid-related equipment.

The sanctions lifted will only be those levied in relation to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; other sanctions that are a result of human rights violations for example, will remain in place. Additionally, if Iran violates the terms of the agreement, the original sanctions can go back into effect. The following video explains in detail what the Iranians agreed to and what the U.S. and other world powers are offering in return.

Roadblocks to the Deal

While a framework is in place and the Obama Administration hailed it as progress, there are still several potential challenges that could derail the agreement before it is finalized in June. Each side appears to have to contend with at least one formidable roadblock to the deal’s success.

In the U.S., Congress still isn’t quite on board. For the U.S. to lift sanctions, President Obama needs Congress to approve the deal; however, due to consistent fighting with Congress, the president has been reluctant to leave it in their hands. Nevertheless, thanks to an agreement on April 14, 2015, Congress will now get to vote on a finalized deal if it is reached by June 30, 2015. While this may appear as yet another defeat for the president and pose a dark outlook for the nuclear agreement, the compromise reached with Congress ensures they will have a say.

Another potential roadblock is Israel. While the country does not have any direct say in whether the deal happens or not, it is not without influence.  As Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. shows, he has Congress’ ear, and could prove an effective lobbyist.

On the Iranian side, dissent has emerged from the arguably most powerful voice in the entire country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the country. In a recent speech he called for sanctions to be lifted immediately upon finalization of the deal, meaning Iran would not have to proove its sincerity first. Khamenei is an unquestioned power in Iran, so this could be a big problem. The video below reiterates the obstacles to finalizing an Iranian nuclear deal.

Impact of the Agreement

The impact of a successful Iran-U.S. deal would be monumental on national, regional, and global levels.

National Importance

Perhaps no party will reap the benefits of this deal as much as Iran itself. With a deal in place, Iran’s economic struggles as a result of the sanctions will be softened. Iran has the opportunity to improve its economy dramatically. When the sanctions are lifted, Iran can enjoy a $100 billion windfall in oil profits that have been frozen as part of the sanctions. Additionally, Iran can follow through on a number of oil pipeline projects it had in place, but was unable to complete due to the sanctions. Lastly, with U.S. cooperation, Iran will be able to more efficiently develop its large oil and natural gas reserves with American technology.

Regional Importance

While Iran stands to gain the most, there will also be changes for the region as a whole. In agreeing to this deal, Iran did not agree to limit its actions in the ongoing conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, and its proxy war in Yemen, which is especially important as it is part of the larger feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been in competition with Iran, its ideological and religious counter, for leadership of the Middle East for years. The two have engaged indirectly in a number of conflicts for the hearts and minds of the region. While the nuclear deal likely eliminates a potential nuclear arms race between the conflicting sides, it does nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to vie for control of the region.

Israel shares a similar fear of Iran’s growing influence. Iran is a chief supporter of Hezbollah, a group based in Lebanon that strongly opposes Israel. Additionally, Israel, while not declared, is a well-known nuclear power. These nuclear weapons provide Israel with the ultimate deterrent against larger countries like Iran. Israel therefore fears the Iran nuclear deal because it believes the deal will further empower Iran.

Global Importance

Lastly is the impact of the deal within the global community, beginning with the United States. Many experts expect a huge increase in the world oil supply once the sanctions are lifted. American corporations will benefit not only from cheaper prices, but also from access to developing Iranian energy supplies.

The deal could also help countries such as India, which also benefits from cheap energy as well as increased access to development projects in Iran. China is yet another country that can use another source of cheap oil, but by agreeing to a deal with the U.S., Iran may have taken itself out of the orbit of a sympathetic China. Along a similar vein, Russia, whose economy lives and dies with energy prices, does not need another competitor to bring the price of oil down even further, which is likely to happen.  The video below explains further what the implications of the Iran nuclear deal are.

Thus the Iran deal means something different to all parties at every level of foreign affairs, but the consensus is that it is important to all sides.

 Conclusion

On paper the Iran nuclear deal is a win for most parties. The problem is the deal is not on paper yet, as only a framework has been reached. While even getting this far can seem like a monumental step when history is factored in, that same history has the potential to undo everything achieved so far. Whether or not all sides end up getting on board with this deal remains to be seen.

Resources

Business Insider: Here’s the Text of the Iran Nuclear Framework

Al Jazeera: Why Saudi Arabia and Israel Oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal

Reuters: Kerry Says He Stands by Presentation of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

BBC News: Iran Nuclear Crisis: What Are the Sanctions?

Cato Institute: Remaining Obstacles to the Iran Nuclear Deal

Daily Star: Region to Feel the Effects of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Israeli Response to Iran Nuclear Deal Could Have Broader Implications

Quora: What Could Be an Impact on a Global Level of Iran’s Nuclear Deal?

BBC News: Iran-U.S. Relations

Atlantic: What Are the Alternatives to Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Castle Made of Sand? The Iranian Nuclear Deal Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

The current conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas has been met with repeated declarations by American politicians about Israel’s right to defend itself. Now in its fourth week, the Israeli Defense Force’s “Operation Protective Edge” has claimed the lives of more than 50 Israeli soldiers, three Israeli civilians, and upwards of 1,500 Palestinians — 80 percent of whom the United Nations estimates are civilians.

