photo credit: politicaltheatrics.net

Been a while since I last blogged, exams got the better of me and being in Sydney chilling has been counterproductive to blogging, but I’m back!

Despite discussions stalling somewhat and it now being said that a deal is more likely to take place after Eid al-Adha (Eid Mubarak to Muslims, by the way!) there have been reports of progress on the negotiations over the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap. Ismail Haniyeh even cancelled his Hajj! According to Haaretz, Israel is none too thrilled about certain prisoners that Hamas wants released:

Hamas is demanding, among other the prisoners, the release of Ibrahim Hamad, head of the group’s military wing in the Ramallah area, Abdallah Barghouti, a bomb engineer, and Abbas a-Sayad, the Hamas head in Tul Karm who planned the 2002 massacre during Passover in Netanya’s Park Hotel. These three prisoners are considered responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israelis.

Other names mentioned in the Arab media are Hassan Salame, who was involved in planning the suicide bus bombings in the mid ’90s, and Jamal Abu al-Hijla, head of Hamas in Jenin, who was convicted of taking part in planning and funding several suicide attacks during the second intifada.

Israel’s trepidation at having these prisoners freed is understandable, and the fact is, that political pressure from within Israel to have Shalit freed has been strong but not overwhelming so you can expect Israeli’s to hold out a while longer to get a better deal, politically especially (apparently having key suicide bombing planners freed can be harmful to one’s political standing). Most people are watching the fate of one Marwan Barghouti, considered a key possible successor to the increasingly beleaguered and probably-resigning Abu Mazen. You can expect Barghouti to be freed, Obama has been putting pressure on Netanyahu to make concessions that would bolster Fatah in the lead-up to PA elections and Abbas’ increasingly likely resignation.

The other major news is that during Obama’s visit to China, he put some pressure on the Chinese to do something about the whole Iran nuclear thing, which they have normally stayed clear out of (their policy of political non-involvement in the affairs of trading partners). The scare tactic used was the threat of Israel bombing Iran unilaterally (thus implying tacit US support) and the damage that would do to Iran as an energy source for China. The other scare tactic was the implication that other states could go nuclear, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, implying that Japan was another possibility (something China would not view kindly). [Thanks WashPo] [Check out a condensed report from Political Theatrics here.)

Antony Loewenstein is getting into a bit of a tizzy about it, suggesting that these talks imply Obama will certainly acquiesce to Israel bombing Iran, I disagree. While the jury is still out on how far Israel will go to defend against the ‘existential threat’ and how far the US will go in trying to stop them, I don’t think these statements to the Chinese should all be taken seriously. They are scare tactics and meant as such, Obama needs the Chinese to either support (or at least not veto) resolutions against Iran in the UN and given their mostly self-interested political philosophies, he needs to frighten them into submission. I mean a nuclear Egypt? Never happen. But bringing up a nuclear Japan is pretty damn scary, as is linking bombing Iran with energy security.

So here we have Obama clearly using Israel as an attack dog, or rather hinting at the possibility of it breaking its chains. Remember the Suez War in 56 when the British and French used Israel as an attack dog? Yeah, that didn’t end well for them.

Buona notte pinuccia che sei stata una settimana senza me.

Buona notte al dalai lama, che non s’incazza mai.

Buona notte ad Abu mazen che ha schifato tutti.

Buona notte a chi spera che l’Italia diventi un posto migliore.

buona notet a chi sta incazzato.

Buona notte a chi non crede al razzismo e alla xenofobia.

Buona notte a chei non crede che l’Italia sia solo degli italiani.

(AGI/REUTERS) – Ramallah, 11 nov. – A cinque anni dalla morte di Yasser Arafat e’ toccato al suo successore, Abu Mazen, rilanciare uno dei punti cruciali dell’dentita’ palestinese: “Non possiamo andare ai negoziati senza una cornice. E la cornice e’ costituita dalle risoluzioni dell’Onu che significano il ritorno di Israele dentro i confini del 1967″, ha detto il presidente dell’Autorita’ nazionale palestinese arringando la folla accorsa a Ramallah per ricordare l’ex leader dell’OLP.Incurante degli appelli americani al rilancio del processo di pace, Abu Mazen ha mostrato sul tema degli insediamenti di coloni un’intransigenza alimentata dalla frustrazione per aver messo sul piatto del negoziato una disponibilita’ poi tradita da Israele.  “Noi”, ha continuato Abu Mazen, vogliamo lo stop pieno degli insediamenti, inclusi quelli da Gerusalemme e quelli intesi come ‘crescita naturale’ (concetto tirato fuori da Netanyahu per giustificare la costruzione di colonie, ndr).” “Senza questo, io non accettero’, non accettero’ nulla”, ha detto Abu Mazen suscitando l’urlo di consenso della folla e lo sventolio delle bandiere.A cinque anni dalla morte del “vecchio leone”, i palestinesi non si fidano di Israele. E provano, oggi, la delusione di un’amministrazione americana che, ai loro occhi, non ha scelto una via diversa da quella dell’appoggio a Israele. La promessa di una parziale limitazione agli insediamenti ha spinto Washington a fare marcia indietro rispetto alle prime battute pronunciate sul negoziato di pace. Si e’ passati dalla richiesta di una sospensione immediata di tutte le costruzioni all’affermazione della necessita’ di un “contenimento”. La scorsa settimana era sceso in campo anche l’uomo che Barack Obama ha scelto per il dialogo con l’influente comunita’ ebraica americana. “Non dobbiamo permettere che la questione degli insediamenti distragga dall’obiettivo della pace tra Israele, palestinesi e mondo arabo”, aveva detto Rahm Emanuel, capo di gabinetto di Obama, rilanciando l’appello ai palestinesi moderati per un dialogo senza “precondizioni” fatto di recente di fronte alle associazioni ebraiche da Netanyahu nel corso di un viaggio negli Stati Uniti.A cinque anni dalla fine, ancora misteriosa, di chi con il nemico di sempre fece prima la guerra e poi la pace, i palestinesi sono divisi come mai. Abu Mazen, forse alla fine della corsa, ha teso ancora una volta la mano a chi lo ha scalzato dal potere, prima con elezioni regolari e poi con un golpe. Invece di eliminarci l’uno con l’altro, uniamoci per combattere l’occupazione”, ha sottolineato il presidente dell’ANP, invitando Hamas a firmare la proposta di riconciliazione tra le fazioni mediata dall’Egitto. E’ troppo tardi, pero’, anche per il co-fondatore dell’Olp a cui tocco’ di costruire l’ultima parte della propria carriera con il cemento del negoziato con Israele. E’ questo che Hamas non gli perdona. E anche oggi lo ha fatto sapere, considerando quelle di Abu Mazen una manovra politica ingannatrice.

