Palestinians 'will not resume talks without new freeze on settlements'.

It could be the Obama's dreams of Middle East peace talks between Israel and Palestine are about to come to an end.

The Palestinian leadership confirmed yesterday that it would not return to direct peace negotiations with the Israelis without an extension to the now-expired freeze on settlement construction, amid determined but increasingly frustrated efforts by the Americans to keep the talks alive.

The executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation met in Ramallah to consider its position following the end of the moratorium last weekend. Palestinian negotiators have said repeatedly that they would not stay at the negotiating table unless the freeze were extended, and that Israel must choose between settlements and peace.

"The leadership confirms that the resumption of talks requires tangible steps, the first of them a freeze on settlements," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior PLO official, speaking after the meeting. "The Palestinian leadership holds Israel responsible for obstructing the negotiations."

Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said efforts had reached "a dead end". "There will be no negotiations in the shadow of continued settlement," Abu Rdainah said. "All the while Israel is not convinced that the political process be based on international law and justice, matters will remain in a state of paralysis for a long time."

I don't blame the Palestinians for this. In what good faith can one negotiate with a nation which is breaking international law even as you are attempting to reason with them and work out a peace deal?

Netanyahu has shown the kind of arrogance which has typified his entire career when he insisted that his refusal to extend the settlement freeze should not endanger the talks.

While giving no hint that Israel would bow to Palestinian demands, Netanyahu said he believed a "creative" solution could still resolve the impasse and keep talks alive.

"Just a month ago the Palestinians entered direct peace talks with no preconditions after my government made a range of gestures to push forward the dialogue," he said.

"Before that, over 17 years, the Palestinians conducted a direct dialogue with Israeli governments, while building in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] continued, including during the final year of the previous administration."

Settlement building has been slower under Netanyahu's current administration than under any Israeli government since the mid-1970s.

Netanyahu added: "I hope that now they will not turn their backs on peace and continue talks to reach a deal within a year."

This is a disingenuous complaint. The fact that Israel continued to build during previous negotiations shows only that the Palestinians should never have agreed to do this in the past. There are some who believe that Israel will always negotiate whilst building, as eventually there will be nothing to negotiate about, as Israel will have seized all Palestinian land.

Israel cannot be considered serious about peace whilst she continues to steal Palestinian land and flout international law.

The Israelis are now attempting to deflect blame for the expected breakdown of talks on to the Palestinians. "Now I expect the Palestinians to show some flexibility," Netanyahu was quoted as saying at the end of last week. "Everyone knows that measured and restrained building in Judaea and Samaria [the West Bank] in the coming year will have no influence on the peace map."

This is how insane Israeli politics have become under Netanyahu. He wishes to blame the Palestinians for reacting to the fact that he is breaking international law.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, peace talks, Obama, Netanyahu, Abbas

Israeli navy diverts Gaza-bound yacht.

Israel has turned away yet another boat headed for Gaza.

The Israeli navy today boarded a yacht carrying 10 Jewish activists who were attempting to break the sea blockade around Gaza, forcibly diverting the vessel to the nearby port of Ashdod.

"There was no resistance, no violence," an Israeli military spokeswoman said. "Before we boarded, we twice asked the captain not to cross the international line into Gaza waters but he refused."

But, one only has to look at who was on board to see how clearly Israel is losing the PR war over it's Gaza blockade.

Among the passengers are an Israeli Holocaust survivor, an Israeli whose daughter was killed in a suicide bombing in 1997, and a former Israeli air force pilot.

Hardly the "terrorists" that Israel usually claim are attempting to break it's blockade. All people of conscience are now waking up to the injustice of this.

Just how stubborn is Netanyahu? For how long will he insist on defending this PR nightmare for his country?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Gaza blockade

Mahmoud Abbas delays decision on whether to quit Middle East peace talks.

Netanyahu is refusing to continue her West Bank construction freeze, seriously undermining the Israel Palestine peace talks, and causing one to wonder just how serious he is about peace if he can't agree that illegal settlement building must end.

Speaking in Paris, Abbas said there would be no "quick reactions" before he consults the Arab League next week. "After this series of meetings, we might publish a position that clears up the position of the Palestinian and Arab people after Israel has refused to freeze settlements," he told reporters, after talks with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

An extension for "three or four months" would give the sides a chance to discuss the core issues, Abbas added.

Sarkozy said he "deplored the decision to resume settlement construction just as the talks were finally and concretely under way". William Hague, the foreign secretary, meeting his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, at the UN in New York, said he was "very disappointed". George Mitchell, the US special envoy, is due back in Jerusalem today to seek a way out of the crisis.

Abbas's caution reflects the high stakes following the Israeli prime minister's failure to extend a 10-month moratorium on building. Abbas and other Palestinian spokesmen had warned that they could not negotiate unless it was renewed.

The simple fact is that all Israeli building in the West Bank is illegal under international law.

Article 49 of The Fourth Geneva Convention:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Netanyahu has now made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of obeying international law. And, as is reported in today's Ha'aretz newspaper, the freeze itself was a myth.

At the end of 2009, the number of housing units that were actively being built on all the settlements together amounted to 2,955. Three months later, at the end of March 2010, the number stood at 2,517. We are therefore talking about a drop of a little more than 400 housing units - some 16 percent of Israeli construction in the West Bank over that period.

I have no idea whether or not Abbas will wish to continue negotiating with an Israeli team who are stealing their land even during peace negotiations, but I find it incomprehensible that Europe can't guard Obama's back here and make it clear that we find Israel's position utterly untenable.

I note that both Sarkozy and William Hague have spoken out, but there needs to be more of a noise made about this.

