Showing posts with label peace process. Show all posts

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Carter: Israel Backers Demand ‘Subservience’

Rachel Mauro - JTA

(04/13/2007)

Carter: Israel Backers Demand ‘Subservience’

Receiving award, former president calls for U.S. peace push.

Former President Jimmy Carter says the U.S. should resume role as engaged “honest broker” in Middle East peace process.

Washington — Mideast peace is possible only with forceful U.S. engagement, former President Carter said as he received an award for speaking out on controversial topics.

Carter addressed some 400 people in Washington on April 4 as he received the Ridenhour Courage Prize, given in part because of his recent book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” The work infuriated many Israel supporters who saw it as one-sided.

“History has shown that progress is possible only if the United States of America assumes its historic role as honest broker between Israel and her enemy,” Carter said at the National Press Club, lamenting what he described as a six-year lapse in substantial peace efforts. “To play that essential role, America must not be seen as in the pocket of either side.”

Critics have said that by eschewing Clinton-era micro-management of the peace process, President Bush has allowed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester, feeding into other problems in the region as well.

Bush administration officials, noting the failure of Clinton’s peace efforts, have argued that the time is not ripe for a final peace deal and that it is fruitless to push until the Palestinians have made a decision to abandon terrorism in favor of peace.

Carter said the Bush administration and pro-Israel groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee prevent Americans from having a real debate on Middle East policy.

“The American friends of Israel, who demand such subservience, are in many cases sincere and well-intentioned people; I know them,” Carter said. “But on this crucial issue, they are tragically mistaken. Their demands subvert America’s ability to bring to Israel what she most desperately needs and wants -- peace and security within recognized borders.”

Carter received a standing ovation for his 25-minute speech, which did not ignore the controversy surrounding his most recent book.

“In the course of my life I have done these and other things that have sometimes provoked controversy, and in some cases I must admit that the criticisms may have been justified. But that would have to be the subject of another and much longer speech,” he said with a smile, as audience members laughed.

In this instance, however, Carter maintained that the opinions expressed in his book are in the best interests of Israelis, Palestinians and Americans.

At a news conference, he claimed that support for his book, including from what he said were prominent Jews, was consistently at 79 or 80 percent.

During the news conference, Carter addressed the issue of why he would not debate the claims in “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” with Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and vocal critic of the book. Critics claim Carter can make the case that Israel was oppressing the Palestinians only by falsifying important facts and omitting key context.

Dershowitz “has his own vivid and highly developed position on Israel. I don’t have any criticism of him, but I doubt that in recent years he has traveled extensively throughout the West Bank and Gaza to get to know Palestinian leaders, to observe the adverse impact of the wall and things of that kind,” Carter said, referring to Israel’s West Bank security fence.

Carter also conceded that Dershowitz is probably the better debater.

“I’m not sure that I would like to debate him because I don’t think he has a balanced position, which I do, obviously,” Carter concluded, grinning.

Rabbi Leonard Beerman, founder of the Leo Baeck Temple in Los Angeles and a member of committees such as the U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East, presented the award to Carter, saying his career had been fashioned “out of a persistent moral sensibility, even about the most sensitive and contentious issues, such as the rights of the Palestinians, for example.”

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

UPDATE: Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told

Israel abruptly cancels Vatican negotiating session.
Has Israel changed it's position and aligned with Islam?
Islamic Leader makes last minute cancellation of visit to Vatican Pope Benedict.
Saudi king slams 'illegitimate occupation' of Iraq
Israel snubs Condoleezza Rice
US open to separate dialogue with Arabs
Bush Alienates Closest U.S. Allies
---
By David Blair, in Riyadh

Last Updated: 1:38am BST 28/03/2007

Audio: David Blair on the Saudi warning

The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday.

As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today's summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails.


	Saudi foreign minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal, right, and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League

Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967.

This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer.

"What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally."

Speaking inside his whitewashed palace, surrounded by luxuriant lawns and manicured flower beds resembling a green oasis in the drabness of Riyadh, Prince Saud delivered an unequivocal warning to Israel.

"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said.

Prince Saud dismissed any further diplomatic overtures towards Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything," he said.

"Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved?

"The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."

Israel has numerous reservations about the Arab peace plan - which was previously proposed at a summit in 2002. Israel fears any hint that Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homes in the event of a peace settlement.

Prince Saud is the 66-year-old son of the late King Faisal. Relieved of the need to seek re-election, he has held office for 32 years.

Flush with oil money, Saudi Arabia is playing a more assertive role in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As well as securing the Arab peace plan, the Kingdom brokered the agreement between Hamas and Fatah - the two Palestinian factions - to form a unity government.

But western diplomats in Riyadh believe this resurgence in Saudi diplomacy stems from more than the kingdom's oil boom.

The menacing spectre of Iran, the rising Shia power with nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, looms large across the waters of the Gulf.

Saudi Arabia is quietly moving to contain its bellicose neighbour. Prince Saud offered conciliatory words to Iran, laced with coded criticism. "We have no inhibitions about the role of Iran," he said. "It is a large country. It wants to play a leading role in the region, and it has every right to do so. It is an historic country. But if you want to reach for leadership, you have to make sure that those you are leading are having their interests taken care of and not damaged."

Saudi Arabia has privately urged Iran to stop enriching uranium, in compliance with United Nations resolutions and lay to rest any suggestion that it is seeking nuclear weapons. Prince Saud called for a "Middle East free of nuclear weapons" with "no exceptions for anybody, be it Israel or Iran".

Asked whether the kingdom would consider seeking nuclear weapons of its own if Iran managed to acquire a bomb, Prince Saud replied: "We have made it very clear that we are not going down that road under any circumstances."

He paused for a moment, before adding, "under any foreseeable circumstances".

Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told

Israel abruptly cancels Vatican negotiating session.
Has Israel changed its position and aligned with Islam?
Islamic Leader makes last minute cancellation of visit to Vatican Pope Benedict.
Saudi king slams 'illegitimate occupation' of Iraq
Israel snubs Condoleezza Rice
US open to separate dialogue with Arabs
Bush Alienates Closest U.S. Allies
---
By David Blair, in Riyadh

Last Updated: 1:38am BST 28/03/2007

Audio: David Blair on the Saudi warning

The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday.


	Saudi foreign minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal, right, and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League

Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967.

Prince Saud dismissed any further diplomatic overtures towards Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything," he said.

"Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved?

"The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."

Prince Saud is the 66-year-old son of the late King Faisal. Relieved of the need to seek re-election, he has held office for 32 years.