In a column examining the Netanyahu-Obama meeting farce, Ben Caspit, a senior political-diplomatic commentator in Maariv, Israel’s second largest circulation daily, asserts that, contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Israel is the one holding up negotiations with the PA.

Netanyahu can take comfort in the fact that Abu Mazen’s situation is much worse than his own.  At least at the present stage.  The Palestinian version that Netanyahu is playing a double game and actually wishes to eliminate Abu Mazen is taking hold in Washington as well.  Saeb Erekat has said in the past few days on more than one occasion, that since the grotesque three-way summit in New York he tried at least three times to arrange a meeting with Uzi Arad, and was turned down time after time.  The rejection on Arad’s part was not personal, it was system-wide.  Apparently, Netanyahu’s people are simply not interested.  Publicly, they call to start negotiations without preconditions, but discreetly, they thwart any attempt to hold such negotiations.  As of now, they are succeeding.

You can read a full translation of the relevant part of the column after the jump.

Bibi does not answer

Excerpt from column, Ben Caspit, Maariv [page 5]

Netanyahu’s bureau has learned nothing.  Apparently, there is no one there who can learn.  If this is the way the meeting between the prime minister and the US president looks, it would be better for it not to be held.  After all, they are not going to finalize the details of the peace agreement, or of war.  This is a meeting purely for protocol, barely a photo-op, so that it will not be said that Bibi was in the US and didn’t see Obama.  That is why the fiasco is so great.  A chronicle of a disgrace foretold.

On Saturday night, close to midnight, a few hours before takeoff, officials in Jerusalem still didn’t know whether or not there would be a meeting.  This is something that has never happened to us before.  Even after they landed in Washington, on Sunday, they still didn’t know clearly what would or would not take place.  When exactly, how, with whom, what and why.

For the sake of comparison: Meetings between the US president and Israel’s prime minister are an event that is planned in advance in great detail, with painstaking care down to the level of the photography angles, the prepositions in the joint statement and the number of questions for each side.  This time, nada.  Netanyahu’s aides, as always, overstepped all rules of courtesy, diplomacy and reason that could be overstepped.  First of all they scheduled and publicly announced a trip to the US, and then demanded a meeting.  Usually it should be the opposite, but not with Bibi.  That’s how it is when there is no one in charge and everyone can do as they please.

It could also have been done differently: If there is no time for advance notice, it could simply have been announced that the purpose of the trip was the annual gathering of the Jewish organizations, and that there was no way to set up a meeting with the president on such short notice, and no need for such a meeting, and everything is fine.  This way, the White House would have been spared embarrassment, and trust would have been established.  At this stage, the White House itself would have initiated such a meeting, and everyone would have gained.  Instead, everyone ends up being annoyed.

Netanyahu can take comfort in the fact that Abu Mazen’s situation is much worse than his own.  At least at the present stage.  The Palestinian version that Netanyahu is playing a double game and actually wishes to eliminate Abu Mazen is taking hold in Washington as well.  Saeb Erekat has said in the past few days on more than one occasion, that since the grotesque three-way summit in New York he tried at least three times to arrange a meeting with Uzi Arad, and was turned down time after time.  The rejection on Arad’s part was not personal, it was system-wide.  Apparently, Netanyahu’s people are simply not interested.  Publicly, they call to start negotiations without preconditions, but discreetly, they thwart any attempt to hold such negotiations.  As of now, they are succeeding.

[...]

Poor Mahmoud Abbas, with every day his irrelevance seems to be growing. Fatah have now admitted that a mistake has been made and that discussion of the Goldstone Report should not have been postponed. Could this be because everyone in Palestine is now baying for your blood, Abu Mazen? What I don’t understand is how Fatah could have not predicted this? Did they think bowing to US pressure and facing t he music at home would be less damaging? If so, what a mistake indeed. This is a government that sorely lacks legitimacy at home, and everyone knows that all politics is local.

So according to Haaretz, Abbas has instructed his envoy to resubmit a proposal for the document to be discussed at the UN Human Rights Council. The question is, will this happen? And does it matter to the PA if it does happen? By the looks of things this is being done purely for show anyway so even if they are rebuffed they can say that they tried… but too little too late it doth seem. Israeli Arab parties are calling for Abu Mazen to step down. Hamas have asked for the planned meeting between the two parties to be postponed until after Eid al-Adha, not surprising, as Hamas is now in some tizzy over what to do about this. Technically, no ballot can go ahead without reconciliation, and the impoverished and blockaded fief of Gaza is probably getting to be rather small. There’s also the whole ideology thing.

In his first speech in a while, Abbas also advocated a return to polling stations as a solution to the Hamas-Fatah conflict, this makes plenty of sense, I don’t think the two are even close to reconciling their differences, however such a move would probably not be very favourable for Abbas who is currently deeply unpopular. Is this just random belligerence?

“…while I, and the Fatah movement to which I belong, strongly oppose attacks and the targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbor, I reserve the right to protect myself, to resist the Israeli occupation of my country and to fight for my freedom.” –Marwan Barghouti, 2002 (Washington Post)

Democracy works. Maybe not for the Americans in this part of the world, but it works.

That is the primary reason the US has never applied enough pressure on the Israeli government to release the man who probably holds the fate of the Palestinians in his very hands – Marwan Barghouti.

The Fatah party is experiencing what I like to call the “George Bush effect.” Basically, after Abu Mazen’s failure to take full advantage of the monumental ‘Goldstone Report’ – along with other policy mishaps – the Fatah party is slowing distancing themselves from their revered politician.

