Sunday, July 12, 2009

Solana to UN: Accept Palestinian state even if Israel does not

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Saturday called for the United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state by a certain deadline even if an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians.

Solana made the comments on Saturday at a lecture in London. The Palestinians have said they will not revive peace talks unless there is a halt to Israel's settlement activities in the West Bank.

"After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution," Solana said, adding this should include border parameters, refugees, control over the city of Jerusalem and security arrangements.

"It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimize the end of claims," Solana went on.
Advocating a return to Israel's borders before the 1967 Six-Day War with Egypt, Syria and Jordan in which it took the West Bank and other territories, Solana said mediators should set a timetable for a peace agreement.

"If the parties are not able to stick to it (the timetable), then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table," he said.

By Reuters

Solana to UN: Accept Palestinian state even if Israel does not

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Saturday called for the United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state by a certain deadline even if an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians.

Solana made the comments on Saturday at a lecture in London. The Palestinians have said they will not revive peace talks unless there is a halt to Israel's settlement activities in the West Bank.

"After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution," Solana said, adding this should include border parameters, refugees, control over the city of Jerusalem and security arrangements.

"It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimize the end of claims," Solana went on.
Advocating a return to Israel's borders before the 1967 Six-Day War with Egypt, Syria and Jordan in which it took the West Bank and other territories, Solana said mediators should set a timetable for a peace agreement.

"If the parties are not able to stick to it (the timetable), then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table," he said.

By Reuters

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Le Forum International pour la Paix soutien le président Obama

Une fenêtre d'opportunités importante s'ouvre au Moyen Orient.

Nous appelons le président Barack Hussein Obama à se donner tout les moyens de ses ambitions, pour que la paix devienne réalité au Moyen Orient, car les peuples de la région sont fatigués et frustrés par tant de promesses non tenues et des beaux discours, des plans ambitieux et d'accords non respectés, ce ne sont que les actes qui leur rendront espoir, et le président Obama doit utiliser tout les moyens à sa disposition pour fermement encourager les pays du Moyen Orient à se réconcilier.

Déclare Ofer Bronchtein, Président du Forum International pour la Paix au Proche Orient.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan

Honored guests, citizens of Israel.

Peace was always the desire of our people. Our prophets had a vision of peace, we greet each other with peace, our prayers end with the word peace. This evening we are in the center named for two leaders who were groundbreakers for peace -Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat - and we share their vision.

Two and a half months ago, I was sworn in at the Knesset as the Prime Minister of Israel. I promised that I would establish a unity government, and did so. I believed, and still believe, that we need unity now more than ever before.

We are currently facing three tremendous challenges: The Iranian threat, the financial crisis, and the promotion of peace.

The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this with President Obama on my visit to Washington, and will be discussing it next week on my visit with European leaders. I have been working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.

With the world financial crisis, we acted immediately to bring about stability to the Israeli economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government and will pass it through the Knesset very soon.
The second challenge, rather, the third, so very important challenge, facing us today, is promoting peace. I discussed this also with President Obama. I strongly support the idea of regional peace that he is advancing. I share the President of the U.S.A's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.

I discussed this in my meetings with President Mubarak in Egypt and with King Abdullah in Jordan to obtain the assistance of these leaders in the effort to expand the circle of peace in our region.

I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. (Applause)

I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region. For example, water desalinization. And we can utilize the advantages of our region, such as maximizing the use of solar energy, or utilizing its geographical advantages to lay pipelines, pipelines to Africa and Europe.

Together we can realize the initiatives that I see in the Persian Gulf, which amaze the entire world, and also amaze me. I call upon the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world, to come and invest here, to assist the Palestinians and us, to give the economy a jump-start. Together we can develop industrial zones, we can create thousands of jobs, and foster tourism that will draw millions, people who want to walk in the footsteps of history, in Nazareth and Bethlehem, in the heights of Jericho and on the walls of Jerusalem, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is a huge potential for the development of tourism potential here. If you only agree to work together.

I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations.
I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to 'know war no more.'

We do not want parents and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, to know the sorrow of bereavement. We want our children to dream of a better future for humankind. We want us and our neighbors to devote our efforts to 'plowshares and pruning hooks' and not to swords and spears. I know the terror of war, I participated in battles, I lost good friends who fell [in battle], I lost a brother. I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war. (Applause)

Let us join hands and work together in peace, together with our neighbors. There is no limit to the flourishing growth that we can achieve for both peoples - in the economy, in agriculture, in commerce, tourism, education - but, above all, in the ability to give our younger generation hope to live in a place that’s good to live in, a life of creative work, a peaceful life with much of interest, with opportunity and hope.

Friends, with the advantages of peace so clear, so obvious, we must ask ourselves why is peace still so far from us, even though our hands are extended for peace? Why has the conflict going on for over 60 years? To bring an end to it, there must be a sincere, genuine answer to the question: what is the root of the conflict? In his speech at the Zionist Congress in Basel, in speaking of his grand vision of a Jewish homeland for the Jewish People, Theodor Herzl, the visionary of the State of Israel, said: This is so big, we must talk about it only in the simplest words possible.

I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace, we must use the simplest words possible, using person to person terms. Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland.

In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.

Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.

To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.

To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.

A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers.

We tried withdrawal by agreement, withdrawal without an agreement, we tried partial withdrawal and full withdrawal. In 2000, and once again last year, the government of Israel, based on good will, tried a nearly complete withdrawal, in exchange for the end of the conflict, and were twice refused.

We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.

With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias.
Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. (Applause)

Friends, in order to achieve peace, we need courage and integrity on the part of the leaders of both sides. I am speaking today with courage and honesty. We need courage and sincerity not only on the Israeli side: we need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply "We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace." I am looking forward to this moment.

We want them to say the simplest things, to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People. (Applause)

For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.

Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this. (Applause)

I believe that with good will and international investment of we can solve this humanitarian problem once and for all.

Friends, up to now, I have been talking about the need for the Palestinians to ecognize our rights. Now I will talk about the need for us to recognize their rights.

The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers. (Applause)

The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years -- persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. (Applause) The tragedies that arose from the Jewish Peoples’ helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state.
The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People. (Applause)

As the first PM David Ben Gurion in the declaration of the State, the State of Israel was established here in Eretz Israel, where the People of Israel created the Book of Books, and gave it to the world.

But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbors’ security and existence.

These two facts our link to the Land of Israel, and the Palestinian population who live here, have created deep disagreements within Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more unity than disagreement.

I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause)
And, to ensure peace we don?t want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel and we must provide for our security needs.

This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the USA, for what is necessary for our security, that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what?s going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.

Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can?t agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state. (Applause)

Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. (Applause)

The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters. (Applause)

Friends, unity among us is, to my view, vital, and unity will help with reconciliation with our neighbors. Reconciliation must begin now. A strong Palestinian government will strengthen peace. If they truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace.
But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between path of peace and path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at conference table with terrorist who seek to destroy it. (Applause)

Hamas are not willing to even let the Red Cross visit our abducted soldier Gilad Shalit who has been in captivity three years, cut off from his family and his country. We want to bring him back whole and well.

With help of the international community, there is no reason why we can’t have peace. With help of USA, we can do we can do the unbelievable. In 61 years, with constant threats to our existence we have achieved so much. Our microchips power the world’s computers unbelievable, we have found cures for incurable diseases. Israeli drip irrigation waters barren lands throughout the world. Israeli researchers are making worldwide breakthroughs. If our neighbors only work for peace, we can achieve peace. (Applause)

I call upon Arab leaders and Palestinian leaders: Let’s go in the path of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let’s go in the path of Prophet Isaiah, who spoke thousands of years ago, they shall beat their swords into plowshares and know war no more.

Let us know war no more. Let us know peace.

Source: Haartez.com

Netanyahu Speech Highlights

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Can you tell the difference between an Israeli and a Palestinian?

The advertisement published in Haaretz in March read "Wanted: people who look alike," and promised NIS 8,000 to anyone that could locate someone who looked like one of the eight people featured in the advertisement.

What the advertisement didn't say, was that the eight people pictured were Palestinians.

The ad was made by Swiss artist Olivier Suter, as part of his project 'Enemies', which focused on the absurd ways people identify "the other".

The advertisement is similar to a project Suter performed in Belgium, which asked viewers if they could dfferentiate between Flemish and French speakers.

Out of the dozens of photos he received, Suter picked a photo of an Israeli girl and a Palestinian boy who looked alike. The girl is one Hadas Maor, whose photo was sent in by her father, geography professor Yehuda Keidar.

Keidar, a long-time supporter of a two-state solution said "[David] Ben-Gurion was right when he said 'The Palestinians are not our cousins, they're our brothers. Turns out, they could be twins."

The Palestinian boy is named Adam Shurati and he was none too pleased about his likeness to a girl, according to his mother Nancy. Adam was further dismayed when his mother took him to have his hair cut to look like Hadas'.

Nancy, who lives in Bet Hanina, called the project "amazing" and said that her son's resemblance to an Israel girl surprised her.

"The project is a work of art meant for all of us, not just for the sake of art," Suter said.

Suter's next "Enemies" project will take place in Rwanda and the Congo.

By Dalia Karpel.
Source: www.haartez.com

Bill Clinton's Keynote Address

Comment on the role of the U.S. in the Middle East

There is sufficient evidence that the Obama administration intends to--is even determined to--change its image in the Middle East by pursuing an alternative approach to that of the previous administration.

The question remains, however, whether the US president will know how, and if he indeed can.

The appointment of George Mitchell as envoy; recent active Middle East diplomacy including Washington summit meetings with significant regional leaders; and the forthcoming visit of US President Obama himself to the region including a much-anticipated speech in Cairo are all positive, serious indications.

In addition, the content of that diplomacy indicates some positive changes, including public admonishments that Israel must stop all settlement construction in line with its obligations under the roadmap. These moves have, in turn, generated healthy debate both in Israel and among the American Jewish community on the one hand, and among Palestinians and other Arabs, on the other hand.

Optimists and pro-peace groups on both sides have been encouraged by these developments. Others warn of the serious challenges facing Obama. First, how will the new administration handle the situation in Iraq? As long as the Arab people continue to see the United States as an occupying power, there will be doubts as to whether or not these verbal and rhetorical changes can make a difference.

In addition, US friends and allies in the region are among the least democratic and popular, having failed at social and economic development. The US is perceived as the power propping up these regimes. Washington's association with these regimes and complete absence of dialogue with the rest of the Arab world will also limit the extent to which this administration can improve its image and relations.

The other serious challenge that the new administration has is to materialize its positions toward Israel. Despite the administration's clear demand for a complete halt to settlement construction, Israel is still expanding settlements, increasing the number of settlers and consolidating its occupation. These opposing positions will ultimately jeopardize Washington's credibility.

President Obama is in a unique position to make a difference in this regard. He enjoys a high level of support, not only from the American public but from the American Jewish community. In addition, he also has vast popularity overseas, which allows him to mobilize international support around the idea that Israel continues to violate the terms of reference of the peace process and the requests and expectations of its main ally--one responsible for both Israel's superiority and its existence. Ultimately, there may be a price to be paid in this relationship.

Obama Cairo Speech Part 6 - June 04 2009

Obama Cairo Speech Part 5 - June 04 2009

Obama Cairo Speech Part 4 - June 04 2009

Obama Cairo Speech Part 3 - June 04 2009

Obama Cairo Speech Part 2 - June 04 2009

Obama Cairo Speech Part 1 - June 04 2009

Thursday, June 4, 2009

President Obama's speech in Cairo

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

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; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. 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.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. 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. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. 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.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: 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. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

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. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. 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.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. 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. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Six Are Killed in West Bank as Fatah and Hamas Clash

Palestinian Authority forces clashed with Hamas militants in the West Bank early Sunday, leaving six dead, in the bloodiest such encounter in two years.

The violence came days after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas assured President Obama in Washington that his troops were imposing order on the area. In Gaza, Hamas reacted by arresting Fatah activists and hinting of further revenge.

The clashes and threats show that Fatah, which dominates in the West Bank, and Hamas, which runs Gaza, remain in a tense standoff, and that the Palestinian unity needed for creation of a state is far off. Both sides said unity talks mediated by Egypt were imperiled.

A spokesman for Mr. Abbas’s West Bank forces told a news conference in Ramallah that a patrol in the city of Qalqilya had come under fire Saturday night from a house, leading to a curfew and hours-long negotiations. A grenade was thrown from the house killing three security officers, the house was stormed, two Hamas militiamen, including the city commander, were killed along with the owner of the house, a bystander.

He said weapons and documents were found on the men and added that Palestinian Authority forces had found similar caches in recent months, including inside a mosque. Some 200 Hamas-affiliated men were in jail in the West Bank awaiting trial, he said but insisted they were charged with specific violations, not for Hamas affiliation.

“In the last two years, we have proved our ability to impose law and order,” the spokesman, Adnan Dameiri, told the news conference. “We will continue our campaign to dismantle armed groups.”

Hussein a Sheikh, a West Bank Fatah leader, told Israel Radio: “Whoever wants now to come in and disrupt the security and order of the Palestinian residents, to have a militia here, gangs here and there and an underground below, we won’t agree.”

