Did you know that Israel allows Gaza residents to enter the West Bank to attend their relatives' weddings but not to get betrothed themselves? You don't believe it? Ehab is the proof.

Ehab, who did not want to be identified by his full name, is a man of 26. Ah, you will say, he is dangerous - young and single. A person like that, who knows what will go through his head if he is allowed to pass through Israel?

Palestinian students wear traditional clothing during a cultural event at the Bethlehem University, in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Thursday, March 22, 2007. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

Secondly, now that he wants to enter the West Bank to ask the parents of the woman he loves for her hand in marriage, as tradition requires, he will not even set foot in sovereign Israeli territory.

Ehab is not only studying; he is also working as a teaching assistant at his university, and planned his trip so his betrothal would take place during the semester break. And if you say it is his own fault, for choosing to marry someone who lives in the West Bank (which could endanger the demographic balance there, heaven help us ), we have no answer to that, no "thirdly" or "fourthly."

Like every Gazan, Ehab knows he needs an Israeli permit to enter the West Bank from Jordan. And so well in advance, even before he landed in Amman on December 10 of this year, he contacted Gisha so the legal advocacy group for freedom of movement could submit the application on his behalf. Here are the steps that followed suit:

1. On November 22, Gisha applied in writing to the army's Coordination and Liaison Office for Gaza and requested a permit for Ehab. For this is one of the bureaucratic rules of the closure and the separation between Gaza and the West Bank: Everyone who has a Gaza address in his identity card and needs any kind of Israeli permit must apply to the liaison office, even if he resides in Ramallah - or New York. Days passed and no answer came.

2. On December 6 Gisha wrote to the Justice Ministry's department of petitions to the High Court of Justice, a procedure called a "pre-petition" that sometimes gets the authorities to move more quickly. The pre-petition did indeed get something moving.

3. On the very same day the answer came back: Ehab must direct his request to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee in the Gaza Strip, and only after the committee forwards the request to the Israeli side will the Israel authorities consider it. (The civil affairs committee serves as the postman between Palestinians and the Israeli liaison office, which makes the decisions. ) Logical? Not very.

4. The Coordination and Liaison Office knows that the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee does not accept requests to enter the West Bank from Gazans who are not physically in Gaza. Why not? Because according to the Palestinian committee, the army's liaison office usually declines to even process them.

5. Nevertheless, on December 8, Ehab's mother filed a request with the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee in Gaza (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry in the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah ), asking for permission for him to enter the West Bank via the Allenby Bridge in order to become engaged to marry. The civil affairs committee acceded to the pleas of Gisha and sent the request to the military liaison office. Days went by and no answer came.

6. On December 14 Gisha petitioned the High Court of Justice with a request to allow Ehab to enter the West Bank for a defined period, to ask for the hand of the woman he wants to marry, who is slated to join him in the United States.

7. On the same day Gisha received a reply from the liaison office's center for public applications. It was dated December 13. The name of the person who wrote it was not noted, but that person's superior officers are Col. Khatib Mansour, the head of the Coordination and Liaison Administration for Gaza, and Maj. Gen. Eitan Dangot, coordinator of government activities in the territories.

The reply states: "Firstly, we will note that in accordance with the working procedures agreed upon with the Palestinian Authority, all applications concerning entry of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory must be addressed to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee, which constitutes the body responsible for coordination, prioritization and transfer to the Israeli side of applications from Palestinian inhabitants of the Judea and Samaria District and the Gaza Strip. Moreover, it should be noted that at the present time, in light of the current political and security situation, entry of Gaza Strip residents into Israel is not allowed apart from exceptional humanitarian cases with emphasis on urgent medical cases.

"For details of all the criteria ... you are invited to enter the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories site on the Internet... Specifically, let it be made clear immediately that after looking into your client's matter is has been decided to refuse his request [emphasis added]."

8. A look at the criteria finds that the terminally ill are not the only privileged few allowed entry; so are those who seek "entry for purposes of attending the wedding or the funeral of a first-degree relative."

You will say, and rightly, that betrothal is not among the criteria, nor is a person's own wedding. Tomorrow the High Court of Justice will hold a hearing on the petition filed by Gisha on Ehab's behalf.

The ban preventing Palestinians officially registered in Gaza from using the Allenby Bridge crossing into the West Bank came well before Hamas' rise to power in 2006 and 2007. Back in 1991, Israeli authorities introduced a sweeping closure policy for the first time, requiring all Palestinians to obtain a permit if they wanted to travel between the West Bank and Gaza.

The more stingy the Israeli authorities were in granting travel permits, the more that Gazans, particularly university students but also others, sought out creative solutions. They traveled through Egypt, flew to Jordan and entered the West Bank from there.

After all, under the Oslo Accords, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank constitute a single territorial unit. Israel saw the "leak" at the Allenby Bridge and got scared. In 1997, as part of the gradual, quiet steps designed to cut Gaza off from the West Bank, Israel decided that Gazans taking the Allenby Bridge route would also require a permit, the kind of permit that is almost never granted.

The logical steps in the process of cutting off Gaza were to follow. A Gazan without Israeli permission to stay in the West Bank was eventually classified as "an illegal sojourner." And now, that illegal sojourner is classified as an infiltrator, to be deported any minute.

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

Related posts:

• Half of Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza malnourished
• IOF set to demolish clinic, 11 homes at Hebron, West Bank
• ACTION ALERT: IOF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank

What's Next for Palestine?

By Samah Sabawi*

The campaign for Palestine to be recognized as a full member of the United Nations has revealed the popularity of the Palestinian cause on the international stage, displayed the uncompromising nature of Israel’s political leadership, and highlighted the end of the road for the Palestinian Authority, which has made it clear that it has no other path to take. Now that the United States has used heavy pressure and strong diplomatic maneuvering to block the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) application for full UN membership in the UN Security Council, the question for Palestinians is where should they go from here and how to frame the next phase of their struggle.

Palestinians watching this political theatre unfold are not surprised by the inability of UN institutions to take a strong stand toward resolving their decades old conflict. During the Palestinians’ 63 years of dispossession, several dozen UN resolutions were directed at Israel over core issues such as refugees, Jerusalem, and borders, as well as its unlawful attacks on its neighbors, and its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes, settlement expansion, and confiscation of Palestinian land.