Barghouti, the son of the First Palestinian Intifada and the father of the Second Palestinian Intifada, is the Palestinian savior. On the same token, he is Israel’s worst nightmare – a man sainted by all Palestinians. He led the Palestinian Tanzim forces, and has also been associated with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

When the Fatah Central Committee Elections were held on August 12^th, 2009, the jailed Barghouti came in third with 1,063 votes. He is on the top of the list for any future prisoner exchange with Israel – the Hamas list. He, along with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and DFLP, in Israeli prisons established the National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners, creating the basis for the coalition government to be formed in the Palestinian Legislative Council which also outlines the basis of negotiations with Israel towards peace. This document has arguably been ignored.

He is not even the Palestinian Obama; he is their Mandela.

So, in 2004, the Israeli civilian court sentenced Barghouti to five life sentences and 40 years imprisonment in what, of course, was an unfair and illegal trial even by the lowest international legal standards.

For the Israelis, releasing Barghouti is a gamble that the Israelis are not willing to take. Not because of his alleged terrorist activities, and the fear that he may regalvanize the Tanzim and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The fear is his potential leadership over the Palestinian people.

Barghouti’s release is a virtual guarantee that he will be president in the next Palestinian elections.

The Fatah system works in a strict top-down leadership structure, run by its Central Committee. Although this has watered down a bit since the last elections, it is the reason Barghouti hasn’t been president in the past four years.

It was for the sake of Fatah’s unity (see this TIME article), and perhaps their poor showing against Hamas, that Barghouti eventually pulled out of the 2004 Palestinian presidential elections.

Barghouti is a statesman and parliamentarian that commands law and respect. The Governing Council of the InterParliamentary Union has, since his imprisonment, has continuously expressed concern with the unfair trail and subsequent sentencing.

Last August, a poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that Barghouti would defeat Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas by 62% to 31% in the upcoming elections. The poll also showed preference to Abbas over Haniyeh, as did one poll conducted by the International Peace Institute reiterating that support for Abbas.

Despite this, especially after the disastrous policy taken towards the Goldstone Report, the elections are ripe for another surprise. The denial of the west, Israel, and the Arab political elites never foresaw Hamas’s political victory. Their political transformation over the past few years has positively moved it from isolation into a true political party.

Israel’s policy of dependence on Palestinian internal turmoil has now reached its end. It now depends on who the Israelis want to see uniting them.

That is why, unless the international political status quo changes, they will not let Barghouti free. Only the US and the EU can make that happen. If Abbas, and other Fatah politicians want to save their party, they will assure that this can happen. Barghouti was Arafat’s successor, the rightly guided brotherly leader – Abbas came second.

That is why, it will only last so long – so they will buy as much time as they can. He is respected by all Palestinian factions – a level of respect that only increases.

And that is precisely why, Marwan Al Barghouti must heed the Palestinians’ call – and run for President, even if it means he will spend that Presidency in prison. Fatah’s Central Committee, Revolutionary Council, and the Higher Committee must respect his intention to run. If not, they must understand that Barghouti most likely has the capacity of building his own political party, Mustaqbal, become a President and lead a coalition parliament.

Palestinians will pray for change, and for Barghouti to stay the man that he is.

You will have to forgive me for flogging this Goldstone horse, but to me it seems a horse worthy of flogging.  It seems the first attempts by our Libyan saviour to hold a meeting to discuss the report have failed, though it’s possible the report will be discussed at the next meeting of the UNSC dedicated to The Middle East, which has been bumped up to October 14th. Apparently the report is “not on the agenda” at the meeting but “we have to assume” that our saviour will bring it up. Ah geez. So welcoming, y’all are.

Israel continues to stonewall the report, as it considers recalling it’s ambassador to Sweden in response to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt’s remarks in support of it. Tensions have been inflamed further by Israel’s ambassador to the US Michael Oren’s recent piece for The New Republic, an empassioned appeal against Holocaust denying and the Goldstone report, linking the two in a bizarre and twisted emotionally charged cry that lacks much reason. Here’s a choice excerpt:

The Goldstone Report goes further than Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust deniers by stripping the Jews not only of the ability and the need but of the right to defend themselves. If a country can be pummeled by thousands of rockets and still not be justified in protecting its inhabitants, then at issue is not the methods by which that country survives but whether it can survive at all. But more insidiously, the report does not only hamstring Israel; it portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents–as Nazis. And a Nazi state not only lacks the need and right to defend itself; it must rather be destroyed.

Opposition to this well-known craziness has come thick and fast of course. Sullivan’s response is a bit of a garbled rant but he does make the obvious point:

Seriously? No; the issue is whether Israel committed war crimes in its self-defense in Gaza and whether that self-defense was disproportionate to the threat it faced.

Yes, that is indeed the issue, Mr. Oren. Everyone serious, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad notwithstanding, has said many times, the Holocaust was a terrible thing and yes the Israeli state needs to defend itself, but if Mr. Oren thinks he can play the emotion card over the Holocaust to give Israel total impunity over its ‘defensive’ actions, then he isn’t very in tune with today’s political climate. Pretty much just as every Israeli response to this report in the past, it fails to actually address the issues raised by the report and descends into a beleaguered rant. Predictably, in Oren’s latest defense of his controversial piece, he has once again brought up the suggestion that the report could set a precedent and that the US could be put in the dock for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, seirously? Does no one have respect for international law and order around here? Is this a return to the Bush doctrine of unilateralism? Should any military power occupying and conducting a war on foreign soil be allowed to act with impunity of that war is “good” and “just”. Idiocy.

Photograph: Tara Todras-Whitehill/AP

Meanwhile, commentators from all over the place have been declaring the report and the fallout from it a watershed moment in the Middle East and predicting various things from the fall of Abbas, electronic intifada rings his death knell via al Quds al Arabi…

This time, torrents of protest and outrage flowed from almost every direction. It was as if all the suppressed anger and grief about PA collaboration with Israel during the massacres in Gaza last winter suddenly burst through a dam. “The crime at Geneva cannot pass without all those responsible being held accountable,” the widely-read London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi stated in its lead editorial on 8 October. The newspaper called for the removal of Abbas and his associates who betrayed the victims of Israel’s massacres and “saved Israel from the most serious moral, political and legal crisis it has faced since its establishment.”

to the third intifada… heralded by a rather amusingly old-school journo-orientalist article in the Telegraph (“winding alleyways of the old city”, “dozens of muslim men gathered to vent their frustration”, etc.)

and possibly a new Ice Age? Well maybe not the latter.

