Third flotilla setting out to challenge Israeli blockade of Gaza

- At least 3 boats are preparing to set sail for Gaza in an attempt to penetrate the Israeli blockade of the territory. Activist Kalle Ohlsson said although there would be aid on board, the main objective was to open Gaza to trade and free movement.

+ Add Image

Members of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition now in Palermo, Sicily, told Al Jazeera that final preparations were already under way and the boats hoped to reach Gaza by the end of this month. One ship, the Sweden-flagged Marianne, was moving between Sicilian ports. It has limited space but it is carrying some aid including medical equipment and solar panels. Details of the other boats and when they will set sail are being kept secret to avoid sabotage. Ohlsson said: "We're very concerned about safety. We have a strict non-violence policy. We're hoping Israel won't use violence against us." The three ships will all be flying Swedish flags. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition is based in Sweden and Norway.

The Swedish journalist Kajsa Ekman, who plans to sail on the Marianne, says:"I'm hoping that the Israelis actually understand that it would create a lot of more goodwill for them if they actually let the boats through, because there's no reason for them not to do that. It's counterproductive in the end. I think they've totally lost common sense here, because really it's not a threat to bring in medical equipment, to bring in medicine, to bring in solar panels."

The list of participants in the flotilla has been kept secret but it is known that a former Tunisian president is included, as well as athletes, academics, parliamentarians, journalists and a Catholic nun. One participant is Dro Feller, 63, a well-known musician and artist from Sweden. He was born in Israel and served in the Israeli armed forces, but emigrated to Sweden 40 years ago. His parents are anti-occupation activists. His mother still lives in Israel but Feller has been unable to visit her, as he is denied entrance to Israel. He cannot even go to get the court verdict explaining why he is banned. His saxophone was confiscated when he went on the first flotilla and he says they will not give it back. Feller said: “We must go because our politicians fail to do their job – they fail to put enough pressure on Israel to lift off the blockade on land and sea.”

The blockade was implemented in 2007 after Hamas took control of the strip. Palestinians may only enter Gaza through the Rafah crossing to Egypt, which is often closed, and the Kerem Shalom and Erez crossings under the control of Israel. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in a report released last March: “These restrictions have reduced access to livelihoods, essential services and housing, disrupted family life, and undermined the people’s hopes for a secure and prosperous future.” A unity government agreed to by Hamas and the Fatah group of Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas is supposed to rule Gaza now, but Hamas appears still to be in control for the most part.

Hamas student groups do well in West Bank university election

Hebron - The results of student council elections at West Bank universities showed that Hamas has gained popularity at the expense of the Palestine Authority.

+ Add Image

In an April 21 election at the Palestine Polytechnic University in Hebron, the Islamic Bloc, the student arm of Hamas, tied with the Fatah Youth Movement, with each group winning 15 seats. This was a surprise but even more surprising were the results announced on April 22 from Birzeit University, showing that the Islamic Bloc won over Fatah by 26 seats to 19. Turnout at Birzeit was 77 percent, with the Hamas-aligned group receiving 3,400 votes and the Fatah-aligned group 2,545. In last year’s vote, the Fatah bloc won 23 seats while the Islamic bloc received 20, according to a school press release. The university president, Khalil Hindi, claimed the elections took place in a democratic and peaceful atmosphere. Birzeit, long a center of student activism, is considered the best university in the West Bank.

Abdul Rahman Hamdan, head of the Islamic Bloc said: “This victory is proof that Palestinians support the resistance, as it is the only way to obtain our rights and refuse the PA’s project, which is based on negotiations. Although the bloc was fiercely attacked by the Israeli occupation and the PA, we won. I expect the campaign to escalate in the coming phase.”Khaled Meshaal, who heads Hamas' political bureau said that his group was ready for legislative and presidential elections. Youssef Rizqa, a former information minister in the Hamas government said:“The reasons behind the victory of Hamas and the defeat of Fatah lie beyond university and stem from [President Mahmoud] Abbas’ stance vis-a-vis the resistance and the recent war on Gaza, the paralysis of the consensus government and the denial of the reconciliation.”

The university elections are taken as a barometer of trends in Palestinian politics. Birzeit University is liberal and Fatah was not expected to lose. Fatah was quite upset at a defeat on its own territory even if just in a student election. A Palestinian official told Al Monitor that Abbas "held a meeting with Fatah cadres in Birzeit in the past few days and scolded them for their huge loss facing Hamas supporters, knowing that they were offered financial allocations and security facilities allowing them to win."

The reconciliation projects between Hamas and Fatah apparently are not progressing. Negotiations with Israel are halted. There are internal disputes within the Palestinian Authority as well. The Palestinian Authority further alienates many Palestinians by cracking down on Hamas. A few days after the Hamas' student election victory, the Palestinian security apparatus arrested Islamic Bloc cadres. Fathi Qarawi, a member of Hamas' Legislative Council claimed:“Arresting and pursuing students reveals the true face of the PA. If it had known the bloc would win the elections, it would have used weapons to impede this victory. The PA won’t blink before oppressing any other attempt for Hamas to win, given its repeated losses.”

Back in September the two rival Palestinian groups agreed to a unity government for Gaza that would be headed by PA president Mahmoud Abbas. However, the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that the humanitarian conditions in the strip are very poor and funding very limited: That funding is conditioned on the auspices of the Palestinian Authority, which is not really functioning in the Gaza Strip. The last visit of a number of PA ministers to Gaza two weeks ago ended after about 24 hours, showing that the option of PA rule in the Strip in the near future is not realistic.

Abbas' anti-Israel rhetoric annoys the US and Israel

The US expressed annoyance at the UN speech of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas accused Israel of carrying out acts of genocide during the recent Operation Protective Edge.

Abbas also accused Israel of planning another "Nakba" or "disaster" referring to events before and after Israeli independence: During the 1948 Palestine War, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled, and hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were depopulated and destroyed.[2][3] Abbas termed the latest round of conflict in the Gaza strip "a series of absolute war crimes carried out before the eyes and ears of the entire world, moment by moment" and claimed that the devastation was unmatched in modern times. Abbas also accused Israel of undermining any chances for peace during the earlier 9 months of negotiations as well as consistently trying to "fragment our land and our unity." While Israel may very well be guilty of war crimes, Abbas' use of the term "genocide" is hardly accurate.
 Israel has been upset not only by Abbas' rhetoric but by the formation of a unity government with Hamas regarded by both the US and Israel as a terrorist organization. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was quite critical of Abbas and suggested he could not be a partner in future peace talks:"Abu Mazen's (Abbas') words at the UN General Assembly sharply clarify again that Abu Mazen doesn't want and can't be a logical partner for a political settlement. Abbas isn't a member of joint government with Hamas for no reason." Senior officials in Israeli Prime Minister's Benjamin Netanyahu's office also denounced the speech.
The US joined the chorus of criticism with State Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki, saying: "President Abbas' speech today included offensive characterizations that were deeply disappointing and which we reject. Such provocative statements are counterproductive and undermine efforts to create a positive atmosphere and restore trust between the parties." Abbas' rhetoric may be designed to show his constituency that he is tough on Israel. Abbas has lost support while Hamas has gained it by standing up to Israel in spite of the devastation wreaked upon the Gaza Strip because of Hamas' continued resistance and firing of rockets into Israel.
Abbas may be strong in his rhetoric but failed to follow through with actions. He did not say anything about joining the International Criminal Courts. His aides have often said he is prepared to do so, an action that would irritate the Israelis. Abbas said:"We will not forget and we will not forgive, and we will not allow war criminals to escape punishment." Abbas failed to indicate how this was to be accomplished and said nothing about taking the issue to the International Criminal Court.
 Abbas' aides also claimed that Abbas would press for a new UN Security Council resolution that would set a three year schedule for Israel to withdraw from all Palestinian territories captured during the 1967 war. The aides said as well that if the UN did not accept the resolution Abbas would seek membership in more international agencies including the International Criminal Court. Abbas could bring to the court not only the war crimes issue but also Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank that the Palestinians see as part of their future state.
  Hamas and the Palestinian Authority(PA) have reportedly negotiated a "comprehensive" agreement that will see officials of a unity government take over the civil administration of Gaza. The unity government is led by President Abbas. Both groups hope that this agreement will pave the way for easing of the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel with the help of Egypt.
 A recent study by the Palestinian Authority estimates costs of reconstruction in Gaza to be $7.8 billion. Under the agreement, the PA will take control of the border crossings of the Gaza Strip including the key Rafah crossing into Egypt. Abdel al-Sisi the Egyptian president had demanded that the PA and not Hamas control the crossing. The agreement will end Hamas' seven year long sole rule of Gaza after it won elections in 2006. The agreement comes after complaints by each side about the other including Hamas' anger at the PA refusal to pay the salaries of 45,000 civic employees in Gaza. If the new agreement holds and the new government operates smoothly this will be a giant step forward in resolving the constant bickering between Hamas and the PA that continually threatens Palestinian unity and prevents a common front in negotiations with Israel.

