Israeli Military to Request Green Light to Kill Hamas Leadership

IDF wants green light to strike Hamas

---

yaakov katz and mark weiss, THE JERUSALEM POST

Apr. 24, 2007

---

The IDF plans to ask Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday for permission to carry out "pinpoint" operations against Gaza-based Hamas terrorist chiefs and infrastructure, in response to an attempt by the Islamist group to kidnap soldiers near the Gaza Strip.

According to IDF sources, a barrage of more than 10 Kassam rockets and 20 mortar shells on the Negev Tuesday morning was meant to provide cover and distract attention from an infiltration by a terrorist cell, whose members intended to kidnap soldiers deployed on the Gaza border.

Analysis: Hamas copies the Hizbullah model

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, speaking in Rome after meeting with Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, said the rocket attacks were a "one-time violation of the truce."

He called on Israel to show restraint in order to avoid a "deterioration" in the region."

Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said that Rome was concerned about the renewed rocket attacks, and called on Abbas to adhere to the principles set by International Quartet - especially the recognition of Israel.

Earlier in the day, a spokesman for Hamas's armed wing said the group considered the truce over.

"The cease-fire has been over for a long time, and Israel is responsible for that," spokesman Abu Obeida told the Voice of Palestine radio station. "This is a message to the Zionist enemy that our strikes will continue. We are ready to kidnap more and more, and kill more and more of your soldiers."

The security situation was apparently discussed in a telephone call on Tuesday between Olmert and US President George W. Bush. The president called Olmert to wish him well on Independence Day, the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement.

Olmert is scheduled to meet with security chiefs Wednesday morning to discuss the escalation in Gaza and expectations were that the IDF would be given the green light for "pinpoint" operations against Hamas terrorist infrastructure in the Strip.

Defense officials said that the security chiefs would also raise the possibility of renewing targeted killings in the Gaza Strip.

"We will not allow Hamas to hide behind its political identity," Defense Minister Amir Peretz said during consultations Tuesday afternoon at Beit Hanassi in Jerusalem with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin and other security officials.

Tuesday's attacks marked the first time Hamas has acknowledged firing shells and rockets since agreeing to a cease-fire along the Gaza-Israel border in November.

Military sources said the army's heightened alert status, as well as a quick response by ground forces and IAF helicopters that had been patrolling over Gaza, thwarted the kidnap operation in its early stages. According to preliminary reports, no terrorists managed to enter Israel.

The IDF had been on high alert in recent weeks, ever since obtaining intelligence that Hamas was planning to abduct soldiers in a raid similar to the one near Kerem Shalom in June that captured Cpl. Gilad Schalit. According to an IDF source, the tactics used in Tuesday's attack were copied from Hizbullah, which used rockets to distract the IDF in July, when guerrillas abducted reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser near Lebanon.

On Tuesday afternoon, while the main Independence Day ceremony was going on, Peretz held emergency meetings with security officials to discuss how to respond to the attacks.

Government officials said Israel would wait to hear what Hamas's political wing had to say, noting that it was organization's military wing that had declared the cease-fire was now over.

"Israel views in a very grave manner this new stage of the Hamas-led [Palestinian Authority] government, which openly calls for committing terror against Israel, especially on Israel's 59th Independence Day," said the Prime Minister's spokeswoman, Miri Eisen. "Israel reserves the right to respond and [to] defend its citizens at any time, while at the same time seeking out moderates for dialogue."

PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said his government had dedicated much effort to convincing the various Palestinian factions to maintain the truce. Haniyeh went on to say that the factions had adopted a "positive position" on the issue.

The Palestinians were surprised by the aggression Israel was showing toward them, he said. "We made great efforts at keeping the truce and there was a positive Palestinian position, but unfortunately this position was met by expanding the aggression and escalating it against the Palestinian people."

"It's not a Palestinian problem, it is an Israeli problem," Haniyeh said.

Meanwhile, PA government spokesman Ghazi Hamed reiterated that it was interested in continuing the truce, saying that the "security calm" would collapse if Israel continued its aggression.

The escalation in Gaza came up in Tuesday's telephone conversation between Olmert and US President George W. Bush. The president called to congratulate the prime minister on Independence Day. The two men also discussed regional issues.

AP and Jpost.com Staff contributed to the report.

Olive Branch From Hamas: Robert Novak

By Robert D. Novak

Monday, April 16, 2007; A17

On April 7, ending a seven-day visit to Israel, I finally got an interview I had sought for a year. I sat down in a Palestinian Authority office in Ramallah with a leader of Hamas, the extremist organization that won last year's elections. This leader pushed a two-state Israeli-Palestinian solution and deplored suicide bombers. But officials in Washington seem not to want to hear Hamas calling for peace.

No fringe character, this was Naser al-Shaer: education minister and deputy prime minister in the new coalition government. Shaer signaled that the regime recognizes Israel's right to exist and forgoes violence -- conditions essential for talks about a viable Palestinian state adjoining Israel -- even if Hamas does not. "We hope that it is going to be a matter of time," Shaer told me. "But there is a big chance now."

When I returned to Washington last week, I sought the reaction of Bush administration officials (who refuse to have any contact with Hamas). I asked to talk to Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser who is most influential in policy on Israel. Abrams was once a fellow Cold Warrior and friend whom I have defended, but an aide let me know on Thursday that Abrams would not talk to me about Hamas. A senior State Department official also showed no interest in what Shaer said.

U.S. policy is not just adherence to the economic boycott that has devastated the Palestinian Authority since Hamas won elections in January 2006. U.S. government officials and contract workers in the Israeli-occupied territories must leave when someone from Hamas enters a room. Because the State Department lists Hamas as a terrorist organization, Americans not employed by the government fear that contacting a Hamas member of the Palestinian government would violate the USA Patriot Act.

Accordingly, a year ago, sources who put me in touch with other Palestinians refused to help with Hamas. The best contact I could make then was a brief telephone conversation with a Hamas underling.

I was back in Jerusalem on April 3, two weeks after Hamas brought the more moderate opposition Fatah party into the new national unity government. The Los Angeles Times had just run a remarkable op-ed by the new government's finance minister, Salam Fayyad, a political independent who lived in Washington for 20 years, served as a World Bank official and is well respected in the West. Fayyad wrote that the Palestine Liberation Organization's 1993 acceptance of Israel and disavowal of violence is "a crystal-clear and binding agreement" that "no Palestinian government has the authority to revoke." He added that the unity government's platform "explicitly" pledges to honor all PLO commitments.

Over dinner in a Ramallah restaurant on April 4, Fayyad told me that he offered his column simultaneously to several major American newspapers to get this story out quickly. But do his Hamas colleagues accept his reasoning? Fayyad made clear that he was not flying solo.

Just before my trip ended, the Palestinian Authority put me in touch with Shaer. On Aug. 19, when he was deputy prime minister in the all-Hamas regime, Shaer was seized in an Israeli raid of his Ramallah home and held for a month without charges or evidence.

In his ministry office a few days later, Shaer, who holds a doctorate from England's University of Manchester, looked nothing like the shirt-sleeved, tie-less man photographed when he was released in September. He was dressed in a stylish suit, but more telling than his appearance was what he said.

When I asked whether Hamas agreed with Fayyad's formulation, Shaer said it did not matter: "We are talking about the government, not groups." He said Hamas was no more relevant to Palestinian policy than the views of extremist anti-Palestinian cabinet member Avigdor Lieberman are to Israeli policy. Unexpectedly, Shaer expressed dismay that "previous attempts at peace were ruined by suicide bombers. Now, we look forward to a sustained peace."

While avoiding Israel-bashing, Shaer conjectured: "I don't think the Israeli government wants a two-state solution. Without pressure from the president of the United States, nothing is going to happen." That sounded like a plea for help from George W. Bush. But will he hear it if Elliott Abrams does not listen?

