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.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)–Following is the text of a U.S. State Department press briefing given on Wednesday by George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy for Middle East peace.  He was introduced by State Department spokesman Robert Wood.

by Alexei Barrionuevo, for The New York Times, November 22, 2009.

BRASÍLIA — Brazil’s ambitions to be a more important player on the global diplomatic stage are crashing headlong into the efforts of the United States and other Western powers to rein in Iran’s nuclear arms program.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president, is set to receive Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, here on Monday in his first state visit to Brazil. The visit is part of a larger push by Mr. da Silva to wade into the seemingly intractable world of Middle East politics, and follows visits in the last two weeks by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, and Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority.

But the visit is drawing criticism from lawmakers and former diplomats here and in the United States, who say it could undercut Western efforts to press Iran on its nuclear program, and consequently chill Brazil’s relations with the United States and damage its growing reputation as a global power…(continue reading)

Le sous-secrétaire général aux affaires politiques, Haile Menkerios, a dressé un bilan mitigé des efforts entrepris depuis le 14 octobre 2009, relevant que la situation entre israéliens et palestiniens était toujours dans l’impasse. Tout en saluant les États-Unis pour tenter de rapprocher les parties israélienne et palestinienne, il a estimé que l’annonce du président de l’autorité palestinienne, Mahmoud Abbas, de renoncer à se porter candidat à la prochaine élection présidentielle montrait que le processus politique en cours prônant la solution de deux États était faible.

Mahmoud Abbas

En l’absence d’engagements mutuels des parties israélienne et palestinienne de mettre pleinement en œuvre les obligations en vertu de la feuille de route et de remplir les conditions pour les négociations,” une impasse s’est progressivement établie et il faudrait la surmonter”. Soulignant que la proposition du gouvernement israélien de freiner au lieu de geler les activités de peuplement était devenue un des principaux obstacles à une reprise des négociations, M. Menkerios est revenu sur les derniers incidents en date survenus à Jérusalem-Est.  Il a notamment évoqué la décision des autorités israéliennes prise le 17 novembre 2009 d’approuver la construction de 900 nouveaux logements pour étendre considérablement la colonie de Gilo, qui est implantée dans la banlieue sud de la ville sainte. M. Menkerios a rappelé que le secrétaire général de l’ONU, Ban Ki-moon, ainsi que les membres du quatuor continuaient d’estimer que de telles mesures, impliquant l’éviction de familles palestiniennes et causant de graves tensions, sapaient les efforts de paix et jetaient le doute sur la viabilité d’une solution à deux états.  Il a en outre attiré l’attention sur le fait que la persistance des divisions entre palestiniens, en dépit de la médiation de l’Égypte pour permettre la tenue d’élections présidentielle et législatives en 2010, constituait un autre obstacle à la paix dans la région. Concernant la situation financière de l’autorité palestinienne, le sous-secrétaire général a annoncé que sans une aide internationale supplémentaire, l’autorité palestinienne subirait une pression fiscale qui risque de compromettre son fonctionnement. Pour ce qui est de la situation dans la bande de Gaza, M. Menkerios a déclaré que plus de 10 mois après la fin de l’opération “plomb durci”, les principaux éléments de la résolution 1860 du Conseil de sécurité n’étaient toujours pas appliqués. “Nous restons préoccupés par les conséquences à long terme du bouclage de Gaza, en particulier à cause de la détérioration des infrastructures publiques, de l’environnement et des habitations”, a-t-il indiqué. Il a annoncé que pour répondre aux besoins urgents de la population, le bureau de la coordination des affaires humanitaires -OCHA- mettait la touche finale à un plan d’intervention pour l’hiver axé sur la fourniture de carburant et de matériels destinés à protéger des effets du froid les habitations, les écoles et les hôpitaux.

If you think the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is ready for the next round of peace talks consider this quote: “I say this clearly; I do not accept the Jewish State.” Thus spoke Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stated, “Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians recognize the Jewish State is ruining the chance for peace.”

While I could continue to document the hate filled rhetoric of both Palestinian and Arab leaders, I chose the above two examples specifically.

Abbas is the head of the terror group that is reportedly the representative of the Palestinian people, thus if he does not recognize Israel as a legitimate sovereign nation, then the Oslo Accord and all subsequent agreements are null and void.

As the leader of Egypt (a so called moderate Arab nation and a nation supposedly at peace with Israel)  it is clear that peace through a two nation system inclusive of the Israelis and Palestinians is neither a reality nor the ultimate goal.

Israel’s obligation was to exchange land for peace. They gave up the land but have not gained peace. The powers that be refuse to acknowledge their legitimate existence are the same ones doing the killing.

Since Hamas has driven Fatah out of Gaza and is trying to remove Fatah from the Judea-Samaria area,  there is a two nation existence that of Fatah and Hamas with Israel caught in the middle. The apostle Paul wrote of men crying peace and safety being followed by sudden destruction. Today is that very time.

Auszug aus “Eine Linie im Sand” von Uri Avnery (übersetzt von Ellen Rohlfs und Christoph Glanz), erschienen bei Tlaxcala (Originalartikel: “A Line in the Sand”):

Als Obama vor einem Jahr gewählt wurde, weckte er große Hoffnungen in der muslimischen Welt, beim palästinensischen Volk wie auch im israelischen Friedenslager. (…)

Jeder glaubte,  eine neue Ära hätte begonnen. Anstelle eines Kampfes der Kulturen, der Achse des Bösen und all den anderen idiotischen, aber verhängnisvollen Slogans aus der Bush-Ära endlich ein neuer Weg der Verständigung und Versöhnung, gegenseitigen Respekts und praktischer Lösungen. (…)

So hoch wie die Erwartungen damals  waren, so  tief ist die Enttäuschung jetzt. Nichts von alledem hat sich erfüllt. Es ist sogar noch schlimmer: die Obama-Regierung zeigte durch ihre Aktionen und Unterlassungen, dass sie wirklich  nichts anderes ist als die Regierung von George W. Bush.