The United States and European Union train and support Mr. Abbas’s troops in the hope of creating a strong enough force to prevent Hamas from challenging its West Bank rule and ultimately perhaps helping Mr. Abbas back into Gaza.

Hamas officials accused the West Bank authorities of being quislings for Israel and the West and betraying the Palestinian national cause. Israeli officials, not wanting to besmirch the Palestinian Authority among its public with a bear hug, pointedly declined comment. But Israeli soldiers control the West Bank, and Palestinian security forces coordinate their actions with them. On Thursday in the south Hebron hills, Israeli officials killed a long-wanted Hamas militant said to have been involved in planning two suicide bombings of Israelis in the 1990s.

After Hamas, an Islamist group that rejects Israel’s existence, won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, it and Fatah tried to put together a unity government. But tensions were high and street fights in Gaza common between forces loyal to the two movements. Two years ago the skirmishes broke out into a four-day war, and Hamas took over Gaza entirely leaving Fatah in power only in the West Bank, supported by Israel.

Abu Obaida, spokesman for the Hamas military wing known as the Qassam Brigade, said at a Gaza news conference on Sunday, “We are confronting two enemies, the Israeli occupier and the agency that serves the agenda of Washington and Tel Aviv.” He added, “This spark reminds us of what happened in Gaza two years ago.”

A Fatah leader in Gaza said some of his men had been arrested on Sunday following the Qalqilya clash. Hamas leaders said that unless their men were released in the West Bank, unity talks would not proceed.

In other developments on Sunday, the Israeli cabinet rejected a bill aimed at Israel’s Arab minority that would have required a loyalty oath for citizenship. This means the bill, championed by the Yisrael Beiteinu Party of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, has little chance of passing legislative scrutiny. It can still be presented as a private bill but without the government’s backing.

A second Yisrael Beiteinu bill that has been highly controversial was watered down by the ministers. It was aimed at barring any marking of Israel’s Independence Day as Nakba Day, meaning the day that Palestinians suffered a catastrophe. Enacting such a ban was widely viewed as a violation of the country’s free speech laws.

The ministers changed the draft of the law so that it bars the expenditure of state money to mark the Nakba. This version will still have to pass three votes in parliament and its chances are considered poor.

Israel started a five-day civil defense exercise on Sunday aimed at the possibility of coping with multiple missile attacks, the largest ever of its kind. The drill will stage mock disasters and test emergency crews in their ability to evacuate buildings. On Tuesday, sirens will sound requiring everyone to go into a secure space.

At the start of the Sunday cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the drill and of the death on Saturday of Ephraim Katzir, who was president of Israel from 1973 to 1978 and a noted biophysicist at the Weizmann Institute. He was 93.

By Ethan Bronner.
Source: New York Times.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

خطة جديدة للشرق الأوسط

واشنطن العاصمة – كثُر في الأيام الأخيرة لغط مفاده أن صانعي السلام في الشرق الأوسط على وشك تحقيق اختراق كبير، حيث يتوقع البعض أن يتم نشر تصريح في أعقاب زيارة رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو إلى واشنطن في 18 أيار/مايو للقاء الرئيس باراك أوباما. هل سينجح أوباما بلوي أذرعة الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين لدرجة أن يوافقوا في النهاية على المواضيع المختلفة؟

طالما كان أحد أكبر المعوقات في النزاع العربي الإسرائيلي كون المشكلة بالغة التعقيد. واقع الأمر أن نزاع الشرق الأوسط غير مكوّن من قضية واحدة، بل من مجموعة من القضايا متعددة الوجوه، يتوجب التعامل معها بشكل متزامن. لن يؤدي الفشل في التصرف بهذا الأسلوب إلى أية نتائج، ببساطة لأنه عندما يحين موعد قيام الأطراف ببحث القضية الثانية أو الثالثة، تكون التغييرات على الأرض، التي يثيرها "المخربون" قد أعادت توزيع الأوراق، وأرسلت الجميع إلى نقطة البداية. طالما كانت تلك واحدة من نواقص الإدارات الأمريكية السابقة، الجمهورية والديمقراطية على حد سواء، التي حاولت حل المشكلة عن طريق تقسيمها إلى قضايا منفصلة. لن ينجح ذلك ببساطة.

"لا يمكن حل القضية الفلسطينية بنداً بنداً"، حسب قول الدكتور زياد عسلي، رئيس مجموعة العمل الأمريكية من أجل فلسطين للكاتب.

"من الغباء عمل ذلك بالتقسيط"، يقول فيليب ويلكوكس أيضاً، وهو دبلوماسي أمريكي سابق عمل في الشرق الأوسط ويترأس الآن مؤسسة السلام في الشرق الأوسط.

إلا أن المهمة الصعبة سوف تكون وضع جميع الأجزاء في مكانها في الوقت نفسه، حسبما يوافق عدد من المراقبين. ولكن من أين نبدأ؟

وهنا يأتي دور جورج ميتشل. وميتشل بالطبع هو المبعوث الخاص للرئيس أوباما إلى الشرق الأوسط، الذي يفضل أن يلعب وأوراقه قريبة من صدره، حسب رأي رشيد الخالدي، وهو أستاذ جامعي فلسطيني أمريكي في جامعة كولومبيا بمدينة نيويورك، عمل مستشاراً للوفد الفلسطيني في مؤتمر مدريد عام 1991، وهو من المطّلعين جيداً على تعقيدات العملية السلمية في الشرق الأوسط.

ويتفق عدد من المحللين الآخرين، مثل الخالدي، على أن شيئاً ما يحصل في عملية السلام في الشرق الأوسط.

"هناك بعض الأمل في الجو"، حسبما صرّح السفير ويلكوكس للكاتب. كان هناك بالتأكيد شعوراً سائداً بالتفاؤل المتجدد في أوساط بعض المحللين بأن القضايا قد تتحرك قدماً في نهاية المطاف، بشكل متزامن، وإلى درجة كبيرة كنتيجة لفكرة جديدة قدمتها إدارة الرئيس أوباما، من خلال فريق جورج ميتشل على الأرجح. إلا أن ذلك أبعد من أن يكون تصرف رجل واحد. لقد أشركت جهود تحريك عملية السلام إلى النقطة التي وصلت إليها اليوم آلاف المشاركين.

يعتقد العديد من الخبراء أن الفكرة الجديدة سوف ترتكز إلى حد بعيد على مبادرة السلام العربية، وهي خطة شاملة لحل نزاع الشرق الأوسط جرى تقديمها للمرة الأولى في اجتماع لجامعة الدول العربية في بيروت عام 2002.

بدأت المبادرة كفكرة طرحها للمرة الأولى الملك فهد بن عبد العزيز، ملك السعودية الراحل، وهي تقدم لإسرائيل اعتراف الدول الـ 23 الأعضاء في جامعة الدول العربية (22 دولة إضافة إلى فلسطين) مقابل انسحاب إسرائيل إلى حدود ما قبل عام 1967. كان هناك حديث مؤخراً بإعادة إحياء مبادرة السلام العربية، وهو أمر يرغب رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو برؤيته، حتى لا يظهر بأنه يقبل المبادرة بشكل كامل، حسب ما يعتقد نعوم شيليف من منظمة "الأمريكيون من أجل السلام الآن".

ورغم حقيقة أن الكثيرين يرون نتنياهو على أنه محافظ إلى أبعد الحدود، من المفيد التذكير أنه في الماضي، كان حزب الليكود هو الذي أعاد سيناء وانسحب من غزة، وهو الذي يمكن أن ينجز السلام مع الفلسطينيين.

"سوف يدهشنا نتنياهو جميعاً"، يقول بنيامين بن أليعازر، وهو وزير من حزب العمل، لصحيفة هآارتس اليومية.

"إنه يفهم أن هناك إدارة جديدة في الولايات المتحدة، وهي ليست مثل إدارة كلينتون أو بوش، وأننا إذا لم نأت بخطة سلام فسوف يتصرف طرف آخر نيابة عنا"، يقول بن أليعازر.

إلا أنه تبقى هنالك عقبة واحدة يتوجب القفز فوقها، تجعل بقية القضايا التي تم بحثها حتى الآن تبدو ضعيفة بالمقارنة، وهي قضية التسوية الداخلية بين الفلسطينيين، والجمع بين فتح وحماس. التناقض الذي يثير السخرية هو أن العقبة الأخيرة، في نهاية المطاف، التي ستؤخر إيجاد الدولة الفلسطينية، وهو حلم طالما رنا الفلسطينيون إليه لمدة طويلة، وحاربوا بشدة لتحقيقه وسكبوا الكثير من دمهم ودماء غيرهم من أجله، ستكون الفلسطينيين أنفسهم. ويخاطر الفلسطينيون بإطالة أمد النزاع لستين سنة أخرى ما لم يضعوا خلافاتهم وراءهم.

תכנית חדשה עבור המזרח התיכון?

ושניגטון די סי – בימים האחרונים התגברו הדיבורים על כך שמובילי תהליך השלום במזרח התיכון ניצבים על סף פריצת דרך משמעותית. היו שציפו להצהרה רשמית בעקבות ביקורו של ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו בוושינגטון ב-18 במאי ופגישתו עם הנשיא ברק אובמה. האם אובמה יצליח לעקם את זרועותיהן של הישראלים והפלסטינים ולהכריח אותם להגיע סוף-סוף להסכמה בסוגיות השונות?

אחד המכשולים המרכזיים בסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי היה מאז ומתמיד המורכבות הגדולה של הבעיה. הסכסוך במזרח התיכון אינו סובב נושא אחד, אלא מורכב ממקבץ של סוגיות מורכבות ומסועפות, שיש לספק מענה לכולן בה בעת. ללא כך, פשוט אי אפשר יהיה להגיע לתוצאות היות שיגיעו הצדדים לטפל בסוגיוה השלישית או הרביעית, השינויים שיניעו הכוחות המתנגדים לתהליך ברמת השטח ישנו את עמדות המיקוח ויחזירו את כל הצדדים אל נקודת ההתחלה. זה מה שהכשיל את כל הממשלים האמריקניים הקודמים, רפובליקנים ודמוקרטים כאחד, שניסו לפתור את הסכסוך בן ששים השנה. לרוב, הבעיה נבעה מהניסיון שלהם לפרק את הבעיה לסוגיות נפרדות. זה פשוט לא יעבוד.

"הסוגיה הפלסטינית אינה ניתנת לפתרון סעיף-סעיף," אמר לי ד"ר זיאד אסאלי, נשיא "כח המשימה האמריקאי לפלסטין".

"זה יהיה טיפשי לנסות להפריד בין החלקים," אמר פיליפ ווילקוקס, לשעבר דיפלומט אמריקני במזרח התיכון ומי שעומד כיום בראש "הקרן לשלום במזרח התיכון".

המשימה הקשה היא לגרום לכל הרכיבים בסכסוך ליישר קו באותו הזמן, הסכימו ביניהם מספר פרשנים. אבל איפה מתחילים?

כאן נכנס לתמונה ג'ורג' מיטשל. מיטשל, השליח המיוחד מטעם הנשיא אובמה למזרח התיכון, אוהב "להחזיק את הקלפים קרוב לחזה" ציין רשיד חלידי, פרופסור אמריקני-פלסטיני מאוניברסיטת קולומביה בניו יורק. חלידי, ששימש כיועץ למשלחת הפלסטינית בוועידת מדריד ב-1991, נחשב כמי שבקיא ברזי תהליך השלום במזרח התיכון.

כמו חלידי, מספר פרשנים אחרים מסכימים כי משהו מתבשל בתהליך השלום.

"יש איזו תקווה באוויר", אמר לי השגריר ווילקוקס. ואכן, בימים האחרונים ישנה אופטימיות מחודשת בקרב פרשנים מסוימים כי אולי סוף סוף תחול התקדמות בסוגיות השונות בו-זמנית, בעיקר כתוצאה מרעיון חדש שממשל אובמה מקדם, רעיון שהגה אותו ככל הנראה הצוות של ג'ורג' מיטשל. ובכל זאת, בשום אופן לא מדובר במופע יחיד. הנעת תהליך השלום אל המקום בו הוא נמצא היום היא מלאכתם של אלפים.

הרעיון החדש, מאמינים מספר מומחים, יתבסס בעיקר על יוזמת השלום הערבית, תכנית כוללת לפתרון הסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי שהוצגה לראשונה במפגש הליגה הערבית בבירות ב-2002.

היוזמה נולדה מרעיון שהעלה מלך ערב הסעודית לשעבר, המלך פאהד. היא מציעה לישראל הכרה מצד 23 חברות הליגה הערבית (22 מדינות בנוסף לפלסטין) בתמורה לנסיגה לגבולות 1967. באחרונה ישנם דיבורים על הכנסת שינויים ביוזמת השלום הערבית. השינויים ישרתו את ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו שאיננו מעוניין להיראות כמי שקיבל את היוזמה ככתבה וכלשונה, אומר נועם שלף מארגון "אמריקנים למען שלום עכשיו".

ולמרות העובדה שרבים חושבים כי נתניהו הוא "סופר-שמרני", שווה לציין שעד כה, הליכוד הוא שהחזיר את סיני וויתר על השליטה בעזה, ומי יודע, אולי גם יגיע להסדר קבע עם הפלסטינים.