Hamas and Fatah leaders hold reconciliation talks with President Mursi in Cairo

Leader of Fatah and president of the Palestinian authority Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas head, Khaled Meshal, met separately with Egyptian President Morsi in Cairo. They then held reconciliation talks with president Morsi mediating.

The two Palestinian factions signed a reconciliation pact in Cairo in May of 2011 but the main points in that agreement are not yet implemented. Officials from Hamas and Fatah said that the talks will focus on a unity government. This would make it possible to hold parliamentary and presidential elections that are long overdue.

Hamas won a majority of seats in elections in 2006 and took over the Gaza strip in 2007. Hamas recently allowed Fatah to hold rallies in the Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas. Fatah has reciprocated by allowing Hamas rallies in the West Bank. The Hamas delegation is also slated to meet with Egyptian intelligence representatives to talk about the ceasefire with Israel in the Gaza Strip. Hamas was formed in 1987 as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and hence has historical ties with the group associated with Egyptian president Mursi.

Egypt was instrumental in negotiating the truce that ended an 8-day military offensive launched by Israel last November. More than 150 Palestinians and 6 Israelis were killed in the conflict. Hamas has refused to renounce violence and also does not recognize Israel's right to exist. However, the present leader Khaled Meshal has said that he would agree to a settlement with Israel based upon the 1967 borders but with the right of return of all displaced Palestinians. Israel, US, and the EU all designate Hamas as a terrorist group, although Iran, Russia,Turkey, and Arab nations do not. A unified Palestinian movement would give more power to the Palestinians in negotiating with Israel. However, both Israel and the US are opposed to a unified government with Hamas given the stance of Hamas on Israel and the use of violence.

Lieberman rules out attack against Iran

This is from antiwar.com.

Of course if you read the article it is clear that Lieberman is ruling out an Israeli attack on Iran. He wants the US to do the job for Israel! At the same time Lieberman has announced the death of peace talks with the Palestinians. The US will probably come into considerable conflict with Israeli policies for the first time in some while. The Obama seems to be encouraging reconiciliation between Hamas and Fatah and is trying to make it possible for aid to flow through a unified Palestinian govt. that would include Fatah.



Lieberman Rules Out Israeli Attack on Iran
Posted By Jason Ditz On April 26, 2009 @ 6:54 pm In Uncategorized
Though only in office for a few weeks, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has dramatically redefined Israel’s official foreign policy on a number of fronts. His first major act was to declare the stalled peace talks with the Palestinians dead, sparking both international and domestic outrage. In his first media interview he announced that he was replacing Iran as Israel’s worst threat, bestowing that honor on Pakistan, and declared that the United States would accept any decision the Israeli government made on the peace process.
Now, having dispatched of Iran’s position as Israel’s gravest threat, Lieberman surprised even further by declaring that Israel would not attack Iran, even if international sanctions fail to convince Iran to abandon its civilian nuclear program.
Virtually the centerpiece of Israel’s foreign policy for the last several years has been its nearly weekly suggestions that they may attack Iran in the near future. Abandoning this policy would be a major change for Israel, and shocking coming from the hawkish Lieberman, whose previous cabinet position as Minister of Strategic Affairs was created specifically to coordinate military, intelligence and diplomatic initiatives against Iran.
Not that the foreign minister objects to the idea of attacking Iran. Instead, while he supports “severe sanctions, very severe sanctions,” and “harsher and more effective sanctions” at the moment, he said Israel should not be expected to “resolve militarily the entire world’s problem,” instead suggesting that “the United States, as the largest power in the world, take responsibility.”

U.S. plotted to overthrow Hamas after their election victory.

This is from the Guardian. This example shows clearly that democracy is not as significant as being pro-Western and acceptable to Israel. All the talk about spreading democracy while not just talk is not as significant a factor as being in line with U.S. goals. The U.S. tolerates Saudi Arabia and other states that are both undemocratic, violators of human rights especially those of women. The Saudi elite are always welcome in Crawford Texas.

US plotted to overthrow Hamas after election victorySuzanne Goldenberg in Washington The Guardian, Tuesday March 4 2008 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday March 04 2008 on p14 of the International section. It was last updated at 02:05 on March 04 2008. The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza, it emerged yesterday.

Vanity Fair reports in its April edition that President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington's allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas.

But the project was controversial even within the administration, the magazine reports. "There were severe fissures among neoconservatives over this," David Wurmser, a former Middle East adviser to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, told the magazine. "We were ripping each other to pieces."

Wurmser resigned his post in the vice-president's office in July 2007, only weeks after bloody clashes in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah that led to the Islamist organisation taking total control of the territory. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen," he said.

The Bush administration plan sought to undo the results of elections in the West Bank and Gaza in January 2006 which, to the chagrin of White House and State Department officials, saw Hamas win a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature.

The project was approved by Bush, Rice, and Elliott Abrams, the hawkish deputy national security adviser.

The 2006 election result was seen as an affront to the central premise of the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East - that democratic elections would inexorably lead to pro-western governments.

With the victory of Hamas, Rice moved swiftly to try to persuade Abbas to take steps to dissolve the Hamas authority in Gaza. When Abbas did not move quickly enough, the US consul general in Jerusalem, Jake Walles, was despatched to Ramallah to deliver a curt reminder.

The magazine quotes a memo for Walles's meeting with Hamas as saying: "You should make clear your intention to declare a state of emergency and form an emergency government."

The central man figure in Washington's plan was Mohammed Dahlan, who had been Yasser Arafat's security chief in Gaza and who had established close ties with the CIA as early as the 1990s. The magazine cites three unidentified US officials quoting Bush as saying: "He's our guy."

According to the magazine, Rice played a main role in trying to persuade Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to offer training and funding to the Fatah fighters. Israeli officials admitted in December 2006 that Egypt had sent weapons to the Fatah faction in Gaza.

The US effort did not end with the establishment of a Palestinian national unity government. Vanity Fair describes the administration's plan B, which called for adding 4,700 new Fatah troops with additional training in Jordan and Egypt.

A state department memo put the cost for salaries, training and weapons at $1.27bn (£640m) over five years.

Palestinians poorer than ever.

This is from the IPS. There will probably be little media coverage of the UN meeting or this report. I note that there were anti-Hamas demonstrations in Gaza today. No doubt poverty is worst there. Israel will never grant Hamas any of the tax revenue they have collected and that belongs to the Palestinians. Some has gone to Abbas of course as a reward for going along with Israel and the US.

MIDEAST: Palestinians Poorer Than Ever
By David Cronin

BRUSSELS, Aug 31 (IPS) - Poverty in the Palestinian territories has reached "unprecedented levels" because they have been held under an "economic siege" for almost seven years, a United Nations body has found.

During 2006 the number of Palestinians living in 'deep poverty' almost doubled to more than 1 million. Some 46 percent of public sector employees do not have enough food to meet their basic needs, with 53 percent of households in the Gaza reporting that their incomes declined in the last year by more than half.

This data is contained in a report, released Aug. 30, by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

It stated that an ostensible Israeli policy of 'separating' the Palestinian authorities from Arab and world markets by restricting the movement of people and goods has "squeezed the economy to a size smaller than a decade ago."

The Palestinians' reliance on imports as a proportion of their gross domestic product rose to 86 percent last year -- up from 75 percent in 2005, equating to the loss of 500 million dollars to the economy.

