By Dr Bouthaina Shaaban
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 11/11/2010
One day before the massacre perpetrated by the forces of terrorism against worshipers in Our Lady of Salvation Catholic church in al-Karada neighborhood in Baghdad, a similar terrorist attack was carried out by Jewish settlers who burned the Baptist Church on the Prophets Street in occupied Jerusalem, after they burned a number of mosques and killed worshipers as part of their attempts to Judaize Palestine. Zakaria al-Mashriqi, a leader in the church, said, “that right-wing Israeli settlers broke a number of windows of the two-storey church and hurled Molotov cocktails inside it completely burning the first floor”. The church was built in Jerusalem in 1897, and housed the Palestinian Bible College until 1948, when parishioners were pushed out by Jewish armed gangs during the violence accompanying the creation of the state of Israel”.
This is not the only Israeli attack on churches and mosques in occupied Palestine. Killing worshipers is a common criminal practice terrorist Zionist groups have mastered for over seventy years in Palestine. Baruch Goldstein opened fire on unarmed Palestinian Muslims praying inside the Ibrahim Mosque; and Zionists have made a statute for him at the entrance to Hebron. Such crimes usually pass by without any condemnation on the part of those who claim responsibility for preserving coexistence among peoples and defending religious freedom.
With the strongest possible condemnation of the horrible crime committed in Our Lady of Salvation Church, one cannot compare the reaction to crimes against churches in Iraq and those muted responses to crimes committed by terrorist Zionists against Christians and their churches in occupied Palestine: In the second case, reactions are almost non-existent. I have not seen any media coverage or political condemnation of the crime committed by Jewish settlers against the Baptist Church in Jerusalem. There was not a single condemnation from an international, Western or legal organization anywhere in the world, which means that such crimes are justified and acceptable if the perpetrators were Jewish settlers, and condemned if committed by other terrorists. This duplicity encourages the Zionist entity to persist in its crimes which aim at displacing Christians from Palestine and the East. As a result of the massacres and displacement perpetrated against millions of Palestinians since the 1940s, the number of Christians dropped to unprecedented levels despite fourteen centuries of tolerance and coexistence. Israel’s destabilizing of Lebanon led to the 1975 civil war and the consequent violence which led to mass migration on the part of Christians from Lebanon. This is what has been happening in Iraq since 2003 where Western powers are destabilizing the country for objectives related to dominating the Middle East.
The crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians do not distinguish between Muslims and Christians: the martyrs and the prisoners are always Christians and Muslims. After days of burning the Baptist Church in Jerusalem, the settlers, protected by Israeli occupation troops, attacked the Prophet Yusuf tomb in Nablus. These Zionist crimes against Arab Christians became more ferocious since Bush’s war on Iraq and even more brutal since the publication of the recommendations of the Catholic Synod for the Christians of the East which condemned violence, terrorism and all forms of religious extremism, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The Catholic Synod called on Christians to “adhere to their homeland,” stressing that “Christians are an essential component of the peoples of the region, and that they should be actively involved in the political, cultural and economic life of their countries in a context of mutual respect and continuous dialogue with people of other religions, particularly with their Muslim partners”.
Muslims, who have lived in tolerance with Christians and Jews for fourteen centuries, agree with this approach. Muslims even lived with and respected groups whose religions date back to pre-Judaism, and still live in Mesopotamia, like the Sabians who have enjoyed religious freedom and practiced their traditional occupations for thousands of years without ever being subjected to pressure, threat or aggression, except after the American occupation of Iraq. The same applies to Christians and churches in Iraq which have never been attacked since they were established, despite the political convulsions in this traumatized country. Israel is the only country which prevents Muslims from worshiping in their mosques on Fridays and religious occasions and prevents Christians from going to their churches. Yet, no one in the ‘free’ West, the defendant of human rights, dare condemn this brutal insult.
It can be asserted with certainty that Zionism is a danger, not only to unarmed Palestinian civilians whom it humiliates, imprisons and assassinates in front of the cameras of the ‘free’ world, but also to coexistence, tolerance and peace in the Middle East which has been, throughout history, a model of coexistence, tolerance and peace among followers of different religions and sects for thousands of years. Christ was born in Bethlehem in the ‘East’. Prophet Mohammad was transported from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Saint Paul embarked on his mission from Damascus carrying Christ’s message and spreading Christianity all over the world. Who are those who want to empty the East of its Christians in the same way they emptied it of Jews? Who are those who attack mosques and churches to sow conflict between Muslims and Christians, something that has never existed before the creation of Israel, which is not only usurping the holy land in Palestine, but usurping the spirit of historical and exceptional coexistence in the East.
On these grounds, confronting Zionist crimes in Palestine is the duty of all the free people of the world, not only in defense of coexistence in Palestine alone, but in defense of coexistence, tolerance and peace in the Middle East and the world at large, in the same way that killing innocent worshipers in the Lady of Our Salvation Church in Baghdad is a condemned terrorist act, every transgression against any holy place, Muslims or Christians, and worshipers, Muslim or Christian, is a terrorist act which should be condemned by the whole world.