All of these resolutions went unimplemented. Instead, the Palestinians - an occupied people - were for 20 years made to negotiate with the occupying power over rights to which they were already entitled under international law.

Predictably, these negotiations yielded little. Instead, the Palestinians saw the continued erosion of their rights and freedoms and the continued loss of their land. Israel colonized more than 50 percent of the West Bank with Jewish settlements, bypass roads networks, and buffer zones. When PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas insisted that Israel at a minimum halt its settlement expansion before the Palestinians continued to negotiate, his request was flatly rejected. Now Abbas has played his last card. The UN bid has exposed the weakness of the strategy of the Palestinian Authority, which has done the running in the name of the PLO.

The PA strategy rested entirely on the assumption that its good behavior - including collaboration with Israel over security, courting international economic institutions, and playing the game by the rulebook would be rewarded. It will not. U.S. Mideast negotiator Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, a former adviser to the Palestinian leadership, warned Palestinian leaders earlier this year, "History is not in the habit of rewarding good behavior; it is a struggle, not a beauty contest."

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat - who publicly resigned his position after the Palestine Papers were leaked only to re-emerge after the furor died down and assist with the statehood bid – has offered this insight into the PA's strategy: "if we fail we can try again and again and again." In other words: We are out of options and this is the only route we have at our disposal.

Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki announced a few days ago that the Palestinians will not accept anything less than "a full member state" but the Associated Press later reported that the PA has begun a process of seeking an upgrade status at the UN. The PA is also sending mixed signals about applying for membership of other UN bodies such as the World Health Organization, the UN Development Program, the UN Population Fund, the Environment Program, the World Food Program and others.

While the PA continues to play diplomacy, the Palestinian people have been watching and learning. Unlike the PA/PLO, they recognize that without real leverage, laws and resolutions will never move beyond the paper they are written on. The apparent tsunami of support for the Palestinian statehood bid, and the endless rhetoric from world nations including the US, Canada, the European Union, and Australia, in support of a two state solution, will not bring a Palestinian state into the club of nations any time soon.

Freedom and rights are never offered on a silver platter in the halls of power. They are earned through mass popular movements and organized civil rights struggle. It is for this reason that more Palestinians are embracing civil society’s call for non-violent protests inside the occupied territories and for boycott, divestment and sanctions globally, a model based on the South African struggle to end apartheid. In this they have the support of a fast-growing global civil society movement that is willing to take action where governments are not and to put a moral and economic cost on Israel’s human rights violations.

With Jewish only settlements growing on Palestinian land faster than anyone can say “two states”, it makes no sense for Palestinians to pin their hopes on a state that may never be. That is why the Palestinian struggle has evolved into one that transcends borders and barriers. The language of the new Palestinian non-violent resistance movement is based on human rights and calls for equality, freedom, justice, and democratic representation.

Israeli hardliners who have ensured the death of the two-state solution and the demise of the Palestinian state need to brace themselves. The voices calling for full Palestinian equality and rights in the land of Palestine-Israel are sure to become louder.

* Samah Sabawi is the Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine. Co-author of Journey to Peace in Palestine, writer and producer of the plays Cries from the Land and Three Wishes.

Related posts:

• The Palestinian Authority’s historic mistake – and opportunity
• Palestinian Authority Recommends Whitewashing Gaza War Crimes
• Dismantle the Palestinian Authority now

when the truth is so easy to discover

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

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

It says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) appears to be intended

(a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interviewer: "...the 1967 borders."

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

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

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

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

The terror that stalks the Holy Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we can see where he's coming from.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

• 8 Most Commonly Held Misconceptions About the Israel-Palestine Conflict
• The Democracy Revolutions and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
• Hamas must rebrand and take the wind out of Israel’s and America’s sails – by Stuart Littlewood

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

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

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

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

"Mobilization," Halper says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far, not so good.

Does anyone trust the PA to do this right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

• Civil society in the lead
• ACTION ALERT: Support Palestinians of El Maleh
• “War criminals” leak strikes at heart of Israeli society

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

Defence for Children International (DCI) Palestine Section (DCI/Palestine) "is a national section of the international non-government child rights organisation and movement (dedicated) to promoting and protecting the rights of Palestinian children," according to international law principles.

Two earlier articles addressed their work, "Israeli Soldiers Sexually Abuse Palestinian Children" and "Imprisoning Palestinian Children."

Both covered Israel's systematic, institutionalized use of torture of Palestinian children as brutally as against adults. DCI/Palestine's latest September Bulletin adds more, saying:

"For the first time....three (documented) cases of children reporting being given electric shocks by Israeli interrogators (occurred) in Ari'el Settlement." Each was accused of stone throwing. Electric shocking extracted confessions although the boys maintain their innocence.

DCI and PACTI (the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel) demanded Israel investigate reports that a Gush Etzion settlement interrogator "attached car battery jump leads to the genitals of a 14-year old boy in order to obtain a confession to stone throwing."

The August 5 incident involved four boys walking near a road used by settlers when an Israeli jeep approached. "Just for fun," one boy waved. The jeep turned, was joined by others, and chased the boys. They were seized, blindfolded, painfully shackled, detained, and taken to the Zufin settlement, then to the Ari'el settlement where one boy, Raed, was interrogated.

Though innocent, "Threat of electrocution" made him confess to stone throwing, after which his head was slammed against a cupboard. He was also punched in the stomach, and a second interrogator shocked him with a handheld device, making him dizzy and shiver. He then signed a confession in Hebrew he couldn't understand, was transferred to Salem Interrogation and Detention Center, after which he was taken to Megiddo Prison, in violation of Fourth Geneva's Article 76, pertaining to the rights assured protected persons detained under occupation.

A second incident involved a 17-year old boy, Malek, falsely accused of throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. About 30 soldiers arrested and brutalized him like Raed before transferring him to Ofer Prison. On arrival, he was painfully struck on the head, then interrogated and threatened with physical violence and rape if he didn't confess. "He denied both accusations" during a two hour interrogation.

On September 15, 13-year old Khalil was arrested and accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail. At 1AM, Israeli soldiers smashed windows of his family's home, searched it, and took him to Ma'ale Adumin settlement. Though innocent, he was threatened with rape and intimidated to confess. He signed a six page document in Hebrew he didn't understand and has been detained at Ofer prison.