Israel's decision on whether or to extend the freeze was always going to be an indication of just how serious she was about these talks.

Well, now we have our answer.

Obama demanded settlement freeze early on in his presidency and was, in my mind, foolish to back off from that stance. It would be a travesty if Obama now finds himself pressuring the Palestinians to accept that Israel's illegal activity should be allowed to continue.

The pressure should be exerted on the law breakers, not on the occupied people.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel. Palestine, Obama, Netanyahu

Is Gideon Levy the most hated man in Israel or just the most heroic?

The Independent has an article on Gideon Levy asking whether he is the most hated man in Israel or the most heroic.

It is possible to be both, especially as Levy asks questions which most Israelis have no interest in considering, let alone answering.

But I found Levy's take on Israeli attitudes to be fascinating. He begins by describing the narrative through which all Israelis are taught to view the conflict.

There’s a whole machinery of brainwashing in Israel which really accompanies each of us from early childhood, and I’m a product of this machinery as much as anyone else. [We are taught] a few narratives that it’s very hard to break. That we Israelis are the ultimate and only victims. That the Palestinians are born to kill, and their hatred is irrational. That the Palestinians are not human beings like us? So you get a society without any moral doubts, without any questions marks, with hardly public debate. To raise your voice against all this is very hard.”

And one can see why so many Israelis hate him, for he speaks with a truth which must be very hard for many of them to accept.

“How can you say it is a democracy when, in 62 years, there was not one single Arab village established? I don’t have to tell you how many Jewish towns and villages were established. Not one Arab village. How can you say it’s a democracy when research has shown repeatedly that Jews and Arabs get different punishments for the same crime? How can you say it’s a democracy when a Palestinian student can hardly rent an apartment in Tel Aviv, because when they hear his accent or his name almost nobody will rent to him? How can you say Israel is a democracy when Jerusalem invests 577 shekels a year in a pupil in [Palestinian] East Jerusalem and 2372 shekels a year in a pupil from [Jewish] West Jerusalem. Four times less, only because of the child’s ethnicity! Every part of our society is racist.”

And he makes an argument which I have always agreed with, that good friends of Israel should not stand silently by whilst she engages in actions which will ultimately harm her.

“A real friend does not pick up the bill for an addict’s drugs: he packs the friend off to rehab instead. Today, only those who speak up against Israel’s policies – who denounce the occupation, the blockade, and the war – are the nation’s true friends.” The people who defend Israel’s current course are “betraying the country” by encouraging it on “the path to disaster."

And he shares the doubts of many of us about the sincerity of Netanyahu when it comes to the current peace talks.

“There is a very simple litmus test for any peace talks. A necessity for peace is for Israel to dismantle settlements in the West Bank. So if you are going to dismantle settlements soon, you’d stop building more now, right? They carried on building them all through Oslo. And today, Netanyahu is refusing to freeze construction, the barest of the bare minimum. It tells you all you need.”

Then, he identifies why he believes Netanyahu is taking part in the current peace talks.

“If there are negotiations, there won’t be international pressure. Quiet, we’re in discussions, settlement can go on uninterrupted. That is why futile negotiations are dangerous negotiations. Under the cover of such talks, the chances for peace will grow even dimmer... The clear subtext is Netanyahu’s desire to get American support for bombing Iran. To do that, he thinks he needs to at least pay lip-service to Obama’s requests for talks. That’s why he’s doing this.”

It's terribly depressing, because everything he states rings so true. And yet he does identify some positives in this insane narrative, the first of which is that most Israelis do believe in a two state solution.

According to the opinion polls, most Israelis support a two-state solution – yet they elect governments that expand the settlements and so make a two-state solution impossible. “You would need a psychiatrist to explain this contradiction,” Levy says. “Do they expect two states to fall from the sky? Today, the Israelis have no reason to make any changes,” he continues. “Life in Israel is wonderful. You can sit in Tel Aviv and have a great life. Nobody talks about the occupation. So why would they bother [to change]? The majority of Israelis think about the next vacation and the next jeep and all the rest doesn’t interest them any more.” They are drenched in history, and yet oblivious to it.

And he sounds, at times, as if he is making the case for the boycotting of Israel, but his position is much more nuanced than that.

“Firstly, the Israeli opposition to the boycott is incredibly hypocritical. Israel itself is one of the world’s most prolific boycotters. Not only does it boycott, it preaches to others, at times even forces others, to follow in tow. Israel has imposed a cultural, academic, political, economic and military boycott on the territories. The most brutal, naked boycott is, of course, the siege on Gaza and the boycott of Hamas. At Israel's behest, nearly all Western countries signed onto the boycott with inexplicable alacrity. This is not just a siege that has left Gaza in a state of shortage for three years. It's a series of cultural, academic, humanitarian and economic boycotts. Israel is also urging the world to boycott Iran. So Israelis cannot complain if this is used against them.”

But, because most Israelis have been brought up to see Israel - and Israel alone - as the victim, he fears that any boycott would only feed into that mindset and confirm for many Israelis their belief that most of the world is anti-Semitic.

If [a boycott was] seen as the judgement of the world they would be effective. But Israelis are more likely to take them as ‘proof’ the world is anti-Semitic and will always hate us.”

And he identifies the only solution to the problem to be the intervention of the President of the United States.

“The day the president of the United States decides to put an end to the occupation, it will cease. Because Israel was never so dependent on the United States as it is now. Never. Not only economically, not only militarily but above all politically. Israel is totally isolated today, except for America."

Which is true, but terribly depressing. As we have already seen the pressure brought to bear on Obama for even daring to attempt to be even handed in this dispute.

