Tag Archives: middle east peace process

Posted on by

The writing has always been on the wall

Sam Bahour

Sam Bahour

Sam Bahour


The human body is an amazing creation. It’s not only the most complex system known to mankind, but it embodies within it signals that tell its owner that something has gone wrong. A similar signaling system exists in political bodies. Those tasked with reading the signals–be they individuals, physicians or politicians–can choose to consciously ignore the warning signs. The Middle East peace process between Palestinians and Israelis has been emitting SOS signals for decades, but only recently are those signals being received and analyzed for what they are transmitting- -a clear and irreversible message that the entire paradigm of “two states for two peoples” has collapsed.

Like doctors who peddle medications instead of practicing medicine, many politicians are under the influence of their narrow political interests and prefer not to call situations by their name. After so many years of failure–political, legal, diplomatic and economic–those who are paid to diagnose and treat reality are being replaced with voices from all corners of the world, voices convincingly making the case that the entire premise undertaken by the Palestine Liberation Organization, starting as far back as 1974, is no longer feasible. Continue reading →

Posted on by

The Palestinian Bid for UN Recognition

Palestine Flag

 

Lawrence Davidson

Part I – Going to the UN for Recognition

On the 26th of July, 2011 Robert Serry, The United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East peace process appeared before the UN Security Council. Mr. Serry is a career Dutch diplomat and had led the Middle Eastern Affairs Division of the Dutch Foreign Ministry. There is every reason to believe that he knows what he is talking about. He told the Security Council that the “peace process,” that is the political process allegedly seeking a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, had reached a stage of “profound and persistent deadlock.” Attempts to resume negotiations are “extremely difficult” he said. And, “in the absence of a framework for meaningful talks, and with Israeli settlement activity continuing, the Palestinians are actively exploring approaching the UN.” That is actively considering asking for UN recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state within pre-1967 borders.

Mr. Serry’s description of the negotiations seems pretty straight forward. The two sides are stalemated. And, as the Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat noted, this stalemate follows negotiations that have stretched out over at least 20 years. Indeed, we know that in the most recent phase of these marathon negotiations the Palestinian team had dropped just about all of their original demands. Erekat told U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, that the Palestinian negotiators had done everything but “convert to Zionism.” And yet, the Israelis scorned the Palestinian’s offered compromises. As Mr. Serry indicated, Israel’s settlement of Palestinian land continues. In fact throughout this entire 20 year process colonization has gone on unabated. And, of course, all of it is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. One of the reasons that restarting any negotiations is so “extremely difficult” is that the Palestinian side has insisted that, as a prerequisite for any new talks, Israel must begin to abide by international law. Israel has refused.

So it might come as something of a surprise to the uninitiated observer that Israel and the United States are pointing fingers at the Palestinians in this affair. For instance, the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, stated in the Security Council on July 26th that “now is the time for the international community to tell the Palestinian leadership what it refuses to tell its own people–there are no shortcuts to statehood. You cannot bypass the only path to peace.” For the initiated this statement makes no sense at all. If 20 years of negotiating gets you nothing but more violence and more theft, to describe that process as the “only path to peace” is to contradict yourself.  Something that has proven incapable of achieving X, cannot be the “only path” to X. Just so, to say that there can be no shortcuts to X and therefore one must persist along a road that has historically proven not lead to X is, well, a non sequitur.

Israel’s staunch ally, the United States, also opposes, with equal illogic, the Palestinian move toward UN recognition. Rosemary DiCarlo, the US deputy ambassador to the UN, announced that the US will oppose any “unilateral action”on the part of the Palestinians at the UN. She interpreted the Palestinian move as an effort to “isolate Israel at the United Nations.” She insisted that the Palestinians resume negotiations. In response to DiCarlo, Riyad Mansour, Palestine’s UN observer pointed out that “120 countries already recognize an independent Palestinian state” and so coming to the UN is hardly a “unilateral” action on the part of the Palestinians. He went on to explain that UN recognition of a Palestinian state at this time would be “the consecration of the of the two-state solution” and help make that solution more inevitable.