Keeping silent towards to Israeli crimes has become a threat to the freedom, security and safety of people everywhere; so it is important to call for a correct reading of the link between the Baptist Church in the Prophets Street in Jerusalem, the Prophet Yusuf tomb in Nablus and the Lady of Our Salvation Church in Karada in Baghdad.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Another Dialogue...Another Failure
By Mohammad Salah
This comment was published in al-Hayat on 11/11/2010
There is now less or scarce talk of the direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which had started with US sponsorship and Arab blessings then had stopped after all parties failed to pressure Israel to prevent it from resuming settlement-building activities. I had written in this column before the start of these negotiations, wondering when they would stop and expecting them to fail. Yesterday began a new round of inter-Palestinian dialogue in the Syrian capital, bringing together the leaders of the Fatah and Hamas movements. This is not the first time, and it certainly will not be the last either. Thus today I wonder about the date of the next round of dialogue and about the place where it will be held, after the failure of the current round of negotiations!
In the world of politics, there is no optimism or pessimism, but rather facts, evidence, proofs, interests and balances of power. In view of all of these matters, predicting the failure of inter-Palestinian dialogue is considered logical, as the facts on the ground indicate that the most that can be achieved by Palestinian dialogue under the current circumstances is agreeing not to quarrel, fight or clash. As for imagining that dialogue between the Palestinians might lead to returning to the situation that prevailed before the Hamas movement took control of the Gaza Strip, that is a matter that falls under science-less fiction!
It is true that the alliances of Palestinian parties have come to make of Palestinian reconciliation a matter that cannot take place without regional parties having a role to play in it. It is also true that the stances of Palestinian parties on the peace process are contradictory and mutually exclusive, as it is true that the interests of common Palestinian citizens have been harmed and that life’s problems have increased for them as a result of the disputes between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. However, the situation on the ground has become well-entrenched, and interest groups have arisen for which reconciliation would be harmful and which it would strongly impact.
Some believe that the rounds of dialogue between Palestinians have become a kind of Public Relations activity, which each party resorts to in order to improve its image before the Palestinian people, the world and the regional forces that affect the Palestinian issue. Yet the dialogue itself cannot lead to real reconciliation because the geographical division has turned into a division of interests. Furthermore, the passage of months has entrenched situations on the ground which it has become difficult to backtrack from or change. Indeed, what are the advantages any party could obtain so as to relinquish the power they currently hold, which was brought about by the division?
The question is asked before every round of dialogue, a question which the parties participating do not reply, but to which we know the answer. Indeed, the current situation is ideal for both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, despite the fact that the leaders of both parties declare their concern for reconciliation, and despite the exchange of accusations between the two over the reasons for division and for failing to achieve reconciliation.
Palestinian division reflects Arab weakness, it results from it and at the same time consecrates and increases it. As long as the state of the Arabs does not improve, hopes of achieving real Palestinian reconciliation will remain mere delusions that will never find their way to reality. As for talk of the reconciliation taking place according to the Egyptian document or any other document, it does not make much of a difference. Indeed, Palestinian factions have agreed over countless documents before tearing them up at the first test. Every dialogue will fail as long as the parties to it have no real interest in achieving reconciliation through it. All active parties in the Palestinian issue may consider that the time has come to achieve a Palestinian reconciliation because it truly would achieve the interests of all Palestinians, but as long as the parties to the dialogue themselves do not realize this… there is no hope.
There is now less or scarce talk of the direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which had started with US sponsorship and Arab blessings then had stopped after all parties failed to pressure Israel to prevent it from resuming settlement-building activities. I had written in this column before the start of these negotiations, wondering when they would stop and expecting them to fail. Yesterday began a new round of inter-Palestinian dialogue in the Syrian capital, bringing together the leaders of the Fatah and Hamas movements. This is not the first time, and it certainly will not be the last either. Thus today I wonder about the date of the next round of dialogue and about the place where it will be held, after the failure of the current round of negotiations!
In the world of politics, there is no optimism or pessimism, but rather facts, evidence, proofs, interests and balances of power. In view of all of these matters, predicting the failure of inter-Palestinian dialogue is considered logical, as the facts on the ground indicate that the most that can be achieved by Palestinian dialogue under the current circumstances is agreeing not to quarrel, fight or clash. As for imagining that dialogue between the Palestinians might lead to returning to the situation that prevailed before the Hamas movement took control of the Gaza Strip, that is a matter that falls under science-less fiction!
It is true that the alliances of Palestinian parties have come to make of Palestinian reconciliation a matter that cannot take place without regional parties having a role to play in it. It is also true that the stances of Palestinian parties on the peace process are contradictory and mutually exclusive, as it is true that the interests of common Palestinian citizens have been harmed and that life’s problems have increased for them as a result of the disputes between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. However, the situation on the ground has become well-entrenched, and interest groups have arisen for which reconciliation would be harmful and which it would strongly impact.
