March 24, 2010

Differences remain between Israel and US – White House: BBC

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the talks had been straightforward
Differences remain between Israel and the US, following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the White House has said.
President Obama urged the Israeli PM to take steps to build confidence in the peace process, during “honest” talks on Tuesday, said spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Mr Gibbs also said the US was seeking “clarification” of the latest plans to build homes in occupied East Jerusalem.
Mr Netanyahu’s trip came amid the worst crisis in US-Israeli ties for decades.
The Israeli prime minister delayed his departure from Washington on Wednesday to meet the US Middle East peace envoy, George Mitchell.
The spat flared two weeks ago when, during a visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden, Israel unveiled plans to build 1,600 homes in part of East Jerusalem, which Washington branded an insult.

TIMELINE: ISRAEL-US ROW
9 Mar: Israel announces the building of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem during visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden.
Mr Biden condemns the move
11 Mar: Mr Biden says there must be no delay in resuming Mid-East peace talks, despite the row
12 Mar: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the Israeli move is “deeply negative” for relations
15 Mar: The US says it is waiting for a “formal response” from Israel to its proposals to show it is committed to Mid-East peace
16 Mar: The US envoy to the Mid-East postpones a visit to Israel
17 Mar: President Obama denies there is a crisis with Israel
22 Mar: Hillary Clinton tells pro-Israel lobby group Aipac Israel has to make “difficult but necessary choices” if it wants peace with Palestinians.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu tells Aipac Israel has a “right to build” in Jerusalem
23 Mar: Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu meet behind closed doors with no media access
23 Mar: Jerusalem municipal government approves building of 20 new homes in East Jerusalem
24 Mar: The White House says differences remain

Then, minutes before Mr Netanyahu’s fence-mending visit to the White House on Tuesday, it emerged the Jerusalem municipal government had approved the building of 20 new apartments.
Mr Gibbs told reporters on Wednesday there were still areas of “disagreement” between the sides, following the two meetings in Washington, one of which was unscheduled.
He described the three-and-a-half hours of talks as an “honest and straightforward discussion that continues”.
“The president has asked the prime minister for certain things to build confidence up to proximity talks that we think can make progress,” Mr Gibbs said, referring to the peace process.
He reiterated the US position that there is an “unbreakable bond” between America and the Israeli people.
The Israelis said there had been a “good atmosphere” during Tuesday’s talks.
But the BBC’s Kim Ghattas in Washington notes Mr Netanyahu did not get the reception usually reserved for America’s allies.
There was no press conference, no lavish welcome, and the White House did not even release a picture of the meeting.
It all signals that the US is playing tough, making clear it is upset with the Israeli government, says our correspondent.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem for their future capital, but Israel insists the city cannot be divided.
Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
They are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Obama and Netanyahu play hardball over Israeli settlement plan: The Guardian

News blackout imposed as two leaders engage in tough talks over plans for another East Jerusalem settlement
The White House was today seeking clarification from the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, after it emerged that approval has been issued for another Jewish settlement project in East Jerusalem, which the US tried to halt last year.
The latest project, which involves the demolition of the historic Shepherd Hotel in Sheikh Jarrah, came as President Barack Obama and Netanyahu were engaged in hardball diplomacy over the whole issue of settlements. The White House confirmed today there was disagreement between the two.
Netanyahu has publicly refused to give a commitment to freeze settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the Palestinians have said they will not resume even indirect negotiations with the Israelis until the issue is resolved.

The White House, unusually for the visit of a foreign leader, has imposed a news blackout on the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama last night. There was no picture of the two men together and no press statement by the White House.
The White House press spokesman, Robert Gibbs, asked by reporters today about the meeting, described it as “honest and straightforward”, diplomatic speak for tough discussions. “There are areas of agreement and areas of disagreement,” Gibbs said.
Netanyahu initially met Obama for 90 minutes. Unusually, the Israeli prime minister then held discussions with his own staff in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a further 80 minutes before asking to see Obama again.

The two leaders then held a further 30 minutes of discussion.

Gibbs said that Netanyahu was continuing talks with Obama administration staff today.
There are conflicting accounts of precisely what Netanyahu has offered Obama. Officials in Washington reported Netanyahu had offered concessions to the Palestinians such as removal of some roadblocks and Israeli troops from the West Bank and an unofficial freeze on settlement building.
The row, which has seen relations between the US and Israel sink to their lowest point for decades, began earlier this month when, even as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, was visiting Jerusalem, the Israeli authorities approved 1,600 new homes that would almost double the size of Ramat Shlomo, an ultra-Orthodox settlement in East Jerusalem.

A final building permit for the Shepherd Hotel project was signed last Thursday, before Netanyahu flew to Washington for talks with Obama. The decision means work can start at any time to demolish it and to build 20 new apartments for Jewish settlers in its place.
“What it means politically is that it is one very important project that can torpedo the peace talks,” said Hagit Ofran, a settlement expert at the Israeli group Peace Now. “It is in the hands of the settlers to decide when to bring the bulldozers … It is a very dangerous step.”
Another project to build 200 settler homes in a nearby area of Sheikh Jarrah, which was shelved last year, was revived a few weeks ago and has passed the preliminary stages of the approval process, Ofran said. If successful it would be built on the site of homes from which several Palestinian families have been evicted in recent months.

“These new settlement units are part of Israel’s attempt to forcibly end any Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem, and to foreclose any hope of reaching agreement on the core issue of Jerusalem in line with international law,” said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.
The Shepherd Hotel, close to the British consulate, was once a headquarters for Haj Amin al-Husseini, the former Palestinian grand mufti of Jerusalem. After 1967, Israel deemed it absentee property. It was then bought, reportedly for $1m, in 1985 by Irving Moskowitz, a Jewish American millionaire who funds settlements.

Elisha Peleg, a Jerusalem city councillor, said the Shepherd Hotel building permit was a “technical step” and that more construction would follow there and in other Palestinian areas of the city. “We will continue to build all over Jerusalem, in Sheikh Jarrah and Ras al-Amud as well,” he said.
Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli human rights lawyer and founder of the group Ir Amim, said the new building was part of the encirclement of Jerusalem’s Old City by Jewish settlements. “It is going to be interpreted by the Palestinians, with I think a degree of legitimacy, as an attempt to eradicate the expression of their culture and presence,” he said. “It is the first new construction in Sheikh Jarrah: the encroachment of ideologically motivated settlers in a Palestinian neighbourhood.”

Two meetings, but no agreement between Obama and Netanyahu: Haaretz

Israeli and American leaders could not even agree on a joint statement after their White House talks.
WASHINGTON – The meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House on Tuesday did not resolve the differences of opinion on the future of the peace process with the Palestinians or Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu canceled a series of interviews and briefings with the American media, scheduled for Wednesday morning, in order to focus on the serious disagreements with the Obama administration.

Netanyahu arrived at the White House at 5:30 P.M. local time Tuesday, and held one on one talks with Obama for an hour and a half. The meeting ended in serious disagreement; after the talks – in an unprecedented move – Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and their advisers retired to a side room in the White House for consultations, while Obama left for his residential quarters. Some 90 minutes later, Netanyahu requested a second meeting with the president, who returned to the Oval Office for a further half-hour conversation with the prime minister.
But the second meeting between the two also ended in disagreement, and they could not even reach a consensus on a joint statement. Netanyahu and Ehud Barak then left the White House for the Israeli embassy in Washington, leaving the prime minister’s aides, Yitzhak Molcho, Ron Dermer and Nir Chefetz, as well as Ambassador Michael Oren, to hold talks with Obama’s people. Only at 2 A.M. did these consultations end, and Netanyahu and his entourage return to their hotel.

In the wake of such serious disagreements, and the need to continue the lower-level consultations Wednesday morning, Netanyahu canceled his media appearances.
Sources in Netanyahu’s entourage said that the day had been devoted solely to talks with senior American officials, led by Molcho and Dermer. Netanyahu was set to meet special envoy George Mitchell on Wednesday, and he and Barak were to spend the day at the Israeli embassy.
“The objective is to reach understandings with the American administration before we take off for Israel,” said a source in the Netanyahu camp.
Nevertheless, it is unclear when Netanyahu would board a plane for home. Apparently this will happen Wednesday evening, Washington time, at the earliest.

US seeks “clarification” on Israel’s latest East Jerusalem build: Ma’an/Agencies

Bethlehem – The White House said Wednesday it is seeking Israel’s clarification on a recent decision to build 20 new housing units in occupied East Jerusalem, in the flashpoint Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, on the site of the Shepherd Hotel.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the US administration believes Israel’s continued building in Jerusalem is destructive to the peace process, the Associated Press reported.

Vietor said the US is urging both Israelis and Palestinians to refrain from acts that could undermine trust, amid efforts to kick start the peace process.
The latest announcement to continue building in East Jerusalem, despite international calls for a halt, follow a recent string of declarations by the Israeli government since US Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to the region as the American administration launches a fresh bid to renew stalled talks that broke of in December 2008 following Israel’s assault on Gaza.
During the visit, Israel’s Interior Ministry announced the construction of 1,600 Israeli-only homes in East Jerusalem, on the eve of the PLO’s decision to enter into US-brokered proximity talks with Israel. The move sparked international condemnation, with the Quartet calling on Israel to revoke its decision. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told conveners at the AIPAC conference that Jerusalem construction would continue unhindered.

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said Wednesday that Israel’s most recent decision to build in Sheikh Jarrah, on the site the Shephard Hotel, is damaging Israel’s credibility as a serious partner for peace and are further attempts to erase Palestinian presence in the city.
“If Israel is serious about negotiations, then why not stop illegal settlement construction as the international community is calling for and the Road Map demands, especially when every effort is being made to start proximity talks? Why continue doing what Israel is doing when everyone is urging Israel to do what is right and what is needed if peace is to have any chance,” Erekat said in a statement.

“Israel is digging itself into a hole that it will have to climb out of if it is serious about peace. There is overwhelming international consensus on the illegality of Israel’s settlements, including in East Jerusalem, and the damage they are doing to the two-state solution.”
Plans submitted to construct a new Israeli settlement in Sheikh Jarrah consist of 90 housing units, as well as a synagogue, a kindergarten and a children’s park. The whole complex will be approximately 10,000 square meters in size and slated to house up to 500 new settlers. On Tuesday the Israeli Jerusalem Municipality gave the go-ahead for the construction of 20 new Jewish-only units.

Barak: I can’t promise there will be no future settlement mishaps: Haaretz

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview with Charlie Rose to be aired on Wednesday, has said that he cannot guarantee that there won’t be any future mishaps regarding settlement building.

Barak was speaking about the trigger of the recent crisis in U.S.-Israel relations, which was the Israeli government’s announcement two weeks ago of plans to build 1,600 new units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of East Jerusalem.
“I cannot tell you that we fully control any step or any announcement about all these dozens [of] programs which are in the pipeline, including many that are related to Arab building in Jerusalem and so on,” Barak told Rose.
Advertisement
“I cannot promise that no mishap will happen. But I can promise you that we will do our best to make sure that we’ll keep with the American administration a kind of open dialogue about what happens,? Barak said.

The Defense Minister did emphasize his disappointment with the circumstances of the East Jerusalem building announcement.
“It was embarrassing, damaging, very wrong timing, but I can assure that neither Netanyahu nor the Cabinet knew about it in advance,” Barak told Rose.
“It’s a complicated, uncontrollable process, but now the government nominated a committee of senior level officials to make sure that this cannot happen once again.”

Israel Confirms New Building in East Jerusalem: The New York Times

A Palestinian woman and child walked past the former Hotel Shepherd in east Jerusalem on Wednesday, as local officials gave final approval to build 20 apartments for Jewish settlers where the Palestinian hotel once stood.
Jerusalem city hall gave the project the final go-ahead on March 18, days after city officials said the landowners had paid the required fees. Once the fees were paid, City Hall said in a statement on Wednesday, “approval was granted automatically.”
A spokesman for the White House said on Wednesday that it was seeking “clarification” on the building project. In New York, the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, told the Security Council that “all settlement activity is illegal, but inserting settlers into Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is particularly troubling.”

He added: “This leads to tensions and undermines prospects for addressing the final status of Jerusalem.”

A Palestinian woman and child walked past the former Hotel Shepherd in east Jerusalem on Wednesday, as local officials gave final approval to build 20 apartments for Jewish settlers where the Palestinian hotel once stood.

The plan in question is for construction of 20 residential units in the Shepherd Hotel compound in Sheik Jarrah, a neighborhood populated mostly by Palestinians, and more recently by some Israeli nationalist Jews, just north of the Old City.
The green light for the project was first published by Ynet, an Israeli news Web site, on Tuesday night, shortly before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama in Washington.
Given the tense atmosphere surrounding building plans in the Israeli-annexed eastern part of Jerusalem, Israeli officials Wednesday played down the significance of the latest development, saying approval was a technicality that required no further decision by any committee or body.

“This plan began to be formulated in the 1980s,” Naomi Tsur, the deputy mayor of Jerusalem responsible for planning and environment, said in a telephone interview. “It was given final approval nine or ten months ago.” The latest approval , she said, “was a technical step put out by a computer somewhere. But somebody with peculiarly accurate timing released this non-information within minutes of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting.”
Officials described the Ynet report, which said that final approval had been granted only on March 18, as “distorted” and intended “to stir up a provocation” during Mr. Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. The plan received final approval in July 2009, officials said.

Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war, but its annexation was never internationally recognized. The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state and demand a halt to Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, before Israeli-Palestinian negotiations can start.
The Obama administration was close to starting indirect, so-called “proximity talks” between the Israelis and Palestinians, with an American envoy shuttling between the two sides. Those were put off when Israel announced plans this month for 1,600 new housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of East Jerusalem during a visit here by Vice President Joseph R. Biden, infuriating the Obama administration.

