Behind The Iron Wall

'The plan that never changed'

The UN Cultural organisation (UNESCO) voted strongly in favour of membership for the Palestinians. A vote opposed by Israel. There were 173 countries that voted, 107 in favour, 14 opposing and 52 abstaining. Great Britain was one of those in the latter category, thus bringing further disrepute to the word 'Great'. Well done the 107! Shame on the 66. The fact is, the truth is, UNESCO's vote in favour of Palestinian membership is, as the Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad said, "a historic moment that gives Palestine back some of its rights."

The Israeli Ambassador to UNESCO called the vote a "tragedy" and "a political subject that was out of its Competence." The Palestinian admission to UNESCO is no "tragedy". The citizens of the world, 'We The People' are 'satisfied,' legally and morally, as is the Russell Tribunal, that Israel practices Colonialism and Apartheid in the illegally Occupied Palestinian Territories, so the real tragedy Ambassador is that our so-called leaders do nothing to address the situation even though the law is clear. As William Blake put it, "When I tell the truth it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

Occupation, Apartheid, and Colonialism

In its 2009 Democracy and Governance Programme, Middle East Project, Executive Summary, Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa found "International law prohibits the unilateral annexation or permanent acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force: should this occur, no State may recognise or support the resulting unlawful situation." If we further recognise Israel's actions in the OPT as illegal, then it is paramount that we focus on "the question of the responsibility of States [and their lack of response] as a result of internationally wrongful acts" in this case Israel and its continued violence in pursuit of its, and America's, strategic aims. Apartheid and Colonialism are two such acts.

Apartheid: Apartheid and colonialism are particularly egregious crimes. An examination by the HSRC of South Africa of Article 2(a) of the Apartheid Convention found "the denial of the right to life and liberty of person is satisfied by Israeli measures to repress Palestinian dissent against the occupation and its system of domination. Israel's policies and practices include murder, in the form of extrajudicial killings; torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment of detainees; a military court system that falls far short of international standards for fair trial: and arbitrary arrest and detention of Palestinians, [to include children], including administrative detention imposed without charge or trial and lacking adequate judicial review. All of these practises are discriminatory in that the Palestinians are subject to legal systems and courts which apply standards of evidence and procedure that are different from those applied to Jewish settlers living in the OPT and that result in harsher penalties for Palestinians."

An occupying power, in this case the State of Israel, must recognise in the harsh but penetrating light of universal condemnation that to engage in 'unlawful' Apartheid, is to engage in, according to, The Apartheid Convention, "an aggravated form of racial discrimination because it is a state-sanctioned regime of law and institutions that have 'the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.' " (HSRC, 2009). This is a grave crime.

Colonialism: According to the Executive Summary of the HSRC, "The prohibitions on colonialism and apartheid are rooted principally in the field of international human rights law" and in regard to Palestine and Colonialism, "Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is manifestly an act based on colonial intent. It is unlawful in itself, as annexation breaches the principle underpinning the law of occupation: that occupation is only a temporary situation that does not vest sovereignty in the Occupying Power." Furthermore, "By thus portioning contiguous blocs of Palestinian areas into cantons, Israel has violated the territorial integrity of the OPT in violation of the Declaration on Colonialism."

Moreover, "The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960, hereafter 'the Declaration on Colonialism'), condemns 'colonialism in all its forms and manifestations' which includes 'settler colonialism' " (HSRC). All this takes place behind a "Wall that separates Jewish and Palestinian populations, as well as dividing Palestinian communities from each other, with passage between Palestinian areas controlled by Israel" (HSRC), a clear violation of the Declaration on Colonialism.

Kathleen and Bill Christison write in Palestine In Pieces, "Settlements are a clear attempt to assert dominion over Palestine." They quote Henry Siegman, former director of the American Jewish Congress who found, "every part of Israeli society advancing the settler enterprise is in clear and deliberate violation not only of international law but of Israel's own laws." In a clear "theft of Palestinian lands" Israel has since 1948 actively "ethnically cleansed" and stolen from the people of Palestine. Stealing land, stealing property, stealing water, stealing lives, and stealing time by creating the illusion that it, Israel, works for peace behind the smoke and mirrors of its propaganda whilst perpetuating the 'grand hoax' that it negotiates for peace, that it dreams and longs for peace as it relentlessly and systematically tightens a noose around lawfull Palestinian aspirations.

Through its actions and policies of Apartheid and Colonialism, Israel constantly and wilfully breaches international law. It is permitted unchecked to brutalise the men, women and most damningly the children of Palestine under the 'plan that never changed', in an occupied territory that does not belong to it, behind an Iron Wall built by Zionism maintained by naked aggression and symbolising Israel's Occupation, Colonialism and Apartheid. "Every State owes a legal duty to the international community as a whole not to engage in practices of colonialism or apartheid. Conversely, all States have an interest in ensuring that these rules are respected because they enshrine fundamental values of international public order. Faced with a violation of the prohibitions of colonialism and apartheid, all states have three duties: to cooperate to end the violence; not to recognise the illegal situation arising from it; and not to render aid or assistance to the state committing It." (HSRC). The international community has failed, is failing and continues to fail Palestinians on all three counts.

Righting the Failure of the International Community

One critical way for the international community to right "wrongful acts", as asserted by the UNHRC, Twelfth session Agenda item 7 of 2009, 3, on Universal Jurisdiction, is "In the context of increasing unwillingness on the part of Israel to open criminal investigations that comply with international standards, the mission support the reliance on Universal Jurisdiction as an avenue for states to investigate violations of the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prevent impunity and promote international accountability (Chap XXVIII)."

Noam Chomsky in his book Pirates and Emperors describes the magnitude of the problem, "There is no doubt about the seriousness of the issues arising in the Middle East, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is commonly- and plausibly- judged the most likely "tinderbox" that might set off a terminal nuclear war as regional conflict engages the superpowers, as has come too close for comfort in the past." It is clear then, is it not, how dangerous Israel's Occupation, Colonialism, and Apartheid are? It is worth repeating, "Every state owes a legal duty to the international community as a whole not to engage in practices of colonialism or apartheid. Conversely, all States have an interest in ensuring that theses rules are respected because they enshrine fundamental values of international public order."

However, Chomsky recognises a change or an international shift, "The problem is that Israel's plans, which never changed, to take over and integrate the occupied territories, are running into some objective problems. They always hoped that in the long run they would be able to reduce the Palestinian population." Their plans, 'which never changed,' have run into the brick wall of international activism, and the lines of Palestinians standing shoulder to shoulder as history's tide turns in their favour and whose brilliant light is undimmed by the obtuse planning of Israel.

Israel breaches international law on a daily basis and violates Palestinian rights hourly. Israel's violations to include, "Depriving the population of occupied territory of the capacity for self-governance; integrating the economy of the occupied into that of the occupant; breaching the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in relation to the occupied territory; and denying the population of occupied territory the right freely to express, develop and practice its culture." (HSRC). Those who suffer the most from Israel's policies and the international community's continued failures are the children.

The Fight for Palestinian Children

The "Protected Citizens" of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are in a fight not only for their legitimate rights but also for their children's lives. In an address to the General Assembly, Professor Richard Falk, Special Rapporteur to the Palestinian Territories, said, "Prolonged occupation deforms the development of children through pervasive deprivations affecting health, education and overall security."

The Children of Palestine are 'protected persons.' Under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "they are persons who find themselves, in the case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a party [Israel] to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." What protection are the precious children of Palestine afforded? For some it is too late, far too late. According to Al-Jazeera, in an article published 15^th January 2009 titled 'Child Victims of Gaza', after Israel began to bomb the Gaza Strip on December 27^th 2008, of the 210 children, who lost their lives 44, were under the age of 5.

Some of their names are here lovingly recorded: Ahmed Riad Mohammed Al-Sinwar Boy 3. Tamer Hassan Al-Akhrass Boy 5. Hassan Ali Al-Akhrass Boy 3. Odai Hakeem Al-Mansi Boy 4. Camelia Al-Bardini Girl 10. Lama Talal Hamdan Girl 10. Jawaher Anwar Baaloosha Girl 8. Samar Anwar Baaloosha Girl 6. Halima Nizar Rayyan Girl 5. Aicha Nizar Rayyan Girl 3. And, Al-Adham Boy 1, who died needlessly and in innocence for lack of protection and breach of his human rights, and, damningly because of the lack of coordinated resolve by the international community to uphold in a consistent manner the very laws that they have enshrined. These children, as well as all others, have lost their lives in complete innocence by the bloodied hands of an unbridled Israel. Take these children into your hearts and minds, repeat their names, remember their names and carry them tenderly into your activism. Reflect on the mothers and fathers who mourn their loss and on the laws that should have protected their precious little ones.

Our leaders continue to fail the children of Palestine, and deny the ramifications of Article 21(3) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by blatantly ignoring Palestinian human rights. The Human Rights Council's Twelfth Session Agenda Item 7 in 2009 stated, "The Mission recommends that States involved in peace negotiations between Israel and representatives of the Palestinian people, especially the Quartet, should ensure that respect for the rule of law, international law and human rights assumes a central role in international sponsored initiatives." In spite of this, British and other western leaders continue to ignore and thwart these recommendations and international law. Because of this the children of Palestine are dying.

Conclusion

In the words of Malcolm X, "if you're not careful, the news papers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." Palestinians are not 'yelling rabble dressed up in gaudy savage rags' as described by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. And because now international public opinion is with them and not against them, that solidified international opinion pushes hard, weighing in full measure against the illegal policies of Occupation, Colonialism and Apartheid.

In solidarity, Palestinians, international activists, and world leaders of conscience that dare to defend humanity must put a stop to Israel's intentions, 'which never changed,' to bring the Palestinians to their knees. Let us then stand and be glad, as Palestine takes another sure step toward Statehood and freedom from tyranny, as the world votes in common sense and common purpose. In the words of Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erakat, "This is a victory for peace and a victory for the human race". God speed Palestine.

* Clive Hambidge is Human Development Director at Facilitate Global. He can be contacted at: clive.hambidge@facilitateglobal.org

Palestinian workers put the finishing touches on a chair covered with embroidered blue upholstery featuring a Palestinian flag and the word "Palestine". Palestinian activists would take the chair on an international tour to dramatize the Palestinian Authority's quest for U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state. (AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)

By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Ahead of the General Assembly's likely granting Palestine statehood recognition and full de jure UN membership in September or early October, Israel is preparing its army and arming settlers for disruptive protests.

Law Professor and former PLO legal counsel Francis Boyle explains that a simple two-thirds majority of states present and voting are needed. Abstentions and no-shows don't count. "Palestine has those votes for admission," he says! "The Israelis and the Americans know it."

Aside from Washington's illegal planned veto, if a Security Council resolution is introduced, Netanyahu apparently abandoned plan A, replacing it with a disruptive plan B.

On August 30, Haaretz writer Chaim Levinson headlined, "IDF training Israeli settlers ahead of 'mass disorder' expected in September," saying:

Settlement-by-settlement "red line(s)" were determined for "when soldiers will be ordered to shoot at the feet of Palestinian protesters if the line is crossed."

Arming settlers with tear gas, stun grenades, and perhaps other weapons is also planned, allegedly "as part of the defense operation."

Called Operation Summer Seeds, its "purpose is to ready the army (and settlers) for September and the possibility of confrontations with Palestinians following the expected" General Assembly granting them statehood and full de jure membership.

A document leaked to Haaretz stated a "working assumption" that "a public uprising" will follow Palestinian independence "which will mainly include mass disorder."

In fact, celebratory demonstrations are likely, not disturbances unless Israel and settlers incite them. Apparently, that's what's planned, again blaming victims of Israeli violence to maintain hardline occupation.

This time, however, it will be against a sovereign internationally recognized independent state, able to file a formal State to State complaint against Israeli officials.

In addition, as Boyle explains, it "can ratify the Genocide Convention and sue Israel for Genocide at the World Court, pursuant to" previous advice he gave Arafat and Abbas.

Moreover, it can "get a temporary restraining order" against Israel, requiring either Security Council enforcement approval, or if Washington vetoes it, to the General Assembly under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution overriding it.

In addition, it can use this procedure to halt settlement construction once and for all and perhaps regain lost land.

These prospects frighten Israel and its Washington paymaster/partner. So they're are pulling out all the stops to prevent Palestinian statehood or at least disrupt it if achieved to maintain hardline policies, claiming they're in self-defense.

The Israeli document contends disorder will include "marches toward main junctions, Israeli communities, and education centers; efforts at damaging (Israeli) symbols of government."

"Also, there may be more extreme cases like shooting from within the demonstrations or even terrorist incidents. In all these scenarios, there is readiness to deal with incidents near the fences and the borders of the State of Israel."

In fact, Israel is the only nation without fixed borders, because of its longstanding plan to seize Palestinian land, as well as more from neighboring states for a Greater Israel. It's indeterminate in size depending on how much it can steal.

