The final version of president Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan has not been completed according to officials. However, indications are that the plan will probably give Israel all it wants with Palestinians getting little or nothing.
Peace plan will probably stop short of Palestinian statehood
| ||||||||
Showing posts with label Palestine Israel peace process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine Israel peace process. Show all posts
Monday, May 13, 2019
Trump's peace plan unlikely to include independent Palestine state
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Arab League may drop support for Indirect Peace Talks
Israel's ill timed decision to extend settlement construction just when indirect talks were to start was bound to cause problems. Perhaps Israel does not even want to talk. No one is sending rockets in their direction right now nor are there any or many other attacks so the Israelis may see no reason to negotiate. Things are going fine for them. The Gazans are safely in their jail surrounded by Israel--except for Egypt which co-operates with Israel in keeping Gazans penned up..
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Arab League recommended on Wednesday to withdraw its support for indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis due to recent announcements of new settlement building in east Jerusalem.
The league's peace initiative committee's decision is only a recommendation and a final decision will have to be made by the foreign ministers of the Arab nations.
The March 3 decision by Arab foreign ministers to back the U.S.-sponsored indirect talks with Israel gave Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas the political cover he needed to restart peace negotiations after 14 month hiatus.
"In case of the failure to stop the Israeli measures immediately ... the committee concludes that the proposed talks are irrelevant," the committee's statement said, calling for a convening of foreign ministers to reconsider their support.
Israel's approval of 1,600 new housing units to be built in East Jerusalem shortly after Abbas agreed to resume talks has been widely condemned by the Palestinians and visiting Vice President Joe Biden.
The committee recommended linking the cessation of plans to build the settlement housing units to any resumption of talks.
No date was given for the proposed meeting of Arab foreign ministers.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
US credibility as Peace Broker in Israel Palestine eroding.
What is being brokered has never really been peace but the surrender of the Palestinians to Israeli demands with some token recognition in return. The US is far from a neutral broker. It is clear that the US is a huge supporter and ally of Israel. However, the Palestinians are so weak and powerless that they really have very little leverage and so must depend upon the US biased as it may be. Egypt and other Arab countries who might seem to be natural allies seem to have little power although some moves have been made to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the conflicts between Hamas and Fatah.
Antiwar.com
US Credibility as Peace Broker Eroding by the Day
Posted By Ellen Massey
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, movement in the standoff between the two sides can be as often backward as it is forward. The past couple of weeks have seen moves from both sides that have garnered the attention of the world, but forward progress remains elusive.
Not least among these moves was Israel’s announcement Tuesday that it had approved building 900 additional units in Gilo, a controversial Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem, part of the Occupied Territories.
Outrage came from many corners, including the White House, which took a brief break from President Barack Obama’s Asia trip to declare the administration’s "dismay" at the Israeli plan.
"At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in a strongly worded statement released Tuesday.
Gibbs went on to condemn other Israeli actions in East Jerusalem that have been effectively changing the facts on the ground.
"The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties," the statement said.
This disapproval was echoed by the State Department and U.S. allies, including the British Foreign Office and France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher.
The approval of the new units in Gilo, called a "routine process" by an aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, follows an announcement last weekend by the Palestinian Authority that it plans to seek international approval of a Palestinian State through a vote by the U.N.
The move has been labeled unilateral and was strongly opposed by both Israeli and U.S. politicians. Two U.S. senators attending a conference in Jerusalem said that the U.S. would likely veto any such proposal that came before the U.N. Security Council.
"I hope and presume that the United States would veto such a move if it ever came to the Security Council," Sen. Joe Lieberman said during a press conference during the Saban Forum in Jerusalem.
Addressing an audience at the Saban Forum Sunday night, Netanyahu warned that, "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel’s side."
One Israeli official, Environmental Minister Gilad Erdan, indicated in an interview with Israel Radio that such steps might include more annexation of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, according to Reuters. Members of Israel’s Labour Party backed away from such statements.
However, Palestinians insist that the move is not a unilateral one, but instead is seeking re-affirmation of the two-state solution.
In an interview with IPS on Monday, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said, "What we intend to do is to take to the United Nations Security Council a request that the international community re-endorse the two-state solution based on the pre-Jun. 5, 1967 borders. The key are those borders."
The heightened rhetoric between Israelis and Palestinians comes amidst increasing frustrations with the stalled peace process. Just 10 days before he announced the diplomatic push to gain international support for a state, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would not run in the Palestinian Authority elections, scheduled for January 2010.
Last week, in statements made on the anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death, Abbas called for perseverance in the pursuit of an independent Palestinian state and reconciliation with Hamas. He also emphasized that he would not return to negotiations with Israel without a true settlement freeze.
Abbas’s declared intention to step down, and his renewed emphasis on an independent, unified Palestinian state follow key moves, pressed upon him by the U.S., that have harmed Abbas’s credibility with his own people.
The first of these was the September meeting between Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama in New York. Abbas was pressured to attend despite the fact the Israel had refused to implement a settlement freeze, a precondition that Palestinians said must be met before they would return to negotiations.
The second move was Abbas’s decision in early October, made under intense U.S. pressure, to withdraw Palestinian support for a vote in the Geneva-based U.N. Human Right’s Council on the Goldstone Report, the 500-page U.N. document that declares that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the intense fighting in Gaza last winter.
A new report from the International Crisis Group called "Palestine: Salvaging Fatah", notes that the Obama administration recognizes that Abbas has taken several blows to his legitimacy and power in recent weeks. Indeed government officials interviewed for the report expressed concern that Abbas might follow through on his threat to not run in the January elections.
If Abbas steps down, the future of Palestinian Authority and of the peace process itself would be uncertain at best, many experts have said.
"Nobody is better for the peace process platform," said Khalil Shikaki before an audience of hundreds at the Middle East Institute’s annual conference last week. Shikaki is the director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah and a senior fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University.
However, since Netanyahu’s election, the stability that Abbas has delivered has, in essence, meant the maintenance of the status quo, Shikaki said.
.....
Indeed the Obama administration seems frustrated by the non-starts in the peace process and also seems to be watching its leverage on the two parties slip away.
"I wish I could stand before you today and point to substantial progress toward our goals, [but] I cannot," William Burn, State Department undersecretary for political affairs, told those at the MEI conference, referring to the administration’s efforts to restart peace talks.
With Tuesday’s approval of the new building in East Jerusalem, Israel also blatantly ignored requests earlier in the week by Obama’s Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell to stop the expansion of Gilo, according to Ynetnews.com.
The Palestinian’s bid for U.N. approval also signals that they’ve lost faith in the United States ability to broker negotiations.
The next steps for the United States in seeking a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians seem more unclear than ever.
