Israeli Arab MK: Libyan aid ship won’t change course, headed for Gaza: Haaretz
Foreign Ministry announced earlier that organizers of Gaza-bound mission agreed to dock in Egypt rather than violate Gaza naval blockade.
A Libyan aid ship will head to Gaza’s port and will not be diverted, Palestinian Legislative Council member Jamal Al-Khudari and Israeli Arab MK Ahmed Tibi told the Palestinian news agency Ma’an on Saturday.
Al-Khudari, head of the Popular Committee Against the Siege, told Ma’an that he had been in constant contact with the organizers of the ship, who are expected to bring 2,000 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza despite an Israeli naval blockade on the Hamas-ruled territory.
Earlier Saturday, Israel’s Foreign Ministry said that the Moldavian-flagged ship would not dock in Gaza, but would instead dock in Egypt’s el-Arish on the coast of the Sinai Peninsula.
According to the ministry, the change in destination was agreed to by the ship’s captain. It reportedly followed talks between Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his Greek and Moldavian counterparts.
A spokesman at the Greek Foreign Ministry said the ship would head for El Arish. An official from ACA Shipping, which owns the ship, told Reuters ahead of the ship’s departure that “the ship will leave in a few minutes for Gaza. If they don’t let us reach there [Gaza] we will head to El Arish harbor in Egypt.”
The ship – named the “Amalthia” – was set to depart Saturday from the Greek port of Lavrio with 12 crew and 15 activists and supporters on board, and about 2,000 tons of humanitarian aid supplied by the Gadhafi International Charity and Development Association, headed by Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, the second-born son of the Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.
Tibi, of Israel’s Ra’am Ta’al party, confirmed that the ship had set sail and would arrive in Gaza some 40 hours after the departure. The Israeli Arab MK had told Israel Radio earlier that “sailing to Gaza is a political and humane act. I don’t know what Israel will do, because it has vowed to stop the ship, but Gaza remains the destination.”
“Sailing [the aid ship] is a form of passive resistance, which is preferable to any other form of resistance,” Tibi added.
Tibi had assisted the ship’s Libyan organizers, providing them with a list of items needed by residents of the Gaza Strip.
In an interview with Army Radio, Tibi confirmed a report in the Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper that the list included medicines, generators for hospitals and a type of children’s milk not available in Gaza.
On Friday, Israel launched a diplomatic move at the United Nations in efforts to enlist the international community to help prevent the Libyan aid ship from sailing to Gaza.
In an official letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Israeli ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev wrote that “Israel calls upon the international community to exert its influence on the government of Libya to demonstrate responsibility and prevent the ship from departing to the Gaza Strip.”
Shalev’s letter to Ban went on to clarify that “Israel reserves the right under international law to prevent this ship from violating the existing naval blockade on the Gaza Strip.”
Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza in 2007 following a bloody Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. Israel recently eased the terms of the land blockade on the territory, following a deadly raid of a Turkish aid ship, but the naval blockade has so far remained in place.
In the letter, Shalev further urged the international community “to discourage their nationals from taking part in such action,” adding that Israel “expects the international community to ensure that this ship does not sail.”
“The declared intentions of this mission are even more questionable and provocative given the recent measures taken by Israel to ensure the increase of humanitarian aid flowing into the Gaza Strip,” the letter went on to say, adding that Israel has taken upon itself the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of humanitarian aid into the Palestinian territory.
Copies of the letter were also submitted to the current president of the UN Security Council as well as the president of the General Assembly, a Libyan national who previously served as Libya’s foreign minister.
Gaza aid ship to dock in Egypt after Israel pressure: BBC
E-mail this to a friendPrintable version The Amalthea is carrying 2,000 tonnes of food, medicine and other items
A ship with supplies for Gaza will dock at el-Arish in Egypt, officials say, after Israeli pressure to stop the vessel breaking its Gaza blockade.
The Moldovan-flagged ship chartered by a charity run by the son of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, left a Greek port on Saturday.
Israel asked for help from the UN, and had talks with Greece and Moldova. But organisers insist they will go to Gaza.
An Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound ship in May killed nine Turkish activists.
Israel insisted its troops were defending themselves but the raid sparked international condemnation.
Israel recently eased its blockade, allowing in almost all consumer goods but maintaining a “blacklist” of some items.
Israel says its blockade of the Palestinian territory is needed to prevent the supply of weapons to the Hamas militant group which controls Gaza.
Diplomatic drive
The Amalthea, renamed Hope for the mission, set off from the Greek port of Lavrio, loaded with about 2,000 tonnes of food, cooking oil, medicines and pre-fabricated houses.
It has been chartered by the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation. Its chairman is Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
The organisation said the 92m (302ft) vessel would also carry “a number of supporters who are keen on expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people”.
The BBC’s Malcolm Brabant in Lavrio says the Libyans clearly believe the time is right to test Israel’s resolve to maintain the naval blockade.
We are heading to Gaza for purely humanitarian reasons, we are not out to provoke anyone or to seek media attention
Youssef Sawwan
Director, Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation
Israel carried out intense diplomatic activity to prevent the Amalthea reaching Gaza.
A foreign ministry statement said that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had spoken with his Greek and Moldovan counterparts on the issue.
The statement said: “The foreign ministry believes that due to these talks, the ship will not reach Gaza.”
And Libya has now told the Greek government that the ship will now dock in Egypt’s el-Arish on the coast of the Sinai Peninsula.
“We confirmed their destination in talks with the Libyan ambassador and the ship’s agent,” foreign ministry spokesman Grigoris Delavekouras told Associated Press news agency.
Israel also lobbied the UN to take action.
Israel’s UN Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said in a letter: “Israel calls upon the international community to exert its influence on the government of Libya to demonstrate responsibility and prevent the ship from departing to the Gaza Strip.”
Ms Shalev also warned: “Israel reserves the right under international law to prevent this ship from violating the existing naval blockade on the Gaza Strip.”
She said the motives of the operators were “questionable and provocative”.
However, the director of the Libyan charity told the BBC the vessel was heading for Gaza.
“We have not cut deals with anyone,” Youssef Sawwan, told the BBC Arabic service.
“We are heading to Gaza for purely humanitarian reasons, we are not out to provoke anyone or to seek media attention,” Mr Sawwan said.
Report: Hezbollah on high alert over concern Israel ‘preparing something for us’: Haartez
Israel offered evidence of what it says is a growing threat from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon; Hezbollah says wants to avoid confrontation, Asharq al-Awsat reports.
Hezbollah warned on Saturday that Israel was preparing “something” in Lebanon and that the organization has been on high alert since Israel released aerial images to highlight the militant group’s activities close to the Israeli border earlier this week, the London-based Arabic language daily Asharq al-Awsat reported.
On Wednesday, Israel offered evidence of what it says is a growing threat from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
In a briefing to journalists, Israel Defense Forces Colonel Ronen Marley revealed previously classified photographs to show what he said was a unit of 90 Hezbollah militants operating in the village of Al-Hiyam, where they were storing weapons close to hospitals and schools.
The Hezbollah official told Asharq al-Awsat that they were concerned that Israel was “preparing something for us” and added that they would act with restraint.
“We want to avoid heated political debates because we want the summer season to be perfect for the Lebanese despite Israeli attempts to execute what it failed to achieve in 2006,” Asharq al-Awsat quoted the Hezbollah official.
“We are sensing suspicious international activity, especially after Israeli chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi’s recent statements, all aimed at pressuring the Resistance,” the sources stressed.
Exposed: The truth about Israel’s land grab in the West Bank: The Independent
As President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet, a report reveals 42 per cent of territory is controlled by settlers
By Catrina Stewart in Jerusalem and David Usborne
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Jewish settlers, who claim a divine right to the whole of Israel, now control more than 42 per cent of the occupied West Bank, representing a powerful obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state, a new report has revealed.
The jurisdiction of some 200 settlements, illegal under international law, cover much more of the occupied Palestinian territory than previously thought. And a large section of the land has been seized from private Palestinian landowners in defiance even of an Israeli supreme court ruling, the report said, a finding which sits uncomfortably with Israeli claims that it builds only on state land.