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Tricky little Rice

By Salama A Salama

---

One's puzzlement over the Arab scene intensifies each time an Arab summit is held. Last week, everyone started talking about the Arab peace initiative. The five-year-old initiative was dusted off and presented as a miracle solution. Suddenly, we are being asked to believe that full normalisation will bring about a complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab land. And our leaders are solemnly calling on the Israelis to seize the opportunity. Yet there is only one thing Israel liked about the initiative: normalisation. But the Israelis played along. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, faking concern over tensions in the region, said he was willing to consider anything US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brings to the table.

For her part, Rice got her moderate Arab friends to present the initiative in a vague manner. For example, they spoke of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem rather than the right of return of refugees. And even as Arab leaders assured us that there has been no change in the initiative, the Israelis were having second thoughts. Rice met twice with Olmert and twice with Abbas and still failed to bring Olmert to discuss the question of a final settlement. The only thing the US diplomat achieved was to get Abbas and Olmert to meet every two weeks. Palestinian officials were quick to point out that nothing was likely to come out of such meetings. Olmert is not even honouring earlier promises on political and security matters.

Rice wasn't straightforward with moderate Arabs. In Aswan, she asked Arab leaders to show some flexibility. She also proposed a meeting between the International Quartet, the Arab Quartet, Israel and Palestine. But Rice has not secured Israel's commitment to start final status negotiations. Rice hasn't even succeeded in getting Israel to implement confidence- building measures approved earlier, such as the release of Palestinian monetary assets and detainees in return for the release of one captured Israeli soldier.

Olmert is refusing to discuss final status issues because, he says, Hamas is refusing to recognise Israel. Despite that, the Arabs left the door open to compromise. They will form working groups to hold international consultations with the UN Security Council, the UN and the International Quartet about the Arab initiative. The Riyadh summit was optimistic that such action would jump- start peace talks.

In short, Rice is trying to get the Arabs to recognise Israel, through normalisation, without a quid pro quo. Rice wants the Arab Quartet to meet the Quartet, then with Israel and Palestine (Syria is not invited), which amounts to an implicit recognition of Israel. But the US diplomat is not asking Israel for anything in return. Israel can build more settlements. It can engage in brutal acts against the Palestinians. And it can voice its opposition to the Arab initiative.

Oddly enough, some Arab countries were optimistic about Rice's tour. Some believed that the US diplomat was trying to fulfil Bush's promise to implement a two-state solution. But all signs indicate that the sudden interest of the US and Israel in the Arab initiative is nothing but a gimmick.

The Arabs may believe that the Arab initiative is still good and alive. But it would be a grave mistake to depend on the International Quartet. The Arab initiative is not going to get us anywhere unless Arab countries provide support to the Palestinian national unity government and make sure that Palestinian factions are not going to turn one against another in the future. The International Quartet is fully under US control. It is nothing more than a warehouse in which the US stores peace initiatives and

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

Yet another brainless NYT editorial

Chris gets a lot of letters printed in Big Media.
---
letters@nytimes.com

30, Smithy Drive,
Ashford, Kent
England TN23 3NS

26th March,2007 01233 500229

Dear Sir,

It is amazing how you keep writing them. It is as if you still believed in fairies and demons, or expected your readers to do so anyway. Your editorial 'The Hamas Conundrum' is classic, containing all the standard NYT racist prejudice, all the NYT contempt for reality and belief in Zionist fabrication.

Many of us would have expected the penny would have dropped by now, through sixty years of Israeli defiance of international law over refugees, settlements and occupation, through desperate efforts by Palestinians, some peaceful and some not, to demand Israeli compliance with the law, through 60 years of international community failure to condemn effectively Israeli non-complaince while condemning Palestinian resistance to Israeli crimes.

Now your editorial blames Hamas refusal to comply with the three absurd "conditions", none of which are required by any law, except the law of the bully.

Grow up.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Leadbeater


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/opinion/26mon1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Editorial

The Hamas Conundrum

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice moves into the final days of her Middle East trip, she still needs to come up with a way to translate the current lull in the violence between Israel and the Palestinians into an opening for genuine peace negotiations.

Sweden joins other European nations in show of support for Palestinian coalition

SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer

March 24, 2007 1:05 PM

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Sweden joined several other European countries in a show of support for the new Hamas-Fatah coalition, dispatching its foreign minister for talks Saturday with his Palestinian counterpart despite Israel's call for a diplomatic boycott.

In Gaza, Fatah supporters clamored for revenge against the Islamic militant Hamas, as they buried the fourth victim of factional fighting this week. The renewed violence, which also claimed the life of a 4-year-old boy caught in crossfire, raised concerns that the power-sharing deal between the rivals might not hold.

Last week, Hamas and the Fatah movement of moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas formed a new government, replacing a Hamas Cabinet that had been shunned by the world because of Hamas' violently anti-Israel ideology.

The new coalition's platform is more moderate than that of its predecessor. It calls for setting up a Palestinian state in the lands Israel occupied in the 1967 Mideast War, implying recognition of the Jewish state. However, it still falls short of international conditions for acceptance, such as explicit recognition of Israel and renunciation of violence.

Abbas has said the coalition is the only way to avert civil war, and has urged the international community to end its boycott. More than 140 Palestinians were killed in factional fighting in the past year.

Since the formation of the new government, several countries have announced they would deal with its non-Hamas members, and a U.S. diplomat has met with Finance Minister Salam Fayyad.

The Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, was to meet later Saturday with Abbas and others at Abbas' West Bank headquarters.

Bildt also planned to meet with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and members of the Israeli parliament. Israel has urged the international community to shun all members of the new government, and said it will limit talks with Abbas to humanitarian issues.

Norway, a major donor to the Palestinians, was the first country to lift sanctions against the Palestinian Authority. Norway's deputy foreign minister Raymond Johansen met earlier this week with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, becoming the first high-ranking Western official to do so.

Russia and France have said sanctions against the Palestinian Authority should be lifted.

In Gaza, meanwhile, hundreds of Fatah supporters clamored for revenge against Hamas. They marched in the funeral of Arafa Nofal, a pro-Fatah security man, whose bullet-riddled body was found outside the home of a Hamas-allied family late Friday, hours after he was kidnapped, security officials said.

Nofal's family carried his bruised body, wrapped in Fatah's yellow flag and a Palestinian flag, through the streets of Gaza City. ''The response is coming, the response is coming,'' shouted the mourners, including dozens of gunmen.

AP-WS-03-24-07 1559EDT

Israel risks isolation as Hamas-Fatah coalition takes office

· US fails to join boycott over peace conditions
· Europe and UK sound out moderates in new cabinet

Ian Black, Middle East editor, Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Friday March 16, 2007
The Guardian

Israel seems to be heading for confrontation with Britain and the EU after announcing a total boycott of the new Palestinian national unity government, due to be sworn in tomorrow after months of factional violence and political uncertainty.

"Israel will not deal with this new government and we hope the international community will stand firmly by its own principles and refuse to deal with a government that says no to peace and no to reconciliation," said Mark Regev, the foreign ministry spokesman.

Israel objects to the new government's failure to meet the three conditions laid down by the international community: recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace agreements. But Britain and the EU appear willing to deal with the unity government on a selective basis, and there are signs that even the US - anxious to appease its conservative Arab allies - may part company with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, over the issue. Washington conspicuously failed to announce a boycott of its own, saying it was reserving judgment.

The Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, remains prime minister and his Islamist movement continues to have a major influence. Other key positions have been given to moderate independents in the hope of lifting the international financial boycott and alleviating the deepening economic crisis, especially in Gaza.

Diplomats said yesterday that the US had been close to agreeing to a total boycott but "pulled back from the brink" and agreed to work with the reforming finance minister, Salam Fayyad, a US-educated economist who has worked for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, would like to open discussions with the non-Hamas members, in particular Mr Fayyad, it is understood. "It will be hard for the Americans to support a complete boycott," said one ambassador.

