Pourquoi diplomatie et sanctions ne font pas bon ménage

Le changement se produit plus rapidement qu’on ne le comprend. C’est certainement le cas en ce qui concerne les données politiques – qui changent très vite – à Washington autour de la question de l’Iran.

Dans moins de cinquante jours, l’Amérique sera dirigée par un président qui a fait du dialogue avec l’Iran une promesse de campagne – et qui a malgré cela remporté les élections.

Peut-être plus étonnant encore : un des lobbies les plus puissants de Washington n’a pas réussi – en pleine année électorale – à convaincre le Congrès américain d’adopter une résolution prônant un blocus maritime de l’Iran, et ce en dépit du fait que la résolution avait plus de 250 co-auteurs.

Le débat à Washington ne consiste plus à savoir s’il faut négocier ou non avec l’Iran, mais plutôt comment, quand et dans quel ordre de telles négociations devraient se dérouler. Cela ne veut pas dire pour autant que des pourparlers vont bel et bien avoir lieu ni qu’ils vont être couronnés de succès.

Cela s’explique en partie par un facteur invariable dans le paysage politique à Washington : le fait qu’on compte sur les sanctions pour se retrouver en position de force et avoir un moyen de pression.

Le président élu Barak Obama, qui il y a quelques mois avait dit à l’American Israel Public Affairs Committee qu’il tenait fermement à l’ouverture de négociations avec l’Iran et à sa promesse d’en finir avec les conditions préalables qui se vouent elles-mêmes à l’échec, a cherché à modérer sa position pro dialogue en se dotant d’un grand appétit pour des sanctions économiques supplémentaires à l’encontre de l’Iran.

En tant que sénateur, Barak Obama a été le premier co-auteur du Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act de 2008 qui aurait intensifié les sanctions actuelles et préparé le terrain pour d’autres restrictions économiques. « Tout en déployant un effort diplomatique agressif, direct, fondé sur des principes, nous devons continuer à augmenter la pression économique contre l’Iran » a-t-il affirmé dans une déclaration. Certains de ses conseillers sont allés plus loin déclarant que dans le cas d’une politique de « la carotte et du bâton » vis-à-vis de l’Iran, les coups de bâton – c’est-à-dire les sanctions – devraient venir en premier.

Barak Obama a bien sûr tout à fait raison de penser qu’une politique à l’égard de l’Iran qui veut être couronné de succès doit comporter à la fois des mesures d’encouragement et de dissuasion. Effectivement, les sanctions représentent théoriquement un moyen de pression supplémentaire pour les Etats-Unis. Toutefois, le problème avec cette façon de voir les choses est qu’elle ne tient pas compte du fait que les sanctions existantes donnent déjà aux Etats-Unis un moyen de pression significatif.

Mais ce moyen de pression ne peut être utilisé que dans le contexte de négociations.

Les sanctions peuvent jouer un rôle important dans une négociation entre les Etats-Unis et l’Iran si Washington venait à envisager de mettre un terme à celles-ci en échange d’un changement de comportement radical de la part des Iraniens.

Washington n’a pas manifesté une telle volonté jusqu’à présent. Pour l’administration Bush, employer des moyens de pression c’est obtenir quelque chose en échange de rien. Cette approche a de toute évidence été vouée à l’échec car elle s’apparente non pas à la négociation, mais plutôt à l’ultimatum ou à la menace ou à l’ultimatum.

Dans une négociation, on ne peut obtenir quelque chose qu’en donnant autre chose en contrepartie. En effet, ce n’est pas la menace ou l’imposition de nouvelles sanctions qui va changer le comportement des Iraniens, mais plutôt la proposition de lever les sanctions actuelles. C’est là tout le réservoir de pression sur l’Iran – encore inexploité.

Ce moyen de pression ne vaut bien entendu que si Washington et Téhéran s’engagent sur la voie des négociations. C’est justement pourquoi la tendance à vouloir imposer de nouvelles sanctions - avant même d’avoir commencé des pourparlers - peut être très néfaste aux objectifs que s’est fixés Barak Obama. Autrement dit en imposant de nouvelles sanctions à l’Iran – qu’elles émanent du Congrès ou de l’exécutif – on ne ferait que diminuer les chances de la voie diplomatique, car cela empoisonnerait l’atmosphère et augmenterait davantage encore la méfiance réciproque entre les deux capitale; ce qui à son tour, minerait, en premier lieu, la capacité américaine à exploiter son réservoir de moyens de pression sur l’Iran.

La remarque vaut bien sûr aussi pour l’Iran : tout effort de la part de Téhéran visant à saper davantage la politique de Washington dans la région, pour se doter d’un moyen de pression sur les Américains, avant même que des négociations soient entamées, ne fera que diminuer la possibilité d’éventuels pourparlers.

Pour réussir à mettre en place sa politique en faveur d’un dialogue diplomatique, Barak Obama doit non seulement éviter de souscrire à l’idée erronée selon laquelle Washington n’a pas actuellement de moyens de pression contre l’Iran, mais aussi reconnaître que proposer une levée des sanctions existantes en échange d’un changement de politique de la part des Iraniens pourrait être une solution non négligeable. Mais le président élu doit également résister à la tentation de saper les chemins qui mènent à la négociation en imposant de nouvelles sanctions avant même que les pourparlers aient commencé - et donc résister aux pressions venant de différentes entités aux Etats-Unis, dont les motivations premières pour les sanctions ont historiquement été justement d’empêcher une percée diplomatique entre l’Amérique et l’Iran.

Le dosage d’encouragement et de dissuasion qui parviendra à faire avancer les intérêts américains vis-à-vis de l’Iran est un mélange où la diplomatie est au centre et les sanctions en périphérie – et non l’inverse.

- Trita Parsi
Source: Bitterlemons-International.org, 4 décembre 2008, www.bitterlemons-international.org

Hebron and the rule of law

HEBRON – Israel got a taste recently of what to expect from West Bank settlers in the event of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. On the morning of 4 December, some 600 border police staged a surprise raid on a disputed house in Hebron to evict nine Jewish families living there illegally. Removed with the families were some 200 settlers from around the West Bank who had gathered to resist the eviction. Israel’s Supreme Court had ordered the building vacated months ago, pending a decision on who owned it. In November the court authorised the army to evict the squatters. The troops went in to enforce the law.

Settler activists responded to the raid by rampaging through the mostly Arab city, stoning and burning Arab homes, assaulting Arab bystanders – including families standing in their front yards – and attacking Israeli soldiers. Muslim graves were defaced. A mosque was spray-painted with vile anti-Muslim slurs. A settler was videotaped firing on a group of Palestinians and wounding two. Separate settler rampages took place elsewhere in the West Bank.

All told, 17 Palestinians were injured, according to Palestinian hospital officials quoted in Israeli and international media. Eyewitnesses in several places reported seeing Israeli police standing by and watching for up to an hour before dispersing the mob.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, addressing his Cabinet the following Sunday, called the rioting a “pogrom.” The word refers to the mob attacks on Jewish neighbourhoods in Eastern Europe in past centuries, often with police complicity. His choice of words was telling. He was saying, in effect, that the Jewish rioters had sunk to the level of their people’s historic tormentors.

The implications are frightening. Is this what happens to a 2,000-year-old ethical tradition when it’s transplanted to sovereign soil? Can a moral system with such a profound influence on world culture break down in a mere six decades?

The riots are worrying for another reason: They force Israelis to confront the enormity of the task of dismantling settlements to clear the way for a Palestinian state. It is clear to virtually everyone that Israel can only win peace, if at all, by withdrawing from the West Bank and letting the Palestinians there govern themselves. At a minimum, that will require removing at least 60,000 settlers from about 100 settlements deep inside the Palestinian heartland.

And so the inevitable question arises: If this is what happens when 200 people are evacuated from a single house, what will it take to remove 60,000 people from 100 settlements?

Over the past 40 years, Jerusalem has spent billions to settle its citizens in territories it captured in 1967. That in itself is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention as understood by every government in the world except Israel’s. From the outset, therefore, settlement building was at the very least a serious error in judgment. It allowed Israel’s enemies to brand it an outlaw, and it greatly complicated any effort to reach a compromise peace with the Palestinians. Israeli governments have understood those basic truths since at least 1993.

