Par Daniel Vanhove

Pour tout observateur attentif, rien de bien neuf dans les déclarations récentes de l’ensemble de la diplomatie occidentale à propos de la décision du président de l’autorité palestinienne Mahmoud Abbas de ne pas se représenter aux élections prochaines, prévues début 2010. Chacun y est allé de sa petite intervention – jusqu’à Shimon Pérès ! – pour inviter l’intéressé à revoir sa position.

Là où les représentants de nos divers gouvernements ont ignoré depuis des décennies, la détérioration toujours plus grave de la situation dans les Territoires occupés par Israël et tout particulièrement à Gaza, l’empressement à soutenir de manière presque unanime et encourager Mahmoud Abbas à se représenter à ces futures élections, devrait au minimum, nous interpeller.

En effet, comment comprendre que pendant des années, nos élus et leurs médias serviles n’ont cessé de mettre en exergue la corruption endémique et généralisée de l’appareil étatique palestinien jusqu’à son sommet ; n’ont cessé d’abandonner les leaders palestiniens à leur funeste sort ; n’ont cessé d’ignorer les multiples compromis acceptés par une population étranglée ; n’ont cessé d’encourager et soutenir les initiatives israéliennes de tous genres, y compris dans le laisser-faire du Mur d’apartheid, dans l’alliance du gouvernement avec l’extrême-droite, dans le blocus assassin de la Bande de Gaza, dans l’emprisonnement de parlementaires et de mineurs, dans la non-application des résolutions des Nations-unies et le non-respect du Droit international et humanitaire, etc… et d’assister au revirement soudain de ces mêmes élus trouvant aujourd’hui toutes les qualités à Mahmoud Abbas, pour qu’il reste à la tête d’un hypothétique Etat ? Comment comprendre une telle attitude, sinon que l’homme de l’ombre, le pâle représentant des Palestiniens, celui-là même qui parfois s’accrochait au cou d’Ehud Olmert pour l’embrasser est tellement consensuel, tellement faible qu’il convient parfaitement aux interlocuteurs israéliens en premier lieu et par ricochet à tous ceux qui soutiennent activement Israël dans la poursuite de sa politique profondément injuste, hors-la-loi et criminelle ?

A l’heure où Mahmoud Abbas se dirige peut-être vers la décision politique la plus courageuse de sa carrière, c’est la panique dans les chancelleries. Perdre un tel interlocuteur s’avère sans doute perdre un allié bien utile et fort peu encombrant. La décision est même interprétée par certains comme une manœuvre tactique visant à le rendre incontournable, indispensable, quelques mois avant les élections, lui assurant ainsi la certitude d’une réélection aisée et massivement soutenue de l’extérieur. Et puis, qui donc pourrait remplacer cet évanescent papy, si peu vindicatif, si peu déterminé, si policé et si soumis aux dictats qui lui sont imposés !? A 74 ans, la retraite volontaire de celui-là même qui fut l’un des artisans des moribonds Accords d’Oslo ne semble pas recevoir l’aval de ses interlocuteurs étrangers qui n’osent imaginer devoir faire face à un nouveau candidat dont on ne connaît pas encore le nom, ni la tête, et moins encore les intentions. Diable, que nous préparent encore ces imprévisibles insoumis !?…

Or, pour la population palestinienne qui a tout enduré depuis plus de soixante ans sans percevoir la moindre lueur dans l’avènement de son Etat, ces prochaines élections ne sont-elles pas une opportunité de faire table rase de tout ce qui a manifestement échoué ? Et d’en tirer les conclusions ? Puisque rien ni personne ne semble jamais convenir aux différents gouvernements israéliens : ni Yasser Arafat qui était trop ceci, ni Mahmoud Abbas qui est trop cela, ni Ismaïl Haniyeh qui n’est ni ceci ni cela tout en même temps ; qu’ils volent, pillent, emprisonnent et massacrent toujours plus leurs voisins au fil des ans ; qu’ils refusent obstinément l’arrêt de la colonisation et par leur comportement affichent une arrogance peu commune, peut-être est-ce le moment de remettre en cause le partage-même de ce qui fut décidé sans l’avis des premiers concernés, en 1947… et de dénoncer la solution choisie par les Etats dits démocratiques qui leur fut imposée, la déclarant caduque et impossible à réaliser de par l’intransigeance coloniale israélienne…

Et peut-être dans la foulée conviendrait-il de rappeler que finalement, le problème des pogroms puis du génocide des juifs pendant la dernière guerre mondiale était bien un problème européen qui ne concernait pas le Proche-Orient où ils vivaient tranquilles. Problème qui dès lors, ne devrait pas trouver sa solution sur le dos des Palestiniens qui aujourd’hui continuent à payer notre ardoise ! Et de suggérer aux Européens et leurs alliés de trouver sur leurs terres, un endroit pour l’établissement de l’Etat « juif » d’Israël. Ce sera l’occasion de voir si leur détermination au soutien d’un tel Etat déguisé en démocratie sera toujours aussi appuyée et inconditionnelle…

Ainsi, voilà bientôt deux ans, je proposais dans La Démocratie Mensonge, une solution à la question israélo-palestinienne, sous forme de « pensées interdites » :

« (…) Si l’on regarde l’Histoire humaine, rien n’y est jamais définitif. Tout est, là également, en constante évolution. Et tout particulièrement, les frontières délimitant les limites de tel ou tel pays. Il n’est qu’à jeter un œil sur les cartes géographiques d’antan. Celles d’aujourd’hui n’ont rien à voir avec celles d’hier ou d’avant hier. Et ne sont probablement pas à l’image de celles de demain. Transformées elles aussi, par la conjonction des forces qui les (re)dessinent. Et dans ce cas-là, les forces en question sont la volonté et les décisions des hommes et des femmes qui peuplent le monde et ses régions, et en modèlent, en modifient ses étendues et ses limites. Il ne faut pas remonter bien loin dans le passé pour en avoir des exemples : que ce soit en ex-URSS, en ex-Yougoslavie, en ex-Tchécoslovaquie pour ne parler que d’une Europe qui n’a de cesse de se redessiner, les récentes nouvelles frontières sont nombreuses. Et ne sont certainement pas définitives. Dans quelque temps, qu’adviendra-t-il du Kosovo, du Monténégro, de l’îlot russe de Kaliningrad enclavé en pays baltes eux-mêmes rattachés à l’Union européenne, du Kurdistan inscrit sur plusieurs pays, du Sahara occidental, ou du Tibet, … ? Bien malin qui pourrait en dessiner aujourd’hui les futures frontières.

Mais l’observation des faits scientifiques nous a appris aussi autre chose, d’essentiel : dans son évolution, l’univers a horreur du gaspillage d’énergie, étant entendu que rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée, tout se transforme. Pour une fois, essayons donc d’en tirer les leçons et de nous les appliquer.

Il n’y a pas si longtemps, au moment où quelques responsables juifs réclamaient une terre pour accueillir leur projet de foyer national, étaient envisagées trois éventualités : la Palestine, l’Argentine et l’Ouganda. Le choix s’est porté sur la Palestine, pour diverses raisons dont celle d’un retour à la Terre Promise… cette fadaise ! Aujourd’hui, plutôt que de continuer dans cette option qui paraît sans issue, dans cette obsession sanglante et meurtrière d’imposer les frontières du jeune Etat d’Israël au cœur de la Palestine historique dont les habitants n’ont jamais eu leur mot à dire sur cette décision, et d’en payer le prix le plus fort depuis 60 ans, pourquoi ne pas envisager une quatrième voie, plus économe à tout point de vue ? En outre, dans l’esprit de la « globalisation » où tout est bon à n’importe quelle entreprise pour améliorer ses marges bénéficiaires par l’entremise de la délocalisation, l’idée s’inscrit tout à fait dans l’air du temps…

De toutes les manières, plus les années passent, plus la domination d’Israël sur la région semble comptée. Depuis 1967, à l’inverse de ce qui apparaît au premier coup d’œil, l’Etat israélien a perdu une partie du terrain volé à ses voisins. Il a rétrocédé le Sinaï à l’Egypte, a quitté la majeure partie du Sud Liban, s’est retiré de Gaza, et devra tôt ou tard négocier le Golan syrien… avant d’entamer des pourparlers au sujet des nombreuses colonies implantées en Cisjordanie dont on sait que toutes sont illégales.

Son recours à une oppression féroce sur ce qui lui reste en est d’autant plus brutale : les Palestiniens en font les frais chaque jour… avant, sans doute, l’implosion de l’Etat israélien sous sa forme actuelle, condamné à disparaître par la définition même de ses statuts racistes et de ses pratiques d’apartheid impossibles à perpétuer éternellement dans un monde qui prône la « démocratie » comme modèle…

L’Algérie a résisté pendant plus de 130 ans à l’occupation française… Même dans un infernal quotidien, les Palestiniens savent avoir encore du temps devant eux… et il est fort improbable que les pays arabes voisins acceptent la disparition du 3ème lieu saint de l’Islam à Jérusalem, au seul profit du judaïsme…

Ainsi, puisqu’il est établi que les Etats-Unis soutiennent inconditionnellement et, envers et contre tout, le gouvernement et le peuple israéliens, pourquoi ne pas offrir à ces derniers, l’un des plus grands espaces qui soit – la superficie des USA est de 9.630.000 km² et celle d’Israël de 20.770 km², soit moins de 0,25 % du territoire américain – en leur permettant d’y édifier leur Etat ? Les espaces désertiques ne manquent pas dans le Sud-Ouest des USA et quelques grands déserts pourraient bien accueillir ceux qui semblent avoir un penchant atavique pour la chose.

Avec les techniques actuelles, nul doute qu’il soit possible de déménager les quelques vieilles pierres restantes du Mur des Lamentations… Et si vraiment cela ne pouvait être envisagé par crainte de dommages irréversibles au site historique, ou par respect pour ceux qui désireraient rester à Jérusalem, ainsi que pour le tourisme qui retrouverait-là son affluence d’antan, on pourrait assurément compter sur les techniciens d’Hollywood pour effectuer de parfaits décors de la Ville Sainte, plus vrais que nature ! Et pourquoi pas, envisager jusqu’à la reconstruction totale du Temple de Salomon qui trônerait alors, dans toute sa splendeur, au centre d’une nouvelle capitale, baptisée New-Jerusalem !?

Ce serait tout avantage pour les Israéliens : ils ne seraient pas trop dépaysés par l’environnement naturel ; seraient directement sous l’aile protectrice et satellitaire de leur bienfaiteur ; ne devraient plus utiliser leur argutie habituelle de peurs paranoïaques alimentées par la présence d’Arabes et de musulmans innombrables à leurs frontières ; n’auraient plus besoin d’un budget militaire exponentiel pour garantir la paix avec leurs voisins, ce qui leur permettrait de se pencher sur le problème réel de la pauvreté dans le pays ; n’auraient plus à vivre en état de stress permanent parce qu’ils seraient mieux abrités d’éventuelles attaques suicides ; pourraient se livrer sans limite à leur occupation favorite, à savoir, l’extension de leur territoire, etc… Le colossal budget militaire ainsi économisé pourrait servir à édifier très rapidement les infrastructures modernes dont ils bénéficient aujourd’hui, et pourrait en outre être consacré aux soins psychologiques indispensables pour soigner les nombreuses névroses d’une grande majorité de citoyens.

Enfin, comble de bonheur, ils seraient proches du Saint des Saints puisque le souffle divin traverse aussi le Président yankee [à l’époque du président Bush- ndlr], qui conduit désormais le monde de vision en vision… Comme on peut le voir, là également, point de dépaysement…

La région du Moyen-Orient serait finalement libérée de l’une de ses tensions majeures. La Communauté internationale serait définitivement débarrassée de l’un de ses plus épineux problèmes puisque le cas échéant, tout problème israélien deviendrait interne aux Etats-Unis. Là également, que d’économies d’argent et d’énergie ! Le calme reviendrait sans doute dans l’ensemble de la région. Ainsi peut-être que sur les cours pétroliers. Le nouveau Moyen-Orient ainsi reconstitué pourrait être sécurisé d’Est en Ouest et du Nord au Sud et nettoyé de tout danger nucléaire, y compris en Iran. Et les peuples libérés pourraient enfin se consacrer à l’essentiel. Ce qui au vu des dégâts à tous niveaux, éliminerait le chômage et assurerait du travail pour tous, pendant des décennies entières. Nous serions en Europe, soulagés des interventions indigestes des prétentieux de salons, politologues incompétents, journalistes verbeux, « spécialistes » pédants, etc… Et chacun de nous pourrait en définitive, consacrer son temps à autre chose.