Vom ersten Augenblick an war klar, dass der entscheidende Test mit der Schlacht um die Siedlungen kommen würde.

Es könnte so aussehen, als handele es sich nur um Nebensächlichkeiten. Wenn Frieden innerhalb von zwei Jahren erreicht wird – wie Obamas Leute es uns versichern – warum  sich dann über ein paar neue Häuser in den Siedlungen aufregen, die sowieso aufgelöst werden? Da werden dann ein paar tausend Siedler mehr umgesiedelt werden müssen.  Na und ?

Aber das Einfrieren des Siedlungsbaus ist bedeutsam und dies weit über die  damit zusammenhängenden praktischen  Konsequenzen hinaus. Ich möchte noch einmal auf die Metapher des palästinensischen Anwalts zurückkommen: „Wir verhandeln über die Teilung einer Pizza, und unterdessen isst Israel die Pizza auf.“

Das amerikanische Bestehen auf dem Einfrieren des Siedlungsbaus in der ganzen Westbank und in Ost-Jerusalem wurde zum Signal von Obamas neuer Politik. Wie in einem Western-Film zog Obama eine Linie in den Sand und erklärte: bis hierher und nicht weiter!  Ein wirklicher Cowboy kann sich von solch einer Linie nicht zurückziehen – ohne  als feige angesehen zu werden.

Genau das ist es, was geschehen ist. Obama  hat die Linie , die er selbst in den Sand gezogen hat, gelöscht. Er hat die eindeutige Forderung eines totalen Einfrierens aufgegeben. Binyamin Netanyahu und seine Leute verkündeten stolz – und laut – dass ein Kompromiss erreicht worden sei –  Gott bewahre, nicht  mit den Palästinensern (wer sind sie schon ?), sondern mit den Amerikanern. Sie haben Netanyahu erlaubt, hier und dort zu bauen – um des „normalen Lebens“ willen und wegen des „natürlichen Wachstums“, um „im Bau befindliche Projekte zu beenden“ und  unter anderen durchschaubaren Vorwänden ähnlicher Art. In Jerusalem, der „Ungeteilten Ewigen Hauptstadt“ Israels, wird es  natürlich überhaupt  keine Beschränkungen geben. Kurz gesagt, die Siedlungstätigkeiten gehen in vollem Schwung weiter.

Um der Beleidigung  noch eine Kränkung  hinzuzufügen, machte sich Hillary Clinton persönlich   nach Jerusalem auf, um Netanyahu mit salbungsvollen Schmeicheleien zu überschütten. Es sei noch nie vorher solch ein Opfer für den Frieden gebracht worden, katzbuckelte sie.

Das war sogar für Abbas zu viel, dessen Geduld und Selbstbeherrschung legendär sind. Er zog die Konsequenzen. (…)

Sicher kann man Obama verstehen. Er steckt mitten in einem politischen Überlebenskampf an der sozialen Front, die Schlacht um die Krankenversicherung; die Arbeitslosigkeit wächst weiter; die Nachrichten aus dem Irak sind schlecht; Afghanistan wird schnell zu einem zweiten Vietnam. Noch vor der Preisverleihungsfeier sieht der Friedensnobelpreis fast wie ein Witz aus. (…)

Aber es ist unmöglich zu vergeben, was sich jetzt tatsächlich  abspielt. Nicht die skandalöse Behandlung des Goldstone-Berichtes seitens der Amerikaner; nicht das ekelhafte Verhalten von Hillary in Jerusalem; nicht die verlogene Rede über die „Zurückhaltung“ bei den Siedlungsaktivitäten. Um so mehr, als dies mit völliger Nichtbeachtung der Palästinenser vor sich geht, als wären sie nur Statisten in einer Oper. (…)

Die amerikanische Politik im „weiteren Nahen Osten“ kann mit einem Rezept in einem Kochbuch verglichen werden: „Man nehme so und soviel Fett, einige Eier, mische mit Zucker und Mehl …“

Im realen Leben: Man nehme eine angesehene lokalen Persönlichkeit, gebe ihr die Abzeichen der Herrschaft, führe „freie Wahlen“ durch, trainiere seine Sicherheitskräfte und mache ihn zu einem Subunternehmer.

Dies ist nicht das Originalrezept. Viele koloniale und Besatzungsregime haben es in der Vergangenheit benützt. Was bei den Amerikanern so besonders ist, ist die Anwendung von „demokratischen“ Requisiten für das Schauspiel. Selbst wenn eine zynische Welt kein Wort davon  glaubt, muss man an die  Zuschauer zu Hause denken.

So wurde es in der Vergangenheit in Vietnam gemacht. Auf diese Weise wurde Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan und Nouri Maliki im Irak gewählt. So wurde es mit Fouad Siniora im Libanon gehalten. So sollte Muhammad Dahlan im Gazastreifen installiert  werden (im entscheidenden Augenblick kam ihm aber die Hamas zuvor). In den meisten arabischen Ländern ist dieses Rezept nicht nötig, da die etablierten Regime den Erfordernissen genügen.