Israel's army has been holding training sessions near its Shiloh military installation. It's also trained settlement squads at its Lachish base, used as a command training center for that purpose.

In addition, two virtual defense lines for each settlement were established. If Palestinians cross the first one, they'll face settlers using tear gas and other disruptive measures.

If line two is breached, soldiers will use live fire at their legs.

In other words, Israel plans disruptions. Rules of engagement were established to unleash them. A heightened state of readiness exists. Palestinians will be blamed like always. Injuries and perhaps deaths may result.

Instead of recognizing the UN's new member, Israel plans hostile acts short of war, perhaps planned later as more naked aggression.

As a result, Peace Now's Hagit Ofran expressed alarm, saying:

"We hope the army is making clear that nonviolent protests (and celebratory marches are) legitimate, and no settlers (or IDF personnel) should use any violence against unarmed demonstrators."

Rabbis for Human Rights' Arik Ascherman raised "serious questions and problems" with regard to settlers acting illegally, saying:

"We're very concerned that (Israeli forces) will not reduce conflict but increase it."

In fact, more at issue is instigating it as Israel commonly does, blaming its violence on Palestinian to shift responsibility.

Notably in early August, Israeli Foreign Minister/Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman outrageously claimed Palestinians are preparing for "bloodshed the likes of which we've never seen before," so when Israel sheds it they can be blamed.

Palestinian spokesman Ghassan Khatib accurately said Israel's "trying to fuel a fake picture of what will happen in September. These Israeli predictions of violence aren't true."

Palestinian Statehood and De Jure UN Membership Issues

A previous article explained Francis Boyle's work as PLO legal advisor to assure all Palestinians worldwide automatically become citizens of the State of Palestine if granted by the upcoming General Assembly vote.

On August 30, Ma'an News published his assessment and International and Comparative Law Professor John Quigley's concurring, saying:

The Palestinians' "initiative" to be introduced in the General Assembly "is no threat" to their rights, and "will only improve their standing. This is because as a matter of international law, states must ensure that human rights are not being violated."

As a sovereign state, Palestine will be "interacting" with others, "and this is a much stronger position. It can pursue remedies at the diplomatic level in its capacity as a state. It will do favors for other states. It can demand (them) in return. It can also pursue prosecutions of Israeli officials for war crimes," including illegal settlements, applying greater pressure available to sovereign states.

Moreover, "(r)ather than posing a threat to the refugees, (they'll), in fact, be in a much stronger position. Legally, while people might leave states, if the refugees are nationals then the state cannot refuse to allow them to return."

In 1988, the General Assembly accepted the PLO "as the sole representative of the Palestinian people." It's precisely what it's likely to do "in September if asked to accept Palestine as a state."

A Final Comment

The Virtual Jerusalem web site headlined, "Let Your Voice Be Heard," stating:

"Say No to Palestinian Statehood."

The pro-Israeli group accuses the PA of including "terrorist(s)....whose stated mission is 'the elimination of Israel," no matter that saying so is a bald-faced lie.

Nonetheless, it accused Hamas of hundreds of terrorists attacks, calling self-defense against Israeli violence "terrorism," what scoundrels always say.

It falsely said the PA lacks "vital aspects of modern statehood, such as freedom, respect for human rights, and a functioning democracy. Palestinian statehood," it adds, "will make peace negotiations with Israel impossible."

In fact, they've been stillborn for decades because Israel and Washington promote violence, not peace, a notion they find intolerable.

Virtual Jerusalem doesn't even lie well, adding that Palestinian statehood "will be gravely detrimental to Israel's security and the safety of the Israeli people."

"Stand with Israel and make your voice heard," it says. Tell Obama to support Israel against Palestine. Of course, he, like past presidents since Lyndon Johnson, have done it throughout their tenure.

It's time more responsible world leaders recognized rule of law responsibilities by voting to grant Palestinian statehood and full de jure UN membership.

Why? Because it's the right thing to do!

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By James M. Wall * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Uri Avnery, intrepid columnist, ageless Israeli peace activist, and retired IDF soldier, has seen, up close, the actions of every government Israeli voters have put in office since the nation was created.

He is not fooled by the antics, decisions and deceptions of the current Israeli right-wing government. Avnery peers into the soul of the Netanyahu-Lieberman team and reports back to his readers the dark visions he finds there.

With a wisdom that was sadly missing from US media following 911, Avnery writes that the recent deadly exchange of fire in the southern Sinai gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the excuse he needed to change Israel's public conversation. Avnery calls his posting, "The Return of the Generals".

At the beginning of the week, Binyamin Netanyahu was desperately looking for a way out of an escalating internal crisis. The social protest movement was gathering momentum and posing a growing danger to his government. The struggle was going on, but the protest had already made a huge difference. The whole content of the public discourse had changed beyond recognition.

The city square of Tel Aviv has been covered with protesters living in tents. There was danger the Arab Spring spirit would soon engulf the region's so-called "Only Democracy".

Talk of "security" was pushed aside. As Avnery put it, TV talk show panels, which had previously been filled with "used generals", were now packed with social workers and professors of economics.

And then it happened. A small extremist Islamist group in the Gaza Strip sent a detachment into the Egyptian Sinai desert, from where it easily crossed the undefended Israeli border and created havoc. Several fighters (or terrorists, depends who is talking) succeeded in killing eight Israeli soldiers and civilians, before some of them were killed. Another four of their comrades were killed on the Egyptian side of the border. The aim seems to have been to capture another Israeli soldier, to strengthen the case for a prisoner exchange on their terms.

In a communications pattern familiar to American consumers of radio and TV news, discussions by economic experts about young people angry about jobs and housing were replaced by the "old gang of exes – ex-generals, ex-secret-service chiefs, ex-policemen, all male, of course, accompanied by their entourage of obsequious military correspondents and far-right politicians".

Netanyahu was once again playing the role that allowed him to be seen as "the he-man, the resolute fighter, the Defender of Israel". He became George W. Bush after 911, when the cowboy president from Texas grabbed a bull horn at Ground Zero and pledged to hunt down those dirty, murderous people who dared to attack the homeland.

After the Eilat clash Netanyahu sent his forces into action, not waiting for verification as to the source of the attackers. Richard Silverstein, writing on his Tikun Olan blog, finds that this attack handed Israel a "gift".

This is exactly the sort of gift that Israeli rightists like Bibi Netanyahu love. Faced with a mounting internal crisis in the form of the J14 movement, Palestinian rejectionists have handed him his "Get Out of Political Crisis Free" card.

Yesterday's attack in Eilat has fueled an Israeli reaction that can be described as uncontrollable fury, which has killed 14 including three children. Today [August 19], an Israeli drone performed heroically for the fatherland by incinerating a car (or in other reports a motorcycle) carrying a Palestinian doctor and his family to hospital seeking treatment for a sick child.

The doctor, his brother, and the doctor's little boy were killed in the attack. Ynet announced: Oops, we missed. The drone was aiming for a terrorist cell traveling nearby. WAFA says the doctor's brother was an Al Quds commander, which would mean that the IDF is willing to kill sick 2 year old children in order to get alleged terrorists as well.

In a flash, Netanyahu had changed the subject, just as Bush changed the subject in 2001 from the economy to "security against terrorists". The Israeli leader is not concerned with the truth. He will leave that task to future revisionist historians. The Israeli leader wants only to fire up the fear of the populace and remind them that security is to be found only in the military prowess of the world's fourth largest military force.

On his blog, War in Context, Paul Woodward posted a video clip of an interview with an IDF officer which suggests that the Israel retaliation attack on Gaza was carried out before Netanyahu could identify the culprits involved. In the posted video interview with an IDF official, Woodward found that the government's own military leaders did not know exactly who had attacked the Israeli bus.

So, the IDF says it "knows" the gunmen came from Gaza because they were using Kalashnikovs. That's about as logical as saying they know they came from Gaza because they appeared to be Arabs.

Why then is Israel now bombing Gaza? Simply because it bombs Gaza every chance it gets. It bombs Gaza knowing that Washington will never object. It bombs Gaza because whenever Jews are killed the easiest form of revenge is to kill Palestinians — even when those particular Palestinians most likely have nothing whatsoever to do with the deaths that triggered this particular cycle of violence.

Why, indeed, is Israel once again bombing Gaza? One rather obvious answer is that the Israeli public must be persuaded that Palestinians are not to be trusted to form their own government. The pattern is obvious. Israel is in danger of losing the September 20 vote for Palestinian statehood in the United Nations General Assembly. Latest predictions from Palestinian officials: They are only three to five votes short of obtaining a majority in their favor.

Since President Obama is on record promising to veto a subsequent Security Council vote for Palestinian membership in the UN, there is no chance that this will be the year UN grants statehood status to the Palestinian Authority delegation.

Meanwhile, Israel maintains its stubborn posture in the battle of "apologies" in the region, rejecting the demand from Turkey that Israel apologize for its deadly assault by naval commandos that killed nine Turkish citizens traveling on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza on May 30, 2010.

When Israel refused to apologize for the attack Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel and has subsequently announced that "it would launch a diplomatic and legal assault on Israel". Sources in the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Turkey would implement "Plan B", which will include an anti-Israel campaign in UN institutions, with an emphasis on the International Court of Justice.

Turkey also plans to encourage the families of the raid's victims to file suits against senior Israeli figures in European courts.

Also on the apology front, the Cairo News reports that Egypt has demanded an apology from Israel for the deaths of three police officers in the IDF attacks along the Egyptian-Gaza border this week.

Late Saturday afternoon, Israel took the unusual step-unusual for Israel, which rarely acknowledges mistakes–of "regretting" the deaths of the Egyptian police officers:

Breaking a customary silence on the Sabbath, the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, released a statement saying, "We regret the deaths of members of the Egyptian security forces during the terror attack on the Israeli-Egyptian border."

Mr. Barak, who had seemed on Thursday to blame lax Egyptian security for allowing the attacks near the border, said that after an internal inquiry, an Israeli-Egyptian committee would investigate. And he went on to note the importance of the peace treaty with Egypt and his admiration for the judgment and responsibility of the Egyptian people.

These events all occurred after 81 members of the US House of Representatives returned to their home districts, basking in the warm hospitality of their Israeli hosts. One of those House members was Jesse Jackson, Jr., who, before he returned home, wrote a column for the Jerusalem Post, which included these paragraphs:

Marwan Barghouti, even though he has been jailed since 2002, is an influential Fatah leader who is serving five life sentences for acts committed in the second intifada. He has called "on our people in the homeland and in the diaspora to go out in a peaceful, million man march during the week of voting in the United Nations in September."

He told an Egyptian news service that a US veto would be a "historic, deadly mistake" and that there would be strong protests throughout the Arab and Muslim world and beyond. Does a convicted terrorist who has used violence in the past, and has not ruled out its use in the future, really have the moral authority and credibility to advocate a nonviolent march and be believable?

Good question, Congressman, which leads to a follow up question: You express such familiarity with the Israeli hasbara narrative, that your constituents might want to ask if you are also familiar with the Palestinian narrative which would provide you with a different take on the career of Marwan Barghouti.

Congressman Jackson, yes, he is the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., had previously expressed interest in receiving a direct appointment to the US Senate seat from the now-disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich, the seat which President Obama vacated to move to the White House. It was the "attempted sale" of that seat that pending appeals, is expected to send Blagojevich to a federal prison.

If Congressman Jackson still wants to run for that seat with the backing of the same AIPAC-related forces that funded his August visit to Israel, he would have to first win a Democratic primary and then compete with Republican incumbent Senator Mark Kirk. Why would AIPAC, a long time backer of Kirk, turn its favors to Jackson?

Kirk has his detractors in Illinois, as the lively video below, suggests. Sing along, and if you are of a mind to do so, drop Senator Kirk a note and ask him about the "moral authority" of the IDF drone that killed "a Palestinian doctor, his brother, and the doctor's little boy in Gaza".

Video link: http://youtu.be/7cNTd1JmZ0E

The video at the end of the posting was uploaded to YouTube by The Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine (CJPIP), based in Chicago.

* James M. Wall is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. Jim launched personal blog April 24, 2008.

By Khalid Amayreh * in occupied Jerusalem | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

According to recent reports from Washington, the Obama administration is proposing a trade-off to reach a breakthrough in the stalled Palestinian-Israeli talks.

The new formula, which the U.S. tried (but failed) to sell to other members of the Quartet, proposes a Palestinian recognition of the "Jewishness" of Israel in exchange for an American endorsement of a Palestinian "state" on unspecific parts of the West Bank in addition to a few scattered neighborhoods of occupied East Jerusalem.

The United States has already approached some Arab states, asking them to endorse the American ideas and pressure the weak Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership to do likewise.

Unfortunately, the notoriously obsequious PA is yet to utter a clarion and unequivocal "NO" in response to increasingly daring Israeli and American efforts to force the Palestinian leadership to commit a historic adultery with Palestinian honor, legitimate rights and future, since recognizing the "Jewishness" of Israel would be a historic obscenity exceeding any other obscenity.

