Avigdor Lieberman is a man on many missions. Over the last few months, he has traveled far and wide, journeying to many areas of the world that have not ever seen, nor for a very long time, been graced with the presence of an Israeli Foreign Minister. 

In July, Lieberman was in South America.  While there he met with high ranking officials from Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Peru. According to the JTA, the trip covered a great deal of diplomatic ground "ranging from economic cooperation to the Iranian nuclear threat", to the commemoration of the anniversary of the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center bombing in 1994 which killed 85 people.

Earlier this month, sub-Saharan Africa (specifically, Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda) and Ethiopia were the ports of call. Lieberman led a delegation that included representatives from private and state owned weapons manufacturers, as well as economic, development and water experts. Discussions covered a range of topics from weapons deals to Iran, water/irrigation projects and HIV prevention. In Nigeria, Lieberman signed a memorandum of understanding with ECOWAS, an important regional group of African states that works to promote economic integration across a range of areas.

In his most recent trip to the Balkans, Lieberman held meetings with the leaders of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. As EU prospects these countries are being actively cultivated by Israel for political and economic purposes.

To give a little perspective to these trips, the last time an Israeli Foreign Minister visited sub-Saharan Africa was 18 years ago and South America 22 years. Lieberman's visit to the three Balkan nations is the first ever by an Israeli Foreign Minister. Arguably, according to Lieberman these locales "did not receive adequate attention in the past" but are now front and center for the Israeli Foreign Minister. Why this change and why now?

Lieberman claims it is a strategy to re-focus the Foreign Ministry on overlooked areas of Israeli engagement, and away from Israel-Palestinian and Israel-Arab diplomatic matters. According to Lieberman, "one of the foreign ministry's mistakes was to turn itself into a ministry for Palestinian affairs" [and] "I have no intention of doing that, no plans for obsessive engagement." In comparison, as Foreign Minister, Lieberman's predecessor Tzipi Livni, maintained an in-depth negotiating track with Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia just one year ago.

There are likely numerous reasons for Lieberman's lack of involvement in Israel-Palestinian diplomacy, including the fact that Lieberman himself is a settler who lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim, and he has repeatedly dismissed current efforts to launch negotiations as naïve. But it is unlikely Lieberman would be able to effectively engage in Mideast diplomacy, even if he wanted to. Lieberman is definitely somebody to whom nations are not tripping over to roll out the red carpet to. And some countries have been openly hostile to him.

But not only is Lieberman not involved in Israel-US and Israel-Arab discussions-he may even be hiding from them. The pattern is clear. Lieberman's 10 day jaunt through South America coincided with the visits of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Middle East envoy George Mitchell to Israel. The current trip to the Balkans overlapped with Mitchell's meeting on September 15th with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This has become almost a predictable pattern; if Mitchell or another high ranking US official is in town, Lieberman is either out of town or on his way out of town. As Kevin Peraino in Newsweek reveals, "unofficially, Israeli wags suspect, his mission is to stay out of the way."

In October 2008, Lieberman famously said that Egyptian President Mubarak can "go to hell." On the heels of this remark, President Shimon Peres and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered effusive apologies to Mubarak.  In a meeting in April of this year with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman in Jerusalem, according to Yediot Acharonoth, the Egyptians demanded five things apropos a meeting with Lieberman:

An apology from Lieberman about his verbal attacks on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; a statement from Lieberman about the importance of Egypt and the strategic ties between the two countries; the meeting must be held in the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem and not in the Foreign Ministry building; the fact of the meeting must be kept secret until the last minute; [And] the media must be kept away from the meeting.

After the meeting there were conflicting accounts of whether an invitation was extended to Lieberman to visit Cairo. 

One nation Lieberman has been successful in making diplomatic inroads with is Russia. In his first trip to Russia as Foreign Minister, Lieberman, born in the former U.S.S.R. Republic of Moldova, had many high-level meetings and was warmly received. As the Center for American Progress' Matt Yglesias points out, this could be a ploy to use access to Russia to threaten a weakening of the US-Israeli alliance, or to try to flip Russia away from its support for Iran. The US and Israel are long standing allies, with multiple strategic, military, social and political linkages and relationships. However, Lieberman may be the right man to try to get a little something out of the Russians. In essence, as Yglesias notes, the general perception of Lieberman is:

The head of a quasi-fascist party elected on a platform of racial animosity isn't a helpful front man for Israeli policies in the United States, he isn't helpful in Western Europe, and he certainly isn't helpful in Cairo or Ankara. But that's not the kind of thing that would bother Vladimir Putin.