Mr. Netanyahu apologized for the bad timing but continues to insist on Israel’s right to build anywhere in what Israel considers its united capital of Jerusalem.
Still, in a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, a spokeswoman for the Israeli Interior Ministry confirmed on Wednesday that a meeting of the district planning committee had been put off earlier this week pending the conclusions of a committee set up by Mr. Netanyahu to improve government coordination regarding building plans in Jerusalem.

The 20-unit complex in question is to be built on property bought by a Miami-based businessman, Irving Moskowitz, in 1985. Mr. Moskowitz has long supported the development of Israeli and Jewish housing in Arab areas of East Jerusalem. The Shepherd Hotel was originally built as a villa for Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem who notoriously aligned himself with Hitler. The historic building on the site will be preserved, Ms. Tsur said. The property is not far from Israeli government buildings and foreign consulates.
Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer who opposes Israeli expansion in East Jerusalem and is active in promoting a political solution for the city, said he has been warning the Israeli and American governments for months that the Shepherd Hotel building project was likely to get under way as soon as there was a prospect of peace talks.

“Projects like this are a spoiler’s paradise,” he said.

Leftist Israeli groups like Peace Now, which oppose Israeli settlement in the territories occupied in 1967, have been monitoring and highlighting new construction plans.
According to Israeli planning and construction regulations, construction usually has to start within a year after approval has been granted, or the building permit will be nullified.

Ms. Tsur, the deputy mayor, said that once fees are paid by developers and the green light is given, the “clock begins to tick.”
“They can start building tomorrow,” she said.
Ms. Tsur also said that the final approval was given last year in “full coordination” with the British and United States consulates. But both the United States and Britain raised concerns about the project when it was approved last July. The British Consulate is very close to where the new construction will begin.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement on Wednesday that “Israel is digging itself into a hole that it will have to climb out of if it is serious about peace.
He added: “There is overwhelming international consensus on the illegality of Israel’s settlements, including in East Jerusalem, and the damage they are doing to the two-state solution,” he said.

Dispute with Israel underscores limits of U.S. power, a shifting alliance: Washington Post

The two-week-old dispute between Israel and the United States over housing construction in East Jerusalem has exposed the limits of American power to pressure Israeli leaders to make decisions they consider politically untenable. But the blowup also shows that the relationship between the two allies is changing, in ways that are unsettling for Israel’s supporters.

President Obama and his aides have cast the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not just the relationship with Israel, as a core U.S. national security interest. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of the military’s Central Command, put it starkly in recent testimony on Capitol Hill: “The conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel.” His comments raised eyebrows in official Washington — and overseas — because they suggested that U.S. military officials were embracing the idea that failure to resolve the conflict had begun to imperil American lives.

Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received warm applause at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Monday night when he bluntly dismissed U.S. demands to end housing construction in the disputed part of Jerusalem. He was greeted as a hero when he visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
But the administration has been strikingly muted in its reception. No reporters, or even photographers, were invited when Netanyahu met with Secretary of State Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Biden on Monday or when he met with Obama on Tuesday night. There was no grand Rose Garden ceremony. Official spokesmen issued only the blandest of statements.

The cooling in the U.S.-Israel relationship coincides with an apparent deepening of Israel’s diplomatic isolation. Anger has grown in Europe in the wake of Israel’s suspected misuse of European passports to kill a Palestinian militant in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. On Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband announced the expulsion of a senior diplomat over the incident, an unusually drastic step for an ally. Relations with Turkey, a rare Muslim friend of Israel for decades, have hit a new low.
Obama and his aides have strongly pledged support for Israel’s security — including a reiteration by Clinton when she addressed AIPAC on Monday — but they have continued to criticize its settlement policies in tough terms. Clinton notably did not pull her punches on the issue when she addressed the pro-Israel group, warning that whether Israelis like it or not, “the status quo” is not sustainable. The drawing of such lines by the administration has been noticed in the Middle East.

“Israeli policies have transcended personal affront or embarrassment to American officials and are causing the United States real pain beyond the Arab-Israeli arena. This is something new, and therefore the U.S. is reacting with unusually strong, public and repeated criticisms of Israel’s settlement policies and its general peace-negotiating posture,” Rami Khouri, editor at large of Beirut’s Daily Star, wrote this week. “At the same time Washington repeats it ironclad commitment to Israel’s basic security in its 1967 borders, suggesting that the U.S. is finally clarifying that its support for Israel does not include unconditional support for Israel’s colonization policies.”

Problems from the start

The Obama administration has struggled from the start to find its footing with Israel and the Palestinians. Obama took office soon after Israel’s three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip, which had ruptured peace talks nurtured by the George W. Bush administration. Obama appointed a special envoy, former senator George J. Mitchell, on his second day in office. But then the administration tried to pressure Israel to freeze all settlement expansion — and failed. The United States further lost credibility when Clinton embraced Netanyahu’s compromise proposal, which fell short of Palestinian expectations, as “unprecedented.”
U.S. pressure at the time also backfired because it appeared to let the Palestinians off the hook. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to enter into direct talks before a settlement freeze, even though he had done so before. The administration had to settle for indirect talks, with Mitchell shuttling back and forth. The recent disagreement has set back that effort.

Administration officials have been careful to turn down the heat in their latest exchanges with Netanyahu over Jerusalem, even as they continue to express their displeasure. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley spoke in clipped sentences Tuesday when asked to describe the hours of private conversations with Netanyahu this week: “We have outlined some concerns to the Israeli government. They have responded to our concerns. That conversation continues. This is a dynamic process. There’s a lot of give-and-take involved in these conversations.”
Crowley argued that “the only way to ultimately resolve competing claims, on the future of Jerusalem, is to get to direct negotiations.” He said the administration faces a series of “pass-fail” tests: Can it get the two parties to join direct talks? Can it persuade them to address the vexing issues surrounding the final status of Jerusalem? And ultimately, “do we get to an agreement that is in the Israeli interest, in the Palestinian interest, in the interest of the rest of the region and clearly in the interest of the United States?”

Arab leaders have long said that a peace deal would be possible if the United States pressured Israel. But many experts say such hope is often misplaced. In the case of East Jerusalem, Netanyahu believes that a halt to construction represents political suicide for his coalition, so no amount of U.S. pressure will lead him to impose a freeze — at least until he is in the final throes of peace talks.
“U.S. pressure can work, but it needs to be at the right time, on the right issue and in the right political context,” said Robert Malley, a peace negotiator in the Clinton White House. “The latest episode was an apt illustration. The administration is ready for a fight, but it realized the issue, timing and context were wrong. The crisis has been deferred, not resolved.”

March 23, 2010

EDITOR: The Show Does Go On, after it was supposedly off…

So here we go again! After all US big knobs were doing all they could to bury the hatchet, and to praise Netanyahu for his willingness, and realy going overboard about US support for Israel, then Bibi bounces again and hits them with the ugly reality of Israeli deep unwillingness to negotiate peace on real terms. There will be no real negotiations, and no just peace as well as Israel has its way.

The rest of us must redouble our efforts against this bully, on the BDS campaign, raising international awareness of the the need to force Israel into proper just peace negotiations, as Zionism will never reform itself. Never.

Netanyahu Takes Hard Line on Jerusalem Housing: NY Times

By MARK LANDLER

As Benjamin Netanyahu and Hillary Rodham Clinton met in Washington, a poster in Jerusalem showing President Obama read: “Warning! A P.L.O. agent in the White House.”

WASHINGTON — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, under extraordinary pressure from the Obama administration to curb the construction of Jewish housing in Jerusalem, served notice on Monday that his government would not yield easily to American demands.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the gala banquet of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference on Monday night.
In a speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group, Mr. Netanyahu reiterated that Israel had no plans to freeze housing in Jerusalem, the trigger for a recent dispute between Israel and the United States. He rejected the administration’s contention that Israel’s policies were impeding the peace process.
“The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today,” Mr. Netanyahu said to the group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Jerusalem is not a settlement; It’s our capital.”

Earlier Monday, Mr. Netanyahu met for 75 minutes with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the first of a series of meetings expected to reveal whether the United States sticks to its hard line with Israel on settlements. He later met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he was scheduled to meet President Obama on Tuesday.
The flurry of meetings is designed to calm the waters after nearly two weeks of tension between the United States and Israel, amid a diplomatic row that both countries have portrayed as the gravest in years. But judging by Mr. Netanyahu’s comments, it is far from clear that he plans to satisfy the demands that Mrs. Clinton made of him in a phone call 10 days ago.

The State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu had “had a further discussion of the specific actions that might be taken to improve the atmosphere.” He did not give details.
The prime minister’s remarks were a pointed bookend to an earlier address to the same group by Mrs. Clinton. She warned that the Obama administration would push back “unequivocally” when it disagreed with the Israeli government’s policies. But she reaffirmed that America’s support for Israel was “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever.”
Mrs. Clinton sought to build solidarity with Israel on one area where they clearly have common ground, the potential nuclear threat from Iran. In the most enthusiastically received part of her speech, she pledged to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

She said the Obama administration was seeking sanctions with “bite.” That characterization is a modest, but noticeable, retreat from the administration’s language from last year, when Mrs. Clinton said the United States was seeking “crippling sanctions.”
“There must be no gap between the United States and Israel on security,” she said to loud applause.
The crowd of 7,000 quieted down quickly when Mrs. Clinton bluntly warned that the status quo in the Middle East was unsustainable, and that Israel’s continued construction of Jewish housing was undermining the prospect for peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
Mrs. Clinton defended her rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu’s government over its announcement of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem during Mr. Biden’s visit. The move, she said, jeopardized indirect talks that the administration is trying to broker between Israelis and Palestinians.

“Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally,” she said.
In her call to Mr. Netanyahu, she demanded that Israel reverse the housing plan in the neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo; that the Israelis avoid further provocations in Jerusalem during planned peace talks; and that Mr. Netanyahu commit to substantive rather than procedural negotiations with the Palestinians, as Israel has said it would prefer.
Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, said that Mrs. Clinton’s speech had succeeded in reaffirming the strategic importance of the United States-Israel relationship while not backing down on settlements. But he said the administration had not laid out a broader proposal for what comes next.

“There’s a choice being made here that the U.S. doesn’t want to put forward its own views,” Mr. Kurtzer said.
Still, after a week in which many pro-Israel observers worried that their country and the United States were on the brink of a breakdown in relations, Mrs. Clinton’s speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee seemed reassuring for Israel. Despite predictions that she would be booed, the audience greeted her politely.
“I thought she was excellent,” said Hal Rosnick of Easton, Conn. “She wants the parties to get back to indirect negotiations.” But Diane Hornstein of Chicago, said, “I would like her to recognize that Jerusalem is not a settlement. There’s no evenhandedness in the demands made of Israel.”

On one topic — Iran — Mr. Netanyahu and Mrs. Clinton seemed largely in agreement. “Iran’s brazen bid to develop nuclear weapons is first and foremost a threat to my country, Israel,” the prime minister said, “but it is also a grave threat to the region and to the world.” The Israeli people, he said, “always reserve the right of self-defense.”
In making her own tough statements on Iran, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that the process of building support for sanctions in the United Nations was taking longer than expected. “Our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite,” she said.
Mrs. Clinton praised Mr. Netanyahu for his 10-month moratorium on the building of settlements on the West Bank, and noted that the future status of Jerusalem would be hashed out at the bargaining table.

Mrs. Clinton condemned those who incite violence against Israelis, including Palestinians who whipped up anger after Israel rededicated a synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem.
But Mrs. Clinton also made clear that the dispute over Mr. Biden’s visit might not be an isolated incident. The administration, she said, will continue to speak out against decisions it views as jeopardizing the peace process.
“As Israel’s friend,” she said, “it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed.”

Netanyahu reaffirms ‘right to build’ in Jerusalem: BBC

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted Israel’s “right to build” in Jerusalem, following a row with the US over plans for new homes in the city.
“Jerusalem is not a settlement, it’s our capital,” he said in Washington.
But Mr Netanyahu did not mention the decision to expand the East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo in a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group, Aipac.

Iran Threat to World Peace, by Carlos Latuff

Earlier, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the meeting Israel had to make “difficult” choices for peace.
She said the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestinian occupied territory undermined the US role in the peace process.
The Palestinian Authority is furious at Israel’s insistence on building on occupied territory. It sees it as a serious stumbling block to the resumption of talks, which have been stalled for more than a year.
Some 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are considered illegal under international law, which Israel disputes.
Call to Abbas
In his speech to a convention of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) on Monday evening, Mr Netanyahu said that “the Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building it today”.
New construction in east Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need
Settlements in occupied East Jerusalem were an “inextricable” part of the city, he said, and would remain part of Israel under any peace agreement.
“Therefore, building in them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.”
He said Israel wanted Palestinians to be “our neighbours, living freely” and called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to “come and negotiate peace”.
Mr Netanyahu added that while the US could help resolve both sides’ problems, peace could not be imposed from the outside.
Speaking just hours earlier to the same audience, Mrs Clinton urged Mr Netanyahu to extend Israel’s suspension of new building in the West Bank to include East Jerusalem.

ANALYSIS

Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, Washington

Prime Minister Netanyahu made a tough speech, reasserting what he believes to be Israel’s right to build wherever it wants in Jerusalem.
Israel’s latest building plans in occupied East Jerusalem have been condemned by the Obama administration and are at the heart of the current crisis in relations between the two countries.
Both sides have been trying to take the heat of the dispute, re-emphasising their friendship.
Perhaps Mr Netanyahu has given some kind of private assurance to the Americans that he won’t surprise them with any more building projects.
But his speech shows that on the fundamentals of the issue the US and Israel are far apart.

