Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Solana to UN: Accept Palestinian state even if Israel does not
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Saturday called for the United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state by a certain deadline even if an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians.
By Reuters
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.
By Reuters
Solana to UN: Accept Palestinian state even if Israel does not
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Saturday called for the United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state by a certain deadline even if an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians.
Solana made the comments on Saturday at a lecture in London. The Palestinians have said they will not revive peace talks unless there is a halt to Israel's settlement activities in the West Bank.
"After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution," Solana said, adding this should include border parameters, refugees, control over the city of Jerusalem and security arrangements.
"It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimize the end of claims," Solana went on.
Advocating a return to Israel's borders before the 1967 Six-Day War with Egypt, Syria and Jordan in which it took the West Bank and other territories, Solana said mediators should set a timetable for a peace agreement.
By Reuters
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Le Forum International pour la Paix soutien le président Obama
Une fenêtre d'opportunités importante s'ouvre au Moyen Orient.
Nous appelons le président Barack Hussein Obama à se donner tout les moyens de ses ambitions, pour que la paix devienne réalité au Moyen Orient, car les peuples de la région sont fatigués et frustrés par tant de promesses non tenues et des beaux discours, des plans ambitieux et d'accords non respectés, ce ne sont que les actes qui leur rendront espoir, et le président Obama doit utiliser tout les moyens à sa disposition pour fermement encourager les pays du Moyen Orient à se réconcilier.
Déclare Ofer Bronchtein, Président du Forum International pour la Paix au Proche Orient.
Nous appelons le président Barack Hussein Obama à se donner tout les moyens de ses ambitions, pour que la paix devienne réalité au Moyen Orient, car les peuples de la région sont fatigués et frustrés par tant de promesses non tenues et des beaux discours, des plans ambitieux et d'accords non respectés, ce ne sont que les actes qui leur rendront espoir, et le président Obama doit utiliser tout les moyens à sa disposition pour fermement encourager les pays du Moyen Orient à se réconcilier.
Déclare Ofer Bronchtein, Président du Forum International pour la Paix au Proche Orient.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan
Honored guests, citizens of Israel.
Peace was always the desire of our people. Our prophets had a vision of peace, we greet each other with peace, our prayers end with the word peace. This evening we are in the center named for two leaders who were groundbreakers for peace -Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat - and we share their vision.
Two and a half months ago, I was sworn in at the Knesset as the Prime Minister of Israel. I promised that I would establish a unity government, and did so. I believed, and still believe, that we need unity now more than ever before.
We are currently facing three tremendous challenges: The Iranian threat, the financial crisis, and the promotion of peace.
The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this with President Obama on my visit to Washington, and will be discussing it next week on my visit with European leaders. I have been working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.
With the world financial crisis, we acted immediately to bring about stability to the Israeli economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government and will pass it through the Knesset very soon.
The second challenge, rather, the third, so very important challenge, facing us today, is promoting peace. I discussed this also with President Obama. I strongly support the idea of regional peace that he is advancing. I share the President of the U.S.A's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.
I discussed this in my meetings with President Mubarak in Egypt and with King Abdullah in Jordan to obtain the assistance of these leaders in the effort to expand the circle of peace in our region.
I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. (Applause)
I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region. For example, water desalinization. And we can utilize the advantages of our region, such as maximizing the use of solar energy, or utilizing its geographical advantages to lay pipelines, pipelines to Africa and Europe.
Together we can realize the initiatives that I see in the Persian Gulf, which amaze the entire world, and also amaze me. I call upon the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world, to come and invest here, to assist the Palestinians and us, to give the economy a jump-start. Together we can develop industrial zones, we can create thousands of jobs, and foster tourism that will draw millions, people who want to walk in the footsteps of history, in Nazareth and Bethlehem, in the heights of Jericho and on the walls of Jerusalem, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is a huge potential for the development of tourism potential here. If you only agree to work together.
I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations.
I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to 'know war no more.'
We do not want parents and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, to know the sorrow of bereavement. We want our children to dream of a better future for humankind. We want us and our neighbors to devote our efforts to 'plowshares and pruning hooks' and not to swords and spears. I know the terror of war, I participated in battles, I lost good friends who fell [in battle], I lost a brother. I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war. (Applause)
Let us join hands and work together in peace, together with our neighbors. There is no limit to the flourishing growth that we can achieve for both peoples - in the economy, in agriculture, in commerce, tourism, education - but, above all, in the ability to give our younger generation hope to live in a place that’s good to live in, a life of creative work, a peaceful life with much of interest, with opportunity and hope.
Friends, with the advantages of peace so clear, so obvious, we must ask ourselves why is peace still so far from us, even though our hands are extended for peace? Why has the conflict going on for over 60 years? To bring an end to it, there must be a sincere, genuine answer to the question: what is the root of the conflict? In his speech at the Zionist Congress in Basel, in speaking of his grand vision of a Jewish homeland for the Jewish People, Theodor Herzl, the visionary of the State of Israel, said: This is so big, we must talk about it only in the simplest words possible.
I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace, we must use the simplest words possible, using person to person terms. Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland.
In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.
Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.
To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.
To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.
A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers.
We tried withdrawal by agreement, withdrawal without an agreement, we tried partial withdrawal and full withdrawal. In 2000, and once again last year, the government of Israel, based on good will, tried a nearly complete withdrawal, in exchange for the end of the conflict, and were twice refused.
We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.
With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias.
Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. (Applause)
Friends, in order to achieve peace, we need courage and integrity on the part of the leaders of both sides. I am speaking today with courage and honesty. We need courage and sincerity not only on the Israeli side: we need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply "We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace." I am looking forward to this moment.
We want them to say the simplest things, to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People. (Applause)
For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.
Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this. (Applause)
I believe that with good will and international investment of we can solve this humanitarian problem once and for all.
Friends, up to now, I have been talking about the need for the Palestinians to ecognize our rights. Now I will talk about the need for us to recognize their rights.
The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers. (Applause)
The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years -- persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. (Applause) The tragedies that arose from the Jewish Peoples’ helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state.
The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People. (Applause)
As the first PM David Ben Gurion in the declaration of the State, the State of Israel was established here in Eretz Israel, where the People of Israel created the Book of Books, and gave it to the world.
But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbors’ security and existence.
These two facts our link to the Land of Israel, and the Palestinian population who live here, have created deep disagreements within Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more unity than disagreement.
I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause)
And, to ensure peace we don?t want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel and we must provide for our security needs.
This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the USA, for what is necessary for our security, that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what?s going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.
Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can?t agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state. (Applause)
Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. (Applause)
The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters. (Applause)
Friends, unity among us is, to my view, vital, and unity will help with reconciliation with our neighbors. Reconciliation must begin now. A strong Palestinian government will strengthen peace. If they truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace.