Though his connection to his former homeland might pay potential dividends, Lieberman, as Peraino writes in Newsweek is "considered an embarrassing loose cannon by large swaths of the Israeli public, [and] has never been taken particularly seriously in diplomatic circles."

Earlier this week, Laura Rozen at Politico reported that Lieberman extended an invitation to Secretary of State Clinton to hold a so-called "strategic dialogue" in Israel in October. The last such meeting occurred in 2007 and was described by the State Department in general terms, as an effort "to strengthen the already close strategic cooperation between our two countries." Notably, the 2007 meeting was led by then-U.S. Undersecretary of State Nick Burns and then-Israeli Minister of Transportation Shaul Mofaz, and did not include the participation of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Foreign Minister Livni. Rozen reports that Clinton has "provisionally accepted the invitation."

Whether the proposed "strategic dialogue" will be more than a photo-op for Lieberman is not yet clear. But given his complete irrelevance in key diplomatic efforts thus far, it is doubtful Lieberman will begin playing any constructive role on critical foreign affairs issues.  Of course it is also questionable how long Lieberman will last as Foreign Minister. He is under serious investigation for corruption, with an indictment in the works. Then again, in Israel, many politicians are under investigation or indictment.

With David Halperin

This post originally appeared in the Mideast Peace Pulse

Since June of 2007 when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah, Israel has more or less imposed a total blockade on the territory for all non-humanitarian items. In effect, Israel prevents imports that could have any potential military use, be it offensive or defensive. This includes:

Sweeping restrictions on the import of industrial, agricultural and construction materials; the suspension of almost all exports; and a general ban on the movement of Palestinians through Erez, the only passenger crossing to the West Bank.

Control of the Gaza Strip has changed Hamas. For all intents and purposes, Hamas is now a governing body, responsible for the livelihood of the populace under its control as well as myriad social services, infrastructure requirements and foreign liaison.

As the de facto governing body of Gaza, Hamas does not want to allow the chance for alternative parties to come to power. As demonstrated in the Rafah mosque uprising a few days ago and the successful Fatah conference in Bethlehem a few weeks ago, there are definitely Palestinian challengers waiting in the wings. Specifically dealing with the Rafah incident, but also making a larger point, Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace remarks:

"Because it is now so deeply entrenched in political power, and because of this recent cease-fire with Israel, Hamas is seen by some as endangering some of its ideological credentials," says Brown. "This recent crackdown may play into a growing feeling that Hamas is no longer a resistance movement, but a government set on keeping both its power and keeping things fairly quiet with Israel.

While Hamas has consolidated its political power, it has also done the same in the commercial sphere. It has made major inroads into the Gazan business community at the expense of pre-existing businesses that have been severely damaged in the unfolding conflict or went under from a lack of income. This effort is buttressed by the various revenue streams Hamas has tapped. As Erin Cunningham in the Christian Science Monitor elaborates:

Hamas and its associates have been using their control of smuggling tunnels, money changing, and tax revenue to buy prime tracts of land and buildings across Gaza, particularly along the enclave's main boulevards.

As Cunningham further noted, Hamas also levies a value added tax on all imports via the tunnels from Egypt (as well as protection fees to operate a tunnel) and taxes "luxury items like cigarettes at higher rates."

Let's take look at cement as an example of how Hamas maneuvers the blockade to its advantage. Cement is a crucial commodity needed to construct buildings and undertake infrastructure and development projects. In late July, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved a shipment of cement to be used for humanitarian purposes. In particular, this was to be used for rebuilding a damaged flour mill, sewage treatment plant and British cemetery for soldiers killed during WWI. But, Hamas siphoned off part of the 300 odd tons of cement so that it could be used for non-civilian purposes, i.e., bases and bunkers. So, Barak is now reconsidering/postponing all future shipments. Right now, non-Israeli cement in the Gaza strip is going for $65 a bag, before the blockade it was $5. Obviously market dynamics of supply and demand play a role in the price point. However, so too might the applicable Hamas kickbacks and taxes.