Unfortunately for Mansour, his words belie the fact that Israel has no intention of allowing a meaningful two state solution. In fact all this Palestinian National Authority (PNA) talk and maneuvering goes on against the background of a stark reality: Israel is inexorably eating up Palestine. The reason decades of negotiation have settled nothing is because they were meant to settle nothing. The Israelis from the word go used the “peace process” as a cover to steal Palestinian property. They are close now to being able to present the world with a fait accompli, those ugly “facts on the ground” and they don’t want any complications.

What sort of complications? Actually, these are more psychological than concrete. As Ali Abunimah has pointed out the United Nations has never done anything to stop Israeli theft and this “symbolic” gesture of UN recognition will not impact it either. So why should the Israelis care? Well, here are a couple of possibilities: a) such a move toward recognition on the part of the UN General Assembly would actually replicate the process by which Israel itself became recognized as a state and b) this move would also echo the original intention of the UN to have Palestine divided between Jews and Arabs. Psychologically, the entire process must resonate deeply within Israeli/Zionist consciousness. It is giving them a sort of national anxiety attack.

Part II – Alternatives

Leaving aside Israel’s psychological angst and the Palestine National Authority’s [PNA] fantasy that their maneuvers will make a viable solution “inevitable,” we come back to the question of what is really most likely to work in the long term? I think that we have to confront some hard truths at this point.
1. Israel will continue to illegally swallow Palestine. For the Zionists this is a zero sum, one state game.
2. The United States will continue be an accomplice to the crime by protecting the criminal.
3. The PNA is helpless to stop this.
4. Sadly, the peace process is a fraud. A cover for the on-going crime.

So what is the path of resistance that has the greatest chance of changing the facts on the ground?

1. Well there is Hamas. Hamas is in fact the real government in Palestine if we are to take seriously the notion of democracy. That was confirmed by its victory in free and fair elections in January 2006. That makes Hamas a lot more legitimate than the present PNA and in fact as legitimate as the Israeli government. True, Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and would destroy the Zionist state if it could. But then Israel refuses to recognize Hamas and is in fact trying to destroy it. Both governments have used terrorist methods, though Israel has used them more consistently. In the end the real issue is, once more, one of power. Hamas cannot destroy Israel. Ultimately Israel can destroy Hamas. As a option for long term success, for changing the facts on the ground, Hamas does not look like the answer.

2. That brings us back to BDS: boycott, divestment and sanctions. The Israeli historian and advocate of Palestinian rights, Ilan Pappe, has pointed out that BDS as part and parcel of an overall “civil society struggle in support of Palestinian rights has been successful in key European countries.” There can be little doubt that public opinion is shifting away from Israel even in the heartland of Zionist influence, the United States. The aim of this movement is to replicate with Israel the process that brought apartheid South Africa to its knees. And, through this process, to actually realize a one state solution for Palestine. Not, of course, the one state solution the Israelis seek, but rather a new state of Palestine/Israel that offers “equality and prosperity for all the people who live there now or were expelled from it by force in the last 63 years.”

In my opinion there is actually a good chance that a worldwide BDS movement, growing steadily for say the next quarter century, can actually achieve the de-Zionization of Israel. On the other hand, creating “equality” and “prosperity” in the new state that results will have its own problems, but that is a different struggle for a different time. Right now, Ali Abunimah is right, UN recognition of Palestine as a pseudo state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip will solve nothing and may well cause more problems for the Palestinians on the ground. Alternatively, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions within the context of increasing worldwide awareness of Israel’s essential racist nature shows real promise of results in the long term. We should go with what works.

 

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

 

Dr. Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

The author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com.More articles can be found on RamallahOnline.com, Logos Journal, and Dr. Davidson also maintains an online blog, you can find it at http://www.tothepointanalyses.com

Posted on by

Abu Mazen scheduled at Netanyahu’s official residence in Jerusalem at 5pm

President Barack Obama watches as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (left) and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (right) shake hands at a trilateral meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, Sept. 22, 2009. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)
Marian Houk, 15 Sept 2010

So, he must already have arrive.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Netanyahu’s official residence in Jerusalem — the warmth of the invitation no doubt intended to melt resistance and encourage agreement, even as the Palestinian negotiators face the realization that the will have to stay the course, whatever happens to the settlement freeze…

Laura Rozen suggests here that there is logic to the idea that Netanyahu + Abu Mazen already be scheduled to meet (perhaps also with Clinton) in another week’s time in New York, in the “margins” of the UN General Assembly’s annual high-level session.