Asked if the White House would deal with Mr Fayyad, including as a channel for US aid funds, the state department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "Any questions about who we will or will not deal with, we are just going to wait."

But a senior British official was pessimistic, saying: "My impression at the moment is that the Americans are unwilling to work with the new government."

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and Fatah leader, has been in close contact with the US as well as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan in recent days. Britain has told Israel it will deal with non-Hamas ministers - the official formulation is "different people in the government" - and other EU governments are likely to follow. France hailed the coalition as a "new page" in relations with the international community but linked future cooperation to Palestinian efforts to halt violence against Israel and secure the release of a captured Israel soldier, Gilad Shalit.

Final positions have yet to be agreed in internal discussions in several key capitals. "There's a huge row going on," said one European diplomat. "The Foreign Office is arguing with Downing Street, the state department with the national security council, and the German chancellery with the German foreign ministry."

Officials in Brussels said the EU might send funds through Mr Fayyad as a first step towards restoring direct assistance. Another possibility is broadening an existing mechanism for delivering purely humanitarian relief to include direct payments to the Palestinian government.

"We will not be taking any decisions before we have been able to judge the programme and actions of the new administration," said Emma Udwin, a spokeswoman for the European commission.

Under the spotlight will be the new government's political programme, which remains vague. Policies include continuing a four-month truce with Israel in Gaza and talk of "respecting" previous peace deals. However there is no explicit recognition of Israel and the platform appears to reaffirm a broad "right of resistance". The policies are broadly based on a Hamas-Fatah agreement reached last year.

Factional fighting, which continued sporadically in Gaza yesterday, has killed more than 130 Palestinians. Restoring security will be the job of the new interior minister, Hani Kawasmeh, a low-key, independent bureaucrat who has inherited the most difficult position in the government.

The hope is that even partial western engagement with the new government will create some sense of momentum before the Arab summit in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, at the end of the month.

Israel rejects peace, er, new Palestinian government

Israel rejects new Palestinian government (Extra)

Mar 15, 2007, 12:43 GMT

Jerusalem - Israel rejected out of hand the new Palestinian unity government presented Thursday and urged Western leaders to stand firm on their pledge to boycott any government that refused to recognize the Jewish state, renounce violence and accept past interim peace deals.

'Unfortunately there's nothing explicit or implicit in the programme which shows acceptance of the three benchmarks of the international community,' Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mark Regev said.

'There is no recognition of Israel. There is no renunciation of terrorism and there is no acceptance of the signed agreements in the peace process,' he told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

'The Israeli government will not deal with this new government and it is our hope that the international community will stand behind its own principles and not deal with a government that says no to peace and no to reconciliation.'

© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Hypocrisy

The cloud of guilt over the fact that fulfilling the Zionist enterprise entailed destruction of the Palestinian nation will not dissipate

Only the Palestinians can grant Israel legitimacy
---
Haaertz
Last update - 11:58 01/03/2007

The metamorphoses of legitimization

By Meron Benvenisti

Among the conditions for ending the boycott of a Palestinian government headed by or including Hamas, the condition of recognizing Israel stands out. This can be expressed either in ideological terms (recognizing its right to exist) or diplomatic terms (recognizing the state and honoring agreements with it). At first glance, such a condition is self-evident: Someone who does not recognize the existence of the Jewish state seeks its destruction, and therefore, it would be wrong to aid this existential enemy, even if holding back humanitarian aid hurts millions of innocents.

Hamas leaders' insistence on not deviating from their refusal to recognize Israel, "regardless of how much the United States and the Quartet pressure us," is not only a position that rests on religious principles. It also reflects a basic Palestinian worldview: Only the Palestinians, the victims of Zionism, are capable of granting the Jewish state legitimacy. Granted, they are an occupied and defeated people, but as long as they insist on the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise and maintain that Israel, having been founded on stolen Palestinian lands, has no right to exist, the cloud of guilt over the fact that fulfilling the Zionist enterprise entailed destruction of the Palestinian nation will not dissipate.

Denying the legitimacy of the Jewish state, 60 years after its establishment and its consolidation as a regional power, seems at first glance like a blunt, rusty weapon. And indeed, it has already been said that it is not Israel that needs Hamas' recognition, but the opposite: It is Hamas that needs Israel's recognition. But the fact is that Israel, which is haunted by the nightmare of the "return" of Palestinian refugees and bewails urgings that it "live by the sword," insists on obtaining Hamas' recognition and demands that the Quartet members not concede on this point.

Some will say that Israel's demand for "recognition of its right to exist" is no more than a pretense, a precondition presented so that Hamas would fail to meet it, thereby thwarting any progress toward an agreement, which would entail concessions. But past experience shows that Israel was willing to pay a fairly high price for Palestinian legitimization: The entire Oslo process was based on the fact that Yasser Arafat - with the support of many activists of the first intifada but contrary to others - decided to recognize Israel in exchange for its recognition of the PLO.

It was not long before this breakthrough - after which both sides began rewriting their histories based on mutual delegitimization - burned up in the flames of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Definitions of the other as "terrorists" and "the Satanic Zionist entity" reappeared. Only tattered scraps of mutual recognition were left, in the form of pathetic meetings between the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian Authority chairman. But even these faint echoes are dying away, as can be seen from the adoption of Hamas' formulations by senior Fatah officials and the Israeli retreat from any discussion of final-status issues. In the situation that has been created, mutual nonrecognition has become the stumbling block that cannot be removed because it goes to the root of the Israeli and Palestinian experiences: If you do not recognize me, you are plotting to destroy me. If I recognize you, I will clear you of guilt for the disaster you inflicted on my people.

A long time will pass before the two sides are able to deal with the basic issues entailed by mutual recognition, and meanwhile, it is clear that anyone who insists on making this a condition for negotiations is seeking not peace, but a continuation of the conflict. As for those outside parties that are involved in setting conditions for "recognition," they should stay away from these existential issues because they do not even begin to understand what "recognizing the right to exist" means to both sides. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict revolves around fundamental questions of self-identity, self-expression and a fight over symbolic and tangible assets. It is a struggle over the supreme values of identity and survival. The path of wisdom involves translating all this into rational terms and not dealing with the metaphysics of "recognizing the right to exist."

Letter from Jerusalem

17 February 2007

Dear Friends,

Embedded in this message is my latest letter from Jerusalem. Please feel free to distribute it as you choose. I do ask that you attach my contact information as you send it out. If you would like to be added to the mailing list, just drop me a brief message. Thanks for your prayers and support.

Friends, the government of Israel is afraid – very afraid. No, the administration does not fear for its existence, its security, or even the loss of its annual gift of $3.1 billion, no strings attached, from the United States. Rather, its anxiety is growing that it may actually have to negotiate its borders, the continuation of its illegal settlements on Palestinian land, its total control over Gaza, its stranglehold on Jerusalem, before it has eaten all the land, water, and roadways it can digest politically. Israel’s creeping occupation of the land still remaining to the Arab inhabitants of historic Palestine before 1967—just 22% of that area, by the way—is based on its ability to keep its tactics just below the level of international sensitivity and outrage.