Lack of access to legitimate routes of trade, compounded with Hamas' exercise of control and taxation over the black market, stymie and stultify legitimate business interests. The blockade has effectively depressed the Gazan economy forcing numerous businesses to close and limiting production in existing ones. Inevitably, where there is a void it will be filled. Hamas and its associates and supporters have filled this deficit to their benefit. Gazan businessmen realize more than most the predicament they face. Notionally at least, as Gazan businessman Amr Hamad notes, they "are very keen on good relations with Israel, because for them, peace means money." While there is money in peace, there is also money in conflict. The businessmen of Gaza are struggling while black marketers and smugglers are thriving. And, the latter clearly represent a tax base for Hamas. 

In the face of widespread criticism, Israel has held tough on the need to cordon off the Gaza Strip from the outside world. From the Israeli perspective, the primary objective of the blockade is to weaken Hamas and not allow Hamas the means to strike Israel, be it with bombs, suicide bombers or others means. In contrast, on the West Bank, Israel has worked closely with the Palestinian Authority (PA). With the assistance of US General Dayton, the PA is slowly building a capable and disciplined security force. Israel has taken down roadblocks to allow for freedom of movement. Israel facilitated the arrival of numerous Fatah apparatchiks so the Fatah party conference in Bethlehem could take place. Israeli troops have also withdrawn from some major Palestinian population centers and there have been improved transportation links between the West Bank and Jordan. 

The carrots are being given to the West Bank and the stick is being applied to the Gaza Strip. In both cases the party in control, be it Fatah or Hamas, is strengthening its hand. Without a doubt Israeli actions have influenced these developments. Obviously Gaza and the West Bank are very different places. But that does not mean one cannot learn from what has been applied and worked in one area to the other. Simply put, Israel needs to reevaluate the blockade apropos its short term strategic objectives, which include maintaining its security and bolstering a legitimate and responsible Palestinian partner.

With respect to the second objective, in the aftermath of the Bethlehem conference Fatah is reinvigorated, and Iran, a prime sponsor of Hamas is still undergoing post-election disarray. This sets the stage and presents a moment of opportunity for a concerted effort by the US and Israel to support Palestinian unity talks. If these on-again, off-again talks move forward, and a viable Palestinian partner emerges, the pieces could be in place to consider modifying the blockade.

Even without a unity government, some Israelis are questioning the efficacy of the blockade. An Israeli government official recently told the BBC:

The blockade, which is currently under review, may inadvertently benefit Hamas - but pointed out that easing it might be taken as a victory for the Islamic movement.

Despite this apparent corollary between ending the blockade and Israeli loss of face, the Israelis retain the power and control over the borders of the Gaza Strip. Israel needs to look at the recent overtures from Hamas as a positive development. The waters are ready to be tested.

This post was originally published on the Mideast Peace Pulse.

Mike Huckabee's trip to Israel just keeps getting more and more interesting.  As the blogger Spencer Ackerman notes, he has staked out a position to the right of Hamas, which has at least nominally accepted the de facto right of Israel to exist. From TPM, Huckabee said:

There is no room for a Palestinian state "in the middle of the Jewish homeland" and Israel should be able to build settlements wherever it wants.

Does this mean what I think it means? This is clearly not in the best interests of Israel. It goes against the two-state solution with a vehemence not seen of late by mainstream politicians in the US. Frankly, the real pro-Israel thing to do would be to explicitly state how for Israel to remain a Jewish democracy the status quo must change. This means creating a process that will, as Obama relayed earlier today in his press conference with President Mubarak, "move away from a status quo that is not working for the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, or, I think, the region as a whole."

While it is not surprising that Huckabee zealously defends the status quo and the right of Israelis to expand the settlements; what is surprising is how he does it through the guise of battling segregation. In this interview last night on Fox news, Huckabee compared the right of Americans to live where they want with the right of Israelis to do the same.

