• Congo massacre witnesses were threatened [AP]
• UN chief urges new election date for Cote d’Ivoire [China News]
• Education not Execution: Uganda’s Defilement problem [Independent]
• Did Mbeki really support, for a while at least, the Equatorial Guinea coup attempt? [The Daily Maverick]
• Israel announces plans to limit West Bank construction for 10 months [LA Times]
• Burma engagement offers false hopes [Sydney Morning Herald]
• Indonesian government may allow mining in protected forests [The Jakarta Post]
• Haiti: UN troops shoot again [World War 4 Report]
• Blood Oil [VF]

In honor of his speech a few days ago, in which he praised mass-murderers Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and terrorist and murderer “Carlos the Jackal”, the supreme council of the Silverwolves’ Forestry Action Committee has decided to award the Venezuelan jackanapes its “Pigasus Maximus” award. This is not awarded in honor of the President’s porcine appearance, so different from the lean looks of his fellow countrymen, but rather to reward him for his moral turpitude in praising some of the worst mass-murdering criminals in history. Chavez has shown the true moral values of the far Left, indistingushable from the moral values of the Nazis, and it is for that reason that we Silverwolves have honored him with our annual award, so eagerly sought after by some of the world’s most heinous war criminals.

Of course we can well remember the mass-murderer Idi Amin, who is estimated to have murdered around 300,000 Human Beings. After expelling the South Asians, consisting of old Indian and Pakistani families who had mostly gone into trading in Uganda, Amin murdered his 300,000 Christians and Animists, mostly by bashing in their heads. As you may well recall, the reaction of Jimmy Carter was to say it was disgusting, leave it at that, and then permit the genocide to go ahead, just as his fellow party member Bill Clinton did a score of years later in Rwanda. Both men could have quickly stopped the genocides with American military intervention. Both found the “moral courage” to let massive numbers of women and children be bashed and hacked to death without lifting a finger to intervene. Shows how the Democrats really care about people. Especially Black Folk.

And Chavez seems to forget, though he probably approves it, the fact of the massive involvement of the PLO in propping up Amin’s reign of terror and bloodshed. And according to the UN-Published Book “Uganda and Human Rights”, Amin’s head torturer was the PLO member Ali Tawili, whose favorite game was to remove his victim’s anus with a bayonet during interrogation. These are the men that Hugo Chavez praises and holds up to the world as heroes.

And of course, he can’t forget his fellow despot Robert Mugabe, whose security forces have murdered, tortured, and starved countless Zimbabweans. I suppose dripping molten plastic on the genitals of men and women by Mugabe’s security forces is a form of political argument that Chavez can well appreciate. And the mass starvation of children due to Mugabe’s inflation, well, that small potatoes to Hugo the Porcine, who certainly hasn’t had a hunger pang since he’s been in office, judging from his girth.

The crimes of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are legion and well known right now, since the press has been focusing on them the last few years. Hanging children for being gay, denying the Holocaust, threatening to commit mass-murder against Israeli civilians, murdering and torturing his own people when they dissent, rigging elections — there’s certainly a lot there for Chavez to praise. Probably a foretaste of life ahead in the Venezuelan Marxist paradise.

And finally, not to be left out is the mass murderer and Fascist terrorist, Carlos the Jackal. Evidently Hugo thinks it a great travesty of justice that Carlos rots in a French jail for murder. One can only wonder what the Venezuelan conception of the Law will be under El Pigasus Maximus. Certainly one radically different from the Anglo-Jeffersonian view of the law.

To deny mass murder and praise murderers is not only deeply disgusting, but it is a crime. Hugo Chavez has committed the crime of praising murderers, excusing their genocidal crimes, and encouraging terrorism. He is obviously one of the greatest Miscreants currently roaming the face of the earth, along with the child-murderer Ahmedinejad. Until he is removed from office, Jeffersonian-Libertarians should institute a boycott of all Venezuelan goods and services, and refrain from trading in the Bolivar, in order to teach the people who voted this Miscreant into power, that there is an economic price to pay for spitting on Morality.

Therefore, with the power vested in me as spokesman for the Silverwolves’ Forestry Action Committee, I, Lobo Silverwolf, do hereby invest Hugo Chavez with our “Pigasus Maximus” Award, which he richly deserves. May the millions of victims of those he praises achieve Justice.

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Causes

Finally, we come to the question, how did the war start? It is fair to say that the seeds for this war were planted in 1949, when the Arab armies trying to destroy the nascent Israel were routed, and that the Suez Crisis of 1956 raised tensions in the region even more. But to call those things causes of the Six Day War is like saying World War One caused World War Two; and since the Franco-Prussian War caused World War One, and the Napoleonic Wars caused the Franco Prussian War, we can say that the French Revolution caused World War Two. This is too much of a stretch. Without going back to far, the buildup to the Six Day War started three years earlier, in 1964.

In that year, Levi Eshkol, Israel’s prime minister, and Yitzhak Rabin, its chief of staff agreed on the aims of Israel’s defence policy for the first five year plan for the military. The plan said that the State of Israel did not wish for more territory. Israel would not initiate conflict with an Arab state but if war were imposed on it, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would move swiftly into the enemy’s territory and destroy its war infrastructure.

More significantly, it was the year border clashes with Syria got deadlier. There were three sources of tension on the border: the demilitarised zones, water and Palestinian guerrillas. Moshe Dayan, Defence Minister during the Six Day War, said that in at least 80% of the clashes with Syria, “We would send a tractor to plow someplace where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarised area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.” The Israelis were provoking the Syrians.

In addition, the water issue began in 1964. Israel began withdrawing water from the Jordan River. At a conference, the Arab League approved a $17.5m plan to divert the Jordan river at its sources, drastically reducing the quantity and quality of Israel’s water. Knowing that Israelis would not sit back while their country dried up, the same conference also created a United Arab Command to protect the project and prepare for an offensive campaign. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation, or PLO, was yet another outcome of the conference. The Arab League began construction on its diversion plan the next year. The IDF attacked the diversion works in Syria in 1965, exacerbating the border tensions that led to the war.

In February 1966, an extreme left wing, anti-Zionist Baath regime took power in Damascus. It called for a popular war to liberate Palestine and sponsored Palestinian guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets. These guerrilla attacks were not about to wipe Israel off the map, but they fanned the flames of mutual hostility between Israel and Syria.