Some believe that the rounds of dialogue between Palestinians have become a kind of Public Relations activity, which each party resorts to in order to improve its image before the Palestinian people, the world and the regional forces that affect the Palestinian issue. Yet the dialogue itself cannot lead to real reconciliation because the geographical division has turned into a division of interests. Furthermore, the passage of months has entrenched situations on the ground which it has become difficult to backtrack from or change. Indeed, what are the advantages any party could obtain so as to relinquish the power they currently hold, which was brought about by the division?
The question is asked before every round of dialogue, a question which the parties participating do not reply, but to which we know the answer. Indeed, the current situation is ideal for both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, despite the fact that the leaders of both parties declare their concern for reconciliation, and despite the exchange of accusations between the two over the reasons for division and for failing to achieve reconciliation.
Palestinian division reflects Arab weakness, it results from it and at the same time consecrates and increases it. As long as the state of the Arabs does not improve, hopes of achieving real Palestinian reconciliation will remain mere delusions that will never find their way to reality. As for talk of the reconciliation taking place according to the Egyptian document or any other document, it does not make much of a difference. Indeed, Palestinian factions have agreed over countless documents before tearing them up at the first test. Every dialogue will fail as long as the parties to it have no real interest in achieving reconciliation through it. All active parties in the Palestinian issue may consider that the time has come to achieve a Palestinian reconciliation because it truly would achieve the interests of all Palestinians, but as long as the parties to the dialogue themselves do not realize this… there is no hope.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Jordan's Parliamentary Elections: Was The Public Wiser This Time?
By Daoud Kuttab
This Comment was Published in The Jordan Times on 11/11/2010
The elections of the 16th Parliament held a number of surprises which point to the simple fact that Jordanians are wiser than many give them credit. Much work is still needed to bring about political reform and accountability, but there is no doubt that these elections have shown the political maturity of many citizens.
This growing wisdom can be seen in both the decision to boycott the poll as well as in the choices made by the people who voted. The decision by the largest opposition party, the Islamic Action Front, and a coalition of secular (mostly left wing) smaller parties, to boycott was based largely on the deficiencies of the Elections Law.
Most democracy and political reform experts agree that no serious and genuine political reform can take place in Jordan without a progressive elections law that guarantees a much fairer distribution of electoral seats.
While the temporary law for the 16th Parliament increased the quota for women candidates to 12 and allowed populated cities such as Amman and Zarqa four more seats, the inequality between a district like Zarqa and the southern district of Karak, in terms of Parliament seats compared to population, remains a major problem of the electoral process.
Furthermore, the introduction of the virtual or sectoral seats without a proper mechanism to ensure immediate transparency increased suspicion that the government whispered in the ears of some candidates which sectors of their district had weaker candidates.
The turnout, whether it is the 53 per cent that the government announced or the lesser figure the opposition insists on, shows that the Jordanian government should take seriously the legitimate positions made by the parties that called for the boycott. I am sure that in future years the government will be more attentive to and less dismissive of the legitimate demands of the opposition.
While the government exerted strong effort to make sure that these elections are run freely and fairly, it often failed to curtail the usual abuse of vote buying, some of which done obviously and clearly.
One reporter from Radio al Balad was able to tape an entire dialogue with a go-between regarding selling her vote for JD50. No arrests or serious effort was made to stop this, despite the announcement a few days before the poll that a dozen Jordanians, including one candidate whose name was never published, were detained and questioned for vote buying.
The results also showed sophistication and maturity on the part of those who did vote, contrary to earlier expectations. Of the 80 former MP who decided to run again for Parliament only one fourth made it to the Lower House. By rejecting three fourths of former MPs, Jordanian voters added their voice to that of the King who had cut short the term of the 15th Parliament.
The choices voters made Tuesday reflect a level of knowledge of candidates and their positions, and a rejection of superficial slogans. The victory of a woman candidate without the need for quota is also credit to this political maturity.
It is not clear who gets the credit for this display of maturity. Certainly the educational level of Jordanians and their political experience had something to do with this. Media, in all their forms, especially new media and social networking, clearly made a difference this time. One local community radio station organised and broadcast live 11 debates that included 41 candidates running for the Parliament in most major Jordanian cities.
Jordan’s youth, which form a large part of the population, played a key role in both the boycott of the elections and the choices made at the polling stations. Young Jordanians were the most visible group in boycott activities and also represented the working engines in the campaigns of the candidates who won against gender tribal and political odds.
The wisdom of Jordanians should not be taken for granted, however. All eyes will now be focused on the members of the 16th Parliament, to see whether the confidence placed in it will be translated in passing a set of reform laws, especially an elections law that will satisfy both Jordanians who boycotted the elections and those who voted for change and reform.