An earlier incident involved 16 year old Moatasem, arrested on March 20. He remains in administrative detention without charge or trial, at best hoping for a December release. Like the others, from arrest to detention, he was brutalized. During interrogation, he was asked about a plot involving a riot, bullets and weapons with no further explanation, something he knew nothing about and said so. On March 25, he was ordered administratively held for six months, then extended three more on September 26.

On average, from January 2008 - September 2010, Israel held over 300 Palestinian children captive, about 10% of them aged 12 - 15. Usually when complaints or requests for investigations into child arrests and mistreatment are submitted to the Judge Advocate General's Office (JAG), responses aren't forthcoming or issued raised are denied.

Shooting Children Collecting Building Gravel

Separately, DCI/Palestine reported on 12 incidents from May 22 - October 14, 2010, involving children aged 13 - 17, collecting gravel near Gaza's border fence with Israel. Under siege, Israel banned construction materials, forcing hundreds of men and boys to scavenge for what they can find, collecting gravel, placing it in sacks, loading it on donkeys, then selling it to builders for concrete.

In border watch towers, Israeli soldiers at times shoot and kill donkeys. They also target workers, usually shooting at their legs. In recent DCI/Palestine-documented cases, children reported being shot while working from 50 - 800 meters from the border.

In addition, a UN January 2009 - August 2010 study reported at least 22 Gazan civilians killed and 146 injured by live fire adjacent to Israel's border, including 27 children.

Of DCI's 12 documented cases, nine "were on, or outside the 300 metre exclusion zone unilaterally imposed by the Israeli army when they were shot." Under all circumstances with no exceptions, international law prohibits targeting noncombatant civilians. Israel, of course, flouts all international laws with impunity.

On November 10 and 11, DCI/Palestine in cooperation with DCI's International Executive Council and DCI International Secretariat, Geneva, will conduct an International Children's Conference titled, "Protective Environment - Active Participation," under the motto - "Together We Build and Change."

DCI explains that "Child participation is one of the four basic principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child." Under occupation, involving them is especially important to address their collective needs, interests, and concerns. The upcoming conference thus encourages children to participate and facilitates it "by finding the spaces for them to carry it out."

Some Final Comments

On October 19, palestinethinktank.com published a wide-ranging interview with Khaled Mesh'al, since 1996, Chairman of Hamas' Political Bureau. Exiled in Damascus, he became the movement's overall leader after Israel assassinated Abdul 'Aziz Rantisi in 2004. His comments below are based on a July published interview in Jordan's Arabic language Al-Sabeel newspaper.

(1) Negotiating with Israel

Calling it a thorny and sensitive issue, he stressed that it's "not absolutely prohibited....from a legal or political perspective," but must be subject to "equations, regulations, calculations, circumstances, contexts and proper management...." Otherwise, "it becomes a negative and destructive tool."

Currently, he calls it the wrong choice, given the imbalance of power favoring Israel, saying it "refuses to withdraw from the (seized) land, and does not recognise Palestinian rights." Negotiations under such conditions are fruitless. Israel demands but won't give. On equal fair terms, negotiations are very acceptable.

(2) Recognizing Israel

As things now stand, he believes recognition means legitimizing occupation, "aggression, settlement(s), Judaization, murders, arrests, and other crimes and atrocities against our people and our land." Recognition must be earned, not demanded or given, based on equity for both sides. Israel shows no sign of agreeing.

(3) Suggesting Israel and international insistence on recognition a sign of weakness, not stength

"Without a doubt, the enemy is concerned about (its) future....no matter" its regional strength. "The demand for recognition is certainly a sign of weakness, an expression of....inferiority, (and) a feeling that it is illegitimate and still rejected" by regional states "as alien" intruders.

However, superiority feelings also come into play, or in other words, the way "Western nations deal with third world countries," believing they alone dictate terms from a position of strength, including negotiating preconditions.

(4) Why Israel and the international community reject Hamas' proposed long-term truce

First, "the logic of power." Second, "they see Arab and Palestinian parties making (better) offers." Third, Israeli and Western experience suggests pressure works best, forcing adversaries or counterparties to succumb.

(5) Hamas' resistance model

It's "a natural and authentic part of the experience of the Palestinian struggle" for liberation and ending the occupation.

(6) Hamas and international relations

First, the "conviction that the Palestine battle (is for) humanity against Israeli injustice and oppression. Second, "the necessity of promoting (the) legitimate right to resist occupation and aggression." Third, the importance of using the world stage to address injustice. Fourth, concern for developing relations at all levels. Fifth, doing it begins in the region, "the plant (to) harvest (in) the West."

(7) Hamas and Jews

"We do not fight the Zionists because they are Jews; we fight them because they are occupiers," and commit crimes against the Palestinian people. The struggle isn't about religion.

(8) Hamas and women

"Women in the Islamic concept of thought, jurisprudence, mandate and role are - indeed - one half of society, and (have) been given (their) prestige and respect. However, there is a huge difference between respect and appreciation for women and (their) rightful role (on the one hand), and abusing (them) and presenting (them) as cheap commodit(ies) as is done in the Western civilization (on the other)." In Palestine's struggle for liberation, women play a distinctive role,"not only as mothers, wives and sisters," but as activists, teachers, fighters, and providers of logistical assistance.

(9) Zionism's future

It "has no future in the region." It's in decline, and except for attacking Beirut in 1982, Israel hasn't won a war since 1967. "This is an important indicator of the Zionist project's ability....In my estimation, the 'Greater Israel' project has come to an end, simply because the Zionist enemy is no longer able to accomplish it, and because Israel continues (self-destructively) on the same path as did apartheid South Africa."

(10) Israel's role as a regional strategic asset

It's no longer so, especially after the Goldstone Report and Gaza Flotilla massacre. As a result, "Israel is falling morally, and its true ugly face is being exposed. This is a very important development." It signifies "premature aging of this enterprise....In short, the Zionist project, like all other" forms of occupation, colonizations, and aggression, "has no legitimacy because it is alien to our region and lacks the elements of survival." It will end like all the others.

(11) The region's future

It's very much in flux with years before better resolution. However, we're "confiden(t) and hop(eful) that the future will be to the benefit of the nation and the Palestinian resistance and cause....Our reading is not fanciful, and is certainly not defeatist." It's realistic and achievable.