But western diplomats in Riyadh believe this resurgence in Saudi diplomacy stems from more than the kingdom's oil boom.

The menacing spectre of Iran, the rising Shia power with nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, looms large across the waters of the Gulf.

He paused for a moment, before adding, "under any foreseeable circumstances".

Thursday, March 15, 2007

The lost five years of the peace process

Last update - 02:43 15/03/2007

By Akiva Eldar

On January 14, 2002, when the top government and military echelon sent the Israel Defense Forces in the midst of a truce to assassinate Raed Karmi, the head of Fatah's military arm in the Tul Karm area, Dr. Mati Steinberg, who was the advisor on Palestinian affairs to the head of the Shin Bet security service, was not a partner to the decision. On this occasion, too, his direct boss, Avi Dichter (now minister of internal security), did not want to know what his in-house expert thought about the political implications of harming another key Palestinian figure.

"Just as I feared," Steinberg recalled this week, "Karmi's assassination led to the scuttling of the truce that had lasted since December 16, 2001. Not only did the assassination push Fatah's people into carrying out suicide attacks and give the signal for competition between them and Hamas as to who could kill more Jews, it also led to Operation Defensive Shield, which pushed the Arab initiative to the margins and eliminated the opportunity to put the diplomatic track with the Palestinians on a route of direct connection with the Arab peace initiative for the first time."

Advertisement

Although the decision-makers tended to ignore his recommendations concerning targets of assassinations, Steinberg did not give up. He remained in the Shin Bet until 2003 and continued to write opinions. Since then he has been teaching at the Hebrew University and at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. One of his desk drawers contains an opinion he wrote in real time about the Arab peace initiative of March 2002.

In it, Steinberg compared the new positions of the Arab League to the traditional positions expressed in previous league resolutions. He pointed out what he defines as "the great change" - the willingness to end the conflict, to establish normal neighborly relations between the Arab states and Israel and to reach an agreed-upon solution to the refugee problem. The knowledge that the Arab states had begun to distribute the initiative's directives in various forums, without any connection to Israel's reaction, dispelled the last of his doubts. Steinberg was convinced that he had before him a document of historic importance. The document went as far as the office of the prime minister at the time, Ariel Sharon. "They contacted me on behalf of Sharon's military secretary and clarified the factual side of the League's resolution," recalls Steinberg. "I repeated the explanations I had written in the document and I never heard from them again. To the best of my knowledge there was never any discussion of this matter."

Several days later, an Israeli newspaper published an article by the government secretary at the time, Gideon Sa'ar (now a Likud MK), which "tore apart" the League's resolution. Steinberg believes Sa'ar read the document and tried to negate everything that looked like a change for the better in the Arab stance. "There was a syndrome operating here of 'if you don't want to look, you won't see,'" says Steinberg, bewailing the five lost years that have elapsed since then. "I remembered, despite all the differences, Mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini, who was opposed to the White Paper that granted him tremendous political achievements, and played straight into the hands of [David] Ben-Gurion."

A short while later, Yasser Arafat announced that he accepted the Arab initiative and had even sent Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), now Palestinian Authority Chairman, to Washington to inform the Americans of his decision. At the same time, IDF tanks were already tightening the siege on the Muqata PA government compound in Ramallah. "I realized that from the domestic perspective, the government was not able to hold back and refrain from taking action," says the former Shin Bet advisor, "but it is untenable that in the wake of the PA's acceptance of the initiative we would harm Jibril Rajoub's headquarters. What was the message to the Palestinian population? That pragmatism doesn't pay. I said that under no circumstances should the Palestinian government center be destroyed; Iran and Hamas would exploit the chaos and after them would come the global jihad."

Steinberg rejects the arguments made by people like Professor Shlomo Avineri, to the effect that the Arab League is trying to force preconditions for an agreement on Israel. It is hard for him to understand how serious people can argue that anyone is expecting Israel to withdraw from the territories without conducting detailed negations on borders, security arrangements, the holy sites and so on. According to him, the absence of a demand to evacuate the Jewish settlements in the territories, for example, is not by chance. It is clear to the Arabs that the way to an agreement passes through the negotiating table.

Since March 2001, Steinberg has been reading every word written in Arabic about the peace initiative. He has found that the Arab League is not proposing withdrawal first and normalization afterward, but rather arriving at both of them simultaneously. "Anyone who demands that normalization will lead to a withdrawal cannot negate a demand that the withdrawal will be a condition for the normalization."

Steinberg is not proposing that the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert start negotiations with the government of PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on the basis of the Arab initiative. "The Mecca agreement gives Abu Mazen the power of attorney to conduct the negotiations," he says. "Olmert meets with Abu Mazen anyway. The question is not with whom to speak but rather about what to talk."

To demonstrate this last argument, Steinberg plucks a quotation from remarks made by Ahmed Yousef, Haniyeh's advisor, in the most recent edition of the London-based A Sharq al Awsat. "Ideological changes can be expected in Hamas' thought, as we are prepared to relate positively to the Arab peace initiative, on condition that Israel sticks to it. Something that hasn't happened thus far," said Yousef. Steinberg believes that the Arab initiative is even more important today than it was five years ago. "Back then it had mainly an internal Palestinian context, whereas today this text is relevant to an external-regional context. It embodies not only a solution to the Palestinian problem but also reinforces the Sunni Arab center. And furthermore, the regional support can make it easier for the Palestinians to come to terms with concessions they cannot digest on their own."

194 = right of return?

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is demanding that the leaders of the 22 Arab states, who will convene at the end of the month in Riyadh in order to re-ratify the Arab League's peace initiative, excise the right of return from it. Unlike the Clinton outline (which proposes realizing the right of return in the Palestinian state), the Arab initiative does not mention this phrase, which frightens Israel. But Livni argues that the problematic term is hidden in the phrase "on the basis of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194," in the final section of the Arab League proposal, which calls for arriving at a "just and agreed upon solution to the refugee problem."

Only a little less than a year ago, when Livni was trying to win people over to the disengagement plan, she gloried in a letter United States President George W. Bush had given to Ariel Sharon on the matter of the refugees, in which he pledged that when the refugee issue comes up in negotiations, the United States will support the realization of the right of return only in the Palestinian state that will be established in the territories and not in the territory of the state of Israel. At the time this letter was considered a great achievement on Sharon's part. The official mustering of the United States on Israel's side on the issue of the right of return in effect renders the discussion of the interpretation of Resolution 194 academic.