But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between path of peace and path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at conference table with terrorist who seek to destroy it. (Applause)
Hamas are not willing to even let the Red Cross visit our abducted soldier Gilad Shalit who has been in captivity three years, cut off from his family and his country. We want to bring him back whole and well.
With help of the international community, there is no reason why we can’t have peace. With help of USA, we can do we can do the unbelievable. In 61 years, with constant threats to our existence we have achieved so much. Our microchips power the world’s computers unbelievable, we have found cures for incurable diseases. Israeli drip irrigation waters barren lands throughout the world. Israeli researchers are making worldwide breakthroughs. If our neighbors only work for peace, we can achieve peace. (Applause)
I call upon Arab leaders and Palestinian leaders: Let’s go in the path of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let’s go in the path of Prophet Isaiah, who spoke thousands of years ago, they shall beat their swords into plowshares and know war no more.
Let us know war no more. Let us know peace.
Source: Haartez.com
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
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Can you tell the difference between an Israeli and a Palestinian?
The advertisement published in Haaretz in March read "Wanted: people who look alike," and promised NIS 8,000 to anyone that could locate someone who looked like one of the eight people featured in the advertisement.
What the advertisement didn't say, was that the eight people pictured were Palestinians.
The ad was made by Swiss artist Olivier Suter, as part of his project 'Enemies', which focused on the absurd ways people identify "the other".
The advertisement is similar to a project Suter performed in Belgium, which asked viewers if they could dfferentiate between Flemish and French speakers.
Out of the dozens of photos he received, Suter picked a photo of an Israeli girl and a Palestinian boy who looked alike. The girl is one Hadas Maor, whose photo was sent in by her father, geography professor Yehuda Keidar.
Keidar, a long-time supporter of a two-state solution said "[David] Ben-Gurion was right when he said 'The Palestinians are not our cousins, they're our brothers. Turns out, they could be twins."
The Palestinian boy is named Adam Shurati and he was none too pleased about his likeness to a girl, according to his mother Nancy. Adam was further dismayed when his mother took him to have his hair cut to look like Hadas'.
Nancy, who lives in Bet Hanina, called the project "amazing" and said that her son's resemblance to an Israel girl surprised her.
"The project is a work of art meant for all of us, not just for the sake of art," Suter said.
Suter's next "Enemies" project will take place in Rwanda and the Congo.
By Dalia Karpel.
Source: www.haartez.com
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
Comment on the role of the U.S. in the Middle East
There is sufficient evidence that the Obama administration intends to--is even determined to--change its image in the Middle East by pursuing an alternative approach to that of the previous administration.
The question remains, however, whether the US president will know how, and if he indeed can.
The appointment of George Mitchell as envoy; recent active Middle East diplomacy including Washington summit meetings with significant regional leaders; and the forthcoming visit of US President Obama himself to the region including a much-anticipated speech in Cairo are all positive, serious indications.
In addition, the content of that diplomacy indicates some positive changes, including public admonishments that Israel must stop all settlement construction in line with its obligations under the roadmap. These moves have, in turn, generated healthy debate both in Israel and among the American Jewish community on the one hand, and among Palestinians and other Arabs, on the other hand.
Optimists and pro-peace groups on both sides have been encouraged by these developments. Others warn of the serious challenges facing Obama. First, how will the new administration handle the situation in Iraq? As long as the Arab people continue to see the United States as an occupying power, there will be doubts as to whether or not these verbal and rhetorical changes can make a difference.
In addition, US friends and allies in the region are among the least democratic and popular, having failed at social and economic development. The US is perceived as the power propping up these regimes. Washington's association with these regimes and complete absence of dialogue with the rest of the Arab world will also limit the extent to which this administration can improve its image and relations.
The other serious challenge that the new administration has is to materialize its positions toward Israel. Despite the administration's clear demand for a complete halt to settlement construction, Israel is still expanding settlements, increasing the number of settlers and consolidating its occupation. These opposing positions will ultimately jeopardize Washington's credibility.
President Obama is in a unique position to make a difference in this regard. He enjoys a high level of support, not only from the American public but from the American Jewish community. In addition, he also has vast popularity overseas, which allows him to mobilize international support around the idea that Israel continues to violate the terms of reference of the peace process and the requests and expectations of its main ally--one responsible for both Israel's superiority and its existence. Ultimately, there may be a price to be paid in this relationship.
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.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
President Obama's speech in Cairo
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Six Are Killed in West Bank as Fatah and Hamas Clash
Palestinian Authority forces clashed with Hamas militants in the West Bank early Sunday, leaving six dead, in the bloodiest such encounter in two years.
The violence came days after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas assured President Obama in Washington that his troops were imposing order on the area. In Gaza, Hamas reacted by arresting Fatah activists and hinting of further revenge.
The clashes and threats show that Fatah, which dominates in the West Bank, and Hamas, which runs Gaza, remain in a tense standoff, and that the Palestinian unity needed for creation of a state is far off. Both sides said unity talks mediated by Egypt were imperiled.
A spokesman for Mr. Abbas’s West Bank forces told a news conference in Ramallah that a patrol in the city of Qalqilya had come under fire Saturday night from a house, leading to a curfew and hours-long negotiations. A grenade was thrown from the house killing three security officers, the house was stormed, two Hamas militiamen, including the city commander, were killed along with the owner of the house, a bystander.
He said weapons and documents were found on the men and added that Palestinian Authority forces had found similar caches in recent months, including inside a mosque. Some 200 Hamas-affiliated men were in jail in the West Bank awaiting trial, he said but insisted they were charged with specific violations, not for Hamas affiliation.
“In the last two years, we have proved our ability to impose law and order,” the spokesman, Adnan Dameiri, told the news conference. “We will continue our campaign to dismantle armed groups.”
Hussein a Sheikh, a West Bank Fatah leader, told Israel Radio: “Whoever wants now to come in and disrupt the security and order of the Palestinian residents, to have a militia here, gangs here and there and an underground below, we won’t agree.”
The United States and European Union train and support Mr. Abbas’s troops in the hope of creating a strong enough force to prevent Hamas from challenging its West Bank rule and ultimately perhaps helping Mr. Abbas back into Gaza.
Hamas officials accused the West Bank authorities of being quislings for Israel and the West and betraying the Palestinian national cause. Israeli officials, not wanting to besmirch the Palestinian Authority among its public with a bear hug, pointedly declined comment. But Israeli soldiers control the West Bank, and Palestinian security forces coordinate their actions with them. On Thursday in the south Hebron hills, Israeli officials killed a long-wanted Hamas militant said to have been involved in planning two suicide bombings of Israelis in the 1990s.