Some shallow-minded Palestinian officials seem unable to grasp the actual and potential gravity of the issue at hand. These people must be asked to shut up, or get lost, as they have no right whatsoever to sacrifice the rights of future Palestinian generations to freedom, dignity, and equality.

Russia has had the decency to reject the obscene American demand. This fact should at least silence and embarrass some of the defeatist elements within the PA who go by the adage "feed me today, kill me tomorrow."

In addition to that, a compromising attitude by the likes of Mahmoud Abbas and Yasser Abed Rabbo would really force our friends and allies into a very difficult position. Some of them would argue rather bitterly "we can't be more Catholic than the Pope, we can't be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves."

There are those whose tongues function much more swiftly than their brains do, who argue that the issue is merely symbolic and that Israel is already a Jewish state.

Well, things are not that simple and Israeli leaders such as the arch-racist prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his terrorist cohorts know exactly what they really have in mind when they speak of a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu knows, but doesn't say so, that a Jewish state means institutionalized Jewish racism, sanctioned by the law of the land and recognized as legitimate and legal by no other than Israel's victims.

In other words, upon receiving a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Israel would not only legally decapitate the paramount right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees, but would also adopt all sorts of draconian and manifestly fascist measures against the sizeable Palestinian community in Israel.

Such measures would range from brazen religious and cultural discrimination to brash ethnic cleansing, and Israel would do all of this perfectly legally because Israel is recognized as an exclusively Jewish state. In other words, the right of Israel to maintain itself as a predominantly Jewish overrides Israel's non-Jewish citizens' right to equality, dignity and basic human rights and civil liberties.

In fact, Israel has already embarked on measures that could be viewed as ominous harbingers for a full-fledged fascism. For example, Israel has unearthed ancient Muslim cemeteries in Jerusalem, ordered mosques to tone down the timeless call for prayers and imposed stringent restrictions on Muslim and Christian access to religious shrines in East Jerusalem.

Moreover, with the Israeli justice system slowly but definitely transformed into a legal body of Talmud-based anti-Gentile system that is reminiscent of history's darkest ages, and with the Israeli Jewish society moving decidedly toward Jewish religious fanaticism and national jingoism, one can only imagine the kind of treatment non-Jews, especially Palestinians, would receive in Israel several years from now.

A few months ago, I spoke with a liberal Jewish intellectual who told me that Israel wouldn't necessarily take dramatic measures to drive Arabs away from Israel.

"Israel would make their daily life unbearable through the promulgation of clearly discriminatory laws and other ostensibly "legal" measures." In a sort of defensive reflex, I reminded him that Israel claimed to be a democratic state. "You know this is for propaganda and for international public opinion consumption, it is not for real."

Israel has already started introducing racist laws in an effort to enforce "the Jewish identity" of the state, just as Nazi Germany started enforcing the German identity in the early and mid 1930s.!

For example, the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has proposed a new law which would make it mandatory for all Israeli (Arab and Jewish) kindergartens to sing the Jewish national anthem at least once a week.

This means that the nearly two million Arabs living in Israel would be forced to glorify the symbol of their Nakba. It would be akin to the Third Reich forcing Jewish kids to sing the Nazi anthem.

In any case, forcing the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the tens of thousands of Palestinians, who were murdered, savaged, and violently ethnically cleansed by genocidal Zionist terrorists when Israel was created in 1948, to sing hatikva, would be a small detail once Arabs and other non-Jews were forced to pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state.

Finally, recognizing Israel as it is would be a huge betrayal for the Palestinian people, their legitimate rights, aspirations, struggle, suffering and grievances. But recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would be a real crime against humanity, since saying "yes" to the Jewishness of Israel means and implies consent to Jewish racism, fascism and even Nazism. It is nothing less than grand blaspheme and apostasy.

* Khalid Amayreh a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983.

By James M. Wall * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The US Congress announced through two July votes that since the US and Israel are obviously the colonial bosses of the Middle East, the future of the Palestinian people must be determined through "negotiations" between unequal partners, an occupying military power and the captive population it occupies.

OK, so the resolution did not actually say that part about colonialism. But ponder for a moment what really happened in our national legislative halls this month.

By a unanimous Senate vote and a 407 to 6 majority in the US House, the Congress demanded that Palestinian leaders "cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including through a unilateral declaration of statehood or by seeking recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations or the United Nations."

The Congress also demanded that President Obama "announce that the United States will veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes before the United Nations Security Council which is not a result of agreements reached between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians".

Furthermore, the Congress, in the words of its resolution, expects President Obama to "lead a diplomatic effort to oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and to oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, within the United Nations and in other international forums prior to achievement of a final agreement between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians."

Stephen Zunes understands the American zeitgeist which produced the arrogance behind that resolution. He wrote:

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are still trapped in an early 20th century colonialist mindset which believes that colonized people should only be allowed independence under the terms and conditions granted them by their occupiers.

We are all occupied by Israel's army because we are, as Zunes notes, "trapped in an early 20th century colonial mindset". To be trapped in a colonial mindset is to be linked to a a matrix of mind control that deadens our hearts, our minds, and yes, our souls. Not convinced? You still believe that our political leaders, our church leaders, and our media controllers tell us the truth about Israel?

Take note of what riles up the oppressors. Why else would the state of Israel react with such vehemence at the slightest effort to throw supportive and symbolic lifelines to the Palestinian people? Recent example: The Israeli Knesset has just declared it to be a crime to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

That's right, that innocent-sounding Palestinian-inspired effort to call attention to the connection between corporate profits and Israel's occupation has made Israel chip away yet another hunk of high-minded idealism that once led Israelis to dub themselves as "the only democracy" in the Middle East.

Remember that, you delegates to church legislative bodies. You could end up in an Israeli prison cell if you continue to protest Israeli occupation. These people want us to be afraid, very afraid.

You congressional legislators who have come to love the perks and glamour of power, you thought you could be Mr. Smith in Washington doing what is good for your people? The moment a member of Congress endorses a check from supporters of colonialism, they lose their freedom to determine what is good.

It works this way, Madame and Mr. Congress member. Listen well. When AIPAC sends over its latest resolutions, don't bother to read it. Just sign and cast your vote the way you are told. When you have been ground down sufficiently, you will embrace Israel's control the way you once accepted the control of the schoolyard bully who stole that piece of your Mom's apple pie you brought for an afternoon snack.

You will get used to it, so much so that you will find yourself sending out lies and distortions to your voters and believing them, just as you expect the voters to believe them.

Colleen Hanabusa

After a while, it becomes easy to send out such a letter the way Hawaii's Democratic Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, did recently. The Congresswoman caught on fast. She is serving her first term in Washington:

Stuart Littlewood shared Hanabusa's letter.

Littlewood reminds us just what is in Resolution 268, of which the congresswoman is so proud to have supported in her first term in office:

Resolution 268 actually states that "Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations." It threatens withholding US foreign aid to the Palestinian National Authority if it presses ahead with an application for statehood in the United Nations in September. It also calls for the Palestinian unity government to "publicly and formally forswear terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, and reaffirm previous agreements made with the Government of Israel."

Got that, you Palestinians? If you expect to keep your 40 acres and the mule, you must talk to no one but us. And, another thing, you must do so under our rules of engagement. Otherwise, as the Mafia guys in my town might say, "we know where you live". Read Hanabusa's letter carefully and take note of the deceptions and distortions members of Congress accept as the price for staying in office.

As the only democracy in the region, I believe that the United States has a special relationship with Israel... During my time in the House of Representatives, I will support our funding our ally and help to forward Israel's efforts to keep their citizens safe, which currently stands at $2.8 billion in general foreign aid, and another $280 million for a missile defense system...

Our foreign aid to Palestine is intended to create a virtuous cycle of stability and prosperity in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians towards peaceful coexistence with Israel and prepares them for self-governance. . . .

Most recently, I became a co-sponsor of House Resolution 268, which reaffirms our support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states. This resolution is also in opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, as well as outlined consequences for Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations. This bill passed in the House on July 7, 2011 by a vote of 407 – 6...

(The resolution was sponsored by Representative Eric Cantor, the Debt Ceiling Republican point man. It was co-sponsored by virtually the entire house membership. Visit this site to see how your member voted.)

In the essay he wrote for Truthout this week, Zunes, a professor of politics and international studies and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, describes the history of the colonial mindset which is so slavishly followed by the US Congress. Zunes calls his essay, "Congress and Its Colonialist Agenda". He writes:

Up until the mid-20th century, Western attitudes regarding national freedom essentially went like this: the independence of white Western nations (Great Britain, France, the United States etc.) was a given. Independence for nonwhite, non-Western nations (such as those in Africa, the Middle East and Asia), however, could only be under conditions granted by the occupying powers.

The time at which these nations could be free, their specific boundaries and the conditions of their independence could only be reached through negotiations between the colonial occupiers and representatives (if approved by the colonial powers) of the conquered peoples.

The time for freedom, the " specific boundaries" and what will constitute independence, must be negotiated, which is to say, handed down to the "conquered peoples" by their conquerers. Any suggestion that a "third party", say, the United Nations, might be able to suggest a more equitable arrangement for the "conquered peoples", must be resisted vigorously.

There have been many Israelis who have felt the painful burden of having to impose their will on a captive people. These Israelis have spoken out, written about, and sought to reverse the uglier aspects of this occupation, but they have not prevailed against successive hardline conservative governments that buy the US Congress and shape the US media, all with one aim, to deny the reality of colonialism in the 21st century.

President Obama is no stranger to colonialism nor to racial hatred. We keep hoping his sensitivity to oppression will influence him to take his decision-making away from slavish adherence to Israel's dictates. Thus far, he has been a huge disappointment. When he was elected and basking in the adoration that engulfed him in Chicago's Grant Park, that long-ago night in 2008, we thought the matrix was about to crack.

But even before he was sworn into office, the signs were ominous. The President-elect sat by without complaint as President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert completed their dirty business in Gaza, carrying out an invasion which did not end until a few hours before Obama's inauguration.

Then came the appointments. Obama added no one to his inner circle who might have at least suggested to him that Palestinians are people who have been continuously brutalized. Instead, he brought in people like Dennis Ross to guide his Middle East policies.

The American media pontificators give Ross a free ride. Not so the liberal wing of Israel's media, as Stephen Walt (of Mearsheimer and Walt fame) points out in his blog for Foreign Policy:

In case you missed it, veteran Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar has written a scathing denunciation of US Middle East policy - and long-time Middle East advisor Dennis Ross - in Ha'aretz. His bottom line is that Oslo is over, yet the United States is still trying to convince the Palestinian leadership to buy into a diplomatic process that has been a cover for continued settlement building and has manifestly failed to bring them a state. The key passage:

"It would be tough to find a bigger expert than Ross on the myths and illusions related to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. For years he has been nurturing the myth that if the United States would only meet his exact specifications, the Israeli right would offer the Arabs extensive concessions."

During the years he headed the American peace team, Israeli settlement construction ramped up. Now Ross, the former chairman of the Jewish People Policy Institute, is trying to convince the Palestinians to give up on bringing Palestinian independence for a vote in the United Nations in September and recognize the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people - in other words, as his country, though he was born in San Francisco, more than that of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who was born in Safed. . . .

Ross is trying to peddle the illusion that the most right-wing government Israel has ever seen will abandon the strategy of eradicating the Oslo approach in favor of fulfilling the hated agreement. In an effort to save his latest boss from choosing between recognizing a Palestinian state at the risk of clashing with the Jewish community and voting against recognition at the risk of damaging U.S. standing in the Arab world, Ross is trying to drag the Palestinians back into the "peace process" trap.

There are reports out of Ramallah that the Palestinians may decide not to go forward in their appeal to the United Nations in September. If this is true, and we hope it is not true, then look for the US-Israeli matrix of colonial control to tighten even further.

The picture at top is from Aljazeera. The children are in Gaza. The time is December, 2008, taken during the Israeli invasion.

* James M. Wall is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. Jim launched personal blog April 24, 2008.

when the truth is so easy to discover

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Here in the UK we have so many craven politicians paying homage to the likes of Rupert Murdoch and playing stooge to the pro-Israel lobby that there's little time to take much interest in US politics. So I apologise to American friends for briefly intruding on their grief; but somebody has sent me a copy of a letter from a US congresswoman to one of her constituents.

It says:

As the only democracy in the region, I believe that the United States has a special relationship with Israel... During my time in the House of Representatives, I will support our funding our ally and help to forward Israel's efforts to keep their citizens safe, which currently stands at 2.8 billion dollars in general foreign aid, and another 280 million dollars for a missile defence system...