Quand on voit les milliards engloutis, dans la conquête spatiale pour les armes sophistiquées des uns, dans la reconstruction et l’aide humanitaire sans fin des autres, sans compter les coûts indécents d’une diplomatie inopérante de tous, en termes strictement économiques, l’impact d’un tel plan serait i-ni-ma-gi-na-ble ! Au lieu d’entraîner les forces vives du pays dans leurs guerres ruineuses, les Etats-Unis pourraient booster leur économie de façon vertigineuse. Les places boursières s’envoleraient. Et leur image extérieure retrouverait une blancheur (presque) immaculée.

Plutôt que de renouveler sans cesse des promesses jamais tenues à propos d’un futur Etat palestinien, celui-ci pourrait éclore dans ses limites historiques, et la place libérée par une partie de la communauté juive permettrait d’y accueillir tous les réfugiés entassés dans les pays voisins qui, eux aussi, seraient débarrassés d’un douloureux problème à l’intérieur de leurs frontières… Tous les Israéliens, juifs ou non, qui le désirent pourraient rester en Palestine et cohabiter sereinement avec leurs compatriotes arabes, musulmans, chrétiens ou laïcs, comme c’était le cas par le passé, ainsi que dans nombre de pays de par le monde.

De son côté, le nouvel Israël pourrait négocier son rattachement comme 51ème Etat aux cinquante actuels qui forment les Etats-Unis d’Amérique. Il serait ainsi, enfin reconnu par toutes les Nations, y compris par les Etats arabes les plus réticents, dans son « droit d’exister »…

L’ensemble des anciennes Résolutions des Nations Unies seraient déclarées caduques et une nouvelle ère de réelle prospérité s’ouvrirait pour chacun. Bref, ce serait la paix pour tous, dans le meilleur des mondes… Cela s’avèrerait une véritable manne céleste, proche du miracle… Mais, quoi de plus naturel, pour le peuple élu dont les plus convaincus n’ont de cesse de répéter qu’ils sont en dialogue direct avec Dieu !? (…) »

Daniel Vanhove : Observateur civil – Membre du MCP (Mouvement Citoyen Palestine)/ La Démocratie Mensonge, Ed. Marco Pietteur – coll. Oser Dire, 2008. Chez le même éditeur : « Si vous détruisez nos maisons vous ne détruirez pas nos âmes. Palestine, descente aux enfers », 2004 et Retour de Palestine, éd. Vista 2002.

El primer Ministro israeli Benyamín Netanyahu y su gabinte de seguridad resolvieron éste Miércoles el congelamiento por diez meses de las construcciones en los asentamientos judíos en la Ribera
Occidental.
Hablando en un conferencia de prensa televisada en vivo, poco minutos atrás, Netanyahu dijo que el gabinete habia resuelto la congelación de las construcciones para vivienda en los asentamientos de Judéa y Samaria, la Ribera Occidental, en un paso destinado a permitir la reanudación del las negociaciones de paz con los palestinos.
Netanyahu volvió a reafirmar su cmromiso a la solución de dos estados para dos pueblos, con la creación de un estado palestino independiete y desarmado, que viva en paz junto al estado de Israel.
Fuentes en Jerusalen dijeron que la adopcion de la medida tenia ademas por objeto reforzar y apoyar al Presidente del gobierno autonomo palestino Mahmud Abbas, frente al apoyo popular del que gozar Hamas
cuando se concluya el acuerdo por el intercambio de prisioneros.
En el marco del mismo saldran en libertad 450 presos palestinos, muchos de ellos condenados a penas prolongadas, a cambio del soldado israel cautivo Guilad Shalit.
Miembros de su partido Likud protestaron por la decisión de Netanyahu de congelar las construcciones en los asentamientos y exijen deliberación en el pleno de la bancada parlamentaria.
Pero el Primer Ministro Netanyahu dice a los ministros de la derecha que Estados Unidos había exijido un congelamiento total de las construcciones por dos años.
Fuentes israelíes dicen que la resolución adoptada hoy por el gabinete de seguridad es el resultado de una acuerdo alcanzado entre Netanyahu y el Presidente Barack Obama en su reunión en la Casa Blanca, dos
semanas atrás.
Sin embargo fuentes palestinas dijeron rechazar la propuesta, catalogandola de insuficiente. El portvoz del Presidente Abbas, Nabil Abu Rodeina dijo que Jerusalén era la línea roja que Israel había cruzado, mientras que el negociador palestios Saeb erekat dice que la resolución israelí es inaceptable y tendrá duras consecuencias en el futuro.

Par George Malbrunot

D’abord une guerre de basse intensité. Un seul chiffre en dit parfois beaucoup plus qu’un long discours. 8 881 : c’est le nombre de tués en deux décennies de conflit israélo-palestinien, nous apprend B’Tselem, l’organisation israélienne de défense des droits de l’Homme, qui fête ses vingt ans d’existence.

La grande majorité – 7 398 – sont Palestiniens, dont 1 537 mineurs. Israël, de son côté, déplore 1 483 morts, dont 139 mineurs.

Ces vingt dernières années ont été marquées par trois affrontements : la première Intifida entre 1987 et 1993, la deuxième, qui a commencé en 2000, et l’opération militaire « Plomb durci » de début 2009 contre la bande de Gaza. A signaler que ces vingt années là ont été beaucoup plus violentes que les vingt précédentes (1967-1987), après l’occupation de la Cisjordanie, de la bande de Gaza et Jérusalem-est, à l’issue de la Guerre des Six jours.

B’Tselem nous apprend également que 1999 a été l’année la moins meurtrière à la fois pour les Palestiniens – 8 tués – et pour les Israéliens – 4 morts. Les deux parties étaient encore engagées dans un processus de paix, fut-il moribond.

Ces chiffres nous montrent une fois de plus que le lancinant conflit israélo-palestinien est une guerre de basse intensité, selon le jargon des militaires. Sur les vingt dernières années, l’Etat hébreu a perdu en moyenne 70 citoyens chaque année, c’est-à-dire moins que le nombre des tués sur les routes d’Israël au cours de la même période.

De cette réalité, certains n’hésitent pas à tirer la conclusion suivante : pourquoi Israël aurait-il intérêt à faire de douloureuses concessions territoriales aux Palestiniens ?

D’autant que le coût de l’occupation de la Cisjordanie et de Jérusalem-est est largement supporté par la communauté internationale – singulièrement par l’Union européenne – puisque c’est elle qui finance le budget de l’Autorité palestinienne. D’autant qu’avec la construction du Mur de séparation entre l’Etat hébreu et la Cisjordanie, Israël a remporté la guerre contre le terrorisme. Et qu’avec la deuxième Intifada et les attentats du 11 Septembre, les dirigeants israéliens ont réussi à retourner le débat sur une occupation illégale de territoires en une lutte contre le terrorisme, soutenue par l’Occident.

Assez peu répandue, cette thèse est défendue par nombre de militaires, mais aussi par certains bons connaisseurs d’Israël, ou « amis de l’Etat hébreu ». Je pense notamment à Gérard Araud, l’ancien ambassadeur de France en Israël au début des années 2000 qui fut en poste à Jérusalem, vingt ans plus tôt, avant de devenir Directeur politique du Quai d’Orsay.

Pour cet esprit vif et intelligent, aucune contrainte forte ne s’exerce à court terme sur l’Etat hébreu pour le pousser à signer la paix avec les Palestiniens. Même si cette thèse est « politiquement incorrecte », il convient de ne pas la sous estimer, si l’on veut comprendre l’obstination des dirigeants israéliens à refuser, depuis quinze ans, les indispensables concessions à toute paix véritable avec leurs voisins palestiniens.

Source : http://blog.lefigaro.fr/malbrunot/2009/11/conflit-israelo-palestinien-8.html

My latest piece in Zeek Magazine explores the implications of the threatened unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians and the Israeli decision to expand the settlement of Gilo in East Jerusalem. I explain how it amounts to one of the final challenges and opportunities for the Obama Administration to save the two-state solution.

Par Leila Mazboudi

Des rabbins sionistes ont revendiqué haut et fort ce qu’Israël a toujours fait tout bas depuis sa création. Dans un recueil intitulé ” Dogme du roi “, inspiré des préceptes de la Thora, selon les auteurs les deux rabbins Itshak Shapira et Youssi Allistor, et s’apparentant au ” Prince ” italien de Machiavel, une véritable sentence de mort  est lancée.

Répondant à la question, quand est-il permis de tuer les ” autres “, (ou les Goyims selon le terme hébraïque donné aux non juifs), elle en appelle à tuer par anticipation, par prévention et par vengeance tout ceux qui sont contre Israël, que ce soit de par les actes, les paroles, ou  même les sentiments. Par extension, elle permet de tuer mêmes ceux qui ne sont pas les ennemis d’Israël, mais seulement parce qu’ils se trouvent sr le lieu où se trouve l’ennemi à abattre. De part et d’autre, le manuscrit vise surtout les civils.

” Partout, là où la présence de ce Goyim pourrait porter atteinte à la vie d’un Israélien, il est permis de le tuer, même s’il aime les autres peuples du monde, et n’est pas coupable de la condition naissante “. Et d’expliquer ” qu’il faut tuer quelqu’un qui ne veut pas tuer de Juif lorsque ceci permet d’empêcher la mort d’un juif  “.

Concernant les civils en temps de guerre, le pamphlet ne prescrit aucune précaution. Bien au contraire, arguant “  les nécessités de la guerre “, il accorde une certaine légitimité à leur massacre: à l’origine, selon les préceptes de la Thora, tous les Goyims sont censés avoir du sang juif sur les mains. Lorsqu’il s’agit du peuple de l’ennemi, les règles sont encore plus sanguinaires. Tous sont considérés être des ennemis voire des combattants, du fait ” qu’ils aident les combattant, les encouragent ou expriment leur satisfaction quant à leur combat “.
En dehors des temps de guerre, ils devraient faire l’objet des mesures de rétorsion, dans le but d’opérer ” l’équilibre de terreur “. Le texte cite: ” Ceux qui appartiennent au peuple de l’ennemi sont l’ennemi, car ils aident les assassins. Raison pour laquelle il faut agir avec eux par vengeance et selon la loi du talion; la vengeance est indispensable avec eux pour rendre vain le mal. Les actes pourraient parfois être féroces mais ils ont pour but de créer un équilibre de terreur efficace “.
    
Mêmes les enfants ne sauraient être épargnés: Qualifiés ” d’obstructeurs du chemin“, il devient permis de les tuer à bout portant: sont évoqués les fils des commandants des ennemis d’Israël, car le fait de les tuer devrait permettre de faire pression sur leurs pères. Figurent aussi les enfants qui peuvent constituer une menace lorsqu’ils grandiront, ou ceux qui constituent un obstacle dans l’affrontement des méchants ou durant les opérations de sauvetage de Juifs.
 
Une sentence de mort peut même être décrétée à l’encontre de ceux qui critiquent Israël, ou a contrario de ceux qui flattent la résistance contre lui. Faisant partie des “oppresseurs“, le paragraphe les concernant permet des explications aléatoires, voire arbitraires.  ” … est considéré oppresseur celui qui affaiblit notre royaume de par les paroles “. 
 
Selon des observateurs, la publication de ce livre qui dispose déjà du soutien d’un  grand nombre de rabbins influents, à l’instar d’Itshak Guinsbourg, Dov Léor et Jacob Joseph est porteuse de plusieurs significations. De point de vue sociologique, il illustre une volonté d’insuffler à son paroxysme l’esprit belliciste à tous les Israéliens, voire à tous les sionistes pour les amener à s’investir totalement, en cas de guerre. S’attaquant de front à ceux qui sont contre l’entité sioniste, le livre n’en comporte pas moins insidieusement des menaces contre ceux qui sont contre la politique israélienne ou s’aventure à la critiquer. Ils pourraient désormais payer de leur peau leurs positions. Pas seulement en Palestine, mais aussi partout ailleurs dans le monde. De par la franchise avec laquelle il révèle la dimension frôlant les thèses d’extermination du  dogme qui régit l’action militaire et d’intelligence de l’entité sioniste depuis sa création, il reflète plus que jamais l’arrogance d’impunité chez les Israéliens.

Une arrogance qui ne saurait dissimuler la peur qui l’attise !

Source : Al-ManarTV http://almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=110748&language=fr

שועל!

שם הטוב יודע לשלוח ברכה לכל אדם אשר דורש ברכה אפילו אם זה בבוקר של יום כיפור ואלוקים הקדוש ברוך בוא (אדושם) יושב בסלון שלו ולא מתאים לו להריץ דיבורים כי הוא מת לג’חנון ומחכה שהמקו הזה בז’בוטינסקי יפתח.

