Netanyahu: 'Palestinians ruining peace bids by refusing to recognize Israel'

Actually, what the Palestinians refuse to recognize is the right of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people.
'Palestinians ruining peace bids by refusing to recognize Israel'
By Haaretz Service

The catalyst behind the long-lasting dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is the latter's unwillingness to recognize Israel's right to exist, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview to Israel Radio on Sunday.

When asked whether he thought the original sin of Israeli society was the occupation since 1967 of the West Bank, Netanyahu said that "the original sin was that the Jewish people couldn't protect itself from the verbal and physical assaults which ultimately brought to its destruction."

"I think that in 1967 the Jewish people were on the brink of destruction and the sin would have been our inability to defend ourselves the way we wanted to," the PM added, saying that he regretted "the fact that our glorious victory is presented as the mother of all sin."

Netanyahu said, however, that Israel does "not want to control the Palestinians, we want to reach a settlement," but that the reason for the peace talk stalemate isn't "because of the State of Israel but because of the other side's persistent refusal to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist."

"I believe that the things I am doing to make that point clearer will lead to their recognition of Israel's right to exist, which will remove the malignant element preventing the peace we want so dearly," the PM added.

On word of an agreement between the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama on a future construction freeze in all West Bank settlements, the PM said that "no decision has been made, and we have not reached an agreement with the United States."

"There are a lot of rumors and a lot of newspaper articles, none of which are my responsibility. We haven't agreed to anything yet, we are still working toward advancing peace talks while safeguarding settlers' rights, who are equal citizens," Netanyahu said.

"Any decision is bound to disappoint someone, every side saying you should have done things differently, but I will conduct myself in the way I believe will promote Israel and peace, something which is ultimately appreciated by civilians as well as Knesset Members."

Regarding comments made by Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who told a closed-door meeting of far-right activists a few weeks ago that he was "not afraid of the Americans" and that anti-settlement groups like Peace Now were "viruses" to Israel, Netanyahu made it clear that he found those remarks unacceptable.

"I've discussed the matter with minister Ya'alon and he made it clear to me that that was not his intention. I assume he will never use that term again," Netanyahu said.

"The Left is not a virus, settlers are not a cancer. We have legitimate disagreements, but we must maintain our unity by respecting our political adversaries."

When asked about his 1999 comment, that the "Left forgot what it meant to be Jewish" the PM said that "It was a mistake then, and it's still a mistake."

"Of course I have changed, it's the result of age and wisdom, both of which tell me one thing - we are one people and I am the prime minister of all of us."

Continued (Permanent Link)

About Jerusalem: Poor misunderstood George Mitchell and Uncle Sam

US Mideast envoy George Mitchell believes people are misinterpreting the Obama administration's pressure on Israel as well as the Arab response to Washington's regional peace push.

"One of the public misimpressions is that it's all been about settlements," Mitchell told the New York Times in an interview published Sunday. "It is completely inaccurate to portray this as, 'We're only asking the Israelis to do things.' We are asking everybody to do things."

,,,

"These are discussions among friends, not disputes among adversaries."

Like the song says, "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good; please don't let me be misunderstood."

There are two types of quarrels: Those based on misunderstanding, and those based on understanding only too well.

What George Mitchell is asking Israel to do is to give up its capital city. What are friends for after all, if not to oblige other friends with little favors like that? This is an even handed policy. The Saudis are asked to allow Israeli overflights (and refuse) and Israel is asked to renounce sovereignty over its capital city. Everybody is asked to do something for the cause, and to please smile while doing it.

The heart of the disagreement is that the US insists that Jerusalem is just another "settlement," that the US does not recognize Israeli sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem, and that they can and should dictate to Israel what policies to adopt in Jerusalem and when and where to build. The most recent "misunderstanding" was a public and ugly US protest against removal of illegal Palestinian occupants squatting in propery owned by Jews. It may not be wise for Israel to build in areas that might be subject to future negotiations, but it certainly understandable that Israel will enforce Israeli law, backed by a supreme court decision, in an area that is declared by Israel to be under its sovereignty. There is no misunderstanding. The problem is not that the United States wants Israel to negotiate, but rather that the US is telling Israel and the world that there is nothing to negotiate about in Jerusalem, since the city does not belong to Israel according to them, but to a hypothetical international administration or Palestinian state. This is not a disagreement among friends. It is a hostile diplomatic act. In the 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, the United States did not once protest any Jordanian action, including the building of King Hussein's summer house, or the wrecking of the last remnants of the Jewish quarter and the Jewish cemetery in the Mount of Olives.

There is no misunderstanding of US policy in this regard whatever and the policy is unmistakable. The United States does not recognize any part of Jerusalem, East or West, as part of Israel, and certainly not as Israel's capital city. UN Security Council Resolution 250 condemned Israel for holding a military parade (the Independence Day parade) in Jerusalem in 1968. The parade was held in West Jerusalem only. The United States did not veto the resolution. The Web site of the United States Conuslate in Jerusalem is all about Palestinian Arabs - in the West Bank and in Gaza. Not a word about Jews, though Jerusalem has a Jewish majority. The consulate refuses to recognize that there are Jews living in any part of Jerusalem it seems. Are they trying to tell us something?

Perhaps some of the misunderstanding is caused by the reticence of the Israeli government, which has never openly protested against the hostile policy of the United States. On the one hand, Israeli governments grandiosely proclaim that "United Jerusalem is the Eternal Capital of Israel." On the other hand, no Israeli government has seriously tried to get the United States to recognize even Kiriat Hayovel and Rehavia as part of Israel.

West Jerusalem, of course, has been part of Israel since 1948, but the US, to placate Arab opinion, continues to pretend that the internationalization of Jerusalem mandated by the UN in 1947 is a reality. The policy of the United States government regarding Jerusalem is contrary to its own laws, since the 1995: Jerusalem Embassy Act mandated that the United States recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and mandated that the embassy must be moved there and that US citizens born in Jerusalem be registered as having been born in Israel. Using a hypocritical loophole, the law has been ignored by successive presidents. If you think this policy is bizarre, you can write to the consulate at JerusalemACS@state.gov and to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php, U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520, 202-647-4000

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Inspiration and ray of hope - Summer Camp for Palestinian and Israeli Youth

Danny Shapiro, a friend who has started working at the Peres Peace Center wrote the following account.

July 19 was the first day of a six day camp joining 32 Israeli kids, aged 12 – 14, from the poor southern towns of Yeruham and Sderot, and 28 Palestinian kids living in poverty and despair in the occupied territories.


The camp, held at Kibbutz Galon, is organized by the Peres Center's Sports Department. And as much as I read about this kind of program, no article I could read, or video I could watch, could in any possible way match the almost incredulous sense of wonder and inspiration aroused by seeing these sixty kids playing in Galon's pool together, and enjoying a multi-lingual "Darbuka" session with a Palestinian madrich (leader).


It was also fascinating and deeply impressive to speak at length with Issam, who works on a number of projects with the Peres Center. Issam grew up in Gaza and moved to Ramallah after Hamas came to power and he felt his life was in danger for his many years of reconciliation work. No doubt some of you know him.


His story is amazing. He sat in Israeli prison and had a life-changing experience with an Israeli officer that put him on the path of working towards conciliation and peace. If I have the time I will write the story down and pass it along.


Issam reminded me again and again that not only was this the first time most of the Palestinian children had met an Israeli who not either a soldier or a settler – but for the great majority of them, this was the first time in their lives outside of their town or certainly the territories; the first time they had eaten in a restaurant; the first time they experience what even the lowest social and economic classes in Israel take for granted.


I have no illusions that the experience of these 60 kids, and that of the additional several hundred who will be treated to similar camps this summer, will make any serious dent in overall public opinion or attitudes, and certainly will not make the leaders on both sides more peace loving and conciliatory. But then, that (the latter, at least) is not the goal of the Peres Peace Center.



But this type of program most certainly changes attitudes (this is based on professional evaluation following multiple years of experience), and, if nothing else, humanizes the conflict for those who are involved in it; and injects a few rays of hope into our battered and shattered hearts and minds

That is what Peres Peace Center does. That is what the "peace" group Alternative Information Center finds objectionable. They published an article insisting that Palestinians must boycott Peres Peace Center. The article states:

Shimon Peres is definitely an enemy of the Palestinian people, of human rights and of peace, and any kind of collaboration by a Palestinian organization with the Peres Center is scandalous.

Is the summer camp "scandalous?" You decide. The directors of the Peres Peace Center, in any case, are Uri Savir and Ron Pundak, though Peres founded the Peres Peace Center.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Obama in Cairo - We've got plenty of nothing

The full text of US President Obama's speech in Cairo is here among other places. Below are the highlights. This is the first time that a U.S. President has used the word "legitimacy" about Israeli settlements, but regarding both the Israeli-Palestinian issue, as with the Iranian and other problems, Obama offered no plan - just finely balanced rhetoric that will either please everyone or make them angry. Each media outlet will choose to highlight whatever seems important to them: Here is the Israeli-Palestinian nugget:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights... That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true

What does "continued Israeli settlements" mean? Is it a deliberate imprecision? Does he mean continued settlement, or the continued existence of settlements? Is Jerusalem a "settlement?" If he is referring to existing settlements, then Obama's speech directly contradicts the letter of Predident Bush given in 2004. It did take some courage to say, in Cairo, addressing the Arab world, that the bond between israel and the United States will never be broken. This was not a AIPAC meeting after all.

Ami Isseroff

Obama: I'll personally pursue two-state solution
By Haaretz Service

In his long-anticipated Cairo address to the Muslim world, U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed Washington's strong backing for a Palestinian state, highlighting his administration's commitment to follow through on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While reaffirming Washington's "unbreakable bond" with Israel, Obama said that there can be no denying of the right of Palestine to exist, and that he would "personally pursue" the realization of a Palestinian state "with all the patience that the task requires."

"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's," Obama said.

The president also issued a blunt repudiation of Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank, an issue that has strained Washington's ties with Jerusalem.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," Obama said. "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

"The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear," Obama said, referring to the multi-stage peace plan agreed to by Israel and the Palestinians during the Bush presidency. "For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities."

"If we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth," Obama said. "The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security."

"That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest," the president said.

In addressing the Iranian nuclear program, Obama acknowledged longstanding Muslim accusations of Washington's double standard in objecting to Tehran's drive for nuclear weapons while tolerating Israel's alleged possession of atomic bombs.

The president reiterated his desire to see a world free of nuclear weapons.

"I understand those who protest that some countries have [nuclear] weapons that others do not," Obama said. "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons."

Obama conceded that Iran has rights to nuclear energy "if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Obama said his government will close the gap between public pronouncements and difficult truths that are often acknowledged behind closed doors in the halls of power throughout the Middle East.

"America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs," Obama said.

Obama urged Muslims around the world to acknowledge Jewish suffering and to repudiate Holocaust denial. The Arab and Muslim world ought to reconcile with the existence of Israel, the president said.

"Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve," Obama said.

The president also noted the plight of the Palestinians, who "have suffered in pursuit of a homeland" and who "endure daily humiliations ... that come with occupation."

"Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead," Obama said. "So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."

The president urged the Palestinians to draw upon the example of African slaves in the United States, arguing that a "peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding" had led to their gaining civil rights.

"Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed," Obama said. "For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights."

Obama said the Palestinians "must focus on what they can build." He urged Hamas to accept the Quartet's preconditions for international recognition - recognition of past signed agreements with Israel, recognition of Israel's right to exist, and a renunciation of violence.

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect," Obama said.

Obama offered the Arabic greeting of assalaamu alaykum, or "peace be unto you", in the early part of his speech. He also quoted a passage from the Koran and cited his father's Muslim background in a bid to highlight his sensitivity to Islamic grievances against the West.

"America is not and never will be at war with Islam," Obama said. "We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security."

"The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars," Obama said. "Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims."

"Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President," Obama said. "But my personal story is not so unique."

Obama is delivering his long-anticipated speech seeking to turn a new page in Washington's relations with the Arab and Muslim world.

Obama arrived in Egypt hours before giving long-promised speech in Cairo, the ancient seat of Islamic learning and culture.

The U.S. president is hoping to usher in a new era in the United States'
relationship with the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Aides say Obama will blend hopeful words about mutual understanding with blunt talk about the need for Muslims to embrace democracy, women's rights and economic opportunity.

Obama met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a key American ally, at his palace in the capital.

"We discussed how to move forward in a constructive way to bring peace and prosperity to people in the region," Obama told reporters after talks with Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt since 1981 and kept a tight lid on opposition.

"I emphasized to him that the U.S. is committed to working in partnership with countries in the region so all people can meet their aspirations," he said before heading to a mosque in a quarter of Cairo that is full of Islamic architectural gems.

The mosque is a 600-year-old center of Islamic worship and study called the Sultan Hassan mosque. Obama will then tour the Great Pyramids of Giza on the capital's outskirts.

Obama arrived in Egypt from Saudi Arabia, where he stayed overnight at King Abdullah's horse farm in the desert outside Riyadh.

In his Cairo address Thursday, Obama called on Israel and the Arab states to change their approach to the Middle East peace process.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Obama: No options off the table on Iran, not my place to determine Israeli security needs

US President Obama gave a carefully timed interview to Newsweek ahead of the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The interview ranged over a wide variety of subjects. President Obama had some very important messages on Iran and Israel and Middle East peace, that do not look or sound anything like what has appeared in the media or has been published about this interview. He said that no options are off the table, and repeated that he is not naive. He also said that he can understand why Israel considers Iran to be an existential threat and emphasized that the United States cannot determine Israeli security needs. He did not explain, and was not asked, why American officials have been going around warning Israel not to attack Iran, nor did he say that he himself believes Iran to be an existential threat to Israel. He did say, when asked, that "NO" the United states will not stop Israel from attacking Iran. In fact, he said:

They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.

His words were chosen skilfully, even if the delivery seemed off hand. They should not be distorted, as some have already begun to do.

Notably absent from this interview as published on the Web: Any mention of Palestinians, peace intitiatives, settlements and two-state solutions. Literally, those words are not there, and neither is the word "Arab."

Here is the part of the interview that relates to Israel and Iran:

Prime Minister Netanyahu is coming [to Washington this week]. How do you expect to talk to him about the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran? And some people have argued that we should not take [American military action] off the table.
I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran. I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security, period. What I have said is that we want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think, ultimately, that will be better for the Iranian people. I think that there is the ability of an Islamic Republic of Iran to maintain its Islamic character while, at the same time, being a member in good standing of the international community and not a threat to its neighbors. And we are going to reach out to them and try to shift off of a pattern over the last 30 years that hasn't produced results in the region.

Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

And you would expect the Israelis, as an ally, to follow along with that and not take unilateral [military] action?

No, look, I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.

I can make an argument to Israel as an ally that the approach we are taking is one that has to be given a chance and offers the prospect of security, not just for the United States but also for Israel, that is superior to some of the other alternatives.

Make of it what you will, in the context of all other buzz, spin and rumors.

Cross posted:

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Peace initiative - Good for Israel?

Israel and the peace initiative

07.05. 2009
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000688.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

The American sponsored peace initiative seems to have little rational thinking behind it and little chance of success. But while the President of the United States may not be right, he is certainly the President of the United States. Israel cannot afford to forget that. Nonetheless, Israel's first responsibility must be to ensure that it has a viable defense.

A great peace initiative is being undertaken by the United States. The general idea seems to bundle a remodeled Arab Peace Initiative for regional peace, Palestinian-Israeli peace based on a two state solution and a solution to the problem of Iranian nuclear weapons development. Lately, a fourth element was apparently added - general nuclear disarmament and arms control, including hints that the U.S. expects Israel to become a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. All this will somehow, so the theory goes, make it easier for the United States to secure its withdrawal from Iraq, and prevent a disaster in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Continued here: Israel and the peace initiative

Continued (Permanent Link)

Barry Rubin: Two state dissolution?

Barry Rubin knows better than this. To a great extent, "Two state solution" is a slogan that is necessary for the sake of U.S. diplomacy, regardless of its utility as an actual policy.

Dissolving in the Two-State Solution

By Barry Rubin*

April 25, 2009

Ring! Ring! The Israeli prime minister's alarm clock went off. He quickly sat up in bed and immediately shouted out: "Yes! I'm for a two-state solution!"

At breakfast, lunch, and dinner, during his talks and all his meetings, in greeting his staff as he walked down the corridor to the office, endless he repeated that phrase.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the world seems to want from Israeli policy.

But the fact is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution back in 1997 when he took over in the midst of the Oslo agreement peace process and committed himself to all preceding agreements.

This is not the real issue. The real issue is this: much of the world wants Israel to agree in advance to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) what they think it wants without any concessions or demonstration of serious intent on its part.

Continued here: Dissolving in the Two-State Solution

Continued (Permanent Link)

Surprise: 'Lieberman says two states the only way'

The ultranationalist right wing, war monger expansionist neocon, racist, right wing (did I mention that?) Israeli FM of the right wing (did I mention that?) expansionist Zionist war criminal Israel government is reported to have said that a two state solution was the only way to achieve peace and security.

Go figure.

'Lieberman says two states the only way'

Apr. 25, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was "very moderate" during his meeting with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman last week, and told him that a two-state solution with the Palestinians was the only way to achieve peace and security in the region, according to a report in the London-based Arab paper Al-Hayat Saturday.

The paper was quoting an unnamed Egyptian official who it described as "reliable." Lieberman, the official said, also told Suleiman that economical development of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was of utmost importance to the peace process. The official said that the meeting between the two was successful and achieved its objective.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report.

Regarding Gaza, the source said that the Israeli position on the subject was that any renewed cease-fire with Hamas was conditional to the release of Gilad Schalit, But, he added, any possible prisoner exchange for the abducted soldier has been put on hold as the new Israeli government studies the issue. The source said Suleiman had made it clear to Israeli officials that the current quiet on the Gaza front was due to understandings between Egypt and Hamas.

Israeli leaders told Suleiman that the strengthening of Israeli-Egyptian relations was at the top of their agenda, the official said. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he added, was expected to visit Egypt following his upcoming visit to Washington.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Proactive foreign policy: Israel meeting the Obama challenge

..."Moderate" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. From the beginning, that should have been the cornerstone of Israeli policy - Arabs, Palestinians included, must recognize the validity of the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine and of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, both of which explicitly recognize the right of the Jewish people to self determination. After all, that is what the whole conflict is about. Once the Palestinians are will willing to accept international law, we can quibble about borders, refugees and other issues. President Obama's off-the-cuff remarks must be converted into a commitment by the United States to support the existence of Israel and its recognition by its Arab neighbors as the homeland of the Jewish people. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already made a statement demanding that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Too bad that demand was not part of Avigdor Lieberman's speech. It will be remembered, also, that Ehud Olmert made a similar effort and then mysteriously dropped it. This issue has to be a centerpiece of Israeli policy, raised at every opportunity. not just a sound bite to be used when the occasion seems to call for it.

Similarly, though it is not a prior condition for negotiations, everyone should be made to understand that Israel will assert the historic rights of the Jewish people in "East Jerusalem." The Palestinians have been allowed to establish a historical "fact on the ground" by dint of repetition: They have convinced at least themselves, and perhaps much of the world, that they have a "right" to a capital in East Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab state, and was not even included in the Palestinian area in the 1947 partition plan. Jerusalem was always known as the ancient capital of Jewish people, and the old city had a large Jewish community until it was ethnically cleansed in pogroms beginning in 1920 and culminating in the expulsion of the remaining Jews by force by the Jordanian Legion in 1948. Absurdly, a sizeable part of world opinion now believes that somehow "East Jerusalem" ought to be the capital of an Arab state and that Israel and the Jews have no rights there.

On these bases, when it is clear what is is being negotiated and what the end of the process will be for Israel, and it is clear that the agreements will be kept at least by the Fatah lead Palestinian Authority, it makes sense to continue negotiations. If they have any intellectual honesty, even the most enthusiastic proponents of "Annapolis" in the USA and in the EU would have a hard time explaining why Israel has to negotiate and what is to be negotiated with a partner that declares that its constituent groups - containing the same personnel who do the negotiating - are not bound by any agreements, and that the end goal of the negotiations is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. But we can hardly expect others to agree with this point of view if the Israel Foreign Ministry itself has not advanced it at every opportunity.

Read the whole article here:

Proactive foreign policy: Israel meeting the Obama challenge

Continued (Permanent Link)

Palestinians: No rights for Israel in East Jerusalem

This is the Palestinian position:

There will be no peace whatsoever unless East Jerusalem – with every single stone in it – becomes the capital of Palestine.

Yasser Arafat said to Clinton defiantly: "I will not be a traitor. Someone will come to liberate it after 10, 50, or 100 years. Jerusalem will be nothing but the capital of the Palestinian state, and there is nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif except for Allah." That is why Yasser Arafat was besieged, and that is why he was killed unjustly.

In November 2008… Let me finish… Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: "We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin." Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: "I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places. This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign…

This claim made below is false:

East Jerusalem is an occupied area, just like Khan Yunis, Jericho, and Nablus were. Its status in international law will never be anything else. Therefore, any arrangements regarding East Jerusalem are categorically unacceptable.

The truth is that under international law, according to UN Security Council resolution 252 of 1968, passed following the Six Day War, and reaffirming several previous resolutions, Jerusalem does not have the same status as the rest of the "West Bank" at all. Jerusalem is a corpus separatum that was to have been an internationalized area. It was occupied illegally by Jordan. It is a myth that East Jerusalem is "Arab East Jerusalem." Jews lived in the Old City of Jerusalem for hundreds of years until they were ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem in 1948. According to international law, there is no reason to favor Arab sovereignty in East Jerusalem over Israeli sovereignty.

Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat: Abu Mazen Rejected the Israeli Proposal in Annapolis Like Arafat Rejected the Camp David 2000 Proposal

Following are excerpts from a TV debate with chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on March 27, 2009.

Saeb Erekat: I am sitting in Jericho, in the house where I was born, four kilometers from the Jordan River, and there are Israeli flags from the Jordan River all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, we are living under Israeli occupation. But let me say that Jerusalem has not been – and will not be – lost. 300,000 Palestinian citizens live in Jerusalem.

[…]

Jerusalem has not gone anywhere. Jerusalem is here to stay – in the same place throughout the ages. The important thing is for us to return and to liberate Jerusalem.

[…]

It is true that the negotiations continued for many years, but don't you know that President Yasser Arafat was besieged in Camp David and was killed unjustly, only because he adhered to Jerusalem, and because he refused to let the Israeli measures on the ground give rise to any [Israeli] right or any [Palestinian] obligation? The Palestinian negotiators could have given in in 1994, 1998, or 2000, and too months ago, brother Abu Mazen could have accepted a proposal that talked about Jerusalem and almost 100% of the West Bank, but it is not our goal to score points against one another here. Our strategic goal, when we strive for peace, is not to do so at any price. We strive for peace on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 borders, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip geographically connected.

[…]

There will be no peace whatsoever unless East Jerusalem – with every single stone in it – becomes the capital of Palestine.

[…]

In my family, we are seven siblings. My six brothers and sisters are in the diaspora. But this does not deny them the right to inherit this land. Ten million Palestinians own Palestine, just like I do. Our survival and steadfastness on this land, our wresting of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital – this is what we can achieve in our generation.

[…]

Let me recount two historical events, even if I am revealing a secret. On July 23, 200, in his meeting with President Arafat in Camp David, President Clinton said: "You will be the first president of a Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders – give or take, considering the land swap – and East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state, but we want you, as a religious man, to acknowledge that the Temple of Solomon is located underneath the Haram Al-Sharif." Yasser Arafat said to Clinton defiantly: "I will not be a traitor. Someone will come to liberate it after 10, 50, or 100 years. Jerusalem will be nothing but the capital of the Palestinian state, and there is nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif except for Allah." That is why Yasser Arafat was besieged, and that is why he was killed unjustly.

In November 2008… Let me finish… Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: "We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin." Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: "I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places. This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign…

TV host: Okay…

Saeb Erekat: This is the Palestinian position.

TV host: But let's return to Camp David. When you were in the meetings with Shlomo Ben-Ami… After two weeks of meetings between Barak, Arafat, and Clinton, which led to nothing, there was a meeting in which you proposed that there be [Palestinian] sovereignty, with arrangements in the Old City, including the Haram Al-Sharif. In other words, you proposed Palestinian sovereignty, with Israel playing a role in the administrative aspects. In other words, Israel would participate in the administration of the Haram area – unlike the "reduced sovereignty" demanded by Shlomo Ben-Ami at that meeting. In other words, you wanted to let [Israel] play a role, one way or another, with regard to the so-called Holy Basin.

Saeb Erekat: They will never have this. Like President Abu Mazen said in front of President Bush and PM Olmert: I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. East Jerusalem is an occupied area, just like Khan Yunis, Jericho, and Nablus were. Its status in international law will never be anything else. Therefore, any arrangements regarding East Jerusalem are categorically unacceptable.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Abbas: Olmert agreed that East Jerusalem should be Palestinian-ruled

Abbas: Olmert agreed that East Jerusalem should be Palestinian-ruled
Date: 26 / 11 / 2008  Time:  16:45    

 

Ramallah – Ma'an Exclusive – Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has accepted that East Jerusalem should be placed under Palestian control, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Wednesday.

 

In addition, Israel has recognized the existence of only 200,000 Palestinian refugees from the violence at its creation in 1948, Abbas said.

 

Abbas said this recognition took place in secret final-status negotiations with Israeli negotiators. Israel's acknowledgment of these refugees falls short of the list of 950,000 refugees the Palestinian Authority says were expelled in 1948, along with five million total refugees and their descendants, the Palestinian president claimed.