Since 2003, Israel has been formally committed, under an agreement between Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush, to stop settlement expansion and dismantle unauthorised settlement outposts, as a first step toward historic compromise. And yet Israel’s leaders have ignored their international commitments and disregarded their own best judgment. Not only haven’t they dismantled the illegal outposts; government agencies have continued to participate in the illegal activity, providing water, power and even roads to the outposts.

So far has the rule of law been eroded in Israel that some settler leaders actually claimed that the court-ordered eviction in Hebron was illegitimate—that is, that the government in Jerusalem has no right to enforce its own laws. Even the more moderate settler leaders, spokesmen for mainstream settler organisations, argued that the army should have held back and let the Hebron settlers complete a round of negotiations with the government over the terms of their departure. In other words, lawbreakers have a right to negotiate with authorities over the extent of their compliance with the law.

The government’s contradictory behaviour only made a bad situation worse. That’s why so many of the most devout settlers were so angry when their government finally decided to enforce its laws in Hebron. They had come to believe they were exempt. They cannot be allowed to believe this any longer.

Source: Forward, www.forward.com.

Engaging in diplomacy on day one

TEL AVIV – The Annapolis process, which is a continuation of the Roadmap for Middle East peace (which itself is a continuation of the Oslo process), has run its course. It has not succeeded. One can try to improve it, but in all probability, that would be a mistake. The answer might be to change the approach. The argument in Washington over whether to go first for the Syrian or the Palestinian track is useless. Instead, we should start thinking about regionalising the solution. This means adopting the framework of the Arab Peace Initiative.

The Arab Peace Initiative proposes to neutralise the effects of non-state actors while enabling the fulfilment of Israel’s dream from the day it was created—to achieve normalisation in the region.

The bilateral talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians are not going to work in the present circumstances. The negotiations are stuck in the bilateral track. The solution should be regionalised, and the process internationalised, under the leadership of the new US administration with the Arab League and the Quartet for Middle East Peace (the EU, the UN, the United States, and Russia). One way that this would help the process is by creating a cover for an agreement.

Even if there is political will on the part of Israeli and Palestinian leaders to reach an agreement, there is not the political capacity to implement one. We cannot do it alone. There must be more assertive international involvement – to the point of intervention – to bring the negotiations in line with the deteriorating situation on the ground. As discussed by the incoming National Security Advisor, General James Jones, the implementation of an agreement may depend on placing forces on the ground.

For 15 years, we have all been locked in the topics initially crafted in the Oslo framework—borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security, and settlements. We should contemplate reframing certain elements of the agenda in a way that is conducive to an agreement.

The prospect of achieving a two-state solution is slipping through our fingers. The future of Israel as a democratic state with a Jewish majority is at stake. The alternative is institutionalised inequality and escalating violence—gifts to non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah.

There is no time left. President-elect Obama takes office on 20 January. The Israeli elections are on 10 February. That’s 21 days. Don’t do anything for 21 days. But on the 22nd day, the day after Israel’s elections, start working. Israel’s existence depends on a Palestinian state standing beside it. In many respects, what happens to us in Israel is in America’s hands.

By Dr. Naomi Chazan
Source: Israel Policy Forum, www.israelpolicyforum.org.

Working with collective trauma to facilitate peace

LOS ANGELES – Trauma triggers violence. We know this based on research and applying this knowledge can contribute to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli and Palestinian populations suffer from chronic trauma. Israelis feel as though they revisit the Holocaust with every terrorist attack. This feeling has been reinforced by five wars, anti-Semitic propaganda in the Arab world, and extermination threats from Iran. Palestinians suffer from the trauma of having to assert their identity as Palestinians against Arab and Jewish denial that such an identity exists. They suffer from a lack of autonomy and water, economic dysfunction, refugee problems, and occupation.

These traumas are neither negligible nor innocuous; they are at the very root of what perpetuates this conflict, and foreign and local leaders must encourage healing in both communities in order to help them restore self-regulation, release despair, helplessness, anger, mistrust and hatred, and set the necessary emotional foundation for effective dialogue.

Every new incident amplifies and propels the cycle of violence in the region. Negative experiences produce trauma that is passed down through generations (called a collective trauma vortex)—affecting collective narratives, deepening fears, and creating a lasting sense of victimhood and animosity. Most importantly, a trauma vortex provokes impulsive rather than thoughtful responses.

The Palestinians’ collective nervous system is kept aroused by media, internal factional violence, suicide-bombers used as weapons against the Israelis, and escalating control by the Israeli Defence Forces. The media encourages them to focus all their energy on suffering, and they fall prey to inflammatory slogans, while some are driven to violence and the destruction of their own society.

Stress and despair are also part of the Israeli psyche, which is torn by a need to defend itself, while simultaneously repulsed by its occupation of the Palestinians. Social groups are polarised against each other within Israeli society, and extremism is fuelled in small groups on both sides of the political spectrum.

The conflict has turned each party from victim into victimiser. Often, both sides feel like the political situation is at an impasse, as political approaches to the conflict have thus far failed to address the root causes of the violence. The befuddled international community, and its approach, would benefit from being more attuned to the traumatic collective experiences of Israelis and Palestinians. Indeed, many who are deeply engrossed in the conflict are not cognisant of the impact of their traumatic suffering on their behaviour, and need help, as well, recognising trauma in the other.

Assessing signs can help gauge the degree of trauma in either group and alert them to the need for healing. Aspects of the conflict which have only helped undermine the peace process include: feelings of religious superiority; suspending critical thinking; labelling, blaming and demonising “the other”; ethnic cleansing of “the other” from their midst; distortion of traumatic narratives; believing one’s side is totally innocent; repressed media; purposeful violence against civilians to regain control; and rearing children in hatred.

The mental health, medical and educational fields, clergy, military, media, diplomats, NGOs, and local and international political leaders can all help ease the effects of collective trauma by introducing innovative tools for self-regulation. By employing an apolitical language to deal with trauma’s ravages, these groups can help all sides prepare for a durable peace.

Traumatic narratives fixate us in our trauma and appear to absolve us of any responsibility. Therefore, leaders throughout civil society and government need to do their part to identify these harmful distortions by validating the suffering of all, condemning the destructive ways it is expressed, and confronting traumatised groups with historical facts.

Palestinians and Israelis need to be asked if their actions are: giving them real safety, real autonomy; supporting their self-esteem and inspiring respect in others; making them feel competent; giving meaning to their life or culture without jeopardising the needs of others (meeting our needs at the expense of others’ indicates a trauma vortex pull and forecasts the perpetuation of one’s trauma and further victimisation); helping them trust and be trusted; promoting cross-cultural understanding; and inspiring compassion and the desire to validate their suffering.

Trauma, and the actions it elicits, calls for rigorous self-honesty. And the same questions should be asked of all outsides forces involved. Beginning to recognise the unacknowledged forces in this conflict – foreign, domestic; inside, outside; psychological, non-psychological – is a positive step forward.

By Gina Ross
Source: Common Ground News Service, www.commongroundnews.org.

Nous vous souhaitons une bonne année 2009: année de paix, de solidarité, de générosité et de pardon.

We wish you a wonderful 2009: a year of peace, of solidarity, of generosity and of forgiveness.

Os deseamos un buen año 2009: un año de paz, de solidaridad, de generosidad, y de perdón.

שנת 2009 טובה: שנת שלום, סולידריות, נדיבות וסליחה

Invitation

Women Artists for Peace in Middle East

A concert calling for the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails

and the release of Gilad Shalit from Captivity

Hosted by:

&

Platform of Spanish Women Artists against Gender Violence

With the Participation of:

Christina de Valle, Ahinoam Nini, David Broza, Dikla, Javier Ruibal, Cristina Narea,
Paloma del Sol, Belen Garbo, Vichy Luna , Banda de Gaiteras de Cangas,

Special Remarks by:

Minister Ghaleb Majadele,

Minister Ami Ayalon,

MP Maria Rosario Fatima,

Ambassador Álvaro Iranzo Gutiérrez,

Noam Shalit,

Cristina del Valle,

Ofer Bronchtein,

The event will be held at the Nalaga'at Center, Ratsif Ha'Aliya Hashniya, Jaffa Port,

on Saturday 27^th of December, 2008 , 20:00

**************

RSVP to info@eilaeitan.co.il

Spaces are Limited

تشاركوا في المساحة وتحدّوا الجدار

واشنطن – جرى فصل العرب واليهود لعقود طويلة قبل إنشاء جدار الفصل في الضفة الغربية وحول غزة. عندما سافر الرئيس السابق أنور السادات إلى غزة عام 1977، أعلن أمام الكنيست أن فصلاً كهذا لا يمكن إلا أن يأتي بالدمار والعزل والتغريب للعرب واليهود على حد سواء. جاء لمقابلة الإسرائيليين في منازلهم لتحدي مخاوفهم.

