Sabbah Report » Peace

Obama and AIPAC

Antoine Raffoul — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:34:40 +0000

Obama goes all the way to AIPAC just one day before he welcomes Netanyahu. Listen to what he says about Shimon Perez and his Hagana involvement. For this, Obama will honour Perez later this Spring with American highest civilian honour: the Presidential Medal of Freedom!

Worse yet to come if you can bear listening to the whole 32 minute speech:

The Camp David treaty is not a sacred text

Khalid Amayreh — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:28:35 +0000

It is quite heartening that leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers are speaking of their disdain and contempt of the 1979 Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel.

It seems also prudent that the Islamist party, evidently the largest in Egypt, will not embark on a rash feat that could invite uncalculated reactions from the Zionist entity and its western allies, especially her guardian-ally, the United States.

The Muslim Brothers have said that they will respect Egypt's international obligations.

None the less, the Camp David treaty was not really a treaty of peace, but rather a treaty of submission and capitulation to Zionist regional hegemony, arrogance and military supremacy.

True, the Sinai Peninsula was "returned" to Egypt to the last inch. However, it is also true that vast swathes of the Sinai desert became off limit to the Egyptian forces. This is why smugglers, terrorists, saboteurs and foreign agents seem to act freely throughout that territory, blowing up gas pipelines, smuggling narcotics and other contrabands, and even attacking symbols of Egyptian sovereignty, including police centers and tourist resorts.

The defunct Egyptian regime of ex President Hosni Mubarak claimed mendaciously that the Sinai desert was completely liberated from the Israeli occupation. But how can Sinai are really completely liberated when the bulk of its territory is still off limit to the Egyptian army and air force?

In addition, it is quite scandalous how Israel came to understand the infamous treaty, e.g. that it gave the Zionist entity a carte blanch to gang up on the Palestinians, liquidate the Palestinian cause, though gradually and by desensitizing the world's moral conscience, and carrying out recurrent genocidal campaigns aimed at murdering, incinerating and maiming as many Palestinians as possible.

If evidence were needed, we are all invited to revisit the 2008-09 Israeli blitzkrieg on the Gaza Strip which did to Gaza what the allies bombing did to Dresden in the last phases of the Second World War.

Well, under these circumstances, one is prompted to ask whether Egypt, especially under an Islamist-ruled or Islamist influenced regime, is under any legal or moral obligation to abide by such a treaty.

Of course, the final say in this regard belongs to the Egyptian people. But the Egyptian people, who have suffered so much and for so long from Israeli criminality and aggression, and barbarianism doesn't seem to give that treaty the benefit of the doubt, that is if there is any doubt about the treaty's ignominious nature and disastrous legacy.

I realize that spasmodic and uncalculated statements may do more harm than good. However, there should be no question as to the pressing need to renegotiate that treaty if only because the government that signed that treaty back in 1979 was not a democratic government, which didn't enjoy the Egyptian people's acceptance.

This week, a Muslim Brotherhood's leader, Rashad Bayoumy, made it very clear that the Brotherhood will not recognize the "criminal state of Israel."

"Is it a pre-condition to recognize Israel in order to govern? This is not possible, no matter what the circumstances are. We don't recognize Israel at all. It is a criminal occupier."

Bayoumy, who is deputy to the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide, stressed that no member of the Brotherhood will ever sit down with an Israeli.

"I will not allow myself to sit with a criminal. We will not deal with them in any way."

He added that the Brotherhood may hold a national referendum to measure public opinion before taking a final decision about the treaty.

"We will take all the correct legal procedures with the treaty, it is not biding for me, and the people will have the final opinion about it.

"We didn't agree to the peace treaty; we will take all respectable legal procedures towards it. I believe we have the right to present it to the people and the elected parliament so that they can come to a decision about it."

The above words spell resolve but impetuousness as they reflect the long-suppressed disdain and rejection among Egyptians of a so-called peace treaty that enabled Israel to gang on the Palestinians and arrogated the remainder of their homeland.

In the final analysis, Egypt can and should hold Israel to account over the clauses of the treaty which make it an integral part of a wider process which also includes resolving the Palestinian question in accordance with UN Security Council 242 and 338.

However, since Israel has violated these resolutions rather starkly and scandalously, if only by building hundreds of Jewish colonies on occupied land, and by transferring hundreds of thousands of its citizens to live on land that belongs to another people, Egypt should be able to downgrade its commitment to and compliance with the infamous treaty to the bare minimum.

Such a posture on Egypt's part wouldn't be viewed as declaration of war or even a unilateral promulgation of the treaty. It would only be viewed as a necessary measure reflecting Egypt 's sovereignty and national will.

There is no doubt that the treaty and relations with Israel will be a litmus test for the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) as well as the other Islamist party, the Nur, representing the Salafi brothers.

The Islamists under all circumstances must keep a distance from Israel even if bullied, coerced and pressured by the United States to behave otherwise. Any concession, real or imagined, in this regard will cost the Islamists dearly in terms of their standing in the eyes of the people.

The Islamists must not allow themselves to gain acceptance and favor from the criminal entity and her supporters, especially the Jewish-controlled US Congress, at the expense of the Egyptian people's acceptance of the Islamists.

In Egypt as elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, there is a mutually exclusive relationship between having normal relations with Israel and being accepted and respected by the masses. A government, including an Islamist or quasi-Islamist government, can only have either good relations with Israel and her supporters on the one hand, or acceptance and respect from the people, on the other. It can't have both, period.

* 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.

Netanyahu Rejects Peace After Hamas and Fatah Reconciliation

Stephen Lendman — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:09:41 +0000

Sham Israeli peace negotiations were stillborn from inception. Writer Henry Siegman once called them "the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history."

Netanyahu once said they're "a waste of time." Previous Israeli officials called occupation and status quo conditions "permanent."

Republican presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich calls Palestinians an "invented" people. Decades ago, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (a transplanted Ukrainian American) said:

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist....How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."

No wonder Edward Said once called the occupation an "atrocity" and the peace process "a disheartening bloody impasse.....to reduce the Palestinian actuality to nil, to efface Palestinians as a people with legitimate rights, to render them alien in their own land."

Israeli repression reached new extremes under Netanyahu. His government is Israel's worst ever. He exceeds the worst of Ariel Sharon and previous hard-line leaders.

On December 25, Haaretz writer Barak Ravid headlined, "Netanyahu: Israel will not negotiate with Palestinians should Hamas join government," saying:

Netanyahu vowed no talks if Fatah and Hamas unite for all Palestinians. In a speech at a conference for Israeli ambassadors, he said:

"If Hamas joins the Palestinian government, we will not hold negotiations with the Palestinian Authority....The peace process can only advance while maintaining security arrangements, which is becoming more difficult in light of the current situation in the region."

In April, Hamas and Fatah announced reconciliation and plans for transitional government ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections within a year to produce unity. Currently, they're set for May 2012.

Netanyahu reacted angrily saying, "choose between peace with Israel or peace with Hamas." Reconciliation shows "weakness," he added. "There cannot be peace" if both sides unite. "What happened....in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism."

Despite reservations on both sides, signing ceremony comments signaled hope. Abbas suggested turning a page, saying:

"Four black years have affected the interests of Palestinians. Now we meet to assert a unified will. Israel is using the Palestinian reconciliation as an excuse to evade (peace. It) must choose between peace and settlement."

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said:

"Hamas was ready to pay any price for internal Palestinian reconciliation. The only battle of the Palestinians is against Israel. Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any settlers and without giving up a single inch of land and without giving up on the right of return."

In mid-December, Abbas and Mashaal met again in Cairo after Hamas and Islamic Jihad announced Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) membership plans.

They'll form a committee ahead of next May's presidential, parliamentary and Palestinian National Council (PLC) elections. Once held, they'll join the PLO as sole legitimate Palestinian representative.

Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded supportively, saying "Moscow welcomes the serious talks between the Palestinian factions that aim to end Palestinian division."

According to the Turkish Anatolian news agency, so did Ankara. It also praised Egypt's sponsoring role.

On December 24, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero announced full support, saying:

"This is an important element for the unity of the future State of Palestine, and in that sense, this reconciliation is in Israel's future interests."

He added that reconciliation depends on Israel ending Gaza's siege, as well as both sides denouncing violence and respecting past agreements.

During Bethlehem's Christmas midnight mass, Latin Patriarch Fouad Twal called Palestinian self-determination the main thrust for achieving peace, adding:

"We ask for peace for the Palestinian people and for the Israeli people. We ask for peace, stability and security for the entire Middle East so that our children and their children may live their childhood in innocence, in a healthy environment where they may play together without fear or complex."

Israel and Washington, of course, remain significant obstacles very much unresolved.

Unity Discussions Scheduled to Continue

In late January, unity discussions will continue to select transitional government members until elections. In February, Palestine's parliament will resume operations.

At issue is Israel's response. Elections in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem depend on cooperation. In 2005, Israel manipulated the process for Abbas.

Leading opposition figure Marwan Barghouti was imprisoned on bogus murder charges. In addition, Mustafa Barghouti's candidacy was sabotaged for "demand(ing) total and complete reform, (ending all) form(s) of corruption, (and) mismanagement, and (working to) consolidate the rule of law."

As a result, Israel arrested him while campaigning, expelled him from East Jerusalem, excluded him from Nablus and Gaza, harassed and intimidated him repeatedly, and effectively rigged the process for Abbas.