He was initially hopeful that Barack Obama would do this – he recalls having tears in his eyes as he delivered his victory speech in Grant Park – but he says he has only promoted “tiny steps, almost nothing, when big steps are needed.” It isn’t only bad for Israel – it is bad for America. “The occupation is the best excuse for many worldwide terror organisations. It’s not always genuine but they use it. Why do you let them use it? Why give them this fury? Why not you solve it once and for all when the, when the solution is so simple?”

When Obama came to office I thought he, certainly much more than his predecessor, was serious about bringing a peaceful solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But every time Obama attempted to bring pressure on the Israelis members of the House and Senate would quickly condemn him.

Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration's very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.

These American politicians are part of the problem, not the solution. They are the equivalent of a kind uncle feeding an obese child chocolate. They make the solution to this problem impossible to achieve.

The irony is that they really do think that they are acting in Israel's best interests by making a two state solution unachievable, oblivious to the fact that any one state solution will almost certainly result in the end of the country they are seeking to defend.

And should Netanyahu be playing along with these talks without being serious about coming to a deal with the Palestinians, these same American Senators will be the first people to applaud him and to condemn Obama should he speak out in condemnation.

I wish Obama well, but the task he is confronting will be a seriously lonely road. And the first people to ambush him will be members of his own House and Senate.

Levy's article is fascinating and can be read here.

Tags: Gideon Levy, Israel, Palestine, Obama

Obama At the UN.

Obama has used a speech at the United Nations to appeal to Netanyahu's government to extend its moratorium on settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

"Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. ... We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed. Now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle."

He also held out a hand to Iran, even as Ahmadinejad displayed an insanity which prompted a walkout.

He spoke of cynics who doubt that peace can be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and I must admit that I am of their number.

I would love nothing more than for Obama to prove me completely wrong. But I simply can't see a way for Netanyahu to deliver peace whilst leading the coalition which he currently leads.

But the speech was apparently only the most visible place where pressure was being applied. Behind the scenes many states were pushing Obama's vision.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, were engaged in numerous one-to-one discussions behind the scenes at the UN.

European diplomats were also busy, as well as the British foreign secretary, William Hague, who talked to the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, by phone before coming to New York.

Netanyahu's problem is that he must find a way to avoid angering the US, the main diplomatic and financial backer of Israel, while holding together the coalition over which he presides, and which is weighted towards pro-settler parties.

"No one is putting money on which way this will go," a western diplomat said.

I admire Obama's optimism, and I am genuinely in awe that he will put his presidency on the line in this way. He appears to be determined to play the cards which he has been dealt. Had the Likud Party lost the election in Israel, Obama's task would be ten times easier. And there's a part of me, were I in his position, that would have been tempted to wait for the collapse of the Netanyahu coalition before attempting the gargantuan task of overcoming the sixty years of animosity which fuel that conflict.

But he is pushing on, determined to attempt to make peace, even whilst Israel is represented by a coalition which does not believe in what Obama is attempting to do.

I have an admiration for that, even as I doubt that Netanyahu's government will ever agree to a meaningful peace agreement.

And Obama is to be applauded for pushing on, especially as his chances of success appear so slight.

The irony here is that it was his optimism which inspired so many of us during his campaign. And he continues to display it, even as some of his supporters - like myself - find themselves beginning to harbour doubts, especially when it comes to the dispute between Israel and Palestine and Netanyahu's ability to deliver his coalition to the side of peace.

But Obama, as always, has a way of coming up with a turn of phrase which makes doubters like myself feel ashamed.

This future will not be easy to reach. It will not come without setbacks, nor will it be quickly claimed. But the founding of the United Nations itself is a testament to human progress. Remember, in times that were far more trying than our own, our predecessors chose the hope of unity over the ease of division. And made a promise to future generations that the dignity and equality of human beings would be our common cause. It falls to us to fulfil that promise. And, though we will be met by dark forces that will test out resolve, Americans have always had cause to believe that we can choose a better history.

That's the optimism which he ignited during his election campaign, and that is the fire which he is now demanding we do not allow to be extinguished.

He never, ever, promised that it was going to be easy; so cynics like myself should cut him some slack.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, United Nations, Israel, Palestine

UN panel accuses Israel of war crimes for 'unlawful' assault on Gaza flotilla.

No matter how many times the UN and other legal bodies say this, it never seems to make an iota of difference to Israel's behaviour.

A United Nations panel of human rights experts has accused Israel of war crimes through willful killing, unnecessary brutality and torture in its "clearly unlawful" assault on a ship attempting to break the blockade of Gaza in May in which nine Turkish activists died.

The report by three experts appointed by the UN's Human Rights Council (UNHRC) described the seizure of MV Mavi Marmara, a Turkish vessel, by Israeli commandos as illegal under international law.

It condemned the treatment of the passengers and crew as brutal and disproportionate. It also said that the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian enclave is illegal because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

"There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the fourth Geneva convention: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," the report said.

"A series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation."

The Israelis have, predictably, rejected the findings as "politicised and extremist". And, of course, Israel refused to take part in this inquiry, despite earlier statements that she had nothing to hide and would co-operate.

In a statement, Netanyahu said: "Israel has nothing to hide. The opposite is true. It is in the national interest of the state of Israel to ensure that the factual truth of the overall flotilla events comes to light throughout the world and this is exactly the principle that we are advancing."

This offer to take part - and the declaration that "Israel has nothing to hide" - is forgotten as Israel now dismisses the report as biased.

But we all remember how shocked we were when we heard of the way Israel had boarded the Mavi Marmara, and that shock is itself and indication of how extreme Israel's reaction was. But, the report indicates that Israel's behaviour was even more shocking than we were led to believe.