She said the continued expansion of Jewish settlements undermined “mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need”.
“It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region hope to exploit,” she added.
Last week, the Israeli prime minister proposed a series of “trust-building measures” that he said represented “a real effort” to aid US peace efforts.
Although details have not yet been made public, Israeli officials said these included an agreement to discuss all outstanding issues in the indirect “proximity talks” being mediated by US special envoy George Mitchell.
In Monday’s speech, Mr Netanyahu also warned that “Iran’s brazen bid to develop nuclear weapons… is the threat to the entire world”.
He urged the world community to act “swiftly” to “swart this danger”.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes.
Mr Netanyahu is scheduled to meet President Obama later on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, at least three people were injured in an Israeli air strike overnight in the east of Gaza City, Palestinian officials said.

Israel said the air strike in Gaza was retaliation for rocket attacks
The Israeli military said its aircraft had targeted a weapons storage facility in retaliation for Palestinian rocket attacks since Thursday, one killing a Thai farm worker.
In a separate incident, an Israeli soldier was shot dead by his comrades on the Gaza border.
An army spokesman said one group of soldiers had opened fire on another after mistaking them for Palestinians who had crossed the border into Israel.
Three Palestinian men who were later captured and taken in for questioning were found to be unarmed.

Continue reading March 23, 2010

March 22, 2010

EDITOR: Now you see, now you don’t…

Netanyahu is forever changing, forever updating himself, but despite all the manoeuvres, the main core of his aggressive, unrelenting and almost blind fundamentalist Zionism comes through every time. He may be saying this and that to Clinton or Ban, if he thinks he needs to assuage them, but in the end, the old Netanyahu comes baqck, like a Jack-in-the -box stalwart, jumping to his task of continuing the advance of militarised Zionism. Sharon’s job must be furthered and completed.

Netanyahu says ‘no concession’ on Jewish settlements: BBC

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has ruled out any concession on the building of settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, despite international pressure.
Mr Netanyahu said he had written to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remove any doubt about the issue.
He made the remarks hours before he left for Washington to address the influential pro-Israeli group, Aipac.
He has been invited to meet President Barack Obama on Tuesday, indicating a possible thaw in relations.
Tensions between the two allies has been running high over Israel’s announcement to build 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967, despite US efforts to re-launch stalled peace talks.
The invitation to the White House was delivered by President Obama’s special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, who met Mr Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Sunday.
On a day of intense diplomatic activity in the region, Mr Netanyahu also met UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is on a rare two-day visit to the region.
Gaza conditions ‘unacceptable’
But he said Israel was willing to widen the scope of planned indirect talks with the Palestinians that Mr Mitchell is to mediate.
The diplomatic package Mr Netanyahu is offering has not been made public, but officials say one element is agreement to discuss all the outstanding issues, including the future of Jerusalem, as well as borders, Jewish settlements and Palestinian refugees.
Mr Netanyahu comments on settlements were quickly denounced by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as unhelpful to attempts to restart peace talks, the AFP news agency reported.
Mr Abbas also condemned the recent killing of four Palestinians in the West Bank by Israeli forces.
Speaking in Gaza on Sunday, Mr Ban called on Israel to end its blockade on Gaza, saying it causes “unacceptable suffering” and “undercuts moderates and encourages extremists”.
Israel imposed the blockade in 2006 and tightened it when the militant movement Hamas overran the territory the following year. Egypt, which borders Gaza to the south, also helps maintain the blockade.
Mr Ban said families in Gaza were living under “unacceptable, unsustainable conditions” and that it was “distressing” to see damage to housing caused by Israel’s offensive 14 months ago, with no reconstruction possible under the blockade.
Also on Sunday, the Israel army said soldiers shot dead two Palestinians who tried to stab a soldier at a checkpoint in the West Bank.
On Saturday, a Palestinian teenager was shot dead during clashes near Nablus. A second person shot on Saturday died of his injuries on Sunday, West Bank medical officials said.

Atias to continue Ramat Shlomo marketing process: Ynet

Minister of Housing does not intend to stop the construction process at east Jerusalem neighborhood. Marketing to contractors may take place as talks with Palestinians at peak
While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes his way to the US, Ynet has learned that Minister of Housing and Construction Ariel Atias (Shas) intends to continue to market the Ramat Shlomo lands to contractors for construction.
This decision is significant in light of the recent crisis in Israel-US relations following Israel’s announcement, during US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to the region, of its decision to build 1,600 housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood. US President Barack Obama placed the responsibility for the decision on Interior Minister Eli Yishai.

Several hours before leaving for Washington, Netanyahu clarifies that his message to American administration will be sharp and clear: ‘Our policy on Jerusalem is like the policy in the past 42 years.’ Defense Minister Barak hopes ‘this week will put Israel on the course of negotiations’
The process for construction in Israel has two main stages. First, planning permission must be obtained. This stage is managed by local committees tied to local authorities, and by the regional and national planning committees, subordinate to the Interior Ministry.
When this stage is completed, the land is marketed to contractors for construction. This stage is managed by the Israel Lands Authority and the Ministry of Housing, except in the rare cases where construction is on privately-owned land.

The land approved for construction in Ramat Shlomo had passed the first stage and was ready for the second stage, and Atias has no intention of stopping the process.
This stage is lengthy, and it is estimated that it will take at least a year before the marketing begins. If talks take place between Israel and the Palestinians, the marketing may be at its most intensive just at that time.
Sources familiar with the process confirmed that it is possible to stop the process. Therefore the decision to continue the process is a conscious decision by the minister of housing, without regard for political consequences.

Netanyahu set up a committee to investigate the process that had caused so much embarrassment during Biden’s visit, and instructed that he be personally informed of any future decision regarding building in east Jerusalem, but it is not clear whether this will prevent marketing of plots where planning permission has already been granted.
The Ministry under Atias’ leadership has recently issued a slew of tenders for marketing land throughout the country in an effort to bring down house prices. Thus hundreds of housing units were marketed in Neve Yaacov and Pisgat Zeev in north Jerusalem, on the other side of the Green Line. The ministry also intended to market in Har Homa, but has not yet done so for technical reasons.
The ministry told Ynet, “When we reach a development agreement with the Jerusalem municipality, and when the tenders are ready to be issued, we’ll publish them. It will all be done with the required sensitivity, according to the prime minister’s instructions.”

Clinton to tell AIPAC: U.S. will tell Israel the truth when needed: Haaretz

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will tell delegates to the annual AIPAC conference in Washington on Monday that she has a “personal commitment” to Israel’s security, but that the U.S. is prepared to “tell the truth when it is needed” regarding the situation in the Middle East.
In her address to the influential pro-Israel lobby on Monday afternoon, the secretary of state will say that Israel faces “difficult but necessary choices” on the road to Mideast peace because the status quo with the Palestinians is unsustainable.

“There is another path. A path that leads toward security and prosperity for all the people in the region. It will require all parties – including Israel – to make difficult but necessary choices,” according to excerpts of a speech released by her office ahead of delivery at 9 A.M. Washington time.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who departed for Washington on Sunday night, marks a fresh chance to repair the frayed personal ties between the Israeli leader and U.S. President Barack Obama.

Netanyahu’s government two weeks ago approved a plan for further construction in East Jerusalem during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to the region, a move which angered the Obama administration and led Clinton to deliver a personal rebuke to the Israeli premier.
Netanyahu will also speak to delegates at the conference sponsored by the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, several hours after Clinton is scheduled to address the group.
In her address, Clinton will also tell delegates that the U.S. is determined to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but was “taking time” before agreeing to harsher sanctions.

The U.S.’ goal is “not incremental sanctions,” she will say, “but sanctions that bite.

U.S.-Israel row clouds opening day of AIPAC conference: Haaretz

WASHINGTON – Barbara Isaacson, 78, took the overnight train from Massachusetts to make it on time to the opening of the annual AIPAC conference in Washington. At one time she fought to gain exit visas for Jewish Prisoners of Zion in the Soviet Union, but now too she admits that the struggle goes on.
She is writing letters to President Barack Obama, asking him to deal fairly with Israel and telling him that Jerusalem is not up for negotiation.
The crisis Israel-U.S. relations underwent during the past week, did not leave her indifferent.

“Our vice president, [Joe] Biden, was wrong,” she says. “They should not have said that it was an insult. Israel showed great restraint. Israel is an amazing country that is giving us pride and it should not have to build bomb shelters in Sderot instead of playgrounds. I came to this conference so that Israel will know that in America there are those who dedicated their whole life to it, even though my five children live in the United States.”
On the steps of the conference center in Washington, Barbara is ready to enter a new battle: now against a group of demonstrators wearing t-shirts with Palestinian flags, protesting against an “apartheid state.”

During the exchange of words, it turns out that the mother of one of the demonstrators is Jewish.
“So you are Jewish!,” Barbara declares victoriously. “May God bless you and lead you to understand how wrong you are!”
Protesters in front of the conference center put up signs in favor and against. Boris Zelkin puts up signs saying “Bibi – You are a Leader! Bibi, We believe in you!” and complains that he has been driven away from a number of places and has not been permitted to demonstrate inside the hall.
“I came to tell the American Jews too that if they want to be multicultural and tolerant, then I don’t – I want to be Jewish,” he says.
Several meters away stands Bill Perry, a Vietnam veteran whose wounds left him disabled. He is holding up a sign which says “AIPAC bought the Congress and the Senate.”

“It is embarrassing for how little our politicians can be bought,” he declares. “This is the first time I came to demonstrate. It just makes me laugh, the ‘conflict’ between Israel and Washington. There was no conflict. Israel will continue its apartheid policy.”
On the face of it, opening day at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference was business as usual. Congressmen and Senators complimented Israel, spoke of the strong bonds between Israel and the United States, historical moments of meetings between the leaders of the two countries were broadcast on a large screen, along with shots of new immigrants and IDF soldiers.

The hallways were decorated with the photographs of the major donors and activists of the organization, with their comments on why they support AIPAC.
In various halls there were lobbying seminars, for beginners and advanced, discussions on Syria, Iran, Turkey, Latin America, and meals accompanied by discussions, including a meeting with young African-Americans whose generation does not really know the role that American Jews played in the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Even the competition with the new Israel lobby group on the left, J Street, did not succeed in shaking the standing of AIPAC, at least in terms of the numbers of participants, with 7,500 people signing up, a record high for the group.
But the week of friction between Jerusalem and Washington has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many veteran activists.
“I would not say that I am disappointed by the Netanyahu government,” says Donell Weinkopf from New York. “But I feel like shit. Israel did something stupid by declaring this construction. I am not concerned about he future of the relationship because I think that the shared values and interests still stand, and that this was genuinely an ‘accident inside the family,’ but I think that the time has come for Israel to stop biting the hand of a friend.”

Rabbi Yossi Lipsky from Massachusetts says he thinks the current discord will leave a “minor scar.”
“People in the community were disappointed by the disproportionate response from America to what, in the worst case scenario, was bad timing,” he says. “In the agreements with the Americans there was no mention of freeze in East Jerusalem. But because this response had no basis and made no sense, I am optimistic that it will pass. Now both sides are doing the right thing – they are trying to fix things quietly, diplomatically. I hope that they will focus on the fact that Israel made unprecedented concessions without seeing any return from the other side.”
Seymour Krinsky from Kansas is worried by the reception that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will receive this morning.
“I am making an effort so that people will behave toward her with civility,” he says using the Hebrew words derekh eretz, “and that they will remember that she is a guest in spite the things she said recently. There were many interpretations in the press. I hope that they were mistaken, that she said different things.”

AIPAC meanwhile is trying to renew its power base and bring in fresh supporters. This year, in addition to using Twitter and YouTube, some 1,300 young activists and students are taking part.
For many of them, immigrating to Israel is not part of their immediate plans. “We were never exposed to anti-Semitism, but we heard about anti-Israel campaigns in colleges, and next year we are going to college, and we want to have the tools to deal with that,” one said.

Both Sides Claim Success as Diplomatic Row Wanes: NY Times

By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — After 10 days of public quarreling over Jewish building in East Jerusalem, the Israeli government and the Obama administration have each declared victory and started to make up. The Americans believe they have extracted important concessions from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; the Israelis think they have yielded little.

On Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu called Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to respond to specific requests she made a week earlier. The offers were not made public, but on Friday, Mrs. Clinton called them “useful and productive” and agreed with a BBC interviewer that her “escalated tone” had paid off; George J. Mitchell, the American envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict whose trip here to further peace talks was delayed until the phone call, announced he would be arriving on Sunday. Mr. Netanyahu will be in Washington this week and is expected to meet with top officials, possibly including President Obama, another sign of reconciliation.

The Americans say they believe that the kind of rude surprise that occurred when Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was visiting here earlier this month — an Israeli announcement of 1,600 units of Jewish housing in a part of Jerusalem conquered by Israel in 1967 and claimed by the Palestinians — is not likely to be repeated in the coming months. That was one of Mrs. Clinton’s central demands of Mr. Netanyahu: no more acts that disturb the atmosphere as indirect talks with the Palestinians get under way.

The 1,600 units in East Jerusalem constituted the latest of several steps that the Americans considered problematic. The Palestinians felt exposed and the Americans were furious.
The Israelis, by contrast, say that while Mr. Netanyahu offered confidence-building measures for Palestinians in the West Bank, he made no concessions on Jerusalem. There are dozens of projects in the pipeline in Jerusalem, they said, and he has no intention of slowing down or interfering with them.
Whether he will quietly do so anyway, allowing each side the chance to go on claiming it won, remains to be seen.

Several days ago the prime minister’s office sent out a letter to the Ministries of Interior and Housing and the construction and planning committees for Jerusalem requesting a detailed list of all plans of more than 20 units in the city’s post-1967 neighborhoods. The letter also asked for all details on Ramat Shlomo, the neighborhood where the 1,600 units are to be built. The information was to be provided before Sunday night, when Mr. Netanyahu leaves for Washington.
The implication was clear: Mr. Netanyahu does not want to be surprised again by a construction announcement.