Thus, it is always to its advantage when Palestinians are seen by the rest of the world as causing a violent crisis or confrontation. So, just what is happening now? In January 2006, Palestinians elected their legislators. To just about everyone's surprise the Hamas party gained a clear majority. While a bewildered Hamas—which never believed it would be forced to govern at the present—wandered through the first weeks, and a dazed, defeated Fatah pondered its future, Israel and the United States leaped into action. First Israel announced that it would impound $55 million per month in funds that belong absolutely to the Palestinian government, thus making it impossible for the new Hamas government to pay its workers. Then the United States proclaimed that it would not deal with Hamas in the smallest transaction, imposing draconian restrictions on any entity who worked with Palestinians using U.S. funds. Israel followed these initial steps by refusing to allow Palestinian legislators even to meet in a body. Then they arrested 38 Palestinian legislators and imprisoned them. Those men remain in Israeli prisons to this very day, and they have never been charged with a crime. Then came the harshest step of all: Israel reduced the flow of food and medical supplies into Gaza to a trickle, just large enough to stave off starvation and epidemic. Previous to these actions they had announced to a "grateful" world that Israel had ended its occupation of Gaza, neglecting the tiny detail that its armed forces maintained absolute control over air, land, sea, commerce, and borders of Gaza. It was a more brutal occupation than existed before the so-called "disengagement" of 2005. One Israeli "journalist" had the gall to write in a local newspaper that Palestine had been given a Sovereign State. Some even believed her. Everybody seemed to ignore the injustice inherent in these acts, because the all-powerful mantra of "Security" was chanted every time a question was raised.

My question at this point is a simple, rhetorical one: Is there any doubt that Israel and the United States were consciously pushing the Palestinian people toward civil conflict? They were eminently successful – for a while. For a time there was open warfare. Innocent and guilty people alike suffered mightily. Far too many died. But now that is ending. Fatah and Hamas have agreed on a way to move forward together. Predictably, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has already voiced her skepticism. Both Israel and its great ally the United States are nervous. The cessation of hostilities means that the specter of internecine violence will no longer provide a ready excuse to avoid substantive negotiations. They are afraid that, as I mentioned above, their tactics may well exceed the world's level of tolerance. People might learn that Hamas is not the only party or entity to claim the whole of historic Palestine for its religion. Nearly a dozen years earlier the Likud Party declared that all of that same land belonged to Israel and the Jewish people. Or people may support the demand that Hamas "recognize" Israel's right to exist, but they may also make a reciprocal demand that Israel and the United States "recognize" a Hamas-led government as the legitimate, elected representative of the Palestinian people. If there are no scenes of bloody violence the world may seize this moment to demand that negotiations begin in earnest for lasting peace with real justice for all.

All of us can understand when people are afraid. We, as God's people, will stand solidly with them, but we must not, we dare not stand with any who would use the tools of the oppressor to drive away our hopes for peace. Now is the time for all people who see worth in all others to join together in the direction which will result in two states, two peoples, with security and justice and freedom for both.

And yet one thing more: the issues I spoke of above are the kinds of questions that will only be resolved when all sides agree to respect the others and to work together for answers acceptable to all. If I remember my history correctly, that's the way we have always acted when we truly desired peace with justice.

Russell O. Siler, Pastor
English-speaking Congregation
Lutheran Church of the Redeemer
Jerusalem, Old City
thesilers@earthlink.net

The recognition trap

Condoleezza Rice is visiting Jerusalem, but nothing will change until the Quartet drops its demand for Hamas to accept Israel's right to exist.

February 19, 2007 1:10 PM

Alex Stein

It better be worth it, I thought to myself, as I waited for my heavily delayed bus to take me into town. The reason for the delay? Condoleezza Rice's latest "babysitting" visit, this time for a three-way summit with Ehud Olmert and Abu Mazen, at the David's Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem.

As the bus finally arrived, I suppressed my hysteria and reminded myself that the meeting would have about as much chance of resurrecting the Middle East peace process as my trilateral pint the previous night with fellow Comment is free bloggers Seth Freedman and Josh Freedman Berthoud.

There are many reasons for the moribund state of Israeli-Palestinian relations at the moment, but the central issue is that of recognition. One of the Quartet's demands for ending the boycott on the Palestinians is that the new government recognise Israel. This is clear enough. De facto recognition is a clear concept in international relations; actors in the international system (state, non-state and quasi-state) only have formal relations with one another once there is mutual recognition. If the Palestinian government refuses to recognise Israel, it cannot expect Israel (and by extension many of Israel's allies) to deal with it.

But it's not that simple. The issue of Palestinian recognition of Israel has been deliberately conflated with another idea - that of Israel's "right to exist". This is an unknown concept in the international system, and seems to have been invented by Israel/America in the 1970s, so as to raise the bar even further in response to tentative steps by the PLO towards acceptance of a two-state solution. Asking the Palestinians to accept the right of Israel to exist is akin to asking them to accept the moral legitimacy of its creation.

The best response to this question has been provided by Noam Chomsky, who was asked if Israel was a legitimate state. In other words, does Israel have a "right to exist"?

I don't think the notion of legitimacy of a state means very much. Is the United States a legitimate state? It's based on genocide; it conquered half of Mexico. What makes it legitimate? The way the international system is set up, states have certain rights; that has nothing to do with their legitimacy.

Every state you can think of is based on violence, repression, expulsion, and all sorts of crimes. And the state system itself has no inherent legitimacy. It's just an institutional form that developed and was imposed with plenty of violence.

The question of legitimacy just doesn't arise. There is an international order in which it is essentially agreed that states have certain rights, but that provides them with no legitimacy, Israel or anyone else.

The demand that the Palestinians recognise Israel is a reasonable one, and it's incredibly frustrating that Hamas has not yet done so. While I understand what brought Hamas to power, it is beyond me why they don't have enough sense of realpolitik to issue some sort of brief statement recognising that the international system contains a state by the name of Israel.

This would truly put the ball in the court of the Israeli government, which has never genuinely acknowledged the right of the Palestinians to a fair and viable state. The reason for this refusal, I fear, lies in the intransigence that goes to the heart of all fundamentalist movements - to recognise Israel would go against Hamas' very raison d'etre. If this is the case, then the Palestinian tragedy looks set to continue.

Either way, though, the demand that Hamas recognise Israel's "right to exist" is an absurd one. Uri Avnery described it in the following way: "Must a Native American recognise the right of the United States of America to exist?"

I do not expect the Palestinians to particularly like the fact that Israel exists. In this I concur with Vladimir Jabotinsky, who acknowledged that Zionism would entail, at least partly, the dispossession of the Palestinians, and who also understood that they did not have to like it in order to accept it.

I am of the belief that sufficient numbers of Palestinians do recognise Israel's existence and are keen to make peace with it. The Iron Wall has worked. Calls for them to go an extra step and accept our "right to exist" are designed in the knowledge that they will not be fulfilled, so as to preclude the possibility of a lasting settlement.

Until this demand is dropped, there will be no progress, no matter how much "babysitting" Condi does.

Alex Stein grew up in London, and went to university at Manchester and Cambridge.

He is a freelance writer and educator based in Jerusalem.

He blogs at www.falsedichotomies.com and can be emailed at alex.stein@talk21.com

US and Israel agree boycott plan

The US and Israel will not work with a new Palestinian unity government unless it recognises Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said.

He spoke as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice prepared for three-way talks with Mr Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Mr Olmert said he and US President Bush had agreed on their position on Friday.

Hamas, the largest group in the proposed Palestinian unity government, refuses to recognise Israel.

Mr Olmert said a Palestinian government that failed to accept conditions laid down by the quartet of the US, EU, Russia and UN "cannot receive recognition and there will not be co-operation with it".

"I spoke about this on Friday with the president of the United States, and I can tell you the Israeli and US positions are completely identical," Mr Olmert said in televised comments.

Power-sharing deal

The EU, US and Russia have maintained an economic boycott of the Palestinian government since Hamas won legislative elections in January last year.

If one waited for the perfect time to come to the Middle East then one would never get on the airplane Condoleezza Rice US secretary of state

After weeks of internal fighting, Hamas and the rival Fatah faction agreed last week to form a national unity government.

As a result, Ismail Haniya, of Hamas, resigned from his post as prime minister on Thursday and was asked by Mr Abbas, who heads Fatah, to form a new national unity government.

Ms Rice spent more than two hours in talks with Mr Abbas in the West Bank town of Ramallah on Sunday. She then held talks in Jerusalem with Mr Olmert.

Before those meetings, Ms Rice said it was an important time to advance the vision of a Palestinian state.