Drawing on official Israeli military maps and population statistics, the leading Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, compiled the new findings, which were released just as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, arrived in Washington to try to heal a gaping rift with US President Barack Obama over the issue of settlements.
“The settlement enterprise has been characterised, since its inception, by an instrumental, cynical, and even criminal approach to international law, local legislation, Israeli military orders, and Israeli law, which has enabled the continuous pilfering of land from Palestinians in the West Bank,” the report concluded.
Mr Obama’s demand for a freeze on illegal building has caused months of friction between his administration and the Israeli government. But the US president, facing mid-term elections in November, appeared eager to end the dispute with Israel yesterday.
He said the country was making “real progress” on improving conditions in the Gaza Strip and was serious about achieving peace.
The two men made a joint public appearance, carefully choreographed to convey mutual ease and friendship.
When Mr Netanyahu last visited the White House, in March, US anger at his refusal to end construction meant the Israeli premier was denied a joint appearance with Mr Obama before the cameras. This time the photo-op was granted and the two men afterwards shared a meal – although not a state dinner but a working lunch.
“Reports about the demise of the special US-Israel relationship aren’t premature, there are just flat wrong,” Mr Netanyahu said, in response to a reporter’s question about the perceived tensions. Playing to the same script, Mr Obama said that the “bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable”.
But the revelations in the B’Tselem report suggest that despite Mr Netanyahu’s stated desire for peace, his policy on settlements remains a dangerous obstacle to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and therefore to a durable peace.
They cast an uncompromising spotlight on Israeli practices in the Palestinian territories that have long drawn international criticism for establishing “facts on the ground” hampering the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
While most of the Jewish settlement activity is concentrated in 1 per cent of the West Bank, settler councils have in fact fenced off or earmarked massive tracts of land, comprising some 42 per cent of the West Bank, B’Tselem said.
And despite the outlawing by Israel of settlement expansion on private Palestinian land, settlers have seized 21 per cent of land that Israel recognises is privately-owned.
B’Tselem alleged that Israel had devised an extensive system of loopholes to requisition Palestinian land.
At the same time, Israel has built bypass roads, erected new checkpoints, and taken control of scarce water resources to the benefit of the settlers. The measures have effectively created Palestinian enclaves within the West Bank, the report said.
Under international law, any Jewish settlements built on occupied territory are illegal. These include all the settlements in the West Bank, and thousands of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem, the Arab-dominated sector of the city annexed by Israel after the 1967 Six Day War. The international community still regards East Jerusalem as occupied territory. Despite firm commitments from successive Israeli governments to dismantle illegal outposts built after 2001 and to cease expansion of the settlements, Israel has provided millions of dollars worth of incentives to encourage poorer families to move into the West Bank. Some 300,000 settlers live in the West Bank.
Settlers immediately attacked the report, claiming it was timed as a spoiler to the Washington meeting.
In Washington, no concrete breakthroughs were announced but Mr Obama said that he believed the Israeli leader was ready to move towards direct talks with the Palestinians. Indirect talks began earlier this year, mediated by special US envoy George Mitchell.
Mr Netanyahu showed signs of responding to the pressure. “Peace is the best option for all of us and I think we have a unique opportunity to do it,” he said. “If we work together with [Palestinian] President [Mahmoud] Abbas then we can bring a great message of hope to our peoples, to the region and to the world.”
The Palestinians continue to refuse direct talks with Israel while new settlement construction is allowed. Settlement activity continues in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians aim to include in a new state.
With US-Israel ties already frayed, Mr Netanyahu postponed a visit to the White House last month in the aftermath of Israel’s deadly raid on a Turkish-led flotilla trying to deliver humanitarian goods to Gaza.
For Mr Obama, the danger is clear that any long-lasting record of animosity towards Israel could translate into lost votes at the mid-term elections.