Palestinian guerrillas, mainly Arafat’s Fatah, carried out 122 raids between January 1965 and June 1967. They were mostly staged from Lebanon and Jordan, but the guerrillas were largely armed, trained and run by Syrian general staff. In response to one such attack, the Israeli Defense Forces attacked the village of Samu on the West Bank. Dozens of Jordanian soldiers were killed. The attack shocked King Hussein and exposed his military weakness. On April 7, 1967, following a border skirmish, the Israeli Air Force shot down six Soviet-made Syrian MiGs in an air battle. The Syrian government was in a rage. The countdown to the Six Day War had begun.

Because the survival of the Baath regime was important to the USSR, the Soviets sent a report to Nasser that Israel was concentrating its forces on its northern front and was planning to attack Syria. The report was false. Some who were observing at the time said that, although the Soviet warning about Israel’s amassing troops on its northern border was wrong, the Israeli cabinet was planning to attack Syria and the Soviets had gotten wind. Nasser knew the report was untrue but he felt that, as the Arab world’s leadership was in question, he could not fail to act. Syria already had a defense pact with Egypt. There is general agreement among historians that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. What he did was brinkmanship: pushing Israel to the brink and hoping war would not be necessary.

He did so for several reasons. First, he could not afford to look weak in front of his restive public. A major share of his army was already in the Sinai, and it would have been humiliating to pull them back. Second, the other side of the coin, continuing the troop buildup would enhance his status at home and in the Arab world. Indeed, reactions to the move were, in Michael Oren’s words, “enthusiastic, even ecstatic”. Finally, if there was no imminent threat to Syria, Nasser could take credit for increasing Egypt’s troop presence in the Sinai without fear Israel would attack. After all, he had already been assured it would not.

Nasser sent a large number of troops into the Sinai, removing the UN troops already there, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Straits were important because, although few Israeli vessels actually transversed the Straits, it was where Iranian oil tankers exporting to Israel sailed. But more importantly, according to Aharon Yariv, Israel’s chief of intelligence, failure to act to end the blockade of the Straits would make Israel lose its credibility and deterrent capacity. These tools have been essential for Israel ever since.

In all countries, the masses were whipped into a war frenzy. They heard about the hourly radio reports from Arab countries about Israel’s impending doom, and the general feeling was of a noose tightening around the nation’s neck. Israel’s Holocaust survivors were particularly scared when Israeli newspapers likened Nasser to Hitler. According to Charles Krauthammer, “It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks [before the war]. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight. With troops and armor massing on Israel’s every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel. ‘We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants,’ declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, ‘and as for the survivors–if there are any–the boats are ready to deport them.’”

Everyone predicted a war. Eshkol was expecting a war; Cairo Radio said “our forces are in a complete state of readiness for war”; Syria’s government said “The war of liberation will not end except by Israel’s abolition.” Israel’s preemptive strike on its enemies was justified to end the tension and the fear–to stop waiting to die and start fighting to survive.

On May 12, in a newspaper interview, Rabin said “the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government”. On May 19, Rabin told his generals, “[t]he politicians are convinced they can solve the problems through diplomacy. We have to enable them to exhaust every alternative to war, even though I see no way of returning to things the way they were. If the Egyptians blockade the Straits, there will be no alternative to war.” Nonetheless, Rabin also did not think Nasser wanted war.

On May 30, King Hussein flew to Cairo to sign the mutual defense pact with Nasser. An Egyptian general was appointed commander of Jordan’s army. On June 3, two Egyptian commando battalions were flown to Jordan, and on the following morning an Iraqi mechanised brigade crossed into Jordan and moved to the Jordan River. Egypt and Iraq, traditional enemies, signed a mutual defense pact.

Israel attacked when it did because it obtained approval from the US. Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defence, gave Israel a green light to attack Egypt. However, Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, said he was outraged that Israel attacked at all.

What was the most important factor in starting the Six Day War? At a glance, it would appear to have been Nasser and Egypt’s amassing of troops in the Sinai and closing of the Straits of Tiran and Gulf of Eliat. The closing of the Straits was an act of war in itself. But historians disagree with this explanation. First, there is evidence that Nasser did not want war. His public was highly belligerent but he knew Egypt could not simply defeat and occupy Israel. He had learned from the Suez Crisis of 1956.

Second, there are alternative explanations. Avi Shlaim says that border skirmishes with Syria were the main cause of the war. “Israel’s strategy of escalation on the Syrian front was probably the single most important factor in dragging the Middle East to war in June 1967″. Israel had been forced to abandon its plan to divert water from the Jordan in the central demilitarised zone to the Negev desert (southern Israel) in 1953. The Arab states, led by Syria, poked and prodded Israel by diverting the Jordan River. Israeli and Syrian troops clashed and Israel gained the upper hand. “Having been defeated in the water war,” says Shlaim, “the frustrated Syrians began to sponsor attacks on Israel from their territory by Palestinian guerrilla organisations.” The violence escalated.

Michael Oren believes that, because (arguably) water politics led to fighting on Israel’s northern border, more than anything else, “the war would revolve around water.” The Arab League’s plans to take most of Israel’s water was provocation bigger than its threats, and the dry noose was the catalyst for Israel’s decision to strike.

Diplomacy came to naught. Tempers were not defused, the noose was not given any slack, and the push to war continued. At 07:45 on June 5, Israel attacked Egypt, beginning the Six Day War and setting in motion all the conflicts and killings Israel has suffered or delivered since.

Bibliography

Oren, Michael: Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Finkelstein, Norman: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Shlaim, Avi: The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
Morris, Benny: Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001
Charles Krauthammer: Prelude to the Six Days: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701976.html

The complete Short History of the Six Day War can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22787004/A-Short-History-of-the-Six-Day-War.

Man kan til tider opleve, i debatter om Israel og konflikten med palæstinenserne, at Israel bliver fremstillet som nazister og beskyldt for at have “overtaget” nazisternes praksis..

Det er et interessant fænomen, omend jeg synes det er et trist fænomen og jeg har svært ved at se det som andet end et udtryk for anti-semitisme, hvor man tager jøderne som ofrerne for en hadsk ideologi og gør dem til netop forbryderne.. Egentlig er det faktisk en syg form for argumentation og retorik, som man benytter sig af i de tilfælde, hvor man forsøger at sidestille Israel med nazisternes menneskehadske metoder og tanker..

