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.

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.

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