After Hamas, an Islamist group that rejects Israel’s existence, won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, it and Fatah tried to put together a unity government. But tensions were high and street fights in Gaza common between forces loyal to the two movements. Two years ago the skirmishes broke out into a four-day war, and Hamas took over Gaza entirely leaving Fatah in power only in the West Bank, supported by Israel.
Abu Obaida, spokesman for the Hamas military wing known as the Qassam Brigade, said at a Gaza news conference on Sunday, “We are confronting two enemies, the Israeli occupier and the agency that serves the agenda of Washington and Tel Aviv.” He added, “This spark reminds us of what happened in Gaza two years ago.”
A Fatah leader in Gaza said some of his men had been arrested on Sunday following the Qalqilya clash. Hamas leaders said that unless their men were released in the West Bank, unity talks would not proceed.
In other developments on Sunday, the Israeli cabinet rejected a bill aimed at Israel’s Arab minority that would have required a loyalty oath for citizenship. This means the bill, championed by the Yisrael Beiteinu Party of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, has little chance of passing legislative scrutiny. It can still be presented as a private bill but without the government’s backing.
A second Yisrael Beiteinu bill that has been highly controversial was watered down by the ministers. It was aimed at barring any marking of Israel’s Independence Day as Nakba Day, meaning the day that Palestinians suffered a catastrophe. Enacting such a ban was widely viewed as a violation of the country’s free speech laws.
The ministers changed the draft of the law so that it bars the expenditure of state money to mark the Nakba. This version will still have to pass three votes in parliament and its chances are considered poor.
Israel started a five-day civil defense exercise on Sunday aimed at the possibility of coping with multiple missile attacks, the largest ever of its kind. The drill will stage mock disasters and test emergency crews in their ability to evacuate buildings. On Tuesday, sirens will sound requiring everyone to go into a secure space.
At the start of the Sunday cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the drill and of the death on Saturday of Ephraim Katzir, who was president of Israel from 1973 to 1978 and a noted biophysicist at the Weizmann Institute. He was 93.
By Ethan Bronner.
Source: New York Times.
The violence came days after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas assured President Obama in Washington that his troops were imposing order on the area. In Gaza, Hamas reacted by arresting Fatah activists and hinting of further revenge.
The clashes and threats show that Fatah, which dominates in the West Bank, and Hamas, which runs Gaza, remain in a tense standoff, and that the Palestinian unity needed for creation of a state is far off. Both sides said unity talks mediated by Egypt were imperiled.
A spokesman for Mr. Abbas’s West Bank forces told a news conference in Ramallah that a patrol in the city of Qalqilya had come under fire Saturday night from a house, leading to a curfew and hours-long negotiations. A grenade was thrown from the house killing three security officers, the house was stormed, two Hamas militiamen, including the city commander, were killed along with the owner of the house, a bystander.
He said weapons and documents were found on the men and added that Palestinian Authority forces had found similar caches in recent months, including inside a mosque. Some 200 Hamas-affiliated men were in jail in the West Bank awaiting trial, he said but insisted they were charged with specific violations, not for Hamas affiliation.
“In the last two years, we have proved our ability to impose law and order,” the spokesman, Adnan Dameiri, told the news conference. “We will continue our campaign to dismantle armed groups.”
Hussein a Sheikh, a West Bank Fatah leader, told Israel Radio: “Whoever wants now to come in and disrupt the security and order of the Palestinian residents, to have a militia here, gangs here and there and an underground below, we won’t agree.”
The United States and European Union train and support Mr. Abbas’s troops in the hope of creating a strong enough force to prevent Hamas from challenging its West Bank rule and ultimately perhaps helping Mr. Abbas back into Gaza.
Hamas officials accused the West Bank authorities of being quislings for Israel and the West and betraying the Palestinian national cause. Israeli officials, not wanting to besmirch the Palestinian Authority among its public with a bear hug, pointedly declined comment. But Israeli soldiers control the West Bank, and Palestinian security forces coordinate their actions with them. On Thursday in the south Hebron hills, Israeli officials killed a long-wanted Hamas militant said to have been involved in planning two suicide bombings of Israelis in the 1990s.
After Hamas, an Islamist group that rejects Israel’s existence, won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, it and Fatah tried to put together a unity government. But tensions were high and street fights in Gaza common between forces loyal to the two movements. Two years ago the skirmishes broke out into a four-day war, and Hamas took over Gaza entirely leaving Fatah in power only in the West Bank, supported by Israel.
Abu Obaida, spokesman for the Hamas military wing known as the Qassam Brigade, said at a Gaza news conference on Sunday, “We are confronting two enemies, the Israeli occupier and the agency that serves the agenda of Washington and Tel Aviv.” He added, “This spark reminds us of what happened in Gaza two years ago.”
A Fatah leader in Gaza said some of his men had been arrested on Sunday following the Qalqilya clash. Hamas leaders said that unless their men were released in the West Bank, unity talks would not proceed.
In other developments on Sunday, the Israeli cabinet rejected a bill aimed at Israel’s Arab minority that would have required a loyalty oath for citizenship. This means the bill, championed by the Yisrael Beiteinu Party of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, has little chance of passing legislative scrutiny. It can still be presented as a private bill but without the government’s backing.
A second Yisrael Beiteinu bill that has been highly controversial was watered down by the ministers. It was aimed at barring any marking of Israel’s Independence Day as Nakba Day, meaning the day that Palestinians suffered a catastrophe. Enacting such a ban was widely viewed as a violation of the country’s free speech laws.
The ministers changed the draft of the law so that it bars the expenditure of state money to mark the Nakba. This version will still have to pass three votes in parliament and its chances are considered poor.
Israel started a five-day civil defense exercise on Sunday aimed at the possibility of coping with multiple missile attacks, the largest ever of its kind. The drill will stage mock disasters and test emergency crews in their ability to evacuate buildings. On Tuesday, sirens will sound requiring everyone to go into a secure space.
At the start of the Sunday cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the drill and of the death on Saturday of Ephraim Katzir, who was president of Israel from 1973 to 1978 and a noted biophysicist at the Weizmann Institute. He was 93.
By Ethan Bronner.