The 56-page report – compiled by a former UN war crimes prosecutor, Desmond de Silva, a judge from Trinidad, Karl Hudson-Phillips, and a Malaysian women's rights advocate, Mary Shanthi Dairiam – accuses Israeli forces of various crimes including violating the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression, and of failing to treat the captured crew and passengers with humanity.

"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel toward the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality," the report said.

Of course the Israelis will reject this report, and that, in itself, will surprise no-one. And the Americans will see to it that this report counts for nothing.

But there is a seeping of support away from the Israeli position - and a worldwide acceptance of the Palestinians as the victims of this piece - which Israel, for decades, managed to avoid.

Behaviour of the kind highlighted in this report has done much to undermine Israel's argument.

Indeed, Israel's denial of the use of white phosphorus in Gaza, and her subsequent admission that this substance had indeed been used, make many of us now take Israeli denials with a huge pinch of salt.

"Israel is a democratic and law-abiding country that carefully observes international law and, when need be, knows how to investigate itself," the foreign ministry said in a statement.

It's impossible to take that statement seriously, when one can clearly see Israel violating international law through the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and offering to cease doing so only if the United States will free Israeli spies.

That is hardly the action of a nation which "carefully observes international law". Indeed, that kind of blackmail comes perilously close to the behaviour of a rogue state.

Click here for full article.

Tags: United Nations, Mavi Marmara, Israel, Palestine, Turkey

Natanyahu hints at placing IDF forces in PA state after any deal.

Netanyahu is hinting that he believes IDF forces should be able to continue to operate within the borders of any new state of Palestine, and is citing historical precedents to back up his position.

Germany, Japan and South Korea have had foreign troops on their soil for an extended period and nobody said that was “an affront to their respective sovereignties,” Netanyahu said, referring to US troops that were stationed in those countries following World War II.

Netanyahu said he did not believe an international force would be able to provide Israel with the security guarantees it needed, and that “the only force that can be relied on to defend the Jewish people is the Israel Defense Forces.”

It's a non starter and further proof that the peace talks are doomed as long as Netanyahu is in power.

Why would the Palestinians accept the presence of the IDF on the soil of any new Palestinian state? Does Netanyahu imagine that their liberation should feel no different from their occupation? That the people who dropped white phosphorous on them will remain on their soil after they have won their liberation?

Netanyahu has on numerous occasions said that an Israeli presence on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state, meaning along the Jordan River, would be necessary to prevent the type of arms smuggling taking place from Syria to Hizbullah in southern Lebanon, and from Egypt to Hamas in Gaza. The prime minister stressed the need for solid security arrangements on the ground so as not to repeat the mistakes made in Lebanon and Gaza.

One seriously wonders how negotiations can possibly succeed when both sides are starting so many miles apart.

Netanyahu is asking Obama to release Israeli spies - and offering to continue the settlement freeze for a mere three months if his outrageous request is granted - and imagining that he is being reasonable.

Now he is demanding that the new Palestinian state should look and feel no different from the occupied territories.

Negotiating with Netanyahu must be exhausting. He comes at every argument from the most extreme position - like, free my spy and I will obey international law for three months - and imagines that he is somehow offering a concession. That he is the one prepared to make sacrifices for peace.

The prime minister said the idea of coming to a framework agreement within a year was his idea, and that “If I have such a partner who is prepared to make a historic compromise, as I am, I think one year should be enough time.”

What historic compromises does Netanyahu imagine that he is offering? He is being outrageous and yet imagines that he is offering "historic compromise".

The IDF operating on Palestinian soil after a peace deal is simply unacceptable. Netanyahu must know this.

How serious is this man about peace whilst making these ridiculous demands? Demands that he must surely know are completely unacceptable?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, peace talks

Israel seeks release of spy in exchange for extending settlement freeze.

For thirteen years Israel denied that Jonathan Jay Pollard was even their spy, claiming that he worked for an unauthorized rogue operation.

How things change.

Israel is seeking the release of an American jailed for life for spying for the Jewish state in return for concessions in the renewed peace process with the Palestinians, including the extension of a partial freeze on the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.

According to Israel's army radio, the prime minister's office has approached Washington with a deal to continue the moratorium for another three months in return for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a former navy intelligence analyst convicted of spying in 1987. Binyamin Netanyahu, has long pressed for Pollard to be freed, but winning his release would help him sell concessions to rightwing members of his cabinet and the settlers.

Army radio said that Netanyahu had asked an unnamed intermediary to sound out the Obama administration on the proposal, but it is not known what response was received. Other Israeli media reported that the prime minister dispatched the intermediary to approach the Americans "discreetly, and unofficially".

So, Netanyahu is willing to hold off on the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements for a mere three months if the United States would be willing to free an Israeli spy who handed Israel "tens of thousands" of secret American intelligence documents? A man who is serving a life sentence for his crimes.

You have to admire Netanyahu's chutzpah. I think that is simply an outrageous request. And yet Netanyahu puts it forward as if it is in the interests of peace that it be granted.

Remember, Israel's behaviour regarding Pollard caused genuine outrage at the time:

Israel agreed to cooperate with the investigation in exchange for immunity for their people. They needed the agreement since many of the Israelis involved lacked diplomatic immunity. However, according to Ronald Olive, the NCIS investigator responsible for capturing Pollard and a member of the delegation that traveled to Israel for debriefing, the Israelis failed to live up to their agreement.