 

Abbas revealed this and other information about the negotiations with Israel and with his Palestinian rival, the Hamas movement, during a two-hour meeting with senior Fatah officials in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

 

Abbas said the Palestinian leadership takes the negotiations seriously: "Those who think that we sit with Israelis for sake of publicity; they are wrong."

 

"We armed ourselves with documents, maps, data and statistics ahead of each session and we have a fortified, professional expert negotiating team. We get prepared each time as if studying before class at school," he said.

 

Abbas said that he had rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state that would include 92% of the land of the West Bank, saying that he would not accept any deal that left out even 1% of the land.

 

Abbas also explained that Israel had hesitated to make a firm commitment to the pre-1967 borders during the negotiations. However, in recent meetings, Israeli leaders had finally accepted that occupied East Jerusalem ought to be a part of the Palestinian State.

 

He said: "Whenever we asked them about the borders they had usually responded that they are not so sure. Only in the last two sessions they recognized those borders including East Jerusalem, as Olmert explained that a two-state solution is the best choice and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem should be ruled by PA."

 

The president also recounted an anecdote about his first meeting with United States President George W. Bush. After presenting the US leader with a map of the West Bank showing the route of the separation wall and other Israeli installments, Bush became angry, throwing the maps in the face of an assistant.

 

"This way there won't be a Palestinian state and Israel is cutting off the road to a solution," Abbas reported Bush as saying.

 

Abbas said that when he went to Switzerland he was asked why he rejected Hamas' suggestion of a Palestinian state with temporary borders. He said he replied that he advised Hamas leader Isma'il Haniyeh at the time to stop making such suggestions, as he sees them as harmful to the negotiations with Israel.

 

He said Hamas's suggestion of a long-term truce with Israel would actually stabilize the current situation, with Palestinians controlling less than 60% of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israeli wall remaining in place.

 

Abbas said that Hamas is damaging the Palestinian national cause out of anger of their exclusion from politics, "destroying the game because they are not allowed to play."

 

Blaming Hamas for the collapse of Palestinian internal talks, Abbas also criticized Israel for refusing to allow Palestinian political leaders from the West Bank representing Fatah, the PFLP, and the DFLP, to travel to the talks in Cairo.

 

Abbas said that three points must be accepted in order for the dialogue with Hamas to proceed: The presence of Arab forces to support Palestinian security forces, reform of the Palestinian government and simultaneous presidential and legislative elections.

 

Abbas also said that that the Palestinian prisoners slated for release by Israel before the upcoming Eid Al-Adha holiday include lawmakers and prisoners serving long sentences. 

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Livni: I oppose Olmert's peace plan

Livni says what everyone knows: Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are ready to make a deal.

Last update - 01:50 06/10/2008
Livni tells France's Kouchner: I oppose Olmert's peace plan
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and News Agencies

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that she opposes the agreement in principle that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"I do not believe in far-reaching proposals and an attempt to expedite matters, especially in light of the political situation," Livni, the prime minister-designate, told Kouchner on Sunday.

In the morning, Kouchner met with Olmert, who said he was frustrated that Abbas had not accepted his proposal. "You've read what I said in the interview," Olmert told Kouchner, referring to his statements in Yedioth Ahronoth favoring concessions. "Still, the Palestinians do not want to sign."

Kouchner raised the matter later when he met with Livni and asked why she objects to Olmert's proposal. Olmert's plan proposes a comprehensive solution on borders and refugees and postpones a decision on Jerusalem.

Livni's explanation was a criticism of Olmert. "Abu Mazen [Abbas] in his present political situation cannot accept such an agreement," she said. "The political situation in Israel also does not allow it to be signed."

Livni also argued that blaming the Palestinians for refusing to accept Olmert's offer does no good. "We can say this is their fault - but what will that do?" she said. "We had the same thing after Camp David in 2000 and look where that got us."

Livni: Annapolis will continue, regardless of political upheaval
Earlier Sunday, in her first foreign policy address since winning the Kadima party primary, Livni voiced her commitment to continue peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

"Annapolis will continue," Livni said, referring to a U.S.-sponsored peace conference last November that restarted negotiations on a Palestinian state.

"Let us not allow dates or political changes to stand in our way," she said, in her address to Foreign Ministry conference on policy and strategy in Jerusalem.

"The point is to understand the required concessions in order to conduct a correct process," Livni said.

Sunday's conference marked the first of what is to be annual assessments of Israel's foreign policy, and was also attended by Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Barak: Arab areas in Jerusalem could be Palestinian capital

Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said some Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem could become the capital of a future Palestinian state as part of a final peace agreement. This is no different from the formula he offered in 2000. Palestinians continue to insist that Israel has no national rights whatever in East Jerusalem. The late Yasser Arafat amazed American politicians by claiming repeatedly that there had been no Jewish presence in Jerusalem in antiquity. Archeological finds give evidence of the Jewish monarchy as early as King Hezekiah in 700 BC and ancient writers commonly referred to Jerusalem as the former Jewish capital, but Palestinian leaders pretend this evidence does not exist. Arafat's views were frequently seconded by the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Ikremah Sabri.

Prior to 1948, about 5,000 Jews lived in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. The community underwent attrition due to Arab riots in 1929 and 1936. In 1948, the entire community was ethnically cleansed by the Transjordan Legion under the supervision of British officers. East Jerusalem was also the site of the original campus of the Hebrew University, which was reconstituted after 1967. Arab media however, ignore the Jewish connection to East Jerusalem in modern times as well as ancient, and commonly refer to it as "Arab East Jerusalem" on the basis of the 19 year illegal Jordanian occupation.

East Jerusalem is also the site of Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, important Muslim holy places.

Fatah leaders have been promising a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem since the signing of the Oslo accords, though Israel never undertook to cede all of Jerusalem or any of it as part of a peace setltement.

"We can find a formula under which certain neighborhoods, heavily-populated Arab neighborhoods, could become, in a peace agreement, part of the Palestinian capital that, of course, will include also the neighboring villages around Jerusalem," Barak told Al-Jazeera television.

"I'm not sure whether the gaps are close enough," Barak said when asked if a deal was possible this year.

Officially, Israel is not discussing Jerusalem with the Palestinians at all, since the non-Zionist ultraorthodox Shas party insisted they would leave the coalition if any concessions were offered in Jerusalem. Orthodox and ultraorthodox Jews in the United States and Israel, rather than Zionists, are the chief opposition to Israeli compromise on the issue. As long as the Palestinians remain intent on excluding Israel entirely from East Jerusalem, the issue of Israeli compromise is a moot point.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israelis support "calm" but think it won't last.

The latest poll shows that a plurality of Israelis support the "calm" with Hamas but think it won't last. Interestingly, Kadima voters support the "calm", but are pretty certain it won't last. Knesset polls show a significant relative advantage for the Kadima party if Tzippi Livni is its candidate for Prime Minister, and a drop in the popularity of Labor and the Likud relative to other scenarios and previous polls. Still, the Likud is the party that gets the largest number of mandates in all scenarios.

Polls: 40.6%:32.9% support calm agreement with Hamas, 74.8% expect to last
days
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 19 June 2008

Telephone poll of a representative sample of 497 adult Israelis (including Arab Israelis) carried out by Shvakim Panorama for Israel Radio's Hakol Diburim (It's All Talk) the afternoon and evening of 18 June 2008 after the announcement of the "calm" in the Gaza Strip.

If elections were held today how would you vote (expressed in mandates - based on the 81.2% who indicated what party they would vote for)

Four scenarios:
[A] Kadima headed by Livni
[B] Kadima headed by Mofaz
[C] Kadima headed by Dichter
[D] Kadima headed by Shetreet

Actual Knesset today in [brackets]
[A][B][C][D]
22 18 09 08 [29] Kadima
14 17 19 19 [19] Labor
25 22 29 30 [12] Likud
11 11 11 11 [12] Shas
11 12 11 12 [11] Yisrael Beteinu
07 08 08 07 [09] Nat'l Union/NRP
06 06 06 06 [06] Yahadut Hatorah
06 07 07 07 [05] Meretz
04 05 06 06 [00] Green Party
03 03 03 03 [00] Social Justice (Gaydamak Party)
** ** ** ** [07] Retirees Party
11 11 11 11 [10] Arab parties
** does not get minimum votes for Knesset representation

Do you support or oppose the calm agreement with Hamas?
Total: Support 40.6% Oppose 32.9% No position 26.5%
Kadima voters: Support 38.1% Oppose 31.8% No position 30.1%
Likud voters: Support 22.3% Oppose 60.4% No position 17.3%
Labor voters: Support 69.2% Oppose 10.1% No position 20.7%

You think that the calm will continue for a short time (days) or a long time (months)?
Total: Short 74.8% Long 17.1% Don't know 8.1%
Kadima voters: Short 81.5% Long 5.3% DK 13.2%
Likud voters:: Short 91.4% Long 2.2% DK 6.4%
Labor voters: Short 59.6% Long 12.8% DK 27.6%

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

Continued (Permanent Link)

Extending sympathy to the parents of Rachel Corrie

Send your sympathy to the parents of Rachel Corrie, one of many thousands of victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict, who was killed in 2003 by accident. Ask them please not to allow anyone to use her death in order to spread hatred and cause more and more deaths.

 

Condolences for Rachel Corrie

02.04. 2008
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000523.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

To the parents of Rachel Corrie,
I am sorry for your loss. In 2003, your daughter Rachel became one of the many victims of the struggle between Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel, AKA (between 1917 and 1947) as "Palestine." I am sure that you love your daughter as much as every one of the bereaved parents and relatives of victims of the conflict loved their children. Your daughter was killed, apparently by accident, by a civilian bulldozer driver. I wish that Israel would open a full investigation of the matter and issue an apology, even if the death was purely accidental. As an Israeli, I apologize, but I can only do so as an individual.

But the other victims of the conflict are as dear to their parents and loved ones as Rachel was to you. Here for example, are Rachel Thaler (left) age 15, killed in a suicide attack on a pizzeria, and by her side is Rachel is Rachel Levi, age 19, killed in a suicide attack while waiting for a bus.

There is also Carlos Chavez. I call him "the other Rachel Corrie." He is the Rachel Corrie nobody will remember. He was a volunteer, like Rachel. He was harming nobody. He was working on a kibbutz near the Gaza border. He came all the way from his home in Ecuador to do that. He was murdered intentionally by Palestinian Arab terrorists, not accidentally.

Continued here: Condolences for Rachel Corrie

Continued (Permanent Link)

Are there Israeli secret talks with Syria?

Are Israel and Syria talking?

Published: 03/27/2008

Israel hinted at secret talks with Syria.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday that he wants to resume peace talks with Syria that stalled in 2000, though Jerusalem has balked at preconditions by Damascus such as the complete return of the Golan Heights.

"I hope that the Syrians are prepared to make peace with Israel, and I hope that the circumstances will allow us to sit together," Olmert told foreign reporters on Wednesday. "That doesn't mean that when we sit together you have to see us."

The suggestion that secret contacts already are under way followed media reports that Turkey has been trying to bring together senior Israeli and Syrian officials for discreet and preliminary exchanges of ideas.

Olmert's comments were echoed Thursday by Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who told Army Radio: "I know that the Israeli government, and he who is empowered by it, are doing everything possible to create a dialogue with Syria."

Expanding on the unidentified emissary, Ben-Eliezer said that "anyone who meets him, and there are such people, is told in spoken Hebrew that the State of Israel is prepared to sit down tomorrow and talk."

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Bush radio address: A Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian state

The higlight of President Bush's radio address from the Middle East:

In plain language, the result must be the establishment of a free and democratic homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a free and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For this to happen, the Israelis must have secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And the Palestinians must have a state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. Achieving this vision will require tough decisions and painful concessions from both sides.

The entire address is below.

Ami Isseroff

---

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I'm speaking to you from the Middle East, where I have been meeting with friends and allies. We're discussing how we can work together to confront the extremists who threaten our future. And I have encouraged them to take advantage of the historic opportunity we have before us to advance peace, freedom, and security in this vital part of the world.

My first stop was Israel and the Palestinian Territories. I had good meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas. Both these men are committed to peace in the Holy Land. Both these men have been elected by their people. And both share a vision of two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side by side in peace and security.

I came away encouraged by my meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Each side understands that the key to achieving its own goals is helping the other side achieve its goals. For the Israelis, their main goal is ensuring the safety of their people and the security of their nation. For the Palestinians, the goal is a state of their own, where they can enjoy the dignity that comes with sovereignty and self-government.

In plain language, the result must be the establishment of a free and democratic homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a free and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For this to happen, the Israelis must have secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And the Palestinians must have a state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. Achieving this vision will require tough decisions and painful concessions from both sides.

I believe that a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that defines a Palestinian state is possible this year. Prime Minister Olmert made clear to me that he understands a democratic Palestinian state is in the long-term security interests of Israel. President Abbas is committed to achieving this Palestinian state through negotiation. The United States cannot impose an agreement on the Israelis and Palestinians -- that is something they must work out themselves. But with hard work and good will on both sides, they can make it happen. And both men are getting down to the serious work of negotiation to make sure it does happen.

The United States will do all we can to encourage these negotiations and promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. But the international community has a responsibility to help as well. In particular, the Arab nations of the Gulf have a responsibility both to support President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, and other Palestinian leaders as they work for peace, and to work for a larger reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world. And in my meetings with Arab leaders over the next few days, I will urge them to do their part.

A democratic Palestinian state is in the interests of the Palestinians. It is in the long-term security interests of Israel. And it is in the interests of a world at war with terrorists and extremists trying to impose their brutal vision on the Middle East. By helping the Israeli and Palestinian people lay the foundation for lasting peace, we will help build a more hopeful future for the Holy Land -- and a safer world for the American people.

Thank you for listening.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Mr. Bush: You are not in Kansas anymore

  Mr. Bush: You are not in Kansas anymore

07.01. 2008
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000476.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center
http://zionism-israel.com

Not much peace is likely to come out of President Bush's upcoming visit to the Middle East. As Hillel Halkin notes, nobody in the Middle East probably really wants peace anyhow.

Unlike Hillel Halkin, I do not think this is a Good Thing. But it certainly seems to be a fact. As I note elsewhere, if US diplomats ever grasp this truth, it may set US policy in the Middle East on a much firmer footing. Since sometime after the Six Day War, the U.S. has held to the same policy in the Middle East. It is based on these principles:

• Arab-Israeli peace will stabilize the region and open the way to further progress.

• The various actors in the Middle East really want peace, though they each want it on their terms.

• Peace can be obtained by using US leverage on Israel to extract territorial concessions from Israel. LI>

  By achieving peace and return of territories, the US can leverage Israeli return of territories into US influence with Arab states.

• The US can maintain its leverage over Israel by making Israel dependent on US aid and weapons, and likewise, it can use the same mechanism to maintain leverage over other states in the region.

The model that is supposed to have validated the thesis is Egypt. Egypt made peace with Israel and got its territories back, and Egypt and Israel remain firm allies of the US, in part because of hefty foreign aid subsidies. But what if all the above assumptions are false? What if peace between the Arabs and Israelis would violate cultural taboos that have been in place in the Arab world for the last 100 years? What if it would destabilize all the regimes that signed peace treaties with Israel, by labeling them as "Jew lovers" and an easy target for extremists? What if the Israelis, once anxious for peace even in 1967 borders have in the interim gotten used to the "new" situation that has prevailed for 40 years, and are not anxious to trade real estate for flimsy peace agreements like the one with Egypt? What if instability in the Middle East, backward conditions and volatility are the cause of the Israel-Arab conflict rather than the effect?

Continued: Mr. Bush: You are not in Kansas anymore

Cross posted: Israel News  Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Palestinian water pollution entering Israel

Study: West Bank pollution threatening Israeli groundwater
By Zafrir Rinat  Haaretz 116 December 2007

For several years now, a white river has run through the Hebron Hills. The color comes from pollution - waste from a sawmill near Hebron. And according to a recent Israeli-Palestinian study, pollution from this river and others like it is threatening the groundwater inside Israel, and is impeding attempts to rehabilitate Israel's rivers.

Israel has tried to deal with the problem by collecting and purifying the waste at the Green Line, the boundary between Israel and the West Bank. But that is insufficient, because much pollution enters the groundwater in the West Bank and spreads to Israel underground.

 

The two-year study was conducted by the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, the Blaustein Institute for Desert Research at Ben-Gurion University and the Palestinian Water and Environmental Development
Organization. It focused on the Alexander River, which runs from Nablus to the Mediterranean north of Netanya, and the Basor River, which runs from near Hebron to the Gaza Strip. Major investments have been made in
rehabilitating both rivers in recent years, including by establishing waste treatment plants along them.

However, the study found, the Basor is now full of both municipal waste and toxins emitted by the stone- and leather-working industries around Hebron. It estimated that anywhere from 45 to 90 percent of the pollution seeps into the ground before the river reaches the Israeli treatment plant, thereby endangering the groundwater. Moreover, some of this underground waste then reenters the river downstream of the treatment plant.

The study found that faulty sewage systems in Israel also pollute the river.

While the Alexander River has improved substantially, the study said, it still is being polluted by municipal waste and the olive oil industries around Nablus and Tul Karm, as well as various sources within Israel, such as fertilizer and insecticides from nearby farms. In this case, too, about half of the pollution on the Palestinian side seeps into the groundwater before reaching the Green Line.

Amos Brandeis, chief planner of the project to rehabilitate the Alexander, noted that the German government plans to build waste treatment plants for  Nablus and Tul Karm, but they will not be operational for several years. He also noted that the amount of municipal waste on the Palestinian side has grown, due to population growth and because many more houses have been connected to the sewage system in recent years - and this system flows directly into the river, rather than to a treatment plant.

Hydrologists Lior Assaf and Hila Ackerman of the Arava Institute said that more could also be done on the Israeli side - for instance, said Assaf, "planting buffer zones of vegetation along the river banks, which would help prevent pollution from entering the river."

Professor Alon Tal of the Blaustein Institute, in his summary of the research, noted that Israelis and Palestinians had managed to work together to reduce pollution despite the political tensions. "Nevertheless, what has been done to date is only the first stage," he wrote.
 

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Will Fatah and Hamas reunite?

Note- Fatah in Gaza is not necessarily controlled by Fatah in West Bank any more.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

Exclusive: 'Fatah, Hamas may join ranks'
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 29, 2007

Fatah will fight alongside Hamas if and when the IDF launches a military operation in the Gaza Strip, a senior Fatah official in Gaza City said Thursday.

"Fatah won't remain idle in the face of an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip," the official said. "We will definitely fight together with Hamas against the Israeli army. It's our duty to defend our people against the occupiers."

The Fatah official said his faction would place political differences aside and form a joint front against Israel if the IDF enters the Gaza Strip. "The homeland is more important than all our differences," he said.

The statements came amid reports that some Arab countries were planning to resume mediation efforts between Fatah and Hamas to avoid further deterioration in the aftermath of the Annapolis peace conference.

According to the reports, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have decided to invite representatives of Fatah and Hamas for talks on ways of ending their power struggle.

A senior Palestinian official who visited Cairo this week said the Egyptians and Saudis have reached the conclusion that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas won't be able to move forward with the peace talks with Israel without solving his problems with Hamas.

The official said Abbas had given his blessing to Cairo and Riyadh to resume their efforts to end the crisis with Hamas.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak phoned Abbas Thursday and discussed with him the results of the Annapolis conference and the possibility of resuming negotiations between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas is currently on a visit to Tunisia, where he is expected to brief veteran PLO officials on the outcome of the conference.

Earlier this week, the Egyptian government gave permission to several pro-Palestinian organizations in Egypt to send truckloads of food and medicine to the Gaza Strip. The trucks are scheduled to arrive in the Gaza Strip on Friday through the Rafah border crossing, which remains closed to travelers.

Hamas, meanwhile, is bracing for a massive IDF operation to halt the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip.

Sources in the Gaza Strip said Hamas's security forces have been placed on full alert and most of the movement's senior leaders have gone into hiding for fear of being targeted by Israel. In addition, Hamas has evacuated many of its security and civil institutions.

Hamas leaders on Thursday tried to establish a link between the Annapolis conference and a potential IDF attack on the Gaza Strip. They said the latest escalation, which claimed the lives of some 20 Hamas members over the past week, was directly linked to the conference.

Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan said Israel was stepping up its military operations in the Gaza Strip to cover up for the "failure" of the Annapolis conference. He said the thousands of Palestinians who demonstrated against the conference over the past few days in the West Bank indicated that a majority of the public were opposed to Annapolis.

Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri said the killing of six Hamas activists over the past 48 hours was one of the direct results of the Annapolis conference.

"The Annapolis conference has failed," he said. "This conference was nothing but an attempt to impose the American and Israeli agenda on the Palestinians. The conference also gave a green light to Israel to launch a big military operation in the Gaza Strip."

 

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Speeches of Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas at the Annapolis summit

See also: Joint Israeli-Palestinian Declaration, and its meaning

 

The full text of Olmert, Abbas' speeches at the Annapolis summit 

 

By Assaf Uni, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service  

 

PRIME MINISTER EHUD OLMERT 

 

The honorable president of the United States, George Bush, my colleague, president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, heads of delegations, and distinguished guests, I came here today from Jerusalem, Mr. President, at your invitation, to extend, on behalf of the people of Israel and the state of Israel, to the Palestinian people and to our neighboring Arab states, to extend a hand in peace, a hand which marks the beginning of historic reconciliation between us and you, the Palestinians, and all of the Arab nations.

 

I had many good reasons not to come here to this meeting. Memory of failures in the near and distant past weighed heavy upon us. The dreadful terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist organizations has affected thousands of Israeli citizens, has destroyed families and has tried to disrupt the lives of the citizens of Israel.

 

I witnessed this when I served as mayor of Jerusalem in days of bombings at cafes, on buses, and in recreational centers in Jerusalem, as well as in other cities in the state of Israel.

 

The ongoing shooting of Qassam rockets against tens of thousands of residents in the south of Israel, particularly in the city of Sderot, serves as a warning sign, one which we cannot overlook.

 

The absence of governmental institutions and effective law enforcement mechanisms, the role of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the ongoing activity of murderous organizations throughout all the territories of the Palestinian Authority, the absence of a legal system that meets the basic criteria of democratic government, all of these are factors which deter us from moving forward too hastily.

 

I am not overlooking any of these obstacles which are liable to emerge along the way. I see them.

 

But I came here, despite the concerns and the doubts and the hesitations to say to you, President Mahmoud Abbas, and through you to your people, and to the entire Arab world, the time has come.

 

We no longer and you no longer have the privilege of adhering to dreams which are disconnected from the sufferings of our peoples, the hardships that they experience daily, and the burden of living under ongoing uncertainty, which offers no hope of change or of a better future.

 

We want peace. We demand an end to terror, an end to incitement and to hatred.

 

We are prepared to make a painful compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations.

 

I came here today not in order to settle historical accounts between us and you about what caused the confrontations and the hatred, and what for many years has prevented a compromise, a settlement of peace.

 

I want to tell you from the bottom of my heart that I acknowledge the fact I know that alongside the constant suffering that many in Israel have experienced, because of our history, because of the wars, the terrorism and the hatred toward us, a suffering that has always been part of our lives in our land, your people, too, have suffered for many years; and there are some who still suffer.

 

Many Palestinians have been living for decades in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew up, wallowing in poverty, in neglect, alienation, bitterness, and a deep, unrelenting sense of humiliation.

 

I know that this pain and this humiliation are the deepest foundations which fomented the ethos of hatred toward us. We are not indifferent to this suffering. We are not oblivious to the tragedies that you have experienced.

 

I believe that, in the course of negotiations between us, we will find the right way, as part of an international effort, in which we will participate, to assist these Palestinians in finding a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state that will be established in the territories agreed upon between us.

 

Israel will be part of an international mechanism that will assist in finding a solution to this problem.

 

The negotiations between us will not take place here in Annapolis but rather in our home and in your home. These negotiations will be bilateral, direct, ongoing, and continuous, in an effort to complete the process in the course of 2008.

 

The negotiations will address all of the issues which we have thus far avoided dealing with.

 

We will do this directly, openly and courageously. We will not avoid any subject. We will deal with all the core issues.

 

I am convinced that the reality that emerged in our region in 1967 will change significantly.

 

This will be an extremely difficult process for many of us, but it is nevertheless inevitable. I know this. Many of my people know this. We are prepared for it.

 

In the course of the negotiations, we will use previous agreements as a point of departure. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map, and the letter of President Bush to the prime minister of Israel dated April 14, 2004.

 

When the negotiations are concluded, I believe that we shall be able to arrive at an agreement that will fulfill the vision expressed by President Bush: two states for two peoples, a peace-seeking Palestinian state, a viable, strong, democratic and terror-free state for the Palestinian people; and the state of Israel, Jewish and democratic, living in security and free from the threat of terrorism, the national home of the Jewish people.

 

Clearly the implementation of the agreement will be subject to the implementation of all obligations in the road map with all of its phases and according to its complete sequence, as concluded between us from the very beginning.

 

We will abide by all of our obligations, and so will you.

 

The agreement with you and its gradual implementation, cautiously and responsibly, is part of a much wider whole which will lead us, I believe and hope, to peace, to a peace agreement with all of the Arab states.

 

There isn't a single Arab state in the north, in the east or in the south with which we do not seek peace. There isn't a single Muslim state with which we do not want to establish diplomatic relations.

 

Anyone who wants to make peace with us, we say to them, from the bottom of our hearts (SPEAKING IN ARABIC) welcome.

 

I am pleased to see here in this hall representatives of Arab countries. Most of them do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. The time has come for you as well.

