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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lieberman and the peace process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Haartez.com

Open Letter to President Obama

Open Letter March 10, 2009


President Barack Hussein Obama

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fight like in Gaza

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

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

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

	Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

Now it is official: The country has gone crazy.

By Yossi Sarid.

Forger un autre avenir pour les Israéliens et les Palestiniens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


… et ils transformeront leur crainte en confiance par Nira Lamay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's now or nothing for Palestine peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the assault on Gaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In "The Death of the Phoenix" Darwish wrote:

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

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

By Leonard Schwartz.
Source: Common Ground News Service, www.commongroundnews.org.

Seul le prononcé fait foi
Embargo au prononcé


Discours de Monsieur Jacques CHIRAC

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


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

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

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

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

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

Votre choix est légitime :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voici pourquoi votre projet est si urgent. Si important.

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

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

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

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

Je crois au dialogue des civilisations.

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

Je vous remercie.

Closed Zone

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


Source: www.closedzone.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: New York Times.

Sarkozy says Israeli withdrawal must follow Hamas ceasefire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban Ki-moon and Mahmoud Abbas attended

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arms smuggling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: http://www.france24.com

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

A fragile opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following are excerpts:(1)

I Want the Gaza War to Be the Last War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musical Show of Unity Upsets Many in Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: New York Times.

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

La situation israélo-palestinienne

mardi 03 mars 2009
de 09h30 à 11h45

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Etes vous prêt à dialoguer avec le Hamas ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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