Project on Middle East Democracy
The POMED Wire Archives
Category: Mideast Peace Plan
POMED Notes: “Towards A Palestinian State : Is Institution Building Succeeding?”
September 29th, 2010 by Anna
On Wednesday, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the United States Institute of Peace co-hosted a panel discussion titled “Towards a Palestinian State: Is Institution Building Succeeding?” The discussion was moderated by Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, a Program Officer in USIP’s Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution. The panelists were Nathan Brown, a Nonresident Senior Associate of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment, Neil Kritz, the Senior Scholar in Residence in the Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution at USIP, Ghaith Al-Omari, Advocacy Director at the American Task Force on Palestine, and Howard Sumka, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Middle East for USAID.
For the full notes, continue reading below. Or, click here
for the PDF.
Posted in DC Event Notes, Events, Foreign Aid, Hamas, Judiciary, Mideast Peace Plan, Palestine, Political Parties, Public Opinion, Reform, US foreign policy | Comment »
Palestine: Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation Best Response to Israel’s Moratorium End
September 27th, 2010 by Anna
According to Deutsche Press-Agentur
, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated today that reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas will be the best response to the end of Israel’s moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank. In his view, internal Palestinian reconciliation will give negotiators the necessary clout in peace talks with Israel. He called on Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to pursue that reconciliation, and also to make good on his threat to walk out on peace talks if the construction moratorium expired. Abbas has so far not announced whether he will continue to participate in the talks.
Meshaal has been meeting
with Fatah’s Azzam al-Ahmad in Damascus (where Meshaal lives in exile), and indicated today that full reconciliation between the two factions may come soon. He said that “serious and real steps” have been taken towards ending divisions, and the two sides plan to meet again in Cairo in the coming weeks.
Palestine: Is Fayyidism Viable?
September 21st, 2010 by Jason
“Relying on ‘Fayyadism’…alone will likely lead to failure and disappointment. Technocratic management can probably keep Palestinian institutions afloat and even improve their functioning in some limited ways. But it does not even pretend to offer a solution for the deeper problems afflicting Palestinian politics—division, repression, occupation, alienation, and wide-reaching institutional decay.” This was the conclusion of a paper by Nathan J. Brown
two months ago. In a recent article
at Carnegie Comment, Brown responds to questions about, and criticisms of, that paper.
The first criticism Brown takes on is the assertion that “limited state building” is the best that can be achieved in the present circumstances. Brown agrees that the situation is “impossible,” but focuses his response on the prevailing wisdom that Fayyidism is the key to state building in the West Bank. “Fayyad’s accomplishments, like his virtues, are real… The real political damage is done when those accomplishments are treated not as a way to keep Palestinian politics on life support but as a cure for the underlying diseases,” which he diagnosis’s as “Hamas, Gaza, authoritarianism, and political decay…” along with a broken legislative process.
Brown goes on to address questions about the reach of Fayyidism, whether its popularity makes it democratic, and why Fayyidism has gained so much support if its ability to effect real change is so limited. In a reveling passage, Brown tries to lay out an alternative to Fayyidism: “The existing approach, based on an assumption that a comprehensive Israeli–Palestinian agreement can be negotiated and then used as a device for ousting Hamas from control of Gaza is implausible… An approach that takes Palestinian politics seriously and prioritizes rather than postpones the issues of Gaza and Hamas would be difficult in its design… But at least it would be grounded in the realities of today rather than pretending that the conditions of the 1990s…still obtain.”
Palestine: “Significant Progress” in State Building
September 15th, 2010 by Jason
In an interview
with Middle East Progress, Dr. Robert Dannin addresses the progress that has been made in the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and the prospects for peace with the Israelis. Having recently returned from a post with the Office of the Quartet Representative, Dannin says, “I’m left with a real sense that a majority of the people wants peace and yet they are almost without hope. There is a strong sense of mutual betrayal.” He goes on to emphasize the importance of “…conditioning the public and the environment for what is possible and what may be necessary, in terms of compromises, to achieve peace.”