The Palestinians Of Israel Are Poised To Take Centre Stage
With the Peace Process going nowhere, common experience on both sides of the Green Line is creating a new reality.
By Seumas Milne
This article was published in The Guardian on 10/11/2010
In a quiet street in the Sheikh Jarrah district of occupied East Jerusalem 88-year-old Rifka al-Kurd is explaining how she came to live in the house she and her husband built as Palestinian refugees in the 1950s. As she speaks, three young ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers swagger in to stake their claim to the front part of the building, shouting abuse in Hebrew and broken Arabic: "Arab animals", "shut up, whore".
There is a brief physical confrontation with Rifka's daughter as the settlers barricade themselves in to the rooms they have occupied since last winter. That was when they finally won a court order to take over the Kurd family's extension on the grounds that it was built without permission – which Palestinians in Jerusalem are almost never granted. It is an ugly scene, the settlers' chilling arrogance underpinned by the certain knowledge that they can call in the police and army at will.
But such takeovers of Palestinian homes in Sheikh Jarrah have become commonplace, and the focus of continual protest. The same is true in nearby Silwan, home to upwards of 30,000 Palestinians next to the Old City, where 88 homes to 1,500 Palestinians have been lined up for demolition to make way for a King David theme park and hundreds of settlers are protected round the clock by trigger-happy security guards.
Throughout the Arab areas of Jerusalem, as in the West Bank, the government is pressing ahead with land expropriations, demolitions and settlement building, making the prospects of a Palestinian state ever more improbable. More than a third of the land in East Jerusalem has been expropriated since it was occupied in 1967 to make way for Israeli colonists, in flagrant violation of international law.
About 87,000 Bedouin live in 45 "unrecognised" villages, without rights or basic public services, because the Israeli authorities refuse to recognise their claim to the land. All have demolition orders hanging over them, while hundreds of Jewish settlements have been established throughout the area.
The Israeli writer Amos Oz calls the Negev a "ticking time bomb". The village of Araqeeb has been destroyed six times in recent months and each time it has been reconstructed by its inhabitants. The government wants to clear the land and move the Bedouin into designated townships. But even there, demolitions are carried out on a routine basis.
At the weekend, a mosque in the Bedouin town of Rahat was torn down by the army in the night. By Sunday afternoon, local people were already at work on rebuilding it, as patriotic songs blared out from the PA system and activists addressed an angry crowd.
The awakening of the Negev Bedouin, many of whom used to send their sons to fight in the Israeli army, reflects a wider politicisation of the Arab citizens of Israel. Cut off from the majority of Palestinians after 1948, they tried to find an accommodation with the state whose discrimination against them was, in the words of former prime minister Ehud Olmert, "deep-seated and intolerable" from the first.
That effort has as good as been abandoned. The Arab parties in the Israeli Knesset now reject any idea of Israel as an ethnically defined state, demanding instead a "state of all its people". The influential Islamic Movement refuses to take part in the Israeli political system at all. The Palestinians of '48, who now make up getting on for 20% of the population, are increasingly organising themselves on an independent basis – and in common cause with their fellow Palestinians across the Green Line.
Palestinian experience inside Israel, from land confiscations to settlement building and privileged ethnic segregation, is not after all so different from what has taken place in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After 1948, the Palestinians of Jaffa who survived ethnic cleansing were forced to share their houses with Jewish settlers – just as Rifka al-Kurd is in Jerusalem today. The sense of being one people is deepening.
That has been intensified by ever more aggressive attempts under the Netanyahu government to bring Israel's Arab citizens to heel, along with growing demands to transfer hundreds of thousands of them to a future West Bank administration. A string of new laws targeting the Palestinian minority are in the pipeline, including the bill agreed by the Israeli cabinet last month requiring all new non-Jewish citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state.
Pressure on Palestinian leaders and communities is becoming harsher. A fortnight ago more than a thousand soldiers and police were on hand to protect a violent march by a far-right racist Israeli group through the Palestinian town of Umm al-Fahm. The leader of the Islamic Movement, Ra'ed Salah, is in prison for spitting at a policeman; the Palestinian MP Haneen Zoabi has been stripped of her parliamentary privileges for joining the Gaza flotilla; and leading civil rights campaigner Ameer Makhoul faces up to 10 years in jail after being convicted of the improbable charge of spying for Hezbollah.
Meanwhile Israel is also demanding that the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah recognise Israel as a Jewish state as part of any agreement. Few outside the Palestinian Authority – or even inside it – seem to believe that the "peace process" will lead to any kind of settlement. Even Fatah leaders such as Nabil Sha'ath now argue that the Palestinians need to consider a return to armed resistance, or a shift to the South African model of mass popular resistance, also favoured by prominent Palestinians in Israel.