"We are a great nation, proud of ourselves, our religion, our land, our history, our culture and identity." Palestine and Jerusalem as one is "our beating heart and an indicator of our life and survival."

* 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.

Related posts:

• Israeli ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children – a report
• Palestinian handicapped children forcefully homeless by Israel
• The torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees in Israel

With Statehood, Palestine Ready to End All Claims

By Karin Laub, Associated Press Writer

The Palestinians are ready to end all historic claims against Israel once they establish their state in the lands Israel occupied in the 1967 Mideast War, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Sunday, addressing a long-standing Israeli demand.

In an interview with Israel TV, Abbas also said negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remain his preferred choice, but that he will consider other options if talks break down over Israel's continued settlement expansion.

Negotiations were relaunched by the Obama administration last month, but quickly faltered over Israel's refusal to extend a curb on Jewish settlement construction. Abbas says there's no point negotiating as long as settlements take over more land claimed by the Palestinians.

The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, but about half a million Israelis have settled in the other war-won areas.

Netanyahu wants the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and said earlier this week he might extend a curb on settlement construction in exchange for such recognition. A 10-month-old moratorium on West Bank housing starts expired in late September, and Abbas has said he will not return to negotiations without an extension.

The Palestinians argue that it's not up to them to determine the nature of the state of Israel. Abbas noted that Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized each other in 1993, saying this should be sufficient. Abbas heads the PLO.

However, in an apparent attempt to reach out to Israeli public opinion, he said that once the Palestinians have established their state in the 1967 borders, "there is another important thing to end, the conflict, and we are ready for that, to end the historic demands."

He did not elaborate on specifically which demands he was relinquishing, but traditionally Palestinians have demanded the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homelands in Israeli territory.

Asked about options if talks collapse, Abbas said the Palestinians might turn to the U.N. Security Council to seek recognition of their state. "All the options are open, but we don't want to use all of them right now. We are focusing on resuming direct talks," he said.

He said that for the time being, he has not considered resigning or dissolving the Palestinian Authority, his self-rule government which has limited control over about 40 percent of the West Bank.

Abbas defended his decision not to resume talks until Israel curbs settlements, noting that the international community is unanimous in its demand for a settlement freeze. "When (President Barack) Obama came to power, he is the one who announced that settlement activity must be stopped," Abbas said. "If American says it and Europe says it and the whole world says it, you want me not to say it?"

Since the start of negotiations, Abbas said he spent about 25 hours talking to Netanyahu directly, and that they spoke freely.

Abbas said that when he appealed to Netanyahu to halt settlement building, the Israeli leader told him his government would fall. Netanyahu heads a center-right coalition with several pro-settlement parties.

"I told him this is a historic opportunity for you that we sign a peace agreement," Abbas said of his conversations with Netanyahu. "I am afraid if we can't do it these days, the opportunity will be lost."

In other developments Sunday, Netanyahu said Israel has resumed indirect talks with the Hamas rulers of Gaza about swapping hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for a captive soldier held for more than four years. The German mediator who has been working to broker a deal to bring home the soldier for about a year has returned to the region, Netanyahu said. The soldier was captured in 2006.

In northern Gaza, meanwhile, an Israeli airstrike killed two militants.

The Israeli military said its air force targeted a squad of militants preparing to fire rockets at Israel.

The militants' affiliation was not immediately known, but they did not appear to be connected to Hamas or any other major group since there was no claim of responsibility.

The Israeli military said more than 165 rockets and mortars have been fired at Israel from Gaza so far this year.

Associated Press writer Dalia Nammari contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

Related posts:

• Abbas is a Man in Exile, Even Among His Own
• Israel grant Abbas $1 billion only if Fatah kills Hamas
• Doha Debate: 82% Support Palestinian Right of Return

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

Who do they serve anyway? It's clear from the sham peace talks and a new development. The Mahmoud Abbas-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) wants Israel absolved of accountability for Cast Lead crimes of war and against humanity. No matter that conclusive evidence exposed them, the result of the IDF's 23-day rampage, killing over 1,400, injuring over 5,000, many severely, and practically leveling wide areas of Gaza, affecting mostly civilian and non-military related targets.

Besides other investigations, two UN Human Rights Council (HRC) ones unequivocally condemned Israel's lawlessness, each demanding accountability.

On September 21, the HRC's independent fact finding Committee issued a stinging indictment, among other conclusions, saying:

"It was clear to the Committee that the IDF had not distinguished between civilians and civilian objects and military targets. Both the loss of life and the damage to property were disproportionate to the harm suffered by Israel or any threatened harm."

Israel clearly violated Fourth Geneva and other international laws. Responsible officials must be held accountable.

"Israel's actions could not be justified as self-defense." It was unequivocal aggression.

"The Committee found that the IDF was responsible for the crime of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians....It rejected Israel's determination of who is a civilian."

"The Committee found that the IDF was responsible for the crime of killing, wounding and terrorizing civilians."

The Committee called the IDF "responsible for the wanton destruction of property and that such destruction could not be justified on grounds of military necessity."

The Committee called Cast Lead crimes so outrageous, "it was compelled to consider whether (genocide) had been committed."

The Committee thus concluded that Israel "committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and, possibly genocide in the course of Operation Cast Lead."

In 2009, the Goldstone Commission highlighted the gravity of Israel's crimes, saying:

Its "report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole....(It was) a deliberate policy of (collective punishment and) disproportionate force (to) willfully (kill) hundreds of civilians," and inflict extensive "disproportionate" destruction of hospitals, homes, mosques, schools, and other civilian structures.

"As a service to the hundreds of civilians who needlessly died and for the equal application of international justice, the perpetrators of (these) serious violations must be held to account."

Mahmoud Abbas said no. His permanent Geneva Human Rights Council envoy, Ibrahim Khraishi, presented a draft resolution not to pursue Israel's accountability, wanting coverup and whitewash instead.

It did it by requesting more time for further investigations, despite exhaustive evidence finding Israel culpable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Abbas, a disgraced collaborator, insulted Gaza's victims and those still suffocating under siege.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned him, saying he's:

"holding justice hostage to politics, and extending de facto impunity to the Israeli military and political leadership."