"נתניהו הולך להפתיע את כולנו", אמר ל"הארץ" השר בנימין בן-אליעזר מהעבודה. "הוא מבין שיש ממשל אמריקאי חדש שאינו ממשל קלינטון, ואינו ממשל בוש, ושאם הוא לא יבוא עם תוכנית, מישהו אחר כבר יחליט בשבילו."

נשארה רק מהמורה אחת אחרונה שדורשת פתרון, שכל היתר מתגמד לעומתה: שאלת הפיוס הפנים-פלסטיני בין הפתח והחמאס. למרבה האירוניה, בסופו של יום, ייתכן שהמכשול הסופי שימנע את הקמתה של מדינה פלסטינית – החלום שהפלסטינים כמהים אליו זמן כה רב, נאבקו כה הרבה למענו, והקיזו בשמו דם כה רב (מדמם שלהם ומדמם של אחרים) – יהיה הפלסטינים עצמם. אלא אם יצליחו להתעלות מעבר לחילוקי הדעות ביניהם, הם מסתכנים בהארכת הסכסוך בששים שנה נוספות.

A new plan for the Middle East?

There has been much chatter in recent days that Middle East peacemakers are on the verge of a major breakthrough with some predicting that there may be an announcement following Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on 18 May to meet with President Barack Obama. Will Obama succeed in twisting Israel and the Palestinians’ arms to the point where they can finally agree over the various issues?

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the Arab-Israeli dispute has always been the sheer complexity of the problem. The Middle East dispute is not made up of a single issue. Rather, the conflict is a compilation of multifaceted issues, all of which must be addressed simultaneously. Failure to do so will simply not yield results because by the time the parties involved get around to discussing the second or third issue, changes on the ground, instigated by “spoilers”, will have redistributed the cards, sending everyone back to the starting point. That has been one of the shortfalls of all previous US administrations—Republicans and Democrats alike—who have tried to resolve the 60-year-plus dispute. Usually, one of the reasons was that they tried to solve the problem by breaking it up into separate issues. That will simply not work.

“The Palestinian issue cannot be solved item-by-item,” Ziad Asali, President of the American Task Force on Palestine told the author.

“It would be foolish to do this piece meal,” Philip Wilcox, a former US diplomat who served in the Middle East and who now heads the Foundation for Middle East Peace, also said.

The difficult task, however, will be in getting all the pieces to fall into place at the same time, several observers agreed. But where to start?

This is where George Mitchell comes in. Mitchell, of course, is President Obama’s special Middle East envoy, who likes to “play his cards close to his chest,” observed Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor at New York’s Columbia University. Khalidi, who advised the Palestinian delegation at the 1991 Madrid conference, is traditionally very well informed about the intricacies of the Middle East peace process.

Like Khalidi, a number of other analysts agree that something is going on in the Middle East peace process.

“There is some hope in the air,” Ambassador Wilcox told the author. Indeed, in recent days there has been a sense of renewed optimism among some analysts that the issues may finally move forward—in unison—and largely as a result of a new idea put forward by the Obama administration, more likely than not by George Mitchell’s team. This, however, is far from being a one-man show. Moving the peace process to the point where it is today has involved a cast of thousands.

This new idea, several specialists believe, would be based largely on the Arab Peace Initiative, a comprehensive plan to settle the Middle East dispute first introduced at an Arab League meeting in Beirut in 2002.

The initiative originated as an idea first floated by former King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. It offers Israel recognition by all 23 members of the Arab League (22 states plus Palestine) in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. Of late, there has been talk of revisiting the Arab Peace Initiative, something Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu would like to see so as not to appear to accept it lock, stock and barrel, believes Noam Shelef of Americans for Peace Now.

And despite the fact that many see Netanyahu as a super conservative, it is worth reminding that in the past it was always the Likud that returned (Sinai), yielded (Gaza), and that may just finalise the peace with the Palestinians.

“Netanyahu is going to surprise us all,” said Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a Labour minister, to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz.

“He understands that there is a new administration in the United States, which is neither of the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration, and that if we don’t come up with a peace plan, someone else will call the shots for us,” said Ben-Eliezer.

There remains, however, one more hurdle to jump over ,which makes the rest of the issues discussed so far appear weak by comparison; and that is the issue of intra-Palestinian reconciliation, bringing Fateh and Hamas together. Ironically, in the end it may turn out to be that the final stumbling block holding up the creation of a Palestinian state—a dream the Palestinians have aspired to for so long, fought so hard to achieve and shed so much blood for, both their own and that of others—may well be the Palestinians themselves. Unless they can place their differences behind them, they risk prolonging the conflict for another 60 years.

By Claude Salhani, the editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst in Washington.
Source: Khaleej Times, 15 May 2009, www.khaleejtimes.com

Anti-War: Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream

Israel Removes Illegal Settler Outpost in West Bank

Israeli police and security forces on Thursday dismantled a small Jewish outpost in the West Bank in what many here saw as a gesture by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to President Obama three days after their meeting in Washington.

No arrests were made at the illegal outpost, where at least four families lived in a couple of concrete structures and several temporary shacks. Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman, said the timing of the action was not significant. Another small West Bank outpost was removed about two months ago, he said.

But it was the first time Israel’s new right-leaning government had removed an outpost, and settler leaders and others saw it as a political message.

“It seems that this was done in order to throw a bone to the United States president,” Avi Roeh, the chairman of the local settler council, told Israel Radio.

Pressing for a renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Obama administration has made clear that it expects Israel to carry out a total settlement freeze and remove illegal outposts in the West Bank, according to Israel’s commitments under a 2003 peace plan known as the road map.

The outpost, Maoz Esther, is in the Ramallah region. Hours after it was dismantled, a resident, Daniel Landesberg, 19, said he had already set about rebuilding his demolished home.

Speaking by telephone, Mr. Landesberg said the move was “a signal” from Mr. Netanyahu to Mr. Obama that Israel would do whatever he asked.

Israeli government officials say they want to remove the outposts by agreement with the settlers in order to avoid confrontation. Long months of talks under the previous government, however, did not yield tangible results.

Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, met with settler leaders on Wednesday and told them that the illegal outposts were damaging Israel’s international relations and their own cause. He said the outposts would be removed “if not through dialogue, then through swift and aggressive enforcement.”

On Thursday, Mr. Barak said that the evacuation of Maoz Esther was “not connected with the Americans or American pressure” and that it was carried out according to routine orders. More than a hundred outposts dot the West Bank, alongside dozens of established Jewish settlements authorized by Israel but widely considered abroad a violation of international law.

Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now, an Israeli advocacy group that opposes Jewish settlement in the West Bank, said that the outpost evacuated on Thursday was not a significant one, and that the action was “more about P.R.” after the Washington meeting. Mr. Oppenheimer added that the same outpost has been evacuated at least twice before.

By Isabel Kershner.
Source: New York Times.

Israel Hopes for U.S. Settlement Shift

The Israeli government wants to reach understandings with the Obama administration that would allow some new construction in West Bank settlements, an Israeli official said Wednesday, despite vocal American and Palestinian opposition.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, was expected to focus on the issue of settlement expansion in his meeting with President Obama in their meeting scheduled for Thursday in Washington. Mr. Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have stated repeatedly that they see no point in resuming stalled peace negotiations without an absolute settlement freeze.

President Barack Obama and other senior American officials have called on the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing Likud Party who came into office almost two months ago, to halt all settlement activity.

Dan Meridor, the Israeli minister of intelligence, and other senior Netanyahu aides returned on Wednesday from meetings in Europe with President Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, and other American officials. The purpose was to continue discussing issues raised in last week’s Netanyahu-Obama meeting, including that Mr. Obama’s objections to settlement expansion.

Almost 300,000 Israelis now live in settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, among a Palestinian population of some 2.5 million. Much of the world considers the 120 or so settlements a violation of international law.

Mr. Netanyahu says that his government will not build any new settlements and will take down a number of outposts erected in recent years by settlers without proper government authorization. But he insists that his government will allow building within existing settlements to accommodate what he termed “natural growth,” essentially continuing the policy of the last few Israeli governments.

Israel says it reached understandings with the Bush administration — some formal, some informal and some tacit — on building within settlements. For example, construction was limited in small, outlying settlements but more tolerated in large ones in areas that Israel intends to keep under any deal with the Palestinians.

“We want to work to reach understandings with the new administration” that are “fair” and “workable,” said the Israeli official. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue was still under discussion.

The Obama administration is seeking a settlement freeze in the hope of improving the environment for peace-making, encouraging gestures toward normalizing ties with Israel from Arab governments, and buttressing a coalition of countries opposed to Iran developing nuclear weapons.

But there is a consensus within the Israeli government that the ever-growing settler population must be accommodated.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu, said the final status of the existing settlements would be determined in negotiations with the Palestinians. “In the interim, normal life should be allowed to continue in those communities,” Mr. Regev said.

In an interview with Army Radio on Monday, Ehud Barak, the defense minister and leader of the center-left Labor Party, gave a hypothetical example of a family of four that originally moved into a two-room home in a settlement. “Now there are six children,” he said. “Should they be allowed to build another room or not?”

He added, “Ninety-five percent of people will tell you it cannot be that someone in the world honestly thinks an agreement with the Palestinians will stand or fall over this.”

In an effort to show goodwill, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak have been underscoring their willingness to take down 22 small outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, and which were supposed to have been removed under the 2003 American-backed peace plan known as the road map. That plan specified that Israel should halt “all settlement activity (including natural growth).”

Mr. Barak has said he will try to remove the small outposts by agreement with the settlers, and if agreement is not reached, then by force. Settlers have vowed to rebuild any outpost that is removed and to create more.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, the police removed some sheds and a tent from two tiny outposts in the Hebron area. Another small outpost was demolished in the Ramallah region last week, but new shacks have already appeared there. None of the three outposts were on the list of 22, but the measures against them prompted furious reactions from the hard right. Many religious Jewish nationalists say it is their right to settle in the biblical heartland of the West Bank, which they refer to as Judea and Samaria. Other Israelis cite security reasons for holding on to the areas captured in the 1967 war. Another point of contention between the Israeli government and the Obama administration is Mr. Netanyahu’s refusal to publicly endorse a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a cornerstone of American policy.

At a conference on Tuesday in the Israeli Parliament on alternatives to end the conflict, a Likud minister and former army chief of staff, Moshe Ya’alon, said the peace process based on the two-state paradigm had failed and that it was time for new ways of thinking. The conference was organized by a Likud parliamentarian, Tzipi Hotovely.

By Isabel Kershner.
Source: New York Times.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Netanyahu to Meet Obama as U.S. Priorities Shift

The last time Benjamin Netanyahu met an American president as Israel’s new leader, in 1996, it did not go well. Mr. Netanyahu lectured President Bill Clinton about Arab-Israeli relations, aides recalled, driving Mr. Clinton into a profane outburst after his guest left.

Mr. Netanyahu is likely to avoid a repeat of that when he meets President Obama at the White House on Monday. But the relationship between Israel and the United States has become more unsettled since Mr. Obama took office.

Israel has been rattled by signs that the Obama administration has sworn off the unstinting support of Israel that was a hallmark of the Bush years, as well as by the softer approach that Mr. Obama has taken to dealing with Iran.

Both countries regard Iran as the paramount threat in the region, but they have sharply different ways of responding: the Obama administration is asking for time to pursue its diplomatic overture to Tehran; the Israelis are warning that they will not stand by while the Iranians build a nuclear bomb.

Two weeks ago, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, held a quiet meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in Jerusalem. Israel asked the United States to clarify benchmarks that would demonstrate that its diplomatic campaign was working.

The Israeli government, officials said, has assured the United States that it will not take military action against Iran without first consulting Washington. But it has also signaled that it will give the United States only a year or so to show that its good-will approach is getting results.

“They’re preoccupied by Iran, and no one more than the current prime minister,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel and a Middle East peace negotiator. “But the prime minister understands full well that this is a time for American-led engagement.”

The question, Mr. Indyk said, is whether Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama can find common ground on Iran. Without that, he said, it would be hard to imagine the Israeli government’s making progress on negotiations with either the Palestinians or its Arab neighbors.

“There is potential for greater tensions than have existed for some time, certainly,” said Robert Malley, another veteran of Middle East peacemaking efforts. “But a collision is not inevitable.”

To try to keep the peace process alive while it reaches out to Iran, the Obama administration has been pushing for a series of more modest steps on the part of Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The special envoy for the Middle East, former Senator George J. Mitchell, has made three trips to the region since January, seeking pledges from Saudi Arabia and other countries to exchange diplomats and authorize direct flights to Tel Aviv — steps that inch toward normalized relations. In return, he is pressing Israel to freeze the construction of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

“The notion is that you can somehow induce the Arabs to give the Israelis an incentive,” said Aaron David Miller, a former diplomat who negotiated on Arab-Israeli issues in the Clinton administration.

Drawing in the Arab states, he said, is a way to reshape a forbidding landscape. In addition to Iran, there is a fractured Palestinian leadership and an Israeli government led by Mr. Netanyahu, who refuses to endorse the two-state solution that underpins the American-led peace effort.

Some analysts play down Mr. Netanyahu’s hawkish stance as a negotiating tactic ahead of his meeting with Mr. Obama. “I suspect he knows these are untenable conditions,” Mr. Malley said. “Those are concessions he’s putting himself in a position to make later.”