Professor Ruth Lapidot, who was the legal advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for many years, doesn't understand why Israeli politicians are clinging by their teeth to the right of return. In a position paper she published in 2003 on behalf of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Lapidot argues that there is no basis to the Arab claim that Resolution 194 grants them the right of return. She explains that the option of return is conditioned on the Palestinians who want to return to their homes being interested in living in peace with their neighbors. This condition, notes Lapidot, has not been fulfilled since the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000.

Lapidot agrees with Professor Geoffrey R. Watson, who was a member of the legal team at the U.S. State Department, in his interpretation of the sentence in Resolution 194, stating that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest possible date." The two experts agree that the use of the word "should" (as opposed to the word "shall," for example) turns the option of return into a mere recommendation.

In his book "The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements" (Oxford University Press), Watson notes that even the Palestinian delegation to the General Assembly argued that the phrase "should be permitted" does not concord with the right of return. This is a General Assembly resolution, which unlike Security Council resolutions, is not operative and is not binding.

The greatest critics of Livni's version asserting that the Arab peace initiative ensures the right of return can be found among the Hamas leadership and the heads of Al-Qaida. In an official reaction to the Arab League decision in Beirut, Hamas stated, "It is necessary to condemn outright the transfer of the issue of the right of return to the negotiating table and the demand for its implementation by means of a mutual understanding with Israel." Half a year ago Khaled Meshal's deputy Musa Abu Marzuq explained in a newspaper interview that one of the main reasons for Hamas' decision to reject the diplomatic initiatives that have cropped up in recent years, including the Arab initiative, is that "a solution that does not include the return of all the refugees to their homes and their property is untenable." He argued that the Arab League's decision puts an end to this sacred right.

Dr. Steinberg says that his interpretation of the Arab initiative is identical to that of Hamas. "The difference between us," says the Jerusalem Middle East specialist, "is that a correction they consider as a retreat from traditional positions concerning return and the entire conflict - I see as a unique opportunity to remove the obstacle of the right of return from the road to ending the entire conflict."

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The Myth That Stays With Us

Debunking a Middle East myth: Yasser Arafat wasn't solely to blame for the collapse of Camp David II
---
Camp David 2000

Although I’m something of a historian by trade and inclination, in this space I try to keep to current events. But some historical events are of particular importance because they continue to shape today’s events. This is especially true of the failed attempt at Camp David in 2000 to cobble together a final peace agreement based on the Oslo process between israel and the Palestinians.

The common view that Arafat was solely responsible for the Camp David failure is false, but it is widely believed and that belief has colored the politics of the conflict to this very day. But some alternate versions, where Arafat is held blameless and painted as an innocent victim of American and Israeli machinations are equally false. (more…)

Posted by Mitchell Plitnick under Israel , Palestine , Yasir Arafat , Ehud Barak , Camp David
[19] Comments

---

Tue 27 Feb 2007

Who’s “Beyond the Pale?”, Part 1

Posted by Mitchell Plitnick under Israel , West Bank , Separation Wall , Jewish Community , Carter
[3] Comments

In a recent op-ed in the Jewish weekly, The Forward, Jewish Voice for Peace was described as being “beyond the pale” because we “support divestment and … urge Congress to heed Carter’s words.” Interestingly, JVP receives a huge amount of support from the great many Jews all across the country and around the world who believe we not only embody the spirit of tikkun olam (repairing the world), but are also working more than most for the best interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Be that as it may, let’s examine this rather arbitrary line that the writer of that op-ed, Rabbi Ira Youdovin, draws.

Let’s start with Jimmy Carter. The hysteria surrounding that book has, at least in public discourse, badly obscured the substance. Carter makes an eloquent and clear case that the suffering of Palestinians is intolerable and must end and that it is unrealistic for Israelis to believe they can ever be safe from attacks while that suffering is going on. This is hardly controversial to anyone paying attention to the realities on the ground. (more…)

Saturday, February 17, 2007

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.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

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

YIKES - Warmonger Daniel Pipes Testifying to Congress - Do They Learn NOTHING?

Related
Right Web | Profile | Daniel Pipes
Right Web | Individual Profile | Daniel Pipes
Daniel Pipes to Testify to Congress on Middle East Peace - Action/Activism
---
Feb 12, 2007

By Daniel Levy

This Wednesday the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold an open hearing on “next steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process.” It’s a kind of important issue. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report convincingly and firmly asserted that US credibility and leadership in the region, ability to build and lead alliances, and reducing the mobilizing capacity of extremists, are all integrally linked to a re-launched Israeli Palestinian peace process. These are also the first Middle East Subcommittee hearings of the 110th Congress and come at a critical time – with a new Palestinian government in the making and a trilateral Israeli-Palestinian-US summit planned for February 19th. So whose fountain of wisdom on these issues have the Subcommittee chosen to sip from? None other than neocon wing-nut Daniel Pipes – head of the McCarthyite “Campus Watch,” carrier of the bizarre honor of having become a US Institute for Peace Board Member as a recess appointment in the face of Senate opposition (which places him in the same category as John Bolton), and leader of the apocalyptic war-mongering school of so-called pro-Israelism. For him even the most right-wing of Israeli parties in the last election were not hard-line enough. What are we to make of this?

I have it on good authority from Democrat and Republican sources that Pipes’ inclusion in the panel at this hearing came at the insistence of the Republicans on the Committee (others speaking are Ambassador Martin Indyk of Brookings and David Makovsky from WINEP). Dem Subcommitte Chair Gary Ackerman (D-NY) could apparently not prevent this invitation to Pipes, but he can at least give this anti-peace lunatic rightie a good grilling on Wednesday. Ackerman should be encouraged to do so by TPM readers. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) is the GOP ranking member responsible, but the real inspiration apparently came from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) (Cuba sanctions, Palestinian sanctions, regime-change warrior…etc). Americans for Peace Now’s Lara Friedman – the unsung hero of Washington Middle East peace advocacy – tells me that no alert mail she can remember sending out, received the volume of exasperated responses as the Pipes note. Pipes himself has proudly informed his own listserv of his upcoming moment of glory on the Hill and this will no doubt enhance his fundraising credentials, amongst other things.