UNCTAD also complained that Israel declined to hand over more than 800 million dollars in tax revenues it had purportedly collected for the Palestinian Authority during 2006. Because of this refusal -- the second since 2002 -- the authorities' revenues shrank to under 600 million dollars, half what they were in 2005.

The report's publication coincided with a UN-sponsored conference on resolving the Middle East conflict in Brussels.

Controversially, the conference, which featured campaigners from the international Palestinian solidarity movement, was described as anti-Israel in some press reports.

Yet this allegation was dismissed by Paul Badji, a Senegalese diplomat who chairs the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. "It is not anti-Israel to defend the rights of Palestinians," he said.

Leila Shahid, delegate general of Palestine to the European Union, reminded the conference that it is 40 years since Israel began "the longest occupation in contemporary history."

Delivering a statement on behalf of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, she said that by setting up 550 permanent and mobile checkpoints, Israel has turned the West Bank into "a group of isolated cantons, while over 11,000 Palestinians, including elected representatives and municipal council members, languish in prison, and targeted assassinations continue."

Pierre Galand from the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine said he did not believe that the U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration could "do peace a favour by granting 30 billion dollars of military aid to Israel, an increase of about a quarter of the American military aid to the Israeli state for the next ten years.

"We do not believe either that Germany aided peace in the Middle East when delivering in August 2006, during the war against Lebanon, two submarines with nuclear capacity and a 4,500 km radius of action," he added.

But Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the UN, welcomed efforts by Washington to convene a Middle East peace conference.

"There is no question that the U.S. is a very powerful country and very influential in our region," he told IPS. "Therefore, its participation in brokering a conference for the autumn could possibly be very constructive. It could help to get all the parties to the conflict to move in the right direction."

Jamal Juma, coordinator of the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign in Jerusalem, strongly denounced the 760 km 'security fence' that Israel has been constructing in the West Bank. This barrier is being constructed in defiance of the International Court of Justice. In 2004, the Hague-based court declared that the wall flouted international law by infringing on the rights of the Palestinians.

"What Israel is creating on the ground is a ghetto system worse than the apartheid system in South Africa," Juma said.

Angela Godfrey-Goldstein from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions pointed out that both South Africa's former president Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have drawn parallels between the plight of the Palestinians and that of their country's black majority under apartheid.

She urged an international boycott of Israel similar to that which led many governments to impose economic sanctions against South Africa during the 1980s.

Clare Short, the former secretary for international development in the British government, said that Israel has razed 18,000 Palestinian homes since 1967 and that "each demolition is a war crime."

Short noted that a free trade agreement between Israel and the European Union contains clauses relating to respect for human rights. She asked why these provisions have not been invoked "to insist on Israeli compliance with international law."

New York-based Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, a spokesman for Jews United Against Zionism, said that the conduct of Israeli forces in the Palestinian territories is helping foment anti-Semitism. He also took issue with Israeli politicians who cite the Holocaust to defend attacks on Palestinians, which they claim are necessary to protect Israel's security.

"The state of Israel is not doing Jews a favour," he told IPS. "My grandparents died in Auschwitz and it is wrong to dig them up and use them to oppress the Palestinian people. They should not be used as a pawn." (END/2007)

Divide and Rule Israeli-Style: Jonathan Cook

I found this to be one of the better analytical articles on the situation in Palestine. Cook lives in the area. His articles are usually quite perceptive IMHO.
Cook has his own website. He is a freelance journalist.

Divide and Rule, Israeli-Style
Can the Arab world be turned into
Gaza's jailers?
by Jonathan Cook
The boycott by Israel and the international community of the Palestinian Authority finally blew up in their faces with Hamas' recent bloody takeover of Gaza. Or so argues Gideon Levy, one of the saner voices still to be found in Israel. "Starving, drying up, and blocking aid do not sear the consciousness and do not weaken political movements. On the contrary… Reality has refuted the chorus of experts and commentators who preached [on] behalf of the boycott policy. This daft notion that it is possible to topple an elected government by applying pressure on a helpless population suffered a complete failure."

But has Levy got it wrong? The faces of Israeli and American politicians, including Ehud Olmert and George Bush, appear soot-free. On the contrary. Over the past fortnight they have been looking and sounding even more smug than usual.

The problem with Levy's analysis is that it assumes that Israel and the U.S. wanted sanctions to bring about the fall of Hamas, either by giving Fatah the upper hand so that it could deal a knockout blow to the Palestinian government, or by inciting ordinary Palestinians to rise up and demand that their earlier electoral decision be reversed and Fatah reinstalled. In short, Levy, like most observers, assumes that the policy was designed to enforce regime change.

But what if that was not the point of the sanctions? And if so, what goals were Israel and the U.S. pursuing?

The parallels between Iraq and Gaza may be instructive. After all, Iraq is the West's only other recent experiment in imposing sanctions to starve a nation. And we all know where it led: to an even deeper entrenchment of Saddam Hussein's rule.

True, the circumstances in Iraq and Gaza are different: most Iraqis wanted Saddam out but had no way to effect change, while most Gazans wanted Hamas in and made it happen by voting for them in last year's elections. Nevertheless, it may be that the U.S. and Israel drew a different lesson from the sanctions experience in Iraq.

Whether intended or not, sanctions proved a very effective tool for destroying the internal bonds that held Iraqi society together. Destitution and hunger are powerful incentives to turn on one's neighbor as well as one's enemy. A society where resources – food, medicines, water, and electricity – are in short supply is also a society where everyone looks out for himself. It is a society that, with a little prompting, can easily be made to tear itself apart.

And that is precisely what the Americans began to engineer after their "shock and awe" invasion of 2003. Contrary to previous U.S. interventions abroad, Saddam was not toppled and replaced with another strongman – one more to the West's liking. Instead of regime change, we were given regime overthrow. Or as Daniel Pipes, one of the neoconservative ideologues of the attack on Iraq, expressed it, the goal was "limited to destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement. … Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility nor its burden."

In place of Saddam, the Americans created a safe haven known as the Green Zone from which its occupation regime could loosely police the country and oversee the theft of Iraq's oil, while also sitting back and watching a sectarian civil war between the Sunni and Shia populations spiral out of control and decimate the Iraqi population.

What did Washington hope to achieve? Pipes offers a clue: "When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice-versa, non-Muslims [that is, U.S. occupation forces and their allies] are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one." In other words, enabling a civil war in Iraq was far preferable to allowing Iraqis to unite and mount an effective resistance to the U.S. occupation. After all, Iraqi deaths – at least 650,000 of them, according to the last realistic count – are as good as worthless, while U.S. soldiers' lives cost votes back home.

For the neocon cabal behind the Iraq invasion, civil war was seen to have two beneficial outcomes.

First, it eroded the solidarity of ordinary Iraqis, depleting their energies and making them less likely to join or support the resistance to the occupation. The insurgency has remained a terrible irritation to U.S. forces but not the fatal blow it might have been were the Sunni and Shia to fight side by side. As a result, the theft of Iraq's resources has been made easier.

And second, in the longer term, civil war is making inevitable a slow process of communal partition and ethnic cleansing. Four million Iraqis are reported to have been forced either to leave the country or flee their homes. Iraq is being broken up into small ethnic and religious fiefdoms that will be easier to manage and manipulate.

Is this the model for Gaza now and the West Bank later?

It is worth recalling that neither Israel nor the U.S. pushed for an easing of the sanctions on the Palestinian Authority after the national unity government of Hamas and Fatah was formed earlier this year. In fact, the U.S. and Israel could barely conceal their panic at the development. The moment the Mecca agreement was signed, reports of U.S. efforts to train and arm Fatah forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas became a newspaper staple.

The cumulative effect of U.S. support for Fatah, as well as Israel's continuing arrests of Hamas legislators in the West Bank, was to strain already tense relations between Hamas and Fatah to breaking point. When Hamas learned that Abbas' security chief, Mohammed Dahlan, with U.S. encouragement, was preparing to carry out a coup against them in Gaza, they got the first shot in.