Despite Mr. Netanyahu’s rough start with Mr. Clinton, the two leaders later formed a productive relationship.

The Obama administration has fired its own warning shots. It asked Congress to make minor changes in a bill to allow aid to flow to a Palestinian unity government that would include members backed by Hamas — a step away from a blanket refusal to deal with Hamas, which it labels a terrorist organization.

The changes ruffled lawmakers in Congress, who tweaked the wording to make it more restrictive. But the episode rattled Israeli officials, who recently waged a fierce military campaign against Hamas in Gaza to stem its rocket attacks.

Adding to Israel’s qualms, a senior State Department official, Rose Gottemoeller, said at a recent conference in New York that the United States favored having Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would require it to declare and give up its nuclear arsenal.

While the administration said this was not a new policy, few American officials have publicly acknowledged that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, let alone raised the prospect of getting Israel to give them up. For the most part, though, the administration has moved gingerly. Mr. Mitchell, the president’s emissary to the Middle East, has yet to give an on-the-record interview about his diplomacy.

Diplomats are closely watching two other officials with long experience and strong views on Israel: the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, and the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

General Jones has made the case that if Israel believes that Iran is a threat to its existence, it should pursue talks with the Palestinians. Israeli officials, however, say they cannot do that unless they feel secure from the threat of an Iranian nuclear attack. And they fret that Iran is playing for time.

“They are making it too early to react until it is too late to react,” said a senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he did not want to interfere with Mr. Netanyahu’s visit.

Netanyahu Meets Jordan’s King

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel met on Thursday with King Abdullah II of Jordan, who urged him to commit to a two-state solution with the Palestinians, according to news reports.

Mr. Netanyahu made the unannounced trip to Jordan hours before he was to meet with Pope Benedict XVI. Mark Regev, a spokesman for the prime minister, said that Mr. Netanyahu and King Abdullah discussed bilateral issues and the peace effort with the Palestinians.

A statement issued by Jordan after the meeting and quoted by news organizations said that the king had also asked Mr. Netanyahu to accept the Arab peace initiative, which offers Israel normal ties with the Arab world in return for a full withdrawal to its pre-1967 boundaries and a solution for the Palestinian refugees of 1948.

By Mark Lander
Source: New York Times.

Jordan Tells Israel to Accept Two-State Solution

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, met on Thursday with King Abdullah II of Jordan, who urged the Israeli leader to commit to a two-state solution with the Palestinians, according to news reports.

Mr. Netanyahu made the unannounced trip to Jordan hours before he was to meet in Nazareth with Pope Benedict XVI, and days ahead of a pivotal meeting with President Obama, scheduled to take place in Washington on Monday. It will be the first meeting between the Israeli and American leaders since the conservative-leaning Mr. Netanyahu took office six weeks ago.

The Obama administration has pronounced the two-state solution — the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel — to be the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Netanyahu has so far refused to publicly endorse the notion of a sovereign Palestinian state, a point of possible friction with Washington.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu, said that the Israeli prime minister and the Jordanian monarch discussed bilateral issues and the peace process with the Palestinians. On the subject of Palestinian statehood, Mr. Regev said only that “the Prime Minister expressed his view that he is committed to moving forward and is committed to tangible steps that will benefit people on the ground.”

A statement issued by the royal palace after the meeting and quoted by news organizations said that the king had also asked Mr. Netanyahu to accept the Arab peace initiative, which offers Israel normal ties with the Arab world in return for a full withdrawal to its pre-1967 boundaries and a solution for the Palestinian refugees of 1948.

Mr. Netanyahu has emphasized the Palestinians’ need for rapid economic development. While stating his readiness for political talks, he has been less eager to define the desired outcome.

By meeting with King Abdullah, and earlier this week with the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik, Mr. Netanyahu seemed to want to pursue a regional approach that would pit moderate forces in the region against those that reject Israel outright, like Iran and its proxies.

Mr. Regev said that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to see Egypt and Jordan, countries that already signed peace treaties with Israel, playing an “enhanced role” in the Israeli-Palestinian process.

At a news conference in Egypt on Monday, the Israeli leader expressed appreciation for Egypt’s “assistance in the struggle with the extremists and the terrorists who threaten both the whole region and the peace which we all desire.”

Israel and Jordan have a history of cooperation on security issues. Relations were strained in 1997, during Mr. Netanyahu’s last term as prime minister, after a failed assassination attempt against a senior Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, carried out by Israeli agents on Jordanian soil.

By ISABEL KERSHNER

Source: New York Times.

The Freedom Theatre

A sustainable peace

I was requested to officially greet His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, on 11th May at an interfaith meeting in Notre Dame, Jerusalem. This meeting was to celebrate the significant work that religious leaders of the Abrahamic faiths, and Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organizations, are undertaking to achieve peace in the Holy Land.

I spoke on behalf of the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, which comprises representatives of the most senior institutions of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The Council has been established because we want religion to contribute to peace, freedom and security for both peoples of this land. We are convinced that if religious leaders are not taken seriously in these efforts, religion will be exploited by the forces of extremism and violence on both sides. As convener of the Council, I therefore deeply regret the remarks made at the event by Sheikh Taisir Tamimi, head of the Muslim Sharia courts, who was not invited to speak and spoke in a manner which is not conducive to constructive dialogue.

Among ourselves, the religious leaders in the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, we have pledged to ensure that we are working to improve the atmosphere of dialogue between one another and to avoid any public statement that could endanger our ability to work together. This is not to say that religious leaders should seek agreement at the expense of honestly confronting problems and real tensions. From our experience we know that those who are loyal to the sources of their faith can have serious disagreements when they seek peace based on justice and security. Religious leaders live amongst their own people. They suffer when their own people suffer, they feel insecure and threatened when their own people feel insecure and threatened, and they share the hopes and dreams of their own people for peace and freedom.

But, religious leaders also know they have the duty, according to their respective religions, to seek the shared values of justice, peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. In our own work we try to realise these values in a variety of ways: by creating lines of communication where conflicts with a religious component can be dealt with instantly and by people in positions of responsibility; by promoting education so that future generations can better understand each other and live in peace as good neighbours; by establishing mutual respect for the status of the holy sites of each religion; working for just solutions of tensions when holy sites are also common sites and securing access for all believers to their respective holy sites.

We also encourage discussion about the future of Jerusalem, a city dear to Palestinian Muslims and Christians, and to Israeli Jews, as well as to billions of believers around the world. As a facilitator of this work I constantly hear the yearning for Jerusalem to be a city of peace, where Palestinians and Israelis of all backgrounds are free to come, pray and celebrate their faith.

Changing political realities have deep implications for our work. We struggle with getting permits to enter Jerusalem for meetings, we hear statements from religious leaders which make our work more difficult, and we are mindful of believers who want their holy sites to be accessible and open to everyone. However, we move on step by step, building trust, trying to achieve tangible results that provide rays of hope.

I firmly believe that it is the task of religious leaders to sustain dreams of peace, security and reconciliation based on truth and justice. Inspired by good conversations in this land, I carry a dream that one day a sheikh, a rabbi and a bishop together will meet in Nablus and speak about the precious heritage of this land; that they together will walk along the beach of Haifa and share the riches of their own faith with one another. And that all three will be able to go to the Holy City of Jerusalem and wish each other well when they go to their respective places of worship.

I remain grateful to His Holiness for meeting with religious leaders, and thus giving his blessing to the work religious people are doing to build a lasting and sustainable peace in this Holy Land. We need this encouragement.

But we also know that only freedom, justice, security and respect for the political freedom of the two peoples can provide this Holy Land with a sustainable peace.

By Rev. Dr. & Canon Trond Bakkevig is the Convenor of the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land.

Source: Common Ground News Service, www.commongroundnews.org.

Taking odds: Obama vs. Netanyahu?

Reporters are always asking me if I think President Barack Obama would prevail in the oft-predicted “knock down, drag out” fight with the Israeli government (and lobby) over the peace process.

That question is especially relevant following this week’s AIPAC conference. Vice President Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration intends to push hard for a Palestinian state. (While Prime Minister Netanyahu is talking about everything except a Palestinian state.) The Israeli media is picking up the signals too. Writing in Yedioth Achronoth, Eitan Haber says that all the signs point in one direction and he’s worried. “When Obama roars, who will not tremble?” he asks.

The new president is committed to the two-state solution and intends to insist that the Israeli government not take actions that thwart that goal. That means moving against ever-expanding settlements (which the Israeli press today reports are about to be expanded even more by Netanyahu), easing the flow of goods in and out of Gaza, and removing checkpoints and other obstacles to Palestinian freedom of movement. The administration is also moving away from Israel’s ironclad opposition to dealing with Hamas.

For instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that although we do not deal with Hizbullah, we do deal with a Lebanese government that includes Hizbullah. Why not apply that model to a Palestinian unity government?

Meanwhile Obama’s top White House adviser on foreign policy, National Security Adviser James Jones, told the Washington Post that Obama does not intend to wait for the Israelis and Palestinians to come up with a formula.

“The United States is at its best when it’s directly involved,” Jones said. He invoked the successful US efforts to end the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. “We didn’t tell the parties to go off and work this out. If we want to get momentum, we have to be involved directly.”

Then there is Iran. President Shimon Peres was in Washington for the AIPAC conference, pushing a hard line on Iran (when it comes to Iran, Peres is as hawkish as Netanyahu). He did not expressly oppose President Obama’s diplomatic overture to Tehran but did indicate that Israel was less than enthusiastic about it. The Israelis want us to set a firm expiration date on diplomacy. If Iran does not deliver by that date, then we, or they, will move to the next step (whatever that might be).

In short, the Israeli and American governments are far apart on most of the key issues.

So is a clash inevitable?

In my opinion, no. That is because I believe that no Israeli government can successfully oppose a popular American president who sets out to pursue Arab-Israeli peace.

Neither the Israeli government (nor the lobby) was happy with President Jimmy Carter’s aggressive efforts to promote the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in the late 1970s. But Carter was undaunted and the peace deal was signed—by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, of all people. The same applies to the Reagan Plan of 1982 and Reagan’s recognition of the PLO in 1988. In neither of these cases was a challenge successfully mounted. The lobby loathes the idea of confronting any American president, especially a popular one.

There were, however, two occasions when challenges were launched, the first against Reagan’s sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia and the second against President George H. W. Bush’s decision to withhold loan guarantees in protest of Israeli settlement policies. In both cases, it was the US president who won. In the latter case, Shamir’s government actually collapsed and was replaced by a government (led by Yitzhak Rabin) that Bush preferred.

Bush did not engineer Shamir’s downfall. He was brought down by an Israeli political establishment (and public) that did not want its government fighting against Israel’s only significant ally and weapons supplier. Few Israelis, or their US supporters, would be willing to jeopardize what AIPAC’s founder, I.L. Kenen, called “Israel’s lifeline” in order to retain West Bank settlements.

If Obama holds firm, it will not be Obama who blinks.

And not only because it is the United States that is the super power. It is also because President Obama will not be asking Israel to sacrifice any vital interest. On the contrary, in leading an effort to achieve peace, Obama will be advancing Israel’s security, along with our own.

That is also why American Jews will rally behind him. It is not because they are indifferent to Israel’s security but because they understand that maintaining the occupation undermines Israel’s long-term survival.

Proponents of the status quo believe that Israel can maintain the occupation and remain a democratic Jewish state. But that is impossible. In fact, on Israel’s Independence Day last month, the official Central Bureau of Statistics announced that territories under Israeli control are already 51 percent non-Jewish (5.6 million Jews vs. 5.8 million non-Jews).

Continuing the occupation means a significant Arab majority in a few years that would achieve power through the ballot box and terminate the Zionist enterprise. Or Israel could maintain the territories, deny the Arab population the vote and become an apartheid state like South Africa before Nelson Mandela.

The final possibility—the one the United States is working to achieve—is the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Essentially, Israel would go back to being what it was before 1967—an overwhelmingly Jewish state. The difference would be that now it would have ironclad peace treaties with the Palestinians, Egyptians and Jordanians. In other words, Israel would achieve what every Israeli dreamed of before 5 June 1967: peace and security in a Jewish country. How terrible is that? (For those too young to remember, pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact, it was pretty wonderful. It is forty years of occupation that has been terrible.)

It should be noted that despite what some may think, American Jews are Americans and, it must be said, overwhelmingly Democratic. They will back their president if he pushes hard for Middle East peace. 78% percent voted for Obama over John McCain, a figure unmatched by any other white group. They will not turn against Obama to protest his actions advancing peace. They voted for Obama, in large part, because he ran on his record opposing the Iraq war and favouring diplomacy with Iran.

As for the lobby, it will not go head-to-head against this president. It won’t because it doesn’t like losing any more than it likes losing access to the halls of power. As for the Democratic majority in Congress, with the exception of a few House members who are to the right of Likud, they will stick with the president who gave their party its first electoral landslide since 1964.

In short, Barack Obama is uniquely positioned to achieve two states for two peoples. It’s now or never. And if it’s never, we will see the “one state solution” instead. That one state won’t be called Israel.

By MJ Rosenberg, Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum, was a long time Capitol Hill staffer and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report.