Abbas sollte diese Aufgabe erfüllen. Er trägt den Titel Präsident, er wurde in fairen Wahlen gewählt, ein amerikanischer General trainiert seine Sicherheitskräfte. In den folgenden parlamentarischen Wahlen wurde seine Partei zwar vernichtend geschlagen, doch die Amerikaner ignorierten einfach die Ergebnisse und die Israelis verhafteten die unerwünschten Parlamentarier. Die Show muss weitergehen. (…)

Abbas führt die von Arafat 1974  gelegte Linie fort: ein palästinensischer Staat innerhalb der Grenzen von vor 1967 mit Ost-Jerusalem als seiner Hauptstadt. Der Unterschied liegt in der Methode. Arafat glaubte an seine Fähigkeit, die israelische Öffentlichkeit zu beeinflussen. Abbas beschränkt sich darauf, mit den Regierenden zu verhandeln. Arafat glaubte, er müsse in sein Arsenal alle Mittel des Kampfes aufnehmen: Verhandlungen, diplomatische Aktivitäten, bewaffneten Kampf, PR, trickreiche Manöver. Abbas setzt alles auf eine Karte: Friedensverhandlungen.

Abbas will kein palästinensischer Marschall Petain sein. Er will nicht der Chef eines lokalen Vichy-Regimes werden. Er weiß, dass er auf einem schlüpfrigen Abhang steht und  hat entschieden, aufzuhören, bevor es zu spät ist. (…)

Obama war vollkommen überrascht. So etwas war noch nie geschehen: ein amerikanischer Kunde, der total abhängig von Washington ist, rebelliert plötzlich und stellt Bedingungen. Es ist genau das, was Abbas jetzt getan hat, nachdem er erkannt hat, dass Obama nicht in der Lage ist, die wichtigste Grundbedingung zu erfüllen: das Einfrieren des Siedlungsbaus.

Vom amerikanischen Standpunkt aus gibt es keinen Ersatz. Tatsächlich gibt es einige gute und glaubwürdige Leute in der palästinensischen Führung als auch Korrupte und Kollaborateure. Aber es gibt keinen, der in der Lage ist,  die ganze Westbankbevölkerung um sich zu scharen.  Der erste Name, der einem einfällt, ist immer Marwan Barghouti, aber er sitzt im Gefängnis, und die israelische Regierung hat schon angekündigt, dass sie ihn nicht entlassen will, selbst wenn er gewählt werden würde. Es ist auch keineswegs klar, ob er unter den augenblicklichen Umständen  bereit ist, die  ihm zugedachte  Rolle zu spielen. Ohne Abbas fällt das ganze amerikanische Rezept unter den Tisch.

Auch Netanyahu war äußerst überrascht. Er benötigt  inhaltslose, vorgetäuschte Verhandlungen als Tarnung für die Verschärfung der Besatzung und  zur Vergrößerung der Siedlungen. Ein „Friedensprozess“ als Ersatz für Frieden.  Mit wem soll er „verhandeln“, wenn es keinen anerkannten palästinensischen Führer gibt? (…)

(Gesamten Artikel lesen)

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM, Nov. 14– This is one of those times to wonder if ridicule or serious analysis is in order.

The occasion is a combination of two moves by the Palestinian leadership. It is not even clear which of the two warrants ridicule or analysis, or if they are both just part of the noise coming out of a entity with doubtful credibility. Perhaps they deserve no more attention than the bull sessions heard in the halls of a legislature, or in the dorm rooms of individuals aspiring to make a splash in student government.

One of the moves is a threat by the ostensible president of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, to resign or not to run for re-election if Israel is not immediately forthcoming with respect to Palestinian demands. The other is to seek international recognition for an independent Palestine with the borders of 1967 and Jerusalem as its capital.

To be precise, it is not clear whether the threat is to resign, or not to run for re-election. The picture is confused by the formal end of Abbas’ term some months ago, which has led the Hamas leadership to declare that he is no longer the president. There is a further problem insofar as the Palestinian Election Commission has indicated that it may not be possible to implement the election scheduled for January, and Hamas has indicated that it will not let Gazans vote in an illegal election.

President Barack Obama, the heads of several European governments, and prominent Israelis in and out of government have urged Abbas to continue.

No doubt it would be easier for those saying he should stay if he accepted their call. Leaving aside the human factor (Doesn’t an ineffective 74 year old have a right to retire?), his continuation would avoid learning how to deal with someone new.

Some of those urging him to stay on are making the claim that “there is no one who could fill his shoes.” Apparently they come from places where the cemeteries are not already filled with indispensable people.

Palestinians are threatening that if Abbas goes, the only viable candidate is Marwan Barghouti. He has a following of unknown size in the West Bank, but was convicted of involvement in numerous murders and is serving several life sentences in an Israeli prison. One doubts that the Israeli government will respond with a “Sure, why not?” to Barghouti’s selection.

The other threat is that without Abbas, the Palestine National Authority will collapse, Israel will be saddled with governing the West Bank, and that will advance the idea of one country from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, with majority (i.e., Palestinian) rule.

If the Palestine National Authority does collapse, it is more likely that Israelis will not notice the difference from what currently exists. Those who do notice will be overseas Palestinian investors who are remaking the faces of Ramallah and Jenin. Perhaps their threats to halt the financial inflows will move the Palestinians in a direction of realism.

Those overseas investors might also work to moderate the Palestinian maneuver to seek international recognition for an independent state with the borders of 1967 and Jerusalem as its capital.

No doubt there are many unworthies of the world who will support the Palestinians. Will they notice that Israel surrounds the Palestinian areas of the West Bank, controls who and what moves in and out, including water and electricity? Will they pay attention to existing agreements between Israel and Palestinians that make changes of the kinds indicated dependent on an agreement of both parties?.

Enough analysis? Or is this ridicule?

*
(November 15)

This overloaded news day provokes a secular and politically moderate Israeli to ask if the greater threat against a good life comes from Palestinians or Haredim (ultra-Orthodox)?