For instance, when asked to return the stolen material, the Israelis handed over a few dozen lowly classified documents.^[22] At the time, the Americans knew that Pollard had passed tens of thousands of documents, possibly over a million.[citation required] The Israelis created a schedule designed to wear down the Americans, including many hours per day of commuting in blacked out buses on rough roads, and frequent switching of buses.^[22] This left the Americans without adequate time to sleep and prevented them from sleeping on the commute.^[22] The identity of Pollard's original handler, Sella, was withheld. All questions had to be translated into Hebrew and answered in Hebrew, and then translated back into English, even though all the parties spoke perfect English.^[22] The Americans were treated with hostility from the moment they arrived in Israel to the moment they left.^[22]

Commander Jerry Agee remembers that, even as he departed the airport, airport security made a point of informing him that "you will never be coming back here again"; Agee found various items had been stolen from his luggage, upon his return to the United States.^[22] The abuse came not only from the guards and officials, but also the Israeli media.^[22]

Aviem Sella, Pollard's initial Israeli contact, was eventually indicted on three counts of espionage by an American court.^[23] Israel refused to allow him to be interviewed unless he was granted immunity. America refused because of Israel's previous failure to cooperate as promised. Israel then refused to extradite Sella, instead giving him command of a prestigious air force base. The U.S. Congress responded by threatening to cut aid to Israel, at which point Sella stepped down.^[24]

And yet Netanyahu now proposes an exchange involving Pollard as if none of this history exists. That's his price for Israel remaining in the peace talks with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu has said Israel does not plan to extend the moratorium on settlement building, and officials are not commenting on how the issue might be resolved, saying only that Israel "does not want people leaving the table".

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, told a French news agency that peace talks would be over if Israel abandoned the settlement freeze. "The negotiations will continue as long as the settlement remains frozen," he said. "I am not prepared to negotiate an agreement for a single day more."

Netanyahu is playing hard ball. He knows the peace talks will collapse if he does not agree to a further settlement freeze and he is trying to extract a large price for doing so.

But, this is why I have so little hope regarding these peace talks. Netanyahu's attempted blackmail is further proof of the extremity of the coalition of which he is a member. Does anyone seriously believe that these guys want peace? Netanyahu thinks he can appease them - for a mere three months - if the US agrees to release an Israeli spy. And he puts forward this notion as if it a perfectly reasonable thing to request.

It's hard to remain optimistic when watching this nonsense play out.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Netanyahu, peace talks, Israel, Palestine, settlement freeze, Jonathan Pollard

Nine years, two wars, hundreds of thousands dead – and nothing learnt.

On this ninth anniversary of that dreadful day, Robert Fisk notes the irony of Palin and Gingrich objecting to the building of a mosque in lower Manhattan. They are arguing, "as if 9/11 was an onslaught on Jesus-worshipping Christians, rather than on the atheist West."

He is right, of course. It is our secularism which they abhor, rather than our religiosity.

But both sides have been quick to bring God into the equation, arguing that they are fighting on His side.

And God? Where does he fit in? An archive of quotations suggests that just about every monster created in or after 9/11 is a follower of this quixotic redeemer. Bin Laden prays to God – "to turn America into a shadow of itself", as he told me in 1997 – and Bush prayed to God and Blair prayed – and prays – to God, and all the Muslim killers and an awful lot of Western soldiers and Dr (honorary) Pastor Terry Jones and his 30 (or it may be 50, since all statistics are hard to come by in the "war on terror") pray to God. And poor old God, of course, has had to listen to these prayers as he always sits through them during our mad wars. Recall the words attributed to him by a poet of another generation: "God this, God that, and God the other thing. 'Good God,' said God, 'I've got my work cut out'." And that was just the First World War...

Just five years ago – on the fourth anniversary of the twin towers/Pentagon/Pennsylvania attacks – a schoolgirl asked me at a lecture in a Belfast church whether the Middle East would benefit from more religion. No – less religion! – I howled back. God is good for contemplation, not for war.

Bin Laden sits in his cave 100% sure that he is carrying out the work of God, just as Palin is convinced that she is doing the same. And Pastor Terry Jones awaits His signal on whether or not he should burn the Qur'an.

What did God ever do to deserve so many idiots to be the interpreters of His wishes?

How, nine years after 9-11, do we end up listening to Palin and Gingrich bloviating about a mosque in lower Manhattan, yet ignore what all of this is actually about?

And of course, the one taboo subject of which we must not speak – Israel's relationship with America, and America's unconditional support for Israel's theft of land from Muslim Arabs – also lies at the heart of this terrible crisis in our lives. In yesterday's edition of The Independent, there was a photograph of Afghan demonstrators chanting "death to America". But in the background, these same demonstrators were carrying a black banner with a message in Dari written upon it in white paint. What it actually said was: "The bloodsucking Zionist government regime and the Western leaders who are indifferent [to suffering] and have no conscience are again celebrating the new year by spilling the red blood of the Palestinians."

The message is as extreme as it is vicious – but it proves, yet again, that the war in which we are engaged is also about Israel and "Palestine". We may prefer to ignore this in "the West" – where Muslims supposedly "hate us for what we are" or "hate our democracy" (see: Bush, Blair and a host of other mendacious politicians) – but this great conflict lies at the heart of the "war on terror".

To point that out, of course, is almost heresy. It is the link which one is not allowed to make.

Nine years after 9-11, nine years in which hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and maimed, it is still considered bad form to point out any link between the events of that day and Israel's colonial mission to steal Palestinian land.

It is ironic in the extreme that the United States, the country which recognised Britain's colonialism as the evil which it was, now finds itself the world's greatest supporter of this planet's last colonial project.

And it's not as if bin Laden has hidden his motivations:

"The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine."

And yet, as Obama seeks to bring a final reconciliation between both Israel and Palestine - the one thing which even Tony Blair admitted might do more than anything else to bring this madness to an end - we see American politicians lining up to insist that Obama is being "counter productive" and insisting that he must seek peace, but seek peace only "on Israel's terms."