Nu sidder jeg jo og læser en del om anti-semitisme og anti-zionisme for tiden (og det er svært ikke at blive bare en smule deprimeret), og har pt. fokus på anti-semitisme i den arabiske verden..

Der er jeg så stødt i en interessant passage fra Matthias Küntzels “Jihad and Jewhatred” om netop dette:

Secondly, for Yassin and Arafat the subject of the Holocaust – the central experience in the establishment and attitudes of the State of Israel – has remainded taboo, as has that of the role of the Mufti in National Socialism. No post-Oslo PA schoolbook so much as mentions Auschwitz. When a PA official asked that this be changed, he was met with furious protests and the request was rejected. The Chairman of the Palistinian Parliament’s Education Committee declared that, “we have no interest in teaching the Holocaust.” His parliamentary colleague and Fatah leader, Hatem Abd al-Qader, added that teaching about the Holocaust would present “a great danger” for the Palestinian identity. “If such a decision [about teaching the Holocaust] is made, it will undoubtedly ruin the Palelistinian dream and aspirations. It will entirely obliterate the past, present and future of the Palestinians”. Not the slightest danger to the Palestinian identity, though, seemed to be presented by the circulation with express PA approval of Hitler’s programmativ work Mein Kampf , which reached number sic in the Palestinian Territory’s bestsellers’ list in 1999. The translator of the Arabic edition refers in his introduction to his author’s continued relevance: “Adolf Hitler does not belong to the German people alone, he is one of the few great men who almost stopped the motion of history, altered its course….. National Socialism did not die with the death of its herald. Rather, its seeds multiplied under each star.”

While the PA “sows” the seeds of National Socialism un this way, and reaps a harvest of murderous anti-Jewish actions from it, Israeli policy is presented in all its media as a continuation or even intensification of Nazism. The constant equation of Israeli and Nation Socialist policies – “Nazism of the Jews,” “Nazi-like enemy,” “Nazi-Zionist practices” – amounts to a specific form of Holocaust denial, one which legitimates the pursuit of an anti-Jewish extermination policy, while projecting these murderous intentions onto the chosen victim. – “Jihad and Jewhatred” Matthias Küntzel page 117-118

Så man fristes til at spørge: “Hvem er nazisterne?”

Nuvel, jeg er ikke ude på at beskylde alle palæstinensere for at være anti-semitiske nazister, men det virker som om at det er udbredt blandt diverse palæstinensiske ledere – ja ikke kun palæstinensiske, men arabiske ledere generelt – hvilket jeg synes er trist, mest for palæstinenserne selv, som har så mange intelligente personer, der gerne vil ændre kursen og skabe en bedre fremtid sammen med deres modstykker i Israel.. Men når al støtte går til de folk der skaber og spreder hadet, så er det svært for dem at tage kampen op.. Og her er det ikke kun Iran jeg har i tankerne, men lige så meget Israel selv (som støttede Hamas i 80′erne), det er EU (som støtter Hamas i dag) og det er USA som har allieret sig med den største eksportør af anti-semitisme, nemlig det wahabiske Saudi Arabien..

Jeg synes at Küntzels fremstilling af tingene her, er ret rammende for vore dage: Offeret fremstilles som forbryder, mens forbryder gøres til offer..

Mvh

Haneyya gov’t welcomes UNSC resolution endorsing Palestinian state

[ 18/11/2009 - 06:13 PM ]

GAZA, (PIC)– The Palestinian government of premier Ismail Haneyya has welcomed the possibility of a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state void of Israeli settlements with Jerusalem as its capital on the borders of the 4th of June 1967.

The government’s weekly session held on Tuesday evening issued a statement saying that the resolution should leave the door open for future generations to claim the remaining Palestinian lands usurped in 1948.

It said that the Ramallah authority’s idea of resorting to the UNSC coupled with the Israeli rebuff of all agreements with the PLO proved anew that negotiations have led to a dead-end.

The government appreciated the Egyptian effort in cementing Palestinian ranks, and asked Cairo to listen to the views of all factions in order to lay down a solid foundation stone for Palestinian national reconciliation.

It said that premier Haneyya had received a copy of MP Jamil Majdalawi’s initiative on the latest Egyptian paper and that it was being studied.

It renewed full backing for the Palestinian legislative council in its refusal of withdrawing its jurisdictions in favor of the PLO’s central council, which was not elected and which is illegitimate.

The government denounced the “dubious silence” on the part of the world community regarding the Israeli occupation authority’s continued judaization of occupied Jerusalem the latest of which being the authorization of building 900 settlement units in the holy city.

The government finally expressed absolute concern over the “painful incidents” in Yemen and on Saudi borders, reaffirming keenness on unity of Yemen and Saudi sovereignty on its territories. It added that enemies of the Arab and Islamic countries topped by Israel were the only ones benefiting from such bloodshed.

Haneyya gov’t welcomes UNSC resolution endorsing Palestinian state

[ 18/11/2009 - 06:13 PM ]

GAZA, (PIC)– The Palestinian government of premier Ismail Haneyya has welcomed the possibility of a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state void of Israeli settlements with Jerusalem as its capital on the borders of the 4th of June 1967.

The government’s weekly session held on Tuesday evening issued a statement saying that the resolution should leave the door open for future generations to claim the remaining Palestinian lands usurped in 1948.

It said that the Ramallah authority’s idea of resorting to the UNSC coupled with the Israeli rebuff of all agreements with the PLO proved anew that negotiations have led to a dead-end.

The government appreciated the Egyptian effort in cementing Palestinian ranks, and asked Cairo to listen to the views of all factions in order to lay down a solid foundation stone for Palestinian national reconciliation.

It said that premier Haneyya had received a copy of MP Jamil Majdalawi’s initiative on the latest Egyptian paper and that it was being studied.

It renewed full backing for the Palestinian legislative council in its refusal of withdrawing its jurisdictions in favor of the PLO’s central council, which was not elected and which is illegitimate.

The government denounced the “dubious silence” on the part of the world community regarding the Israeli occupation authority’s continued judaization of occupied Jerusalem the latest of which being the authorization of building 900 settlement units in the holy city.

The government finally expressed absolute concern over the “painful incidents” in Yemen and on Saudi borders, reaffirming keenness on unity of Yemen and Saudi sovereignty on its territories. It added that enemies of the Arab and Islamic countries topped by Israel were the only ones benefiting from such bloodshed.