With regards to the state building measures underway in the West Bank, Dannin sees “significant progress” in a number of different areas. “[I]n 2008 important progress occurred in a number of areas, including but not limited to the economy, where widespread growth and private sector development occurred, and in the development and professionalization of the security forces, and their ability to bring stability and law and order to some rather difficult areas within a circumscribed and orderly chain of command.” In fact, the PA and the IMF estimate economic growth in the West Bank to be “…anywhere from seven to eight percent this year,” and possibly higher. Dannin identifies “budget shortfalls” as one of the major problems facing the PA, along with the separation from Hamas-controlled Gaza and the continuing occupation by Israel.
Dannin calls the recent PA crackdowns on dissent and the concurrent criticisms “overstated”, while noting that “Not that long ago, there was a situation of semi-chaos in the West Bank […] That is no longer the case.” He admits that there have been rights abuses, but contends that the PA has been “responsive” to the charges and is making progress on reforms in that area.
Egypt: Gamal Mubarak’s DC Visit Draws Criticism
September 2nd, 2010 by Evan
In the Daily Star
, Jamil K. Mroue writes
that while Gamal Mubarak should have the right to run for president, his candidacy “illuminates the deep-seated and systemic problems afflicting Egypt.” According to Mroue, there is little that is genuine about the younger Mubarak’s campaign: “Gamal Mubarak is little more than another crown prince awaiting succession to the throne of a purported Arab democracy.” The American Coptic Union also recently criticized the Obama administration’s decision to invite both Hosni and Gamal Mubarak to this week’s Israeli-Palestinian peace talks: “His son plans to inherit his father’s position as if he were entitled to it. This invitation is a slap to the face of those who believe in the US position on promoting democracy in Egypt.”
POMED Notes: Press Conference “Without a Stable and Democratic Egypt, the Future of a Two State Solution is in Jeopardy”
September 1st, 2010 by Jason
Today at the National Press Club, a press conference was held to discuss the Mubarak government’s prominent role in the upcoming negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hosted by The Coalition of Egyptian Organizations and the Egyptian Association for Change-USA and moderated by Tarek Khalil, the event featured a panel of Egyptian activists.
For full notes continue below the fold or click here
Posted in Civil Society, DC Event Notes, Egypt, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Human Rights, Islam and Democracy, Islamist movements, Mideast Peace Plan, Political Islam, Protests, Reform | Comment »
Palestine: Political Divides, Repression Will Hurt Peace Process
September 1st, 2010 by Anna
, Executive Director of the Palestine Center, asks
in an article today what recent ”upticks in politically repressive activity” by the Palestinian Authority might mean for the prospect of peace with Israel. He writes that “Abbas is now about to enter direct negotiations in spite of the adamant objections of the Palestinian public.” By cracking down on political opponents, according to Munayyer, Abbas is only damaging his government’s legitimacy and confirming that he “is in no position to sign a binding and lasting agreement on behalf of Palestinian stakeholders.” Amidst an inter-Palestinian divide, Munayyer points out that many Palestinians do not feel adequately represented by the PA, and this sentiment is exacerbated by the continued repression of non-Fatah voices in Palestinian politics. He concludes that “Palestinian domestic political disarray is likely to continue,” and contends that a viable resolution of the conflict with Israel can only be possible under a “unified and representative” Palestinian government.
Palestine: Peace for a Change?
August 9th, 2010 by Jennifer
Steve Clemons writing at The Washington Note argues that with American soft power abroad “severely diminished” in recent years, the U.S. finds itself at a moment of “‘historical discontinuity’ when doing tomorrow mostly what the nation did yesterday is recognized as a recipe for disaster and failure rather than success.” Clemons proposes that the Obama administration must engage in “a combination of brilliant leadership and well orchestrated ’strategic leaps’” in order to reestablish the U.S. role as a global leader, focusing on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as “the strategic leap that the world most needs to see at this moment.” He explains that the current situation poses increasing security risks to the U.S., particularly in regard to the need for a regional containment strategy on Iran. Clemons also suggests that since “the Palestinian mess is for many of these people [in the Arab and Muslim worlds] the packaged microcosm of their anger about exploitation and humiliation by the West and by their own governments,” achieving a two-state solution may create an “echo effect” that “will knock down many walls in these societies that have been resisting change.” Clemons also says that without a solution in place, any semblance of support for Israel could cause their Arab regimes’ populations to revolt and overthrow their governments. He argues against allowing such a scenario to occur, commenting, “Perhaps that is part of the plan that neoconservatives and others hope for. But that would be disastrous for the United States and most likely create conditions for a terrorist super highway up to the edge of Israel with few control valves.”