Nine years on, we have learnt nothing.

Click here for Fisk's article.

Tags: Robert Fisk, 9-11, Israel, Palestine

Middle East peace talks are 'doomed to fail', says Ahmadinejad.

You have to wonder sometimes about what goes on inside Ahmadinejad's head. Why would he come out - at the very moment when Israel and Palestine are holding their first face to face in two years - and say this?

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today launched an angry attack on "doomed" US-brokered Middle East peace talks and urged the Palestinians to continue armed resistance to Israel.

Ahmadinejad used the annual al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally in Tehran to scorn the Obama administration's efforts in launching the first Arab-Israeli negotiations in nearly two years.

"What do they want to negotiate about? Who are they representing? What are they going to talk about?" the hardline Iranian leader said of the Palestinian negotiating team in Washington.

"Who gave them the right to sell a piece of Palestinian land? The people of Palestine and the people of the region will not allow them to sell even an inch of Palestinian soil to the enemy. The negotiations are stillborn and doomed."

Now, I understand that the larger point he is making concerns the fact that Hamas, the Palestinian people's democratically elected representatives, have been excluded from the process.

I get that point and obviously, somewhere down the road, Hamas will have to be brought into the process. But why does Ahmadinejad favour armed resistance over negotiation? Armed resistance has gotten the Palestinian people nowhere.

I personally am doubtful about how successful these talks will be, but surely everyone sees them as preferable to the alternative?

And, at a time when many in the west are calling for action against Iran, Ahmadinejad does not make it more difficult for them to make their case. Indeed, in the minds of many, he makes the case better than Blair and the neo-cons do.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Ahmadinejad, Iran, Israel, Palestine, peace talks

Palestinian source: U.S. pressuring Abbas to continue talks even if settlements expand.

As the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks begin, Barack Obama is said to be pressuring Abbas to continue the talks even if Netanyahu refuses to stop settlement building. Word from the Palestinian side is warning that this would be impossible for Abbas to agree with.

A senior Palestinian source told Haaretz that the American administration renewed its pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stay in direct negotiations with Israel, even if some construction in the settlements resumes after the end of the current moratorium. The source warned that Abbas would not be able to agree to a renewal of construction and will be forced to withdraw from the talks.

According to the source, a Palestinian okay to the renewal of construction just as direct talks are resumed is politically impossible. Sources in Ramallah said yesterday that both the Israelis and Americans know Abbas' likely course of action.

It is obviously unlikely that Netanyahu will formally agree to suspend construction, after all, he also has his street to play to. But one would hope that an agreement could be reached where there was an understanding that this would cease.

But Abbas, if sources are to be believed, has certainly turned up prepared to compromise.

Abbas would not be able to give up Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem and especially the Temple Mount, but large Jewish neighborhoods would be retained by Israel. If this much is achieved, Abbas will be able to agree that the refugee issue will be resolved primarily within the borders of the new Palestinian state, with only a few tens of thousands receiving Israeli citizenship as a humanitarian gesture.

At the moment, the Palestinian Authority does not seem to be determined to demand Israel take historical responsibility for the refugee problem.

Abbas is, rightly, insisting that any land swap be done on a 1:1 basis in both size and quality. There will be no swapping of fertile Palestinian land for Israeli deserts as has been offered in previous deals.

The most obvious problem at the moment is the city of Ariel:

The PA does not believe it can agree to the city being annexed to Israel in a future agreement, since it is located near the middle of the West Bank, cutting into the territorial contiguity of a future state.

However, the PA might agree to allow some settlers to remain as Palestinian citizens, and realizes other settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim and the Jewish neighborhoods around Jerusalem - will remain in Israeli hands in a future agreement.

Netanyahu spoke of "painful concessions" being needed from both sides. Abbas has certainly arrived prepared to compromise on refugees and other areas, even if he is not hiding the fact that he is suspicious of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the process. This suspicion was also reflected in the comments of Mubarak.

Egyptian President Mubarak, with whom Netanyahu has forged a close relationship over the past year and a half, reminded him that he would soon be put to the test and challenged the Israeli leader to make good on his peace pledges.

"I met Netanyahu a few times since his election," Mubarak said at the ceremony. "He told me again and again he was serious and wants peace. Now is the time to show it."

We are all thinking the same thing. Netanyahu can talk the talk, now he must show us if he can walk the walk. It's easy to say that you want peace. But can he make the "painful compromises" he talks of in order to get it? And can he bring that right wing coalition he leads with him if he is prepared to do it?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, peace talks, Netanyahu, Abbas, Clinton, Obama

Obama warns Middle East leaders 'chance may not come again soon'.

George Bush favoured Israel "too much" according to a majority of Americans, who wanted to see Israel penalised for building new settlements on Palestinian land.

And yet, often, when US politicians vote on matters relating to Israel and the Middle East, they produce a uniformity of opinion which resembles the kind of landslides only achieved in dictatorships or banana republics.

So, Obama has a very good point when he reminds Netanyahu and Abbas that they are facing, a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again".

A majority of US politicians don't appear to want peace in the Middle East, or they certainly don't favour any pressure ever being applied to the Israelis to bring such a peace about.

Under Bush's disgraceful presidency the Palestinians were mistreated and subjected to Israeli wars and blockades, with not a single word of protest from the American president.

Under Obama, it feels different. Obama is at least attempting to be an honest broker, which the fury of certain US politicians attests to.

"The purpose of the talks is clear. These will be direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. These negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. The goal is a settlement negotiated between the parties that ends the occupation which began in 1967, and results in the emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish state of Israel and its other neighbours," he said. "We are under no illusions. Passions run deep. Each side has legitimate and enduring interests. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight ...