By so doing, he shares culpability, complicit with Israel's war machine, guilty of not struggling against it. He's a traitor, rewarded for betraying his own people. It's been his longstanding practice for decades, notably for his Oslo Accords role, an inexcusable sellout he may repeat in the current sham round.

PCHR condemned his leadership saying;

By passing this (disgraceful) resolution, (he sent) a dangerous message: that what happened in Gaza in 2008-2009 is acceptable. With such impunity, there is no guarantee for Palestinians that these crimes will not be repeated." In fact, it's virtually certain. In small ways, they continue daily throughout the Territories.

Israel Responds

On September 27, Haaretz published a Reuters report headlined, "Israel calls on UN to end 'obsessively biased' Gaza war probe," saying:

On Monday, Israel called "for an end to United Nations Human Rights Council (Cast Lead) investigations." However, Islamic countries and their allies on the Council urged otherwise. Nonetheless, Israel's ambassador Aharon Leshno Yaar said the Council:

"has continually been one-sided and obsessively biased....It did not matter that steps were taken by Israel to protect its citizens while limiting damage whenever possible to Palestinian civilians."

Both Council investigations show he lied, the above conclusions explaining it unequivocally. Israel also whitewashed its own inquiries, absolving culpable government and military officials.

On September 27, the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) demanded that the Council and UN General Assembly continue focusing on Cast Lead and its aftermath. Turkey's delegate said:

"Israel must put an end to its culture of violence....and show a new face to the world." Its Gaza siege and May Flotilla massacre show the futility of that likelihood.

On September 29, Ma'an News Agency headlined, "UN vote backs limited Goldstone follow-up," saying:

"The UN Human Rights Council endorsed on Wednesday some of the recommendations in a UN-backed inquiry into Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip, but the vote drew criticism from human rights groups" for not going far enough.

Despite clear evidence of Israeli lawlessness, the Arab and Islamic blocs tabled a decision, "demand(ing instead) that the UN secretary-general and general commissioner for human rights follow up with" Goldstone Commission recommendations.

A key one involves referring culpable parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC) "if they fail to undertake credible investigations on their own." The HRC said they hadn't, so "the next logical step is to establish a tribunal."

However, the PA's resolution obstructs it, a decision human rights organizations condemned "as another violation of the rights of Palestinian victims."

The HRC also denounced Israel's intransigence for failing to cooperate, and refusing to "conduct investigations in conformity with international standards of independence, thoroughness, effectiveness and promptness into the allegations."

According to one human rights official:

"They killed the Goldstone process. There will be nothing to follow up on." They plan the same thing for the HRC's Committee of experts. "The decision of the PA not to pursue international criminal justice perpetuates this practice and denies victims' rights."

Their action is inexcusable, absolving Israel, effectively letting its killing machine maraud freely - murdering, destroying, and plundering with impunity, Palestinians again denied justice.

* 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.

Related posts:

• Israel accused of Gaza war crimes
• Committee of Independent Experts on Gaza War
• Researchers Erin Galbraith and Curtis Harrison: US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza

How can Palestinians ensure their rights are protected and fulfilled if an agreement is reached?

By Nadia Hijab* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Overview

Many commentators expect the direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians to fail. But there is a much worse scenario: What if they "succeed?" The United States appears determined to push for a framework agreement within a year and both Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA), are aiming for that goal. Such an agreement, U.S. peace envoy George Mitchell explained in a September 2 press conference, would be more than a declaration of principles but less than a peace treaty. In it, the two sides would reach the "fundamental compromises" necessary for a peace accord. Like its predecessor, the Obama administration has already indicated that the accord would still have to be fleshed out and then implemented over the course of several years - which virtually ensures that it will be delayed if not derailed as happened to past peace accords.

If the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and PA were unable to secure a sovereign state and rights through U.S.-brokered negotiations with Israel between 1993 and 2000, when they were in a much stronger position, they are highly unlikely to do so today with such a badly skewed Israeli-Palestinian power dynamic. Instead, next year is likely to see a grand ceremony where Palestinian leaders will sign away the right of return and other Palestinian rights in an agreement that would change little on the ground. The plan of the PA's appointed prime minister, Salam Fayyad, to declare a Palestinian state in 2011 could unwittingly contribute to this outcome by providing the appearance of an "end of conflict" while the reality remains unchanged. If the rest of the world sees that the government of "Palestine" is satisfied with international recognition and a U.N. seat, they will be happy to move on to other problems leaving the Palestinians at Israel's mercy.

Such a scenario could sound a death-knell for Palestinian human rights. The Palestinian people have shown a remarkable capacity to regenerate resistance and evolve new strategies after suffering harsh setbacks over the past century. But there may be no recovery this time around. A "peace agreement" would end the applicability of international law to the resolution of the conflict; permanently fragment the Palestinian people; and demobilize Arab and international solidarity.

What can Palestinians do to forestall abrogation of their fundamental rights and to ensure just peace? In a contribution to the debate around this question, this brief examines five areas that are key to Palestinians determined to persevere until rights are realized: Unifying the Palestinian body politic; espousing common goals; applying international law; using appropriate tactics; and strengthening the Arab and international movement of solidarity. It concludes with some suggestions for strategies in each area.

Unifying the Palestinian Body Politic

A unified body politic is perhaps the most important source of power for the Palestinian people. However, since the Oslo Accords were signed the PLO has no longer represented the Palestinian refugees and exiles, while the Palestinian citizens of Israel have been left to fend for themselves. The PLO has essentially ceased to exist as a functional organization, and the PA has effectively taken over such functions as appointing diplomatic representatives overseas. Hamas continues to be excluded from the PLO and the Hamas-Fatah split further fragments and erodes the Palestinian political voice.

Beyond the political level, each segment of the Palestinian people faces tough challenges. Palestinian citizens of Israel, after articulating a vision of full equality within Israel, now face a harsh crackdown.¹ Palestinians in Gaza, under siege for four years and geographically disconnected from the West Bank and the outside world, remain steadfast in the face of Israeli oppression. Palestinians in Jerusalem are isolated and face expulsions and home demolitions as Israel continues its policy of Judaizing the city.