What can the Middle East Subcommittee members, eager to be informed by the real experts, expect to hear from Pipes? His Middle East Foundation is closely linked to the AEI and the same stable of characters who brought you the war in Iraq, are beating the drums for a war with Iran, and have stubbornly sought to block any efforts at resuming Israeli-Arab peace making. During the summer conflict in Lebanon in a New York Sun piece entitled “Hold Damascus Responsible,” Pipes called for a military attack on Syria and came out against the strengthened UN force that Israel eagerly encouraged and embraced as part of Security Council Resolution 1701. Just before the Israeli elections, in a now infamous piece, “Israel Avoids Victory,” from his home thousands of miles away from the bloody conflict and suffering on both sides, Pipes suggested that “as Israelis go to the polls, not one of the leading parties offers the option of winning the war against the Palestinian Arabs” ( Iraq watchers: sounds familiar?). Pipes goes on to reject unilateralism, territorial compromise, peace through economic rehabilitation, peace through democracy, and even transfer (!) as all being insufficiently conclusive Israeli victories for his liking. Pipes supported a lone Likud guy who was so low on their Knesset list that he never made it in to Parliament (Uzi Landau). This is really the guy you want commenting on the peace process!!

Pipes once unforgettably referred to Muslim immigrants as “brown skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene,” and even if we take his later attempts to contextualize this quote at face value (and that would demand an intellectual openness on our part that Pipes seems incapable of), then he at least enjoys a good flirt with Islamo-phobia. Pipes submitted a proposal to establish an Anti-Islamist Institute, the exposure of which by Jim Lobe of the Inter-Press Service, probably made sure it never got off the ground. Nevertheless, in 2002 Pipes did launch Campus Watch, a particularly nasty variant of contemporary McCarthyite tactics, encouraging students to report on Professors and stifling open academic teachings and research on Middle East issues. A Foreign Service officer who has spent his career training young diplomats before overseas postings recently confided to me that the effects of efforts such as Campus Watch could already be seen from the somewhat distorted appreciation of the region held by MidEast studies graduates who became diplomatic trainees. The list goes on and if you want to read more start here (it’s endless).

Pipes is a no good-nik, but what’s the big deal? It’s only a Subcommittee hearing that is unlikely to change the course of Middle East events. The trouble with inviting Pipes is the contemptuous and arrogant approach it displays to Congressional oversight and the hearings process. It feeds into the self-marginalization of Congress when it comes to checking the policy options on offer and of failing to contribute in an informed way to intelligent debate – and all this in the very same part of the world that America finds itself so embroiled today, namely the Middle East. Since the start of the 110th Congress the Dems have tried to hold serious committee hearings, certainly on foreign policy. Whoever did invite Pipes, and someone should be made to publicly own up, clearly favors a further dumbing down of Congressional debate. Members of the Subcommittee (List here) should know what people, TPM readers among them, think of this invitation to Pipes.

Better yet, members should be encouraged to do something constructive during the 10 minutes of the Pipes’ testimony. Here’s one idea: Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) has introduced House Resolution 143 urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. H. Res. 143 has already attracted a number of co-sponsors, including Jewish members and Congress’ only Muslim member. (Co-sponsors include Blumenauer (D-OR), Ellison (D-MN), Klein (D-FL), McCollum (D-MN), Schiff (D-CA)). H. Res. 143 includes a lot of sensible language such as “it is directly in the national interest of the US to reengage both sides…a lasting peace…will reduce tension in the region…help repair America’s image in the international community…and help reduce Iranian influence in the region” (Read the full resolution here and for the APN campaign see here). Committee members could use the time of Pipes’ testimony to sign up to Resolution 143 and encourage colleagues to do the same.

This issue does matter. America’s preeminent foreign policy challenge is to stabilize the Middle East - Iraq and troop draw-downs included. That stabilization can’t happen while leaders continue to look for policy guidance from and give legitimacy to the gutter-rat brand of war-mongers that Daniel Pipes represents .

Daniel Levy was an advisor in the Prime Minister's Office, a member of the official Israel negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks, and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.

Ousted Republican Senator Criticizes Bush on Israel

February 12, 2007 - 10:46PM

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - Former Senator Lincoln Chafee criticizes President Bush's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The ousted Republican senator spoke tonight at Brown University, where he landed a job at an institute for international studies after losing his seat to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in November.

Chafee suggested the president was bowing to a faction of evangelical Christians who oppose a Palestinian state. He said he has wondered why the United States has not been a leader in the
process even though Bush has said several times that he supports the peace process.

Chafee cited comments by evangelical Christians who have said they don't think Israel should give up any land to the Palestinians.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Friday, February 9, 2007

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)."

Monday, February 5, 2007

Exclusive: Syrian President Says He Can Help Broker Peace If U.S. Will Talk

ABC News' Diane Sawyer Talks Exclusively to President Bashar al-Assad About Iraq and Mideast Peace

Feb. 5, 2007 — - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a 41-year-old doctor, is the son of the legendary Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, who negotiated with five American presidents.

Many in diplomatic circles believe that this quiet man may be the best hope for the United States to broker peace with insurgents in the Middle East.

Assad told ABC News' Diane Sawyer that he was ready to talk to the United States, but that it must be in public -- and that because the situation was so dire, the time to talk was now.

So far, the administration has refused to engage in talks with Syria.

Below is the transcript of Sawyer's exclusive interview with Assad.

Watch "Good Morning America" Tuesday for more of Diane Sawyer's report from Syria.

Sawyer: Your excellency, thank you so much for letting us come.

Assad: You're most welcome Miss Sawyer here.

Sawyer: There are a chorus of voices in the United States saying that talking to Syria is the way to end the war in Iraq. Can you stop the violence in Iraq?

Assad: First of all, the problem in Iraq is political, and talking to Syria as a concept means talking to all the other parties inside Iraq and outside Iraq. We're not the only player. We're not the single player, but we are the main player in this issue, and our role is going to be through supporting the dialogue between the different parties inside Iraq with the support from the other parties like the Americans and the other neighboring countries and any other country in the world. So that's how we can stop the violence.

Sawyer: Are you waiting to hear from the Americans? Why not begin it now?

Assad: We are hearing, but we don't expect that much. We don't expect that they're going to. After nearly four years of occupation they haven't learned their lesson, they haven't stopped the dialogue. I think it's too late for them to move toward that.

Sawyer: Too late?

Assad: That does not mean we cannot turn the tide, but it's too late because Iraq is heading toward the chaos for civil war. So maybe this is the last chance that we have now to start helping Iraq.

'What's the Benefit of Democracy When You're Dead?'

Sawyer: The Americans, of course, would say that they are not the occupying force, that they are in fact a force trying to regain security so that American forces can go home.

Assad: Militarily, yes. But politically, no, because they are responsible for the political situation and they haven't embarked any policy inside Iraq here. They only talk about sending more troops or less troops. They only talk about troops and power, not about political process.

Sawyer: Because Americans would say they voted, they now have the beginning of democracy there.

Assad: What's the benefit of democracy if you're dead? Now after the war, more than 700,000 Iraqis were killed. So is it democracy for killing or for having better standard of life? For starvation? For insecurity? For all this? So democracy is a tool to have a better life.