Source: Common Ground News, www.commongroundnews.org

Friday, April 17, 2009

Palestinians Ask U.S. Envoy to Press Israel on ‘Two-State Solution’

JERUSALEM — Palestinian leaders asked the American envoy to the Middle East on Friday to press Israel’s new government to accept the notion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and other Palestinian officials met with the envoy, George J. Mitchell, at the Palestinian Authority's headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah a day after Mr. Mitchell held talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s conservative-leaning prime minister, and other Israeli leaders.

Mr. Netanyahu, who took office last month, has refused to explicitly support Palestinian statehood, and says that the new government is still formulating its policies. He told Mr. Mitchell that it was time for “new approaches and fresh ideas,” and said thePalestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a condition Palestinian negotiators have long refused to meet.

But Mr. Mitchell said after the meeting in Ramallah that “a two-state solution is the only solution,” and that a comprehensive peace in the Middle East was “in the national interest of the United States,” as well as in the interests of Palestinians and Israelis.

Saeb Erekat, a senior Abbas aide and veteran Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement on Friday that the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state before negotiations was “an admission by Netanyahu that he cannot deliver on peace” and a stalling tactic. He noted that the Palestine Liberation Organization had already recognized the state of Israel while Mr. Netanyahu “refuses to even mention a Palestinian state.”

Palestinians contend that recognition of Israel’s Jewish character would negate Palestinian refugees’ demand for the right of return and would be detrimental to the status of Israel’s Arab citizens, who make up a fifth of the population.

In Gaza, two top leaders of Hamas, the Islamic group that holds power there, made their first public appearances since Israel’s military offensive that ended in mid-January. Ismail Haniya, who leads the Hamas government in Gaza, and Mahmoud Zahar, a senior official, preached at separate mosques.

Apparently in a challenge to the rival Palestinian Authority leaders as they met with Mr. Mitchell in the West Bank, Mr. Zahar said in his sermon, “We cannot, we will not, and we will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form,” Reuters reported.

A Palestinian man was killed Friday in the West Bank during a demonstration against Israel’s separation barrier after being struck in the chest by a tear gas canister fired by Israeli forces, according to other demonstrators. The dead man, killed during the protest in Bilin, a village near Ramallah, was identified by local residents as Basem Ibrahim Abu Rahma, 31. Nasir Samara, a member of a group in Bilin that helps organize the weekly demonstrations against the barrier, said in a statement that the high-velocity tear gas canister that hit Mr. Abu Rahma had been fired from a distance of about 20 yards.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said security forces had been trying to disperse a violent demonstration during which demonstrators threw stones and other objects. She said the army was checking the report about the Palestinian death and had asked to join Palestinian officials in investigating the cause of death.

A little more than a month ago, an American citizen, Tristan Anderson, was critically wounded when he was struck in the forehead by a similar high-velocity tear gas canister at a demonstration in a nearby village, Nilin.

Activists have accused the Israeli forces of shooting the tear gas canisters directly into crowds, turning the canisters into lethal weapons rather than a means of crowd dispersal. Mr. Anderson, 38, from Oakland, Calif., is still hospitalized in Tel Aviv.

Also on Friday, a Palestinian armed with a knife infiltrated a Jewish settlement, Beit Haggai, south of Hebron in the West Bank, and was shot dead by an Israeli whom he had tried to stab, the Israeli military said. Palestinian television identified the infiltrator as Rabah Sidr, 18.

Source: The New York Times

Afghan Women Protest New Law on Home Life

KABUL, Afghanistan — The young women stepped off the bus and moved toward the protest march just beginning on the other side of the street when they were spotted by a mob of men.

“Get out of here, you whores!” the men shouted. “Get out!”

The women scattered as the men moved in.

“We want our rights!” one of the women shouted, turning to face them. “We want equality!”

The women ran to the bus and dived inside as it rumbled away, with the men smashing the taillights and banging on the sides.

“Whores!”

But the march continued anyway. About 300 Afghan women, facing an angry throng three times larger than their own, walked the streets of the capital on Wednesday to demand that Parliament repeal a new law that introduces a range of Taliban-like restrictions on women, and permits, among other things, marital rape.

It was an extraordinary scene. Women are mostly illiterate in this impoverished country, and they do not, generally speaking, enjoy anything near the freedom accorded to men. But there they were, most of them young, many in jeans, defying a threatening crowd and calling out slogans heavy with meaning.

With the Afghan police keeping the mob at bay, the women walked two miles to Parliament, where they delivered a petition calling for the law’s repeal.

“Whenever a man wants sex, we cannot refuse,” said Fatima Husseini, 26, one of the marchers. “It means a woman is a kind of property, to be used by the man in any way that he wants.”

The law, approved by both houses of Parliament and signed by President Hamid Karzai, applies to the Shiite minority only. Women here and governments and rights groups abroad have protested three parts of the law especially.

One provision makes it illegal for a woman to resist her husband’s sexual advances. A second provision requires a husband’s permission for a woman to work outside the home or go to school. And a third makes it illegal for a woman to refuse to “make herself up” or “dress up” if that is what her husband wants.

The passage of the law has amounted to something of a historical irony. Afghan Shiites, who make up close to 20 percent of the population, suffered horrendously under the Taliban, who regarded them as apostates. Since 2001, the Shiites, particularly the Hazara minority, have been enjoying a renaissance.

President Karzai, who relies on vast support from the United States and other Western governments to stay in power, has come under intense international criticism for signing the bill into law. Many people here suspect that he did so to gain the favor of the Shiite clergy; Mr. Karzai is up for re-election this year. Previous Afghan governments, during the Soviet era and before the arrival of the Taliban, did not impose such restrictive laws, although in practice many rural women’s freedoms have long been curtailed. Rights advocates say the law for Shiites could influence a proposal for Sunnis and a draft law on violence against women.

Responding to the outcry, Mr. Karzai has begun looking for a way to remove the most controversial parts of the law. In an interview on Wednesday, his spokesman, Homayun Hamidzada, said that the legislation was not yet law because it had not been published in the government’s official register. That, Mr. Hamidzada said, means that it can still be changed. Mr. Karzai has asked his justice minister to look it over.

“We have no doubt that whatever comes out of this process will be consistent with the rights provided for in the Constitution — equality and the protection of women,” Mr. Hamidzada said.

The women who protested Wednesday began their demonstration with what appeared to be a deliberately provocative act. They gathered in front of the School of the Last Prophet, a madrasa run by Ayatollah Asif Mohseni, the country’s most powerful Shiite cleric. He and the scholars around him played an important role in drafting the new law.

“We are here to campaign for our rights,” one woman said into a megaphone. Then the women held their banners aloft and began to chant.

The reaction was immediate. Hundreds of students from the madrasa, most but not all of them men, poured into the streets to confront the demonstrators.

“Death to the enemies of Islam!” the counterdemonstrators cried, encircling the women. “We want Islamic law!”

The women stared ahead and marched.

A phalanx of police officers, some of them women, held the crowds apart.

Afterward, when the demonstrators had left, one of the madrasa’s senior clerics came outside. Asked about the dispute, he said it was between professionals and nonprofessionals; that is, between the clerics, who understood the Koran and Islamic law, and the women calling for the law’s repeal who did not.

“It’s like if you are sick, you go to a doctor, not some amateur,” said the cleric, Mohammed Hussein Jafaari. “This law was approved by the scholars. It was passed by both houses of Parliament. It was signed by the president.”

The religious scholars, Mr. Jafaari conceded, were all men.

Lingering a while, Mr. Jafaari said that what was really driving the dispute was the foreigners who loomed so large over the country.

Source: The New York Times

Cross-border medical practices series: Individuals must not be punished for the actions of their governments

If Operation Cast Lead proved to be the breaking point for Gaza’s healthcare system, it also illuminated where the responsibility for its collapse lies. The pressures that left it unable to cope with a sudden influx of patients were both internal and external.

In the days and months leading up to Operation Cast Lead, the Gaza Strip’s healthcare system was stretched to the breaking point. An ongoing Israeli blockade and a health workers’ strike in Gaza—due in part to the political tug-of-war between Fatah and Hamas—had placed immense strain on an already fragile institution. Hospitals and clinics in Gaza found themselves lacking almost a quarter of the drug items that comprise the World Health Organization’s essential drug list. Various other drug items stood at critical levels. A shortage of medical supplies endangered the long-term function of some equipment, such as dialysis machines, while other vital medical equipment was unavailable, had fallen into disrepair, or remained unused because health care workers lacked the training to operate it.

On the second day of the Israeli incursion, Dr. Zaki Zakzuk of the European Hospital in Khan Younis spoke with Physicians for Human Rights (PHR)-Israel, an organization that promotes the right to health for Palestinians and Israelis alike. He described the impact that the lack of supplies had made upon patient care: “As of today, we have 30 wounded individuals in very grave condition… All of them are in need of ICU [intensive care unit] beds for ventilation machines, but because of the lack of such equipment only half of them are able to receive the ventilation treatment while others are resuscitated manually. [T]here is an extreme need for additional blood units… [but] the lack of refrigeration equipment and emergency vehicles are making it impossible for us to transfer blood units from Shifa Hospital.”

Health care workers in Gaza were forced to turn some patients away. Dr. Halil Nahlah, an ICU physician at Shifa Hospital reported to PHR-Israel: “[W]e cannot accept patients with basic injuries. We accept the urgent cases for life-saving efforts, operations, etc., and if possible we transfer them to other hospitals.” But often it was not possible. Some of the injured found they were unable to reach hospitals, both within Gaza and beyond its borders.

Although Operation Cast Lead cast light on a health care system in crisis, this problem over lack of access to medical facilities is not particular to times of war. The chronically ill in Gaza routinely face obstacles that prevent them from accessing necessary medical care.

Throughout the Israeli blockade, over half of those who have applied for exit permits to leave Gaza through Israel for external health care facilities have been denied permission. Many of these patients then turn their hopes to the Rafah crossing with Egypt, only to find a political dam that allows no more than an irregular trickle of patients through the border. Appeals for Jordanian visas are often denied, as well.

PHR offers the case of Karima Abu Dalal, a 33-year-old Gazan woman who suffered from Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She received a variety of treatments in Egypt before this was stopped due to the Israeli closure of the Rafah crossing. In 2007 she began treatment in the West Bank, but later that same year it came to a sudden halt when Israeli authorities barred her from leaving Gaza. PHR-Israel applied for an exit permit on her behalf. Israeli authorities were silent in response.

PHR-Israel sought help in the Israeli High Court. They included in their petition a testimony from Professor Dina Ben Yehuda, an Israeli physician familiar with Karima’s case, who stated that Karima’s life was endangered by the disruption of medical treatment. But the court abstained from intervening on Karima’s behalf.

Karima again appealed to the Israeli authorities who control the Erez crossing, between Gaza and Israel. Her request for an exit permit was once more denied.

Her condition deteriorating, Karima next turned to a nearby Arab country, Jordan. Her subsequent visa application was denied not once but twice.
After almost a year had lapsed since her last treatment, Karima finally managed to enter Egypt via the Rafah crossing in June of 2008. But the hospital in Cairo turned her away because she lacked the means to pay for medical care.

After a long struggle against Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the political bodies that surrounded her, Karima died in Gaza in November of 2008.

Where a patient does or does not receive health care—whether it be for a chronic illness or injuries sustained as a result of military confrontation—depends on decisions made by political entities.

But Israel and the governments of Gaza, the West Bank, and the surrounding Arab countries, who are most immediately responsible for the people of Gaza, must put human rights before political struggle.

We mustn’t treat individuals merely as symbols or representatives of their governments. Punishing the people of Gaza—whether by means of an external blockade or an internal strike—so they, in turn, will exert pressure on their government, polarises opinions and is certain to prolong the conflict. To move the peace process forward we mustn’t lose sight of the humans in the political landscape.

We cannot afford to stand by while the injured and sick suffer in a snare of politics; ensuring access to medical care is a move towards health for the whole region.

By Mya Guarnieri
Source: Common Ground News Service, www.commongroundnews.org.

Lieberman and the peace process

Hours after his handover ceremony, the new Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Ha’aretz newspaper that “Israel is not bound by the Annapolis process”, the US-backed declaration that initiated the final status talks on establishing a Palestinian state. Instead, Lieberman wants to revert to the situation in 2003, when the Middle East “Quartet” (the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia) introduced the “road map” for peace, essentially eliminating progress made during year-long intensive talks with the Palestinians.

Lieberman’s renouncement of Annapolis and its associated negotiations on borders, Jerusalem, the future of the Palestinian refugees and the formation of a viable Palestinian state represents a major Israeli policy shift away from a two-state solution and the land-for-peace formula. The return to a political discourse that only includes the road map is a calculated step by the new Israeli government meant to lead to failure.

Many conflict resolution specialists have considered the road map an “obstacle to peace”. Instead of promoting mutual interests between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the road map refocused the two rivals’ attention on incompatible goals with an antiquated approach to resolving the conflict. The road map disregarded the fact that the physical infrastructure inside the Palestinian Territories had been completely destroyed under the leadership of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a series of intensive military operations. This rendered the Palestinian Authority incapable of meeting the road map’s demands. In fact, the frail and divided Palestinian Authority is still unable to do so, particularly in the aftermath of the Israeli war on Gaza.