Abu Mazen’s predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, never got officially invited to Jerusalem (though it is said he was allowed to pass through, in an extremely low-key way, while en route from Ramallah to Bethlehem one time…)

Why is Abu Mazen going through with this?  For reasons that Hillary Clinton will not see, ever, while in Jerusalem or driving through the West Bank for her meeting with Abu Mazen and — of course — also with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad tomorrow…

Amira Hass wrote in Haaretz today that “A peace agreement is not a contract. It requires a change of values of a kind that does not exist within the vocabulary of the democratic Jewish state, which elevates the system of double standards to a level of virtuosity.  The people of this state are incapable of imagining themselves departing from the privileges that this system confers. And who cares if the flip side of those privileges is dispossession, suppression of freedoms and the risk of regional conflagration? The day before yesterday, Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi ) was interviewed on Army Radio’s morning broadcast, and argued that it was impossible to continue the construction freeze in the West Bank settlements while the Palestinians went on building and building. One cannot expect an interviewer on Army Radio or Israel Radio to surprise and ask, for example: ‘Since the principle of equality is suddenly so important to the settlement lobby, why then residents of Nablus and East Jerusalem cannot have a housing project in Haifa or live in Ashkelon or in a panoramic neighborhood in the Galilee, while residents of Haifa and kibbutz Hazorea are allowed to build in Nablus Heights or in the East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan? But the interviewer didn’t even correct a distortion of the facts and didn’t tell the listeners that the Palestinians cannot build at will. In the 62 percent of the West Bank under full Israeli control, known as Area C, Israel has frozen Palestinian construction for the past four decades. It can be assumed that the interviewer, despite numerous reports, is unaware of the building freeze beyond the pale of settlement allocated to the Palestinians. Natural growth only applies to Jews. In Area C, schools, kindergartens and water are only for Jews. The Mekorot Water Company’s wells in the Jordan Valley supply quantities of water to the settlements and their orchards. The water flows from the Palestinians’ land, and the pipes are fenced off. And the land is parched, because the Palestinians are not allowed to draw their own water from those pipes, as Israel imposes on them a quota which is not set to human beings’ needs. In the democratic Jewish state, within its virtual borders, it’s as clear as the sun rising in the east. If the American partner had wanted to, it would have demanded to begin evacuating the settlements, not only to continue the construction freeze. But the territory robbed by the separation barrier – Ariel, Givat Ze’ev, Ma’aleh Adumim, Efrat in its Anglo-Saxon elegance and East Jerusalem – are all within the consensus. Whose consensus? The people of the democratic Jewish state and evangelical Christians, of course. No one thinks to ask about the consensus among the residents of Palestinian cities and villages on whose land the settlements have been built. The millions of Palestinians don’t count at all”… This ref=”Amira Hass article can be read in full here.

