|
|
Dec. 9, 2013
Daily summary - Monday, December 09, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main News
LEADERSHIP REJECTS ANY TRANSITIONAL AGREEMENT
The PLO rejected yesterday any transitional agreement with Israel. In a statement released on the 26th anniversary of the start of the first Intifada, the PLO said that ‘on this occasion, the Palestinian people renew their rejection of attempts to undermine its right to a state with complete sovereignty over its water, soil, borders and its capital, Jerusalem.” (Al Hayat Al Jadida)
KERRY: WE NEED TO REACH A FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT; THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE
US Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday that the goal of peace negotiations was to reach a framework agreement on a final solution within the next nine months, adding that he believed it was possible to reach this framework that does not address “all the details” but which “gets us to a point where everyone realizes that moving forward is better than moving backwards.” He said General Allen had worked hard with Israeli forces to ‘tests scenarios” and to reach a solution that would guarantee Israel’s needs for the coming years. In reference to the Jordan Valley, Kerry said that Allen was ‘helping us to make sure the border with the Jordan Valley will be solid” like any other border in the world and that the security of citizens living west of this border – whether Palestinian or Israeli – is secured. On Saturday, President Obama said that the US had reached the conclusion that the two-state solution in the Middle East must ‘strongly include necessary guarantees for Israel’s security.” He also said that if a peace agreement is signed, the Palestinians must agree to Israel’s desire for a ‘transitional period” to ensure that the West Bank is not a security problem like Gaza had become.
In this regard, a Palestinian source said yesterday that the United States was pressuring the Palestinian leadership to convince it of a transitional solution within the framework of peace negotiations with Israel. The source, which asked to remain anonymous, said the leadership believed that the US was trying to contain Israeli anger over the recent Iran deal by appeasing it with its negotiations proposals with the Palestinians. The source said the proposals put forth by Kerry on security arrangements met Israel’s demands but gave no consideration to the Palestinians’. They also said that Kerry backtracked on his agreement to a Palestinian proposal calling for an n international force at the future Palestinian border with Jordan in favor of Israel’s proposal to maintain control over the Jordan Valley.
PLO executive committee member Ahmad Majdalani said the leadership rejected any proposal calling for an Israeli presence at the Palestinian border with Jordan, saying this would ‘strip the Palestinian state of any kind of sovereignty.” He said the American proposals “assume that Jordan is a hostile party to Israel and constitutes a threat to it even though there is a peace deal between the two.”
Details of Kerry’s proposal
According to Haaretz, Kerry’s security arrangements include Israeli troops along the border with Jordan for several years; a demilitarized Palestinian state from heavy weaponry with only security forces maintaining their weapons; joint Palestinian-Israeli presence on crossings with a possible American presence; an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank accept for the Jordan Valley; Israel will not be allowed to move freely inside the Palestinian state for military purposes. (Al Ayyam)
MAARIV: KERRY DECIDES TO POSTPONE THE RELEASE OF THIRD GROUP OF PRISONERS
According to the Hebrew-language daily Maariv today, US Secretary of State John Kerry decided to postpone the release of Palestinian prisoners by one month in order to pressure President Abbas into “softening his stance” towards the negotiations process with Israel. The newspaper quoted Palestinian sources saying that Kerry’s office informed the Palestinian negotiating team of this decision after Abbas rejected an American plan regarding security arrangements in the Jordan Valley, which Kerry proposed to the two sides during his latest visit to the region last week. The sources said Kerry was determined to issue a joint “Palestinian-Israeli statement” stipulating that progress had been made in the negotiations within a month.
Prisoner Affairs Minister Issa Qaraqe’ meanwhile, told Maan that until now the PA had not received any formal decision on what was published in the Hebrew press about the prisoners. He said however that any postponement of the release of prisoners would be part of an Israeli “game and trick” to try and evade its responsibilities towards committing to the agreement to release the prisoners. This batch of prisoners was scheduled for release at the end of this month.(http://maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=655539)
SIX REASONS WHY SHTAYEH RESIGNED FROM THE NEGOTIATING TEAM
Fatah central committee member and resigned member of the Palestinian negotiating team Mohammed Shtayeh told the London-based Al Hayat that there were six reasons behind his resignation. The first is that there was no partner in Israel to reach an agreement with to end the occupation, saying most Israeli ministers in the current government do not believe in peace; the second reason is the continuation of Israel’s strategy on the ground, namely settlement expansion, killing and house demolitions; third: was Israel’s undermining of the Palestinian negotiator’s status during the talks, saying anyone who sought peace would promote this status, not undermine it.; fourth: Israel added a new issue to the final status, which is the Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state; fifth: Israel wants to annex the West Bank and give Palestinian authority over its residents only; sixth: Israel rejected the American party at the negotiating table, which was agreed on before. (http://alhayat.com/Details/580151)
NETANYAHU: NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PALESTINIANS WILL ACHIEVE NOTHING IF IRAN BECOMES NUCLEAR
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu linked efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians with Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, saying that: “our efforts to achieve peace between Palestinians and Israelis will amount to nothing if Iran succeeds in making a nuclear bomb.” Netanyahu was speaking at the Saban conference in Washington, saying that Iran’s nuclear aspirations undermined chances of achieving peace through negotiations. He also said this would undermine Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. (Al Ayyam)
ISRAELI MINISTER SUGGESTS ANNEXING “AREA C” TO ISRAEL