Did Fatah really believe it could pull off a coup in Gaza, given the evident weakness of its forces there, or was the rumor little more than American and Israeli spin, designed to undermine Hamas' faith in Fatah and doom the unity government? Were Abbas and Dahlan really hoping to topple Hamas, or were they the useful idiots needed by the U.S. and Israel? These are questions that may have to be settled by the historians.

But with the fingerprints of Elliott Abrams, one of the more durable neocons in the Bush administration, to be found all over this episode, we can surmise that what Washington and Israel are intending for the Palestinians will have strong echoes of what has unfolded in Iraq.

By engineering the destruction of the unity government, Israel and the U.S. have ensured that there is no danger of a new Palestinian consensus emerging, one that might have cornered Israel into peace talks. A unity government might have found a formula offering Israel:

Limited recognition inside the pre-1967 borders in return for recognition of a Palestinian state and the territorial integrity of the West Bank and Gaza.
A long-term cease-fire in return for Israel ending its campaign of constant violence and violations of Palestinian sovereignty.
A commitment to honor past agreements in return for Israel's abiding by UN resolutions and accepting a just solution for the Palestinian refugees.
After decades of Israeli bad faith and the growing rancor between Fatah and Hamas, the chances of them finding common ground on which to make such an offer, it must be admitted, would have been slight. But now they are nonexistent.

That is exactly how Israel wants it, because it has no interest in meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians or in a final agreement. It wants only to impose solutions that suit Israel's interests, which are securing the maximum amount of land for an exclusively Jewish state and leaving the Palestinians so weak and divided that they will never be able to mount a serious challenge to Israel's dictates.

Instead, Hamas' dismal authority over the prison camp called Gaza and Fatah's bastard governance of the ghettoes called the West Bank offer a model more satisfying for Israel and the U.S. – and one not unlike Iraq. A sort of sheriff's divide and rule in the Wild West.

Just as in Iraq, Israel and the U.S. have made sure that no Palestinian strongman arises to replace Yasser Arafat. Just as in Iraq, they are encouraging civil war as an alternative to resistance to occupation, as Palestine's resources – land, not oil – are stolen. Just as in Iraq, they are causing a permanent and irreversible partition, in this case between the West Bank and Gaza, to create more easily managed territorial ghettoes. And just as in Iraq, the likely reaction is an even greater extremism from the Palestinians that will undermine their cause in the eyes of the international community.

Where will this lead the Palestinians next?

Israel is already pulling the strings of Fatah with a new adeptness since the latter's humiliation in Gaza. Abbas is currently basking in Israeli munificence for his rogue West Bank regime, including the decision to release a substantial chunk of the $700 million in taxes owed to the Palestinians (including those of Gaza, of course) and withheld for years by Israel. The price, according to the Israeli media, was a commitment from Abbas not to contemplate reentering a unity government with Hamas.

The goal will be to increase the strains between Hamas and Fatah to breaking point in the West Bank, but ensure that Fatah wins the confrontation there. Fatah is already militarily stronger and with generous patronage from Israel and the U.S. – including arms and training, and possibly the return of the Badr Brigade currently holed up in Jordan – it should be able to rout Hamas. The difference in status between Gaza and the West Bank that has been long desired by Israel will be complete.

The Palestinian people have already been carved up into a multitude of constituencies. There are the Palestinians under occupation, those living as second-class citizens of Israel, those allowed to remain "residents" of Jerusalem, and those dispersed to camps across the Middle East. Even within these groups, there are a host of sub-identities: refugees and non-refugees; refugees included as citizens in their host state and those excluded; occupied Palestinians living under the control of the Palestinian Authority and those under Israel's military government; and so on.

Now, Israel has entrenched maybe the most significant division of all: the absolute and irreversible separation of Gaza and the West Bank. What applies to one will no longer be true for the other. Each will be a separate case; their fates will no longer be tied. One will be, as Israelis like to call it, Hamastan, the other Fatahland, with separate governments and different treatment from Israel and the international community.

The reasons why Israel prefers this arrangement are manifold.

First, Gaza can now be written off by the international community as a basket case. The Israeli media is currently awash with patronizing commentary from the political and security establishments about how to help avoid a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the possibility of air drops of aid over the Gaza "security fence" – as though Gaza were Pakistan after an earthquake. From past experience, and the current menacing sounds from Israel's new defense minister, Ehud Barak, those food packages will quickly turn into bombs if Gaza does not keep quiet.

As Israeli and U.S. officials have been phrasing it, there is a new "clarity" in the situation. In a Hamastan, Gaza's militants and civilians can be targeted by Israel with little discrimination and no outcry from the international community. Israel will hope that message from Gaza will not be lost on West Bank Palestinians as they decide who to give their support to, Fatah or Hamas.

Second, at their meeting last week Olmert and Bush revived talk of Palestinian statehood. According to Olmert, Bush "wants to realize, while he is in office, the dream of creating a Palestinian state." Both are keen to make quick progress, a sure sign of mischief in the making. Certainly, they know they are now under no pressure to create the single viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza once promised by President Bush. An embattled Abbas will not be calling for the inclusion of Gaza in his ghetto-fiefdom.

Third, the separation of Gaza from the West Bank may be used to inject new life into Olmert's shopworn convergence plan – if he can dress it up new clothes. Convergence, which required a very limited withdrawal from those areas of the West Bank heavily populated with Palestinians while Israel annexed most of its illegal colonies and kept the Jordan Valley, was officially ditched last summer after Israel's humiliation by Hezbollah.

Why seek to revive convergence? Because it is the key to Israel securing the expanded fortress state that is its only sure protection from the rapid demographic growth of the Palestinians, soon to outnumber Jews in the Holy Land, and Israel's fears that it may then be compared to apartheid South Africa.

If the occupation continues unchanged, Israel's security establishment has long been warning, the Palestinians will eventually wake up to the only practical response: to dissolve the Palestinian Authority, Israel's clever ruse to make the Palestinian leadership responsible for suppressing Palestinian resistance to the occupation, thereby forcing Israel to pick up the bill for the occupation rather than Europe. The next stage would be an anti-apartheid struggle for one state in historic Palestine.

For this reason, demographic separation from the Palestinians has been the logic of every major Israeli policy initiative since – and including – Oslo. Convergence requires no loss of Israel's control over Palestinian lives, ensured through the all but finished grid of walls, settlements, bypass roads, and checkpoints, only a repackaging of their occupation as statehood.

The biggest objection in Israel to Olmert's plan – as well as to the related Gaza disengagement – was the concern that, once the army had unilaterally withdrawn from the Palestinian ghettoes, the Palestinians would be free to launch terror attacks, including sending rockets out of their prisons into Israel. Most Israelis, of course, never consider the role of the occupation in prompting such attacks.

But Olmert may believe he has found a way to silence his domestic critics. For the first time he seems genuinely keen to get his Arab neighbors involved in the establishment of a Palestinian "state." As he headed off to the Sharm el-Sheikh summit with Egypt, Jordan, and Abbas this week, Olmert said he wanted to "jointly work to create the platform that may lead to a new beginning between us and the Palestinians."

Did he mean partnership? A source in the prime minister's office explained to the Jerusalem Post why the three nations and Abbas were meeting. "These are the four parties directly impacted by what is happening right now, and what is needed is a different level of cooperation between them." Another spokesman bewailed the failure so far to get the Saudis on board.

This appears to mark a sea change in Israeli thinking. Until now Tel Aviv has regarded the Palestinians as a domestic problem – after all, they are sitting on land that rightfully, at least if the Bible is to be believed, belongs to the Jews. Any attempt at internationalizing the conflict has therefore been strenuously resisted.

But now the Israeli prime minister's office is talking openly about getting the Arab world more directly involved, not only in its usual role as a mediator with the Palestinians, nor even in simply securing the borders against smuggling, but also in policing the territories. Israel hopes that Egypt, in particular, is as concerned as Tel Aviv by the emergence of a Hamastan on its borders, and may be enticed to use the same repressive policies against Gaza's Islamists as it does against its own.

Similarly, Olmert's chief political rival, Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud, has mentioned not only Egyptian involvement in Gaza but even a Jordanian military presence in the West Bank. The "moderate" Arab regimes, as Washington likes to call them, are being seen as the key to developing new ideas about Palestinian "autonomy" and regional "confederation." As long as Israel has a quisling in the West Bank and a beyond-the-pale government in Gaza, it may believe it can corner the Arab world into backing such a "peace plan."