As for the people who actually won the last elections, Mahmoud Ramahi, the Hamas secretary general of the Palestinian parliament, reminded me on Monday that the US continues to veto any reconciliation with Fatah. He was arrested by the Israelis barely 24 hours later, just as talks between the two parties were getting going in Damascus.
The focus of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle has shifted over the last 40 years from Jordan to Lebanon to the occupied territories. With the two-state solution close to collapse, it may be that the Palestinians of Israel are at last about to move centre stage. If so, the conflict that more than any other has taken on a global dimension will have finally come full circle.
By Seumas Milne
This article was published in The Guardian on 10/11/2010
In a quiet street in the Sheikh Jarrah district of occupied East Jerusalem 88-year-old Rifka al-Kurd is explaining how she came to live in the house she and her husband built as Palestinian refugees in the 1950s. As she speaks, three young ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers swagger in to stake their claim to the front part of the building, shouting abuse in Hebrew and broken Arabic: "Arab animals", "shut up, whore".
There is a brief physical confrontation with Rifka's daughter as the settlers barricade themselves in to the rooms they have occupied since last winter. That was when they finally won a court order to take over the Kurd family's extension on the grounds that it was built without permission – which Palestinians in Jerusalem are almost never granted. It is an ugly scene, the settlers' chilling arrogance underpinned by the certain knowledge that they can call in the police and army at will.
But such takeovers of Palestinian homes in Sheikh Jarrah have become commonplace, and the focus of continual protest. The same is true in nearby Silwan, home to upwards of 30,000 Palestinians next to the Old City, where 88 homes to 1,500 Palestinians have been lined up for demolition to make way for a King David theme park and hundreds of settlers are protected round the clock by trigger-happy security guards.
Throughout the Arab areas of Jerusalem, as in the West Bank, the government is pressing ahead with land expropriations, demolitions and settlement building, making the prospects of a Palestinian state ever more improbable. More than a third of the land in East Jerusalem has been expropriated since it was occupied in 1967 to make way for Israeli colonists, in flagrant violation of international law.
Israel's latest settlement plans were not "helpful", Barack Obama ventured on Tuesday. But while US-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian negotiations go nowhere and attention has been focused on the brutal siege of Gaza, the colonisation goes on. It is also proceeding apace in Israel proper, where the demolition of Palestinian Bedouin villages around the Negev desert has accelerated under Binyamin Netanyahu.
About 87,000 Bedouin live in 45 "unrecognised" villages, without rights or basic public services, because the Israeli authorities refuse to recognise their claim to the land. All have demolition orders hanging over them, while hundreds of Jewish settlements have been established throughout the area.
The Israeli writer Amos Oz calls the Negev a "ticking time bomb". The village of Araqeeb has been destroyed six times in recent months and each time it has been reconstructed by its inhabitants. The government wants to clear the land and move the Bedouin into designated townships. But even there, demolitions are carried out on a routine basis.
At the weekend, a mosque in the Bedouin town of Rahat was torn down by the army in the night. By Sunday afternoon, local people were already at work on rebuilding it, as patriotic songs blared out from the PA system and activists addressed an angry crowd.
The awakening of the Negev Bedouin, many of whom used to send their sons to fight in the Israeli army, reflects a wider politicisation of the Arab citizens of Israel. Cut off from the majority of Palestinians after 1948, they tried to find an accommodation with the state whose discrimination against them was, in the words of former prime minister Ehud Olmert, "deep-seated and intolerable" from the first.
That effort has as good as been abandoned. The Arab parties in the Israeli Knesset now reject any idea of Israel as an ethnically defined state, demanding instead a "state of all its people". The influential Islamic Movement refuses to take part in the Israeli political system at all. The Palestinians of '48, who now make up getting on for 20% of the population, are increasingly organising themselves on an independent basis – and in common cause with their fellow Palestinians across the Green Line.
Palestinian experience inside Israel, from land confiscations to settlement building and privileged ethnic segregation, is not after all so different from what has taken place in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After 1948, the Palestinians of Jaffa who survived ethnic cleansing were forced to share their houses with Jewish settlers – just as Rifka al-Kurd is in Jerusalem today. The sense of being one people is deepening.
That has been intensified by ever more aggressive attempts under the Netanyahu government to bring Israel's Arab citizens to heel, along with growing demands to transfer hundreds of thousands of them to a future West Bank administration. A string of new laws targeting the Palestinian minority are in the pipeline, including the bill agreed by the Israeli cabinet last month requiring all new non-Jewish citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state.
Pressure on Palestinian leaders and communities is becoming harsher. A fortnight ago more than a thousand soldiers and police were on hand to protect a violent march by a far-right racist Israeli group through the Palestinian town of Umm al-Fahm. The leader of the Islamic Movement, Ra'ed Salah, is in prison for spitting at a policeman; the Palestinian MP Haneen Zoabi has been stripped of her parliamentary privileges for joining the Gaza flotilla; and leading civil rights campaigner Ameer Makhoul faces up to 10 years in jail after being convicted of the improbable charge of spying for Hezbollah.