(Inter Press Service)
Antiwar.com
US Credibility as Peace Broker Eroding by the Day
Posted By Ellen Massey
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, movement in the standoff between the two sides can be as often backward as it is forward. The past couple of weeks have seen moves from both sides that have garnered the attention of the world, but forward progress remains elusive.
Not least among these moves was Israel’s announcement Tuesday that it had approved building 900 additional units in Gilo, a controversial Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem, part of the Occupied Territories.
Outrage came from many corners, including the White House, which took a brief break from President Barack Obama’s Asia trip to declare the administration’s "dismay" at the Israeli plan.
"At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in a strongly worded statement released Tuesday.
Gibbs went on to condemn other Israeli actions in East Jerusalem that have been effectively changing the facts on the ground.
"The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties," the statement said.
This disapproval was echoed by the State Department and U.S. allies, including the British Foreign Office and France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher.
The approval of the new units in Gilo, called a "routine process" by an aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, follows an announcement last weekend by the Palestinian Authority that it plans to seek international approval of a Palestinian State through a vote by the U.N.
The move has been labeled unilateral and was strongly opposed by both Israeli and U.S. politicians. Two U.S. senators attending a conference in Jerusalem said that the U.S. would likely veto any such proposal that came before the U.N. Security Council.
"I hope and presume that the United States would veto such a move if it ever came to the Security Council," Sen. Joe Lieberman said during a press conference during the Saban Forum in Jerusalem.
Addressing an audience at the Saban Forum Sunday night, Netanyahu warned that, "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel’s side."
One Israeli official, Environmental Minister Gilad Erdan, indicated in an interview with Israel Radio that such steps might include more annexation of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, according to Reuters. Members of Israel’s Labour Party backed away from such statements.
However, Palestinians insist that the move is not a unilateral one, but instead is seeking re-affirmation of the two-state solution.
In an interview with IPS on Monday, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said, "What we intend to do is to take to the United Nations Security Council a request that the international community re-endorse the two-state solution based on the pre-Jun. 5, 1967 borders. The key are those borders."
The heightened rhetoric between Israelis and Palestinians comes amidst increasing frustrations with the stalled peace process. Just 10 days before he announced the diplomatic push to gain international support for a state, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would not run in the Palestinian Authority elections, scheduled for January 2010.
Last week, in statements made on the anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death, Abbas called for perseverance in the pursuit of an independent Palestinian state and reconciliation with Hamas. He also emphasized that he would not return to negotiations with Israel without a true settlement freeze.
Abbas’s declared intention to step down, and his renewed emphasis on an independent, unified Palestinian state follow key moves, pressed upon him by the U.S., that have harmed Abbas’s credibility with his own people.
The first of these was the September meeting between Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama in New York. Abbas was pressured to attend despite the fact the Israel had refused to implement a settlement freeze, a precondition that Palestinians said must be met before they would return to negotiations.
The second move was Abbas’s decision in early October, made under intense U.S. pressure, to withdraw Palestinian support for a vote in the Geneva-based U.N. Human Right’s Council on the Goldstone Report, the 500-page U.N. document that declares that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the intense fighting in Gaza last winter.
A new report from the International Crisis Group called "Palestine: Salvaging Fatah", notes that the Obama administration recognizes that Abbas has taken several blows to his legitimacy and power in recent weeks. Indeed government officials interviewed for the report expressed concern that Abbas might follow through on his threat to not run in the January elections.
If Abbas steps down, the future of Palestinian Authority and of the peace process itself would be uncertain at best, many experts have said.
"Nobody is better for the peace process platform," said Khalil Shikaki before an audience of hundreds at the Middle East Institute’s annual conference last week. Shikaki is the director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah and a senior fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University.
However, since Netanyahu’s election, the stability that Abbas has delivered has, in essence, meant the maintenance of the status quo, Shikaki said.
.....
Indeed the Obama administration seems frustrated by the non-starts in the peace process and also seems to be watching its leverage on the two parties slip away.
"I wish I could stand before you today and point to substantial progress toward our goals, [but] I cannot," William Burn, State Department undersecretary for political affairs, told those at the MEI conference, referring to the administration’s efforts to restart peace talks.
With Tuesday’s approval of the new building in East Jerusalem, Israel also blatantly ignored requests earlier in the week by Obama’s Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell to stop the expansion of Gilo, according to Ynetnews.com.
The Palestinian’s bid for U.N. approval also signals that they’ve lost faith in the United States ability to broker negotiations.
The next steps for the United States in seeking a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians seem more unclear than ever.
(Inter Press Service)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Abbas threatens to dismantle Palestine Authority as he declines to run in upcoming elections.
This article makes it clear that Egypt as well as the US is now singing a tune of no preconditions before starting peace talks. Abbas has been politically damaged by both and no doubt is extremely disappointed that his co-operative stance has won him nothing in return. However, holding elections without the agreement of Hamas is also going to land him in hot water. Maybe Abbas just wants to retire for a while and take a rest!
Abbas threatens to dismantle PA
Nov. 8, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is considering dissolving the PA and declaring the failure of the peace process with Israel, PA officials in Ramallah said over the weekend.
Abbas was now waiting to see if the US and other parties would exert enough pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction and recognize the two-state solution before he makes any decision, the officials said.
In his televised speech on Thursday, in which he announced that he has "no desire" to run in the upcoming presidential election, Abbas said that he would also consider taking "other measures" in the future, but did not elaborate.
He was "threatening" to dissolve the PA in protest against Washington's failure to support his demand for a complete freeze of settlement construction as a precondition for the resumption of peace negotiations with Israel, the officials said.
Over the weekend, Abbas instructed the Palestinian Central Elections Committee to continue preparations for holding presidential and parliamentary elections on January 24.
....
It remains unclear, however, how the vote would take place in the Gaza Strip, where the Hamas government has already announced that it won't allow the balloting to take place. Moreover, it's not certain that Israel would permit the vote to take place inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
Abbas has come under pressure from some world leaders and his loyalists to withdraw his decision to drop out of the race, his aides said. "In light of the growing pressure," Abbas may have to reconsider his decision, they said.
....
"The president is waiting to see how much support he has before he makes any decision," said a Fatah official closely associated with Abbas. "If he does not feel that he has enough backing, he might even step down and announce the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority."
Another Fatah official said that Abbas's decision not to run for another term was primarily aimed at sending a message to the Americans and Arabs.
"Abbas is trying to tell the US administration that its bias in favor of Israel is sabotaging the peace process," the official told The Jerusalem Post. "He's particularly upset with [US Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton, because he feels that she's the one who convinced President Barack Obama to soften his attitude on the issue of settlements."
Abbas, according to one of his top aides, is also "deeply disappointed" with the Egyptians, who seem to have endorsed the Israeli and American standpoint according to which the Palestinians should return to the negotiating tables unconditionally.
