Forum for Peace

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

2009-07-12T10:11:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-12T10:10:00.000-07:00

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.

"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

Le Forum International pour la Paix soutien le président Obama

2009-07-09T04:12:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-06-29T10:33:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-29T10:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-09T10:53:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-09T09:50:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-09T09:45:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-09T09:44:00.001-07:00

Obama Cairo Speech Part 5 - June 04 2009

2009-06-09T09:43:00.001-07:00

Obama Cairo Speech Part 4 - June 04 2009

2009-06-09T09:42:00.001-07:00

Obama Cairo Speech Part 3 - June 04 2009

2009-06-09T09:41:00.001-07:00

Obama Cairo Speech Part 2 - June 04 2009

2009-06-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

Obama Cairo Speech Part 1 - June 04 2009

2009-06-09T09:37:00.001-07:00

President Obama's speech in Cairo

2009-06-04T07:30:00.000-07:00

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.

Six Are Killed in West Bank as Fatah and Hamas Clash

2009-05-31T16:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-27T17:38:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-05-27T17:37:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-05-27T17:35:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-27T17:32:00.001-07:00

Israel Removes Illegal Settler Outpost in West Bank

2009-05-27T17:25:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-27T17:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-16T06:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-16T06:45:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-16T06:30:00.000-07:00

A sustainable peace

2009-05-16T06:28:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-05-16T06:26:00.000-07:00

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

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

2009-04-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-17T17:34:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-17T17:11:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-17T17:09:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-04-01T19:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-01T19:22:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-01T19:04:00.000-07:00

“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

2009-04-01T19:02:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-01T18:59:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-04-01T18:53:00.000-07:00

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.

Closed Zone

2009-03-10T17:00:00.000-07:00

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

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

2009-03-07T16:42:00.000-08:00

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.

Sarkozy says Israeli withdrawal must follow Hamas ceasefire

2009-03-07T07:22:00.000-08:00

Israel should leave the Gaza Strip if Palestinian militants stop firing rockets at the Jewish state, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said at the end of a summit on Gaza in Egypt Sunday.

"We (European leaders) will go to Israel to tell Israel that we are at its side to assure its right to security but Israel must indicate clearly that if the rocket firing stops, the Israeli army will leave Gaza," Sarkozy told journalists alongside five other European leaders.

"There is no other solution for peace," he said, with the six European leaders due to travel on to Israel at the end of the summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Egypt President Hosni Mubarak, Jordanian King Abdullah II and Arab League chief Amr Mussa called for an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2009, at the end of the summit.

"I hope that 2009 will be the year that will see the end of all these conflicts," Mubarak said, "adding my voice" to Abdullah's and Mussa's at the end of the meeting on the Gaza crisis in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

European and conservative Arab leaders gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh on Sunday to back Egyptian efforts to turn a shaky ceasefire in Gaza into a solid mutual agreement leading to Israeli withdrawal.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Gaza and an end to Palestinian rocket fire.

"This fragile ceasefire has got to be followed immediately, if it is to be sustainable, by humanitarian access... by troop withdrawals, by an end to arms trafficking," he said, also calling for an "end to rocket attacks" by Gaza militants.

"Today a humanitarian tragedy must be met not just by sympathy but by an immediate mobilisation of aid. That is why today we will treble our humanitarian aid," he said.

Ban Ki-moon and Mahmoud Abbas attended

The leaders of Britain, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Spain and Turkey, along with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, are meeting in the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to coordinate policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after three weeks of fighting in and around Gaza.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa also attended.

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire overnight and the Islamist movement Hamas responded on Sunday by declaring a one-week truce for Israeli troops to leave the coastal strip.

But attacks on Sunday showed that the truce was fragile, with the two sides in disagreement over what should happen next.

"There are some violations here or there. The aim now is to consolidate that ceasefire so that a ceasefire with a longer duration can be achieved," Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki told the Arabic satellite channel Al Arabiya.

The Palestinian ambassador to Egypt, Nabil Amr, said the most pressing issue now was the withdrawal of Israeli troops and Israel should come under pressure to pull them out at once.

Israel's decision to abandon attempts to reach a mediated truce with Hamas was a blow to Egyptian diplomacy but President Hosni Mubarak said on Saturday that Egypt would keep trying.

Arms smuggling

Zaki said the leaders wanted to discuss how to help make sure there is no repeat of the Gaza conflict, in which Israeli forces killed 1,200 Palestinians. Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians hit by rockets were killed.

"The leaders want to discuss how to help in preventing this tragedy from being repeated, and how to all work on ... rebuilding Gaza," he said.

Several of the participants, including Britain, France and Germany, have offered to send warships to the Middle East to help prevent Hamas in Gaza from receiving arms shipments.

One diplomat said this in itself was a departure in policy for the Europeans, who have previously refrained from using their armed forces to help either side.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters on his way to Sharm el-Sheikh the British navy would patrol the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden to prevent arms smuggling.

An end to the smuggling has been one of the Israeli demands in the conflict, which began on Dec. 27 after a six-month truce between the two sides broke down.

But Egypt, much criticised in the Arab world for cooperating in the Israeli blockade of Gaza over the past six months, has refused to allow foreign forces onto its territory as part of the anti-smuggling effort.

Source: http://www.france24.com

2009-03-05T18:50:00.000-08:00

The song by Noa and Mira Awad featured in this video, 'There must be another way' is Israel's entry to the 2009 Eurovision song contest.

A fragile opportunity

2009-03-05T18:45:00.000-08:00

There are many reasons to feel more pessimistic than optimistic about the possibility of any major breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this year. The inaction by the international community, especially the United States, over the past few years has made the situation more complicated, with increased violence and hardened public opinion on both sides.

In the aftermath of the Gaza war, Hamas’ popularity has increased, both inside Palestine and in the wider Arab/Muslim world, with growing support among Palestinians for military resistance. Israel has shifted politically to the right, with broader acceptance of the “fifth column” theory, which views Palestinian citizens of Israel as a security threat.

Any talk of a peace process has negative connotations for both sides. For many Israelis, it raises fears that land returned to the Palestinians in the West Bank will eventually be used for launching rockets, as happened in Gaza. Similarly, for many Palestinians, the continuation of the peace process means endless talking without results as Israel continues to annex more Palestinian land for building and/or expanding settlements.

Internal political considerations add more problems to the mix. Hamas’ political platform differs greatly from the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO’s) and Palestinian National Authority’s embrace of a two-state solution with an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Instead, Hamas has suggested a long-term truce with Israel with no formal recognition. In Israel, the political platform of the Likud party, and its Prime Minister elect Benjamin Netanyahu, unlike the Kadima and Labour parties, does not accept the concept of “land for peace” and the establishment of an independent, viable Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders. Instead Netanyahu is promoting a vague economic peace plan. Thus, any coalition or unity government, on either side, is likely to be unstable because of serious political differences between the parties involved. This decreases the probability that either side will be able to act on the terms of previously suggested end of conflict agreements.

There are no historical or charismatic leaders on either side to make such an agreement happen, and moderate leaders don’t have enough power to build the consensus needed to make the necessary concessions. “Radicals” on both sides can continue to wreck any potential agreement and to feed each other’s raison d’être. Many observers believe that time is running out for the two-state solution without any acceptable or practical alternative.

It has become apparent that Palestinians and Israelis cannot make any substantive progress on the core issues without persistent mediation by third parties, especially the United States, Europe and key regional players. As witnessed in the recent past, during the absence of a functional mediator, different approaches and tactics were tried by both sides and all failed with catastrophic outcomes. They led to unilateralism, a resort to brute military force, a security doctrine based on the power of deterrence that gave rise to collective punishment, suicide bombings and the increased launching of rockets. Temporary arrangements are no longer enough. These have only been used to divert attention away from addressing the core issues, maintaining the status quo, and managing rather than resolving conflict.

Despite the current realities on the ground that have led to this pessimism, there is a small but fragile window of opportunity. The declared intention of the Obama administration to change American policies in the region, putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of its agenda, has indicated that a more determined mediation role will be pursued. Recruiting George Mitchell, who is known for his talented skills as a professional conflict resolution practitioner, might indicate a more neutral and honest American mediator.

There are existing tools that Mitchell can utilise and build upon. The gap in popularity between Hamas and Fatah is narrow and fluctuates with events on the ground. The Palestinian National Authority can still be a relevant peace partner with a functional technocratic government, regional and international support, and a reformed security establishment. The Arab Peace Initiative is still on the table and could be utilised to compensate for the current weakness of the Palestinian political system, and could open the door for a regional security arrangement.

Sources on both sides have suggested that Olmert and Abu Mazen made some breakthroughs in negotiations following Annapolis and that former President Clinton’s parameters are still valid. The public mood on both sides can be changed and new elections can bring new political realities. Lately, Hamas has shown signs of pragmatism, and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey can still influence Hamas’ decisions. Many believe that a right-wing Israeli government will be less resistance to American pressure.

It seems that Obama’s administration also believes that issues in the region are interrelated and is adopting a multilateral comprehensive approach. It should not be forgotten that Syria and Israel reached a point of direct negotiation before the Gaza war and that, in the past, Netanyahu was close to reaching an agreement with Syria. It is also likely that the Lebanese-Israeli front will stay calm in the short term. Both situations have implications for progress on the Palestinian-Israeli front.

Obama’s emphasis on international cooperation, the respect for international law and humanitarian law, dialogue and diplomacy, consultation with America’s friends, and on listening to the voice of progressives in the American Jewish community, might create an environment for sustainable results. For any progress, nothing is more important than for the people on both sides to feel security, dignity and hope.

The cost of missing this delicate opportunity would be tragic for stability in the region, American interests, Israel’s security, Palestinian national aspirations, ending state and non-state terrorism, and Obama’s pragmatic approach.

By Emad Omar - a specialist in conflict resolution, media and civil society. He is based in Amman, Jordan.

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

Article in Saudi Daily 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat' Calls for Arab-Jewish Conciliation

2009-03-05T18:28:00.000-08:00

The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat recently published an article by liberal Syrian philosopher Hashem Saleh, who resides in Paris, titled "Towards an Arab-Jewish Conciliation." In it, Saleh argues that the time is has come for the Arabs to make peace with Israel and to focus on developing their own countries, and that the Palestinian problem will resolve itself via the natural Palestinian demographic superiority over the Israelis.

Following are excerpts:(1)

I Want the Gaza War to Be the Last War

"This surprising heading will cause a big fuss. People will say, 'The blood [spilled] in Gaza has barely dried, yet he is already calling for defeat and conciliation with the enemy!' Nonetheless, after pondering and deliberating the matter for a long time, I am determined to defend this option.

"I confess that I was surprised at my own conclusion. I did not expect to reach this conclusion after many years of exploring every aspect of this dilemma. I spent many an hour in seclusion, reading extensively about this infernal conflict, until I was able to arrive at my [current] position.

"As the matter stands, I firmly believe that it would be absurd and meaningless to continue this conflict, because it stifles our revival and our freedom. It has become a useless burden. It has become a total waste of time, effort, money, and human lives.

"I want the Gaza war to be the last war. Let us start a fresh new era in the region, and use all the [heretofore] wasted energy and missed opportunities towards construction and development instead of destruction and devastation. Let us invest [our energy] in building schools, universities, hospitals, and children's playgrounds.

"In order for the Arab cultural enterprise to truly get underway, we cannot continue postponing it indefinitely under the pretext of liberating Palestine. Let us first of all liberate the Arab thought, and Palestine's liberation will follow of its own accord.

"I admit that, [for me,] the straw was reading the latest book by Palestinian thinker Sari Nusseibeh, recently published in English and French under the title Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life.(2) It is this book that prompted me to adopt my current position, which is bound to create problems and draw me into arguments with Arab demagogues who are filling TV programs and newspapers with their screeches and yelps…"

The Victory Over Israel Will be Achieved by a Different Tactic: Through Demography

"We take a completely wrong course when we keep locking horns with the Jews, cracking our own skulls along with theirs, to no avail whatsoever. [The Jews] have a long history, which is unique and replete with suffering. Let us try a different way of managing this conflict, instead of sticking to the same outdated and wretched stratagem.

"I am positive that we can win this battle without firing a single shot. [We can do this] by employing a different tactic – [namely,] through [our] birthrate and demographics. The Palestinians will overwhelm the Israelis and influence them [through their sheer number].

"Enough of wars and pointless confrontations! We have suffered enough [wars] and are tired of them. The Israelis, who intimidate us with their airplanes, missiles, and state-of-the-art military technology, are actually afraid of us. Their entire existence is founded upon ghettos, persecution, and unending slaughter, which has not ceased throughout [their] entire history. This is the [correct] psychological analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"Victory over Israel will surely come, and I contend that it will come of itself. How will this happen? First of all, though victory over ourselves, through a successful implementation of the Arab cultural enterprise, and through acquiring knowledge and technological [know-how].

"Look at China and what it has achieved. Don't you think that the Chinese would like to take revenge on the West, which has been humiliating China from the time of the Anglo-Chinese opium wars in the 19th century? Though the British once humiliated the Chinese in their own homeland, the contemporary Chinese are not sacrificing their lives to provoke the British. [Instead,] they are waiting until their economic, technological, and cultural enterprise is completed before standing up to America and taking revenge on Japan. They do not act [prematurely], since [they know] it is necessary to prepare the ground.

"This is the logical way to proceed. It is the [kind of] political reasoning that the fundamentalist or mystical mentality... is unfortunately unable to grasp. [It is this mentality that] has brought destruction upon us, twice within a span of two years – once [in the 2006 war between Israel and] Hizbullah, and the second time [in the 2009 war between Israel and] Hamas."

"The Future Belongs… to People of Good Intentions and Enlightened Minds, On Both Sides – Palestinians and Israelis"

"What is the use of all these wars, which bring no change? Unfortunately, they cause a lot of damage. They destroy our infrastructures, throw us back dozens of years, and bring pain and suffering upon our families, wives and children, taking us back to square one, or even [to square zero]…

"The future belongs neither to Hamas, nor to [Al-Qaeda leaders] Zawahiri and bin Laden, nor yet to the Israeli extreme right, which has lost its mind. It belongs to people of good intentions and enlightened minds on both sides – Palestinians and Israelis, Arabs and Jews. These people are many, though they are frightened and [therefore keep] quiet."

Endnotes
(1) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 20, 2009.
(2) Nusseibeh, Sari and Anthony David, Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.

Musical Show of Unity Upsets Many in Israel

2009-03-05T18:22:00.000-08:00

Achinoam Nini, a singer and peace activist, has long stirred controversy here. Known abroad by her stage name, Noa, she has recorded with Arab artists, refused to perform in the occupied West Bank, condemned Israeli settlements there and had concerts canceled because of bomb threats from the extreme right.

But lately it is the left that has been angry with Ms. Nini. Chosen by Israel to represent the country at the Eurovision Song Contest — this year being held in Moscow in May with an expected television audience of 100 million — Ms. Nini asked if she could bring along her current artistic collaborator, an Israeli Arab singer, Mira Awad.

The selection committee liked the idea of having both Arab and Jewish citizens in the contest for the first time. But coinciding as it did with Israel’s Gaza war and the rise of Avigdor Lieberman, the ultranationalist politician who threatens Israeli Arabs with a loyalty oath, the committee’s choice was labeled by many on the left and in the Arab community as an effort to prettify an ugly situation.

A petition went around demanding that the duo withdraw, saying they were giving the false impression of coexistence in Israel and trying to shield the nation from the criticism it deserved. It added, “Every brick in the wall of this phony image allows the Israeli Army to throw 10 more tons of explosives and more phosphorus bombs.”

Neither Ms. Nini, 39, nor Ms. Awad, 33, has been deterred. But since they consider themselves peace advocates, they are a bit surprised. The antiwar movement, they say, seems to have turned into a Hamas apology force. That, together with the political turn rightward in Israel, means that while the two are being sent to represent this mixed and complex society, they also feel a bit orphaned by it.

“I am so worried by the drift to the extremes on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides,” Ms. Awad said as she and Ms. Nini, and their artistic collaborator, the guitarist Gil Dor, took a break from rehearsal to discuss the controversy. “That is not my vision of a Palestinian state, an extreme religious state where people they don’t like are shot in the legs. And then the Israeli election went to the right.”

The three are preparing four songs, from which one will be selected by a panel and an audience voting at a television performance in early March. All four songs are written in equal parts Hebrew, Arabic and English, and all seek to recognize the difficulty inherent in coexistence, rather than celebrate some mythic Kumbaya.

“And when I cry, I cry for both of us, my pain has no name,” go the lyrics of one of their offerings. “Where can we go from here? Sister, it’s been one long night,” goes a second one. Ms. Awad is one of one and a half million Arab citizens of Israel’s more than seven million inhabitants. There are four million more Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza who have no state of their own.

The two women have been collaborating for nearly eight years. At the height of the second intifada six years ago, they did a version of the Beatles’ “We Can Work It Out” that became an international hit.

Ms. Awad, the daughter of an Arab physician from the Galilee and a Bulgarian mother, lives in Tel Aviv. She is best known in Israel as an actress who appears in a popular television comedy, and has been starring lately in a searing play at the Cameri Theater in Tel Aviv about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But it is Ms. Nini who has a true international reputation. She has sold well over a million albums and has a strong following in Europe, especially in Spain, Italy and France, where she gives frequent concerts. She has a crystalline voice joined to a Yemenite Jewish background that give her music a rich ethnic quality. Having spent her childhood in New York City, she speaks flawless English and combines a number of instruments and rhythms to produce music across a broad range of styles.