אלוקים אוהב פרנסה טובה, בריאות, נשמה, נשימה, מים, ים, אגם, אוכל, קמח, פסטרמה, מיכל ינאי, מי זה, אוכלים ונהנים, צ’יפופו, אולגה, רנו פסקל, יואב סגל, קוקו מאילת, אבו צ’יצ’ו, חומוס, הכל בסדר, כן, גידי גוב, ואפילו דברים טעימים שמצופים בשוקולד.

אלוקים אוהב את כל השועלים והשועות והחיות הקטנות ואפילו הרסק עגבניות הזה שהילדים שמים ליד המלאווח וליד הפתות ועל הצ’יפס, נו, הדבר האדום הזה שנראה כמו דם של ווסת, נראה לי קוראים לזה קיצ’יפ, קיטשיפ, קיטשופ?

יהיה בסדר, כי כולנו ילדים של החיים.

שועלות!

Abbas Amiri e sua esposa Sakineh Rahnama: descanso em Cristo.

Hoje dia 23 de novembro de 2009 completam-se um ano e três meses do assassinato de nosso irmão cristão Abbas Amiri pela polícia iraniana e o subsequente falecimento de sua esposa Sakineh Rahnama. Hoje, quando o persidente iraniano Mahmoud Ahmadinejad será recebido com honras de chefe de estado pelo governo brasileiro, pedimos um momento de oração por nossos irmãos cristãos iranianos que são perseguidos, presos, surrados, torturados e mortos por que se recusam a renegar Cristo.

Envie por email para seu migo e divulgue no seu Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

O casal cristão tinha mais de 60 anos de idade. A polícia islâmica iraniana surrou e prendeu o cristão Abbas Amiri no dia 17 de julho de 2008, junto com outros homens, seis mulheres cristãs e dois menores de idade que estavam participando do culto a Cristo na residência do sr. Amiri na cidade de Malek Shahr, perto de Isfahã, centro do Irã. O irmão Amiri morreu num hospital no domingo 3 de agosto de 2008.

Estando na prisão, a tortura contra o nosso irmão cristão Amiri aumentou quando a polícia descobriu que antes dele se converter à fé cristã, tinha ido fazer a peregrinação muçulmana à cidade de Meca. Essa peregrinação é um dos cinco pilares do Islã exigidos de todo muçulmano. O Sr. Amiri era um herói veterano do exército iraniano na guerra do Irã contra o Iraque (1980 a 1988) defendendo a sua pátria a República Islâmica do Irã contra a agressão sofrida pelo Iraque de Saddam Hussein. Essa guerra é motivo de orgulho para o governo islâmico e isso deixou a polícia ainda mais furiosa contra o sr. Amiri, por ele ter se tornado cristão.

Até o dia 6 de agosto de 2008, todos aqueles homens, mulheres e crianças cristãs presas na casa do sr. Amiri ainda continuavam detidos, inclusive a filha do Sr. Amiri. Três dias antes de sua morte, nosso irmão Amiri foi transferido para o Hospital Shariati de Isfahã. Membros da família que foram visitá-lo informaram que seu peito estava gravemente ferido e acreditam que isso foi a causa de sua morte.

Amiri foi enterrado no mesmo dia de sua morte no cemitério de sua cidade natal, Masjid-Soleiman, localizada perto da fronteira com o Iraque. Muitos amigos e simpatizantes compareceram ao seu funeral, embora oficiais da polícia tentaram evitar que pudessem chegar ao local do enterro.

A esposa do nosso irmão Amiri, Sra. Sakineh Rahnama, morreu no domingo 3 de agosto de 2008 por stress devido ao assassinato de seu marido pelas autoridades iranianas.

Depois da morte do Sr. Amiri no domingo 31 de julho de 2008, a polícia secreta iraniana passou a vigiar a casa de sua família e ordenaram que não se fizesse nenhum velório para a irmã cristã, mãe e esposa do sr. Amiri, a sra. Rahnama. E ordenaram aos moradores da casa que deixassem a cidade imediatamente. O filho de Amir, revoltado, gritou com os policiais iranianos que começaram a espancá-lo.

As prisões e violência contra os cristãos iranianos são intensas. No dia 12 de julho de 2008, doze cristãos que viajavam para a Armênia com escala no aeroporto da cidade de Kerman, foram presos. Dois muçulmanos convertidos ao cristianismo foram presos durante dois meses na cidade de Shiraz, um deles é diabético e está em condições críticas sem tratamento médico.

A foto acima mostra o lugar de descanso final de nossos irmãos, nas montanhas da fronteira com o Iraque. Que esse exemplo de entrega pela fé de Cristo seja um motivo de reflexão neste dia 23 de novembro de 2009, durante a visita ao Brasil do presidente da República Islâmica do Irã, sr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hebreus 11:37-38

Envie por email para seu migo e divulgue no seu Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Link

November 22, 2009

US-trained Palestinian Security Force under US General Dayton

by Aisling Byrne – Afro-Middle East Centre – 13 November 2009

“Sincerely speaking,” said General Dayton, “as far I am concerned, Hamas is a political issue. I do not interfere in this matter.” He continued: “I would appreciate if you do not ask me political questions because, as a soldier, I do not speak in politics.” Such innocuous protests from General Dayton – who, since 2005, has been the US Security Coordinator for the Palestinians – are untrue: Dayton is a political actor who essentially is overseeing and facilitating a process of political cleansing in the West Bank, the consequences of which are damaging, if not disastrous, for the Palestinian national project, for political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, and for political engagement and prospects for peace. In essence, Dayton’s work serves to enforce Israel’s occupation, even if this is not its explicit intention.

Dayton’s initiative has gone well beyond helping Palestinians build a future state through institution-building – the aim, it is claimed, of the initiative. And far from bringing peace closer, Dayton’s ‘capacity-building’ initiatives are facilitating the creation of an autocratic and totalitarian ‘state’ led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad: political debate is almost non-existent, criticism not allowed, and the extent of collusion between the Abu Mazen/Salam Fayyad government and their security forces with Israel is so extensive that both the Palestinian public and members of the security forces themselves are beginning to question and criticise “what they see as the PNA’s attempt to increase repression and curtail freedoms”¹: “We have security forces serving the United States Security Coordinator and Israel. Where is our executive authority? Who decided to bring in the United States Security Coordinator?” a resident of Nablus asked.² “It is known to everybody,” said another, “that we have the occupation at night and the Palestinian forces during the day.” Another commented: “Now we start to live under the same conditions as our brothers in other Arab countries: oppression, unlimited power and fear.”

Members of the Palestinian security forces themselves beginning to question their role. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week quoted one Palestinian major saying: “We didn’t join the Palestinian security forces to fight Hamas or train with the Americans, we came here to serve our homeland and build our state.”³ Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal warns: “The more the Palestinian Authority Security Forces cooperate with the US and Israel to suppress Hamas, the more they threaten to undermine popular support for [Mahmoud Abbas] – who is key to Washington’s Mideast peace effort.” A senior Hamas leader endorsed the Wall Street Journal’s view that the continuing suppression of Hamas only served to further delegitimize and undermine Abbas.

Dayton has been clear about his aim: to reduce the “IDF footprint” in the West Bank by developing Palestinian capabilities and “proven abilities”, that is, capacity-building and training of the Palestinian security forces (“paramilitaries”, as the Wall Street Journal describes them); turning them, as he explained, into the “new men of Palestine”. “What we have created – and I say this with humility,” Dayton said at his first public talk on his work in Palestine, “are new men… [men who] believe that their mission is to build a Palestinian state… Upon the return of these new men of Palestine, they have shown motivation, discipline and professionalism, and they have made such a difference – and I am not making this up – that senior IDF commanders ask me frequently: ‘how many more of these new Palestinians can you generate, and how quickly, because they are our way to leave the West Bank.’”⁴

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, 2,100 “paramilitaries” have been trained to date as part of Dayton’s initiative, and the plan is to train “over 5,000 men, out of a total West Bank security force of roughly 25,000 men.”⁵ According to various sources, it is planned to take two years for ten “Dayton” battalions to be established, “which the American general says will be made up of combatants of the ‘new Palestinian’ breed that he is creating.”⁶ Funding for the training, arming and employment of these new forces is provided by the US, as well as the British and Canadian governments, and Arab countries from the “moderate axis” – Jordan, Egypt and the UAE. On the ground, Dayton is assisted by a private security firm – Libra – which, according to Palestinian analyst Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, is essentially a firm of mercenaries.⁷ A recent report in the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday exposed “the horrific torture of hundreds of people by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank [which] is being funded by British taxpayers.”⁸ The report documents how “not only are PA forces carrying out torture… but that the authority [also] ignores judges’ orders to release political detainees,” and how one victim was beaten to death during his interrogation by the security forces.

Up to 70% of these new forces are made up of second and third generation Palestinians born and brought up in Jordan; they therefore are not from communities in the West Bank and without social or community connections; they are seen as “outsiders”. On the street in the West Bank, they are known as the “Palestinian sahwa” after the Iraqi sahwa (awakening councils) – the militia forces set up and armed by the US in Iraq with the aim of taking on Al-Qaida. Needless to say, recruits to the “Dayton battalions” cannot previously have been involved in resistance activities against Israel and the occupation – including the second intifada – and preferably should not have a tawjihi (end of high school) certificate – i.e. people who, for whatever reason, did not complete their high school education. One Palestinian commentator described the new recruits as being “saturated with ideological ideas against the resistance”. This is how, he explains, the PLO army has been moulded to be the security forces that “protect Israeli settlements… and who protect the Israeli army from Palestinians and all forms of resistance”.⁹

The criterion not to recruit anyone who might have previously been involved in any resistance activity against Israel or against the occupation has meant that, to date, under Dayton’s auspices, over 7,000 Fatah members have been removed from their jobs as members of the security forces because many had participated in resistance activities against the occupation during the second intifada. This is very unlike in Northern Ireland where a key component of the peace agreement has been the setting-up of a police force that represents both communities, and in Iraq where the policy is to have all sects and communities represented in the security forces. But there are no “Catholics” in the security forces in the West Bank; what Dayton has created is a polarized political enforcement militia. When it comes to Palestine, the policy is for the security forces to be as sectarian and ‘occupation-friendly’ as possible.

“The Palestinian Authority changed in front of our eyes”
This process of creating “new Palestinians” has complemented the political metamorphosis of the Palestinian Authority. A high-ranking Israeli defence officer explained to leading Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, in early October: “The Palestinian Authority changed right in front of our eyes… The Fayyad government was formed [and] it was clear that they wanted to give Hamas a fight. We began to meet with the heads of the [Palestinian] security organizations.” The decision, he explained, “was to talk with them only about work-related matters — not about the right of return and not about the peace process. At the top of our agenda we put law and order in the cities and the war on Hamas. We said we will work with you directly, without mediators. We were surprised by the intensity of their willingness to cooperate.”¹⁰

The Officer continued: “We redefined the enemy. Previously we talked about terror organizations. Now we said: ‘Hamas’. [Palestinians] now had a state within a state. Our approach was to destroy it.” He explained how this has been done, systematically and collaboratively: “We took the 200 wanted men in Judea and Samaria and marked 15 who were the explosives experts. We assassinated most of them and arrested the others. What ensured our success was the cooperation between the IDF and the [Palestinian] GSS… We discovered that [Hamas’ supporters] owned malls, cow farms, bakeries, clinics, residential buildings. By means of investments they produce the money that feeds terror. We created a legal infrastructure to confiscate their assets. We made arrests.”

“[A key] turning point,” the Officer explained, “was the intensification of American involvement. This also happened in wake of the failure in Gaza. The Americans trained four battalions of [Palestinian] soldiers who obey their commander and not the clan. This was a rare combination of interests… We learned the lessons that the Americans learned from the fighting in Iraq. You take one place, Jenin for example, you crush terror there, you put a strong police force there and move on. We started with Jenin because there was a fence there and no settlers. At first, it failed. Fayyad said, ‘Let’s try again.’ We tried again, and it caught. We needed a lot of patience… The greatest achievement was that the moderates defeated the extremists.”

“We have a common enemy”
“Hametz removal” were what the IDF and Civil Administration called the “intensive operations” conducted against Hamas’ political and economic infrastructure during the last few years: “Each month, dozens of operations would take place, such as the closing of charity organisations, searches in mosques, seizures of bank accounts and companies related to Hamas.”