 

We cannot continue to stand by indefinitely and to watch the -- watch you standing and watching from the sidelines, watching the peace train, as it were, going by. The time has come to end the boycott, the alienation and the obliviousness toward the state of Israel. It does not help you and it hurts us.

 

I am familiar with the Arab peace initiative, which was born in Riyadh, affirmed in Beirut and recently reaffirmed by you in Riyadh.

 

I value this initiative, I acknowledge its importance, and I highly appreciate its contribution. I have no doubt that we will continue to refer to it in the course of the negotiations between us and the Palestinian leadership.

 

The Arab world represented here by many countries is a vital component in creating a new reality in the Middle East. The peace signed between Israel and Egypt, and subsequently between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a solid foundation of stability and hope in our region.

 

This peace is an example and a model of the relations that we can build with Arab states. My close relations with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and with His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan are extremely significant for the process of building trust and understanding with the Arab states.

 

However, these relations, important though they may be, are not enough. We aspire for normalization with those Arab states which eschew as much as we do radical and fanatical fundamentalism and which seek to grant their citizens a more moderate, tolerant and prosperous world.

 

This is an interest that all of us share.

 

There is quite a lot that separates us. There are memories, there is a heritage, that do not emanate from the same historical roots. We have different ways of living, different customs. And the spontaneous emotional identification that you feel with our neighboring Arab countries, which have been trapped for a long time in this age-old, bloody conflict between us.

 

Nevertheless, there is also a great deal that we share. Like us, you know that religious fanaticism and national extremism are a perfect recipe for domestic instability, for violence, for bitterness and, ultimately, for the disintegration of the very foundations of coexistence based on tolerance and mutual acceptance.

 

We are a small country with a small population, but rich in good will and with a significant ability to create a partnership that will lead to prosperity, to growth, to economic development, and to stability for the entire region.

 

From here, from Annapolis, we can come forth with a message of a new political horizon, renewed hope, not only for the Palestinians and the Israelis but also, together with you, for the entire region.

 

Mr. President of the United States, my colleague Mahmoud Abbas, distinguished guests, almost two years ago, under very sad circumstances, the prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, was no longer able to carry the heavy responsibility of leading the state of Israel and this responsibility was passed on to me, first as a result of formal procedures and subsequently on the basis of an election in Israel's democratic system of government.

 

Prior to my election, I stated that my heart's desire and the desire of my people was to achieve a peace agreement, first and foremost with the Palestinian people. This is what I believed then, and this is what I continue to believe in now, with all my heart.

 

The past two years have been difficult for all of us.

 

The hardships have not been alleviated. The terrorist organizations have not been weakened. The enemies of peace have not disappeared. And we are still anxiously awaiting the return of our missing and captive sons who are being held by terrorist organizations.

 

I long for the day when I can see Gilad, Eldad and Udi back with their families. And I will continue relentlessly in my efforts to achieve their release.

 

I believe that there is no path other than the path of peace. I believe that there is no just solution other than the solution of two national states for two peoples. I believe that there is no path that does not involve painful compromise for you, the Palestinians, and for us, the Israelis.

 

I would like to thank you, President of United States George Bush, an ally in the path of peace, for your willingness, for the preparedness of your government, your administration, and for the assistance of the secretary of state, Ms. Rice, to assist us in the historical process of peace and reconciliation between us and our neighbors. I believe that the time has come. We are ready.

 

I invite you, my friend, Mahmoud Abbas, and your people to join us in this long and tormenting and complex path for which there is no substitute.

 

Together, we shall start. Together, we shall arrive.

 

Thank you very much.

 

PA CHAIRMAN MAHMOUD ABBAS

 

 

 

In the name of God, the compassionate, with great hope, but it is accompanied with great worry that this new opportunity might be lost.

 

But the meanings of your message are well known and they carry your personal bridge and commitment by your great country and its determination to embrace the Palestinian and Israeli peace and the Arab-Israeli peace to be converted in the arena of negotiations to be the first and foremost arena for making peace.

 

And that this initiative would culminate your term of office is an outstanding achievement which would add a new shining star in the skies of the world, the world of the future free of violence, oppression and bigotry.

 

And also we would like to applaud you, Mr. President, for choosing this charming city, Annapolis, as a venue for convening this international conference.

 

In addition to its beauty and distinctive location, it bears the symbol of freedom; the most sublime value in our life.

 

"Freedom" is the single word that stands for the future of the Palestinians and captures the meanings of all their generations. It is their sunshine and it is the life that inspires their future. It is the last word voiced by the martyrs and victims, and it is the lyric (ph) of their prisoners.

 

I must also pay tribute to the role played by Dr. Condoleezza Rice and her aides. For without here relentless resolve and determination and her vision vis-a-vis all aspects of conflict in our region, we would not have been convening here.

 

Dr. Rice took important strides with us in order to affirm that the path of peace is the only choice and it is irreversible. And that the path to negotiations for peace and to achieve peace is the right path.

 

It is important for me to indicate here that this distinguished participation and large participation from sister Arab and Islamic countries, the quartet, and the group of great industrial countries, and the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, and many prominent European and Asian countries, as well as non-aligned countries and African states and from South America, in a unique conference in the history of the conflicts would provide impetus and protection, in addition to the fact that it carries the meanings of encouragement to pursue the path of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations and move that forward and the need to reach the solution of two states, based on ending occupation and the establishment of the state of Palestine side by side to the state of Israel, and the resolution of all issues relating to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, Arab-Israeli conflict in all their aspects, as an indispensable qualitative step, so that comprehensive and normal peace relations would be established in our region.

 

I am proud that this Arab and Islamic contribution and this broad international that this Arab and Islamic contribution and this broad international participation in the work of this conference is a testimony to the fact that sister and friendly states are standing by us, the people of Palestine, as a leadership, and for our efforts to achieve peace.

 

It is a support of our approach that calls for a balanced historical settlement that would ensure peace and security for our independent state and for Israel, as well as for all countries in the region.

 

This Arab and Islamic participation in today's meeting is also an affirmation that the Arab peace initiative was not a step without well-defined targets, but indeed it was a bold strategic plan that aims changing the nature of relations in the region and to usher in a new era there.

 

But to achieve that does not depend on the Arab and Islamic position by itself, but requires meeting this position by a reciprocal strategic willingness that would basically lead to ending the occupation of all Palestinian occupied territories in 1967, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Syrian Golan and what remains of occupied from Lebanese territories, and to resolve all other issues relating to the conflict, especially the Palestinian refugees question in all its political, humanitarian, individual and common aspects, consistent with Resolution 194, as emphasized by the Arab peace initiative and the participation of sister states that host refugees and carry huge burdens in this regard.

 

I am not making an overstatement, Mr. President, if I say that our region stands at a crossroad that separates two historical phases, pre-Annapolis phase and post-Annapolis phase.

 

In other words, this extraordinary huge opportunity provided today by the Arab, Islamic and international position, and the overwhelming support from the public opinion in both the Palestinian and Israeli societies for the need to exploit the occasion of this conference that would launch the negotiating process and not to do away with the potential that it carries, I say that this opportunity might not be repeated. And if it were to be repeated, it might not enjoy the same unanimity and impetus.

 

Mr. President, what we are facing today is not just the challenge of peace, but we are facing a test of our credibility as a whole: the United States, members of the quartet, and all members of the international community, Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, the Arab and Islamic group, as well.

 

It is a test that would leave its indelible impact on the future of the region and on the relationship among its peoples and the international powers that are entrusted in the peace, stability of our region on the other hand.

 

We came with this perspective to Annapolis today. And, therefore, we do recognize the volume of this possibility that we are bearing and the gravity of the burden that we must shoulder.

 

We do recognize, and I presume that you share me this view, that the absence of hope and overwhelming despair would feed extremism. Therefore, we have a common duty to spread genuine hope in order to achieve full transformation toward complete peace (inaudible) and long term during your term of office, Mr. President, thanks to your support and understanding.

 

Tomorrow, we have to start comprehensive and deep negotiations on all issues of final status, including Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, water and security and others.

 

We have to support this negotiating process in concrete and direct steps on the ground that would prove that we are moving in an irreversible path toward negotiated, comprehensive and full peace, and to ensure ending all settlement activities, including natural growth, and reopening closed Jerusalem institutions, removal of settlement outposts, removal of road blocks, and freedom of prisoners, and to facilitate our mission in the authority to enforce law and the rule of law.

 

Here, I must defend in all sincerity and candor, and without wavering, the right of our people to see a new dawn, without occupation, without settlement, without separation walls, without prisons where thousands of prisoners are detained, without assassinations, without siege, without barriers around villages and (inaudible).

 

I look forward, Mr. President, to see that our prisoners have been set free and returned to exercise their role in supporting peace and to stand by us in our mission to build our statehood and our homeland.

 

It is my duty to say that, to have peace, we need the fate of the city of Jerusalem to be a critical component in any peace accord that we might reach.

 

We need East Jerusalem to be our capital and to establish open relations with western Jerusalem, and to ensure for all the faithful from all religions their right to exercise their rituals and to access holy shrines without any discrimination and on the basis of international and humanitarian goals.

 

In this regard, I wish to emphasize that we shall pursue our obligations under the road map, in order to combat chaos, violence, terrorism, and to ensure security, order and the rule of law.

 

The government of the Palestinian National Authority works tirelessly and without any wavering under extremely conditions to achieve this noble goal that represents, first and foremost, a Palestinian national interest before it becomes a political requirement that is imposed by signed accords or the road map.

 

Our people distinguish completely between emphasis on the danger of terrorism and using it as a pretext to maintain the status quo and to pursue the current practices that we suffer from every day.

 

There must be a chance given to us to build our civilian security and economic institutions.

 

And the international community must sponsor this opportunity so that our authority and our government would fully fulfill their mandates.

 

I must emphasize that our determination to end occupation emanates from our vision that we would remove the most important reasons for terrorism in our region and worldwide without underestimating the need to fight terrorism under all circumstances and from any source. Because it is a comprehensive threat that threatens the future of every people and imperils human civilization, its gains and achievements, and brings dire consequences on all of us.

 

Here, I must applaud the tireless efforts undertaken by Mr. Tony Blair, who continues to work in order to build and enhance building Palestinian institutions and to complete great projects at the economic level in order to improve the living conditions and the terms of peace. And in that endeavor, he continues to submit very constructive ideas.

 

And I wish to pay tribute to the role of the European Union, Japan and our Arab brothers who made commitments to support these economic projects and building the future Palestinian state institutions.

 

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to address the mind and conscience of every citizen in Israel from this rostrum.

 

I'm speaking on the basis for our recognition that, despite the importance of international and regional support for the success of the peace process, but the most determining factor for the making peace and stability and its sustainability at the end of the day is the public opinion in Palestine, Israel and their legitimate leaders.

 

I start by saying that, despite our disagreements on critical issues, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert showed desire for peace that I have perceived during our bilateral discussions, and that genuinely contributed to reach this important step for which we are meeting today in order to launch.

 

Mr. Prime Minister, I wish that we, together, continue and closely work in order to achieve a historical mission that we have waited for too long.

 

Each one of us must pitch in our weight and experience and sense of resolve in order to overcome the obstacles that we will face and to close the gaps between our positions in a bid to achieve a solution that would end occupation and the long years of suffering of the refugees and ensure good neighbor relations, economic cooperation, humanitarian openness so that all of them would ensure guarantees for peace that are stronger than any documents, commitments or pledges, despite the importance of these all.

 

I say to the citizens of Israel, in this extraordinary day, you, our neighbors on this small land, neither us nor you are begging for peace from each other. It is a common interest for us and for you.

 

Peace and freedom is a right to us, in as much as peace and security is a right for you and for us.

 

Time has come for the cycle of blood, violence and occupation to come to an end. Time has come that both of us should look at the future with confidence and hope, and that this long-suffering land, which was called the land of love and peace, would not be worth of its own name.

 

Peace is not impossible to achieve if there was will and good faith and every party got its legitimate right.

 

Those who say that peace-making between us is impossible, actually does not need except to perpetuate this conflict toward the unknown, but it is, we all know, in other words, that continuation of bloodshed for many decades to come. After that, we would not reach the solution proposed today, all of which we know, all its components and elements. Or the ideal of peace would be killed in the hearts and minds.

 

Indeed, peace is possible but it requires our common efforts so that we could make it and preserve it.

 

And on this day we stretch our hands to you as equal partners in peace. The whole world is our witness and the world as a whole is supporting us.

 

Therefore, we should not lose this opportunity which might not be available once again. Let us make a peace with a brave (ph) and protect that peace in the interest of the future of our children and your children.

 

To our friends across the globe, members of the international quartet, and all participants in this conference, powers and states outside this conference who have been and continue to lend support for us, I say to all of you that our people will never, ever forget your support for it under all circumstances and under our most difficult times.

 

We look forward that your political presence will continue to be with us after this conference, in order to support Palestinian-Israeli negotiations with a view to reach the desired results.

 

We all hope that the work of this conference would be supported by the success of the Paris economic conference to be held after a few weeks.

 

The continuation and success of negotiations would be the real key to change the face of the entire region.

 

Allah, the Lord, said in the Koran, in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, all you who believe, enter into peace, all of you, don't follow the steps of Satan.

 

Satan is your obvious enemy."

 

The Lord also said, "If they move toward peace, then you should move to peace and have faith in the Lord, because God, the Lord, will listen and support that effort."

 

And on this occasion, may I record here, as we are here in the United States of America, the words of former United States President John F. Kennedy, who said, quote, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate," end of quotation.

 

To our Palestinian people, to all Palestinians in Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and in refugee camps and the diaspora, may I address these words?

 

I do recognize that each one of you has his or her personal pain, personal tragedy as a result of this conflict and as a result of the years of tragedy and occupation. These are very bitter years.

 

Don't be depressed, Don't lose confidence and hope, For the whole world today now is stretching its hand toward us in order to help us put an end to our tragedy, to our holocaust that has been running for too long, and to lift the historical injustice that our people suffer.

 

And we shall be ready as individuals and as a people to overcome pain and the tragedy when we reach a settlement that would ensure our rights, that would make us equal with all other peoples in the whole world: the right to independence and self-determination.

 

To the Palestinian mothers who are awaiting the return of their children from prisons, to the Palestinian children who are dreaming of a new life, a better future - more prosperous, more safe future, to our brave prisoners - my sisters, brothers, children - wherever you are, have confidence in the future and tomorrow, because future Palestine is coming, because this is the promise of the whole world to you.

 

Be confident that the dawn is coming.

 

To my people and relatives in the Gaza Strip, you are at the core of my heart. The hours of darkness will end in the face of your resolve and determination. For your insistence on the unity of our people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one geographical political unit without any divergence, your suffering will end. Right and peace will prevail.

 

May I close by recalling some words of Abraham Lincoln in one of the darkest moments of American history? Quote, "Let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations," end of quotation.

 

We started with peace and I end on a note of peace and we hope that peace would prevail. Peace be upon all of you

 

 

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Middle East 'Experts' Surprised by Arab League attendance at Annapolis

Arab Commentators: Egg on the face?

From Adel Darwish 

Arab Commentators are left with egg on their faces by Saudi Arabia's 11th hour change of heart on the decision to attend Annapolis conference after early signals indicated that they were likley to stay away.  

Saudi Arabia change of heart yesterday  ( Friday November 23) and agreeing to  attend the next week American sponsored conference on the Middle East in Annapolis has left many Arab commentators with an egg on their face, to say the least.

It was no problem for the usual suspects ( Arab Nationalists & Baathists  Islamists jihadists, Marxists and the general anti-Semitic and anti American) who have always objected to any  form of dialogue or meeting with the Israelis that would get any Muslim or whoever they consider to be Arab to recognise Israel. Their reaction was expected.  But the Saudis changing their mind at the 11th hour created a dilemma for many of commentators who in principles didn't object  dialogue with Israel, reject terrorism and support Palestinian Israel agreements. Many of those commentators, writing for Saudi or Saudi sponsored newspapers, have been critical of the conference and warning that it would achieve nothing, but a photo opportunity.

Some argued that America has lost credibility as an 'honest broker' that can neutrally mediate between the Palestinians and the Israelis because 'Washington has always supported Israel' which is a stock Arab view for half a century; and those were not as embarrassed as others who's criticism of the conference stemmed of their belief that their comment must always reflect what they perceived as the Saudi position.

Believing  that Saudi Arabia didn't think much of the proposed conference,  commentators lined up  to condemn the conference as an 'American Israeli plot' to undermined the Saudi initiated 'Arab peace plan' adopted in the Arab League  (AL) Beirut summit, and continued to say so until Friday afternoon.

Obviously their words of wisdom were scribed a day or two before Saudi Foreign Secretary Prince Saud Alfaisal announced yesterday that his nation would after all attend the conference.

Same also goes for Arab nationalist commentators who, for years, have been cheerleaders for AL Secretary General Dr Amr Musa's anti-Israeli rhetoric as the latter  also announced, in the same press conference like Prince Saud, yesterday, that AL will attend the conference as a whole to give peace a chance and test the Jewish state's commitment.

It will be interesting to see how those commentators will manage to scrape the egg off their faces!  

Cross posted: Israel News  Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Reading the Bush Adiminstration on Israel and Palestinain Issues

Two views of Bush administration policy going into Annapolis. From the Washington Post:

 

Rice said publicly this week that her goal is to wrap up a peace deal by the end of the Bush presidency. But people who have spoken to Bush in recent weeks say he has made it clear that he has no intention of trying to force a peace settlement on the parties. The president's fight against terrorism has given him a sense of kinship with Israel over its need for security, and he remains skeptical that, in the end, the Palestinians will make the compromises necessary for a peace deal.

 

That sounds about right. From Caroline Glick, news that the sky is falling:

 

The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of next week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile."

 

Really?? How does Glick know the mood in the IDF's General Staff? Is it true that Americans have never been so hostile? Would any Israeli say that? Americans were not as hostile during the Suez crisis of 1956? Not during the Ford administration reevaluation? Are you sure about that Caroline? How about when James F-- the Jews Baker was running things? Were the Americans more friendly then?

 

And from Washington Post again:

 

Within the Arab world, Bush has been seen as fervently pro-Israeli. In 2004, to facilitate Israel's departure from Gaza, Bush gave Sharon letters that conceded key points on settlements and Palestinian refugees to the Israelis, without corresponding concessions for the Palestinians.

And from Caroline Glick again:

 

 It [the draft declaration] also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel.

 

How could the draft declaration possible show that? Where is there any evidence of US comments on the draft?

 

Caroline Glick is fortunate. She found an employer who is willing to pay for a woman to be hysterical. 

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Wishful thinking on settlements

It is time for the Jerusalem Post and Israeli public opinion to understand that from the point of view of the United States government, the only good settlement is a peace settlement.

 

Ami Isseroff 

 

Sense on settlements
, THE JERUSALEM POST  Nov. 22, 2007

 

In its bid to join the pre-Annapolis jockeying, the Knesset voted this week on two measures relating to settlement blocs and outposts. The first, sponsored by Kadima MK Yoel Hasson, supported settlements in high-density Jewish population areas in the West Bank. It passed 39 to 18 with the support of coalition MKs, except for the Labor Party. Labor instead supported another measure, along with Meretz, which called for the evacuation of 105 unauthorized outposts. That measure was defeated 42 to 14.

 

All of this was somewhat predictable and largely superfluous. Yet Hasson said something unusual for a supporter of the settlement enterprise. "If we had invested energy in another city like Ariel and another Ma'aleh Adumim, and not placing another 20 caravans here and 30 caravans there, maybe the settlement blocs would be much bigger," he declared in the plenum. It is these blocs "that will determine Israel's permanent borders."

 

This sort of thinking is somewhat refreshing given that the debate over settlements tends to be dominated by those who favor or oppose all of them. Both the Left and the Right, each for its own reasons, have been extremely reluctant to distinguish between "good" and "bad" settlements.

 

Yet Hasson characterizes the view of many Israelis correctly when he says, "There is majority support among the public and in the Knesset to preserve the settlement blocs. ... Even the Palestinians understand there are places that Israel will not evacuate under any circumstances. There should be no argument with respect to continued development of these areas, particularly along the lines of natural growth."\

 

Actually, this sort of centrist position recalls the original distinction employed by the Labor Party between "security" and "ideological" settlements. Under the plan named after Labor defense minister Yigal Allon, Labor governments worked toward the goal of defensible borders - as stipulated by UN Security Resolution 242 -- by establishing 21 settlements along the Jordan Valley and the eastern slopes of the north-south ridge bisecting the West Bank.

 

While the Labor Party has largely abandoned this position and become anti-settlement across the board (as indicated by this week's Knesset vote), the logic of its original distinction remains. In principle, a line can be drawn between settlements designed to secure Israel territorially without blocking the creation of a Palestinian state, and settlements that are designed precisely to block any sort of two-state plan.

 

Both of the absolutist positions on settlements have been discredited and abandoned by the Israeli majority. While most Israelis are extremely skeptical that the Palestinians will be ready for peace anytime soon, most agree that it is Israel's interest not to rule over the Palestinians in the territories. The two-state concept has shifted from anathema until the late 1980s to a mainstream view today.

 

At the same time, almost no Israeli can imagine going back to the 1967 lines and dismantling the settlement blocs. Further, following the aftermaths of the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, there is little stomach for continuing with that model.

 

Illegal outposts, however, are another matter. Israel is committed to removing them, and there is widespread agreement that such commitments, along with the need to follow the rule of law, need to be addressed regardless of the peace process or the near-complete lack of confidence in Palestinian intentions or capabilities.

 

Given this, it makes sense that the absolutists on both side consider the logic implicitly endorsed by the Israeli consensus. This would mean "exchanging" the outposts for expansion of consensus settlements.

 

For this plan to work, of course, one of the absolutist parties, the United States, would have to at least implicitly change its position. While President George Bush made a nod in the direction of recognizing settlement blocs in his letter to Ariel Sharon in April 2004, officially the US remains opposed to all Israeli settlements.

 

It is time for the US, then, to discover the distinction made by the Labor Party in the 1970s and by the Israeli consensus today. There is a significant difference between settlements that hamper a two-state plan and settlements that actually encourage such an outcome, by imposing a territorial impetus for the Palestinians to end their war against Israel sooner rather than later.

 

More explicit recognition by the US of settlement blocs would also help the process by giving Israelis confidence that a two-state plan will truly take Israel's requirement of defensible borders into account. There will be no return to the pre-1967 lines, so stubbornly sticking with a "zero settlement" policy makes a two-state plan less realistic, not more so.

 

Source 

Continued (Permanent Link)

JCPA endorses Annapolis, stirs debate

JCPA has redeemed the honor of the American Jewish community:

 

A week ahead of the Annapolis peace meeting, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs went somewhere other Jewish organizations have feared to tread: it hailed America's efforts and welcomed its prospects for peace.

 

"We commend the United States and President Bush for taking a proactive role on this matter," Steve Gutow, executive director for the JCPA, the public affairs arm for national Jewish organizations, said in the release. "The [JCPA] expresses its sincere hope that this gathering marks the beginning of a renewed process that leads to two states living side-by-side in security and peace."

 

It is not an earthshattering statement of yearning for peace, but it is right and proper. The rest of the organized American Jewish community has been mum. Even that somewhat lame statement drew fire from extremists.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

 

US Jewish groups mum ahead of summit

 

hilary leila krieger, jerusalem post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST  Nov. 23, 2007

 

A week ahead of the Annapolis peace meeting, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs went somewhere other Jewish organizations have feared to tread: it hailed America's efforts and welcomed its prospects for peace.

 

"We commend the United States and President Bush for taking a proactive role on this matter," Steve Gutow, executive director for the JCPA, the public affairs arm for national Jewish organizations, said in the release. "The [JCPA] expresses its sincere hope that this gathering marks the beginning of a renewed process that leads to two states living side-by-side in security and peace."

 

The statement highlighted an ideological divide among Jewish groups - as it was hailed on the Left, criticized on the Right - as well as the dearth of such statements from other mainstream Jewish organizations.

 

Before the JCPA statement was issued on Monday, officials from many organizations said it was difficult to take a stand with so little known about the conference and its scope. Yet as the date and invitees fell into place, few groups stepped forward with positions.

 

One official at a Jewish organization said the deeper issue was one of skepticism about where the process was headed.

 

"We are silent or muted because we don't want to contribute to the inevitable failure of Annapolis - that either nothing will come of it or Israel will be put at a strategical disadvantage," he said, not wanting his name to be used because of the sensitivity of the subject.

 

The unnamed official said, though, that whatever the reservations, "noboby in the organizational world wants to be [seen as] being critical or second-guessing the Israeli government... or the Bush administration." He added that not only is it awkward to attack an initiative pushed by both the US and Israel, but that "the conventional wisdom is that this thing is doomed to be a failure and we don't want it blamed on Israel or the American Jewish community for being intransigent or unwilling to go the last mile for peace."

 

But Ori Nir, spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, a left-wing organization which has emphatically backed the peace process, said such an attitude makes for a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

"This can't be a reason for staying aloof," he said. "If you decide you want this to succeed, you weigh in and try to make a difference." He said of the silence that "morally, it's flawed" since the mainstream groups purport to support a two-state solution and that is what the Annapolis conference is aimed at creating.

 

Nir, who spent years covering Washington for Israeli and Jewish media outlets, called the silence around the Annapolis conference "bizarre" and "an anomaly."

 

"It's a very big deal and there's just silence. There's just nothing coming out of Jewish groups... it's not even featured on their Web sites," he said. "Usually there's a buzz, there's something."