Link

Posted by realistic bird under Politics Tags: Politics, palestine, US, Israeli policies, Palestinians, Israeli plans, PA authority, state

by Khaldun Gharaybeh

Crossing the Rubicon

By Khalid Amayreh, IOL

Frustrated by a chronically deadlocked peace process, under its rubric Israel continues to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Al-Quds, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is now seriously considering unilaterally declaring statehood on territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war.

Earlier this month, PA Chairman Mahmud Abbas announced that he would not seek a second term in office as a president of the self-rule authority.

Citing Israel’s adamant refusal to freeze Jewish settlement expansion, and the American failure to pressure Israel in this regard, Abbas said he would take a number of unspecified measures to save the vital interests of the Palestinian people.

Last week, Abbas’ aide, Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erakat, declared that 18 years of protracted negotiations with Israel produced no results.

Erakat said the Palestinians have been fed up with Israeli prevarications and stalling tactics.

“We have reached a decision to go to the UN Security Council to ask for recognition of an independent Palestinian state with Al-Quds as its capital within June-1967 borders,” Erakat said.

“We are going to seek support from EU countries, Russia and other countries.”

Persistent Despair

Recently, the Palestinian propensity to seek formal international recognition of a Palestinian state on the basis of the armistice lines of June 4, 1967, has become more pronounced after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Israeli settlement policy.

During her visit to occupied Palestine two weeks ago, Clinton described Israeli “concessions” pertaining to settlements as unprecedented. She also added that a total stoppage of settlement construction was never a sine-qua-non for the continuation of the peace process.

Her remarks infuriated Palestinians, including the normally calm Abbas, who responded by declaring his intention not to take part in the upcoming elections of 2010.

A number of Abbas’ aides went as far as saying that Abbas might order the dismantling of the PA itself.

The challenges facing the PA are further complicated by the difficulty of holding elections, due to Hamas’ opposition.

Hamas, which won a landslide victory in the 2006 elections, said it would not allow elections to take place in the Gaza Strip, arguing that organizing elections in the absence of national reconciliation would be a prescription for a national disaster.

Hamas has been accusing the Fateh-controlled PA of seeking to utilize the planned elections to destroy Hamas politically, probably in collusion with the United States and certain Arab regimes.

The Muslim group, which Israel has been trying to eliminate by military, economic, and other means, argued that it would be virtually impossible to hold free and fair elections under the police-state atmosphere now in place in the West Bank.

Along the same lines, the independent elections committee in Ramallah, which had been instructed to prepare for the ballots, declared last week that it would not be able to carry out its task due to Hamas’ opposition and also to Israel’s refusal to hold elections in Al-Quds, which the Jewish state considers part of its “eternal and undivided capital.”

Several Obstacles

Palestinian officials have indicated that the PA would not be too hasty in their steps toward a declaration of statehood.

In 1988, the PLO declared statehood, but the decision remained a largely symbolic feat with little effect, if any, on the ground as Israel moved to block and scuttle any expression of Palestinian sovereignty.

“We are going to prepare for this well, and to hold political and diplomatic talks. We want the UN Security Council to discuss this matter only after we have been given assurances,” said Nimr Hammad, chief political advisor to Abbas.

However, no matter how cautious and meticulous the PA will be in seeking UN endorsement of a Palestinian state, it seems that the mission will be an arduous uphill battle.

Indeed, in the absence of massive international backing, including vigorous and meaningful Arab and Muslim support, the goal of enlisting Western, especially American backing for the statehood scheme, may prove to be very illusive.

More to the point, in the absence of true Palestinian national unity, the continued showdown between Hamas and Fateh could corrode any real prospects toward achieving Palestinian statehood and ending the Israeli military occupation that started in 1967.

Israel and, to a lesser extent, the Obama administration have already reacted negatively to Palestinian plans to unilaterally declare statehood.

The extremist Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has already threatened to take “unilateral steps if the PA took unilateral ones”.

Israel’s Actions

“Any unilateral attempts by the PA will unravel the existing agreements between us, and could entail unilateral steps by Israel,” Netanyahu told a high-level gathering of Israeli and American policy makers at the Saban Forum in occupied Al-Quds on November 15.

True to character, Netanyahu resorted to red-herring tactics, alluding to the Iranian “threat” and saying that economic development would expedite peace with Palestinians.

The Israeli premier, who a few months ago indicated in a speech in Tel Aviv that any prospective Palestinian entity would have to be effectively controlled by Israel, did not spell out what steps and countermeasures he would take in response to a unilateral statehood declaration by the PA leadership.

However, Israeli commentators have pointed out that Israel could take “draconian measures” to foil the prospective Palestinian plan.

Israel could scuttle the PA financially by blocking money transfer, especially from donor countries.

Israel could assert its control of area “C” which encompasses nearly two thirds of the West Bank, enforce more Judaizing measures in Al-Quds, and assert its “divine and historical right to all of the land of Israel” — Mandate Palestine which extends from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan.

Israel could also embark on a massive campaign of home demolitions and land seizure in the West Bank and East Al-Quds, as well as disarming Palestinian security forces trained and funded by the United States.

Eventually, Israel might also re-impose its direct military occupation of all towns and population centers run by the PA, and reinstitute the erstwhile direct military regime known as “the civil administration”.

Palestinian leaders seem to be well aware of potential Israeli reactions.

Muhammed Dahlan, a member of the Fateh’s executive committee, said that the PA leadership had a “bank of ideas” as to how to outmaneuver Israelis.

In any case, it is highly unlikely that even a successful statehood declaration, enjoyed by strong international backing, would allow the Palestinians to retrieve their legitimate rights from Israel’s extremely parsimonious hands.

One Palestinian official in Ramallah, who opted for anonymity, termed the contemplated statehood declaration as merely “the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end”.

The cardinal issues of Al-Quds, refugees, and settlements, along with other important issues such as the control over water resources, would require a long and painful struggle that might last for decades.

“Hence, the statehood declaration would only be a station on the long road to freedom and independence. It will not be a consummation of anything,” The source added.

Hamas, too, is giving the cold shoulder.

Salah Al-Bardawell, a Hamas official based in the Gaza Strip, described the contemplated statehood declaration as “a desperate reaction by Fateh to the faltering peace process”.

“This move is not a meaningful declaration. It simply aims at escaping the benefits of resistance against the occupation,” he said.

“Instead of threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state to be established in the air, we should work on liberating the occupied territories and end the current internal [Palestinian] division,” He added.