In the West Bank, part of the population, exhausted after repeated onslaughts, wants to live a normal life even in small enclaves. At the same time, the popular struggle against Israel's Wall and the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement are rooted in the West Bank. It is not clear which is the stronger force: those that are "co-optable" or those who resist. What is clear is that the PA is seeking to "manage" both the popular struggle and BDS, providing funding for some segments of the former and claiming the mantle of BDS with a limited campaign targeting the sale of Israeli settlement products.

Palestinian refugees face serious human rights violations in many of the Arab countries where they are based. Attempts to forge communities of Palestinian exiles in Western countries have had varying success, but nowhere have they established the kind of lobby created by American Jews. The ability of Palestinian exiles to physically reconnect with Palestine, which many were doing during the 1990s and 2000s, is being circumscribed by increasingly restrictive Israeli measures.

Against this background, it is not clear how, when, or even whether, the Palestinian people could revive the PLO. Even if there were no Hamas-Fatah split, the very existence of the PA, its narrow mandate, and its determination to function within the American ambit militates against an independent voice for the Palestinians.

Are there signs of other leadership options? The BDS movement launched by the Palestinian Civil Society Call of 2005 is now being directed by a BDS National Committee (the BNC) which groups representatives of all nationalist, Islamist and other political parties as well as civil society organizations. However the BNC is unlikely, in the near future, to provide the kind of leadership provided, for example, by the United National Leadership of the first Intifada. The current political splits and jockeying for power make it easier for Palestinian political and civil forces to unify around a strategy for rights -- BDS -- rather than to forge a national leadership.

Espousing a Common Set of Goals

In the years since the Palestinian National Charter was recognized in 1968 as the common statement of Palestinian goals, there has been a loss of direction regarding the ultimate objective of the Palestinian struggle.² The PLO gradually shifted from the objective of a secular, democratic state in all of Palestine to supporting the two-state solution. This was formalized after the Palestinian National Council accepted the two-state solution in 1988. It was also "understood," although this was never formally stated, that the Palestinian right of return would have to be implemented within the Palestinian state for some of the Palestinian refugees with, at best, compensation for the rest.

No other national documents that set out Palestinian goals emerged until the 2005 Civil Society Call for BDS and the 2006 Palestinian Prisoners' Document. However, the Prisoners' Document has not been made operational, in the sense of being carried forward by one or more political groups. By contrast, the Civil Society Call is being made operational through the BDS movement. The Call upholds the Palestinian right to self-determination and sets three goals: freedom from occupation, equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and realization of the right of return. Unfortunately, most Palestinians and their supporters focus on the strategy of BDS rather than the goals of the Civil Society Call.

The importance of having common goals for a human rights movement cannot be overstated - as South Africans can attest. As a revised Oslo-like process threatens to undermine Palestinian rights, Palestinians and their supporters must have clear goals to know what constitutes success, what violates the national consensus, and when to demobilize. Such goals are even more crucial in the absence of a leadership committed to Palestinian rights. In this context, clear goals provide a reference point for Palestinians and enable them to organize effectively.

Today, the 2005 Civil Society Call is the only clear statement of goals available to the Palestinians that is broadly accepted by a wide swath of civil and political forces within and outside historic Palestine. Moreover it is grounded in international law, including the right to self-determination, and the goals encompass Palestinians under occupation, in exile, and in Israel (See Omar Barghouti's policy brief). As such, the Call's value goes well beyond the BDS strategy, effective as this is proving to be.

Upholding International Law and Human Rights

International law and human rights are vital to the just resolution of the Palestinian conflict. They enable Palestinians to set their goals in a framework that the international community is pledged, in theory, to uphold. They also provide some protection against being pressured into agreements that do not fulfill minimum rights. Indeed, it is significant that the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the illegality of Israel's Wall urged the international community to apply international law to this conflict. The 2005 Civil Society Call, issued on the first anniversary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion, responds to this challenge.

Moreover, applying the discourse of human rights to the conflict is a powerful, non-violent strategy. It exposes Israel's greatest weakness: the racist underpinnings of Zionism and its implementation. The values of universal human rights are much more powerful than the concept that a group of people is entitled to be privileged by ethnicity or religion, with no obligation to acknowledge or pay reparations for their persistent ethnic cleansing of a country's indigenous inhabitants. The relevance of international law to conflict resolution does not stop at Palestine's door: It matters to the evolution of humanity at large. By upholding human rights, the Palestinians help protect this universal framework from Israeli, U.S., and other efforts to subvert it.

Using Appropriate Tactics

Every era calls for appropriate tactics to achieve stated goals. Certainly the use of armed struggle was a valid and effective tactic in the early days of the Palestinian national liberation struggle. However, the value of armed struggle today is something that needs to be subjected to dispassionate examination. In particular, if the goals are stated in terms of international law then Palestinians must also uphold this in their choice of tactics. It should first be emphasized that under international law Palestinians have the right to resist occupation, including armed resistance. Yet under the same set of laws, deliberately targeting civilians can constitute a war crime, as most recently articulated in the UN-commissioned Goldstone Report, no matter which party (Israel or the Palestinians) does so and what weapons are used.

Furthermore, the use of weapons puts Palestinians in the arena where Israel is strongest and they are weakest. It enables Israel to use the security argument to obscure its crimes. And weapons do not target Israel's most serious weaknesses -- its claim to ethnic and religious superiority and its refusal to acknowledge its responsibility for past and ongoing Palestinian dispossession. It is worth noting that during the first Intifada, the Palestinians were able to achieve successes similar to the armed struggle of the PLO a quarter of a century earlier: putting the question of Palestine on the map, and attracting a powerful international solidarity movement, official and non-governmental. Today, civil resistance and BDS, coupled with international solidarity, are strengthening the Palestinians and weakening Israelis.

Among the strategies used in the struggle for human rights, the Palestinians urgently need to identify the most effective ways to stay on the land of Palestine. The non-violent popular struggle against Israel's Wall in the Occupied West Bank has scored some successes and has renewed grassroots leadership in an echo of the first Intifada (see Jamal Juma's policy brief). However, Israel is still relentlessly carving up the West Bank and depopulating the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem, as it is the Negev and other areas where Palestinians are the majority inside Israel. Without Palestinians on the land of Palestine, as Israel knows only too well, the Palestinian cause will be impossible to sustain.