Meanwhile Israel is also demanding that the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah recognise Israel as a Jewish state as part of any agreement. Few outside the Palestinian Authority – or even inside it – seem to believe that the "peace process" will lead to any kind of settlement. Even Fatah leaders such as Nabil Sha'ath now argue that the Palestinians need to consider a return to armed resistance, or a shift to the South African model of mass popular resistance, also favoured by prominent Palestinians in Israel.
As for the people who actually won the last elections, Mahmoud Ramahi, the Hamas secretary general of the Palestinian parliament, reminded me on Monday that the US continues to veto any reconciliation with Fatah. He was arrested by the Israelis barely 24 hours later, just as talks between the two parties were getting going in Damascus.
The focus of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle has shifted over the last 40 years from Jordan to Lebanon to the occupied territories. With the two-state solution close to collapse, it may be that the Palestinians of Israel are at last about to move centre stage. If so, the conflict that more than any other has taken on a global dimension will have finally come full circle.
Netenyahu's Post-Election Offensive?
By Jackson Diehl
This comment was published on 10/11/2010 in The Washington Post
Has Binyamin Netanyahu launched an offensive against a politically-weakened Barack Obama?
You wouldn't have to be a member of the Obama administration's beleagured Middle East policy team to draw that conclusion.
Consider the chronology: As Netanyahu headed for the United States over last weekend for an address to a Jewish conference and meetings with senior administration officials, a Jerusalem planning committee published plans for the construction of some 1,200 new housing units in East Jerusalem -- including more than 1,000 in the controversial development of Har Homa, which has been the subject of repeated quarrels between Israel and the United States over the last decade.
Obama and the State Department, which publicly blew up at Netanyahu following a similar announcement last March, responded with relative restraint. The State Department said it was "disappointed;" Obama, responding to a question at a press conference in Jakarta, said "this kind of activity is never helpful." His words echoed almost exactly those of the Bush administration's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, following the last Israeli announcement of an expansion of Har Homa.
That could have ended the matter. But Netanyahu -- who could have distanced himself from the provocative statements by pro-settlement bureaucrats -- instead quickly released a combative response. "Jerusalem is not a settlement -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," said a statement issued by his office. "Israel does not see any connection between the peace process and the building and planning policy in Jerusalem, which hasn't changed for 40 years."Later, in New York, Netanyahu took up the subject again, telling the Fox Business channel that the reaction to the settlement announcement "was overblown" and adding that it was "a minor issue that might be turned into a major issue. I think it's wrong." Meanwhile, the Israeli newspaper Haaretez was reporting yet another sensitive settlement announcement -- 800 new homes in the West Bank city of Ariel, which has been a major sticking point in past negotiations over the boundaries of a Palestinian state.
To be sure, it was Obama who first turned the settlement issue from a minor to a major one by publicly pressing for a complete and unprecedented Israeli freeze on settlement construction in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In September, he restored the issue to center stage by calling on Netanyahu to extend the partial moratorium he had imposed. When the Israeli refused, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suggested that Obama had forced his decision to suspend his peace talks with Netanyahu over the issue.
Yet this week it has been Netanyahu who has appeared to be on the offensive. "There is clearly a link" between settlements and peace talks, the State Department said in a common-sense response to his statement. "To suggest that this kind of announcement would not have an impact on the Palestinian side...is incorrect."
The left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretez put it another way: "Two governments rule the state: one which tries to demonstrate willingness to operate in a framework that could possibly lead to peace talks and an agreement, and another one that acts to destroy this framework." Netanyahu, it pointed out, had promised following his dispute with Obama earlier this year that Israel would not surprise the administration with settlement announcements. "However, it turns out that Israel is unable or unwilling to abide by this agreement."
Israeli officials insist that Netanyahu is not looking to gain advantage over Obama. "This has nothing to do with the midterms," ambassador to Washington Michael Oren told me. He pointed out that the settlement plans were made before the U.S. elections were held, and that actual construction was months if not years in the future.
Others speculate that Netanyahu's show of defiance may be a prelude to concessions; he is due to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tomorrow to discuss the stalled peace process. Having announced and defended new construction, Netanyahu might be better positioned to declare a new moratorium without causing his right-wing coalition government to collapse.
Administration officials will have to hope that's the case. If Netanyahu does not follow his settlement surge with some tangible signals that he is serious about peace talks, the process will almost certainly expire. Obama, who has made Middle East diplomacy a centerpiece of his foreign policy, will look weak -- whether or not that was Netanyahu's intention.
This comment was published on 10/11/2010 in The Washington Post
Has Binyamin Netanyahu launched an offensive against a politically-weakened Barack Obama?
You wouldn't have to be a member of the Obama administration's beleagured Middle East policy team to draw that conclusion.