Declaring a state “in the air on 20 per cent of the Palestinian land, which would be rejected by the world, is not the solution,” he argued.

“Rather, Palestinians should focus on liberating their country first and then establish statehood.”

Link

Posted by realistic bird under Politics Tags: Politics, palestine, US, Israeli policies, Palestinians, Israeli plans, PA authority, state

by Khaldun Gharaybeh

Crossing the Rubicon

By Khalid Amayreh, IOL

Frustrated by a chronically deadlocked peace process, under its rubric Israel continues to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Al-Quds, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is now seriously considering unilaterally declaring statehood on territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war.

Earlier this month, PA Chairman Mahmud Abbas announced that he would not seek a second term in office as a president of the self-rule authority.

Citing Israel’s adamant refusal to freeze Jewish settlement expansion, and the American failure to pressure Israel in this regard, Abbas said he would take a number of unspecified measures to save the vital interests of the Palestinian people.

Last week, Abbas’ aide, Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erakat, declared that 18 years of protracted negotiations with Israel produced no results.

Erakat said the Palestinians have been fed up with Israeli prevarications and stalling tactics.

“We have reached a decision to go to the UN Security Council to ask for recognition of an independent Palestinian state with Al-Quds as its capital within June-1967 borders,” Erakat said.

“We are going to seek support from EU countries, Russia and other countries.”

Persistent Despair

Recently, the Palestinian propensity to seek formal international recognition of a Palestinian state on the basis of the armistice lines of June 4, 1967, has become more pronounced after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Israeli settlement policy.

During her visit to occupied Palestine two weeks ago, Clinton described Israeli “concessions” pertaining to settlements as unprecedented. She also added that a total stoppage of settlement construction was never a sine-qua-non for the continuation of the peace process.

Her remarks infuriated Palestinians, including the normally calm Abbas, who responded by declaring his intention not to take part in the upcoming elections of 2010.

A number of Abbas’ aides went as far as saying that Abbas might order the dismantling of the PA itself.

The challenges facing the PA are further complicated by the difficulty of holding elections, due to Hamas’ opposition.

Hamas, which won a landslide victory in the 2006 elections, said it would not allow elections to take place in the Gaza Strip, arguing that organizing elections in the absence of national reconciliation would be a prescription for a national disaster.

Hamas has been accusing the Fateh-controlled PA of seeking to utilize the planned elections to destroy Hamas politically, probably in collusion with the United States and certain Arab regimes.

The Muslim group, which Israel has been trying to eliminate by military, economic, and other means, argued that it would be virtually impossible to hold free and fair elections under the police-state atmosphere now in place in the West Bank.

Along the same lines, the independent elections committee in Ramallah, which had been instructed to prepare for the ballots, declared last week that it would not be able to carry out its task due to Hamas’ opposition and also to Israel’s refusal to hold elections in Al-Quds, which the Jewish state considers part of its “eternal and undivided capital.”

Several Obstacles

Palestinian officials have indicated that the PA would not be too hasty in their steps toward a declaration of statehood.

In 1988, the PLO declared statehood, but the decision remained a largely symbolic feat with little effect, if any, on the ground as Israel moved to block and scuttle any expression of Palestinian sovereignty.

“We are going to prepare for this well, and to hold political and diplomatic talks. We want the UN Security Council to discuss this matter only after we have been given assurances,” said Nimr Hammad, chief political advisor to Abbas.

However, no matter how cautious and meticulous the PA will be in seeking UN endorsement of a Palestinian state, it seems that the mission will be an arduous uphill battle.

Indeed, in the absence of massive international backing, including vigorous and meaningful Arab and Muslim support, the goal of enlisting Western, especially American backing for the statehood scheme, may prove to be very illusive.

More to the point, in the absence of true Palestinian national unity, the continued showdown between Hamas and Fateh could corrode any real prospects toward achieving Palestinian statehood and ending the Israeli military occupation that started in 1967.

Israel and, to a lesser extent, the Obama administration have already reacted negatively to Palestinian plans to unilaterally declare statehood.

The extremist Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has already threatened to take “unilateral steps if the PA took unilateral ones”.

Israel’s Actions

“Any unilateral attempts by the PA will unravel the existing agreements between us, and could entail unilateral steps by Israel,” Netanyahu told a high-level gathering of Israeli and American policy makers at the Saban Forum in occupied Al-Quds on November 15.

True to character, Netanyahu resorted to red-herring tactics, alluding to the Iranian “threat” and saying that economic development would expedite peace with Palestinians.

The Israeli premier, who a few months ago indicated in a speech in Tel Aviv that any prospective Palestinian entity would have to be effectively controlled by Israel, did not spell out what steps and countermeasures he would take in response to a unilateral statehood declaration by the PA leadership.

However, Israeli commentators have pointed out that Israel could take “draconian measures” to foil the prospective Palestinian plan.

Israel could scuttle the PA financially by blocking money transfer, especially from donor countries.

Israel could assert its control of area “C” which encompasses nearly two thirds of the West Bank, enforce more Judaizing measures in Al-Quds, and assert its “divine and historical right to all of the land of Israel” — Mandate Palestine which extends from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan.

Israel could also embark on a massive campaign of home demolitions and land seizure in the West Bank and East Al-Quds, as well as disarming Palestinian security forces trained and funded by the United States.

Eventually, Israel might also re-impose its direct military occupation of all towns and population centers run by the PA, and reinstitute the erstwhile direct military regime known as “the civil administration”.

Palestinian leaders seem to be well aware of potential Israeli reactions.

Muhammed Dahlan, a member of the Fateh’s executive committee, said that the PA leadership had a “bank of ideas” as to how to outmaneuver Israelis.

In any case, it is highly unlikely that even a successful statehood declaration, enjoyed by strong international backing, would allow the Palestinians to retrieve their legitimate rights from Israel’s extremely parsimonious hands.

One Palestinian official in Ramallah, who opted for anonymity, termed the contemplated statehood declaration as merely “the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end”.

The cardinal issues of Al-Quds, refugees, and settlements, along with other important issues such as the control over water resources, would require a long and painful struggle that might last for decades.

“Hence, the statehood declaration would only be a station on the long road to freedom and independence. It will not be a consummation of anything,” The source added.

Hamas, too, is giving the cold shoulder.