Jordan: Disenfranchising Palestinian Citizens
July 26th, 2010 by Jennifer
In a recent op-ed
at The Jerusalem Post, Mudar Zahran criticizes the Jordanian government’s “on-going process of striping Palestinians in Jordan of their citizenships.” Noting that Jordan has instituted an official policy of revoking the citizenship of Jordanians of Palestinian decent– so far resulting in the denaturalization of over 2,700 individuals, according to a Human Rights Watch report
– Zahran quotes Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Nayef al-Qadi
as defending the decision, stating, “Jordan should be thanked for standing up against Israeli ambitions of unloading of the Palestinian land of its people.’” Zahran argues that the regime has established an “apartheid system” that discriminates against Jordanian Palestinians, who he says are allowed “little or no involvement in any political or executive bodies or parliament,” and have suffered from “decades of systematic exclusion in all aspects of life expanding into their disenfranchisement in education, employment, housing, state benefits and even business potential.”According to Zahran, the rise of radical conservative nationalist groups since 2008 has exacerbated this situation; the nationalists are calling for turning Jordanian Palestinians into refugees and thus creating a “Palestinian demographic bomb” to send to Israel. Zahran characterizes this trend as “a serious threat to regional stability and Israeli national security,” and calls on the international community to “make it clear to Jordan that both peace and integration of its own citizens are not privileges it is giving away to Israel or any other country.
Palestine: No Parties for Democracy
July 26th, 2010 by Jennifer
Johnathan Tobin writing at Commentary critiques a recent opinion piece
by Mustafa Barghouthi on canceled municipal elections in the West Bank and the discouraging lack of prospects for Palestinian democracy. Tobin agrees with Barghouthi that the Middle East peace process cannot ultimately succeed unless a democratic Palestinian state first comes into existence. However, Tobin rejects Barghouthi’s criticism of Western governments for backing the Palestinian Authority’s decision to cancel the elections as the root cause of the lack of progress on this issue, arguing instead that the source of the problem lies in the non-democratic “culture of Palestinian politics.” He proposes that neither of the two dominant parties– Hamas and Fatah –embraces real democracy, but instead both adhere to the principle of “one man, one vote, one time,” while also encouraging violence against Israel. The West rightly should not accept such governments as legitimate, Tobin says, adding that “until the dominant Palestinian factions actually embrace democracy — and give up violence — peace is nowhere in sight.”
Meanwhile, reports indicated that the Obama administration has upgraded its diplomatic recognition of the PA in the U.S. to “delegation general,” affording it the same status as Canada and some western European states. Jennifer Rubin writing at Commentary criticizes the move, arguing that “a peace deal and a PA government won’t be happening anytime soon unless Abbas and other Palestinian leaders stop inciting violence, give up the dream of a one-state solution (i.e., a demographic swamping of the Jewish state), and build some civil institutions capable of managing the Palestinians’ own affairs.”
Palestine: PA’s Hands Tied on Talks by Palestinian Public Opinion
July 12th, 2010 by Jennifer
James Zogby writing
at Foreign Policy
quotes a recent interview conducted with PLO Executive Committee member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi
on his weekly television show Viewpoint with James Zogby
. According to Zogby, Ashrawi critiqued the recent meeting between U.S. President Barak Obama
and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguing that moving to direct talks on the peace process when no tangible progress has been made is not feasible for Palestinian leaders, who would lose credibility with their constituency. Zogby notes that Ashrawi pointed to a lack of U.S. understanding of the democratic dynamics of Palestinian government: she stated, “‘They pay attention to Israeli democracy and public opinion and coalition requirements but they do not pay attention to the fact that the Palestinians have a very vibrant and active democracy and very active and outspoken public opinion, and they have to understand [Palestinian President] Abbas
does not have a free hand to just make unilateral single decisions like that in a vacuum.”