Ari Shavit for Haaretz contributes some ridiculous and frightening thoughts to the mix, suggesting that Israel “must exercize (sic) force once every few years” to “prevent the region’s deterioration into complete chaos.” Ohhhh I get it now… so Israel has to bomb the living daylights out of Arabs in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank in order to keep the peace! War for peace! Yes it all makes sense now! Who cares that thousands of civilians are dead, it’s for the peace process, man!

These limited demonstrations of power do not achieve a decisive military victory or a breakthrough in the peace process.

Their entire purpose is to stabilize the violent relationship between Israelis and Arabs. Thus they create a temporary, strong-arm balance that subdues the conflict and ensures calm for a few years.

For better or worse, Operation Cast Lead created such a balance. It weakened Hamas and deterred it, at a terrible human cost. It strengthened the moderate Palestinians and enabled them to grow, at an intolerable moral cost.

By “moderate Palestinians”, I assume Shavit is referring to Israel’s favourite house Arab, Abu Mazen, then I don’t think he’s been “strengthened” at all. His legitimacy is at an all time low. In fact, if Shavit thinks that somehow bombing the crap out of Palestinians with the acquiscence of their supposed leadership is supposed to strengthen said leadership then… well… he’s an idiot, really. He goes further to describe the “violent relationship between Israelis and Arabs” as “a strong arm balance”. What balance? Crude rockets against the Middle East’s best military and a crippling blockade is supposed to be a balance? Starving people in abject poverty and denying them power and medicine, a balance? But wait theres more:

The Goldstone report would never have been written without the joint work, joint bias and joint Israel-hatred of all the Goldstoners. Thus the report reflects both the Goldstoners’ holy fury and their complete belief that the Palestinians can do no wrong.

That belief is now endangering not only Israel but calm and stability. In their fanaticism and extremism, Goldstone and the Goldstoners have brought us closer to bloodshed.

The most amusing and scary part of this is that, to Shavit, “bloodshed” is an intifada or a Six-Day War, it’s one which involves significant Israeli casualties. Shavit does not recognise 1400 Palestinians dead during Operation Cast Lead as “bloodshed” because he doesn’t see Palestinians as humans capable of shedding blood that’s worth something. The claim that by analysing Israel’s actions during a war is bad because it will somehow lead to more war is so ridiculous that I wonder why Haaretz printed it. Seriously guys? This is what you could come up with?

Will wrap up this post by suggesting y’all look further at that electronic intifada piece because it has some very interesting thoughts on the bind that Hamas is now in, in terms of figuring out its response to the Goldstone Report and Abu Mazen’s capitulation.

In the wake of the Goldstone Report, things were meant to be done! Action was meant to be taken! Perpetrators were meant to be put in the dock and have had various parts of them chopped off! Or something of that order… but surprisingly (I know I know, I’m just as surprised as the rest of you) that hasn’t quite happened. And it’s the usual suspects behind the not happening. We reported earlier that both Israel & the US condemned the report. But surely not the Palestinians right? RIGHT? Wrong.

It seems that Abu Mazen et al., have decided to be the good Israeli/US ‘running dogs’ that they are and help stonewall the report further:

Last week, Abbas withdrew Palestinian support for a vote in the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to have the report sent to the UN General Assembly for possible action. Such a vote would have been a first of many steps toward possible war crimes tribunals.

With the Palestinians out of the picture, the council set the report aside for six months. [Haaretz]

Now you may rightfully ask, has the old fool lost all his marbles? Why would he do something so crazy? I mean, isn’t this a chance for the international community to have a legitimate opportunity to see and assess the horrors that were committed in Gaza? Isn’t this a chance for the Palestinians to have some justice over the, you know, war crimes? Aren’t war crimes bad? If you are asking these questions, my friend, you are not very well versed in Middle Eastern politics. According to Abbas, the reason is as follows:

Abbas’ aides have defended the step, saying the Palestinians needed more time to win international support for the U.N. report. They said deferring action did not mean burying the report. [Haaretz]

The Palestinians, not being happy about this, have been raising hell on the streets:

With every day, there were more protests, marches and statements of condemnations, not only from his Hamas rivals, but also from human rights groups and intellectuals.

In Gaza, public outrage at Abbas reached a new level on Wednesday, when hundreds of posters criticizing the Palestinian president appeared in public areas around Gaza City.

The text on one poster under an Abbas photo read: To the dumps of history, you traitor, Mahmoud Abbas. Another had a big, black X over Abbas’ face. [Haaretz]

Having realised that this self-righteous anger could possibly damage his political prospects, Abu Mazen and his Fatah cohort have taken a few steps back, including admitting they’ve made “a mistake”, trying to lobby the Security Council through this man, naming and shaming countries who block the report (the horror!) and asking other Arab countries to push it through.

Norman Finkelstein seems to think there’s an altogether different reason, namely the Israelis having some audio evidence of the PA same some things that are decidedly not pro-the-Palestinian-cause, like… you know… being excited about the murder of more Palestinian children:

…a series of tapes in which Palestinian Authority officials could be heard urging Israel to continue the operation in Gaza. Israel threatened to reveal the material to media outlets as well as to the UN and this, in turn, resulted in the Palestinian retreat. It was further claimed that the Palestinians were shown footage showing a meeting between Abu Mazen, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and then foreign minister Tzippi Livni. In the course of the meeting, according to the report, Abu Mazen attempted to convince Barak to continue the operation. Barak appeared hesitant whereas Abu Mazen was enthusiastic. In addition, a telephone conversation recording between Abed Al-Rahim, secretary general of the Palestinian Authority and director of Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi’s bureau was presented. The Palestinian senior official can be heard saying that now is the time to bring ground forces into the Jabalya and Shati refugee camps. “The fall of these two camps will bring about the fall of the Hamas regime in Gaza, and will cause them to wave a white flag,” says Abed Al-Rahim. According to the report, Dov Weissglas told Abed Al-Rahim that such a move could result in the deaths of thousands of civilians. “They all voted for Hamas,” says Abed Al-Rahim, “they chose their fate, not us.”