But will he act to stop the projects as they come up? He did just that two weeks ago when the mayor of Jerusalem was about to announce the redesign of a Palestinian neighborhood against the wishes of the residents. After Obama officials called him, Mr. Netanyahu called the mayor and got him to delay.
“I don’t think anything official will be announced, but I can imagine that there will be little building for Jews in Arab neighborhoods,” said a former official who remains a consultant to the Israeli government and would speak only on the condition of anonymity to guard his official relationship. “And on Ramat Shlomo I imagine the prime minister gave assurances that nothing would be built for some years.”
Another government adviser, however, said neither of the promises had been made, nor would they be.
“If we are talking about any freeze in Jerusalem, the seven top ministers of the government did not agree,” he said. “I don’t see any concessions possible in Jerusalem. It is politically impossible.”

A senior official agreed. Speaking on the condition that he not be named, he said that Israel considered itself sovereign in Jerusalem and that even though the world disagreed, Israel would do nothing to foster, even tacitly, the de facto division of the city.
The discord with Washington has left the Israeli public divided and perplexed. In a poll published Friday in the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, 46 percent of 500 respondents said construction should be stopped in East Jerusalem, the section of the city claimed by the Palestinians, while 51 percent said it should not. Asked who was responsible for the latest dispute with Washington, 35 percent blamed Israel and 37 percent blamed the United States (the rest did not respond).

Asked whether Mr. Netanyahu led his ministers or they led him — he has a large coalition mostly of the right — 41 percent said he led, 47 percent said he was being led. Yet when asked to name the person they would most like to lead the government, Mr. Netanyahu still came out ahead of all others, with 41 percent selecting him. Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, got 33 percent. The nationwide telephone poll conducted by the Dahaf Institute had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
“The public is confused, and the prime minister is confused by what has happened,” Yaron Dekel, a morning radio host and former Washington correspondent of Israel Radio, said in a telephone interview. “Both were taken totally by surprise by the Americans’ reaction, since building in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem had never before produced such a response.
“I think this was an excuse for the Americans to teach him a lesson,” he continued. “Now they have made their point, and they are acting like lawyers trying to find the substance in things he supposedly offered. But on this point, he is not going to change.”

Meir Sheetrit, a member of Kadima, said the tension between Washington and Jerusalem was not really about building in Jerusalem but about Mr. Netanyahu’s failure to move peace talks forward in the past year. Mr. Sheetrit was a minister under Mr. Netanyahu when he was prime minister in the late 1990s and then a minister under Mr. Netanyahu’s successors, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
“When we in Kadima were in power, we built lots of Jewish housing in Jerusalem, but everyone understood we were negotiating seriously for peace,” he said by telephone. “Since everyone sees this government going nowhere, every small action gives the perception that it is creating obstacles for peace.”

Mr. Netanyahu and his top aides disagree, saying that they have been pushing hard for negotiations with the Palestinians for a year and that there was no reason for the Americans to begin a public campaign against their Jerusalem building practices, which differ in no way from those of all previous Israeli governments.
They say that the disagreement over Jerusalem will simply have to remain while larger issues, like peace talks and Iran, take precedence.
“The difference in policy on Jerusalem is unchanged,” one aide said. “Still, there is definitely a desire on both sides to pull back from the brink of confrontation.”

Clinton says Israel faces choices on path to peace: Washington Post

Monday, March 22, 2010; 6:37 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that Israel faces “difficult but necessary choices” on the road to Mideast peace because the status quo with the Palestinians is unsustainable.

“The status quo is unsustainable for all sides. It promises only violence and unrealized aspirations,” Clinton said in excerpts of a speech released by her office and scheduled for delivery at 9 a.m. EDT/1300 GMT to an influential pro-Israel lobby group.
“There is another path. A path that leads toward security and prosperity for all the people in the region. It will require all parties — including Israel — to make difficult but necessary choices,” Clinton said.

Clinton’s speech, coming after a row over an Israeli announcement of plans for new Jewish settlements that rocked the U.S.-Israel relationship, underscored the Obama administration’s “rock solid” commitment to Israel’s security and its future.
“Guaranteeing Israel’s security is more than a policy position for me. It is a personal commitment that will never waver,” Clinton said in the excerpts of the speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC.
But she said it was the United States’ duty “to tell the truth when it is needed” and urged Israel to take steps to end the conflict with the Palestinians, which she said “threatens Israel’s long-term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to address the same group later on Monday. Netanyahu, before departing for Washington, said he had informed U.S. leaders that Israel would not stop the construction of Jewish settlements around Jerusalem.
Israel’s announcement of new settlement construction during a visit this month by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden angered Washington and threatened to pull the plug on just-launched indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

U.S. special Mideast envoy George Mitchell is currently in the region attempting to restart the talks.
Clinton said the United States would continue to demand that Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian group that controls the Gaza Strip, renounce violence and recognize Israel. She also repeated U.S. calls for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, according to the speech excerpts.
Clinton’s speech also highlighted the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, which the United States and other Western members of the Security Council are seeking to target with a fresh round of U.N. sanctions.

Clinton said a nuclear-armed Iran “would embolden its terrorist clientele and could spark an arms race that could destabilize the region.”
“That is unacceptable. Unacceptable to the United States. Unacceptable to Israel. And unacceptable to the international community.”
Clinton said the United States was determined to work with its partners in the U.N. Security Council to show Iran’s leaders that there are consequences to intransigence on the dispute over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is purely for peaceful purposes.
“Our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite,” Clinton said, adding that it is taking time to reach agreement but that this is “a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts.”

Time to bury dead ideas about Palestine: The Electronic Intifada

Martha Reese,  19 March 2010
Only a just solution can end the current reality of religious and ethnic discrimination.
There is a growing recognition that the Israeli settlement enterprise in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is, in practical terms, irreversible. The two-state solution, which for decades has been characterized as the preferred solution of an amorphous “international consensus” has generally been understood to involve a return to the pre-1967 occupation boundaries (referred to as the green line) with minor territorial adjustments by the parties. By now, even optimists refer to this solution as “unlikely” and “virtually impossible,” while realists recognize that the concept has outlived its usefulness as a political aspiration.

Israeli prime ministers (including Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and, most recently, Benjamin Netanyahu) have, in turn, announced their transformation from supporting an Israel-centric one-state solution to a two-state solution. In each case, these announcements have caused short-lived paroxysms of hopefulness among dispirited two-staters. But in the wake of each of these would-be conversion experiences, foreboding and gloom have returned, time and again, as it becomes evident that the language of political flexibility is merely a rhetorical ploy. Each Israeli government since 1967, whether led by Labor, Likud, or Kadima, has perpetuated the dispossession of Palestinians and the concomitant establishment of Jewish-only colonies on expropriated Palestinian land.

All talk to the contrary — including ineffectual official objections registered by the Obama Administration — it is evident that the Israeli political establishment has been and is utterly lacking the political will to take even minimal steps in the direction of a two-state solution. Official maps disseminated by Israeli government ministries show that the green line has been effectively erased; Israel stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River (see for example maps offered by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism or the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption). Although Israel’s de facto borders include the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the people who live there, the non-Jews who inhabit this land are in a condition of perpetual limbo, deprived of political rights.

Mainline Protestant Christian denominations, like other institutions, are struggling to reconcile their historic, official two-state position with the mounting awareness of its uselessness as a model. Growing numbers within those denominations are promoting an essential reexamination of their churches’ support for an outcome that, instead of delivering the hoped-for just peace, merely legitimizes decades of illegal activity and leaves the Palestinians fragmented, impoverished and virtually landless.

As the two-state solution in its historical incarnation faces abandonment on practical — if not moral and ideological — grounds, other political models for coexistence are being explored and discussed. The one-state solution remains a live option, if in an egalitarian and democratic binational expression different than the Greater Israel envisioned by many Zionists. All possible outcomes — one state, two states, and a continuation of the deplorable status quo — face opposition from one or more parties on demographic, religious, security, ideological, or economic grounds; therefore, no solution can be eliminated from consideration as hopelessly idealistic or fatally impractical. Any resolution worth aspiring to will require, over time, a profound transformation in consciousness and identity among Palestinians and Israelis.

Can the moribund two-state solution be resuscitated? Can the two-states-for-two-peoples notion be implemented in a way that does not hinge on redrawing Israel’s borders to legalize its state-sponsored land-grab of Palestinian territory? Could a “settlers-to-citizens” program offer the Jewish settlers now living in East Jerusalem and other West Bank colonies an alternative to moving back to Israel? Imagine Palestine, a democratic state with a Jewish minority, in which today’s settlers emerge from behind their razor-wire-encircled, self-inflicted ghettoes and become tomorrow’s neighbors. Imagine Israel, finally at home in the Middle East, its indigenous Palestinian minority no longer second-class citizens but living in full equality with their Jewish neighbors. Can the Israeli government offer its settlers an alternative to repatriation by assisting those settlers to buy the land and dwellings they call home from the Palestinian owners on whose land those dwellings have been built? What if a state-funded Israeli reparations program were to help fund the economic redevelopment of the nascent Palestinian state, whose current state of de-development is a by-product — if not a goal — of the Israeli settlement and occupation enterprise?

The old ideas, like the peace process itself, are dead; it is time to lay them aside and move on. Because the Palestinian, Israeli and US governments have shown themselves to be obstacles to a resolution, it is up to ordinary Palestinians, Israelis and Americans to work together with allies around the globe to find the way forward. Whether a one-state, a two-state, or other solution, a just solution will leave behind the legacy of religious and ethnic discrimination that has created the current painful reality.

Martha Reese is a Chicago-based veteran interfaith peace activist who has lived and traveled in the Middle East. She is a member of the steering committee of the Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine (www.cjpip.org).

House rental in Israel: Arabs need not apply: The Electronic Intifada

Jonathan Cook, 22 March 2010
The Zakai and Tarabin families should be a picture of happy coexistence across the ethnic divide, a model for others to emulate in Israel.
But Natalie and Weisman Zakai say the past three years — since the Jewish couple offered to rent their home to Bedouin friends, Ahmed and Khalas Tarabin — have been a living hell.

“I have always loved Israel,” said Natalie Zakai, 43. “But to see the depth of the racism of our neighbors has made me question why we live in this country.”
Three of the couple’s six dogs have been mysteriously poisoned; Natalie’s car has been sprayed with the words “Arab lover” and the windows smashed; her three children in school are regularly taunted and bullied by other pupils; and a collection of vintage cars in the family’s yard has been set on fire in what police say was an arson attack.
To add to these indignities, the Zakais have spent three years and thousands of dollars battling through the courts against the elected officials of their community of Nevatim, in Israel’s southern Negev desert, who have said they are determined to keep the Tarabins from moving in.

Last week the Zakais’ legal struggle looked like it had run out of steam. The high court told the two families the Tarabins should submit to a vetting committee of local officials to assess their suitability — a requirement that has never been made before by the Negev community in the case of a family seeking to rent a home.
“The decision of the committee is a foregone conclusion,” Ahmed Tarabin said.
Chances for Jews and Arabs to live together — outside of a handful of cities — are all but impossible because Israel’s rural communities are strictly segregated, said Alaa Mahajneh, a lawyer representing the Zakais.
Israel has nationalized 93 percent of the country’s territory, confining most of its 1.3 million Palestinian Arab citizens, one-fifth of the population, to 120 or so communities that existed at the time of the state’s creation in 1948.

Meanwhile, more than 700 rural communities, including Nevatim, have remained exclusively Jewish by requiring that anyone who wants to buy a home applies to local vetting committees, which have been used to weed out Arab applicants.
But Mahajneh, from the Adalah legal center for the Arab minority, noted that legal sanction for such segregation was supposed to have ended a decade ago, when the high court backed an Arab couple, the Kaadans, who had been barred by a committee from the community of Katzir in northern Israel.
Although the Kaadans were eventually allowed to move into Katzir, the case has had little wider effect.
In fact, Mahajneh said, the decision in the Zakais’ case suggests “we’re going backwards.” The Kaadans won the right to buy a home in a Jewish community, whereas the Tarabin family were seeking only a short-term rental of the Zakais’ home.

The Zakais said they had been told by the officials of Nevatim, a community of 650 Jews a few kilometers from the city of Beersheva, that it would not be a problem to rent out their home.
Natalie Zakai brought the Tarabins’ ID cards to the community’s offices for routine paperwork. “When I handed in the IDs, the staff looked at the card and said, ‘But they’re Muslims.'” Later, according to Natalie, the council head, Avraham Orr, rang to say the Arabs would be accepted in Nevatim “over my dead body.”
Several weeks later, Natalie said, two threatening men came to their door and warned them off renting to Arabs. Soon afterwards 36 cars belonging to Weisman Zakai, who has a used car business, were set on fire.
Then behind the Zakais’ back, Nevatim went to a local magistrate’s court to get an order preventing them from renting their home. The couple have been battling the decision ever since.

Mahajneh said the Tarabins had accommodated a series of “extraordinary conditions” imposed by Nevatim on the rental agreement, including certificates of good conduct from the police, a commitment to leave after a year, and limited access to the house’s extensive grounds.
But still Nevatim officials were dissatisfied, insisting in addition that the Tarabins submit to questioning by a vetting committee to assess their suitability. Although 40 other homes in Nevatim are rented, Mahajneh said testimonies from past members of the vetting committee showed that this was the first time such a demand had been made.
“It is true that anyone buying a property in Nevatim is supposed to be vetted by the committee, but there is no reference in the community’s bylaws to this condition for renters,” Mahajneh said.

In 2008, a district court judge in Beersheva overruled Nevatim’s new condition, arguing that the vetting requirement would be “unreasonable and not objective.” The high court judges, however, sided with Nevatim in their concluding statements on 10 March.
Natalie Zakai said they had offered to rent their home to the Tarabins after the Bedouin couple’s home burnt down in their village in early 2007, killing one of their 10 children. The Tarabins have been living with relatives ever since, unable to afford a new home and keen to move away from the site of the tragedy.
Ahmed Tarabin, 54, said: “I want Khalas to rest and heal and this place would have been perfect for her. The house has large grounds and we could have kept to ourselves. No one in Nevatim needs to have anything to do with us if they don’t want.”