Two days ago, Amira Hass revealed that, upon reflection, she has now come to the conclusion that it is worse to be Palestinian in [East] Jerusalem than in Gaza. She wrote in Haaretz: “I have found myself wondering which Palestinians have it the worst under the Israeli rule. For many years, I thought there was nothing worse than life in Gaza. I even argued my point with a friend, who claimed the absolute worst is to be a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship because ‘we live in the midst of the Nakba [1948 catastrophe] sites and experience the daily racism masquerading as democracy’. But for more than a year now, I have been vacillating between Gaza and Jerusalem. That is to say, I have been trying to decide which is worse – the isolation and insulation that Israel has imposed on Gaza (which includes being cut off from water sources and from the cultural, social and family ties those residents have with their People ); or the cynicism with which the decision makers continue to turn the population of East Jerusalem into welfare clients and slum dwellers, and then pride themselves of the national insurance payments they grant them. A visit to the [East Jerusalem] neighborhood of Isawiyah decided the issue. Heaps of concrete, uncollected garbage, roads that are becoming narrower due to pirate additions to buildings – forced on residents thanks to construction prohibitions and the expropriation of vacant lots – all lies in sight of the Hebrew University campus and the city’s French Hill, which are so green, spacious and civilized. And now a report from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel has confirmed my determination. The report, titled “Unsafe space: The Israeli authorities’ failure to protect human rights amid settlements in East Jerusalem“, is based on testimonies, media reports and official documents. It highlights the loss of personal and collective security in Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods, in the heart of which hostile bodies have settled over the past 30 years – settlers supported by millionaires and religious and archeological associations … The authorities who prevent Palestinians from building and developing their lands allocate vacant plots to the Jews, not only outside of the populated areas but also in their very heart. These spaces are allocated for parking or entertainment, archeological digs or construction. As these neighbors are the authorities’ darlings, confrontations are unavoidable, so the Housing and Construction Ministry provides hundreds of armed guards for the Jews at the public’s expense (some NIS 54 million in 2010 ). When [East Jerusalem] Palestinians complain to [Israeli] police about harassment [this would never happen in the West Bank], they find themselves treated like suspects. When they call the police, they feel like the officers are in no hurry to get there. And when police investigate cases in which Jews are suspected of causing bodily harm, these cases are closed swiftly. In this way, the Palestinians are left at the mercy of the aggressive, belligerent and officially sanctioned invaders. The guards, who are employed by a private company, think their position permits them to hit people, to act abusively and even to shoot. The people in whose midst these fortified complexes are sprawling are afraid to get in and out; relatives and friends think twice before coming to visit them. These complexes are also characterized by a great deal of noise – digging at archeological sites that goes on until night, and dancing and religious celebrations accompanied by anti-Arab songs… Ariel Rosenberg, the [Housing and Construction] ministry’s spokesman, firmly denies any claims that guards harass Palestinians and praises their professionalism and the instructions they receive to show restraint and forbearance. ‘In the past year’, he writes, ‘the situation in the area under discussion has significantly worsened and the guards are witness to extremely hostile activity’ … I have been able to memorize only a few Arabic adages. One I learned from one of the many villagers who was handed an expropriation order for his land. Sitting at the entrance to his home, he looked like he was attending a funeral. ‘To whom can a grain of wheat complain when the cock is the judge?’ he said, in response to my dumb question about what he planned to do”… And this Amira Hass article is posted here.

Posted on by

Abu Mazen: Focussed + on story

8117.abbas-bulldozer

Marian Houk, 6 Sept 2010

According to a report in the Jerusalem Post today, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) told one of the official Palestinian daily newspapers, Al-Ayyam, that in last weeks resumed “direct talks” with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyanu and company in Washington that ” ‘We clarified that [the Palestinian Authority] would not agree to continued Israeli presence, military or civil, within a future Palestinian state,” Abbas said … Abbas continued, ‘Borders is the topic most important to us, security is the topic most important to them’. He went on to explain that the issues of borders and security would be discussed first and that “right of return” of Palestinian refugees was of lower importance and would be dealt with later on in the talks”. This story is posted here.

In this account, AbuMazen seemed to be echoing some of the sentiments expressed by Fatah’s Mohammad Dahlan in an interview published yesterday in the Egyptian paper Al-Masry al-Youm, here.

In the interview, Dahlan said: “We support president Abu Mazen’s positions, and there are no differences within the Palestinian leadership over the methods to be adopted. I contributed to the Camp David negotiations, and I believe we do not need more talks as much as we need political decisions. Abu Mazen has already made historic moves, but Netanyahu is not mature enough to take another step. Rather, he is rather working to sabotage the two-state idea. That being said, we support President Abu Mazen in principle since he is representing the entire Palestinian nation. But the way the US convened for the negotiations, ignoring the EU and following conditions set by Netanyahu, represents an unhappy start. I am totally convinced that these talks will not prove fruitful, and I am sure the Palestinian people would agree with me”.

Here are some further excerpts:
Al-Masry: Netanyahu is adamant on the “Jewish identity” of Israel and on the issue of Israeli security. He has also challenged the right for return for Palestinian refugees. Can peace be realized in these circumstances?