Our foreign aid to Palestine is intended to create a virtuous cycle of stability and prosperity in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians towards peaceful coexistence with Israel and prepares them for self-governance. Continued failure to reach a two-state solution, combined with lack of consensus on any of the alternatives, may also mean that the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza could continue indefinitely. In addition, with the West Bank and Gaza currently controlled by Hamas, an entity listed as a terrorist organization by US State Department and many other world governments, this may ultimately impact future aid our nation will provide.

Most recently, I became a co-sponsor of House Resolution 268, which reaffirms our support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states. This resolution also opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, as well as outlined consequences for Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations.[sic] This bill passed in the House on 7 July 2011 by a vote of 407 – 6...

Resolution 268 actually states that "Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good-faith commitment to peace negotiations". It threatens withholding US foreign aid to the Palestinian National Authority if it presses ahead with an application for statehood in the United Nations in September. It also calls for the Palestinian unity government to "publicly and formally forswear terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, and reaffirm previous agreements made with the government of Israel".

Senator Ben Cardin, who initiated the resolution, announced: "The Senate has delivered a clear message to the international community that United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state at this time does not further the peace process."

Israel is the only democracy in the region? The West Bank and Gaza are controlled by Hamas? An application to the UN for Palestinian statehood is "circumventing" the peace process? Representative Colleen Hanabusa's letter shows that she is poorly briefed. There is nothing on her website to suggest that she has a special interest in foreign affairs, let alone the Middle East. So why does this nice lady lawmaker from Hawaii suddenly find herself co-sponsoring a resolution that's designed to scupper the hopes for freedom of another people halfway round the world, who have suffered betrayal and brutal military occupation for 63 years?

Disinformation is a recurring feature of US foreign policy discourse, and I'm reminded of the twisted comments of Alejandro Wolff, US Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, when he faced journalists' questions at the Security Council on that infamous day, 3 January 2009, when Israel's tanks rolled into Gaza to deal further death and destruction to a community that had already been air-blitzed for eight days and suffered siege and blockade for nearly 30 months before that.

Reporter: Mr Ambassador, you made no mention, sir, of any Israeli violation of those agreements that you've referred to, particularly in the opening of the crossings. And then there is a major development today, which is Israel's land attack and that's threatening to kill hundreds of civilians. Doesn't this deserve some request for Israel ... to stop its ground military attacks, sir?

Ambassador Wolff: Well, again, we're not going to equate the actions of Israel, a member state of the United Nations, with the actions of the terrorist group Hamas. There is no equivalence there. This council has spoken on many times about the concerns we had about Hamas's military attacks on Israel. The charter of this organization [the UN] respects the right of every member state to exercise its self-defence, and Israel's self-defence is not negotiable... The plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza is directly attributable to Hamas.

Reporter: But Hamas represents the people, because they voted, over 70 per cent of them, for Hamas in the last election.

Ambassador Wolff: Hamas usurped the legitimate authority of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.

Even US ambassadors should know that Hamas was and still is the legitimate authority. Hamas was democratically elected in 2006 in a contest judged by international observers to be clean. The result didn't suit Israel or its protector, the USA, so, together with the UK and the EU, they set about trashing Palestine's embryonic democracy. Losers Fatah, a corrupt faction rejected by the people for that reason, was recruited and funded to do the dirty work, for which they were well suited. As John Pilger has pointed out, when Hamas foiled a CIA-inspired coup in 2007 the event was reported in the Western media as "Hamas's seizure of power".

Hamas simply took the action necessary to establish its democratic authority against Fatah's US-funded militia. This angered the US and Israel even more.

For Mrs Hanabusa's information, thanks to America's meddling Fatah controls the West Bank but has no democratic legitimacy while Hamas is holed up in Gaza. And Israel is far from being the full-blown Western-style democracy that many think.

"No equivalence" between Israel and "terrorist" Hamas?

The US uses a perfectly good form of words to brand, outlaw and crush any organization, individual or country it doesn't like. Under Executive Order 13224 ("Blocking Property and prohibiting Transactions with Persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support Terrorism"), Section 3, the term "terrorism" means an activity that:

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended

(a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping or hostage-taking.

The order was signed on 23 September 2001 by George W. Bush. Its definition of terrorism fits the conduct of the United States and its bosom-buddy Israel like a glove, the irony of which seems totally lost on Congress.

Let us also look at Netanyahu's definition since he runs Israel's current government. His book Terrorism: How the West Can Win defines terror as the "deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends".

In an interview with Jennifer Byrne in February 2002, he said: "Terrorism is defined by one thing and one thing alone, the nature of the act. It is the deliberate systematic assault on civilians that defines terrorism."

It's like he's signing his own arrest warrant.

If terror is unjustifiable, then it is unjustifiable across the board. The Palestinians had no history of violence until their lands were threatened and then partitioned and overrun by a brutal intruder whose greed is never satisfied. Demands for Palestinians to cease their terror campaign (if you buy the idea that resistance equals terror) must be linked to demands for Israel to do the same.

As for the resistance movement Hamas, its charter is objectionable and the leadership are foolish not to have rewritten it in tune with modern diplomacy. Nevertheless the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, within days of being elected, offered long-term peace if Israel recognized Palestine as an independent state on 1967 borders. Previously, the Palestine Liberation Organization had unwisely "recognized" Israel without any reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian state. The Oslo Accords were supposed to end the occupation and give Palestine independence. "What we've got instead are more settlements, more occupation, more roadblocks, more poverty and more repression," he said.

Omar Abdul Razek, Hamas's finance minister, when interviewed by Aljazeera in May 2006, asked: "Which Israel would you want me to recognize? Is it Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates? Israel with the occupied Golan Heights? Israel with East Jerusalem? Israel with the settlements? I challenge you to tell me where Israel's borders lie."

Interviewer: "...the 1967 borders."

Omar Abdul Razek: "Does Israel recognize the 1967 borders? Can you tell me of one Israeli government that ever voiced willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders?"

So, the question remains: why should Hamas or any other Palestinian party renounce violence against a foreign power that violently occupies their homeland, bulldozes their homes at gunpoint, uproots their beautiful olive groves, sets up hundreds of armed checkpoints to disrupt normal life, batters down villagers' front doors in the dead of night, builds an illegal "separation" wall to annex their territory, divide families, steal their water and isolate their communities, and blockades exports and imports to cause economic ruin – and now plans to steal Gaza's offshore gas?

Palestinians too have a right to defend themselves, and their self-defence, like Israel's, is non-negotiable.

As for recognizing Israel right to exist, no Palestinian is likely to do that while under Israel's jackboot. Nor should they be expected to. It would simply serve to legitimize the occupation, which is what Israel wants above all and what Israel wants Israel must get, even if the US has to make a complete fool of itself.

The terror that stalks the Holy Land

American and Israeli politicians love quoting the number of garden-shed rockets launched from Gaza towards Sderot. But can they say how many (US-supplied) bombs, shells and rockets have been delivered by F-16s, helicopter gunships, tanks, drones and navy vessels into the tightly-packed humanity of Gaza?

But at least we have an idea of the death-toll over the last 10 years. B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, keeps a close check.

In the period between the start of the second Intifada (September 2000) up to Operation Cast Lead (26 December 2008) 4,836 Palestinians were killed by Israelis in the occupied territories, including 951 children. Two hundred and thirty five of these were targeted killings (i.e. assassinations) while 2,186 were killed during targeted killings although they were not taking part in hostilities. Five hundred and eighty one Israelis, including 84 children, were killed by Palestinians in Israel.

During Operation Cast Lead (27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009) 1,396 Palestinians, including 345 children, were killed by Israelis. In Gaza itself they killed 344 children, 110 women and 117 elderly people. Only four Israelis were killed by Palestinians in this period, no children.

Since Operation Cast Lead and up to the end of May 2011 Israelis killed 197 Palestinians in the occupied territories, including 26 children. Five were targeted killings during which 65 non-participants were killed. In the same period three Israelis were killed by Palestinians in Israel, including one child.

I make that 6,429 to the Israelis and 589 to the Palestinians - a kill rate of 11 to 1. When it comes to snuffing out children Israel is even more proficient with a kill-rate of over 14 to 1.

And it's not just the dead. The Cast Lead assault on Gaza is reported to have injured and maimed some 5,450. Israel also destroyed or damaged 58,000 homes, 280 schools, 1,500 factories and water and sewage installations. And it used prohibited weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorus shells.

Assassination has been official Israeli policy since 1999. Their preferred method is the air-strike, which is often messy as demonstrated in 2002 when Israeli F-16 warplanes bombed the house of Sheikh Salah Shehadeh, the military commander of Hamas, in Gaza City killing not just him but at least 11 other Palestinians, including seven children, and wounding 120 others.

I'm told resistance "terrorists" like Hamas account for less than a thousand victims a year worldwide, while "good guy" state terrorists slaughter civilians by the hundreds of thousands – some say millions.

The long list of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians – attacks that cannot be justified on grounds of defence or security and are so disproportionate as to constitute grave violations of human rights – puts Israel near the top of the state terrorist league. The demolition of thousands of Palestinian homes in the West Bank for "administrative" and planning reasons, the wholesale destruction of businesses and infrastructure, the impoverishment and displacement of Palestinians through land expropriation and closure, the abductions and imprisonments, the assassinations, and especially that 22-day blitzkrieg on the civilian population of Gaza who had nowhere to run – all this add up to mega-terrorism on the part of America's "special friend", according to their own definitions.

Negotiations? "We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero"

Finally, what is this nonsense about Palestinians lacking good faith and somehow "isolating Israel" by applying for UN recognition rather than wasting more time on fruitless negotiations? Israel obtained its statehood by accepting the borders of the UN's 1947 partition, which was agreed without even consulting the Palestinians whose land was being carved up. The Jews didn't stop to "negotiate". Well before the ink was dry Jewish terror groups had ethnically cleansed and driven off hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from their lands and villages so that the new state's already generous boundaries were immediately expanded (example, Najd now Sderot). The land-grab had started and Israel's borders have been "fluid" ever since.

Why are US lawmakers now trying to thwart the Palestinians' dream of their own independent state? No-one is demanding the 1947 borders. They are willing to accept the 1967 armistice lines recognized in numerous UN resolutions and generally accepted by the international community. Even Hamas has agreed. So what is the problem?

The problem is that the Israeli occupation should have collapsed long ago under the weight of its illegality, but Israel shows no willingness to return the stolen lands or relinquish enough control for a viable Palestinian state.

Netanyahu heads Israel's Likud party, which is the embodiment of greed, racist ambition, lawlessness and callous disregard for other people's rights. In any other country it would be banned and its leaders locked up. Yet he is welcomed like a hero in the US and given 29 standing ovations by Congress.

Likud intends to make the seizure of Jerusalem permanent and establish Israel's capital there. It will "act with vigour" to ensure Jewish sovereignty in East Jerusalem (which still officially belongs to the Palestinians as does the Old City). The illegal settlements are "the realization of Zionist values and a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel". They will be strengthened and expanded. As for the Palestinians, they can run their lives in a framework of self-rule "but not as an independent and sovereign state".

So we can see where he's coming from.

Kadima, the party of Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, is little better and has also pledged to preserve the larger settlement blocs and steal Jerusalem.

In the 1947 UN partition Jerusalem was designated an international city under independent administration to avoid all this aggravation.

Rather than force compliance with international law and UN resolutions the international community, led by the US, has let matters slide by insisting on a solution based on lopsided power negotiations in which the Palestinians are at a serious disadvantage. During this dragged-out and failed process Israel has been allowed to strengthen its occupation by establishing more and more "facts on the ground", and its violations of human rights and international law have escalated with impunity. And that is what this dirty game is all about: Israel needs more time to make its occupation permanent.

Funny how we never hear the US talking about law and justice. It's always "negotiations" or "talks", buying time for Israel.

What the situation is crying out for is justice, and it's all set down in UN resolutions, international law and humanitarian law. Once both sides are in compliance negotiations can commence – if there's anything left to negotiate.

Fr Manuel Musallam, for many years the Latin Catholic priest in Gaza, recently told members of the Irish government:

We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink. We want to be given more opportunity to reach Jerusalem. I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990.

Indeed, when I met Fr Manuel four years ago he had been effectively trapped in Gaza for nine years, unable to visit his family a few miles away in the West Bank. Had he set foot outside Gaza the Israelis would not have allowed him back in to rejoin his flock. So, he stayed put until he retired. This is just a tiny part of the ugly reality that America supports and applauds.

If Mrs Hanabusa and the rest of Congress were in the Palestinians' shoes would they bog themselves down yet again in discredited negotiations with a gun to their heads?

Or would they apply to the UN for long overdue enforcement of its resolutions and international law?

There is only one thing worse than being lied to, Congress. And that's acting on a lie.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Jerusalem remains contested as the desired capital of a future Palestinian state, yet divisive West Bank barriers have made this a further challenge (GALLO/GETTY)

By Yousef Munayyer * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Since the Palestine Liberation Organisation led by Yasser Arafat recognised the state of Israel over 20 years ago, the general framework for a claims-ending solution accepted by the Israeli and Palestinian leadership has been a deal that would create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. But now, two decades later, that framework has been completely exposed as a sham, and the number of people who believe such a solution is achievable, let alone worthwhile, is consistently dwindling.