Strengthening Arab and International Solidarity

For decades, the PLO and PA have not reached out to Arab peoples in an organized fashion, largely content to deal with Arab governments. Nor did they nurture the diplomatic support of the non-aligned movement and other friendly countries, at a time when Israel was actively wooing African and Asian states, or strengthen strategic ties with friendly European and post-Soviet Union countries. Arab sympathies remain with the Palestinians but few have any sense of how they can help. Palestinian refugees and exiles can play an important outreach role to Arab peoples, without interfering in internal Arab affairs. At the same time, in seeking solidarity Palestinians must stand in solidarity with Arabs on issues of concern to them (see the Al-Shabaka Roundtable The Role of the Palestinian Diaspora that began this discussion).

The international solidarity movement of civil society is being rapidly revived through the popular struggle and BDS, as well as the outrage at Israel's attacks on Gaza, on the "Freedom Flotilla," and other trampling of international law. New forms of state support are emerging in countries like Turkey and Malaysia. A peace deal that does not fulfill Palestinian rights risks defusing this mobilization, as happened to the powerful international solidarity movement of the 1980s, which used to fill the halls of UN during the annual conference on the question of Palestine.

Recommendations

In each of the areas addressed above, strategies have emerged or are needed to sustain the struggle to fulfill Palestinian human rights. Some examples and suggestions are given below.

• Unifying the Palestinian body politic. Alongside efforts to foster national unity and to revive the PLO, there is a need for increased investment in activities that bring Palestinians together across borders (as, indeed, Al-Shabaka seeks to do) without neglecting any segment of the Palestinian people, in exile, under occupation, and in Israel. There is also need to further invest in the Palestinian capacity to remain steadfast on the land and in exile, while recognizing that those who live on the land of Palestine have a greater ability to influence the Palestinian future. Palestinians in exile also need to use every possible means to remain in physical contact with the land of Palestine and find ways to counter the many tactics Israel uses to prevent them.
• Espouse common goals. Palestinians should disseminate the goals of Civil Society Call as widely and as clearly as possible to compatriots everywhere, explaining the value of the BDS strategy but also drawing attention to other strategies that can uphold these goals, for example nurturing relations with the peoples of Arab host countries. And they should communicate the goals as widely as possible to international civil society so that it remains mobilized until they are achieved. Further, Palestinians need to be prepared to issue public statements and take appropriate actions to inform world governments that any agreement that does not meet these goals will be rejected - and resisted - by the majority of the Palestinian people.
• Applying international law. Palestinians need to invest in education and awareness-raising around the relevant human rights principles and conventions that apply to this as well as to other conflicts such as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also important to frame messages in terms of universal rights and values that are easily grasped by people everywhere.
• Applying appropriate tactics. There is a need to initiate wide-ranging discussions about the effectiveness of various options for resistance, especially among youth. It is also important to engage the energies of Palestinians of all ages who have been excluded from the political process so that they can make a tangible contribution to the struggle by identifying tactics relevant to their local contexts that help to achieve the common goals.
• Strengthening Arab and international solidarity. In addition to the kind of outreach and education described above, Palestinians need to make time to understand the struggles their supporters face at home - including racism, poverty, and inequality - and find ways to support them

The suggestions are intended to contribute to and encourage debate. Whether there is a "peace agreement" or Israel continues to impose its military and political will to derail an agreement, it is imperative that Palestinians discuss, formulate and communicate the best strategies to achieve their goals. Otherwise this latest "peace process" may succeed in terminally demobilizing the Palestinian struggle for rights.

Footnotes

1. The three vision documents are excerpted in the Journal Palestine Studies Volume XXXVI, No. 4, Summer 2007, pp. 73 -100

2. In 1996, the Palestinian National Council amended the Charter at U.S. and Israeli insistence to remove articles contrary to the letters exchanged by the P.L.O. and Israel in 1993. None of Israel's founding documents were amended to recognize Palestinian rights.

* Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies, a syndicated columnist for Agence Global, and a frequent public speaker and media commentator. Hijab co-authored Citizens Apart: A Portrait of Palestinians in Israel (I. B. Tauris). She was Editor-in-Chief of the London-based Middle East magazine before moving to New York to join the United Nations. In 2000 she established a consulting business on human rights, human development, and gender. She has served as co-chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and she is a past president of the Association of Arab American University Graduates.

(Al-Shabaka)

Related posts:

• Khaled Meshaal Interview: Hamas Chief Weighs In on Eve of Peace Talks
• Hypocrisy Defined: Another Round of Peace Talks
• Israel threatens to quit peace talks over UN war crimes vote

By Alan Hart* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Will future historians conclude that the Palestinian diaspora betrayed its occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters?

By Naji al-Ali

The real history of the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel invites the conclusion that the Arab regimes - more by default than design in my view - betrayed the Palestinians. The question this article addresses is: Will future historians conclude that the Palestinian diaspora betrayed its occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters?

There's no mystery about the Arab (regime) betrayal. When the Palestine file was closed by Israel's 1948 victory on the battlefield and the armistice agreements, the divided and impotent Arab regimes secretly shared the same hope as the Zionists and the major powers. It was that the file would remain closed for ever. The Palestinians were supposed to accept their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency.

Nor is there any mystery about why the Arab regimes were at one with the Zionists and the major powers in hoping that there would never be a regeneration of Palestinian nationalism. They all knew that if there was, there would one day have to be a confrontation with Zionism; and nobody wanted that.

When Yasser Arafat, Abu Jihad and a few others lit the slow burning fire of the regeneration, it was the security services of Eygpt, Jordan and Lebanon which took the lead in trying to put it out.

Fast forward to today.

The incredible almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians is the reason why Zionism will never be able to close the re-opened Palestine file again unless it resorts to a final round of ethnic cleansing, to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan or wherever. In my analysis it is more likely than not that Zionism's in-Israel leaders will create a pretext to do just that at a point in the foreseeable future

What point?

When it becomes apparent even to them that with bombs and bullets and brutal repressive measures of all kinds they can't break the will of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians to continue the struggle for their rights and compel them to accept crumbs from Zionism's table.

As things are I think it is unrealistic to expect the governments of the major powers either to use the leverage they have to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its past crimes, or to intervene to prevent the crimes it will commit in a foreseeable future.