Mr Olmert's comments will add to doubts about whether the US will engage with a new Palestinian unity government.

Many observers wonder whether the two embattled leaders, Mr Olmert and Mr Abbas, are strong enough to take the difficult steps towards peace, says the BBC's Bethany Bell in Jerusalem.

Moderation urged

Speaking after talks with Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Ms Rice said now was "an important time to talk about how we advance the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and in freedom".

But she and Ms Livni both stressed that any new Palestinian coalition government must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past peace agreements.

Ms Rice arrived in Israel after a brief visit to the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, where she reviewed a new security plan intended to reduce violence in the city.

She said the US would "await the formation of a [Palestinian] government before making any decisions about it".

"If one waited for the perfect time to come to the Middle East then one would never get on the airplane," she added.

Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel has led to a crippling ban on Western financial aid since the party came to power.

Meanwhile, factional fighting between Fatah and Hamas has claimed more than 90 Palestinian lives since December.

Mr Haniya now has five weeks to get a new cabinet accepted by the Hamas-dominated parliament.

But if Hamas maintains its position regarding Israel, there is concern that any talks brokered by Washington will be futile, correspondents say.

The Mecca Agreement: What Should We Expect?

The Makkah Agreement: What Should We Expect? By RAMZY BAROUD The Makkah agreement, signed between rival Palestinian groups, Hamas and Fatah on February 8, under the auspices of the Saudi leadership, was welcomed by thousands of cheering Palestinians throughout the occupied territories, and seen as the closing of a chapter of a bloody and tumultuous period of their history. Officially, although more subtly, there is an equal eagerness to bring a halt to an oppressive command of economic and diplomatic sanctions that have rendered most Palestinians unemployed and living well below the poverty line. In fact, almost all Palestinians want to remember, if they must, the bloody clashes that claimed the lives of over 90 people since December as a distant memory, a bitter deviation from a norm of unity and national cohesion, according to which they want their struggle to be remembered. Diplomatically, aides to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, and advisors to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh are fanning out across the globe, each group heading to its traditional political milieus: the former group to Western Europe and the United States, and the latter to Middle Eastern and Islamic countries. Both Fatah and Hamas are keen to demonstrate that by endorsing the agreement, their fundamental position remains unchanged, an arduous task indeed. The official reactions to the agreement, emanating from the four corners of the globe are hardly encouraging. The so-called Middle East Quartet -- consisting of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia -- although they welcomed the agreement, hoping that it might produce the desired ‘calm’, reiterated their conditions that must be unreservedly ratified by the Palestinian government if the sanctions are to be lifted; these conditions are the recognition of Israel, the renouncing of violence and the acceptance of past agreements signed between both parties, namely the Oslo Accords. Though the Quartet is seen to have withheld its final judgment on whether the formulation of the unity government constitutes an acceptance, either directly or by implication of its three conditions, Israel is embarking on its own diplomatic campaign to heighten pressure. Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, who was recently in Munich to attend a global security conference, has reportedly met EU’s defence and security coordinator Javier Solana, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign ministers of Austria, Sweden and other countries. She has also spoken to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice twice over the phone, as reported in the Israeli daily Haaretz. Her phone diplomacy has also reached Germany, Britain and Norway. Livni’s behaviour is but a mere expression of the attitude that is currently being developed in Israel; the international community must continue to pressure Palestinians until the three conditions are satisfied in full from an Israeli point of view. The main predicament to the Israeli quest, however, is the same old dilemma: Palestinians can never, under any circumstances and no matter how great concessions are; meet Israeli expectations, for these expectations are crafted in so clever a way that makes is practically impossible for any Palestinian leader or government to comply. Neither late President Yasser Arafat, who wore an Israeli flag pin side by side with a Palestinian one on his Khaki jacket managed to live up to Israel’s seemingly ‘reasonable’ demands, nor did his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, who was ironically elevated in his political relevance to become the darling of Israel and Washington when Hamas swept the majority of the vote in the legislative elections of January 2006, which subsequently led to the devastating sanctions. The Israeli government labelled Abbas ‘weak’ and ‘indecisive’. He too, by the same standards, was not able to meet Israel’s conditions, why should we expect Hamas or any other to do so? The practical Israeli position -- as opposed to rhetorical - is rather clear and should not involve any exaggerated analysis: let Palestinians continue to be collectively punished, succumb to internal feuds and dwell in their limitless misery to allow Israel the needed time to further consolidate its territorial schemes in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem: locking up more Palestinian communities in Bantustan-like localities, while Jewish settlements continue to be conveniently linked up to so-called “Israel proper” using the pretext of security and the mammoth and encroaching imprisonment wall as the means to such and end. The Makkah agreement’s import stems from whether it will present Israel with the opportunity to discredit Palestinians’ intentions, thus prolonging the international sanctions and internal chaos. Interestingly, these two points are also the core of the Palestinians efforts, who hope that the agreement, in which Hamas commits to ‘abide’ by past agreements signed by the PLO and Israel, is sufficient to end the effective state of chaos in the occupied territories and convince the international community that enough concessions have been made and that time has arrived for the sanctions to be lifted. This is likely to be the Israeli and Palestinian quest for the next few weeks, especially as the final judgment on the Makkah agreement is likely to be pronounced after two significant meetings: a tripartite summit that would bring together Rice, Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday, February 19, and two days later, a crucial meeting in Berlin of the Quartet’s ministers. Evidently, the US final position is expected to be slightly amended, if not a carbonic copy of that of Israel; no surprises there since President Bush’s administration foolishly amalgamated its Middle East policy with Israel’s self-serving national and regional agenda. But one must not be too hasty as to make such a determination without consulting the significance of the place in which the agreement was signed: Saudi Arabia. There is no doubt that the Saudi position has finally revitalised the role of Arab states in regional conflicts (the Makkah agreement was signed after incessant talks between Fatah and Hamas in Egypt and Jordan). London-based Saudi analyst Mai Yamani suggests that the Makkah agreement is an attempt to quell Iran’s growing influence in the region. "Iran has been financing Hamas, while the Saudis in the last few months even refused to meet (Hamas Prime Minister Ismail) Haniyeh. They realised that if there is more chaos in the Palestinian territories Iran will have more influence." If that assessment is accurate, partly or entirely, and considering the US’ own endeavours to undermine Iran’s strategic outreach in the region, it might indeed be rational for the US to live with the Makkah agreement and deal with the ‘moderate’ elements within the Palestinian government, even if temporarily. Yet again, the US hardly behaves in accordance with its own interests in the Middle East if such attitudes run counter to Israel’s own regional designs. The next a few weeks will reveal the potency of the Makkah agreement, as opposing interpretations of what it in fact means and how such meaning should be implemented will determine the next step for all parties involved. Its failure, however, which remains a dreadful possibility, shall have detrimental affects on the Palestinian people, any prospect for their coveted future unity and will further undermine their national agenda for years to come. -Ramzy Baroud’s latest book, The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press), is available at Amazon.com and also from the University of Michigan Press. He is the editor of PalestineChronicle.com; his website is ramzybaroud.net

Bush and Olmert Get That Peace Process Hoodoo

Feb 17, 2007

By James Brooks

Who is not happy to see movement in the old dead limbs of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? The Bush administration wants to give the Palestinians a “diplomatic horizon”, and that must be better than “diplomatic isolation, economic blockade, and military occupation”.

Israeli PM Olmert, PA President Abbas, and US Secretary of State Rice will meet in Jerusalem next week for a summit. They may not actually discuss peace, but at least they’ll talk about the peace process. That will give folks back home a bit of good news, a welcome break from the war process. Maybe the old sentimental magic will work one more time: “The US has got the Israelis and Palestinians talking to each other. Perhaps the world is looking up!”