Israeli minister of economy Neftali Bennet suggested yesterday to annex Area C of the West Bank, where the majority of Jewish settlers live, to Israel. Bennet, who was speaking to Israel radio, said it would be “better to impose Israeli sovereignty over this region in which 70,000 citizens [settlers] live and only 70,000 Arabs reside.” Bennet went on to say that Israel only had ‘half a partner” for peace, which is President Abbas, who does not control the Gaza Strip. He also called the negotiations ‘a joke.” (Al Ayyam)
AL AHMAD AND MESHAAL AGREE ON STEPS TO REVIVE RECONCLIATION FILE
Fatah Central Committee member Azzam Al Ahmad confirmed yesterday a meeting between him and Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal in Qatar to discuss the reconciliation file. Al Ahmad said to Voice of Palestine that he held two meetings with Meshaal to discuss political developments, including the reconciliation and ways to revive it. He said he told Meshaal that Fatah was still committed to the agreements between them and still wanted Egypt as the sponsor, in spite of the disputes between the new Egyptian leadership and Hamas. He said the two leaders agreed to steps to revive the reconciliation file, adding that Meshaal also reaffirmed their desire to maintain the Egyptian sponsor. He also said that the meetings were held without any Qatari intervention. (Al Quds)
BARDAWIL: RECONCILIATION IS SUSPENDED UPON DECISION FROM ABU MAZEN; AHMAD-MESHAAL MEETING WAS UNOFFICIAL
Hamas leader Salah Bardawil said yesterday that Palestinian reconciliation efforts were suspended upon political order by President Abbas and upon directives from the American administration because of the negotiations between the PA and the occupation. He said Azzam Al Ahmad has “nothing to talk about in terms of the reconciliation.” Bardawil went on to say that the meeting between Ahmad and Bardawil was ‘unofficial’ and did not result in anything, adding that it wasn’t even planned. (http://qudsnet.com/news/View/259603/البردويل-المصالحة-مجمدة-بقرار-من-ابومازن--ولقا-الاحمد-بمشعل-غير-رسمي/)
YA’ALON: HAMAS IS PREPARING FOR ZERO HOUR
Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon said yesterday that Hamas is not interested at the moment to escalate the situation at the southern border but that it was still preparing for zero hour by building tunnels and building up its rockets arsenal, saying because of this, Israel “had to be well prepared.” He said that Israel would not talk about “one inch” until the Palestinians recognize the right of the Jewish people to their Jewish state and until they relinquish the right of return. (Al Quds)
LAPID URGES NETANYAHU TO REACH AN AGREEMENT EVEN IF THIS LEADS TO A GOVERNMENT COLLAPSE
The main partner in the Israeli coalition government, Yair Lapid urged PM Netanyahu yesterday to show “historical courage” and reach a peace deal with the Palestinians, even if this means that the government collapses. Lapid reassured Netanyahu that he would get the support of his part, Yesh Atid” and spoke about possible changes in the coalition in reference to the chances of right-wing parties leaving and left wing partners taking their place if a deal based on land for peace is achieved. Lapid however, warned that his party would not stay in the coalition if the government did not seriously seek peace through negotiations. (Al Ayyam)
THOUSANDS ATTEND FUNERAL OF CHILD RAMAHI; GHANNAM OFFERS CONDOLENCES ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT
Governor of Ramallah and Al Bireh, Leila Ghannam paid condolences to the family of child martyr Wajh Ramahi, 14, on behalf of President Abbas in the Jalazon refugee camp north of Ramallah. Thousands of Palestinians participated in Ramahi’s funeral procession yesterday afternoon in the camp. The boy was killed by an Israeli sniper day before yesterday. Ramahi’s father said he son was playing football and was going to head to the market to buy a soda when he was shot by a sniper from an Israeli watchtower, saying they killed his son in cold blood. (Al Hayat Al Jadida)
OVER 20,000 PALESTINIAN REFUGEES FROM SYRIA FACE THREAT OF SECURITY DETENTION AND EXPULSION FROM LEBANON
Coordinator for the working group for Palestinians in Syria Tareq Hmoud said yesterday that there were over 20,000 Palestinian refugees who fled the war in Syria to Lebanon and are now threatened with security detention and deportation by Lebanese authorities because the government insists on dealing with them as tourists. Hmoud said this meant that Palestinians had to pay entry and exit fees along with residency fees, which is draining them and which has prompted many of them to reside in Lebanon illegally. Hmoud called on Lebanon to abide by international law in terms of protecting refugees on their soil and to exempt them from paying tourist fees; he also called on the Palestinian leadership to reach an understanding with the Lebanese to solve this problem. (http://www.alquds.co.uk/?p=111685)
|
Headlines
*British military helicopter makes emergency landing in the West Bank (Al Quds)
*Dispute between Israel and Holland over scanner at the Karem Abu Salem checkpoints (Al Quds)
*Anti-Islam slogans on the wall of Al Huda mosque in Baqa Gharbiyeh (Al Quds)
*Egyptian army detonates booby-trapped car north of Sinai (Al Ayyam)
*Assad forces kill five children north of Damascus (Al Ayyam)
*Iraq: 47 killed and dozens wounded in series of new bombings (Al Ayyam)
*Young man killed and another wounded from Khan Younis in car accident in Benghazi (Al Ayyam)
*President receives American consul; grants Abdel Latif Hamad Jerusalem Star medal (Al Hayat Al Jadida)
*Storm from Russia arriving on Wednesday (Al Hayat Al Jadida)
*Israel, a strong economy and rising poverty level (Al Hayat Al Jadida)
|
Front Page Photos
Al- Quds:Baqa Gharbiyeh: residents gather around Al Huda mosque where extremist Jews wrote anti-Islamic and racist slogans
Al-Ayyam:Ramallah: relatives of martyr child Wajih Ramahi say farewell at his funeral in Jalazoun camp
Al Hayat Al Jadida:1) Palestinian from Baqa Gharbiyeh points to racist writings on the wall of a mosque in the town; 2) Citizens in funeral procession of Wajih Ramahi in Jalazoun
|
Voice of Palestine News
Jerusalem: seems like weather conditions are effecting citizens, especially those living in houses threatened in collapsing, and those who their houses where demolished by the occupation, we can clearly see how the weather is affecting those. According to families in Al-Qirami neighborhood, water began to leak into the houses; some of these families are still living in these houses and that some roofs began to collapse. Also those who live in shelters now after demolishing their houses face serious dangers now in Beit Hanina and Shu’fat, these families called for help in order to survive the coming storm.