In an effort to avoid curses from Jewish readers, I will neither answer that question, nor identify myself as the secular, politically moderate Israeli who is asking it.

Let’s start with a cartoon in today’s Ha’aretz.

The text reads that the Haredi community is moving to high-tech. The picture shows the good men pushing their burning trash bin from the parking garage open on the Sabbath to an Intel facility, which this week announced that its production lines in Jerusalem would be working on the Sabbath.

Several hundred Haredim protested, threw things, and tried to break into the building. The police let them do their thing until they began attacked the front door. Before the Haredim attacked them, television journalists were able to film confrontations between individuals wanting to work and Haredim asserting that they were violating God’s law.

It is another open question as to whether the villains in this piece are the Haredim, the police, or the Intel management.

The hope is that the police were wise in keeping a low profile, letting the Haredim express their need to protest, and that the Haredim will abandon this mission after a few weekends, like they seem to have abandoned the parking garage without success.

The Intel management is not entirely innocent. This facility is in an industrial park only a short walk from a Haredi neighborhood. Working on the Sabbath any place in Jerusalem (except overtly Arab neighborhoods) is an invitation to protest, and something only a couple of hundred meters downhill from a Haredi neighborhood even more so.

Before the weekend, Intel’s Israel management indicated that the work must go on. If not, the company would consider pulling out of Jerusalem and perhaps even out of Israel.

That escalation would risk legal problems as well as management headaches. Intel has research and development as well as production facilities in Israel, with its largest facility south of Tel Aviv. It has received substantial financial inducements from the Israeli government, which entail some obligations on the part of the company.

We can hope for calm and good sense, without expecting it to erupt in the next week or two. And for the Haredim to stay in their communities, running their own lives without trying to impose their laws on the rest of us, while the Palestinians also pass over their rough patch of dire threats.

Anyone wanting to bet a shekel or two?

*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University

By Yacov Ben Efrat

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen)

Sixteen years after signing the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have concluded that there isn’t any point in continuing the peace process with Israel. That is the only way to understand the declaration by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) that he won’t run in the next elections for the presidency of the Palestinian Authority (PA). I shall argue that he should have pulled out years ago, but better late than never. The Israeli side refuses to believe him, seeing the announcement as a public relations stunt. Just two months ago his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, announced his plan “for establishing a Palestinian state within two years,” and here comes the boss and shuffles the cards. The Palestinians went astray, it seems, in their attempt to rescue something from the peace process, given a right-wing government that has arisen in Israel and contradictory signals from Washington.

Abu Mazen’s resignation would be a big blast of no confidence where the peace process is concerned, but more than that, it expresses major disappointment with Barack Obama. Washington is largely responsible for the severe erosion in Abu Mazen’s position with the Palestinian public. It all began with Obama’s very promising speech in Cairo, where he committed himself to act for a Palestinian state with territorial continuity. On the heels of that speech he made a clear demand that Netanyahu stop construction in the settlements. Since then everything has been downhill, to the point where the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, praised Netanyahu for his “unprecedented concessions regarding the settlements.”

Clinton’s statement was the last straw. It came amid a series of humiliations suffered by Abu Mazen, who had expected the Americans to stand by their call for a freeze. Because of the initial US position, Abu Mazen went out on a limb, conditioning the renewal of negotiations on a freeze. However, when the UN General Assembly convened in September, Obama made him sit together with Netanyahu at a three-cornered meeting. Apart from a weak handshake, it produced nothing.

The nadir occurred when, pressed by the Israelis, the Americans demanded that Abu Mazen put off discussion of the Goldstone Report before the UN Committee on Human Rights in Geneva. The claim was that the discussion could delay the resumption of talks between the PA and Israel. Abu Mazen yielded. The result was to stall the anti-Israel momentum that had gathered around the report. The PA president’s accommodating attitude drew fire from the entire Arab world, giving a first-class propaganda weapon to Hamas. Then came Hillary with her praise for Netanyahu, demanding that Abu Mazen enter negotiations with “no preconditions.”

In the light of all this, we should view Abu Mazen’s threat to resign as a message to all interested parties: The game is over! Sixteen years of a sterile process must end now! I am not going to be led down the garden path by the Israelis and the Americans, I am not going to yield to their demands, and therefore I proclaim my withdrawal from the game. He confronts the sides with an ultimatum: The PA in its present form has outlived its purpose. Either it becomes an independent state or finis.

In such an event there are two possibilities. The first is that the international community will have to take over responsibility for the Territories. The second is that Israel will bring back the military administration, with all the political and economic ramifications that implies. The bizarre “co-existence” between the Occupation and the PA will have reached its term, and likewise the odd phenomenon of a peace process serving as cover for settlement expansion.

It seems that the message has been heard by the White House. This was apparent in the chilly reception that Netanyahu got during his most recent visit. Obama refused to confirm the meeting until the last minute. During their late-night private session, no doubt, Obama conveyed who’s boss. Netanyahu’s preening swagger each time he rejected the American entreaties, as well as the endeavors of special envoy George Mitchell, ended in something really “unprecedented”: the humiliation of an Israeli chief of state, when the White House refused to photograph the meeting or stand before the press, demanding instead from Netanyahu that the content of the talk not be leaked. For his part, Netanyahu contributed nothing solid that could lead to renewal of negotiations.