Zogby highlights Ashrawi’s concern that a “disconnect” separates the U.S-Israel approach and the Palestinian approach to talks. Ashrawi argued that Israel and the U.S. seek to present at least the image of movement on the peace process through initiating talks, while the Palestinian population has no interest in such gestures as long as they feel that no real progress is being made on the ground, since Israel continues to take actions that undermine the two-state vision, such as building settlements. Calling Palestinian public opinion “highly inflamed.. very intelligent, very well informed, and very critical” of the situation, Ashrawi predicted that the talks will fail unless the U.S. is prepared to curb Israeli policies, according to Zogby’s report.
Palestine: It’s Not Just About Economics
July 6th, 2010 by Farid
In a new piece
in Foreign Policy, Carnegie’s Michele Dunne argues that any U.S. efforts on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process have to go far beyond simple economic agendas. She proposes that U.S. policy on this issue revolves around two basic, yet false assumptions: first, that negotiations between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will eventually “outmaneuver Hamas”; and second, that international funding will enable Prime Minister Salam Fayyad
to build more efficient and stronger institutions
Pointing out the internal divide between the Hamas-led Gaza and Fatah-controlled West Bank, Dunne explains that “without a unified Palestinian community behind him or even a valid electoral mandate, Abbas cannot take risks in negotiations with Israel.” She also notes that “Fayyad’s hands are tied in building durable, democratic institutions” due to a variety of reasons, including the inability of the legislative branch to convene for over 3 years. Dunne suggests that U.S. policy has historically exacerbated such problems of illigitimacy and ineffectiveness through its “inclination to delay, ignore, or manipulate internal Palestinian politics in the service of short-term goals related to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.” Instead, Dunne proposes promoting Palestinian reconciliation as the key to Gaza’s future and the peace process.
In that regard, Dunne makes the following suggestions for U.S. policy: first, prioritizing “Palestinian reconciliation and institution-building”; and second, supporting efforts for a power-sharing arrangement between Gaza and the West Bank. Dunne argues that as long as the emerging Palestinian government is dedicated to achieving peace and allows the PLO to negotiate with the Israelis, the U.S. should not reject a Palestinian “modus vivendi” even if it fails to fulfill some of the principles laid out by the Middle East Quartet.
Obama in the Middle East: “Mixed” Success, Divergence with Israel
June 30th, 2010 by Jennifer
today released the first section of a two-part series of analyses on President Obama’s policy in the Middle East. The article included commentary from four regional experts: Elliott Abrams
of the Council on Foreign Relations, Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, Dore Gold
of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and Andrew Exum
of the Center for a New American Security.
Abrams proposes that the administration’s approach to the region is creating a “diminished America” and a power vacuum. He argues that the administration has overemphasized the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in U.S. policy; according to Abrams, the key struggle in the region is not territorial, but ideological– pro-Western moderateness vs. Islamist-jihadism. To him, America’s main challenge is not Israel, but Iran.
Malley calls the success of the administration’s policy “mixed,” and suggests that Obama has succeeded in improving the image of the U.S. abroad, but not its credibility. He points to a number of factors inhibiting concrete results. Most of all, Malley blames what he characterizes as the administration’s mistaken, overly black-and-white perception of the region as divided into two camps– militants vs. moderates, whom the U.S. must support.
Gold observes that Obama began his term at a time of increased divergence between American and Israeli policy priorities, as Israel’s government has moved to the right and focused more on security issues, while the U.S. administration’s approach has emphasized diplomacy and dialogue. He notes that while Obama focused on the Israel-Palestinian conflict early in his administration, Israel’s chief concern has become Iran.
Finally, Exum comments that the administration’s policies in the region have centered on the “three I’s”: Israel, Iran, and Iraq. Citing Obama’s overall record on Israel and Iran as a failure– noting that relations with Israel’s leaders have been “badly managed,” while Iran appears poised to continue its nuclear program despite the new UN sanctions –Exum interestingly counts Iraq’s fragile stability as “the lone U.S. success story in the Middle East.” On the other hand, he points to Obama’s focus on Afghanistan as evidence that the administration is placing less interest and importance in the Arab world.