يعكس الجدار الفعلي بين الضفة الغربية وإسرائيل كيف قام الزعماء السياسيون الحاليون والعقائد السائدة بتعميق الصدوع الأخلاقية والعقلية والفعلية والاقتصادية والنفسية الإسرائيلية والفلسطينية. إلا أن التاريخ يظهر أن صدوعاً كهذه بين الأعداء في المناطق الجغرافية المتجاورة ذات الاعتماد المتبادل تفشل في تحقيق سلام حقيقي أو استقرار دائم (مثلاً ايرلندا الشمالية، جنوب إفريقيا أو ألمانيا).

هناك العديد من الإستراتيجيات للتخفيف من الآثار المعادية للجدار. برأيي أن أهم التوجهات سوف تعالج هذا الفصل من خلال إيجاد مساحة إسرائيلية فلسطينية مشتركة بصورة أكبر.

يعتبر الجدار مأساوياً للعلاقات العربية اليهودية لأنه يشجع عدم الاهتمام والتغريب والفصل والجهل فيما يتعلق بما يحصل على الجانب الآخر، وهي معاً تشكل شعور الإنسان بالمسؤولية تجاه النزاع. ويفتح الجدار الباب لعملاء العلاقات الاجتماعية، مثل السياسيين والواعظين والأساتذة، للإبقاء على صورة العدو على أنه "الآخر"، وفي الوقت نفسه تجاهل المعاناة الناتجة عن الفصل الفعلي والعقلي.

العلاج القصير الأمد والطويل الأمد للفصل الذي يفرضه الجدار هو التخفيف من أثره عبر التلاقي وجهاً لوجه وإيجاد المزيد من المساحات لمواجهة الآخر. ويستحق الأمر الاستثمار في مساحات مشتركة للّقاءات، طالما أن العلاقات متكافئة ومتوازنة وطالما أن المشاركين ممكّنين. يجب أن تزيد المساحات المشتركة المنتجة، مثل المواجهات بين الشباب والمغامرات الاقتصادية والمبادرات البيئية والاستقطاب غير العنفي وأعمال الاحتجاج، من قدرات الناس على أن يمارسوا النقد الذاتي وأن يروا الأخطاء على جانبهم، وأن توفر الآليات والأدوات والفرص للمشاركين لتطبيق الدروس التي تمت تعلّمها وأن تستكشف بدائلاً لمستقبل مشترك (على سبيل المثال، مشروع شبابي مشترك يركز على الأثر السلبي للجدار، مع احتمالات المشاركة في مجتمعاتهم، من خلال ترتيب زيارات وتحويل الجدار إلى منحوتات في قراهم، وقيام الفنانين بعرض أعمالهم ضد الجدار وضد الفصل في المدارس ... الخ).

تشكل المساحات الجديدة المشتركة، من مواجهات السلام والمشاريع التنموية المشتركة، إلى التبادل بين المزارعين ولقاءات رجال الدين، فرصة ثمينة، ومورداً يحتاج لأن يتم بناؤه وإدارته بشكل مهني محترف بشكل يضمن نضوج المشاركين من خلال المواجهة وتمكينهم لنشر الرسائل التي تضفي عليهم الإنسانية في مجتمعات كل منهم. يجب معاملة معسكر صيفي لطلاب المدارس الثانوية من الفلسطينيين والإسرائيليين على أنه مساحة نادرة بل ومقدسة تقريباً. فلمبادرات السلام والحوار العربية الإسرائيلية المتنوعة دوراً تاريخياً تلعبه في بناء المزيد من المساحات بأسلوب مبدع لأجل لقاءات مشتركة يتم فيها تحدي واقع جدار الفصل لا إدامته.

لقد أجبرت الجدران المتنوعة التي أنشأها السياسيون بين الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين، الرمزية منها والفعلية، أجبرت الكثيرين على تبني عقلية الحصار. بالنسبة للإسرائيليين، تسيطر عقلية الحصار عندما يشعرون أنه يتوجب عليهم احتساب كل حركة يقومون بها عند سفرهم إلى الخارج. ولا يساعد الأمر كونهم محددون من السفر إلى خارج حدودهم المباشرة إلى الدول المجاورة، وهذا يمنعهم من معرفة كيف يفكر نظراؤهم الفلسطينيون ويعيشون.

كما يتم تعزيز عقلية الحصار الفلسطينية من خلال سجنهم الفعلي داخل جدار في قراهم، ومن قبل الحواجز ونقاط التفتيش العسكرية، ومن قبل وصول محدود إلى الطرح الإسرائيلي. وواقع الأمر هو أن عقلية الحصار لديهم قوية لدرجة أن العديد من الفلسطينيين يدهشون من تصرفات مجموعات التضامن في إسرائيل.

تستطيع هذه المساحات المشتركة أن تنزع اللغز عن الصورة الوحشية للآخر، مقدمة الضمانة الوحيدة بألا تنمو الأجيال الفلسطينية والإسرائيلية المقبلة في واقع من التجنب والإنكار، وإنما تكون لها فرصة لإعادة إضفاء الإنسانية على الطرف الآخر. لن يتمكن الشباب الإسرائيلي بعد ذلك من القول "لم نكن نعلم"، ولن يستطيع الشباب الفلسطيني أن يقول بعد ذلك "لا نستطيع أن نفعل شيئاً". سوف يقولون جميعاً "إننا نحاول".

يجب أن تشكل الجدران حول غزة مثالاً لما يمكن للإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين أن يتوقعوه في الضفة الغربية إذا لم يسعوا بنشاط للتسامي فوق ما يفصلهم: العنف المتصاعد وخلع الإنسانية عن الغزيين وحماس من قبل العالم الخارجي والمزيد من الاقتتال الفلسطيني والتهديدات المتواصلة لحدود إسرائيل الجنوبية.

كلما أوجد الإسرائيليون والفلسطينيون المزيد من المساحات المشتركة، كلما قلّت احتمالات أن يتجمهر الناس على الجانبين خلف قادتهم الذين يروجون لحلول أصولية ويعظون بعظمة طرف على آخر. يحتاج العرب واليهود الذين يحاربون الجدران والفصل الاجتماعي لأن يكسروا بأسلوب مبدع الخوف من العيش جنباً إلى جنب عن طريق إرسال رسائل ثابتة إلى مجتمعاتهم. يجب أن تشرح الرسالة أن اعترافاً صادقاً متبادلاً وتطبيقاً لحقوق الطرف الآخر في دولة ذات سيادة، متساوية ومستقلة هي الضمانات الأمنية الوحيدة لكلا الشعبين.

مصدر المقال: خدمة Common Ground الإخبارية، 8 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2008

مؤشرات أمل في الشرق الأوسط

بالم بيتش غاردنز، فلوريدا – هناك أخبار حسنة وسيئة على حد سواء فيما يتعلق بوجهات النظر حول السلام في الشرق الأوسط. يشير استطلاع للرأي العام أصدرته مؤسسة غالوب الأسبوع الماضي إلى أن 63% من الإسرائيليين و66% من الفلسطينيين ما زالوا يدعمون عملية السلام. إلا أن 29% فقط من الإسرائيليين و18% فقط من الفلسطينيين المستَطلَعين يعتقدون أن السلام الدائم يمكن تحقيقه.

يريد كلٌ من الطرفين السلام إلا أنهما غير متشجعين، بينما يوفر انتخاب باراك أوباما رئيساً للولايات المتحدة الأمل بصنع السلام في الشرق الأوسط.