Netanyahu may try to plead innocent. He entered his second term as PM at a time when the Oslo Accords were nothing but a bitter memory. Yet he too contributed to their failure. In his first term, in 1996, he did all he could to torpedo them. The strained agreements about staged withdrawals and percentages, the division of Hebron, the violence after he opened the northern end of the Western Wall tunnel, all played a part in ending the dreams of peace from the days of Yitzhak Rabin. Since then we have gone through the Barak, Sharon and Olmert regimes, which wasted time, expanded the settlements, raised the separation wall, and helped to elevate Hamas to power. It is no wonder, then, that the PA has suffered a loss of credibility. It has fallen to Netanyahu to decide whether to end this conflict or cope with the consequence of not doing so: dissolution of the PA.

To end the conflict seems out of the question. Netanyahu has hamstrung himself with his right-wing coalition. How could he possibly make the demanded concessions—dismantlement of settlements, division of Jerusalem, and an arrangement for the refugees—and still keep Avigdor Lieberman’s party with him in the government, not to mention right-wing fundamentalist Shas (many of whose constituents live in those settlements)? And how, in such a case, could he possibly hold the Likud together, including right-wingers like Benny Begin and Moshe Ya’alon? But the problem is even more difficult. When we read the Israeli political map today, we see that there can’t be a ruling coalition without the right-wing parties. Kadima too, now in the opposition, wasted the time that it had under Olmert; it wasn’t prepared to give Abu Mazen the slightest commitment in writing, for fear of Shas and Lieberman. It’s ironic: Shas, party of the Mizrahi (Eastern) Jews, together with Lieberman’s party of the Russians, together hold the country by the throat. For years the Likud (including many in today’s Kadima) inflamed the public against the Left, cultivating racist hate against Arabs, and now we reap the crop.

Abu Mazen’s step also puts Hamas in a delicate situation. What will happen to the Hamas regime in Gaza and its demand to be recognized as the legal government? Hamas has been playing a two-faced game. It exploited the Oslo Accords in order to participate in the elections of 2006, which brought it to power. Simultaneously, it has done its utmost to undermine these Accords. Hamas used the Palestinian parliament as an umbrella for its legitimacy as a political party, but its military wing acted separately to destroy the agreements that the parliament is based on. If the PA comes apart, what will happen to the Gaza Strip? Will Hamas establish an alternative Authority? Or will it return to its underground days and implement a scorched earth policy?

There remains the question as to why it was necessary to undergo all the deaths, the blockade, the wall, the settlements, the roadblocks, the unemployment, a civil war between Hamas and Fatah, and now the destruction in Gaza—in order to reach a point where the PA collapses. For there was never a justification for the PA’s existence: that should have been obvious in the first place. Why has it taken so long to grasp the fact that the Oslo Accords could not lead to statehood, but merely perpetuated the Occupation? The answer seems simple enough: There are those within Fatah who gain from the perks of office. There is a thin, corrupt layer that has made itself rich on the backs of the people. For this reason we should not be surprised if a last-minute formula turns up once again to rescue the “peace” process. The existence of the PA, after all, isn’t only a comfortable arrangement for Israel, but also a source of easy profit to all who make a living off this hollow apparatus, including the regime that is headed by Abu Mazen.

Source: Challenge

Steve Bell

The hope invested by many in Barack Obama has dissolved. Dare I sing ‘I told you so’? I do. The audacious hope of Obamamania was always faith-based, founded on the believer’s premise that the handsome candidate didn’t mean what he actually said, that we should read his words esoterically, as code for profound radicalism. Now reality bites, and we discover that his promises to AIPAC and the military were solid and literal.

It’s certainly something that a black man has become president of a country built by African slaves, although we must place this in the context of the fierce racist backlash since his election (would those guardians of the constitution raving about the tree of liberty being watered by the blood of tyrants be quite so eager to wear their guns on their sleeves if the president were white and not a jumped-up negro? I doubt it). But that’s the achievement of Obama’s skin colour, not his policy; in fact it’s the achievement of the people who voted for him. Another achievement is that – in the company of war criminals such as Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin and Henry Kissinger – Obama has already won the Nobel peace prize. Hooray!

But let’s get back to reality, the reality of blood and tears as suffered in the arc of American-led or funded conflict. As promised, Obama has escalated the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and put no pressure at all on apartheid Israel as it gobbles up the few remaining slivers of Palestine. His address to the Muslims in Cairo was sweeter in tone than what we had become accustomed to, but remained an offensive imperialist lecture. He pontificated about hijabs (he called them hajibs) and the education of women, and repeated the Bernard Lewis-Dick Cheney orientalist line about “a self-defeating focus on the past”, instead of addressing American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and backing for assaults on Lebanon and Somalia in the present. He mocked Palestinian resistance and misrepresented the history of black resistance in America while he was about it. He failed entirely to mention the enormous violence meted out to the Palestinians by Zionism. But he won applause for this: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.”

The applause was undeserved. The key words here are “continued” and “construction.” It quickly became clear that the policy was to call for a freeze on settlement building, but not to dismantle any of the ‘facts on the ground’ illegally established since 1967. In return for the freeze, Palestinians were to give up their right of return to the 78% of their country from which they were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Obama quickly assured Israelis that no pressure would be brought to bear if they refused to freeze settlement construction; and indeed, when Netanyahu said that he might think about freezing a little, but didn’t actually freeze anything, Hillary Clinton praised Israeli flexibility. Dollars and weapons continue to flow to the apartheid state, while mini-kristallnachts continue in Jerusalem. Of course, if the aim were really a two-state solution, Obama would call not for a freeze on new building but for settlers to either be removed from the West Bank and Jerusalem or to agree to live under Palestinian rule. But there won’t be a two-state solution, just the constant theatre of a process towards one.