Sawyer: What would happen? Then talks take place.

Assad: Yeah.

Sawyer: You, Iran, the neighboring countries?

Assad: Yeah.

Sawyer: So the influence of the neighboring countries can create a cease-fire?

Assad: Yes, this is something mainly that they don't understand. It doesn't matter how strong economically or what army you have, it's a matter of credibility. We have credibility. We have good relations with the other factions. They should trust you to be able to play a role.

We have this good relations with all the parties, including the parties participating in this government and the other who oppose this political process. So that's how we can help. As Syria. Maybe other countries as well.

Sawyer: You are reported to have said, when American congressmen came here before the war in Iraq, "You will ultimately lose." … That you said, "You will win the war but you will sink in a swamp."

Assad: Exactly. That's what I said -- many times to many Americans and to the British officials: There is no doubt you are going to win the war, but after the war, you are going to be sinking in the mud, and nobody can help you. You are going to help us people to extract us from the quagmire, but it's going to be very difficult. And events proved that what we said in Syria was right.

Sawyer: On the current course, what do you think will going to happen next in Iraq?

Assad: Next? Whether it's a budding civil war or a full-blown civil war, it doesn't matter what the definition. It's like domino effect, it's going to affect the whole Middle East in general, and this means it's going to affect the rest of the world.

Sawyer: One of the things that Americans have been told is that Syria wants to fuel the fire and then put the fire out at the same time. And we are told that one of the reasons that there are violent insurgents in Iraq is that they're able to come through 376-mile border and that you give permission for terrorists to come down through the border into Iraq.

Assad: First of all, they have to stop looking for scapegoats and whipping boys, this administration. And there's a logical answer: We cannot stoke the fire and then extinguish it. If you stoke it, it will burn you. So if we have this chaos in Iraq, it will spill over to Syria and to other countries, so saying this, like saying that the Syrian government is working against the Syrian interest, this is impossible.

We have a guard, a special border guard, since 1975, and we supported this guard recently to make more control. But this is not enough. You need Iraqi or American partner on the other side.

Sawyer: But in America they believe that you are all powerful, and you say the word and the border will stop.

Assad: Powerful is different from being omnipotent -- power that you can control everything completely. You cannot control your border with Mexico, can you? You're the greatest power in the world, you cannot control it with Mexico, so how do you want Syria to control its border with Iraq?

'Administration. … Not Interested in Peace at All'

Sawyer: Did you watch the execution of Saddam Hussein?

Assad: Yeah. … I watched it. And, uh, you want to know my opinion? Actually, I can not give you personal opinion, because now I'm speaking formally and I have to be of the opinion of the government. We didn't take any stand against it, but he's a war prisoner. How could the Americans hand him over to another authority, which is not independent? So how could the trial be or called or described as fair and independent? This is a legal point of view.

Sawyer: Some have written in America that rulers in this part of the world look at Saddam Hussein and say, "That could be me, I'm next."

Assad: Because there's no rules, and there's no law and there's no independence, anybody could be next -- not only by the execution, but by killing in general. When you talk about next, every day in Iraq you have dead people, you have explosions, you have killing. So it's going on anyway, so anybody could think that he's next whether by execution or whether it's by assassination or by suicide bombers.

Sawyer: After Sept. 11, Syria was very helpful to the United States, we are told, in supplying intelligence about terrorism in the world. Do you know now where Osama bin Laden is? Is he alive?

Assad: We don't know. If you don't know, how could we know? You have all this intelligence so we're.

Sawyer: Are you ready to resume terrorism information to the United States?

Assad: We used to think that it's like the Internet, it doesn't have borders. It hits anywhere. So what hits in the West or the East, someday will hit in the Middle East. So we have to, and we are willing to cooperate with the rest of the world regarding terrorism.

Sawyer: When I was here before and I interviewed your father and I asked him about then-President [George H.W.] Bush. And he said to me, "President Bush is a man who feels he wishes to achieve peace and is seriously attempting to bring that wish to life."

Sawyer: Describe the current President Bush to me in your view.

Assad: I'd rather give objective view. … I've never met him personally to describe him, but what I know about this issue that this administration, in general, are not interested in peace at all. This administration is not willing to achieve peace. They don't have the will, and they don't have the vision. This is, in brief, what I know about this administration not about the president in particular.

Sawyer: Who do you admire the most in the world?

Assad: That's a very difficult question. The prophets, all the prophets. The three prophets -- Moses, Jesus and, of course, Muhammad.

Sawyer: And is there anyone operating on the world stage today that you admire? Any leader, any diplomat?

Assad: Maybe Bush, the father, because of his will to achieve the peace in the region. Of course, President Clinton, he has the same will, and he is admired in our region and respected.

Sawyer: And, Mrs. Clinton?

Assad: I've never met her. I don't know a lot about her.

Sawyer: So you're not endorsing her for president?

Assad: We'll see if she becomes president. … We'll see what her polices are.

Sunday, February 4, 2007

Educating Rice

Feb 3, 2007

By Adel Safty

US Secretary of State Condeleza Rice’s recent visit to the Middle East was billed as aimed at shoring up support for Mahmoud Abbas, the embattled President of the Palestinian Authority, and at reviving the moribund Middle East ‘peace process.’

This ‘peace process’ is, officially at least, driven by the plan endorsed by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations and known as the ‘roadmap’. A fundamental obligation of the roadmap is that Israel stop all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories.

It is a matter of documented evidence that the Israeli leaders have done precisely the opposite: multiplying settlement activities by expanding existing settlements and confiscating ever more Palestinian land for the construction of the separation wall. Instead of dismantling the 20 so-called ‘illegal posts’ in the West Bank as they had promised in 2001, Israeli leaders allowed more posts to be established, now estimated at around 100 ‘illegal posts’, in addition the already existing 150 settlements.

In July 2004, The International Court of Justice found that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.” It also found that the construction of the separation wall was in breach of international law.

A few days before Rice arrived in Israel, and the timing could not have been coincidental, the Israeli government announced the establishment of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank.

Washington responded with the usual slap on the wrist, albeit with unusually strong language for the Bush administration. A spokesman for the State Department said:” “The establishment of a new settlement or the expansion of an existing settlement would violate Israel’s obligations under the road map.” The spokesman then added: ““The U.S. calls on Israel to meet its road map obligations and avoid taking steps that could be viewed as pre-determining the outcome of final-status negotiations,” (NYT. December 28, 07)

In the Middle East, Rice used Kissingerian speak to claim that the war against Hizbollah in Lebanon and the Iraq war had created a unique geopolitical alignment that finally made peace in the Palestine conflict possible. One would be excused to think that Rice came with a bold and courageous approach to finally and seriously tackle the Palestine question.