Source: New York Times.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
خطة جديدة للشرق الأوسط
واشنطن العاصمة – كثُر في الأيام الأخيرة لغط مفاده أن صانعي السلام في الشرق الأوسط على وشك تحقيق اختراق كبير، حيث يتوقع البعض أن يتم نشر تصريح في أعقاب زيارة رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو إلى واشنطن في 18 أيار/مايو للقاء الرئيس باراك أوباما. هل سينجح أوباما بلوي أذرعة الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين لدرجة أن يوافقوا في النهاية على المواضيع المختلفة؟
طالما كان أحد أكبر المعوقات في النزاع العربي الإسرائيلي كون المشكلة بالغة التعقيد. واقع الأمر أن نزاع الشرق الأوسط غير مكوّن من قضية واحدة، بل من مجموعة من القضايا متعددة الوجوه، يتوجب التعامل معها بشكل متزامن. لن يؤدي الفشل في التصرف بهذا الأسلوب إلى أية نتائج، ببساطة لأنه عندما يحين موعد قيام الأطراف ببحث القضية الثانية أو الثالثة، تكون التغييرات على الأرض، التي يثيرها "المخربون" قد أعادت توزيع الأوراق، وأرسلت الجميع إلى نقطة البداية. طالما كانت تلك واحدة من نواقص الإدارات الأمريكية السابقة، الجمهورية والديمقراطية على حد سواء، التي حاولت حل المشكلة عن طريق تقسيمها إلى قضايا منفصلة. لن ينجح ذلك ببساطة.
"لا يمكن حل القضية الفلسطينية بنداً بنداً"، حسب قول الدكتور زياد عسلي، رئيس مجموعة العمل الأمريكية من أجل فلسطين للكاتب.
"من الغباء عمل ذلك بالتقسيط"، يقول فيليب ويلكوكس أيضاً، وهو دبلوماسي أمريكي سابق عمل في الشرق الأوسط ويترأس الآن مؤسسة السلام في الشرق الأوسط.
إلا أن المهمة الصعبة سوف تكون وضع جميع الأجزاء في مكانها في الوقت نفسه، حسبما يوافق عدد من المراقبين. ولكن من أين نبدأ؟
وهنا يأتي دور جورج ميتشل. وميتشل بالطبع هو المبعوث الخاص للرئيس أوباما إلى الشرق الأوسط، الذي يفضل أن يلعب وأوراقه قريبة من صدره، حسب رأي رشيد الخالدي، وهو أستاذ جامعي فلسطيني أمريكي في جامعة كولومبيا بمدينة نيويورك، عمل مستشاراً للوفد الفلسطيني في مؤتمر مدريد عام 1991، وهو من المطّلعين جيداً على تعقيدات العملية السلمية في الشرق الأوسط.
ويتفق عدد من المحللين الآخرين، مثل الخالدي، على أن شيئاً ما يحصل في عملية السلام في الشرق الأوسط.
"هناك بعض الأمل في الجو"، حسبما صرّح السفير ويلكوكس للكاتب. كان هناك بالتأكيد شعوراً سائداً بالتفاؤل المتجدد في أوساط بعض المحللين بأن القضايا قد تتحرك قدماً في نهاية المطاف، بشكل متزامن، وإلى درجة كبيرة كنتيجة لفكرة جديدة قدمتها إدارة الرئيس أوباما، من خلال فريق جورج ميتشل على الأرجح. إلا أن ذلك أبعد من أن يكون تصرف رجل واحد. لقد أشركت جهود تحريك عملية السلام إلى النقطة التي وصلت إليها اليوم آلاف المشاركين.
يعتقد العديد من الخبراء أن الفكرة الجديدة سوف ترتكز إلى حد بعيد على مبادرة السلام العربية، وهي خطة شاملة لحل نزاع الشرق الأوسط جرى تقديمها للمرة الأولى في اجتماع لجامعة الدول العربية في بيروت عام 2002.
بدأت المبادرة كفكرة طرحها للمرة الأولى الملك فهد بن عبد العزيز، ملك السعودية الراحل، وهي تقدم لإسرائيل اعتراف الدول الـ 23 الأعضاء في جامعة الدول العربية (22 دولة إضافة إلى فلسطين) مقابل انسحاب إسرائيل إلى حدود ما قبل عام 1967. كان هناك حديث مؤخراً بإعادة إحياء مبادرة السلام العربية، وهو أمر يرغب رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو برؤيته، حتى لا يظهر بأنه يقبل المبادرة بشكل كامل، حسب ما يعتقد نعوم شيليف من منظمة "الأمريكيون من أجل السلام الآن".
ورغم حقيقة أن الكثيرين يرون نتنياهو على أنه محافظ إلى أبعد الحدود، من المفيد التذكير أنه في الماضي، كان حزب الليكود هو الذي أعاد سيناء وانسحب من غزة، وهو الذي يمكن أن ينجز السلام مع الفلسطينيين.
"سوف يدهشنا نتنياهو جميعاً"، يقول بنيامين بن أليعازر، وهو وزير من حزب العمل، لصحيفة هآارتس اليومية.
"إنه يفهم أن هناك إدارة جديدة في الولايات المتحدة، وهي ليست مثل إدارة كلينتون أو بوش، وأننا إذا لم نأت بخطة سلام فسوف يتصرف طرف آخر نيابة عنا"، يقول بن أليعازر.
إلا أنه تبقى هنالك عقبة واحدة يتوجب القفز فوقها، تجعل بقية القضايا التي تم بحثها حتى الآن تبدو ضعيفة بالمقارنة، وهي قضية التسوية الداخلية بين الفلسطينيين، والجمع بين فتح وحماس. التناقض الذي يثير السخرية هو أن العقبة الأخيرة، في نهاية المطاف، التي ستؤخر إيجاد الدولة الفلسطينية، وهو حلم طالما رنا الفلسطينيون إليه لمدة طويلة، وحاربوا بشدة لتحقيقه وسكبوا الكثير من دمهم ودماء غيرهم من أجله، ستكون الفلسطينيين أنفسهم. ويخاطر الفلسطينيون بإطالة أمد النزاع لستين سنة أخرى ما لم يضعوا خلافاتهم وراءهم.
طالما كان أحد أكبر المعوقات في النزاع العربي الإسرائيلي كون المشكلة بالغة التعقيد. واقع الأمر أن نزاع الشرق الأوسط غير مكوّن من قضية واحدة، بل من مجموعة من القضايا متعددة الوجوه، يتوجب التعامل معها بشكل متزامن. لن يؤدي الفشل في التصرف بهذا الأسلوب إلى أية نتائج، ببساطة لأنه عندما يحين موعد قيام الأطراف ببحث القضية الثانية أو الثالثة، تكون التغييرات على الأرض، التي يثيرها "المخربون" قد أعادت توزيع الأوراق، وأرسلت الجميع إلى نقطة البداية. طالما كانت تلك واحدة من نواقص الإدارات الأمريكية السابقة، الجمهورية والديمقراطية على حد سواء، التي حاولت حل المشكلة عن طريق تقسيمها إلى قضايا منفصلة. لن ينجح ذلك ببساطة.
"لا يمكن حل القضية الفلسطينية بنداً بنداً"، حسب قول الدكتور زياد عسلي، رئيس مجموعة العمل الأمريكية من أجل فلسطين للكاتب.