 

Ofira Seliktar, a professor of political science at Gratz College who has tracked the American Jewish community's response to Israeli initiatives such as the Oslo peace process and the disengagement from Gaza, said this "total silence" stems in part from the shortcomings of these previous efforts.

 

"The middle-of-the-road people are not really sure what's good, what's bad. There's a tremendous amount of ambivalence, now even more than during Oslo," she said. And, she noted, "the American Jewish community is very deeply split," so the people who aren't in the middle of the road but are on either side are the loudest.

 

Seliktar added that how Annapolis will handle many details concerning final-status issues - Jerusalem, borders, refugees - is still unknown, adding to the uncertainty and the desire many have to delay taking a stand.

 

The JCPA felt it had waited long enough by Monday, with rumors flying fast and furious that the conference would take place the next week.

 

"When things crystallized for the meeting next week, we thought it was timely to issue such a statement," said Martin Raffel, associate executive vice chairman of the JCPA.

 

Not everyone thought it was so timely. The Orthodox Union, one of the 14 national organizations the JCPA represents, was among those on the Right not pleased by the statement.

 

"We did not see it in advance and we have expressed our displeasure with that process failure at the JCPA," said Nathan Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. The OU has been taking action to pressure the Israeli government not to relinquish Jerusalem, from corresponding with the Prime Minister's Office to encouraging synagogues to focus their Torah study on the holy city.

 

"You'd have to be under a rock not to know that the OU would be upset with that statement," said one senior official at a different JCPA member organization, who added that the statement was much more controversial than those usually issued without consultation by the JCPA.

 

But Raffel said that the JCPA doesn't consult with the 14 national members and 100-plus local federation chapters that it represents before making statements, especially since the issue had come up without argument at a recent task force meeting.

 

"There is nothing unusual with the statement that we issued. We support and have always supported active US involvement with these issues," he added. "We support Israel's efforts to achieve peace and security for the people of Israel." In terms of the qualms many organizational members have, he said, "We know that it's difficult and we know it's complex and we know the chances for success might not be high - but it's better to try than to do nothing.

 

Source  

Continued (Permanent Link)

Why are American Jewish groups almost mum about Annapolis?

It should be noted that this is not exactly so. The JCPA has made a statement, and both Abe Foxman of ADL and Howard Kohr of AIPAC have written op-eds in favor of Annapolis. But large group has give its official blessing, and the JCPA statement stirred opposition from the Orthodox Union.


Jewish organizations should rally behind Annapolis push for peace

Ori Nir

The call for American Jewish organizations to support the current peace efforts came from an unexpected direction: Israel's Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger. For years closely associated with the right-wing National Religious Party, Metzger recently asked representatives of American Jewish groups in Washington to "influence the American administration" to do their utmost for the success of the Annapolis peace conference.

He even had a specific idea: American Jewish organizations should use their political influence to arrange for Israeli and Palestinian religious leaders to be present in Annapolis, at the time of the conference, to give the conferees spiritual support.

Israel's chief rabbi was accompanied by the head of the Palestinian Muslim courts as well as by other Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders. They all made pleas similar to Rabbi Metzger's, which were very moving. So moving, in fact, that their interlocutors -- representatives of American Jewish organizations -- were too embarrassed to tell the distinguished clerics that America's large national Jewish groups are not even expressing public support for Annapolis. Let alone actively working to make it succeed.

Most American Jewish groups are either silent — or worse, are seeking excuses to avoid supporting this peace effort.

Americans for Peace Now and several other dovish groups publicly endorsed the Annapolis process. But except for them, hardly any Jewish organization has lauded the Bush administration's renewed interest in Israeli-Palestinian peace. Hardly any group has commended Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for his bold statements of commitment to seeking a final settlement with the Palestinians.

When asked by reporters to explain the silence, leaders of the largest national Jewish organizations -- people who are normally happy to voice an opinion on almost anything -- say that it's too early, that the current process is too short on specifics.

Well, it's not. The Annapolis conference is around the corner and its goals, as laid out by Prime Minister Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, are quite simple:

The idea is to turn the two-state solution from a vision into a reality by relaunching bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Unlike past efforts, however, this one will hopefully be supported by Arab countries and other international stakeholders.

It also offers a "political horizon" for Israelis and Palestinians: a joint commitment, in advance, to address all outstanding "core issues" of the conflict, including borders, the future of Jerusalem, and the future of Palestinian refugees. You can either support this initiative or oppose it. But how can American friends of Israel stay indifferent to it?

Some say that the Annapolis process is not likely to succeed. They may be right. A reasonable dose of skepticism is certainly healthy. But skepticism ought not be an excuse to deny support for this effort. Most mainstream Jewish organizations, as a part of their mission statements, claim to support the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. By failing to support Israel's current peace policy, these Jewish groups are not only being untrue to their principles. They are also taking part in turning justified skepticism into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is not surprising to see the ultranationalist, dogmatic groups rise in opposition to the peace efforts. The American Jewish extreme right always has resisted and always will resist Israel's efforts to rid itself of its occupation of the west bank.

But where are the centrist, non-messianic, mainstream Jewish groups that say they support Israel's quest for peace?

Earlier this month, in a speech that warmly endorsed the Annapolis process, Prime Minister Olmert called on regional and international leaders to "be open to hope and face the genuine and clear risks and difficulties so that the process may move ahead."

Jewish community leaders are well advised to heed the pleas of Israel's political and spiritual leaders.

Ori Nir is the spokesman for Americans for Peace Now.

source

Continued (Permanent Link)

The Annapolis conference - and the invited parties - and what might be accompled

How many were invited to the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference? 49 parties.  

U.S. awaits reply from 49 invitees to peace summit

Who was invited? (or who was not invited). See below. The list includes such countries as Slovenia, which surely has a vital stake in the Middle East. Australia, an ally of the US in Afghanistan, which presumably does have a stake in the Middle East, was not invited. Notably absent from the list are Monaco and Micronesia as well as Andorra. Almost everyone else was invited. It is hard to understand why Brazil was invited, for example, but not Argentina. Iran, which is also a Middle Eastern country, is conspicuous by its absence.

 

 

List of invitees to the Annapolis conference  

 

The United States, host, to be represented by President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Israel, to be represented by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

Palestinians, to be represented by Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and senior officials.

Members of the international diplomatic quartet on the Middle East other than the United States:

The United Nations, to be represented by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

European Union presidency, to be represented by Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado.

European Union Commission, to be represented by EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

European Union High Representative for foreign affairs Javier Solana.

Russia, expected to be represented by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the quartet special representative to the Middle East.

Members of the Arab League committee tasked with pursuing a Saudi initiative for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace deal. Of these, only Egypt and Jordan have full diplomatic with Israel:

Arab League, to be represented by Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Jordan

Lebanon

Morocco

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

Yemen

Other members of the Arab League:

Iraq

Mauritania

Oman

United Arab Emirates

Permanent members of the UN Security Council not included in above categories:

Britain

China

France

Members of the Group of Eight industrialized countries not included in above categories:

Canada

Germany

Italy

Japan

Members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference not included in above categories:

Indonesia

Malaysia

Pakistan

Senegal

Turkey

Other nations:

Brazil

Greece

India

Norway

Poland

Slovenia

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Financial institutions invited as observers:

International Monetary Fund

World Bank

Continued (Permanent Link)

One Million Voices: Middle East peace and its enemies

An op-ed about the peace virus captures much of the tragic reality of the current "peace" negotiations and has a correct prognosis in many ways. However, being a worshipper in a particular temple of received opinion, the author, Gadi Baltiansky, makes assumptions that are not in evidence.

He writes:

If the summit succeeds, the historical turning point shall come – if the principles of a final-status agreement are formulated, and if negotiations are launched on the details of the core issues. Yet it is very possible that the skeptics and cynics are right. The deal won't be reached and the summit will fail. However, even at such case, we could see a historical turning point --- for the worst.

Even were a deal to be reached, there is no way that Mahmoud Abbas would be able to keep his part of the bargain, as he doesn't control the Palestinian "street" and shows no will to do so.

The peace talks and the peace conference are supposed to be his party and the party of the Fatah, but Abbas can't seem to raise support for them even in the West Bank. They would grant greater legitimacy to the government of Mahmoud Abbas as opposed to his Hamas rivals. On October 18, there was to be a major peace event. It was planned before anyone knew of the November summit, perhaps before The United States policy makers Bush thought of the idea, but its timing was fortuitous. It required months of preparation. The One Million Voices group was to hold simultaneous concerts in Jericho, Tel Aviv and numerous other cities as a public demonstration of the will for peace. Attendees would be called on to sign a declaration demanding of both governments that they negotiate sincerely for peace. The declaration takes no position at all regarding the outcome of the negotiations or the nature of the final status agreement to be negotiated. You can read it and sign it at the One Million Voices Web site. Threats by Palestinian terrorist groups and their groupies against the performers and organizers of the event first caused cancellation of the Jericho event (See Drowning out One Million Voices: The enemies of peace ) and now have caused cancellation of all the events. Danny Lubetzky's One Voice Movement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often a target of right wing Zionist extremists, was behind the event. The event was cancelled, but the campaign to gather grass roots support for peace in Israel and among Palestinians goes on.

A coalition of terror groupies and peace thugs, ranging from Abunimah and his Electronic Intifada to PACBI - Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel to Neta Golan and ISM, smeared the One Million Voices campaign as a Zionist plot to perpetuate "apartheid" - meaning a real two state solution. The event organizers decided that there is no point in holding such events if they are not held both in Israel and Palestine. The terror camp will hold their own event, called "Another voice." At least for that one night, their "voice" will not be the boom of rockets and suicide bombers, but its meaning is the same.

There are many lessons to be learned, for those who would learn. The first is that Abu Mazen is not in control of the West Bank. He is titular head of a lawless society and cannot deliver on any promises of peace, not even in this case, where the event in question was so obviously advantageous to him.

A second lesson is that the political will for peace is absent on the Palestinian side. Baltiansky wrote:

The peace-loving Palestinians – and this is the majority on their side, will argue they have no partner on the Israeli side, and the only horizon they will see is the one of the fence, roadblock, and settlement.

The peace-loving Palestinians were called upon to stand up and be counted. The One Million Voices event was a way of mobilizing "people power" for peace on both sides. But the Palestinian people sat down and shut up instead - both the ordinary people and their leaders. From a BBC article about the canellation of the event we learn:

Leading Palestinians who initially supported the event have since distanced themselves from it.

These Palestinian leaders are not stupid. They understood which way the winds are blowing and what is in the interests of their longevity.

"WARNING: The surgeon general of Palestine has determined that supporting peace is hazardous to your health."

As long as Palestinian society is ruled by bandits -- latter day incarnations of Hajj Amin al Husseini and his gangs and various do-it yourself abu-Gilda's (an infamous Palestinian Arab bandit) -- there is no chance for peace, because there is no political organization that can support peace. The only "peace" conditions acceptable to the peace thugs are conditions that would result in destruction of Israel. They have never been interested in anything else. They make it clear that the "occupation" that has to end is the one that began in 1948, and the "aparheid" that has to end is the "aparheid" that prevents millions of Arabs from coming to live in Israel and destroying Jewish self-determination.

As for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, she is apparently clueless about the Middle East. She told reporters:

"Frankly it is time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Ms Rice told reporters in a news conference which she held with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

If she is serious, then surely she is mad. Mahmoud Abbas cannot control his own back yard in Jericho or Nablus without the help of IDF security. What sort of state could this be? And what sort of peace could it make with Israel, if the Palestinian dark side won't even allow a concert that supports peace negotiations?

As for the Israelis, there will surely be no cause for joy if and when the conference is disastrous failure. Every Israeli must ask themselves if they have done their utmost to ensure the success of these efforts, even if the chances are slim. If it fails, it must not be our fault.

Those who urge Israel not to make "concessions" or to shun the conference are not friends of Zionism and are not promoting the welfare of Israel. We must understand that the peace thugs -- the Jeff Halpers and Neta Golans, the ISM and the Electronic Intifadah and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel are right from their point of view. Peace is a ZIonist plot, that should be opposed by all right-thinking followers of CODOH and Stormfront and other such organizations obsessed with the Jews. What will be on the table at the November conference is the heart of Zionism. The heart of Zionism is not some real estate in the West Bank. The heart of Zionism is the recognition by the Arab world and in particular, the Palestinians, of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. The two state solution would recognize the rights of both peoples to be "a free people in their own land" - the 2000 year old Jewish wish of Hatiqva. This would put all the peace thugs out of business once and for all, and that is why they are working overtime to stop it. Anyone who opposes the peace conference is thus an enemy of the Jewish people, as well as an enemy of the Palestinians.

Ami Isseroff

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Haim Ramon: Jerusalem and the Summit

Haim Ramon says: 'Whoever thinks Jlem's future won't be discussed is deluded'

Well yes, of course it will be discussed. The question is, what will be said?!

 

Ramon stated:

"Whoever thinks the subject of discussions will be limited to the structure of Palestinian institutions is deluded. Israel has an interest to get recognition of all of Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods, and to hand over control of Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians. When we speak of a diplomatic horizon, these are the subjects we are referring to," Ramon said.

All that is pretty clear. The question is, who is silly enough to think that this conference is about Palestinian institutions? It is not about Palestinian institutions. It is not about recipes for gefilte fish either. From the Arab point of view, it is a sort of dinner party. Israel is to be the main course. From the US point of view, it is peace conference that will let it get on with the war in Iraq in peace. From the Israeli point of view, it is not clear what it is - perhaps it is thought to be about Palestinian institution building, or exchanging recipes for Humus and gefilte fish. It is scary if people in the Israel government don't know what this conference is about.

 

Ehud Olmert is quoted as follows:

 

While the international conference is designed to promote peacemaking, "it will in no way replace direct negotiations with the Palestinians," Olmert said.

Olmert went on to say that "whoever doesn't agree to talks with Abbas will tomorrow find himself facing Hamas and a terrorist regime in the West Bank."

 

But whoever does agree to talks with Abbas will probably also find himself facing Hamas and a terrorist regime in the West Bank, because Abbas doesn't have control of Palestinian society. The reasons for talking to Abbas are much more complex, and what is said to Abbas will also determine what we will face in the West Bank.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Palestinian refugees say no to peace

Headline: Don't accept two-state solution, refugees tell Abbas

As there is no other solution, that means, "don't accept peace."

---

Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 6, 2007

---

Representatives of Palestinian refugees warned Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas over the weekend against surrendering their "right of return" by accepting a two-state solution during next month's planned US-sponsored peace conference in Maryland.

The warning came as former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei, who is better known as Abu Ala, said the Palestinians would not accept a state that did not include Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

He said the Palestinians would boycott the conference unless an agreement was reached with Israel beforehand on all the "fundamental" issues: the status of Jerusalem, the borders of the future Palestinian state and the problem of the refugees.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, is likely to address the diplomatic process at Sunday's weekly cabinet session, where the ministers are expected to hear assessments on the recent talks between Olmert and Abbas.

Abbas said Saturday that Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams would hold their first meeting on Monday to draft a joint statement on principles for future peace talks ahead of the planned conference in Annapolis.

In a letter to Abbas, Salman Abu Sitta, a prominent spokesman for Palestinian refugees, wrote: "We are aware of the pressure you are facing to abandon the Palestinian position and endorse Israel's vision. But what has drawn our attention more than anything else is Israel's attempt to redefine the idea of the two-state solution. Israel now wants mutual recognition - Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and, on what's left of the land, Palestine as the national homeland of the Palestinians."

Abu Sitta described the Israeli formula as "extremely dangerous," saying it should be rejected by all Arabs. He said accepting this formula would be tantamount to abandoning the Arab right to Palestine and accepting the Jews' ostensible historical and biblical rights to the land.

In addition, Abu Sitta argued, the Israeli stance abolishes the right of return for Palestinians on two levels: recognition of this right and its fulfillment.

"This would constitute a historic burden; no Palestinian could bear its consequences in front of his people and history," he cautioned. He said it was inconceivable that the Palestinians would abandon the right of return after decades of fighting.

Representatives of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon also appealed to Abbas not to relinquish the right of return. In letters to Abbas, they criticized Abbas's promise to hold a referendum on any deal he reaches with Israel. "Since when are our rights a disputed matter?" they asked. They said such a referendum would be meaningless because it would be held only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Qurei was recently appointed head of the Palestinian team negotiating with Israel. In a series of interviews with Arab newspapers over the weekend, he said the Palestinians were hoping to strike a deal with Israel within five to six months.

"There must be a clear timetable outlining when the negotiations begin and when they are supposed to end," Qurei said. "Otherwise, the issue will remain open forever. We can reach an agreement quickly provided that there is a serious intention [on the part of Israel]."

Qurei added that the document he and his colleagues were hoping to draft with their Israeli counterparts before the conference would form the basis for future negotiations on a final settlement. "What's important is the content of the document," he said. "If it's going to be an unclear document, then we don't need it."

Qurei said the document must include an Israeli pledge to return to the pre-1967 borders. However, he did not rule out the possibility that the Palestinians would agree to "limited border amendments."

Asked how the Palestinians would react if an agreement on the core issues was not achieved in the coming weeks, he said: "Then this would not be a good situation. We will be forced to look into other options - including whether or not we would attend the conference."

The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment on Qurei's statements.

On the refugees, Rami Khouri, a prominent Palestinian-Jordanian editor, wrote in Lebanon's English-language Daily Star: "The hardest issue to resolve is the status and rights of Palestinian refugees, of whom there are now 4.5 million living outside Palestine (they were 750,000 when they first became refugees in 1948). All other contentious matters - land, sovereignty, recognition, settlements, water, security, Jerusalem - now appear resolvable, given the years of negotiations that have taken place by the concerned parties. The refugee issue, however, remains both intractable and existential for both sides."

Khouri said Abbas was dangerously close to being seen by many in the Arab world as a hapless American-Israeli puppet; his political party, Fatah, has been largely discredited as a corrupt, bloated and inefficient burden on society, and no longer represents majority Palestinian thinking; and the absence of Hamas from the Annapolis meeting would render the Palestinian delegation's credentials "rather thin."

"There is one way that Abbas can overcome these constraints, which recalls a major weakness that contributed to the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000: He should consult widely, deeply and sincerely with ordinary and politically active Palestinians throughout the world, in order to be able to attend the Annapolis talks as a credible representative of the Palestinians," Khouri wrote.

Abbas said Friday that he expected at least 36 nations to attend the conference, including 12 Arab states, another three Muslim nations, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G-8.

"We hope that the number will increase to 40 states," Abbas was quoted as telling Palestinian dignitaries from Jerusalem, during a meal breaking the dawn-to-dusk Ramadan fast.

The remarks were quoted by the Palestinian news agency WAFA and confirmed by a participant.

Abbas did not provide a list of countries expected to attend. The US has not released such a list or set a date for the conference.

In Friday's meeting with Palestinian dignitaries, Abbas told his guests that a solution for Jerusalem would be a key to any peace deal.

"Jerusalem has always been in our hearts, and the hope that we have been looking at," Abbas said. "There is no independent Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital. It is a concern in the coming, difficult days."

Herb Keinon contributed to this report.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Going for broke: The Palestinians want to dictate terms

Several stories this week carried the same messages:

 

1- The Palestinians insist on a sweeping deal for a Palestinian state to be announced at the international conference,  to be completely agreed upon in detail within six months.

 

2 - There is no flexibility whatever in the Palestinian positions, which are basically unacceptable to Israel.

 

We read in the Jerusalem Post, for example:

 

The Palestinians will only participate in the US-sponsored peace conference expected to be held next month if general agreement is first reached with Israel on all the fundamental issues, Palestinian Authority officials here said Monday.

They said that in addition to Jerusalem, the borders of the future Palestinian state and the problem of the refugees, the PA was also seeking agreement on water, security and settlements.

....

The officials also denied that the PA had agreed to discuss an exchange of land with Israel and limiting the number of refugees who would return to Israel proper. They said the PA's official position remained that Israel must withdraw from all the territories captured in 1967, including east Jerusalem, and that there would be no concessions on the "right of return."

PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said he was unaware of any land swap agreement. He called on the media to refrain from publishing any unofficial documents or unauthorized statements.

.....

According to another PA official, the Palestinians want the declaration of principles to include an Israeli commitment to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. "As President Mahmoud Abbas stated last week, we have no intention to compromise on any of our rights," he said.

Asked why the PA, which in recent weeks had expressed reservations about the conference, was now sounding more positive, the official said: "When [US Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice was here lately, she told us that the US administration was determined to turn the conference into a successful event. She also promised to exert pressure on Israel to soften its position."

And in Haaretz:

The upcoming Middle East conference should set a six-month deadline for the completion of a final peace agreement, the Palestinian information [Riad Malki] minister said Thursday.

There are several amazing statements that seem to indicate on the surface that the Palestinians have no grip on reality whatever, or else, on second thought, that they have an excellent grip on reality. Their proposals cannot be implemented, and there cannot be an agreement in six months or six hundred years based on these proposals. Moreover, the Palestinian government in Ramallah does not control Gaza. It is a government that scarcely controls its own territory, and it cannot meet even minimal payrolls without international help. Nonetheless, they are making "peace" conditions worthy of the victor of the Six Day War. They know that Israel will never agree to Return, they know that Israel cannot move nearly half a million Israelis out of Jerusalem and the West Bank. They know that there is very broad consensus in Israel that Israel has annexed Jerusalem by right, as opposed to wide divisions of opinion about the West Bank. Therefore, we must conclude that they see the conference as an opportunity for a tremendous propaganda victory in the Arab world and a way to perhaps gain some support for their positions in the world at large. It is another sally in the Peace offensive , and it must be met by an equally clear Israeli final status declaration proposal. 

Ami Isseroff  

 

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Olmert - Abbas meet under shadow of Hamas/Abbas talk rumors

The original Jerusalem post headline for this one seemed to be "Abbas understands time is not ripe for final status agreement." That got changed somewhere along the line, and the issue is not even discussed below. Instead, there is discussion of a possible Hamas/Fatah rapprochement.

 

What indeed, should Israel and the United States do if there is such a rapprochement?

 

Ami Isseroff

 

PM, Abbas meet despite report of possible Abbas-Hamas talks

---

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 3, 2007

---

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hosted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in his succa Wednesday afternoon, despite reports from Arab sources that Abbas has agreed to renew talks with Hamas.

The two spoke privately, discussing a list of key subjects they would delegate to separate Israeli and Palestinian teams of advisors. The teams are expected to iron out details pertaining to those key subjects in preparation for the Middle East peace parley scheduled for mid-Novemeber and for a preceding visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, scheduled to predate the parley by a month.

A senior official said just as Olmert was beginning his meeting with Abbas that if the reports about Abbas's planned meeting with Hamas officials in Cairo were true, there was "no point" in continuing negotiations.

The Prime Minister's Office issued a statement saying Israel's stance regarding Hamas was "known and unequivocal."

The statement further emphasized that the government rejected any attempts by the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with Hamas and added that all Israeli officials traveling abroad were instructed to ask their foreign counterparts to step up pressure on Abbas against his making any effort to bridge the gap with Hamas.

MK Arye Eldad (NU-NRP) said that "Olmert has crossed all red lilnes of the Israeli consensus" by negotiating with Abbas amid reports that the latter was renewing contact with Hamas.

Abbas agreed "in principle" to renew mediation between Fatah and Hamas, Israel Radio reported Wednesday, quoting Arab sources.

Abbas reportedly answered a request forwarded by Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who has been in touch with Abbas's loyalists as well as with Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal and other top figures in Hamas.

The pan-Arabic Asharq Alawsat reported that Hamas had also responded positively to Suleiman's mediation attempts.

According to the Egyptian initiative, the talks between Fatah and Hamas would be confidential. Abbas suggested Azzam al-Ahmed, one of his close associates, as the man to head Fatah's delegation in the talks.

Suleiman asked both sides to produce proposals to end the strife, so that he could review them and formulate one joined proposal that would hopefully appeal to both sides. When such a proposal is drafted, the sides plan to hold secret talks in Cairo.

Nevertheless, over the past few days Abbas has reiterated to foreign media outlets that under no conditions would Fatah again share power with Hamas. "It was a bad experience, they ruined it," Abbas was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority government headed by Abbas-nominated independent Salaam Fayad was preparing a plan to battle Hamas's funding sources. Fayad's government estimated that Hamas was feeding off charities, smuggling through tunnels dug under the Philadelphi Corridor in the southern Gaza Strip, and charging commissions from money changers.

Until the violent takeover in June, Hamas also transferred money through the Rafah crossing, the PA government assessed.

But a Hamas senior told Al Hayat that his organization had "a million ways" to receive outside funding and that Fayad's government would not be able to succeed where Israel and the US have failed [i.e. in stopping funds from reaching Hamas.]

In related news, an Islamic Jihad leader said Wednesday that his group would not abide by any agreements reached by Abbas or his allies, and that it would continue carrying out terror attacks within the Green Line. The spokesman said that his group would respect nothing less than a return to the 1948 borders.

The Islamic Jihad official also said his group would not respect any understanding or agreement that would be achieved before the upcoming peace parley.

Sources in Washington said the parley might be delayed by two-to-four weeks, in order to give the sides time to reach some agreement ahead of the talks, Army Radio reported.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Did the Israeli FM meet with the Syrian Foreign Minister?

 Headline:

FM Livni denies report she met with Syrian counterpart in N.Y.

A Nazareth-based publication reported on Thursday that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had met with her Syrian counterpart Walid Moallem in New York this week. Livni's camp denied the report.

The Arabic-language weekly publication Al-Sinara reported that Livni and Moallem had met at the New York home of the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. The publication, which cited Arab diplomatic sources in the United States as the source of the report, said that the emir surprised the two foreign ministers with a proposition to arrange a meeting.