Dahlan: “This is not peace, this is surrender. Not a single Palestinian will agree to Netanyahu’s conditions. The Israeli PM is a liar–he is not seeking peace. He will maintain his habit of ruining the peace process and will eventually bring destruction down on the whole region. As for us, we will keep adhering to our longstanding principles, spelled out by former president Yasser Arafat in 1988, which were re-emphasized at Camp David. If Netanyahu is seeking surrender, let him look for it elsewhere”.

Al-Masry: Can a disarmed Palestinian state ever emerge in this context?

Dahlan: “That’s a precondition we refuse. But at the same time, we are not seeking a state saddled with tanks and aircraft. We will invest in the Palestinian people after they endured 60 years of hardship by improving education, upgrading infrastructure, caring for the youth, developing the economy, and adopting a health system capable of handling the catastrophes wrought by the occupation. But we will not accept a state according to Netanyahu’s terms”.

Al-Masry: As for the direct talks now unfolding in Washington, what do you expect in terms of the post-negotiation stage?

Dahlan: “I do not hold high hopes for these talks. They are more like a party than a political process. We will argue again about all the same issues that we have always wrangled over. No doubt the same differences will emerge: over final statues issues, time schedules, deadlines and references for negotiations”.

The bottom line is, nonetheless: what can appear to be disparate Palestinian voices are actually all saying more or less the same things.

* Marian Houk is the Editor of UN-Truth news site. She is a Member of the Online News Association, Member of the Foreign Correspondents Association (in Israel) and Marian Houk is a past President (1986) of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) at UNHQ/NY

Posted on by

Incitement

Car pushed down hill by Yitzhar’s settlers outside Nablus.

Marian Houk, 30 August 2010

The fact that he is old is no excuse.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said, in a sermon at a synagogue in Jerusalem this weekend, a few days before last-ditch efforts to hold Israeli-Palestinian direct talks in Washington, that “Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] and all these evil people should perish from this world … God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians”. His remarks were reported on Israeli Army Radio [the most popular radio station in Israel] overnight.

As media reports indicate, this is not the first time that Yosef has said some truly shocking things.

It goes to show, among other things, that the brazen ugliness of hate-filled incitement is not a one-sided phenomena in this conflict.

But, supporters of Israel are by far the most vociferous in denouncing any instances of Palestinian bad behavior they can find.
They also make periodic demands that all errors be corrected before any engagement in any peace process.

Today, the Palestinian chief negotiator did the same, as his office informed journalists by email this afternoon. Saeb Erakat “called on the Israeli government to denounce and take appropriate action against the constant Israeli incitement and racism against Palestinians. Dr. Erakat’s call came after comments made by Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party, during his weekly sermon. Yosef ‘s party, Shas, is one of the main coalition members in Netanyahu’s government. [n.b. - Shas Minister Eli Yishi now heads the Israeli Ministry of Interior...] In his sermon, Yosef declared that President Mahmoud Abbas and the rest of the Palestinian people must ‘perish’ from this world … ‘The spiritual leader of Shas is literally calling for a genocide against Palestinians and there seems to be no response from the Israeli government’, Erekat said, adding that Yosef ‘is particularly calling for the assassination of President Abbas who within a few days will be sitting face to face with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Is this how the Israeli Government prepares its public for a peace agreement?’ … [Erekat also said that] ‘This type of incitement is part of Israel’s larger policy against a Palestinian state, which also includes its illegal settlements activities, forced removals and evictions, home demolitions, water theft and separating occupied Jerusalem of its Palestinian residents. They all have the same destructive goal. We call on the international community to condemn incitement to genocide by public figures in Israel’.”

Incitement – cont’d

Now, at last, at long last, the U.S. government has spoken out, and called incitement, “incitement”.

And it was on a Sunday, too, a day on which Washington is normally quiet.

The U.S. went further, and said that the remarks made by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in a sermon in a Jerusalem synagogue over the weekend (and reported after Shabbat, overnight on Sunday, by Israel Army Radio), were also “inflammatory” [a word used in Israel to describe the comments] , and “deeply offensive”.