As this becomes more glaringly evident, Mahmoud Abbas’s collaboration with the occupation becomes ever more impossible to justify. Therefore Abbas has made the dramatic gesture of announcing that he won’t stand for election again. If this is truly the end of him, it’s great news. Saree Makdisi summarises why here. But sadly, it’s probably just more theatrics. Those Israeli and Western leaders who enjoy the ‘peace process’ – which has dispossessed and caged the Palestinians as effectively as any war – make public and private calls for Abbas to reconsider. In a tragic echo of the Arab police states, Fatah-organised demonstrations in Ramallah limply repeat the slogans they’ve been told to repeat, to the tune ‘Come back Abbas.’ But Abbas never went away. His term of office ran out in January while he was suppressing genuine demonstrations in support of Gaza, yet he’s still in his seat. There may never be real elections in Palestine again, and Abbas may heroically refuse to stand in these phantom elections, but he will still consider himself president.

Hemmed in and exhausted, suffering for lack of intelligent leadership, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza seem to have few options. It is certain, however, that any illusions they may have invested in the Oslo process (or the Road Map, or whatever the latest irrelevant formula is) have long ago dissolved. The best that can be hoped for at this stage is an honest admission that this is the case, and the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority whose only purpose is to manage the occupation. More than half of the Palestinian people live as refugees in neighbouring countries. These people need to be brought back into the debate, as do the Palestinian Israelis. Then a new leadership may emerge to demand a one state solution.

The one state already exists. The problem is that it’s an apartheid state, in which half the people are citizens without nationality (the Palestinian Israelis), or residents whose residency can be revoked at any time (east Jerusalem), or subjects of military occupation (the West Bank and Gaza). The Palestinian question is a question of human and civil rights, of equality. Two-state dream talk takes the focus away from this.

But the vast majority of Israeli Jews oppose equal rights for the natives of Palestine, preferring the status quo or some other permutation of the bantustan model. As a result, many liberal ‘realists’ in the West tell the Palestinians they must forget equality in one state. In a typically excellent article, Ali Abunimah points out that until the final years of apartheid in South Africa, the vast majority of South African whites, including many opponents of apartheid, refused to countenance one man – one vote. But minds were changed by the positive vision of an inclusive future offered by the ANC and by an international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

A reconstituted PLO to represent all the Palestinians wherever they are and a final abandonment of the two-state illusion would allow for the formulation of an inclusive vision. As for us in the West, the best way to work for justice and peace is BDS. Israel like white South Africa considers itself to be part of the West, and is dependent on the West for trade and political support. It is therefore very vulnerable indeed to the BDS weapon. It is to be hoped that a popular boycott will lead to corporate disenchantment with apartheid, and finally to governmental sanctions.

One of the beauties of BDS is that you can take a small step towards justice each time you go shopping. My mother and I worked gently and steadily on our local grocer until he stopped stocking Israeli produce. Supermarket chains are bigger fish. Any time you’re in you can ask to see the manager. Then very politely, very reasonably, explain why you won’t be buying Israeli goods and why their presence on the shelves is so disturbing. Ask for your comments to be registered and passed upwards. The Co-op is to be congratulated for not stocking produce from West Bank settlements but must be encouraged to extend this ban to all Israeli goods. Morrisons (customer service: 0845 611 6111 / head office: 0845 611 5000) and Waitrose (customer service: 0800 188 884) stock anything Israeli they can, including from settlements. So I phoned Morrisons yesterday and registered my complaint with a flustered lady who said “we’re being subjected to a campaign today.” I said my piece, but worried afterwards about ‘today’. We should be calling them tomorrow, next week and next month too. More ideas and contact information is available here).

Hope is a good thing. More important than Obama is the popular energy unleashed by his electoral campaign. I hope that instead of despairing those whose hopes have been shattered will learn a lesson. The lesson is this: nothing positive can ever come of the empire changing its top face. Power is very clever at theatrics. We mustn’t allow ourselves to be taken in. If we want to make the world a little better we have hard work ahead, not to encourage our neighbours to vote for the bright new guy, but to expose lobbies (like the Zionist lobby) and cultural discourses (like the racism, orientalism, and Christian Zionism which perpetuate Zionist successes), and to encourage our neighbours, markets and business partners to do the right thing.

Il n’y a pas de doute possible. Le peuple palestinien est sacrifié par la communauté internationale qui ferme les yeux sur une injustice abyssale. Comment comprendre qu’on exige aujourd’hui aux Palestiniens de retrouver la table de négociations sans condition, alors que le camp d’en face, israélien, lui, refuse de geler la colonisation, crachant une fois de plus sur le vrai préalable à la reprise du processus de paix ? Mahmoud Abbas semble être pris subitement d’une crise de conscience, après avoir été le vrai fossoyeur de son peuple, foulant au pied ses intérêts, pour les siens propres.

There are some things in life one never understands. After years of bashing each other, Israel and the Palestinians stand close enough to resume peace negotiations. Close, it seems but not close enough.

Israel now says it is ready having gotten the US to waffle on whether Israel must stop completely with the building of settlements on the West Bank. The PLO (Authority) says, however, that without a complete halt, there can be no negotiations. From most Americans perspective, this seems reasonable but these opinions do not count.

To break this impasse, PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas has said he will resign soon. This has sent a wake up call to all interested parties. Without Abbas there is no credibility to the PLO side and no one to negotiate with (or even just make believe you are negotiating). The price to get Abbas to continue? You guessed it, stop the building of settlements.

Common sense should dictate this as the correct action, not with standing the negotiation value of trading land for peace.  Unfortunately too many Israelis claim a biblical right (god gave them this land) to much of the West Bank. Even a cursory knowledge of history would inform someone that lots of different groups have occupied this land before and after the Jews of the Bible. So if the Biblical Jews won in battle this land, does that mean that Greeks can regain Asia Minor?