Good point Abed! Gaza’s children are not Palestinian children, they are Hamas children, the spawn of Satan himself. They are either Hamas voters already, Hamas sympathisers or have Hamas tattooed on their backsides from birth. At best they’re collateral damage. Welcome to the ‘politics’ of the Middle East, ladies & gentelmen.

L’Autorità palestinese accusata di insabbiare il documento delle Nazioni Unite sui crimini di guerra compiuti da Israele a Gaza

Mahmud al-Zahar, uno dei fondatori del movimento Hamas, ha lanciato pesanti accuse contro il presidente dell’Autorità palestinese.

Secondo il leader di Hamas, infatti, Abu Mazen, al potere dal 2005, sarebbe co-responsabile della decisione delle Nazioni di Unite dello slittamento del voto che avrebbe riconosciuto Israele responsabile di crimini di guerra nella Striscia di Gaza. Il Goldstone report, il documento in cui sono contenuti tutte le violazioni dei diritti umani compiuti dagli israelieni nella striscia di Gaza, resta ancora inascoltato.

Ma non solo. “Abu Mazen – ha dichiarato al Zahar – ha incoraggiato i leader militari israeliani ad attaccare Gaza, a reprimere nel sangue il movimento di Hamas e tutti i palestinesi che ci sostengono”. Secondo il fondatore di Hamas, infatti, lo slittamento del voto delle Nazioni Unite è un’ennesima possibilità di salvezza per la politica aggressiva di Israele nei confronti dei palestinesi.

Le dichiarazioni del leader di Hamas non sono passate inosservate. Centinaia di persone sono scese in piazza a Ramallah per protestare contro la decisione del presidante dell’Autorità palestinese. Secondo i manifestanti la scelta di Abu Mazen è un insulto al sangue dei martiri palestinesi. Manifestazioni si sono svolte anche a Gerusalemme, dove i sostenitori della Palestina hanno chiesto ad Abu Mazen di scusarsi davanti alla propria gente

fonte: PeaceReporter

President Obama Speaks. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Well the NY Summit has been and gone and, lo and behold, nothing sensational or earth-shattering has hit the press this morning. What a surprise. Abdelbari Atwan called it “a capitulation” and “a defeat” for Obama in his editorial for al Quds al Arabi.

The Majlis has a full transcript of Obama’s comments after his individual meetings with Bibi & Abu Mazen and before the tri-partite summit itself, but there’s nothing earth-shattering in it. I’d say that all in all Obama sounds kinda frustrated:

America’s frustration showed when Obama told reporters the two sides had to stop stalling. “Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. It is past time to talk about starting negotiations. It is time to move forward,” he said.

Jonathan Freedland’s comments for the Guardian’s comment is free confirm what I’ve suspected of late, Bibi and, to a lesser extent, Abu Mazen, are warm and comfy in their local politics:

How had it come about that, in the words of the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea, the Americans had “discovered that they want an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement more than the Israelis and the Palestinians want it”? The narrow answer is the usual one, that the local politics on both sides of the conflict has made inaction a safer bet than action. Netanyahu sits atop a coalition that is perfectly stable – just so long as he doesn’t do anything. Were he so much as to hint at taking any of the steps necessary for a peace deal, coalition partners would start breaking off like aeroplane wings in an ice storm. As for Abbas, he has finally acquired some political strength, removing potential rivals from within his own Fatah faction while all trace of Hamas has been eradicated from the West Bank. As one Fatah insider puts it: “Abbas is now at the peak of his powers.” All that could damage him are the accusations of treachery that would instantly follow any compromise with Israel.

Freedland is forthright in his criticism of Obama’s recent failures in the arena of Middle Eastern politics, a criticism echoed by many on both sides of the arena. It is true, Obama has failed so far to gain any real concessions from either side, to get the peace process moving with truly wilful engagement form both sides. Arabs are asking for deeds not words, Israelis are lauding their Prime Minister for his strength, but Freedland advises us to not give up hope:

Above all, those panicking that Obama has not yet bagged a clutch of foreign policy triumphs in the Middle East and elsewhere may be forgetting both the mess that he inherited and his leadership style. He plays the long, slow game, advancing gradually. So, yes, there was no overnight fix in New York, but that was never on the cards. Besides, Obama believes he has time on his side. Unlike most US presidents keen to play Middle East peacemaker, he has not tackled this in his last year, but in his first.

In addition to the summit, Bibi also embarked on a few interviews as part of the PR campaign to woo the US public. His wooing was largely successful, old Bibi is a pretty canny media operator. Some exerts from his interview with Wolf Blitzer, and some pertinent thoughts, to be found at The Majlis:

When Blitzer brought up the Goldstone report, a U.N. investigation into the clash between Israel and Palestinian forces in Gaza in 2006 that Israel has renounced, Netanyahu said the report essentially gives a free hand to terrorists who wish to attack democracies.

Hamas fighters “get a free bill out of this bias,” Netanyahu said. “American pilots, NATO pilots … are gonna be on the dock … that’s not something that any country fighting terrorism can accept, and I don’t think you can accept it too.”

Blitzer didn’t challenge Netanyahu on that point, which is unfortunate, since on its face Netanyahu’s premise makes me, as an American, pause. After all, the U.S. has killed many civilians in the course of its war in Afghanistan, shouldn’t we now be afraid that the United Nations will come after us? But upon closer inspection, there are holes in Netanyahu’s fear-mongering. The reason Israel is under investigation is the method by which it attacked Hamas in Gaza. Critics of the Goldstone report aren’t questioning its conclusions – such as Israeli use of white phosphorous, killings of police officers and bombings of sewage treatment facilities. Instead, they question the premise and bias of the Goldstone Report itself.