In 2012, Israel may either prevent Palestinian elections with Hamas candidates or sabotage them to assure Israeli-friendly officials only gain power.

Another obstacle involves registering Palestinians worldwide to participate and letting them vote in PLO mission offices. Doing so depends on cooperation from countries where they live.

The PNC will have 350 delegates, 150 from the Territories and 200 diaspora ones. PNC Chairman Salim Zanoun has his hands full. He heads a committee charged with making this possible. Doing so's not easy. Nor is it for millions of occupied Palestinians or diaspora ones prevented from returning home.

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), Palestinians worldwide number 11.22 million as of year end 2011. About 4.23 million live in Palestine (including 1.6 million in Gaza), another 1.37 million in Israel, 4.99 million in Arab countries, and around 636,000 in other countries.

PCBS also said 44% of those in Palestine are refugees - 42% in the West Bank and 58% in Gaza. Numerous others live in Arab countries, notably Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

Ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's extremism is also troubling. Repeatedly he said Israel won't return to 1967 borders. Settlement expansions will continue, and doing so's no obstacle to peace. In fact, they violate international law and obstruct any possibility of resolution.

Targeting Hamas at Israel's Behest

Baseless accusations are Israel's stock in trade. In January 1995, at its behest, the State Department duplicitously declared Hamas a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Its emergence began after 1967. In the late 1970s, Israel offered financial aid to counterbalance PLO influence. During the first Intifada (1987 - 1993), it gained prominence. Israel remained supportive.

At issue was manipulating both sides to prevent peace. Like America, Israel needs enemies to justify conflict and violence. Hamas was chosen strategically to advance Palestinian divisions.

In Arabic, Hamas means courage and bravery. Since established, it's resisted oppression and occupation. It prefers negotiation and international consensus, not violence.

However, its charter says it'll fight for its rights if Israel prevents peaceful reconciliation. It rejects Zionist intentions to destroy Palestinian society, its values and "wipe out Islam."

It calls itself "a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it....(Under Islam) it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security" as long as other religions "desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region."

It wants peace, equity and justice for all Palestinians. It prefers negotiating on the basis of "hudnah" or temporary truce. It's founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said Hamas would end its liberating struggle "if the Zionists ended their occupation of Palestinian territories and stopped killing Palestinian women, children and innocent civilians."

It current leaders are willing to recognize Israel in return for self-determination in peace inside pre-1967 borders - 22% of historic Palestine. Moreover, numerous times it agreed to unilateral ceasefires in spite of repeated Israeli violations.

Nonetheless, it responses defensively after continued provocations. Washington and Israel call it "terrorism." Under international law, it's legitimate self-defense.

Besides being Palestine's legitimate government, Hamas provides vital social services, including medical clinics, education, free meals for children, help for orphans, financial and technical assistance for homeless families, aid to refugees, special youth and sports clubs, and more as their resources allow.

It also maintains an elite military wing for self-defense, policing and security, the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades.

It wants equitable peace and reconciliation. So do Arabs and Jews. Israel and its Washington paymaster/partner choose violence. That Gordian Knot remains to be cut.

* 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.

Counting the cost of a Palestinian state

Yousef Munayyer — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:56:19 +0000

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.

Return of the One-State Solution?

SR Editor — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:29:39 +0000

A Realist's Utopia

By Landon Frim* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This month marks the 44th anniversary of the Six-Day War between Israel and the bordering states of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It was this conflict in June of 1967 which has shaped Arab-Israeli relations ever since, primarily because of Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the whole basis for the perennially stalled peace process between the Palestinian people and the Jewish state centers upon what portion of these occupied territories will become the new, sovereign state of Palestine.

However, a simple return to "1967 borders" has always been something which the Israelis have publically rejected. Ostensibly, this is because these borders are deemed geographically indefensible should another armed conflict arise. So when last month President Obama became the first American commander in chief to publically set the 1967 borders as the starting point for peace negotiations, all hell broke loose. It was not much longer than Benjamin Netanyahu, the hard-line, Likud prime minister of Israel, hopped on a plane to personally tongue-lash the president and then deliver a scheduled speech in front of a joint meeting of congress - to thunderous applause.

So there we had it; this was a Manichean war of words between two irreconcilable worldviews. President Obama was the liberal universalist, naively enthusiastic about emerging democracies promised by the so-called "Arab Spring." Besides, to the conservative imagination, Barack Hussein Obama did not exude the same intuitive love for the Jewish state which could otherwise be expected of any patriotic American, let alone the president himself. Netanyahu was the experience-hardened, Israeli realist. He knew the proper limits of such idealistic enthusiasm, and he knew the real price for Israeli security. An emerging, sovereign, Palestinian democracy could not be trusted to be friendly toward Israel. The establishment of such as state on the supposedly indefensible borders of 1967 would, therefore, be out of the question. American pundits weighed in on either side of the melee with articles and op-eds. Characteristic of the tone was the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and his oft-quoted piece, "Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way."

Not so radical after all

Of course, obscured by the rancor was the plain fact that none of this was at all new. Some variant of the "Two State Solution" has been a part of the mainstream discourse since Israel's inception in 1948. In fact, the suggested demarcation of the border was much more generous to the Palestinians during the Eisenhower administration in the 1950's than it is today. The last Bush administration publically affirmed a Two State Solution which, de facto, would have to be drawn largely along the 1967 border; though, crucially, this language was never used in any high profile speeches. (Instead, in a 2005 press conference, President Bush employed the term "1949 armistice lines" which, in fact, amounts to basically the same thing.) Even Netanyahu himself has acknowledged in June 2009 the ultimate goal of a Palestinian state within the territories of the West Bank and Gaza (where else?) with certain land swaps so as to ensure the Israeli retention of the large, Jewish settlement blocks. True, emotionally and politically charged issues remain - first among these is the future of east Jerusalem, a point on which Netanyahu has never shown any flexibility. Nonetheless, at its core, this supposedly polarizing debate is mostly a semantic one after all, at best a protracted political dance where each participant jockeys to win an edge at the bargaining table where the final lines will be drawn. No one, though, really thinks that this table can ultimately be avoided.

Two states - A consensus of dunces

Unfortunately this "hidden consensus" is totally disengaged from reality. Two basic facts preclude the Two State Solution as being a truly viable option. The first can largely be placed under the heading of "geography." The basic premise behind any Two State Solution is, first, the recognition of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state, and second, the recognition of a sovereign and independent Palestine alongside. Yet within the very heart of the West Bank exists very large Jewish settlement blocks. Even the most dovish Israeli politicians acknowledge that these enclosed settlements, which now truly amount to mid-sized towns and cities, must be retained within Israel proper if and when a Palestinian state is declared. The problem is that these enclaves will have to be connected with one another and to the rest of Israel via secure roads, manned by Israeli police and military officials.

This means that, not only will Palestine continue to be divided geographically between the West Bank and Gaza; The West Bank itself will necessarily be completely fragmented to the point where Palestinians, in order to travel between one West Bank town to another, will have to pass through Israeli checkpoints. How this amounts to a sovereign Palestinian state, I cannot fathom. (All of this is aside from the very real interdependence of Israeli capital and Palestinian labor which, itself, necessitates a porous yet highly militarized border.)

In the words of the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti, "The geopolitical condition that's been created in '67 is irreversible. Cannot be changed. You cannot unscramble that egg," (60 Minutes interview, January 25th 2009)

It is also the case that, largely because of these same geographic concerns, any future Palestinian state will be a demilitarized one. This was, incidentally, also a feature of Obama's high profile speech. Not to valorize militarism for its own sake, but it is far from clear what politicians really mean when they claim to support a Two State Solution. What does it mean to support a "sovereign" Palestine which is totally disarmed and geographically divided by a hostile Jewish state brimming with military might?

The second obstacle for any Two State Solution is far more intractable. This is basic demographics. Leaving aside the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, we can shortly expect a demographic tipping of the scales within Israel itself. As it stands, Arab Israeli passport holders make up about 20% of the total population, and the percentage of Israeli Jews has shrunk, by proportion, by about 1-2% each year since 1949. This means that, within one to two generations, it is possible that Jews will be the minority within the Jewish State.

Between 2020 and 2030, the population of Israeli Jews is expected to increase by less than 15%. This is compared to the Arab and non-Jewish populations which are expected to increase, in this same decade, by just over 26%. (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010) Again, these figures pertain to "Israel proper" and would not be significantly affected by Israel ceding the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

Counterbalancing the "tipping point" with the Orthodox birthrate

The kicker is that the one plausible way for Israel to avoid this "tipping point" scenario is by relying upon the high birthrates of the ultra-Orthodox and Haredi Jewish communities. Secular Zionists are, therefore, between a rock and a hard place. Over the next 20-40 years Israel will become increasingly Arab and, simultaneously, increasingly Orthodox Jewish. Therefore, even if Arabs and non-Jews do not make up 51% of the population within 50 years, it will nonetheless be the case that secular-minded Jews (traditionally the bedrock of Israeli, Jewish democracy) will find themselves to be the absolute minority far sooner than anyone has imagined. The prospects for Israel retaining its fragile "secular," "Jewish," and "democratic" identity in the long run are therefore negligible.