“I carry a cross-cultural flag, breaking barriers between religions,” she said. “And I am also involved in other things — I am a U.N. good-will ambassador. So I feel like a kind of fusion, like Barack Obama.”

Ms. Nini, while admired in Israel, is more popular abroad. Her music, unlike that of most pop stars, is less a reflection of her own country’s sensibility than an effort to express the universal — one reason the panel may have thought she could bring home Israel’s fourth Eurovision victory in three decades. Israel’s two leading television satire shows have portrayed her as more interested in Italy than Israel, and as exploiting Ms. Awad for her own needs.

Ms. Awad, with her mixed parentage, is also something of a stranger in her own land, an Arab Christian singer and actress in a country dominated by Jews and Muslims.

That partly explains their bond, the two women say, and it may also explain the ambivalence with which their selection has been met.

But recent politics have also clearly taken their toll. During the war, Ms. Nini posted a letter on her blog condemning the Islamists of Hamas and calling on her “Palestinian brothers” to join together to eliminate what she called the ugly monster of Hamas. It was widely interpreted as an endorsement of Israel’s war in Gaza, although she said it was not.

“What I wrote was based on what my Palestinian friends in Gaza told me, that they are threatened by Hamas,” she said.

Both singers and their collaborator, Mr. Dor, say that they spend many hours arguing over the meaning of a Jewish democratic nation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how to do their part to make things better.

“Everyone is responsible to put in his or her two cents for peace and coexistence,” Ms. Nini said. “Our two cents is music. We have a real friendship. Of course we argue. But the beauty is that we offer an example of what coexistence could look like.”

Source: New York Times.

Participation d'Ofer Bronchtein sur le Forum du NouvelObs.com

2009-03-05T18:03:00.000-08:00

La situation israélo-palestinienne

mardi 03 mars 2009
de 09h30 à 11h45

Avec Ofer Bronchtein, président du Forum international pour la Paix et la réconciliation au Proche-Orient.
avec Ofer Bronchtein, franco-israélien, ancien conseiller d'Yitzhak Rabin, président du Forum international pour la Paix et la réconciliation au Proche-Orient, une organisation qui entretient depuis des années un dialogue entre Palestiniens et Israéliens.

Question: Le hamas étant classé " organisation terroriste " que va faire MR BLAIR à GAZA?
Avec qui ISRAEL doit-il negocier alors que le pays est bombarder journellement ?

Réponse : Bonjour à tous,
Tony Blair, comme d'autres leaders, ont visité et visiteront Gaza ces prochains jours sans que pour cela ils ne rencontrent les leaders du Hamas ou sans que cela puisse être interprété comme une reconnaissance du Hamas. Un million et demi de Palestiniens vivent dans le plus grand camp de réfugiés du monde qu'est Gaza. Ils méritent l'attention et le soutien de la communauté internationale. Israël négocie avec l'autorité palestinienne, elle-même négocie avec le Hamas au Caire. J'espère que ces négociations aboutiront à la re-création d'un gouvernement d'union nationale palestinien. A condition que le Hamas respecte les accords signés et reconnaisse l'Etat d'Israël.

Question: Bonjour, je vous découvre et c'est toujours encourageant de rencontrer des personnes qui oeuvrent pour la paix. Pouvez-vous me dire à quoi à servi l'attaque sur Gaza ? Quel était son but ? Renverser le Hamas ? Raté. Arrêter les tirs de roquettes ? Raté. Alors ? Rétablir l'honneur de Tsahal ? Alors là...

Réponse : Comme vous le savez, je ne suis pas porte-parole ni du gouverenement israélien, ni de l'armée israélienne. Je reste convaincu que la violence et la guerre ne peuvent pas résoudre le conflit israélo-palestinien. Ce n'est que par le dialogue, les négociations, la générosité et l'humilité que nous pourrons enfin aboutir à une paix dans la région.

Question: Etes vous prêt à dialoguer avec le Hamas ?

Réponse: Oui. Et oui. Il a été choisi par une majorité de Palestiniens au parlement. Pour qu'il devienne un partenaire, il ne peut être qu'une force politique responsable: reconnaître l'Etat d'Israël et renoncer au terrorisme.

Question: Bonjour M. Bronchtein,
Votre Action est trés louable et généreuse; mais
- 1/ aujourd'hui que peut faire votre Forum Internationl?...Y. Rabin est mort; T.Livni qui aurait pu faire avancer les choses? s'est placée dans l'opposition ... B.Netanyahou jure d'empêcher la création d'un Etat Palestinien indépendant et va devoir s'allier à qui vous savez...
-2/ êtes vous prêt à ce que Jérusalem-Est soit la Capitale d'une Palestine indépendante

Réponse: 1) L'assassinat d'Yitzhak Rabin par un terroriste israélien a bouleversé la région et nous a empêché de vivre en paix avec les Palestiniens.
Tzipi Livni n'est pas encore dans l'opposition. Je pense qu'elle intégrera le gouvernement Natanyahou qui lui-même acceptera l'idée de la création d'un état palestinien.
2) Jérusalem-Est est de facto habitée par des Palestiniens. Il est évident que ça deviendra la capitale du futur Etat palestinien.

Question: Réconciliation? Pendant que vous parlez dans ce forum, Israël continue à coloniser la Palestine en décidant d'implanter de nouvelles colonies en Cisjordanie... Les médias français sionistes, pendant ce temps, stigmatisent les Français - qui sont contre les meurtres de Gaza et cette nouvelle spoliation envers le peuple Palestinien - en les traitant d'antisémites parce qu'ils ne sont pas d'accord et qu'ils le manifestent par des sentiments (justifiés) anti-sionistes, ou anti -israéliens, mais en rien antisémites. Le soutien à Israël est devenu de ce fait indéfendable et il est normal que les gens sensés n'approuvent pas ces procédés. Même des Français d'ascendance confessionnelle juive comme Marie-Georges BUFFET ou moi-même... Comment voulez-vous, que depuis le 4 novembre , où Ytzhak RABIN fut assassiné par l'un des vôtres, nous puissions croire encore au désir de Paix et de Réconciliation d'Israël???

Cette nouvelle annexion ne prouve-t-elle pas le contraire? Ne prouve-t-elle pas la réalité jamais déviée d'une volonté d'annexion vieille de plus d'un siècle? C'est à dire bien avant la naissance de Hitler et de la Shoa?

Réponse : Je ne sais pas de quels médias français vous parlez. Les amalgames sont dangereux. Nous sommes témoins de critiques virulentes envers Israël et le sionisme, légitimes, mais malheureusement souvent mêlées à des actions et des propos antisémites inacceptables.
Dans votre question, cet amalgame est perceptible. Vous parlez des "vôtres" en parlant de moi. En rappelant vos ascendances et celles de Mme Buffet, ne faites-vous pas vous-même l'amalgame ?

Question: On comprend tres mal l'obstination du HAMAS à faire un geste , un premier pas ,en relachant Gilad Shalit ..pour débloquer la situation ...
On comprend mal comment aucune des recommandations internationales cherchant une solution pour sortir de cette impasse n'évoque ce probleme ...
on comprend mal pourquoi aucune preuve de vie et de traitement humain concernant cet prisonnier ne soit fourni par le HAMAS ...
on comprend mal ou... on craint de comprendre ...
Et vous ???

Réponse: Les conditions de détention de Gilad Shalit par le Hamas sont absolument inacceptables et contraires à toutes les conventions internationales. Le président Sarkozy lui-même a rappelé hier à Charm-el-Cheikh que l'échange de prisonniers palestiniens en Israël avec Gilad Shalit était impératif au déblocage de la situation.

Question: Et maintenant ? Après l'offensive sur Gaza, les élections israéliennes, comment voyez-vous la suite des évènements ? Qu'est ce que vous préconisez ?

Réponse: Je continue à être profondément convaincu que le dialogue, la reconnaissance de l'autre dans l'humilité et la générosité, sont impératifs pour redonner espoir aux Israéliens et aux Palestiniens. Je déplore la violence inouïe et disproportionnée utilisée envers des civils par l'armée israélienne et les actes terroristes continuel visant uniquement des civils par le Hamas.

Question: A quand des poursuites pour les crimes de guerre dans la région (tous les crimes de guerre) ? J'ai lu que la justice espagnole menait une enquête contre des responsables israéliens pour le bombardement meurtrier de Gaza en 2002. Vous approuvez ?

Réponse: L'Espagne est un des seuls pays au monde où la séparation des pouvoirs permet à un juge, suite à une plainte, de poursuivre des responsables politiques ou militaires dans quel pays que ce soit et je pense que cette loi doit être changée pour permettre des relations sereines et constructives entre les Etats. Il y a aujourd'hui des traités qui stipulent clairement ce que sont les crimes de guerre. C'est à eux et uniquement à eux qu'il faut se référer.

Question: Bonjour Monsieur,
Pourquoi l'actuel gouvernement Israëlien souhaite-il favoriser l'implantation de colonies ? Cette politique ne revient-elle pas, de facto, à geler tout processus de paix et toute perspective de deux Etats ?
Merci d'avance. Bonne chance et bon courage dans votre recherche de la paix !

Réponse: Absolument. La colonisation doit cesser totalement. Le rapport de George Mitchell, l'envoyé spécial du Président Obama, avait déjà stipulé clairement en 2001 que la colonisation était un obstacle majeur à la Paix.

Question: Monsieur, excusez ma naïveté, mais je suis un peu perdu : les media nous expliquent depuis de nombreuses années à quel point les partisans de la paix et de la création de deux Etats sont majoritaires en Israël, notamment au sein de la nouvelle génération d'Israëliens. Parallèlement, lors du récent conflit à Gaza, on nous a expliqué qu'une écrasante majorité d'Israëliens soutenait l'offensive... Si je comprends tout à fait le droit et la volonté légitimes des Israëliens de se protéger, j'ai du mal à concevoir ces chiffres "contradictoires"...

Réponse : La majorité des Israéliens et des Palestiniens veulent vivre en paix, en sécurité, dans la dignité. Malheureusement, des minorités extrémistes de part et d'autre essaient depuis 1993 à obscurcir tout horizon d'espoir et de paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens. Il est inadmissible que le Hamas continue systématiquement à viser des civils israéliens et à paralyser la moitié d'Israël depuis des années. Il est légitime qu'un gouvernement puisse protéger ses citoyens. Je suis absolument opposé aux méthodes adoptées pour le faire.

Question: Le gouvernement d'ultra-droite israélien relance le programme de colonisation en cisjordanie discréditant encore plus le fatah. A quel jeu joue-t-il? Veut-il triompher par ko total? Obama suivra-t-il cette politique jusq'auboutiste? A force de tels politiques, les gouvernements successifs israéliens ne mettent-ils pas en danger la survie du pays?

Réponse: Je suis d'accord avec vous. Il faut renforcer l'autorité palestinienne responsable et pacifique présidée par le président Mahmoud Abbas. Malheureusement, des gouvernements israéliens n'ont pas et ne font toujours pas assez de gestes politiques forts dans sa direction, ce qui renforce les extrémistes du Hamas. Le président Obama a envoyé un message fort à la communauté internationale, aux Israéliens et aux Palestiniens en choisissant Abou Mazen pour être le premier leader qu'il a appelé en entrant à la Maison Blanche. La communauté internationale l'a clairement démontré hier à Charm-el-Cheikh. Je crains moi aussi que des positions fascisantes s'ancrant dans la société israélienne puissent mettre en danger la survie même d'Israël.

Question: Quelle sera le role de la nouvelle administration americain en moyen orient?

Réponse: Hillary Clinton se trouve aujourd'hui à Jérusalem et à Ramallah. Je suis convaincu que l'administration Obama s'impliquera rapidement et fermement à une solution juste et rapide du conflit israélo-palestinien. Il faut aussi redonner un nouvel élan à l'initiative de la Ligue arabe.

Question: Bonjour Mr Bronchtein.
Félicitations pour votre clairvoyance et votre courage politique. Que pensez-vous du retour masqué du projet du Grand Israël avec le feu vert donné ces jours ci à un nouveau plan massif d'implantation de colons Juifs en Cisjordanie ??
Je vous souhaite une très bonne journée
Phil Irène (ami de la Paix)

Réponse: Comme je l'ai dit, les colonies et la poursuite de la colonisation sont un obstacle majeur à tout processus de paix et de réconciliation entre Israéliens et Palestiniens.

Question: Bonjour. Comme le hamas ne reconnaîtra jamais Israël et que le gouvernement d'ultra-droite israélien veut éliminer ceux qui continuent à leur lancer des roquettes je vois mal une possible reconciliation. Qu'en pensez-vous? P.R

Réponse: La paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens et entre Israël et tous les pays arabes et musulmans ne pourra être réalisée que sur la base d'une reconnaissance et d'un respect mutuel. Je suis profondément inspiré par la construction européenne qui, malgré la guerre la plus destructrice et la plus meurtrière qu'ait connue l'humanité, a su par une volonté politique et un réveil des sociétés civiles construire un des espaces économique social culturel et politique où la règle de base est que toute divergence ou conflit se règle pacifiquement. Il n'y a aucune raison qu'au Moyen-Orient nous ne puissions pas construire un espace identique. La création de l'Union pour la Méditerranée, si les pays européens lui donnent les moyens économiques et l'impulsion politique nécessaires, peut devenir un espace de libre-échange, de respect mutuel, multiculturel et multiconfessionnel qui permettra aux citoyens et aux citoyennes de vivre dans la paix et la prospérité.

Je n'admets pas le fatalisme de certains acceptant la guerre et la violence comme un état normal, inévitable. D'énormes progrès ont été faits depuis la conférence de Madrid de 1991. Des accords de paix ont été signés avec la Jordanie, des relations existent entre Israël et de nombreux pays arabes, une dynamique de pourparlers existe entre Israël et l'autorité palestinienne. La détermination de l'administration Obama, de la communauté internationale, de la Ligue arabe et des sociétés civiles israéliennes et palestiniennes seront nécessaires pour achever des accords de paix en 2009. Je suis convaincu que tous les ingrédients existent pour que nous y arrivions.
J'appelle aux forces de paix, surtout en Europe, d'apporter tout leur soutien aux sociétés civiles israéliennes et palestiniennes. Nous ne devons en aucun cas accepter des manifestations pro-israéliennes interprétées comme anti-palestiniennes et des manifestations pro-palestiniennes comme anti-israéliennes. Les seuls qui peuvent avoir un effet positif pour la paix sont des manifestations et des projets communs ayant pour but d'encourager et d'impulser le dialogue et la réconciliation. La guerre a profondément appauvri les peuples de la région. Le Moyen-Orient est malheureusement le plus grand consommateur d'armes du monde. Ces centaines de milliards de dollars auraient pu et doivent être investis dans l'éducation, l'environnement, la santé, le logement et l'économie.

C'est la dernière ligne droite. Elle se terminera soit par une guerre apocalyptique, à laquelle je ne veux pas croire, soit par une paix historique, à laquelle nous devons tous aspirer.
Merci à tous et bonne journée.

Ground Breaking Report Measures Cost of Conflict in the the Middle East

2009-02-28T09:00:00.000-08:00

Youth Views: Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli?

2009-02-12T02:49:00.000-08:00

For those of us alarmed by the recent civilian death toll in Gaza, our obligation as concerned global citizens has been to promote the end of the war, provide humanitarian aid and press Israel and Hamas to reach a sustainable ceasefire agreement. With these weighty issues surrounding us, it might seem frivolous to harp on the nitty-gritty issue of language as part of this work, but language has the power to exacerbate – or heal – violent conflicts.

This war in particular revealed the power of language. In discussions and protests around the world, it was impossible for concerned citizens to express their dissatisfaction without being labelled "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" – two homogenising, seemingly mutually exclusive terms.

"Pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israeli" protests held on the streets of several countries left no room for those who were decisively against Hamas rocket attacks and those who were vociferously opposed to the IDF military campaign. No public space remained for the discerning. Demonstrations in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands did not focus on the achievable and the pragmatic – a negotiated ceasefire – but on the blood and ideological allegiances.

At the demonstration in Trafalgar Square in London, for example, protests against the Israeli government for the mounting Palestinian civilian deaths were not accompanied by calls for peace between Israel and Hamas; and yet, protestors were blaming the latter for the war.

In Paris and Amsterdam, chants condemning one group or the other not only squandered the public potential to influence policy makers, but also fuelled fears of possible domestic terrorism and violence in European communities already grappling with questions of integration.

Demonstrators that focus on the problems and not the solutions only polarise the conflict further and isolate issue-oriented protesters who are committed to peace.

The language issue also filters down to one-on-one conversations. Being raised in a family that straddles religious divides, I am fed up with hearing the question, "So, are you pro-Israeli? Or pro-Palestinian?" and of the scrutiny that follows in the hope of pegging me as one or the other.

Neither term adequately describes or reflects my own positions, nor those of many others who rely more heavily on cross-cultural concepts of justice and humanity like those articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war, however, these concepts entail exhausting non-violent efforts of mediation, avoiding civilian casualties and indiscriminate killing, distributing humanitarian aid regardless of political circumstances and resisting the call for collective punishment.

My criticism of the policies of Israel in each of these areas does not absolve those of Hamas and vice versa. Making it clear that neither criticism nor victimhood is the exclusive domain of one side proves challenging, though.

A new language of public outcry is desperately needed, especially in Europe and North America, where "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" groups frequently clash with each other on the streets.

I call for an outcry that advocates the use of clear and constructive terminology to express achievable goals. Slogans such as "Death to [insert nation/country/people]" are a far cry from being realistic – or productive. Only a pragmatic kind of public language in public discourse will unite peacemakers in both "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" camps that share a common vision for peace.