Some analysts say Lieberman’s commitment to the road map indirectly implies his commitment to a two-state solution. But like Ariel Sharon, Lieberman places responsibility first on the Palestinians to stop terrorism, build strong institutions and improve security—and only then is he prepared to negotiate over Palestinian statehood. These demands, unattainable under the current circumstances, are intended to generate a situation where Israel can claim that it has “no partner for peace” on the Palestinian side, just as Sharon did with Yasser Arafat.

Without a doubt, Lieberman’s comments signal a bumpy road ahead for President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, which embraces the two-state solution. But there is no better time than now for the Obama administration to show real commitment to the peace process. During his landmark visit to Turkey, President Obama pledged to pursue a two-state solution and reconfirmed his commitment to the Annapolis and road map processes. This is a positive step. Arabs—moderates and conservatives—are now encouraging the Obama administration to take tangible steps toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If the Israeli government pushes forward its new policy, Palestinians will have two options: one is tactical, the other is radical.

The first option would be for the Palestinians to concentrate on resolving their internal differences instead of resisting the policies of the new Israeli government. Eventually, these steps of forming a viable government would win the support of the international community and would consequently lead them to put pressure on Israel.

The more radical option, which has been suggested by several academics and political analysts, is to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. Supporters of this alternative suggest that the Palestinian Authority is no longer serving the Palestinians’ national goals, and instead provides valuable assistance to Israel as it administers the land that Israel does not want to relinquish. This radical approach would put Israel, as an occupying force, back in the “hot seat”, holding the Jewish State responsible for its actions and forcing it to confront a stark but inevitable choice: The “one-state solution”—a future as a bi-national entity, which would essentially be the end of the Jewish state, or the two-state solution. Will it take implementing this radical alternative for the Israeli right-wing camp to realise that the two-state solution is the only viable option for a peaceful future?

By Rawhi Afaghani
Source: Common Ground News Service, www.commongroundnews.org.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement

During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property, say soldiers who fought in the offensive.

The soldiers are graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College in Tivon. Some of their statements made on Feb. 13 will appear Thursday and Friday in Haaretz. Dozens of graduates of the course who took part in the discussion fought in the Gaza operation.

The speakers included combat pilots and infantry soldiers. Their testimony runs counter to the Israel Defense Forces' claims that Israeli troops observed a high level of moral behavior during the operation. The session's transcript was published this week in the newsletter for the course's graduates.

The testimonies include a description by an infantry squad leader of an incident where an IDF sharpshooter mistakenly shot a Palestinian mother and her two children. "There was a house with a family inside .... We put them in a room. Later we left the house and another platoon entered it, and a few days after that there was an order to release the family. They had set up positions upstairs. There was a sniper position on the roof," the soldier said.


"The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn't understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go and it was okay, and he should hold his fire and he ... he did what he was supposed to, like he was following his orders."

According to the squad leader: "The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him, closer than the lines he was told no one should pass. He shot them straight away. In any case, what happened is that in the end he killed them.

"I don't think he felt too bad about it, because after all, as far as he was concerned, he did his job according to the orders he was given. And the atmosphere in general, from what I understood from most of my men who I talked to ... I don't know how to describe it .... The lives of Palestinians, let's say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way," he said.

Another squad leader from the same brigade told of an incident where the company commander ordered that an elderly Palestinian woman be shot and killed; she was walking on a road about 100 meters from a house the company had commandeered.

The squad leader said he argued with his commander over the permissive rules of engagement that allowed the clearing out of houses by shooting without warning the residents beforehand. After the orders were changed, the squad leader's soldiers complained that "we should kill everyone there [in the center of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist."

The squad leader said: "You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."

Source: Haartez.com

Open Letter to President Obama

Open Letter March 10, 2009


President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

First of all, congratulations on your victory in November. Like so many others throughout the world, we find ourselves both hopeful and inspired. Your election is proof of America's continued promise as a land of opportunity, equality, and freedom. Your presidency presents a historic opportunity to chart a new course in foreign affairs, and particularly in the troubled relationship between the United States and the Muslim world.

We are heartened by your promise to listen to and understand the hopes and aspirations of Arabs and Muslims. By shutting down Guantanamo Bay and forbidding torture, your administration will inspire greater confidence between the United States and the Muslim world. Last month, in your first major interview, millions of Arabs heard your call for mutual respect on one of the Middle East's most watched television channels. They were encouraged to find that you hold a resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict as an urgent priority, as evidenced by the appointment of Senator George Mitchell as your envoy. Reaching out to the people of the region so early on in your presidency is a step of no small significance. But it is a step that must be followed by concrete policy changes.

Improving relations between the United States and Middle Eastern nations is not simply a matter of changing some policies here and there. For too long, U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been fundamentally misguided. The United States, for half a century, has frequently supported repressive regimes that routinely violate human rights, and that torture and imprison those who dare criticize them and prevent their citizens from participation in peaceful civic and political activities. U.S. support for Arab autocrats was supposed to serve U.S. national interests and regional stability. In reality, it produced a region increasingly tormented by rampant corruption, extremism, and instability.

In his second inaugural address, President Bush pledged that the United States would no longer support tyrants and would stand with those activists and reformers fighting for democratic change. The Bush administration, however, quickly turned its back on Middle East democracy after Islamist parties performed well in elections throughout the region. This not only hurt the credibility of the United States, dismayed democrats and emboldened extremists in the region, but also sent a powerful message to autocrats that they could reassert their power and crush the opposition with impunity.

In order to rebuild relations of mutual respect, it is critical that the United States be on the right side of history regarding the human, civil, and political rights of the peoples of the Middle East. There is no doubt that the people of the Middle East long for greater freedom and democracy; they have proven themselves willing to fight for it. What they need from your administration is a commitment to encourage political reform not through wars, threats, or imposition, but through peaceful policies that reward governments that take active and measurable steps towards genuine democratic reforms. Moreover, the US should not hesitate to speak out in condemnation when opposition activists are unjustly imprisoned in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, or elsewhere. When necessary, the United States should use its considerable economic and diplomatic leverage to put pressure on its allies in the region when they fail to meet basic standards of human rights.

We recognize that taking these steps will present both difficulties and dilemmas. Accordingly, bold action is needed today more than ever. For too long, American policy in the Middle East has been paralyzed by fear of Islamist parties coming to power. Some of these fears are both legitimate and understandable; many Islamists advocate illiberal policies. They need to do more to demonstrate their commitment to the rights of women and religious minorities, and their willingness to tolerate dissent. However, most mainstream Islamist groups in the region are nonviolent and respect the democratic process.

In many countries, including Turkey, Indonesia, and Morocco, the right to participate in reasonably credible and open elections has moderated Islamist parties and enhanced their commitment to democratic norms. We may not agree with what they have to say, but if we wish to both preach and practice democracy, it is simply impossible to exclude the largest opposition groups in the region from the democratic process. At the same time, to reduce the future of the region to a contest between Islamists and authoritarian regimes would be a mistake. Promoting democratic openings in the region will give liberal and secular parties a chance to establish themselves and communicate their ideas to the populace after decades of repression which left them weak and marginalized. More competition between parties of diverse ideological backgrounds would be healthy for political development in the region.

In short, we have an unprecedented opportunity to send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world: the United States will support all those who strive for freedom, democracy, and human rights. You, Mr. President, have recently relayed such a message in your inaugural address when you said: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

We are fully aware that, with a worsening global economic crisis, and continuing challenges in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, political reform and progress toward democratic reform in the Middle East will need to compete with a whole host of other priorities on your agenda. Policy is often about making difficult choices. However, as you work on other Middle East priorities, we urge you to elevate democratic reform and respect for human rights as key considerations in your engagement with both Arab regimes and Arab publics.

In conclusion, we are writing this letter to raise our profound belief that supporting democrats and democracy in the Middle East is not only in the region's interests, but in the United States' as well. Perhaps more importantly, what we choose to do with this critical issue will reveal a great deal about the strength of American democratic ideals in this new era - and whether or not we will decide to respect and apply them in the Middle East.

Signatures: 144 (97 from the US, 47 from overseas)

Fight like in Gaza

In another moment, this column will break through the censor's barrier and reveal a military secret: Israel is going to war, and zero hour is 9 P.M. tomorrow. And if Al Jazeera and the BBC want to rely on this information and broadcast it to the whole world, I am prepared to accept the consequences of having violated national security.

On Wednesday, a military affairs correspondent for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth - yes, he, not a sports reporter - published an exclusive item on the news pages: The commander of the Givati Brigade will be giving pep talks to Israel's national soccer team before the game against Greece. In recent weeks, coaches have been looking for a senior commander who fought in the Gaza Strip. In the wake of recommendations they received from the Israel Defense Forces, national team coach Dror Kashtan and his assistant, Moshe Sinai, contacted Col. Ilan Malka.

"Malka intends to speak with the players about the significance of the crucial game and about how the eyes of the nation of Israel are upon them," the reporter said, citing what Malka had told him. "He will demand of the players that they correct the mistakes of the past, just as he demanded of his soldiers that they correct the shortcomings of the Second Lebanon War - because just like in the battles in Gaza, they will not get a second chance. Fight like lions. You are representing something far greater than just a soccer match."
Advertisement

"It should be noted," the reporter then added on his own behalf, "that Malka sees a similarity between the role of a combat officer and the role of a team coach when it comes to preparations for a game or a battle."

This, in a nutshell, was the briefing by the colonel-golem who sees a soccer match as war and war as a soccer match. In both of these tests, "the eyes of the nation of Israel are upon them," and so forth.

And why should the coaches - two Olympic Village idiots - content themselves with pep talks from the acclaimed commander? Why not get help from the chief military rabbi, who has a reputation as a serious force multiplier? He will equate the match to the war between the Maccabees and the Greeks, giving it a religious, faith-based dimension and historic depth, and thereby transform it into a divinely ordained war, a jihad. The rabbi will explain to the players, just as he explained to the fighters, that anyone who is compassionate toward the cruel will end up being cruel to the compassionate. And then the team will burst into the stadium, strengthened and reinforced, and make mincemeat of the bitter enemy, as though they were cursed Arabs. At long last, they will have an opportunity to put their physical fitness to use and join an elite unit.

The IDF and the coaches have taken a calculated risk here: They no doubt thought in advance about the destructive results of a loss (heaven forbid) in this important battle: Israel's deterrence would once again be crushed, and in order to rehabilitate it, there would be no alternative but to wage another, even bigger war - perhaps against England or Spain.

And it is already possible to wait with bated breath for the tearful and revealing confessions of our player-warriors immediately after the game: how we wrote derisive slogans on the walls of the gentiles' dressing rooms and how we broke their bones with an iron foot and cast lead. And even if we lose this battle, we will win the war: Those wicked Greeks will not forget us - neither us nor the God of vengeance who saves us. Maybe they will score more goals, but we will derive more satisfaction from being the most moral soccer team in the world.

Now it is official: The country has gone crazy.

By Yossi Sarid.

Forger un autre avenir pour les Israéliens et les Palestiniens

“Je me raisonne pour ne pas péter les plombs”. “J’exprime ma colère de façon sensée”. “Je pense”. Tels sont les mots que nos enseignants de l’école de Qurtuba à Hébron, cette ville de Cisjordanie occupée par Israël, répètent à l’envi à nos élèves palestiniens.

Depuis la guerre qui vient de frapper Gaza, tout ce qui est interaction non violente en direct est particulièrement ardu. Mais en travaillant avec les élèves de l’école de Qurtuba, je suis convaincue que je peux apporter quelque chose à l’établissement d’un avenir pacifique et sécurisé pour la prochaine génération, Palestiniens et Israéliens confondus, en partant de la base.

Quand on circule dans Hébron, surtout dans la rue Al-Shuhada, où se trouve la colonie israélienne de Beït Hadassah, c’est comme si on se promenait dans un champ de mines.

Quand les enfants arabes se rendent à l’école, est-ce qu’ils savent vraiment comment se comporter dans ces quartiers où les colons risquent de leur jeter des pierres s’ils se fourvoient là où ils ne devraient pas être ? Pas forcément. C’est pourquoi, nous apprenons à nos élèves que répondre par la violence ne fera qu’ajouter à la violence. C’est un cycle sans fin.

Et c’est ainsi que j’ai instauré dans mon école les principes de la non violence.

Premier principe. Les enfants apprennent à connaître leurs droits civiques. Ils savent désormais que si les colons les attaquent, ils doivent appeler la police israélienne à la rescousse. Notre établissement se trouve dans le quartier H2, sous contrôle israélien, alors que le quartier H1 est sous la juridiction de l’Autorité Palestinienne. À H2, c’est à l’administration israélienne qu’il incombe d’assurer la sécurité des civils.

Lorsqu’un incident se produit dans l’enceinte scolaire, nous appelons la police israélienne, démontrant ainsi aux enfants qu’il vaut mieux faire appel aux autorités que de répondre par la violence. En principe, la police intervient rapidement. En cas de retard, nous appelons des organisations comme le CICR (Comité International de la Croix Rouge), ou le TIPH (Présence internationale temporaire à Hébron), ou enfin les médias. Les enfants, qui n’en perdent pas une, apprennent, retiennent.