يجد معظم العرب أوباما أكثر مصداقية واتزاناً من جورج دبليو بوش، الرئيس الذي انتهت مدة رئاسته وإدارته. ورغم أن الإسرائيليين كانوا قلقين في البداية تجاه أوباما، إلا أنهم تشجعوا نتيجة لتصريحاته العديدة التي قدمت الدعم لإسرائيل، وكذلك نتيجة لتعيينه هيلاري كلينتون، المعروفة بدعمها الدائم لإسرائيل في المنصب الدبلوماسي الرئيس.

يمكن للرئيس القادم للولايات المتحدة أن يعيد ثقة الطرفين باحتمالات السلام الإقليمي إذا تمكن من تحقيق وعود حملته الانتخابية بوضع الشرق الأوسط في أعلى أجندة السياسة الخارجية.

كما أن هناك المزيد من مؤشرات الأمل بالنسبة للنزاع العربي الإسرائيلي.

يعكف الزعماء الإسرائيليون اليوم على بحث مبادرة السلام السعودية لعام 2002، والتي تنادي بإنهاء احتلال الأراضي العربية ومعاملة جيدة للاجئين وتطبيع للعلاقات بين إسرائيل و22 دولة عربية. كما أن هناك اتفاق الآن بين رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي إيهود أولمرت ووزيرة الخارجية تسيبي ليفني ووزير الدفاع إيهود باراك ورئيس الدولة شمعون بيريز على أن الانسحاب من الأراضي العربية يجعل من السلام في المنطقة أمراً ممكناً ويجعل أمن دولة إسرائيل على المدى البعيد قابلاً للتحقيق.

كما يشكل إعادة مرتفعات الجولان إلى سوريا خياراً آخراً مقابل السلام. وكانت المفاوضات المتقطعة مع سوريا، بترتيب من تركيا، قد بدأت السنة الماضية، إلا أنها تباطأت بينما تقوم إسرائيل بالإعداد لانتخابات مبكرة في شباط/فبراير ومع انتقال أوباما وإدارته إلى البيت الأبيض.

تنتهي بحلول الثامن من كانون الثاني/يناير المقبل فترة الرئيس الفلسطيني محمود عباس الرئاسية، بينما يبقى النزاع الأخوي في القيادة الفلسطينية واقعاً مكلفاً جنونياً رغم محادثات توسطت فيها مصر جرت مؤخراً بين الطرفين. ورغم أن الواقع على الأرض يشكل تحدياً، يقترح استطلاع غالوب الذي أجري مؤخراً أن الرئيس الأميركي المقبل قد يحوز على احترام الشعب الفلسطيني إذا اختار أن يلعب دوراً في تشجيع حماس، التي تملك زمام السلطة في غزة، وفتح التي تحكم الضفة الغربية، على العودة إلى التلاحم من أجل السلام.

يمكن رؤية التقدم في لبنان كذلك، حيث يقوم حزب الله بالتفاوض على وضع مليشياته مع الحكومة، وتوجد في لبنان حكومة جديدة لدى حزب الله تمثيل فيها. وبينما يعمل لبنان على تقوية دفاعه الوطني، وإذا خفَّت حدة التوتر مع إسرائيل، فقد تنخرط ميليشيا حزب الله في الجيش الوطني.

كذلك تحسنت العلاقات اللبنانية مع سوريا، حيث تستعد الدولتان لتبادل السفراء للمرة الأولى منذ استقلال لبنان عام 1943.

وهناك المزيد من مؤشرات الأمل تصدر من المنطقة ...

هنأ الرئيس محمود أحمدي نجاد أوباما بعد الانتخابات الأميركية، مُظهِراً رغبة بفتح صفحة جديدة من الحوار مع الولايات المتحدة. هذا التقارب مفيد للاستقرار داخل المنطقة، حيث يبقى إيران لاعباً إقليمياً هاماً يؤثر على الاستقرار في العراق وعلى المقاومة الفلسطينية والسلام السياسي في لبنان.

إلا أن هذه الخطوات الناشئة باتجاه السلام، بغض النظر عما إذا كانت في إسرائيل أو فلسطين أو سوريا أو لبنان أو إيران، هشة ويمكن عكس اتجاهها، ويجب دعمها من قبل الإدارة الأمريكية الجديدة إذا أُريد للسلام أن يسود.

قد تتسبب سياسة الولايات المتحدة المستمرة "بعدم الحديث مع العدو" في إيران بتقوية القوى المحافظة المتطرفة في الانتخابات الرئاسية في حزيران/يونيو المقبل. وطالما استمرت عملية عزل إيران فسوف يصعب على المستفيدين منها، مثل حزب الله وحماس، أن يصبحا شركاء كاملين في السلام.

يستطيع أوباما في خطابه ترسيمه في 20 كانون الثاني/يناير أن يربط وعد السلام مع الازدهار في الشرق الأوسط والأمن الوطني في أمريكا. كما أنه يستطيع تعيين مبعوث سلام معتدل يتمتع بشعبية، وأن يعبر عن طموحات بإيجاد دولة فلسطينية أثناء فترته الرئاسية الأولى. يستطيع كذلك أن يُطمئن الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين بدعمه المتواصل، وأن يشير إلى رغبته القوية بإعادة إشراك أوروبا في العملية السلمية وتطوير ترتيبات أمنية عالمية.

بوجود سياسة خارجية متعددة الوجوه والمجالات وباستخدام لطيف للسلطة، قد يملك أوباما الآن الفرصة لتيسير حصول إسرائيل على الأمن والاستقلال للفلسطينيين وزعامة ذات مصداقية للولايات المتحدة لهذه العملية. لقد حان وقت التحرك قدماً. توفر شعبية أوباما محلياً وكم كبير من الدعم العالمي للرئيس الجديد رأس مال أخلاقي وسياسي لم يسبق لهما مثيل للعمل باتجاه السلام في الشرق الأوسط.


مصدر المقال: خدمة Common Ground الإخبارية، 6 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2008

התריסו נגד הגדר: הקימו מרחב משותף

ושינגטון – ההפרדה בין ערבים ויהודים קיימת כבר עשורים רבים והיא קדמה לבניית גדר ההפרדה בגדה המערבית ומסביב לעזה. כאשר הנשיא המצרי אנוור סאדאת ביקר בישראל ב-1977 הוא התריע בפני הכנסת שהפרדה מסוג זה בהכרח תמיט חורבן וניכור הן על הערבים והן על היהודים. סאדאת הגיע כדי לפגוש את הישראלים בביתם ולאתגר את חששותיהם.

החומה הפיזית המפרידה בין הגדה המערבית וישראל משקפת את הפערים המוסריים והמנטאליים, הפיזיים והכלכליים והפסיכולוגים המפרידים בין הישראלים והפלסטינים – פערים שאידיאולוגיות וגם המנהיגות הפוליטית הנוכחית כה העמיקו. ההיסטוריה מראה שפערים ומחלוקות כאלה בין אוייבים הגרים בשכנות והנמצאים ביחסי תלות ביניהם אינם מביאים לשלום אמיתי או יציבות (ראו צפון אירלנד, דרום אפריקה או גרמניה).

קיימות אסטרטגיות רבות למזעור ההשלכות השליליות של החומה. בעיני, הגישות החשובות ביותר מציעות מענה להפרדה על ידי יצירה והרחבה של מרחבים ישראלים ופלסטינים משותפים.

החומה היא אסון ליחסי היהודים והערבים שכן היא מטפחת אפטיות, ניכור, חוסר עניין ובורות בנוגע לכל הנעשה בצד השני – ואלה הן הרגשות שמעצבות את תחושת האחריות האישית כלפי הסכסוך. החומה פותחת את הדלת לגורמי חברות כגון פוליטיקאים, מורים ומרצים לחזק דימויים של האויב כ"אחר" תוך התעלמות מהסבל שנגרם כתוצאה מההפרדה הפיזית והמנטלית.