So, do the Palestinians want a state? Or, perhaps more importantly, should the Palestinians want a state? This seems like a straightforward question with an even more straightforward answer. At the beginning of the Washington-led peace process and during creation of the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s the answer sure seemed to be a resounding 'yes'. There were plenty of reservations about this strategy however, especially among Palestinians concerned that such a solution would disenfranchise the rights of refugees. Nevertheless, many Palestinians including the formal leadership was on board.

Today, the answer to this question is not so clear, and for good reason. In the course of 20 years of negotiations, Palestinians learned that the concept of a "state" that they had in mind was different from the one that Israel - their occupier - would permit them to have, and in turn different from what the United States was willing to support. Despite the "historic compromise" PLO leaders often refer to - the relinquishing of claims on 78 per cent of historic Palestine - a Palestinian state would not emerge on the remaining 22 per cent. Instead of getting closer to a territorially contiguous and sovereign political entity they could call a state, Palestinians were constantly facing increased Israeli colonisation of their territory.

Wanting a true state

The size of the territory allotted for this "state" continued to shrink with every new settlement home. The Israelis remained adamant about maintaining control over the air space and borders of any Palestinian state, retaining a military presence in the Jordan River valley (about 30 per cent of the West Bank), retaining the illegally annexed occupied Jerusalem and refusing a new Palestinian state to have an army. Essentially, this would be a state in name only, lacking the all important features of sovereignty, and would be the de facto continuation of the occupation with different window dressing.

The question then is: do the Palestinians want this state? No, clearly not. In fact, the Palestinian cause was only about statehood insofar as a state could be a vehicle for realising Palestinian human and political rights. Since its inception, the Palestinian cause has been about two central issues 1) the right of Palestinians to live in Palestine (this includes the right of refugees to return to their towns and villages if they choose) and 2) the right to self-determination and sovereignty. It has never, contrary to Zionism, been about a fear driven desire for ethno-centric domination.

Public opinion polling of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza reveals that 74 per cent of Palestinians consider ending the occupation and achieving the right to return as the two most important Palestinian goals. The maximalist version of the concept of a Palestinian state permitted by the Washington sponsored Peace Process does not even accommodate the minimalist version of Palestinian rights.

Perhaps one reason the process has drifted into this morass is because the intended goal has focused on a Palestinian state in name only, without much regard for what that state would look like or whether it would afford Palestinians their rights. This peace process would seemingly go forward endlessly if it could loosely attach the concept of a state to any hilltop in the West Bank, so long as there was a Palestinian leadership willing to go along with it. Palestinians cannot and should not accept a "state" at any cost.

A strategy to end occupation

For 20 years, the Washington-led peace process has succeeded in doing one thing better than anything else; giving Israel every incentive to maintain its occupation. By assigning the policing responsibilities for the urban centers to the Palestinian Authority and having the Europeans and the Americans pay for this project, Israel has effectively retained the security domination and colonial usurpation benefits inherent in occupation without having to be responsible for any of the costs. It can build settlements in Palestinian land and steal Palestinian water, both acts in direct opposition to international law, but simultaneously ditch obligations it has to the population it occupies and use the ongoing Peace Process to deflect international criticism for obviating Palestinian self-determination.

This game has to end, and the continuation of a Peace Process that only encourages relentless Israeli occupation exacerbates the situation. It's time for a dramatic shift in the Israeli/Palestinian dynamic which places costs where they belong, on the occupier. Whether this will be born out diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations, non-violent popular uprising, or Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is still unclear. Perhaps it's all of the above.

What we know for sure is that Washington's insistence on a failed status quo has only proved costly for Palestinians and beneficial for Israel. Palestinians should not be subjected, or subject themselves, to engaging Israel in an arena they are cornered into and disadvantaged in, but rather should choose to meet them in an arena where the the playing field is fair or to their advantage. Increasingly, this is anywhere in the world outside of Washington.

Any new Palestinian strategy must put reversing this "cost-free occupation" dynamic at its centre. Israel will only end its occupation when pressured to do so and it must be made to realise that it is more costly to maintain the occupation than end it.

* Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

This article originally appeared in AlJazeera.net.

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable."
--Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel; May 14, 1948

"Believers are those to whom people said, "The people have gathered against you, so fear them." But that merely increased their faith and they said, "Allah is enough for us and how excellent a Guardian is He." (Qur'an: 3:173)

Mahmoud Abbas

However Abbas must first and foremost find the courage and will to sacrifice his status and future much like every Palestinian child living under the daily brutality of occupation who fearlessly faces an Israeli tank or bulldozer ready to kill him, his family, or demolish their home and farm.

Since 1967 all the Palestinians have ever asked is for a State, albeit divided between the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as their capitol, a mere 22% of their original homeland. Given the never ending "peace process" they now live on only 14% of their homeland, which is shrinking rapidly every day.

Time is of the essence for Abbas to quickly submit the resolution to the U.N. to recognize a Palestinian States regardless of the threatened Obama need Jewish re-election money Veto.

If Abbas succumbs to fear of failure and fear of American consequences than Abba Eban's (late former Israeli Foreign Minister), dictum that the "Palestinians never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity", will once again prove right.

Unfortunately given Abbas' past history of buckling under American pressure the submission of the resolution to recognize a Palestinian State is not certain. For whatever personal, political, or financial considerations he may have, he has constantly surrendered to the decade's long Israeli/American lie that only direct negotiations between the two parties can lead to a peace settlement, i.e. the road map to nowhere but whose ultimate aim is to buy time to completely expel all Palestinians from Palestine.

Case in point: Abbas has previously dropped the endorsement of the Goldstone Report at the U.N. Human Rights Council that accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity shocking his people and the entire world. The leaked "Palestinian Papers" revealed that his government was willing to concede to all of Israel's demands including the surrender of East Jerusalem.

How can anyone in the entire world still believe that Israel with its dominance of the U.S. Government and foreign policy actually seeks or wants peace with the Palestinians? What it seeks is all of Palestine without any Palestinians.

While the majority of the world is eager, supportive, and sympathetic to the plight of the occupied Palestinians and is willing to support such a resolution, it is the Palestinians themselves who are as of yet squabbling internally on the issue while the clock ticks down to ground zero, a point of no return for the Palestinians.

For Abbas and Palestine's future submitting the Resolution to the General Assembly for a recognized state this September is the single most important moment of truth regarding the destiny of his people. There must be no choice, no hesitancy, and no fear of failure but to forcefully and resolutely proceed with the resolution to the U.N. to recognize a Palestinian State.

However if Abbas' lives up to his usual puppetry to U.S. and Israeli pressure and forgoes this historical opportunity at the U.N., then two things will and should happen.

World support for the Palestinians may seriously be diminished long term with the logic that if Palestinians don't care about their own plight and future, why should the world? Palestinian fatigue is already setting in many quarters of the western world.
A mass uprising of the Palestinian people must occur against their incompetent leaders in the West Bank and Gaza and hold them accountable for crimes against humanity against their own people.

What can Israel do to the Palestinians that it already hasn't and continues to do?

Palestine's destiny is up to its people and not for debate, discussion, and decision by foreign powers. In due time and God willing with a region wide Arab uprising overthrowing the rule of America's tyrants it will be Israel that will sue for peace with the Arab world; having missed the opportunity for more decades.

The American philosopher William Irwin Thompson said it best when he wrote:

"If you do not create your destiny, you will have your fate inflicted upon you"

Mr. Abbas and Mr. Meshaal of Hamas, when we all meet our maker on Judgment Day, how will you explain your failure to seize this historical moment and seek recognition of a State for your people and the eventual freedom of an Independent Palestine?

Will you say you feared an American veto or another illegal settlement?

Or will Palestine remain:
"A land without leadership, for a leadership without a land."

PLEASE Consider Signing the Petition Below to Urge President Obama to Recognize a Palestinian State at the United Nations. Thank you, and please distribute widely.

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?PalState

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

By Amira Hass* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Of all places, it is in Azzariyeh, east of Jerusalem, that one can really learn to appreciate the activities of Palestinian law-enforcement authorities in cities like Ramallah and Nablus. In those cities, Palestinian security forces are seen as authority figures who are trying to protect and serve Palestinian citizens, not just as extensions of Fatah or subcontractors of the Israel Defense Forces or the Shin Bet security service.

Unlike Ramallah and Nablus, which are categorized as "A" areas, Azzariyeh and its neighbors Sawahra and Abu Dis are holed up in an enclave of type "B", where the IDF does not allow the Palestinian police to be fully functional. The interim Oslo 2 agreement determines that the Palestinian Authority is responsible for maintaining public order in Area B, but in the same breath it limits the PA's authority and the means by which it can protect the people from disruptions of public order. Almost every action taken by the Palestinian police in Area B requires IDF approval.

And Israel, which has no inhibitions about violating key clauses of the agreement, is particularly meticulous here: The number of police officers is limited, police are prohibited from moving from a makeshift police station in an apartment building to a proper one, they are not allowed to carry weapons or wear uniforms, and they are prohibited from bringing in reinforcements on their own to locate drug or weapons dealers or to deliver subpoenas. Is it any wonder that the Azzariyeh-Abu Dis enclave has become a place of refuge for the outlaws of the West Bank? Not that this enclave has not had its share of troubles. Since it was shut off by the wall in 2005, all its ties with its natural and immediate urban center, East Jerusalem, have been severed. The enclave's isolation, and the impoverishment and despair to which it gave rise, are as painful as a fresh burn.

The artificial division between Areas A, B and C was supposed to be erased from the map, and dropped from the discourse, in 1999. Instead, Israel has sanctified and perpetuated it. The largest share - 60 percent - is designated Area C, meaning it is under full Israeli security and civil control. It is self-evident why Israel perpetuates the Area C classification. After all, it gives Israel a free hand to continue emptying that part of the West Bank of Palestinians and encourage more Jews to violate international law and settle there.

But what about Area B? Why does Israel insist that drug and weapons trafficking should flourish in an area several dozen meters away from Ma'aleh Adumim and some three kilometers from the Judea and Samaria District police headquarters - both of which sites, as is often forgotten, are violating international law due to their location on the land reserves of Palestinian villages? True, there is also unlicensed public transportation, unlicensed construction, environmental pollution - but the drugs and weapons trade dwarfs those violations. A similar situation exists in A-Ram, the hybrid city between Ramallah and Jerusalem that is also cut off from its past, its surroundings and its land by the wall. Just a hop, skip and jump (over a wall and barbed-wire fence ) away from Jerusalem, some 100,000 people have been left to fend for their own personal safety, a situation that can be reversed.

Is there some deliberate intention behind the painstaking adherence to a clause in an agreement that was supposed to be short-lived? That's what many Palestinians have concluded. Some say the drugs and weapons dealers are collaborators, or potential collaborators, with Israel. This is why the Shin Bet and IDF are not allowing the Palestinian police to take action against them and why, according to them, Israeli security forces immediately find out about any Palestinian attempt to capture them. Some find here a strategic goal: The worse this intolerable situation gets in neighborhoods that are so close to the annexed Jerusalem, the greater the likelihood that the residents will leave and head over to Area A. In other words, it's just another expulsion trick.

Listen to the Palestinians. The subjugated excel at analyzing the implications of their ruler's actions. And if the Palestinians are wrong, then why will the IDF not let the Palestinian police operate freely?

* Amira Hass is a prominent Israeli journalist and author, mostly known for her columns in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz. She is particularly recognized for her reporting on Palestinian affairs in the West Bank and Gaza, where she has also lived for a number of years.
The daughter of two Holocaust survivors, and was educated at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. On Oct. 20, the International Women's Media Network reward Hass the 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award. Hass was the recipient of the Press Freedom Hero award from the International Press Institute in 2000, the Bruno Kreisky Human Rights Award in 2002, the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize in 2003, the inaugural award from the Anna Lindh Memorial Fund in 2004 and Hrant Dink Memorial Award in 2009.

By James M. Wall * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

We need look no further than the politics of the state of Israel to see what extremist religion can do with power. The Tea Party in the US, which will determine the winner of the presidential Republican nominating process, is ready to show the world that God wants a final say in US political decision-making.

The Tea Party has emerged as a carbon copy of ultra right wing Zionist forces in Israel. The Tea Party and right-wing political Zionism share a single-minded religious worldview that religious ideology can, and should, exercise absolute control over its citizens.

On June 3-4, at Ralph Reed's annual Faith and Faithful gathering in Washington, speakers praised God and Israel in equal measure. Only a few weeks had passed since the leader of a foreign nation came to Washington at the request of Congress.

That leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, showed Americans how to combine religious ideology with political power. The peoples' representatives cheered mightily to demonstrate their loyalty to a foreign nation operating under a religious ideology that served the interests of political power.