A Nevatim resident who spoke anonymously to the Haaretz newspaper last week suggested reasons for the community’s opposition: “If tomorrow the entire Tarabin tribe wants to live here and we don’t agree, what will people say? The problem will start after the first one comes because then dozens more families will want to move here.”
The close friendship forged between the Zakais and Tarabins is rare in Israel. The privileged status of Jews legally and economically, communal segregation and the hostility provoked by a larger national conflict between Israel and the Palestinians ensure that Jewish and Arab citizens usually remain at arm’s length.
But Weisman Zakai, 53, whose parents emigrated from Iraq and who speaks fluent Arabic, befriended Ahmed Tarabin in the late 1960s when they were teenagers in Beersheva. Later they served together in the Israeli army as mechanical engineers.

Natalie Zakai said: “If Jews were being denied the right to live somewhere, it would be a scandal, but because our friends are Arabs no one cares.”
Avraham Orr, the Nevatim council head, denied that he was opposing the Tarabins’ admission because they are Arab. “There are rules,” he said. “Every family that wants to buy or rent a property must first go through the committee.”
Fearful of the implications of the Kaadan ruling, Jewish communities in the Galilee unveiled a new approach to barring Arab applicants last year. They introduced bylaws amounting to loyalty oaths that require applicants to pledge to support “Zionism, Jewish heritage and settlement of the land.”

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi.

Gaza civil society to UN chief: siege more than “unacceptable”: The Electronic Intifada

Open letter, various undersigned, 22 March 2010

The following edited open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was issued on 21 March 2010:

Your Excellency:

You are already well aware of the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza as a consequence of Israel’s devastating military attacks and its siege. As recently as 27 December 2009, you called the blockade of Gaza “unacceptable.” While this statement is certainly valid, it constitutes a gross understatement of the actual situation which amounts to slow genocide. Such an understatement suggests that you are trimming your language to accommodate US pro-Israeli policy. We live an ongoing, illegal, crippling Israeli siege that has shattered all spheres of life, prompting the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Richard Falk, to describe it as “a prelude to genocide.” Your own UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by the highly respected South African judge Richard Goldstone, found Israel guilty of “war crimes and possible crimes against humanity,” as did major international human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The Goldstone report concludes that Israel’s war on Gaza was “designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever-increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.”

The 1948 Genocide Convention clearly says that one instance of genocide is “the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a people in whole or in part.” That is what has been done to Gaza since the imposition of the blockade by a UN member state, namely Israel, and the massacre of 1,434 Palestinians, 90 percent of whom were civilians, including 434 children.

On your second short visit to Gaza since the end of the Israeli onslaught in 2008-09, you will find what Professor Sara Roy, an expert on Gaza, describes as “a land ripped apart and scarred, the lives of its people blighted. Gaza is decaying under the weight of continued devastation, unable to function normally …” Professor Roy concludes that “[T]he decline and disablement of Gaza’s economy and society have been deliberate, the result of state policy — consciously planned, implemented and enforced … And just as Gaza’s demise has been consciously orchestrated, so have the obstacles preventing its recovery.” Israel is intent on destroying Gaza because official world bodies and leaders choose to say and do nothing.

As civil society organizations based in Gaza, we call on you to use your position as Secretary General of the UN, the world body responsible for holding all governments accountable for the safeguarding of the human rights of all peoples under international law, to bring to bear on Israel the full force of your mandate to open the borders of Gaza to allow the import of building materials as well as all the other requirements for decent living conditions for us, the besieged Palestinians of Gaza.

We understand you are coming to Khan Younis to inspect an UNRWA (the UN agency for Palestine refugees) housing project designed to provide housing for Palestinians whose homes were demolished by Israel’s war machine and who have been waiting for over five years for replacement. Of course the building project will not have been completed because of the blockade, even though it is an UNRWA project. The brazen refusal of Israel to cooperate with the decision of the international community to reconstruct Gaza, for which several billion Euros were pledged, should not be tolerated. Israel’s attacks have damaged or completely destroyed many public buildings and have according to the UN’s own OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) report as of 30 April 2009, severely damaged or completely destroyed some 21,000 family dwellings. Many other Palestinians who have spent the past several winters in flimsy tents have also been promised the means to rebuild homes and schools, though to date nothing has been done to alleviate their suffering.

In addition to the very visible lack of shelter, we in Gaza also suffer from the contamination of water, air and soil, since the sewage system is unable to function due to power cuts necessitated by lack of fuel to the main generators of the Gaza power grid. Medical conditions due to injuries from phosphorous bombs and other illegal Israeli weapons as well as from water contamination cannot be treated because of the siege. In addition to the ban on building materials, Israel also prevents many other necessities from being imported: lightbulbs, candles, matches, books, refrigerators, shoes, clothing, mattresses, sheets, blankets, tea, coffee, sausages, flour, cows, pasta, cigarettes, fuel, pencils, pens, paper … etc.

When you visit Khan Younis, keep in mind that a huge UN storage depot was directly targeted by Israeli phosphorus bombs only last year, destroying tons of badly needed food and other essentials. At that time UNRWA chief John Ging spoke of massive obstacles preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the civilian population of Gaza; those obstacles must be removed. The Red Cross called the Israeli assault “completely and utterly unacceptable based on every known standard of international humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles and values.”

We sincerely hope you will live up to your responsibility and speak for the suffering people of Gaza to those who hold the keys that could easily end the barbaric blockade, as the first step towards the implementation of all UN resolutions in Palestine.

Undersigned:
University Teachers’ Association in Palestine
General Union for Health Services Workers
General Union for Public Services Workers
General Union for Petrochemical and Gas Workers
General Union for Agricultural Workers
Union of Women’s Work Committees
Union of Synergies–Women’s Unit
Union of Palestinian Women Committees
Women’s Studies Society
Working Woman’s Society
Arab Cultural Forum
Palestinian Students’ Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel
One Democratic State Group
Al-Quds Bank for Culture and Information Society

March 21, 2010

Palestinian Sisyphus, by Khalil Bendib

EDITOR: Israeli methods differ little from those used by Nazi soldiers

Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh has been an incredible source of news on incidents in the West Bank, and on the incredible brutalities meted out to Palestinians daily, and going unreported and uncommented by the western press and media. Every day, hundreds of such local events take place, where illegal occupation impact human life of all Palestinians with the brutality so normalised now by the IOF. Not a single Israeli will be able to stand up in a future session of the ICC and claim they had no idea what was done in the OPT, and yet, they go along with it, they partake in, they defend it in the media, and they attack us for exposing it. The next two clips, one from January, and the second from last week, are both examples of the deep degradation to which Israeli society has fallen. There is NO WAY this society will cleans itself, will see the criminality of its own methods, and will stop this. Only the whole international community, as was the case in South Africa, can do this, and we must mobilise to stop the war criminals now! Thank you, dear Prof. Qumsiyeh, for your courage in the face of those brutes. We stand with you!

Soldiers attack Palestinian family, arrest Shepherd, January 7th 2010

On the morning of Thursday 7 January 2010, Israeli soldiers attacked and injured Palestinian shepherds from the Musa Rabai family, as they grazed their sheep in Humra valley, near the village of At-Tuwani in the South Hebron Hills. Five members of the family were hospitalized. Before leaving the area, the soldiers arrested one of the shepherds, Musab Musa Rabai. Raba’i was interrogated and tortured for four hours.

Undercover police in Jerusalem protests: Lia Tarachansky

Riots took place all over East Jerusalem this week in protest of settlers threatening to force their way into the Al Aqsa Mosque. As a result, Israeli security forces shut down major areas of the Old City, including the mosque compound to Muslim men under 50. The Real News’ Lia Tarachansky spoke to Toufic Haddad, journalist and author of Between the Lines: Israel the Palestinians, and the U.S. “war on terror” about the real reason for these protests. Haddad explains that Israeli colonization over East Jerusalem led to home demolitions, confiscations, and the flourishing of settlements all over the Palestinian Territories. Because these protests are supported by the government, Palestinian protests are systemically repressed, leading to mass arrests, injuries, and sometimes death.
Alternative tactics, such as undercover police often lead to the tensions which are expected to rise as the Jerusalem Municipal Police approved
another right-wing settler protest for Sunday through the Palestinian East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan.

Actions in Jerusalem against military closures and settler provocations are met with police repression

EDITOR: Meanwhile, on the farm, the pigs are still running the show…

For those who naively believed all the noise, and thought that Netanyahu is a reformed character, or that Obama and his henchmen/women really mean what they say, just read the evidence from the horse’s mouth. Whatever he tells the Americans one day, he contradicts the day after when speaking in Hebrew to the local press:

Netanyahu: Building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv: Haaretz

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that all Israeli governments have maintained the same policy on building in East Jerusalem, and that he has informed the United States administration of that in writing.
“Construction in Jerusalem is like construction in Tel Aviv and we have clarified that for the American government,” Netanyahu said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting.

Netanyahu added that he informed the Obama administration that the proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians must address concerns from both sides but that “in order for agreements to be reached, there must be serious and direct talks.”
Netanyahu also said that Israeli policy regarding construction in Jerusalem has remained unchanged.
However, Netanyahu has bowed to U.S. demands and promised the Obama administration that Israel will make several goodwill gestures toward the Palestinians ahead of his trip to Washington Sunday night.

For the first time since Operation Cast Lead, Israel has agreed to ease the blockade on the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu has also agreed to discuss all core issues during the proximity talks, with the condition of reaching final conclusions only in direct talks with the PA.
Netanyahu responded to Washington’s demands during his telephone call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday night. Clinton said on Friday that Netanyahu’s response “was useful and productive, and we’re continuing our discussions with him and his government”.

The prime minister refused to revoke a decision to build 1,600 Jewish homes in Ramat Shlomo in east Jerusalem – the cause of a diplomatic row errupted during a visit to Israel by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden two weeks ago – or freeze construction beyond the Green Line in the city. He did, promise a better oversight system to prevent such embarrassing incidents in the future, however.
Senior officials in Jerusalem said that the prime minister’s gestures enabling the UN to transport construction materials to Gaza to rebuild sewerage systems, a flour mill and 150 apartments in Khan Yunis.

Netanyahu also agreed to release hundreds of Fatah-affiliated prisoners as a gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, a move which the defense establishment believes could prompt the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.
The prime minister is scheduled to leave for Washington Sunday night with Defense Minister Ehud Barak to attend the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington. Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni and Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau will also attend the convention.

Netanyahu is slated to address the convention tomorrow at 7 P.M. Israel time before then meeting Clinton, who is also to speak at the AIPAC gathering.
No meeting has been set yet between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, but over the weekend Israeli officials were scrambling to arrange one, which they hop will take place at the White House on Tuesday .
Israel’s Washington envoy Michael Oren said on Saturday that outsiders cannot force peace on the Middle East, and any final settlement will have to be initiated by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.

In an interview with U.S. television station PBS, Oren said Israel was not interested in having the White House present its own peace plan. Any attempt by the United States to impose a peace deal would be like “forcing somebody to fall in love,” Oren said.
Asked if Israel wanted Washington to present its own peace plan, Oren said: “No. I think peace has to be made between two people sitting across a table. America can help facilitate that interaction.”

Meanwhile, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said on Saturday after visiting settlements in the West Bank that Israeli building anywhere on occupied land – including in east Jerusalem – is illegal and must end.
“The world has condemned Israel’s settlement plans in East Jerusalem,” Ban told a news conference after his brief tour. “Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.”

Bibi’s Bluster: NEWSWEEK

The Israeli Prime Minister says his nation’s security is his top priority. Too bad he’s undermining it.
By Fareed Zakaria

In international relations, whenever you hear the term “confidence-building measures,” you can be sure that someone is trying to kick a can down the road. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu has now promised to offer such measures to the Palestinians. He has also urged that everyone “calm down” about the diplomatic row between his government and the United States.

But this crisis hasn’t been caused by just one event—the announcement, while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, to approve new Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem. It caps a year of increasingly strained relations between Washington and Tel Aviv. And while he’s apologized for the ill-timed announcement, Netanyahu remains unyielding. In fact, the Israeli press has reported plans to build not merely the 1,600 units announced last week, but 50,000. “We will act according to the vital interests of the state of Israel,” Netanyahu said last week.

What are those vital interests? If you have listened to Bibi Netanyahu over the past few years, it’s clear what tops the list—Iran. In fact, the prime minister has described the Iranian threat as an existential one for Israel, and a grave one for the world. He sees combating it as the central challenge of our times. “We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call,” Netanyahu told his Likud faction in May 2009. “These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us. My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel.”

But after watching Netanyahu’s government over the past year, I have concluded that he is actually not serious about the Iranian threat. If tackling the rise of Iran were his paramount concern, would he have allowed a collapse in relations with the United States, the country whose military, political, and economic help is indispensable in confronting this challenge? If taking on Iran were his central preoccupation, wouldn’t he have subordinated petty domestic considerations and done everything to bolster ties with the United States? Bibi likes to think of himself as Winston Churchill, warning the world of a gathering storm. But he should bear in mind that Churchill’s single obsession during the late 1930s was to strengthen his alliance with the United States, whatever the costs, concessions, and compromises he had to make.

In a smart piece of analysis in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, Anshel Pfeffer, no fan of the Obama administration, writes, “When senior ministers or generals list Israel’s defense priorities, there is always one point on which there exists total consensus: The alliance with the United States as the nation’s greatest strategic asset, way above anything else. It is more crucial than the professionalism of the Israel Defense Forces, than the peace treaty with Egypt and even than the secret doomsday weapons that we may or may not have squirreled away somewhere…But [Netanyahu] has succeeded in one short year in power to plunge Israel’s essential relationship with the United States to unheard of depths.”