Abbas, he added, was "shocked" when he heard that Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, had agreed with Clinton that the peace negotiations should be resumed without preconditions.
Abbas was quoted by the aide as having accused the Egyptians of "failing to keep their promise to support his demand that Israel halt all construction in the settlements as a prerequisite for the resumption of the negotiations.
Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior Fatah official who also serves as an adviser to Abbas, said that he and his colleagues were working hard to persuade the PA president to participate in the elections.
Ahmed said that there was a consensus in Fatah that Abbas was the most suitable candidate to run in the presidential election, "because he enjoys the backing of the Palestinian people."
He said that Fatah leaders were scheduled to hold a series of meetings in Ramallah this week to discuss the repercussions of Abbas's move.
Hafez Barghouti, editor of the PA mouthpiece Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, said that any other leader in Abbas's place would have resigned a long time ago.
"The president's decision should not be seen as an escape from national responsibilities," Barghouti explained. "Instead, it's the product of the absence of an international will to find a peaceful and just settlement after 16 years of negotiations, blood and tears."
Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a senior aide to Abbas, urged the international community to take Abbas's latest decision seriously.
"We hope that the president's message has arrived to all the international and concerned parties," he said. "We hope that they will take this message seriously to salvage the peace process in the region."
Meanwhile, UAL MK Ahmed Tibi said Sunday that the PA president had told him in advance of his decision.
"I knew from Abbas himself, I was with him when he formulated his speech, and I was familiar with the content of the announcement [in advance]," he told Army Radio. "There was a limited number of people who knew, and I was one of them."
Tibi said he knew first hand about Abbas's recent discontent, especially after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech hailing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's settlement policy. At the end of October, Clinton said she approved of Netanyahu's decision to issue a moratorium on new construction permits, calling it "unprecedented in the context of prior to negotiations."
....
Tibi claimed that when Abbas asked the Americans why they seemingly changed their demands on Israel concerning settlement activity, they had cited Netanyahu's fear of his coalition government falling apart.
"That's outrageous," said Tibi.
Abbas threatens to dismantle PA
Nov. 8, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is considering dissolving the PA and declaring the failure of the peace process with Israel, PA officials in Ramallah said over the weekend.
Abbas was now waiting to see if the US and other parties would exert enough pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction and recognize the two-state solution before he makes any decision, the officials said.
In his televised speech on Thursday, in which he announced that he has "no desire" to run in the upcoming presidential election, Abbas said that he would also consider taking "other measures" in the future, but did not elaborate.
He was "threatening" to dissolve the PA in protest against Washington's failure to support his demand for a complete freeze of settlement construction as a precondition for the resumption of peace negotiations with Israel, the officials said.
Over the weekend, Abbas instructed the Palestinian Central Elections Committee to continue preparations for holding presidential and parliamentary elections on January 24.
....
It remains unclear, however, how the vote would take place in the Gaza Strip, where the Hamas government has already announced that it won't allow the balloting to take place. Moreover, it's not certain that Israel would permit the vote to take place inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
Abbas has come under pressure from some world leaders and his loyalists to withdraw his decision to drop out of the race, his aides said. "In light of the growing pressure," Abbas may have to reconsider his decision, they said.
....
"The president is waiting to see how much support he has before he makes any decision," said a Fatah official closely associated with Abbas. "If he does not feel that he has enough backing, he might even step down and announce the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority."
Another Fatah official said that Abbas's decision not to run for another term was primarily aimed at sending a message to the Americans and Arabs.
"Abbas is trying to tell the US administration that its bias in favor of Israel is sabotaging the peace process," the official told The Jerusalem Post. "He's particularly upset with [US Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton, because he feels that she's the one who convinced President Barack Obama to soften his attitude on the issue of settlements."
Abbas, according to one of his top aides, is also "deeply disappointed" with the Egyptians, who seem to have endorsed the Israeli and American standpoint according to which the Palestinians should return to the negotiating tables unconditionally.
Abbas, he added, was "shocked" when he heard that Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, had agreed with Clinton that the peace negotiations should be resumed without preconditions.
Abbas was quoted by the aide as having accused the Egyptians of "failing to keep their promise to support his demand that Israel halt all construction in the settlements as a prerequisite for the resumption of the negotiations.
Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior Fatah official who also serves as an adviser to Abbas, said that he and his colleagues were working hard to persuade the PA president to participate in the elections.
Ahmed said that there was a consensus in Fatah that Abbas was the most suitable candidate to run in the presidential election, "because he enjoys the backing of the Palestinian people."
He said that Fatah leaders were scheduled to hold a series of meetings in Ramallah this week to discuss the repercussions of Abbas's move.
Hafez Barghouti, editor of the PA mouthpiece Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, said that any other leader in Abbas's place would have resigned a long time ago.
"The president's decision should not be seen as an escape from national responsibilities," Barghouti explained. "Instead, it's the product of the absence of an international will to find a peaceful and just settlement after 16 years of negotiations, blood and tears."
Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a senior aide to Abbas, urged the international community to take Abbas's latest decision seriously.
"We hope that the president's message has arrived to all the international and concerned parties," he said. "We hope that they will take this message seriously to salvage the peace process in the region."
Meanwhile, UAL MK Ahmed Tibi said Sunday that the PA president had told him in advance of his decision.
"I knew from Abbas himself, I was with him when he formulated his speech, and I was familiar with the content of the announcement [in advance]," he told Army Radio. "There was a limited number of people who knew, and I was one of them."
Tibi said he knew first hand about Abbas's recent discontent, especially after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech hailing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's settlement policy. At the end of October, Clinton said she approved of Netanyahu's decision to issue a moratorium on new construction permits, calling it "unprecedented in the context of prior to negotiations."
....
Tibi claimed that when Abbas asked the Americans why they seemingly changed their demands on Israel concerning settlement activity, they had cited Netanyahu's fear of his coalition government falling apart.
"That's outrageous," said Tibi.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Uri Avnery: A critical view of Israeli policy
Avnery is an Israeli who is always very critical of Israeli Palestinian policy. He takes a very jaundiced view of attempts to blame the Goldstone report for many of their troubles. As Avnery points out the Israelis have given nothing to Abbas in return for his more moderate approach to Israel than that of Hamas. So counterproductive is the policy that Avenery actually seems to think Israel would be happier if they had only Hamas to deal with since no one would press them to make peace with Hamas as Obama is pressing them to make peace through Abbas.
The Slippery Slope
By Uri Avnery
October 29, 2009 "Outlook India" -- IT IS, of course, all the fault of Judge Richard Goldstone. He is to blame for it, as he is to blame for all the other ills that are befalling us now.