הפתרון ארוך הטווח וקצר הטווח להפרדה שכופה החומה הוא למזער את נזקיה באמצעות מפגשים אישיים והקמה של עוד מרחבים בהם ניתן לפגוש את האחר. כדאי להשקיע במרחב משותף מפגשים בתנאי שהיחסים סימטריים ומאוזנים והמשתתפים יוצאים מועצמים. מרחבים משותפים מועילים – הכוללים מפגשי נוער, שיתופים עיסקיים, יוזמות סביבתיות, מחאה בלתי אלימה והפגנות – מחזקים את היכולת של אנשים להעביר ביקורת על עצמם ולזהות עוולות שמבוצעות בצד שלהם. מרחבים משותפים גם מספקים למשתתפים כלים והזדמנויות ליישם את מה שהם לומדים. שם הם יכולים לברר אלטרנטיבות לעתיד משותף. פרויקט נוער ששם דגש על ההשפעות השליליות של הגדר ומקיים קשרים עם הציבור הרחב על ידי ארגון מפגשים או פיסול או תערוכה אמנותית בה היוצרים מציגים את עבודותיהם נגד הגדר ונגד ההפרדה בבתי ספר הם דוגמאות למרחבים משותפים אפשריים.

מרחבים משותפים חדשים – שכוללים מפגשי הידברות ומפעלים לפיתוח משותף, שיתופי ידע בין חקלאים ומפגשים בין אנשי דת – כל אלה מספקים הזדמנות ייחודית. יש לראות בהם משאב שדורש ניהול וטיפוח מקצועי שיבטיח שהמשתתפים מקבלים מהמפגש את העוצמה להמשיך ולהביא את המסר האנושי הביתה, לקהילות שלהם. יש לראות במחנה קיץ לתלמידי תיכון פלסטינים וישראלים מרחב נדיר וכמעט קדוש. יוזמות של שלום ודיאלוג בשיתוף יהודים וערבים ממלאות תפקיד היסטורי בכך שהן מקימות מרחבים נוספים למפגשים משותפים שקוראות תיגר על המציאות שגדר ההפרדה יוצרת.

החומות הרבות שהקימו פוליטיקאים בין ישראלים ופלסטינים, בין שהן סימליות ובין שהן מוחשיות, כופות על רבים מאיתנו הלך רוח כאילו אנו תחת מצור. הישראלים מרגישים חובה לכלכל בקפדנות כל מהלך שלהם בזמן שהם מטיילים מחוץ לישראל. העובדה שנאסר עליהם לבקר במדינות השכנות לישראל רק מחריפה את המצב ומונעת מהם ללמוד כיצד עמיתיהם הפלסטינים חושבים וחיים.

גם הפלסטינים נתונים להלך רוח של מצור. הלך הרוח שלהם מקבל חיזוק מהעובדה שהם כלואים מאחורי גדר בתוך כפריהם, ממחסומים צבאיים ומגישה מוגבלת לסׅיפּר הישראלי. הלך הרוח הזה כל כך עמוק אצל הפלסטינים שרבים מהם מופתעים על ידי מפגני הזדהות מצד ישראלים.

במרחבים משותפים אצור הכוח לשבור את התדמית המפלצתית של "האחר". הם מציעים את הערובה היחידה שהדורות הבאים של ישראלים ופלסטינים לא יגדלו לתוך מציאות של הכחשה והתחמקות, ושתינתן להם האפשרות לשוב ולראות זה בזה בני אנוש. הנוער הישראלי לא יוכל להמשיך ולומר "לא ידענו". הנוער הפלסטיני לא יוכל להמשיך ולומר "אין לנו מה לעשות". שניהם יוכלו לומר, "אנחנו מנסים."

החומות מסביב לעזה צריכות ללמד אותנו מה צפוי לפלסטינים ולישראלים בגדה המערבית אם הם לא יתאמצו להתעלות מעבר להפרדה ביניהם: התגברות האלימות, שלילת אנושיותם של תושבי עזה והחמאס על ידי העולם החיצון, התגברות המאבקים הפנים-פלסטיניים ואיום מתמשך על הגבול הדרומי של ישראל.

ככל שהישראלים והפלסטינים יקימו יותר מרחבים משותפים וירבו להיפגש, כך יקטן הסיכוי שאנשים בשני הצדדים ינהרו לעבר מנהיגים שתומכים בפתרונות קיצוניים ומטיפים לעליונות של צד אחד על פני האחר. ערבים ויהודים שנאבקים בחומה ובהפרדה חברתית צריכים לחשוב על דרכים יצירתיות לשבור את הפחד מהחיים זה בצד זה. עליהם להעביר מסר ברור וקבוע לקהילות שלהם והמסר הזה צריך להסביר שרק הכרה הדדית ומימוש הזכות של כל אחד מהצדדים למדינה ריבונית, שוות מעמד ועצמאית יכולים לספק ערובות ביטחוניות לשני העמים.


פורסם במקור על ידי שירות החדשות של קומון גראונד (CGNews) ב-4 בדצמבר 2008,

Les arabes doivent agir, et non pas attendre Obama

Parce que les attentes sont si grandes à travers tout le Moyen-Orient et le changement si nécessaire, tous les regards seront tournés ces deux prochains mois vers le président élu Barak Obama dans l’attente de ses premières décisions politiques. Mais justement, parce que la nécessité d’un changement est si pressante, je crois que les dirigeants arabes devraient être plus que de simples spectateurs dans cet intervalle délicat de la transition, particulièrement par rapport aux efforts visant une paix israélo-palestinienne.

Les méfaits de la politique négligente et imprudente de l’administration Bush au cours de ses huit ans de mandat sont trop évidents. La nation palestinienne est en désarroi et ses dirigeants divisés, physiquement – les uns à Gaza et les autres en Cisjordanie - et idéologiquement.

La Bande de Gaza, sous contrôle du Hamas, se trouve dans un goulet d’étranglement à cause de l’embargo qui lui est imposé et à cause des attaques de roquettes et des assauts israéliens qui ponctuent les périodes de trêve éphémères. La Cisjordanie, elle, s’asphyxie, lentement, du fait de l’afflux grandissant et continuel de colons, de la présence humiliante de centaines de postes de contrôle qui y font intrusion et d’un mur ou d’une barrière oppressante qui serpente le long des terres palestiniennes.

Les chemins choisis par chacun des dirigeants palestiniens, bien que contraires, sont tous deux mauvais. Le Hamas a fait de la « résistance » sa religion, ce qui n’a rien apporté de bon aux Palestiniens si ce n’est un cortège de morts et de privations, un sentiment d’insécurité en Israël et donc le renforcement des mesures répressives de la part de ce pays.

Quant au choix de l’autorité palestinienne de respecter son engagement dans les négociations, bien que louable, il est désormais dénué de sens puisque négocier sans avoir de moyen de pression (et sans avoir le contrôle de l’entité pour laquelle on négocie) devient un exercice inutile.

Barak Obama a affirmé plus d’une fois qu’il ferait de la paix au Proche-Orient sa priorité et qu’il y mènerait une politique différente de celle de son prédécesseur. Cependant, lorsqu’il prêtera serment le 20 janvier prochain, il va probablement trouver ce dossier, avouons-le franchement, rébarbatif.

Si aucun changement ne survient au Proche-Orient dans les deux mois à venir, la nation palestinienne demeurera divisée, les Israéliens n’auront toujours pas de gouvernement et de majorité nette (les élections doivent s’y dérouler le 10 février prochain et tout semble indiquer que les Israéliens auront pour alternative la victoire du conservateur Benjamin Netanyahu ou la reconstitution d’une coalition centriste qui manque de consistance).

Donc, la question à se poser avant que la nouvelle administration prenne les rênes du pouvoir en Amérique est la suivante: peut-on faire quoi que ce soit, et si c’est le cas, par où faut-il commencer ?

A mon avis, on peut prendre quelques mesures, du moins du côté arabe, pour faire de l’ordre avant le 20 janvier. Les dirigeants de cette région du monde devraient mettre à profit ces deux mois de transition et utiliser ce lapse de temps de façon intelligente.

La première priorité est de parvenir à réconcilier les Palestiniens et de les aider à mettre sur pied un gouvernement opérationnel et uni, inspirant à la fois le soutien du peuple et le respect de la communauté internationale. Cela demandera plus qu’une simple révision des accords de la Mecque.

Le projet d’accord qui circule en ce moment au Caire propose une structure utile, se concentrant sur la reconstruction d’un gouvernement consensuel et d’une force de sécurité locale, formée et soutenue par des Arabes.