Iran’s rise has also placed Israel in the unusual position of being on the same strategic side as the major Arab states, as well as the United States. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are all deeply worried about the hegemonic ambitions of Iran, particularly if it obtains nuclear weapons. A core Israeli objective should be to strengthen this tacit alliance. What the moderate Arab states ask for, again and again, publicly and privately, is that Israel make some progress—even if only for appearances’ sake—on the peace process. The single biggest challenge for these countries is that Iran has appropriated the Palestinian cause, which makes it difficult for, say, the Egyptian government to take a public stand that is hostile to Tehran. Lowering the temperature on this issue would benefit the Arab states, strengthen their will to stand up against Iran, and contribute directly to Israeli security.

EDITOR: A call to end pretense and posturing by the US

Avi Shlaim, rarely speaking, but never one to mince words, is giving the lie to US noisy nonsense about how they are getting Netanyahu to do their bidding. Will the US follow his advice? Fat chance. Obama knows that Netanyahu controls more Congressmen on Capitol Hill than he does himself, through the nebulous machinery of AIPAC and other, less visible means. Obama has not got it in him, I believe, to face Israel down over this.

Avi Shlaim: Cut off the cash and Israel might behave: The Independent

President Netanyahu is undermining US interests. The sooner President Obama makes his support conditional, the better
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Israelis are not renowned for their good manners, but their treatment of Vice-President Joe Biden during his recent visit to their country went beyond chutzpah. Biden is one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in Washington, and the purpose of his visit was to prepare the ground for the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. An official announcement that Israel planned to build 1,600 new Jewish settler homes in East Jerusalem scuppered the talks, alienated the Palestinians, and infuriated Biden. It was a colossal blunder that is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the special relationship between the two countries.

America subsidises Israel to the tune of $3bn (around £2bn) a year. America is Israel’s principal arms supplier, enabling it to retain the technological edge over all its enemies, near and far. In the diplomatic arena too, America extends to Israel virtually unqualified support, including the use of the veto in the UN Security Council to defeat resolutions critical of Israel. America condemns Iran for its nuclear ambitions, while turning a blind eye to Israel’s possession of a large arsenal of nuclear weapons.

This unparalleled generosity towards a junior partner is largely the result of sentimental attachment and shared values. Israel used to present itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. But its own actions have shredded this image to pieces. It is now well on the way to becoming a pariah state. During the Cold War, Israel also used to promote itself as a “strategic asset” in helping to check Soviet advances in the Middle East. But since the end of the Cold War, Israel has become more of a liability than an asset.

America’s most vital interests lie in the Persian Gulf; to ensure access to oil, the US needs Arab goodwill. Here Israel is a major liability, as a result of its occupation of Palestinian land and its brutal oppression of the Palestinian people.

There is a broad international consensus in favour of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and America is part of this consensus. A previous Democratic administration provided the most realistic blueprint for such a solution. On 23 December 2000, four weeks before leaving the White House, Bill Clinton unveiled his proposals. He called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state over the whole of the Gaza Strip and 94 to 96 per cent of the West Bank, with a capital city in East Jerusalem. Both sides rejected this peace plan.

In May 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, the Quartet – America, Russia, the UN, and European Union – issued the “Road Map”, which envisaged the emergence of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2005. This time, the Palestinians accepted the plan with alacrity, whereas Israel tabled 14 reservations that amounted to a rejection. In August 2005, Israel carried out a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza but, far from being a contribution to the Road Map, this was the prelude to further colonisation of the West Bank.

Ever since 1967, Israel has rarely missed a chance to miss an opportunity to make peace with the Palestinians. Its determination to hold on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem translates into rigid diplomatic intransigence. Settlement expansion has been a constant feature of Israeli policy under all governments since 1967, regardless of their political colour. Settlement expansion, however, can only proceed by confiscating more and more Palestinian land. The basic problem is that land-grabbing and peacemaking cannot proceed together: it is one or the other.

The official American position since 1967, except under George W Bush, held that Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land are illegal and a major obstacle to peace. The Obama administration upholds this position. One can make the argument that maintaining the occupation of the West Bank is in Israel’s interest, though I utterly reject this argument. But it cannot be argued that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank serves the American national interest. Should America subordinate its own interests to those of its land-hungry ally? A growing number of Americans think not – and some are prepared to say so publicly.

General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, told the Senate armed services committee last week that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a root cause of instability in the Middle East and Asia, and that it “foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of US favouritism for Israel”. In private, Joe Biden told the Israelis that their intransigence was undermining America’s credibility with Arab and Muslim nations and endangering American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Small wonder that the announcement of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem provoked such intense anger at all levels of the Obama administration. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s apology related only to the timing and not to the substance of the announcement. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, demanded the cancellation of the housing project, a substantial confidence-building measure towards the Palestinians, and a pledge to negotiate on all the core issues of the dispute, including the borders of a Palestinian state. Senator George Mitchell’s visit to Israel was postponed.

President Obama correctly identified a total settlement freeze as an essential precondition for restarting the stalled peace talks between Palestinians and Israel, but he allowed Netanyahu to fob him off with a vague promise to exercise restraint for 10 months in building on the West Bank. The promise, however, did not apply to the 3,000 housing units that had already been approved or to East Jerusalem, which Israel had annexed following the June 1967 Six-Day War.

Netanyahu knows that the Palestinians will refuse to resume peace talks unless there is a complete freeze on Jewish house construction there. But he is an aggressive right-wing Jewish nationalist and proponent of the doctrine of permanent conflict. It is because of him and his ultra-nationalist coalition partners that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Obama has backed down once, but he is determined to face Netanyahu down this time. His best bet is to use economic leverage to force Netanyahu into meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians on a two-state solution. Even if the current crisis is resolved and the peace talks are resumed, they will go nowhere slowly unless President Obama makes American money and arms to Israel conditional on its heeding American advice.

Avi Shlaim, professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, is author of ‘Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations’

Continue reading March 21, 2010

March 20, 2010

boycott-israel-anim2

1000 Days to the Israeli Blockade of Gaza:

Somebody tell O’Bummer!

Help to stop the next war! Support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of the Israeli regime

Support Palestinian universities – spread the BDS campaign – it is what people under the Israeli jackboot ask you to do

Any army fighting against children, has already lost!

Israeli War Criminals – to the International Criminal Court, NOW!

Make Zionism History!

One year since the Gaza Carnage by Israel’s murderers! We shall

not forget!

Demand the destruction of Israeli WMDs NOW!

Israel’s U.S. envoy: ‘No one can force us to make peace’: Haaretz

Any outside attempt to impose a deal would be like ‘forcing somebody to fall in love’, says ambassador.
Outsiders cannot force peace on the Middle East and any final settlement will have to be initiated by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves, Israel’s Washington envoy said on Saturday.
In an interview with U.S. television station PBS, Ambassador Michael Oren said that any attempt by the United States to impose a peace deal would be like “forcing somebody to fall in love”.
Asked if Israel wanted the Washington to present its own peace plan, Oren said:

“No. I think peace has to be made between two people sitting opposite a table. America can help facilitate that interaction. But at the end of the day, no one can force parties in any conflict in the world to make peace. It’s like forcing somebody to fall in love. We have to sit down and thresh it out between us.”
Oren added: “If we arrive at points where we can’t agree, we can’t close the gap between us, then we – both the Israelis and the Palestinians as well – are willing to look at various bridging formulas.”
“But America is not in a position where it’s going to come in and impose a plan. I don’t think that’s to anybody’s benefit. And I’m sure parties on all sides of this conflict understand that.”

Relations between the United States and Israel have suffered a turbulent fortnight after President Barack Obama’s administration reacted angrily to news of Israeli plans to expand Jewish housing beyond the Green Line in east Jerusalem, announced during a visit to Israel by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the move, which frustrated American plans to mediate renewed talks betweem Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the Palestinians, as an “insult”.
But Oren said that Netanyahu had no advanced warning of the decision and was “blindsided” by the resulting high profile row between the allies.

Asked if Netanyahu knew of the building plans, Oren said:
“Categorically no. I was with him. I was with the vice president. We were blindsided by it. It was made by a mid-level bureaucrat in the interior ministry. It wasn’t made by a senior official.”
Low-level officials had done no more than to announce an interim stage of a planning program that was would take several years to complete, Oren said.
“We were shocked. We were shocked. We were dismayed,” he said. “We immediately apologized to the vice president and his staff. We discussed with the vice president and his staff ways that we could ameliorate the situation. And we worked very hard to do that.”

The diplomatic storm peaked on Thursday when Clinton rebuked Netanyahu during a 43-minute telephone call, reportedly demanding that Israel revoke its recent building decision, roll back plans for new Jewish homes and make goodwill gestures such as releasing Palestinian prisoners and lifting some West Bank roadblocks.
Senior U.S. officials in Washington said on Saturday that Netanyahu had put in writing pledges he made to Clinton during their conversation.

Netanyahu bows to U.S. demands ahead of Washington trip: Haaretz

PM agrees to suspend building in east Jerusalem as aides scramble to arrange Obama meeting.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has bowed to U.S demands and promised goodwill gestures toward the Palestinian Authority ahead of his departure for Washington Sunday night, Haaretz has learned.
While Netanyahu has not agreed to stop building in east Jerusalem, he has promised to suspend it.
Other gestures include alleviating the blockade on the Gaza Strip for the first time since last winter’s military offensive.
Netanyahu also agreed to discuss the core issues in the dispute – including borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements – in revived U.S.-mediated talks.

The prime minister was responding to demands made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a telephone call on Thursday night. Clinton said on Friday that Netanyahu’s reply “was useful and productive, and we’re continuing our discussions with him and his government”.
Netanyahu refused to revoke a controversial building project in Ramat Shlomo or freeze construction in east Jerusalem. However, sources in Jerusalem said he would keep the plan “on hold” – at least until a construction freeze in the rest of the West Bank comes to end in September.
He also promised a better oversight system to prevent embarrassing incidents such as the announcement of plans for 1,600 new Jewish homes beyond the Green Line in east Jerusalem, which triggered the crisis with the U.S. during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel two weeks ago.
Sources in Netanyahu’s office said the prime minister’s gestures include allowing the UN to transport construction materials to Gaza to rebuild sewerage systems, a flour mill and 150 apartments in Khan Yunis.

Netanyahu also agreed to release hundreds of Fatah-affiliated prisoners as a gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
Netanyahu is scheduled to leave for Washington Sunday night with Defense Minister Ehud Barak to attend the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington. Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni and Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau will also attend the convention.
Netanyahu is slated to address the convention tomorrow at 7 P.M. (Israel time), then meet Clinton, who is also to speak at the AIPAC gathering. No meeting has been set yet between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, but officials believe such a meeting will take place on Tuesday in the White House.

Israel’s Washington envoy Michael Oren said yesterday that outsiders cannot force peace on the Middle East, and any final settlement will have to be initiated by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.
In an interview with U.S. television station PBS, Oren said Israel was not interested in having the White House present its own peace plan. Any attempt by the United States to impose a peace deal would be like “forcing somebody to fall in love,” he said.
Asked if Israel wanted Washington to present its own peace plan, Oren said:
“No. I think peace has to be made between two people sitting across a table. America can help facilitate that interaction.”

Meanwhile, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said yesterday after getting a closer look at Israeli enclaves in the West Bank that Israeli settlement building anywhere on occupied land is illegal and must be stopped.
“The world has condemned Israel’s settlement plans in East Jerusalem,” Ban told a news conference after his brief tour.
“Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.”

EDITOR: Sea change? It is quite possible

I have written yesterday about an international sea chnge towards Palestine and Israel. It took 43 years of occupation and its iniquities, the Lebanon 2006 and the Gaza 2009 massacres and massive, wanton destruction, for the international community to real;ise this cannot and should not go on. Now the politicians are catching up, it seems.

UN chief Ban Ki-Moon starts Mid-East peace push: BBC

Ban Ki-Moon condemned the settlement plan
The UN secretary general is meeting Palestinian leaders at the beginning of a mission to press for a resumption of talks between them and the Israelis.
Ban Ki-Moon’s first stop was in the West Bank town of Ramallah, where he met PM Salam Fayyad. He is to see the Israeli president Shimon Peres later.
Israel’s controversial plan to build 1,600 more homes in East Jerusalem has provoked the latest round of diplomacy.
The Palestinian leadership has said the plan is an obstacle to resuming talks.
It has been strongly criticised by the Quartet of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN.
Israel announced last week it had granted permission for the new homes in the Ramat Shlomo area of East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967.
Speaking before his arrival on Saturday, Mr Ban said: “Recalling that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognised by the international community, the Quartet… condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem.”
Mr Ban stated the goal of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement – including a Palestinian state – within two years.
The last time Mr Ban came to Israel was in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s military operation against Gaza 14 months ago.
Weekend diplomacy
Then he did not hide his anger over the high human cost of that operation, and there may be strong words from Mr Ban this time over Israel’s refusal to halt the construction of settlements, the BBC’s Jonathan Head says in Jerusalem.

About 11 Palestinians were injured in the strikes

On Sunday the US special representative George Mitchell will also visit the region to try to get the so-called proximity talks going between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to travel to Washington where he is expected to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and possibly President Barack Obama.
Speaking to the BBC earlier, Mrs Clinton indicated that hardening the tone with Israel had paid off, with talks now back in prospect.
“I think we are going to see the resumption of the negotiating track, and that means that is paying off, because that is our goal,” she said.
Israeli strikes
The diplomatic efforts come as at least 11 people were injured by Israeli air strikes targeting Gaza’s airport, Palestinian officials say.
The Israeli military confirmed the missile strikes near Rafah, in southern Gaza, which it said targeted militants.
It was the second night of Israeli raids since a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip killed a worker on an Israeli farm on Thursday.
Friday’s missiles hit Gaza’s long disused international airport and tunnels dug by militants near the border with Israel.
On Thursday, Israeli missiles hit smuggling tunnels and a metal workshop in Gaza, but there were no reports of serious injuries.
An Israeli military spokesman said the strikes were a response to five rockets fired at Israel from Gaza in the past two days – including one that killed a farm worker from Thailand in a kibbutz in southern Israel.
He was the first person to be killed by rocket fire in southern Israel since the Israeli campaign in Gaza last year.