He is to blame for the trouble we are having at the UN, both in New York and in Geneva. For the conspiracy to bring our political and military leaders to trial in The Hague. For the ongoing crisis between us and Turkey. For the many initiatives throughout the world to organize a boycott of Israel.
Now he is to blame also for the existential danger facing Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).
WHEN THE Goldstone report was submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, our government decided to do all it could to prevent even a debate about it.
The debate was, of course, demanded by the Palestinians. When the report was published, the Palestinian representative in Geneva did the obvious: he demanded that the report be debated with a view to submitting it to the Security Council, which in turn would submit it to the international court in The Hague.
What came next could have been foreseen. The Israeli government exerted heavy pressure on the US. The US exerted heavy pressure on Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas gave in and instructed his representative in Geneva to withdraw his request for a debate.
In any other matter, this would have passed quietly. But since the subject was the Gaza War, Palestinian public opinion exploded. Throughout the war, every Palestinian in the West Bank saw on Aljazeera and the other Arab networks every day, every hour, the atrocities of the war, the mangled bodies of women and children, the destroyed schools and mosques, the white phosphorus bombs.
For the Hamas leaders, Abbas’ order to withdraw the request was a gift from Allah. They fell over Abbas with unabated fury. “Traitor”, “Collaborator”, “Subcontractor of the Zionist murderers” were the more moderate epithets. They found an echo with many Palestinians who are not necessarily Hamas supporters.
Abbas’ legal standing is shaky. According to one version, his term of office expired long ago. According to another, it will expire in a few months. Whatever the case may be, he will be compelled to hold elections soon. In this situation, he cannot remain indifferent to an upsurge of public opinion against him. So he drew the logical conclusion: he instructed his Geneva representative to renew his request for a debate on the Goldstone report. This ended yesterday with a resolution to refer the report to the UN General Assembly.
Our frustrated government reacted angrily. The orchestrated media declared Abbas an “ungrateful” person, even a hypocrite. After all, didn’t he urge the Israelis during the Gaza War to intensify their attacks on the Gaza population, in order to topple Hamas? This accusation poured oil on the flames. For Palestinians, it meant that Abbas was not satisfied with the atrocities perpetrated by the Israelis and demanded more. It is hard to imagine a more damaging allegation.
As if this was not enough, the Israeli media reported that Jerusalem had delivered an “ultimatum” to the Palestinian Authority: if the request for a debate were not withdrawn, Israel would not authorize the frequency allocation for a second Palestinian cellular telephone company, “al-Wataniya”, whose partners, it was gleefully reported, include Abbas’ sons. Such a frequency allocation is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even in such a matter, the Palestinians are totally dependent on the Israeli occupation authorities.
THE WHOLE affair starkly illuminates the impossible situation in which the Palestinian Authority finds itself. They are between hammer and anvil – indeed, between several hammers and an anvil.
One hammer is Israeli. The Palestinian Authority is completely dependent on the occupation masters. As the telephone affair illustrates, nothing can move in the West Bank without Israeli approval.
Binyamin Netanyahu speaks about “economic peace” as a substitute for political peace. Economic benefits instead of national independence. This, by the way, shows how far removed he is from the teachings of his idol, Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, who 85 years ago made fun of the Zionist leaders for entertaining the illusion that the Palestinian people could be bought off. No people, he said, sells itself for economic advantages.
The Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister, Salam Fayad, has fallen into this trap. He points to the economic progress that has been made, according to him, in the West Bank. Several road blocks were removed. An imposing shopping mall was opened in Nablus. Within two years, he said, the Palestinians will be able to establish a Palestinian state. He is ignoring the fact that the Israeli army, the de facto sovereign in the occupied territories, can put an end to all these efforts at a moment’s notice. The road blocks can be put back and doubled, the towns put under curfew, the mall demolished. Indeed, every new mall in the West Bank increases the dependency on the goodwill of occupation authorities.
Another hammer is American. The Palestinian Authority subsists on money donated by the US and its European sidekicks. The security forces of the Palestinian Authority are being trained by the American general, Keith Dayton. Washington treats Mahmoud Abbas as it treats the Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He is “our son of a bitch”. He exists as long as we want him to, he disappears if we let go.
In a clash between Washington and Jerusalem, Ramallah would benefit. But as the Goldstone episode shows, the US and Israel are, for the time being, fully coordinated. Abbas has no choice but to dance to the tune of the Israeli flute.
The anvil is Palestinian. At the moment, the Palestinian public is passive. It is tired, worn down, frustrated, in despair. But the Goldstone affair shows that below the surface, a volcano is brewing.
Hamas spokesmen liken Abbas to Marshal Petain, the French hero of World War I, who was the idol of the people and the army. In World War II, when the German army destroyed the French military in a Blitzkrieg that stunned the world, the political establishment in Paris disintegrated. In its hour of misery, the people called on the aged marshal, who capitulated to the Germans in order to save what could be saved. He was, without doubt, a French patriot.
Hitler respected the marshal, and initially treated him well. For a year or so, he even considered taking him on as an ally, in preference to Mussolini. A large part of France remained “unoccupied”, as a kind of German protectorate, and there the Vichy regime (after the name of its capital) was installed. But soon matters deteriorated and Petain became a full-fledged collaborator with the Nazis, even taking part in the annihilation of the Jews. “Vichy” became a synonym for treason, and after the war Petain was condemned to death. In consideration of his glorious past, his sentence was commuted to life in prison.
I don’t think that this is a fair comparison. Ramallah is not Vichy. Khaled Mashaal in Damascus is not de Gaulle in London. But Vichy serves as a warning, and the Palestinian Authority is on a slippery slope. A regime under occupation is always in danger of becoming a collaborator. The verbal attacks of Hamas only increase the misery of Abbas and his allies.
ABBAS’ INITIAL order to withdraw the request for a debate on the Goldstone report also obstructed the efforts to overcome the split among the Palestinian factions.
The Egyptians are spreading news about a forthcoming internal Palestinian agreement and leaking its contents. It is hard to believe that anything will come of it. Hamas is supposed to relinquish its sole rule of the Gaza Strip, and it is hard to believe that they will do so. Abbas is supposed to confront Hamas in free elections – and this, too, is hard to imagine. It is even harder to believe that the Americans would risk allowing such elections. They have already announced that they are doing their best to prevent the reconciliation.
The Israeli media gleefully report that the hatred between Fatah and Hamas is stronger than their hatred towards the Israelis. That is not a unique phenomenon. When we were fighting against the British regime in Palestine, David Ben-Gurion gave orders for Irgun fighters to be turned over to the British police, and only the almost inhuman restraint of Menachem Begin prevented a fratricidal war. The Irish freedom fighters killed each other with abandon when the British offered a compromise. Such things have happened in many places.