With death tolls that lopsided, it’s worth taking a look at self-defense: what does each side consider it to be and do Israel’s actions legally qualify? Here’s the breakdown, starting with the origins of the current conflict.

First Shots

One common narrative to explain how the fighting started has dominated the media. That storyline claims that on June 12, members of Hamas kidnapped and killed three Israeli teenagers, prompting a massive search of Gaza and the West Bank for the victims. The kidnapping led a group of Israeli settlers to kidnap and burn alive a Palestinian teenager in a revenge attack. Hamas, it is said, then launched rocket fire into Israel in response, leaving Israel with no choice but to retaliate.

What is often buried in this narrative is that before any rockets were launched from Gaza in the current conflict, Israel led an operation in which it arrested more than 500 Palestinians while searching for the three missing teens. Nine palestinians were killed in that campaign, known as “Operation Brother’s Keeper.” More importantly, Israeli officials knew from early on that the teens had been dead — despite their claims that they were searching for the boys alive. There’s evidence that one of the kidnapped boys managed to phone the Israeli police. The boys were killed during that phone call, but the recording and the knowledge of the deaths were under a gag order that wasn’t lifted until July 1. All of this calls into question why Israeli authorities carried out their search under the misinformation that the boys may have been alive.

There’s also some confusion over who took the young men: while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially blamed members of Hamas as the kidnappers and murderers of the three Israeli teens, officials later admitted that they believed the culprits were acting as “lone cells.”

The question of who sparked this conflict absolutely depends on how you frame recent events. But to say that it began with Hamas’ rocket fire ignores Israel’s provocative and questionable actions.

Israel’s Right to Defend Itself

Netanyahu, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and the U.S. Senate have publicly maintained that Israel has the right to defend itself from thousands of rockets being launched over the border from Gaza by the al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing. The problem is that nearly all of those rockets either land in open fields or are intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome system.

While anyone can argue that any state has the right to defend itself from outside attacks, Israel is an occupying power in the Gaza strip according to international law. That means Israel needs to uphold the tenants of occupation law, which dictates that it is responsible for the safety and security of all Gazans.

Stemming from the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the Additional Protocols of 1977, occupation law identifies an occupation as “when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.”

Since Israel defeated its Arab neighbors in the 1967 war and took control of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, Israel has been a military occupant in Gaza. Therefore the current offensive by Israel in Gaza is not technically self-defense. Israel can defend itself against rocket attacks, but since Hamas’ rocket attacks are coming out of territory that Israel itself controls, it must operate in accordance with occupation law, and use nothing more than police force to restore order.

Israel claims that it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip since it withdrew 8,000 settlers in 2005. But that argument skips over the fact that Israel still maintains control of the Gazan airspace, territorial waters, and its border crossings, in conjunction with Egypt. Israel’s regulation of what goes in and out of Gaza is so strict that it even counts the calories in the food that is imported. Whatever Israeli officials may claim, evidence of an occupation abounds.

On the ground

If we forget for a moment about international law and assess what is happening on the ground in Gaza, Israel’s actions are hugely disproportionate and cannot be considered self-defense. Israel has ensured that Gaza is no threat to its civilians, through the military occupation of Gaza and through implementation of the Iron Dome. Israel’s U.S.-funded military is a giant compared to Hamas’ guerrilla fighters and collection of rockets that it can’t even aim.

Israel has claimed that it is only targeting Hamas operatives and is taking any and all precautions necessary to avoid civilian deaths. But the 80 percent civilian death toll suggests otherwise. Israel is known to use phone calls, leaflets, and “roof knocking” — hitting a building with a small missile before blowing it up — to warn civilians of an impending strike. But the civilians often have no time nor place to evacuate in the tiny, overcrowded area. Israeli strikes on Gaza are also suspected to have several times hit U.N. facilities that function as schools, shelters, and hospitals, even after being given their exact GPS coordinates. The most recent incident drew public condemnation to both sides from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who called it “a moral outrage and a criminal act.”

Israel’s attempts to deter criticism by claiming that Hamas stores and fires weapons near these civilian areas and uses civilians as human shields. This argument is hard to defend since, in the 140 square mile strip home to nearly two million people, you’d be hard-pressed to find non-civilian areas. This argument also attempts to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing by blaming Palestinians for their own deaths.

After multiple failed ceasefires, the current conflict seems to be coming to its final moments as Israel withdraws most of its ground troops from Gaza. To say that Palestinians are tired of being on the losing side of things is an understatement. But as public opinion about the decades-long conflict shows signs of shifting, especially in the younger generations, and as the the death toll continues to rise, some Palestinians are calling for a third intifada. Palestinians may feel that they have no choice but to rise up if Israel continually dodges international accountability.

True and swift consequences for Israel’s violations are highly unlikely to happen in the U.N. with the U.S.’ imminent veto in staunch support of its ally. And Israel never ratified the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, and doesn’t have any legal obligations to it. Palestine, however, which is recognized in the U.N. as a non-member observer state, could accede to the Court, granting the prosecutor jurisdiction to investigate war crimes that happened in Gaza.

__

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured image courtesy of [Mohammed Al Baba/Oxfam via Flickr].

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hamas Isn’t Entirely to Blame for Sparking the Current War in Gaza appeared first on Law Street.