Norman Finkelstein: Results, Not Rhetoric: Grittv
Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussing their countries’ foreign relations resembles two lovers discussing their future together. Though they have squabbled in the past over trivial things (things like settlement expansion that most other countries deem flagrant violations of international law), their July 6th meeting at the White House showed that their “unbreakable bond” cannot be shaken.
Norman Finkelstein joins Laura Flanders of GRITtv in the studio to report that one should judge the alleged “peace process” with results, not rhetoric. Obama has certainly given enough lip service to settlement moratoriums, proximity talks, and direct talks, but what are the results? Since the Oslo Accords in 1993, there are three times as many settlers and Israel has annexed 42% of Palestinian land for even more expansion. Though Obama waxes eloquently about “direct negotiations,” there are no signs of Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders that would only begin to indicate a successful peace process.
Will army apologize for lies?: YNet
Op-ed: With Gaza indictments behind filed, IDF spokesman should quit after lying to Israelis
Dana Golan
Published: 07.08.10, 17:52
Upon the publication of soldiers’ testimonials following Operation Cast Lead a year ago, IDF Spokesman Avi Benayahu launched a smear campaign against the troops and said their reports were detached from reality. The words “liars,” “actors,” and “libel” were only a small part of the jargon he used in order to divert the discussion away from its essence. By doing so he prevented many Israelis from hearing what was done in Gaza on their behalf.
Benayahu’s vigorous campaign was joined among others by Golani Brigade Commander Avi Peled, who authoritatively declared that innocent civilians were not used as human shield during the operation – by doing so, Peled blatantly lied to the public. The soldiers who saw him in the field during the operation knew he was not telling the truth and that the angry Benayahu was merely trying to hide a reality we must be aware of.
Now, even those of us who did not don a uniform in January of last year understand it: Almost a year after the testimonials were published, the Judge Advocate General decided to take disciplinary action against the battalion commander who allowed the use of human shields. Meanwhile, and quietly for a change, we’ve seen reports about an indictment against another IDF soldier over the killing of an innocent woman, with a senior officer also involved in the case.
Now, all we get from Benayahu is silence. Avi Peled is also not around to explain his confidence in claiming that the IDF does not overlook Palestinian life, or to explain why lower-ranked soldiers yet again have to pay the price of this ambiguity. As it turns out, IDF officials do not think that the public needs to get answers, while beleiving that the trust accorded to the only establishment in Israel that owes answers to no one is boundless.
Yet even if they chose to speak to us today, why should we believe them? There’s a good reason why the IDF’s energetic spokesman is silent today. As one who is “loyal to the establishment” and speaks out in its defense in a blind and impassioned manner every time its credibility is doubted, Benayahu forgot a while ago that the establishment he represents is obligated first and foremost to the Israeli public.
What about credibility?
We have a right to know whether in the name of defending our country, our sons, brothers, and friends violate our moral code and an explicit High Court ruling on the matter. Who asked Benayahu and the army’s top brass to decide for us what we need to hear? Israel’s citizens are not the spokesman’s subordinates. If anything, he is here to serve us. The IDF spokesman cannot angrily pound the table and lie to us every time we hear soldiers’ testimonials that are incommensurate with the “world’s most moral army” mantra.
Benayahu also cannot send us a senior commander to tell us what’s happening in the field, expecting that we accept every word and ignore the soldiers who execute the policy and describe a different reality.
Credibility is part of the fundamental values that the IDF boasts of, and for that reason Benayahu must go home. First, he must apologize to the soldiers he smeared publicly. Meanwhile, the Israeli public should demand the truth about Operation Cast Lead from an independent Israeli commission of inquiry that will remain loyal to the public and not filter information as it wishes. This is our moral obligation to the soldiers we sent to get the job done on our behalf; this is the duty of civil society in a state that characterizes itself as democratic.
Dana Golan is the director of Breaking the Silence organization
The Making of History / Who owns this country?: Haaretz
A fascinating historical debate is taking place in the Be’er Sheva District Court.