If the Palestinians will have to choose, they are not to be envied. On the one side, Hamas is seen as an uncorrupt movement, true to the fight against the Israeli occupation. But the fundamentalist religious restrictions that they are now imposing on the Gazans, especially on the women, are abhorrent to many Palestinians. On the other side, while the Palestinian Authority is seen by many as corrupt and collaborationist, it is also seen as the sole body that can attract American support for the Palestinian cause.
Today Hamas does not offer any real alternative in practice, since they, too, are observing a cease-fire with Israel. Yet the hope that Abbas could bring peace is fading.
HOW DOES our government treat this situation?
Innocents may say: Israel is interested in the elimination of the extremist Hamas and the strengthening of the moderate Abbas, who is working for peace with Israel. That is self-evident.
If so, why is the Israeli government preventing Abbas from attaining any political achievement, even a symbolic one? Why did Ariel Sharon call him a “plucked chicken”? Why do the Israeli media repeat every day that Abbas is “too weak to make peace”?
What is stopping Netanyahu from freeing a thousand Palestinian prisoners as a gesture for Abbas, while he is negotiating with Hamas about the release of a thousand prisoners in return for the captured soldier Gilad Shalit? Why does he present Abbas with conditions whose acceptance would mean political suicide? (For example: to recognize Israel as “the state of the Jewish nation”.) Why is the enlargement of the settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank proceeding at a frantic pace, under the nose of Abbas?
The political and military leadership of Israel is not composed of stupid people. Far from it. When they do things whose consequences can clearly be foreseen, one has to assume that it is these results that they want, even when they maintain the opposite. When so many of the government’s actions reinforce Hamas and weaken Abbas, isn’t that why they are doing it?
And indeed: Abbas is dangerous to the present Israeli policy. He enjoys the support of President Obama, who is pressuring Israel to start negotiations for “two states for two peoples”, which entails withdrawal from the West Bank and the dismantling of most settlements. That means an end to 120 years of Zionist expansion and a fundamental change in the very essence of Israel itself.
Hamas in power over all the Palestinian people would deflect these “dangers”. No American pressure for a compromise. No need for negotiations. No need for ”restraint” of settlement activity or for a compromise over Jerusalem. The occupation could go on undisturbed.
This may lead to disaster in the future. But who cares about the future?
The Slippery Slope
By Uri Avnery
October 29, 2009 "Outlook India" -- IT IS, of course, all the fault of Judge Richard Goldstone. He is to blame for it, as he is to blame for all the other ills that are befalling us now.
He is to blame for the trouble we are having at the UN, both in New York and in Geneva. For the conspiracy to bring our political and military leaders to trial in The Hague. For the ongoing crisis between us and Turkey. For the many initiatives throughout the world to organize a boycott of Israel.
Now he is to blame also for the existential danger facing Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).
WHEN THE Goldstone report was submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, our government decided to do all it could to prevent even a debate about it.
The debate was, of course, demanded by the Palestinians. When the report was published, the Palestinian representative in Geneva did the obvious: he demanded that the report be debated with a view to submitting it to the Security Council, which in turn would submit it to the international court in The Hague.
What came next could have been foreseen. The Israeli government exerted heavy pressure on the US. The US exerted heavy pressure on Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas gave in and instructed his representative in Geneva to withdraw his request for a debate.
In any other matter, this would have passed quietly. But since the subject was the Gaza War, Palestinian public opinion exploded. Throughout the war, every Palestinian in the West Bank saw on Aljazeera and the other Arab networks every day, every hour, the atrocities of the war, the mangled bodies of women and children, the destroyed schools and mosques, the white phosphorus bombs.
For the Hamas leaders, Abbas’ order to withdraw the request was a gift from Allah. They fell over Abbas with unabated fury. “Traitor”, “Collaborator”, “Subcontractor of the Zionist murderers” were the more moderate epithets. They found an echo with many Palestinians who are not necessarily Hamas supporters.
Abbas’ legal standing is shaky. According to one version, his term of office expired long ago. According to another, it will expire in a few months. Whatever the case may be, he will be compelled to hold elections soon. In this situation, he cannot remain indifferent to an upsurge of public opinion against him. So he drew the logical conclusion: he instructed his Geneva representative to renew his request for a debate on the Goldstone report. This ended yesterday with a resolution to refer the report to the UN General Assembly.
Our frustrated government reacted angrily. The orchestrated media declared Abbas an “ungrateful” person, even a hypocrite. After all, didn’t he urge the Israelis during the Gaza War to intensify their attacks on the Gaza population, in order to topple Hamas? This accusation poured oil on the flames. For Palestinians, it meant that Abbas was not satisfied with the atrocities perpetrated by the Israelis and demanded more. It is hard to imagine a more damaging allegation.
As if this was not enough, the Israeli media reported that Jerusalem had delivered an “ultimatum” to the Palestinian Authority: if the request for a debate were not withdrawn, Israel would not authorize the frequency allocation for a second Palestinian cellular telephone company, “al-Wataniya”, whose partners, it was gleefully reported, include Abbas’ sons. Such a frequency allocation is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even in such a matter, the Palestinians are totally dependent on the Israeli occupation authorities.
THE WHOLE affair starkly illuminates the impossible situation in which the Palestinian Authority finds itself. They are between hammer and anvil – indeed, between several hammers and an anvil.
One hammer is Israeli. The Palestinian Authority is completely dependent on the occupation masters. As the telephone affair illustrates, nothing can move in the West Bank without Israeli approval.
Binyamin Netanyahu speaks about “economic peace” as a substitute for political peace. Economic benefits instead of national independence. This, by the way, shows how far removed he is from the teachings of his idol, Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, who 85 years ago made fun of the Zionist leaders for entertaining the illusion that the Palestinian people could be bought off. No people, he said, sells itself for economic advantages.
The Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister, Salam Fayad, has fallen into this trap. He points to the economic progress that has been made, according to him, in the West Bank. Several road blocks were removed. An imposing shopping mall was opened in Nablus. Within two years, he said, the Palestinians will be able to establish a Palestinian state. He is ignoring the fact that the Israeli army, the de facto sovereign in the occupied territories, can put an end to all these efforts at a moment’s notice. The road blocks can be put back and doubled, the towns put under curfew, the mall demolished. Indeed, every new mall in the West Bank increases the dependency on the goodwill of occupation authorities.
Another hammer is American. The Palestinian Authority subsists on money donated by the US and its European sidekicks. The security forces of the Palestinian Authority are being trained by the American general, Keith Dayton. Washington treats Mahmoud Abbas as it treats the Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He is “our son of a bitch”. He exists as long as we want him to, he disappears if we let go.
In a clash between Washington and Jerusalem, Ramallah would benefit. But as the Goldstone episode shows, the US and Israel are, for the time being, fully coordinated. Abbas has no choice but to dance to the tune of the Israeli flute.