“Today,” explains Israeli journalist Alex Fishman, “such operations are being conducted by Dayton’s forces, and effectively. Perhaps even more effectively than the IDF.” They handle Hamas, he explained, with “appropriate aggressiveness”.¹¹ In a similar fashion, elected political figures belonging to Hamas are removed from office: in addition to the 40-odd Hamas parliamentarians currently in Israeli jails, 14 out of 64 Hamas local authority heads have also been replaced by the Abbas/Fayyad Authority after they were accused of corruption or “faulty performance”.¹²

In the summer of 2008, Nahum Barnea was, to his surprise, allowed to sit in on a joint liaison meeting between what had been hitherto unpublicised meetings between the heads of the Abbas/Fayyad Palestinian security forces and the IDF. The extent of what he heard shocked even him: “Such far-reaching willingness to work with Israel is something that I have never heard from the Palestinian leadership, with the exception of a brief period in the spring of 1996.”¹³ One of the people present at the evening’s meeting that he attended in Beit El settlement just outside Ramallah was Abu al-Fatah, commander of the General Security Service(GSS), the Palestinian military force; Abu al-Fatah is the most senior Palestinian security service commander. His words reassured the IDF officers present: “There is no rivalry between us… We have a common enemy.” Majed Faraj, director of Palestinian military intelligence, who was also present, concurred: “We’ve decided to put all our problems on the table. Everything is above board; there are no more games. Hamas is the enemy. We have decided to go to war against it. I am telling you, there will be no dialogue with them: whoever tries to kill you, kill him first. You made a hudna (ceasefire) with them. We didn’t”.

Faraj continued: “For the sake of fairness, it should be said that in the past we behaved differently. Now every name of a Hamas institution you give us is handled. You recently gave us the name of 64 institutions—until today, we have finished dealing with 50 of them. We closed some. In others, we changed the management. We have also laid a hand on their funds.” Barnea explained that Israel gave the PA details of 150 bank accounts that were suspected of being connected to “terror organizations”. The PA responded by closing 300 accounts. “Once we used to think 1,000 times before entering a mosque,” explained Faraj to the Israelis. “Today we enter every mosque when necessary. Don’t understand from this that you are also permitted to enter. On the contrary: because you don’t enter, we are able to.”¹⁴

The extent of collusion, explains Palestinian analyst Ramzy Baroud, illustrates how the Palestinian Authority functions “more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration”, part of what he describes as the post-Oslo culture of “contractors” – “businessmen… posing as revolutionaries [who have] encroached on every aspect of Palestinian society.”¹⁵

Dayton has said publicly that he is “working closely with the Israeli military commanders in the West Bank.” It is, wrote one Israeli commentator, “an ideal relationship”. It is clear too that Dayton is working with others. Despite denials, “the selection of those entering Dayton’s [training] units is conducted initially by three external intelligence bodies: the CIA examines the candidates, the Israeli [General Security Services] goes through the names, and in the end, when the new recruits arrive at the training facilities in Jordan, the Kingdom’s security mechanism conducts yet another thorough examination. To all these must, of course, be added the internal examinations of the Palestinian security forces themselves.”¹⁶ The training of these new forces takes place in a training facility close to Amman, Jordan, where a life-sized model refugee camp has been built; incidentally, this is also where the US is involved in training Iraqi security forces. The training programme is prepared jointly by the US and Israel (Israel has veto rights over the content of the programme) and training is done by Jordanian and American security and intelligence officials. Each training course is four months long and includes such things as “handling of riots, the correct use of force, human rights, maintaining law and order, and the arrest of opposition forces … When graduates return to the West Bank they undergo additional professional training such as driving, providing medical care, and other logistical matters.”¹⁷

It is not only the recruits and the training programme which are individually vetted by Israel. A second batch of 1,000 Kalashnikovs was transferred to the Palestinian security forces in July 2009, and as with the first batch, all weapons provided to the Palestinian Authority undergo ballistic testing by the Israel Police forensic lab, the aim being “to prepare a precise list so that in the event that these weapons are involved in terrorist activity aimed against Israelis, [each weapon] can be identified”.¹⁸ In addition to Jordanian and Egyptian-provided weapons, Israel has also provided Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition, as well as “crowd control measures such as gas grenades and rubber bullets”. And as one Israeli report explained: “The Palestinians have already made use of these measures.”¹⁹ Examples abound of how the Palestinian security forces undertake “Hametz removal” operations on behalf of the IDF; an editorial in June 2009 in Al-Quds al-Arabi revealed that a Palestinian security forces’ patrol “came to arrest the two men and surrender them to the Israeli forces [who] had been pursuing them for seven years after they carried out operations against Israeli targets.”²⁰ The editorial concluded that the Palestinian forces “acted as though they were an extension of the Israeli security troops and were carrying out their dirty acts on [Israel’s] behalf.”

As well as vetting all new recruits and testing each and every weapon that is given to the security forces, Dayton has confirmed that no item or weapon is given to the Palestinian forces unless Israel agrees to it. When Jordan recently requested that the Palestinian forces be supplied with RPGs to use against Hamas, the request was turned down by Israel. Israel decides where, when and for which hours of the day and night the Palestinian security forces can operate. On occasion they are allowed to operate at night, “and [they] report on every unusual movement sighted [to the Israelis]. The many successes are all listed in the [General Security Service] and IDF operations logs.” It is also agreed that Israel should turn over to the PA any security information that could require an Israeli intervention in Palestinian territories. In some areas, Israel prevents the Palestinian forces from operating between midnight and 5am, “among other reasons so that the armed policemen would not encounter IDF forces entering to operate against terrorists,” and that Israel has “a supervisory system that guarantees that the Palestinian battalions will only take on predefined assignments.”²¹

Speaking for the first time publicly about his work, in May 2009, General Dayton addressed an audience at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the US. He told of how the “new breed of Palestinians” had “caught the attention of the Israeli Defense establishment for their dedication, discipline, motivation and results.” Describing Dayton’s talk in the Israeli press, Alex Fishman explained how: “the Jewish audience responded with a wild surge of applause. Dayton was not satisfied with this, and went for another climax: ‘We, (the Americans) are creating a new Palestinian,’ he declared, ‘with motivation, discipline and professionalism.’ The Jewish audience was thrilled.”²²

“Sheep and wolves living together” — the shape of things to come
But Dayton then cautioned his Washington Institute audience: “Those who were joining the Palestinian security forces were doing this as a result of a sense that they were coming to fight for Palestinian independence. And if these people,” Dayton stressed, “are led to understand that an independent Palestinian state is not in the cards they’ll revolt. And then everything will fall apart. In other words: the weapons will be used against Israel.”²³

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy described the training as enabling “senior [Palestinian Security Force] leaders to feel as though they are entering the community of nations.”²⁴ Yet, despite being dressed up in language of “state” and “institution-building”, what Dayton is really coordinating is an initiative aimed at securing Israel’s position in the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq in two years time; the project is only indirectly aimed at helping Palestinians. His initiative is but one part of this wider jigsaw.

“Everything will fall apart” refers not only to the US’ plan for Palestine, but also to the part that the Dayton initiative plays in the wider American plan for “peace” in the Middle East. If Palestinians were to turn against their masters, it would have a domino effect across the Middle East. “It would be a collapse,” explains Alex Fishman, “of the entire political-defensive system Washington has constructed in recent years in preparation for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq two years from now. This system is intended to protect the interests of moderate Arab states alongside those of Israel amidst the threat of Muslim fundamentalists. If Israel does not play along with the United States, this would mean standing in the way of American interests with all that this entails.” To this end, Dayton was recently promoted to be US Envoy George Mitchell’s deputy on security matters and, with this, “his influence is even greater. He is not only dealing with the establishment of a Palestinian army, but rather with the entire region’s security arrangements in preparation for the moment to come some two years from now: the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.”

The leading figure in this wider strategic picture is US General James Jones, Obama’s National Security Adviser. A year ago, Jones prepared a comprehensive report on “Israel’s security needs for the day after the American pullout from Iraq, from the Iranian threat to the Palestinians”. The aim was to ensure Israel’s “security” in case everything falls apart in Iraq after the US withdrawal and to ensure that Iraq is not again antagonistic towards Israel. The plan – which was officially presented to the US State Department only at the end of July – has been “taken apart and examined for several weeks at the Pentagon, the White House and the foreign ministries of France, Egypt, Great Britain and Jordan.”²⁵

In an article in the Israeli press on 24 July, Alex Fishman revealed that during recent months a team of Israelis and Palestinians (all close associates of Mahmoud Abbas who gave his approval at each stage of the discussions), together with a former member of Dayton’s team, has been meeting in a Track Two process to draft a detailed annex – essentially the security annex to the Geneva Agreement. This annex “resolves the relations between the state and the state-to-be.”²⁶ This is how, Fishman says, “sheep and wolves are supposed to live together.” It is the only detailed security document that exists to which the Palestinians have agreed and will, it is reported, form the basis for the final status arrangements that will be proposed by President Obama for his final status agreement to be completed within two years. “This document,” explains Fishman, “is the closest thing to a practical and actual plan that was drafted by agreement by the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The main components of the security annex are: the principle of non-militarization of the PA²⁷; precise details of what weaponry and equipment Palestinians may and may not possess²⁸; a third security force to be brought in “as a balance”²⁹; the stationing by Israel of an Israeli infantry battalion in the Jordan Valley (for “politics, psychology and public relations than real operational need”)³⁰; the stationing of three multi-national battalions to be deployed along the Jordan Valley, with one battalion to be deployed along the Philadelphi Road in Gaza; and an “Israeli presence” – two early-warning stations – in the non-militarized Palestinian state. The Israel Air Force would be able to carry out training flights over the West Bank and Israeli “involvement” at the border crossings between the Palestinian state, Egypt and Jordan would continue.³¹ In terms of timing, the agreement is supposed to be implemented in full within 30 months.

“An American peace event with Hollywood trappings”
There is, explains Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, a “sore point” to the “wonderful story” as recounted in his interview with the IDF Officer quoted above. “Everything that [has been] achieved is fragile and reversible,” the Officer said. “Without a peace process, it won’t last, [and] the IDF realizes this – mainly the IDF realizes it.” Despite his own caution to the Washington Institute audience, the direction Dayton is heading is pushing the creation of a demilitarized state to the point where sovereignty is meaningless and essentially erased; demilitarization pushed to its limit essentially is occupation by another name. What type of sovereignty is it where Israel can turn off the gas, water, money supply, oil, electricity; when it can limit the amount of calories going into the “independent state” and when it effectively controls the boarders of the new “state”?

Sometimes, it is said that those on the right speak clearer and more bluntly than others; and so it was with Dr Uzi Arad, Netanyahu’s national security adviser – “the strongman of current Israeli policy”³² – who was candid and frank in a recent interview. Israeli journalist Avi Shavit asked him: “Will a Palestinian state be established on the watch manned by you and Netanyahu?” “That is a different story,” explained Arad. “I don’t see among the Palestinians a process of truly drawing closer to acceptance of Israel and peace with Israel. I also do not see a Palestinian leadership or a Palestinian regime but a disorderly constellation of forces and factions. But, possibly, someone might come along and say ‘I am an engineer of events; the depth doesn’t interest me – I am going to produce an event.’ And within three years – presto – four Annapolises, two disengagements, global pyrotechnics. And then suddenly, in 2015, there is a Palestinian state. Stamps, parades, carnival. That could happen. A fragile structure, yes; an arrangement resting wholly on wobbly foundations. But it could happen. There could be a Palestinian state.”³³ It would be nothing more, wrote Shavit, than “an American peace event with Hollywood trappings.”³⁴

The “new Palestinians” are not only the security forces; these are complemented by a political class – also “new Palestinians” (“businessmen… posing as revolutionaries”) who have “no destructive element like Arafat to prevent the effect of their actions” wrote one Israeli commentator.³⁵ There is, however, one basic flaw in the jigsaw: it is all based on one overriding objective: Israel’s security. The wider aim is to save Israel and the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq. Institution-building and Abu Mazen and his ilk are simply parts of the jigsaw; they have been brought in to destroy resistance to the US project. Both components have become the means to this wider end. The outcome, however, is that Dayton’s initiative has only served to undermine the quest for a political solution in Palestine and the prospects for a Palestinian state. Palestinians increasingly see this. And, as one senior US commentator wryly noted, the Europeans are holding the door open for Dayton and his initiative – and, indeed, helping to fund it.