According to the report, Livni received special authorization from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to meet with the Syrian official. The Israeli and Syrian ambassadors to the United Nations were also present at the meeting, Al-Sinara reported.


The meeting revolved around the urgent need to calm the escalating tensions between Israel and Syria, the report added.

The report is a bit thin, but it is not impossible. Topics for conversation in the alleged meeting might include the upcoming peace conference, the "alleged" Israeli air attack in Syria, the "alleged" Syrian support for Hezbollah and many others. Perhaps they even discussed Rami Khouri's intriguing offer to trade Lebanese land for Israeli peace with Syria.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

The peace dividend: Egyptian Actors' Union to probe movie star working with Israeli

Was it worth giving up all of Sinai for this? Remember, dear US taxpayer, that the US gives Egypt $2 billion a year in military aid.

 

Last update - 09:24 31/08/2007    

 

Egyptian Actors' Union to probe movie star working with Israeli

 

By The Associated Press

The chairman of Egypt's Actors' Union said Thursday that the group planned to investigate one of the country's brightest young movie stars for appearing in an upcoming miniseries with an Israeli actor.

 

The controversy began when the group discovered that Amr Waked, who starred in the Hollywood film Syriana, was in Tunisia filming a four part series on Saddam Hussein's life opposite Yigal Naor, an Israeli of Iraqi descent.

 

"We found out Amr Waked was participating in a movie with an Israeli artist and so when he returns from abroad he will be investigated," union chairman Ashraf Zaki said. "The Actors' Union here is against normalization with Israel."

 

Media and artistic circles in Egypt remain deeply opposed to improving cultural relations with Israel even though the country is one of only two Arab nations that has made peace with Israel.

 

Nearly a dozen articles have appeared over the past week condemning Waked for participating in the series, titled Between Two Rivers and backed by the British Broadcasting Corporation and Home Box Office.

 

"Who will hold Amr Waked accountable?" read a headline Monday in Egypt's opposition daily el-Wafd.

 

Zaki said Waked would be questioned by a committee made up of two members of the union's board and a senior judge from the country's Administrative Court.

 

Waked declined to comment on the upcoming investigation, but in earlier interviews with Egyptian media, the actor said he did not know the nationalities of every person involved in the project.

 

The Egyptian actor also indicated he has no intention of leaving the series, in which he plays the role of Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel, who defected from Iraq to Jordan but eventually returned and was executed.

 

Naor, who played a Palestinian character in Steven Spielberg's film Munich, stars as Saddam in the series. Many in the Egyptian press found it disturbing that an Israeli was playing the former Iraqi leader, who is still lionized by many Arab nationalists.

 

Though Egypt was the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, professional and artistic associations have resisted opening up to Israel, citing the continued occupation of Palestinian lands.

 

Anti-Israeli sentiment flared in the country during the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000, much of it led by left wing academics and artists who have long been Israel's fiercest critics in Egypt.

 

"The [film] industry is in general very left wing and stays away from normalization as a whole," said Richard Woffenden, the former cultural editor of the local Cairo Times weekly.

 

Woffenden, who hailed Waked's emergence onto the Egyptian film scene in 2001 as part of a new generation of Egyptian actors, noted that he was one of the few Egyptians in recent years to surmount the language barrier and cross over to Western films.

 

Egyptian actor Khaled el-Nabawy appeared briefly in Ridley Scott's crusader movie Kingdom of Heaven - for which he was also criticized by the Egyptian media.

 

The investigation could have serious ramifications for Waked's career in Egypt, where the majority of his films are still made.

 

When Egyptian actress Sawsan Badr appeared in the 1980 film Death of a Princess about Saudi Arabia, it caused a furor for allegedly being anti-Arab, and it was years before she appeared again in an Egyptian film.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Peace conference? Wise and unwise words from Ephraim Sneh

The upcoming peace conference cannot succeed without preparation. Wise words from Ephraim Sneh:

Checklist for a peace pact

EPHRAIM SNEH , THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 22, 2007

If the Middle East peace conference proposed by US President George W. Bush succeeds, it will be hailed as a milestone. If it fails, it will bring about increased despair and cynicism and constitute the gravestone of peace efforts. The key lies in preparation.

For this conference to become a stepping-stone to real progress, participants must come with well-defined ideas and clear objectives and leave with a genuine plan of action in which all players know the roles they have committed to. Good speeches are not enough.

The most critical parties, Israelis and the Palestinians, should come ready with an agreed-upon list of permanent-status principles that will outline the contours of an agreement. No details are needed at this stage.

Conventional wisdom suggests that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders are not strong enough to market such an agreement to their constituencies. That is simply not true. Both peoples are smarter and more pragmatic than even their leaders think, and both publics came to their own practical conclusions long ago.

And not wise words:

Most Israelis rarely visit the Palestinian parts of Jerusalem. They know that a "united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty" is a slogan that has not reflected reality for years. (The security wall constructed in Jerusalem excludes a substantial part of the city's Palestinian citizens, leaving the city, and the people, effectively divided.)

Most Palestinians acknowledge that the refugees will not return to Haifa, Jaffa or any other towns or villages where they or their ancestors lived before 1948. The illusion of return has served as a pretext to neglect hundreds of thousands of Palestinians stuck in refugee camps.

The above may be true or not. Overwhelming majorities of Palestinians insist on right of return to Israel as part of any peace agreement. As for Israelis, while they don't go to "East Jerusalem," they certainly go to the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, and Jews bring their kids to have bar-mizvah ceremonies at the West Wall. Abbas explicitly claimed that Palestinians must have those areas as their own. Where is Ephraim living?

Here are some wiser words however:

Both parties also should be required to bring with them interim reports on what has been accomplished regarding security arrangements in the West Bank. This is critical, and tough questions must be answered. For instance, how are the Aksa Martyrs Brigades fugitives complying with their commitments? How is law and order being imposed by the reformed Palestinian Authority security forces? How is the movement of Palestinians being eased on West Bank roads?

Donor states must arrive prepared to pledge concrete support to specific projects, or to finance key activities in PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's government. This includes Arab states, especially those enjoying high oil prices. Solidarity with the Palestinian people cannot be confined to speeches in international or Arab conferences. The price of solidarity is commitment and action.

THERE IS great expectation regarding Saudi Arabia's participation. But if the Saudis intend solely to promote reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, it is better that their delegation stay in Riyadh. Hamas, with its terrorist-Islamist charter, cannot be among the builders of Middle East peace; it is one of its principal spoilers.

If, however, the Saudis intend to offer tangible support to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his government and to promote their own ideas for peace, their participation is paramount.

... 

Neither the Bush administration nor the Israelis and the Palestinians can afford anything less than real progress. A conference that produces a good show but no tangible results will ultimately disappoint. In the past, in this volatile region, frustration has led to violence and destruction. Serious preparation, commitment and bold leadership are indispensable.

Unfortunately we can see that nobody is well prepared, and there won't be much real progress. The interim reports of both sides will be either blank or filled with empty verbiage. Hosni Mubarak was right to warn that the conference is ill-prepared: Mubarak: Mideast summit lacks structure, consensus on issues

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Blair's Mission and the Hamas

Tony the ex-tiger Blair had an important and perhaps do-able mission: strengthening Palestinian (PNA) institutions and helping the Palestinians turn into a state. Instead, he may be abandoning that mission in favor of the more attractive one of squaring the circle. Apparently, Blair wants to have a hand meddling in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. He got a taste of what that will be like today, when the Hamas declared that they would be willing to negotiate with him, but not with Israel.

 

Perhaps the quartet should appoint someone else who will work with the PNA to build Palestinian institutions. Someone has to do it.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Bush speech on Israeli-Palestinian conflict: International conference, Support for Abbas

US President Bush delivered a major speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this evening. The speech supposedly initiates a new push for Israeli-Palestinian and regional peace. Some of the main points:

 

The United states will call an international conference this fall, of all regional states who support a two state solution.

 

The United States will support the government of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad with major incentives including $190,000,000 in aid.

 

The Fayyad government must provide good government and security for the Palestinians, and the soluton must provide security for both Israelis and Palestinians.

 

The United States will push for a two state solution and calls upon Hamas to recognize Israel and foreswear violence and incitement.

 

Israel must dismantle illegal outposts and freeze settlement activities.

 

The negotiated solution must be based on borders that provide for a contiguous Palestinian state, and that take into account historical and existing reality.

 

Bush said,

 

"The vision of President [Mahmoud] Abbas and Prime Minister [Salam] Fayad is the vision of a peaceful state called Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people," he continued. "By following this path, Palestinians can reclaim their dignity and future and establish a state of their own."

 

"All responsible nations have the duty to help clarify the way forward by supporting the reforms of President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad."

 

 

Both PM Olmert and President Abbas welcomed the speech.

 

Unfortunately, there is abig shortage of responsible nations in the Middle East. The speech is being viewed by skeptics as a "last ditch effort" to salvage the two state vision of the Bush administration, but it reflects a deeper problem. Mr. Bush is caught between Iraq and a hard place. US failure in Iraq, which becomes ever more evident with each daily SNAFU of the Iraqi government and each guerilla attack, successively erodes the ability of the US to influence Middle East states regarding Israeli-Palestinian peace. At the same time, pressure from those same states -- particularly Saudi Arabia, is mounting for a solution to the Palestinian problem, which Bush must deliver in order to get support for continued US intervention in Iraq.

 

The peace initiative has several fatal weakpoints. Peace cannot be made in the Middle East by ignoring reality. Hamas is reality. They are a big, bad reality. They control the Gaza strip, and a large portion of the Arab Palestinian population. They will certainly not cooperate in this effort, because peace in the Middle East would put them out of business. Their business is genocide. Likewise, the Syrian and Iranian backers of Hamas are not interested in this peace effort or any peace effort, which is why they back Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In particular, they are not interested in the success of an American-backed peace effort, because it is American-backed. The inevitable, unlooked for and unwanted result of this peace effort must therefore be a dramatic escalation in terror attacks, similar to escalations that accompanied all previous peace efforts. It may even help to catalyze the threatened war between Israel and Syria. Unless the United States has a plan for neutralizing the Hamas, Syria and Iran, this peace effort is very likely doomed.

 

The second major weakness is the Palestinain government headed by Mahmoud Abbas. It is hard to believe that the Fateh organization, which failed to reform itself in all the years of the Oslo process, will suddenly become a force for progress, rectitude and good government. Salem Fayyad has a good reputation, but he is one man. The performance of Fateh security forces in Gaza, where they were routed by tiny Hamas forces, does not suggest that any amount of training is going to turn the Fateh into winners again.

 

The third weakness is the Olmert government, which shows every sign that it is not interested in peace or war, but rather in staying in power. This government that has been doing everything possible to stay afloat, that has done little to reform the IDF or itself, cannot be expected to take risks for peace.

 

The fourth weakness is the Bush government and the "quartet." The Bush government forced Israel to allow the PNA to hold those disastrous elections in which Hamas took power, against the provisions of the Oslo accord, and the Bush government and the quartet all but abrogated responsibility for the consequences. Despite all the verbiage about peace and isolation of the Hamas, Qassam rockets continued to rain down incessantly on Sderot, while the quartet and the US and the "international community" did nothing at all. The political consequence in Israel is that "disengagement," "concessions," and "peace," have become dirty words.

 

Ehud Olmert is well aware that even the smallest act of terror will be ascribed to any further peace moves made by his government. Under obvious pressure, Israel has agreed to release 250 Fateh prisoners, and is allowing absorption of "wanted men" into the Palestinian security forces. We can hope that these moves will gradually catalyze the start of a real peace process, but hoping is not enough. Even if all these ex-terrorists become loyal servants of law and order, and even if the Israeli government makes a good and honest peace offer, there is still the Hamas to be reckoned with in Gaza. The PNA wants to start discussing a final settlement, but the PNA can't really offer anything in return, as they do not control the Gaza strip and the Hamas.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

India and Israel will jointly develop surface to air missiles

This sort of cooperation is healthy - if it is not tripped up by American interference.

 

India, Israel to Jointly Develop Medium Range Missiles

(Source: ddi Indian Government news; issued July 13, 2007)

India will jointly develop and co-produce a new generation of medium range surface-to-air missiles with Israel to secure the country's strategic assets from growing threats posed by aerial attacks and the proliferation of missiles in the region.

The setting up of a joint venture for producing the missiles at an estimated cost of Rs 10,000 crore (2.5 billion dollars) was cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security, which met in New Delhi on Thursday under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

According to highly placed defence sources, the new generation missile with the capability of hitting aerial targets 70 km away would be developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Indian Air Force and Israel Aerospace Industries.

The DRDO will be the "prime contractor" for the project, which will have an indegenious component of Rs 2,300 crore.

The new generation missile will replace the IAF's ageing Russian-made Pechora missiles.

-ends-

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel has no partner - Toameh

I have always wondered about different explanations of why the Palestinians voted for Hamas. There are so many excuses to explain why a substantial part of the Palestinian public voted for a genocidal, fanatic organization. They can hardly be surprised that the Hamas will not recognize Israel, since that is what the Hamas promised, nor should they be surprised by announcements of Islamic states, as Hamas promised that too.

Khaled Toameh offers two contradictory excuses. Here is version 1:

 

"The January 2006 election that brought Hamas to power was mostly about: "Let's punish these Fatah thieves." Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. I believe some 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest because they were unhappy with the way the Palestinian Authority was running the show. "

 

And here is version 2:

"Hamas came to power a few months after the unilateral disengagement because the man in the street was saying: "This is wonderful. Hamas has managed to drive the Jews out of Gaza with rockets and bombs, while the PLO has been negotiating with the Jews and they didn't get as much. Look at what Hizbullah did in Lebanon. Kill them and they'll give you more." This is what worries me. Israel's unilateral disengagement undermined the moderates throughout the Arab world. "

 

Which is it? Were Palestinians angry about corruption, or were they angry that Fatah was not sufficiently committed to murdering Jews?

Toameh's idea of what Israel should do is this:

What should Israel do at this stage? Nothing. Israel should stay away from the internal affairs of the Palestinians. There is no one to deal with on a serious basis on the Palestinian side. Abbas doesn't even have control over his own Fatah militias, so what are you going to talk to him about? Israel should just sit and wait. Don't repeat the mistake of unilateralism, when Israel left Gaza to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.

This seems very strange to me. There are many things Israel could do without giving up territory, unilaterally or otherwise. Israel can make prisoner deal, and allow more freedom for Palestinians in the West Bank or it can attack the Hamas in Gaza or it can open peace talks. Toameh says Israel should just sit and wait. Do not do anything? Wait for what? Not doing anything at all, means that we wait for the Hamas to take over and drive the Fatah out of power completely.

Ami Isseroff

 

Vol. 7, No. 10    12 July 2007 

What to Do Now About the Palestinian Authority?

Khaled Abu Toameh

• Within a few months after Abbas came to power, Palestinians started realizing that he was not delivering. Instead of fighting corruption, he surrounded himself with the same Arafat cronies. There was a decrease of perhaps 30-40 percent in the level of corruption but an upsurge in internal violence.
• The January 2006 election that brought Hamas to power was mostly about: "Let's punish these Fatah thieves." Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. I believe some 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest because they were unhappy with the way the Palestinian Authority was running the show.
• Let Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO and Fatah start rebuilding their institutions, reform themselves, get rid of the corruption, and come up with a new list of candidates. Then run in another free and democratic election and offer the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas.
• The Palestinians do not need more guns and military training. If the U.S. has $86 million and wants to help the Palestinians, then help them build civil institutions, help them build freedom, educate them about good things. What's the point in taking 200 Presidential Guards to Jericho to train them? Who are they going to fight at the end of the day? In Gaza they were defeated.
• What should Israel do at this stage? Nothing. There is no one to deal with on a serious basis on the Palestinian side. Abbas doesn't even have control over his own Fatah militias. Israel should just sit and wait. Don't repeat the mistake of unilateralism, when Israel left Gaza to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.
• It is ironic that the West is supporting the guys who are suppressing the moderates and people who want democracy. The West is actually undermining its own goals.

When Abbas Took Over the PA

In the post-Arafat era there was a lot of hope among the Palestinians that the Palestinian Authority would become a better body. There was much talk of reforms and democracy, good governance, and an end to financial corruption. Mahmoud Abbas' 2005 election campaign was about ending financial corruption and building good institutions. Palestinians saw Abbas' agenda as aimed at repairing all the damage that Arafat had done.

Within a few months after Abbas came to power, however, Palestinians started realizing that he was not delivering. Instead of fighting corruption, Abbas surrounded himself with the same Arafat cronies. There was a certain decrease in the level of corruption, but it wasn't enough.

Instead of bringing democracy and restoring law and order in the Palestinian areas, there was an upsurge in internal violence in 2006. For the first time, the number of Palestinians killed in internal fighting was even higher than the number of Palestinians killed in fighting with the Israelis. If a judge can't issue an order because he's afraid or if a Palestinian security commander can't return a stolen bicycle, what kind of an authority is this?

Hamas Wins in Parliamentary Elections

In January 2006 - at the request of the United States, the Europeans, and the international community - there were parliamentary elections and Hamas decided to run for the first time. Hamas actually copied the platform of Mahmoud Abbas from a year earlier and promised the Palestinians reforms and democracy. Hamas' list was called Change and Reform, and Hamas fielded a very impressive list of candidates that included university professors, doctors, and engineers. If I were living in Gaza back then, I would have also voted for Hamas, not because I support suicide bombings and want to eliminate Israel, but because the January 2006 election was mostly about: "Let's punish these thieves." I know Christians, secular Palestinians, and PLO people who voted for Hamas because they were unhappy with the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinians felt they did not have much to lose by voting for Hamas. It is true that Hamas is a terrorist organization and a very dangerous ideological, religious, fanatic group. It's true that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Yet when I go to the West Bank and Gaza, I and most Palestinians still see the other side of Hamas, providing a vast network of social, economic, education, and health services. I have seen Hamas doing what the Palestinian Authority should have been doing with the international aid. Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. So this is one reason why Hamas won the hearts and minds of many people in the election campaign.

But not all of those who voted for Hamas did so as a protest vote. Of course Hamas has its own supporters, especially in Gaza. There are many who really believe in Hamas' ideology and that Israel can be eliminated. However, I believe that 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest against Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.

It is amazing that Condoleezza Rice did not see what any Palestinian child could see on the eve of the elections, namely, that Hamas was going to win. One day before the January 2006 election, I was asked by the Wall Street Journal to write a small op-ed about the elections and I wrote that the Palestinians were headed toward a regime change. Everyone here knew that Hamas was going to win.

So Hamas came to power and again there was some hope among the Palestinians. Maybe the Islamists would succeed where the secular PLO had failed? Maybe the Islamists would at least bring good governance?

Hamas Would Defeat Fatah If an Election Was Held Today

Yet the election created tensions between Fatah, who refused to give up power, and Hamas. I am confident that if we held another free and democratic election tomorrow in the Palestinian areas, Hamas would win again, and this time by a larger majority, because the man on the street is saying that no one gave Hamas a chance to rule. Besides, why should any Palestinian vote for the same Fatah people he voted out of office 18 months ago?

Immediately after the elections, the international community should have come to Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah and told them they lost the election because they are thieves, because their people don't trust them anymore, because they failed to deliver. Let them start rebuilding their institutions, reform themselves, get rid of the corruption, and come up with a new list of candidates. Then run in another free and democratic election and offer the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas.

This remains the main issue for the Palestinians: reforms and good governance - even more than ending the occupation. There is a feeling that members of the Palestinian security forces are responsible for a lot of the anarchy and chaos on the Palestinian street and this also applies to Gaza.

Palestinians Need Good Governance, Not Guns

The Palestinian Authority continues to be the largest employer in the Palestinian areas. Many institutions are continuing to function including the Ministry of Health and the Foreign Ministry. The Palestinians have 79 ambassadors around the world - much more than Israel. The real problem with the Palestinian Authority is not the civilian aspect as much as the security and judicial systems. This is where we have seen a near total collapse. The Palestinian security forces behave more like militias. Their loyalties are not known. In the fighting in Gaza, many Palestinian security officers refused to participate and there are reports that hundreds defected to Hamas during the fighting.

We didn't have this under Arafat because he was a strong and charismatic figure who brought the Palestinians together. There was a feeling back then that you don't mess around with the Palestinian Authority because Arafat is ruthless. But today you have Abbas who is very hesitant and weak and unwilling to carry out serious decisions. So people no longer relate to the Palestinian Authority in a serious fashion.

If the U.S. really wanted to help, the Palestinians do not need more guns. Everyone has guns, there are too many guns on the streets. The Palestinians don't need more military training. If the U.S. has $86 million and wants to help the Palestinians, then help them build civil institutions, help them build freedom, improve their education system, teach them something positive. What's the point in taking 200 Presidential Guards to Jericho to train them? Who are they going to fight at the end of the day? In Gaza they were defeated. Palestinians need good governance, better media, freedom and democracy, and to rebuild their civil institutions. They don't need more guns, militias, and Force 17s. This is what I hear in the Palestinian street.

Arafat used to tell the international community: "Give me more millions and I will kill Hamas and Islamic Jihad; I will prevent all the suicide bombings." He took the money and under him Hamas became even stronger. Hamas is in power today because of Arafat and Abbas. Giving Abbas guns and more millions of dollars is not going to help. Indeed, just by announcing that the West is going to give Abbas money, this is backfiring and causing him a lot of damage on the Palestinian street. It makes him look like a puppet and makes Hamas even more popular.

Al-Qaeda's Limited Penetration of Gaza

In Gaza we are seeing attempts by some Palestinians to imitate al-Qaeda more than the actual penetration of al-Qaeda. Various groups in Gaza are operating al-Qaeda-style. One is the Army of Islam, another is the Righteous Swords of Islam. Yet there is no real evidence that al-Qaeda itself is in Gaza, but some of these groups may be funded by al-Qaeda-linked organizations or global Jihad institutions. In the past six months over fifty Internet cafes have been bombed in Gaza. Women have had acid thrown in their faces. Four women were killed by Islamic groups in Gaza in the past four months. There is reason to worry because the border with Egypt is practically open and there are all these elements coming in and out.

Some of the reports about the presence of al-Qaeda bases are exaggerated. We saw how Fatah lied when it said it raided the Islamic University in Gaza and claimed that it found an Iranian general there. Some of these reports are being spread by Fatah as part of the war against Hamas and to frighten the West - "If you don't give us money, look what you're going to get in Gaza."

 Iran and Fatah

We hear about Iranian money coming into Gaza, but we don't see any Shi'ite influence. There were individuals in Gaza and even in the West Bank who tried to establish Shi'ite groups, but we don't see any impact.

Hizbullah is also involved, but most of the people taking money from Hizbullah are from Fatah in the West Bank. According to Hamas literature, Hamas doesn't like Shi'ites and doesn't like Hizbullah either, so Hamas is not taking money from Hizbullah. But I've interviewed several armed Fatah groups, especially in Nablus, and most of them were on the Hizballah payroll and said it openly. So money plays a very important role.

What Should Israel Do?

What should Israel do at this stage? Nothing. Israel should stay away from the internal affairs of the Palestinians. There is no one to deal with on a serious basis on the Palestinian side. Abbas doesn't even have control over his own Fatah militias, so what are you going to talk to him about? Israel should just sit and wait. Don't repeat the mistake of unilateralism, when Israel left Gaza to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.

I'm one of those who argued before Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza that this would send the wrong message to the Palestinians and empower Hamas. Hamas came to power a few months after the unilateral disengagement because the man in the street was saying: "This is wonderful. Hamas has managed to drive the Jews out of Gaza with rockets and bombs, while the PLO has been negotiating with the Jews and they didn't get as much. Look at what Hizbullah did in Lebanon. Kill them and they'll give you more." This is what worries me. Israel's unilateral disengagement undermined the moderates throughout the Arab world.

I also don't see any Arab country willing to send forces to maintain order in Gaza. The feeling in the Arab world is to try to disengage from the Palestinians

The Palestinians need to get their act together and find a way to resolve their problems, and then Israel can talk with them. But under the current circumstances, if I was Israel I wouldn't pull out from one inch of land because there is no strong and reliable partner on the other side.

*     *     *

Khaled Abu Toameh is Palestinian Affairs correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. He has also served as a correspondent for US News and World Report. He has also produced several documentaries on the Palestinians for the BBC and other international networks. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on May 24, 2007 - before the Hamas takeover of Gaza in mid-June.

Continued (Permanent Link)

No Arab League visit to Israel after all.

An article in Ha'aretz tells us that the Visit by Egypt, Jordan FMs will not be an Arab League mission. The foreign ministers are to discuss the Arab peace initiative. But if it is not an Arab League mission, then what is the point? After all, Israel has diplomatic relations with Jordan and Egypt, and the respective representatives will only be presenting the viewpoints of their own countries.

 

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said his visit to Israel with his Jordanian counterpart, planned for July 25, would only be on behalf of their respective countries.

"This is not a visit where the Arab League flag will be raised," Aboul Gheit told reporters. "This is a matter of principle."

On Wednesday the head of the 22-nation Arab League, Amr Moussa, also said the two foreign ministers would not be representing the League.

 

What principle is that, exactly? How many square kilometers of Israel's huge area must be given up in order to get the Arab League to raise a flag here? (Perhaps all of it?)

 

The Arab peace initiative seems to recede into the desert as one approaches it. This phenomenon is very much like a mirage.

 

The same article tells of cancellation of Condoleezza Rice's upcoming visit. Important things must be happening in Washington. Probably all bad.

 

Ami Isseroff  

 

Cross posted: Israel News  Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Olmert to Assad: 'I am ready to hold direct talks with you'

Funny thing - I just wrote about talks with Syria here.