L’accord des dirigeants palestiniens des deux bords est essentiel, mais n’a été que trop vague jusqu’à présent. Au lieu de proférer des menaces de sanctions plutôt vides de sens ou « de se traiter de tous les noms » comme c’est le cas actuellement, les dirigeants arabes devraient imaginer des moyens d’inciter les uns et les autres à s’accepter.

Ce dont la Cisjordanie et la Bande de Gaza ont besoin de toute évidence c’est la création d’emplois, des projets d’infrastructure et de développement des compétences, ainsi que des projets d’aide immédiat. Les Arabes participent effectivement aux efforts internationaux pour subventionner le budget de l’Autorité palestinienne, mais cette aide sert tout juste à maintenir le statut quo, inacceptable.

Pour aller de l’avant, je proposerais la création « d’un fond incitant à la paix et à la réconciliation », gigantesque, de plusieurs milliards de dollars, qui permettrait une aide immédiate tout en étant un investissement créateur d’emploi – tout cela une fois que les parties seront parvenues à un consensus dans le genre de celui du projet d’accords du Caire.

En fait, le fond aurait pour but d’aider le peuple palestinien tout en faisant pression sur ses dirigeants divisés pour les inciter à se mettre d’accord sur la constitution d’un nouveau gouvernement, qui avec le soutien des pays arabes, serait prêt et capable de faire la paix.

Par ailleurs, la Ligue arabe au lieu de simplement réaffirmer son plan de paix de 2002 et de 2007 ferait mieux de l’étoffer. Elle pourrait par exemple, apporter de plus amples précisions sur les types d’incitations financières et/ou commerciales qui accompagnerait la paix finale et/ou la normalisation.

Du même coup, cela permettrait un enchaînement graduel des étapes (par exemple, signature d’un accord-cadre israélo-palestinien : première étape ; retrait des colonies et des points de contrôles conformément à cet accord : deuxième étape et ainsi de suite).

Le projet d’accords arabe a suscité l’intérêt non seulement de la nouvelle administration américaine mais aussi de nombreux politiciens israéliens. Par conséquent, le fait d’apporter plus de précisions à propos des avantages et de la vision liés à la paix finale serait grandement bénéfique.

Outre la date du 20 janvier prochain à laquelle Barak Obama prêtera serment en tant que 44ème président des Etats Unis d’Amérique, deux autres échéances approchent rapidement. Les Palestiniens doivent parvenir à un accord d’ici le 9 janvier, date officielle de la fin du mandat du président Mahmoud Abbas, sinon la situation déjà précaire de la Palestine pourrait se dégrader et devenir plus violente. Quant au 10 février, date des élections en Israël, elle est tout aussi importante.

Un mouvement rapide vers l’obtention du consensus palestinien et vers une version élargie et améliorée de l’initiative de paix arabe enlèvera à la fois les dangers que représente la première date tout en ayant un effet positif sur la seconde.

James J. Zogby

Source: Jordan Times.

Women’s rights on paper versus in practice

In recent years, the Pakistani government appears to have made strides in protecting women’s rights. Through Article 25 of the Constitution, as well as the 1996 adoption of the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Pakistani government has promised the country’s disenfranchised women food, social security, housing, education, an adequate standard of living and healthcare.

But these policy commitments have rarely been translated into practice, and have failed to change the lives of many Pakistani women.

Instead, these women continue to face incredible hurdles. The most devastating consequence of under-development in any society is a high fatality rate, and Pakistan has higher infant and maternal mortality rates than many developing countries in both Asia and Africa. The rate of preventable maternal mortality is a symptom of the larger social injustice of discrimination against women and a violation of women’s human rights.

Women in Pakistan are victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, including acid throwing and honour killings. For example, in some villages in Pakistan, if a woman tries to marry of her own free will she is said to have brought disgrace upon her family and she may even be murdered. No questions are asked, even though laws exist prohibiting this practice.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and an endless number of NGOs have been fighting for women’s rights for quite some time now. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honour killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women, although no official figures are available in Pakistan on the frequency of this practice.

Pakistan recently implemented laws to combat domestic violence, such as the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act of 2006, but they have done little to bring perpetrators to justice. Naheeda Mehboob Illahi, the deputy attorney general and an expert in family law recently promoted as a Supreme Court judge, has admitted that the laws are not being implemented in their true spirit, which is why in many cases motive is not established and murder is dubbed “an accident”.

While honour killings attract more attention in the media, other social customs are also very detrimental to women. Pait likkhi, literally “written on the stomach”, is one such custom where a girl and boy are betrothed to each other before they are born or in their early teens. Islamic law, in contrast, holds that a husband must be able to support his wife and that both partners must consent to marriage out of their own free will.

Although in 1929, under the tenure of British India, a Child Marriage Restraint Act was passed that prohibits child marriages, tribal customs and traditions still prevail and authorities often ignore these laws because influential feudal lords are involved in the practice.

Swara and vani are also types of child marriages where young girls are forcibly married to members of different clans in order to resolve feuds. Recently, Pakistan’s courts have begun taking serious note of this illegal practice and have attempted to take action against its continuation. But again, those involved tend to be powerful both socially and politically.

Watta satta creates a similar problem. At the time of marriage, both families trade brides. In order for a man to marry off his son, he must also have a daughter to marry off to a member of the bride’s family in return. In this practice, women are treated as saleable commodities rather than human beings.

These practices must stop. The question is when and how. There are two solutions to obstacles facing women in Pakistan, and they must come from both those in power and women themselves.

First, lawmakers need to wake up and acknowledge realities facing Pakistan’s women and take stringent measures to prevent these injustices from occurring. Second, they must make sure the existing laws are fully and properly implemented.

Furthermore, access to all levels of education is crucial for empowering women to participate in the economic, social and political life of their societies. The government needs to put special focus particularly on female education.

Education is the key factor in the prosperity and development of any country. It unlocks a women’s potential, and is accompanied by improvements in the health, nutrition and well being of their families, as well as a brighter and more promising future for generations to come.

By Saba Jamal
Source: Common Ground News Service

Hebron like you've never imagined it

A new way needs to be carved out that will allow Israel to express its nationalism in Hebron without conceding land or creating an apartheid state.

In many ways, the dilemma posed by Hebron embodies the ongoing struggle of Zionism since its inception over the biblical territories of Israel. Hebron, however, presents this dilemma in starker, sharper, and more violent streaks.

The basic argument presented by the settlers in Hebron is entirely justified. More so than Tel Aviv, Raanana, Sderot or Kiryat Shemona, in fact any other city in Israel aside from Jerusalem, the Jewish ties to the city of Hebron are greater and less questionable.. The continuous Jewish presence over the ages, the The Tomb of the Patriarchs, the 1929 Arab assault on the city's Jews and the city's sanctity – all of these render the thought that Jews may no longer live, visit or pray in Hebron unbearable. In the midst of a discourse centred on historical, religious, ethnic and national rights – there is no settlement more legitimate than the Jewish settlement in Hebron.

In the current situation the Jewish presence in Hebron is made possible only by means of violent occupation and harsh discrimination (that may be termed apartheid). The situation in Hebron today is such that basic values of equity, civil and human rights, and the recognition of another nation's historical and national rights are all being denied – an unacceptable and irrational position for anyone with basic moral sensitivities.

The grave mistake of Hebron's Jewish settlers and their supporters is that they are not seeking to resolve this dilemma. Many of them do not even recognise its existence. They only recognise one point of reference for any discussion over Hebron and that is from the ethnic, historical, religious and national rights of one, and only one, side. For this reason they feel justified forging documents (as has been intimated not only in the most recent controversial acquisition of a house in Hebron but also in other cases such as the Shapiro House), committing daily violent acts against Palestinians and assaulting Israeli officials.

To them Palestinians are not entitled to property rights in the Land of Israel and this is the reason a court decision, which would seem just and reasonable any other place in Israel or worldwide, was seen as vicious and scandalous and warranting violent opposition.

Those familiar with the political discourses prevalent among many of the settlers and their affiliated circles such as the Bnei Akiva youth organisation know that they envision an apartheid state in its true form. According to their plans, the Palestinians in Israel (or Hebron for that matter) will be granted residency rights and not citizenship – similar to the legal status of the blacks in Apartheid South Africa or Jews in Germany under the Nurenberg laws. This option seems unacceptable to me as well.

So where can we compromise in order to try and foster a solution to the problem?