Salah Al-Bardawell, a Hamas official based in the Gaza Strip, described the contemplated statehood declaration as “a desperate reaction by Fateh to the faltering peace process”.

“This move is not a meaningful declaration. It simply aims at escaping the benefits of resistance against the occupation,” he said.

“Instead of threatening to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state to be established in the air, we should work on liberating the occupied territories and end the current internal [Palestinian] division,” He added.

Declaring a state “in the air on 20 per cent of the Palestinian land, which would be rejected by the world, is not the solution,” he argued.

“Rather, Palestinians should focus on liberating their country first and then establish statehood.”

Patrik Antonius has raked in $878, 958 in a single hand, making it the largest pot in online poker history.

The action went down on Full Tilt Poker at $500/$1000 heads-up deep pot limit omaha and his opponent was a Swedish player known only as Isildur1.

This is how the monster hand played out.

Antonius in the big blind had  $439,479.50 behind him while Isildur1 had a slightly bigger stack at $450,494.50.

“Isildur1″ had the button and raised to $3,000. Antonius called.

The flop came  .

Antonius checked. “Isildur1″ bet $5,000. Antonius raised to $21,000, and “Isildur1″ called.

The turn was the .

Antonius led out with a bet of $48,000. “Isildur1″ raised to $192,000. Antonius pushed all-in, and “Isildur1″ called after a few moments.

“Isildur1″ showed:

Antonius showed:

Both players had two pair, Aces and Queens. “Isildur1″ had a gutshot straight draw as well, while Antonius had the nut flush draw (hearts), as well as a gutshot straight draw of his own.

The river brought the  , giving Antonius a nine-high straight and the massive $879k pot. ” [Poker-King]

Here’s a screenshot of the hand as it ended. Hectic.

Good times..

Except for Isildur1.

Dweik slams Zaanoun for threatening to transfer PLC’s powers to PLO

[ 16/11/2009 - 10:08 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)– Dr. Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the Palestinian legislative council (PLC) strongly denounced Salim Al-Zaanoun, the head of the Palestinian national council (PNC), for saying that the authorities of the PLC would be transferred to the PLO’s central council, which is a liaison council between the PLO’s executive committee and the PNC.

In a press statement to the Palestinian information center (PIC), Dr. Dweik condemned such talk as illegal, saying the PLC is the master of itself and no one can abolish and replace it or take its powers because it is a standalone system.

He added that any unelected council cannot take the place of the PLC.

For his part, Dr. Salah Al-Bardawil, the spokesman for Hamas parliamentary bloc, stated Sunday that the mandate of the PLC is four years according to the Palestinian basic law and until new elected members are sworn in, the current parliament is still active, noting that the previous PLC continued to work for 10 years.

Dr. Bardawil underlined that PLO’s central council has no power over the PLC and any talk other than that reflects imbalance in powers, infringement on the basic law, and some sort of “hectic political hallucination”.

The lawmaker stressed that the threat to withdraw the authorities of the PLC is part of the same policy which has been pursued by Fatah since the first days of the victory of Hamas in the legislative elections.

He added that those who are conspiring today to usurp the PLC’s authorities are the same people who collaborated with the Israeli occupation to imprison Hamas lawmakers, tighten the siege on Gaza and carry out military aggression on the Gaza Strip with the aim of eliminating the Palestinian resistance and giving way to Israel’s lackeys to control the fate of Palestinian people.

In another context, Dr. Bardawil downplayed the talk about the possibility of declaring a Palestinian state by one side and seeking the recognition of the UN Security Council, saying that such talk is a waste of time and an attempt to escape from the Palestinians’ right to liberate their land and the national reconciliation.

Dweik slams Zaanoun for threatening to transfer PLC’s powers to PLO

[ 16/11/2009 - 10:08 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)– Dr. Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the Palestinian legislative council (PLC) strongly denounced Salim Al-Zaanoun, the head of the Palestinian national council (PNC), for saying that the authorities of the PLC would be transferred to the PLO’s central council, which is a liaison council between the PLO’s executive committee and the PNC.

In a press statement to the Palestinian information center (PIC), Dr. Dweik condemned such talk as illegal, saying the PLC is the master of itself and no one can abolish and replace it or take its powers because it is a standalone system.

He added that any unelected council cannot take the place of the PLC.

For his part, Dr. Salah Al-Bardawil, the spokesman for Hamas parliamentary bloc, stated Sunday that the mandate of the PLC is four years according to the Palestinian basic law and until new elected members are sworn in, the current parliament is still active, noting that the previous PLC continued to work for 10 years.

Dr. Bardawil underlined that PLO’s central council has no power over the PLC and any talk other than that reflects imbalance in powers, infringement on the basic law, and some sort of “hectic political hallucination”.

The lawmaker stressed that the threat to withdraw the authorities of the PLC is part of the same policy which has been pursued by Fatah since the first days of the victory of Hamas in the legislative elections.

He added that those who are conspiring today to usurp the PLC’s authorities are the same people who collaborated with the Israeli occupation to imprison Hamas lawmakers, tighten the siege on Gaza and carry out military aggression on the Gaza Strip with the aim of eliminating the Palestinian resistance and giving way to Israel’s lackeys to control the fate of Palestinian people.

In another context, Dr. Bardawil downplayed the talk about the possibility of declaring a Palestinian state by one side and seeking the recognition of the UN Security Council, saying that such talk is a waste of time and an attempt to escape from the Palestinians’ right to liberate their land and the national reconciliation.

I en läsvärd ledare i Jerusalem Post återges några intressanta citat av PLO:s grundare Ahmad Shukeiry och den senare “presidenten” Yassir Arafat. Först Shukeiry, som före sexdagarskriget 1967, då Västbanken och östra Jerusalem var ockuperat av Jordanien sedan många år. sade följande:

The Arab people’s decision is unfaltering: to wipe Israel off the face of the map…

Arafat uttalade sig på följande sätt:

We plan to eliminate… Israel and establish a Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare…

För en tid sedan menade även Israels premiärminister Netanyahu, att Israels fiender vill att landet ska utplånas. Det meddelades här också av Jerusalem Post.

Why did the conflict rage [when] there were no settlements?” asked the prime minister, concluding that “the gist of the problem is that for 62 years the Palestinians have refused to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.”

Arafat och Shukeiry skulle säkert hålla med honom.

Nyligen menade den palestinske chefsförhandlaren Saeeb Erekat att palestinierna kanske måste överge tvåstatslösningen.