How many people in America would tolerate it if another government told Americans what neighborhoods they could and couldn't live in...

We've seen it in the United States. Segregation is a policy that does not promote the types of relationships and healing that is needed. The reality is that the Obama administration seems to be very concerned about 20 families moving into an Israeli owned apartment complex. It doesn't seem to be the reason that we should be so upset....

Most Americans understand that people have a right to live where they want to live, it's part of liberty, it's part of freedom...

Sure, people have the right to live where they want to, but certain restraints also come into play. Israel, as a signator to the Fourth Geneva Convention is obligated to be responsible for the people under its dominion. In the West Bank, where literally every country in the world, including the US but excluding Israel, views Israel as an occupying power, there is the requirement  that the occupier cannot 'deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' The settlements are not going anywhere, and the bigger ones close to the green line will most likely be incorporated into Israel proper in a final agreement through a land swap with the Palestinians. However, this does not minimize the absurdity of the US neighborhood to Israeli settlement comparison. This comparison is worse that comparing apples and orange; it's more like comparing hummus and pizza; sure they are both food, but that is about where it starts and stops. The continuation of the growth of the settlements endangers the very Jewish democracy that Huckabee praises since it further entrenches the Israeli presence in the West Bank. 

Turning our attention to the segregation point. This could not be further from the truth. Right now, through its elaborate system of bypass roads in the territories and uneven government allocation vis-à-vis Jewish and Arab Israelis, Israel is essentially taking steps to create a segregated society. In essence, to take Huckabee at his word, Palestinians (and not just those resident in East Jerusalem) in the territories should have the same rights as Israelis and be able to buy land in Jerusalem. As we all know, this is far from the truth. Huckabee's call for settlement growth is basically a call for a one-state solution. In time, demographics will change and as Hagit Ofran of Peace Now recently noted:

By 2015 the number of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Israel was likely to exceed the number of Jews, by 51.5 percent to 48.5%. She said that these projections were based on numbers from the Central Bureau of Statistics in Israel and the PA.

I wonder what Huckabee thinks about that possible development and how it portends for Israeli democracy and Israel's Jewish identity? Odds are he wouldn't have a problem with it considering his point of view on the Palestinians.

After a quick Google search, a video of Huckabee taking part in a very telling back and forth with some members of the Wellesley-Weston Chabad in November of 2007 was found. As Huckabee stated:

There's no such thing as a Palestinian... There is really no such thing. That has been a political tool to try to force land away from Israel. My point is, if that's the issue, if its real estate, if you look at a map, and say here is how much Israel has and here is how much the Arab states hold, there is plenty of land. Let them take it out of Egypt. Let's take it out of Syria. Let'em take it out of Jordan.

Ok, let's paraphrase this - The Palestinians are a 'political tool' to obtain Israeli land. I always knew identity was malleable, I didn't know it was erasable. For Huckabee, it seems whatever the Israeli Jews do is right, and whatever the Palestinians do is not, including expressing their national identity. As Ackerman sums up the utter nonsense and fanaticism of Huckabee:

If I gave a speech saying that Israel had the right, invested in it by God, to permanently rule over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians in violation of their rights and their legitimate aspirations, I'd be outing myself as a dangerous fanatic who has no problem with a Jewish democracy becoming a Jewish apartheid state.

In a sign of increased hostility toward a settlement freeze and the Obama push for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Israeli and US right wingers are teaming up. This Sunday, at the Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem a dinner is being held to showcase support for the settlements in general, and specifically, for building at the Shepherd Hotel. The choice of venue is not random and is meant to be provocative. As part of the Obama effort to restart the peace process, the administration has pushed forcefully for a settlement freeze, including in East Jerusalem, and has specifically voiced its opposition to the Shepherd Hotel building project. But, as Haaretz reports, and with particular reference to the Shepherd Hotel, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu remarked: "Israel will not agree to edicts of this kind in East Jerusalem."