What must be understood is that these demographic shifts are not necessarily fatal for any given democracy; they are detrimental specifically to that chimerical creation that is a religio-ethnic democracy. A state which tries to maintain popular sovereignty, secular government, and equal representation under the law alongside a specifically determined ethnic and religious character intrinsically brings upon itself these tensions which, given the right circumstances, will tear it apart from the inside. Truly modern, secular states which disavow any predetermined ethnic identity are able to absorb diverse and even undemocratic populations, and then go on to secularize and democratize these very same groups.

"Progressive assimilation" is the order of the day.

However a country which is always staking its very existence upon certain demographic ratios necessarily cannot employ such a strategy. It will have to cast its lot with the most closed, culturally entrenched sectors of its own ruling, ethnic population. In doing so, it may for a while offset countervailing demographic pressures, but it ultimately cuts itself off from any sustainable model of secularization, growth, internal unity, and progress. In the end, it cannot even remain democratic.

That hard-liners and liberals continue to pitch mock battles with one another over the minutia and semantics of a Two State Solution is therefore the height of irresponsibility. For the very idea of "two states" is predicated, in the first place, upon the unworkable and premodern idea of "identitarian" government. In many ways the "Two State Solution" is, therefore, an oxymoron; for it solves nothing. It only conceals and maintains the basic contradictions a form of government which is, right now, propelling two peoples towards a very real and bloody conflict.

A Realist's Utopia

What is needed now is a rational assessment of the situation in light of the given facts. When this is carried through, all signs point to a One State Solution. What was once the utopian dream of Jewish intellectuals like Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem, and Albert Einstein, has now become the banner of hard-nosed realists.

Just last year, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (a member of the conservative Likud party) came out against any partition of the land of Israel, and instead proposed a bi-national solution to the current crisis. Speaking on the de facto inseparability of the Palestinian people from Israel, Rivlin commented, "It is a group with a highly defined shared national identity, and which will forever be, as a collective, an important and integral part of Israeli society." (Haaretz, "Israel official: Accepting Palestinians into Israel better than two states," April 29th, 2009)

True, heads of state and diplomats rarely discuss this taboo option, at least in public. However, like all timely ideas, the One State Solution is gaining broad consensus just below the surface. A sure sign of this fact is that Israelis themselves have begun to see the inevitability of one state on both ends of the political spectrum. A recent poll showed a relatively equal level of support for a bi-national state amongst self-described "right-wing" and "left-wing" Israelis, 15% and 18% respectively. (March 2010 poll, The Israel Democracy Institute of the Guttman Center)

For an idea which is constantly derided as being the fantasy of only the most deluded, anarchic radicals, these are truly shocking numbers. They show that one-third of Israelis, broadly distributed across the political landscape, support a single, bi-national state with equal rights for all its citizens.

Today, the support for a trulysecular, bi-national state is no longer motivated by sheer idealism alone. This "utopian" solution is now the most realistic one as well. Speaking on the abovementioned poll, Dr. Ya'akov Shamir of the Israel Democracy Institute confirmed, "In Israel there is a group that believes that a bi-national state is inevitable because with Jewish and Palestinian communities so entangled in the West Bank, it will be almost impossible to divide them." (The Jerusalem Post, "Palestinians increasingly back 1-state," March 22nd, 2010) We may only add that this "indivisibility" is rapidly becoming the new reality on both sides of the 1967 line.

* Landon Frim is an instructor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University and the chair of the Faith and Socialism Commission of the Socialist Party, USA

Israel’s Future

SR Editor — Sat, 07 May 2011 09:00:51 +0000

By Ahmed Moor * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

In an April 27 op-ed, Rabbi Doug Kahn accurately quoted me as having written that "ending the occupation doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mean upending the Jewish State itself." He did not take the line out of context, nor did he misrepresent what I intended to say; democracy in Palestine/Israel and the realization of full human and political rights there for Palestinians means the end of Jewish privilege in my birth country.

The conversation around the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is wrapped in a myth: That the Palestinians will one day have a viable state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza. The reality is that there will be no viable Palestinian state, ever. There are three main reasons for that:

First, the process of ethnic cleansing that created Israel and made my grandparents refugees in 1948 has not stopped. Israel continues to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and East Jerusalem of Palestinians to implant Jews in their place. There are now more than 500,000 Jewish colonists living in the midst of 3.5 million Palestinians. No one is going to remove these settlers from the lands their state has stolen for them.

Second, Israel relies on Palestinian water to survive. The Jewish state controls the mountain and coastal aquifers that sit under Palestinian land. Relinquishing control of those resources is not an option for any Israeli leader.

Finally, the Jordan Valley is too strategically important from a military perspective for Israel to withdraw from it. Israeli army regulars will always have a presence there. The Jordan Valley sits in the West Bank, which means that the Israeli army will always be in the West Bank.

There are more realities that bear on the question of whether the Jewish state will continue to exist.

Twenty-five percent of Israelis (not counting refugees like me in the Occupied Territories who don't have an Israeli passport or citizenship) are not Jewish. America is more Christian than Israel is Jewish. There are fewer African Americans proportionally in America than there are Palestinians in Israel. And all of those non-Jewish Israelis are having more children than the Jewish ones are.

In Israel, they call this the "demographic problem." I don't know how they propose to solve their demographic problem.

Today, there is numerical parity between Jews and Palestinians in the Holy Land. And since we Palestinians do not accept the argument that it was necessary to ethnically cleanse Palestine to establish a Jewish state, we are inconveniently calling for our rights.

The late Tony Judt described the Jewish state as an anachronism. Perhaps if Israel had been established in 1848 the indigenous population -- the Palestinians -- would have faded from view. But history had a different plan for the world's last colony.

Many of us in Palestine/Israel, including many non-Zionist Jews, are working toward real democracy in the country. I am confident that we will succeed in creating a race-blind society. Perhaps Rabbi Kahn will help us achieve our humanist goal.

* Ahmed Moor is a graduate student in public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Questions About “Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation”

SR Editor — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:51:23 +0000

By Ali Abunimah | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Big news today about a reported "Hamas-Fatah reconciliation" deal. What does it mean? First, here's what we know from Reuters:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement has struck an agreement with bitter rival Hamas on forming an interim government and fixing a date for a general election, officials said Wednesday.

The surprise deal was brokered by Egypt and followed secret talks between the two sides, who fought a brief civil war in 2007 that left the Islamist Hamas in control of the Gaza Strip and the Western-backed Abbas in charge of the West Bank.

Forging Palestinian unity is regarded as crucial to reviving any prospect for an independent Palestinian state.

"We have agreed to form a government composed of independent figures that would start preparing for presidential and parliamentary elections," said Azzam al-Ahmad, the head of Fatah's negotiating team in Cairo. "Elections would be held in about eight months from now," he added.

Ordinary Palestinians have repeatedly urged their leaders to resolve their deep divisions, but analysts had long argued that the differences between the two sides on issues such as security and diplomacy were too wide to bridge.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader who participated in the talks, said the agreement covered five points, including elections, forming an interim unity government and combining security forces.

"We also discussed activating the Palestinian Legislative Council, the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) as well as forming a government consisting of nationalist figures to be agreed upon," Zahar told Al Jazeera television in an interview.

He also said Hamas and Fatah agreed to free prisoners held by each side.

What does any of this mean? At this point, neither side has published the text of an agreement - and certainly Palestinians have a right to see one; they have had enough of secret deals and understandings.

Some immediate questions that come to mind and give rise to skepticism:

If there is an agreement on a joint "government" how can it possibly function without Israeli approval? Will Israel allow Hamas ministers be able to operate freely in the occupied West Bank? Will PA officials be able to move freely between the West Bank and Gaza? Israel is effectively at peace with the current Abbas wing of the Palestinian Authority and at war with Hamas. Impossible to see how such a government can operate under Israeli occupation. If anything this proves the impossibility of democracy and normal governance under Israeli military occupation.

In The Palestine Papers, the main concern of Ramallah officials was always to maintain Western financial aid to the PA, and not to make any agreement with Hamas that would jeopardize American and European financing for the PA. Has the Abbas PA overcome that fear, or have they reached understandings with donors that would allow Hamas to join a Palestinian Authority "government"?

Integration of security forces. Currently, Hamas in Gaza and the Abbas-run PA in the West Bank operate rival security forces. The Abbas security forces cooperate openly with the Israeli occupation including "welcoming" and hosting the Israeli chief of staff, as described by the PA's Nablus governor yesterday. The Abbas forces are financed and supervised by the United States and their purpose has explicitly been to fight Hamas. Hamas' forces by contrast are viewed as an enemy by Israel, and are frequently subject to military attacks and extrajudicial executions by Israel. Can such opposing forces really be combined without the Abbas side either renouncing its close ties to the Israeli military, or the Hamas side abandoning any commitment to resistance?

Elections: What is the point of having elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip once more under conditions of brutal Israeli military occupation, siege and control? Neither the West Bank government nor the Gaza government are truly in control of the fate of Palestinians. The power lies in Israel's hands. As I wrote recently, such elections only further the illusion of self-governance while doing nothing to challenge or change actual Israeli control. And, when there is so much political repression in the West Bank, and indeed in Gaza, how can we have a guarantee of free elections?

Reform of the PLO: If Hamas and Abbas made a deal to reform the PLO which just includes adding Hamas to the dead body of the PLO how will that serve the Palestinian people? What about elections for the Palestinian National Council that include ALL Palestinians, including the majority which does not live in the 1967 occupied territories? A deal where Abbas and Hamas make a cozy deal to share seats in an undemocratic PLO is simply unacceptable.