Och nu säger samme Erekat, att man avser be FN:s säkerhetsråd erkänna en palestinsk stat med östra Jerusalem som huvudstad “med 1967 års gränser”.

Det är märkligt att dessa s. k. gränser, som egentligen är stilleståndslinjer numera är så viktiga, när de inte var det alls för Shukeiry och Arafat, och kanske inte för Erekat heller verkar det. Men antagligen ser väl Erekat m. fl. en eventuell egen stat bara som ett första steg i riktning mot Israels utplåning, vilket av allt att döma fortfarande är slutmålet, så som det alltid har varit.

I stället för att vända sig till Israel med ovillkorliga villkor för att ens börja fredsförhandla, vänder man sig nu till FN med samma ovillkorliga villkor.

Slutsatsen man kan dra av detta är: Den palestinska sidan vill inte förhandla. Den vill bara genomdriva sina krav, steg för steg. Det yttersta kravet är att Israel skall upphöra att existera.

Om att detta är deras yttersta krav tycks i alla fall både den palestinska och den israeliska sidan vara överens. Återstår nu bara att övertyga omvärlden, såsom USA och EU om detta, så att de kan börja ställa några ovillkorliga krav även på den palestinska sidan.

Det grundläggande kravet på palestinierna är rimligen detta: Erkänn ovillkorligen Israels rätt att existera som judisk stat.

Länkar: SvD, Dagen, Jerusalem Post, Israel i Sverige.

***

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om antisionism, Israel, Palestina, USA, EU, Ahmed Shukeiry, Yassir Arafat, Benjamin Netanyahu, Västbanken, Jerusalem, PLO, Jordanien, Saeeb Erekat

After 1967 Six Day War, the PLO became an influential political player in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 1974, the PLO was recognized by Arab states in a meeting at Rabat and by the United Nations as the representative body of the Palestinian refugees. Through the use of terrorist activities, the PLO and its subgroups gained world attention by hijacking planes and killing Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. Their attention-grabbing techniques obviously worked as the chairman of the PLO at the time, Yasser Arafat, was invited to speak to the General Assembly in 1974. He was the first leader of a non-state to speak at the United Nations. The United Nations, days later, created Resolution 3236 which stated that the PLO was the representative of the Palestinian people, that Palestinians had inalienable rights such as self-determination, and that the United Nations will include the “Question of Palestine” on their agenda. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza eagerly supported Palestine liberation movements. Through this recognition of the PLO by countries, the United Nations, and Arab people, the PLO gained support.

Another less favorable recognition of the PLO came through Israel. Israel demanded that the states it negotiated with did not recognize or speak to the PLO. Egypt agreed to this during its peace settlement with Israel. Despite Israeli attempts to stem support from the PLO, Arab people were still mostly in support of the PLO. Sadat, former president of Egypt, may have signed the peace agreement with Israel, but the people in Egypt and elsewhere still felt that recognition of the state of Israel was wrong. Israel could not stop the United Nations from recognizing the PLO and they could not stop the Arab people. After 1974, the PLO began to moderate its position. Its goal was once to liberate Palestine from the Israelis. They changed this goal to national authority in the West Bank and Gaza which gave the world a less extreme view of the PLO.

Chatham House, otherwise known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, recently published a paper on the Palestinian Refugee issue, known as the Minster Lovell Process. The paper “looks beyond the narrow Israeli-PLO bilateral negotiations and provides a critical regional perspective”.

 More information can be found at:

• Chatham House
• The Regional Dimension of the Palestinian Refugee Issue

Link

14/11/2009 Israeli electronic site Ynet reported on Saturday that the Palestinian Authority is currently putting the finishing touches on carrying out a revolution within the Palestinian government institutions, in order to put an end to the paralyzing division, and be rid of the legislative obstacles placed by Hamas.

PA sources told Ynet that according to the plan in formation, the role of Legislative Council, which has served as the parliament since the establishment of the PA and is currently ruled by Hamas, will be usurped by the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Central Council, which will become the supreme Palestinian legislative body. Hamas is not a member of the PLO, and it will have no foothold in the council.

According to the plan, which is slated to be put in action in January, Mahmoud Abbas’ main role will be PLO head, meaning the current president, who recently announced he does not plan to run for another term in office, will remain in the same position he currently fills.

However, Abbas will also serve as the PA’s temporary acting president, since general elections called for January 24 are likely to be postponed. A final decision on the new political structure is slated to be made during a National Palestinian Council session on December 22.

In fact, the PLO’s plan is meant to nullify the results of the Palestinian election in 2006 which was democratically won by Hamas, without dismantling the Palestinian Authority. This move, even if met by Hamas resistance, will pull the rug out from under Hamas members, who say that in the absence of a PA president, this position should be filled by the chairman of the Legislative Council – Hamas’ Aziz Duwaik.

Such a step would mean that the parliament that was elected almost four years ago would be irrelevant, and a Hamas parliament speaker would have no legal status in Palestinian politics. This would leave the reins solely in the hands of the PLO, its chairman and its Central Council.

PA sources said on Saturday that in an initial response, shortly after Abbas announced he would not run for anther term as president, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said her government would continue to work with him in any role he fills.

The sources said Clinton’s response means that Abbas will continue to be the United State’s partner in the peace process even as PLO chairman, once the limitations of the Legislative Council disappear.

This may also be the reason that Hamas has recently been increasingly stating that not only is Abbas no longer a legitimate president, but that the PLO bodies are also illegitimate. Hamas has said that members of these bodies were not elected by the public, but were appointed illegally.

The move is also meant to pressure Israel, as it carries with it a certain message to the Israeli leadership – that there is only one address when it comes to the Palestinians, and not a two-headed body.

Link

14/11/2009 Israeli electronic site Ynet reported on Saturday that the Palestinian Authority is currently putting the finishing touches on carrying out a revolution within the Palestinian government institutions, in order to put an end to the paralyzing division, and be rid of the legislative obstacles placed by Hamas.

PA sources told Ynet that according to the plan in formation, the role of Legislative Council, which has served as the parliament since the establishment of the PA and is currently ruled by Hamas, will be usurped by the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Central Council, which will become the supreme Palestinian legislative body. Hamas is not a member of the PLO, and it will have no foothold in the council.

According to the plan, which is slated to be put in action in January, Mahmoud Abbas’ main role will be PLO head, meaning the current president, who recently announced he does not plan to run for another term in office, will remain in the same position he currently fills.