For example, you would think that if Rice was seriously interested in reviving the moribund Middle East ‘peace process’, the issue of Israel’s continued violations of the roadmap ban on settlement would be an important agenda item in her discussion with Israeli leaders.

One would think that if Rice wanted to bolster Abbas’ standing she would have pressed Israeli leaders to free the Palestinian government officials and legislators the Israeli forces kidnapped and illegally imprisoned. One would think she would ask Israeli leaders to hand over the US$500 million in Palestinian tax revenues they illegally withheld to punish the Palestinians for exercising their democratic right to elect a Hamas government.

Instead, according to the Israeli press, Rice and Olmert repeated the usual condescending platitudes about the need for the occupied, not the occupier, to meet the conditions set by the occupier: recognition of Israel, relinquishing violence, and acceptance of previous agreements with Israel.

As to the fiction of the roadmap, Rice and Olmert were in total agreement: “a Palestinian government would have to abide by the road map.” This is laughable considering that the Israeli leaders never hid their intention to use the roadmap as an excluse to delay and abort the peacee process.

Even the Israeli press recognised that the reference to the roadmap was “Olmert's way of foiling various recent attempts by Europeans and other elements to call for an international peace summit.” (Haarezt, January 16, 07)

President Mahmoud Abbas was aghast and felt betrayed. Instead of being bolstered by the Americans and by Rice’s visit, he felt weakened and more vulnerabl as Hamas’s predictions were being verified by Rice’s preposterous definition of the problem and its solution.

To ask the Palestinians to implement the dead roadmap while the Israelis are busy stealing their land and building settlements, is, as one Abbas’ aid put it, “ a joke.” (Time Magazine, January 14, 06).

Perhaps Abbas should have invested some effort in educating Rice, notoriously ignorant about the Middle East and given to oversimplifications, by giving her a copy the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem’s 2006 annual statistics report.

Rice would then have learned that during 2006, the Israelis killed 660 Palestninans including 141 children, as opposed to 17 Israelis, including one minor, killed by Palestinian actions. In addition, Israeli forces demolished, during the same year, 292 Palestinian houses in the occupied Palestinian territories, in addition to 42 houses in occupied East Jerusalem.

Rice would have learned that the Israelis maintain in the West Bank some 52 permanent checkpoints in addition to hundreds of physical obstacles such as concrete blocs to restrict access to Palestinian communities. At the same time the Jewish settlers enjoy access to some special 41 roadways, while the Palestinians are denied access to these Jews-only roads.

As a frequent praiser of Israel’s vibrant democracy, Rice would have been interested in learning that Israel holds some 9000 Palestninans, including 345 children, in prison, and that of these some 738, including 22 children, are held without trial and without knowing the charges against them.

Rice would also have learned that former President Jimmy Carter’s use of the term Apartheid to describe the Israeli occupation in his recent book Palestine: Peace or Apartheid- and for which he was criticised by the Washington establishment, was not gratuiteous.

The Israeli human rights group reached the same conclusion in the report cited above: “Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a… discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person’s rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa. “

President Carter has now concluded that “ Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.” (Washington Post. Jan 18.07)

Had Rice taken the trouble to learn any of these facts, conveniently sanitized from public debate in the United States, she might have learned the need to define the Israeli-Palestine conflict with more fairness and intellectual honesty.

She might have detected the fallacy underlying the usual Israeli strategy of confiscation, dispossession, dispersion and the systematic shattering of the Palestinian society, while blaming the victim for the absence of peace.

Prof. Adel Safty is Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His latest book, Leadership and Democracy, is published in New York.

Friday, February 2, 2007

Israel Colonization is the Primary Obstacle to Peace

Editor's note: Join me over at the other blog(see new articles below first).
---
Friday, February 2, 2007
Commentary

By Matthew Taylor

It is heartening to learn that many readers of the Daily Planet understand the reality of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Others say they plan to approach Jimmy Carter’s new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, with an open and inquisitive mind. Below, I respond to Dan Spitzer’s and Rachel Neuwirth’s criticisms of my Jan. 9th op-ed on the subject.

Mr. Spitzer’s letter is littered with ad hominem attacks, in which he insinuates that I am not one of “the sharpest nails in the shed,” that I smoke opiates, and that former President Carter is a “Peanut Brain.” I fail to see how such comments are useful or relevant.

Mr. Spitzer’s letter does not respond in any substantive measure to the central thesis of both Mr. Carter’s book, and my op-ed: that “the primary obstacle to peace is Israel's unending colonial project.”

The closest Mr. Spitzer comes to a response is his inaccurate assertion that I “parrot Palestinian propaganda without any substantiation.” Perhaps Mr. Spitzer might choose to re-read my op-ed, in which I offer a specific, personally witnessed instance of Israel’s oppression of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. I saw Israel’s army bulldoze a Palestinian man’s home for one reason: in order to build a road only Israeli colonizers are allowed to access. In one fell swoop, this action combines the crimes of land theft (colonization) with forced dislocation of the inhabitants (ethnic cleansing) and the building of Jewish-only public works projects (Apartheid).

Such home demolitions are systemic Israeli policy, and are extensively documented by Israeli watchdogs such as Rabbis for Human Rights (http://rhr.israel.net). Home demolitions are a key part of the stated plan of many Israeli political leaders past and present: to confiscate as much of the West Bank as they can get away with.

Here’s what Arik Asherman of Rabbis for Human Rights had to say about a recent such home demolition in December of 2006:

“Little Yousef is again homeless, and shortly his sister will again come home from school to discover that the home she left in the morning is now rubble…. This time the family was all alone with their tears. I was not there to stand in front of the bulldozers and nobody from the RHR staff was able to get through the cordon of border police protecting the demolition…. I have promised Ahmed Musa Dari that this is not the end. We will not abandon him and his family. If we simply express our anger, the Mayor [of Jerusalem] will still have succeeded and will continue to harden his heart. He will have been mistaken if you leave the message not only that you are outraged but that you are contributing to the rebuilding of 10 homes and demanding that your country’s officials take action.”