More broadly, the goal for Palestinians should not be "unity" among factions, but unity of goals for the Palestinian people. What is the purpose and platform of the planned "transitional government" other than merely to exist? A real Palestinian strategy that unites all segments of the Palestinian people has been articulated by the BDS movement:

(a) an end to occupation and colonization of the 1967 territories; (b) full equality and an end to all forms of discrimination against Palestinians in the 1948 areas ("Israel"); and (c) full respect and implementation of the rights of Palestinian refugees.

Notably neither Fatah Abbas nor Hamas have endorsed this campaign, and neither has articulated a realistic strategy aimed at restoring the rights of all Palestinians.

Update

The White House has now commented on the reported "unity" deal. From Reuters:

"The United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace. Hamas, however, is a terrorist organization which targets civilians," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

"To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any Palestinian government must accept the Quartet principles and renounce violence, abide by past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist," he said.

This indicates that the US position opposing Palestinian unity except on terms acceptable to Israel and the United States, has not softened. Given this, it's very difficult to see this going very far.

Wikileaks and Tel Aviv Connection

Jeff Gates — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:50:22 +0000

Israeli psy-ops typically serve multiple purposes. Wikileaks is no exception.

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

What is Tel Aviv to do now that it's known Israelis and pro-Israelis ‘fixed' the intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Con me consistently for six decades and the relationship is over, as is Israel's credibility as a legitimate nation state.

Tel Aviv knows this. But what can the Zionist state do about it?

Answer: Wikileaks.

Why now? Misdirection.

Shine the spotlight on Washington to take it off Tel Aviv. That's good old-fashioned psy-ops. And challenge the credibility of the U.S. That's Wikileaks.

Any credible forensics would start by asking: to whose benefit? Then look to means, motive and opportunity plus the presence of stable nation-state intelligence inside the U.S.

Other than Israel, who else is a credible candidate? Notice how quickly Israel's role in the peace process vanished from the news. Now it's Iran, Iran and more Iran. To whose benefit?

Tel Aviv knows that the phony intelligence on Iraq leads to those skilled at waging war "by way of deception"-the motto of the Israeli Mossad.

Wikileaks are noteworthy for what's missing: the absence of any material damaging to Israeli goals.

But still Tel Aviv faces an unprecedented peril: transparency. Americans know they were duped. And Israel rightly fears that Americans will soon realize by whom.

Tepid Support will not Suffice

Obama has behaved as anticipated by those who produced his presidency. Anyone surprised at the lack of change in U.S. policy in the Middle East fails to grasp the power of the Israel lobby.

Did he hesitate to support their latest Israeli strategy for scuttling peace negotiations? Absent peace, the U.S. will continue to be the target of those outraged at America's unflinching support for Israel's thuggish behavior in pursuit of its expansionist goals.

Confirming the lobby's influence, Netanyahu announced he would not agree to halt settlements on Palestinian land until Obama reduced to writing a $3 billion bribe.

In return for a proposed 90-day freeze, what form of bribe will America provide? Twenty F-35 jets at $150 million each plus parts, maintenance, training and armaments.

That's $231 million per week or $1,373,626 per hour. What will the U.S. receive in return? A temporary partial freeze on settlements. How many more times can this ruse work?

Israel has evaded a peace agreement since it drove Palestinians from their land in 1948 and seized more land in 1967 to shape today's geopolitics.

Should Israel reach an agreement with the Palestinians, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposes a "comprehensive security agreement." At what cost no one knows. The U.S. Congress has already budgeted $30 billion for Israel over 10 years. This latest $3 billion is on top of that.

That doesn't include the cost to American credibility posed by an offer to veto U.N. recognition of Palestine as a state. And a pledge Never Again to pressure Israel on settlements. Plus the freeze omits East Jerusalem where Tel Aviv insists on moving ahead with new housing starts.

Timing Is Everything

By scheduling its latest incursion into Gaza between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 Obama inaugural, Tel Aviv ensured only muted opposition during political down time in the U.S. Thus it came as no surprise to see an agent provocateur operation on Thanksgiving Day 2010 as Israel demolished a West Bank Mosque and a Palestinian village.

After seven hours of nonstop talks, Hillary Clinton praised Netanyahu as a "peacemaker." In return, he agreed only to "continue the process." Meanwhile, U.S. elections marked a major victory for Israel when incoming Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Jewish Zionist, announced that the new majority would "serve as a check on the Obama administration."

The Israel lobby has good reason to gloat. Confirming ongoing duplicity, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman proclaimed: "a permanent agreement is impossible."

Wikileaks' release of confidential diplomatic cables provides Israel an opportunity to undermine U.S. relations worldwide while also inflicting lasting damage on U.S. interests in the Middle East. After this, what nation would trust the U.S. to maintain a confidence?

In October, Turkey asked that the U.S. not share intelligence with Israel. Now who dares share intelligence with the U.S.?

This may signal the beginning of the end for the Obama presidency his domestic policy failures are eclipsed by his failures in foreign policy.

This may also signal pre-staging for the 2012 presidential primary with a weakened Obama forced to name Clinton as his running mate or stepping aside so she can lead the ballot.

Her 2008 presidential campaign promised recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" and promised an "undivided Jerusalem as the capital." Tel Aviv was elated. A second Clinton presidency would ensure another victory for Israel-and no peace.

Israeli psy-ops typically serve multiple purposes. Wikileaks is no exception.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates' latest book is Guilt by Association -How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008) his first release in the Criminal State series. His previous books include Democracy At Risk and The Ownership Solution. See his website Criminal State

Obama Plays the Fox

Lawrence Davidson — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:54:43 +0000

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Gamble

On Saturday, 20 December a State Department spokesperson announced that the United States government is actively negotiating with Israel the price of a proposed 90 day cessation of settlement activity on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem). It is reported that the Israelis are demanding two things be given them free of charge: twenty stealth fighters (worth $3 billion dollars)and the release of the spy, Jonathan Pollard. On this latter demand it is to be noted that in a letter to President Obama, 39 Democratic members of Congress asked that the President grant Pollard clemency. These are the things that Israel has asked for. Then there are the things that the White House has offered voluntarily: among them is a promise to veto any Security Council resolutions hostile to Israel which is, after all, standard operating procedure for Washington and, more significantly, not to ask the Israelis for any further settlement freezes.

The question that immediately comes to mind is, if the U.S. has not been able to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace in the past 43 years (counting from 1967), what does this president think he can get done in 90 days? A lot of observers think that his offer to Israel is just another craven act of submission by a weak president. But I am not so sure. So here is my take on the situation.

The official line set down by the Palestinian "leader" Mahmud Abbas is that the Palestinian National Authority will not renew negotiations with Israel until there is a halt to settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Obama is obviously gambling that he can get Abbas back to the table without a freeze in East Jerusalem and that 90 days is enough time for the two parties to set down a preliminary border that would then smooth the way to a final settlement. How does he plan to do this?

Playing the Fox

It is not so hard to see what is going on here. The President of the United States (playing Machiavelli’s fox) is setting out to ensnare the ersatz President of Palestine who, as usual, has been completely cut out of the present discussions between the U.S. and Israel. As to the near future, here is scenario for which Obama may aim:

First: The price of this brief settlement moratorium will be finalized in a written document. The Israelis will probably get their stealth fighters but are unlikely to get Pollard. The aircraft are traditional, if expensive, give aways. But giving up Pollard has always been adamantly opposed by the American intelligence services and no previous president has risked the serious demoralization of those agencies by doing so. Obama will probably not take that risk either, but then, I would be hesitant to bet on this.

Second: Netanyahu will get his security cabinet to approve the U.S. incentive package by negotiating abstentions from those, such as the representatives of Shas, who do not want to vote for the deal.

Third: The Americans will go to Abbas (who is already feeling the walls closing in on him) and demand that he come back to the table. Abbas is so dependent on Washington for everything from the salaries of his bureaucrats to the guns used by his militia that he would have to dig pretty deep into his soul to find any principle to stand on. Maybe he too will ask for an incentive package to ease the way around a principled stand, and perhaps he will be thrown some sort of bone.

Fourth: Having been dragged kicking and screaming (at least for public appearance sake) back to the table, Abbas and his negotiators will then be trapped. They will be officially tied to a 90 day clock. They will agree to a deal within that time period or, having seriously embarrassed President of the United States (who has pledged himself to seek no further delays in settlement activity), they will be abandoned, which has always been the threat from Washington. It is a lose-lose deal and Abbas probably knows it. But he is not Yasser Arafat and, in the end, despite loud protests, he is unlikely to have the courage to just walk away.

Legacies

In this scenario President Obama is motivated by an obsessive drive to be the man who settles the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, if accomplished, it will be a very messy sort of settlement considering that Hamas is out of the loop and Abbas really does not represent most of the Palestinians. Indeed, Abbas’s probable fate is not to die in bed. Nonetheless, the settlement, such as it is, will be Obama’s legacy and simultaneously it may allow him, as Juan Cole has suggested, to outmaneuver the unscrupulous Republican opposition in the House. Also, he certainly believes it will help him become a two term president.