Consider the chronology: As Netanyahu headed for the United States over last weekend for an address to a Jewish conference and meetings with senior administration officials, a Jerusalem planning committee published plans for the construction of some 1,200 new housing units in East Jerusalem -- including more than 1,000 in the controversial development of Har Homa, which has been the subject of repeated quarrels between Israel and the United States over the last decade.
Obama and the State Department, which publicly blew up at Netanyahu following a similar announcement last March, responded with relative restraint. The State Department said it was "disappointed;" Obama, responding to a question at a press conference in Jakarta, said "this kind of activity is never helpful." His words echoed almost exactly those of the Bush administration's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, following the last Israeli announcement of an expansion of Har Homa.
That could have ended the matter. But Netanyahu -- who could have distanced himself from the provocative statements by pro-settlement bureaucrats -- instead quickly released a combative response. "Jerusalem is not a settlement -- Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," said a statement issued by his office. "Israel does not see any connection between the peace process and the building and planning policy in Jerusalem, which hasn't changed for 40 years."Later, in New York, Netanyahu took up the subject again, telling the Fox Business channel that the reaction to the settlement announcement "was overblown" and adding that it was "a minor issue that might be turned into a major issue. I think it's wrong." Meanwhile, the Israeli newspaper Haaretez was reporting yet another sensitive settlement announcement -- 800 new homes in the West Bank city of Ariel, which has been a major sticking point in past negotiations over the boundaries of a Palestinian state.
To be sure, it was Obama who first turned the settlement issue from a minor to a major one by publicly pressing for a complete and unprecedented Israeli freeze on settlement construction in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In September, he restored the issue to center stage by calling on Netanyahu to extend the partial moratorium he had imposed. When the Israeli refused, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suggested that Obama had forced his decision to suspend his peace talks with Netanyahu over the issue.
Yet this week it has been Netanyahu who has appeared to be on the offensive. "There is clearly a link" between settlements and peace talks, the State Department said in a common-sense response to his statement. "To suggest that this kind of announcement would not have an impact on the Palestinian side...is incorrect."
The left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretez put it another way: "Two governments rule the state: one which tries to demonstrate willingness to operate in a framework that could possibly lead to peace talks and an agreement, and another one that acts to destroy this framework." Netanyahu, it pointed out, had promised following his dispute with Obama earlier this year that Israel would not surprise the administration with settlement announcements. "However, it turns out that Israel is unable or unwilling to abide by this agreement."
Israeli officials insist that Netanyahu is not looking to gain advantage over Obama. "This has nothing to do with the midterms," ambassador to Washington Michael Oren told me. He pointed out that the settlement plans were made before the U.S. elections were held, and that actual construction was months if not years in the future.
Others speculate that Netanyahu's show of defiance may be a prelude to concessions; he is due to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tomorrow to discuss the stalled peace process. Having announced and defended new construction, Netanyahu might be better positioned to declare a new moratorium without causing his right-wing coalition government to collapse.
Administration officials will have to hope that's the case. If Netanyahu does not follow his settlement surge with some tangible signals that he is serious about peace talks, the process will almost certainly expire. Obama, who has made Middle East diplomacy a centerpiece of his foreign policy, will look weak -- whether or not that was Netanyahu's intention.
Jumblatt Used Their Weakness And Slandered Them
By Abdullah Iskandar
This comment was published in al-Hayat on 10/11/2010
Ever since his last political turn, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has been moving on dual bases. He is firstly trying to confirm that his turn toward yesterday’s rivals is sincere, and secondly trying to avoid military confrontation in the country between his new allies and his current rivals.
In a situation such as the one seen in Lebanon where the rounding of the corners requires a lot of know-how and expertise due to the acuteness of the confrontation and the conflicting programs, Jumblatt is aware of his difficult position. On one hand, he knows that the protection of civil peace for which he is calling, is not only limited to defusing the consecutive crises, among which for the time being is the crisis of the false witnesses file and the tribunal. It also requires the state institutions to regain some of their prerogatives, whether at the level of decision-making power or at the level of security. This realization is obstructed by the positions of his new allies who consider that the reinstatement of the state’s intervention would imply obligations that all the sides would have to respect and some of which would topple their demands, especially at the level of the witnesses file and its branches inside the Cabinet and the re-discussion of the role of the arms outside the context of the state institutions, including Hezbollah’s arms on the long run.
On the other hand, Jumblatt knows he is subjected to daily tests to confirm his sincerity toward his new allies. Media outlets close to Hezbollah thus carried, more than once, reports saying that the main purpose behind the party’s insistence on settling the false witnesses file inside the Cabinet is to test the credibility and seriousness of the Druze leader at the level of his new turn. For his part, he is trying to elude this test, considering it might sever the last ties still linking him to the prime minister and what he represents on the Lebanese and Arab levels. He is trying to uphold these ties that allow him maintain Arab contact. Although his current option is a Syrian one, Jumblatt needs this contact, especially with Saudi Arabia. He is thus reiterating - along with the other officials in his party and his parliamentary bloc - the importance of this dimension in the context of the equation of the Saudi-Syrian understanding.