Recently, Israeli naval forces seized a ship ladened with arms originating in Iran. The ship was supposedly destined for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. This week Saudi Arabian forces were fighting on land and at sea against Yemeni rebels who are being supplied with money and arms by Iran. What do these have in common? Hezbollah and the Yemeni rebels are Shiites and their continued success is helpful to Iran’s national ambitions as well as their unbelievable religious goals.

The Israeli Government needs to put a lib on the Jewish extremists who insist on keeping land they think “god gave them”. There is an opportunity to leverage the Sunni-Shiite madness and carve out a peace with the Palestinians on the West Bank. With that settled, Gaza looks much more solvable.

MAHMOUD ABBAS is fed up. The day before yesterday he withdrew his candidacy for the coming presidential election in the Palestinian Authority.

I understand him.

He feels betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama.

A YEAR ago, when Obama was elected, he aroused high hopes in the Muslim world, among the Palestinian people as well as in the Israeli peace camp.

At long last an American president who understood that he had to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not only for the sake of the two peoples, but mainly for the US national interests. This conflict is largely responsible for the tidal waves of anti-American hatred that sweep the Muslim masses from ocean to ocean.

Everybody believed that a new era had begun. Instead of the Clash of Civilizations, the Axis of Evil and all the other idiotic but fateful slogans of the Bush era, a new approach of understanding and reconciliation, mutual respect and practical solutions.

Nobody expected Obama to exchange the unconditional pro-Israeli line for a one-sided pro-Palestinian attitude. But everybody thought that the US would henceforth adopt a more even-handed approach and push the two sides towards the Two-State Solution. And, no less important, that the continuous stream of hypocritical and sanctimonious blabbering would be displaced by a determined, vigorous, non-provocative but purposeful policy.

As high as the hopes were then, so deep is the disappointment now. Nothing of all these has come about. Worse: the Obama administration has shown by its actions and omissions that it is not really different from the administration of George W. Bush.

FROM THE first moment it was clear that the decisive test would come in the battle of the settlements.

It may seem that this is a marginal matter. If peace is to be achieved within two years, as Obama’s people assure us, why worry about another few houses in the settlements that will be dismantled anyway? So there will be a few thousand settlers more to resettle. Big deal.

But the freezing of the settlements has an importance far beyond its practical effect. To return to the metaphor of the Palestinian lawyer: “We are negotiating the division of a pizza, and in the meantime, Israel is eating the pizza.”

The American insistence on freezing the settlements in the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem was the flag of Obama’s new policy. As in a Western movie, Obama drew a line in the sand and declared: up to here and no further! A real cowboy cannot withdraw from such a line without being seen as yellow.

That is precisely what has now happened. Obama has erased the line he himself drew in the sand. He has given up the clear demand for a total freeze. Binyamin Netanyahu and his people announced proudly – and loudly – that a compromise had been reached, not, God forbid, with the Palestinians (who are they?) but with the Americans. They have allowed Netanyahu to build here and build there, for the sake of “Normal Life”, “Natural Increase”, “Completing Unfinished Projects” and other transparent pretexts of this kind. There will not be, of course, any restrictions in Jerusalem, the Undivided Eternal Capital of Israel. In short, the settlement activity will continue in full swing.

To add insult to injury, Hillary Clinton troubled herself to come to Jerusalem in person in order to shower Netanyahu with unctuous flattery. There is no precedent to the sacrifices he is making for peace, she fawned.

That was too much even for Abbas, whose patience and self-restraint are legendary. He has drawn the consequences.

“TO UNDERSTAND all is to forgive all,” the French say. But in this case, some things are hard to forgive.

Certainly, one can understand Obama. He is engaged in a fight for his political life on the social front, the battle for health insurance. Unemployment continues to rise. The news from Iraq is bad, Afghanistan is quickly turning into a second Vietnam. Even before the award ceremony, the Nobel Peace Prize looks like a joke.

Perhaps he feels that the time is not ripe for provoking the almighty pro-Israel lobby. He is a politician, and politics is the art of the possible. It would be possible to forgive him for this, if he admitted frankly that he is unable to realize his good intentions in this area for the time being.

But it is impossible to forgive what is actually happening. Not the scandalous American treatment of the Goldstone report. Not the loathsome behavior of Hillary in Jerusalem. Not the mendacious talk about the “restraint” of the settlement activities. The more so as all this goes on with total disregard of the Palestinians, as if they were merely extras in a musical.

Not only has Obama given up his claim to a complete change in US policy, but he is actually continuing the policy of Bush. And since Obama pretends to be the opposite of Bush, this is double treachery.

Abbas reacted with the only weapon he has at his command: the announcement that he will leave public life.

THE AMERICAN policy in the “Wider Middle East” can be compared to a recipe in a cookbook: “Take five eggs, mix with flour and sugar…

In real life: Take a local notable, give him the paraphernalia of government, conduct “free elections”, train his security forces, turn him into a subcontractor.

This is not an original recipe. Many colonial and occupation regimes have used it in the past. What is so special about its use by the Americans is the “democratic” props for the play. Even if a cynical world does not believe a word of it, there is the audience back home to think about.

That is how it was done in the past in Vietnam. How Hamid Karzai was chosen in Afghanistan and Nouri Maliki in Iraq. How Fouad Siniora has been kept in Lebanon. How Muhammad Dahlan was to be installed in the Gaza Strip (but was at the decisive moment forestalled by Hamas.)  In most of the Arab countries, there is no need for this recipe, since the established regimes already satisfy the requirements.

Abbas was supposed to fill this role. He bears the title of President, he was elected fairly, an American general is training his security forces. True, in the following parliamentary elections his party was soundly beaten, but the Americans just ignored the results and the Israelis imprisoned the undesirable Parliamentarians. The show must go on.