Deuxième principe. Nous donnons à nos ados la possibilité d’exprimer leur colère et leur humiliation sur le papier ou par le jeu, ces précieux supports grâce auxquels nous les aidons à raisonner leurs émotions et à les canaliser.

Troisième principe. Nous veillons rigoureusement à ne jamais instrumentaliser nos élèves dans ce conflit. Dans notre école, nous estimons que les enfants ne doivent pas participer aux manifestations contre l’occupant parce qu’ils sont des cibles trop faciles. Il faut qu’ils puissent profiter de leur enfance et choisir eux-mêmes leurs options politiques quand le temps sera venu.

Je fais le voeu que ces quelques grands principes puissent apprendre à la prochaine génération de dirigeants palestiniens à se servir de leur tête et à défendre leurs droits par la non violence, créant ainsi un avenir pacifique pour eux-mêmes et pour leurs voisins.


… et ils transformeront leur crainte en confiance par Nira Lamay

Jérusalem – “Les générations présentes devraient préserver les générations futures du fléau de la guerre. A cette fin, elles devraient éviter d'exposer les générations futures aux conséquences dommageables des conflits armés ainsi que de toutes autres formes d'agression et d'usage des armes qui sont contraires aux principes humanitaires.”

Ce passage de la déclaration de l’UNESCO de 1997, relative aux responsabilités que nous avons envers les générations futures, est simple et clair. Il a constitué le fondement de la commission parlementaire israélienne pour les générations futures, organe professionnel et apolitique de la KNESSET qui conseillait le Parlement sur les incidences de la législation sur les générations futures.

J’ai travaillé moi-même au sein de cette commission, qui a vécu de 2001 à 2006. Le temps que j’y ai passé inspire aujourd’hui ma conduite, et ces mots configurent ma propre activité pour l’avènement d’une paix pour les Israéliens et pour les Palestiniens.

La mission de la commission ne portait ni sur la politique, ni sur les affaires étrangères, ni sur les questions militaires ou de défense. Notre objectif était de préserver nos ressources pour les générations futures. Selon notre devise, tandis que le monde politique s’occupait de la défense et de la guerre, nous préparions, nous, la “paix du lendemain”, pour le jour où les générations futures pourraient boire de l’eau propre et respirer un air pur.

Je me demande parfois s’il y aura un “lendemain”. La guerre de Gaza que nous venons de traverser m’a fait comprendre que nous ne jouissons pas encore des luxes dont disposent la plupart des autres pays, là où la conservation des ressources et la préservation de l’environnement peuvent être prioritaires. Nous en sommes encore à un état presque primitif de survie.

J’ai aussi compris que les professionnels que nous sommes et qui avons l’expérience de notre système politique devraient tirer parti de leurs connaissances pour changer le système. Par conséquent, même si le travail de terrain nous appelle, nous ne pouvons nous désintéresser du politique. La mission politique qu’est la recherche de la paix est trop précieuse pour qu’on la laisse aux politiques.

Ensemble, Israéliens et Palestiniens, nous devons revendiquer notre droit à changer et à créer notre propre avenir. Tout récemment, j’ai ainsi eu l’occasion de participer à une activité de construction de la paix sur le terrain, dans le cadre d’un livre magique intitulé 60 Years, 60 Voices “, organisé par l’association à but non lucratif Peace x Peace, qui rassemble des femmes du monde entier pour faire avancer le dialogue, l’entente et la collaboration. Cette action a ainsi réuni 30 femmes israéliennes et 30 femmes palestiniennes afin de faire fructifier leur foi en un avenir meilleur pour les Israéliens et pour les Palestiniens. J’ai eu la chance d’être une de ces femmes.

Au niveau du terrain, le chemin est encore long. Mais nous devons poursuivre nos efforts pour transformer la peur, et la peur de la peur, en confiance, non seulement entre les deux gouvernements, mais plus encore entre les deux peuples.

Par
Reem Al-Shareef et Nira Lamay et Nira Lamay.
Source: Service de Presse de Common Ground (CGNews), www.commongroundnews.org

It's now or nothing for Palestine peace

The recent Israeli attack on Gaza made little strategic difference, leaving Hamas still in charge of the strip, diminished militarily but arguably strengthened politically. Israel's use of disproportionate military force yielded political and public relations setbacks, with the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit still in captivity and occasional rockets still being fired from Gaza.

A politically weakened Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to be in charge of the West Bank, and the independent government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has resigned. There is no sign that the misery of the people of Gaza will be relieved, or that serious reconstruction will begin anytime soon. The territory's crossings are closed and the siege continues.

The PA, despite years of diplomacy, has yet to secure any meaningful concessions from Israel, which is veering to the political right—away from accommodation. Hamas offers only bloody resistance that appeals to the Palestinian and Arab sense of dignity, while also piling up a record of deaths, injuries and destruction.

Israeli leaders cannot find the minimal political courage needed to halt the settlement expansion that undercuts their stated age-old goal of securing a Jewish state. Despite strenuous Egyptian and Arab efforts, direct negotiations between the Palestinian factions to establish a national-unity government, as well as indirect ones between Hamas and Israel on prisoners and crossings, have yielded no agreements.

The prospects of a negotiated agreement over a new Palestinian unity government are minimal, the optimistic rhetoric notwithstanding. It flies in the face of Palestinian and regional power realities and ideological divides. This impasse cannot even be resolved by force because both the PA and Hamas are entrenched in their separate geographic areas.

The rest of the world – including the Arabs, Muslims, Israel and the West – cannot resolve this impasse. It is up to the Palestinian people to do so by an act of choice. The world can help by seeing to it that the Palestinians have an opportunity to exercise that choice by holding open, fair and transparent elections.

Of five Palestinian negotiations committees designed to discuss the outstanding issues between the PA and Hamas in Cairo, the only one that seemed to reach an agreement was the committee on elections, which recommended a vote in January 2010. Nothing could be more appropriate, or legitimate, than having the Palestinian people cast their ballots, with their eyes wide open, to make their choices and live with the results. The world now seems to have a Palestinian target date and a mechanism for elections.

Protracted Palestinian negotiations to square the political circle must not be allowed to delay dealing with the reality of irreconcilable factional differences. Barring another Israeli attack, for the remainder of this year, Hamas will in all likelihood maintain its hold over Gaza while the PA will be in charge of the West Bank. Decisions dealing with these realities have to be taken without delay. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should proceed forthwith to form a new PA government acceptable to the international community.

Even if the present reality precludes the PA government's ability to govern Gaza, the PA should not abandon its mandate but pursue its private aid program of reconstruction as it works diligently to lift the siege on Gaza. The new PA government must continue building on the solid foundation laid down by the Fayyad government to erect the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state. It should work diligently and methodically to hold elections on time and prevent others from derailing it.

The de facto Hamas government in Gaza will have to deal with all internal, regional and international political and economic realities and demands. It has to bear the consequences of its decisions and actions, knowing that the Palestinian people will vote come January and that elections cannot be avoided or postponed.

Through the policies that it pursues in the occupied West Bank, Israel will have a powerful role in determining who will govern its future neighbour, the state of Palestine. It has to decide, and to demonstrate, whether it can work with a Palestinian partner in order to bring the conflict to an end. It can, of course, opt to block the emergence of this Palestinian state and allow those who prefer to continue the conflict indefinitely to prevail.

By Ziad Asali
Source: The Daily Star, http://www.dailystar.com.lb.

After the assault on Gaza

Perhaps the greatest moral philosopher to arise from European Jewish culture was the Austrian-born Martin Buber, later a citizen of Israel. Buber was a Zionist. His seminal theological text I And Thou remains relevant today, a powerful work in its devotion to encounter, to the recognition of the Stranger, to dialogue. Buber’s political writings – over a 44 year period – are also very instructive. In a 1929 piece “The National Home and The National Riots in Palestine”, delivered as a speech in Berlin two months after the Palestine Riots resulted in the deaths of over 125 Jews, Buber wrote:

Every responsible relationship between an individual and his fellow begins through the power of genuine imagination, as if we were the residents of Palestine and the others were the immigrants who were coming into the country in increasing numbers, year by year, taking it away from us. How would we react to events? Only if we know this will it be possible to minimize the injustice we must do in order to survive and to live the life which we are not only entitled but obliged to live, since we live for the eternal mission, which has been imbedded within us since our creation.

The passage is suggestive of Buber’s “I-Thou” conception in that it calls for one group to imagine itself in the position of the other. At the same time, it is very clear in this passage that Buber, as a Zionist, does not shrink from describing Jewish emigration to the Holy Land in 1929 as an eschatological and moral calling, a historical coming-to-pass in the name of which injustices may have to be committed.

With this quote in mind, it becomes doubly instructive, in view of the contemporary situation, to remind ourselves of a text Buber wrote in 1947, “The Bi-National Approach to Zionism”. In this extraordinary essay Buber offers the following:

We describe our program as that of a bi-national state—that is, we aim at a social structure based on the reality of two peoples living together. The foundations of this structure cannot be the traditional ones of majority and minority, but must be different. We do not mean just any bi-national state, but this particular one, with its particular conditions, i.e. a bi-national state which embodies in its basic principle a Magna Charta Reservationum, the indispensable postulate of the rescue of the Jewish people. This is what we need and not a “Jewish State”.

What a prescient statement to have made in 1947! Although Buber’s was not the vision of Zionism that triumphed in 1948, we can on its basis assert there was no consensus within Zionism itself in 1947 that a Jewish majority state was a necessary outcome for Zionism and speculate about how a nation in which Buber’s view had triumphed might have instead functioned.

What is incontestable is that Buber, a Zionist, calls for a bi-national state. Only this guarantees Jewish survival and justice for the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. As we watch the two ultra-nationalisms of the current moment battle it out with more than 1350 Gazans and 13 Israeli dead in the aftermath of the fighting, allegations of war crimes and deaths multiplying, isn’t it possible we should take up again Buber’s call for a single bi-national state? I ask this in the spirit of questioning oneself first, an imperative of self-critique that has been a principle of Jewish survival for millennia. If ultra-nationalisms depend on one another to justify their own deadliness, then it is also true that Buber knew that in Palestine/Israel only bi-nationalism could prevent these events. If such violence as we have seen in Gaza is necessary to preserve the Jewish State as we know it, then Israel’s actions in and of themselves have proven that only Buber’s vision of a bi-national state can save all parties.

The German-language Jewish poet Paul Celan, the great poet of the Holocaust and a fervent admirer of Buber’s, wrote of the "Breathturn", that figure in which one breathes in air and breathes out language. Celan spoke of "Breathturn" on his return to Germany in the late 40s, where it could be said he was literally breathing in the molecules of his incinerated people and breathing out poetry, an act fraught with responsibility to the very air he was surviving on and transforming.

The great Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish died on 9 August 2008, a little more than four and a half months before the latest tragedy of his people, the attack on Gaza. Both Celan and Darwish’s writings bear a similar kind of existential urgency, a related kind of presence in air. Darwish’s poems, given his importance to his people and his translatability into other languages, breathe witness to the catastrophe of a particular history.

In "The Death of the Phoenix" Darwish wrote:

In the hymns that we sing, there's a
flute
In the flute that shelters us
fire
In the fire that we feed
a green phoenix
In its elegy I couldn't tell
my ashes from your dust

So Darwish affirms the intermingling of our very molecules, even as elsewhere in the poem he can evoke two figures like Achilles and Priam briefly taking pause from the carnage to admire one another's nobility. For those who read Darwish’s poems, language is breath, in the sense rooted in the etymology of the word "spirit". “Phoenix” is a green oasis in burned out times. In its elegy I can’t at first tell my ashes from your dust. But then I must: 1350 Palestinian and 13 Israeli dead—these are numbers that should horrify us if one believes, as we do, that every individual matters. In the names of the poets, let us once again keep in mind Buber’s very precise call to our imaginations.

By Leonard Schwartz.
Source: Common Ground News Service, www.commongroundnews.org.
Seul le prononcé fait foi
Embargo au prononcé


Discours de Monsieur Jacques CHIRAC

Conférence de lancement du projet Aladin
***
Maison de l'Unesco
Vendredi 27 mars 2009 à 14 H 30


Monsieur le Directeur Général de l'Unesco,
Monsieur le Président de la République du Sénégal,
Mesdames et Messieurs les Présidents,
Mesdames et Messieurs les Parlementaires,
Mesdames et Messieurs les Ministres,
Mesdames et Messieurs les Ambassadeurs,
Chère Simone Veil, Cher David de Rothschild,
Chers amis,

Votre présence ici, à Paris, dans cette grande maison de l’UNESCO, est un témoignage rare. Et un acte de foi. La foi, que nous partageons, des bienfaits de la connaissance.

Aladin, en français, « Aladine » en arabe, « Aladine » en hébreu, c’est la lumière, le symbole de cette connaissance à laquelle nous croyons ensemble.

Je félicite les initiateurs du projet Aladin.
Je félicite ceux qui, du monde entier, ont accepté de le parrainer.
Je suis honoré de me trouver parmi eux.
Je les félicite pour leur ténacité, leur audace et leur vision.

Je veux vous dire que je me reconnais dans votre combat pour rétablir la mémoire de la SHOAH là où elle est niée, là où elle est effacée, là où elle est déformée.