Thus, a more constructive language that bridges both camps might have entailed widespread calls for a ceasefire, a truce, a window to deliver humanitarian aid, an end to the Gaza bombings, an end to Qassam rockets, Israel-Hamas talks, Fatah-Hamas talks, etc. Using simple slogans with simple demands such as "Close tunnels, open borders", "No drones, build homes", and "Justice without borders" can achieve more peaceful results.

Adopting this kind of specific, more inclusive, constructive language is the responsibility of all peacemakers to disseminate prior to protests, through print and electronic circulation. It is also the responsibility of educators to teach it to children. And it is the responsibility of all concerned citizens to practice ways of voicing dissent without resorting to a rhetoric that kills.

By Shayna Zamkanei
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), www.commongroundnews.org

A new day for Israeli policy

2009-02-12T02:48:00.001-08:00

Israel is in the midst of voting in general elections, so it is no surprise that its people are not focusing on whether or not the Gaza war was worth the price. Of course, the price was mostly paid by Gazans rather than by Israelis.

In that sense, Israel was the clear "winner" while Gaza, still burying its dead, was the loser. Unfortunately, it is not clear that Hamas lost – a critical distinction. The people of Gaza are not Hamas. They are just people; many of the dead were children. Hamas, however, is surviving.

In one area, Israel clearly lost: public opinion. In the past, a distinction could be made between how America reacted to a Middle Eastern war and how the rest of the world did. Judging from media coverage, this time there was little difference between America and everywhere else.

The media focus was on the humanitarian disaster, not on who was or wasn't responsible for the war. The blogosphere – now as influential as the mainstream media – was almost uniformly opposed to Israel's position. The prevalent view there was that Israel's blockade of Gaza was no less a casus belli than the Qassam rockets.

The impact on public opinion has been striking. Except from within the more conservative segment of the pro-Israel community, there was little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 have come out for "solidarity" rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday. The same scepticism about the war was true elsewhere and Israelis noticed the break with past patterns.

So did the media. The current issue of Newsweek features a story called: "Israel Has Fewer Friends than Ever, Even in America."

Then came 60 Minutes. Last Sunday, the highest rated programme in the United States ran a scathing Bob Simon segment on the occupation. One part stood out. Simon and his crew filmed a private home in Nablus, which the Israeli army seized so that its soldiers could use the upper floor as a lookout post.

The episode was pretty incredible television, at least for the United States (not so in Israel where these issues are freely discussed). But this type of analysis is becoming more and more common. Just check out Jon Stewart's Daily Show, on which the brilliant and hugely influential Jewish comedian consistently takes on the safe and conventional wisdom about the Middle East.

The American approach to the Middle East is changing and the shift in the media is just one sign of it. Most important of all, America has changed.

Could anyone have imagined in the first years following 9/11 that the very next President of the United States would be an African American named Barack Hussein Obama, who makes a point of addressing Muslims in his inaugural address and telling Al Arabiya about his Muslim relatives?

Obama's America is going to be even-handed in the Middle East not only because that is what Obama is, but because it is what most Americans today expect and want. Younger people, in particular, cannot even imagine that anyone would suggest that even-handedness is bad. To them, that is like saying that the best referee is one who bends the rules to favour one team.

I also have more faith in Israel. It seems to grasp what Obama's election signifies. Every major front page in Israel ran Obama's interview with Al Arabiya, his first with any foreign media since his inauguration. Israelis heard him endorse the Saudi plan and state that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to our problems in the region. They recognise a clean break with the past when they see it. And they are beginning to realise that Obama is a friend, even if he does not mouth simple-minded rhetoric about the Middle East and what will fix it.

Even Benjamin Netanyahu is eager to convey that he gets Obama. He has moderated his tone since Obama's election and has made it clear that the last thing he wants is a difficult relationship with America's most popular president in a generation.

I would expect that, no matter who is elected as Israel's prime minister, he or she would get along with our new president. They know that George W. Bush, whose "support" for Israel was ultimately destructive, is gone. It's a new day and, for Israel, that will mean dialling down the rhetoric. Far more significantly, it means changing policies – starting with an end to the settlement enterprise.

That is what Israel's friends here want – an end to the occupation and the full implementation of the two-state solution now, before it is too late.

By M.J. Rosenberg
Source: Israel Policy Forum, www.ipforum.org.

Don’t Try This at Home

2009-02-12T01:28:00.000-08:00

In recent days, some have questioned whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was making a big mistake in appointing so many “special envoys,” such as George Mitchell, to handle key trouble spots, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think they are right to question Mrs. Clinton about this plethora of envoys. But I don’t think the problem is that she has too many; it’s that she doesn’t have enough. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she may need at least a half-dozen envoys. Actually, this conflict is now broken into so many different pieces it may take a whole State Department of its own to resolve it.

In addition to Mitchell, Hillary may want to enlist Bill and Chelsea to take a crack at solving this one, definitely Jim Baker and Jimmy Carter, too. Why, heck, she might want to even ask some perfect strangers she meets in the halls at Foggy Bottom: “Hey, would you like a free trip to the Middle East?” Sure, it helps to know some history, but a grasp of biology now is even more useful — like how an amoeba reproduces by constantly splitting itself in half.

Where to begin? Palestinians are now divided between the West Bank and Gaza, with a secular Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah in the West Bank and a fundamentalist Hamas government based in Gaza. But Hamas is further divided between a military and political wing, and the political wing is further divided between a Gaza-based leadership and a Damascus-based leadership, with the latter taking orders from both Syria and Iran.

Are you still with me?

Best I can tell, the Palestinians from Gaza are simultaneously negotiating a cease-fire with Israel in Cairo, pursuing war-crimes charges against Israel in Europe, digging new tunnels in the Sinai to smuggle more rockets into Gaza to hit Tel Aviv and trying to raise money for reconstruction from Iran. Meanwhile, the West Bank Palestinian leaders are busy publicly collecting food and blankets to help all those Palestinian civilians brutalized by the Israeli incursion into Gaza, while privately demanding to know from senior Israeli officials why they wimped out and didn’t wipe Hamas in Gaza off the face of earth — casualties be damned.

Israel, meanwhile, has a government in which the prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister each has a different peace plan, war strategy and cease-fire conditions for Gaza, and the foreign minister and defense minster are running against each other in Israel’s election on Tuesday. Speaking of that election, a whole new party, Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, which has been accused of having “fascist,” viciously anti-Arab leanings, appears headed to make the biggest gains and possibly become the kingmaker of Israel’s next government. The other day, the Labor Party leader, Ehud Barak, was quoted in the newspaper Haaretz as criticizing Lieberman as a lamb in hawk’s clothing, asking: “When has he ever shot anyone?”

How did this conflict get so fragmented? For starters, it’s gone on way too long. The West Bank is so chopped up and divided now by roads, checkpoints and fences to separate Israel’s crazy settlements from Palestinian villages that a Palestinian could fly from Jerusalem to Paris quicker than he or she could drive from Jenin, here in the northern West Bank, to Hebron in the south.

Another reason is that every idea has been tried and has failed. For the Palestinians, Pan-Arabism, Communism, Islamism have all come and gone, with none having delivered statehood or prosperity. As a result, more and more Palestinians have fallen back on family, clan, town and tribal loyalties. In Israel, Peace Now’s two-state solution was blown up with the crash of the Oslo peace accords, the rising Palestinian birthrate made any plans to annex the West Bank a mortal threat to Israel’s Jewish character, and the rockets that followed Israel’s withdrawals from both Lebanon and Gaza made a mockery of those who said unilateral pullouts were the solution.

All of this has led to a resurgence of religiosity. According to Haaretz, the following questions were posed by a well-known rabbi in one of the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli Army’s Office of Chief Rabbi before the latest Gaza fighting: “Is it possible to compare today’s Palestinians to the Philistines of the past? And if so, is it possible to apply lessons today from the military tactics of Samson and David? A comparison is possible because the Philistines of the past were not natives and had invaded from a foreign land.”

Who in the world would want to try to repair this? I’d rather herd cats, or become John Thain’s image adviser, or have a colonoscopy, or become chairman of the “bad bank” that President Obama might create to hold all the toxic mortgages. Surely, any of those would be more fun. If Mitchell is still up for it, well, then God bless him.

By Thomas L. Friedman, Op-Ed Columnist
Source: The New York Times.

In Shattered Gaza Town, Roots of Seething Split

2009-02-12T01:11:00.000-08:00

EL ATATRA, Gaza - The phosphorus smoke bomb punched through the roof in exactly the spot where much of the family had taken refuge — the upstairs hall away from the windows.

The bomb, which international weapons experts identified as phosphorus by its fragments, was intended to mask troop movements outside. Instead it breathed its storm of fire and smoke into Sabah Abu Halima’s hallway, releasing flaming chemicals that clung to her husband, baby girl and three other small children, burning them to death.

The Israeli military says that it is unaware of the family’s disaster, or of any other civilian deaths in this farming village in northwest Gaza. While residents say that 11 other civilians were killed during the first few days of Israel’s ground invasion, Israel says that its soldiers killed gunmen and militants in this village, which it considers a Hamas stronghold. At least four Israeli soldiers were wounded in the fight.

The war in El Atatra tells the story of Israel’s three-week offensive in Gaza, with each side giving a very different version. Palestinians here describe Israeli military actions as a massacre, and Israelis attribute civilian casualties to a Hamas policy of hiding behind its people.

In El Atatra, neither version appears entirely true, based on 50 interviews with villagers and four Israeli commanders. The dozen or so civilian deaths seem like the painful but inevitable outcome of a modern army bringing war to an urban space. And while Hamas fighters had placed explosives in a kitchen, on doorways and in a mosque, they did not seem to be forcing civilians to act as shields.

The gaps reflect not only a desire to shape public opinion, but also something more significant: a growing distance between two peoples who used to have daily interactions, but who are being forced apart by violence, mutual demonization and a policy of separation.

Palestinians almost never question the legitimacy of firing rockets at Israeli civilians as a form of resistance, and seemed shocked that Israel would go to war over it. Meanwhile, Israel sent a double message.

On one hand, it made clear that it was furious over the years of rocket fire and would not restrain its reaction. On the other, it argued that it took an exceptionally humane approach to the civilians of Gaza, in contrast to what it saw as its bloodthirsty enemy, Hamas.

Unlike most Gazans, many people in this village are not refugees from the 1948 independence war, but farmers and landowners, who for years sold strawberries to Israel until an embargo against the Hamas-run territory began a few years ago. Israel warned residents, in leaflets, radio broadcasts and telephone calls to leave, but many thought that the Israeli incursion did not threaten them.

“I figured it would be like all the other times when they dropped leaflets, so we went inside and waited,” said Rafiq Gambour, 45, a car mechanic who worked in Israel for years, including in Sderot, where Hamas rockets have taken the biggest toll.

So when disaster struck at the Abu Halima house on Jan. 4, a Sunday, many did the only thing they thought might save them: They got on the phone with their Israeli friends. As the sun set and the bodies burned, a crowd of panicked villagers waited as a village elder and farmer, Mahmoud Khlaiyel, and another farmer made frantic phone calls to merchants on the other side of the border.

“There was no one I didn’t call,” Mr. Khlaiyel said.

A man who identified himself as Danny Batua, a 54-year-old Israeli Jewish businessman whose family has been friends with the Abu Halima family for years, said by telephone that he believed the Abu Halimas were not involved with Hamas, and that their suffering was a result of inaccurate intelligence on the part of the Israeli military.

“What can I tell you?” Mr. Batua said. “The army has no idea.”

But according to Captain E., an Israeli military commander whose men took the western sector of the village on the first night of the ground war, most houses in that area were empty of civilians. What is more, he said, militants had remained and had begun gun battles with his soldiers.

The military made the commander available for an interview in Israel, but limited his identification to the initial of his first name.

“We faced fire mostly from snipers,” he said. “We found tunnels, maps, Kalashnikovs, uniforms from our army and many large explosives throughout the houses we searched,” he added, showing photographs of what his men had collected. “We also found a bucket of grenades inside a mosque.”

Some of what the army contends is clearly real. Rockets were launched from near the town’s elementary school, and from many of its fields, Israeli commanders and several residents said.

Hamas leaders were in the village and Israeli commanders displayed evidence of four tunnels throughout the village, though not the extensive network that higher-level commanders had reported. The militants also had weapons, but while the commanders said they had destroyed houses that corresponded only to weapons caches, that did not always seem to have been true.

“My principle for blowing up houses was not to destroy a house that just had one AK-47, but only if we found real infrastructure or large amounts of explosives,” said the brigade commander for the area, Col. Herzl Halevy, by telephone from Israel.

“I checked this out personally,” he added. Between 40 and 50 houses were destroyed.

But when the platoon of another commander, Captain Y., took over the neighborhood where a family named Ghanem lived, it blew up their house without going inside, he made clear in a phone interview. A search of it two weeks later by a correspondent for The New York Times joined by a 20-year veteran of the British Army, Chris Cobb-Smith, a weapons consultant for Amnesty International, showed no evidence of explosive material or of a secondary blast.

So why was the house destroyed?

“We had advance intelligence that there were bombs inside the house,” Captain Y. said. “We looked inside from the doorway and saw things that made us suspicious. I didn’t want to risk the lives of my men. We ordered the house destroyed.”

That seemed to be the guiding principle for a number of the operations in El Atatra: avoid Israeli casualties at all cost.

The elementary school was a similar story. Intelligence suggested that there were explosives inside, and an F-16 dropped a bomb on it, producing a house-size hole. When the Israelis inspected later, they found written material from Hamas but no explosives, Captain Y. said. Now the school is unusable, its giant metal flower decorations lying on their sides.

For the Ghanem family’s 23-year-old son, Bakr, the act will not easily be forgotten.

“A house is something physical, but also something in your heart,” he said as he stood outside his collapsed home, taken over by cats and putrid odors. “The place in our heart has also been injured. There can be no peace after this.”

This talk pains some of the older villagers, like Tamam Abu Halima, 65, who wants to return to the past she shared with Israeli neighbors, when she would fix dinners of fish and figs, and accepting an invitation was as easy as getting in the car.

Her grandson, Hamza, who grew up in a time when boundaries were stricter, has no fond memories of Israelis.

“The only ones I know shoot and kill,” he said.

Many here believe that Israelis feel the same about them, and that they were treated with suspicion and contempt, as would-be fighters. That might help explain what happened, they say, when Omar Abu Halima and his two teenage cousins tried to take the burned body of his baby sister and two other living but badly burned girls to the hospital on that Sunday.

The boys were taking the girls and six others on a tractor, when, according to several accounts from villagers, Israeli soldiers told them to stop. According to their accounts, they got down, put their hands up, and suddenly rounds were fired, killing two teenage boys: Matar Abu Halima, 18, and Muhamed Hekmet, 17.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said that soldiers had reported that the two were armed and firing. Villagers strongly deny that. The tractor that villagers say was carrying the group is riddled with 36 bullet holes.

The villagers were forced to abandon the bodies of the teenage boys and the baby, and when rescue workers arrived 11 days later, the baby’s body had been eaten by dogs, her legs two white bones, captured in a gruesome image on a relative’s cellphone. The badly burned girls and others on the tractor had fled to safety.

Matar’s mother, Nabila Abu Halima, said she had been shot through the arm when she tried to move toward her son. Her left arm bears a round scar. Her son came back to her in pieces, his body crushed under tank treads.

“Those who came this time were not Israelis,” Mr. Gambour, the car mechanic, said of the attackers. “They were not even human.”

The question of how Israel handled civilians in this war has become a matter of keen controversy. Human rights groups are crisscrossing Gaza, documenting what they believe will form the basis for war crimes proceedings aimed at demonstrating that Israel used disproportionate force.

Israeli officers said they took special care not to harm civilians.

“I can promise you that throughout the war, there were many times that civilians walked by us and we never shot at them,” said a commanding officer in a part of El Atatra, Major E.

That statement draws a hollow laugh from villagers.

“They think everybody in Gaza is a terrorist,” said Bekker Abu Halima, who had driven a truck with other bodies and said it was fired on.

Both sides engage in their own denials.

Israelis argue that this war was especially tough because they had waited so long before taking action in response to the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza over eight years.

Yet after Israelis withdrew their settlers and soldiers from Gaza in late 2005, they killed, over the next three years in numerous military actions here, the same number of Gazans as those killed in this war — about 1,275.

For their part, few Palestinian villagers even acknowledged the existence of fighters here. Hamas is now asserting that it achieved a victory.

But here in the ruins of El Atatra, perhaps the biggest damage has been to any memory of a shared past and any thought of a shared future.

“We used to tell fighters not to fire from here,” said Nabila Abu Halima, looking over a field through her open window. “Now I’ll invite them to do it from my house.”

By Ethan Bronner and Sabrina Tavernise.

Source: New York Times.

Fatah fears Shalit deal will bring down Abbas

2009-02-12T01:07:00.000-08:00

Concerned voices have been heard in the Muqata in Ramallah over the past few days: Senior Palestinian Authority and Fatah officials are speaking openly of the end of an era if an agreement to free abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit is reached.

Palestinian officials say a Shalit deal would bring about early elections in the territories, and Hamas would win again - but this time it would win the Palestinian presidential election, too. Israel would then be forced to deal with a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they say.

The latest poll from the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre conducted in the territories shows the recent war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip afforded the Islamic organization unprecedented popularity.

For the first time, Hamas is leading Fatah in the polls: 28.6 percent for Hamas compared to 27.9 percent for Fatah. Despite the euphoria in Israel over the Gaza operation, on the Palestinian side at least, some 46.7 percent view the Gaza fighting as a Hamas victory and only 9.8 percent deemed Israel the victor. Some 37.4 percent thought there was no winner.