However, Abbas will also serve as the PA’s temporary acting president, since general elections called for January 24 are likely to be postponed. A final decision on the new political structure is slated to be made during a National Palestinian Council session on December 22.

In fact, the PLO’s plan is meant to nullify the results of the Palestinian election in 2006 which was democratically won by Hamas, without dismantling the Palestinian Authority. This move, even if met by Hamas resistance, will pull the rug out from under Hamas members, who say that in the absence of a PA president, this position should be filled by the chairman of the Legislative Council – Hamas’ Aziz Duwaik.

Such a step would mean that the parliament that was elected almost four years ago would be irrelevant, and a Hamas parliament speaker would have no legal status in Palestinian politics. This would leave the reins solely in the hands of the PLO, its chairman and its Central Council.

PA sources said on Saturday that in an initial response, shortly after Abbas announced he would not run for anther term as president, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said her government would continue to work with him in any role he fills.

The sources said Clinton’s response means that Abbas will continue to be the United State’s partner in the peace process even as PLO chairman, once the limitations of the Legislative Council disappear.

This may also be the reason that Hamas has recently been increasingly stating that not only is Abbas no longer a legitimate president, but that the PLO bodies are also illegitimate. Hamas has said that members of these bodies were not elected by the public, but were appointed illegally.

The move is also meant to pressure Israel, as it carries with it a certain message to the Israeli leadership – that there is only one address when it comes to the Palestinians, and not a two-headed body.

Link

FP, here

“…. That would be bad for Israel — but the resurrection of Hamas in the West Bank would be disastrous for the PLO. While Abbas is trying to use this possibility to threaten Israel to freeze settlement construction, it’s hard to believe he would actually shoot himself in the foot in this way. ….. In the absence of a clear path towards a negotiated peace, and especially following Hamas’s armed 2007 takeover in Gaza, the PA’s authority has greatly diminished.

Nevertheless, the dissolution of the PA would be a disaster for any hopes of peace, and for the average Palestinian. For the PLO, it would likely mark a return to “resistance” over negotiations. At the same time, the ostensible reason for the PLO-Hamas division would be erased, paving the way for reconciliation between the two parties — and, given Hamas’s decreased popularity, possibly the eventual return of the PLO’s dominance of Gaza. On the other hand, a PLO-Hamas rapprochement would strengthen the hardliners in Israel. Western support — from financial aid to General Dayton’s training of Palestinian Authority security forces — would also presumably decline with the dissolution of the PA…..”

Posted by G, Z, or B at 10:04 AM

Link

FP, here

“…. That would be bad for Israel — but the resurrection of Hamas in the West Bank would be disastrous for the PLO. While Abbas is trying to use this possibility to threaten Israel to freeze settlement construction, it’s hard to believe he would actually shoot himself in the foot in this way. ….. In the absence of a clear path towards a negotiated peace, and especially following Hamas’s armed 2007 takeover in Gaza, the PA’s authority has greatly diminished.

Nevertheless, the dissolution of the PA would be a disaster for any hopes of peace, and for the average Palestinian. For the PLO, it would likely mark a return to “resistance” over negotiations. At the same time, the ostensible reason for the PLO-Hamas division would be erased, paving the way for reconciliation between the two parties — and, given Hamas’s decreased popularity, possibly the eventual return of the PLO’s dominance of Gaza. On the other hand, a PLO-Hamas rapprochement would strengthen the hardliners in Israel. Western support — from financial aid to General Dayton’s training of Palestinian Authority security forces — would also presumably decline with the dissolution of the PA…..”

Posted by G, Z, or B at 10:04 AM

Crippling restrictions breed ‘radicalism’ and ‘militancy’ in Lebanon’s camps
By Dalila Mahdawi
Daily Star staff
Friday, November 13, 2009
BEIRUT: The deprivation faced by Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be eased to allow for a greater sense of security and prosperity among the extremely marginalized community, the chief of the United Nations Palestinian relief agency said Thursday. Karen AbuZayd, Commissioner General of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, said the extreme poverty and desperation endured by Palestinian refugees pushed disaffected youth into the clutches of militancy.

While Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Syria are seen as “enjoying the broadest spectrum of freedoms,” those in Lebanon face considerably more difficulties, she said.

“Here, the currents of vulnerability are very much in evidence,” said AbuZayd.

There are 422,188 registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, as well as an unknown number of non-registered Palestinians who fall outside of the scope of UNRWA. An additional 40,000 Palestinians reside in 42 so-called “gatherings,” or ghettoized neighborhoods consisting of 25 or more Palestinian houses.

The memory of the role Palestinians played in Lebanon’s devastating 1975-90 Civil War, the fragility of Lebanon’s sectarian and political system, the susceptibility of the country’s 12 refugee camps to foreign actors, and factional splits within the camps only exacerbated divisions between the Lebanese and Palestinians, and the Palestinians themselves, AbuZayd argued.

“In the years since the early 1990s, there has been a progressive isolation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, both in a physical sense of limiting their presence to the camps, and in terms of the constrictions and scope of economic and civil rights they enjoy,” she said.

Unlike their compatriots in Jordan, Palestinians in Lebanon do not enjoy legal status and have little access to medical, education and social services outside the provisions of UNWRA. The refugees are subject to severe restrictions of movement, forbidden from owning or repairing property and are barred from all but the most menial professions. An unknown number of Palestinians without formal identification are even more vulnerable to chronic poverty.

But AbuZayd said there were clear advantages to granting the Palestinian refugees greater rights.

“Marginalization and entrenched poverty have never served the ends of security and stability,” she said. “Restrictions breed radicalism and create an atmosphere in which disaffected youth become receptive to the call of militancy and violence.”

Boosting economic activity, raising living standards and expanding the currently limited choices afforded to Palestinians “are goals whose benefits will expand beyond the camps boundaries,” AbuZayd argued.

The existence of Palestinian and other refugees also lays a burden of duty upon the international community to uphold basic human rights during periods of asylum, she said.

So long as refugees are unable to return to their homes, the global community and host countries are “duty bound” to ensure the displaced enjoy their human rights and have access to social services and other provisions, said AbuZayd.

Her remarks came weeks before she is due to step down from her position, held since June 2005. A US national, AbuZayd has 28 years of professional experience in refugee work and previously served as an assistant secretary general of the UN and deputy commissioner-general of UNRWA.