By Tom Segev
A fascinating historical debate is taking place in the Be’er Sheva District Court. Judge Sarah Dovrat has to decide between conflicting opinions she received from two professors, Ruth Kark of Hebrew University and Oren Yiftachel of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. The immediate question under consideration is fairly limited: A Bedouin citizen named Nuri el-Okbi is demanding 820 dunams of land in the northern Negev, which he claims his family held for generations until the state stole it in 1951. The judge’s willingness to peruse quotations from ancient travel books, yellowing maps and other historical documents bring up a fundamental question: Who does this country belong to?
Okbi was about 9 years old when his family was forced to leave its home for Lod, where he eventually opened an auto repair shop. For years now, he has been leading a public campaign for Bedouin rights. In response to his claims, lawyers for the state rummaged through archives and found that in February 1921, the British Mandate government issued the Dead (Mewat) Lands Ordinance, which granted the Bedouin a two-month extension to register any lands to which they laid claim. Almost none did so, and the deadline passed. Therefore, they do not own these lands, the state argues.
Kark, an expert on geographic history, has published dozens of books and articles on the history of Jewish settlement in Israel, and has also studied the history of the Bedouin. Her work is anchored in the Zionist narrative, which contends among other things that a people without a land returned to a land without a people. In the opinion she wrote for Jeries Rawashdeh, deputy state prosecutor for the southern district, Kark maintained there had been no permanent settlements in the northern Negev, and that there was no evidence that any lands in the area were owned by anyone.
The Bedouin did not make a living from land cultivation, but rather from raising camels, sheep and goats, which necessitates seasonal migration. The first permanent settlement in the area was Be’er Sheva, in 1900, she wrote.
Okbi’s lawyer, Michael Sfard, gave the court a 1921 document from Britain’s National Archives. The document is a summary of a meeting between the secretary of state for the colonies and the Bedouin leaders in the Be’er Sheva area. The secretary, Winston Churchill, was staying in Jerusalem at the time; the meeting was held in Armon Hanatziv, the headquarters of the British high commissioner, and a statement was issued afterward: The Bedouin representatives “conveyed to him an expression of loyalty to his Majesty’s government,” and the secretary of state for the colonies “reaffirmed the assurances that the special rights of the Bedouins of Beersheba will not be interfered with.”
The document was brought from London by Yiftachel, a geographer and historian. His work is anchored in the post-Zionist narrative. In the wake of the meeting with Churchill, Yiftachel claims, the Bedouin in the district were granted an exemption from the duty to register their land, and received permission to set up a tribal court for addressing land matters.
According to Sfard, the Ottoman authorities bought the land on which Be’er Sheva was built from the Bedouin, and the Jewish National Fund also bought land from them during the British Mandate era. Hence the Bedouin’s ownership of the lands was acknowledged.
The dispute between Yiftachel and Kark has taken on a rather personal tone. She frequently relies on travelers who visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, while he calls this dubious sourcing. He demands consideration be given to the “native” Bedouin tradition; she retorts that the Bedouin should not be considered “natives.” This raises the question of what a native is and who a Bedouin is, and where his loyalty lies: with his tribe or his place of abode. Kark calls Yiftachel’s opinion political, and he counters: “I could argue that Prof. Kark’s support for the expropriation of Bedouin rights to the lands of their forefathers is very political.”
They are not arguing over Okbi’s plot of land; they are arguing over the justness of Zionism.
The man who taught me to read history
Michael Confino was an internationally renowned expert on Russian history, an Israel Prize laureate and a wonderful teacher who exuded charm and inspiration. I remember a seminar he gave at Hebrew University on a topic that I had trouble finding interesting: “Russia’s expansion in Asia in the 19th century.” But the main thing Confino taught us has helped me to this day: How to read a historical document.
Confino handed out copies of a letter that a Russian minister whose name meant nothing to us had written to some Russian bureaucrat, also an unknown. First you check the date, Confino explained. You need to know which calendar the writer used and how the date is formatted: The Russians use a different calendar, and the Americans write the month before the day, while Israelis put the day before the month, for instance. What do we know about the period when the document was written, where was it composed, why there of all places, and who is writing to whom? Sometimes the writer or the recipient is identified only by surname; you must confirm their first names, identify their roles. Note, Confino said, this is Peter Petrovich, who was in charge of the surveying department, not his brother who was the ambassador to London, but the fact that his brother was an ambassador also says something about our Peter.