The reports first published in Haaretz, that there was a breakthrough in the deal for Shalit's return, bode ill for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The immediate significance of a Shalit agreement would be the assembly of the Palestinian parliament again, including all the Hamas representatives now sitting in Israeli prisons. This has Fatah concerned, as Hamas would apparently claim a large majority in the parliament and could therefore render Salam Fayyad's government illegal. Hamas could also pass a law stating Abbas's term had ended on January 9 and he now had to resign and hold new elections.

It is not at all clear if any or all of these events would transpire. Egypt, which is mediating the contacts to free Shalit, will try to receive guarantees from Hamas that it will not take such steps, but nothing can truly prevent the organization from making use of its majority in the parliament.

Before the war in Gaza, Hamas did not seek early elections for either the parliament or the presidency as it feared it would lose power; however, after securing a Shalit deal and a "victory" against Israel in Gaza, it would expect increased support.

Arab papers have mentioned Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti as one of the prisoners who could be freed in the Shalit deal. However, even though Barghouti enjoys wide support among the Palestinian public, he would have a difficult time lashing out against those who secured his release. Such a move might provide Fatah with a future leader, but even Barghouti could not stop the wave of support for Hamas.

By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent.

Le juif, coupable universel

2009-02-12T01:01:00.000-08:00

Depuis l'entrée de Tsahal dans la bande de Gaza, les médias parlent benoîtement d'"importation du conflit", de "violences intercommunautaires". Elles sont tout de même un peu à sens unique, les violences "intercommunautaires". Cela consiste, en gros, à ce que des jeunes gens d'origine arabo-musulmane s'en prennent à des juifs, manifestant par là leur soutien à leurs "frères" palestiniens opprimés. Ils n'ont d'ailleurs pas attendu le conflit de Gaza pour pratiquer ce sport, et l'agression ou l'injure adressée aux juifs est devenue un phénomène récurrent.

La mort de centaines de femmes et d'enfants palestiniens est un désastre humain qui doit susciter en tout homme l'horreur et la compassion. En conséquence de quoi, il est légitime d'aller casser la figure à un juif de France qui n'y est pour rien. Sans doute parce que ces gens-là, c'est bien connu, forment un lobby. Tout juif est complice.

Que soutiennent-ils, en tant que quoi manifestent-ils, ceux qui cassent du juif, et ceux qui manifestent contre l'opération israélienne ?

Soutiennent-ils le Hamas ? Savent-ils que les textes de référence de ce mouvement n'ont rien à envier à ceux du Parti nazi ? Que son objectif déclaré est de tuer les juifs et de détruire Israël ? Veulent-ils qu'Israël reçoive éternellement ses missiles sans réagir ? Savent-ils que l'intrication des combattants et des civils est telle, à Gaza, que faire le tri lors d'une opération militaire est d'une extrême difficulté ?

Réagissent-ils en tant qu'Arabes ? Mais ils sont français, et en quoi un Français est-il impliqué dans un conflit international, sinon au nom de la justice universelle ? Réagissent-ils alors au nom de la justice universelle ? En tant qu'êtres humains ? Mais alors, pourquoi ne se révoltent-ils pas quand on massacre les Indiens du Chiapas, les Tibétains ? Pourquoi les centaines de milliers de morts, les inconcevables cruautés perpétrées au Darfour ne les jettent-ils pas dans les rues ? Tout de même pas parce qu'elles sont le fait des milices d'un régime islamiste ? Pourquoi ne trouvent-ils pas étrange que les communautés juives aient quasiment disparu de tous les pays arabes, après persécutions et spoliations ? Pourquoi ne réclament-ils pas, au nom de la justice, le droit au retour des juifs chassés ?

PROPAGANDE PARANOÏAQUE

S'ils réagissent en tant qu'Arabes, où étaient-ils quand les Syriens ou les Jordaniens massacraient dix fois plus d'Arabes, palestiniens ou non, que Tsahal ? Savent-ils que l'un des rares endroits du Moyen-Orient où les Arabes bénéficient de droits démocratiques, c'est Israël ? Savent-ils que, pour la liberté, la démocratie, les droits de l'homme, il vaut infiniment mieux être arabe en Israël que juif dans un pays arabe, et, à bien des égards, qu'arabe dans un pays arabe ?

Savent-ils qu'Israël soutient financièrement la Palestine, soigne les Palestiniens dans ses hôpitaux ? Que les deux millions d'Arabes israéliens ont leurs députés ? Savent-ils que, si la haine antijuive et le négationnisme se déchaînent dans les pays arabes, attisés par une propagande paranoïaque, qui n'hésite pas à faire usage du faux antisémite des Protocoles des Sages de Sion, la réciproque n'est pas vraie ? Que si de nombreux Israéliens défendent les droits des Arabes, rarissimes sont les Arabes qui défendent des juifs ?

Réagissent-ils en tant que communauté opprimée ? Mais alors, pourquoi les Noirs de France ne s'en prendraient-ils pas aux Arabes qui les exterminent au Soudan ? Pourquoi la communauté indienne ne manifesterait-elle pas contre les régimes arabes du Golfe qui traitent leurs "frères" comme des esclaves ? Voilà qui mettrait de l'ambiance dans la République !

Réagissent-ils en tant que musulmans ? Mais où étaient-ils quand on les massacrait en Bosnie, en Tchétchénie, en Inde ? Leur silence ne s'explique tout de même pas parce que les massacreurs n'étaient pas des juifs, n'est-ce pas ? Savent-ils que les musulmans d'Israël pratiquent librement leur culte ? Que l'université hébraïque de Tel-Aviv abonde en jeunes filles voilées ? Combien de juifs en kippa au Caire, à Damas, à Bagdad ? L'exigence de justice est-elle à sens unique ?

On finit donc par se dire que ces manifestations, les violences et les cris de haine qui les accompagnent ne sont motivés ni par la compassion envers les victimes palestiniennes, ni par le souci de la justice, ni même par la solidarité religieuse ou communautaire, mais bien par la bonne vieille haine du juif. On peut massacrer et torturer à travers le monde cent fois plus qu'à Gaza, le vrai coupable, le coupable universel, c'est le juif.

Une poignée de juifs qui transforment un désert en pays prospère et démocratique, au milieu d'un océan de dictatures arabes sanglantes, de misère, d'islamisme et de corruption, une poignée de juifs qui, en outre, décident de ne plus être victimes, voilà qui est insupportable. Il faut donc bien que les juifs soient coupables, sinon où serait la justice ?

*Ecrit par: Pierre Jourde, romancier, critique littéraire, professeur à l'université de Grenoble-III

Source: Le Monde.

The Calmness Agreement Report

2009-02-12T00:59:00.000-08:00

The Center for Democracy and Community Development
Jerusalem/Gaza

Gaza Calmness between illusion...and reality

by
Ali AbuShahla
Gaza

Monitoring Report on

The Calmness Agreement (Lull) Between
Israel and Hamas
19/6/2008 - 19/12/2008

December 23rd, 2008

Reviewed By Dr.Riad Al-Ailah & Walid Salem
Reedited by: Martijn Dekker

The Calmness Agreement: summary

On Thursday the nineteenth of June 2008, at six in the morning, Egypt officially declared the start of the Calmness Agreement between Israel and Hamas. It was mediated by Egypt (in the person of the Minister of Intelligence –Omar Suleiman), and welcomed by the PA and president Mahmoud Abbas. It was implemented in Gaza only and at a later stage in the West Bank. In the agreement, Hamas agreed to stop rockets being fired at southern Israel for six months, whether these rockets would come from Hamas or any other Palestinian faction or party. In turn, Israel approved to stop its aggressions in the Gaza Strip and to stop attacking the leaders and fighters of Hamas and its offices (as declared by the Israeli PM Ihud Olmert to the BBC on 18/6/2008, adding that such an agreement will be a fragile one and that Israel is ready to respond to any breach of the agreement by Hamas side.)

It was also agreed that Israel will reopen the border crossings and exceed gradually the transportation of food and several other goods, necessary for the Palestinians in Gaza. However, Israel has not fulfilled this condition. According to statistics by Paltrade, COGAT (Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories), and other institutions, Israel increased the number of trucks to Gaza by 10% only, and also Israel is still controlling date, type and quantities of goods transported to Gaza, including gas and fuel. Due to the commencement of the month of Ramadan on 1 September 2008, Israel increased the quantities of gas somewhat, although still not in required quantities.

Israel accepted the agreement to stop rockets being fired on the southern towns of Israel, because it had started to put the Israeli government in a critical internal position, which led to losing its popularity. On the other hand, Hamas wanted to have a rest by preventing Israeli attacks on its fighters, leaders and centers, also to reinforce its arsenal in Gaza through smuggling weapons from Egypt. All this to be ready in case of a breach of the Calmness Agreement, leading to an Israeli invasion, and also to give more attention to the internal situation in Gaza, as Hamas begun to lose its popularity among the Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas also entered the agreement to improve the harsh conditions and lift the closures that Gaza's people endure.

Rafah crossing was not included in the unwritten agreement between the two parties, as Israel linked the reopening of Rafah crossing with the release of the captive Israeli soldier Gila'ad Shalit . Only after his release will it be reopened according to the treaty signed in this regard in 2005 between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. However, although Hamas agreed on this fundamental condition, it is still rejecting to give a major role to the PA and presidential guard at Rafah border crossing and other Gaza crossings.

The majority of Arab countries as well as Western countries, including USA welcomed the Calmness Agreement. Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan asked the Palestinians to benefit of the Agreement in order to achieve internal dialogue and reconciliation between the different Palestinian factions, especially between Hamas and Fatah.

This report is based on information collected from newspapers, internet web-sites, radio and TV news broadcasts, statements and declarations of both sides and others, and from information from civil society organizations and local/international human rights organizations, since the commencement of the Calmness Agreement up to 19/12/2008.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Calmness Agreement: The Sequence of Events

2009-02-12T00:58:00.000-08:00

The Calmness Agreement agreed upon between Israel and Hamas, mediated by Egypt, covers the Gaza Strip only and does not include the West Bank. Indeed, after 4 days after of the commencement of the Agreement, Israel arrested militants of the Islamic Jihad movement in the Rafidya area ( Nablus in the West Bank) on 23/6/2008, which led to a reaction by Islamic Jihad in Gaza. In response they launched 3 rockets to Sederot in Southern Israel the next day.

This act by Islamic Jihad led to a complete closure of the border crossings by Israel until 30/6/2008, during which Israel permitted only the entry of small quantities of fuel, particularly which was needed to for the only power station in Gaza.

On 25/6/2008, the Interior Minister in the Hamas government, Sa’eid Siam, called for a meeting with the leaders of Palestinian factions in Gaza, excluding Fatah, but including the Islamic Jihad. At the meeting it was agreed that all of the Palestinian factions in Gaza were to stop launching rockets towards the towns in southern Israel.

After almost 5 months of Calmness, all Palestinian factions in Gaza, who agreed to stop launching all types of rockets toward southern Israel, formed a committee to be engaged in monitoring the number of Israeli violations to the Calmness Agreement. On November 4th 2008, Israel launched an attack on the middle Gaza Strip area, in pretext demolishing a tunnel that had been dug to capture Israeli soldiers. Israel closed all Gaza border crossings on 5/11/2008 as a respond to the missiles launched on Israeli south towns as a result of the Israeli attack on the same day. The attack of 4/11/2008 was followed by an air strike against Hamas/Qassam fighters, which caused 6 victims, followed by 4 victims on 12/11/2008, and 3 victims from other factions -Popular resistance committees- on 15/11/2008 and was followed by another 4 victims of the same faction on 16/11/2008.

After each attack carried out by the Israeli side, Hamas and other factions retaliated by launching rockets, including 4-6 GRAD missiles on Ashkelon. Israel announced on 19/1/2008 (Voice of Israel) that the number of rockets launched from Gaza towards Israel reached 170, in interval rocket barrages. Most of the Palestinian factions participated in launching rockets.

On 21/11/2008 the Prime Minister of the deposed government, Isma’el Haneyya, stated after meeting with the Palestinian factions, that all Palestinian factions agreed to maintain the Calmness Agreement with Israel, as long as Israel will respect the agreement.

Since 4/11/2008 it had become normal to launch at least one or two rockets every day from Gaza to the southern Israel, as a respond to the Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.
On the night of 28-29/11/2008 8 Israeli soldiers were injured due to a rocket which hit their military camp at Nahal Oz. This missile was a response to an Israeli attack on 28/11/2008 in East Khan Younis, killing one and injuring 2 of the Popular Resistance committees. These committees later published a statement taking responsibility for the rocket barrage on the Israeli camp.

Matan Velna’ee (Israeli vice Minister of Defense) stated on 29/11/2008, that Israel will never accept to have armed persons within the buffered zone which Israel had determined (a 300m wide strip along the Israeli borders). Also he stated to Voice of Israel – Reshet Bit that a big operation on Gaza against Hamas and other armed activists became essential for Israel to stop the rockets, although such an operation would cost the Israeli army victims.

In the meantime, due to the Israeli closing of border crossings, since 5/11/2008 no more foodstuffs and fuel derivatives were transported to Gaza's 1.5 million citizens, except for some small amounts of food donations. UNRWA stated on 15/11/2008 that it stopped the distribution of food for about 750000 refugees in Gaza, as a result of closures and a lack of fuel.

Such actions and reactions rendered the Calmness Agreement meaningless and could lead to a brake down. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri declared on 26/6/2008 that if the closures on the Gaza Strip continue, it will indeed render the deal of Calmness meaningless.

Israel continued controlling the opening and closing of the commercial border crossings the same as it did in the past, despite the Calmness Agreement. They closed crossings for 2-3 days each time Palestinians launched a rocket or missile from Gaza towards Israeli towns in the south. This was continued by Israel through June and July 2008, but in August and September 2008, Hamas security forces well controlled Gaza borders with Israel, and almost no rockets were launched at the Israeli southern towns.

On 14/9/2008 Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak ordered to close all Gaza border crossings (except Erez crossing which was kept open for humanitarian cases and foreigners only) as a result of a rocket fired at Sederot, the day before (no casualties). On 17/9/2008 Israel opened only Keerem Shaloom crossing, where Sofa (the main crossing) was opened on 18/9/2008, although only partly. The total number of trucks transporting goods to Gaza remained almost the same (70-80/day), whether they came through Sofa or Kerem shalom, or divided between both.
The Israeli authorities reported the launch of a rocket from Gaza towards Kissofeem border crossing on Thursday evening (9/10/2008). Israelis claims that the rocket hit the center of the crossing but caused no casualties.

On 11/9/2008 a new Palestinian fighting faction (called Saraya Al-Tawheed) declared in a press statement, the responsibility for blowing up an Israeli vehicle east to Khan Younis. There was no response from the Israeli side, and it remains the question whether this event was to be considered as a Palestinian violation of the Calmness Agreement, because that mainly dealt with rockets and missiles.

According to Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot (as translated by Al-Quds newspaper on 23/9/2008) Brigadier General Yossi Bidts, Head of the Research Division of Intelligence, in the Israeli cabinet meeting on Sunday 21/9/2008, warned that Hamas may exploit the Calmness in order to enlarge its forces.

He stated that there is a relative Calmness, since Hamas and other factions had launched only 15 Qassam rockets and 13 shells since 19/6/2008, but he predicted the depletion of the Calmness. He also added that the Palestinian organizations will continue their attempts to smuggle their activists through the tunnels with Egypt (Sinai), in order to sneak to Israel and carry out attacks there. Also, in the meantime these organizations are still trying to implement attacks and operations in the West Bank against Israelis.

Breg.General. Bidets said that Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations (factions) are using the Calmness Agreement to increase their strength in preparation for the next round. There was a qualitative increase in the number of daily exercises to prepare for facing the Israeli soldiers in residential areas, in addition to the increase of their stocks of rockets, which were better developed where it concerned range and accuracy.

It is noted also that Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon had explained in his statement, released on 22/9/2008 that he puts all the blame on Defense Minister Ihud Barak being responsible for the approval of the Calmness Agreement with Hamas, which he opposed.

Tzipi Livni (head of the Kadima party) and Eli Ishay (Head of the Shass party) both declared that Israel was not in favor to extend the Calmness Agreement with Hamas (Voice of Israel 14/12/2008).

Amos Gila’ad an military Israeli official left to Cairo on 14/12/2008 (Voice of Israel) to hand a message to Hamas, through Egyptian minister of intelligence Omer Suliman, which stated the Israeli willingness to extend the Calmness between Hamas and Israel, taking into consideration that Israel is considering the attacks of other small factions no threat to the agreement, while Israel will respond to each attack locally and limitedly, confined to the area from where the attack was executed.

Amos Gila'ad, when he returned from his one day visit to Cairo on 14/12/2008, stated on the early morning of 15/12/2008 to Voice of Israel, that Israel sees no beginning nor final dates for the Calmness. It is considering the Calmness valid as long as there are no rockets fired, or other attacks on Israel. In the mean time, however, Israel is ready to retaliate on any hostile attack.

Prime Minister Isma’el Haneyya of the deposed Hamas government announced no position of Hamas for the extension of the Calmness at the ceremony which took place in Gaza on 14/12/2008, celebrating the 21s, anniversary of the founding of the Hamas movement. Haneyya said, however, that all other Palestinian factions are not in favor to extend the Calmness agreement with Israel after 19/12/2008. After a meeting with former US President Jimmy Carter in Damascus around the same time (14/12/2008), he stated that Hamas would not extend the Calmness Agreement with Israel.