"من الغباء عمل ذلك بالتقسيط"، يقول فيليب ويلكوكس أيضاً، وهو دبلوماسي أمريكي سابق عمل في الشرق الأوسط ويترأس الآن مؤسسة السلام في الشرق الأوسط.
إلا أن المهمة الصعبة سوف تكون وضع جميع الأجزاء في مكانها في الوقت نفسه، حسبما يوافق عدد من المراقبين. ولكن من أين نبدأ؟
وهنا يأتي دور جورج ميتشل. وميتشل بالطبع هو المبعوث الخاص للرئيس أوباما إلى الشرق الأوسط، الذي يفضل أن يلعب وأوراقه قريبة من صدره، حسب رأي رشيد الخالدي، وهو أستاذ جامعي فلسطيني أمريكي في جامعة كولومبيا بمدينة نيويورك، عمل مستشاراً للوفد الفلسطيني في مؤتمر مدريد عام 1991، وهو من المطّلعين جيداً على تعقيدات العملية السلمية في الشرق الأوسط.
ويتفق عدد من المحللين الآخرين، مثل الخالدي، على أن شيئاً ما يحصل في عملية السلام في الشرق الأوسط.
"هناك بعض الأمل في الجو"، حسبما صرّح السفير ويلكوكس للكاتب. كان هناك بالتأكيد شعوراً سائداً بالتفاؤل المتجدد في أوساط بعض المحللين بأن القضايا قد تتحرك قدماً في نهاية المطاف، بشكل متزامن، وإلى درجة كبيرة كنتيجة لفكرة جديدة قدمتها إدارة الرئيس أوباما، من خلال فريق جورج ميتشل على الأرجح. إلا أن ذلك أبعد من أن يكون تصرف رجل واحد. لقد أشركت جهود تحريك عملية السلام إلى النقطة التي وصلت إليها اليوم آلاف المشاركين.
يعتقد العديد من الخبراء أن الفكرة الجديدة سوف ترتكز إلى حد بعيد على مبادرة السلام العربية، وهي خطة شاملة لحل نزاع الشرق الأوسط جرى تقديمها للمرة الأولى في اجتماع لجامعة الدول العربية في بيروت عام 2002.
بدأت المبادرة كفكرة طرحها للمرة الأولى الملك فهد بن عبد العزيز، ملك السعودية الراحل، وهي تقدم لإسرائيل اعتراف الدول الـ 23 الأعضاء في جامعة الدول العربية (22 دولة إضافة إلى فلسطين) مقابل انسحاب إسرائيل إلى حدود ما قبل عام 1967. كان هناك حديث مؤخراً بإعادة إحياء مبادرة السلام العربية، وهو أمر يرغب رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي بنيامين نتنياهو برؤيته، حتى لا يظهر بأنه يقبل المبادرة بشكل كامل، حسب ما يعتقد نعوم شيليف من منظمة "الأمريكيون من أجل السلام الآن".
ورغم حقيقة أن الكثيرين يرون نتنياهو على أنه محافظ إلى أبعد الحدود، من المفيد التذكير أنه في الماضي، كان حزب الليكود هو الذي أعاد سيناء وانسحب من غزة، وهو الذي يمكن أن ينجز السلام مع الفلسطينيين.
"سوف يدهشنا نتنياهو جميعاً"، يقول بنيامين بن أليعازر، وهو وزير من حزب العمل، لصحيفة هآارتس اليومية.
"إنه يفهم أن هناك إدارة جديدة في الولايات المتحدة، وهي ليست مثل إدارة كلينتون أو بوش، وأننا إذا لم نأت بخطة سلام فسوف يتصرف طرف آخر نيابة عنا"، يقول بن أليعازر.
إلا أنه تبقى هنالك عقبة واحدة يتوجب القفز فوقها، تجعل بقية القضايا التي تم بحثها حتى الآن تبدو ضعيفة بالمقارنة، وهي قضية التسوية الداخلية بين الفلسطينيين، والجمع بين فتح وحماس. التناقض الذي يثير السخرية هو أن العقبة الأخيرة، في نهاية المطاف، التي ستؤخر إيجاد الدولة الفلسطينية، وهو حلم طالما رنا الفلسطينيون إليه لمدة طويلة، وحاربوا بشدة لتحقيقه وسكبوا الكثير من دمهم ودماء غيرهم من أجله، ستكون الفلسطينيين أنفسهم. ويخاطر الفلسطينيون بإطالة أمد النزاع لستين سنة أخرى ما لم يضعوا خلافاتهم وراءهم.
תכנית חדשה עבור המזרח התיכון?
ושניגטון די סי – בימים האחרונים התגברו הדיבורים על כך שמובילי תהליך השלום במזרח התיכון ניצבים על סף פריצת דרך משמעותית. היו שציפו להצהרה רשמית בעקבות ביקורו של ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו בוושינגטון ב-18 במאי ופגישתו עם הנשיא ברק אובמה. האם אובמה יצליח לעקם את זרועותיהן של הישראלים והפלסטינים ולהכריח אותם להגיע סוף-סוף להסכמה בסוגיות השונות?
אחד המכשולים המרכזיים בסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי היה מאז ומתמיד המורכבות הגדולה של הבעיה. הסכסוך במזרח התיכון אינו סובב נושא אחד, אלא מורכב ממקבץ של סוגיות מורכבות ומסועפות, שיש לספק מענה לכולן בה בעת. ללא כך, פשוט אי אפשר יהיה להגיע לתוצאות היות שיגיעו הצדדים לטפל בסוגיוה השלישית או הרביעית, השינויים שיניעו הכוחות המתנגדים לתהליך ברמת השטח ישנו את עמדות המיקוח ויחזירו את כל הצדדים אל נקודת ההתחלה. זה מה שהכשיל את כל הממשלים האמריקניים הקודמים, רפובליקנים ודמוקרטים כאחד, שניסו לפתור את הסכסוך בן ששים השנה. לרוב, הבעיה נבעה מהניסיון שלהם לפרק את הבעיה לסוגיות נפרדות. זה פשוט לא יעבוד.
"הסוגיה הפלסטינית אינה ניתנת לפתרון סעיף-סעיף," אמר לי ד"ר זיאד אסאלי, נשיא "כח המשימה האמריקאי לפלסטין".
"זה יהיה טיפשי לנסות להפריד בין החלקים," אמר פיליפ ווילקוקס, לשעבר דיפלומט אמריקני במזרח התיכון ומי שעומד כיום בראש "הקרן לשלום במזרח התיכון".
המשימה הקשה היא לגרום לכל הרכיבים בסכסוך ליישר קו באותו הזמן, הסכימו ביניהם מספר פרשנים. אבל איפה מתחילים?