In a statement from Washington — apparently issued because there was a clear and urgent need, in advance of meetings the U.S. has convened for 1 + 2 September to relaunch direct Israeli-Palestinian talks — U.S Assistant Secretary of State, spokesperson for Hillary Rodham Clinton, said: “We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. We note the Israeli statement that the Rabbi’s comments do not reflect the views of the Prime Minister. These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace. As we move forward to relaunch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it”.

Hours earlier, the Jerusalem Post reported that “Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday distanced himself from inflammatory comments made by Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef over the weekend in which he wished a plague on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian people. [Yosef apparently wished that Abbas would "disappear from the earth", or die; see our previous post here.] A statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office said that Yosef’s comments ‘don’t represent the views of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or the Israeli government. Israel entered into negotiations out of a desire to progress with the Palestinians toward an agreement that will end the conflict and ensure peace, security and good neighborly relations between the two nations’.” This Israeli reaction — correcting an earlier position, in which Netanyahu didn’t have much to say about Yosef’s comments, was posted here.

Yosef, who was born in 1920 in Basra, Iraq, was former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. He is referred to now as the spiritual leader of the Shas political party, one of the major haredi (ultra-orthodox and more) religious parties seated in the Israeli following February 2009 Israeli national elections.

Shas leader, Eli Yishai, who now heads the powerful Israeli Interior Ministry in what has been called Israel’s most right-wing government ever, put together by Netanyahu after the last elections, said earlier Sunday that the party stood by Yosef’s remarks.

One of Yosef’s sons is reportedly about to be elected as Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Jerusalem, in a complicated religio-political trade-off [in which, one of those who have been described as "Zionist" Rabbis will be simultaneously elected as the chief Ashkenazi Rabbi in Jerusalem, and this deal has been described as an effort "to lessen haredi influence" in rabbinical and religious issues]. See here for this report.

  • Marian Houk is the Editor of UN-Truth news site. She is a Member of the Online News Association, Member of the Foreign Correspondents Association (in Israel) and Marian Houk is a past President (1986) of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) at UNHQ/NY

Posted on by

The summit of cynicism

Palestinians attach flags to the apartheid fence (Palestine Monitor)

Marian Houk, 23 August 2010

Have we reached the summit of cynicism, yet?

[Can we get any more cynical?]

Haaretz correspondent Avi Issacharov wrote on his Haaretz blog Sunday that “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to resume direct negotiations with Israel on September 2 in Washington without any of his preconditions being met. Israel has not promised to end construction in the settlements, and the Quartet’s statement does not even mention this issue. Contrary to the demand that the Quartet’s announcement would constitute the framework for the talks, U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell was quick to make it clear this is not the way things will be. One of the leading analysts in the Palestinian media described how Abbas was forced to climb down from uncompromising stance with a term normally reserved to describe the defeat of the Arab armies during the Six-Day War. Abbas succumbed to Arab-American dictate, the analyst said, despite never having missed a chance to reiterate during the year that ‘there will be no direct negotiations without complete freeze of settlements’ … The Palestinian Authority depends on foreign economic aid and the willingness of the U.S. to pressure countries to keep the money flowing. Abbas was concerned that the Americans would, at some point, stop economic aid. In spite of opposition at home, Abbas knows that the bottom line is he could survive different opinions but not an end to economic aid. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said on Saturday that if Israel resumes settlement construction, the direct talks will stop. This will probably be the case, but at this stage, it would probably be wiser for senior PLO officials to cease climbing tall trees from which they are not sure how to climb down”. This can be read in full here.

Does this reporter believe that the U.S. will cut off aid to the Palestinians, but not to Israel? That could, of course, hypothetically happen — but it is unlikely.

YNet reporters have written today that “The PA does not believe the talks will have any concrete results, but hopes the process may bring it closer to the international community and perhaps lead the UN Security Council to recognize it as an independent state. ‘We will try to avoid any confrontations so that by August of next year we will be able to put a Palestinian state, with its established institutions, on the UN Security Council and the world powers’ agenda, so that for the first time in history they will accept their responsibility for the Palestinians’, one official said”. This is posted here

Do PA officials believe that the entire Palestinian population is ready to be fooled by this approach, yet again?