Palestine: “If You Build The State, It Will Come”
June 18th, 2010 by Farid
In a very interesting new piece
in Foreign Policy
, Hussein Ibish diverts the general attention from the Gaza flotilla to Palestinian domestic developments. According to Ibish, Palestinian financers are have been meeting in Bethlehem for the second Palestine Investment Conference, “in which Palestinians are increasingly turning to the mundane, workaday tools of governance and development as their principal strategy for ending the occupation.”
Most notable of these domestic developments is the commitment to build institutions in order to enhance state administration, infrastructure, and economic goals. “The idea is that, if you build the state, it will come,” says Ibish. Ibish argues that by depending on a bottom-up strategy rather than waiting for American and Israeli commitment to a Palestinian state, Palestinians are able to determine their own future. The motivation is very simple, Ibish argues – self-determination and self-governance.
According to Ibish, there are significant tangible developments: the establishment of two new telecommunication companies, the first planned Palestinian city, and a growth rate of 8.5 percent in the West Bank last year. Additionally, half of the Palestinian Authority’s budget comes from Palestinian taxes rather than international economic support, he explains. Nevertheless, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are still in disagreement over the Palestinian identity and objectives and “the future of Hamas will likely be determined by the success or failure of the PA’s state-building project, and its diplomatic efforts,” Ibish explains.
However, Ibish’s assessment of the future is not entirely reliant on the domestic political forces in Palestine. Instead he argues that according to the World Bank and IMF, the development and prospects for a viable state are limited as long as Israeli occupation of the territories continues.
Palestine: The Need for Institution Building
June 7th, 2010 by Farid
In the context of the Gaza flotilla crisis, Michele Dunne argues in an interesting new Carnegie Endowment paper that American strategy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been short-term with traits of neglect and manipulation of the domestic Palestinian political sphere. Instead, the U.S. should take a strategic approach by encouraging an all-inclusive political establishment where competition is welcomed rather than ignored or rejected. Click here
for the full PDF version of the paper.
This does not mean that the U.S. should negotiate directly with Hamas, which Dunne says would have “the unfortunate effect of validating the group’s violent and rejectionist tactics.” However, she argues that the United States must “develop a strategy that patiently supports Palestinian institution building and tolerates the internal Palestinian political competition and bargaining that must accompany it.”
, Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University, voices a different argument, asserting that Hamas should be included in the peace negotiations. Nevertheless, Kuttab recognizes that while Hamas has recently shown willingness to commit to a long-term cease-fire, it must agree to a complete cease-fire for talks to proceed.
Obama’s Cairo Speech, One Year Later
June 4th, 2010 by Farid
Today marks the anniversary of President Barack Obama
’s remarkable speech to the world’s Muslim communities in Cairo. While the speech received widespread positive reactions from Arabs, Muslims, and Americans at the time, now, a year later, many observers are disappointed that the speech did not in fact bring the “new beginning” that it promised.
According to a Washington Postop-ed
by Michele Dunne
and Robert Kagan, a year later Egyptians have lost much confidence in Obama. As Dunne and Kagan see it, the U.S. has continued to unconditionally support a highly unpopular regime under President Hosni Mubarak and has failed to adhere to the voices of the Egyptian populace. The Obama administration has cut democracy spending by half in Egypt and has not pressed the Egyptian government over its human rights record. They describe the Obama administration as succeeding in engaging with governments in the Middle East, but not its people. As Egypt prepares for upcoming elections, the U.S. has an opportunity to end this trend and save America’s image in the Middle East by privately and publicly pushing for free and fair elections.
The Foreign Policy Middle East Channel features three interesting articles looking at U.S. engagement with the Muslim world in the year since the Cairo speech. Kristin M. Lord
and Marc Lynch caution that although the administration has finally begun to deliver on the promises made in Cairo through a number of initiatives, its broader engagement with the region is severely undermined by the lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, underscored by this week’s Gaza flotilla crisis. They warn that if President Obama fails to seize this crisis as an opportunity to reinvigorate the peace process and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, then this will defeat any hope of new engagement with the Muslim world.