כאן נכנס לתמונה ג'ורג' מיטשל. מיטשל, השליח המיוחד מטעם הנשיא אובמה למזרח התיכון, אוהב "להחזיק את הקלפים קרוב לחזה" ציין רשיד חלידי, פרופסור אמריקני-פלסטיני מאוניברסיטת קולומביה בניו יורק. חלידי, ששימש כיועץ למשלחת הפלסטינית בוועידת מדריד ב-1991, נחשב כמי שבקיא ברזי תהליך השלום במזרח התיכון.
כמו חלידי, מספר פרשנים אחרים מסכימים כי משהו מתבשל בתהליך השלום.
"יש איזו תקווה באוויר", אמר לי השגריר ווילקוקס. ואכן, בימים האחרונים ישנה אופטימיות מחודשת בקרב פרשנים מסוימים כי אולי סוף סוף תחול התקדמות בסוגיות השונות בו-זמנית, בעיקר כתוצאה מרעיון חדש שממשל אובמה מקדם, רעיון שהגה אותו ככל הנראה הצוות של ג'ורג' מיטשל. ובכל זאת, בשום אופן לא מדובר במופע יחיד. הנעת תהליך השלום אל המקום בו הוא נמצא היום היא מלאכתם של אלפים.
הרעיון החדש, מאמינים מספר מומחים, יתבסס בעיקר על יוזמת השלום הערבית, תכנית כוללת לפתרון הסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי שהוצגה לראשונה במפגש הליגה הערבית בבירות ב-2002.
היוזמה נולדה מרעיון שהעלה מלך ערב הסעודית לשעבר, המלך פאהד. היא מציעה לישראל הכרה מצד 23 חברות הליגה הערבית (22 מדינות בנוסף לפלסטין) בתמורה לנסיגה לגבולות 1967. באחרונה ישנם דיבורים על הכנסת שינויים ביוזמת השלום הערבית. השינויים ישרתו את ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו שאיננו מעוניין להיראות כמי שקיבל את היוזמה ככתבה וכלשונה, אומר נועם שלף מארגון "אמריקנים למען שלום עכשיו".
ולמרות העובדה שרבים חושבים כי נתניהו הוא "סופר-שמרני", שווה לציין שעד כה, הליכוד הוא שהחזיר את סיני וויתר על השליטה בעזה, ומי יודע, אולי גם יגיע להסדר קבע עם הפלסטינים.
"נתניהו הולך להפתיע את כולנו", אמר ל"הארץ" השר בנימין בן-אליעזר מהעבודה. "הוא מבין שיש ממשל אמריקאי חדש שאינו ממשל קלינטון, ואינו ממשל בוש, ושאם הוא לא יבוא עם תוכנית, מישהו אחר כבר יחליט בשבילו."
נשארה רק מהמורה אחת אחרונה שדורשת פתרון, שכל היתר מתגמד לעומתה: שאלת הפיוס הפנים-פלסטיני בין הפתח והחמאס. למרבה האירוניה, בסופו של יום, ייתכן שהמכשול הסופי שימנע את הקמתה של מדינה פלסטינית – החלום שהפלסטינים כמהים אליו זמן כה רב, נאבקו כה הרבה למענו, והקיזו בשמו דם כה רב (מדמם שלהם ומדמם של אחרים) – יהיה הפלסטינים עצמם. אלא אם יצליחו להתעלות מעבר לחילוקי הדעות ביניהם, הם מסתכנים בהארכת הסכסוך בששים שנה נוספות.
אחד המכשולים המרכזיים בסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי היה מאז ומתמיד המורכבות הגדולה של הבעיה. הסכסוך במזרח התיכון אינו סובב נושא אחד, אלא מורכב ממקבץ של סוגיות מורכבות ומסועפות, שיש לספק מענה לכולן בה בעת. ללא כך, פשוט אי אפשר יהיה להגיע לתוצאות היות שיגיעו הצדדים לטפל בסוגיוה השלישית או הרביעית, השינויים שיניעו הכוחות המתנגדים לתהליך ברמת השטח ישנו את עמדות המיקוח ויחזירו את כל הצדדים אל נקודת ההתחלה. זה מה שהכשיל את כל הממשלים האמריקניים הקודמים, רפובליקנים ודמוקרטים כאחד, שניסו לפתור את הסכסוך בן ששים השנה. לרוב, הבעיה נבעה מהניסיון שלהם לפרק את הבעיה לסוגיות נפרדות. זה פשוט לא יעבוד.
"הסוגיה הפלסטינית אינה ניתנת לפתרון סעיף-סעיף," אמר לי ד"ר זיאד אסאלי, נשיא "כח המשימה האמריקאי לפלסטין".
"זה יהיה טיפשי לנסות להפריד בין החלקים," אמר פיליפ ווילקוקס, לשעבר דיפלומט אמריקני במזרח התיכון ומי שעומד כיום בראש "הקרן לשלום במזרח התיכון".
המשימה הקשה היא לגרום לכל הרכיבים בסכסוך ליישר קו באותו הזמן, הסכימו ביניהם מספר פרשנים. אבל איפה מתחילים?
כאן נכנס לתמונה ג'ורג' מיטשל. מיטשל, השליח המיוחד מטעם הנשיא אובמה למזרח התיכון, אוהב "להחזיק את הקלפים קרוב לחזה" ציין רשיד חלידי, פרופסור אמריקני-פלסטיני מאוניברסיטת קולומביה בניו יורק. חלידי, ששימש כיועץ למשלחת הפלסטינית בוועידת מדריד ב-1991, נחשב כמי שבקיא ברזי תהליך השלום במזרח התיכון.
כמו חלידי, מספר פרשנים אחרים מסכימים כי משהו מתבשל בתהליך השלום.
"יש איזו תקווה באוויר", אמר לי השגריר ווילקוקס. ואכן, בימים האחרונים ישנה אופטימיות מחודשת בקרב פרשנים מסוימים כי אולי סוף סוף תחול התקדמות בסוגיות השונות בו-זמנית, בעיקר כתוצאה מרעיון חדש שממשל אובמה מקדם, רעיון שהגה אותו ככל הנראה הצוות של ג'ורג' מיטשל. ובכל זאת, בשום אופן לא מדובר במופע יחיד. הנעת תהליך השלום אל המקום בו הוא נמצא היום היא מלאכתם של אלפים.
הרעיון החדש, מאמינים מספר מומחים, יתבסס בעיקר על יוזמת השלום הערבית, תכנית כוללת לפתרון הסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי שהוצגה לראשונה במפגש הליגה הערבית בבירות ב-2002.