The anvil is Palestinian. At the moment, the Palestinian public is passive. It is tired, worn down, frustrated, in despair. But the Goldstone affair shows that below the surface, a volcano is brewing.
Hamas spokesmen liken Abbas to Marshal Petain, the French hero of World War I, who was the idol of the people and the army. In World War II, when the German army destroyed the French military in a Blitzkrieg that stunned the world, the political establishment in Paris disintegrated. In its hour of misery, the people called on the aged marshal, who capitulated to the Germans in order to save what could be saved. He was, without doubt, a French patriot.
Hitler respected the marshal, and initially treated him well. For a year or so, he even considered taking him on as an ally, in preference to Mussolini. A large part of France remained “unoccupied”, as a kind of German protectorate, and there the Vichy regime (after the name of its capital) was installed. But soon matters deteriorated and Petain became a full-fledged collaborator with the Nazis, even taking part in the annihilation of the Jews. “Vichy” became a synonym for treason, and after the war Petain was condemned to death. In consideration of his glorious past, his sentence was commuted to life in prison.
I don’t think that this is a fair comparison. Ramallah is not Vichy. Khaled Mashaal in Damascus is not de Gaulle in London. But Vichy serves as a warning, and the Palestinian Authority is on a slippery slope. A regime under occupation is always in danger of becoming a collaborator. The verbal attacks of Hamas only increase the misery of Abbas and his allies.
ABBAS’ INITIAL order to withdraw the request for a debate on the Goldstone report also obstructed the efforts to overcome the split among the Palestinian factions.
The Egyptians are spreading news about a forthcoming internal Palestinian agreement and leaking its contents. It is hard to believe that anything will come of it. Hamas is supposed to relinquish its sole rule of the Gaza Strip, and it is hard to believe that they will do so. Abbas is supposed to confront Hamas in free elections – and this, too, is hard to imagine. It is even harder to believe that the Americans would risk allowing such elections. They have already announced that they are doing their best to prevent the reconciliation.
The Israeli media gleefully report that the hatred between Fatah and Hamas is stronger than their hatred towards the Israelis. That is not a unique phenomenon. When we were fighting against the British regime in Palestine, David Ben-Gurion gave orders for Irgun fighters to be turned over to the British police, and only the almost inhuman restraint of Menachem Begin prevented a fratricidal war. The Irish freedom fighters killed each other with abandon when the British offered a compromise. Such things have happened in many places.
If the Palestinians will have to choose, they are not to be envied. On the one side, Hamas is seen as an uncorrupt movement, true to the fight against the Israeli occupation. But the fundamentalist religious restrictions that they are now imposing on the Gazans, especially on the women, are abhorrent to many Palestinians. On the other side, while the Palestinian Authority is seen by many as corrupt and collaborationist, it is also seen as the sole body that can attract American support for the Palestinian cause.
Today Hamas does not offer any real alternative in practice, since they, too, are observing a cease-fire with Israel. Yet the hope that Abbas could bring peace is fading.
HOW DOES our government treat this situation?
Innocents may say: Israel is interested in the elimination of the extremist Hamas and the strengthening of the moderate Abbas, who is working for peace with Israel. That is self-evident.
If so, why is the Israeli government preventing Abbas from attaining any political achievement, even a symbolic one? Why did Ariel Sharon call him a “plucked chicken”? Why do the Israeli media repeat every day that Abbas is “too weak to make peace”?
What is stopping Netanyahu from freeing a thousand Palestinian prisoners as a gesture for Abbas, while he is negotiating with Hamas about the release of a thousand prisoners in return for the captured soldier Gilad Shalit? Why does he present Abbas with conditions whose acceptance would mean political suicide? (For example: to recognize Israel as “the state of the Jewish nation”.) Why is the enlargement of the settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank proceeding at a frantic pace, under the nose of Abbas?
The political and military leadership of Israel is not composed of stupid people. Far from it. When they do things whose consequences can clearly be foreseen, one has to assume that it is these results that they want, even when they maintain the opposite. When so many of the government’s actions reinforce Hamas and weaken Abbas, isn’t that why they are doing it?
And indeed: Abbas is dangerous to the present Israeli policy. He enjoys the support of President Obama, who is pressuring Israel to start negotiations for “two states for two peoples”, which entails withdrawal from the West Bank and the dismantling of most settlements. That means an end to 120 years of Zionist expansion and a fundamental change in the very essence of Israel itself.
Hamas in power over all the Palestinian people would deflect these “dangers”. No American pressure for a compromise. No need for negotiations. No need for ”restraint” of settlement activity or for a compromise over Jerusalem. The occupation could go on undisturbed.
This may lead to disaster in the future. But who cares about the future?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Palestinian leader Abbas facing outrage over suspending attempt to have Gaza war crimes trials.
This is such a corrupt decision that even with Fatah politics it is causing outrage and as the final sentence implies there seems to be a reconsideration of the decision. The decision was a triumph for the US and even more for Israel since it has no doubt ruined any attempt for Hamas and Fatah to find common ground as they have been attempting to do. The Israelis have thrown cold water on the idea that there will be any negotiated solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict any time soon. It would seem that Abbas gets nothing on the political front. The article is at sfgate.
Palestinian leader Abbas facing outrage
Karin Laub, Associated Press
Thursday, October 8, 2009
(10-08) 04:00 PDT Ramallah, West Bank --
In five turbulent years in office, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has never faced as much outrage as he has over his decision to suspend efforts to get Israeli officials put on trial for war crimes in Gaza.
On Wednesday, Gaza professors threw shoes at his defaced image and West Bank commentators called for his resignation, the latest signs Abbas may have miscalculated in bowing to what Palestinian officials say was intense U.S. pressure.
Abbas is unlikely to be forced out of office because he enjoys strong Western support and has ruled the West Bank without challenge since his Islamic militant Hamas rivals drove him out of Gaza in 2007.
However, the scandal could cause lasting harm to the 74-year-old Palestinian leader's standing with voters and his ability to negotiate with Israel.
In the short term, the United States is pushing for a quick resumption of peace talks, but gaps remain wide on what it takes to get back to the table. A weakened Abbas may not be in a position to make concessions when President Obama's special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, returns to the region this week.
"This is the worst position that Abbas has found himself in since he was elected president," said Hani al-Masri, a West Bank commentator.
At the center of the uproar is a 575-page U.N. report about Israel's three-week war in Gaza last winter, which alleges that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes, something both sides deny.
Last week, Abbas withdrew Palestinian support for a vote in the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva to have the report sent to the U.N. General Assembly for possible action - the first of many steps toward possibly establishing war crimes tribunals. With the Palestinians out of the picture, the council set the report aside for six months.