What will it mean in practice? Possibly, as Zvi Barel of Ha'aretz speculates, we will see the emergence of half a dozen Palestinian governments in charge of the ghettoes of Gaza, Ramallah, Jenin, Jericho, and Hebron. Each may be encouraged to compete for patronage and aid from the "moderate" Arab regimes but on condition that Israel and the U.S. are satisfied with these Palestinian governments' performance.

In other words, Israel looks as if it is dusting off yet another blueprint for how to manage the Palestinians and their irritating obsession with sovereignty. Last time, under Oslo, the Palestinians were put in charge of policing the occupation on Israel's behalf. This time, as the Palestinians are sealed into their separate prisons masquerading as a state, Israel may believe that it can find a new jailer for the Palestinians – the Arab world.

The Triumph of US/Israeli policy in Palestine

This is just a part of a longer article available at .Counterpunch
In contrast to some other commentators Loewenstein thinks that US/Isreali policy is triumphing. However, she claims that Fatah and Abbas have not had much benefit from being supported by Israel and the US. By the way it is not long ago that Fatah under Arafat was a terrorist organisation that could not be bargained with. As usual there are the good terrorists (Fatah) and the bad ones (Hamas). Western media just seem to play along changing the wording to meet the new situation. As this article points out at one point references to the fact that Hamas was elected with a majority in the Authority will be less and less mentioned.


Brothers-in-Arms
The Triumph of US/Israeli Policy in Palestine
By JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN

Contrary to the many claims that the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip represents the failure of US and Israeli policies in Palestine, the violent civil infighting that has dominated the Gaza Strip over much of the last year and a half and that led directly to the Hamas coup of June 2007, marks yet another major foreign policy victory for the occupiers. Hamas will never be allowed to remain in power in Gaza so we must fear for the future of that tiny, desperately overcrowded strip of land and its 1.4 million inhabitants; additionally, Abbas ­in order to maintain his role as "Good Guy"- will have to accede to the dictates of Israel and the United States or suffer the same fate as his predecessor, Yassir Arafat.

Western nations are standing by in silence as the deadly siege of Gaza and the dismemberment of the West Bank continue unabated. What we are witnessing in full view each day are unprecedented steps taken by the world's only superpower and its favorite client state, Israel, to ensure the death of a nation. While friction between the two key political factions in the occupied Palestinian territories has long undermined the smooth functioning of internal affairs, it was the direct, cynical involvement of US and Israeli policy-makers in these affairs that guaranteed the breakdown of internal stability and paved the way for the Hamas "coup" in Gaza.

Media reports have been careful to leave out important facts leading up to the coup such as that Hamas was the legitimate, democratically elected ruling party in the Palestinian territories following the January 2006 Palestine Legislative Council elections; that it was the US-Israeli dismissal of those election results that fueled the civil infighting between Hamas and Fatah; that obvious US backing of Fatah against Hamas helped create popular mistrust of Fatah increasing Hamas' popularity in Gaza and leading directly to Hamas' takeover of the Fatah military apparatus in the Gaza Strip. In other words, there were real and understandable reasons for the coup. But in the end, Hamas' seizure of the power it should have had in the first place ends up serving the interests not only of Mahmoud Abbas and the warlord Muhammad Dahlan. It also provides the perfect opportunity for US-Israeli policy in the region to move forward with even fewer objections, if that is possible to imagine, than have heretofore been made. Who will stand up for a "terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of Israel"? The line has been beaten into our heads with every mention of the word "Hamas" for years. We should not expect a change in the behavior of the American public or of other western audiences until, when Israel is mentioned, we immediately say to ourselves, "a terrorist state that seeks the destruction of Palestine." Seeks and is succeeding in it.


II.

Watching the barbarous killing between brothers in Gaza, a power struggle between rival factions seething in frenzy like the great prison in which they thrive, Israeli and American political analysts can rest their cases with confidence. Across the spectrum of debate, these experts can expect vindication by the media juries who, in sanctimonious indignation at the brutality meted out by partisans of Fatah or Hamas, have assembled all the "evidence" they need to justify our righteous war against Muslim-Arab terrorists and their internecine blood feuds.

That the US has temporarily chosen a weak, compliant leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the power thirsty warlord, Muhammad Dahlan, to back during the bitter strife between key Palestinian factions testifies not to a belief that one side is trustworthy and deserves our support, but rather to the ease with which the Americans and their clients pick and choose their pawns in their bitter regional cockfights. Today's statesmen were yesterday terrorists, their titles dependent on the needs of the superpower and its clients: yesterday Fatah was on the US State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations and its leader, Yassir Arafat, was a declared "terrorist," "irrelevant," and exiled in his presidential compound in Ramallah until his mysterious death. Fatah's military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is still listed as a foreign terrorist organization. Neither of these factors apparently bothers the current leadership which understands that power and prestige are most easily acquired and unchallenged when bequeathed from above.

Truth be told, the Abbas/Dahlan alliance elicits far greater contempt in the eyes of the masters than the more independent and genuine resistance faction headed by Hamas. The numerous meetings and photo-ops between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas, and US President George Bush and Abbas, are little more than tactical stunts to make it look as though genuine negotiations are taking place. In fact, Abbas has been repeatedly by-passed and shunned when Israeli and US negotiators make the real policy decisions; decisions that remain one-sided and dismissive of any demands-other than those that are entirely self-serving-that Abbas and his entourage have made. The arms and funding channeled through Abbas' Fatah (for his clique represents only one of the many spin-off Fatahs that emerged during the second Intifada) signify little more than the conduit through which US-Israeli policies can be secured. For all the claims about US backing of Fatah, neither Abbas nor Dahlan have yet to benefit on the ground from this "support". Indeed, the ease with which Hamas was able to wrest control of Gaza indicates just how little US support for Fatah was worth there. Nevertheless, the same pipeline of support for "Fatah" has done a great deal to bolster perceived US and Israeli national security interests in the same region.


III.

Hamas holds the high cards?

I find Scheer almost always interesting and perspective but I really find it difficult to think that Hamas holds the high cards. The present drift towards civil war between Hamas and Fatah is absolutely disastrous for the Palestinians. It may have the virtue of showing that Fatah is willing to be a puppet of Israel and the US in order to gain a few crumbs for the Palestinians but for Scheer to think that Israel or the US would ever allow empowerment of the Palestinians is sheer fantasy.
Fatah is already moving to wipe out Hamas in the West Bank and it would not be surprising if Israel takes military action against Hamas in Gaza. The prospect is for more Palestinian losses. No doubt Hamas will try to strike Israel as well. There was a truce and no suicide bombings within Israel but that may be history as well if Hamas is attacked.


Hamas Holds the High Cards

Posted on Jun 19, 2007

.

By Robert Scheer

Forty years ago, I entered the Gaza Strip—soon after Israel had conquered that teeming caldron of humanity after defeating Egypt in the Six-Day War—to report on the Israelis’ bubbling optimism about their young nation’s future. “Come back in 10 years and you won’t recognize the place,” an Israeli general told me, spelling out visions of economic development and a grateful Arab population. Similar predictions were made for the West Bank, which had been administered by Jordan in a somewhat more humane yet still quite oppressive manner.

The optimism of the Israeli occupiers did not seem so far-fetched then, given the hardships the Palestinians had endured under their fellow Arab protectors and throughout the diaspora. The experience of the Palestinians was not unlike that of the Jews: They were needed but scorned for their talents. Both refugee groups were scarred by grinding oppression and each nurtured a thirst for nationhood fortified by a tribally based religiosity that secular leaders often found useful.

That is the story of Hamas, a creation of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood, a religious and political organization that flourished after Israel humbled Gamal Abdel Nasser, the last great Arab nationalist leader, with its devastating victory over Egypt. The Palestinian movement was then led by puppets of Nasser and was secular in focus. It remained so, after being invigorated by the late Yasser Arafat, who gave the Palestinians their first serious and independent political identification. But as Arafat wasted his credibility in futile jockeying with Israel (mostly while in exile), corruption came to dominate his movement.