Maybe the concept of sovereignty, which lies very much at the heart of the conflict, should be redefined. We know that this concept has been undergoing radical changes in recent years, for example in Europe following the European Union. Maybe we too can bend the concept of sovereignty in our region to suit our needs.

We have become accustomed to viewing only full sovereignty, which is by definition exclusionary, as the realisation of the national rights of the Jewish people and its aspiration for a national home. But perhaps Hebron requires a different kind of national aspiration, one that will not equate national territorial rights with violent and exclusive sovereignty.

A bi-national mode of thinking may be more appropriate for Hebron, one that will recognise both the Jewish and Palestinian claims over the city. Likewise a settlement should recognise some sort of joint sovereignty both on the municipal and national levels. Moreover, perhaps this is the best settlement not only for Hebron but for all of Israel.

Any settlement along these lines will require us to entirely revamp the way we view our relationship with the Palestinians and it will of course need to be outlined through negotiations with them so that it will address their national, historical, religious, and economic needs as well.

Ironically, it seems likely that giving up exclusive and exclusionary sovereignty as a way of realising national rights will be easier than any alternative that will present us with a choice between an apartheid state or conceding valuable parts of Israel and displacing hundreds of Jews from their homes.

By Amos Goldberg
Source: YNet News

The choice of the people

By conducting presidential and parliamentary elections, Palestinians may end the unproductive confrontation between Fatah and Hamas that diverts attention from crucial issues with which they are faced.

The Palestinians should decide how they would like to be governed and by whom, and on what basis they can sue for peace.

President Mahmoud Abbas proposed elections recently, in a bid to end the tug of war between his government in the West Bank and the Hamas government in Gaza.

Despite repeated attempts by Egypt and other Arab and non-Arab intermediaries, the standoff between Abbas and the Hamas leadership continues. Hamas wants elections to be limited to presidential, so that it may keep control over Gaza and not undergo another test through national elections. That is untenable and ineffective. Democracy means the rule of the people, so the people should decide who represents them.

The Arab world should now take a firm position on the issue and decide how to proceed to end the Palestinian squabbling.

The intervention should be more than rhetoric. The Arab capitals, especially those most concerned about the future of the Palestinian territories, must now make their position clear and compelling, since the Palestinians don’t seem able to settle their differences on their own.

It is perhaps time for an extraordinary Arab summit. With Gaza on the brink of starvation and the Israeli blockade continuing unabated and unperturbed by the outcry of the international community, the entire spectrum of Palestinian leadership should put an end to the bickering and deal at least with the Gaza tragedy.

Arab heads of state should not allow Palestinian division to stand in the way of a resolution to the Palestinian conflict. Arab governments can and must endorse Abbas’ proposal for simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections by the beginning of next year and make it binding on all sides.

The fate of the people should be of topmost interest to the Palestinian leaders, not their obstinate grip on power. If they don’t know that, they should be made to understand.

Source: The Jordan Times.

Start with Syria. A Middle East deal Obama could build on

President-elect Barack Obama will be bombarded with recommendations about how to approach Arab-Israeli peacemaking. One piece of advice he should not take is to make Israeli-Palestinian peace his top priority. There's no deal there. But there is a real opportunity for an Israeli-Syrian agreement, and Obama should go for it.

There are, of course, strong arguments for making Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking a priority. The Palestinians deserve a state of their own, and an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is not just key to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace but to Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish democratic state.

A new president eager to repair America's image abroad may be tempted to try for an agreement, but he should avoid the sirens' call. No conflict-ending agreement is possible now, nor is one likely to be anytime soon, and the stakes are too high for America to harbour illusions that would almost certainly lead to yet another failure. The gaps separating the two sides on the core issues (Jerusalem, borders, refugees and security) remain too wide, the current leaders are too weak to bridge them, and the environment on the ground is too complicated to allow for sustainable negotiations.

In Palestine, dysfunction and confusion reign. The Palestinian national movement is riven with geographic and political divisions between Hamas (itself divided) and Fatah (even more divided). There is little chance of creating a united Palestinian house that can take control of the guns and offer up a viable and unified negotiating position that any Israeli government could accept. Weak leadership and unstable coalition politics prevail in Israel, too. And Israeli settlement activity, which continues unabated, rounds out a nightmarish picture that ought to scare away any smart mediator.

It would be folly to go for broke, given these conditions. The notion that trying and failing is better than not trying at all might be an appropriate rallying cry for a college football coach; it isn't a suitable foreign policy principle for the world's greatest power. The well-intentioned old college try, which was President Bill Clinton's mantra at Camp David in July 2000, reinforced by his advisers, myself included, proved costly. And we had much better conditions in 2000 (if still not the right ones) than the new administration faces.

The more compelling argument is for a major push on another negotiation: between Israel and Syria. Here, there are two states at the table, rather than one state and a dysfunctional national movement. A quiet border, courtesy of Henry Kissinger's 1974 disengagement diplomacy, prevails. And there are fewer settlers on the Golan Heights and no megaton issues such as the status of Jerusalem to blow up the talks. Indeed, the issues are straightforward -- withdrawal, peace, security and water -- and the gaps are clear and ready to be bridged.

For a president looking for a way to buck up America's credibility, an Israeli-Syrian agreement offers a potential bonus. Such a deal would begin to realign the region's architecture in a way that serves broader U.S. interests. The White House would have to be patient. Syria won't walk away from a 30-year relationship with Iran; weaning the Syrians from Iran would have to occur gradually, requiring a major international effort to marshal economic and political support for Damascus. Still, an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty would confront Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with tough choices and reduced options.

None of this will be easy. An Obama administration, and particularly the new president, would need to be in the middle of things. It would be excruciatingly hard, time-consuming and expensive to satisfy Israel and Syria's economic and security needs, and a final agreement would most likely involve U.S. peacekeepers. More important, the United States would need to push the two sides further than they are now willing to go, on the extent of withdrawal from the Golan Heights in Israel's case, on normalisation and security in Syria's. But with Israeli and Syrian leaders who are serious, and with a new administration ready to be tough, smart and fair in its diplomacy, a deal can be done.

So, Mr. President-elect, go ahead and try to buck up the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire, train Palestinian security forces, pour economic aid into Gaza and the West Bank, and quietly nurture Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But don't go for the endgame -- you won't get there. Instead, invest in an Israeli-Syrian peace, and, afterward, you might find, with a historic success under your belt and America again admired for its competence, you will be better positioned to achieve the success you want in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well.

By Aaron David Miller
Source: The Washington Post

Share space, defy the wall

Arabs and Jews were separated for decades before the separation wall was built in the West Bank and around Gaza. When former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat travelled to Israel in 1977, he declared before the Knesset (parliament) that such separation can only bring devastation and alienation to Arabs and Jews alike. He came to meet the Israelis in their homes to challenge their fears.

The physical wall between the West Bank and Israel reflects how current political leaders and ideologies have deepened the Israeli-Palestinian moral, mental, physical, economic, and psychological divides. However, history shows that such divides between enemies in neighbouring and interdependent geographical areas fail to bring about genuine peace or stability (e.g. Northern Ireland, South Africa, or Germany).

There are many strategies for reducing the adverse effects of the wall. In my view, the most important approaches will address separation by creating more shared Israeli and Palestinian space.

The wall is tragic for Arab-Jewish relations because it promotes apathy, alienation, detachment, and ignorance in relation to what is happening on the other side—which together form one's own sense of responsibility to the conflict. The wall opens the door for socialising agents – like politicians, preachers and teachers – to sustain images of the enemy as "other," while ignoring the suffering resulting from the physical and mental separation.

The short and long-term remedy to separation imposed by the wall is to mitigate its impacts by meeting face-to-face and constructing more spaces to encounter the other. It is worth investing in shared spaces for meetings, as long as the relationships are symmetrical and balanced, and the participants empowered. Productive shared spaces, such as youth encounters, economic ventures, environmental initiatives, non-violent advocacy and protests, should increase people's capacity to be self-critical and perceive any wrongdoing on their own side, and provide tools and opportunities for participants to apply the lessons learned, and explore alternatives for a shared future (for example, a joint youth project that focuses on the negative impact of the wall with a possibility to engage their respective communities –by arranging visits, sculpturing the wall in their own towns; artists displaying their work against the wall and against separation in schools, etc.)