The other interview I came across is with ABC’s Charlie Gibson (full transcript).  In this interview, Bibi describes the recent summit in New York as “frank”, “productive” and “very good”. Gibson is a little tougher on Netanyahu than Blitzer on the issue of settlements, Bibi stonewalled him on it numerous times essentially stating that he rejects the Palestinian position of putting settlement growth ending as a pre-condition to peace talks: ”The issue of the settlements has to be resolved. It should be resolved at the end of negotiations, not before the negotiations.” When pressed further, Bibi uses the old ‘natural growth’ defence and also mentions that a settlement freeze was not discussed during the NY Summit, contrary to previous reports. Gibson also asked Bibi about Iran but, isappointingly did not bring up the Goldstone Report.

On topic of the Goldstone Report, Israel has now urged the EU to reject it:

Foreign Ministry Director-General Yossi Gal on Tuesday convened 26 European Union ambassadors in Jerusalem for a diplomatic briefing.

The Foreign Ministry director-general also called on EU countries to clearly express their reservations over the report in any possible way. The report, he said, is not legal but rather “a one-dimensional, political propaganda poster biased against Israel.”

Here is the obligatory hand-shake photo, I enjoy how paternalistic Obama looks in this one.

Papa Obama looks on as yet another Palestinian-Israeli hand-shake is photographed. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque.

Il presidente degli Stati Uniti si occupa della annosa situazione in medioriente  e incassa un accordo importante per la ripresa dei negoziati .”Dobbiamo riprendere al piu presto gli incontri”, ha detto il premier israeliano Benyamin Netanyahu uscendo da un vertice con Obama e il presidente dell’Anp Abu Mazen.

Trattative comunque complicate perchè israele e palestina restano però divisi ssui modi per le trattative, ha chiarito l’inviato Usa George Mitchell.

Israele rispetti “gli accordi” sulle frontiere ha detto il presidente dell’Autorità nazionale palestinese, secondo cui occorre rispettare anche l’impegno definito nella ‘road map’ di porre un fine definitivo agli insediamenti ebraici.

La palestina deve rinunciare definitivamente ha qualsiasi legame con il terrorismo.

Gedda (Arabia Saudita)- Il presidente palestinese Abu Mazen ha chiesto ai leader arabi, nel corso di un incontro a Gedda ieri notte con il re saudita Abdallah, una posizione “ferma e unitaria” verso Israele dopo la conferma dell’espansione delle colonie.

Abu Mazen, che è impegnato in una tournee araba, “ha sollecitato gli arabi ad assumere una decisione ferma e unitaria verso Israele”, definendo la decisione dello Stato ebraico di costruire centinaia di abitazioni nelle colonie in Cisgiordania “una sfida agli arabi e alla comunità internazionale”, ha riferito il suo portavoce, Nabil Abu Rudeina. Israele ieri ha confermato la sua intenzione di costruire diverse centinaia di alloggi nei grandi blocchi di colonie in Cisgiordania nonostante la valanga di critiche suscitata da questo progetto nel mondo. “Questa decisione compromette gli sforzi del presidente Barack Obama” a favore della pace in Medio Oriente, ha aggiunto. “Non ritorneremo al tavolo dei negoziati senza un blocco delle colonie”, ha ribadito Abu Rudeina. Il portavoce ha anche informato che il presidente palestinese convocherà una riunione del “comitato arabo” incaricato del dossier dei negoziati di pace prima della riunione dell’Assemblea generale dell’Onu, a fine settembre. Fonti ufficiali israeliane avevano evocato la possibilità di un incontro fra il presidente palestinese e il Primo ministro israeliano Benjamin Netanyahu a New York, ma Abu Mazen sabato ha dichiarato che un tale incontro sarebbe inutile se Israele non rinuncia all’espansione delle colonie in Cisgiordania. Abu Rudeina ha inoltre indicato che il presidente palestinese ha avuto ieri notte un incontro “importante” con re Abdallah sulla riconciliazione interpalestinese.

fonte: Apcom

Aquí:

P.- Para solucionar la crisis de Gaza ¿la UE dialogará con el islamista Hamas, incluido en su lista de grupos terroristas?

R.- Tenemos la misma posición que antes, pero sin duda la negociación tendrá que continuar. Hemos hecho la delegación en Egipto, que es quien ha llevado esta negociación, pero estamos apoyando a El Cairo y al presidente Abu Mazen.

Antes:
Hamas no quiere que los palestinos conozcan la Shoá.
Florentino Portero: “Israel no es el problema“.
Tuté considera que los palestinos están “pagando el Holocausto“.
Obstáculo para la liberación de Shalit es Barghouti, dice Hamas.

Ci sono notizie di cui non sono in grado di valutare l’autenticità. Se i fatti di cui parlano fossero accaduti in un posto XXX, sembrerebbero irreali, se negli Stati Uniti provocherebbero ovunque violente proteste, se nel posto in cui paiono essere accadute, praticamente nulla.

Abitanti di XXX si lamentano perché non riescono a dormire a causa dei pianti dei prigionieri di Hamas torturati nella vicina prigione in mano ai servizi di Mahmoud Abbas.

Ce ne sono altre di cui l’autenticità è fuori discussione, ma di nuovo, se al posto di riportare fatti avvenuti a XXX o in Danimarca, si riferissero a fatti accaduti in Germania o in Russia o in Cina, avrebbero peso ed eco piuttosto diversi.

Cinquanta poliziotti in assetto di guerra, con manganelli e scudi, hanno fatto violenta irruzione poco dopo mezzanotte nella chiesa di Brorsons nel quartiere di Nørrebro, a XXX, per arrestare 35 richiedenti asilo iracheni, che lì si erano nascosti.

Se verranno confermate le indiscrezioni uscite sulla stampa martedì 11 agosto, il nuovo direttivo di Fatah mostra una situazione di stallo, con i giovani che sembrano aver messo la vecchia guardia, sfiancata dall’esilio, ma anche dal governo e dalla corruzione, all’angolo.