By contrast, the religious zealots who later formed the Hamas organization were more focused on spiritual probity and tended far more closely to the needs of their impoverished brethren in Gaza and the West Bank. As with Hezbollah in Lebanon—and that other Iranian-backed Islamist movement, the Shiites who now control Iraq—the religious movements, both Shiite- and Sunni-based, cornered the market on purity of purpose as opposed to rank opportunism. That is precisely why these fiercely anti-Western movements have been able to turn the favorite fig leaf of U.S. neocolonialism, the slogans of democracy and elections, against the United States by winning popular elections.

While the American mass media tend to join the Bush administration in ignoring this unpleasant contradiction, the fact is that the people we brand as the enemy can make a strong claim to having won the election that our President Bush champions. What irony that the United States and the European Union, both of which cut off aid to the Palestinian government in 2006 when Hamas won the election, have now resumed aid to the PLO-dominated government that lost power through the vote.

This contradiction applies even more uncomfortably to Israel, which consistently demeaned the Palestinian movement when it was run by secularists. Israel only very reluctantly, and in the most limited of ways, was willing to risk the false security of occupied land for the possibility of peace. Israeli leaders of all parties drew the line at granting the Palestinians a real state with contiguous land and a significant presence in Jerusalem as it existed before the Six-Day War. Rarely mentioned is that some elements in the Israeli government initially supported the rise of Hamas as a desired alternative to the PLO and came too late to the recognition that Arafat, for all of his very serious failings, was their best alternative.

Now it is also too late for the remnants of the PLO to once again unilaterally assert a claim to lead the Palestinians. Sure, the United States, Israel and the EU can throw aid and tax dollars their way, but if the price is that the PLO assist in crushing Hamas, or even sit idly by while Israeli troops reoccupy Gaza, there will be chaos. The only hope is for the funders, including Israel (which has withheld the tax monies paid by the Palestinians from them), to recognize that the Palestinian people need to make their own history. At this point, that must include Hamas, which it is hoped will be moved, as was the PLO, to accept Israel’s right to exist within borders that permit a viable Palestinian state.

That lesson of empowerment must also be applied throughout the region, from Lebanon to Iraq and Iran, where election results subvert the ambitions of the foreigners. Elections are great if they give the conquerors the results they want, but it is in the nature of things that people will not use the ballot to legitimize their oppression for long. The democracy project, ballyhooed by President Bush, founders on its failure to allow the will of the voters to be heard when they dare vote against U.S. policy.

The CIA and Fatah

The caches of US arms are not surprising as the US openly said it would help fund security for Abbas but obviously the aid went far beyond that. The US and Israel have made it clear that they favored Fatah over Hamas. No doubt Hamas struck in Gaza before Fatah struck against them.


The CIA and Fatah; Spies, Quislings and the Palestinian Authority
Written by Mike Whitney
Friday, 22 June 2007
by Mike Whitney

When Hamas gunmen stormed the Fatah security compounds in Gaza last week they found huge supplies of American-made weaponry including 7,400 M-16 assault rifles, dozens of mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, 7 armored military jeeps, 800,000 rounds of bullets and 18 US-made armored personnel carriers. They also discovered something far more valuable — CIA files which purportedly contain "information about the collaboration between Fatah and the Israeli and American security organizations; CIA methods on how to prevent attacks, chase and follow after cells of Hamas and the Committees; plans about Fatah assassinations of members of Hamas and other organizations; and American studies on the security situation in Gaza." (Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily.com)

If the documents prove to be authentic, they will confirm what many critics of Fatah believed from the beginning; that US-Israeli intelligence agencies have been collaborating with high-ranking members of the PA to help crush the Palestinian national liberation movement. The information could be disastrous for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his newly-appointed “emergency government”. It could destroy their credibility before they even take office.

The extent of Fatah’s cooperation with the CIA is still unknown, but an article in The New York Sun, (“Hamas Takes over Gaza Security Services” 6-15-07) suggests that the two groups may have been working together closely. Former Middle East CIA operations officer Robert Baer, who was interviewed in the article, said that the discovery of the documents was “a major blow to Fatah” and will show “a record of training, spying on Hamas”.


Baer added ironically, “Fatah equals CIA is not a good selling point.”

Baer is right. The uncovering of the documents is “big trouble” for Abbas who is already facing a loss of public confidence from his closeness to Israel and for his appointment of Salam Fayyad, the ex-World bank official who the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz calls “everyone’s favorite Palestinian.”

Perhaps more significant is the fact that members of Hamas who spoke with WorldNetDaily claimed that “the files contain, among other information, details of CIA networks in the Middle East” and that Hamas plans to “use these documents and make portions public to prove the collaboration between America and traitor Arab countries.” Imagine what a headache it will be for the Bush administration if Hamas exposes the broader network of US spies and Arab quislings operating throughout region.

Bush Support for “Regime Change” in the PA

It’s no secret that the Bush administration has been funneling money to Palestinian militias that are preparing to overthrow Hamas. On Monday, Condoleezza Rice announced that the US would resume “full assistance to the Palestinian government” and end the year long boycott to the people in the West Bank. The new aid—which could amount to as much as $86 million — will be used to shore up the PA security apparatus and pay the salaries of officials in the “emergency government.” The uncovering of the CIA documents in Gaza will cast a cloud over the administration’s largesse and make Abbas look like a Palestinian Karzai who gets financial treats from Washington to follow their diktats.

Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was given the task of outlining the administration’s new policy vis-à-vis the Abbas’ “emergency government”. The Bush team had already decided the night before that they would throw their full support behind Abbas and his “unelected” clatter of pro-western stooges. Rice could hardly contain her glee the next day when she ascended the podium and began wagging her finger reproachfully at Hamas:

"Hamas has made its choice,” Condi growled. “It has sought to attempt to extinguish democratic debate with violence and to impose its extremist’s agenda on the Palestinian people in Gaza, now responsible Palestinians are making their choice and it is the duty of the international community to support those Palestinians who wish to build a better life and a future of peace."

This typically Orwellian statement was intended to justify the deposing of the legally-elected government of Palestine. No matter; Rice’s pronouncements are always reiterated verbatim in the media without challenge regardless of how incongruous they may be.

The Bush administration had plenty of time to observe developments on the ground and make an informed decision about what to do next. There was no need to hurry. Instead, they decided to blunder ahead and launch their “West Bank First” policy which commits US support to Abbas without any consideration of the public mood. The frantic pace of the decision-making, makes it look like Bush and Olmert are elevating Abbas to promote their own political agendas. Naturally, the Palestinians can be expected to resent this conspicuous outside meddling.

Former President Jimmy Carter was the first to blast Bush’s new plan. He said that “the United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements…. Carter said that Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government and that the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was ‘criminal.’”

Carter’s comments appeared in just one newspaper--the Jerusalem Post. The ex-president has been increasingly marginalized since he dared to imply that Israel is an apartheid state. But Carter's analysis is dead-on — Bush is just aggravating an already tense situation. He’d be better off trying to bring the two sides together and reconciling their differences rather than igniting a potentially explosive confrontation. Besides, Abbas’ close ties to Washington and Tel Aviv doesn’t bode well for his government’s long-term prospects. The US and Israel are widely reviled in the occupied territories and, as author Khalid Amayreh says, “Palestinians won’t accept a Vichy Government.

Three days ago Abbas disbanded the Hamas-dominated parliament and sacked Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Abbas had no legal justification for this action. In fact, the "Basic Law" which applies to this case stipulates that “The President cannot suspend the legislative Council during a state of emergency” and there is “no provision whatsoever for an emergency government”. The president does not even have the authority to “call for new elections” — let alone, replace the elected representatives of the people. Abbas only support comes from political leaders in Tel Aviv and Washington and their reluctant accomplices in the EU.

The key issue here is whether democratic elections have any real meaning or if they can simply be rescinded by executive decree?

This question should be as relevant to Americans as it is to Palestinians. After all, both people now face a similar predicament; the flagrant abuse of executive authority to enhance the powers of the president. In both cases, the president must be forced to conform to the law. Democracy cannot be decided by fiat.