Roy Reed invited Republican presidential aspirants to speak to his organization of Christian faithful. Sure, they were also there to talk politics. But their politics are inseparable from their ideological devotion to the modern state of Israel.

Philip Giradi discovered how closely Reed's speakers adhered to the script of political power and religion.

Support for Israel was on the menu du jour in nearly every speech and for every panel. It dominated the conference. One panel had as its subject "Israel: surrounded yet undaunted in the face of evil."

Michele Bachmann

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's oddly named Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke for fifteen minutes about Israel, saying "If we want God to bless America, then we have to bless the Jews. God gave that land to his chosen people forever. That issue is settled by God almighty...Michele Bachmann produced a standing ovation when she cited a "shocking display of betrayal of our greatest friend and ally Israel." She added "I stand with Israel...President Obama...does not speak for us on the issue of Israel."

The Reed gathering was just one of several recent Washington displays of love for Israel. Soon we will know what impact that love will have on two major international events.

The first is the arrival of a flotilla of peace-oriented ships off the coast of Gaza. The second is the September meeting of the United Nations General Assembly where Palestinians will seek admission, as a state, to the UN General Assembly.

The last effort of a flotilla to breach the blockade of Gaza led to the deaths of nine passengers, May 10, 2010. One of the passengers killed by the Israeli military was Furkan Dogan, who held dual Turkish-US citizenship. There was no official American objection to any of the killings, including that of Dogan, who was born in Troy, New York.

One year and one month after the Israeli raid that killed nine passengers in May, 2010, a much larger flotilla sails this week to Gaza.

Ali Abunimah, writing about the flotilla in the Electronic Intifada, was dismayed by Hillary Clinton's response:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed to lay the ground – indeed almost provide a green light – for an Israeli military attack on the upcoming Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which will include the US Boat to Gaza.

Among the passengers aboard the American boat will be 87-year old Kindertransport survivor Hedy Epstein, and author and poet Alice Walker. In all it is expected that about 10 ships, carrying 1000 people from over 20 countries will take part.

Here's what Clinton said in remarks at the State Department on 23 June:

"Well, we do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza. Just this week, the Israeli Government approved a significant commitment to housing in Gaza. There will be construction materials entering Gaza and we think that it's not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."

Clinton must know that Gaza is not part of what any country recognizes as 'sovereign' Israeli territory, and therefore neither are Gaza's territorial waters. Any boats entering Gaza's waters would not in fact be entering 'Israeli waters' as Clinton claimed."

Clinton's attitude toward the flotilla does not portend a favorable US response when Palestinian UN membership comes before the General Assembly in September.

If the GA does vote to refer the membership issue to the Security Council, the US will most likely veto the proposal. The US has no veto in the General Assembly, which is why Israel is working feverishly to persuade European Union nations to vote against the proposal in the GA, and to put pressure on smaller nations to vote against it.

Meanwhile, while the flotilla heads to Gaza waters and diplomats face the September vote, Prime Minister Netanyahu holds three trump cards, any one of which would derail any future peace agreement.

First Card: Israel will not negotiate in any forum with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. Since there can be no Palestinian government that does not include Hamas, negotiations are impossible.

Second Card: Netanyahu insists there can be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees who wish to move to, or be compensated for, former Palestinian land in what is today the state of Israel. No Palestinian leader could survive as a leader if he or she gives up that right before any final negotiations begin.

The right of the return of refugees is codified in international law. It is also one of those sacred rights symbolized by the keys retained in Palestinian homes wherever Palestinian refugees currently live.

Third Card: Israel will not negotiate with the PA until it recognizes Israel as a "Jewish State". This is the card Uri Avnery has correctly dismissed as "nonsense". This demand for a "Jewish state" was not a part of any Palestinian-Israeli negotiation until it was introduced into the conversation in 2007.

Yonatan Touval was a senior policy analyst with the Geneva Initiative, an Israeli nonprofit organization, when he wrote in a New York Times op ed column, May 12, 2009:

While the demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist was unique (after all, it is non-states that customarily seek such recognition from already existing states), the more recent demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is dangerous. It must be resisted by those who care about Israel's long-term strategic interests.

Israel's leaders had never sought such recognition from any party, friend or foe. The 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, which Begin signed, only expresses mutual recognition of the "sovereignty," "integrity" and "political independence" of both parties. The peace treaty with Jordan that Yitzhak Rabin concluded in 1994 uses the same language. No mention of Israel's Jewishness appears in either treaty.

In fact, it was only on the eve of the Annapolis conference in November 2007 that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert first trotted out the Jewish card, conditioning his participation on Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Fortunately, the international community did not respond and Olmert abandoned his demand.

Not only is this recent addition to Israel's demands without precedent in the international community, it also ignores the fact that 1.4 million Palestinian Arabs live as citizens within the boundaries of Israel.

In their book, Israel's Palestinians: The Conflict Within, Ilan Peleg and Dov Waxman write (page 19):

All too often, people are completely unaware of the large number of non-Jewish citizens of Israel–around 1.8 million people–who make up a quarter of the country's total population of 7.5 million. One in four Israelis, in other words, are not Jewish.

The vast majority of this significant non-Jewish population are Arabs, who at the end of 2009 numbered 1,526,000, more than 20 percent of Israel's population.

Pelig is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Government and Law at Lafayette College and servesas a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC., His co-author, Dov Waxman, is associate professor of Political Science at Baruch College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

Their book is a rich resource for information on "Israel's Palestinians", the designation, by the way, preferred by Palestinian citizens of Israel instead of the official Israeli government terms, "Arab Israelis" or "Israeli Arabs".

Peleg and Waxman write specifically on the impact that defining Israel as a Jewish state, would have on Israel's Palestinians. They resist it. According to the authors, "The redefinition of the state has become the central demand of the Palestinian minority [within Israel]."

As the state's Jewish identity has become a major point of contention domestically, it has also been inserted into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence that the Palestinian Authority officially recognize Israel as a Jewish state in a final peace agreement.

Such recognition, however,is unlikely to be granted against the objections of the Palestinian minority in Israel–underlining the connection that we emphasize in this book between Israel's external and internal Palestinian problems.

President Obama grew up as a member of a minority community. Existentially, morally, and intellectually, he knows that the rights of a minority must be respected in a democracy, if that democracy ever expects to become "a state for all its citizens".

* James M. Wall is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. Jim launched personal blog April 24, 2008.

The picture of Prime Minister Netanyahu is from the Palestinian Ma'an News Service. The picture of Michele Bachmann is from the New York Times.

By Thabet Abu-Ras* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Historical Background of Palestine's Geography

Historic Palestine / source: Palestine Remembered

Since the appearance of the Zionist movement at the end of the nineteenth century, there have been many endeavors to partition Palestine. The first partition plan took place under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, as part of placing Arab lands under the control of the two major colonial powers of Britain and France. One year later, Britain's Balfour Declaration proclaimed the intention to create a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, whose geographic borders were not defined at the time and when the Jewish population comprised less than 10% of Palestine. Two years following the declaration, at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the World Zionist Organization announced its intention to implement it by creating a state with borders exceeding those of historic Palestine, to include Transjordan and southern Syria. This proposed Jewish state would extend from the Litani River in the north to the city of Arish in the south. The recommendations brought by the Peel Commission–formed in 1937 following the outbreak of the 1936 Arab revolt in Palestine–are considered to be the first to suggest that Palestine be partitioned into two equal entities, an Arab and a Jewish one, keeping Jerusalem under the governance of the British Mandate. The United Nations Partition Plan of Palestine of 1947 granted 56% of historic Palestine towards the establishment of a Jewish state and 43% for an Arab Palestinian state. Jerusalem was to be placed under international administration.

The Jewish state was eventually created on 78% of the land of Palestine, following the 1948 Nakba and the expulsion of over two-thirds of this portion's native residents. While the West Bank was annexed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Gaza Strip was placed under Egyptian control. In 1967, the arm of the Israeli occupation reached the remaining two parts of Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, placing the whole country under Israeli control. Reviewing this history provides important background for considering today's reality.

The Geopolitical and Natural Components of One State

• The Geographic Borders of Palestine. In 1948, Palestine's geographic unity–comprising 27,000 sq. km.–was severed into three geopolitical units: the state of Israel (20,770 sq. km.), the West Bank (5,860 sq. km.) and the Gaza Strip (365 sq. km.). The last 63 years witnessed many attempts to redraw or establish new borders based on different partition proposals, ceasefire lines, administrative borders, and others. However, all these attempts have failed. The land of Palestine, impervious to political proposals that have attempted to establish new boundaries, has maintained its well-established natural borders.
• The Oslo Accords. Neither the Oslo Accords of 1993 nor the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty of 1994 succeeded in affecting Palestine's historic and natural borders. Furthermore, the growing Jewish settlement activity in Palestine, though creating a new geographic and demographic reality, has also failed to affect Palestine's geographic unity. In addition, the difficulty inherent in the creation of two independent states within the 60 kilometer stretch between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (as proposed by the 1947 UN Partition Plan) has been confirmed.
• Groundwater and Natural Resources. Groundwater and other natural resources are the most unifying components of Palestine's geography. For example, the idea of transferring a population from one place to another becomes impossible when considering groundwater. The control over groundwater and other natural resources has thus been among the most charged topics between Israel and the Palestinian Authority; for that reason, reaching an agreement on this topic has been tabled until the final status negotiations, along with the issues of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and borders. Furthermore, for Israel, the issue of water is a matter of security, demonstrated by the Israeli term, "water security."Accordingly, Israel considers the groundwater aquifer that lies under the mountains of the West Bank as a strategic reservoir not to be conceded to a future Palestinian state. The same can be said about the coastal groundwater aquifers that lie along the Mediterranean coast between the Gaza Strip and the city of Haifa. The current water crisis that exists today, and which will become more severe in the future, will force Israeli and Palestinian water experts to create a joint water system, as well as to develop a joint water policy that considers all residents between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
• Transportation and Communication Network. The transportation and communication networks that exist in historic Palestine comprise one continuous network. The major east-west highways traverse current borders to connect the east to the west of historic Palestine. The best example is Highway 5, the so-called "Trans-Samaria Highway" that connects Tel-Aviv with Palestinian cities and Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Furthermore, Israel constantly uses Palestinian airspace for civil, as well as military, purposes. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority must rely on Israeli ports, which are under full Israeli control, to transport products internationally. In communications, an Israeli company established networks in areas of Palestine that were occupied in 1967, and continues to operate them to this day.
• The Labor Market and Economic Cooperation. After the Oslo Accords of 1993, the Paris Protocol on Economic Relations, signed by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, aimed to fortify economic cooperation inside the borders of historic Palestine. Of course, Israel was the major winner of the protocol. Cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was not limited to Palestinian usage of Israeli ports as Palestinian markets became an extension–and backyard–to Israeli companies and tradesmen. The Paris Protocol also decreed a unifying customs system and implemented the use of the same currency, the Israeli Shekel. Israeli electric companies further provide electricity to vast areas of the West Bank, including to major Palestinian cities and most of the Gaza Strip, even now after the Israeli withdrawal from the latter.
• Population Distribution and Demographic Components of One State. Today, the population inside historic Palestine stands at about 10.6 million, out of which 5.5 million are Jewish and 5.3 million are Palestinian. Of the latter, 2.5 million Palestinians are residents of the West Bank, 1.5 million are residents of the Gaza Strip, and 1.3 million live inside the State of Israel and hold Israeli citizenship. The remaining 300,000 are considered residents of Jerusalem, under Israeli authority, but without holding Israeli citizenship.Furthermore, Israeli settlement policies push towards greater interconnection, as the number of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank now stands at more than 300,000, distributed among 144 settlements and 130 unofficial Jewish outposts (Ma'ahazim). In addition, 15 additional Jewish settlements are neighborhoods of "Greater Jerusalem," which includes territory occupied in 1967 that Israel has annexed and claimed as belonging to an indivisible Jerusalem.

Conclusion

Palestine has resisted, and endured, all attempts of geographic partition and segmentation over the last 100 years. Today, Israel controls the totality of historic Palestine, while exerting pressure, locally and internationally, for its recognition as a Jewish state without drawing its final borders. Zionism has hereby reached an impasse in its attempt to build an ethnic Jewish state.

It is a well-established fact that Israel is the only state in the world that was established without defining its borders, which corresponds to the flexibility of Israeli citizenship; it does not align with geographic boundaries of a state as predominates in the rest of the world. Instead Israeli citizenship correlates to the boundaries of the Jewish religion around the world. Therefore, an Israeli settler in a West Bank settlement is considered an Israeli citizen, whereas a Palestinian living a kilometer away, who is an indigenous inhabitant of the land, is prevented from attaining citizenship. Thus we must ask the question: If the political and spatial interconnections, which exist between the Palestinian and Jewish societies inside the boundaries of historic Palestine, are inseparable and make partition non-amenable, how then can the future of these two societies start seeking alternatives to partition? Such a future requires that they work against the neo-apartheid regime and towards the establishment of one democratic, bi-national state.