Ma la riconferma di Abu Mazen controbilancia la perdita di potere di personaggi, pure controversi e che Abu Mazen non ha mai amato troppo, come Abu Ala,  e pone al centro della scena, con Kaddhoumi chiamato a giocare ancora il ruolo dell’outsider di tutti e di tutto come già faceva ai tempi di Arafat, le debolezze dei giovani leoni, con Bargouthi che dal carcere svolge un ruolo che rasenta l’onorifico e che non riesce ad incidere più di tanto come ha dimostrato il suo tentativo di conciliazione con Hamas, caduto nel nulla o quasi,  o con Dahlan, che ancora si pavoneggia da leader di Fatah a Gaza mentre Hamas lo ha, più o meno esplicitamente, condannato a morte.

Per i palestinesi è ancora il caso di risolvere le controversie interne, prima di potersi nuovamente sedere fruttuosamente ad un tavolo negoziale o fare una qualsiasi scelta nazionale.

(da Repubblica.it)

BETLEMME – Alla presenza di oltre duemila delegati, si è aperto stamani a Betlemme il sesto Congresso di al-Fatah. Atteso da vent’anni, l’evento vede la presenza di oltre duemila delegati giunti dai Territori e da diversi Paesi arabi. Assenti, invece, la maggior parte dei delegati di Gaza, bloccati dal divieto di Hamas a raggiungere la Cisgiordania…

Il congresso rappresenta un test importante per il presidente dell’Anp Abu Mazen che vuole rinnovare i quadri dirigenti di al-Fatah. Mazen ha oggi denunciato come “golpisti e corrotti” i leader rivali della fazione islamico-radicale di Hamas, al potere nella Striscia di Gaza. Rivolgendosi alla gente del territorio recentemente martoriato dai bombardamenti israeliani, Abu Mazen ha assicurato che comunque “la Palestina resterà unita” e ha aggiunto: “Noi non permetteremo ad Hamas di distruggere l’unità” del popolo palestinese. “Se sapremo essere uniti e tenaci avremo uno stato. Si tratta di un diritto, non di un regalo di Israele“, ha aggiunto il leader palestinese.

“Noi siamo contro il terrorismo e non siamo terroristi, ha sottolineato Abu Mazen, ma abbiamo “il diritto di resistere all’occupazione. Un diritto – ha sostenuto – che gode della legittimazione internazionale. Noi non vogliamo solo il pane, ma anche la libertà“, ha aggiunto, commentando l’offerta di accordi economici, prima che politici, avanzata ai palestinesi dal premier israeliano, Benjamin Netanyahu. Quello di Netanyahu – ha denunciato – è in realtà “solo un modo per cercare di farci dimenticare del nostro Paese”. Ma l’obiettivo dell’Anp resta quello di avere “uno Stato palestinese democratico, con Gerusalemme come capitale e una soluzione equa per i profughi”.

In conclusione, Abu Mazen ha chiesto ai 1.900 delegati presenti al Congresso di approfittare di questi tre giorni per realizzare un ”un nuovo inizio”, consolidando l’impegno volto al ”raggiungimento dei nostri obiettivi principali: liberazione e indipendenza”.

]]> http://marcelokisilevski.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/%c2%bfpienso-igual-que-bibi/ Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:25:32 +0000 marcelokisilevski http://marcelokisilevski.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/%c2%bfpienso-igual-que-bibi/ http://elmurodelaverguenza.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/al-fatah-acusa-a-hamas-de-intentar-asesinar-al-presidente-abu-mazen/ Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:05:35 +0000 elmurodelaverguenza http://elmurodelaverguenza.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/al-fatah-acusa-a-hamas-de-intentar-asesinar-al-presidente-abu-mazen/

El presidente palestino, Abu Mazen.| EL MUNDO

Una célula del movimiento islamista Hamas recientemente desarticulada planeaba matar a varios funcionarios de la Autoridad Nacional Palestina (ANP) en Cisjordania, entre ellos el presidente Abu Mazen, aseguraron fuentes del partido Al Fatah citadas por el diario israelí ‘Haaretz’.

El secretario general de la ANP, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, informó el pasado lunes de la detención, en junio, de unos diez miembros de Hamas que supuestamente estaban preparando los asesinatos.

Hamas y Al Fatah están enzarzados en una violenta pugna por el poder, que estalló en 2006 cuando la organización radical islámica ganó inesperadamente las elecciones legislativas palestinas y que alcanzó su clímax un año después, cuando la milicia de Hamas expulsó de la Franja de Gaza a las fuerzas de seguridad leales a Mazen.

El portavoz de Al Fatah, Fami Zarir, declaró que los asesinatos planeados por Hamas tenían por objetivo dar al traste con las conversaciones que se llevan a cabo en El Cairo, bajo la mediación de Egipto, para dirimir el conflicto entre las dos organizaciones palestinas y crear así las condiciones para la celebración de nuevas elecciones en enero próximo.

Un portavoz de las Brigadas Qassam, el brazo armado de Hamas, desmintió los planes de asesinato denunciados por Al Fatah

(Publicado por el periódico El Mundo el 03/07/09)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23336.html

Den 4 juni höll USAs president Barack Obama ett tal vid det anrika Kairo-universitetet Al-Azhar som redan blivit en klassiker och som framkallat skiftande reaktioner. Videolänken ovan ger några av talets höjdpunkter.

Talets första del framhäver – föga överraskande med tanke på var talet hölls – islams företräden. Obama påpekar bland annat att algebra, magnetkompassen och andra navigeringsinstrument, insikter i läkekonst, arkitektur, poesi, musik, kalligrafi med mera kommer från den muslimska delen av världen. Presidenten framhåller även att det muslimska Marocko var det första landet att diplomatiskt erkänna Förenta staterna.

I dag finns det, underströk president Obama, omkring 1200 moskéer i USA: “Islam is a part of America”, menade han.

Därefter kom han till de för arabvärlden måhända tuffare delarna av anförandet:

“We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.”

Därpå förklarar Obama att USA med “broad international support” angrep terrornätverket al-Qaida samt talibanernas Afghanistan. Han är något försiktigare när det gäller att försvara invasionen i Irak men tillstår dock, att det irakiska folket har det bättre nu än under diktatorn Saddam Hussein.

USAs president Barack Obama och Israels premiärminister Benyamin Netanyahu möttes i maj.

Så kommer president Obama in på det känsliga kapitlet Israel och Palestina:

“America´s strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

När Obama berör Förintelsen, och indirekt antisemitismen, väljer han följande ord:

“Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.”