Fawaz A. Gerges is more hesitant to put all the responsibility on the American president, instead calling for Arab populations and leaders to understand that one man in the White House is not omnipotent and that they too must help to steer Obama in the right direction. Peter Mandaville explains that to reverse the negative perceptions and disappointment across the region, the U.S. must focus on three broad areas: First, the U.S. must genuinely act to establish peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Second, Obama must show his support for moderate Islamist parties. And third, the U.S. must avoid the danger of exceptionalism in its relations with Muslim communities, but must aim to normalize and integrate these relationships into its broader global outreach.
Obama’s Cairo Speech: Assessing the Relationship Between Rhetoric and Action
June 2nd, 2010 by Josh
Ahead of the one-year anniversary of President Obama
’s Cairo address, Scott Carpenter
and Dina Guirguis of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy unpack the last twelve months of Middle East engagement with respect to the seven core issues identified in the speech as paramount to U.S.-Muslim relations: the need to confront violent extremism; the Arab-Israeli conflict; Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons; democracy; religious freedom; women’s rights; and economic development.
Overall, Carpenter and Guirguis conclude that “tangible deliverables from the Cairo address were in short supply.” Perhaps recognizing this reality, the administration has spent the last few months “reframing the speech’s intent and legacy” away from “outreach to Muslims” and toward a notion of “global engagement” that articulated a “generational mission statement” rather than a series of initiatives. “In this context,” the authors write, “the issuance of a new National Security Strategy (NSS) just days before the Cairo anniversary is apparently no coincidence.” Yet even though the NSS strengthens what Carpenter and Guirguis view as the speech’s relative deficiencies, “Washington’s strategy remains open to the same critique as the original Cairo address.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Israel, Mideast Peace Plan, Reform, Terrorism, US foreign policy, Women | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Previewing Egypt’s Upcoming Elections”
May 3rd, 2010 by Chanan
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a panel discussion featuring Amr Hamzawy, senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, and Jeremy Sharp, a specialist in Middle East Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, to discuss the political landscape in Egypt as it prepares for the upcoming parliamentary elections and next year’s presidential elections. Michele Dunne, a senior associate at Carnegie, moderated the event.
for POMED’s notes in PDF, or continue reading below the fold.
Posted in DC Event Notes, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Egypt, Elections, Human Rights, Mideast Peace Plan, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam, Political Parties, Protests, Technology, US foreign policy, Uncategorized | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Different yet Similar: Governance in the West Bank and Gaza”
March 19th, 2010 by Josh
The Palestine Center – the educational arm of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development – hosted an event to explore the similarities and differences between systems of government in the West Bank and Gaza. How have they made institutional improvements and has this effected the balance between security and liberty? How sustainable and vulnerable are these state-like systems? Dr. Yezid Sayigh, Professor of Middle East Studies at King’s College in London, addressed these questions and provided an overview of an evolving Palestinian political landscape. Expected speaker Dr. Khaled Hroub from the University of Cambridge was not able to attend.
for POMED’s notes in PDF, or continue below the fold.
Posted in DC Event Notes, Democracy Promotion, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Hamas, Human Rights, Islam and Democracy, Israel, Mideast Peace Plan, Palestine, Political Parties, Reform | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Bahrain’s Vision Amidst Regional Realities”
January 29th, 2010 by Josh
The Middle East Policy Forum along with the Distinguished Women in International Affairs Series sponsored an event featuring Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, Bahrain’s Ambassador to the United States. Ambassador Nonoo presented remarks on the relationship between the United States and Bahrain and commented on Bahrain’s role in the Persian Gulf.
Ambassador Nonoo began with an overview of Bahrain’s diplomatic posture towards a number of pertinent issues. She echoed Bahrain King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s call for a fresh start to peace talks and quoted the king as saying: “The biggest mistake has been to assume that you can simply switch on peace like a light. We should move towards real peace now by consulting our people and by reaching out to Israelis to highlight the benefits of a genuine peace.”
For POMED’s notes in PDF, please click here
. Otherwise, continue below the fold.
U.S. Government-Related Resources
The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of POMED as an organization