If Obama can accomplish this (and many things can go wrong with this scenario) there will be an "official agreement" under cover of which the United States and Europe can abandon those Palestinians not confined to the Palestinian "state." They will declare the problem solved and treat in a ferocious manner any party, such as Hamas and Palestinian refugee groups, who say otherwise. Thus, the West Bank Palestinians will "officially" get bantustans which the West will call a state. And then a long war of attrition will be waged against the "terrorists" and "spoilers" who would upset the "peace" settlement. This too will be part of Obama’s legacy.

Who Am I?

What are we to make of this possible strategy? Well, it is a testimony to where political "realism" can take you. And, that is most likely how President Obama sees himself, as a realist. The New York Times editorial writer Paul Krugman has quoted Obama’s political adviser, David Axelrod, as describing the president’s present state of mind, "We have to deal with the world as we find it." This, of course, is a mask behind which stands a president who has never really been a fighter. Rather, he has always been a "realist" following on the maxim that politics is the art of the possible. Obama seems not to realize that what is possible has something to do with where he decides to draw the line, lay down a principled stand beyond which he will not go. As Krugman observed, the president has always believed in the magical possibilities of consensus building. Alas, he does not seem to care very much with whom he builds consensus or what it gives us once arrived at.

So President Obama is not a visionary. That sort of rhetoric he leaves to his speech writers. He is a rather naive fox. He sets snares for others and perhaps he senses the snares laid out for him by his adversaries. However, he does not have the lion-like qualities that Machiavelli tells us a leader must have to fend off the wolves. Rather than fight wolves he prefers to bargain with them. The wolves in this case are the Israelis and those who now lead the Republican party. So this is Obama’s problem, he is an articulate and clever man, but not a courageous one. Such men do not usually win against the wolves. They do not achieve real answers to our problems. They only produce feeble, short-lived consensus. That is a road that can only circle back upon itself.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

A Bribe Too Good to Refuse

Stephen Lendman — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:09:51 +0000

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

Obama offer - F-35s for "Peace"

When all else fails, offer money, or in this case weapons for peace (a clear oxymoron) via for a three month settlement construction moratorium in name only. In fact, new building is unimpeded, Obama's offer a facade to hide reality on the ground. More on the deal below.

Last December, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the moratorium, saying he hoped it would launch meaningful peace talks. They're entirely fraudulent ones, a grand illusion even Netanyahu once called "a waste of time."

Two earlier articles on them. Another covers Netanyahu's sham moratorium (never called a freeze).

Decades of Israeli/Palestinian/US relations prove nothing from Washington or Tel Aviv can be trusted, their word never their bond.

On November 13, PeaceNow.org said since late October, the end Netanyahu's moratorium, "settlers (began) build(ing) 1,629 housing units, and even (dug) foundations for 1,116 of them. (Work began) in 63 settlements, 46 of them east of the Separation (Wall) and 17 on (its) western side."

Moreover, throughout 2009, "according to the Israeli CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) data," work began on 1,888 units. It continued virtually unabated during the moratorium, and goes on steadily every day.

In addition, whatever Washington/Tel Aviv deal is stuck, East Jerusalem is off the table, a November 13 AFP report saying "Israel plans to (sell) 3,000 new Jewish homes in Jerusalem next year, including in Arab areas," according to a municipality official.

On November 9, Netanyahu's office, in fact, said:

"Jerusalem isn't a settlement - Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Israel has never put any sort of limits on construction in Jerusalem, where some 800,000 people reside, and didn't do so during the 10-month settlement 'freeze' in the West Bank either....Israel does not see any connection between the peace process and the building and planning policy in Jerusalem, which hasn't changed for 40 years. Every Israeli government in the past 40 years has built in all parts of the city."

East Jerusalem is also the Palestinian capital, a right no PA leader will relinquish. Moreover, honest observers see no connection between the "peace process" and peace. Negotiations have been still born from inception, a charade assuring no peace because neither Washington nor Israel will tolerate it. It's one of many unspoken dirty secrets, explaining why conflict and repressive occupation have raged unabated for decades.

Obama's Offer - F-35s for Peace

In fact, 20 F-35s (America's most advanced fighter jet) will be added to an existing Israeli order under a $2.75 billion contract. On November 10, Haaretz's Amos Harel called a deal too good to refuse, along with:

"other gifts the US administration is willing to offer to Israel in exchange for three months of construction freeze in the settlements...."

It makes Harel think "someone has gone mad." Nonetheless, a "political and ideological headache for Netanyahu" may be too enticing to turn down. He suspects "much broader and substantive issues" are involved, including on the Iranian question.

According to an unnamed senior Israeli defense source, "The Americans have put forth an excellent proposal," a gift. "It will be a big mistake not to take it....If we do not implement this deal, we will suffer in terms of defense." Israeli weapons, in fact, are for offense, not defense. No nation anywhere threatens it. Claiming so is duplicitous fear-mongering, the last refuge of belligerents.

Reportedly, Israel also took delivery of the first batch of 1,000 new US 250-pound GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), F-15s, F-16s, and F-35s able to carry them. They're extremely powerful, able to penetrate eight feet of concrete, an ideal weapon against underground targets.

Waiting for Netanyahu

On November 10, Haaretz headlined, " Netanyahu awaiting written offer from Obama on settlement freeze," saying:

Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said "We still do not have a final proposal in writing that can be discussed in depth." Netanyahu's communications advisor, Nir Nefetz, said he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reached "understandings on the matter," but formulating a written proposal will take time.

On November 14, New York Times writers Ethan Bronner and Mark Landler headlined, "A 90-Day Bet on Mideast Talks," saying:

"The vote by Mr. Netanyahu's cabinet on (Obama's) proposal is expected to be very close but (it's) likely to pass by at least one vote, analysts said. Likewise, while the Palestinians have objected partly because the proposed construction freeze does not include East Jerusalem which they want as the capital of their future state, that is not considered an issue likely to dissuade them from rejoining the talks."

New York Times and other major media writers are clueless on East Jerusalem. Palestinians don't want it as their future capital. It's non-negotiably theirs now, what neither The Times or other Western media will acknowledge, showing one-sided support for Israel.

A Final Comment

Another illusory construction halt is bad enough, especially by avoiding the real issue - an unconditional ban on new building as a starting point for negotiations. Worse still is the sham peace process when conflict rages daily. Numerous reports explain why.

On November 13, Israeli forces raided Bil'in village for the fifth time almost in as many days, invading homes late at night, randomly shooting, using concussion grenades, reigning terror on peaceful civilians, a process repeated regularly throughout the Territories.

On November 14, B'Tselem said Israel's Separation Wall is strangling al-Walajah village in southwest Jerusalem, half of it stolen for a settlement. The Wall, in fact, surrounds the village, causing enormous damage, and isolating it from the city and West Bank, an act of war by other means.

Another report said Saffa Palestinians are prohibited from farming. Five international activists were arrested trying to escort residents to their land, accused of entering a closed military zone. One was beaten and injured. Israel has earmarked Saffa for annexation, another belligerent act.

Two other reports said extremist settlers destroyed trees in Surif and burned olive trees near Nablus. A third headlined, "Military Repression of Non-Violent Demonstration in Nabi Salih as the Army Lays Siege to the Village," saying:

Israeli soldiers closed all roads and "negligently used dangerous high-velocity tear-gas projectiles," able to cause serious injuries or death. Similar attacks occur regularly throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as frequent Gaza incursions by land against civilians, including farmers; sea against fishermen; and air against neighborhoods, communities, and other non-military targets.

A This Week in Silwan headline reported "clashes, raids, arrests, and demolition orders," its residents regularly attacked. Another cited Israeli troops raiding and looting a house and commercial property belonging to a Palestinian resident. One more reported Israeli artillery and navy randomly shelling parts of Gaza and raiding Hebron homes and a mosque, arresting three. Eleven others were arrested in Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem, and Hebron raids.

Assaults, incursions, air attacks, home invasions, demolitions, land seizures, targeted killings, crop destruction, arrests, torture, and other abuses happen regularly, the daily reality putting a lie to the sham peace talks, whether or not they resume.

* 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.

Palestine: Roadmap to Peace? [Video]

Haitham Sabbah — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:45:26 +0000

A new excellent video from The Never Before Campaign:

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuuDRhn3iTI

As if humanity haven't learned from the millions killed throughout history. One would think it would have been obvious by now that there is no peace without justice, and that no people will accept to lie down and accept injustice upon their children. Palestine is no exception. Let there be one or a hundred peace processes. Let there be one or a hundred alternative remedies. Real peace will only prevail when justice does.

Imperial Israel

Stephen Lendman — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:13:21 +0000

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

In his book "Against Empire," Michael Parenti defines imperialism as "the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people."

In a September 21 article, titled "What Do Empires Do?" he says "Imperialism is what (they) do." They don't just pursue "power for power's sake. There are (significant) interests at stake, fortunes to be made many times over," including land, mineral wealth, cheap labor, and easily exploited markets. They're there, so take them, the strong dominating the weak. Besides seizing and controlling Syrian and Lebanese land, it's how Israel rules Palestine, no regional country a match for its military might with no shyness about using it.

The Latest Peace Process Round

On and off again for 35 years, it's a charade going nowhere, a cul-de-sac ending "road map." Strategically rebranded and reemerged periodically, it's neither a process or way to peace, and according to a September 3 Time magazine article, Israelis care more about other things. Titled, 'Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace," it's a controversial notion given how close they live to a war zone. In spite of it, however, their lives go on, perhaps not wishing to hunker down or take to the barricades.