A source in the Hamas movement said to the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat on Sunday 14/12/2008 that Hamas prefers constructive ambiguity. The Guardian learned that the major Palestinian factions held a crucial meeting on Thursday night to discuss the issue of calmness, and the intention was the refusal to respond to the Israeli demands to extend the Calmness.
Palestinian sources stressed that the Calmness would not be extended without improving the present conditions, and to continue in accordance with the current conditions is impossible.

Israeli Minister of Defense Barak said that Israel was not deterred from carrying out a military operation in the Gaza Strip, although he was not eager to carry out such an attack (Haaretz newspaper 16/11/2008).

The Hamas leadership held a meeting on Thursday night (16/12/2008) and unanimously agreed to refuse to extend the Calmness. It is also reported by the London-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, quoting high-level Palestinian Gaza Strip security sources, that armed Palestinian factions formed a joint operations room in anticipation of Israeli forces to launch large-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip with the approach of the end of Calmness on 19/12/2008.

On 17/12/2008 about 16 rockets been launched from Gaza, according to Voice of Israel. One of them hit the center of the town Sderot, causing two light injuries and crushing many cars. Most of the rockets had been launched by Islamic Jihad in revenge of the death of its activist in Jenin, who was killed by special Israeli forces. PM Olmert threatened that this situation was unbearable, and promised to react.

In the Ha'aretz of 17/12/2008, correspondent Yanir Yagna wrote: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stopped short of pledging retaliation for a surge of Qassam rockets (20) that pelted the western Negev on Wednesday, saying "there can't be a situation where there is a truce, but the situation on the ground is very different." "This demands a response, and there will be a response," he added.

Olmert spoke just days before the six-month cease fire agreement between Israel and Hamas, the rulers of the Gaza Strip, was set to expire.

In response to the rockets Israel launched 2 air strikes on Northern Gaza (demolishing a house, killing 1 and injuring 2), and on Khan Younis, where Israeli helicopters demolished a workshop.

On the other side, Hamas leader in Gaza Mahmoud Zahar said on Tuesday 16/12/2008, that the six-month Gaza truce with Israel would not be renewed unless Israel lets more food, fuel, and other goods into the Gaza strip.

"Until Friday 19/12/2008, we're still committed, but after that, no one can tell," Zahar said in an interview with Bloomberg News at his Gaza home, referring to the truce's December 19 expiration (Ha'aretz 17/12/2008).

Hamas official Ismail Redwan said in statements to a pro Hamas website in Gaza Strip: "Next Friday (19/12/2008) will be the last day for a calm deal achieved with Israel six months ago by Egyptian mediation,” pointing out that the calmness will not be renewed under any circumstances. He added that they have gone through a tough experience with the Israeli occupation over the past six months, yet the enemy did not commit to any of the Calmness's obligations. Moreover, the truce was not transferred to the West Bank as it was supposed.

He denied any communications on part of Hamas officials for renewing the Calmness or negotiating on it. Redwan confirmed that his movement will respond to all the Israeli attacks in a way which serves the interests of the Palestinian people.

On 18/12/2008 (one day before the expiration of the Calmness agreement) Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for launching 12 rockets on Southern Israel, followed by 2 Israeli air strikes on Gaza City and Khan Younis, causing 8 injuries.

According to Ha’aretz Staff and News Agencies of 19/12/2008, 3 Qassams hit the Negev, as Israeli officials threaten with a Gaza offensive. Gaza militants fired three Qassam rockets into Israel on Friday, shortly after senior Israeli officials warned that a military offensive in the coastal territory would be "unavoidable” if the rocket fire continues. The rockets struck the western Negev on Friday morning, causing neither casualties nor damage. The government officials' warning, came after Hamas announced Thursday evening (18/12/2008) that the cease-fire with Israel in Gaza was officially over.

Ha’aretz added that Jerusalem ordered the Israel Defense Forces to refrain from offensive operations for now, saying it wants to see how the situation develops.

"We will not be the ones to violate the cease-fire," a senior defense official said Thursday night. "If Hamas wants to escalate, we will know how to act - and it will be clear to the international community who is behind the renewed fighting."

However, a senior government official warned, "if Hamas doesn't come to its senses and calm the situation, there will be no choice other than an Israeli military response."

Egypt, meanwhile, said on Friday it had received no requests that it try to patch up the Gaza truce, which it mediated earlier this year. Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hussam Zaki said: "We have not so far been asked to exert [truce] efforts as we did in the past."

In the meantime and for the first time there were many appeals from USA Secretary of States Condoleezza Rice, UN secretary General Ban Ki Moon and from the Russian government asking Hamas to agree on the Calmness extension.

The days just after the expiration of the Calmness Agreement (i.e. after 19/12/2006) saw the same actions and reactions; rockets fired from Gaza on Israel with no major casualties, and Israeli air strikes on Gaza targeting bases and activists launching such rockets.

According to Voice of Israel on 21/12/2008, both the head of the Likud party (Netanyahu), and Kadima party (Tzipi Livni), used the conflict with Hamas in their elections propaganda, promising to end the Hamas regime in Gaza when any of them would become the PM of Israel after the coming elections.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Internal issues in Gaza during the Calmness

2009-02-12T00:57:00.001-08:00

Security Situation: Hamas Crackdown

In spite of the Calmness, the security situation in Gaza started to deteriorate as a result of operations by some groups against private and public institutions from Hamas. For example an explosion in a café in Gaza City on 24/7/2008, where the person who carried out the bombing was killed (it was said that he was an Islamic militant), in addition to the explosion at the entrance of the house of parliament member Dr. Marwan AbuRass, representing the Hamas movement, on the early morning of 25/7/2008. Hamas claimed that it had arrested the ones who caused the explosions and the persons who assisted them, claiming that Fatah activists were involved.

The most serious and dangerous of operations against Hamas was the assassination of a group of Qassam Brigades persons of Hamas, at the seashore on 25/7/2008 evening. Their parked car exploded the minute they wanted to open the doors, killing 5 in addition to a six years old child girl and wounding at least 22 citizens.

Hamas claimed Fatah movement responsibility in all previous operations and immediately started a wide range process against many institutions belonging to Fatah and civil society organizations by confiscating equipment, furniture, other devices, and vandalizing the buildings of such institutions. These organizations included sport clubs and clinics. Hamas also took control of the 5 Governorates of Gaza by deposing their governors and appointing new Hamas Governors, even though governors and governorates are attached directly to the President's office. Also Hamas arrested many Fatah members in Gaza, despite categorical denials from the Fatah movement (at the highest levels) that they didn't have any involvement in the bombings.
According to the Mizan Center For Human Rights (on 27/7/2008 and 31/7/2008), the number of centers and institutions which had been targeted by Hamas until 27/7/2008 was 173. Among them 33 belonged to Fatah and the rest (140) belonged to civil society organizations. The number of detained Fatah members and other civilians was 153 - a direct reaction to the attack against the Qassam members.

On 2/8/2008 Hamas security and its executive forces sieged the Shajaeyya quarter, claiming that some of the wanted Fatah activists were given shelter there, by a large clan called Hilles, headed by an active high Fatah leader, Ahmed Hilles - AbuMaher.
A big incursion in Shajaeyya quarter, using machineguns, missiles, and heavy weaponry, resulting in the following:
• During the invasion, 8 persons of the Hilles family were killed, in addition to one citizen of another family. 2 officers from Hamas security forces also died during the attack. Another 4 injured persons from the Hilles family died in the hospital (a total of 15 victims).
• 100 people were wounded from both sides, some of them seriously (ICHR Human Rights report, August 2008).
• 180 Hilles activists had been arrested and blindfolded by the soldiers of the Ministry of Interior of the Deposed Hamas Government.
• 150 Hilles activists (fighters) fled to the Israeli side (Nahal Oz border crossing) and surrendered to the Israeli army, for fear of being arrested by Hamas forces. (These actions had been facilitated by the request of President Mahmoud Abbas to Israeli Defense Minister Barak). Israel returned 32 people, for them to be arrested by Hamas security forces, and sent 87 persons to Jericho in the West Bank, keeping their leader Ahmed Hilles, who was wounded during the invasion, in Israel for further interrogation. He had been freed and sent to Jericho in the West Bank on 24/9/008 – Voice of Israel.
• Some of the fled persons remained at the border between Gaza and Israel, waiting for the approval of Israel to move to the West bank, while they are afraid to go back to Gaza, fearing they will be arrested by Hamas.

The minister of interior Sa’eid Siam, declared at the end of the day that the attack on the Hilles family was essential, in order to arrest several wanted Fatah persons, accused because of the bombings in Gaza, including the sea shore incident on 25/7/2008. He added that Shajaeyya quarter will still be under siege (meaning no people are allowed in nor out, except for Hamas security forces) for at least 3 days to enable the security Hamas forces to inspect every house and every place for weapons, artillery, and wanted persons.
In the night of 31/7-1/8, the Hamas Authorities in Gaza arrested more high level personalities from PLO and Fatah, including:
• Dr. Zakareyya Agha; Fatah leader and member of the PLO executive committee (released on 4/8/2008).
• Mr. Ibrahim AbuElNaja; Fatah leader (released after 2 days)
• Mr. Mohammed AlQudwa; Gaza Governor (released on 28/9/2008)
• Mr. Abdullah AbuSamhadana; Middle Camps Area governor (released on 7/8/2008 with 150 Fatah activists, coinciding with the reopening of 20 NGOs as a gesture from Dr. Ahmed Bahar (Vice Chairman of PLC) as stated by Hamas.)
• Dr. Usama AlFarra; Khan Younis Governor. He was given 3 days vacation from prison to spend with his family during the feast (Eid-El-Fitr) 29-30/9 and 1/10/2008, but he didn’t go back until the date of the report.
• Dr. Hazem AbuShanab; Fatah Spokesman in Gaza (released on 28/9/2008).
• All main regional Fatah leaders in the 5 Governorates of the Gaza Strip (still imprisoned).

Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri stated on 1/8/2008 to Al-Jazeera TV that the arrests had been made in reaction to the similar arrests on the West Bank against Hamas activists. Mr. AbuZuhri added that the minute Hamas activists would be freed in the West Bank, as President Mahmoud Abbas had declared, the Hamas Authorities in Gaza would do the same.

On 28/9/2008 Hamas released 30 Fatah activists as a good gesture from the deposed Hamas government, on the occasion of the Muslim feast (Eid-El-Fit). Hamas expected the same step to be taken by the PA in Ramallah, to free Hamas activists there.

As a reciprocal step, a PA high security official stated on 1/10/2008 that PA authorities upon a request from President Mahmoud Abbas, freed 38 Hamas activists on the West bank because of the feast (as published by www.palpress.ps on 1/10/2008).
One Hamas leader in a private meeting stated that there are still 300 Fatah activists in Hamas security centers in Gaza (This was before the strikes announced by the employees of both the Ministry of Education (on 28/8/2008) and Ministry of Health (on 30/8/2008) in Gaza).

The briefing from the International Crisis Group on 11/9/2008, describes the events that saw Hamas battle and bring to heel one of Gaza’s most potent families. It also showed how the Islamist movement had been turning the territory into a model of internal security and bureaucratic consolidation.

“Hamas’s takeover of Gaza is increasingly complete, and both it and Fatah seem intent on consolidating their gains. The crisis of the Palestinian national movement is only worsening”, says Robert Blecher, Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. “Palestinians are fed up with the feuding and many are looking for a way out. But they find none”.

The scenario of the assault on the Hilles clan had been repeated with another large clan in Gaza, called Doghmosh. On 15/9/2008 two Hamas security persons went to arrest a wanted person of the Doghmosh family while he was at the Gaza Municipality office but he escaped, leaving one of the guards killed and injuring the other. Hamas security forces went to search for him, carrying out a big raid on the whole area where the family lived, in order to arrest the suspect, in addition to other wanted Doghmosh family members. An eye witness living adjacent to the area where the Doghmosh family lives, stated that both sides used dozens of missiles and heavy machine guns in a big battle, which lasted up to the morning of the next day (16/9/2008). Eventually the wanted man was killed, and so where 3 of his brothers, in addition to six other members of the family, which Hamas authorities declared wanted. A baby girl was among the Doghmosh family victims and so was one policeman. A total of 12 persons had been killed, among them 9 of the Doghmosh family, one person living in the same area, and 2 police men.

40 persons were injured from both sides, as declared by Islam Shahwan (Police forces spokesperson), who added that the raid was a successful one. The raid ended on 16/9/2008 in the morning and was not supposed to include the whole Doghmosh family, but it was addressed only to the wanted persons of the family (the police forces spokesperson didn’t mention the number of killed persons or injured from Doghmosh family , also he didn’t mention the number of people arrested in the raid (Ma’an news & Al-Quds daily on 16/9/2008).

Aldameer Human Rights center in Gaza (on 16/9/2008) as well as The Independent commission for Human Rights (on 17/9/208), made separate declarations asking for a full investigation of the raid, claiming that Hamas security forces used excessive and deadly force against the family, while they were also able to arrest them and take them to court.

It is well known that the chief of the family (Mumtaz Doghmosh) is the head of a Palestinian armed faction called “The Islam Army”. Such faction participated with Hamas in the operation in which the Israeli soldier Gila'ad Shalit was captured on 25/6/2006, and the same faction was responsible for kidnapping foreigners, of whom the latest was Reuters reporter Alan Johnston. He was however freed by Hamas, just after the takeover of mid-June 2007. A press statement from The Islam Army claimed that 6 people from the Doghmosh family who were active members of the Army died in the raid. Most of the reporters considered “The Islam Army” as a faction close to Al-Qaeda.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Human Rights & Human Security

2009-02-12T00:56:00.001-08:00

Human Rights Watch declared that both sides in Gaza and The West Bank (Hamas and PA) have been violating Human rights, and torturing detainees even worse than the Israelis did against Palestinian prisoners.

Hamas also used the Calmness to keep confiscating the Presidency premises and seizing its property, in addition to Fatah property in the Gaza Strip. Hamas also confiscated equipment and furniture, and vandalized on 25/7/2008 the office of the PLC member in the Palestinian parliament Dr. Ziad Abu Amr (who had been elected in the parliamentary elections due to his clear and direct support of Hamas movement). Such step was considered contrary to the policy announced by Hamas on its desire to National Reconciliation (Dr. Abu Amr was very active in National Reconciliation Process).

According to ICHR-Human rights center, they received 15 complaints from Gaza citizens in August for being tortured while they were detained or interrogated in the security centers of the deposed government.

The center also received 56 complaints against the deposed government's Ministry of Interior in the Gaza Strip. In these complaints, citizens claimed that security agencies (namely the Internal Security and the Police) detained them without applying fair, legally prescribed procedures.

The new crackdowns and arrests are considered as the most dangerous and the biggest operations applied by the Deposed Government and Hamas movement against Fatah activists and their supporters in Gaza, since the military coup carried out by Hamas in June 2007. Such actions could lead to further operations against Fatah, and possible retaliatory operations against Hamas by the Fatah movement on the West bank, especially when Hamas would declare banning the Fatah movement in the Gaza Strip.

On 23/9/2008, through a press statement, Hamas accused the PA on the West Bank of arresting 159 Hamas activists (names and positions are listed in the statement), in addition to storming 5 civil society organizations and others associations close to Hamas.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs (close to Fatah) groups in the West Bank issued a statement warning Hamas to stop the continuing arresting of Fatah persons, and threatened Hamas to take similar actions against members and institutions of Hamas on the West Bank. In fact this process had already been started, with the arrest of some Hamas activists.

It is expected that Al-Aqsa Martyrs and even the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank will increase their operations against Hamas activists in response to the policy of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Al-Quds, Palestinian daily newspaper, issued on 2/9/2008 that a Reuters reporter was invited for a live military demonstration of a group of armed fighters in Gaza, belonging to a new Palestinian faction, which had been established in Gaza 8 months ago, called “Army of the Nation”. The faction was considered to be very close to Al-Qaeda, according to Al-Hayat newspaper from London.

On 4/9/2008 Hamas announced that its security forces captured Sheikh Abu Hafs Al-Maqdesy, the leader of “The Army of the Nation“, followed by the arrest of 3 persons of the same faction when they launched a press conference threatening Hamas to free their leader. Later on, a spokesperson of the Army threatened Hamas that his group will do all required actions to free their leader, with the fighters using all means possible (Voice of Israel 8/9/2008).

Al-Dameer Human Rights Center in Gaza in a press statement on 20/9/2008 asked the Ministry of Interior of the deposed government to investigate the murder of 3 persons in Gaza in one day (15/9/2008) :
• Faheem awad Goma'a Alsha'er (28 years), from Gaza- Nasr quarter, had been shot dead on 15/9/2008 in an assault on the building of the family by Hamas security forces, during an internal, armed family conflict (the family were considered to be Islamic jihad supporters).
• Ra'ed Mohammed Ibrahim Al-Harazeen (32 years), from Shaja’eyya quarter, was kidnapped on 15/9/2008. A relative of the victim said the Qassam brigades (Hamas) were behind it. On 17/9/2008 Ra'ed was found on the ground near his residence, suffering from several fractures and torture marks on his whole body, including red paint all over his body. His family took him to the hospital where he died after 2 hours.
• Mohammed Reyadh Batreekhi was killed in an armed family conflict on 15/9/2008. The suspected killer is a police man working for the deposed government.
Al-Dameer Human Rights Center warned the deposed government not to go back to the chaos and disorder, and asked for an immediate investigation of these cases and others.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Freedom of Expression and Movement

2009-02-12T00:55:00.000-08:00

Hamas prevented the entry of the daily newspapers (AlQuds, AlHayat Aljadeeda, AlAyyam) to Gaza as of 28/7/2008, accusing these newspapers of not being neutral in the conflict underway between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas declared on 23/8/2008 that it will permit only the entry of Al-Quds newspaper to Gaza, on the condition that their articles on Hamas are neutralized. Furthermore, they closed the radio of PFLP for 3 days.