Free elections are not a crime — that is, unless one lives in the Occupied Territories. Then voting for the candidate of one’s choice provides the justification for cutting off food, water, medicine, and financial resources—as well a stepping up a campaign of illegal detentions, destruction of personal property and targeted assassinations.

This is what the “Bush Doctrine” looks like in the Gaza Strip today. The occupants of the “most densely populated place on earth” participated in the balloting at insistence of the Bush administration and they’ve been rewarded for their cooperation with a savage boycott and daily brutality.

If Bush didn’t want democracy, then why did he force it on the Palestinians?

Political powerbrokers in the US and Israel immediately rejected the election results and initiated a plan to scuttle Hamas through economic strangulation, persistent harassment and covert warfare. For the last year, the newly “elected” government has shown remarkable restraint under constant assault. Hamas has kept its word and refrained from suicide bombings in Israel even though hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed or injured during that same time. In fact, there has NOT BEEN ONE HAMAS-BACKED SUICIDE BOMBING SINCE THE PARTY TOOK OFFICE. (This fact is invariably ignored by the media which is far-more sympathetic to the Israeli position) We should remember that suicide bombing has been used for years as the excuse for putting off “final settlement” negotiations. Now that the bombing has stopped, Israel has invented an entirely new excuse to avoid dialogue, that is, that Hamas “refuses to recognize the state of Israel”.

Actually, it is Israel that refuses to accept Palestinian statehood — a fact that is further underlined by its relentless efforts to topple the Hamas government.

Hamas has done nothing illegal since they were elected. The Qassam rockets which are fired into Israel are the unavoidable corollary of the 40-year long occupation. How is Hamas supposed to stop these sporadic attacks? If Israel seriously believed that Hamas was responsible for the rockets, they wouldn’t hesitate to arrest or kill every leader in the current parliament. The fact is, Israel knows that Hamas is not instigating these attacks. It’s just another red herring.

Regardless of what one may think about Hamas, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has shown that he is a man who can be trusted to keep his word. In an interview in the Washington Post with Lally Weymouth, Haniyeh and asked him if Hamas sought the “obliteration of the Jewish people”? (another myth propagated in the western press)

Haniyeh answered, “We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody.”

This, of course, is not the response that neocon extremists in the US-Israeli political establishment want to hear. It undermines the rationale for the ongoing military occupation and expansion of illegal settlements. They would rather promote the image of Palestinians as vicious radicals bent on the Israel’s complete annihilation. But how accurate is that image?

In a particularly affecting editorial in the Washington Post, Prime Minister Haniyeh stated his case in simple terms. He said:

“As I inspect the ruins of our infrastructure — all turned to rubble once more by F-16s and American-made missiles -- my thoughts again turn to the minds of Americans. What do they think of this?

They think of the pluck and "toughness" of Israel, "standing up" to "terrorists." Yet a nuclear Israel possesses the 13th-largest military force on the planet, one that is used to rule an area about the size of New Jersey and whose adversaries there have no conventional armed forces. Who is the underdog, supposedly America's traditional favorite, in this case?

I hope that Americans will give careful thought to root causes and historical realities, (of) why a supposedly "legitimate" state such as Israel has had to conduct decades of war against a subject refugee population without ever achieving its goals.

Israel's nearly complete control over the lives of Palestinians is never in doubt, as confirmed by the humanitarian and economic suffering of the Palestinians since the January elections. Israel's ongoing policies of expansion, military control and assassination mock any notion of sovereignty or bilateralism. Its "separation barrier," running across our land, is hardly a good-faith gesture toward future coexistence.

But there is a remedy, and while it is not easy it is consistent with our long-held beliefs. Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion. Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner.

This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun”.

Haniyeh’s appeal to the American people helps us understand that what Hamas really wants is for Israel to conform to “unanimously approved” UN resolutions “predicated on historical truth, equity and justice.”

Does that sound unreasonable? Wasn't the same demanded of Saddam?

Haniyeh is not a madman nor is he an “Islamofascist.” In fact, it may be that Haniyeh’s dreams are not that different from the average Israeli citizen.

Consider the polls that were conducted just days after the election of Mahmoud Abbas. One survey showed that nearly 80% of Israelis supported immediate peace talks with the new Palestinian president. The Israeli leadership, of course, stubbornly refused even though Yasir Arafat had died a month earlier. The Israeli political establishment is resolutely against peace talks or negotiations. Unlike the vast majority of Israeli citizens--Israel's ruling elite reject the principle of "land for peace!”

Perhaps, Arafat wasn’t the “obstacle to peace” after all. Perhaps it was just a PR swindle to avoid real dialogue?

Israeli leaders have no intention of negotiating with the Palestinians, regardless of what the Israeli public wants or who’s sitting in Ramallah. The Zionist “grand plan” will not be compromised by conferences or bartering. The military occupation and settlement activity will continue until US support dries up and Israel is forced to the bargaining table. Until then the onslaught will continue.

Another Siege of Gaza?

Ha’aretz reports that Israel is planning to launch a military operation in Gaza aimed at crushing Hamas.( “Barak planning military operation in Gaza within weeks” 6-17-07) The invasion will involve 20,000 troops, armored vehicles, tanks, and air support.

But what is the justification? Is it because the US-Israeli plan to overthrow Hamas with Palestinian militias failed? Or is it because the duly-elected government has reclaimed the power it was given at the ballot box?

According to an Israeli official, the invasion will be in response to the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel or another suicide bombing.

In other words, Israel is devising a pretext for “regime change” EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE ATTACKED. Until then, the border crossings will remain closed, the blockade will be tightened, and the economic asphyxiation will continue.

In the face of US-Israeli plotting, consider the comments of Prime Minister Haniyeh, who articulates as well as anyone, the aspirations of the Palestinians people:

“We do not want to live on international welfare and American handouts. We want what Americans enjoy -- democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps.

We present this clear message: If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality”.

Hamas history of violence is problematic, but it should not be an insurmountable obstacle to peace. The IRA had a similar history and, yet, those issues were ultimately resolved through the Good Friday peace accords. Now, the warring factions have joined together in a power-sharing agreement and there’s reason to believe that the armed struggle phase of the conflict is over. A similar remedy is possible between Israel and Palestine.

Hamas entry into the political system should be seen for what it is — a step in the right direction. It is an indication that they are tired of the armed struggle and want to pursue a political solution. Israel and the US should be receptive to this. They should reward Hamas’ efforts to stop the suicide bombing and agree to backchannel negotiations. That will determine whether common ground can be reached on any of the main issues. If the violence resumes, Israel can always return to its present strategy but, it’s certainly worth a try.

At the very least, Bush and Olmert should respect the will of the Palestinian people and allow Hamas to perform its duties without further hectoring, sanctions, violence or sabotage. The US and Israel have no right to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign government. If Hamas perpetrates violence against Israel, then Israel has every right to respond. But until then, they should show restraint and try to play a constructive role in strengthening the emergent Palestinian democracy.

Olmert calls for continuing boycott of Palestine govt.

US and others talk about democracy is revealed as hypocritical. The US, Israel, and others have tried their best to destroy the Hamas elected govt. and when Hamas and Fatah patch up their feud the reward is continued choking off of funds. Democratic govts. are OK but they must be starved into submission before they are fit to negotiate with.

Israeli PM calls for Palestinian boycott

Jerusalem, March 18: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert today called for the international community to maintain a year-long boycott of the Palestinian government following the formation of the new Unity cabinet.

"We expect the international community not to fall for the new Palestinian Unity government and to continue with the same line it has taken all along, the way of isolating the government which does not accept the quartet principles," Olmert said at the weekly cabinet meeting.

The quartet of Middle East peace mediators -- the US, EU, United Nations and Russia -- froze aid to the Palestinian authority after Hamas, which came to power last year over the Islamists' refusal to renounce violence, recognise Israel, or abide by past peace accords.

The new Palestinian government unites Hamas and the Fatah faction of moderate President Mahmud Abbas.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya presented the new government programme to Parliament yesterday, but Israel says it fails to meet any of the quartet conditions.

"The government platform includes some extremely problematic elements which can't be accepted by Israel or the international community including the right to resist and the use of terror," Olmert said.