In a universe more proximate to reality, Olmert’s poll numbers have been in the tank since Israel’s atrocious, inept, and illegal war on Lebanon last summer. Now he’s the subject of a police probe into multiple allegations of abuse of office. Like past Israeli prime ministers in a tight spot, Olmert seeks the rituals of the peace process to restore his respectability and importance and give his ratings a sorely needed boost.

Olmert is being encouraged by Bush, who owes him one. In December, Olmert wanted to squeeze his peace process juice from Syrian President Assad’s offer of unconditional bi-lateral talks. Bush told him it was out of the question.

But Bush needs the peace process hoodoo just as much as Olmert does, if not more. So the US has become uncharacteristically “engaged in the process”, as if it could finally pull off some diplomacy in the Middle East that actually looks like diplomacy.

Once the image hits the brain, however, we see this “push for peace” is merely “pushing peace”, like selling a drug that takes the public to a Neverland where the military occupation of Iraq accomplishes its liberation.

Originally, the upcoming summit was billed as the kickoff for ‘final status’ negotiations. In preparation, Olmert announced that he would refuse to discuss Jerusalem, withdrawal to Israel’s borders, and the rights of Palestinian refugees. This goes beyond ‘non-starter’—it hides the keys to the car.

Even if Olmert was willing to be serious, he is too weak and vulnerable at home to lead Israel, inevitably kicking and screaming, into an agreement with the Palestinians. If he’s convicted of any of the current allegations he could wind up behind bars.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas has his own mountain of political troubles, although graft is not one of them. Last week in Mecca his fractious Fateh party pledged to end months of street warfare with the majority Hamas party. Their accord requires the reassembly of the Palestinian Authority government, a process that has just begun and is not certain of success.

In normal diplomacy, you don’t launch negotiations when one of the parties is between governments. But that’s the wonderful thing about the vicious war on the Palestinians. They’re almost always ready to come to talks, whenever Israel and the US find it convenient to stage them.

The Israelis don’t even have to stop their daily kidnapping raids in the West Bank, or cease their relentless expansion of illegal settlements, or allow Palestinians back into the Jordan Valley, a huge chunk of the West Bank they have now virtually annexed. Israel can even use the extra diplomatic space its gains by being “ready to talk” to stage a major provocation or two.

Right on cue comes a blatantly illegal excavation and renovation project at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, with Olmert’s enthusiastic support. Maneuvers like these are designed to humiliate, inciting Palestinian anger that can be used to undermine the peace process.

An adroit Israeli prime minister can earn points for starting an episode of the peace process, and more points for ending it. By excluding the major issues before the summit begins, Olmert has ensured its failure, which will restore his right-wing Likud roots, soothe the noxious settlers, and win his ultimate Zionist badge of honor—for refusing to yield land and rights stolen from the Palestinians.

The US is bringing its own deal-killers to the summit. Advisors to Mr. Abbas have been told the US will not deal with any party in the new Palestinian government, because it will fall short of demands to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and accept past agreements. The US will speak only with Mr. Abbas and his office.

This expanded boycott may seriously undermine the rocky effort to put together the unity government, pushing occupied Palestine back into chaos in pursuit of the same failed policy.

Elliot Abrams, the “last neocon standing” in the Bush administration, has been encouraging and arming Fateh to crush Hamas for a year now. The result? A unity government agreement.

The US-enforced financial blockade against the PA has succeeded only in wrecking the Palestinians’ economy and social services and deepening their already alarming poverty.

But the US is undeterred by the rotten fruit of its policies. Now it says that Abbas must convince Hamas to knuckle under!

Remarkably, the Quartet (Russia, EU, UN, US) continues to support this pointless campaign to overturn a free and fair election. But there are signs the unanimity won’t last forever. Saudi Arabia, always among the wisest voices on this issue, is now poised to ignore the boycott and resume its financial aid to the PA.

Beset by failures, the Bush team needs the peace process in order to save face. They also need something that makes them look reasonable, even good, while they join Israel in whipping the dogs of war toward Iran. This is why they want to give the Palestinians a "diplomatic horizon", not a deal they can accept.

This “horizon” is like the physical horizon facing millions of Palestinians in the West Bank, where the field of view now terminates at a concrete wall, or an electric fence bordered by razor wire and electronic sensors. It is the horizon of a prison, like the Gaza Strip, where the people remain incarcerated within Israel’s elaborate system of multiple fences and naval patrols, and suffer malnutrition thanks to Israel’s iron grip on their border crossings. Israeli officials say all this will remain in any ‘final status’ with the Palestinians.

In the summit’s final act, US and Israeli leaders will probably unite to dismiss the Palestinian position as “unrealistic”, even “provocative”, no matter how closely it resembles international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and the right to armed resistance to illegal military occupation. The Bush gang may even use the failure as an excuse to escalate its war on Hamas.

Welcome to the peace process.


James Brooks serves as webmaster for Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel (www.vtjp.org). He can be contacted at jamiedb@wildblue.net.

U.S. to shun all members of Palestinian unity govt

Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:35AM EST

By Adam Entous

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States will boycott all Palestinian unity government ministers, including non-Hamas members, unless international demands on policy toward Israel are met, a Palestinian official and diplomats said on Thursday.

Some U.S. officials had been advocating a shift in Washington's position that would allow limited diplomatic contacts with cabinet ministers from moderate President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction and other parties.

But a senior Palestinian official said: "The Americans have informed us that they will be boycotting the new government headed by Hamas. The Fatah and independent ministers will be treated the same way that Hamas ministers are treated."

Diplomats familiar with discussions on the issue confirmed Washington's intention to shun members of the unity government unless it satisfied international calls for Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept interim peace accords.

U.S. contacts with Abbas would not be affected although diplomatic sources said relations have been strained by his power-sharing deal with Hamas Islamists, a pact that fell short of meeting the demands for the policy changes.

U.S. officials declined to comment and said Washington was waiting to see how a new government would shape up.

Abbas will attend a summit on Monday with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

The Palestinian president was expected to hold talks in Gaza later in the day with Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas to try to resolve problems holding up the formation of a unity administration agreed in negotiations in Saudi Arabia last week.

Abbas abruptly put off an address he was due to give on Thursday about the new government. An official said the delay was due to a dispute with Hamas.

PROBLEMS

"Hamas has made several unacceptable conditions which cannot be implemented. The Mecca agreement cannot be re-interpreted and must be implemented immediately without any conditions," a Palestinian official said.

Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the current Hamas-led government, said on Israeli Army Radio "there are a lot of problems". He cited the naming of an interior minister, a post that oversees security services, as one of them.

Another unresolved issue is the fate of Hamas's 5,600-member "executive" police force. Fatah is pushing for the force to be broken up but Hamas wants to keep it together.

Fighting between Hamas and Fatah killed more than 90 Palestinians between late December and early February. Both movements cited the violence as a key motive for pursuing a power-sharing pact.

A ban on direct Western financial assistance since Hamas came to power in March has pushed the Palestinian Authority to the brink of financial collapse.

Complicating matters for any incoming government, top Palestinian bank officials said they would not resume transfers to the government without assurances from the United States.

Western diplomats said they doubted such assurances would be forthcoming. Regional and international banks have refused to transfer funds to the Hamas-led government since March for fear of running foul of U.S. sanctions.

Funds have been permitted to go through Abbas's office.

"We are waiting to see if the U.S. will approve the unity government. Nobody is going to jeopardize long-term contacts with the West. It (U.S. authorization) has to be very clear," said the head of a major Palestinian bank.

(Additional reporting by Wafa Amr in Ramallah)

Nita Lowey Carries Water for AIPAC, Throws Personal Wrench Into U.S. Mideast Policy

February 14, 2007 at 5:34 pm

It's classic guerrilla legislative tactics and it has AIPAC written all over it. Nita Lowey is one of AIPAC's staunchest allies in Congress and is the fifth on the House list (as of 2004) of career recipients of pro-Israel PAC campaign funds. And today, Reuters reports that thanks to her, Condi Rice has yet another headache to deal with as she prepares for her three-way Israeli-Palestinian-U.S. summit on Monday:

A Bush administration request for $86 million in U.S. funds to help train and equip Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's security forces is being blocked by a U.S. lawmaker who has concerns about how the money might be used.