With regards to Israeli measures in Jerusalem, we note to an arrest campaign in the last 24 hours in the old city and some neighborhoods, it was announced by the police saying that it comes after the events in Al-Aqsa on Friday.
Q: News says the Al-Maqasid hospital is facing reserving its funds; can you provide us with more information?
Yes, this is true, it was confirmed by the hospital that the Jerusalem electricity company reserved all the hospital funds in Israeli banks, and issue a suit against the hospital for not paying its debt of more than 2 million NIS. This was also confirmed by the Jerusalem electricity company, saying the Israeli company issues a law suit against the Jerusalem Company for the same debt. The hospital administration told us that it tried and still tries to pay its debt.
|
Voice of Palestine Interviews
** Qadourah Faris, President of the Prisoners’ Club, on an American demand to postpone the next batch of releasing prisoners before Oslo.
Q: Were you informed of this issue?
Not at all, we don’t have any information if it did happen or not. We don’t know if it happened what are the conditions, does it mean that the last two batches will be joined next month? Or what exactly is the issue here? We did not hear anything yet from the negotiations team and the President.
Q: did you discuss postponing the third batch and joining it with the fourth in order to release both together in a month?
I am not close to the negotiations teams in order to know what goes behind the scenes, our position is according to our experience with the occupation, what was agreed on should be implemented, any re-discussion is usually to amend in the interest of Israel, Israel is trying to seize any opportunity to escape negotiations, so you should ask the negotiators on this issue, they will have clearer answers to provide.
Q: with regards to what Maariv reported, Kerry is trying to pressure the Palestinian leadership since it rejected its proposal, so is it now that the prisoners are being used by Kerry as a way to pressure the leadership?
The prisoners were always an issue to be used for pressure; the US decided that security comes first, so if this is the case and the Palestinian interests are being ignored as if we should be punished. In all cases the nine months are almost over, we don’t agree to re-open issue that reached an agreement like the prisoner, the leadership insists on the prisoners as a main and important issue.
Q: You demanded at the Prisoners’ Club that the prison administration should be put to trail for its practices against prisoners, why you did not issue suits in international courts?
We all know that the administration is committing crimes on a daily basis, we did not approach international community yet since we said that this should be part of a large national effort we can’t decide alone to do so, it should be done first by the PLO, it is not about creating some distortion to the occupation, we are serious and that why this should be done according to the regulations. This will only happen if the PLO says we are going for this.
** Adnan Abu Hasneh, UNRWA spokesman, on entering construction materials for UNRWA to Gaza.
Q: Were you officially informed of entering materials tomorrow by Israel?
Yes we were informed by Israel that it approved six UNRWA projects, and today we will coordinate with Israel for entering the materials tomorrow.
Q: what are these materials?
All materials needed for construction, the approval was only for six projects, we hope that Israel will approve the rest of projects next week, so we can continue with our construction process in 20 projects in the Gaza Strip, these projects were stopped more than 5 weeks ago and awaits approval from Israel to enter martials for its resumption
** Yaser Abed Rabbo, Secretary of the PLO Executive Committee.
Q: According to Maarive, US Secretary of State, John Kerry, decided to postpone the release of the third batch of Prisoners for a month to pressure President Abbas to change his position in the negotiations with Israel, if this is true what would be the leadership’s position?
We don’t care for such statements at all, we don’t think this is serious, and there is a real crisis with regards to what Kerry proposed during his last meeting with Abu Mazen. This crisis is because Kerry wants to satisfy Israel by fulfilling its expansionist demands in the Valley, on the pretexts of security, and keeping the Valley under Israeli control, in addition to Israeli expansionist lust presented in wide settlement activities in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. All of this is needed to make Israel silence regarding to the deal with Iran, fully at our expense. This is the situation, all thoughts of leaving the Valley under Israeli control for security reasons are flimsy, and the fact is that the a lot of sources, also Israeli, say that security is only a pretext for Israel to cut wide parts of the west Bank. In addition, we heard that there are some talks about a “Framework Agreement”, this means an agreement that is general that will deal with Palestinian rights in a general way and undetermined, with a developmental approach more than political one, for negotiating later on these rights and not fulfilling them. Now at the same time, Kerry is dealing with the Israeli demands in a very determined and serious way, for committing to these demands and implementing them immediately. Who said that we want a Framework agreement again? All of these will be efforts by Kerry towards a total failure since he deals with our cause with high level of derision, and at the same time supports the Israeli position no matter what, providing it with security promises in the Valley and other places, and cover its settlement activities, and these will be implemented, while offering us with a framework agreement that includes nothing and that will not be implemented. This contradicts what Kerry promised at the beginning of the negotiations especially with regards to leaving aside temporary agreements.