Ma’an News Agency wrote over the weekend that “Fatah has accused Hamas of stalling a potential [reconciliation] deal to avoid elections, which the Palestinian Authority postponed in January and June, citing unity before elections. The PA has enlisted a group of independent politicians to mediate between the two rival governments, while Hamas has called for direct dialogue with Fatah”… This can be viewed here.

Does Fatah (or Ma’an, for that matter) believe that Hamas will bear the brunt of the blame for stalling or scuttling a reconciliation deal? Or that it is Hamas which doesn’t want elections?

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said before the regular weekly meeting of his cabinet on Sunday that “we need a serious partner … If we have a serious partner, we can achieve an historic agreement”.

Was Netanyahu referring, here, to the Palestinian (who were not even mentioned by name) — or to the Americans?

Aluf Benn wrote in Haaretz the same day that “Expectations for the renewed negotiations are negligible. The small number of people actually interested in the peace process think Netanyahu is bluffing”. Though Aluf Benn seems to think that this means that Netanyahu can negotiate without having his hands tied too tightly, Benn adds that “The Prime Minister is entering negotiations with two primary demands: Palestinian recognition of Israel as the ’state of the Jewish people’; and the stationing of the Israeli Army in the Jordan Valley [n.b. where it is already in total control], along the eastern border of a future Palestinian state, as a buffer against the smuggling of rockets and heavy weapons. He also wants Jewish settlements in the Etzion Bloc to remain in Israel, as well as Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel, and he is committed to the unity of Jerusalem. These principles are no different from what Barak and Olmert proposed to the Palestinians at Camp David and Annapolis, respectively”… etc. This is published here.

And, in an article which discretely favors a one-state solution — as if the Palestinians really had the luxury of such a choice — John Whitbeck wrote that “Almost 17 years after the ‘Oslo’ Declaration of Principles, with its five-year deadline for reaching a permanent status agreement, was euphorically signed on the White House lawn, why should anyone take this new ‘deadline’ seriously or see any reason for hope in it? Throughout the long years of the perpetual ‘peace process’, deadlines have been consistently and predictably missed. Such failures have been facilitated by the practical reality that, for Israel, ‘failure’ has had no consequences other than a continuation of the status quo, which, for all Israeli governments, has been not only tolerable but preferable to any realistically realizable alternative. For Israel, ‘failure’ has always constituted ’success’, permitting it to continue confiscating Palestinian land, expanding its West Bank colonies, building Jews-only bypass roads and generally making the occupation even more permanent and irreversible. In everyone’s interests, this must change. For there to be any chance of success in the new round of negotiations, failure must have clear and compelling consequences which Israelis would find unappealing – indeed, at least initially, nightmarish” [i.e. - a one-state solution]. This article is posted here , and I thank Sam Bahour for the link.

However, as a cynical friend said recently in Ramallah, “The Palestinians are like the man on death row, waiting for his execution, who tells the jailkeepers that he insists on filet of beef, and not jumbo shrimp, for his final meal — ‘don’t even think about bringing me the shrimp’,” he tells them, ” ‘and the beef should be rare, not well-done, and not even medium — it has to be really, really red’ “…

Marian Houk is the Editor of UN-Truth news site. She is a Member of the Online News Association, Member of the Foreign Correspondents Association (in Israel) and Marian Houk is a past President (1986) of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) at UNHQ/NY

Posted on by

Worldfocus Interviews Dr Mustafa Barghouti

Palestine Monitor
23 November 2009
Worldfocus, a nightly broadcast focused on international news, recently interviewed Mustafa Barghouti, Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative.

During the interview, Barghouti talked about the difficulties facing the Middle East peace process labeling it as “clinically dead.” Barghouti believes stalling talks over the last decades have allowed Israel to continue its policies of illegal settlement expansions rather than work towards creating a real and lasting solution.

He also highlighted the importance of Palestinian non violence struggle against occupation, quoting it among the promising changes for the next future.

Watch the full interview clicking on:

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/11/…