Continue reading March 20, 2010

March 19, 2010

Erdogan: Israel erasing Palestinians: YNet

How many Israeli brutal soldiers does it take...

Turkish prime minister slams Israeli approval of new homes in east Jerusalem, says normalization of relations depends on lifting of Gaza siege
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned an Israeli decision to approve hundreds of new housing units in east Jerusalem, Turkish news agencies reported Friday.
In a meeting with his party, the Justice and Development Party (AK), Erdogan said ties between Israel and Turkey would not return to normal until the removal of the siege on the Gaza Strip.

Erdogan added that the decision to approve 1,600 new homes in Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo neighborhood was “unacceptable”, and proves Israel “wants to erase the Palestinians step by step”.
He called on Israel to halt all settlement activity and allow worshippers into Temple Mount immediately. “The steps taken by Israel can harm regional stability,” Erdogan added.
Tensions have been mounting between Jerusalem and Ankara since Operation Cast Lead last year, and Turkey has criticized Israel severely for its actions in the Gaza Strip.
Despite this, Turkey’s ambassador to Israel was optimistic last week, and told MKs “developments” would take place soon in the relations between the two countries.

EDITOR: The ‘Only Democracy in the Middle East’…

The Only democracy, maybe the only democracy in the world… is of course a Jewish, Zionist and racist democracy. Most people understood this a long time ago. In an editorial attacking this racist and antidemocratic legislation, which denies the Palestinians the right to mourn the Nakba, as it might annoy some Israelis who dance their ‘independence’ on that day. The right to mourn is obviously only a right Jews should have…

Mocking democracy: Haaretz Editorial

The Knesset yesterday put Israeli democracy to shame when it passed the “Nakba Law” at first reading with a majority of 15 against eight.
If the law is passed at second and third readings it will be able to deprive bodies of state support and fine them if they mark Independence Day as a day of mourning, or if they hold memorial events for the Palestinians’ “catastrophe” in 1948.

The proposal adopted at the end of the Knesset’s winter session was “moderate” compared to the original one initiated by MK Alex Miller of Yisrael Beiteinu. It stipulates fining public institutions that hold activity “denying Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state,” and activity supporting armed struggle or terror against the state, inciting to racism or degrading the state’s flag or symbol.
The bill is not aimed at punishing individuals and threatening them with imprisonment, as the original version was.

But the amended version, despite its euphemistic wording, cannot hide the cabinet’s intention – excluding Arab citizens and infringing disproportionately on their freedom of expression and their right to tell their own historic narrative.
Avigdor Lieberman’s party, which ran a blatant election campaign against Israeli Arabs, has scored a victory on its way to implementing its racist slogan of “no loyalty – no citizenship.”
The idea that it is possible to blur the Arab community’s past consciousness with laws and threats of fines is stupid. The “Nakba” wasn’t forgotten in the 62 years since Israel’s establishment, and the term is much more familiar and prevalent among Israelis today than in previous generations.

The Palestinian refugees’ flight, the destruction of hundreds of Arab villages and the erection of Jewish towns and settlements in their stead are part of Israeli history. It cannot be made to disappear, as the majority’s narrative cannot be foisted onto a fifth of Israel’s citizens.
The threat of depriving institutions that mark the “Nakba” of state financing is reminiscent of Culture Minister Limor Livnat’s complaints against the co-director of the movie “Ajami,” Scandar Copti, who said he does not represent Israel.
Like the “Nakba Law” initiators, Livnat too believes that an artist who receives state support is bound to “loyalty” and must represent the state in competitions abroad.

This is the Netanyahu-Lieberman cabinet’s spirit – we’ll support only those who think like us.

Integrating Arab citizens into Israeli society is first and foremost a national interest, and its implementation requires that the Jewish majority display tolerance and openness toward the minority.
Clearly the conflict makes this difficult and the Jewish-Arab rift will not disappear soon. But proposals like the “Nakba Law,” beyond violating basic democratic values, will only push the Arab community to greater extremism and separatism.
The Knesset should be ashamed of passing the law at first reading. The Kadima and Labor factions should be denounced for not opposing it. But it’s not too late to block the harmful law in the next readings, before it stains Israel’s body of law.

Leading article: Barack Obama should keep the pressure on Israel: The Independent Editorial

The American President has some new domestic cards to play
It is a testament to the hubris of Benjamin Netanyhau’s government that having seen off an attempt by Barack Obama to freeze settlement construction, it has now given the US President a second chance to claw back that defeat. Much has been said about the inadequacy of Mr Netanyahu’s apologetic admission that last week’s announcement of a plan to expand the Ramat Shlomo settlement was badly timed. As the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made admirably clear to the Israeli Prime Minister in her famous telephone call last Friday, Washington objected to the substance as much as to the timing.

Yet the timing was indeed bad. It came less than 48 hours after Mr Obama’s envoy George Mitchell had finally been able to announce that indirect negotiations would go ahead – negotiations which an infuriated Palstinian leadership said it would not participate in if the plan stood. It is hard to believe that some in Israel’s government did not know that this would be the consequence. Certainly Mr Netanyhau’s suggestion that because the settlement is viewed by most Israelis as an integral part of Jewish Jerusalem, nobody thought to challenge it, is extraordinarily lame. No one who has been around Middle East politics as long as he has could be ignorant of how Palestinians would see the move.

One view is that President Obama is heading for another defeat and that in an election year he cannot withstand the wrath of the powerful right- wing pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC. If so, serious scrutiny of the way AIPAC uses its ample funding to influence American democracy, mainly in what it perceives to be the interests of a foreign government, is overdue. Fortunately the arrival of J Street, a vastly less well-funded group but one more representative of the impressive majority of American Jews who voted for Mr Obama in 2008, and which is backing him now, makes that possible without the usual charges of anti-Semitism.

But, as it happens, many American Jews will rally to the powerful argument that by restraining a Likud government prepared to jepoardise peace talks in this way, Mr Obama is actually acting as a true friend of Israel and its long-term security. And Mr Obama also has other domestic cards to play. This week’s warning by General David Petraeus of the “enormous” effect of continued Israeli-Palestinian tension on the tasks confronted by US forces in Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Iraq is a salutary, if overdue, reminder that an end to the conflict is an urgent American interest as well as an Israeli and Palestinian one.

Yet Mr Obama may not be able to rely on mere rhetoric as President Bush senior did not when he briefly suspended loan guarantees to bring Israel to negotiations in 1991. Here the EU, a key trading partner of Israel, needs to lend its (albeit secondary) support. Lady Ashton did herself nothing but good yesterday by visiting Gaza. She should add her voice at the Quartet meeting in Moscow today to those urging an end to the destructive two and half year economic siege.

She was of course right to condemn yesterday’s fatal Qassam rocket attack. And as she grows in authority, Baroness Ashton should ally herself with US efforts to break the wider deadlock in the Middle East. That need not bring Mr Netanyahu down (though it may). The Israeli prime minister could reach out to the centre and left to replace the fundamentalists in his coalition. But it is primarily the job of Mr Obama to help him decide whether those friends are more important to him than the alliance with the US.

EDITOR: A sea-change on settlements?

I an interesting response to Israel’s offensive and badly managed operation last week, which has managed to annoy just about everyone elsewhere, we can see that the Gaza Carnage in 2008/2009 has at last started to change the dynamics in Palestine. While there is no doubt that we are a long way away from a solution, there seems to be growing international tiredness with Israel and its aggressive agenda and murderous actions, and a greater readiness to confront it. Netanyahu and Liberman are obviously helping to bring this about, as their behaviour can hardly be acceptable even to hardened Zionist such as Biden and Clinton, as well as Obama. It will certainly take more to persuade dyed-in-the-wool Zionists like Brown and Sarkozy, but maybe their time is over, anyway. It seems clear to me that Israel has moved itself into a defensive square on the international map, and that its propaganda is no longer managing to cower international figures as it did in the past.

This is still not enough, of course. Palestine is now represented by a pliant and spineless unelected government, and unless there is a change there, and resistance to the occupation, wall, settlements and the daily illegalities and brutalities are enshrined by the PNA, and also its own opeaations become democratic and open, then the chances for a just political settlement must be as low as they have ever been, or lower. With the war criminal Tony Blair representing the Quartet (what did he ever do to bring about negotiations, in the years he spent being paid by the Quartet?) then the chances for it playing a positive role are nil.

Middle East Quartet urges Israeli settlement freeze: BBC

The international Quartet of Middle East peace mediators has urged Israel to freeze all settlement activity.
Speaking for the Quartet, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned Israel’s announcement of plans to build new homes in disputed East Jerusalem.
That move undermined efforts to restart indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Speaking to the BBC, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that hardening the tone with Israel had paid off, with talks now back in prospect.
Mr Ban met Mrs Clinton and the other Quartet foreign ministers – new EU foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton and Russia’s Sergei Lavrov – in Moscow.

[The Quartet] condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem
Ban Ki-moon
UN Secretary General

In a strongly worded statement, the Quartet condemned Israel’s announcement last week of planning permission for 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967.
After the announcement, the Palestinians declared they could not begin US-brokered indirect, or “proximity”, talks with the Israelis.
“The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, dismantle outposts erected since March 2001 and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem,” Mr Ban said.
“Recalling that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognised by the international community, the Quartet underscores that the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties, and condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem.”

ANALYSIS
Kim Ghattas, BBC News, Moscow
Hillary Clinton seems to believe that the spat over settlements with Israel might produce something positive. In a BBC interview she appeared to concede that escalating the tone with the Israelis had been a risk but she said it was “paying off”.
She added she believed there would be a “resumption of the negotiating track soon”. In other words, pressure on Israel is working.
But the pressure will have to continue if there are to be concrete results. Israeli officials are already pushing back.
Mrs Clinton said Benjamin Netanyahu had committed to peace and she made clear she expected him to deliver. She added it was his responsibility to bring the whole of his government, a right-wing coalition, on board.

Mr Ban stated the goal of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement – including a Palestinian state – within two years.
Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat welcomed the Quartet statement and urged the creation of a “surveillance mechanism installed by the Quartet to make sure that Israel does effectively halt completely all settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem”.
The pressure is now on the Israelis to offer concessions that will convince the Palestinians to participate in talks, says the BBC’s Richard Galpin in Moscow.
But Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the Quartet timetable was unrealistic and ignored “the last 16 years of Israeli attempts” at negotiating with the Palestinians.
He said Israel had made many “significant gestures” and it was up to the Palestinians to “prove that they are really interested in negotiations”.
Mrs Clinton told the BBC she hoped to see the resumption of indirect talks in the near future, eventually moving to direct talks.
Asked whether she had taken a risk in escalating the tone with Israel, Mrs Clinton said: “I think we are going to see the resumption of the negotiating track, and that means that is paying off, because that is our goal.”
West Bank clashes
Events on Friday in the Middle East highlighted the difficulties the Quartet faces.
Palestinians in the West Bank town of Hebron threw stones at Israeli security forces, who fired tear gas in return.
And a rocket was fired into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip. It caused no injuries, but came a day after a rocket attack killed a Thai agricultural worker when it hit an Israeli kibbutz.
Israeli aircraft attacked up to six targets in Gaza overnight but there were no reports of any serious casualties.
On the eve of the Quartet meeting, Mr Netanyahu informed Mrs Clinton of new confidence-building measures that could be taken, but no details have been given.
It is likely this means a goodwill gesture by the Israelis, like the release of Palestinian prisoners, says the BBC’s Kim Ghattas, travelling with Mrs Clinton.
Enough progress was apparently made in their telephone conversation for George Mitchell, Washington’s Middle East envoy, to travel to the region this weekend.
Mr Netanyahu is to visit Washington next week for further talks with Mrs Clinton.
At the heart of the conflict are disputes over the status of Jerusalem, the borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Continue reading March 19, 2010

March 9, 2010

How many Mossad agents... by Khalil Bendib

EDITOR: Some sane signs amidst the media glitz and medness

For Haaretz to publish a call for Israel to speak with Hamas, at the very moment of preapring another war on Gaza while talking ‘peace’ with the US, however mild the article may be, is not a usual practice in country where the mere name of Hamas is used to frighten the public into docile submission. Let us hope some more sane voices may follow.

Israel must talk to Hamas before it’s too late: Haaretz

By David Zonsheine
Israel must talk to Hamas. Not secretly. Not indirectly. Not for a politician to rehabilitate himself on the way to taking over the leadership of a party, as Kadima’s Shaul Mofaz tried to do, but openly and seriously. Just as the United States regularly talks to the Israeli opposition, Israel should maintain a dialogue with the Palestinian opposition. The dialogue should cover all core issues including a final settlement.

It’s not a simple matter, of course. There is agreement across the political spectrum to reduce the debate to a demonization of Hamas, dwelling on the organization’s external attributes as perceived by Israel – religious, extremist and desiring all the territory between the river and the sea. This debate does not focus on the Israeli interest. We should be asking ourselves the following questions: Is it worthwhile to speak with Hamas? What are our reasons for not talking to them? Is boycotting them linked to an erroneous preconception?
Israel rigorously insists that Hamas is not a partner and that our partner is Fatah, headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But negotiations with Fatah have been going on for nearly two decades, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that he accepts the principle of two states for two peoples looks like just another trick to postpone the demise of the current negotiation process.