היוזמה נולדה מרעיון שהעלה מלך ערב הסעודית לשעבר, המלך פאהד. היא מציעה לישראל הכרה מצד 23 חברות הליגה הערבית (22 מדינות בנוסף לפלסטין) בתמורה לנסיגה לגבולות 1967. באחרונה ישנם דיבורים על הכנסת שינויים ביוזמת השלום הערבית. השינויים ישרתו את ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו שאיננו מעוניין להיראות כמי שקיבל את היוזמה ככתבה וכלשונה, אומר נועם שלף מארגון "אמריקנים למען שלום עכשיו".
ולמרות העובדה שרבים חושבים כי נתניהו הוא "סופר-שמרני", שווה לציין שעד כה, הליכוד הוא שהחזיר את סיני וויתר על השליטה בעזה, ומי יודע, אולי גם יגיע להסדר קבע עם הפלסטינים.
"נתניהו הולך להפתיע את כולנו", אמר ל"הארץ" השר בנימין בן-אליעזר מהעבודה. "הוא מבין שיש ממשל אמריקאי חדש שאינו ממשל קלינטון, ואינו ממשל בוש, ושאם הוא לא יבוא עם תוכנית, מישהו אחר כבר יחליט בשבילו."
נשארה רק מהמורה אחת אחרונה שדורשת פתרון, שכל היתר מתגמד לעומתה: שאלת הפיוס הפנים-פלסטיני בין הפתח והחמאס. למרבה האירוניה, בסופו של יום, ייתכן שהמכשול הסופי שימנע את הקמתה של מדינה פלסטינית – החלום שהפלסטינים כמהים אליו זמן כה רב, נאבקו כה הרבה למענו, והקיזו בשמו דם כה רב (מדמם שלהם ומדמם של אחרים) – יהיה הפלסטינים עצמם. אלא אם יצליחו להתעלות מעבר לחילוקי הדעות ביניהם, הם מסתכנים בהארכת הסכסוך בששים שנה נוספות.
A new plan for the Middle East?
There has been much chatter in recent days that Middle East peacemakers are on the verge of a major breakthrough with some predicting that there may be an announcement following Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on 18 May to meet with President Barack Obama. Will Obama succeed in twisting Israel and the Palestinians’ arms to the point where they can finally agree over the various issues?
One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the Arab-Israeli dispute has always been the sheer complexity of the problem. The Middle East dispute is not made up of a single issue. Rather, the conflict is a compilation of multifaceted issues, all of which must be addressed simultaneously. Failure to do so will simply not yield results because by the time the parties involved get around to discussing the second or third issue, changes on the ground, instigated by “spoilers”, will have redistributed the cards, sending everyone back to the starting point. That has been one of the shortfalls of all previous US administrations—Republicans and Democrats alike—who have tried to resolve the 60-year-plus dispute. Usually, one of the reasons was that they tried to solve the problem by breaking it up into separate issues. That will simply not work.
“The Palestinian issue cannot be solved item-by-item,” Ziad Asali, President of the American Task Force on Palestine told the author.
“It would be foolish to do this piece meal,” Philip Wilcox, a former US diplomat who served in the Middle East and who now heads the Foundation for Middle East Peace, also said.
The difficult task, however, will be in getting all the pieces to fall into place at the same time, several observers agreed. But where to start?
This is where George Mitchell comes in. Mitchell, of course, is President Obama’s special Middle East envoy, who likes to “play his cards close to his chest,” observed Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor at New York’s Columbia University. Khalidi, who advised the Palestinian delegation at the 1991 Madrid conference, is traditionally very well informed about the intricacies of the Middle East peace process.
Like Khalidi, a number of other analysts agree that something is going on in the Middle East peace process.
“There is some hope in the air,” Ambassador Wilcox told the author. Indeed, in recent days there has been a sense of renewed optimism among some analysts that the issues may finally move forward—in unison—and largely as a result of a new idea put forward by the Obama administration, more likely than not by George Mitchell’s team. This, however, is far from being a one-man show. Moving the peace process to the point where it is today has involved a cast of thousands.
This new idea, several specialists believe, would be based largely on the Arab Peace Initiative, a comprehensive plan to settle the Middle East dispute first introduced at an Arab League meeting in Beirut in 2002.
The initiative originated as an idea first floated by former King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. It offers Israel recognition by all 23 members of the Arab League (22 states plus Palestine) in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. Of late, there has been talk of revisiting the Arab Peace Initiative, something Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu would like to see so as not to appear to accept it lock, stock and barrel, believes Noam Shelef of Americans for Peace Now.
And despite the fact that many see Netanyahu as a super conservative, it is worth reminding that in the past it was always the Likud that returned (Sinai), yielded (Gaza), and that may just finalise the peace with the Palestinians.
“Netanyahu is going to surprise us all,” said Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a Labour minister, to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz.
“He understands that there is a new administration in the United States, which is neither of the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration, and that if we don’t come up with a peace plan, someone else will call the shots for us,” said Ben-Eliezer.
There remains, however, one more hurdle to jump over ,which makes the rest of the issues discussed so far appear weak by comparison; and that is the issue of intra-Palestinian reconciliation, bringing Fateh and Hamas together. Ironically, in the end it may turn out to be that the final stumbling block holding up the creation of a Palestinian state—a dream the Palestinians have aspired to for so long, fought so hard to achieve and shed so much blood for, both their own and that of others—may well be the Palestinians themselves. Unless they can place their differences behind them, they risk prolonging the conflict for another 60 years.
By Claude Salhani, the editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst in Washington.
Source: Khaleej Times, 15 May 2009, www.khaleejtimes.com
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.
Israel Removes Illegal Settler Outpost in West Bank
Israeli police and security forces on Thursday dismantled a small Jewish outpost in the West Bank in what many here saw as a gesture by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to President Obama three days after their meeting in Washington.
No arrests were made at the illegal outpost, where at least four families lived in a couple of concrete structures and several temporary shacks. Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman, said the timing of the action was not significant. Another small West Bank outpost was removed about two months ago, he said.
But it was the first time Israel’s new right-leaning government had removed an outpost, and settler leaders and others saw it as a political message.
“It seems that this was done in order to throw a bone to the United States president,” Avi Roeh, the chairman of the local settler council, told Israel Radio.
Pressing for a renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Obama administration has made clear that it expects Israel to carry out a total settlement freeze and remove illegal outposts in the West Bank, according to Israel’s commitments under a 2003 peace plan known as the road map.
The outpost, Maoz Esther, is in the Ramallah region. Hours after it was dismantled, a resident, Daniel Landesberg, 19, said he had already set about rebuilding his demolished home.
Speaking by telephone, Mr. Landesberg said the move was “a signal” from Mr. Netanyahu to Mr. Obama that Israel would do whatever he asked.