Dayton’s straw man stands in contrast to Hamas and the resistance bloc’s vision. Theirs is not a vision aimed at building confidence for Israel and perpetuating the status quo, but is about liberating Palestine. As Khaled Meshal explained in a recent interview: “The Palestinian problem is not about autonomy, government, flag, anthem, security services, or money from donor countries.” The problem of Palestine, he explained, “is about homeland, identity, freedom, history, sovereignty, Jerusalem, and the right of return. Land for us is more important than authority, and liberation comes before the land.”³⁶ Some Israelis see the wobbly foundations and predict the impending collapse of the Abbas/Fayyad authority and have called for dialogue with Hamas. Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and national security adviser, is one such person: “Neither Netanyahu nor Obama can avoid having to decide whether the investment in the creation of a ‘new Palestinian’ is a realistic policy,” he wrote, “or whether channels of dialogue with the homegrown ‘new Palestinian’ [he is referring to Hamas] should be examined. Is this not worth a serious examination at least?”³⁷

Aisling Byrne is Projects Co-ordinator with Conflicts Forum and is based in Beirut.

Endnotes
[1] Palestinian Security Sector Governance: The View of Civil Society in Nablus, Spotlight No. 1, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, May 2009.
[2] Op cit.
[3] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal, 15 October 2009.
[4] Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, Michael Stein Address on US Middle East Policy, Program of the SOREF Symposium, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 7 May 2009; full transcript of Dayton’s address.
[5] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, ibid. According to the article, the approximately 24,800 US-trained Palestinian Authority security personnel are made up as follows: National Security forces 8,500 people; Police trained by the European Union 7,200 people; General Intelligence (PA Intelligence Unit) 3,500 people; Preventative Security (Secretive CIA-trained internal security service) 3,000 people; Presidential Guard (Elite forces answering to Mahmoud Abbas) 2,000 and Civil defense/Firemen 600.
[6] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.
[7] Dayton: The Leader of Palestine, Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, Al-Jazeera Website, 3 July 2009.
[8] Financed by the British taxpayer, brutal torturers of the West Bank, David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 31 January 2009 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133032/Financed-British-taxpayer-brutal-torturers-West-Bank.html] According to the Mail on Sunday, Britain’s Department for International Development gave a total of £76million to the Palestinian Authority in 2008 for ‘security sector reform’ and fostering the rule of law – of this £20million goes to the security forces, of which £3million went directly to the PA police and £17million for salaries for the Authority’s array of security organizations, including the Presidential Guard intelligence service and the Preventive Security forces.
[9] The new political and security job for the duo – Fayyad-Dayton, Yousef Shali, Al Aser On-line Magazine, 6 July 2009.
[10] Anatomy of a Victory, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 9 October 2009.
[11] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 May 2009.
[12] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, Ma’ariv, 4 September 2009.
[13] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 19 September 2008.
[14] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, ibid.
[15] Abbas and the Goldstone Report: Our Shame is Complete, Ramzy Baroud, The Palestine Chronicle, 15 October 2009.
[16] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.; see also Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009 and Former Mossad Chief: Palestinian police elements go through Israeli check…, Walid Awad, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 25 May 2009.
[17] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.
[18] A Thousand More Guns for the Palestinian Police, Amir Buhbut, Ma’ariv, 6 July 2009.
[19] IDF Pulling Out of Cities in West Bank, Yossi Yehoshua and Roni Shaked, Yedioth Ahronoth, 26 June 2009.
[20] Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009.
[21] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[22] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[23] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[24] Peace through Security: America’s role in the Development of the Palestinian Authority Security Services, 2009 Soref Symposium, featuring Lt General Keith Dayton, rapporteur’s summary of General Dayton’s address, 7 May 2009.
[25] Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, Yediot Ahronot, 24 July 2009.
[26] Op cit.
[27] As an Israeli general involved in developing the plan explained: “our point of departure was that under no circumstances can Israel’s security situation after the final status arrangement takes effect be worse off than before or irreversible”.
[28] The agreement specifies that tanks, rockets, guided missiles, anti-aircraft or anti-ship weapons, artillery of any kind, mortar shells, mines, machine guns larger than 7.62 caliber, laser weapons or any other kind of radiation weapons, helicopter gunships, fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles, armed sailing vessels (except for light vessels up to 25 tons, armed with light weapons) and weapons of mass destruction. The Palestinian troops would possess 400 light armored vehicles that will carry only permitted kinds of arms: light weapons and non-lethal equipment to disperse demonstrations”. During the negotiations, the Palestinian team did ask for RPG launchers, explosives and grenades “for fighting terrorists. After all, the other side possessed such weapons”. What was agreed was that the grenades, explosives and armor-penetrating weapons which were not anti-tank rockets would be in the possession of the multi-national force [and] every time the Palestinians wished to fight a terror attack, they would simply come to request those weapons from the members of the multi-national force” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[29] While US General Jones had recommended NATO forces being brought in, the solution suggested in the security appendix is… an armed multi-national force made up of four battalions, approximately three thousand armed combat soldiers, from countries to be agreed upon by Israel and the Palestinians. At least one of the battalions would come from an Arab or Muslim country (Turkey or Egypt, for example). An article in June 2009 also by Alex Fishman mentioned one additional point: “…there is also a small surprise: there is an informal Israeli proposal that one of the battalions on the force be an Israeli battalion. If the proposal is accepted, then for the first time in history, an IDF force will serve under a foreign command.” (How to Build a (Demilitarized) State, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 June 2009.)
[30] Located at the Ma’ale Ephraim base,” the base would include 800 combat soldiers, 60 APCs, 50 anti-tank launchers and 100 shoulder-borne anti-tank launchers. The battalion would not leave the base unless it was ordered to do so by the multi-national force and accompanied by its members. The battalion would remain in the Jordan Valley for 36 months after the signing of the agreement, after which the need for it would be re-examined”.
[31] “At the passenger terminals at the Allenby Bridge crossing, at Adam and Rafah, there will be a physical Israeli presence for 30 months after the agreement is signed, but it will not be perceptible to the passengers. Afterwards, for another two years, the Israeli presence will not be by means of people, but by means of closed circuit televisions. A similar arrangement will also be in force at the cargo terminal, but there camera surveillance will last for another year. The agreement not only applies to the three crossings, but to every place that in the future is defined as an international crossing.” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[32] There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, Ari Shavit, Haaretz English, 16 July 2009.
[33] Op cit.
[34] Ari Shavit, There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, ibid.
[35] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, ibid.
[36] Khaled Meshal, speech on 25 June on President Obama’s position on peace process.
[37] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.

Link

November 22, 2009

US-trained Palestinian Security Force under US General Dayton

by Aisling Byrne – Afro-Middle East Centre – 13 November 2009

“Sincerely speaking,” said General Dayton, “as far I am concerned, Hamas is a political issue. I do not interfere in this matter.” He continued: “I would appreciate if you do not ask me political questions because, as a soldier, I do not speak in politics.” Such innocuous protests from General Dayton – who, since 2005, has been the US Security Coordinator for the Palestinians – are untrue: Dayton is a political actor who essentially is overseeing and facilitating a process of political cleansing in the West Bank, the consequences of which are damaging, if not disastrous, for the Palestinian national project, for political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, and for political engagement and prospects for peace. In essence, Dayton’s work serves to enforce Israel’s occupation, even if this is not its explicit intention.

Dayton’s initiative has gone well beyond helping Palestinians build a future state through institution-building – the aim, it is claimed, of the initiative. And far from bringing peace closer, Dayton’s ‘capacity-building’ initiatives are facilitating the creation of an autocratic and totalitarian ‘state’ led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad: political debate is almost non-existent, criticism not allowed, and the extent of collusion between the Abu Mazen/Salam Fayyad government and their security forces with Israel is so extensive that both the Palestinian public and members of the security forces themselves are beginning to question and criticise “what they see as the PNA’s attempt to increase repression and curtail freedoms”¹: “We have security forces serving the United States Security Coordinator and Israel. Where is our executive authority? Who decided to bring in the United States Security Coordinator?” a resident of Nablus asked.² “It is known to everybody,” said another, “that we have the occupation at night and the Palestinian forces during the day.” Another commented: “Now we start to live under the same conditions as our brothers in other Arab countries: oppression, unlimited power and fear.”

Members of the Palestinian security forces themselves beginning to question their role. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week quoted one Palestinian major saying: “We didn’t join the Palestinian security forces to fight Hamas or train with the Americans, we came here to serve our homeland and build our state.”³ Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal warns: “The more the Palestinian Authority Security Forces cooperate with the US and Israel to suppress Hamas, the more they threaten to undermine popular support for [Mahmoud Abbas] – who is key to Washington’s Mideast peace effort.” A senior Hamas leader endorsed the Wall Street Journal’s view that the continuing suppression of Hamas only served to further delegitimize and undermine Abbas.

Dayton has been clear about his aim: to reduce the “IDF footprint” in the West Bank by developing Palestinian capabilities and “proven abilities”, that is, capacity-building and training of the Palestinian security forces (“paramilitaries”, as the Wall Street Journal describes them); turning them, as he explained, into the “new men of Palestine”. “What we have created – and I say this with humility,” Dayton said at his first public talk on his work in Palestine, “are new men… [men who] believe that their mission is to build a Palestinian state… Upon the return of these new men of Palestine, they have shown motivation, discipline and professionalism, and they have made such a difference – and I am not making this up – that senior IDF commanders ask me frequently: ‘how many more of these new Palestinians can you generate, and how quickly, because they are our way to leave the West Bank.’”⁴

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, 2,100 “paramilitaries” have been trained to date as part of Dayton’s initiative, and the plan is to train “over 5,000 men, out of a total West Bank security force of roughly 25,000 men.”⁵ According to various sources, it is planned to take two years for ten “Dayton” battalions to be established, “which the American general says will be made up of combatants of the ‘new Palestinian’ breed that he is creating.”⁶ Funding for the training, arming and employment of these new forces is provided by the US, as well as the British and Canadian governments, and Arab countries from the “moderate axis” – Jordan, Egypt and the UAE. On the ground, Dayton is assisted by a private security firm – Libra – which, according to Palestinian analyst Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, is essentially a firm of mercenaries.⁷ A recent report in the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday exposed “the horrific torture of hundreds of people by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank [which] is being funded by British taxpayers.”⁸ The report documents how “not only are PA forces carrying out torture… but that the authority [also] ignores judges’ orders to release political detainees,” and how one victim was beaten to death during his interrogation by the security forces.

Up to 70% of these new forces are made up of second and third generation Palestinians born and brought up in Jordan; they therefore are not from communities in the West Bank and without social or community connections; they are seen as “outsiders”. On the street in the West Bank, they are known as the “Palestinian sahwa” after the Iraqi sahwa (awakening councils) – the militia forces set up and armed by the US in Iraq with the aim of taking on Al-Qaida. Needless to say, recruits to the “Dayton battalions” cannot previously have been involved in resistance activities against Israel and the occupation – including the second intifada – and preferably should not have a tawjihi (end of high school) certificate – i.e. people who, for whatever reason, did not complete their high school education. One Palestinian commentator described the new recruits as being “saturated with ideological ideas against the resistance”. This is how, he explains, the PLO army has been moulded to be the security forces that “protect Israeli settlements… and who protect the Israeli army from Palestinians and all forms of resistance”.⁹

The criterion not to recruit anyone who might have previously been involved in any resistance activity against Israel or against the occupation has meant that, to date, under Dayton’s auspices, over 7,000 Fatah members have been removed from their jobs as members of the security forces because many had participated in resistance activities against the occupation during the second intifada. This is very unlike in Northern Ireland where a key component of the peace agreement has been the setting-up of a police force that represents both communities, and in Iraq where the policy is to have all sects and communities represented in the security forces. But there are no “Catholics” in the security forces in the West Bank; what Dayton has created is a polarized political enforcement militia. When it comes to Palestine, the policy is for the security forces to be as sectarian and ‘occupation-friendly’ as possible.

“The Palestinian Authority changed in front of our eyes”
This process of creating “new Palestinians” has complemented the political metamorphosis of the Palestinian Authority. A high-ranking Israeli defence officer explained to leading Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, in early October: “The Palestinian Authority changed right in front of our eyes… The Fayyad government was formed [and] it was clear that they wanted to give Hamas a fight. We began to meet with the heads of the [Palestinian] security organizations.” The decision, he explained, “was to talk with them only about work-related matters — not about the right of return and not about the peace process. At the top of our agenda we put law and order in the cities and the war on Hamas. We said we will work with you directly, without mediators. We were surprised by the intensity of their willingness to cooperate.”¹⁰

The Officer continued: “We redefined the enemy. Previously we talked about terror organizations. Now we said: ‘Hamas’. [Palestinians] now had a state within a state. Our approach was to destroy it.” He explained how this has been done, systematically and collaboratively: “We took the 200 wanted men in Judea and Samaria and marked 15 who were the explosives experts. We assassinated most of them and arrested the others. What ensured our success was the cooperation between the IDF and the [Palestinian] GSS… We discovered that [Hamas’ supporters] owned malls, cow farms, bakeries, clinics, residential buildings. By means of investments they produce the money that feeds terror. We created a legal infrastructure to confiscate their assets. We made arrests.”