Asherman requests letters and phone calls to the mayor of Jerusalem, and donations to help rebuild homes. Visit the RHR website for more information at: http://rhr.israel.net/darkness-has-struck-again

Other instances of Israel’s ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and colonization project in the West Bank have been documented ad nauseam by Israeli human rights organizations such as B’Tselem (www.btselem.org) and Machsom (“Movement Barrier”) Watch (www.machsomwatch.org). To find out more about the Palestinian women who have given “birth” to stillborn babies at movement barriers because they are denied the ability to travel to a hospital, simply visit B’Tselem’s website, listed above, and type in the search terms: Palestinian pregnant checkpoint. Similarly, B’Tselem reports that “The shortage of drinking water [for Palestinians] can cause dehydration and the inability to maintain proper hygiene and thus lead to illness,” whereas Israelis have enough to fill swimming pools.

To clarify: according to Carter, Apartheid applies only to Israel’s policies in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories: East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza Strip. However, for at least some Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel, the term is quite relevant. A significant number of Palestinian villages inside Israel are “unrecognized” and are officially denied “any basic services such as running water, electricity, proper education and health services and access roads—constituting a gross violation of human rights.” (See the “Association of 40” at www.assoc40.org.) They don’t even appear on a map. Further, Bedouins have been subjected to the worst forms of Israeli oppression, including on Jan. 9 of this year the destruction of an entire Bedouin village, Tawil Abu Jarwal in the Negev, documented by the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (www.icahd.org).

Mr. Spitzer makes a number of inaccurate claims, including that I cite a “fabricated quote.” Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s statement imploring the colonizers to “grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements” appears in Carter’s book—Agence France Presse is the source. It is a matter of extensive public record that Sharon was a fervent supporter of Israel’s illegal colonies during his entire career.

Mr. Spitzer refers to Israel’s wall, which unilaterally steals Palestinian land. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the wall is illegal and must be dismantled. If its purpose were Israel’s security, it would be built on the 1967 border—but it cuts deep into the West Bank and has permitted, for example, Mod’in Illit to expand at a furious pace on stolen Palestinian farmland.

Mr. Spitzer’s claim that the West Bank and Gaza are “Palestinian ruled” are patently false. Both are under a nearly 40-year-old Israeli military occupation! The Palestinian Authority cannot possibly “rule” (or even govern) a land over which it has no real sovereignty. Gaza is now the world’s largest open-air prison, and the Israeli air force bombs civilian population centers at will, killing 200 civilians in November 2006 alone, half women and children. The West Bank is being sliced up into territorially discontiguous “Bantustans,” a Swiss cheese surrounded by a sea of illegal Israeli colonies.

Mr. Spitzer attempts to change the subject and avoid dealing with the realities of Israel’s systematic dispossession of the Palestinian people by raising the specter of the election of Hamas, a movement that arose in 1988 as a response to 21 years of illegal occupation and colonization. While Hamas’ tactics are deplorable, they are also comprehensible as a desperate and misguided response to oppression. Mr. Spitzer’s comments are a misleading “blame the victim” approach. Statements by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya indicate that Hamas appears inclined to recognize Israel in exchange for a full withdrawl to the 1967 borders and a two-state resolution to the conflict.

To backtrack for a moment, it would undoubtedly have been best for all involved parties had Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon listened to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ repeated pleas following Abbas’ election in January of 2005 to meet and negotiate a final status agreement. However, Sharon refused to do so because his intention was not to achieve a just peace, but to steal as much West Bank land as he could—which is precisely what he did. By refusing to meet with Abbas, Israel helped guarantee the election of Hamas a year later, the outcome it claims it least desired. But does that give Israel the political cover it needs to further ignore Abbas as a partner for peace and steal more land?

In short, Israel has chosen—and continues to choose—colonization instead of peace. Uri Avnery’s analysis at Gush Shalom (www.gush-shalom.org) is well worth a read.

One development that offers tremendous hope is Combatants for Peace, a group of former Israeli and Palestinian warriors who have set down their guns and are working together to end the occupation and all forms of violence. Read about their movement at www.combatantsforpeace.org and in the latest issue of PeacePower, available online at www.calpeacepower.org.

Perhaps Mr. Spitzer, and interested readers, might wish to spend time researching the matter first-hand by visiting both Israelis and the Palestinians in the West Bank. For American Jews, Birthright Unplugged is a Jewish-led organization that offers guided tours of the West Bank (www.birthrightunplugged.org). Or visit Holy Land Trust in Bethlehem, a Palestinian nonviolent activism organization that offers opportunities to live with Palestinian families (www.holylandtrust.org). In film, John Pilger’s insightful documentary “Palestine is Still the Issue” is now available online at www.youtube.com.

I find Rachel Neuwirth’s commentary quite unsettling. She is the President of Middle East Solutions, which proposes a “win-win peaceful outcome” to the conflict: the ethnic cleansing (“resettlement”) of Palestinians from historical Palestine, and their removal to a new “Palestinian state” in Saudi Arabia. This “Plan for Arab-Israeli Reconciliation,” as she puts it, is outlined at www.middleeastsolutions.com.

Ms. Neuwirth’s claim that I did not engage “in the slightest effort at fact finding” is obviously false—as mentioned, I have seen Israel’s Apartheid activities with my own eyes. Neuwirth changes the subject from Israel’s current oppression of Palestinians (the main point of Carter’s book) to interpretations of a colonial document issued ninety years ago. She neglects to mention that the document in question specifically states: “Nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Her assertion that the entirety of Palestine “was exclusively allocated to the Jewish nation by international law” could not be more inaccurate—the mandate called for a “homeland” for the Jewish people, but not one that was “exclusive” (or one that would involve the expulsion or mistreatment of the current population).

Finally, Mr. Spitzer and Ms. Neuwirth both attack UC Berkeley’s Peace and Conflict Studies program (PACS). Mr. Spitzer claims that it is “laughed at” by “most responsible UCB professors.” I’m not sure which UCB professors he has spoken to, or what his criteria is for determining whether or not a professor is “responsible,” but I perceive our program to be held in extremely high esteem. Students have initiated several well-regarded projects recently, including PeacePower, a nominee for UTNE Reader’s “Best New Publication of 2006,” and the Conflict Resolution and Transformation Center (http://conflict.berkeley.edu), a student-led program that addresses student conflict on campus. I am a co-founder of both.

PACS has been described as a “mission major,” akin to the Department of Public Health. Just as Public Health seeks to eradicate all forms of disease, PACS seeks to eradicate all forms of violence. As Susan Collin Marks of Search for Common Ground says, “violent conflict destroys everything.” Someday, Palestinian children and Israeli children will grow up together, love each other, and be sisters and brothers together. It is up to us to start a nonviolent movement to make that possible, is it not? As Yonatan Shapira of Combatants for Peace has said, we must liberate Palestinians from Israel’s occupation, and f ree Israel from its role as an occupier.