BUT ABBAS is not satisfied with being the egg in the American recipe.

I first met him 26 years ago. After the first Lebanon War, when we (Matti Peled, Ya’acov Arnon and I) went to Tunis to meet Yasser Arafat, we saw Abbas first. That was the case every time we came to Tunis after that. Peace with Israel was the “desk” of Abbas.

Conversations with him were always to the point. We did not become friends, as with Arafat. The two were of very different temperament. Arafat was an extrovert, a warm person who liked personal gestures and physical contact with the people he talked with. Abbas is a self-contained introvert who prefers to keep people at a distance.

From the political point of view, there is no real difference. Abbas is continuing the line laid down by Arafat in 1974: a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The difference is in the method. Arafat believed in his ability to influence Israeli public opinion. Abbas limits himself to dealings with rulers. Arafat believed that he had to keep in his arsenal all possible means of struggle: negotiations, diplomatic activity, armed struggle, public relations, devious maneuvers. Abbas puts everything in one basket: peace negotiations.

Abbas does not want to become a Palestinian Marshal Petain. He does not want to head a local Vichy regime. He knows that he is on a slippery slope and has decided to stop before it is too late.

I think, therefore, that his intention to leave the stage is serious. I believe his assertion that it is not just a bargaining ploy. He may change his decision, but only if he is convinced that the rules of the game have changed.  

OBAMA WAS completely surprised. That has never happened before: an American client, totally dependent on Washington, suddenly rebels and poses conditions. That is exactly what Abbas has done now, when he recognized that Obama is unwilling  to fulfill the most basic condition: to freeze the settlements.

From the American point of view, there is no replacement. There are certainly some capable people in the Palestinian leadership, as well as corrupt ones and collaborators. But there is no one who is capable of rallying around him all the West Bank population. The first name that comes up is always Marwan Barghouti, but he is in prison and the Israeli government has already announced that he will not be released even if elected. Also, it is not clear whether he is willing to play that role in the present conditions. Without Abbas, the entire American recipe comes apart.

Netanyahu, too, was utterly surprised. He wants phony negotiations, devoid of substance, as a camouflage for the deepening of the occupation and enlarging of the settlements. A “Peace process” as a substitute for peace. Without a recognized Palestinian leader, with whom can he “negotiate”?

In Jerusalem, there is still hope that Abbas’ announcement is merely a ploy, that it would be enough to throw him some crumbs in order to change his mind. It seems that they do not really know the man. His self-respect will not allow him to go back, unless Obama awards him a serious political achievement. 

* This article was written by Uri Avnery on the 07.11.09.

The Palestinian president has said he will resign, leaving no apparent heir for non-Hamas Palestinians. The New York Times article to which I just linked says that Abbas feels betrayed by those who ostensibly supported the peace process. With the aid of quick Google search, it’s pretty easy to see that Abbas betrayed himself. From a piece by Jackson Diehl, the deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Post:

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert’s peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down. “The gaps were wide,” he said.

The Financial Times, a respected publication, typically takes the “European Intelligentsia’s” approach to international relations.  This approach places style over substance and often conflicts with common sense.  A recent Financial Times article titled; “A Man Humiliated“, referred to Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas.  The article stated:

“The decision by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, not to run for re-election next year looks like the act of a man who has reached the end of his political tether.  He is the principal Palestinian advocate of a negotiated two-state peace agreement with Israel.  If he stands by his threat to quit it could deal a devastating blow to that process, if not destroy it.”

This view of the Palestinian president and the Palestinian Authority is delusional.  The so-called peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians has been ongoing since the 1993 Oslo Accords without progress.  How could a change in Palestinian leadership somehow hurt a non-existent process?

Since becoming President of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas has lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas.  A substantial portion of the Palestinians in Gaza became so disillusioned with Abbas’s corrupt regime, that they instead chose this terrorist group as their leaders .  This is not the history of a successful president or one that is important to a peace process.

The peace effort between the Palestinians and Israelis has failed because there is no meeting of the minds between the two sides.  Israel wants to continue to exist as a Jewish state.  While the Palestinians often talk a good game for public relations, they have never renounced their demand for the “Right of Return”.  Through the Right of Return, the Palestinians want the ability for any Palestinian family that left Israeli since its creation or their living relatives to have the right to return to Israel proper.  This would end Israel as a Jewish state since the Palestinian population would become an instant majority.  This is the something Israelis cannot except under any circumstance.  But, the Europeans and their press ignore this reality.  Instead they focus only on Israeli settlements and continue to march down a fairy tale peace process.

While diplomacy is the preferable solution to any international problem, it can only occur when both sides truly want a solution and that means compromise.  This is not created by diplomats, but by realities on the ground.

A Palestinian demonstrator gestures atop the separation barrier, moments after knocking down a segment of the concrete wall, during a protest against the barrier in the West Bank village of Nilin, near Ramallah, Friday, Nov. 6, 2009. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday he does not want to run for another term in the January elections, blaming a stalemate in Mideast peace talks on Israel and the United States. (AP Photo/Bernat Armangue)

==

Officials in the West Bank told The Daily Telegraph that the most important Palestinian decision making bodies were preparing to meet to discuss a proposal to dissolve the Palestinian Authority itself.

Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, November 6, 2009

The announcement by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he will not run for reelection is the exclamation point on the utter collapse of the Obama adminstration’s Middle East policy. Launched to great expectations — the appointment of George Mitchell, Obama’s Cairo declaration that the plight of the Palestinians is intolerable — it is now in complete disarray. It is, without doubt, the first major defeat for Obama’s hope-and-change foreign policy.

Continues >>