* Dr. Thabet Abu-Ras is a Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environmental Development at Ben-Gurion University.

The West's lofty expectations for Salam Fayyad went far beyond what he was ever able to deliver.

By Nathan J. Brown* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Salam Fayyad, Palestinian Prime Minister. STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

The prime minister's departure from the Palestinian political scene appears likely but not inevitable. With Fatah and Hamas striving to form a unity government, Fayyad may very well be sacrificed on the altar of Palestinian unity.

Neither the sunny nor the cynical view of Fayyad is fair. His optimistic smile obscured an impossible situation: Fayyad's main achievement has not been to build the structures of a Palestinian state, but to stave off the collapse of those structures that did exist. An equally important achievement was his ability to persuade Western observers that he was doing much more. In the process, however, he raised expectations far beyond his ability to deliver.

What Fayyad Did Not Do: In enumerating Fayyad's accomplishments, it is necessary -- if churlish -- to begin by explaining what Fayyad did not accomplish.

First, he did not build any institutions. The state-like political structures now in the West Bank and Gaza were either built during the heyday of the Oslo Process in the 1990s or in the more distant days of Jordanian and British rule.

Second, he did not bring Palestinians to the brink of statehood. The Palestinian Authority, for all its problems, was actually far more ready for statehood on the eve of the Second Intifada in 1999 than it is on the possible eve of the third in 2011. A dozen years ago, Palestine had full security control of its cities, a set of institutions that united the West Bank and Gaza, a flourishing civil society, and a set of legitimate structures for writing authoritative laws and implementing them. Those accomplishments were in retreat long before Fayyad took office, and he was hardly able to restore them.

Third, Fayyad did not strengthen the rule of law. He could not have done so, since the only legitimate law-making body the Palestinians have, the Legislative Council, has not met since he came to power.

Fourth, Fayyad did not prove to Palestinians that they should rely on themselves. Just the opposite. He showed Palestinians that if they relied on him, foreigners would show them the money. At the heady days at the beginning of Oslo, the United States pledged half a billion dollars for the entire five-year process during which the parties were supposed to negotiate a permanent agreement. They have given Fayyad more than that almost every year that he has been in office. The Europeans have opened the purse strings for him too. It is utterly baffling that a figure so completely dependent on Western diplomatic and financial support would be seen by outsiders as an icon of Palestinian self-help.

Finally, he did not bring economic development to the West Bank. What he made possible was a real but unsustainable recovery based on aid and relaxation of travel restrictions. Year-to-year economic indicators in both the West Bank and Gaza are dependent on foreign assistance, and even more on the political and security situation. Fayyad can thus take some credit for the upturn, but Hamas can make a similar claim for the mild improvements in Gaza since Israel relaxed some of the closure last year. Neither has laid the groundwork for real development or attraction of foreign investment. Nor could they in the stultifying and uncertain political environment.

None of these failings was personal. Fayyad could not have accomplished any of these goals even had he wanted to. He led half of a dysfunctional Palestinian Authority, governed scattered bits of territory in the West Bank, and was forced to rattle the cup constantly in order to pay the bills.

What Fayyad Did Do: However, if Fayyad could not walk on water, he did an almost miraculous job of not drowning. This is not to damn Fayyad with faint praise; the prime minister assumed control of a Palestinian Authority that was unable to pay all of its salaries, deeply mistrusted by Israel, and treated as irrelevant by many Palestinians.

His first and most impressive accomplishment was to gain the trust of Western governments. The unrealistic hopes placed in his premiership were partly a testimony to the esteem in which he was held in some international circles. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken of her pride in his efforts and informed Palestinian youth that Fayyad has given them hope. No diplomatic statement from Western governments is complete without a kind word for his accomplishments. Fayyad was even able to earn a grudging Israeli trust through renewed security cooperation and efforts to rebuild the Palestinian security services. These accomplishments allowed him to pay government salaries, redeploy police, and attract enormous amounts of aid.

And Fayyad was able to win some modest victories in Palestinian governance. The security services became less partisan, public finances became more transparent (even without any domestic oversight), corruption likely decreased, pockets of the civil service were rebuilt on a more professional basis, and basic order in Palestinian cities was improved. When it comes to progress in these areas -- sharply limited but still significant -- Fayyad can even claim to have gone beyond maintenance to improving the Palestinian situation beyond where it stood in 1999.

The Poverty of Politics: All along, however, this was a difficult juggling act. Enthusiastic international support would continue only so long as it was possible to pretend that Fayyad was making dramatic gains; domestic acceptance of Fayyad was dependent on his continuing to pay salaries and provide for basic order. Pulling aside the curtain and revealing that Palestinians were not building a state thus risked undermining Western support for him, which would in turn remove the raison d'être of his premiership in Palestinian eyes.

Thus Fayyadism was a political house of cards. There was no domestic foundation for Fayyad's efforts; for Palestinians, he was simply an unsolicited gift from the United States and Europe -- a welcome one for some, but not for others. And to his international backers, Fayyad was completely frank about his limitations: His efforts, he said, would only pay off in the context of a meaningful diplomatic process that reinforced the drive toward statehood. This was an ingredient that has been missing for many years, and Fayyad was powerless to procure it.

Earlier this year, there were signs that Fayyad himself had begun to look for ways to escape Fayyadism. It was Fayyad, rather than Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who reached out to Hamas in February. The reconciliation file was quickly snatched out of his hands, however, and his hold on the premiership is now on the bargaining table.

What is remarkable, however, is how Fayyadism soldiered on in some Western eyes even after Fayyad himself had begun to distance himself from it. American pundits continued to trumpet his successes without missing a beat right up until the April reconciliation agreement. In March, Thomas Friedman was still writing about Fayyad's gaining momentum and even upped the ante by claiming that his program posed the "biggest threat to Iran's strategy." Meanwhile top policymakers continued to be mesmerized by Fayyad's poll numbers, which were less bad than those of most other leaders, and simply ignored the hollowness at the core of their own policies. Nor did the polls translate into any kind of political party or movement that could have run in, much less won, an election -- if one were ever held.

The Perils of Positive Thinking: For years, Fayyad's soft talk and cheery dedication enabled policymakers throughout the world to ignore the brewing crisis. And this may be where Fayyad, despite his impressive management skills, did Palestinians a disservice.

In 2009, the incoming Obama administration was quickly lured into a set of approaches (many inherited from the Bush years) that proved their complete bankruptcy this year -- ignoring Gaza and allowing its population to be squeezed hard, pretending that there was a meaningful Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process at hand, assuming that Hamas could be dealt with after the peace process and Fayyad had worked their magic, and making the paradoxical and erroneous assumption that the best way to build Palestinian institutions was to rely on a specific, virtuous individual.

Fayyad cannot be held primarily responsible for this collective self-delusion; at most, he facilitated it. And in the process he provided all actors with a breathing space that is now disappearing. Ultimately, the ones who convinced themselves he was capable of completely transforming Palestine are most responsible for squandering the brief respite his premiership offered.

* Nathan J. Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Source: Foreign Policy

By Jeff Halper* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

No one knows the precise plans of the Palestinian Authority (PA) vis-a-vis September: will PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declare a Palestinian state within recognized borders and ask that it be admitted as a full member of the UN - or not? Perhaps Abbas himself does not know. Now political leaders often make decisions alone or in consultation with a small group of advisors. As in so many matters political, however, the Palestinian leadership finds itself in a unique situation. Its main allies are not governments, and certainly not the American government, whose support for some inexplicable reason has constituted the Palestinians' default position for the past 40 years. Rather, the Palestinians' most loyal and powerful ally is civil society. And yet, this most solid base of support remains unappreciated, unutilized and ignored.

Three circles of popular support radiate out into the wider world, able to mobilize millions of people to the Palestinian cause. First, of course, is the Palestinian people itself. Displaced, scattered, oppressed, occupied, struggling for its national rights and very cultural identity, this "little grain of sand", as it has been called, continues generation after generation to jam not only the vaunted Israeli military machine but that of its main supporter, the United States, which for decades has used Israel as its forward position in the Middle East.

To oppressed people everywhere, the Palestinians have become an inspiration, almost their surrogate. Their ability to remain steadfast (sumud) is proof that injustice, even when supported by the most advanced weaponry of the most powerful superpowers, can be resisted. But Israel, helped by time and geography, has succeeded in fragmenting the Palestinians. The refugees in the camps are almost completely excluded from political processes, but it is the exclusion of the diaspora that is especially problematic. Highly educated for the most part, fluent in all the European languages, they could play a major role in promoting the Palestinian cause abroad. Indeed, a few individuals have carved out influential positions despite being excluded, even resisted, by the West Bank leadership. Instead, the Palestinian Authority has fielded, with a couple notable exceptions, a most inept and inarticulate corps of diplomats. Rather than using their greatest asset, their own people abroad as well as the legions of articulate spokespeople at home, including younger people, the Palestinian Authority has tied its own hands diplomatically just when Israel is mounting a major international offensive against it. Just recall one astounding fact: during the entire year that saw the Obama administration taking office and the invasion of Gaza, there was no official Palestinian representative in Washington!

The second circle of civil society support for the Palestinian cause is, of course, the Arab and wider Muslim worlds. While each uprising of the "Arab Spring" has its own reasons and dynamics, the Palestinian struggle provided the inspiration. The Arab peoples came to realize that the same forces oppressing the Palestinians - militarism designed to thwart democracy and ensure neo-colonial control over their lands and resources - are at the source of their own oppression as well.

Indeed, the Palestinians possess one source of tremendous clout: they are the bone in the throat of the global powers that prevent them from completing their imperialist plans. The Palestinian struggle is not simply a local one between Palestinians and Israelis; it has become global on the order of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. It cannot be by-passed. Even though there are larger and bloodier conflicts in the Middle East, until the Palestinians signal to the rest of the Muslim world that they have arrived at a political settlement with Israel and the time has come to normalize relations, the conflict is not over. A solution cannot be imposed, and the Palestinians are the gatekeepers. Nothing can happen without them, and until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is indeed resolved, the US and Europe will be unable to pursue their interests unencumbered in an empowered Middle East.

The third circle of civil society just waiting to be mobilized are the millions of ordinary people the world over whose have devoted enormous energy and resources towards the realization of Palestinian national rights. The Palestinian struggle has indeed assumed the proportions of that against apartheid. It is one of the two or three leading issues in the world. Churches, trade unions, university students, political and human rights organizations, prominent intellectuals, performers and even key politicians have all mobilized in support of the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel). They are evident in the repeated attempts to break the siege of Gaza by sending international flotillas.

But they, like Palestinian civil society and that of the Arab and Muslim worlds, wait to be mobilized by the Palestinian leadership. According to newspaper accounts - unfortunately, the PA leadership has never conducted an open discussion of the crucial September initiative and has never shared its deliberations - the two main objections to seeking membership in the UN are fear of upsetting the American administration and failure to obtain the required number of votes. The first is ridiculous. Does anyone still believe the Palestinians will gain anything by pursuing American-led "negotiations"?

The second objection, that not receiving the required votes for admission to the UN constitutes a "failure", exposes a key flaw in the strategic thinking of the Palestinian leadership. If Abbas approaches the UN in a docile and half-hearted way, appearing more to be pushed by an Israeli refusal to negotiate than by his people's own just cause and urgent need for independence, the Palestinian struggle will certainly suffer. Many other countries that would otherwise support the Palestinian initiative will indeed waiver, giving in to US and Israeli pressure because it seems the Palestinian themselves are not serious about it. But if he goes into the UN as the head of a national unity government with the support of the world's peoples, Mandela-like, he could decisively change the course of events forever.

To pull off his September initiative, Abbas must reject the go-it-alone approach that the Palestinian leadership has followed fruitlessly for so long. He must recognize that civil society the world over - and in the Muslim world and Europe in particular - is the Palestinians' most important ally. The issue is not whether the initiative "succeeds"; it is clear that the US will cast a veto. The true struggle is to pull out all the stops to show the world just how strong the Palestinian movement is. If mobilized, the collective power of the grassroots who have for years laboured on the Palestinian issue will generate a momentum that will be hard to stop.

Time is of the essence. Mobilization must begin immediately. The elected representatives of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, joined for the first time by Palestinians of the refugee camps, inside Israel and the diaspora, should issue a joint "Call for Support". Immediately following the Palestinian call, grassroots activists would issue a Civil Society Call to support the Palestinian initiative, which would be signed by tens of thousands of people from all over the world and delivered to the UN in September. If a campaign for public support begins now, if the political leadership works intensively and closely with its own civil society to garner widespread support, more than 100,000 people can be gathered at the UN in New York in September in a mass rally for Palestinian independence. (And believe me, Israel will mobilize its own supporters!)