Q: With regards to the prisoners, if Israel will not release the next batch what would the leadership position be?
Our position is clear; Israel should implement the agreement, period. No one should blackmails u, that for prisoners release Israel will build more housing units at settlements, and we don’t approach international organizations, now, for prisoners we should agree to a general framework agreement, that does not deal seriously with any of our rights, andat the same time provides Israel with a recognition of a Jewish state, and its expansionist approach in the West Bank, especially the Valley, which Israelclaims now that it is vital for its security. All for remaining silent with regards to the Iranian deal. This is not accepted by the prisoners, all Palestinians and the any Palestinian leader. We, together with eth prisoners, will face this policy, and we insist on full implementation of the prisoner’s agreement including releasing the third batch end of December.
Q: You said that the US wants to satisfy Israel because of the Iranian deal, Netanyahu said yesterday and said no peace with the Palestinians if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, he is linking again between the Iranian issue and the negotiations?
This is a clear game, it is strange how clear it is, Netanyahu is saying give me as much as you can from the Palestinian land and I will provide you with silence regarding the Iranian file, no one could think that any response by the Americans at our expense will be achieved. They can do so at their own expense not us.
|
More Headlines
Abu Rdeineh: no agreement without the prisoners and Jerusalem
Presidential spokesperson Nabil Abu Rdeineh reconfirmed today that there would be no agreement without prisoners, Jerusalem and all other final status issues. In statements made to the official Palestinian news agency WAFA, Abu Rdeineh said that the leadership “would not accept the postponement of the release of prisoners, adding that there would be no peace without Jerusalem.” He was responding to reports that Secretary Kerry had informed the Palestinians that the third group of pre-Oslo prisoners would be postponed in order to pressure Abbas to soften his stance in the negotiations with Israel and back down from his rejection of the American plan for security arrangements in the Jordan Valley. (http://safa.ps/details/news/117801/أبو-ردينة-لا-اتفاق-بدون-الأسرى-والقدس.html)
Dispute between Israel and Holland over scanner at the Karem Abu Salem crossing
A dispute between Holland and Israel arose right before the arrival of the Dutch Prime Minister to Israel yesterday over the installation of a Dutch-made scanner at the Karem Abu Salem commercial crossing between Gaza and Israel. According to an Israeli official who asked to remain unnamed to France Presse, the installation of the scanner was postponed after Holland put “unexpected conditions.” The scanner, he said was to make sure of the contents of containers coming from Gaza. The official said the Dutch imposed ‘political conditions” on the percentage of goods going into the West Bank or abroad. While the Israelis want to isolate the two areas – the West Bank and Gaza – from each other, Holland wants to use the scanner as a means of promoting trade between the two places. (Al Quds)
Israeli occupation forces arrest three citizens from Jenin
Israeli occupation forces arrested this morning, three residents of the Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank after several Israeli army vehicles carried out a raid. According to Palestinian security forces, the Israeli army raided the eastern neighborhood in particular at around 3:30 in the morning, breaking into houses and arresting: Majd Sa’adi, 24; Juma’a Abu Khaleefa, 45; and Suleiman Abul Rub, 22. (http://maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=655549)
|
Arab Press
Mandela succeeded where the Palestinians failed
By Daoud Kuttab
The passing away of the leader of the South African liberation movement, Nelson Mandela, at the age of 95 brings to the forefront historic and parallel comparisons between the African national movement led by the African National Congress (ANC) and that of Palestinians led by the Palestine Liberation Organization. For years the two movements were entwined and mutually supportive. But whereas the ANC under Mandela succeeded in liberating its people, the Palestinians have not fared as well.
The Palestinian and African cases are similar and different. The two causes reflect historical injustice and Western support of the domineering regimes. The collusion of so many countries, especially in the western hemisphere, that profess support for self-determination and human rights with oppressive regimes is well-documented. In both Palestine and South Africa, the refusal to grant freedoms and inalienable rights was excused by a well-structured and powerful international dehumanization campaign that branded resistance against discrimination and occupation with derogatory terms such as terrorism.
Both Palestinians and South Africans adopted various forms of resistance including violent and nonviolent means, and both were met with brutal and exaggerated force with the aim of putting down any type of resistance. Military and political opponents of the ruling powers who survived physical assault were put in jail simply for their thoughts and public political support to their own liberation movements that were declared “terrorist.”
Not only were the liberation struggles given such negative labels, but the people they were fighting for were treated discriminatorily by people they didn’t elect and by laws and courts over which they had no control or say.
The struggle for freedom was rejected and the people’s national desires were treated as the social unrest of rowdy and ungrateful people who didn’t appreciate the benevolence and the privilege that the "white man," or in Palestine’s case "the European Zionist," was bestowing upon them.