 

Ami Isseroff

Jul. 9, 2007 20:26 | Updated Jul. 10, 2007 1:37
Olmert to Assad: 'I am ready to hold direct talks with you'
By JPOST.COM STAFF

 

'Come to Jerusalem to talk' was the message of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Syrian President Bashar Assad, in an historic interview to Saudi satellite station Al Arabiya, aired by Channel 10 Monday evening.

In his first appearance on a major Arabic news station in over six years, Olmert, speaking in an office adorned with the blue and white Israeli flag, told his Hebrew-speaking interviewer: "Bashar Assad, you know … You know I am ready to hold direct negotiations with you and you also know that it's you who insists on speaking to the Americans. The American president says: 'I don't want to stand between Bashar Assad and Ehud Olmert. If you want to talk, sit down and talk."

Assad has "heard many things from me already," Olmert added.

When asked where he would hold such talks with Assad, Olmert said "any place he [Assad] would agree to meet," hinting that Assad would even be welcome in Jerusalem.

Channel 10 analyst Zvi Yehezkeli remarked that Al Arabiya's broadcasts are transmitted following approval from the Saudi government. He added the network was planning to follow up on Olmert's interview with interviews with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas Damascus-based leader Khaled Mashaal and eventually, Assad himself.

Several weeks ago, during Olmert's visit to the US, American President George W. Bush, in Olmert's presence, was asked if he would mediate between Israel and Syria in an attempt to warm the truce the two countries observe since 1973 into a full-blooded peace treaty. Bush's response was that Olmert "is plenty capable" of achieving such a goal without US help. The Syria Accountability Act, isolating Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, was passed during Bush's tenure. Despite visits to Damascus by house speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressmen earlier this year, Bush keeps contacts with Syria cool. However, the US still keeps an embassy in Damascus.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Syria and Israel: The fire next time

World Net Daily tells us about a ' Mideast war this summer.':

 

If Israel doesn't vacate the strategic Golan Heights before September, Syrian guerrillas will immediately launch "resistance operations" against the Golan's Jewish communities, a top official from Syrian President Bashar Assad's Baath party told WND.

 

The Baath official, who spoke on condition his name be withheld, said Damascus is preparing for anticipated Israeli retaliation following Syrian guerrilla attacks and for a larger war with the Jewish state in August or September. He said in the opening salvo of any conflict, Syria has the capabilities of firing "hundreds" of missiles at Tel Aviv.

 

"Syria passed repeated messages to the U.S. that we demand the return of the Golan either through negotiations or through war. If the Golan is not in our hands by August or September, we will be poised to launch resistance, including raids and attacks against Jewish positions (in the Golan Heights)," the Baath official said.

This is the latest in a mountain of reports that Syria is preparing to start a war, just as was announced last summer by Bashar al-Assad. These reports are greeted with equanimity by Israel, and seem to be ignored by the United States and everyone else. Of course, they could be a bluff If the war comes, everyone will be asking "what were we thinking?" It is doubtful that Israel has an effective defense against the missiles Syria is preparing, which may be armed with biological or chemical warheads.

 

What Syria wants, evidently, is not the Golan Heights, but rather negotiations over the Golan Heights that must be mediated by the United States. The United States doesn't want to 'engage' Syria, Therefore this route, which would probably yield nothing, is blocked. On the other hand, it doesn't want to really confront Syria either, over its role in the insurgency in Iraq, its role in the "accidents" that keep happening to its opponents in Lebanon or its role in fomenting problems in the Palestinian authority.

 

Israel should be actively offering and pursuing peace through direct negotiations, while at the same time preparing for war. Very likely, Israeli war plans revolve around the same failed "strategic bombing" policy of the Lebanon war. Bombing poor countries doesn't work. They don't manufacture their own weapons or industrial equipment. They import them from abroad. Bombing them only produces an international outcry about "civilian casualties."

 

The United States and the EU should make it clear that any Syrian attack on Israel will be considered a violation of Chapter 7 of the UN charter, and will be met by international sanctions and force if necessary.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel using Syrian water

OOPS!!

 

Israel pumping Syrian water to Kinneret – experts

Water experts say Israel pumping water from Golan Heights springs whose natural stream leads to Syria

 

Amir Ben-David Published:  07.09.07, 09:31 / Israel News

 

For years Israel has been pumping water from springs in the Golan Heights to the shrinking Sea of Galilee, depriving Syria of major water resources, experts said Sunday.

 

 Water from some springs exploited by Israel would naturally stream downhill to Syria had it not been to human intervention on the Israeli side of the border, they added.

Experts fear Israel's continuous exploitation of water resources in the Golan Heights will irk Syria and up the chances of a war breaking out this summer between the two enemies.

 

Water disputes triggered military confrontations between Syria and Israel in the past. In 1964, Syria diverted the Hasbani and Banyas rivers, depriving Israel of major fresh water resources. Israel retaliated by launching airstrikes at Syrian constructions.

 

Three years later the Six-Day War broke out and Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria. The Golan Heights was officially annexed in 1981 when the Knesset voted in favor of making it Israeli territory.

 

Since last summer's war with Hizbullah, tensions have been running high between Israel and Syria, whose president recently threatened to free the Golan Heights by force if diplomacy failed.

 

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

"The Saudi Plan Is Dead":

Wonder what happened to the Saudi Plan? It is dead (or sleeping).

 

"The Saudi Plan Is Dead": Senior Saudi Officials Admit to Israel that the Initiative Is No Longer Relevant
Uri Yablonka Ma'ariv-Hebrew 4 July 2007
(Summary by Daily Alert - July 4, 2007
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Israel's hope to reach an understanding on a political settlement together with the countries of the Arab League has run aground. Senior political officials in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan announced in closed meetings with senior Israelis that the "Saudi Initiative," which Prime Minister Olmert sees as a basis for an agreement, is presently dead, and that as long as the chaos continues within the Palestinian Authority, there is no point in pursuing this avenue. These clarifications were received by senior Israeli political and defense officials.

An internal document from the Foreign Ministry of July 2 says that Saudi Arabia has significantly changed its policy toward Israel and the PA. "Saudi reluctance to express clear support for Abbas and his new government reflects Saudi opposition to Abbas' policy to isolate Hamas," the document says. It further notes that the Saudis are very disappointed by the rapid failure of the Mecca Agreement brokered between Hamas and Fatah earlier this year. The document states that Israel should stop using the term "the Saudi Initiative."
--------------------------------------------
Hat tip - IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel, Zionism, Peace and Americans

According to a recent poll, U.S. 'elites' support Israel, but aren't sure it wants peace:

70 percent cited the need to be "a leader in working for peace" as heading the list of 13 qualities required of an American "ally." But only 16 percent saw this among Israel's traits.

That is something to think about when doing "Israel advocacy" - isn't it? My dear fellow Zionists, it sure is great to blow off steam at the Hamas and their allies, but you really aren't going to nuke Mecca or Tehran, and you don't even really want to do it, so why write such things under the rubric of "Zionism?" Portraying Israel, Zionism and Zionists as being against peace is a falsification of reality. It is "auto-demonification" of "self-hating Jews," isn't it? If you write that "there is no diplomatic solution," you can hardly blame anti-'Zionists' for drawing cartoons of baby-eating Ariel Sharon, and you can't blame Radio Islam and Electronic Intifadah for their rants against Zionist warmongers either.

Of course, it is a vicious and cynical libel to say that Zionists do not want peace, because tiny Israel cannot survive in the Middle East without peace. A Jewish state that will not be able to live in peace with its neighbors, whose right to exist is not recognized, has no future. The work of Zionism is certainly not done until we achieve peace. Then we might talk about a "post-Zionist" period, provided we can bring the majority of Jews here. Until then, peace must remain the cardinal goal of Zionism. Peace is a Zionist plot. Just ask any Hamas representative and he (not 'she,' for certain) will tell you that. So it is ironic and unfortunate that Americans think Israel doesn't want peace, and it is even more ironic when would-be "Zionist" advocates try to project a ferocious and uncompromising image of Israel, to fulfill the propaganda fantasies of our enemies.

In all of the horrific landscape of Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab relations, there are a few tiny rays of hope, however imperfect, however quixotic. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan offers a reasonable compromise that will allow self determination and a bright future for the Jews and for Palestinian Arabs in two independent states. It is unfortunate that Palestinian Arab advocacy groups like BADIL insist that Sari Nusseibeh is a traitor for giving up the "Right of Return" of Palestinian Arab refugees and the struggle against the "Zionist enemy." It is also indicative of what stand supports of peace and supporters of Israel should be taking with regard to Ayalon-Nusseibeh.

The Onevoice initiative for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tries to unite Palestinians and Israelis around an agreed two state peace solution, that is refined in a series of e-referenda. They are educating youth for peace, and creating a constituency that will lobby leaders for peace. It would seem that any decent person would get solidly behind these projects and initiatives, which offer rallying points for those who support peace. We do not need to agree with every word. We all want two independent states for two peoples, living side by side. However, I am embarrassed to say that it is not so: these projects are attaced not only by Islamists and hardline Palestinian 'drive em into the sea' folks, but by "Zionists" as well. Both these projects, and many like them, have been attacked for various reasons by squadrons of "Zionist" publicists and bloggers who live in Chicago or California and other "Zionist" places. One of them decided, on flimsy evidence, that Onevoice supports terrorism, and this bit of rubbish was repeated in a popular "Zionist" publication that appears in the United States.

Others misunderstood or deliberately distorted both the Ayalon Nusseibeh document and the Onevoice initiative, so that they would appear to be "unfair" or threats to Israel. Of course, any peace solution is going to be a compromise, so it is easy for extremists to point out what their side is risking, and what their side is losing in any proposed agreement or peace initiative. The people who lead the anti-peace-group campaigns are often well-meaning. Bitter experience with the peace process of the past thirteen years has illustrated the dangers of misconceived peace agreements. But the peace process foundered because there was no support for peace among the Palestinian people, who elected the genocidal Hamas to lead them. The enemy is not Onevoice or Ayalon-Nusseibeh, which are both, essentially, educational initiatives for peace rather than political statements. The enemy is opposition to the existence of Israel, which these initiatives are trying to overcome.

Those supporters of Israel who want to carry on a political war for or against the occupation or for or against election of a particular Israeli leader, have a right to do so. But they should not confuse their political opinions with "Zionism" and they should not speak in the name of Zionism or of Israel when they insist on opposing peace.

On the other hand, Americans need to do some thinking too:

57 percent "strongly agree" that "the Arab countries around Israel are hostile to its existence," and 85 percent overall said they "agree" with that statement. Some 75 percent said they agreed that "the Arabs don't really accept Israel's right to exist."

That being the case, with whom is Israel to make peace? Those who say there is no partner just now seem to right, and the horrific events in Gaza bear them out.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Reckless optimism applied to Gaza

In A 'Two-State Solution,' Palestinian-Style Martin Indyk has written a recklessly opimistic appraisal of the events in Gaza:

The failed state of Gaza that Hamas controls is wedged between Egypt and Israel. Its water, electricity and basic goods are imported from the Jewish state, whose destruction Hamas has declared as its fundamental objective. One more Qassam rocket fired from Gaza into an Israeli village and Israel could threaten to seal the border if Hamas did not stop its attacks. Hamas would then have to reach a meaningful cease-fire with Israel or seek Egypt's help meeting the basic needs of the 1.5 million Gazans. Hosni Mubarak's regime turned a blind eye to the importation of weapons and money that helped ensure Hamas's takeover. But would Egypt allow on its border a failed terrorist state run by an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood with links to Iran and Hezbollah? Or will it insist on the maintenance of certain standards of order in return for its cooperation?

Whatever transpires, Gaza has become Hamas's problem. It's a safe bet that the real attitude of Abbas and Fatah is: Let Hamas try to rule Gaza, and good luck.

This turn of events would free Abbas to focus on the much more manageable West Bank, where he can depend on the Israel Defense Forces to suppress challenges from Hamas, and on Jordan and the United States to help rebuild his security forces. As chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and president of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas is empowered to negotiate with Israel over the disposition of the West Bank. Once he controls the territory, he could make a peace deal with Israel that establishes a Palestinian state with provisional borders in the West Bank and the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem.

Regarding "But would Egypt allow on its border a failed terrorist state run by an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood with links to Iran and Hezbollah?" Probably. As Indyk noted, Mubarak turned a blind eye to weapons smuggling in the past. He had to know where the weapons were going. The deal was probably freedom to smuggle in return for quiet in Egypt. Since the Hamas, through the Muslim brotherhood and through groups in Gaza and infiltrators can still cause both political trouble and terror in Egypt, Mubarak will continue to turn a blind eye. The excuse being manufactured is that Hamas is opposed to Al-Qaeda. In most of the Middle East, the answer to "it could be worse" is always, "and indeed, it probably will be worse."

Indyk explains to us that Fatah fell apart in Gaza because of the dithering leadership of Mahmoud Abbas. Maybe the behavior of Fatah also had something to do with it? In any case, what is the reason to expect that in the West Bank Abbas will build a model state? Didn't the Palestinian Authority have 12 years to do it in both Gaza and the West Bank? To build hospitals and roads and schools and to provide jobs, to empty the refugee camps? Did they do any of it? Why would Fatah be any more capable now then it was before? And why would the Hamas and Islamic Jihad and their Syrian and Iranian allies oblige Mr. Abbas and Mr. Indyk, and keep their influence out of the West Bank? Can't they travel from Gaza to Egypt, and from Egypt to Jordan and from Jordan to the West Bank? Are there no Islamic Jihad operatives in the West Bank? Surely there are. Are there no Hamas people in Bir Zeit University? It is liking asking if there are no Jews in Tel Aviv. It is a fact, that in the latest opinion survey, Hamas got more support in the West Bank than in Gaza!

Indyk's article is below.

Ami Isseroff


A 'Two-State Solution,' Palestinian-Style
By Martin Indyk
Friday, June 15, 2007; A21

Does Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas know something that we don't? For five days his presidential security forces in Gaza came under organized attack by Hamas gunmen. His compound in Gaza City was under siege. But he responded to these clear challenges to his authority with observations about the madness that had infected Gaza and refused to assign blame.

One might expect that this democratically elected leader would denounce Hamas's coup and call for international intervention to restore his control. But there he sat in Ramallah, prevaricating as the only liberated part of his putative state fell into the hands of his Palestinian archenemies. Finally yesterday, he dismissed the Hamas-led government, but only after its takeover of Gaza was complete.

Critics will say that this is typical of Abbas, a weak leader who would rather appease his challengers than confront them. But perhaps Abbas understands the emerging realities better than they do.

Over the past year when Hamas would stage attacks in Gaza, Fatah forces would retaliate in the West Bank, where they were stronger. When fighting began this time, Fatah did little in the West Bank to counter Hamas's onslaught. Abbas's passivity further confirms that the fix was in. Abbas and Fatah have in effect conceded Gaza to Hamas while they hold on to the West Bank. Hamastan and Fatahstine: a "two-state solution" -- just not the one that George W. Bush had in mind.

Of course, all Palestinian leaders will continue to declare the indivisibility of the Palestinian homeland. But in private, Abbas and other Fatah leaders may take solace from the dilemma Hamas will now have to confront.

The failed state of Gaza that Hamas controls is wedged between Egypt and Israel. Its water, electricity and basic goods are imported from the Jewish state, whose destruction Hamas has declared as its fundamental objective. One more Qassam rocket fired from Gaza into an Israeli village and Israel could threaten to seal the border if Hamas did not stop its attacks. Hamas would then have to reach a meaningful cease-fire with Israel or seek Egypt's help meeting the basic needs of the 1.5 million Gazans. Hosni Mubarak's regime turned a blind eye to the importation of weapons and money that helped ensure Hamas's takeover. But would Egypt allow on its border a failed terrorist state run by an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood with links to Iran and Hezbollah? Or will it insist on the maintenance of certain standards of order in return for its cooperation?

Whatever transpires, Gaza has become Hamas's problem. It's a safe bet that the real attitude of Abbas and Fatah is: Let Hamas try to rule Gaza, and good luck.

This turn of events would free Abbas to focus on the much more manageable West Bank, where he can depend on the Israel Defense Forces to suppress challenges from Hamas, and on Jordan and the United States to help rebuild his security forces. As chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and president of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas is empowered to negotiate with Israel over the disposition of the West Bank. Once he controls the territory, he could make a peace deal with Israel that establishes a Palestinian state with provisional borders in the West Bank and the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza could compare their fate under Hamas's rule with the fate of their West Bank cousins under Abbas -- which might then force Hamas to come to terms with Israel, making it eventually possible to reunite Gaza and the West Bank as one political entity living in peace with the Jewish state. It's hard to believe that such a benign outcome could emerge from the growing Palestinian civil war. But given current events, this course is likely to become Abbas's best option.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has an interest in this outcome, too. Elected on a mandate to leave the West Bank, Olmert was gravely weakened by the Lebanon war last summer. His best hope for political salvation lies in movement on the peace process. With Ehud Barak's election as Labor Party leader, Olmert now has a partner with security credentials who can lend him credibility and who may also want to prevent the West Bank from going Gaza's way.

For the Bush administration, the outcome in Gaza is an embarrassment. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has committed her last 18 months in office to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A failed terrorist state in Gaza is hardly what she had in mind for a legacy. Some will argue that it's time she talked to Hamas. But its thuggish, extraconstitutional behavior in Gaza and its commitment to the destruction of Israel make it an unlikely partner, at least until governing Gaza forces it to act more responsibly. And that leaves a "West Bank first" policy as Rice's best option, too.

The writer is director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He served as U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Apartheid Israel?

A great video about Israeli Apartheid is posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpjQEvmtNdk and some articles about the issue are here:

Israel is a Democracy and Not an Apartheid State

Is Israel an Apartheid State?

Below is a liveleak player version of the video.

Please note that Israel has no obligation to treat populations of occupied territories it did not annex as citizens. Germans occupied by the allies did not get American citizenship and could not vote in American elections.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Hamas blows up good, like a terrorist had oughta

Quoth the Hamas:

Abu Obayda: All options is open including martyrdom operations
"Hamas blows up good, like a terrorist had oughta"
"What do you want, good grammar or good terrorism?"

The "Zionist military escalation" was the result of an incessant rain of Qassam rockets. The "martyrs" are all terrorists launching Qassam rockets, which are duly listed in the article.

The rest of the headline is even more interesting:

"All options is open including the martyrdom operations in the occupied Palestinian land in 1948".

"The occupation" is in all of "Palestine" and can only be ended with the destruction of Israel. What is you thinking of that?

Ami Isseroff

---

Abu Obayda: All options is open including martyrdom operations
Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades Information Office website
May 18th, 2007
[Hamas Web site]

Palestinian sources reported that Five members of the Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, were martyred on Friday morning and several others were wounded in a series of raids by Zionist fighter jets. The strikes targeted several Palestinian military bases and metal workshops. The martyrs toll as a result of the Zionist military escalation in Gaza, Thursday morning, has now risen to nine, in addition to dozens of injuries.

Palestinian sources reported that the Zionist F-16 fighters launched three rockets at an Al-Qassam site east of Gaza City, a blacksmith's workshop and a group of Palestinian fighters east of Shija'aia on Friday morning. Five activists were martyred as a result and their bodies were torn to pieces and burnt.

According to the director of ambulance and emergency services in the Palestinian ministry of health, Mu'awya Hassanein, five dead bodies arrived at Al Shifa Hospital. Hassanein added that several injuries also arrived, all of them in critical conditions.

According to Mu'awya Hassanein, ambulances cannot reach the areas which have been bombarded because the Zionist fighter planes continue to dominate the skies and target every moving object. He added that coordination with the Red Cross is ongoing because there are reports of greater numbers of dead people in areas that have been struck.

On Thursday, four people were killed and at least 50 injured in five separate Zionist air strikes on Hamas and Islamic Jihad targets in the Gaza Strip. In the first strike, the Zionist fighter jets bombarded a base of the Hamas loyalist Executive Force in Gaza City, killing one and injuring dozens, in addition to destroying the building. Another air raid killed one and injured at least eight. Later on Thursday, Zionist jets struck a vehicle owned by Rafah municipality killing two workers.

In the same context, and In an exclusive contact with Abu Obayda, the spokesman of the Qassam Brigades said " All options is open including the martyrdom operations in the occupied Palestinian land in 1948".

Ezzedeen Al Qassam continued its operations against the Zionist settlements and the military bases. The Brigades declared in a statement the operations statistic in Thursday and it was as the following:
Operation:10 mortars ~Target:"Sofa" site ~Time:03:15
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Nir Eshaq" settlement ~Time:03:30
Operation:5 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Sedrot" settlement ~Time:08:00, 08:30,
and 09:20
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Nahil Oz" settlement ~Time:17:00
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Miftahim" settlement ~Time:18:10
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Sedrot" settlement ~Time:18:50
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Miftahim" settlement ~Time:18:50
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Asqalan" settlement ~Time:19:33
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Biery" settlement ~Time:19:50
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Kfar Azza" settlement~Time:20:30
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Kfar Mimon" settlement~Time:20:45
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Bad Murdakhai" settlement~Time:23:30
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Sedrot" settlement ~Time:00:00
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Asqalan" settlement ~Time:00:00

Abu Obayda added" These operations are part of the responding campaign against the occupation assault on the Gaza Strip, and the continued targeting of innocent Palestinian civilians and their installations in the West Bank".

Continued (Permanent Link)

The One State Final Solution to the Judenfrage - is it a serious subject for debate??

Dan Fleshler (Realistic Dove) is doing a fine job trying to defend Zionism against extreme leftists. It is a worthy attempt, and Dan has interesting things to say, but sometimes it is easy to get caught up in assuming the correctness or legitimacy of the arguments of the other side, when that is not warranted, and this can lead to an ideological and moral dead end.

Here, for example, he has entered the debate over the so called "one state solution" using Uri Avnery's article to bolster his case. But Avnery himself accepts some unacceptable allegations as a starting point.

Once you have accepted the outrageous idea that Jews have no national rights in Palestine, that is, the illegitimacy of Zionism, as Avnery has done, your arguments must be based on compromise, or on vindicating the idea that "might makes right." This is an untenable moral stance. Along with this, Avnery accepts the historical distortions of Ilan Pappe, and takes for granted that they are right. If these are Fleshler's "Zionist" arguments, we do not need any anti-Zionist ones.

Avnery wrote, and Realistic Dove quoted:

There is no doubt that the real disease is not the 40-year long occupation. The occupation is a symptom of a more profound disease, which is connected with the official ideology of the state. The aim of ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a Jewish State from the sea to the river is dear to the hearts of many Israelis, and perhaps Rabbi Meir Kahane was right when he asserted that this is everybody's unspoken desire.

The above is a pack of lies without foundation. The "real disease" is contained in people who spread such falsehoods. The official ideology of Zionism never aimed for "ethnic cleansing" nor for establishment of "a Jewish State from the sea to the river," but only for establishment of a Jewish national home in the land of Israel (somewhere in the land of Israel) secured in international law. Weizmann, Ben Gurion and others held out the hand of security and cooperation to the Arabs of Palestine, even though many were convinced it would not be accepted. Herzl envisioned his Jewish state as a multicultural pluralistic democracy, as he tried to bring to life in his novel, Altneuland (you can read the entire book on line and see for yourself that the above is a pack of lies).

It is hard to understand how a Zionist can legitimize statements such as the above. Kahane and his friends constitute a small and shameful minority who were never part of the Zionist majority. Avnery knows it is so. He knows that the War of Independence had to be fought because it was imposed on us, and that as it was a civil war, it was a war of "us or them." He wrote this in the introduction to his book, "Samson's Foxes" when it was reissued. He fought in that war on the side of the Zionists, whom he now disowns.

The only side that adopted "Ethnic Cleansing" as its official ideology was the Arabs of Palestine. They were led by the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini , a Nazi, who told the British that his solution for the "Jewish problem" in Palestine was the same as the one adopted in Europe, that is, annihilation. He intended to build a death camp near Nablus in order to carry out his "solution." This was the one state solution that he advocated. At various times, the Arabs of Palestine and their Arab allies took steps to implement this solution. The The Ethnic Cleansing of Jerusalem in 1948 was a harbinger of what the "one state solution" advocated by the Arab League and the Mufti had in store for the Jews.

The "Secular Democratic State" program of the PLO (circa 1968) was not much better. It advocated "emigration" of all Jews who arrived after 1917. The rest would in theory be given "equal rights" in a "secular democratic state." Of course, there is no such state in the Middle East, and there could not be such a state today. Perhaps in 500 years it would be possible.

The Mufti is dead, but his repugnant ideology lives on in the Hamas. A Hamas ideologue explained the humanitarian and altruistic nature of the Hamas program: murdering Jews benefits the people of the world:

There is no other choice but to use restraint regarding the condemnation, the attaching of the label of terror [to "resistance"], and the assembling of conferences [for] condemnation [of the attacks]. [This] so that everyone will know, that we did this only because our lord commanded so, "I did it not of my own accord" [*] and so that people will know that the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds on a land, to which Allah gave his blessing for the sake of the inhabitants of the worlds. [Emphasis added]

That is the real essential ideology of the "One State Solution" and those who subscribe to it are supporting genocide. If you like murdering Jews, you will love the one state solution. In one interpretation, the Jews will lose the right to self determination, but Israel will be just another country where Jews can live, perhaps like America, or more likely like pre-war Poland or Germany - an uncertain home. Even that is unlikely. In a more likely one state scenario, Jews would have to live as second class citizens in an Arab state that would be like Egypt or Syria. It is not likely that many Jews would remain in Israel even if they were not expelled. In the event that Hamas or a similar movement controls the state, the Jews would be murdered, because that is the commandment of Allah, according to them, and it benefits the world.