In 2004, the Israeli government decided that Yasser Arafat was not relevant. Abbas, Israel’s leaders have said, is weak. At the same time, Israel has for years been doing all it can to weaken the Palestinian Authority. That way, it will be possible to prove yet again that although “we have to talk, there’s no one you can close a deal with.” Even if an agreement is signed under American pressure, the PA will not be able to implement it because more than half the Palestinians don’t accept its authority. This is why the refusal to speak with Hamas is pointless. It is no more than a continuation of avoiding talking to the Palestinians by other means.

Hamas’ rule in Gaza is the outcome of despair with the Fatah leadership. The deterioration of the situation in Gaza after the ongoing failure of negotiations and the total dependence on Israel for receiving basic needs intensify the despair and extremism. (And no one is talking about the right to free movement, to go abroad to study.) Even today, there are groups resisting Hamas that resemble Al-Qaida. We can drag things out as much as we want, but we have to admit that the notion that time is on our side is baseless. The people who led Abbas to consider resigning and who refuse to talk to Hamas will find themselves in five years with a partner who reports to Osama bin Laden.
Nothing is possible without Gilad Shalit. People may say that the fate of a country cannot be dependent on what happens to one abducted soldier. There is no greater mistake. The abandonment of Shalit is symptomatic of Zionism’s failure, the elevation of pride over wisdom and tactics over strategy. It’s the denial of the sanctity of life and redeeming prisoners, values that are at the heart and soul of the nation.

Precisely here, the soft underbelly of public opinion, it would be possible to makes progress on the delicate matter of contacts with Hamas. More than 7,000 Palestinians are being held prisoner in Israel. There is one Israeli prisoner in Palestine. The suffering of both sides, and with it the tremendous joy that a prisoner exchange would produce, can and should be the lever for a stepped-up conciliation process.
For years Israel and its citizens have been paying the price of choosing solutions that were appropriate for the last war. Hiding our head in the sand at such a critical stage is dangerous. We have to declare our readiness to speak with the Palestinian opposition, immediately.

The writer is a joint founder of an initiative seeking direct and open talks with Hamas.

Banksy December 5, 2007, Betlehem

Possibilities of war: Iran: Al Ahram Weekly

Despite how alarming the prospect of a nuclear Iran might be to Washington, enhancing sanctions or authorising pre-emptive strikes could lead to an all-out war the US might lose, writes Azmi Bishara
The Obama administration’s reappointment of the Bush administration’s secretary of defence, Robert Gates, reflects the growing involvement of the US military establishment in decision-making processes on matters of war and peace, and hence in US foreign policy in general. The primary catalyst in this development has been the dismal results of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan leading to attempts to reform the military establishment’s modus operandi, which isn’t directly affected by elections, a couple of years before the end of Bush’s tenure. The new programming was scripted to a considerable extent in the Baker- Hamilton Report, submitted to Bush in December 2006. The most important recommendations of this report were, first, its call for a dialogue with countries neighbouring Iraq, including Syria and Iran, in order to persuade them to help promote stability in order to extricate the US from the Iraqi quagmire it created after having invaded that country and demolished its existing governing infrastructures, and second its call to renew efforts towards a political solution to the Palestinian cause, which is to say to revive the so-called “peace process”.

Against this backdrop, the appointment of Gates as secretary of defence, instead of Rumsfeld, was a manifestation of the military establishment’s rejection of the latter and of the neoconservatives’ adventurism. Gates is now the military establishment’s man in the White House and his influence has increased under Obama. He epitomises that conjunction between the refusal to allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons and the desire to avert an all-out war with Iran. This is the current position of the establishment in the West, regardless of the Tony Blair-like histrionics that only a handful of Arab officials buy.

Washington’s refusal of a nuclear Iran has its roots in its relations with Tehran since the Islamic Revolution. Its position is based on both rational and irrational reasons, even from the American perspective, and these are precisely the reasons that compel a regime that feels itself under perpetual threat from the US, which has not recognised it until today, to contemplate possessing a nuclear weapon for deterrent purposes. The mutual antagonism between Washington and Tehran is fed by the former’s declared and applied intent to overthrow the Iranian regime and by the latter’s refusal to accept US hegemony and its consequences in the Middle East. However, the more immediate cause for hostility is the Israeli attitude towards Iran, even in the reformist era, versus the Iranian attitude towards Israel.

It is this factor that accounts for why the tenor of Iranian-US relations has remained unchanged even after much has changed in both countries. It is what fuels that dynamo that whirs tirelessly in the international domain to impose sanctions and to keep the Iranian question a top priority on the global agenda. Israel is the most active country in this dynamo. It is the party that most clearly and persistently urges the use of all means to prevent Iran from attaining the ability to produce its own nuclear weapon, and it is the most adamant about keeping the military option open, if only in theory, in the game of tug-of-war with Iran. The Israeli lobby in Congress and the White House is steering the campaign against Iran. Its success in this regard was crowned with the appointment of Dennis Ross as the White House’s advisor and special envoy on matters pertaining to Iran. Western leaders, in general, can come up with no other justification for their opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme than their anxiety over “its potential threat to Israel’s security and existence”.

While European officials were discussing the question of tougher sanctions on Iran, Israel marked the 61st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz with even louder than the previous year’s commemorations. In the process, teams of Israeli officials were deployed in every European capital to mount podiums, wag their fingers and deliver lectures on the relationship between the Nazi Holocaust and the Iranian position on the existence of Israel. Needless to say, the wiles and ruses of political exploitation know no bounds. Few are the arenas that have not come under pressure from Israel and the US to prevent Iran from arming itself and to tighten sanctions. The campaign extends across the whole of Europe, Russia, China, India, the Arab world and even Africa. No field of industry, banking and even the media has escaped being turned into a means for weakening and surrounding Iran. Even the Lebanese/Syrian front, from the Israeli perspective, has been subordinated to calculations pertaining to the primary front against Tehran. The existential threat comes from there, according to the current Israeli thinking, and the chief strategic threat is Iran’s missiles with regard to which Israelis are keeping very close watch on range, accuracy, the type of warhead they can carry, and their destructive power.

In the distant past, the Arab nationalist regimes of the 1960s constituted the real threat. They were existentially antithetical to Israel and applied their energies against it on all fronts. Today, the visible danger resides in a hostile regime that is ideologically opposed to Israel, that has given no hint of an inclination to reach an understanding, and that possesses advanced missilery. The Arabs, of course, remain the existential antithesis in the long run, but they are unorganised and they are not collectively represented by a sovereign state or even several separate states.

Binyamin Netanyahu has taken this thinking so far as to dub Iran the “new Amalek” ( Haaretz, 18 February 2010). The reference is to the Biblical Amalekites who occasioned the first divinely ordained genocide in history when the Old Testament Yahweh commanded the Israelites to destroy them totally, sparing no one, including women, children and even their livestock. Of course, such a thing is not possible in our modern day and age. However, apparently it is possible for a secular prime minister of a “democratic” state to hurl an allusion to this blood-steeped legacy at his contemporary political enemies without raising the eyebrows of the civilised world, where the current bent of literature, arts and dialogue conferences of every sorts is to heap scorn and derision on Ahmadinejad, and without stirring The New York Times into devoting even a small editorial to this dangerous and provocative indulgence in religious imagery.

Turning to the other half of Washington’s dilemma, its reluctance to start a full-fledged war against Iran resides in its anxieties over the fallout from such a war on the rest of the region, inclusive of Iraq, all the more so given that the repercussions are impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy. It also has to do with doubts over whether the US and its allies could sustain the costs of a war, and with the lack of any volunteers to side with the US in such a war in spite of the many parties prodding and plotting for a military showdown. To further aggravate this factor, the US remains mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, where resistance movements remain strong, and it is doubtful whether it could stretch its forces to other fronts.

It should be mentioned here that Arab countries could be certain of preventing a war, for there could not be a war without their approval, whereas their approval alone is not sufficient to make a war. Evidently, they have opted for the less certain path. This is also the place to register a reminder that if the Arabs had systematically opposed the American invasion of Iraq they would have prevented that war.

Of course, the Obama administration has political considerations for avoiding combat against Iran. Obama was elected largely on the basis of his pledge to put an end to wars begun by his predecessor. He was not elected to start new wars. If he has yet to score any major inroads towards the fulfilment of that pledge, imagine the political risks he would incur if he plunged his country into another war, especially one that would be so unpredictable.

There are, nonetheless, the seeds of a different approach to the Iranian question, but they are unlikely to find fertile ground in view of the hold the Israeli perspective has over US strategy for the region. The alternative viewpoint is to learn to cope with the idea of Iranian nuclear capacity; it would not be the end of the world. Iran is better organised and more institutionalised than Pakistan. Of course, there would have to be comprehensive understandings, but these are reachable with a state that is developing a nationalist pragmatism that seeks to translate economic, political and strategic advantages into regional and international status. No one has anything to gain if this power is built under boycott, and certainly those who violate the boycott do not do so free of charge: some receive payment in material goods or cash (Russia), others in reduced oil prices (China), and others in commercial, financial and real estate returns (Dubai). So, according to this point of view, what’s wrong with containing Iran within a framework that acknowledges its standing? In return, Iran would accept conditions that not only meet the approval of the US but also of a large segment of Iranian public opinion that wants the Iranian government to give priority to the needs of its citizens and the country (a policy of “Iran first” one might say).

In fact, Iran has come a long way in this direction. The development is particularly apparent in its relations with neighbouring Arab countries in which it is constantly trying to turn local sectarian affiliation into political affiliation to Tehran (“Iran first”). However, the Shia Islamist ideology on which the Iranian regime is founded restricts the tendency towards state pragmatism, for not only does it highlight what separates Iran from its surroundings it also underscores what it has in common with it, namely Islam and antagonism towards Israel. Still, in the absence of the abovementioned alternative, the US position remains caught between its rejection of a nuclear Iran and its desire to avoid an all-out war.

Within this framework, both sides have a margin of manoeuvrability. The US-Israeli margin ranges from pressing for harsher sanctions (covering economic, commercial and financial activities, as well as transportation and communications) to calculated raids on specific targets (along the lines of the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor or its “pre-emptive” strike against Deir Al-Zor). Somewhere in the middle lie intelligence operations, such as supporting armed insurgents in Iranian border regions, and — more recently on the American agenda — supporting the new Iranian opposition. In the not so distant past, US intelligence efforts focussed on backing the conventional opposition made up of members and supporters of the ancien régime. However, the US could not pass up the window of opportunity presented by the front that rallied behind the rejection of the Ahmadinejad approach and the results of last June’s presidential elections. This opposition is deeper, broader and morally weightier than the conventional opposition, for which reason it will obtain unconventional assistance, both directly and indirectly.

The Iranian margin of manoeuvrability covers warding off harsher sanctions for as long as possible, announcing conciliatory initiatives — especially at times when it makes another breakthrough in uranium enrichment — and sustaining good relations with countries that are more concerned about promoting their economic interests than about pleasing the US, such as China and Russia. Even a country such as India, which has entered the US-Israeli alliance (largely because of the Arabs and Pakistan) and has more reasons than China to value this alliance, has strategic reasons for not jeopardising its relationship with Iran. In addition to such concerns as a shared position towards Afghanistan, for example, India refines some 40 per cent of the gasoline that is imported into Iran. Turning off the taps to refined gas is the furthest the US is contemplating on going in terms of “effective sanctions” and this step it would save for last. At that point Washington would not only have to pressure China, it would have twist India’s arm too. However, its ability to do so has gradually dwindled with respect to India because of the US’s declining fortunes in its war against the Taliban which, in my opinion, it will ultimately lose, and with respect to China because of the repercussions of the global financial crisis.

In calculating the limits of military confrontation in that space between the desire to avoid comprehensive engagement and the rejection of a nuclear Iran it is best to exclude actions that could lead to a full-scale war, even if that is not their initial nature or intent. For example, tactical raids are theoretically possible as an upper threshold of engagement, yet one side or the other could take such an action as an act of war and respond accordingly, on the basis of the reasoning that that is what war is. Thus, attacks against certain locations in Iran could escalate into a full-scale war, but the same might apply to a cut-off of imports of refined gas. Much would depend on the Iranian reaction. If Tehran saw this as grounds for retaliatory skirmishes in the Straits of Hormuz, would the US not respond to the challenge? In other words, might not the imposition of certain types of sanctions feasibly degenerate into all-out war?

While the US, now, seems to be treading these waters with care, it will still continue its gradual push no notch up sanctions in a way that will guarantee a favourable response from the countries that count. It will simultaneously build on the development of the Iranian opposition. This is now Iran’s fundamental problem and it should compel Tehran to deal more seriously with the dialectic of citizenship and the official ideology of the state. The Soviet Union, the countries of Eastern Europe and China have passed through such a phase. This is not the place to elaborate on those battles. However, the civil rights camp, as rightful as its demands are, continues to regard foreign policy and ideology as the cause of its tragedies, although there is not necessarily a connection between the two, apart from the regime’s attempts to use ideology and the banner of solidarity with the oppressed as a pretext for abusing the rights of citizens, restricting freedoms, and nurturing and protecting corruption among the ruling classes. I stress “as a pretext”. The oppressed and those who side with them, wherever they might be in the world, are not to blame for the mismanagement of the kolkhozy, domestic repression or the failure of five-year plans. In addition to people’s tendency to blame an ideology that had become totally devoid of substance at the time of the state’s collapse, and hence an easy target, the opposing camp, too, plays on ideology in its propaganda campaigns against its adversary and in marketing itself. Some self-appointed spokesmen for the oppressed do this in the course of their praise for domestic policies in totalitarian states. Iran faces a dialectic of this sort. It will have to come to terms with it in order to strengthen its resilience against outside pressures.

Continue reading March 9, 2010