These differences were known by the people fighting for freedom, but were totally ignored by those whose own thinking should have led them to the same conclusions. Nelson Mandela was not silent on such Western hypocrisy. In a powerful letter to America’s darling New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in 2010, the former South African president wrote: “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established ‘normally’ and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a ‘state’ but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.”
Mandela concluded: “Thomas, I'm not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I'm not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you're about, give me a call.’
The apartheid analogy was the focus of another former president. US President Jimmy Carter wrote an entire book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid on how Israel has turned the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza into what South Africa was like before liberation.
When the Palestinian and South African movements began, they were similar in scope and goal. Both wished for and fought for democratic regimes in which all citizens have equal civil and political rights. Africans continued with this goal while the Palestinians, after failing to convince Israeli Jews to accept the concept of a bi-national state for all the people of historic Palestine, changed course and opted for a goal of two states for two peoples.
The story of Mandela is not only a story of national liberation, but also a personal one that many in the world revere. Palestinians unhappy with their current leaders are looking for their own Mandela. Many are seeing in imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, whose political and resistance history is not too dissimilar from the African leader, a possible Palestinian Mandela. Barghouti’s wife was in South Africa with former comrades of Mandela to launch a campaign calling for the release of Barghouti and all Palestinian prisoners.
Mandela is a towering figure who has dominated liberation literature for the latter half of the 20th century. His role in supporting the Palestinian movement will always be remembered and revered. Palestinian thoughts were captured in a short tweet by a Palestinian journalist from Ramallah, Nour Odeh: “Tonight Palestinians are South Africans, mourning #Mandela. His legacy will shine our path as we continue marching to our #freedom RIP.”(http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/nelson-mandela-palestine-support.html)
US’ role as ‘honest broker’ in Mideast East
By HASSAN BARARI
Having closely followed the Palestinian-Israeli peace process since the Madrid peace conference, I can hardly avoid the conclusion that the Unites States is part of the problem as it has failed to act as an “honest broker.” I just finished reading Rashid Khalidi’s intriguing book entitled “Brokers of Deception” in which he makes the case that the US has never been an impartial mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is this a surprise? Hardly!
Here again, another US secretary of the state steps in the ring to help Israelis and the Palestinians work out a fair deal. Explicit in Kerry’s move is his desire to succeed where his predecessor failed. He wants the Palestinian-Israeli peace deal to be his signature legacy. Yet, I am not sure that he understands the requirements for a fair deal. Forcing the Palestinians to conform to the Israeli government’s vision is one thing and working to dismantle the structure of occupation and the matrix of Israeli control to achieve a lasting peace is another thing.
I am not saying that Kerry should not try to mediate. On the contrary, the US is the only country on this planet that can pressure the Israeli government to come to terms with what is widely deemed as a fair deal. But his shuttle diplomacy is nothing but a smokescreen concealing the American attempt to force the Palestinians to accept less than a fair deal. To use Aaron David Miller’s words, America is “Israel’s lawyer.”
In his last visit to Israel less than a week ago, Kerry presented his ideas about ways of protecting Israel’s security if a Palestinian state was established. Perhaps, it is the first time that the Americans outlined their own proposals with regard to the issue of security. It seems that by providing proposals, Kerry wants to know of the security argument being tossed willy-nilly around all the time. In other words, Kerry thinks that his ideas can meet the requirement of Israel’s security without infringing on Palestinian sovereignty. We don’t know yet the contents of Kerry’s proposals.
For Netanyahu, Israeli security entails the presence of military troops along the Jordan River. He made it perfectly clear that his country would not consider the notion of dependence on a third party presence along the Jordan River. It is difficult to square this position with the Palestinians insistence on full sovereignty. Palestinians are not oblivious to the Israeli security argument, yet they are open to a different idea that would not compromise their independence. President Abbas is quite amenable to the idea of third party presence in the future Palestinian state.
Israelis are divided over the issues. There are some who argue that future threats will come from missiles, which makes territories and topography less important for the security of Israel. Against that, there are those who believe that the Jordan valley is a buffer and Israel should make sure that it remains so. To be sure, there are those who still use the security pretext to undermine the prospects of an independent Palestinians state.
Therefore, one should not take Netanyahu’s line that Israel is ready for peace at face value. I found his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, more honest when he says that peace with the Palestinians is unlikely. True, Lieberman is against peace on ideological grounds, but his statement made at the annual Saban Forum in Washington a few days ago reflect the sentiments of the majority in the government.
Given the rigidity of the situation, Kerry needs to understand that the Palestinians will not settle for any deal that does not fit the bill of “fair” deal. Although Abbas is desperate to get a deal, he cannot do that at any price. Half of his people are supporting Hamas and a bad deal with Israel will only guarantee the end of Abbas.
For peace to materialize, Kerry should work toward ending the structure of the occupation and the matrix of control. Since American mediation in the conflict started back in the 1970s, no single American president — Bill Clinton included — ever worked toward dismantling the structure of occupation.
All we have seen is a complicit American role that attaches primacy to Israeli demands. We may recall the humiliating withdrawal of President Obama from his position articulated during the first month of his first term. As it stands, American cannot be an “honest” broker.(http://www.arabnews.com/news/489616)
Here is why deconstructing Zionism is important
By Michael Marder
To criticize the final sequence of Eran Riklis' poignant 2008 film Lemon Tree, based on actual events, is symptomatic of the hidden dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel's defense minister, who moves with his family to a new house on the occupied West Bank, deems the neighboring lemon grove of a Palestinian widow Salma Zidane, a security threat. His legal team files a motion to uproot Zidane's lemon trees in a case that reaches Israel's Supreme Court.
