A lot’s been happening since my last post—too much to cover in the short time I have. Still, although I'd like to mention the stories about Belarus' and Georgia's squabbling over Russia's higher gas prices (well, lower subsidies), and Russia's un-hilarious potential scapegoating of Leonid Nevzlin, former Yukos boss, for the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko. But one story stands out for the moment.
Israel has established a new settlement (Maskiot) in the West Bank, north of the Jordan Valley, for settlers evicted from Gaza. This move has been criticised by both the EU and the US for going against international law (EU) and the roadmap (US). It’s not difficult to see why: The positioning of the settlement (map here) speaks more of annexation than security. The Jordan Valley is one of the most fertile parts of the region. The settlers, willing to make the desert bloom, will find it much easier there.
However, as far as security goes, Maskiot is far from the major settlement areas to the West of the West Bank. Instead, it lies further East, towards the Jordanian border. If this is about increasing Israel’s security then I fail to see how it works. If the aim is to prevent terrorist incursions from the West Bank into Israel, then I don't get it—instead of placing the settlement between the main Palestinian populations and Israel, Israel placed it on the other side. If it is somehow aimed at resisting flows of people and arms from Jordan, then it still fails—the settlement is not close enough to the border. Moreover, since when were settlers supposed to defend the Israeli nation? That’s the role of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). Instead of increasing security, the settlement decreases it by presenting a high-profile target to terrorists, and by further stretching the IDF into hostile territory. Security is an excuse more than anything else.
So what's the real reason? If you check out the map here, you will see a line of minor settlement outposts through the Jordan Valley. These outposts, and the IDF’s protection of them, effectively cut off the Palestinians in the West Bank from their best source of food production, and often their best source of income alongside. Just in case you missed it so far, read this analysis of the Jordan Valley annexation by B’Tselem. Taken from a strategic perspective, this move shows a desire to cement Israel’s presence in the Jordan Valley, taking that fertile area, and its precious resource (water), for itself, whether short-term or within the scope of a long-term ‘settlement’ of the crisis. No other reason I’ve read or heard fits the facts. I'm not impressed.
I'm busy doing very little after a tough couple of weeks between Prague, Amsterdam, Zurich, and have two Christmas Parties in the next two days, so I'm going to keep this short and just point you towards a few articles:
Firstly, Israel may be thinking in terms of an unofficial alliance with some key Sunni states, which are, in turn, considering developing nuclear technologies to counter Iran's development.
If you're interested in the announcement of those Gulf Sunni states that they will look into developing a nuclear energy program, here's some more about that, and on the current diplomatic moves to halt Iran's program.
Thirdly, here, here and here are some articles about the Iranian government-sponsored Holocaust(-denying) seminar in Tehran.
That's enough international relations news for the moment.
It's cold in Prague, but nice to be home. I was in Amsterdam all last week, without internet in my hotel. At least, they charged 20 Euros per day for wireless internet. Next time I'll stay in a hotel where I can connect using the iPass service that comes with Cisco's laptop.
Amsterdam was nice, I went to a couple of milongas, and had a productive week at Cisco's offices there. Lots to do now, of course, but the Christmas/New Year break will be welcome.