On 28/8/2008 the syndicate of teachers announced a strike including the Ministry of Education employees and teachers in Gaza (initially for 4 days), because of the maltreatment they suffer from the Hamas regime. On 30/8/2008 the employees of the Ministry of Health announced a strike because of the same reason (also initially for 4 days).

As stated by both syndicates and due to the harsh and tough treatment and reactions of Hamas against the employees of both ministries, their syndicates instructed the employees to continue their strike. Both strikes been extended week after week (up to 21/10/2008).

The Islamic Jihad arranged for a peaceful gathering on 5/9/2008, rejecting the way Hamas dealt with the teachers who went on strike, as some of them had been captured. Indeed, security forces of the Ministry of Interior of the deposed government had forcefully dispersed the gathering and captured some of the teachers for interrogation. It is worth mentioning that among the teachers who had been captured, was Mohammed Abdullah Shallah (Brother of Islamic Jihad leader).

Spokesperson of the ministry of interior Eihab Ghussain claimed that the organizers of the gathering didn't apply for a permit from the ministry.

On 9/9/2008 it was declared by both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, that their leaders had a joint meeting on 8/9/2008 in Damascus, to resolve the flare-up between the two movements, where both movements asserted their strategic relations, adding that minor disagreements and events on the ground will not affect the depth of their relations. Also they agreed on solving all disputes between both sides in a peaceful manner, and to concentrate on the armed resistance against the Israeli occupation (According to the American Task Force on Palestine ATFP – 11/9/2008).

Regarding the strikes of the governmental employees in Gaza, The Palestinian NGOs net (PNGO) declared on 9/9/2008 that they don’t agree for politicizing the service of civil society departments and asked for the following.

• An end to all types of strikes
• Asking the PA government in Ramallah not to cut governmental employees salaries for political reasons.
• Asking Hamas deposed government, not to fire, detain, or put aside any governmental employee due to his political convictions.

The Hamas deposed government in Gaza was still forbidding any Fatah activity and even prohibited raising flags or other signs on Fatah centers. In Gaza one can see only Hamas banners in the streets, even during the Ramadan holy month for Muslims. Years before, one could notice banners from all Palestinian factions on public, religious, political or other occasions.

In the mean time and after the Calmness Agreement took place, Hamas stationed a check point at Erez, for Gaza citizens leaving Gaza to Israel or to the West Bank or coming to Gaza from there. This check point had limited the movement of Fatah persons who wanted to leave to the West Bank and in most cases they were asked by Hamas security officers to go back to Gaza, as they should get a permit from the Ministry Of Interior of the Hamas Deposed Government. These actions included 2 members of the PLO executive committee, Dr. Zakareyya Agha and Dr. Reyadh Khoudary, who were not able to join the meetings of the committee. However on 19/9/2008, Dr. Agha and Ibrahim Abu Naja left Gaza through Erez to join the Fatah delegation for the dialogue with the Egyptian officials for Palestinian reconciliation without problems.

One can wonder if the creation or restoring of activities by new Islamic extremist parties in Gaza can be considered a matter of freedom of expression. Early September 2008, a press statement announced the restoration and the commencement of the activities of an Islamic party called Hezb Al-Tahreer (Party for Liberation) which was established in the year 1953. On 4/10/2008 a press statement announced the creation of a new organization called "Hezbollah Brigades in Palestine", which was established in the Palestinian territories to resist the occupation.
The statement explained that the organization's goals were the Jihad for the sake of God and to resist the enemies of Islam, adding that it was a Sunni organization, dealing with the resistance only, having nothing to do with political affairs. But in the meantime it will not get out of the public interest. Regarding the relationship with the Lebanese organization Hezbollah, the statement emphasized on the strategy of the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance, and denied any organizational links to the Lebanese Democratic Party, adding that "all that binds us is our love for Islam and the style of resistance."

The new organization emphasized the national reconciliation process, saying that it will not be a party to any internal strife. They furthermore will stand with the prisoners, and promised that the top priority of the organization will be to follow the steps of martyrs and promised to walk in their footsteps, recalling the martyrs "Hajj Radwan (Emad Mughneyyie of Hezbollah), Yasser Arafat, Ahmed Yassin, Fathi Shikaki, and Sheikh Abbas Musawi."

On 17/10/2008 Luisa Morgantini (Vice Chairman of The EU Parliament) sent two questions to the EU Parliament concerning the Israeli prevention of the Palestinian students who are registered to study at European and foreign universities. The formal answers came on 8 and 10/12/2008 that the questions were formally raised with the Israeli authorities at the meeting of the EU-Israel sub-committee on political dialogue and cooperation, on 28 October 2008, in the context of Council's repeated calls for greater freedom of movement and improved access. Also, the EU Commission is continuing to pursue the goal of ensuring that the movement of persons in and out of Gaza, including of course students without scholarships, is normalized.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Internal socioeconomic conditions

2009-02-12T00:53:00.000-08:00

The Calmness and the economy

Before the military coup in June 2007, traders from Gaza used to import all materials and equipment through Israeli ports. However, after the coup Israel removed the Gaza Strip Code from Israeli ports, making it impossible for importers from the Gaza Strip to import anything from abroad.

This action by Israel posed a threat to Gaza commercial agencies, leading to the closing down of their companies, because they haven't been able to manage any imports since mid-June 2007 and still. It seems that the Palestinian negotiators from Hamas were not interested in this issue when they dealt with the Calmness Agreement with Israel, while they were interested to open the crossings only, particularly Rafah. On the other hand, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his team of negotiators with Israel also didn't pay enough attention to this very important case.

According to the Calmness Agreement, the Israeli side agreed to increase the quantities of materials to be imported to the Gaza Strip from Israel, as an attempt to contribute to the halt of huge inflation, taking into consideration that the annual GDP in the Gaza Strip is not exceeding $ 600, compared to about $ 1200 on the West Bank and to about $30000 in Israel. However, the Palestinian citizen in the Gaza Strip (before the war on Gaza that erupted on 27/12/2008) finds himself compelled to pay very high prices for many basic commodities and foodstuffs, medicine, fuel and milk compared to prices in Israel and in the West Bank. A certain kind of children's food sold in Gaza at a price of $6, can be bought on the West Bank for $3.5. Furthermore, the official price of one liter of gasoline is about 2 $, while in Gaza it is sold on the black market( smuggled from Egypt) at a price of $ 8 per liter.

Another serious violation of the agreement concerns the Gaza Fishermen. The Israeli Coast Guard Patrols forbid them to fish further than 3 miles off the shore, while it used to be 21 miles. According to a declaration by Mezan Human Rights Center in Gaza on 14/9/2008, the fishermen suffer from the continuous military abuse by the Israeli war ships. The harassment includes demolishing, the confiscating of goods, arresting fishermen, and shooting at the Palestinian boats, which in some cases caused damage of the boats and injuries among the fishermen.

According to www.Palpress.Ps on 14/9/2008, the number of Israeli violations against Palestinian fishermen in Gaza since the commencement of the Calmness Agreement came to 200. Such violations included the following :
• Partial damage of 20 boats
• Complete demolishing of 4 boats
• Confiscating 2 boats with all including equipment
• Detaining 10 fishermen
• Arresting 15 fishermen for interrogations

According to Ma'an News on 10/9/2008, the assistant Deputy Minister of National Economy, Mr. Nasser Sarraj, declared that Israel cut the quantity of containers carrying clothes and shoes on that date by 50% (15 instead of 30) without any prior notice. This action caused big losses to traders who already had the goods on the Israeli side of the borders of Gaza (costs of the goods and transportation had already been paid). What makes it worse is that the traders anticipated to sell these goods before the feast, at beginning of October 2008, an occasion when many Muslims buy new clothes and shoes.

There continued to be a lack of hard currency in Gaza, while local banks of the Gaza Strip were to obtain a special permit from the Israeli Defense Ministry each time they wished to bring bank notes from their branches in the West Bank to Gaza. Sometimes there also was a shortage of dollars and Jordanian dinars (all goods smuggled from Egypt were purchased with dollars).

During the revising of this report (23/12/2008) , there was an extreme shortage of Israeli shekels in cash in PA banks operating in the Gaza Strip. These banks were paying governmental salaries in dollars instead of the Israeli shekel. Also there was a reasonable amount of deteriorated Israeli bank notes, which needed to be changed from the central Bank of Israel, but Israel did not agree to that, even though the Israeli Shekel used in the Palestinian territories since 1967, is the official currency of Israel.

On 25/9/2008, the Israeli coordinator of Government Work in the Palestinian territories, Major General Amos Gila'ad, said that the promise to transfer $ 50 million shekels to the Gaza Strip recently, was aimed at preventing the collapse of the banking system (the Israeli Shekel bank notes arrived Gaza on 28/9/2008).

The parents of Israeli captive soldier Gila'ad Shalit had told the Israeli government a week before that the money would serve Hamas and the kidnappers of their son, in addition to the transfer of the money not being approved by the Cabinet yet (Voice of Israel) Amos Gila'ad explained in a letter sent to the parents of Shalit, that Defense Minister Barak approved the transfer of the money on 22/9/2008 after the study of the topic on a regular basis. He said rescue Gila'ad Shalit is still the main objective of the security departments in Israel.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights stressed in a report which covers the period from 9-16/7/2008 (Report 29/2008) the continued deadlock on all elements of the national economy, including trade, industry, construction, agriculture and services (IT, Engineering, tourism, restaurants, and hotels), while Gaza traders are not allowed to import any type of raw materials and oil derivatives, while Israel also prevents completely the export from the Gaza Strip to Israel and abroad (flowers, vegetables, furniture, garments & textiles). The border crossings continued to operate with the same capacity as they did before the Calmness, a rate of about 85 truck loads per day, while Gaza normally was importing about 750 truck loads of all types of materials per day before the military coup in June 2007.

Mr. John Ging, director of UNRWA operations in the Gaza Strip, stated on 24/7/2008 that after about 40 days of the Calmness Agreement, the economic situation had not improved in the Gaza Strip since Israel only marginally increased the allowed quantities of food and fuel, and did not allow the entry of raw materials and building materials.

The most important issues stated by Mr. Ging were the following.
• 52% of the Palestinian families in the Gaza Strip are living below the poverty line, compared to 19% in the West Bank.
• The unemployment rate in the Palestinian territories at end of December 2007 reached 29.5%, while it was 45.3% in the Gaza Strip and 22.5% in the West Bank. It is certain that such high rates of poverty and unemployment are not contributing to the maintaining of the Calmness Agreement.
• The complete stoppage of any type of investment and the cancellation of the construction of vital projects in the Gaza Strip are causing damage, especially where it concerns the construction of thousands of new residential houses and apartments for refugees and those who lost their homes due to the repeated Israeli incursions, especially in Rafah.

In addition to what Mr. Ging declared, tens of thousands have their interests damaged because they could not travel abroad, including the inability of Palestinian workers from abroad to visit their families in the Gaza Strip for fear of losing their jobs, as happened with others who came for vacation and couldn't go back.

At the end of November 2008, 77000 of Gaza governmental employees didn't receive their salaries , which comes to about 200 million Shekel per month. This amount is paid by the government of Ramallah every month since the take over in June 2007.

Everybody in Gaza was waiting for the salaries, due to the fact that the Grand Feast for Muslims (Eid – ElAdha) took place in the first week of December (8/12/2008). But with no salaries, the deteriorated economic situation had caused even more difficulties for every person in the Gaza Strip. The majority of the employees didn't buy new clothes for their kids, even they didn't buy a sheep to slaughter, which is a tradition during the feast, according to Islam.

Several traders prepared themselves, buying a lot of clothes and shoes smuggled from Egypt through the tunnels. These clothes and shoes couldn't be sold, however.

Even private sector employees and others couldn't withdraw their money deposited in the banks, to spend during the Feast, due to the sudden closure of all local banks on 4/12/2008. The reason was that the banks had no hard cash (bank notes), while the Israeli authorities didn't agree to transfer money from the West Bank to Gaza.

Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, stated on 10/12/2008 that he agreed to give permission to transfer only 100 million shekel from the West Bank to Gaza, taking into consideration that this sum would not be satisfactory, it being half of the required amount.

2. The Calmness and health issues
In spite of the Calmness Agreement, a European campaign to lift the siege on the Gaza Strip, led to a report on 16/7/2008, warning of a health catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, since it had been besieged for almost 3 years. It also warned that many medicines were not allowed in (370 types of medicine were on the verge of running out) and that drugs found in health warehouses of the Ministry of health would be satisfactory for 1-3 months only. The number of deprived patients who need treatment outside the Gaza Strip is growing day by day; the number of persons who died as a result of not being allowed to get treatment outside Gaza ( Israel – Egypt – Jordan) reached around 300 by the end of August.

The report also stated that the Rafah border crossing with Egypt remained closed for patients who needed treatment in Egypt and abroad. According to Mr. Khaled Radi, spokesman of the Ministry of Health of the deposed government, 1500 patients (and this number had been growing every day) in Gaza are in bad need of treatment, but are forbidden to cross the borders of The Gaza Strip to get treatment abroad.

Movement of medical personnel and patients from Gaza to Israel and the West Bank through Erez crossing had not changed after the Calmness Agreement, and the process of preventing many of them to leave for the West Bank, whether for business or for treatment, continued, as Gaza was considered as a hostile entity by Israel.

What is more, due to the strike of doctors and health employees in Gaza, which started on 30/8/2008, the health situation in Gaza became even worse.

3. The Calmness and education
The Calmness Agreement also didn't provide solutions to Palestinian students stuck in Gaza, whose number amounts to 2000. These students are prevented by Israel from leaving the Gaza Strip, either through Erez or through Rafah border crossing, to join their universities abroad.
A delegate from the campaign "Let Palestinian students learn" handed an appeal to the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his visit to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem on 20/7/2008, requesting his contribution and support to lift the Israeli ban on travel for these students. Some of the students were already studying at British universities and some of them wanted to start a study there, taking into consideration that most of these students were accepted at the universities and already got the required visa to travel for study abroad.

The delegate reported in the appeal that preventing them from having the possibility to leave the Gaza Strip to join their universities would lead to unexpected results due to suffering and loss of hope.

What is more, due to the strike of teachers and the Ministry of Education employees in Gaza schools, which started on 28/8/2008, the education situation in Gaza was even more badly affected. Hamas made a statement on 14/10/2008, firing all the education employees who joined the strike.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Gaza-West Bank Issues during the Calmness

2009-02-12T00:52:00.000-08:00

Palestinian internal dialogue and reconciliation

Operations and declarations from both Fatah and Hamas were burying any possible or real opportunity for dialogue between them, and have increased the process of political and geographical separation between the Gaza Strip and The West Bank, thus delaying any future reconciliation between both parties, unless there is a powerful Arab intervention at the highest levels.

President Mahmoud Abbas announced during his visit to Cairo on 27/7/2008 the commencement of a dialogue for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, to be managed by Egypt under the auspice of the Arab League in Cairo. Abbas announced the readiness of Fatah for unconditional dialogue and reconciliation on 5/6/2008 and he added from Cairo that all Palestinian factions were intivited to participate in such a dialogue, and he continued saying that he gave his instructions to release all Hamas activists on the West Bank. However, Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri claimed that the initiative by President Mahmoud Abbas was not genuine, and was only started to cover the alleged bombings and other such acts carried out by Fatah in Gaza.
During an important meeting between King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian president Mubarak held in Egypt ( Alexandria) on 15/08/2008, most of the discussions and talks between the two leaders were addressed to the Palestinian internal conflict and the dialogue between Fatah and Hamas. (Al-Ahram newspaper 16/8/2008).

A meeting of Arab foreign ministers held at the Arab League in Cairo on 8/9/2008, attended by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, declared that the Arab League would create a new mechanism for the Palestinian dialogue (although it was proposed by Saudi Arabia) –AlHayat El-jadida London newspaper.
Egypt started a new round of talks with the (armed) Palestinian Factions, starting with Islamic Jihad on 24/8/2008, who came to Egypt with a delegation headed by leader Mr. Ramadn Shallah, in addition to other Jihad leaders from the Gaza Strip.

On 1/9/2008 Egypt separately prepared invitations to 6 other Palestinian factions (armed ones only – members of PLO) for a new stage of dialogue, discussing the best way to get Fatah and Hamas to the negotiating table (According to Al-Ahram daily news paper on 2/9/2008: A Palestinian high rank official stated that a meeting will be held between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Masha’al – Head of Hamas political bureau – in Cairo after the feast which comes after Ramadan). Hamas leader Dr. Khalil El-Hayya confirmed on 9/9/2008 (according to Hamas web-site: Palestine Now) that Egypt will invite both Fatah and Hamas to Cairo for separate and individual negotiations with each side.

The Fatah delegation already met with the Egyptian side on 20/9/2008 and came back to Gaza after having dense negotiations on the Egyptian Road Plan for Palestinian reconciliation.
It was said that the Hamas delegation would meet the Egyptian side on 7/10/2008, so that, by then, Egypt could sum-up the results of the meetings with all Palestinian factions. On the eve of such negotiations, Khaled Masha’al, who attended a gathering in Damascus on 13/9/2008, stated that Hamas would not consider President Mahmoud Abbas as the President of PA, unless he would be reelected after 9/1/2008. In the meantime he delegitimized the executive committee of PLO, claiming that this committee was not elected by the Palestinians (Al-Jazeera TV and others on 14/9/2008).