The Court's decision is truly Kafkaesque: The trees are to be "pruned" to a height that would not exceed fifty centimeters off the ground in order to allow for an unobstructed view of the territory. In the final sequence, we see the defense minister standing in front of a concrete wall separating his backyard from his Palestinian neighbor’s grove.
As the camera zooms into and sweeps over the wall - in a cinematic transgression of boundaries, "separation fences", and apartheid lines - it reveals Salma Zidane wistfully walking on the other side, amid the maimed stumps of her trees.
The symbolic identification between the lemon grove and the stateless Palestinian people is obvious. But what does the Supreme Court decision mean in this context? Does it not imply that, whenever they are not altogether uprooted, expelled from their houses, and forcibly removed from their land, Palestinians find themselves in an impossible situation of barely remaining alive, no more than fifty centimeters off the ground? Does it not suggest that, even if they are to keep the roots tethering them to Palestine, their growth will be stunted and they will bear no fruit?
The concrete wall casts everything around it in its own image, rendering the world it divides uninhabitable and hence world-less, lifeless and sterile. And so, the film reconfigures the entire Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a standoff between the inorganic (and deadening) force concentrated in the wall and the vanishing presence of the organic realm condensed in the lemon trees. The Israeli national myth of "having made the desert bloom" reveals the dark underside that has made it possible in the first place: Zionism has turned, and continues to turn, blossoming tree groves into a desert.
To deconstruct Zionism is, therefore, to demand justice for its victims - not only for the Palestinians, who are suffering from it, but also for the anti-Zionist Jews, 'erased' from the officially consecrated account of Zionist history.
Zionism and deconstruction
French philosopher, Jacques Derrida once said that deconstruction is the possibility of justice.
To deconstruct Zionism is, therefore, to demand justice for its victims - not only for the Palestinians, who are suffering from it, but also for the anti-Zionist Jews, "erased" from the officially consecrated account of Zionist history. By deconstructing its ideology, we shed light on the context it strives to repress and on the violence it legitimizes with a mix of theological or metaphysical reasoning and affective appeals to historical guilt for the undeniably horrific persecution of Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere.
It is, of course, possible to appeal to justice without evoking deconstruction, which is not, in formal philosophical terms, the necessary condition of possibility for this demand. Why, then, deconstruct Zionism? Why now? And, in the first place, what does such a deconstruction entail?
Let us begin with the meaning of deconstruction as it bears on Zionism.
In its most basic sense, the injunction to deconstruct Zionism entails a radical ideology critique with its careful examination of all the presuppositions hidden in an "-ism". History matters: Like other ideologies, Zionism was a historical construction, a more or less coherent project that took a vast array of forms, running the gamut from the religious to the secular.
Deconstruction replays the history of Zionism backwards; teasing out its motivations, strategies, and above all the unstated preconditions for what is included in its doctrine (for instance, the dismissal of the pre-1948, of the already existing non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in the slogan, "A land without a people for a people without a land").
In a deeper sense, deconstruction means exposing and undoing the claims to an eternal truth that are prevalent in a metaphysical way of thinking. In all its forms, Zionism takes the concept of the Jewish people and its connection to the "Land of Israel" to be trans-historical and unitary, temporary exiles notwithstanding.
Proclaiming Jerusalem to be the "eternal and indivisible" capital of the State of Israel wilfully neglects the city's historicity, its changing architectural, demographic, and political realities through the centuries. Zionism further presupposes the return of the Jewish people to their "historical homeland" and, thus, a recovery - political and otherwise - of the lost unity of the exiled.
To deconstruct Zionism is to interrogate, at once with rigor and with intense personal and political commitment, the myths of national-religious-ethnic origins, of an Odysseus-like return to the place from which ancestors were exiled, and of the unbreakable unity of a people underlying the diversity of its exilic identities.
Responses to the critics
It is easy to anticipate some of the criticisms that will be addressed to any attempt to deconstruct Zionism. These are likely to fall into three broad categories.
1- A focus on Zionism but not on Palestinian ideologies is one-sided and therefore asymmetrical. It lacks the neutrality that marks scholarly research.
But how can one champion a neutral and symmetrical scholarly approach in situations where conditions on the ground are decidedly asymmetrical and become ever more so day by day? What is symmetrical about a confrontation between a powerful state and a stateless people?
More often than not, scholarly neutrality is but a subterfuge, a cover of neutralization and depoliticisation (as Carl Schmitt would have it) that creates the desired "every story has at least two sides" effect, allowing injustice to proceed with impunity. This is a textbook case of such a stratagem. The plea for neutrality is itself a part of the metaphysical narrative to be deconstructed.
2- Scrutinizing Israeli Zionism, instead of discussing the oppression prevalent in other states in the region, is unfair. Israel is singled out, while many of them are much worse.
Curiously, the proponents of this argument would not have a problem endorsing Israel's exceptionalism: For instance, when it becomes the first country in the world to refuse the request to appear before the UN Human Rights review. At once a state among others states and a unique state above international law, it is ideally rendered immune to criticism.