Writer Karl Vick said:

"As three Presidents, a King and their own Prime Minister gather at the White House to begin a fresh round of talks on peace....the truth is Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter. They're otherwise engaged: they're making money; they're enjoying the rays of late summer." As for a "blood feud" with Arabs, they "say they have moved on."

They're indifferent, says Vick. They don't care about war or peace. "They live in the day," affluent Israelis, that is, enjoying the good life, "while all the rest is somehow blurred," especially in cities like Tel Aviv, known as "the bubble," its sidewalk cafes "a way of life." Israel is a country "whose quality of life is high and getting better," at least for some, not those Vick leaves out, ignoring the many poor and growing numbers experiencing hunger and homelessness. As for others, one says "We're not really that into the peace process. We are really, really into the water sports," making money, and enjoying life.

"It's a state of mind....I'm on vacation," says another. "Part of (it) is not to listen to the news every half-hour." Perhaps rarely or the wrong kind. As for the new talks: "If they're talking, they're not fighting." In Tel Aviv's "bubble," Israelis ignore them, well off ones, that is.

"Peace," Settlements, and the Construction "Moratorium"

So-called peace talks are a charade, for some a sick joke regurgitated like a bad meal. The construction moratorium also was bogus, Peace Now settlement tracking project head Dror Etkes (writing in Haaretz) explained it in his September 28 article headlined, "Settlement freeze? It was barely a slowdown," if that, saying:

"What took place in the past few months (since last December, in fact) is, in the best case scenario, not more than a negligible decrease in the number of housing units....built in settlements."

According to official Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics data, "the story can be called many things but 'freeze' is certainly not one of them." At year end 2009, 2,955 housing units were under construction. Three months later, "the number stood at 2,517," and building continued apace thereafter.

In fact, "settlers know better than anyone else that not only did construction in settlements continue over the last 10 months, and vigorously, but also that a relatively large part of the houses were built on settlements (lying) east of the separation fence," including Bracha, Itamar, Eli, Shilo, Maaleh Mikhmas, Maon, Carmel, Beit Haggai, Kiryat Arba, Mitzpeh, Yeriho, and others.

In other words, Israel not only flouts the law and its commitment, it does it throughout the Occupied Territories, including east of the Green Line, stealing as much Palestinian land as possible while pretending to want peace.

Etkes called the "freeze" little more than a "PR stunt," an "Israfluff," a rhetorical commitment only while illegal construction continued. In the six months preceding it, settlers (with government help) prepared "dozens of new building sites....especially in isolated and more extreme settlements east of the" Wall. Official statistics documented them.

In addition, "the government announced in advance that it planned to approve" hundreds of new housing units "with no connection to the 'freeze.' " As a result, settlers got permission "to build where(ever) and when(ever)" they wished, what really has gone on for the past 10 months and years before.

As for Abbas and the PA, they "turn(ed) a blind eye to the construction," pretending a "freeze" was in place, literally ignoring Israel's theft of Palestinian land.

With a touch of irony and humor, Etkas added a final thought, saying "Netanyahu will (not likely) win the Nobel Peace Prize," but he might get one for physics or chemistry, disproving what scientists have long believed - that "water is not the only substance that expands instead of contracting when it freezes."

Building never stopped, Haaretz writers Chaim Levinson and Barak Radiv headlining their September 27 article, "Bulldozers roll out across the West Bank as (rhetorical) settlement freeze ends," in fact, a moratorium. It was never called a freeze with good reason, and now it's full speed ahead.

Besides ongoing construction, new building began in dozens of settlements, including Ariel, Ravava, Yakir, Shavei Shomron, Adam, Oranit, Sha'arei Tikva, Kedumim, Karmei Tzur, Beit Hagai, Kochav HaShachar, Anatot, Kfar Adumin, Kiryat Netafim, Ramat Shlomo, and many others. In all of the them, the scene is similar - bulldozers clearing land, excavators and cement mixers in plain site, and workers building homes for residents in 121 settlements and 100 outposts. Around 500,000 Israelis, including 200,000 in East Jerusalem, own them, all on stolen Palestinian land, and their numbers grow daily.

Haaretz writers document it. Western ones barely notice, reporting little and most often nothing. For example, New York Times writers Ethan Bronner and Mark Landler headlined their September 26 article, "US Scrambling to Save Talks on Middle East" peace, mentioning the "freeze" as little more than a side issue, threatening to disrupt peace talks that both writers pretend are real.

For his part, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly threatened not to continue them if settlement construction resumed, despite turning a blind eye to it throughout his tenure, having expired over 21 months ago. Now, changing his rhetorical indignation, he signaled a willingness to keep talking even with no moratorium extension, saying:

"I cannot say I will leave the negotiations, but it's very difficult for me to resume talks if (Netanyahu) declares that he will continue his activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem. In fact, he's done it, stressing full speed ahead on construction. Speaking to Likud ministers, he said, "Regarding the freeze, there has been no change in our position," meaning no extension after September 26.

No matter, Abbas (earlier) told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "We all know there is no alternative to peace through negotiations, so we have no alternative other than to continue these efforts."

Then, on September 25, before the UN General Assembly, he said "Israel must choose between peace and continuation of settlement," construction, followed by reversing his position the next day, saying talks will continue despite no "freeze" extension.

In response, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) suspended its participation in the PLO's Executive Committee, Deputy General Secretary Abdel-Rahim Mallouh and Political Bureau members Khalida Jarrar and Omar Shehadeh, warning of serious consequences and repercussions of appeasing Israel and America. A policy statement said:

After decades of failure, "The decision to return to direct negotiations....is an affront to the blood of our people (and) represents the persistence of the PLO leadership to continue the devastating Oslo path." Current talks "provide cover for the occupation practices and policies of settlement building, land confiscation, displacement, siege, detention, imprisonment and killing, (contributing) to the deepening of the disastrous internal Palestinian division."

A Haaretz September 28 editorial was also harsh headlined, "Netanyahu is failing to create a climate for peace," saying:

The rhetorical moratorium "was intended to convince Palestinians (that Israel) really intends to end its occupation of the territories," what, of course, it has no intention of doing. As a result, Palestinians continue living "under occupation and violence," unable "to achieve economic, and especially employment, independence."

Thousands given permits work in Israel, many others in settlements. "Every morning, they (head for) building sites and fields throughout Israel," but not easily, Haaretz writer Avi Issacharoff and photographer Daniel Bar-On documented "the disgraceful conditions at the Qalandiyah and Bethlehem checkpoints into Israel." Before getting there they endure delays and humiliations at other checkpoints along the way.

Unless Netanyahu eases passage and treats Palestinians with respect, "peace and reconciliation" are impossible - the continuing status because there's no chance he'll do it.

Why Illegal Settlements Matter

In a September 24 Foreign Policy article titled, "Down to the wire on settlements," B'Tselem's Executive Director Jessica Montell explained that in the past two decades, "the West Bank settlement population has tripled." Their municipal boundaries alone comprise over 9% of the land, areas Palestinians can't enter without permit permission. In addition, settlement "regional councils encompass vast swaths of land; fully 42 percent of the West Bank is under settlement control," a figure steadily increasing.

What this means for Palestinians and their future is "self-evident." Israel relentlessly circumvents their rights in a "politically manipulative way....One of many striking examples: the Dead Sea abuts Israel and the West Bank, as well as Jordan." While tourists visit the Israeli part, "Palestinians earn no income from this unique natural wonder. In fact, the entire area around the Dead Sea belongs to a settlement regional council." Palestinians can't even go there "for a picnic. Certainly they cannot develop tourist sites there."

Settlements also cause numerous other problems and hardships for Palestinians, including movement restrictions, continued land theft, sewage treatment, access to clean water, the Separation Wall's route, an oppressive military occupation, and much more. Combined, they're prevented from living freely on their own land in their own country.

Montell calls living under two distinct legal systems most disturbing, Palestinians under military rule, Israelis "enjoy(ing) all the benefits of....democracy. This discrimination is manifest in almost every sphere of life: access to justice, due process, protection from violence, planning and building codes, access to water, and much more." Core issues as well, including the right of return and viable self-determination or a one-state solution treating everyone equally under the law.

So-called peace talks exclude all of the above, why they assure one of two results - failure or unconditional surrender, granting Jews full rights, Palestinians none, the same fruits from on and off negotiations for the past 35 years - an exercise in futility and hypocrisy.

Israel always promised to half construction. It was explicitly part of the 2003 Road Map and 2007 Annapolis conference. Nonetheless, settlements grew faster than ever because Israel grants generous benefits, encouraging Israelis to move. Included are low-cost housing, liberal housing and mortgage subsidies, free preschools, a long school day, industry and agriculture grants and subsidies, various tax breaks, and government help to municipalities for their debts. For many Israelis, these incentives are too attractive to refuse.

However, the occupation and expanding settlements are "a daily thorn in the side of hundreds of thousands of" Palestinians prevented from building a home, expanding an existing one, farming their land, traveling freely (within and outside the Territory), accessing clean water, sewage treatment and proper sanitation, and living in dignity freely on their own land, safe from violence and an oppressive occupier.

Peace is only possible if negotiated equally for both sides, a prospect nowhere in sight, nor is Palestine's legitimate Hamas government even invited to try. The entire process again is a sham, little more than theater, one side entirely excluded, a story-line with a familiar bad ending.