“[A key] turning point,” the Officer explained, “was the intensification of American involvement. This also happened in wake of the failure in Gaza. The Americans trained four battalions of [Palestinian] soldiers who obey their commander and not the clan. This was a rare combination of interests… We learned the lessons that the Americans learned from the fighting in Iraq. You take one place, Jenin for example, you crush terror there, you put a strong police force there and move on. We started with Jenin because there was a fence there and no settlers. At first, it failed. Fayyad said, ‘Let’s try again.’ We tried again, and it caught. We needed a lot of patience… The greatest achievement was that the moderates defeated the extremists.”

“We have a common enemy”
“Hametz removal” were what the IDF and Civil Administration called the “intensive operations” conducted against Hamas’ political and economic infrastructure during the last few years: “Each month, dozens of operations would take place, such as the closing of charity organisations, searches in mosques, seizures of bank accounts and companies related to Hamas.”

“Today,” explains Israeli journalist Alex Fishman, “such operations are being conducted by Dayton’s forces, and effectively. Perhaps even more effectively than the IDF.” They handle Hamas, he explained, with “appropriate aggressiveness”.¹¹ In a similar fashion, elected political figures belonging to Hamas are removed from office: in addition to the 40-odd Hamas parliamentarians currently in Israeli jails, 14 out of 64 Hamas local authority heads have also been replaced by the Abbas/Fayyad Authority after they were accused of corruption or “faulty performance”.¹²

In the summer of 2008, Nahum Barnea was, to his surprise, allowed to sit in on a joint liaison meeting between what had been hitherto unpublicised meetings between the heads of the Abbas/Fayyad Palestinian security forces and the IDF. The extent of what he heard shocked even him: “Such far-reaching willingness to work with Israel is something that I have never heard from the Palestinian leadership, with the exception of a brief period in the spring of 1996.”¹³ One of the people present at the evening’s meeting that he attended in Beit El settlement just outside Ramallah was Abu al-Fatah, commander of the General Security Service(GSS), the Palestinian military force; Abu al-Fatah is the most senior Palestinian security service commander. His words reassured the IDF officers present: “There is no rivalry between us… We have a common enemy.” Majed Faraj, director of Palestinian military intelligence, who was also present, concurred: “We’ve decided to put all our problems on the table. Everything is above board; there are no more games. Hamas is the enemy. We have decided to go to war against it. I am telling you, there will be no dialogue with them: whoever tries to kill you, kill him first. You made a hudna (ceasefire) with them. We didn’t”.

Faraj continued: “For the sake of fairness, it should be said that in the past we behaved differently. Now every name of a Hamas institution you give us is handled. You recently gave us the name of 64 institutions—until today, we have finished dealing with 50 of them. We closed some. In others, we changed the management. We have also laid a hand on their funds.” Barnea explained that Israel gave the PA details of 150 bank accounts that were suspected of being connected to “terror organizations”. The PA responded by closing 300 accounts. “Once we used to think 1,000 times before entering a mosque,” explained Faraj to the Israelis. “Today we enter every mosque when necessary. Don’t understand from this that you are also permitted to enter. On the contrary: because you don’t enter, we are able to.”¹⁴

The extent of collusion, explains Palestinian analyst Ramzy Baroud, illustrates how the Palestinian Authority functions “more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration”, part of what he describes as the post-Oslo culture of “contractors” – “businessmen… posing as revolutionaries [who have] encroached on every aspect of Palestinian society.”¹⁵

Dayton has said publicly that he is “working closely with the Israeli military commanders in the West Bank.” It is, wrote one Israeli commentator, “an ideal relationship”. It is clear too that Dayton is working with others. Despite denials, “the selection of those entering Dayton’s [training] units is conducted initially by three external intelligence bodies: the CIA examines the candidates, the Israeli [General Security Services] goes through the names, and in the end, when the new recruits arrive at the training facilities in Jordan, the Kingdom’s security mechanism conducts yet another thorough examination. To all these must, of course, be added the internal examinations of the Palestinian security forces themselves.”¹⁶ The training of these new forces takes place in a training facility close to Amman, Jordan, where a life-sized model refugee camp has been built; incidentally, this is also where the US is involved in training Iraqi security forces. The training programme is prepared jointly by the US and Israel (Israel has veto rights over the content of the programme) and training is done by Jordanian and American security and intelligence officials. Each training course is four months long and includes such things as “handling of riots, the correct use of force, human rights, maintaining law and order, and the arrest of opposition forces … When graduates return to the West Bank they undergo additional professional training such as driving, providing medical care, and other logistical matters.”¹⁷

It is not only the recruits and the training programme which are individually vetted by Israel. A second batch of 1,000 Kalashnikovs was transferred to the Palestinian security forces in July 2009, and as with the first batch, all weapons provided to the Palestinian Authority undergo ballistic testing by the Israel Police forensic lab, the aim being “to prepare a precise list so that in the event that these weapons are involved in terrorist activity aimed against Israelis, [each weapon] can be identified”.¹⁸ In addition to Jordanian and Egyptian-provided weapons, Israel has also provided Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition, as well as “crowd control measures such as gas grenades and rubber bullets”. And as one Israeli report explained: “The Palestinians have already made use of these measures.”¹⁹ Examples abound of how the Palestinian security forces undertake “Hametz removal” operations on behalf of the IDF; an editorial in June 2009 in Al-Quds al-Arabi revealed that a Palestinian security forces’ patrol “came to arrest the two men and surrender them to the Israeli forces [who] had been pursuing them for seven years after they carried out operations against Israeli targets.”²⁰ The editorial concluded that the Palestinian forces “acted as though they were an extension of the Israeli security troops and were carrying out their dirty acts on [Israel’s] behalf.”

As well as vetting all new recruits and testing each and every weapon that is given to the security forces, Dayton has confirmed that no item or weapon is given to the Palestinian forces unless Israel agrees to it. When Jordan recently requested that the Palestinian forces be supplied with RPGs to use against Hamas, the request was turned down by Israel. Israel decides where, when and for which hours of the day and night the Palestinian security forces can operate. On occasion they are allowed to operate at night, “and [they] report on every unusual movement sighted [to the Israelis]. The many successes are all listed in the [General Security Service] and IDF operations logs.” It is also agreed that Israel should turn over to the PA any security information that could require an Israeli intervention in Palestinian territories. In some areas, Israel prevents the Palestinian forces from operating between midnight and 5am, “among other reasons so that the armed policemen would not encounter IDF forces entering to operate against terrorists,” and that Israel has “a supervisory system that guarantees that the Palestinian battalions will only take on predefined assignments.”²¹

Speaking for the first time publicly about his work, in May 2009, General Dayton addressed an audience at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the US. He told of how the “new breed of Palestinians” had “caught the attention of the Israeli Defense establishment for their dedication, discipline, motivation and results.” Describing Dayton’s talk in the Israeli press, Alex Fishman explained how: “the Jewish audience responded with a wild surge of applause. Dayton was not satisfied with this, and went for another climax: ‘We, (the Americans) are creating a new Palestinian,’ he declared, ‘with motivation, discipline and professionalism.’ The Jewish audience was thrilled.”²²

“Sheep and wolves living together” — the shape of things to come
But Dayton then cautioned his Washington Institute audience: “Those who were joining the Palestinian security forces were doing this as a result of a sense that they were coming to fight for Palestinian independence. And if these people,” Dayton stressed, “are led to understand that an independent Palestinian state is not in the cards they’ll revolt. And then everything will fall apart. In other words: the weapons will be used against Israel.”²³

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy described the training as enabling “senior [Palestinian Security Force] leaders to feel as though they are entering the community of nations.”²⁴ Yet, despite being dressed up in language of “state” and “institution-building”, what Dayton is really coordinating is an initiative aimed at securing Israel’s position in the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq in two years time; the project is only indirectly aimed at helping Palestinians. His initiative is but one part of this wider jigsaw.

“Everything will fall apart” refers not only to the US’ plan for Palestine, but also to the part that the Dayton initiative plays in the wider American plan for “peace” in the Middle East. If Palestinians were to turn against their masters, it would have a domino effect across the Middle East. “It would be a collapse,” explains Alex Fishman, “of the entire political-defensive system Washington has constructed in recent years in preparation for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq two years from now. This system is intended to protect the interests of moderate Arab states alongside those of Israel amidst the threat of Muslim fundamentalists. If Israel does not play along with the United States, this would mean standing in the way of American interests with all that this entails.” To this end, Dayton was recently promoted to be US Envoy George Mitchell’s deputy on security matters and, with this, “his influence is even greater. He is not only dealing with the establishment of a Palestinian army, but rather with the entire region’s security arrangements in preparation for the moment to come some two years from now: the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.”

The leading figure in this wider strategic picture is US General James Jones, Obama’s National Security Adviser. A year ago, Jones prepared a comprehensive report on “Israel’s security needs for the day after the American pullout from Iraq, from the Iranian threat to the Palestinians”. The aim was to ensure Israel’s “security” in case everything falls apart in Iraq after the US withdrawal and to ensure that Iraq is not again antagonistic towards Israel. The plan – which was officially presented to the US State Department only at the end of July – has been “taken apart and examined for several weeks at the Pentagon, the White House and the foreign ministries of France, Egypt, Great Britain and Jordan.”²⁵

In an article in the Israeli press on 24 July, Alex Fishman revealed that during recent months a team of Israelis and Palestinians (all close associates of Mahmoud Abbas who gave his approval at each stage of the discussions), together with a former member of Dayton’s team, has been meeting in a Track Two process to draft a detailed annex – essentially the security annex to the Geneva Agreement. This annex “resolves the relations between the state and the state-to-be.”²⁶ This is how, Fishman says, “sheep and wolves are supposed to live together.” It is the only detailed security document that exists to which the Palestinians have agreed and will, it is reported, form the basis for the final status arrangements that will be proposed by President Obama for his final status agreement to be completed within two years. “This document,” explains Fishman, “is the closest thing to a practical and actual plan that was drafted by agreement by the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The main components of the security annex are: the principle of non-militarization of the PA²⁷; precise details of what weaponry and equipment Palestinians may and may not possess²⁸; a third security force to be brought in “as a balance”²⁹; the stationing by Israel of an Israeli infantry battalion in the Jordan Valley (for “politics, psychology and public relations than real operational need”)³⁰; the stationing of three multi-national battalions to be deployed along the Jordan Valley, with one battalion to be deployed along the Philadelphi Road in Gaza; and an “Israeli presence” – two early-warning stations – in the non-militarized Palestinian state. The Israel Air Force would be able to carry out training flights over the West Bank and Israeli “involvement” at the border crossings between the Palestinian state, Egypt and Jordan would continue.³¹ In terms of timing, the agreement is supposed to be implemented in full within 30 months.

“An American peace event with Hollywood trappings”
There is, explains Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea, a “sore point” to the “wonderful story” as recounted in his interview with the IDF Officer quoted above. “Everything that [has been] achieved is fragile and reversible,” the Officer said. “Without a peace process, it won’t last, [and] the IDF realizes this – mainly the IDF realizes it.” Despite his own caution to the Washington Institute audience, the direction Dayton is heading is pushing the creation of a demilitarized state to the point where sovereignty is meaningless and essentially erased; demilitarization pushed to its limit essentially is occupation by another name. What type of sovereignty is it where Israel can turn off the gas, water, money supply, oil, electricity; when it can limit the amount of calories going into the “independent state” and when it effectively controls the boarders of the new “state”?

Sometimes, it is said that those on the right speak clearer and more bluntly than others; and so it was with Dr Uzi Arad, Netanyahu’s national security adviser – “the strongman of current Israeli policy”³² – who was candid and frank in a recent interview. Israeli journalist Avi Shavit asked him: “Will a Palestinian state be established on the watch manned by you and Netanyahu?” “That is a different story,” explained Arad. “I don’t see among the Palestinians a process of truly drawing closer to acceptance of Israel and peace with Israel. I also do not see a Palestinian leadership or a Palestinian regime but a disorderly constellation of forces and factions. But, possibly, someone might come along and say ‘I am an engineer of events; the depth doesn’t interest me – I am going to produce an event.’ And within three years – presto – four Annapolises, two disengagements, global pyrotechnics. And then suddenly, in 2015, there is a Palestinian state. Stamps, parades, carnival. That could happen. A fragile structure, yes; an arrangement resting wholly on wobbly foundations. But it could happen. There could be a Palestinian state.”³³ It would be nothing more, wrote Shavit, than “an American peace event with Hollywood trappings.”³⁴

The “new Palestinians” are not only the security forces; these are complemented by a political class – also “new Palestinians” (“businessmen… posing as revolutionaries”) who have “no destructive element like Arafat to prevent the effect of their actions” wrote one Israeli commentator.³⁵ There is, however, one basic flaw in the jigsaw: it is all based on one overriding objective: Israel’s security. The wider aim is to save Israel and the region in the wake of the US withdrawal from Iraq. Institution-building and Abu Mazen and his ilk are simply parts of the jigsaw; they have been brought in to destroy resistance to the US project. Both components have become the means to this wider end. The outcome, however, is that Dayton’s initiative has only served to undermine the quest for a political solution in Palestine and the prospects for a Palestinian state. Palestinians increasingly see this. And, as one senior US commentator wryly noted, the Europeans are holding the door open for Dayton and his initiative – and, indeed, helping to fund it.