"After all, there's a reason that the two state solution has eluded previous generations. This is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult. But we know that the status quo is unsustainable."

The president said that it was in the national interests of all involved, including the US, that the conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion.

Again, Obama stresses that it is "the US's interest" that this matter be resolved. He is the first president I know to make this distinction, to imply that US interests and Israeli interests are not one and the same.

This is why he makes me believe that he is serious about being an honest broker, as other US politicians appear to think that the US must always side with Israel.

"This administration is doing things that I think jeopardize our national security because they are playing such hardball with our ally in the region," said Representative Eric Cantor, the number two House Republican.

"Peace is what we are about in this country and we're about trying to facilitate that, but it should be peace on Israel's terms," he said in a breakfast with reporters to discuss the dispute.

It is this natural tendency to always take the side of the Israelis which has prevented peace between the two sides. The US has never asked that Israel compromise, it has always insisted that any deal reached should favour the Israelis, rather than insist that Israel adhere to international law. They have always favoured asking that the occupied people ensure the security of their occupiers rather than seriously engaging in the ending of the occupation.

So, with someone as fair as Obama in the White House, it is, as he says, a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again". And yet, still, I can muster no confidence in the proceedings. For one reason and one reason alone: I simply do not believe that Netanyahu is serious about peace. I cannot envision any scenario where this man is able to sell peace, should he even want to, to the right wing coalition which he leads. And this scepticism is replicated I notice in both Israel and Palestine.

The White House initiative has been met with wide scepticism in Israel and the occupied territories over whether the other side is ready for peace, particularly given the rejection by hard-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet of compromises such as dismantling settlements.

The thing I don't understand about this is the Israeli intransigence. A two state solution suits the Israelis as, because of demographics, a one state solution would mean the destruction of Israel in all but name. And even the name might go.

Why can't Netanyahu and the Israeli right wingers see that? The world will not watch Israel ethnically cleanse that land of the Palestinians, so what solution - other than a two state solution - do Israeli right wingers envisage? An Apartheid state in which they control a people to whom they deny a vote? A continuation of the present system in which violence always bubbles away just below the surface? What?

I simply don't get it.

It is in Israel's best interests for Netanyahu to seize this moment, and yet I have no faith that he will do so.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Obama, Abbas, Netanyahu

U.S. sees Washington peace talks as start of year-long process.

Both the Obama administration and the Palestinian Prime Minister are talking very similar timetables for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The Obama crowd state:

"While the parameters of an ultimate, comprehensive peace agreement are well known, we do not expect to achieve peace in one meeting," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters.

"But I think we want to see the launch of a vigorous process that will involve significant involvement by the leaders themselves, as well as regular interaction with their respective negotiating teams, including the full participation of the United States, supported by other countries in the region and around the world," he added. Crowley said that the administration thinks it can reach agreement "within a one-year time frame."

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is saying roughly the same thing:

The Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad yesterday unveiled a detailed blueprint for completing the independent state he insisted would be ready in 2011 if Israel lived up to its "moment of reckoning" in the coming weeks of negotiations.

Fayyad identified what he sees as the key to whether or not the talks will be successful or not.

He added that the talks would have to answer questions such as "What kind of state does Mr Netanyahu have in mind when he says 'Palestinian state'"?

"I think this is a most fundamental question," he went on. "I believe, without wishing to really prejudge what will happen in the next few days, the next few weeks, we are approaching that moment of reckoning."

That really is crucial to what happens next. I personally think Netanyahu only used that phrase to appease Obama. I see no way for the right wing coalition he leads to arrive at any compromise which would be acceptable to the Palestinians.

And yet, both the Obama camp and the Palestinians are talking of an agreement being reached within a year.

That puzzles me. Where does this optimism come from? On what is it based? Do they seriously think that Netanyahu is going to concede and give them back the West Bank?

Even Netanyahu is talking of the possibility of peace.

"I am not naive. I see all the difficulties and hurdles and despite this, I believe that a final peace agreement is a reachable objective. Of course, this does not depend just on us," he said on Monday.

Maybe I am simply the worst cynic on the planet, but I can't envision any peace deal which Netanyahu could plausibly sell to a government dominated by pro-settler parties, including his own. With that in mind, I simply don't get where all this optimism is coming from.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Fayyad, Abbas, Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, Obama

Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups.

The Israelis have a word for it: Hasbara. It means public diplomacy or explanation. Others regard it as simply propaganda.

Well, now some Israelis are turning their attention to Wikipedia to make sure their version of events is heard.

Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.

Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.

Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My I srael) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site.

"We don't want to change Wikipedia or turn it into a propaganda arm," says Naftali Bennett, director of the Yesha Council. "We just want to show the other side. People think that Israelis are mean, evil people who only want to hurt Arabs all day."

And what are the issues where Naftali Bennett feels that the Israeli position is being misunderstood?

Take the page on Israel, for a start: "The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria," said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

Now, I would regard the exclusion of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza from any map of Israel to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but, as we all know, few subjects elicit as much passion as this one. Indeed, the very reason that these groups are launching a course in Zionist editing is to avoid following the fate of others who have argued too passionately on Wikipedia.

In 2008, members of the hawkish pro-Israel watchdog Camera who secretly planned to edit Wikipedia were banned from the site by administrators.

Now there is a new approach being taught.

The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust.

"We learned what not to do: don't jump into deep waters immediately, don't be argumentative, realise that there is a semi-democratic community out there, realise how not to get yourself banned," says Yisrael Medad, one of the course participants, from Shiloh.