Following Khaled Mash'al's statement, and during a gathering for Iftar (the sunset main meal in Ramadan) at Al-Jazeera hotel in Gaza on 14/9/2008, vice-PLC chairman Dr. Ahmed Bahar stated in front of all Hamas officials, including Ismail Haniya and other civil society leaders, that he, PLC members and Hamas would never recognize any decree from President Mahmoud Abbas to terminate the period of the present PLC (President Mahmoud Abbas had asked for early elections for the Presidency and PLC at the same time) Dr. Bahar agreed on Presidency elections after 9/1/2008 and insisted on the legitimacy of the present PLC, and added that elections would be carried out at the end of the PLC's legal period, which ends on 25/1/2010.

On 20/9/2008, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoom, in a press statement stated that Hamas agreed on the formation of a national unity government to settle the political crisis which had divided the Palestinians. "Hamas prefers a national coalition that can defend the Palestinian people and their rights," said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoom in Gaza.

Prime Minister of the Deposed Government, Ismail Haniyyah, claimed in a press statement on 24/9/2008 that "the way to National Dialogue is blocked as there are no real signs of its seriousness.

Haniyyah claimed that in the light of bombings, strikes, preventing passports to be transported from Ramallah to Gaza, and in the presence of plans to announce Gaza Strip as a rebel territory, there will be no opening for dialogue.
He added that Hamas would not opt for dialogue in such an atmosphere. While the others are asking for dialogue, they stab us in the back. He also added that the Palestinians in Gaza are on their way to break the closure.

As a response to the statements made by high ranking Hamas leaders, Fatah leaders considered Hamas to thwart the dialogue before it had started, putting all the responsibility on Hamas.

According to a Hamas website (www.paltimes.net), in an unexpected declaration, Prime Minister Ismail Haneyyah confirmed the devotion of his government as well as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) on the Palestinian-Palestinian dialogue, stressing that the Palestinian government created the environment for the success of the dialogue.

This came during the Eid (Feast) morning prayer on Tuesday 30/9/2008, in the Palestine football stadium, where the Prime Minister guided (Imam) thousands of citizens praying in the open air. Haneyyah said: "We will go to the Cairo dialogue with open minds and hands extended for a consensus and unity.” The Hamas delegation left to meet in Cairo with General Omer Suliman, Egyptian Minister of Intelligence and other officials, as they left Gaza through Rafah border crossing on Tuesday 7/10/2008. They were the last Palestinian faction to meet with the Egyptian officials. The Gaza members were headed by Dr. Mahmoud Zahhar and the diaspora members by Musa AbuMarzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas political bureau. Israel refused to permit Hamas members from the West Bank to leave via the King Hussein Bridge to Amman and thus could not join the delegation.

Hamas leader Dr. Mahmoud Zahhar, when interviewed by the BBC-Arabic section on 9/10/2008, said that he was optimistic after a positive meeting between the Hamas delegation and the Egyptian officials, where they discussed the Egyptian plan for Palestinian internal dialogue and reconciliation. Dr. Zahhar added that they began to study the formation of committees with Fatah and other factions to discuss all issues required.

According to Firas information agency (www.fpnp.net) Mahmoud Zahhar said Friday 10/10/2008 that it had been agreed between his movement and the Egyptians to form a Unity National Government for reconciliation, and that they also discussed a rearrangement of the security services on the West Bank and in Gaza, taking the same measures in both areas. Zahhar said: “all the points raised in our acquaintance have been agreed upon as subjects of political partnership, reconciliation and unification of the West Bank and Gaza and agreed on a national unity government.”

Zahar also said that it had been agreed with the Egyptians to meet again on 25/10/2008. This meeting had been postponed to 9/11/2008, in order to include all Palestinian factions, as requested by Fatah leaders, who refused to negotiate alone with Hamas.

All Palestinian factions came out with an Egyptian Road Map for Palestinian National reconciliation, supported by the Arab league and the majority of Arab countries, headed by Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

It should be noted that in recent times it could be noticed that Arab leaders and the Arab league started to attach more weight and importance to the Palestinian internal conflict. Secretary General of the Arab League Amro Musa told the delegation of PFLP, whom he met in Cairo on 1/9/2008, that in case of there being no dialogue between Fatah and Hamas within the coming 2-3 months, the Arab league might impose a solution to the crisis, explaining to Palestinians and others which party was being the obstacle (according to www.Palpress.ps on 2/9/2008).

Egypt, in full support of the Arab league, is finalizing a new plan to regulate the situation in the Gaza Strip, called "Elaboration of a comprehensive Egyptian package". The main items in the Egyptian plan are:
1. Formating of a Palestinian national unity government
2. Opening of the Rafah crossing and the lifting of the siege on Gaza
3. Resuming of the Calmness and preventing the launch of rockets at Israeli territory
4. Releasing Gila'ad Shalit in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (Hamas' request is to free 1000 prisoners) .
5. Sending a military force consisting of members from several Arab countries (mainly from Egypt and Jordan) to control the border crossings in the Gaza Strip.

On the other hand, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, AbuEl-Gheit, proposed to send Arab soldiers (3000) to maintain security in Gaza. Hamas refused the second proposal claiming that there is no need for Arab soldiers to maintain security, while Gaza people are living in full security under the Hamas forces, adding that Hamas would welcome any Arab soldiers to fight the Israeli occupation and free Jerusalem and the holy Al-Aqsa mosque.

Somewhat later, Cairo initiated contact with the Palestinian factions in an effort to implement the Comprehensive Egyptian package (According to Maareev, Israeli newspaper on 25/9/2008 and other media reports)

According to (www.Palpress.PS- close to Fatah of 6/10/2008) "Okaz Saudi Arabia newspaper" published the details of the Egyptian initiative, which consisted of 14 items aimed at bridging the Palestinian separation caused by the Hamas take over in June 2007 as a prelude for launching a comprehensive national dialogue. It was added that Hamas had rejected 3 items of the initiative and agreed on the other 11 items.

The newspaper pointed out that the initiative in some points reflected the Mecca agreement and the Yemeni initiative. The following are items of the initiative accepted by Hamas as published by the Saudi paper:

1. Stop all forms of inflammatory media campaigns.
2. The release of all prisoners from Hamas and Fatah at one time under the aegis of an Arab committee
3. To allow the return of citizens who left the Gaza Strip through force without arresting them.
4. The abolition of the ban on a number of associations and institutions on the West Bank and in Gaza.
5. To maintain temporary control of policing by the neutral Arab committee.
6. Commitment to identifying and legitimizing the PLO representation to all segments of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, to start the reform and restructuring of the PLO (when the dialogue starts), which are to be completed within four months, with the adoption of measures, general elections and the rate figures of representation in the institutions of the PLO.
7. Hamas movement is to vacate its presence, its institutions, and the headquarters in the Gaza Strip, including political, and security ones, and return these sites to the legitimate authority.
8. Freeze the work of the existing Executive Force, which belongs to Hamas.
9. Formation of a transitional government to prepare for legislative and presidential elections before March 2009, based on the commitment to the program of the Palestine Liberation Organization PLO.
10. The commitment of the factions on the negotiated political solution. In case of failure of this option, the factions will be consulted, in order to adopt and pursue another option.
11. Invite all factions to join the institutions of the PA, implying their commitment to PA policy, and in the meantime giving the right to oppose peacefully to political parties outside the framework of the PA.

The items that were rejected by Hamas:
12. The Arab security team to be led by Egypt for the supervision of the arrangement and resolving contentious issues relating to security institutions.
13. Sending an Egyptian-led Arab force of 3000 persons to the Gaza Strip to contribute to maintain security.
14. The commitment of all factions to international agreements signed by PA and committed by Fatah.

After the visit of President Abbas to Syria on 12/10/2008, some less encouraging statements were made :
- President Abbas refused to negotiate with the Hamas delegation on 25/10/2008 in Cairo, although he agreed before
- Hamas (as stated by Haneyya on Friday 17/10/2008) accused the PA on the West Bank with severe accusations, such as “traitors, collaborators with Israel, being supported by the Americans and Zionism, interrogating Islamic women on the West Bank in a bad manner ….etc”
It seemed that the gap between Fatah and Hamas was getting wider. The relations between Hamas and Egypt became more critical, and there were big doubts if the date of 25/10/2008 would see Fatah and Hamas together, unless there would be large pressure on both.

The meeting which was planned for Palestinian dialogue and reconciliation in Cairo on 9/11/2008 was postponed again, to 11/11/2008, but Hamas and other Palestinian factions close to Syria stated on 8/11/2008 that they would not attend the conference, accusing PA president Abbas for imprisoning Hamas leaders and activists on the West bank, stating that he was to bear all responsibilities which canceled the conference.

On Sunday 23/11/2008 Hamas had mobilized a large conference in Damascus called “Right of Return”, sponsored by Syria with a distinguished presence of Iran.

At this conference the attendees attacked the Palestine Liberation Organization PLO and president Mahmoud Abbas, and also condemned the Palestinian Authority. They furthermore placed the responsibility of the siege on Gaza with the Arab countries, Egypt in particular, which, they claimed, was responsible for the closure of the Rafah crossing and the severe suffering of 1.5 million people in the Gaza Strip.
The purpose of the conference was to announce the following :
• To demonstrate to the Palestine Liberation Organization that it is no longer represented the Palestinian people
• To Delegitimize the present Palestinian National Council.
• To show that the Palestinian Authority was severely corrupted, and had become a burden on the Palestinians. Therefore it had to be disposed of, especially because it had become a puppet of Israel.

Hamas "issued an official memorandum explaining their reasons for the Cairo dialogue Failure, ( See Annex II)

The Islamic Resistance Movement "Hamas" issued an official memorandum, explaining in detail its position on Palestinian dialogue, which was scheduled to be held in Cairo on the 11th, of November 2008.

In the memorandum, received by "the Palestinian Information Center," the movement declared its position regarding the dialogue and reconciliation, and assured its willingness to cooperate with the efforts of the brothers in Egypt and the Arabs, in order to end the state of division and achieve national reconciliation through a serious national Palestinian dialogue which will have the real and basic requirements, equitable for all.

The memorandum pointed to contacts between the leadership of the movement and the Egyptian leadership, in a failed attempt to overcome the obstacles before the dialogue, which forced the movement after consultation with leaders of Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front (PFLP-GC), and Sa'eqa of Syria to inform the Egyptian leadership the position of the four factions, which was to not take part in the dialogue.

"Hamas" signaled that the memorandum was distributed to many countries and organizations, forces and factions on the Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and international levels.
Hamas attached to the memorandum a file of 616 names of detainees and abducted people in the prisons of PA in the West Bank, including students, workers, journalists, teachers, imams in mosques, PLC members, doctors, engineers, lawyers. The statement also illustrated the attacks on movement by the Fatah security services and armed wing.

In its memorandum Hamas did not mention the situation of Fatah activist in the Gaza Strip, and also never talked about the observations and criticism on its regime in Gaza from local as well as international Human Rights institutions.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Hamas and the Presidential Elections

2009-02-12T00:50:00.000-08:00

Hamas and the Presidential elections

It is well known that President Mahmoud Abbas' PA presidency period expires on 9/1/2009, unless this period is extended for one year, according to the legal explanation of the head of the legal and legislative bureau in Ramallah, AbdelKareem AbuSalah (on 23/6/2008), to match with the date of the PLC elections on 25/1/2010, and thus to have the elections of the presidency and PLC simultaneously.

Ahmed Bahar (vice chairman of the PLC) rejected this explanation, according to the Hamas head of the legal and legislative bureau, Mohammed Aabed (on 24/6/2008). Mr. Bahar considered the explanation of Mr. AbdelKareem AbuSalah illegal and he declared that Hamas would not consider AbuMazen as the president of PA after the date of 9/1/2009, adding that in case of there being no presidential elections before that date, the Chairman of the PLC should take the place of the PA President for 60 days, according to the constitution, and presidential elections should take place after that. Being the vice chairman of PLC, Ahmed Bahar considered himself in that case the new president, while the Chairman Dr. Aziz Dwaik was still imprisoned by Israel. Dr. Ahmed Bahar also declared that Hamas would delegitimize AbuMazen as the PA president after the end of his period, and would not accept his decrees and orders in the PA, especially in the Gaza Strip, as long as the situation of disputes and separation between Gaza and West Bank continued.

Egypt, with the full support of the Arab league, was doing its best to succeed in its efforts to having a fruitful dialogue and accord between Fatah and Hamas before 9/1/2009, to avoid any further disputes and continuing political as well as geographic separation between the West bank and Gaza.

It seemed that Hamas was delaying any dialogue and reconciliation with Fatah in order to gain more power, by occupying the PA President position, while according to the constitution the present President and PLC should announce new presidential elections 3 months prior to the planned date, i.e. President Mahmoud Abbass should have announced new elections on 9/10/2008. Hamas thus assumed to be in a stronger position with control of the Gaza Strip and the PA Presidency in any upcoming negotiations with Fatah.

Israel considered that when the PA president would be from Hamas after 9/1/2009, they may use force against Hamas (Debka web-site on 8/9/2008).

On the eve of the departure of the Hamas delegation for the dialogue with the Egyptian officials, the PLC in Gaza held a special session on 6/10/2008, which was attended by Hamas members only, supported with letters of attorneys from their colleagues from the West Bank, and others in the Israeli jails. A statement was published after the session declaring the following :
• The PLC will not give a mandate to PA President Mahmoud Abbas after 9/1/2009, after spending 4 years in this position. following the Palestinian basic law (constitution).
• The PLC will never accept early elections for the PLC. It should continue until 25/1/2010.
After the closing of the session and in an interview with BBC-Arabic TV, Dr. Ahmed Bahar declared that on the eve of 9/1/2009, the PLC will appoint the chairman of the PLC, Aziz Dwaik (who is imprisoned by Israel), if freed, or his deputy Dr. Ahmed Bahar as the PA president for 60 days before launching new presidential elections. Furthermore, the PLC will prolong this period if the situation in Palestinian Territories permits that.

It is worth mentioning that according to the Haaretz news paper of 30/11/2008, Israel will free most of the Hamas PLC imprisoned members within the next year 2009.

On Sunday 23/11/2008, the Palestinian Central Council, at its meeting held in Ramallah, had unanimously elected Mahmoud Abbas as the president of the State of Palestine, to be the successor of the late President Yasser Arafat, who was elected on 30/3/1989 as president (which was declared in the Algeria conference on November 1988). This post has remained vacant since the death of President Arafat In November 2004.

Credible Palestinian sources said that Abbas intended to organize presidential and legislative elections in April 2009 and would make an announcement in a presidential decree to be issued soon.

The London daily Al-Hayat quoted these sources as saying that Abbas discussed the elections at the end of his term with a number of Arab leaders, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and vowed to not run for a second term, adding that he wanted to deliver the position to the newly elected President. Palestinian sources indicated that countries such as Syria advised him to organize elections in August or September 2009, but President Abbas decided to organize it in April and issue a presidential decree as soon as possible, as confirmed by the Palestinian presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina.

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Gaza-Israeli Issues during the Calmness

2009-02-12T00:46:00.000-08:00

Gaza-Israeli crossings

The Calmness Agreement stipulated that the border crossings would be opened fully to allow for the transportation of fuel and raw materials needed for construction and industry, 10 days after the commencement the agreement.

80 days after the beginning of Calmness, Israel had only increased foodstuffs and petroleum derivatives around 10%, compared to the amounts transported before the Calmness Agreement . Also Israel had allowed the transport of garments, school uniforms and shoes provided that they were imported through Israeli dealers or manufactured in Israel, to ensure the continuation of the closure of local factories in Gaza and the continuation of the high rate of unemployment (Since the closure Israel didn't allow the transport of any goods manufactured in the West Bank except for some dairy products).

In the light of the ongoing Calmness in the Gaza Strip, Israel was still applying counter-effective actions affecting the peace negotiations taking place between the Palestinian National Authority and Israel, particularly by the continuous detention of Palestinian activists on the West Bank, and continuous settlements extensions, especially in East Jerusalem.
From time to time all Gaza crossings were closed, sometimes with a reason, sometimes without. Certainly they were closed every time there were rockets launched on Israel, however, regardless of the suffering of 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza Strip.

The most difficult and harsh closing of the crossings since the commencement of the Calmness Agreement, was in November 2008, when Israel closed the borders from 4/11/2008 onwards, as a result of rockets launched on the Israeli southern cities and towns as a response to an Israeli attack in the middle area of the Gaza Strip and killing Palestinian fighters in Rafah.

After one month of such a long closure, one could only imagine what type of life the people of Gaza were living, with severe food shortages, especially for about 800000 people who were getting their food share through UNRWA, being refugees.

Amira Hass an Israeli journalist who came from Cyprus on 8/11/2008 with a group of human rights activists to break through the siege, lived about three weeks in Gaza before being deported by Hamas security services on 1/12/2008. She wrote an article in Ha'aretz (12/12/2008) which described the status of 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Amira Hass explained the difficulties UNRWA faced with transporting very simple items for Gaza schools and pupils, in addition to problems transporting distilled water for medical laboratories, medicines for diabetes patients and children who suffered from heart diseases, vitamin A, and testing kits for pregnancy tests, classifying blood types and diagnosing diabetes. (The full article can be found in annex number 1.)

On 12/12/2008, it was expected that Israel would continue transporting foodstuffs and animal food to Gaza for the 3rd day, but Israel in a sudden act closed the Karni (Montar) terminal for undisclosed reasons, after only 8 out of 43 trucks were able to unload their goods in Gaza.