Confino unearthed and published numerous documents that were previously unknown. Alongside his work at Tel Aviv University, where he began working in 1970, he also taught at Harvard and a number of other international universities. He died about a month ago, at age 84.
Gaza: Amnesty ends; collaborator owns up: YNet
After 60 days’ amnesty for collaborators who turn themselves in to Hamas, Palestinian admits to following Prime Minister Haniyeh
A Gaza Strip resident has been reporting to Israel on the movements of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, according to Hamas media reports from the weekend. The reports came as Hamas’ two-month amnesty period for collaborators who turn themselves in drew to an end.
The collaborator in question, it was reported, admitted to following Haniyeh when he went to bathe in the sea or jog along the beach, and transferred the information to Israel using a cell-phone with an Orange SIM card. He gave himself up to Hamas after the organization promised to grant amnesty to collaborators with Israel.
Another Palestinian who turned himself in admitted that he worked with Israel for 21 years and even during the first intifada he passed on information about stone-throwers and about homes of militants. He would open roads and tracks for Israel when the IDF entered the Strip and would even enter Israel claiming he was a merchant.
Another collaborator said that during a meeting with his handlers he was attacked by Shin Bet guards who suspected him of acting as a double agent.
Hamas Interior Ministry spokesman Ihab al-Rassin said the national campaign in the struggle against collaborators had got results which “shook the Zionist entity.” He said in recent days the number of Palestinians turning themselves in had increased.
“We are dealing with them in closed circles, in order to maintain their good names and honor within Palestinian society,” al-Rassin said. “The end of the amnesty period does not mean the end of the struggle against collaborators. We will continue to act against the group which harms national Palestinian interests.”
UN: West Bank barrier a “health hazard”: Al Jazeera online
By Al Jazeera – 9 July 2010
Israel’s separation barrier makes it difficult for Palestinians living in the West Bank to obtain proper health care, according to a new report from the United Nations.
The report, prepared by the Office of the Co-ordinator for Humanitarian Affairs, found that thousands of Palestinians have limited access to East Jerusalem hospitals because of the barrier.
Ambulances are routinely delayed at checkpoints, and Palestinian vehicles are not allowed to pass through barrier checkpoints, forcing sick or elderly patients to walk.
Some Palestinians living in the West Bank cannot obtain permits to receive medical care in East Jerusalem – or they receive permits for shorter durations of time than the treatment requires.
“Males aged between 15 and 30 often have their requests for permits turned down on the grounds of security,” the UN wrote.
“In many cases, it is also difficult for parents of sick children or for family members to obtain permits to escort patients to Jerusalem.”
Israel’s civil administration told Al Jazeera that 84 per cent of Palestinians who apply are granted permits to access hospitals or other medical facilities.
Verdict anniversary
Friday is the sixth anniversary of an International Court of Justice ruling that declared the security barrier illegal. The court called on Israel to dismantle the barrier and to compensate Palestinians affected by its construction.
Israel ignored the ruling, and construction continues: 61 per cent of the 707km barrier has now been built, according to the United Nations.
Roughly nine per cent of the West Bank’s territory will sit on the “Israeli” side of the finished barrier.
A number of villages are completely or partially surrounded by the barrier.
The UN’s report noted that the barrier has also hurt farmers in the West Bank. Hundreds of farmers own land that sits between the barrier and the Green Line, the ceasefire line drawn at the end of the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war.
Those farmers need to obtain permits to work their own land, and can only access their property through one of 57 barrier gates.
“The majority of the gates only open during the olive harvest season, and usually only for a limited period during the day,” the UN said.
“Farmers are not permitted to stay on their land over night and must return at the last gate opening time.”
More than 7,000 Palestinians live in those “seam zones” between the security barrier and the Green Line. They have little access to hospitals or other medical facilities once the barrier gates close for the night.
“Emergency medical care during those night hours requires co-ordination with the Israeli authorities, leading to serious delays,” the UN wrote.