Votre choix est légitime :

Faire connaître la SHOAH en présentant les faits, tels qu’ils ont été, dans leur brutalité. Sans culpabiliser les vivants. Sans vouloir faire porter aux pays musulmans une culpabilité qui n’est pas la leur.

Faire connaître la SHOAH, pour la sortir du silence que l’on a fabriqué autour d’elle, dans beaucoup de pays.

Evoquer la SHOAH risquait de susciter dans ces pays un sentiment de sympathie pour les Juifs et l'existence d’Israël. Alors on l’a cachée.

Faire connaître la SHOAH à chacun, dans sa langue, pour que chacun lise et comprenne dans sa langue maternelle ce qui s’est réellement passé, et forme sa conviction intime. Aujourd’hui l’arabe, le persan, demain l’ourdou, le bengali, le malais... La mémoire de la SHOAH c'est faire vivre les livres et non les brûler. Elle ne doit pas seulement parler à l’intellect. Elle doit toucher le cœur.

C’est, vous le savez, dans le même esprit que je me bats, avec la Fondation que je préside, pour le dialogue et le respect de toutes les cultures.

Le drame de la SHOAH interdit l’oubli. Il impose la pudeur. Il fait exploser la colère au cœur de chaque homme de bonne volonté, lorsque la SHOAH est contestée.

Nous n’en avons pas fini avec la barbarie qui a conduit à la SHOAH.
Voilà la vraie raison d’en garder la mémoire à jour. Une mémoire constamment en alerte.
Transmettre aux pays qui ne l’ont pas connue la mémoire de la SHOAH c’est allumer chez eux l’esprit de résistance qui nous a fait défaut face au Mal.
Car nul pays, nulle culture, ne sont immunisés contre la tentation du génocide.
Le négationnisme est un crime contre la mémoire. Mais plus grave encore, il émousse la vigilance.

Je suis très inquiet aujourd’hui, que certains puissent dire, chez nous, en Europe, que cette histoire, la SHOAH, n’était pas la leur, que c’était l’histoire des Juifs, le problème des Juifs.
Nous devons combattre cet apartheid insupportable de la mémoire.
Nos Etats, et notamment l'Etat français, ont été mêlés à ce crime.
Nous avons composé par peur avec la barbarie nazie. Nous avons laissé nos concitoyens juifs, enfants ou non de notre terre, être arrachés de nous comme s’ils étaient un corps étranger. Nous avons assisté, pétrifiés, à leur humiliation et à leur anéantissement.

Après la SHOAH, rien, pour nous, ne peut être comme avant.
Rien ne peut faire que nous ne nous sentions pas responsables.
Rien ne peut faire que nous ne nous sentions pas orphelins.
Rien ne peut faire éluder la question : et moi, qu’aurais-je fait ?

Après la SHOAH, nous savons que le courage politique, le vrai, c’est d’abord de résister, quoiqu’il en coûte, à la xénophobie qui déshumanise.
Nous ne devons jamais accepter comme démocratiques, les partis qui propagent la haine.

L’accord trouvé entre libéraux, démocrates chrétiens, socialistes et communistes dans l’après guerre pour rejeter les partis de la haine doit être considéré comme un acquis définitif de la démocratie européenne.
Nous avons fait l’Europe pour la paix, mais pas n’importe laquelle. Rien ne doit remettre en question cette vision.

J’ai un autre sujet d’inquiétude.
Je vous le confie avec la franchise d’un homme qui s’est battu pour le respect du droit au Proche-Orient, pour un Etat palestinien viable, pour l’indépendance de chaque Etat dans la région, dans la sécurité et le respect de ses frontières…
J’ai dit aux Israéliens que la colonisation était une faute. On ne construit pas la paix avec son voisin en expropriant ses terres, en arrachant ses arbres, en bouclant ses routes…
Il n’en est pas moins vrai que les conflits incessants du Proche-Orient servent aujourd’hui de prétexte à une nouvelle haine d’Israël ; elle est en train de devenir une nouvelle haine des Juifs ; cette haine se répand.
Elle est le contraire d’une solution. Elle peut être le début d’un nouveau cauchemar.
Au débat exigeant avec les dirigeants d’Israël, cette haine substitue un soupçon à l’encontre de tous les Juifs.
Au respect du droit, respect qu’il faut exiger d’Israël comme de tous les autres Etats, cette haine prétend substituer la vengeance et le terrorisme.

La paix, les partisans de la haine prétendent l’établir par le harcèlement, l’humiliation, l’éviction, la destruction des Juifs…
Il n'y aura pas de paix au Proche-Orient tant qu'il n'y aura pas reconnaissance et acceptation de l'Etat d’Israël. C’est le sens de toutes les résolutions des Nations unies. C’est le sens de la déclaration d’Oslo. C’est le sens de tous les efforts que nous encourageons.

Mais il n'y aura pas reconnaissance mutuelle réelle sans un assentiment des peuples eux mêmes.
Cet assentiment ne se fera pas sans une compréhension plus intime, de part et d'autre, sans que soit retrouvé le sentiment d’appartenir à la même fraternité humaine.

Voici pourquoi votre projet est si urgent. Si important.

Seul le rappel de la mémoire de la SHOAH permet de comprendre comment l’on passe de la frustration à la haine, de la haine à la négation de l’autre, et de cette négation au génocide.

Il n’est pas trop tard. Il n’y a aucune fatalité à la haine.

Dans les deux traditions, juive et musulmane, la tolérance et le respect de l'autre sont des préceptes fondateurs. "La loi du pays, c'est la loi", dit le Talmud. La communauté juive respecte les lois du pays où elle vit. Elle respecte les autres communautés. "Si Dieu avait voulu créer une seule communauté, il l'aurait fait." dit quant à lui le Coran.
Vous avez raison de vouloir rappeler la ressemblance qui existe entre deux traditions qui ont coexisté pendant plus de mille ans.

Oui, j'adhère avec enthousiasme au projet Aladin parce qu'il fait le pari de la connaissance et de la capacité des deux communautés à se retrouver, à se comprendre et à s'accepter. Aladin c'est un appel au dialogue, à la compréhension mutuelle. L'incompréhension entre les juifs et les musulmans n'est pas inscrite dans leur histoire, ni dans leur religion, ni dans leur culture.
Quand on demandera demain à un enfant musulman ce qu’est un Juif il ne pourra plus répondre par des caricatures et des stéréotypes.
Quand on demandera demain à un enfant juif ce qu’est un Musulman, il ne pourra plus répondre par des caricatures et des stéréotypes.

Je crois au dialogue des civilisations.

Avec mes amis, le Prince Hassan bin Talal, avec Gerhard Schröder, avec Ely Ould Mohamed Vall, avec Abdurrahman Wahid, je crois qu'il faut faire vite.

Je vous remercie.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Closed Zone

Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement calls on the State of Israel to fully open Gaza's crossings and to allow the real victims of the closure - 1.5 million human beings - the freedom of movement necessary to realize their dreams and aspirations.


Source: www.closedzone.com

Saturday, March 7, 2009

An Empire for Poor Working Women, Guided by a Gandhian Approach

THIRTY-FIVE years ago in this once thriving textile town, Ela Bhatt fought for higher wages for women who ferried bolts of cloth on their heads. Next, she created India’s first women’s bank.

Since then, her Self-Employed Women’s Association, or SEWA, has offered retirement accounts and health insurance to women who never had a safety net, lent working capital to entrepreneurs to open beauty salons in the slums, helped artisans sell their handiwork to new urban department stores and boldly trained its members to become gas station attendants — an unusual job for women on the bottom of India’s social ladder.

Small, slight and usually dressed in a hand-spun cotton sari, Mrs. Bhatt is a Gandhian pragmatist for the New India.

At 76, she is a critic of some of India’s embrace of market reforms, but nevertheless keen to see the poorest of Indian workers get a stake in the country’s swelling and swiftly globalizing economy. She has built a formidable empire of women-run, Gandhian-style cooperatives — 100 at last count — some providing child care for working mothers, others selling sesame seeds to Indian food-processing firms — all modeled after the Gandhian ideal of self-sufficiency but also advancing modern ambitions.

She calls it the quest for economic freedom in a democratic India.

Her own quest offers a glimpse into the changing desires of Indian mothers and daughters, along with their vulnerabilities. Tinsmiths or pickle makers, embroiderers or vendors of onions, SEWA’s members are mostly employed in the informal sector. They get no regular paychecks, sick leave or holidays. Calamities are always just around the corner, whether traffic accidents or crippling droughts. Without SEWA, they would be hard pressed to have health benefits or access to credit.

SEWA’s innovations bear lessons for the majority of workers in the new Indian economy. Since economic reforms kicked off in 1991, the share of Indians employed in the informal sector — where they are not covered by stringent, socialist-era labor laws from the time of the cold war — has grown steadily to more than 90 percent, according to a recent government-commissioned report.

Among them, the report found, nearly three-fourths lived on less than 20 cents a day and had virtually no safety net. “Why should there be a difference between worker and worker,” Mrs. Bhatt wondered aloud, “whether they are working in a factory, or at home or on the footpath?”

WITH 500,000 members in western Gujarat State alone, the SEWA empire also includes two profit-making firms that stitch and embroider women’s clothing. More than 100,000 women are enrolled in the organization’s health and life insurance plans. Its bank has 350,000 depositors and, like most microfinance organizations, a repayment rate as high as 97 percent. Loans range from around $100 to $1,100, with a steep interest rate of 15 percent. “We don’t have a liquidity problem,” its manager, Jayshree Vyas, pointed out merrily. “Women save.”

A SEWA loan of roughly $250 allowed Namrata Rajhari to start a beauty salon 15 years ago from her one-room shack in a working-class enclave called Behrampura. At first, the neighborhood women knew little about beauty treatments. They only wanted their hair trimmed.

Then Mrs. Rajhari began threading their eyebrows to resemble perfect half-moons, waxing the hair off their forearms and offering facials. During the wedding season, business blossomed. Mrs. Rajhari, who only has a 10th-grade education, expanded to a small room in the next lane.

With money from her business, Mrs. Rajhari installed a toilet at home, added a loft and bought a washing machine. “Before, I felt blank. I didn’t know anything about the world,” she said the other day. “Now, with my earnings, my children are studying.”

Mrs. Rajhari then motioned to an object of pride in the living room. “The computer is also from my parlor money,” she beamed. A daughter, Srishti, is now enrolled in a private English school. She wants to be an astronomer.

Behrampura buzzed with work and hustle on this morning. Men disassembled old television sets and put together new sofas. A woman pushed a cart loaded with used suitcases. Another herded a half-dozen donkeys loaded with construction debris.

Nearby, in another slum, shortly after dawn, Naina Chauhan rode a motorized rickshaw across town to start her shift as a gas station attendant. Her mother, Hira, now 65, had spent a lifetime ferrying coal, cleaning hospitals and going house to house to collect old newspapers. Naina said she resolved never to slog as her mother had.

Today, she contributes about $1 a month to her own SEWA-run pension plan. A SEWA loan has allowed her to clear a debt from relatives. She easily makes three times what her mother made collecting newspapers and as she shyly admitted this afternoon, almost as much as her husband, a hospital cleaner. She just recently married, and plans to move into her husband’s family home soon. She said she hoped he would let her manage at least some of her own money.

Mrs. Bhatt’s Gandhian approach is most evident in the way she lives. Her two-bedroom bungalow is small and spare. The one bit of whimsy is a white swing that hangs from the ceiling in the center of the living room. She uses her bed as a desk chair. Her grandson has painted a child’s pastoral mural on the bedroom wall. She is known for having no indulgences.

“Above all you should emphasize her simplicity,” said Anil Gupta, a professor at the Indian Institute of Management here who has followed SEWA’s work for over a decade, sometimes critically. “In her personal life, there is not the slightest tinge of hypocrisy.”

Mrs. Bhatt is not without detractors. The chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, accused her group of financial irregularities three years ago in the management of a rehabilitation program for earthquake victims. SEWA denied the charges and pulled out of the government-run program. Mrs. Bhatt accused Mr. Modi of trying to discredit the organization. Their war of words has since cooled down.

BORN to a privileged Brahmin family, Mrs. Bhatt charted an unusual path for a woman of her time. She earned a law degree and chose the man she would marry. She began her career as a lawyer for the city’s main union for textile workers, the vast majority of them men, and broke away in 1981 to create a new kind of union for women.

Early on, she won higher rates for women porters, then a landmark legal victory that allowed women to sell fruits and vegetables on the street without harassment from the police. The fishmongers and quilt-makers who were SEWA Bank’s earliest customers sometimes stashed their checkbooks in the bank’s steel cabinets, she recalled, lest their husbands discover they had money of their own.

At first, the women’s ambitions were limited, she said. They wanted toilets, hair shears or sewing machines for work and money to pay for their children’s school fees. Slowly, she noticed, they began to dream big. Mothers now want their daughters to learn to ride a scooter and work on a computer.

“They didn’t see the future at that time,” she said. “Expectations have gone very high.”

Not long ago, Mrs. Bhatt recalled, she asked SEWA members what “freedom” meant to them. Some said it was the ability to step out of the house. Others said it was having a door to the bathroom. Some said it meant having their own money, a cellphone, or “fresh clothes every day.”

Then she told of her favorite. Freedom, one woman said, was “looking a policeman in the eye.”

Source: New York Times.