Our task is to single it out precisely because it is a state that is quite exceptional, though not in the same sense as those making this claim have in mind. Israel's exceptionalism hinges on the fact that it was a state created thanks to a massive displacement of Arab populations that inhabited the area under the British Mandate and an equally massive influx of immigrants from war-torn Europe and the Middle East.
First, the biggest threat to the wellbeing and security of Israeli Jews (and, often, by implication of Jews who live elsewhere in the world and are assumed to be the supporters of Israeli policies) is neither Iran nor Syria; it is the State of Israel itself.
A state that was constituted, presumably, to atone for one of the biggest tragedies of the 20th century and that, without delay, perpetrated countless crimes against its Palestinian neighbors.
A state that, to this day, re-founds and legitimizes itself based on a mix of millennia-old theodicy and a frozen mould of 19th-century European-type nationalism, which has not survived in this form anywhere in Europe.
A state that proclaims itself to be the only democracy in the Middle East, while systematically treating its Arab members as third-class citizens and keeping the imprisonment of some of its Jewish citizens secret.
3- Critique of Zionism is rooted in contemporary anti-Semitism, practiced by dissident Jews and non-Jews alike. To criticize Israel is to hate the Jewish people and to prepare the grounds for a new Shoah.
First, the biggest threat to the wellbeing and security of Israeli Jews (and, often, by implication of Jews who live elsewhere in the world and are assumed to be the supporters of Israeli policies) is neither Iran nor Syria; it is the State of Israel itself.
Aside from Israel's belligerent behavior on regional and international arenas, its occupation of Palestine not only makes the lives of people who live under this regime impossible, but is also unsustainable as it drains public resources for the purpose of providing "security" to fanatical settlers. It is imperative to deconstruct Zionism not out of hatred, but out of intense concern for the Jewish Israelis, who are set on a path of self-destruction in oppressing and decimating a neighboring Palestinian population.
Second, the conflation of Zionism and Judaism is a gross mistake: Many Jews, in Israel and outside its boundaries, are non- or anti-Zionist, while many Zionists are not practicing Jews. Even a conflation of Zionism and the current State of Israel is unjustifiable, as many in the history of the Zionist movement considered the possibility of creating a Jewish state elsewhere - for instance, in East Africa.
Third, deconstructing Zionism is not just a critique; it is an exercise in unravelling its philosophical suppositions. Zionism is a metaphysically inflected ideological and political worldview, not a religion, and most definitely, not an ethnicity.
To criticize it is no different from criticizing, say, Portuguese imperialism in the period between the 15th century and the end of the Salazarist New State in 1974 (except that Portuguese imperialism is already a thing of the past, while Zionist occupation is still on-going).
'If not now, when?'
Finally, why now?
The question echoes that of a Jewish sage, Rabbi Hillel, who famously asked: "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?"
A question of ethical commitment, "Why now?" receives a response in the form of another question: "If not now, when?" Against the backdrop of the farcical "peace process", deconstructing Zionism is a matter of urgency, because the past, present, and future victims of Zionist oppression demand justice. Ethically, we must be for them. Only then, can we hope to be anything at all. Zionism means to demand justice for its victims.(http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/12/here-why-deconstructing-zionism-important-201312863538927197.html)
|
Opinions
What makes Kerry optimistic?
By Mahmoud Al-Rimawi
Unlike what the negotiating parties mention, Minister John Kerry speaks of an unprecedented progress in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Kerry's made his 8thvisit to Tel Aviv and Ramallah since he took office, and had succeeded in pushing the parties to resume negotiations last July after a gap of three years. But those negotiations stopped about a month ago as a result of the insistence of the Israeli Government intensify settlement activities, and on its continued presence in the Jordan Valley with the Palestinians in any possible settlement, this made head of the Palestinian delegation, Saeb Erekat, to stop negotiating and then submit his resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas.
The only indicator for Kerry’s optimism is presenting his proposals to the two sides described as having security nature related to the situation in the Jordan Valley, apparently the negotiating parties requested to study these proposals and did not refuse it, Kerry and his aides saw this as a "positive" sign. Erekat described the situation of the negotiations as "very complex", at a time when he is under intense pressure to maintain the pace of negotiation, until the nine months period set by the US for the two parties to reach an agreement is over. However, the Zionist side insists to continuing settlements during this period, while the US side condemns the continuation of settlement, still the US does not believe that this is a reason to suspend negotiations.