"Early last week, I placed a hold on the $86 million," Rep. Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, told Reuters on Tuesday. "It is imperative that we have a fuller understanding of exactly what the funding is for and what the situation is on the ground," said Lowey, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, which controls U.S. funding for domestic and foreign projects.

While Lowey said she had acted to hold up the money before last week's deal between Abbas and Hamas leaders to form a unity government, that agreement "raised additional questions."

Lowey said she has asked the State Department to provide more information on how the $86 million would be used.

And lest you think this might be a one-off thing for Lowey, she seems to be a serial offender on the issue of blocking Palestinian aid according to Eric Alterman.

So let's explain how it goes. AIPAC worries that Condi may use too much force against the Israeli position in the talks; that she may, for example, consider ending the U.S. siege on Gaza and the PA. So it sends a shot across Condi's bow by bottling up the $86 million the Bush Administration has allocated to support Mahmoud Abbas and his political position among the Palestinians. The message is: if you dare to cross AIPAC's position on any of this we'll twist your Mideast policy in knots.

It's all pretty pro forma and SOP for AIPAC. Of course, it is a vapid, bankrupt response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's simply stonewalling for stonewalling's sake. So tiresome and yet so familiar.

And proof that Lowey's action is mere grandstanding lies in this closing sentence from the article:

Neither Lowey nor aides specified what information she wants from the State Department to convince her to lift her hold on the $86 million.

Shmuel Rosner provides his usual mis-coverage of the story, which he (or someone at Haaretz) erroneously titles, Congress Blocks $86m in Aid to PA:

The Bush administration's pledge to transfer $86 million to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was blocked by Congress. The U.S. administration had publicly pledged the funds, but a number of congressmen are skeptical about the funding.

First regarding the headline, all media sources I've seen except this one have noted the aid is intended to buttress Mahmoud Abbas, not the PA, which is controlled by Hamas. Second, Abbas is president of the PA and not chairman (that was Arafat). Third, the Reuters story above clearly says that only Lowey has put a hold on the appropriation. There is no mention of "a number of congressmen [sic]." Also, I hope that Rosner's editor (does he even have one?) realizes that Lowey is not a "Congressman." Returning to our point, there may be a number of Congress members who support Lowey, but I've nowhere seen any reference to their existence. So unless Rosner can present those names with proof that they exist, Haaretz shouldn't include such a statement. In addition, to say that a hold placed by a single member of Congress constitiutes being "blocked by Congress" is a wholly inflated statement which doesn't deserve seeing the light of day in an otherwise stellar newspaper.

Hat tip to Brit Tzedek Newsdigest for the Reuters story.

Filed under Mideast Peace, Politics & Society

Permalink

Biography

I write Tikun Olam, a peace blog on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, U.S. politics and world music. I also maintain Israel Palestine Blogs, a Mideast peace blog aggregator.

I live in Seattle & share life with three young children, my wife & our dog.

Homepage

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/category/politics-society/

The Mecca agreement gives the west the chance to end its blackmail and recognise Palestinian rights

Our unity can now pave the way for peace and justice

Khalid Mish'al
Tuesday February 13, 2007
The Guardian

A historic new phase in the Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence has begun. Last week's Mecca agreement between Hamas and Fatah will pave the way for the first ever truly Palestinian national unity government. Hamas and Fatah, joined by all the other Palestinian factions, will now seek to rebuild Palestinian society following the destruction brought upon it by Israeli occupation and resume the campaign for our national rights.

We are determined to make sure that the recent internal fighting, which appalled our people and dismayed their supporters around the world, becomes history. We firmly believe that it would never have happened had it not been for foreign intervention and the brutal sanctions imposed on our people by Israel and its allies. The crisis would not have existed had international and regional powers respected the results of last year's democratic elections in Palestine.

The Mecca agreement has laid the foundations for a power-sharing process that will produce a functioning government capable of attending to our people's needs. It will also pave the way for rebuilding the PLO to include all the factions and become the legitimate representative of all Palestinian people. The partnership born out of the Mecca meeting is possible because of the consensus among the Palestinians that their primary objective is to win their freedom, and that their struggle should be solely against occupation. It is now up to the international community to respect this accord and the will of the Palestinian people.

We Palestinians have been the victims of invasion, occupation and oppression for almost a century. Yet we have been constantly blackmailed to make concessions and give up yet more of our legitimate rights. Since the elections of January 2006 our people have been boycotted and punished by the international community for exercising their democratic rights. In the meantime, Israel has continued to kill and detain Palestinians on a daily basis, demolishing hundreds of houses and making thousands homeless.

Today Israel has more than 11,000 of our brothers and sisters in jail and continues to deny millions of refugees the right to return to their homeland. It has defied international law by proceeding with the construction of the apartheid wall and building settlements on land expropriated from Palestinians. Meanwhile, excavation resumed last week in the compound of al-Aqsa mosque, and on Friday the mosque, to which access is denied to Palestinians below the age of 45, was invaded by Israeli troops who wounded scores of worshippers.

Now that Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a national unity government, the international community has no excuse to maintain the siege against our people. We know that many governments around the world are unhappy with these sanctions and want to see an end to them. The Palestinian national accord achieved in Mecca envisages the establishment of a truly sovereign and independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967 - with Jerusalem as its capital, the dismantling of the settlements in the West Bank, the release of all Palestinian prisoners and the acknowledgement of the right of the refugees to return to their homes.

Once translated into reality, this vision will pave the way for real peace in the region. There must be no more blackmail of Palestinians, for there is nothing else they can give away. Global powers should have learned by now that neither sanctions nor any other form of pressure or bribery will force the Palestinians to abandon their struggle for freedom and independence.

All previous peace proposals have failed because they were intended to impose an unjust pro-Israel settlement on our people, and were based on the assumption that the Palestinian struggle was a form of terrorism that the Palestinians had to renounce. The attempt to divide Palestinians into moderates and extremists or peacemakers and terrorists has failed. Now we are united in our determination to seek an end to oppression and occupation.

So, will the international community seize this historic opportunity, require Israel to respect our rights and stop hindering this attempt to turn the Palestinian national agreement into a reality? Or will it remain weak and ineffective in the face of Israeli intransigence and risk alienating not only Hamas but also Fatah and all the other Palestinian factions?

If the latter is the choice, the outcome will be dire indeed: the entire Middle East region will be driven towards another cycle of bloody escalation that may last for many years to come - and an entire Palestinian generation, which might not be willing to accept what we accept today, will be left profoundly embittered.

The west needs to wake up and realise that time is no longer on the side of Israel and its policies of occupation, destruction and expansion. Time no longer favours the continuation of policies biased towards Israel. It will not serve the best interests of the west to support Israel while it continues to terrorise our people, occupy our land, violate our basic human and national rights and encroach on Muslim and Christian holy places. Such blind support has proven to be very costly for the west and will increasingly damage its vital interests.

It must be understood by all that the people of Palestine have the key to both peace and war in the Middle East. There can never be peace and stability in the region without settling the Palestinian question. And that can only be achieved by ending the occupation and recognising our people's rights.