“21st-century colonisation”
The Israeli government started building the security barrier in 2002, after a wave of suicide bombings inside Israel. The government insists it is a temporary measure.
Few Palestinians believe that, and polls routinely show that halting the wall’s construction is one of their main concerns.
Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator in the Palestinian Authority, recently called the barrier “colonisation in the 21st century”.
“The wall is one of the ugliest manifestations of this grave violation of international law,” Erekat said on Thursday.
“It separates farmers from their lands, children from their schools and families from each other. It is a land grab disguised as a security measure.”
In fact, the Israeli government has taken steps which suggest the barrier will not be short-lived. Earlier this year, for example, Israeli officials said they were designing electronic key cards that farmers could use to access their land.
High stakes for Turkey and Israel in Gaza flotilla row: The Guardian
They may still bristle over the attack on the Mavi Marmara but both sides have enough to lose to warrant resolving the impasse
Turkey is finding it hard to make up its mind about how to deal with Israel. A blunt threat this week to sever diplomatic relations in the wake of the Gaza “freedom flotilla” affair apparently caused internal disagreements and has not been repeated. Respected critics warn of an over-reaction by the government. And Israel points to areas where, despite official anger in Ankara, military co-operation between the two countries is quietly continuing.
Yet the episode is far from over, because while Israel is conducting an internal investigation into its attack on the Mavi Marmara on 31 May, it is resisting calls for an international inquiry and insists it will not apologise for killing nine Turks. Further aid ships from Lebanon and Libya are likely to test the maritime blockade again, though the easing of import restrictions on goods entering Gaza has relieved the immediate international pressure on Israel.
Turkish domestic politics are, of course, part of this story, as is the country’s orientation towards Iran, Syria and eastwards as its hopes for EU membership dim. But it is also about a changing regional environment in which Israel has never looked so isolated.
Hostility between Ankara and Jerusalem echoes, albeit in a minor key, the seismic change that took place in 1979 when the Islamic revolution ended Israel’s relationship with Iran and its embassy in Tehran was taken over symbolically by Yasser Arafat’s PLO. For 30 years Iran and Turkey were the mainstays of Israel’s “periphery” strategy. Both had poor relations with their Arab or Muslim neighbours and valued Israel’s clout with the US. On the principle that its enemies’ enemies were its friends, Israel used its Mossad secret service to gave clandestine assistance to Iraqi Kurds, Lebanese Maronites and Christian rebels in Sudan at a time when peace with Arab states seemed impossible. Even when peace treaties were signed, with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, they were not followed by wider acceptance of Israel in the region because they did not reach the Palestinian core of the conflict.
The erosion of Israel’s relationship with Turkey is fundamentally a function of the failure to achieve a settlement with the Palestinians. It has accelerated in recent years because of the wars against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which triggered the extraordinary incident when the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, became an Arab hero by storming off the Davos platform he was sharing with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres.
Israel has a lot to lose if the relationship does break down. Turkey is the only Muslim country with which Israel has had a strategic military relationship – including overflights and joint exercises. But Turkey, which prizes its membership of Nato, knows that a breach with Israel could cost it dear in the US: thus the intensive efforts being made by the Obama administration to end the standoff.
Turks are not alone in disagreeing about foreign policy. Abdullah Gul, the president, complained this week that Israelis were also divided, referring to the position of the hardline foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who objected to, and is presumed to have leaked details of, a supposedly secret meeting in Brussels where prospects for a rapprochement were being quietly explored. Ahmet Davutoglu, Lieberman’s counterpart, revealed that he felt this was an act of deliberate sabotage.
It is hard to argue with Gul’s statement that Israel is behaving irrationally by apparently being prepared to ditch its relations with its only Muslim ally. But this episiode again underlines the highly corrosive effect of failing to advance towards an agreement with the Palestinians.
Support for mending fences came from another perhaps unlikely source – Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad, who warned that a permanent rupture with Israel would make it harder for Turkey to resume its role as broker in future Middle East peace talks. If Washington and Damascus agree, then Ankara and Jerusalem may eventually manage to patch things up.