Israeli government officials say they want to remove the outposts by agreement with the settlers in order to avoid confrontation. Long months of talks under the previous government, however, did not yield tangible results.
Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, met with settler leaders on Wednesday and told them that the illegal outposts were damaging Israel’s international relations and their own cause. He said the outposts would be removed “if not through dialogue, then through swift and aggressive enforcement.”
On Thursday, Mr. Barak said that the evacuation of Maoz Esther was “not connected with the Americans or American pressure” and that it was carried out according to routine orders. More than a hundred outposts dot the West Bank, alongside dozens of established Jewish settlements authorized by Israel but widely considered abroad a violation of international law.
Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now, an Israeli advocacy group that opposes Jewish settlement in the West Bank, said that the outpost evacuated on Thursday was not a significant one, and that the action was “more about P.R.” after the Washington meeting. Mr. Oppenheimer added that the same outpost has been evacuated at least twice before.
By Isabel Kershner.
Source: New York Times.
No arrests were made at the illegal outpost, where at least four families lived in a couple of concrete structures and several temporary shacks. Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman, said the timing of the action was not significant. Another small West Bank outpost was removed about two months ago, he said.
But it was the first time Israel’s new right-leaning government had removed an outpost, and settler leaders and others saw it as a political message.
“It seems that this was done in order to throw a bone to the United States president,” Avi Roeh, the chairman of the local settler council, told Israel Radio.
Pressing for a renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Obama administration has made clear that it expects Israel to carry out a total settlement freeze and remove illegal outposts in the West Bank, according to Israel’s commitments under a 2003 peace plan known as the road map.
The outpost, Maoz Esther, is in the Ramallah region. Hours after it was dismantled, a resident, Daniel Landesberg, 19, said he had already set about rebuilding his demolished home.
Speaking by telephone, Mr. Landesberg said the move was “a signal” from Mr. Netanyahu to Mr. Obama that Israel would do whatever he asked.
Israeli government officials say they want to remove the outposts by agreement with the settlers in order to avoid confrontation. Long months of talks under the previous government, however, did not yield tangible results.
Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, met with settler leaders on Wednesday and told them that the illegal outposts were damaging Israel’s international relations and their own cause. He said the outposts would be removed “if not through dialogue, then through swift and aggressive enforcement.”
On Thursday, Mr. Barak said that the evacuation of Maoz Esther was “not connected with the Americans or American pressure” and that it was carried out according to routine orders. More than a hundred outposts dot the West Bank, alongside dozens of established Jewish settlements authorized by Israel but widely considered abroad a violation of international law.
Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now, an Israeli advocacy group that opposes Jewish settlement in the West Bank, said that the outpost evacuated on Thursday was not a significant one, and that the action was “more about P.R.” after the Washington meeting. Mr. Oppenheimer added that the same outpost has been evacuated at least twice before.
By Isabel Kershner.
Source: New York Times.
Israel Hopes for U.S. Settlement Shift
The Israeli government wants to reach understandings with the Obama administration that would allow some new construction in West Bank settlements, an Israeli official said Wednesday, despite vocal American and Palestinian opposition.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, was expected to focus on the issue of settlement expansion in his meeting with President Obama in their meeting scheduled for Thursday in Washington. Mr. Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have stated repeatedly that they see no point in resuming stalled peace negotiations without an absolute settlement freeze.
President Barack Obama and other senior American officials have called on the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing Likud Party who came into office almost two months ago, to halt all settlement activity.
Dan Meridor, the Israeli minister of intelligence, and other senior Netanyahu aides returned on Wednesday from meetings in Europe with President Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, and other American officials. The purpose was to continue discussing issues raised in last week’s Netanyahu-Obama meeting, including that Mr. Obama’s objections to settlement expansion.
Almost 300,000 Israelis now live in settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, among a Palestinian population of some 2.5 million. Much of the world considers the 120 or so settlements a violation of international law.
Mr. Netanyahu says that his government will not build any new settlements and will take down a number of outposts erected in recent years by settlers without proper government authorization. But he insists that his government will allow building within existing settlements to accommodate what he termed “natural growth,” essentially continuing the policy of the last few Israeli governments.
Israel says it reached understandings with the Bush administration — some formal, some informal and some tacit — on building within settlements. For example, construction was limited in small, outlying settlements but more tolerated in large ones in areas that Israel intends to keep under any deal with the Palestinians.
“We want to work to reach understandings with the new administration” that are “fair” and “workable,” said the Israeli official. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue was still under discussion.
The Obama administration is seeking a settlement freeze in the hope of improving the environment for peace-making, encouraging gestures toward normalizing ties with Israel from Arab governments, and buttressing a coalition of countries opposed to Iran developing nuclear weapons.
But there is a consensus within the Israeli government that the ever-growing settler population must be accommodated.
Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu, said the final status of the existing settlements would be determined in negotiations with the Palestinians. “In the interim, normal life should be allowed to continue in those communities,” Mr. Regev said.
In an interview with Army Radio on Monday, Ehud Barak, the defense minister and leader of the center-left Labor Party, gave a hypothetical example of a family of four that originally moved into a two-room home in a settlement. “Now there are six children,” he said. “Should they be allowed to build another room or not?”
He added, “Ninety-five percent of people will tell you it cannot be that someone in the world honestly thinks an agreement with the Palestinians will stand or fall over this.”
In an effort to show goodwill, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak have been underscoring their willingness to take down 22 small outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, and which were supposed to have been removed under the 2003 American-backed peace plan known as the road map. That plan specified that Israel should halt “all settlement activity (including natural growth).”
Mr. Barak has said he will try to remove the small outposts by agreement with the settlers, and if agreement is not reached, then by force. Settlers have vowed to rebuild any outpost that is removed and to create more.
In the early hours of Wednesday morning, the police removed some sheds and a tent from two tiny outposts in the Hebron area. Another small outpost was demolished in the Ramallah region last week, but new shacks have already appeared there. None of the three outposts were on the list of 22, but the measures against them prompted furious reactions from the hard right. Many religious Jewish nationalists say it is their right to settle in the biblical heartland of the West Bank, which they refer to as Judea and Samaria. Other Israelis cite security reasons for holding on to the areas captured in the 1967 war. Another point of contention between the Israeli government and the Obama administration is Mr. Netanyahu’s refusal to publicly endorse a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a cornerstone of American policy.
At a conference on Tuesday in the Israeli Parliament on alternatives to end the conflict, a Likud minister and former army chief of staff, Moshe Ya’alon, said the peace process based on the two-state paradigm had failed and that it was time for new ways of thinking. The conference was organized by a Likud parliamentarian, Tzipi Hotovely.
By Isabel Kershner.
Source: New York Times.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