· Khalid Mish'al is head of the Hamas political bureau

khmishal@gmail.com

Text of Mecca Accord for Palestinian coalition government

Now Israel will get it's double agents in Gaza to reignite the Fatah-Hamas conflict. This will be Israel's pretext to send in the Military and pacify those naughty Palestinians. The U.S, U.K., Saudi Arabia, etc. can say, "See our intent was to broker peace, but the Palestinians screwed it up. The Israelis are big hero's saving the day." And the same shit goes on and on... After all, got to have a pretext to maintain and expand one of the world's most powerful militaries in the region.
---
Text of Mecca Accord for Palestinian coalition government

Text of the Palestinians' Mecca Accord, which came in the form of a letter from President Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, designating Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, of Hamas, to form the government:

"In my capacity as the head of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the president of the Palestinian Authority ...

a) I designate you to form the upcoming Palestinian government within the time specified under the basic law (five weeks.)

b) After forming the government and presenting it to us, it should be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.

c) I call upon you as the head of the upcoming Palestinian government to commit to the higher interests of the Palestinian people, to preserve its rights and to preserve its achievements and to develop them, and to work in order to achieve its national goals as was approved by the Palestine National Council, the clauses of the Basic Law and the National Reconciliation Document ... Based on this, I call upon you to respect international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (referring to peace accords with Israel)."

Breaking News: Palestinian rivals 'strike deal'

Last Updated: Thursday, 8 February 2007, 19:06 GMT

Palestinian factions 'agree deal'
BBC breaking news

Rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas have agreed to form a national unity government after talks in the Saudi city of Mecca, officials say.

Senior figures from both sides said a deal had been struck and would be signed in the coming hours.

There had been divisions over who would take the key post of interior minister.

The factions travelled to Saudi Arabia after weeks of violence between rival supporters, which left more than 20 people dead in recent clashes in Gaza.

Hamas ousted Fatah from power in elections in January 2006.

The Palestinian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Jamal al-Shubaki, said the accord would be signed on Thursday night in Mecca.

"We have agreed to form a national unity government. The agreement will be signed very soon," he said.

Agreement was reached earlier on Thursday on candidates for most posts in a national unity government.
The key position of interior minister, with control over most of the Palestinian security forces, is expected to go to a compromise candidate.

How Washington has helped spark chaos in Gaza, and why

Palestine, Bush's Other Civil War

Seth Ackerman

February 06, 2007

Seth Ackerman is a contributing writer to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. His piece for the October issue of Fair's magazine Extra!, "Mixed Signals," covers the history of misrepresentation of the Hamas government's stance towards negotiations and peaceable co-existence with Israel.

One year after Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian legislative elections, Palestinian politics are in chaos and the occupied territories stand on the brink of civil war. Hamas's increasingly moderate tendencies, heavily on display early last year, have since then run into a formidable wall of obstacles—most of all, Washington and Jerusalem’s staunch refusal to accept the will of Palestine’s voters.

Hamas, then only five years old, was the most potent of the anti-Oslo groups. As Israeli settlement-building accelerated and Arafat’s corruption spread, Hamas was able to exploit growing Palestinian disillusionment with Oslo and Arafat to attract support for its Islamist politics. But ironically, the stronger Hamas grew, the less tenable its stance of uncompromising militancy became. As a political power in its own right, Hamas was now expected by Palestinians to propose solutions instead of simply undermining the old regime. Its rejection of electoral politics looked increasingly pointless and even many Islamists began to see its grisly suicide bombings as counterproductive.

The decision to participate in last year’s vote represented a major shift for a group that had previously boycotted the Palestinian political system entirely. Hamas’ political turn was accompanied by quietly adjusting its stance on the conflict to bring it into line with the Palestinian mainstream. Although Hamas would not talk to Israel, it would support talks led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. While ruling out recognizing Israel itself, in the wake of its victory Hamas declared that recognition was a question for the Palestinian people to decide, and senior Hamas officials signaled that they would accept the results of a referendum on the matter if it came with a negotiated peace agreement.

But on one point, Hamas was firm: It refused to go back to the Oslo procedure of piecemeal talks under Washington’s auspices unless the ultimate terms of a peace deal were spelled out in advance—the borders of a Palestinian state, the refugee issue, the status of Jerusalem and so on. The problem was that Washington would not allow a mere election to interfere with the system it had so painstakingly constructed since the early 1990s.

Faced with the system’s collapse, Washington set to work constructing an international firewall. It corralled the European Union and Russia (through the mechanism of the Quartet) into a policy of isolating the new Palestinian government via an aid embargo and a cutoff of diplomatic contacts. Despite being freely elected, the new Hamas government would remain a pariah until it accepted three conditions that few expected it to meet: unconditional recognition of Israel, acceptance of the Oslo agreements and a renunciation of armed action.

For Abbas’ defeated Fatah movement, the choices were stark. Its pro-Oslo stance had failed to win an independent state and the corruption of its old guard had deeply eroded its popularity. One option was to work with Hamas to force the West into recognizing the new political reality by forming a joint government and presenting the world with a united front. The alternative was to join with the Bush administration in a campaign to force Hamas out of power despite its clear electoral victory. Advisors to the indecisive Abbas pushed both options.

Through much of the spring and summer, Abbas focused his attention on the prospects for a unity government. Despite the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas militants in July, such an agreement seemed to be sight by September. Two factors led to the breakthrough. First, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh agreed to accept the 2002 Arab League peace plan—which calls for recognition of Israel—as the basis for the new government. Secondly, European diplomats, fed up with Washington’s hardline stance, threatened to recognize a Palestinian unity government whether the U.S. agreed or not.

But in a private White House meeting on September 19, Bush vetoed the deal, threatening to cut off all contact with Abbas’ party if the Palestinian leader joined a government with Hamas that did not embrace the three conditions. Underscoring the extent to which Fatah had been reduced to a U.S. client regime, Abbas dutifully insisted the next day in public that any joint government would have to be based on Washington’s terms.

This was the start of the disintegration of Palestinian politics. Seeing no prospect for working with Hamas, Fatah moved closer to Washington’s plan to oust the elected government. Three weeks after Bush’s veto of the unity government, his Middle East security envoy, Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton presented a plan to arm and train Fatah militias in advance of a conflict with Hamas.

Ha’aretz reported that the administration was “certain that the sanctions against Hamas will inevitably result in a violent confrontation between Hamas and Fatah, and in such a scenario, they would prefer to strengthen the ‘good guys.’” Although desultory closed-door talks on a unity government continued, by December it was clear that no one expected them to yield an agreement. Hamas seemed to have repudiated the Arab League peace formula and Abbas was now talking openly of dissolving the parliament and calling new elections. (Whether he has the authority to do so is not clear.)

It was in this context that clashes between Fatah and Hamas militias began escalating. Last Thursday, Hamas Interior Ministry forces in Gaza interdicted a shipment of weapons from Israel destined for Fatah militias. Assassination attempts against officials of the two movements have been almost daily occurrences. Even more ominously, U.S.-allied Fatah elements seem to be trying to paint the conflict as part of a broader regional struggle between the U.S. and the Sunni client regimes on the one hand and Shiite Iran and Hezbollah and Sunni Hamas on the other. Cries of “Shia! Shia!” were heard at anti-Hamas demonstrations in recent weeks, while Fatah sources claimed (with no evidence) that Iranian weapons experts had been found at a Hamas stronghold in Gaza.

Israel has been conspicuously quiet about the turmoil, but clearly many Israeli officials see the fighting as a sign that the U.S.-Israeli strategy is paying off. Last month, Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, once again urged Abbas not to make a deal with Hamas. As Ha’aretz reported, she warned the Palestinian leader that “should he reach a compromise with Hamas, that would send the diplomatic process into a deep freeze.”

An even clearer indication came from Israel’s muted reaction to the suicide bombing at Eilat last week, which killed three bystanders at a bakery. Hamas was uninvolved in the attack, which was carried out jointly by Islamic Jihad and an offshoot of Fatah. But, as Ha’aretz explained, Jerusalem knew better than to respond: “When Fatah and Hamas are so good at killing each other, why should Israel intervene and spur them to close ranks against the common enemy?”

But chaos in the occupied territories will only serve to torpedo the chances for peace. As civil war looms in Gaza, it looks as if the Bush administration is making good on his pledge to export his Iraq model to the rest of the Middle East.