We should not have to explain to anyone why genocide is wrong, whether it is physically murdering a people, as threatened above, or denying the Jews the right to self self-determination. People who advocate this solution knowing and understanding the consequences, are accomplices in consipiracy to commit genocide. Others who go along with unwittingly it are their dupes.

Avnery's conclusion, which Realistic Dove seems to support, is that while Zionism is evil and the Jews really have no national rights at all in Israel, it is just a bad idea:

But beneath the surface, in the depths of national consciousness, we are succeeding. The question is how to turn the hidden success into an open political fact. In other words: how to change the policy of the Israeli government.

The idea of the "One-State Solution" will harm this effort very much..

It. diverts the effort from a solution that has now, after many years, a broad public basis, in favor of a solution that has no chance at all.

There is no doubt that 99.99% of Jewish Israelis want the State of Israel to exist as a state with a robust Jewish majority, whatever its borders.

The belief that a world-wide boycott could change this is a complete illusion. Immediately after his lecture, my colleague Adam Keller asked the professor a simple question: "The entire world has imposed a blockade on the Palestinian people. But in spite of the terrible misery of the Palestinians, they have not been brought to their knees. Why do you think that a boycott would break the Israeli public, which is far stronger economically, so that they would give up the Jewish character of the state?" (There was no answer.)

Avnery's objection to the plan for destroying Jewish self determination is not that it is wicked and opposed to international law, and that it will probably result in mass murder. Rather, his only objection is that it has no chance of succeeding. In his book, murder would be OK if you could get away with it. Avnery has set himself up to be the O.J. Simpson of anti-Zionist ideology.

The real reason that Jews and Arab Palestinians must support a two state solution, is that the world recognizes the right of national self determination as Jus Cogens, a right that is "powerful" and takes precedence over all other rights. It is enshrined in the UN charter and in international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article I, Part I, opens the convention with the following declaration:

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

That is international law. Anyone who opposes a Jewish state or a Palestinian state, if that is the will of those peoples, is opposed to international law.

We Jews cannot deny to the Arab Palestinians what we demand for ourselves, and the Arabs of Palestine cannot deny to us what they assert for themselves. The reason that the One State "solution," whether it is Kahane's or Pappe's is wrong, is that it automatically denies the legal and moral principle on which it purports to be based, because it denies the same right to the other side. It doesn't matter if it is "good for the Jewish Palestinians" or "Bad for the Arab Palestinians" by some cynical pragmatic calculus of "what can we get away with?"

Uri Avnery and Ilan Pappe and to Dan Fleshler must understand that we Zionists believe we are here by right, and not on sufferance. This right is anchored in international law, and is justified both by recent history and past history. We created a viable state out of some inchoate dominions that were the armpit of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. "Palestine" as a viable entity would not exist without the construction of the Zionists. The Jews are the only people who ever established sovereign domain over this territory in all of history.

When Mr Arafat's father was living in Egypt, my grandmothers were born in Jerusalem, and when Izz-e-din el Qassam was a boy in Syria, my mother was born in Hebron, and they became "Palestinians" when British rule became a fact in this area. They were more Palestinian than Mr. Arafat or Mr el Qassam.

By what right does Avnery or Pappe or Fleshler deny to me and to other Israelis the right to live as free people in the land that we built, and that our ancestors built? The evidence of the national ties of the Jews to this land in history is overwhelming. Every objective person, except some Arab propagandists, admit that the Jews were once a sovereign nation in this land, and that we are the only living heirs of the ancient Jewish people. The culture tie of the Jews to the land over 2,000 years is disputed only by degenerate malefactors, the sort of people who accept the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as factual. Those "liberals" (allies of the Mufti and David Duke) who oppose Zionism, claim that they are opposed to imperialism and racism. Yet they insist that the Arab imperialist conquest of the land, and the Ottoman Turkish imperialist racist conquest of the land, and the racist apartheid regime imposed by them, entirely annul the historic rights of the Jewish people to the land! Why? Because the apartheid regime of the Ottomans and the local Arabs prevented Jews from settling here in large numbers for most of Ottoman rule, and made it difficult for Jews to buy land. Therefore, the Arabs of "Palestine" - an entity that did not exist before 1917, remained a majority, a status that was enforced by racist apartheid laws of immigration and settlement.

The vicissitudes of history have established another people in this land as well, the Arabs of Palestine. The rise of Jewish nationalism was met by the parallel rise of Arab nationalism. Whether it is right or wrong in the cosmic conception of justice, the Jewish people cannot claim exclusive rights over the land. In the kingdom of heaven, there might be different laws and different justice. On Earth, we must accept the law of nations. The world recognizes the rights of the Arabs of Palestine to a state of their own, and we Jews must accept that as well as we accept international law. But at the same time, we can demand of the Arabs of Palestine, and of Mr. Pappe and Mr Avnery, that they too must accept international law, even if they exclude themselves from the Jewish nation.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

The other Muslim: Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

We have written often of the tribulations of journalist Salahuddin Shoaib Choudhury, a fearless fighter for freedom and peace in Bangladesh. This interview from the Berliner Zeitung tells his story in depth.

Translation copyright 2007 MidEastWeb for Coexistence http://www.mideastweb.org

How Shall I Live?

The Other Muslim



April 2, 2007

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury argues for faith liberty and peace with Israel - that incurs torture in Bangladesh

Bernhard Bartsch

DHAKA. "When we were small children, we were afraid of ghosts. At night they were under the bed, in the closet, always there before the window. But we got accustomed eventually to it. Whoever lives for a long enough time with ghosts, loses their fear." Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury pulls strongly on his thin menthol cigarette. "In the prison it is like with the ghosts. If they lock up me again, I know exactly into which cell they will put me and with what they will torture me. There is nothing that they have not already done to me. Therefore they cannot be the source of fear for me. " He laughs and nods so imperturbably that one could nearly believe him.

Choudhury believes that Muslims, Jews and Christians can be friends, that there will be peace in the world only if each human lives his own faith freely and accepts the religion of the other as well, that the Islamic states would therefore do well to recognize the right of Israel to exist. And that he, a modern Muslim from a traditionally moderate Muslim country, can help to reconcile the three related religions. "Humans, who have a good heart, are close, regardless of which God they pray to", says Choudhury. The majority of mankind in his opinion, believes this. One should not be intimidated by the minority.

Torture and prison

Nevertheless, in Bangladesh the radical Islamics are gaining influence, and since they even belong to the latest government, the man lives dangerously. Because he went on record in his newspaper, the Weekly Blitz as pro-Israel and in numerous investigative reports documented the spread of terrorist camps, Al-Qaida camps camps and training centres for suicide bombers in Bangladesh, he is now standing trial for incitement of the masses, high treason and blasphemy. He is threatened with up to 30 years in prison or even the death penalty. "However they cannot beat me down," says Choudhury. "I am a fighter."

Actually Choudhury with his more than thirty years, has something of the boxer in him, still recovering from a knockout by a youngster. It is already over half a year since the time the hoodlums came into his office. A prominent politician accompanied them, says he, so prominent that the police refused afterwards to publicize the incident. Choudhury limps a little. His face is permanently swollen. If he speaks, it sounds as if it has something in his mouth. Also, in weakly illuminated areas he carries dark sun glasses, in order to hide his right eye, gone blind by glaucoma. An operation could have easily saved it, but during his prison stay treatment was denied. Nevertheless he is ready to be locked up for his convictions again in 40 degree celsius heat in solitary confinement. "The fan was turned off in my cell always," he says.

Choudhury is not a desperado. In Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world, he belongs to the privileged few, who lead a life of ease. His father was a wealthy entrepreneur, who sent his son to study economics to England. "Before I left I had to promise him not to live with other Bangladeshis there, although there are many in London" says Choudhury. "Therefore I lived at the other end of the city and found friends from all world."

When he returned home in 1989, he worked first as correspondent for the Russian press agency Itar Tass and in 1995 initiated the first private television station of the country, "A-21 TV". It broadcast reports critical of the government for the first time in 1999 - a considerable risk, but the urge to oppose truth to state propaganda was overpowering. Within a few days A-21 TV was closed by the government and Choudhury condemned to a half year in prison for "incitement of the masses" . "At that time I was tortured for the first time", he reports. "They wanted to break my will. But they only strengthened it. "

A few months after the attacks of Septembers 11, he created the Weekly Blitz, as reaction to the growing extremism. "I am a living contradiction: A Zionist, in addition, a pious Muslim ", he says: "We believe nevertheless all in the same God. But the extremists falsify the teachings and drive a wedge between Muslims, Jews and Christians. "Beside like-minded Bengali journalists, soon also Jewish authors from Israel and the USA were writing for the Weekly Blitz. The association of the name to the word "blitzkrieg," common in English, is intentional. "We are a combat sheet for peace", says Choudhury, "and the editors are our army."

Provocation is Choudhury's program. He went so far in 2003 as to put one of the porno pictures found in Saddam Hussein palaces, on the cover of the Blitz. A tiny censorship bar over the nipple stressed the nudity more than it veiled it. "Many Muslims consider Saddam Hussein a hero, and I wanted to show what sort of a man he was actually," he says. The issue was immediately forbidden.

There is no question of fleeing

Only about five million of Bangladesh's 183 million inhabitants sympathizes with the radicals, estimates Choudhury. Nevertheless he get little support in his own country. Hardly anyone dares to openly take his side. Even relatives and friends turned away from him. "Many of them were threatened", say Choudhury. His house, a small mansion in one of the better quarters of Dhaka, is protected at night by watchmen with large rifles. Both of his children are brought to school in morning by a driver and brought home again later. They rarely visit friends. "However the situation welds us together as a family," explains Choudhury. "My wife and my children tell again and again, how proud they are of me."

Would Choudhury consider it, if along with this acknowledgment the request also nevertheless came to give up his fight and to free the family from their state of siege? The family would have enough money to lead a calm life abroad, and they would have a good chance of leaving Bangladesh despite the current legal procedings. But for Choudhury his struggle has long ago become his. "Who leaves the battleground, has lost", he says. "However, whoever struggles for the right cause always wins."

At the heart of contention: Israel and the Holocaust

Enterpreneur and Journalist Salah Uddin Shoib Choudhury founded the Weekly Blitz in his homeland. It is unlike hardly any another meda appearing in a Muslim country, as it demands the reconciliation of Muslims, Jews and Christians as well as the recognition of Israel. "Many Muslims believe still, that the Holocaust was a conspiracy of Nazis and Jews, to justify the demand of the Zionists for Israel," says Choudhury. Weekly Blitz has a staff of 32 and a press run of 6,000 copies as well as a Web edition (www.weeklyblitz.net ).

Journeys to Israel are forbidden to Bandladeshi citizens. In November 2003 Choudhury was arrested at the airport in Dhaka , because he wanted to fly to a peace conference in Tel Aviv. For 17 months he was locked up without an indictment and tortured according to his testimony. In 2005 he was released due to pressure of the American State Department.

For incitement of the masses, high treason and blasphemy he is presently on trial. He is threatened with the death penalty. The judge Shamsul Alam reportedly has close contacts with the Islamists.

The European Parliament and US House of Reppresentatives demand the cessation of the proceedings. The American PEN club honored 2005 Choudhury's commitment with the "Freedom to Write" prize, and in 2006 the American Jewish committee awarded him a "Medal for moral courage".

---

Berliner Zeitung, 2.4.2007

---

Der andere Moslem
http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/spezial/dossiers/wie_soll_ich_leben/75561/index.php
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury streitet für Glaubensfreiheit und Frieden mit Israel - das bringt in Bangladesch Folter ein Bernhard Bartsch

DHAKA. "Als wir kleine Kinder waren, hatten wir Angst vor Gespenstern. Nachts waren sie immer da, unterm Bett, im Schrank, vor dem Fenster. Aber irgendwann haben wir uns daran gewöhnt. Wer lange genug mit Gespenstern lebt, verliert die Furcht." Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury zieht kräftig an seiner dünnen Mentholzigarette. "Im Gefängnis ist es wie mit den Gespenstern. Wenn sie mich wieder einsperren, weiß ich genau, in welche Zelle sie mich stecken und womit sie mich foltern werden. Es gibt nichts, was sie mir nicht schon einmal angetan hätten. Deswegen können sie mir keine Angst einjagen." Er lacht und wirkt so unerschütterlich, dass man ihm fast glauben könnte.

Choudhury glaubt, dass Moslems, Juden und Christen Freunde sein können. Dass es auf der Welt nur dann Frieden geben werde, wenn jeder Mensch seinen eigenen Glauben frei lebe und zugleich die Religion anderer akzeptiere. Dass die islamischen Staaten deshalb gut daran täten, Israels Existenzrecht anzuerkennen. Und dass er, ein moderner Moslem aus einem traditionell moderat muslimischen Land, dabei helfen könne, die drei verwandten Religionen zu versöhnen. "Menschen, die ein gutes Herz haben, sind sich nah, egal zu welchem Gott sie beten", sagt Choudhury. Die Mehrheit der Menschheit sei seiner Meinung, glaubt er. Von der Minderheit dürfe man sich nicht einschüchtern lassen.

Folter und Gefängnis

Doch in Bangladesch gewinnen radikale Islamisten an Einfluss, und seitdem sie sogar der letzten Regierung angehörten, lebt der Mann gefährlich. Weil er sich mit seiner Zeitung Weekly Blitz für Israel engagiert und in zahlreichen Investigativreportagen die Ausbreitung von Terroristencamps, Al Kaida-Lagern und Ausbildungsstätten für Selbstmordattentäter in Bangladesch dokumentierte, steht er nun wegen Volksverhetzung, Hochverrat und Blasphemie vor Gericht. Ihm drohen bis zu 30 Jahre Gefängnis oder sogar die Todesstrafe. "Aber sie kriegen mich nicht unter", sagt Choudhury. "Ich bin ein Kämpfer."

Tatsächlich hat Choudhury mit seinen etwas mehr als 30 Lebensjahren etwas von einem Boxer, der sich gerade von seinem jüngsten Knockout erholt. Dabei ist es schon ein halbes Jahr her, dass zum letzten Mal die Schläger in sein Büro kamen. Ein prominenter Politiker habe sie begleitet, sagt er, so prominent, dass die Polizei sich hinterher weigerte, eine Anzeige aufzunehmen. Choudhury humpelt ein wenig. Sein Gesicht ist dauerhaft geschwollen. Wenn er spricht, klingt es, als habe er etwas im Mund. Auch in schwach beleuchteten Räumen trägt er eine dunkle Sonnenbrille, um sein vom grünen Star erblindetes rechtes Auge zu verbergen. Eine Operation hätte es leicht retten können, doch während seines Gefängnisaufenthalts wurde ihm die Behandlung versagt. Trotzdem ist er bereit, sich für seine Überzeugungen wieder einsperren zu lassen, in Einzelhaft, bei 40 Grad. "Der Ventilator wurde in meiner Zelle immer abgestellt," sagt er.

Choudhury ist kein Verzweiflungstäter. In Bangladesch, einem der ärmsten Länder der Welt, gehört er zu den wenigen Privilegierten, die ein Leben in Wohlstand führen. Sein Vater war ein wohlhabender Unternehmer, der seinen Sohn zum Wirtschaftsstudium nach England schickte. "Vor meinem Abflug musste ich ihm versprechen, dort nicht mit anderen Bangladeschis zusammenzuleben, obwohl es in London viele gibt", erzählt Choudhury. "Deshalb wohnte ich am anderen Ende der Stadt und fand Freunde aus aller Welt."

Als er 1989 heimkehrte, arbeitete er zunächst als Korrespondent für die russische Nachrichtenagentur Itar-Tass und baute 1995 den ersten privaten Fernsehsender des Landes auf, "A-21 TV". 1999 sendete er erstmals regierungskritische Berichte - ein beträchtliches Risiko, doch der Drang, der staatlichen Propaganda eine zweite Wahrheit entgegenzusetzen, war übermächtig. Innerhalb weniger Tage wurde A-21 TV von der Regierung geschlossen und Choudhury wegen "Volksverhetzung" zu einem halben Jahr Haft verurteilt. "Damals wurde ich zum ersten Mal gefoltert", berichtet er. "Sie wollten meinen Willen brechen. Aber sie haben ihn nur gestärkt."

Wenige Monate nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September gründete er Weekly Blitz, als Reaktion auf die erstarkenden Extremisten. "Ich bin ein lebender Widerspruch: Ein Zionist, aber auch ein frommer Moslem", sagt er: "Wir glauben doch alle an den gleichen Gott. Aber die Extremisten verfälschen die Lehre und treiben einen Keil zwischen Moslems, Juden und Christen." Neben gleichgesinnten bengalischen Journalisten schrieben bald auch jüdische Autoren aus Israel und den USA für Weekly Blitz. Die Assoziation des Namens zum auch im Englischen gebräuchlichen Wort "Blitzkrieg" ist Absicht. "Wir sind ein Kampfblatt für den Frieden", sagt Choudhury, "und die Redaktion ist unsere Armee."

Provokation ist Choudhurys Programm. Dabei ging er so weit, 2003 eines der Pornobilder, die in Saddam Husseins Palästen gefunden wurden, auf sein Cover zu heben. Ein winziger Balken über der Brustwarze betonte die Nacktheit mehr, als er sie verhüllte. "Viele Muslime halten Saddam Hussein für einen Helden, und ich wollte zeigen, was für ein Mann er tatsächlich war", erzählt er. Die Ausgabe wurde umgehend verboten.

Flucht kommt nicht in Frage

Nur etwa fünf Millionen von Bangladeschs 183 Millionen Einwohnern sympathisieren mit den Radikalen, schätzt Choudhury. Trotzdem erfährt er im eigenen Land wenig Zustimmung. Kaum jemand wagt, offen für ihn Partei zu ergreifen. Selbst Verwandte und Freunde wandten sich von ihm ab. "Viele von ihnen wurden bedroht", sagt Choudhury. Sein Haus, eine kleine Villa in einem der besseren Viertel von Dhaka, wird nachts von Wachleuten mit großen Gewehren beschützt. Seine beiden Kinder bringt morgens ein Fahrer in die Schule und holt sie hinterher wieder ab. Zu Freunden gehen sie nur selten. "Aber die Situation schweißt uns als Familie zusammen", erklärt Choudhury. "Meine Frau und meine Kinder sagen mir immer wieder, wie stolz sie auf mich sind."

Ob Choudhury es merken würde, wenn in dieser Anerkennung dennoch die Bitte mitschwänge, seinen Kampf aufzugeben und die Familie aus ihrem Belagerungszustand zu befreien? Genügend Geld, um im Ausland ein ruhiges Leben zu führen, hätte die Familie, und wahrscheinlich fände sich auch eine Möglichkeit, Bangladesch trotz des laufenden Verfahrens zu verlassen. Doch für Choudhury ist sein Kampf längst sein Leben geworden. "Wer das Schlachtfeld verlässt, hat verloren", sagt er. "Aber wer für die richtige Sache kämpft, gewinnt immer."
------------------------------
Im Kern der Auseinandersetzung: Israel und der Holocaust

Der Unternehmer und Journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury gründete 2002 in seiner Heimat Bangladesch die Wochenzeitung Weekly Blitz. Wie kaum ein anderes in einem muslimischen Land erscheinendes Medium fordert sie die Versöhnung von Moslems, Juden und Christen sowie die Anerkennung Israels. "Viele Muslime glauben immer noch, der Holocaust sei ein Komplott von Nazis und Juden gewesen, um den Anspruch der Zionisten auf Israel zu rechtfertigen", sagt Choudhury. Weekly Blitz hat 32 Mitarbeiter und eine Auflage von 6 000 Exemplaren sowie eine Internetausgabe (www.weeklyblitz.net).

Reisen nach Israel sind Staatsbürgern Bangladeschs verboten. Im November 2003 wurde Choudhury am Flughafen in Dhaka verhaftet, weil er zu einer Friedenskonferenz in Tel Aviv fliegen wollte. 17 Monate wurde er ohne Anklage eingesperrt und nach eigenen Angaben massiv gefoltert. 2005 kam er auf Druck des amerikanischen Außenministeriums frei.

Wegen Volksverhetzung, Hochverrats und Blasphemie steht er derzeit vor Gericht. Ihm droht die Todesstrafe. Dem Richter Shamsul Alam werden enge Kontakte zu den Islamisten nachgesagt.

EU-Parlament und US-Repräsentantenhaus fordern die Einstellung des Verfahrens. Der amerikanische PEN-Club ehrte 2005 Choudhurys Engagement mit dem Preis "Freedom to Write" und das Amerikanische Jüdische Komitee 2006 mit der "Auszeichnung für moralischen Mut".

Berliner Zeitung, 2.4.2007

Continued (Permanent Link)

Is the Arab peace initiative a fraud?

A joint press conference of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, explained the meaning of the Arab peace initiative. Quoting from the Saudi Press Agency:

 

Arabic Sumit 1428-2007

PRINCE SAUD AND AMR MOUSA HOLD JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE 5 RIYADH

 

http://www.spa.gov.sa/English/ContentPage.php?cid=38&id=14493

 

 ON THE ARAB SUMMIT NOT HAVING FIXED A DATE FOR THE PEACE INITIATIVE, PRINCE SAUD SAID THE ARAB LEADERS HAVE DECLARED A CLEAR-CUT INITIATIVE.

HE SAID THE ARAB STATES WILL SIGN A PEACE AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL WHEN IT CONCLUDES ITS NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PARTIES WHOSE LANDS IT IS OCCUPYING, ADDING THAT THERE IS NO FIXED DATE FOR SUCH A DEVELOPMENT.

This seems to imply that the Arab states expect that Israel will first undertake to withdraw from all territories in separate agreements with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, and without any formal commitment from the Arab states, and that after the withdrawal, the matter of peace with Israel will be considered, with each Arab state free to make its own decision about peace. Even if agreement is reached with the Lebanase, Syrians and Palestinians, there would be no guarantee that any other Arab states would agree to peace after Israeli withdrawal.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Muddled thinking about Israel, "Leftists" and Gaza

I generally like Bradley Burston's analyses, even if I do not always agree with them. They evince an intelligent, unhysterical, undogmatic and pragmatic humanism, reminiscent of the intellectual posture of Mark Twain.

Sometimes, though he is way wide of the mark. For example, here is a "legitimate" reason for hating Israel according to him:

"4. Because Israel, even in withdrawing from Gaza, has left it to die"

Perhaps Bradley has inadvertantly stumbled upon the root causes of anti-Semitism here. He is really on to something. For 2,000 years the Jews neglected the Holy Land, and left all those poor folk to fend for themselves. Palestinian Arabs lived here in peace and harmony, enjoing the benefits of illiteracy, trachoma, malaria and typhus. With no Jewish doctors and hospitals around, many of the poor Arabs lived lives that were short, nasty and brutish. There was no work other than agriculture, because there were no Jewish investors either. There were no Zionist irrigation works either, so there was no water. No wonder everyone hates those cruel Jews.

Consider the facts, friend Bradley. Palestine was traditionally the armpit (or an unmentionable part) of the Turkish Empire. The Jews of Jerusalem were the poorest among all those who dwelt in the land, and their main industry was begging. Even in 1920 the Jews of Palestine were so poor that they were leaving in droves. By 1936, greedy evil colonialist imperialist Zionist investment had made the Jewish community richer than the Arab Palestinian community, but the Arab community by then was also among the richest in the Middle East. Wages of Arabs in Palestine were higher than in most neighboring countries.

When the Peel plan proposed to give 25% of the land to the approximately 450,000 Jewish inhabitants, it was proposed seriously that the much larger and more populous Arab state would not be economically self-sufficient, and that therefore the tiny Jewish state with its small community, that was also expected to absorb millions of immigrants, would need to subsidize the Arab state in perpetuity! All this was due to Zionist investment, since except for a bit of money spent on the port of Haifa, the British did not invest anything in Palestine. All the wealth had to come from taxes. By the year 1948, the Arabs of Palestine had improved their status quite a bit more, thanks also to British investment during WW II. However, the Jews of Palestine now produced four times as much as the Arabs, and paid four times as much taxes, even though the Arabs were twice as numerous!

The Zionists built the national water carrier. British experts insisted that it would never be economically feasible to pump irrigation water from the Sea of Galilee. "Never" was about 30 years in coming. In onde day, the national water carrier pumps more water than was used in all of Palestine in the entire year of 1948. Without that water, it would not be possible to maintain 7 million people in Israel at a near-Western European standard of living.

Consider the next crime of the evil Zionists. In 1967, the per capita income of the West Bank and Gaza was in the neighborhood of $360. By 1993, it was over $2,400. Then the evil Zionists gave the Palestinians self rule. By 2000, the per capita income of the West Bank and Gaza was only $2,000. Still, it is a fact that Palestinian Arabs were crossing the border illegally from Jordan in order to live in the oppressive and evil Zionist occupation and work in Israel. I met some of those Arabs. Then the Intifada started. The evil Jews did not permit the Palestinians to import suicide bombers into Israel, and the Palestinian GDP plumetted.

Now the evil Zionists committed the crime of withdrawing from Gaza. Jewish philanthropists paid so that Palestinians could own the green houses that the greedy evil Zionists left behind. The Palestinian Arabs trashed the green houses or used them as termini for arms smuggling tunnels. Then the Palestinians voted for the nice progressive Hamas, which wants to make a nice progressive Islamic state in all of "Palestine." According to Bradley Burston, the Zionists have an obligation to encourage subsidy programs for purchase of Qassam rockets and pay the salaries of the people who launch them. As Bradley wrote:

It is not lost on leftists that many Israelis reap a distinct satisfaction from the Palestinians' inability to help themselves, govern themselves, save themselves.