A Final Comment

On September 24, heavily-armed FBI goon squads raided homes of anti-war/pro-Palestinian activists in Chicago and Minneapolis, abusively ransacking them and seizing various items, including computers, cell phones, books, photos, papers, correspondence, and more. Though no arrests were made, many targeted were subpoenaed to appear before grand juries in October, apparently to be questioned on their activities, including foreign travel to meet with like-minded people.

Most of those targeted are Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) members or supporters, publishers of the newsletter Fight Back. Arab-American Action Network (AAAN) Executive Director, Hatem Abudayyeh's home was also raided. Founded by Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, it "strives to strengthen the Arab community in the Chicago area by building its capacity to be an active agent for positive social change." Abudayyeh, like many others, openly condemns "the Israeli government and its military killing machine," leaving him vulnerable to state-sponsored persecution.

An FBI spokesman said the raids targeted people "providing, attempting and conspiring to provide material support" to "terrorist" organizations, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (both legitimate parts of their respective governments), and the FARC-EP in Colombia.

Noted Latin American expert James Petras calls FARC the "longest standing, largest peasant-based guerrilla movement in the world (that was) founded in 1964 by two dozen peasant activists (to defend) autonomous rural communities from" Colombian military and paramilitary violence.

If indicted and convicted of providing "material support to terrorism," activists face 15 years in prison - for exercising their First Amendment and other constitutional rights, on a fast track toward extinction under a president promising "change."

These raids, others, and Obama administration policies overall signify deepening hostility toward individuals and organizations against imperial wars and militarism, as well as strong support for human rights, civil liberties, and democratic freedoms for many of the world's oppressed. They include Palestinians for over 62 years, over 43 under a brutal military occupation that fake peace talks won't end.

In whose name do they talk?

Laila El-Haddad — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:15:12 +0000

Gazans share their views on the talks taking place between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas has been excluded from the talks taking place between the Palestinian Authority and Israel - EPA/ALI ALI

By Laila El-Haddad* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

A second round of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are taking place under the auspices of Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Washington says it hopes the talks will lead to an agreement within a year.

But Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, are notably absent from the discussions and George Mitchell, the US' Middle East envoy, has said that they will play no role.

Laila El-Haddad (Al Jazeera) asked Palestinians in Gaza to share their views on the negotiations.

Ola Anan, 25, computer engineer

"When people started to talk about negotiations and going back to the peace process and all, I thought, wait a minute, who took our opinion before going there? I mean, Mahmoud Abbas is now a president who is out of his presidential term. So in whose name is he talking? In the name of Palestinians? I don't think so.

People here in Gaza basically don't have an idea what's going on or about what agenda the Palestinian delegation are going to talk. So we have no interest and we have no news about that. Basically no one took our opinion before going there.

I really doubt how the Americans can trust Mahmoud Abbas as being a representative of the Palestinian people in general.

Or maybe they plan to get the Gaza Strip out of the Palestinian Territories? I don't know."

Nader Nabulsi, 44, shopkeeper

"The negotiations add up to a big zero. They don't belong to us and neither does Abbas. Things are completely rotten. He doesn't recognise the Gaza Strip - so what's he negotiating over? Why doesn't he solve the internal Palestinian problems first and then go negotiate with the Jews? And [Abbas'] term expired long ago. So how can he negotiate? On what basis? The entire Palestinian people need to be consulted in such matters. But taking matters into his own hands, negotiating on his own - that just doesn't work. There has to be a national consensus. He has to take into consideration the opinions of the street and we reject these empty negotiations ... they are a mockery.

Today, Abbas should be talking about creating a new government with legitimacy, one that takes into account the voices of the people, and makes decision with them. He should not just be negotiating on his own volition, based on whatever pops into his head and that of the Ramallah gang's. They say they're for democracy. Well a democracy listens to the parliament, the ministries ... a democracy is not just Abbas making a decision on his own. The Palestinian people are the ones that should decide such matters, not Abbas. We reject these farcical, pointless negotiations."

Amjad Agha, 42, agricultural engineer

"I have no hope in these negotiations. Negotiations have been ongoing for 20 years now and they've brought the Palestinian people nothing at all. Neither the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank has reaped any benefit from them in any way. Both areas are still completely separated from one another - there is no link between these two parts of our nation. Movement across the borders and crossings is still very poor. The airport is closed. There's no freedom of movement.

Gaza in particular is in a large prison. There's absolutely no way to leave, except with extreme difficulty, regardless [of] whether you're a student, you're sick, or you're just a person going on vacation.

These negotiations will fail very quickly, especially given Israel's obstinacy and their staunch refusal to compromise or even speak about the right of return, Jerusalem, and other matters of importance to the Palestinian people and to the Muslim umma."

Sameeha Ulwan, 22, recent college graduate

"I don't think that direct talks mean a lot to me as a Gazan and as a Palestinian as a whole. For us Gazans we are being marginalised and our cause is not being discussed at the direct talks despite the fact that we have [been] besieged in Gaza for more than four years.

And actually direct talks concentrate on the basic issues - those basic issues which have been discussed for decades and which were futile most of the time ... talking about Jerusalem, talking about the refugees, talking about the settlements, which are not going to be frozen according to what the Israelis have been saying. And I don't think those negotiations will lead to anything but more and more concessions."

Khalil Hamam, 54, engineer

"Negotiations have been ongoing for 20 years without any result. This is because there's an asymmetry of power between the two negotiating sides. There's a strong side and a weak side. We don't need negotiations; we just need to fill in the blanks. This is what's causing the disparity. In order for there to be successful negotiations there has to be a balance of power."

Alia Shaheen, 32, project manager at an NGO

"Most of the people here in Gaza aren't even thinking about [negotiations] as they're busy thinking about their current situation, which is worsening. They are thinking about how to solve their problems, their daily difficulties, such as the cutting of electricity, their economic problems, how to get their income, how to raise their children, and about the closure and the siege that they suffer from on a daily basis. They don't regard negotiations as a big issue in their life overall and certainly not one worth reflecting over. They think of them as a silly activity."

Abu al-Abed, 30, fisherman

"We hear about the negotiations on television, but we don't see them reflected on the ground. They're not feasible.

In the West Bank maybe there are better opportunities.

But Gaza's completely marginalised as far as negotiations go. There's no electricity, there's no water. There's also no movement.

Living expenses are high. And the borders are all closed.

I mean, Gaza's under intense siege."

Salih Ghamri, 58, farmer

"These negotiations surely "neither nourish nor satisfy hunger". They are without substance. They won't get us our rights or anything else for that matter. That's because we're negotiating with someone who's not interested to start with in giving us those rights, someone who doesn't want to compromise on anything to do with the Palestinian cause."

* Laila El-Haddad is a Palestinian freelance journalist, photographer and blogger (www.gazamom.com) who divides her time between Gaza and the United States.

(Al Jazeera )

Caught! Mossad Paid By U.S. To Spy On “Dissidents,” Tea Party, Environmentalists

Gordon Duff — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:50:35 +0000

Taxpayers Funding Israeli Database Of American Citizens

By Gordon Duff* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Did you know that attending a meeting to organize a bake sale for new band uniforms can put you on a terrorist watch list? You don't have to join a peace group or protest oil drilling to be considered dangerous. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hired ITRR, the Instititute of Terrorism Research and Response, a Jerusalem based company owned by the Mossad and tied directly to the Israeli Ministry of Defense to track "dissidents" and "activists." In the process, they managed to find the most dangerous terrorist organization of all, the governor's own non-profit organization, one supporting school funding initiatives. From ITTR's website:

"All of the information ITRR's staff creates is sent to its monitoring center in Jerusalem, where it is analyzed"

Governments, states, cities and even rural towns, believing they are participating in a Homeland Security initiative, have contracted with this and other organizations under foreign control, read "Israeli," tracking organizations as diverse as the Tea Party and the Sierra Club. Reports submitted by ITTR showed them spying on nearly every organization they could find, no matter how innocent, patriotic or public minded. Organizations tied to Jewish causes, however, managed, somehow, to slip under the radar.

Those that were included are so comprehensive that it would be nearly impossible for an American to escape having confidential files, collected under government authority and financing, paid for by American taxpayers, held by Israeli intelligence agencies. In fact, databases include every organization, regardless of its membership or policies, with personal information on members being stored in databases in Israel.

Never has a nation funded a foreign spy organization's efforts to catalog potential intelligence assets, operatives and, at the same time, take over the job of watching themselves. This is one of the greatest intelligence coups in history. Combine this with control of America's airport security and total control of America's communications networks, everything, mobile, internet, even landlines....we might as well pull down the flag and roll over.

Governor Rendell expressed shock at the gross violation of constitutional rights involved in hiring this company, one that is said to be working for state and local governments across the United States. Rendell said he was "stunned" when he learned about the spying relationship, one he characterized as "ludicrous." From Governor Rendell's apology to the people of Pennsylvania at a capitol news conference this week:

"I am deeply embarrassed and I apologize to any of the groups who had this information disseminated on their right to peacefully protest"

As early as December 2001, not long after the 9/11 incident, Fox News investigated Israeli spying on the United States. However, not long after airing the Carl Cameron Report with Brit Hume as Host, not only did the show itself disappear but all transcripts as well, at least "almost all."

BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence.

At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work. Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11. ...