Matthew Taylor is a fifth-year Peace and Conflict Studies student at UC Berkeley, editor of PeacePower magazine (www.calpeacepower.org), and Jewish.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Full Writing on the Wall

Monday, January 29, 2007

Writing on the wall

The manufactured row over Jimmy Carter's criticism of Israel risks obscuring a real chance for peace.

Ian Williams

January 26, 2007 04:01 PM

The fuss over Jimmy Carter and his new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, gained new momentum this week as the former president spoke at Brandeis University, near Boston.

Carter's critics - of whom there are many - demanded that he use his speaking engagement to debate Alan Dershowitz, the prominent defender of torture and Israel. I look forward to similar demands that every time Dershowitz speaks, he give space to one of his opponents - Noam Chomsky, say, or Al Sharpton - and lets them counter his arguments.

Dershowitz, writing in the Jerusalem Post, claimed he just wanted "a real dialogue." But when overtly racist Israeli minister for strategic affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, who has advocated mass killings of Arabs, let alone apartheid, came to the US to speak at the Brookings Institute's Saban Center, did Dershowitz call for his remarks to be balanced by a riposte from a speaker from Peace Now, let alone Palestinian Envoy Afif Safieh?

This manufactured furor against Carter's book could not happen in any other country except the USA - and it has certainly not happened in Israel, where many clear-sighted Israelis would agree entirely with the book's message. More to the point, those with intimate experience of apartheid in South Africa, ranging from Archbishop Desmond Tutu in this space, to 200 prominent South African Jews in a letter last year, make much more explicit comparisons.

Carter has been called bigoted and anti-Semitic. In his book, however, he comes across as rather mealy-mouthed. In his speech at Brandeis he re-emphasized what he says in his book: that his warnings are against Apartheid to the territories, when the discrimination faced by Bedouin and Arab citizens in Israel on, for example land ownership, or access to social services, bears some very critical examination.

"I realize that this has caused great concern in the Jewish community," he said. "The title makes it clear that the book is about conditions and events in the Palestinian territories and not in Israel."

In fact, the word apartheid appears only three times in the entire text of his book - and always in the context of the Occupied Territories. The one time that he mentions it most explicitly, he is quoting an Israeli who feared that "we are moving towards a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship," in the context of describing future options for the Occupied Territories.

This is doubly interesting; because of course the Israeli press often makes the comparison with apartheid, since Israelis have to live with the consequences of their policies. It is only in the US that the legions of front-line fund-raiser banqueteers brandish their silverware in horror at the description.

Another time, Carter uses the word is in his description of the effect of the Separation Wall, "imposing a system of partial withdrawal, encapsulation, and apartheid on the Muslim and Christian citizens of the occupied territories." But he adds: "The driving force of the two peoples is unlike that in South Africa - not racism but the acquisition of land." This is somewhat inaccurate, since apartheid in South Africa involved massive confiscations of the best land and corralling the dispossessed into small areas.

His third use of the A-word is the most interesting. Rabin had just returned from the apartheid state, and described to Carter "the close relationship Israel had with South Africa in the diamond trade ... but commented that the South African system of apartheid could not long survive."

Israel's sanctions-busting trade with the racist state helped it to survive longer than it would otherwise have done. And Israeli collaboration on arms programs may have gone beyond missiles and planes as far a joint nuclear test, with a pariah regime whose antecedents were Nazi sympathizers. If apartheid is such dreadful concept that we can't use it about Israeli polices, where were Carter's critics when Israel was the mainstay of the apartheid regime in South Africa?

I cannot recall that one of the shrill denouncers of President Carter's book ever taking exception to this conspiracy. Did one of them ever protest Israeli support for South Africa, or the hobnobbing of Israeli leaders with men who had been interned as Nazi sympathizers during the second world war? In contrast, the State Department told Carter not to talk to Hamas during his visits.

Apartheid is both understandable and abhorrent; it is the truth of the analogy that hurts. Clearly, the row about Carter's use of the word is a cynically contrived effort to detract from the book's plain and irrefutable message, accepted by the whole world community and much of Israel, and indeed by many American Jews: that the road to peace involves implementation of the UN resolutions, and a return to the 1967 borders, with some adjustments mutually agreed.

Dershowitz himself admits this, but still looks for straws to beat at Carter. After Brandeis he depicted one sentence, which Carter himself admits was sloppily phrased, as an endorsement of suicide bombing. Carter wrote that the Arabs "make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." Dershowitz knows that Carter does not support terrorism. This is a manifestation of an intellectual pogrom of the most distasteful kind.

As the engineer of the most successful peace agreement in the region - the settlement between Egypt and Israel, for which he was vilified for decades across the Arab world - Carter's claim that obstruction from expansionists in Israel, and their friends in the US, is the main obstacle to a peace has particular authority.

That, of course, is why the settlers and their American supporters would prefer you not to read his book or hear from him. Still, we should push the comparison further: the architects of South Africa's apartheid saw the writing on the wall, and came to a settlement before it was too late. It has left their country the most successful and prosperous on the continent.

We already have the wall; Carter has now provided some of the writing. Will Israel have the courage to follow his advice? jimmy carter apartheid south africa israel united states alan dershowitz

Labels: alan dershowitz, apartheid, Israel, jimmy carter, south africa, united states

CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Carter: Israel Backers Demand ‘Subservience’

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

UPDATE: Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told

Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told

Thursday, March 15, 2007

The lost five years of the peace process

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The Myth That Stays With Us

Who’s “Beyond the Pale?”, Part 1

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Bush and Olmert Get That Peace Process Hoodoo

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

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

YIKES - Warmonger Daniel Pipes Testifying to Congress - Do They Learn NOTHING?

Ousted Republican Senator Criticizes Bush on Israel

Friday, February 9, 2007

Text of Mecca Accord for Palestinian coalition government

Monday, February 5, 2007

Exclusive: Syrian President Says He Can Help Broker Peace If U.S. Will Talk

ABC News' Diane Sawyer Talks Exclusively to President Bashar al-Assad About Iraq and Mideast Peace

'What's the Benefit of Democracy When You're Dead?'

'Administration. … Not Interested in Peace at All'

Sunday, February 4, 2007

Educating Rice

Friday, February 2, 2007

Israel Colonization is the Primary Obstacle to Peace

Monday, January 29, 2007

Full Writing on the Wall

Monday, January 29, 2007

About Me

mparent7777's shared items

MY 2ND BLOG(FOR WHEN THIS ONE GOES DOWN WHICH IS FREQUENTLY)

Blog Archive