In fact, Washington’s enthusiasm to resume negotiations, and strive to achieve a "breakthrough", is seeking to reassure the Israeli "side" after the signing of the agreement with Tehran on its nuclear file, and demonstrate that the Zionist entity's security remains a priority, both in negotiations with Tehran, or with Ramallah. Palestinian leaders have expressed (Taysir Khaled, a member of the PLO Executive Committee) their concern of Kerry's attempts to appease the Netanyahu Government, and earning its temporarily silence regarding the Geneva Accord, with additional concessions of US Secretary of State to the Israeli side at the expense of the rights and interests of the Palestinian people. It is understood that the Netanyahu Government continues to demonstrate its reservations on the Geneva nuclear deal with Tehran. It is also understood that the Zionist side continues to insist in negotiating security issues considering it the entrance to achieve any progress in the negotiation, it is a formula designed to legitimize occupation, and an acquisition of legal justification for its expansion, which took security pretexts as reasons for its continued existence in the Jordan Valley, the western border with Jordan, and more, the Netanyahu Government is trying to win over Jordan in order to support its security arrangements with an Israeli presence in the Valley, as it meets the interests of Jordan and Tel-Aviv promotes
No sign of Kerry's plan, developed by his Special Adviser to the Secretary of Defense Gen. John Allen, who accompanied Kerry on his last visit, has leaked yet, but Palestinian observers suggested that the proposals include sharing authority at border crossings, with Tel Aviv keeping control in the air. The meaning of the plan is considered lesssupportive of Palestinian interests and damages Palestinian sovereignty if compared with the agreement on the crossings between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, whichgranted the Israeli side remote monitoring opportunity (outside the Gaza Strip) for those who enter en departure, and agreement that was concluded after the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. The Authoritycould still argue that the security situation in the West Bank is handled, but that there are in some cases security coordination between the two sides, making claims of security requirements just a lame excuse for the continuation of the occupation, as well as security could not be achieved from the perspective of one party for its own and only benefit, the Palestinian side as the weaker party, needs guarantees in the arrangements which will ensure that the Palestinian State land will not be invaded by troops,and that the Zionist air force will not use Palestinian airspace, and that no country in the world would accept not controllingits borders and surrender to another party, whoever this party is.
While talking about this particular aspect, the continuation of settlement and incursions, and the large settlements in the size of cities, in addition to those smaller ones, and the annexation wall which cuts through the West Bank, all are still issues far from negotiations and diplomatic efforts led by John Kerry, supervised by resident envoy Martin Indyk. The Zionist side, meanwhile, insists on keeping large settlement blocks in any agreement with the willingness to "compromise" on the small and isolated blocks. As well as the rest of issues like Jerusalem and the return of refugees, even issues that are seemingly less complex issues such as the release of 10,000 prisoners in Israeli jails, some of them spent more than 20 years ago.
There is no prospect for negotiations in its current form, but a real question: why not take advantage of an international version, in particular, involving permanent members of the Security Council to sponsor the negotiations as those led to the Geneva Iranian -West agreement, instead of US exclusive sponsorship?(http://www.alkhaleej.ae/studiesandopinions/page/5dbbc2c9-e4ee-4be3-adce-a33493ba5e48)
Netanyahu’s Altercations!
Al-Quds Editorial
Israeli Prime Minister invents a flimsy and illogical pretexts to obstruct the peace process and prevent reaching a solution to the Palestinian issue, by announcing yesterday in his speech at the “Saban” conference in Washington, that a peace agreement with the Palestinian side cannot be reached if Iran acquired nuclear weapon, claiming that everyone is now aware that the question of Palestine "is not the basis of the Middle East conflict and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not related to borders or settlements, but the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jewish State within any borders”, these were strange statements that raises many questions and confirm that the Israeli Prime Minister was looking for new pretexts to prevent progress in the peace process.
It is even stranger that Netanyahu's comments came a day after President Barack Obama’s speech before the same meeting, hours after a similar speech by Secretary of State John Kerry stressing that a peace agreement is possible, Obama even pointed out clearly that "the agreement framework” lines are known for a long time. Netanyahu's remarks also came after his Finance Minister Yair Lapid announced that a failure to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians "threatens the existence of Israel” and that the Israeli Government should advance the peace process even if this demands a change of the ruling coalition in Israel.
The big fallacy presented by Netanyahu is regarding the illogical link between Iran's issue and the continuing illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories for decades, while the world supports ending this occupation and recognizing the Palestinian State on the territories occupied in 1967, and even granting Palestine an observer state in the United Nations.
The most important fallacy of Netanyahu is ignoring the causes of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, especially the illegal occupation, settlements and Israel’s refusal to recognize international resolutions concerning the Palestinian refugees and their return to their homes. How the Netanyahu Government expropriates and the successive Israeli Governments the right of an entire people in freedom and independence and occupies its territory and establish illegal settlements, and claims that settlements are not the problem and that borders are not the problem?! Since when did States recognize each other on the basis of religious affiliation of part of its population? And what about the mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, which launched the peace process? Does the world recognize Israel as a State or as a Jewish State?!
Netanyahu is aware and understands as the whole world, that the Palestinian question is the basis of the Middle East conflict, and not resolving the issue lead to several wars and continued uprisings because of Israel's insistence on itsexpansionist ambitions, and to perpetuate its occupation and settlements, and trying to impose its terms to dominate the region.
Israel's arrogance and its disregard for international law and the resolutions of international legitimacy, and the denial of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, were the main reasons for the continuation of the conflict in the region, as a main reason for Israel's isolation in the international arena.
Therefore we say that Netanyahu's new old Altercations does not serve the peace process, and does not contribute to enhancing security and stability in the region, but a dangerous dodge to push for more tension and an explosion, therefore it is very important that the international community urgently curb these trends, the push for the logic of peace and international legitimacy instead of war, ambitions expansion and hegemony language. The world has proved that it can curb Israel and prevent a devastating war in the region to settle the issue of Iran, will the world act in a similar way to resolve the Palestinian cause rather than continuing to hear the drums of war?!(http://www.alquds.com/news/article/view/id/477191)
|
|
WHAT'S NEW
BACKGROUND
POLLS
WAYS TO GET JMCC
CONTACT US
|
To subscribe to free newsletter submit your email |
|
|
|