I don't know many such Israelis. There are a few. Maybe Bradley moves in different circles. Mostly I found that the misuse of the green houses, the internecine fighting, the lost opportunities for peace and development, are all causes for alarm and concern. It may mean we can never have peace with our neighbors, and that would be really terrible.

Bradley continues:

Leftists may note that Israel has done everything in its power to convince the world to deny much-needed aid to a democratically elected government, and that Israel has not acted as a neighbor whose primary concern is an eventual peace.

According to Burston's logic, the Palestinian Arabs democratically chose genocide for the Jews, so the Jews must encourage subsidies for this program, because it is a democratic choice. Presumably, in World War II, the Jews should have encouraged Roosevelt to send railway cars to Eichmann to expedite the transport of Jews to Auschwitz.

How could subsidizing the Hamas bring eventual peace? Didn't the allies blockade Germany in World War II? Does that mean that they were not interested in eventual peace? Right now, the primary concern is immediate survival. If you are dead, eventual peace doesn't matter. Therefore, stopping the suicide bombers and the rockets is the first order of business.

The implications are clear. The assumptions of Bradley Burston and the unnamed "leftists," which are racist assumptions, are that if the Jews leave, the economy of Palestine will inevitably degenerate into something like that of Syria. The fate of the glass and steel towers in Herzliya Pituach and Ramat Gan will be as the fate of the green houses in Gaza, or as the fate of the farm buildings of Gush Etzion in 1948 or the Ruttenberg electric plant and the potash works in the north of the Dead Sea. The national water carrier will cease to function. It will all rot in the sun and be ravaged by vandalism, like the grandeur of Rome after the invasion of the Goths and the Vandals.

Under Arab rule, in the present state of development of Palestinian society, and under the racist assumption of Arab Palestinian helplessness that is built in to the viewpoint of the so-called "leftists," it is questionable whether this land could support more than one or two million Palestinian Arabs, just as the British experts predicted in the 1930s. Therefore, the course of action is clear. The evil greedy Jewish sons of apes and dogs will not be allowed to leave the Islamic Paradise. We will have to stay here and create wealth for our Islamist masters.

An alternative to consider is that left to their own devices, the Palestinians will in time become a people like any other. They will learn to stand on their feet. They will stop making suicide bomber belts and Qassam rockets, and start manufacturing goods and services that the world, including Israel, want. With freedom and democracy, come responsibility.

Here are two other reasons why "Leftists" are right to hate Israel, according to Burston:

1. Because Israel's policies are frequently marked by gratuitous
humiliation of and disdain for the Palestinians.
2. Because Israelis can live with this.

I have to dispute both assumptions. A great part of the humiliation suffered by Palestinians at checkpoints, or at the hands of settlers, is due to individual loutishness or to incompetence of IDF and border police officials. It is not policy. And many Israelis cannot live with it. That is why there is Peace Now, and Gush Shalom, and the Machsomwatch movement that reports on doings at checkpoints, and that is why there is the "Breaking the Silence" group, soldiers protesting against the occupation, and that is why there is Betselem, that is why there are refuseniks, that is why Zionist Kibbutz members go out to protect Palestinians harvesting olives from settlers, and that is why there is a very long list of other groups protesting the occupationn. What is peculiar, and what Bradley doesn't mention, is that no "leftists" are upset by the fact that Palestinian policies are often marked by gratuitous murder of Israeli citizens and by the fact that many Palestinians cannot only live with it, but rather celebrate the death of every suicide bomber who kills Israelis. There is no Palestinian "Shahid watch" that reports when a suicide bomber kills innocent children in a supermarket "gratuitously." There is no Palestinian Peace Now movement to protest against Palestinian incitement. How do we explain the fact that this does not upset any of these so-called leftists?

Ami Isseroff

Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. Please link to this article and cite it. Do not copy it to your Web site without express permision.

---

Ten reasons the left hates Israel - five good, five bad
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829633.html
By Bradley Burston

A few thoughts engendered by the controversy over Alvin H. Rosenfeld's article "'Progressive'" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism."

Five of the following are reasonable. Five are not.

...

Why does the left hate Israel? Here are five good reasons:

1. Because Israel's policies are frequently marked by gratuitous humiliation of and disdain for the Palestinians.

2. Because Israelis can live with this.

If the policies hinted at in 1. above are associated with a status quo which Israelis find tolerably calm and Palestinians find unbearable, even lethal, Israel's leaders often view this as a viable and even optimal outcome.

3. Because Israel, in practice, values settlements more than it values social justice.

The right will tell you that there is [Bradley meant to write "no" here A.I. ] contradiction between settlements and social justice. Which would be true if there were no Palestinians, and if the Palestinians did not view the land occupied by settlements as theirs, historically, legally, and morally. And which would be true if the same consideration offered settlers in fixing the route of the West Bank fence were applied to Palestinians, that is, were farmers not cut off from their fields, pupils from their schools, and close relatives from one another.

The right will tell you that the settlements are no obstacle to peace. But that same right will also argue that the settlements are the only real bulwark between the Palestinians and an independent Palestine.

4. Because Israel, even in withdrawing from Gaza, has left it to die.

It is not lost on leftists that many Israelis reap a distinct satisfaction from the Palestinians' inability to help themselves, govern themselves, save themselves. Leftists may note that Israel has done everything in its power to convince the world to deny much-needed aid to a democratically elected government, and that Israel has not acted as a neighbor whose primary concern is an eventual peace.

5. Because of the propensity of Israel's leaders to demonstrate arrogance, claim a monopoly on the moral high ground, set non-negotiable demands to which Palestinian politicians cannot agree, then condemn Palestinians for intransigence.


___________________


Here, then, are five bad reasons:

1. The Palestinian cause is inherently progressive.

As currently constituted, Palestinian governance is marked by institutional graft, widespread human rights violations, curbs on press freedoms, tribalism, blood feuds, murders of women on the basis of contentions of preservation of family honor, and celebration of the targeting and killing of non-combatants as a legitimate form of resistance to occupation.

2. Israel remains the sole root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the reason it remains unresolved.

As root causes go, both sides have demonstrated profound intransigence, both sides have violated agreements with abandon, both sides suffer from extremists whose power to destroy a peace process far outweighs their proportion of the population.

In addition, the contention that Israel is solely responsible suggests that the solution of the Mideast conflict is the dissolution of Israel. This brings us to:

3. Israel is a Jewish state.

For a vocal minority of leftists, this fact alone - coupled with the following two arguments - is enough to call into serious question Israel's right to exist. This argument, which holds that the formally Jewish nature of the state enshrines an unconscionable level of racism, dovetails with:

4. Israel is an apartheid state.

See Occupation: It's horrid, but it's not apartheid

5. Israel's actions are comparable to those of Nazi Germany.

This contention may be the genuine litmus test for anti-Semitism on the left.

In the end, the compulsion to accuse Israel of genocide, while turning a blind eye to wholesale slaughter in Darfur and elsewhere, tends to say a great deal more about the accuser than the accused.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Principles of Palestinian Politics: Abbas: We Abide by Agreements Signed by PLO

The "unity government" takes advantage of priniciples developed by the late Yasser Arafat and expands on them, leveraging on the Hamas-Fatah split.

 

A first principle is obfuscation. Abbas says "we renounce terror." This is achieved not by any practical change, but by redefining terror as "resistance."

 

A second principle is deniability. Arafat pioneered this principle in the 1970s, when Black September was attacking US interests and killing Israeli athletes. Arafat insisted that this movement was a "splinter faction" that he did not control. He said the same of terror carried out after 2000. However, Israeli and US intelligence findings showed conclusively that Arafat had given the orders for these operations or hired the terrorists.

 

A third principle is "good cop-bad cop." This has played a prominent part in Palestinian strategy since 1994, and finds its fullest expression in the unity government agreement. As Suffian Abu-Zeid noted, "anyone can understand this agreement as they wish." The PLO can say they abide by agreements and recognize Israel. The Hamas can say they will never recognize Israel.

 

The report below illustrates the first two principles in operation. Numerous Hamas statements that insist that the agreement does not require recognition of Israel illustrate the third point.

 

  

 

---

President Abbas: We Abide by Agreements Signed by PLO
 http://wafa.ps/english/body.asp?id=9285

GAZA, February 16, 2007 (WAFA - PLO news agency)- President Mahmoud Abbas said we have totally abided by the agreements signed by the PLO and we are committed to the international resolutions related to the Palestinian cause, we are also committed to the Road Map and the vision of President Bush of two states.

In an interview with Palestine TV the President affirmed: We are also committed to renouncing terrorism which late President Yasser Arafat announced in 1988. We are abided by all these issues as we are also
committed to the Arab peace initiative in 2002 which we honorably
participated in its formulation.

Hereby is unofficial translation of the interview:

Q: After this long trip of dialogue and indifferences in big Arab stations,
topped with the Saudi initiative, you signed the Mecca Agreement, as well as
you handed the commissioning letter, how do you evaluate these efforts and
what exactly the role of the Arabs, Palestinian factions and civil society?

A: In fact, the efforts were restless, they took a long and hard time,
because we wanted to reach a result. No doubt, there were impediments and
stations which we can describe as a mess the Palestinian arena witnesses. In
spite of all this, I would like to say that we passed through more than
dialogue in Doha, Damascus and Cairo, till we reached Mecca.

The dialogue in Mecca is distinguished for its sacredness as it took place
in the cradle of the Islamic religion. In this station, the dialogue was
mounted with the sought results we wished to form a national unity
government.

Hence, we succeed in putting an acceptable political framework for this
Government, to end all acts taking place from time to time between brothers
either in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank.

I do not deny that all Arabs were hopefully waiting for the results of Mecca
dialogue as they were enthusiastic for the dialogue and keen for its
success.

In addition, the Palestinian arena, I mean the private sector and civil
society were eager than us, the Palestinian factions, for the success of the
dialogue, they had been urging us to reach this agreement, we thank God that
we fulfilled the appeals of the people, the homeland and the conscious, as
we achieved the agreement.

Q: Mecca station and the good Saudi offices was the top of various Arab
efforts beside the Palestinians', how do you comment on this station?

A: Today, I mentioned some of theses exerted efforts. But, we could not
point out all of them, for instance: When there is a Palestinian-Palestinian
fighting or dialogue, a lot of Arab countries contact us and tell us:
"Please come to us to talk with each other, please, we want you to
succeed.", in such attitudes, we felt that all of them wish we have to
succeed. I mean Qatar and Syria, and no doubt Egypt. Egypt has a key role,
and Jordan also, there are a lot of stations we passed through. In all
stations we felt that all of them are eager for the success of our dialogue
and to exit from the neck of the bottle we live in, and thank God we
succeeded.

Q: Being the Chairman of the PLO and the President of the PNA, you are in
charge of the political and negotiations files, do you find that the (Mecca)
Agreement and the letter of commissioning cohere with this task?

A: In general, the PLO is the only body in charge of the political and
negotiations files and I think that the letter of commissioning is enough
for the upcoming government which is asked to abide by this letter. Now, as
PNA and officials, we have totally abided by the agreements signed by the
PLO and we are committed to the international resolutions related to the
Palestinian cause, we are also committed to the Road Map and the vision of
President Bush of two states. We are also committed to renouncing terrorism
which late President Yasser Arafat announced in 1988. We are abided by all
these issues as we are also committed to the Arab peace initiative in 2002
which we honorably participated in its formulation.

Accordingly these issues are reflected in the Agreement. But frankly
speaking, I say, being the Chairman of the PLO, we are committed to all the
Palestinian legitimacies, I mean the resolutions of the Palestinian National
Council and the agreements signed by the PLO as well as the Arab and
international legitimacies.

All these issues were undoubtedly mentioned in the letter of commissioning
and they might raise some questions, but let me say that we are committed to
all these obligations, we will never renounce these commitments because
first and foremost we are in charge of the negotiations and political files
as well as the obligations of the PLO since it was established to this
moment.

Q: Are you optimistic about your meeting with the Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and
the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice? Or are we going to witness a new
round of hard struggle for you have always affirmed you want start the final
status negotiations?

A: In fact, it is the first time to hear a new tone from the Americans.It
speaks about final and comprehensive negotiations. For more than one time,
we have given our stance of a state with temporary borders and we recently
heard of nearly similar stance from USA. So, for the first time, we feel a
serious American position aiming at ending the Palestinian file. We fully
welcome this [US] intention and seriousness therefore we will meet it with
more seriousness and deeper aspiration to resolve our issues during this
period, a year or less than a year. For that reason, we say we go to this
meeting with open hearts and hope to reach a final solution to the cause.

Q: What is your message to the Palestinian people who lived in the sorrowful
infighting and now living among the good news of the agreement and the
letter of commissioning?

A: I say to the Palestinian people that we pray to God that the black days
and the days of fighting will never return. I tell the Palestinian people
that there is a national unity, and it will be a fact through the new
government. But we say that there are still suffering, and we can not
promise the people that the siege would be lifted. We will struggle to lift
the siege. There are still obstacles relevant to the siege and we hope it
will be soon lifted.

We say that we will reach an agreement on the Palestinian prisoners who
spent tens of years [in Israeli jails], in addition to the ministers and
lawmakers. In the meantime, we say that the Israeli prisoner should be
released. While we are calling for freedom for our prisoners, we frankly
call for the release of this soldier and to end his problem and we call for
a comprehensive solution for all the prisoners.

S.A.S & A.D (01:51 P) (11:51 GMT)

Continued (Permanent Link)

The Druze of the Golan Heights- do they want to return to Syria?

The Golan Heights has been part of Israel for more time then it was part of independent Syria. The Druze who live in the Golan are not so anxious to be "returned" to Syria, where they suffered persecution. This is obvious from talking to people off record. Here is what an article in Daily Star notes:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=79259

Most worrisome to Golan residents when it comes to a future return to Syria are economic issues. While not as rich as the bon vivants of Tel Aviv, the inhabitants have a standard of living vastly surpassing that of their counterparts on the Syrian side of the border. "Life is all about the shekels," one resident of the largest village, Majdal Shams, told me on a recent visit. The locals work hard - whether in agriculture, construction, or services - and have little regard for Syrians who, in many Golanis' minds, "drink tea and sleep all day." In Syria, working hard rarely ever translates into making more money - unless you have government connections.

 

....

 

The students from the Golan - a younger generation that may not have been born during the political turbulence of the 1980s - understand that they are linked to Syria by blood and to Israel by economics; however, they have found that their identity, as time has passed, is tied mainly to their small parcel of land located between Israel and Syria. They feel stuck: a part of both states, yet a part of neither. While most identify themselves as Syrian and take Syria with both its grandeur and its faults, once in Damascus these students can see how the Golan has become a rhetorical tool that has not trickled down into Syrian public consciousness. This and the fact that they can earn more in Israel are why many young Druze, as well as their parents, fear a return to Syria.

 

Peace between Syria and Israel will allow the people of the Golan Heights to be reunited with their families, a paramount concern on both sides of the border. However, without domestic reforms in Syria that allow people to profit from their hard work, the return of the Golan to Syria will hardly alleviate the concern the Druze have for what might come afterward.

 

There is little likelihood of course, that economic conditions in Syria will match those in Israel in the foreseeable future. There is also the matter of the uncomfortable status of minorities in Syria, particularly Druze, that is not discusses in this article.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Supporting Israel and the Palestinians: The two faces of Progressive Zionism

The Union of Progressive Zionists, Ameinu and other progressive Zionists are justifiably upset by the crude attempt of Mort Klein and the ZOA to oust them from the ICC, or to change the ICC charter so as to stifle dissent. Good sense and tolerance triumphed over partisan grandstanding and hysteria, and the attempt was quashed. The controversy did no good for Zionism, though it generated publicity for ZOA, UPZ, Ameinu and the Breaking the Silence group sponsored by UPZ.

The controversy epitomized the dilemma of progressive Zionists: how to be logical in an illogical political arena. The heart of our argument is that one cannot support self-determination for one people, without supporting self-determination for the other. The argument is logical, and it cuts both ways. It does not suit political reality, which is dominated by partisans of each side.

Ameinu and UPZ set themselves up for Mort Klein and Zionist extremists by inviting the Breaking the Silence group, and Ameinu got themselves in more trouble when they published an article comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa. Everyone understands that Mort Klein and ZOA are "waiting for progressive Zionists at the corner," ready to pounce on any bit of evidence that you are not loyal to Israel. Equally, anti-Zionists are eager to exploit Breaking the Silence and the legitimate internal Israeli Zionist controversy about the occupation and about IDF human rights violations. The movement to delegitimize Israel has built itself in large part by exploiting legitimate internal criticism of Israel, taking it out of context, and using it for their own ends, to demonize Zionism and its supporters.

Breaking the Silence provides legitimate and necessary internal criticism in Israel. They show real acts of real IDF soldiers, though these acts are not necessarily representative. This inhumane behavior must be changed, and the occupation must be ended as soon as possible. This criticism can only get the attention and support of mainstream Israelis and Zionists, and really bring about a change, if Breaking the Silence, MachsomWatch and other critics make it clear that they are "on our side." Few Zionists in Israel or the Diaspora will listen to anyone who is lending legitimacy to terrorist acts or to those who announce the intention of destroying Israel.

If I whisper to you, "You have a spot on your tie," I am a friend who is trying to help. If I get up in front of an audience of thousands and say "Hey look at him, he has a spot on his tie," then my "help" will be viewed differently. As soon as Breaking the Silence left Israel and took their case to Europe and the USA, they lost their legitimacy. They are perceived as enemies by ordinary Israeli Zionists and can no longer be effective advocates of change in Israeli policy or the IDF. In the context of Israeli society, where the need to defend against terror attacks is understood, Breaking the Silence does not need to make that point. They have to point out senseless brutality and dehumanization, whether these are the result of the occupation, or of stupidity and incompetence of individual soldiers. But when they bring the same message to a campus in California, to people who perhaps never heard of the Hamas or of Islamic Jihad suicide squads, they have taken their message out of context. Instead of being a means of improving Israeli society, it becomes a means of destroying Israel. Progressive Zionists are Zionists. We must never cross the line between trying to fix what is wrong with Israel, and giving aid and comfort to those who want to destroy Israel.

Progressive Zionist groups have to find a way to support Israel and Palestine rather than alienating both supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestine. We have to find a way to criticize Israel's actions without imperiling the existence of Israel, adopting the rhetoric of anti-Zionists and questioning the legitimacy of Zionism. We have to find a way to support human rights of Palestinians, and to criticize Israeli human rights violations, without ignoring the human rights of Israelis and the human rights violations of groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Fatah Al-Aqsa. Checkpoints and security fences are unpleasant and may give rise to human rights violations. Suicide bombings are most certainly crimes against humanity. Incitement to genocide is a crime against humanity. Self-determination, whether for Jews or Palestinians, is enshrined in international law. Delegitimizing a member state of the United Nations is not "humanitarian," and ignoring the genocidal program of the reactionary Hamas is not "progressive."

It is easy to fall in with the crowds of people of different persuasions who bandy about slogans in the propaganda war. It is not easy to support both sides, but it is not impossible.

It is possible to support Zionism without supporting the settlements. It is possible to criticize Israel without using catchwords like "apartheid" and "war criminals." It is possible to support Israel without ignoring settler extremism. It is possible to explain that the settlements are wrong, that the occupation, a slightly different issue, is the result of a conflict that has been going on for nearly 100 years, and that the repressive security is a cruel necessity dictated by the recent rampage of terror. In a better world, soldiers would all be officers and gentlemen (or women), but we know they are not. The Palestinians forced a war on us. In wars one uses soldiers, and that is how soldiers often behave. We should not be content with that behavior, but we can't stop fighting terror attacks because of criticism of that behavior, nor can we surrender to the Islamic Jihad and Fatah Al Aqsa brigades.

It is possible to support Palestinian rights without condoning or ignoring terror, corruption and incitement or miminizing the genocidal intent of extremist groups.

At Ameinu, Christopher Macdonald-Dennis wrote

"It is time for us to take back the term “pro-Israel” from groups such as AIPAC and ZOA."

We need to do that urgently. Labor Zionism built the state of Israel. We can't let the ZOA pose as the only defenders of Israel. We have to demonstrate our support for the State and for Zionism, which are the basis for our opposition to the occupation. Otherwise we will not provide an effective alternative within the Zionist polity. We are not likely, however, to regain our rightful place by labeling Israel an apartheid state, or feeding Breaking the Silence atrocity films to the propaganda mills of PSM and Wheels of Justice. There is a reason why this group was sponsored by anti-Zionists in Europe and at some USA campuses.

The author continued:

"We need to name those groups for what they are: pro-Likkud or pro-rightist."

Zionists need more urgently to expose groups like PSM and Wheels of Justice for what they are, pro-terror and genocide, not pro "human rights." The Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not "progressive" groups or causes. They need to be exposed as well.

If you "name those groups," those Zionists who differ from you, as pro-rightists for "what they are," then expect that they will name you as well for "what you are" from their point of view. If you call them names, they will start calling names too. They will yell about "self-hating Jews" and "traitors," try to delegitimize you and continue the "Jewish wars." If you want to "name the names" and read off the list of the 57 (or however many) Likud agents in the ZOA, McCarthy style, then don't be shocked if they continue their own witch hunts. The real enemy is not other Zionists. We disagree with their point of view about the occupation and many other issues, but they are not the ones sending suicide bombers to Eilat. Either we will have unity on basic issues and survive, or we will destroy ourselves in dogma eat dogma fights.

If we want progressive people to support Jewish rights, we cannot be deaf to legitimate criticism, however much it hurts. However, if we want Zionists in Israel and abroad to hear our critique and concerns, and to support Palestinian rights, we can't be deaf to their criticism either.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Arab Lobby at work: Ex-President for Sale - Is Carter's Book as bad as its title?

The Arab Lobby at work - documented for all to see. Jimmy Carter might be the best ex-President money can buy. There are more parts of this series promised, but what is there is sufficiently devastating.

However, we should not judge a book entirely by its title and factual errors. Here are surprising excerpts from the book, published here - http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976880711

The three most basic premises are quite clear:

1. Israel's right to exist within recognized borders-and to live in peace-must be accepted by Palestinians and all other neighbors;

2. The killing of noncombatants in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon by bombs, missile attacks, assassinations, or other acts of violence cannot be condoned; and

3. Palestinians must live in peace and dignity in their own land as specified by international law unless modified by good-faith negotiations with Israel.

....

The Arabs must recognize the reality that is Israel, just as the Israelis must accept a Palestinian state in the small remaining portion of territorial homeland allotted to the Palestinians by the United Nations and previous peace agreements.

Oops - the territory allotted to the Palestinians by the United Nations was outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 181. It is 45% of the land area West of the Jordan. No peace agreements allotted any territory to the Palestinians, nor did the Palestinians agree to a peace treaty with Israel.

Ami Isseroff

Ex-President for Sale

by Alan M. Dershowitz

January 08, 2007 11:51 AM EST (Updated: January 09, 2007 10:22 AM EST) http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976879837

It now turns out that Jimmy Carter--who is accusing the Jews of buying the silence of the media and politicians regarding criticism of Israel--has been bought and paid for by Arab money. In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry. The canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every single member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing a balanced position. > How else can anyone understand Carter's claims that it is impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely about Israel and the Middle East? The only explanation – and one that Carter tap dances around, but won't come out and say directly – is that Jews control the media and buy politicians. Carter then presents himself as the sole heroic figure in American public life who is free of financial constraints to discuss Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israelis.

Listen carefully to what Carter says about the media: the plight of the Palestinians is "not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country... You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis." He claims to have personally "witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts." He implies that the Jews impose these "severe restraints." He then goes on to say that the only reason his book--which has been universally savaged by reviewers--is receiving such negative reviews is because they are all being written by "representatives of Jewish organizations" (demonstrably false!). So much for the media.

Now here is what he says about politicians:

"It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents."

Each of these claims is demonstrably false, as I have shown in detail elsewhere. The plight of the Palestinians has been covered more extensively, per capita, than the plight of any other group in the world, certainly more than the Tibetans and the victims of genocides in Darfur and Rwanda. Moreover, Carter totally ignores the impact of Arab oil money and the influence of the Saudi lobby. In numerous instances where the Arab lobbies have been pitted against the Israeli lobby, the former has prevailed.

Even beyond these nasty canards, the big story that the media and political figures in America have missed is how grievously they, themselves have been insulted and disrespected by our self-righteous former president. Carter is lecturing The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and the major networks about how they are incapable of reporting the news objectively because they are beholden to some Jewish cabal. He is telling Pulitzer Prize winning writers such as Tom Friedman and Samatha Power that they did not deserve their prizes. He is telling George Will that his reporting is controlled by his Jewish bosses (sound a little bit like Judith Regan?). And he is denying that Anderson Cooper is capable of filing an honest report from the West Bank.

As far as our legislators are concerned, he is accusing Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Patrick Leahy of being bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby. On Planet Carter, even congressmen with no Jewish constituents would be committing political suicide by taking a balanced position on the Middle East. What an outrageous insult to some of the best journalists and most independent political figures in the world.

At the bottom, Carter is saying that no objective journalist or politician could actually believe that America's support for Israel is based on moral and strategic considerations and not on their own financial self-interest. Such a charge is so insulting to every honest legislator and journalist in this country that I am amazed that Carter has been let off the hook so easily. Only the self-righteous Jimmy Carter is capable of telling the truth, because only he is free of financial pressures that might influence his positions.

It now turns out that the shoe is precisely on the other foot. Recent disclosures prove that it is Carter who has been bought and paid for by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money.