So, the response from the right in Israel and the US is to raise the stakes and hold a party at the primary site of contention. Among the numerous Israeli, Jewish and Republican activists planning on attending the dinner is the 'guest of honor' and former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a former Arkansas Governor and a leading contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nod. Aside from headlining this event, Huckabee, currently a Fox News show host, will also visit various settlements and illegal outposts. Huckabee's excursion is bankrolled by Ateret Cohanim, which directs an East Jerusalem religious-Zionist Yeshiva and actively promotes and encourages Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. As Israel National News elaborates, Ateret Cohanim just prevailed in a legal fight to allow for the building of 20 apartments on the site of the Shepherd Hotel. This legal decision sparked the current back and forth between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations over East Jerusalem.

According to Dov Hikind, a New York state assemblyman and well known advocate and supporter of the settlements, who is traveling with Huckabee in Israel, "This is an opportunity to shine the spotlight on Obama's policy in Jerusalem, which has just been a horror." In the Jerusalem Post, Hikind detailed the reasoning behind Huckabee's visit:

"Huckabee's arrival is significant because, this is a guy who's a major figure in America, and in my opinion will be a presidential candidate again," Hikind said. "To have a guy like him, you know, from Arkansas, come at this particular time, and say the kinds of things he's going to say, it's going to send a very strong message to the Israeli people and to the American administration."

 In a Ma'ariv article by Eli Bardenstein, Hikind elaborated on the game plan:

"We are planning to sleep in the settlements and visit the region. I believe that there will also be those who will buy houses in the settlements in lieu of buying houses in Florida. This is a very clear message to Obama, who is leading a policy whereby there are areas in Israel that should be clean of Jews. We want to show that many in America are opposed to his pressure on the Israeli government on the subject of settlements."

As apparent, the Huckabee and Hikind visit is part of a larger, coordinated effort to showcase support for the settlement enterprise. Included among the initiatives are the organization of thousands of visits by Americans to both legal and illegal settlements, the synchronization of Jewish and non-Jewish support for the settler movement and the active push for Americans to purchase houses in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. According to Chabad, November is the target date to bring thousands of American Jews to the West Bank as part of a timely push against the US administration.

While this visit and the party at the Shepherd Hotel will surely garner media coverage and send a message; it is not a message that will be received with open arms in the US. Most Americans do not support the settlements. As World Public Opinion reported in an April poll of Americans:

Opposition to settlements is found among majorities of Republicans (65%), Democrats (83%) and independents (74%)

Last week, in a precursor to the Hikind and Huckabee fete at the Shepherd Hotel, Virginia Representative Eric Cantor led a group of Republican congressmen to Israel. In a further sign that Middle East politics does not stop at the water's edge, and that it is fair game to openly criticize US foreign policy while traveling abroad, Cantor clearly stated his opposition to Obama's efforts:

We are concerned about what the White House has been signaling of late in their desire to push through in terms of a Middle East peace plan.... That's very troubling.

Huckabee, Cantor, Hikind, who's next? The rightwing in Israel and the US are making their position clear: there is no need for a settlement freeze. This point could not be farther from the truth as the vast majority of Americans attest. Though the Obama administration has pointedly stated its opposition to expanding the settlements, it has been talking with the Netanyahu government about ways to reconcile this issue. Possible points of compromise include a moratorium, a cessation, or a full on freeze in certain areas, among other possibilities. Plainly, it is too early to tell how these ongoing US-Israeli talks will conclude. But, for a sign of where the US would like to go, just follow the Road Map.

In another sign of a concerted effort to showcase support for the settler movement, a recent poll was commissioned by the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) of self-identified Jewish Democrats. From Eric Fingerhut at the JTA:

A TVC meeting is just about the last place you'd go if you were looking to find Jewish Democrats. According to its Web site, the TVC represents 43,000 evangelical churches...

This poll revealed that 92% think Obama is doing a good job as president and 58% think he is "doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East." Clearly, Jewish Democrats think Obama is doing a good job in the Middle East, no matter how Dick Morris and Eileen McGann portray the numbers.

Without a doubt, the settlement enterprise in East Jerusalem and the West Bank erodes any hope for a contiguous Palestinian state and simultaneously minimizes the long term viability of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Let's hope Obama has the stomach to take on the vested interests of the settler enterprise, he does after all have the majority of Americans, be they Democrats, Republicans or independents in his corner.

This post was originally published on the Mideast Peace Pulse.