Obama anser vidare att Iran, vars president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upprepade gånger fastslagit att Israel borde utplånas från jordens yta, skall ha lika stor rätt till fredlig kärnkraft som andra länder “if it complies with its responsibility under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

USAs president fortsätter med att uttala sig för kvinnors rättigheter i den muslimska världen och mot religiös intolerans. Han framhåller även att vissa muslimer “measure one´s own faith by the rejection of somebody else´s faith.” I sammanhanget uppmuntrar Obama en försoning mellan de båda muhammedanska inriktningarna sunni och shia samt säger sig vara för en “interfaith dialogue”.

Slutligen framhäver Barack Obama likheterna mellan den judiska Torah, den kristna Bibeln och den muslimska Koranen.

Middle East Peace Initiative (MEPI), som organiseras av Universal Peace Federation (UPF), söker skapa försoning över de religiösa och etniska gränserna.

Min första reaktion på Obamas Kairo-tal var ungefär att “jamen, det här var väl inte så illa”. Andra konservativa har inte varit lika positiva, särskilt inte i USA. Den mest uppmärksammade reaktionen på talet kommer från den amerikanske filmskådespelaren Jon Voight, som vid ett anförande på en välgörenhetsmiddag till förmån för de republikanska representationerna i Kongressens senat och representanthus den 8 juni bland annat liknade Obama vid den romerske diktatorn Julius Caesar och kallade hans (Obamas) politik för “wildly radical.” Han uttryckte också stark oro för att Obamas Mellanöstern-politik kan komma att utgöra ett hot mot staten Israel, samt avslutade sitt anförande med att kalla Obama “a false prophet” och prisa konservativa mediagestalter/politiker såsom Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O´Reilly och Newt Gingrich. På videolänken nedan följer några avsnitt ur Voights inlägg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SXUEULa1s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhoriwood%2Ecom%

Jon Voight är väl numera mest känd som pappa till Hollywood-stjärnan Angelina Jolie och har tidigare medverkat i storfilmer såsom Midnight Cowboy och Deliverance (Den sista färden). En sak är klar, och det är att dottern och hennes likaledes vänsterinriktade partner Brad Pitt – båda stora Obama-fans – inte lär uppskatta Voights tal.

En annan kritisk röst tillhör Wesley Pruden, Editor Emeritus vid den konservativa dagstidningen The Washington Times:

“‘Israel’, he said, ‘must live up to its obligations’, but he had hardly a word of rebuke for the long record of broken Palestinian promises. It was a remarkable insult to an absent ally, delivered to the applause of Israel´s sworn enemies.”

En annan Obama-kritiker, Michael Goodwin, framhöll å sin sida:

“The outlines of an Obama Doctrine are taking place. Our President´s world view can be summarized as ‘Everybody is a little bit guilty, especially Israel.’ His demand in Cairo that Israel make major concessions before Palestinians recognize Israel´s right to exist was a pander of the rakest sort. What a difference a year and the audience makes.”

Goodwin syftar i den sista meningen på det faktum att Obama som presidentkandidat den 4 juni 2008 höll ett tal inför the America Israel Public Affairs Committee och då försäkrade, att han skulle “never force Israel to the negotiating table” eller kräva att Israel gjorde “concessions.” För ett år sedan inskärpte vidare Obama att Iran syftade till att utplåna Israel, nu valde han att framhäva Irans rätt till kärnkraft. Inte heller tog Obama i Kairo upp det faktum att det finns gott om suror i Koranen som har ett antisemitiskt innehåll, exempelvis 2:62-65, 5:59-60, 7:166 samt 9:30.

Wesley Pruden och Washington Times har haft en kritisk inställning till Obamas Kairo-tal.

President Barack Obamas uppmärksammade tal i Egyptens huvudstad mottogs vid tillfället med artiga applåder av auditoriet, men reaktionerna från såväl Israel som arabvärlden tycks ha varit överlag svala. Också den palestinska myndighetens “president”, Abu Mazen, vägrade efter talet erkänna Israel som en judisk stat; Mazen anses ändå vara en “liberal” jämfört med den oförsonliga inställning som präglar Hamas. I USA fanns det dock gott om positiva omdömen.

För det mest översvallande stod Evan Thomas, redaktör vid tidskriften Newsweek, som i en kommentar på MSNBCs program “Hardball” bland annat sade: “I mean in a way Obama´s standing above – above the world, he´s sort of God.” Obama=Gud! Se och hör själva:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4VZ8xCzOg

Andra menar däremot att det mera lutar åt att Obama är Anti-Krist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxfDEdG0qBs&NR=1

Alla överdrifter åsido kvarstår det faktum att Obama är en ideologiskt övertygad socialist, vilket i mina ögon är tillräcklig illa. Dessutom finns det enligt mitt sätt att se skäl att förmoda att Obama inte på djupet insett det hat som möter den judiska staten Israel från den militanta arabvärldens sida, vilket har att göra med såväl religiösa som etniskt/kulturella faktorer. Därför tror jag tyvärr inte den amerikanske presidentens lena röstläge i Kairo bidrar särskilt mycket till att dämpa hatet.

Slutligen kan jag inte låta bli att citera några rader från ett “scoop” av Eli Kling vid Israel National News. Kling uppger, med glimten i ögat, att han efter Obamas tal i Kairo hittade några tillknycklade pappersark på podiet från vilket Obama hållit sitt tal. Detta talkoncept, här i svensk översättning, kom emellertid aldrig till användning:

“Varför inte lära av en av era grannar i Mellanöstern, ett litet land som tagit emot tiotusentals flyktingar, många av dem överlevande av folkmordets fasor i Andra världskriget. Dessa människor satt inte och klagade och tyckte synd om sig själva. Ta en titt och se vad några judiska flyktingar kunde åstadkomma under de senaste 60 åren, trots det faktum att de förföljts i nästan varje land där de bodde. de producerar mer idéer, uppfinningar och farmaceutiska genombrott än hela den muslimska världen tillsammans. De är en perfekt förebild för den muslimska världen.Istället använder ni dem för att världen skall ursäkta era misslyckanden.”