Abbas made the decision under heavy U.S. pressure, Palestinian and Israeli officials have said. U.S. officials told Palestinian leaders that a war crimes debate would complicate efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, according to participants in the meetings.
The anger over Abbas' decision was intense because many Palestinians felt he chose not to pursue a rare opportunity to win justice for Gaza's war victims, said Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian legislator.
"Finally, there was a moment, in front of the international community, to hold Israel accountable," Barghouti said. "What he (Abbas) did, or his government did, it's now perceived that they gave Israel the leeway to escape from that."
Nearly 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the war, including hundreds of civilians, along with 13 Israelis. Israel launched the attacks to end years of Hamas rocket fire on Israeli border towns.
Abbas has been away for most of the crisis, visiting Jordan, Yemen and Italy, and is only to return to the West Bank later this week. His aides initially defended the decision, saying a deferral did not mean the report was being buried, only that Palestinian diplomats needed more time to win international support for it.
However, Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Abbas adviser, said Wednesday that the Palestinian leadership had erred, the first such acknowledgment after six days of escalating protests.
"What happened is a mistake, but (it) can be repaired," Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, told the Voice of Palestine radio in a taped statement. "We have the courage to admit there was a mistake."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/08/MNN21A2HCH.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.
Palestinian leader Abbas facing outrage
Karin Laub, Associated Press
Thursday, October 8, 2009
(10-08) 04:00 PDT Ramallah, West Bank --
In five turbulent years in office, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has never faced as much outrage as he has over his decision to suspend efforts to get Israeli officials put on trial for war crimes in Gaza.
On Wednesday, Gaza professors threw shoes at his defaced image and West Bank commentators called for his resignation, the latest signs Abbas may have miscalculated in bowing to what Palestinian officials say was intense U.S. pressure.
Abbas is unlikely to be forced out of office because he enjoys strong Western support and has ruled the West Bank without challenge since his Islamic militant Hamas rivals drove him out of Gaza in 2007.
However, the scandal could cause lasting harm to the 74-year-old Palestinian leader's standing with voters and his ability to negotiate with Israel.
In the short term, the United States is pushing for a quick resumption of peace talks, but gaps remain wide on what it takes to get back to the table. A weakened Abbas may not be in a position to make concessions when President Obama's special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, returns to the region this week.
"This is the worst position that Abbas has found himself in since he was elected president," said Hani al-Masri, a West Bank commentator.
At the center of the uproar is a 575-page U.N. report about Israel's three-week war in Gaza last winter, which alleges that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes, something both sides deny.
Last week, Abbas withdrew Palestinian support for a vote in the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva to have the report sent to the U.N. General Assembly for possible action - the first of many steps toward possibly establishing war crimes tribunals. With the Palestinians out of the picture, the council set the report aside for six months.
Abbas made the decision under heavy U.S. pressure, Palestinian and Israeli officials have said. U.S. officials told Palestinian leaders that a war crimes debate would complicate efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, according to participants in the meetings.
The anger over Abbas' decision was intense because many Palestinians felt he chose not to pursue a rare opportunity to win justice for Gaza's war victims, said Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian legislator.
"Finally, there was a moment, in front of the international community, to hold Israel accountable," Barghouti said. "What he (Abbas) did, or his government did, it's now perceived that they gave Israel the leeway to escape from that."
Nearly 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the war, including hundreds of civilians, along with 13 Israelis. Israel launched the attacks to end years of Hamas rocket fire on Israeli border towns.
Abbas has been away for most of the crisis, visiting Jordan, Yemen and Italy, and is only to return to the West Bank later this week. His aides initially defended the decision, saying a deferral did not mean the report was being buried, only that Palestinian diplomats needed more time to win international support for it.
However, Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Abbas adviser, said Wednesday that the Palestinian leadership had erred, the first such acknowledgment after six days of escalating protests.
"What happened is a mistake, but (it) can be repaired," Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, told the Voice of Palestine radio in a taped statement. "We have the courage to admit there was a mistake."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/08/MNN21A2HCH.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Fayyad's alibi
This is an interesting article on the new Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. He is the new darling of the west and will now be in charge of distribution a huge supply of funds coming from international donors. Fatah is a bit leery of him since he is not a member of Fatah. He has a less compromised reputation as far as corruption is concerned. He has prepared himself an alibi for the failure of his plans. This is from Haaretz.
Fayyad's alibi
By Avi Isaacharoff
Tags: Fayyad, Fatah, Palestinians
Today's donors conference to the Palestinian Authority, taking place in Paris, is a time for Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to shine. A mere six months since he was appointed to the post, Fayyad has managed to win the international community's support for the economic plan that is the fruit of his labors.
On Thursday, Fayyad stood before a group of journalists in Ramallah and explained, in simple terms, the PA's expectations of the donor states ($5.6 billion over the next three years), of itself and, of course, of Israel. In Paris yesterday, Fayyad repeated the mantra before another group of reporters. The media-shy Palestinian prime minister wants to get his message out so that his plan can succeed.
However, it seems that even Fayyad is preparing for the possibility of failure. He regularly reiterates his two basic demands of Israel, which are conditional for the plan succeeding and the Palestinian economy flourishing: allowing the freedom of movement and goods in the West Bank and, as Fayyad says, "Israel must remove the blockade from Gaza, which has so damaged the Palestinian economy."
Advertisement
But the Palestinian prime minister knows full well that these two conditions will not be met any time soon. Israel is not going to remove the blockade from Gaza, nor will it lift the hundreds of roadblocks dispersed throughout the West Bank. Fayyad does refer to World Bank reports on the subject, but he is getting an alibi ready in case Israel continues its policy and his economic plan does not bring about the awaited changes.
Fayyad is an exception in Palestinian politics: He belongs to neither Fatah nor Hamas, having helped found the Third Way party, and unlike most Palestinian leaders, Fayyad does not blame "the occupation" for everything.
He managed to dismiss 40,000 PA employees after his predecessors and rivals in Fatah had tried to win support by handing out government jobs. In Nablus he wrought significant change on the ground, making the city secure again. As a result, both the United States and Israel see him as "the great hope."
Nonetheless, it is difficult to see how Fayyad plans to implement hundreds of millions of dollars in economic projects without Hamas' agreement. He has also neglected to mention that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is continuing in part due to the pressure the PA is exerting on Israel to do so.
Some Fatah officials argue that Fayyad has been trying to signal to Hamas in anticipation of the possibility that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will go back to negotiating with them.
Such a scenario may be part of Fayyad's calculations, but Fatah complaints appear to stem primarily from the fear that in the next elections, Fayyad, with his clean public image, is likely to steal votes from Fatah. The billions of dollars coming in from the donor states will only help him do so.