Olmert has vowed to maintain contacts with Abbas, but today said that relationship would be further strained by the latter's agreement to share power with Hamas, a group responsible for scores of suicide attacks against Israel.

"The new government and its platform limits our ability to have dialogue with the head of the Palestinian Authority and also limits the spectrum of topics we could discuss in the near future," Olmert added.

Bureau Report

Hamas-Fatah government seeks end to boycott

Given that Israelis used terrorist tactics to gain their own independent state I find it hypocritical that the Israelis refuse to negotiate with Hamas. Surely Hamas and Fatah cannot be expected to renounce violence until a peace settlement is reached not before. The US as usual is not a neutral party but pro-Israel.

March 17, 2007, 1:39PM
Hamas-Fatah gov't seeks end to boycott


By DIAA HADID Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Palestinians installed a new, more moderate coalition government on Saturday, in hopes of persuading the international community to end its isolation of the Palestinian Authority and lift a year of bruising sanctions.

Israel promptly announced it would not deal with the coalition, because governing partners Hamas and Fatah stopped short of explicitly recognizing the Jewish state or renouncing violence, as the international community has demanded.

But the new alliance, which replaced the militantly anti-Israel government led by the Islamic Hamas, appeared to implicitly recognize Israel by calling for a Palestinian state on lands the Israelis captured in 1967. Norway immediately recognized the new coalition, while other countries and the U.N. signaled flexibility — suggesting money could start flowing again if the coalition keeps anti-Israel activities in check.

The U.S., traditionally a major donor, remained cool to the coalition plan.

"It remains our view that any Palestinian government must renounce violence, recognize Israel and respect previous agreements and obligations between the parties," said Nancy Beck, a State Department spokeswoman. "These are foundation principles upon which any Palestinian state must be based. A Palestinian state will not be born from terror."

The Hamas-Fatah merger, however, is in danger of crumbling quickly over ideological differences and long-standing enmities between the two factions and their legions of gunmen.

Palestinian lawmakers voted overwhelmingly — 83 to 3 — to approve the government, then leapt to their feet in a standing ovation after the result was announced. Forty-one of the legislature's 132 members, most of them members of Hamas, are held in Israeli jails and were unable to vote. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah swore in the new 25-member Cabinet shortly after the parliament vote.

The rise to power of Hamas, a group that has killed dozens of Israelis in suicide bombings, provoked Israel, the West and Russia to impose severe funding restrictions last year in a bid to pressure the militants to recognize the Jewish state, disarm and accept past peace accords.

Mixed messages emerged on Saturday from the political platform that was announced, and from the speeches leaders of the governing factions made to parliament. But, in sum, they reflected a softening of Hamas' stance toward Israel.

Presenting the government's program to parliament, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said the governing alliance would work "first and foremost to establish an independent Palestinian state," with disputed Jerusalem as its capital, on lands Israel occupied in the 1967 Mideast War.

He said the Palestinians maintained the right to resist occupation, but would also seek to widen a truce with Israel, now limited to the Gaza Strip.

Abbas, a moderate, focused on conciliatory language, asserting that the Palestinian people "reject violence in all its forms" and seek a comprehensive "peace of freedom and equality" that would be based on negotiations.

Abbas' words underscored the ideological gaps that remain between him and Hamas.

While the alliance did not meet international conditions for acceptance, it pledged to "respect" previous peace deals between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

It also called for peace talks to be conducted by Abbas, and for any future deal to be submitted to a national referendum, suggestion Hamas would not have veto power.

Egypt, a leading regional mediator, urged the international community to stop isolating the Palestinian government. Its foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, called the new coalition a "precious opportunity to resume the peace process."

Israel saw things differently. Government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said Israel would deal with Abbas, but not with the new government unless it recognizes the Jewish state.

"With all the desire we all have to assist the Palestinian people, this new government does not stand for any of the international principles that the international community itself defined," Eisin said.

In several quarters, the reaction was more positive.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere announced that his country would re-establish political and economic relations with the new Palestinian government, saying the coalition was "taking important steps towards complying with international demands."

The U.N.'s Mideast envoy, Alvaro de Soto, and the British Foreign Office both called the alliance a "step in the right direction" and said they would watch to see how the new government would implement its political program.

Even before the coalition was approved, Russia praised it for taking international demands "into account."

The governing alliance was formed after months of stop-and-go negotiations broken up by bursts of deadly factional fighting that claimed more than 140 lives.

Brushing aside international misgivings about Fatah joining forces with Hamas, Abbas has said it was the only way to avert a civil war in the West Bank and Gaza.

Incoming Finance Minister Salam Fayyad warned on Saturday that the new government would not be able to function for long unless the international community lifted its boycott and increased assistance.

"We do face a very serious and crippling financial crisis," he said. "Without the help of the international community, it is not going to be possible for us to sustain our operations."

_____

Associated Press writers Ibrahim Barzak, Sarah El Deeb, Mohammed Daraghmeh and Dalia Nammari contributed to this report from Gaza City and from Ramallah.

Hamas, Fatah, agree on cabinet

Israel and the quartet seem to put the cart before the horse. Rather than negotiating issues they want settled, they put them as preconditions. Israel still has not even returned all the taxes collected for Palestine and aid is still being held back until the govt. recognises Israel and renounces violence. So will Israel renounce violence? I forgot that is just self defence.


Palestinian president accepts unity cabinet list
Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:48 AM EDT



By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday accepted a ministerial list proposed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, paving the way for a unity government that could end bloody factional violence.

Haniyeh told reporters the government list would be submitted to parliament for a confidence vote on Saturday.

He did not give details of the government's program but said a priority would be to "end the security anarchy" that has claimed more than 90 Palestinian lives since December.

Israel said it would boycott the government, just as it had shunned its Hamas-run predecessor, until it recognizes the Jewish state, renounces violence and accepts past peace deals, as demanded by the Quartet of Middle East mediators.

"We hope that the international community will stand steadfast behind its own principles and refuse to give legitimacy or recognition to this extreme government," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.

An Israeli political source said Israel would maintain direct contact with Abbas to "ensure humanitarian coordination and strengthen moderate elements in the Palestinian Authority."

Palestinians hope the deal will end fighting between Abbas's secular Fatah group and Islamist Hamas, and ease a crippling Western aid embargo of the Palestinian Authority.

Washington has told the Palestinians that the embargo will remain until the Quartet's conditions are met, but there were signs that some European countries want to ease it.

QUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT

Haniyeh said the new government enjoyed Arab support, while the European Union had showed "understanding."

"No doubt that the American administration and Israel have a different position but as Palestinians we will do what is required to reinforce national unity, end tensions and lift the siege," he said.

France said the new government heralded a "new page" in relations with the international community, but linked future cooperation to Palestinian efforts to halt violence against Israel and secure the release of a captured Israeli soldier.

In a letter to his new counterpart Ziad Abu Amr, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that if Corporal Gilad Shalit were freed, it would "create more favorable conditions for reestablishing cooperative relations with the international community and relaunching a dynamic for peace."

Diplomats in Brussels said the EU might funnel funds through the designated finance minister, Salam Fayyad, a Western-backed reformer, as a first step toward restoring direct assistance.

Another possibility being studied is broadening an existing mechanism for delivering purely humanitarian relief to include direct payments to the Palestinian government, they said.

Fayyad, who was finance minister from 2002-2005 when Fatah controlled the government, initiated financial reforms and fought corruption.

Many ordinary Palestinians are looking to the unity cabinet to provide a respite from factional bloodshed.

"We hope that the new government will put an end to this shameful fighting and start paying attention to our bigger goal, the liberation of our land," said Mohammad Salah, 36, a farmer in the town of Jenin in the occupied West Bank.

Ali al-Ayyan, a taxi driver, said: "It's great. But the question is how long such a pact can hold," he said.

Abbas and Haniyeh clinched the cabinet deal on Wednesday when they picked an academic with no security experience for the hotly-contested post of interior minister.

Hani al-Qawasmi, 49, told Reuters on Thursday his priority was to end factional fighting.

The interior minister is supposed to oversee major security services, but in practice they answer either to Fatah or Hamas and have frequently clashed on the streets of Gaza.

(Additional reporting by Mohammed Assadi