Gaza-Egypt crossing: Rafah

President Mahmoud Abbas and the Prime Minister of the interim government Dr. Salam Fayyadh supported the Calmness Agreement between Hamas and Israel in order to alleviate the Palestinian people in Gaza and to open the closed commercial crossings in order to lift the siege. A high ranking official stated in a closed meeting with Palestinian business men abroad, that the PA position was rejecting the full opening of the border crossings and the re-opening of Rafah passengers crossing without the full presence of the Presidential PA guards there. This coincided with the Egyptian policy, while the opening of crossings, especially Rafah, would strengthen the position of the Hamas regime and improve its popularity among the citizens in the Gaza Strip, at a time when the popularity was very low. It had declined to the extent that Dr. Ahmed Youssef (adviser to the Hamas PM Haneyyah) stated on 15/7/2008 in Al-Quds daily newspaper that the rupture between Palestinian people in Gaza had worsened in such a way that the owners of solace houses who were not affiliated Hamas, refused to receive Hamas members for offering their condolences and sympathy.

According to the Kuwaiti Al-Qabas newspaper on 3/9/2008, the Egyptian authorities decided to open Rafah crossing from time to time to minimize the suffering of the Palestinians. If so, this was probably done while the Egyptian authorities didn’t want to have another Palestinian incursion of the border like the one that occurred on 23/1/2008.

Rafah crossing was opened especially for the leaders of Hamas, patients, and others:

• On 11/7/2008 the crossing had been opened for the arrival of Hamas leader AbuHashim with his escort only from Egypt.
• On 12/7/2008 the crossing had been opened for the arrival of Hamas leader Dr. Zahhar with his escort only from Egypt.
• On 14/7/2008 the crossing had been opened for 17 Palestinian football team leaving to Jordan to participate in The Asian Football Championship.
• On 15/7/2008 the crossing had been opened for the arrival of 11 patients and citizens who were in Egypt for long time.
• On the occasion of Ramadan and for fear of another incursion of the Egyptian borders, the Egyptian authorities opened the Rafah border crossing for 2 days (31/8/2008 and 1/9/2008), from both sides. About 5000 persons benefited of this step, whether they were Palestinians stuck in Egypt or Egyptians stuck in Gaza (Al-Ahram newspaper on 2/9/2008), in addition to Palestinian students, patients, and others who had a valid permit of residence in different countries.
• Egypt opened the crossing on 20-21/9/2008 for Palestinians of certain categories: about 1000 pilgrims on their way to Saudi Arabia, students who were registered at universities abroad, patients, persons who had valid permits of residency in other countries, and one international activist who had been stuck in Gaza since 23/8/2008 (the sister of Tony Blair's wife).
• Egypt opened the crossing on 6-7/10/2008 for the return back to Gaza for the pilgrims and patients only (one way), followed by a partial opening to continue the return of these two groups only.
• During October the crossing was almost opened every couple of days for the return of Pilgrims and patients only. However also for Hamas delegation members, who came back to Gaza through Rafah crossing on 25/10/2008.
• From 4/11/2008 onwards the Rafah border crossing was opened for 3 days, of which about 4000 benefited, leaving Gaza or coming back.
• During the first week of November the crossing was opened for the Palestinian faction representatives who attended the Cairo dialogue.
• On 12/11/2008 the crossing was opened for the return of faction representatives, after the failure of the Cairo dialogue and reconciliation conference.
• From 29/11/2008 onwards, the crossing was opened for 3 days for the Pilgrims of Gaza to leave for Saudi Arabia, but Hamas security services didn't permit 3100 Pilgrims to leave Gaza, because they were registered by the PA in Ramallah, and because the Saudi government didn't apply visas for the Pilgrims that were registered by Hamas deposed government.

On 10/9/2008 a group of Egyptian parliament members (opposition and Muslim brotherhood members) arranged a symbolic popular campaign to break through the closure on Gaza Strip. They wanted to arrive at Rafah borders accompanied with Food and Health supplies addressed to the Palestinians in Gaza. The Egyptian authorities stopped the participants of this campaign at Isma’eleia City (more than 250km from Rafah). The participants dispersed peacefully after having a press conference, accusing the Egyptian Government of assisting the closure on the Gaza Strip.

Fawzi Barhoom, Hamas spokesperson, stated on 11/9/2008 that Hamas highly valued such campaigns, and asked the Arab and other international communities to do the same. In the mean time he added that Hamas felt sorry for the action of the Egyptian Government to stop this campaign, preventing it from reaching Rafah.

On 6/10/2008, the anniversary of the 1973 war between Egypt and Israel, a new group of Egyptian parliament members from the opposition (mainly from the Muslim Brotherhood), journalists, doctors, and others arranged a new campaign to come to Rafah during the scheduled opening of the crossing for pilgrims coming back from Mecca. Hundreds of Egyptian security forces stopped the participants leaving from Cairo, forcing them to disperse in Cairo itself. Others who arrived at Al-Arish City were asked to go back. The participants again accused the Egyptian regime for playing a major role in the closure on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, together with Israel.

In a new press statement on 22/10/2008, the European campaign To End The Siege on Gaza said they were preparing a new campaign to try breaking through the borders of Rafah. The campaign spokesman added that Arab parliament members (from Algeria, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Sudan) would join the campaign in addition to the European delegation.

Yousi Belin, Head of the Israeli Meretz party, declared after his meeting with Omer Suliman, Egyptian Minister of Intelligence, that Egypt informed Hamas leaders it would consider normal relations with Hamas when finalizing the Israeli captive soldier issue (Voice of Israel 8/9/2008 at 8:05am).

It is worth mentioning that due to the closure of Gaza border crossings and especially Rafah, the number of smuggling tunnels near the Rafah borders approached 1100 (there is no official number) along the whole border, which is about 14km long. This means that there were about 80 tunnels per one kilometer - one tunnel every 12.5 meters. These tunnels were used to bring from Egypt materials and goods not allowed by Israel to be transported to Gaza. But the costs of these materials were very high compared to the prices on the West Bank or Israel.

Later on, Egypt started using new USA technology to find these tunnels and demolish them, fearing the smuggling of explosives and weapons to Hamas, who were controlling the majority of these tunnels, issuing licenses for excavating tunnels.

Some Palestinians were killed due to the collapse of tunnels (Egyptian Authorities and others claimed that about 140 tunnels had been closed from the Egyptian side). In some cases the tunnels collapsed due to the crossing of tunnels during the excavation. A group of people who formed a new gathering called “the families of tunnel victims” declared in press statements that they accused Egypt for the killing of their sons. They claimed that up to 28/9/2008 (press statement by the group on 28/9/2008), the number of victims since 1/1/2008 in tunnels collapses reached 45.

Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot revealed on Thursday morning 2/10/2008 that US soldiers in civilian dress were working in full cooperation with the Egyptian soldiers to discover tunnels used for smuggling arms along the Philadelphi route between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.

According to the paper, in September 2008 they discovered an unprecedented number of 42 tunnels. The newspaper said that the tunnels were discovered due to the secret U.S. technology and American engineering experts.

The deployment of US troops was agreed upon during a visit by Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Cairo more than half a year ago. The Israeli daily also said that "intensive activity increased the tension between Egypt and Hamas (Translated from www.Qudsnet.com/arabic of 3/10/2008 and Al-Quds daily newspaper).

The Calmness Agreement Report - Continued - Exchange of prisoners process

2009-02-09T09:11:00.000-08:00

Exchange of prisoners process

On 16/7/2008 Israel and Hezbollah exchanged prisoners. Israel released 5 Lebanese prisoners, including Samir Kuntar who was sentenced to life in Israel, having spent in Israeli jails around 30 years, in addition to 199 Lebanese, Arab, and Palestinian corpses. In return Hezbollah returned the two corpses of Israeli soldiers who were captured on 12/7/2006 in a military operation by Hezbollah. The action which led to the second Lebanese war.

The exchange of prisoners benefited the Hamas movement and emphasized its adherence to the conditions for the release of the Israeli captive soldier Gilaad Shalit who had been captured on 25/6/2006, especially where it concerned the indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israeli representatives which took place in Cairo, mediated by Egypt. In the light of the Calmness, Hamas was trying to achieve an exchange of prisoners, similar to the one made by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Hamas also wanted to prolong the time of the negotiations regarding the release of the captive Israeli soldier to guarantee Israeli would not assault the movement, its centers, and its activists, including Hamas leaders.

Al-Quds AlArabi, a newspaper based in London, wrote on Thursday 21/8/2008 that Egypt warned Hamas leaders to be aware of Israeli attempts to target them in case no progress was being made in the indirect negotiations to free the Israeli captive soldier Shalit, against the freeing of about 1000 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Out of these 1000, Hamas would select 450 prisoners (many of whom had spent dozens of years in Israeli jails, including prisoners who were indicted of killing or injured Israelis), and the other 550 prisoners were to be selected by Israel. The first response from Israel was that they agreed on 70 names of the Hamas list only, which led to a deadlock of the negotiations.

According to the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv of 9/9/2008, Israel prepared a new list for the 450 prisoners to be freed by Israel, threatening to halt the Calmness Agreement, and to start targeting Hamas leaders, fighters, and centers, in case Hamas would disagree with their list. The newspaper added that according to an Egyptian official, Hamas was insisting that the opening of the Rafah crossing border should be part of the prisoners exchange process, while Israel completely rejected such a condition.

According to the Ha’aretz of 19/9/2008, Hamas would not renew negotiations for the release of the abducted soldier Gila'ad Shalit unless Israel would meet its preconditions, the London-based newspaper Asharq Alawsat quoted a senior official of the Islamist group.

According to the report, Hamas laid out three conditions for the renewal of negotiations with Israel:
• Release of all Palestinian prisoners whose names appear on the list that had been given to Israel via Egyptian mediators.
• Implementation of all Israeli commitments in the framework of the ceasefire Agreement, including the reopening of Gaza Strip crossings for transporting all types of goods.
• The opening of the Rafah crossing.
The newspaper further stated that Ofer Dekel, Israel's chief negotiator for securing the release of Shalit, had transferred an Egyptian-brokered list to Hamas of the 450 Palestinian prisoners that Israel would be willing to release in exchange for Shalit.

According to an interview with BBC Arabic section, Hamas leader Dr. Mahmoud Zahhar, stated on 20/9/2008 that in case Israel would not accept the conditions agreed upon with Egypt through one year of negotiations, especially regarding the list of 450 prisoners Hamas asked to release and the total number of prisoners to be released, it meant that negotiations would have to start again from point zero.

On 24/9/2008 an Israeli official said that Israel was reviewing the Hamas list of prisoners (450) to be freed and found that Israel could accept releasing half of the list.

However, the Hamas official stated his organization's insistence on the original list of names, which included prisoners serving lengthy prison terms, members of the Hamas parliament, as well as women and children.

Hamas also demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Egypt, according to the report. "It doesn't make any sense that Egypt will moderate our prisoner exchange talks with Israel while it imprisons our members," the official said (Ha’aretz).

The ministerial Israeli team involved in the prisoners exchange (headed by vice PM Haim Ramon) met on 25/9/2008 to discuss the list of Palestinian prisoners to be freed in exchange with Gila'ad Shalit.

The team discussed the new criteria to be set by the Israeli government for the release of Palestinian prisoners, and would submit their recommendations, which were to be discussed and approved by the Israeli cabinet (according to Voice of Israel on 25/9/2008).

On 25/8/2008 Israel freed 198 Palestinian prisoners, non of them belonging to Hamas, as a gesture to President Abbas. Among them were 2 prisoners who were sentenced to life in prison and stayed about 30 years in Israeli jails, being accused by Israel of the killing of Israelis or their participation thereof. It was the first time that Israel released Palestinian prisoners accused of killing Israelis – with Israeli blood on their hands.

This could be considered as a very important precedent, to be repeated in the prisoners exchange, now indirectly going on (through Egypt) between Hamas and Israel.

On 3/9/2008 Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahhar stated that Hamas stopped the negotiations with Israel through Egypt for prisoners exchange, claiming that Egypt and Israel continued closing the Gaza border crossings, especially Rafah.

On 4/9/2008, after a press conference at the end of the Quartet summit held in Damascus, including Syrian President Bashar Asaad, French President Sarkozy, the Prince of Qatar, and the PM of Turkey Rajab Ardogan, it was declared that the leaders concentrated on the peace process in the Middle East and the respective situations in Lebanon, Iraq and Darfur, in addition to the nuclear aspirations of Iran and the new problems in the Caucasus (as published in Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on 5/9/2008).

President Sarkozy handed a letter from the Israeli captive soldier's parents to the prince of Qatar who promised to hand it to Khalid Masha'al, who in turn assured that the message would be handed to "Gilaad Shalit", who in fact had a dual nationality (French and Israeli). On 23/10/2008 Hamas leader Ayman Taha stated that the message was delivered to Shalit, while it was a humanitarian issue. He added that Hamas would not accept any further exchange of messages between Shalit and his family in the present stage of negotiations on prisoners exchange.

Due to the success of sending of the message, however, rumors began to spread that Hamas was considering to transfer the prisoner exchange negotiations process from Egypt to Qatar. The Palestinian newspaper Al-quds of 8/9/2008 published a statement of Hamas leader Dr.Ismael Radwan, denying such rumors and confirming that there was no conflict between Hamas and Egypt. He also added that the Shalit negotiations would be kept in Egypt, but Hamas was not in a hurry to finalize it before the full reopening of all Gaza border crossings and an end to the Gaza closure.

Osama Muzzaini, a Hamas leader responsible for the prisoners negotiations process, reaffirmed on 6/10/2008, that Hamas was not in a hurry with the prisoners exchange process, adding that the lack of progress in the process was due to the weakness of the Israeli government. He assumed that the indirect negotiations on the case would be restored after the formation of a new Israeli government.

Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff wrote in Haaretz on 7/10/2008, quoting Israeli security officials, “time running out on Shalit deal.”

The officials told Ha'aretz that the more time passed, the more things could go wrong and the greater the danger was that an opportunity would be missed to bring Shalit home.
The officials said they believed Hamas would raise the price for Shalit as time went by. A security official also said: "Many possibilities must be taken into account, not all of them under our control. The calm in the Gaza Strip could blow up, the Egyptians could reduce their involvement in the talks to concentrate on domestic issues, and one of Gila'ad's guards could harm him. There could even be complications from a flu that they don't know how to treat properly at Shifa," the official said, referring to a Gaza Strip hospital.

Officials said that as far as they know, no options existed for a military option to free Shalit. Referring to the kidnapping, an official said, "there was a failure, and now the price has to be paid, even if it means releasing terrorists who are murderers."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi represent the same position, believing that time is of the essence and that Israel should be taking advantage of the ongoing cease-fire in the Gaza Strip to move ahead on a deal to release Shalit, even at a "heavy cost."

Barak said Monday 6/10/2008 at a memorial service for the Armored Corps dead, at Latrun: "We will do everything possible and appropriate to bring Gila'ad Shalit home. We will spare no efforts. That is our duty."

Barak Ravid Israeli reporter from Ha'aretz wrote on 10/10/2008 that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said in private conversations in recent weeks that it is a mistake to link the issue of kidnapped soldier Gila'ad Shalit's release to the cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.

PM Ihud Olmert has told officials in meetings on the matter that Israel must choose between moving ahead on Shalit's release by applying massive pressure on Hamas - which might lead to the breakdown of the cease-fire and a renewal of Qassam fire on the Negev - and a freeze on the Shalit release and quiet in Sderot and the communities close to the Gaza Strip. Sources close to Olmert have said that as long as things are quiet, Hamas has no interest in moving ahead on releasing Shalit.

According to the Al-Khayyat (an Arabic London based newspaper) of 13/10/2008, Ofer Dekel, the Israeli official dealing with the prisoners exchange, met with the Egyptian officials, and agreed to restore the indirect negotiations with Hamas from the point they had reached before, and thus not to start from scratch.

As mentioned in the beginning of this item regarding the exchange of prisoners, Avi Issacharoff wrote in Ha’aretz on 13/10/2008 that Hamas had raised the price for Shalit in the wake of the Israeli deal with Lebanon on Samir Kuntar from Hezbollah.

Negotiators involved in the talks over Shalit said Israel would have to change its criteria regarding the Palestinian prisoners it was willing to release. These sources said Hamas insisted that Israel would agree to release prisoners "with blood on their hands”. They said Hamas had raised its demands, arguing that Israel had already released Samir Kuntar, who was convicted of killing four Israelis in a 1979 terror attack in Nahariya, and two prisoners of the same category, Abu Ali Yatta and Sa'id al-Ataba, as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority. Hamas wanted Israel to agree to this same principle in order to renew the talks.

On 28/11/008, according to (Voice of Israel) Ofer Dekel, Israel's chief negotiator for securing the release of Shalit, went to Cairo to accelerate the exchange process with the Egyptian side, while the Egyptians asked Hamas to send a delegation to restore the negotiations regarding this issue. Hamas agreed.

It is not always possible to bring every soldier home, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told students at Tel Aviv's Tichon Hadash high school on Thursday 11/12/2008 (Haaretz 12/12/2008), as a message to Hamas. At the same time she also opposed the idea that Israel should pay " any price" to free Shalit.

In response to Livni's comments, Shas chairman and Industry Minister Eli Yishai declared that in his view, the time had in fact come to pay "any price" for Shalit.

Hamas minister Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, interviewed on Israel Radio on 11/12/2008, insisted that a "serious" Israeli government could close a deal for Shalit "in a few hours."