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.

There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States. Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that's been compiling evidence since the mid '90s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, "may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity."

The first part of the investigation focuses on Israelis who say they are art students from the University of Jerusalem and Bazala Academy. They repeatedly made contact with U.S. government personnel, the report says, by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork. Documents say they, "targeted and penetrated military bases."

The DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, "stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units."

Why would Israelis spy in and on the U.S.?

A GAO investigation states: "According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of (Israel) conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. ...It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and the U.S. is a high priority target." The document concludes: "Israel possesses the resources and technical capability to achieve its collection objectives." (END VIDEO CLIP)

And in the days ahead, we'll take a look at the U.S. phone system and law enforcement's methods for wiretaps. And an investigation that both have been compromised by our friends overseas.

HUME: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9-11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?

CAMERON: It's very explosive information, obviously, and there's a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected - none of it necessarily conclusive. It's more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have know?

These Fox News revelations from 2001, long dead and gone, buried in the archives never to be heard from again, tell a story, not of betrayal by a "friend" or "ally" but one of America's national obsession with memory loss, almost as though the "hard drive" meant to represent America's common sense was "wiped," reformatted after picking up a virus from opening one of those nasty emails we are all warned about. The virus, of course, is the mainstream news media itself.

The Pennsylvania spying story was never reported nationally. It couldn't be, there is a "blackout" on any news critical of Israel, real forced censorship, part of the official policy of the Obama administration, as it was of the Bush administration, cheerfully adhered to by media owned and operated by Israel itself.

The Fox News report of 2001, showing America's counter-terrorism organizations hot on the trail of Israel, was the last report of its kind on any major network. Not one word spoken of by Cameron or Hume has been repeated in nine long years. Not one lead has been followed up, not one more question asked, the entire thing, forgotten, forgiven, overlooked or perhaps something darker and more threatening.

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

“A framework agreement” between Israel and Palestinians: precursor to talks without end

Uri Avnery — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:39:16 +0000

By Uri Avnery* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by Matador

There is a story about the man who dictated his will. He divided his property generously, provided for all the members of his family, rewarded his friends and did not forget his servants.

He finished off with a short paragraph: "In the event of my death, this will becomes null and void."

I rather fear that such a paragraph will be added to the "framework agreement" that Binyamin Netanyahu promises to sign within a year, after honest and fruitful negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, mediated by Hillary Clinton, to the greater glory of President Barack Obama.

At the end of 12 months, there will be agreement on a perfect framework. All the "core issues" will be settled - the founding of the Palestinian state, borders based on the Green Line, the division of Jerusalem between two capitals, security arrangements, settlements, refugees, the division of water. Everything.

And then, on the eve of the impressive signing ceremony on the White house lawn, Netanyahu will ask for the addition of a short paragraph: "With the beginning of the negotiations for the permanent peace treaty, this agreement will be null and void."

A framework agreement is not a peace treaty. It is the opposite of a peace treaty.

A peace treaty is a final agreement. It contains the details of the compromises that have been achieved in long and exhausting negotiations. Neither of the two parties will be completely happy with the results, but each of them will know that he has achieved much and that he can live with it.

After the signing, the time will come for the implementation. Since all the details have been worked out in the treaty itself, there will be no more controversy; except about negligible technicalities. These will be adjudicated by the American referee.

A framework agreement is the very opposite. It leaves all the details open. Every paragraph of it allows for at least a dozen different interpretations, since the agreement glosses over fundamental differences with verbal compromises.

It can well be said that the negotiations for the framework agreement are but the prologue for the real negotiations, a corridor leading to the drawing room.

If a framework agreement is achieved within a year - blessed be the believer - the real negotiations for the final treaty can last for five years, 10 years, 100 years, 200 years. Ask Yitzhak Shamir.

How do I know? We have already been to this opera.

The Oslo "Declaration of Principles", which was signed 17 years ago minus two days, was such a framework agreement.

At the time it was called a historic agreement, and rightly so. The solemn ceremony on the White House lawn was quite justified. Its importance was derived from the event that preceded it, on September 10 (which happened to be my birthday), when the leader of the Palestinian liberation movement formally recognized the State of Israel, and the prime minister of Israel formally recognized the existence of the Palestinian people and its liberation movement.

(This is the place to remark that the 1993 Oslo agreement was hatched behind the backs of the Americans, much as the 1977 Sadat initiative was hatched behind the backs of the Americans. In both cases, history was made without US participation and, indeed, in fear of it. Anwar Sadat decided on his unprecedented flight to Jerusalem without the American ambassador in Cairo knowing anything about it, and the negotiators in Oslo took great care to keep their activities secret. American participation started only very late in the process, when there was already a fait accompli.)

What happened after the two parties signed the Oslo framework, with the trumpets blaring?

Negotiations started.

Negotiations on every detail. Controversy on every detail.

For example, the agreement said that four "safe passages" were to be opened between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel fulfilled this undertaking thus: along the proposed passages, eye-catching road signs were erected, proclaiming in the three languages: "To Gaza". Here and there, such rusting signposts can still be detected.

And the passages? They were never opened.

Another example: in long negotiations, the West Bank was divided into three areas: A, B and C. (Ever since Julius Caesar started his book about the conquest of France with the words: "Gallia is divided into three parts", statesmen have been prone to divide every territory into three.)

Area A was turned over to the Palestinian Authority, which was set up under the agreement, and the Israeli army invades it only from time to time. Area B is governed formally by the Palestinian Authority, but ruled in practice by Israel. Area C, the largest one, remained firmly in the hands of Israel, which acts there as it wishes: expropriates land, sets up settlements, build walls and fences, as well as roads for Jews only.

Furthermore, it was declared that Israel would withdraw ("redeploy") in three stages. Stage one was implemented, and so, more or less, was stage two. Stage three, the most important one, was not even started.

Some provisions led to farce. For example, there was no agreement about whether the official title of Yasser Arafat would be only "chairman", as demanded by Israel, or "president", as demanded by the Palestinians. Absent agreement, it was set down that in all three languages he would be called "ra'is" - an Arab term that denotes both chairman and president. Last week, Netanyahu addressed Mahmoud Abbas as "President Abbas".

Or the long debate about the Palestinian passport. Israel demanded that it would be only a "travel document", while the Palestinians demanded that it be a full "passport", as befits a real state. It was agreed that on top it would say "travel document", and at the bottom "passport"!

Israel agreed to the setting up of a Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians wanted to call it the "Palestinian National Authority". Israel refused. When the Palestinians, contrary to the agreement, printed stamps with the word "national" on them, they had to be scrapped and new stamps printed.

According to the Oslo agreement, the negotiations about the core issues - borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, etc. - were to begin in 1994 and end with a permanent peace treaty within five years.

The negotiations did not end by 1999, because they never started.

Why? Very simple: without a real and final agreement, the conflict continued in all its fury. Israel set up settlements at a frantic pace, so as to create "facts on the ground" before the opening of the real negotiations. The Palestinians started violent attacks, in order to speed the Israelis on their way out, believing that "Israel understands only the language of force".

The devil who - as is well known - resides in the details, took revenge on those who postponed the decision on the details. Every detail turned into a road mine on the way to peace.

That is the nature of a framework agreement: it allows for negotiations about every single issue again and again, starting every time from the beginning. The Israeli negotiators used this possibility to the hilt: each Israeli "concession" was sold in successive negotiations again and again. First in the negotiations for the "Declaration of Principles", then in the negotiations for interim agreements, we will sell them again, to be sure, for a third, fourth and fifth time in the negotiations for the permanent agreements. Every time for a hefty price.

Does this mean that a Declaration of Principles is worthless?

I would not say so. In diplomacy, declarations are important even if they are not accompanied by immediate acts. They turn up again and again. Words that have been spoken cannot be unspoken, even though they are only words. The genie cannot be returned to the bottle.

When the Israeli government recognized the Palestinian people, it put an end to an argument that had dominated Zionist propaganda for almost a hundred years: that there isn't, and never has been, a Palestinian people. "There is no such thing" as the (alas) unforgettable Golda Meir repeatedly declared.

When the Palestinians recognized the State of Israel, this caused a revolution in the Arab world's perceptions, a revolution that cannot be turned back.

When the leader of the Israeli right recognizes, before the entire world, the "two states for two peoples" solution, he draws a line from which there is no way back. Even if he says so without really meaning it, as a gimmick for the moment, the words have a life of their own. They have become a political fact: from here on no Israeli government can turn back.

That's why the extreme rightists were correct when they recently accused Netanyahu of executing - God forbid! - the "Uri Avnery design". They do not want to pay me a compliment, they want to condemn him. It's like accusing the pope of acting in the service of the ayatollahs.

If Netanyahu would be compelled in the end to sign a "framework agreement" or a "shelf agreement" saying that a Palestinian state will be set up on 4 June 1967 borders with its capital in East Jerusalem, with limited swaps of territory, it would direct every future diplomatic process. However, I do not believe that he will sign, and even if he did - that does not mean that he would implement it.

Therefore, I insist: there should be no agreement on a process that is designed to lead to a "declaration of principles" or a "framework agreement".

There should be - here and now! - negotiations for a full and final peace treaty.

Satan resides in framework agreements. God resides - if anywhere - in a peace treaty.

* Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist. Author of 1948: A Soldier's Tale - The Bloody Road to Jerusalem.