Is that Shiloh in the occupied West Bank? "No," he sighs, patiently. "That's Shiloh in the Binyamin region across the Green Line, or in territories described as disputed."

When you find yourself using phrases like "territories described as disputed" then you really are out on a limb. How can there be even an honest discussion when one refuses to acknowledge international law or even that certain territories are occupied, not disputed?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Wikipedia, Israel Palestine, Zionist editing

Gaza doctor writes book of hope despite death of three daughters.

This video was made famous during the Israeli war against Gaza as it highlighted for many Israelis the plight of innocent Palestinians caught up in the conflict. It was broadcast live over the Israeli airwaves.

People heard the pain of Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish - a Palestinian who made his living delivering Israeli babies - as he phoned an Israeli friend, who happened to be appearing live on television, and told him of the death of his three daughters from Israeli shelling.

It would be perfectly understandable should a person who has suffered such pain descend into bitterness and recrimination, but Abuelaish has instead written a book, which has been translated into 13 languages, including Hebrew, entitled "I Shall Not Hate."

I Shall Not Hate – published in Canada in April, and out in Britain in January – has had an extraordinary impact. Sitting in the home of his extended family in Jabalia, northern Gaza, Abuelaish – back on a month-long visit from Canada where he now lives and works – reads out emails on his BlackBerry from strangers expressing their sympathy, gratitude and support.

The book has been translated in 13 languages, from Finnish to Turkish – but most importantly copies will soon be available in Hebrew or Arabic. A book tour in the US is scheduled for January; proceeds from sales and appearances will go to Daughters for Life, the charitable foundation Abuelaish set up.

He explains his choice of title. "I'm against any violence. Violence and the military approach proved its failings decades ago and that will never, ever change. No one evaluates; we just continue blindly.

"As Palestinians and Israelis we have failed to change course. We just continue with the same approach which aggravates, escalates and widens the gap of hatred and bloodshed. It's easy to destroy life but very difficult to build it."

Would it not be understandable to feel hate after what has happened to him? "There is a difference between anger and hate. Anger is acute but transient; hate is a poison, a fire which burns you from the inside. We need to be angry, but direct it in a positive way."

One can't help but feel humbled when one witnesses someone rising above such pain, exhibiting an ability to forgive that we hope we would possess, whilst our astonishment at his achievement must make us doubt whether or not we ever could.

"Two weeks before the war came, [the girls] wrote their names in the sand. Where are their names now? Written in stone on their tombs. But I tell you one day their names will be written in metal and stone at schools and medical institutions dedicated to their memory. Words are stronger than bullets. We have to offer a message of hope to those who believe in hate and revenge."

It's an extraordinary achievement that a man who has lost so much should still find the ability to talk of peace and reconciliation. People like Abuelaish should be leading the peace talks rather than the politicians. When Abbas and Netanyahu finally sit down together, someone like Abuelaish should be in the room to provide both of them with perspective.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Abuelaish, Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Abbas

Fury as Israel president claims English are 'anti-semitic'

Shimon Peres in an astonishing interview has pronounced the English as anti-Semitic and has said that they are, "deeply pro-Arab ... and anti-Israeli", adding: "They always worked against us."

He added: "There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary."

Well, I live in England and I can honestly say that I have never heard anything like that phrase. In truth I really don't think such a phrase exists.

But, of course, he is really saying this because David Cameron referred to Gaza as a "prison camp". For that, the whole of England is being written off as anti-Semites.

Now, even the Conservative Friends of Israel vice chairman has stated that Peres has got this one wrong.

But following his comments, James Clappison, the Conservative MP for Hertsmere and vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: "Mr Peres has got this wrong.

"There are pro- and anti-Israel views in all European countries. Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries."

The MP added that he could "understand the frustration" that people in Israel felt with "certain elements of the British broadcast media" which present an unbalanced view of Israel.

He said: "I can understand Mr Peres' concerns, but I don't recognise what he is saying about England."

And some Rabbis have also spoken out:

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, minister of Maidenhead synagogue and a writer and broadcaster, said: "I am surprised at Peres. It is a sweeping statement that is far too one-sided.

"Britain has supported both Israel and Arab causes at different periods over the last 50 years. There are elements of anti-semitism but it is not endemic to British society.

"The tolerance and pluralism here make Britain one of the best countries in the world in which to live."

It really is an appalling accusation to throw at an entire nation simply because you don't like what their PM said about the way you are treating people that you are militarily occupying.

Where I think he is right is when he says this:

"They think the Arabs are the underdogs."

Is there some alternate universe where the Palestinians are not the underdogs?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Peres, Israel, Palestine, United Kingdom, England, anti-Semitism

Gaza is a "prison camp", says Cameron.

Let me applaud Cameron when applause is due:

“Turkey's relationships in the [Middle East] region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

Let me be clear.

The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp. But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it's Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.“

Tony Blair was always ridiculously one sided when it came to the Israel Palestinian dispute, even though he did recognise the need for peace to be made possible between the two sides. But it is simply unthinkable that Blair, whilst Prime Minister, would have (a) spoken out so forcefully against an Israeli attack anywhere, or (b) recognised Gaza as a prison camp. Indeed, after the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008/9 Blair said that he thought the debate about proportionality was "not really a sensible conversation".

The UN famously later disagreed with him finding that war crimes had actually been committed. And yes, the UN also found the subject of proportionality to be rather relevant.

The 575-page report concluded that Israel used disproportionate force, deliberately targeted civilians, used Palestinians as human shields, and destroyed civilian infrastructure during its Dec. 27-Jan. 18 incursion into the Gaza Strip to root out Palestinian rocket squads.

So, Cameron is to be congratulated for having a courage which Blair always lacked on this subject.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Cameron, Gaza, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Blair