Dayton’s straw man stands in contrast to Hamas and the resistance bloc’s vision. Theirs is not a vision aimed at building confidence for Israel and perpetuating the status quo, but is about liberating Palestine. As Khaled Meshal explained in a recent interview: “The Palestinian problem is not about autonomy, government, flag, anthem, security services, or money from donor countries.” The problem of Palestine, he explained, “is about homeland, identity, freedom, history, sovereignty, Jerusalem, and the right of return. Land for us is more important than authority, and liberation comes before the land.”³⁶ Some Israelis see the wobbly foundations and predict the impending collapse of the Abbas/Fayyad authority and have called for dialogue with Hamas. Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and national security adviser, is one such person: “Neither Netanyahu nor Obama can avoid having to decide whether the investment in the creation of a ‘new Palestinian’ is a realistic policy,” he wrote, “or whether channels of dialogue with the homegrown ‘new Palestinian’ [he is referring to Hamas] should be examined. Is this not worth a serious examination at least?”³⁷

Aisling Byrne is Projects Co-ordinator with Conflicts Forum and is based in Beirut.

Endnotes
[1] Palestinian Security Sector Governance: The View of Civil Society in Nablus, Spotlight No. 1, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, May 2009.
[2] Op cit.
[3] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal, 15 October 2009.
[4] Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, Michael Stein Address on US Middle East Policy, Program of the SOREF Symposium, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 7 May 2009; full transcript of Dayton’s address.
[5] Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, ibid. According to the article, the approximately 24,800 US-trained Palestinian Authority security personnel are made up as follows: National Security forces 8,500 people; Police trained by the European Union 7,200 people; General Intelligence (PA Intelligence Unit) 3,500 people; Preventative Security (Secretive CIA-trained internal security service) 3,000 people; Presidential Guard (Elite forces answering to Mahmoud Abbas) 2,000 and Civil defense/Firemen 600.
[6] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.
[7] Dayton: The Leader of Palestine, Abdel Sitta Al-Qassem, Al-Jazeera Website, 3 July 2009.
[8] Financed by the British taxpayer, brutal torturers of the West Bank, David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 31 January 2009 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133032/Financed-British-taxpayer-brutal-torturers-West-Bank.html] According to the Mail on Sunday, Britain’s Department for International Development gave a total of £76million to the Palestinian Authority in 2008 for ‘security sector reform’ and fostering the rule of law – of this £20million goes to the security forces, of which £3million went directly to the PA police and £17million for salaries for the Authority’s array of security organizations, including the Presidential Guard intelligence service and the Preventive Security forces.
[9] The new political and security job for the duo – Fayyad-Dayton, Yousef Shali, Al Aser On-line Magazine, 6 July 2009.
[10] Anatomy of a Victory, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 9 October 2009.
[11] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 May 2009.
[12] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, Ma’ariv, 4 September 2009.
[13] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 19 September 2008.
[14] Last Chance, Nahum Barnea, ibid.
[15] Abbas and the Goldstone Report: Our Shame is Complete, Ramzy Baroud, The Palestine Chronicle, 15 October 2009.
[16] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.; see also Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009 and Former Mossad Chief: Palestinian police elements go through Israeli check…, Walid Awad, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 25 May 2009.
[17] Dayton’s End Date, Alex Fishman, ibid.
[18] A Thousand More Guns for the Palestinian Police, Amir Buhbut, Ma’ariv, 6 July 2009.
[19] IDF Pulling Out of Cities in West Bank, Yossi Yehoshua and Roni Shaked, Yedioth Ahronoth, 26 June 2009.
[20] Qalqiliya attack is a prelude for explosion, lead editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 June 2009.
[21] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[22] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[23] Dayton’s End Date, ibid.
[24] Peace through Security: America’s role in the Development of the Palestinian Authority Security Services, 2009 Soref Symposium, featuring Lt General Keith Dayton, rapporteur’s summary of General Dayton’s address, 7 May 2009.
[25] Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, Yediot Ahronot, 24 July 2009.
[26] Op cit.
[27] As an Israeli general involved in developing the plan explained: “our point of departure was that under no circumstances can Israel’s security situation after the final status arrangement takes effect be worse off than before or irreversible”.
[28] The agreement specifies that tanks, rockets, guided missiles, anti-aircraft or anti-ship weapons, artillery of any kind, mortar shells, mines, machine guns larger than 7.62 caliber, laser weapons or any other kind of radiation weapons, helicopter gunships, fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles, armed sailing vessels (except for light vessels up to 25 tons, armed with light weapons) and weapons of mass destruction. The Palestinian troops would possess 400 light armored vehicles that will carry only permitted kinds of arms: light weapons and non-lethal equipment to disperse demonstrations”. During the negotiations, the Palestinian team did ask for RPG launchers, explosives and grenades “for fighting terrorists. After all, the other side possessed such weapons”. What was agreed was that the grenades, explosives and armor-penetrating weapons which were not anti-tank rockets would be in the possession of the multi-national force [and] every time the Palestinians wished to fight a terror attack, they would simply come to request those weapons from the members of the multi-national force” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[29] While US General Jones had recommended NATO forces being brought in, the solution suggested in the security appendix is… an armed multi-national force made up of four battalions, approximately three thousand armed combat soldiers, from countries to be agreed upon by Israel and the Palestinians. At least one of the battalions would come from an Arab or Muslim country (Turkey or Egypt, for example). An article in June 2009 also by Alex Fishman mentioned one additional point: “…there is also a small surprise: there is an informal Israeli proposal that one of the battalions on the force be an Israeli battalion. If the proposal is accepted, then for the first time in history, an IDF force will serve under a foreign command.” (How to Build a (Demilitarized) State, Alex Fishman, Yedioth Ahronoth, 22 June 2009.)
[30] Located at the Ma’ale Ephraim base,” the base would include 800 combat soldiers, 60 APCs, 50 anti-tank launchers and 100 shoulder-borne anti-tank launchers. The battalion would not leave the base unless it was ordered to do so by the multi-national force and accompanied by its members. The battalion would remain in the Jordan Valley for 36 months after the signing of the agreement, after which the need for it would be re-examined”.
[31] “At the passenger terminals at the Allenby Bridge crossing, at Adam and Rafah, there will be a physical Israeli presence for 30 months after the agreement is signed, but it will not be perceptible to the passengers. Afterwards, for another two years, the Israeli presence will not be by means of people, but by means of closed circuit televisions. A similar arrangement will also be in force at the cargo terminal, but there camera surveillance will last for another year. The agreement not only applies to the three crossings, but to every place that in the future is defined as an international crossing.” (Everything Is Ready; Just Sign, Alex Fishman, ibid.)
[32] There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, Ari Shavit, Haaretz English, 16 July 2009.
[33] Op cit.
[34] Ari Shavit, There is no Palestinian Sadat, no Palestinian Mandela; Interview with Uzi Arad, ibid.
[35] How We Won, Ofer Shelah, ibid.
[36] Khaled Meshal, speech on 25 June on President Obama’s position on peace process.
[37] The “New Palestinian”, Ephraim Halevy, Yedioth Ahronoth, 24 May 2009.

Abu Mazen will nicht mehr oberster palästinensischer Wachtposten für israelische Siedlungen sein, Marwan Barghouti schon gar nicht. Der Oslo-Prozess ist tot, und ein Friedensprozess könnte an seine Stelle treten – verkörpert durch Akteure wie Marwan Barghouti:

“Betting on negotiations alone was never our choice. I have always called for a constructive mix of negotiation, resistance, political, diplomatic and popular action,” Barghouti said.

He called for a “popular campaign” against settlement activity, what he described as the Judaization of occupied parts of Jerusalem, the blockade of Gaza, land appropriation and the construction of the “racist, separation wall”.

Abu Mazen will nicht mehr oberster palästinensischer Wachtposten für israelische Siedlungen sein, Mustapha Barghouti schon gar nicht. Der Oslo-Prozess ist tot, und ein Friedensprozess könnte an seine Stelle treten – verkörpert durch Akteure wie Mustapha Barghouti:

Ob es eine Zwei-Staaten-Lösung oder eine Ein-Staat-Lösung geben wird, ist Entscheidung der Israelis. Es geht nicht darum, ob wir Palästinenser es gut finden oder nicht, sondern darum, dass Israel uns keine Alternative lässt. Fest steht, dass wir, bis es so weit ist, weiter unter der Apartheid leiden werden.

Link

“Mahmoud Abbas wants Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to convince Iran to put an end to its support for the radical Palestinian movement Hamas.
“Iran supports Hamas with money. Hamas’ decisions are in the hands of Tehran,” Abbas said Friday in an interview with the Brazilian daily Folha de Sao Paulo.
Abbas’ remarks were clearly aimed at Lula’s next Middle East visitor on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”I hope [Lula] can tell [Ahmadinejad] a few things about everything that is happening in the Middle East. I think the president will,” Abbas was quoted as saying.

For Abbas, problems among Palestinians are “a pretext that helps reinforce Israel’s argument that they do not know who their partners are” on the Palestinian side when it comes to talks.

“I do not think that the Israelis have caused [division among Palestinians], but they encourage it and keep it up for their own benefit,” he explained. “We believe that Brazil should play a role in the peace process, and we will ask it to take the opportunity to take on the role. I know [Brazil] is respected by the Israelis and the Arabs, and by the Palestinians in particular,” Abbas said……..

President Shimon Peres made an official visit to Brazil earlier this week, where he called Richard Goldstone, who authored the United Nations report accusing Israel of perpetrating war crimes in its Gaza offensive earlier the year, “is a small man, devoid of any sense of justice, a technocrat with no real understanding of jurisprudence,” Peres told his Brazilian counterpart, adding that the South African jurist “was on a one-sided mission to hurt Israel.”

Link

“Mahmoud Abbas wants Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to convince Iran to put an end to its support for the radical Palestinian movement Hamas.
“Iran supports Hamas with money. Hamas’ decisions are in the hands of Tehran,” Abbas said Friday in an interview with the Brazilian daily Folha de Sao Paulo.
Abbas’ remarks were clearly aimed at Lula’s next Middle East visitor on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”I hope [Lula] can tell [Ahmadinejad] a few things about everything that is happening in the Middle East. I think the president will,” Abbas was quoted as saying.

For Abbas, problems among Palestinians are “a pretext that helps reinforce Israel’s argument that they do not know who their partners are” on the Palestinian side when it comes to talks.

“I do not think that the Israelis have caused [division among Palestinians], but they encourage it and keep it up for their own benefit,” he explained. “We believe that Brazil should play a role in the peace process, and we will ask it to take the opportunity to take on the role. I know [Brazil] is respected by the Israelis and the Arabs, and by the Palestinians in particular,” Abbas said……..

President Shimon Peres made an official visit to Brazil earlier this week, where he called Richard Goldstone, who authored the United Nations report accusing Israel of perpetrating war crimes in its Gaza offensive earlier the year, “is a small man, devoid of any sense of justice, a technocrat with no real understanding of jurisprudence,” Peres told his Brazilian counterpart, adding that the South African jurist “was on a one-sided mission to hurt Israel.”