Fayyad's alibi
By Avi Isaacharoff
Tags: Fayyad, Fatah, Palestinians
Today's donors conference to the Palestinian Authority, taking place in Paris, is a time for Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to shine. A mere six months since he was appointed to the post, Fayyad has managed to win the international community's support for the economic plan that is the fruit of his labors.
On Thursday, Fayyad stood before a group of journalists in Ramallah and explained, in simple terms, the PA's expectations of the donor states ($5.6 billion over the next three years), of itself and, of course, of Israel. In Paris yesterday, Fayyad repeated the mantra before another group of reporters. The media-shy Palestinian prime minister wants to get his message out so that his plan can succeed.
However, it seems that even Fayyad is preparing for the possibility of failure. He regularly reiterates his two basic demands of Israel, which are conditional for the plan succeeding and the Palestinian economy flourishing: allowing the freedom of movement and goods in the West Bank and, as Fayyad says, "Israel must remove the blockade from Gaza, which has so damaged the Palestinian economy."
Advertisement
But the Palestinian prime minister knows full well that these two conditions will not be met any time soon. Israel is not going to remove the blockade from Gaza, nor will it lift the hundreds of roadblocks dispersed throughout the West Bank. Fayyad does refer to World Bank reports on the subject, but he is getting an alibi ready in case Israel continues its policy and his economic plan does not bring about the awaited changes.
Fayyad is an exception in Palestinian politics: He belongs to neither Fatah nor Hamas, having helped found the Third Way party, and unlike most Palestinian leaders, Fayyad does not blame "the occupation" for everything.
He managed to dismiss 40,000 PA employees after his predecessors and rivals in Fatah had tried to win support by handing out government jobs. In Nablus he wrought significant change on the ground, making the city secure again. As a result, both the United States and Israel see him as "the great hope."
Nonetheless, it is difficult to see how Fayyad plans to implement hundreds of millions of dollars in economic projects without Hamas' agreement. He has also neglected to mention that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is continuing in part due to the pressure the PA is exerting on Israel to do so.
Some Fatah officials argue that Fayyad has been trying to signal to Hamas in anticipation of the possibility that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will go back to negotiating with them.
Such a scenario may be part of Fayyad's calculations, but Fatah complaints appear to stem primarily from the fear that in the next elections, Fayyad, with his clean public image, is likely to steal votes from Fatah. The billions of dollars coming in from the donor states will only help him do so.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Saudi Arabia backs out of Arab peace intitiative
This is from ynetnews.
Saudi Arabia originally brokered the unity government at the same time that the US and Israel began supporting and even arming Abbas. Saudi Arabia's pulling out will keep lines open to Hamas whereas the new "peace" process has excluded Hamas altogether and deliberately. I don't know where ynet got the idea the intitiative was an Arab idea. It seems to be hatched by Israel and the US with so-called moderate Arab states tagging along for "moral" support.
Saudi Arabia backs out of Arab peace initiative
Saudi king gets cold feet over suspicions of Iran and fears of terror attacks sponsored by al-Qaeda, Israeli official says
Smadar Peri
Saudi Arabia has dropped its support for a land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Arab world over fears of al-Qaeda attacks, an Israeli official said Saturday.
"We estimate the Saudis got cold feet over suspicions of Iran and fears ofterror attacks sponsored by Iran and al-Qaeda," the official said.
"According to our information, the royal palace was frightened, withdrew from the peace initiative and threw the political ball in the court of Jordanian King Abdullah," the official stated.
The official added that Egypt's Intelligence chief Omar Suleiman raised the issue of Saudi Arabia with US President George W. Bush during a visit to Washington last week.
When Bush announced plans to hold the conference in his speech about the Middle East last week, Saudi Arabia failed to announce whether it would attend the regional meeting. Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and President Mahmoud Abbas said they would be sending delegates to the conference.
Saudi Arabia said it was sticking to the Riyadh agreement between Fatah and Hamas and urged the rival Palestinian factions to form a national unity government.
The official added that Saudi Arabia feared isolating Hamas would push the Islamic group to throw itself into Iran's arms and exacerbate Tehran's financial support to radical Palestinian groups.
Saudi Arabia's stance set alarms ringing in Amman and prompted the Jordanian monarch to seek an emergency meeting with President Bush. The two leaders will meet in Washington on Tuesday.
Egyptian officials revealed last week that the American-sponsored conference on the Middle East would take place in September at an undisclosed location in the United States. Arab foreign ministers will with their Israeli and American counterparts in Egypt on August 31 to prepare for the conference.
Back
Saudi Arabia originally brokered the unity government at the same time that the US and Israel began supporting and even arming Abbas. Saudi Arabia's pulling out will keep lines open to Hamas whereas the new "peace" process has excluded Hamas altogether and deliberately. I don't know where ynet got the idea the intitiative was an Arab idea. It seems to be hatched by Israel and the US with so-called moderate Arab states tagging along for "moral" support.
Saudi Arabia backs out of Arab peace initiative
Saudi king gets cold feet over suspicions of Iran and fears of terror attacks sponsored by al-Qaeda, Israeli official says
Smadar Peri
Saudi Arabia has dropped its support for a land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Arab world over fears of al-Qaeda attacks, an Israeli official said Saturday.
"We estimate the Saudis got cold feet over suspicions of Iran and fears ofterror attacks sponsored by Iran and al-Qaeda," the official said.
"According to our information, the royal palace was frightened, withdrew from the peace initiative and threw the political ball in the court of Jordanian King Abdullah," the official stated.
The official added that Egypt's Intelligence chief Omar Suleiman raised the issue of Saudi Arabia with US President George W. Bush during a visit to Washington last week.
When Bush announced plans to hold the conference in his speech about the Middle East last week, Saudi Arabia failed to announce whether it would attend the regional meeting. Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and President Mahmoud Abbas said they would be sending delegates to the conference.
Saudi Arabia said it was sticking to the Riyadh agreement between Fatah and Hamas and urged the rival Palestinian factions to form a national unity government.
The official added that Saudi Arabia feared isolating Hamas would push the Islamic group to throw itself into Iran's arms and exacerbate Tehran's financial support to radical Palestinian groups.
Saudi Arabia's stance set alarms ringing in Amman and prompted the Jordanian monarch to seek an emergency meeting with President Bush. The two leaders will meet in Washington on Tuesday.
Egyptian officials revealed last week that the American-sponsored conference on the Middle East would take place in September at an undisclosed location in the United States. Arab foreign ministers will with their Israeli and American counterparts in Egypt on August 31 to prepare for the conference.
Back
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
Mike Dunleavy the governor of the US state of Alaska is intending to introduce legislation that will repeal the two state boards which regu...
-
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
(August 11 ) In recent weeks, a recurring problem has been that Russia has intercepted US surveillance planes over the Black Sea as they wer...