New shared spaces – from peace encounters and joint development projects, to farmer exchanges and clergy meetings – are a precious opportunity - a resource that needs to be professionally constructed and managed to ensure that its participants are nurtured by the encounter, and empowered to spread the humanising messages within their respective communities. A summer camp for Palestinian and Israeli high school students should be treated as a rare and almost sacred space; the various Arab-Jewish initiatives for peace and dialogue have an historic role to play in creatively constructing more spaces for shared meetings in which the realities of the separation wall are challenged and not perpetuated.

The various walls that politicians have erected between Israelis and Palestinians (symbolic and actual) have forced many into a siege mentality. For Israelis, the siege mentality takes hold when they feel they must calculate every move they make when travelling overseas. It does not help that they are restricted from travelling beyond their immediate borders to neighbouring countries and it prevents them from knowing how Palestinian counterparts think and live.

The Palestinian siege mentality is reinforced by their physical imprisonment by a wall in their own towns, by military checkpoints, and by limited access to the Israeli narrative. In fact, the siege mentality is so strong that many Palestinians are surprised by the acts of solidarity groups in Israel.

These shared spaces are able to demystify the monstrous image of the other, offering the only guarantee that future Palestinian and Israeli generations will not grow in a reality of avoidance and denial, but will instead have the opportunity to re-humanise each other. Israeli youth will no longer be able to say “we did not know;” and Palestinian youth will no longer be able to say “we can't do anything.” They will both say, “we are trying.”

The walls around Gaza should serve as an example of what Palestinians and Israelis can expect in the West Bank if they don't actively seek to transcend their separation: escalating violence and dehumanisation of Gazans and Hamas by the outside world, more internal Palestinian fighting, and continuous threats to Israel's southern borders.

The more Israelis and Palestinians create shared spaces and meetings, the less likely people on both sides will flock behind leaders who propagate radical solutions and preach superiority of one side over the other. Arabs and Jews who are fighting the walls and social separations need to creatively break the fear of living side-by-side by sending a consistent message to their communities. The message should explain that a genuine mutual recognition and implementation of each others’ rights for a sovereign, equal, and independent state are the only security guarantees for both peoples.

By Mohammed Abu-Nimer
Source: Common Ground News Service.

Happy Eid! Joyeux Eid!

كل عام وانتم بخير

عيد اضحى مبارك

Try Tough Love, Hillary

Imagine Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, saying this to Barack Obama:

"The United States has been wrong to write Israel a blank check every year; wrong to turn a blind eye to the settlements in the West Bank; wrong not to be more explicit about the need to divide Jerusalem; wrong to equip us with weaponry so sophisticated we now believe military might is the answer to all our problems; and wrong in not helping us reach out to Syria. Your chosen secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said during the campaign that 'the United States stands with Israel, now and forever.' Well, that's not good enough. You need to stand against us sometimes so we can avoid the curse of eternal militarism."

Perhaps that seems unimaginable. But Olmert has already said something close to this. In a frank September interview with the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, reprinted this month by The New York Review of Books, the Israeli leader chose to exit with a mea culpa for his country's policies.

Those policies have been encouraged by the Bush administration, whose war on terror was embraced by the Israeli government as a means to frame Israel's confrontation with the Palestinians as part of the same struggle. No matter that Al Qaeda and the Palestinian national movement are distinct. The facile conflation got Bush in lock step with whatever Israel did.

So, by saying Israel has been wrong, Olmert was also saying the United States has been wrong, even if he never mentioned America.

What Olmert, who appears on the verge of indictment for fraud, did say in his "soul searching on behalf of the nation of Israel" was that he had made "mistakes" as a former right-wing hard-liner and that military power will not deliver his 60-year-old country from existential anguish.

"We could contend with any of our enemies or against all our enemies combined and win," Olmert said. "The question that I ask myself is, what happens when we win? First of all, we'd have to pay a painful price. And after we paid the price, what would we say to them? 'Let's talk.' "

Olmert is now convinced of the need to settle with the Palestinians and Syria through giving up parts of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The fact such views come from a former Likudnik is a measure of how the political ground has shifted in Israel ahead of elections early next year.

I think Olmert's words should be emblazoned on the wall of Hillary Clinton's eighth-floor State Department office: "We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage elsewhere — without this, there will be no peace."

Asked if this included a compromise on Jerusalem, Olmert said, "Including Jerusalem."

He also declared, "I'd like to know if there's a serious person in the state of Israel who believe that we can make peace with the Syrians without, in the end, giving up the Golan Heights." Those words should go up on Clinton's wall, too.

For Olmert, "holding this or that hill" is "worthless" and Israeli generals are deluded in clinging to them.

These ideas will sit uneasily with the pro-Israel constituency that Clinton has dealt with as a Democratic senator for the state of New York. Nobody's been more solidly pro-Israel than she. But to be effective, she must become a tough taskmaster in the name of Olmert's compromises. That is in the best long-term interest of Israel.

Clinton noted during the campaign that the United States could "obliterate" Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Olmert chose different language. He noted "a megalomania and a loss of proportion in the things said here about Iran." Once again, his words are instructive.

I am fiercely attached to Israel's security. Everything depends, however, on how that security is viewed. Israel can continue humiliating the Palestinians, flaunting its power with a bully's braggadocio. It will survive that way — and be desperately corroded from within. Neither domination nor demography favors Israel over time.

Its moral authority is already compromised by a 40-year occupation. The Diaspora Jew did not go to Zion to build the Jew among nations.

This is the reality behind Olmert's warning that "we have a window of opportunity — a short amount of time." This is the reality behind his appeal to "designate a final and exact borderline between us and the Palestinians."

For that, Palestinians must also compromise, especially on the right of return, and they must renounce terrorism. Return must essentially mean return to a new and viable Palestinian state.

Getting to such a two-state deal at, or close to, the 1967 borders will require concerted U.S. involvement from day one of the Obama administration. Its tone should be one of tough love, with the emphasis on tough.

By Roger Cohen

Source: New York Times.

Solidarity Meeting for Mumbai

The recent events of Mumbai have left us all in a state of shock. The indiscriminate killing of people by the terrorists - in hotels, at Railway stations and on the roads - were an attack on India, on that very founding idea of India, which has stood, with all its weaknesses, for a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic democracy. Leaving the hows and whys of such acts to be debated tomorrow, let us get together to express our sorrow at the loss of life in Mumbai and to stand for a world of peace, harmony and justice.

It might be appropriate for everyone to bring a candle to light on this occasion in memory of those who died or suffered in Mumbai, and for anyone who has suffered at the hands of a mindless violence.

Indians, India-sympathisers and advocates of a better tomorrow, regardless of their nationality, are requested to assemble at the Parvis des Droits de l’Homme, Place du Trocadéro (Metro: Trocadéro) on Thursday, 4th December 2008 at 6.30 pm.

-------------------- x ----------------------- x ------------------------ x ---------------------------

Les événements récents de Mumbai nous ont laissé en état de choc. Le massacre brutal et sans discrimination, par les terroristes, de dizaines de personnes dans les hôtels, les gares et sur les routes, est une attaque contre l’Inde tout entière, contre l’idée même de la fondation de l’Inde, qui, malgré toutes ses faiblesses, est parvenue à construire une démocratie multi-confessionnelle, multiculturelle et multilinguistique.

En attendant de débattre du pourquoi et du comment de tels actes, rassemblons-nous pour exprimer notre chagrin pour toutes les victimes qui ont perdu la vie à Mumbai et levons-nous pour un monde de paix, d’harmonie et de justice.

Que chacun vienne avec une bougie que nous allumerons, pour cette triste occasion, à la mémoire de ceux qui sont morts ou qui ont été blessés à Mumbai, et de tous ceux qui sont en prise à une violence irrationnelle.

Indiens, amis de l’Inde, vous qui souhaitez un avenir meilleur, quelque soit votre nationalité, venez nombreux sur le Parvis des Droits de l’Homme, Place du Trocadero (metro Trocadero), jeudi 4 décembre 2008, à 18:30.


Pour plus d’information: Fédération des Associations Franco-Indiennes
Tel : 01 42 53 03 12
Email : dassaradan@orange.fr