Fuentes del partido palestino Al Fatah en Ramallah dicen que el movimiento adoptó la resolución estratégica de comenzar una trecera Intifada, una tercera rebelión popular. Según las fuentes, citadas en la prensa israelí, Fatah llamará a manifestaciones populares pero se abstendrá de convocar a la lucha armada contra Israel.
Una de las idéas consiste en rodear los asentamientos israelíes en la Ribera Occidental con “cercos humanos”.
Por su parte, el dirigente palestino preso en Israel, Marwan Bargoutti, mencionado como candidato para reemplazar al Presidente Abbas en el futuro, dice que las negociaciones con Israel no darán fruto y llama a los palestinos a embarcarse en una rebelión popular y en campañas diplomáticas para la obtención de su estado.
En Jerusalén, el Primer Ministro israelí Benyamin Netanyahu dice que deséa alcanzar con los palestinos un acuerdo definitivo de paz y no un acuerdo temporario, tal como lo proponen algunos de sus ministros.
Mientras tanto se conocen mayores detalles de los esfuerzos de intermediación entre Israel y Siria, realizados la semana pasada por el Presidente de Francia, Nicolas Sarkozi.
La Ministra Siria Bushaina Shaaban, asesora del Presidente Bashar Assad, dice haber oido de Francia que Israel está dispuesta a negociar sin condidiciones. “Sarkozi dijo a Assad que Netanyahu visitó Paris y quiere recomenzar con Siria las negociaciones de paz, reconoce que la paz con Siria es muy importante y está dispuesto a negociar sin condiciones previas”.
Según la ministra Siria, Assad respondio que nevcesita garantias que las tierras sirias seran devueltas. Agregó que ésa es la condición para el comienzo de los contactos, cuyo resultado será la paz.

Link

. US officials who have a history of dealing with Abbas are not surprised at his latest pronouncements. “He has always run away from things,” says one veteran US official. “But” adds this official more sympathetically, “He is genuinely fed up. And he has been stung by his friends, like Egypt and Jordan, not standing up for him.” Abbas is not alone in his disappointment in the performance of moderate Arab states.

Veteran analysts say one of the mistakes the Obama Administration made was to overestimate the willingness of Arab moderates to cooperate with US plans under a new more sympathetic President. To counter this, the Administration has leaned on Israel to adopt a settlement freeze. And in talks last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President elicited a pledge of a freeze on new West Bank settlement construction for 10 months [According to informed sources, the President demanded a "double digit" number and the Prime Minister agreed to the lowest double digit. This is a pattern, say former US officials, that goes back to Netanyahu's previous tenure in office when at one point President Clinton asked for a cutback "in the teens" and got 13%]

Despite the difficulty dealing with Netanyahu, some US officials admit privately that President Obama has underestimated the need to reassure the average Israeli. As one key US official put it last week after the Israeli and US leaders met at the White House, “We need to do better in showing the Israelis that our deep, fundamental bi-lateral relationship has not and will not change.”

However, some analysts say the President’s highly analytical approach has impeded the implementation of policies he believes are in both US and Israeli interest. Moreover, it has helped to accelerate the Israeli public shift to the right. “By including Jerusalem in the debate over settlements,” says one analyst, “The Administration is making the average Israeli less likely to be accommodating.” Unlike in the past, when Israeli leaders tangled with their foremost ally, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not appear to be weakened. Instead it is the left in Israeli, note a number of analysts, that is being marginalized.

As one Israeli put it recently “They [the Administration] won’t get [Opposition leader] Tzipi Livni by taking a hard line on Jerusalem. It is more likely they will find her in a Netanyahu-led government.” Jerusalem is also critical of the Administration’s outreach to the new liberal Jewish lobby known as “J Street” National Security Advisor Jones addressed the group on October 31. Some in the Israeli government are known to believe that his address was an attempt at pressure. And his promise to return to speak to the group “year after year” has elicited the response that J Street likely will not be around for long. But even veteran US officials took umbrage at some of Jones’ remarks to the group.

One State Department official singled out his reference to the Israeli-Palestinian problem as the “epicenter” of troubles in the Middle East. Deriding this concept, this official asked rhetorically, “Would solving the Palestinian problem help in North Africa, bring good government to Egypt and so on?” For some veteran US analysts, Jones’ foray in domestic American Jewish politics is another example of him being a bad fit for the job. “He is a week reed,” says one official who has worked closely from time-to-time with Jones. This official also bemoans the lack of executive experience among the Administration’s top foreign policy makers. With the President, Vice President and Secretary of State all coming from the Senate, only Defense Secretary Gates, notes this official, has the requisite Executive experience. As a result, this analyst concludes, “The foreign policy team has wasted its political capital.”

One area where the foreign policy team appears united, if not any more effective, is on the question of dealing with Iran. With the leading powers scheduled to meet in Brussels, the question now being raised within the Administration is how to handle what is being called the “pressure track” on Iran. With few illusions about China and Russia going along with a strong UN Security Council resolution, officials are debating the wisdom of securing a weak one that would serve, in one observer’s words as a “coat hanger” for tougher measures by the US and like minded states. The French and British are actually ahead of the US in planning for tough economic sanctions. Japan, despite its new government, has not given any indication that it will deviate from supporting a tough sanctions regime. Ideas being bruited about include a total arms embargo and both an end to new investments in Iran’s gas and oil sector as well as a divestment of existing assets.

What the Administration does not want is interference from the Congress. Yet, Capitol Hill insiders say that the House is likely to pass a sanctions bill by the end of the year, with the Senate following early in 2010. However, with both Houses controlled by Democrats, there is no desire to embarrass the President. So, a conference that would need to be convened to sort out the differences between the two bills lies well into the future. More likely to come sooner are signs from Israel about how long it is willing to wait for the international community to bring a halt to Iran’s unfettered nuclear development program.

There are many views about Israeli action, should sanctions prove ineffective. Some veteran observers of Prime Minister Netanyahu are convinced that he will act militarily, if other options fail. As one former US official puts it, “The Israelis know that single-handedly they cannot do more than temporarily delay Iran’s nuclear program.” So, in his view, an Israeli attack would be designed “to force an international crisis” that could lead to effective international pressure against Iran. US officials do not discount this scenario. As one put it recently, “There is no way Bibi [Netanyahu] won’t do something.” And most analysts agree that unilateral Israeli military action against Iran would have consequences both within the region and in the international community. One certain action, says a well- informed source, would be the resignation of Defense Secretary Gates, who, according to this source, has made it clear that he would publicly resign should the US give a green light to an Israeli attack.”

Link

. US officials who have a history of dealing with Abbas are not surprised at his latest pronouncements. “He has always run away from things,” says one veteran US official. “But” adds this official more sympathetically, “He is genuinely fed up. And he has been stung by his friends, like Egypt and Jordan, not standing up for him.” Abbas is not alone in his disappointment in the performance of moderate Arab states.

Veteran analysts say one of the mistakes the Obama Administration made was to overestimate the willingness of Arab moderates to cooperate with US plans under a new more sympathetic President. To counter this, the Administration has leaned on Israel to adopt a settlement freeze. And in talks last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President elicited a pledge of a freeze on new West Bank settlement construction for 10 months [According to informed sources, the President demanded a "double digit" number and the Prime Minister agreed to the lowest double digit. This is a pattern, say former US officials, that goes back to Netanyahu's previous tenure in office when at one point President Clinton asked for a cutback "in the teens" and got 13%]

Despite the difficulty dealing with Netanyahu, some US officials admit privately that President Obama has underestimated the need to reassure the average Israeli. As one key US official put it last week after the Israeli and US leaders met at the White House, “We need to do better in showing the Israelis that our deep, fundamental bi-lateral relationship has not and will not change.”

However, some analysts say the President’s highly analytical approach has impeded the implementation of policies he believes are in both US and Israeli interest. Moreover, it has helped to accelerate the Israeli public shift to the right. “By including Jerusalem in the debate over settlements,” says one analyst, “The Administration is making the average Israeli less likely to be accommodating.” Unlike in the past, when Israeli leaders tangled with their foremost ally, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not appear to be weakened. Instead it is the left in Israeli, note a number of analysts, that is being marginalized.

As one Israeli put it recently “They [the Administration] won’t get [Opposition leader] Tzipi Livni by taking a hard line on Jerusalem. It is more likely they will find her in a Netanyahu-led government.” Jerusalem is also critical of the Administration’s outreach to the new liberal Jewish lobby known as “J Street” National Security Advisor Jones addressed the group on October 31. Some in the Israeli government are known to believe that his address was an attempt at pressure. And his promise to return to speak to the group “year after year” has elicited the response that J Street likely will not be around for long. But even veteran US officials took umbrage at some of Jones’ remarks to the group.

One State Department official singled out his reference to the Israeli-Palestinian problem as the “epicenter” of troubles in the Middle East. Deriding this concept, this official asked rhetorically, “Would solving the Palestinian problem help in North Africa, bring good government to Egypt and so on?” For some veteran US analysts, Jones’ foray in domestic American Jewish politics is another example of him being a bad fit for the job. “He is a week reed,” says one official who has worked closely from time-to-time with Jones. This official also bemoans the lack of executive experience among the Administration’s top foreign policy makers. With the President, Vice President and Secretary of State all coming from the Senate, only Defense Secretary Gates, notes this official, has the requisite Executive experience. As a result, this analyst concludes, “The foreign policy team has wasted its political capital.”

One area where the foreign policy team appears united, if not any more effective, is on the question of dealing with Iran. With the leading powers scheduled to meet in Brussels, the question now being raised within the Administration is how to handle what is being called the “pressure track” on Iran. With few illusions about China and Russia going along with a strong UN Security Council resolution, officials are debating the wisdom of securing a weak one that would serve, in one observer’s words as a “coat hanger” for tougher measures by the US and like minded states. The French and British are actually ahead of the US in planning for tough economic sanctions. Japan, despite its new government, has not given any indication that it will deviate from supporting a tough sanctions regime. Ideas being bruited about include a total arms embargo and both an end to new investments in Iran’s gas and oil sector as well as a divestment of existing assets.

What the Administration does not want is interference from the Congress. Yet, Capitol Hill insiders say that the House is likely to pass a sanctions bill by the end of the year, with the Senate following early in 2010. However, with both Houses controlled by Democrats, there is no desire to embarrass the President. So, a conference that would need to be convened to sort out the differences between the two bills lies well into the future. More likely to come sooner are signs from Israel about how long it is willing to wait for the international community to bring a halt to Iran’s unfettered nuclear development program.

There are many views about Israeli action, should sanctions prove ineffective. Some veteran observers of Prime Minister Netanyahu are convinced that he will act militarily, if other options fail. As one former US official puts it, “The Israelis know that single-handedly they cannot do more than temporarily delay Iran’s nuclear program.” So, in his view, an Israeli attack would be designed “to force an international crisis” that could lead to effective international pressure against Iran. US officials do not discount this scenario. As one put it recently, “There is no way Bibi [Netanyahu] won’t do something.” And most analysts agree that unilateral Israeli military action against Iran would have consequences both within the region and in the international community. One certain action, says a well- informed source, would be the resignation of Defense Secretary Gates, who, according to this source, has made it clear that he would publicly resign should the US give a green light to an Israeli attack.”

Abbas: ‘Israel in secret negotiations with Hamas over Palestinian State with temporary borders…”

Haaretz, here

“Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday that Israel is currently conducting secret negotiations with Hamas, Channel 10 reported. Quoting an interview with the BBC in Arabic, Channel 10 reported that the talks between Israel and Hamas revolved around a Palestinian state with temporary borders, According to Abbas.

The Palestinian president reiterated his criticism against Israel, saying that Jerusalem wasn’t truly interested in peace, adding that “Washington isn’t pushing Israel enough to advance the peace process.”

Abbas also repeated his assertion that he would not run for re-election in the next Palestinian elections, which were originally planned for January, but Abbas told the BBC that he hadn’t ruled out deferring the elections for a year.

Channel 10 also reported that Hamas denied Abbas’ assertion, saying that no secret talks with Israel had been held. “The things that Abu Mazen (Abbas) is talking about never happened,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum to a Palestinian website, accusing the Palestinian president of “putting his personal political failure on Hamas … We don’t negotiate with the enemy.”

Abbas: ‘Israel in secret negotiations with Hamas over Palestinian State with temporary borders…”

Haaretz, here

“Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday that Israel is currently conducting secret negotiations with Hamas, Channel 10 reported. Quoting an interview with the BBC in Arabic, Channel 10 reported that the talks between Israel and Hamas revolved around a Palestinian state with temporary borders, According to Abbas.

The Palestinian president reiterated his criticism against Israel, saying that Jerusalem wasn’t truly interested in peace, adding that “Washington isn’t pushing Israel enough to advance the peace process.”

Abbas also repeated his assertion that he would not run for re-election in the next Palestinian elections, which were originally planned for January, but Abbas told the BBC that he hadn’t ruled out deferring the elections for a year.

Channel 10 also reported that Hamas denied Abbas’ assertion, saying that no secret talks with Israel had been held. “The things that Abu Mazen (Abbas) is talking about never happened,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum to a Palestinian website, accusing the Palestinian president of “putting his personal political failure on Hamas … We don’t negotiate with the enemy.”