It is in that sense that Jumblatt’s theory regarding the “revival of the Lebanese right wing” in light of the results of the American midterm elections and the advance of the “American right-wing” (the Republicans) in them can be interpreted. On one hand, he criticized this Lebanese right-wing which in the Jumblatti rhetoric means the March 14 Christians - at the head of whom is Samir Geagea - while on the other, he went in line with the American conspiracy theory of his new allies.
The reintroduction of the talk about the “Lebanese isolationist right wing” has a purpose in the current Jumblatti rhetoric because it allows him to succeed in the sincerity test, without this costing him any political repercussions. It also brought back to mind the nature of the division witnessed in Lebanon during the civil war, and his position toward this division. This showed he truly returned to the alliances he enjoyed during that stage, regardless of the major difference between the political nature of that stage and the current one, especially at the level of sectarian alignment. While it is difficult to directly criticize the Sunni alignment in Lebanon and its “isolationist” tendencies (Lebanon First and the support of the Lebanese state), the weakest sides in the equation are the Christians of the March 14 forces and their spiritual reference represented by the Maronite patriarchate.
Moreover, the targeting of these “isolationists” might meet the demands of the new allies who do not hesitate to classify them as being the ones who should be politically-eliminated at the very least. The new allies’ need for Jumblatt’s campaign on the “isolationist” right-wing is increasing, at a time when Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri is refusing to disengage from this right and continuing to defend this alliance, thus transforming Jumblatt into the spearhead of this campaign.
Ever since his last political turn, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has been moving on dual bases. He is firstly trying to confirm that his turn toward yesterday’s rivals is sincere, and secondly trying to avoid military confrontation in the country between his new allies and his current rivals.
In a situation such as the one seen in Lebanon where the rounding of the corners requires a lot of know-how and expertise due to the acuteness of the confrontation and the conflicting programs, Jumblatt is aware of his difficult position. On one hand, he knows that the protection of civil peace for which he is calling, is not only limited to defusing the consecutive crises, among which for the time being is the crisis of the false witnesses file and the tribunal. It also requires the state institutions to regain some of their prerogatives, whether at the level of decision-making power or at the level of security. This realization is obstructed by the positions of his new allies who consider that the reinstatement of the state’s intervention would imply obligations that all the sides would have to respect and some of which would topple their demands, especially at the level of the witnesses file and its branches inside the Cabinet and the re-discussion of the role of the arms outside the context of the state institutions, including Hezbollah’s arms on the long run.
On the other hand, Jumblatt knows he is subjected to daily tests to confirm his sincerity toward his new allies. Media outlets close to Hezbollah thus carried, more than once, reports saying that the main purpose behind the party’s insistence on settling the false witnesses file inside the Cabinet is to test the credibility and seriousness of the Druze leader at the level of his new turn. For his part, he is trying to elude this test, considering it might sever the last ties still linking him to the prime minister and what he represents on the Lebanese and Arab levels. He is trying to uphold these ties that allow him maintain Arab contact. Although his current option is a Syrian one, Jumblatt needs this contact, especially with Saudi Arabia. He is thus reiterating - along with the other officials in his party and his parliamentary bloc - the importance of this dimension in the context of the equation of the Saudi-Syrian understanding.
It is in that sense that Jumblatt’s theory regarding the “revival of the Lebanese right wing” in light of the results of the American midterm elections and the advance of the “American right-wing” (the Republicans) in them can be interpreted. On one hand, he criticized this Lebanese right-wing which in the Jumblatti rhetoric means the March 14 Christians - at the head of whom is Samir Geagea - while on the other, he went in line with the American conspiracy theory of his new allies.
The reintroduction of the talk about the “Lebanese isolationist right wing” has a purpose in the current Jumblatti rhetoric because it allows him to succeed in the sincerity test, without this costing him any political repercussions. It also brought back to mind the nature of the division witnessed in Lebanon during the civil war, and his position toward this division. This showed he truly returned to the alliances he enjoyed during that stage, regardless of the major difference between the political nature of that stage and the current one, especially at the level of sectarian alignment. While it is difficult to directly criticize the Sunni alignment in Lebanon and its “isolationist” tendencies (Lebanon First and the support of the Lebanese state), the weakest sides in the equation are the Christians of the March 14 forces and their spiritual reference represented by the Maronite patriarchate.
Moreover, the targeting of these “isolationists” might meet the demands of the new allies who do not hesitate to classify them as being the ones who should be politically-eliminated at the very least. The new allies’ need for Jumblatt’s campaign on the “isolationist” right-wing is increasing, at a time when Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri is refusing to disengage from this right and continuing to defend this alliance, thus transforming Jumblatt into the spearhead of this campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)