Inside the UN, Abbas would present Palestine's compelling case for independence and UN membership, as he did in his New York Times piece of 16 May. He would also reframe the conflict. It is not specious security issues that lay at the roots of the conflict, but Israel 's refusal to respect Palestinian national rights and to end the occupation. As he also did in the New York Times article, Abbas must also make it clear that recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in no way compromises the right of refugees to return to their homes, a key point of future negotiations with Israel. He should also state up-front that the establishment of a Palestinian state does not end the Palestinian quest, through peaceful means, of an inclusive single-state solution.

If international mobilization is pursued vigorously and Abbas exudes a genuine determination to see a Palestinian state established and recognized, more than 130 countries, including many of the leading European ones, will vote to accept Palestine into the UN. Even if this does not overrule the US veto in the Security Council, it is far more than a merely symbolic achievement and certainly cannot be considered a failure. Such a massive expression of support would demonstrate the inevitability of Palestinian statehood. It would signal the beginning rather than the end of an international campaign for Palestinian rights, one now joined by governments as well as civil society.

We, the people who have pursued Palestinian rights over the decades, Palestinians and non-Palestinian alike, are an integral part of the struggle. We have earned the right, all of us, to have our voices heard in September. Indeed, I would argue that if September comes and goes without any breakthrough due to the acquiescence and weakness of the PA leadership, civil society support might well dissipate. The people can bring the struggle to a certain point; we cannot negotiate or pursue initiatives at the UN. If the leadership fails us then we truly have nowhere to go. All those Palestinians who have suffered, resisted and died over the past decades cannot be let down at this historic moment by a vacillating political leadership. We call on you to mobilize us. Together we shall succeed, and sooner rather than later.

* Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org.

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

There are hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of dedicated pro-Palestinian activists out there waiting, straining at the leash, hoping for a call from the Palestinian leadership to mobilize, get stuck in, set the mood and pave the way for the make-or-break bid for UN recognition and statehood in September.

They long to hear a coherent theme, a gutsy strategy and a strong, persuasive message that puts across the Palestinian case in terms that cannot be argued with. But the big day is only three months away and "the silly season", as the media call it, is nearly upon us. It'll need sharp thinking and superhuman effort to make enough noise to get the world's attention.

Mixed messages

And the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) – also known as the Palestinian Authority (PA) – is off to an unpromising start with the depressing news that "a statehood push at the United Nations will not advance the Palestinians' cause", according to President Mahmoud Abbas. The initiative, he is reported as saying, will be compromised by the fact that the Palestinians first have to seek support from the Security Council before going to the General Assembly.

The most that can be hoped for is "a non-binding affirmation of previous resolutions saying the Palestinians have the right to a state". The Palestinian leadership is only going ahead with its plan to approach the UN "in order to save face among the Palestinian people", said the report.

According to Ma'an News Agency, a member of the negotiating team denied the report, saying some of the world's most important international lawyers are backing the initiative and the Palestinians are hopeful they will succeed.

The Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) negotiators have made a career of bolloxing up negotiations for years. So who exactly are the "negotiating team"? It's time we knew their faces and background.

Unwanted baggage

And here's more silliness: The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) – what's with all these names saying different things? Those of us in the world outside should only have to listen to one authority, otherwise we'll lose patience. Which one is it going to be?

Surely not the PLO. This organization has strong paramilitary overtones, being Yasser Arafat's old outfit. How clever is it to bring to the negotiating table or to the UN a name like that at a time like this? Yet it has a Negotiations Affairs Department, which in turn has a Public Relations Unit. A fat lot of good either of them are. Do they seriously intend heading up this statehood move?

Now is the time to dump all unwanted baggage. Like Abbas. He may be the Americans' and Israelis' pet dinosaur but it won't help in this situation and has never helped the Palestinian cause in any event. There is surely considerable talent among the "Palestinian Forum", which has been quietly pulling things together behind the scenes. It was left to Robert Fisk to bring us news of their work while Abbas's useless PLO and worthless public relations units kept us in the dark.

And I thought chief negotiator Saeb Erakat resigned following the scandal of the "Palestine Papers", which revealed the shameful behaviour of the Palestinian team in their pathetic peace talks with the Israelis. But no, he's still there issuing press releases. His seems to be the only voice and he continues to have a high profile role. Erakat is reported to be in Washington talking with US officials about reviving the peace process.

Adding to the confusion and showing the world that he can face two ways at once, Abbas was reported welcoming a scheme by French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe to arrange a conference in Paris in July where the discredited "peace talks" could be resumed. Juppe says Abbas "responded favourably".

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also welcomed the idea, we're told. Nothing is more likely to kick their application for UN recognition and statehood into the long grass than resumption of dragged-out, lopsided "negotiations" with an illegal occupier who's determined to make the occupation permanent

And why is Juppe doing this? If he is so concerned about Middle East peace why doesn't he concentrate on ensuring that in September the UN recognizes Palestine as an independent state on pre-1967 borders? A just and proper peace will flow from that.

The PA/PLO's "enlightened road map to peace"

On 7 June I received a press release from the Palestinian embassy in London which said:

The Palestinian leadership has ... concluded that endless negotiations with Israel have not led to a just solution to the conflict... The Palestinian leadership's decision to pursue a September United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines comes as a result of the deadlock in the peace process. This legitimate move has been welcomed by many countries that have recognized the Palestinian leadership's strenuous efforts to secure a negotiated settlement and that recognize the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and statehood.

The document quoted the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, Professor Manuel Hassassian, as saying:

The foundations upon which Palestinians seek the establishment of a homeland are based upon peace, prosperity, freedom and security, against which Israel justifies its brutal occupation. Home demolitions, family evictions, revoking ID cards, the illegal occupation over Palestinian land, the remapping of Jerusalem, stalling peace talks and defying international law are tactics employed by Israel to stall the establishment of a viable Palestinian state...

Professor Hassassian calls on the international community to "seize the moment" and support recognition of a Palestinian state in September. "This is the enlightened road map to peace," he says.

Is it the call to action? Who knows? It isn't enough to email a press release. You have to follow up and make sure key publications broadcast it. And I cannot find it on the embassy's website, so there's no link.

For activists it contains no action plan, no briefing material, no "killer" statistics for activists to arm themselves with, no "lines to take" against stooges of the US-Israel axis, no contact details of articulate and media-savvy spokespeople on hand at a moment's notice. Nothing to support a campaign.

Maybe information packs are on the way.

And why spoil it with words that grovel, like "Palestinians seek to establish a homeland"? That's the language used by Zionist bribers and manipulators after World War I when trying to wheedle their way into Palestine. Palestinians already have a homeland, for God's sake! They just want it back.

Professor Hassassian is the PA/PLO's mouthpiece here in the UK. Presumably, he is told to stick to Ramallah's script. According to Ramallah, then, the foundations for establishing a homeland are "peace, prosperity, freedom and security". But the real purpose of the application, surely, are to end the brutal occupation, secure the return of stolen lands and natural resources, restore refugees to their homes if they wish, and become an independent self-determining state. There can be no peace, prosperity, freedom and security until these things are achieved.

The Palestinians' demands are based squarely on international law and numerous UN resolutions, which are waiting to be implemented. Not least, they are enshrined in human rights legislation and the principles of the UN Charter.

The question is, will senior member-states respect these solemn principles when the crunch comes in September? Or will they show the world how lawless, grasping and corrupted they have become?

One of the strongest cards in the Palestinian hand is the realization that there never has been and never could be any meaningful negotiation with Israel in present circumstances. No-one can reasonably be expected to "negotiate" with a gun to their head. Furthermore, the Israeli prime minister has refused to talk with a Palestinian government that includes certain democratically elected elements. Clearly, the only way forward is an application to the UN.

So what are we to make of the mixed messages at this eleventh hour? Does the Palestinian left hand know what the right hand is doing? Is the PA/PLO going wholeheartedly for UN recognition or is it determined to scupper its people's hopes by entertaining more "peace talks"?

If I were a Palestinian I'd be tearing my hair out.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

I hope the grey suits in the Palestinian Authority (PA) regularly receive ICAHD's monthly newsletter – ICAHD being Jeff Halper's excellent organization, the Israeli Campaign Against House Demolitions.

And I especially hope they pay close attention to the June edition just out, because it contains a must-read article by Jeff himself headed "Palestine/Israel: Where do we go from here?"

Halper looks ahead to the Palestinians' "September moment", when they intend to go for independence and apply for admission to the United Nations, and how the PA must move quickly to mobilize civil society support worldwide. "Mahmoud Abbas [the PA chairman] and the PA in general should see this as an integral part of the Palestinian strategy. International civil society is the Palestinians' most important ally, but as non-Palestinians we can only organize in response to a Palestinian call."

"Mobilization," Halper says:

should begin with a call for support issued by the elected representatives of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory (the national unity government), together with Palestinians of the refugee camps, those inside Israel and of the Diaspora. Immediately following this, grassroots activists throughout the world could issue a civil society call to support the Palestinian initiative at the UN, to be signed by thousands of supporters and delivered to the UN in September.

To accompany the application for membership Jeff Halper visualizes a climactic demonstration of support at UN Headquarters in New York attended by tens of thousands of people from all over the world. "This would generate coverage and anticipation that would make it hard for the US and Europe to defy. Time is extremely short, but the infrastructure exists to make this happen – if we move quickly."

The words move quickly are not, I think, in the PA's lexicon.

The September moment is less than four months away. So let me pause here to consult the PA's snazzy new London embassy website.

Nope, there is no focus whatsoever on the bid for independence and statehood and no press releases or official reports for the critical month of May and nothing in April on the subject.

Compare this with the slick, always-on-the-ball Israeli operation, which is busy undermining the Palestinian bid for freedom.

So far, not so good.

Does anyone trust the PA to do this right?

Halper wants action. "The PA should appoint an articulate senior official with credibility and organizational talent to coordinate the campaign and mobilize civil society. The lack of spokespeople capable of carrying the Palestinian case to the public – something Israel excels in – has hampered our ability to inform and persuade the public for decades. The official responsible for information should be given authority to establish a team of effective spokespeople, based both in Palestine and in key countries abroad, that will provide the framing and counter the campaign that Israel and its supporters have already mounted against the September initiative. The lack of articulate, pro-active people among the Palestinian diplomatic corps has also contributed to the PA's notoriously bad public relations.

Regardless of our view on September – and we have to ask ourselves if we can afford to miss political opportunities like this – if the PA is going to pursue admission to the UN, we must do everything we can to ensure that it succeeds.

I and others have banged on about the Palestinian Authority's failure to understand that the war of words, if conducted effectively, is more important than the war of bullets, rockets, air strikes and suicide bombings. Israeli spin doctor Mark Regev and his lie machine would be easy meat for a well-trained Palestinian media outfit. Abbas should have set up a professional communications unit and trained and funded Palestinian embassies around the world to educate and inform, and orchestrate an effective worldwide campaign.

"We are not trained like the Israelis," I heard one senior PA man say. Exactly. Five years ago the PA was offered training in media skills and declined. Its refusal to gear up to meet the challenge has been a costly blunder for the Palestinian cause. And Abbas still drags his feet. The PA, sadly, has "form". It was programmed to foul up and has endeared itself to no-one except the US-Israel axis. It needs watching carefully even now.

Fortunately, Tel Aviv's propaganda has been significantly blunted recently not by the Palestinian Authority but by increasingly savvy student groups and other pro-Palestinian activists around the world – by international civil society, in fact.

But the Israelis are pouring and redoubling their dirty-tricks effort in desperation.

Jeff Halper, meanwhile, is quite upbeat even at the prospect of the statehood bid failing because it nevertheless will have advanced the Palestinian cause in two ways.

First, it has gotten fruitless "negotiations" out of the way. International support for September, including that of major European countries, arises precisely out of a realization that negotiations have been rendered impossible by Israel and its American patron. The fog has lifted. No longer will so-called negotiations be a façade for continued Israeli occupation. Indeed, the very positions set out by Netanyahu – recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; Israel's retention of its settlement blocs; a "united" Jerusalem under Israeli control; a demilitarized Palestinian state that has no control over its borders, land, resources or the movement of its people; a solution to the refugee problem "outside Israel" and no negotiations with a government that includes Hamas – become manifestly unacceptable.

And second, rejecting Palestinian admission to the UN puts an end to the "two-state solution". As long as the possibility of two states could be held out, any other option, including one state or a regional confederation, was effectively eliminated. Moving beyond that after September clears the way for the only genuine and possible solution: one inclusive state.

The September moment if pursued seriously, he says, offers positive gains for Palestinians, whichever way it turns out.

So, there's everything to play for and nothing much to lose. But is the Palestinian Authority really going out there to win?

The PA's London embassy, instead of briefing on the September moment and UN membership, chooses to give space to two recent news stories about French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe trying to restart the discredited peace talks before September. What is the PA's real agenda?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.