And it can be taken as read that the Arab regimes will not lift a finger to prevent a final Zionist solution to the Palestine problem. (Before Sharon sent the IDF all the way to Beirut to exterminate the PLO's leadership and destroy its infrastructure, Gulf Arab leaders met in secret, without advisers present, in order to agree a message to the Reagan administration. The message was to the effect that they would not intervene in any way when Sharon made his move. After that message was sent, one of the Arab leaders present, Oman's Sultan Qaboos, said to Arafat: "Be careful. You are going to ask for our help and it will not come." Last year I had a private conversation in London with a major royal from the Arab world. I said to him, "Nothing is going to change in the Arab world until your regimes are more frightened of their own masses than they are of offending Zionism and America". He replied, "You're right." I also said to him, "If the Zionists do resort to a final round of ethnic cleaning to close the Palestine file, Arab leaders, behind closed doors, will give thanks and celebrate." His reply was the same, "You're right.")

Question: What can the Palestinians do to help themselves?

My view is that they should wind-up (close down) the discredited Palestine National Authority (PNA), and put policy making and implementation back into the hands of the Palestine National Council (PNC), which is supposed to be (it once was) the highest and most supreme Palestinian decision-making body. To become relevant again it would have to be reconstructed and re-invigorated by elections in every place where there are Palestinians - the occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza concentration camp and the diaspora.

The fact that the PNA is corrupt, impotent and discredited is reason enough for it to be put out of its misery, but there's more to it.

In their claim for justice, the Palestinians have 100% of right, legal and moral, on their side (whereas the Israelis have 99% of the might, conventional and nuclear, on their side). If this claim was properly presented and pressed by a credible Palestinian leadership, by definition a democratically elected leadership duly authorized to represent the views of all Palestinians, it would be more difficult for the governments of the major powers, the one in Washington DC especially, to go on refusing to use the leverage they have to end Israel's occupation of Arab land grabbed in the Zionist state's 1967 war of aggression. (Not self defense as Zionism asserts).

Because Israel and the major powers won't talk to Hamas (despite the fact that its leaders have signalled their willingness to live in peace with an Israel inside its pre-1967 borders), and because the Fatah-dominated PNA is so discredited (I imagine Arafat is revolving with anger in his grave), the occupied and oppressed Palestinians are effectively leaderless in the sense that they are without an institution to represent them in the corridors of power.

It follows, or so I believe, that a demand for putting policy making and implementation back into the hands of a reconstructed and re-invigorated PNC must come from the Palestinian diaspora - from Palestinian communities in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, Chile, Honduras, Brazil, Columbia and Guatemala.

The question arising is the one of the headline for this article: Does the Palestinian diaspora care enough to become engaged?

I have long been of the view that the major difference between Jews and Arabs is that Jews know how to play the game of international politics and Arabs don't. The Palestinians could prove me wrong. The world, not just the occupied and oppressed Palestinians, needs them to do so.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Related posts:

• Care and Feeding of the Holocaust Elephant in the Room (spiced up by Ahmadinejad)
• Dr. Nathan Brown: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Inter-Palestinian Divide
• Palestinian Cyber Warfare for a Post Imperial America

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

Photo UPI

At least since the Oslo Accords, Fatah has served Israel more than its own people. On August 25, Haaretz highlighted the latest example, headling "PA arrests dozens of Hamas, Islamic Jihad militants in West Bank," saying, a PA source confirmed dozens made, including "high ranking officials in (both) organizations."

On September 6, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said hundreds were made in response to the killings of four West Bank settlers, adding, "The decision to carry out the attack was politically motivated and intended to embarrass the Palestinian Authority."

True or not, those affected included teachers, traders, workers, students, professionals, and imams, unrelated to the incident, Fatah's Preventive Security Services and General Intelligence Services doing Israel's dirty work, while President Mahmoud Abbas collaborates during the latest sham peace talks.

Hamas responded harshly, urging supporters resist arrest by confronting PA police with force, accusing President Mahmoud Abbas of betraying his own people by "collaborating with the Occupation." Its sources also said 750 West Bank Hamas members and leaders were arrested, many tortured, and prevented from seeing their families.

On September 9, detainee relatives issued a joint statement saying Israeli intelligence officers are participating in interrogations - senior officers from Maskobeh, Askalan, Petah Tikwa, and Jalama detention centers, supervising investigations at Al-Khalil, Nablus and Ramallah jails.

The statement also cited torture, saying 32 detainees were hospitalized since Ramadan began because of mistreatment. Further, it said Fatah arrested 920 Palestinians since August 11, most of them since the four killings, Hamas' al-Qassam Brigades claiming full responsibility, calling them:

"normal and legal response(s) to Zionist aggressions on the Palestinian civilians (and) part of the repelling operations against the occupation assaults on the Gaza Strip and West Bank."

On September 9, YNetnews.com headlined, "Hamas: Fatah protecting enemy," saying:

"Hamas threatened the Palestinian Authority after members of the organization were arrested in relation to terror attacks that killed four and injured two in the West Bank."

Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, accused Fatah of "treason," saying:

"This criminal campaign has crossed all red lines and constitutes direct cooperation with the enemy, in the clear light of day." The arrests "prove once again the dangerous position of the 'Fatah authority' as a security agent protecting the enemy, exterminating the resistance, and destroying the Palestinian aim."

The Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq called Fatah's crackdown "sweeping and arbitrary," saying "arrests of political opponents demonstrate that these measures are fueled by political expediency as opposed to genuine security concerns. In fact, this campaign is part of a pattern of oppressive policies adopted by the Palestinian Authority to stifle political dissent and to generate a sense of intimidation within Palestinian society."

On August 25, PA General Intelligence forces suppressed a Ramallah protest against upcoming US-brokered peace talks. According to Khaleda Jarrar, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Ramallah mayoral candidate, PA operatives in civilian dress "attempted to thwart the event from the start, chanting slogans and leading event participants towards the center" of the city. "We aimed to voice our dissent, and the PA decided to enter the conference hall and drag participants out to an unplanned rally."

Serving Israel, not Palestinians, Fatah suppresses dissent, violently or by edict. Al-Haq called the August 25 incident "a further example of the increasing climate of violence and intimidation that is effectively transforming Palestinian society into a police state."

Affiliated with AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is an extremist pro-Israeli front group, co-founded by Dennis Ross, now "Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Gulf and Southwest Asia." WINEP's Board of Advisors includes Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, George Shultz, and other notorious Israel-firsters like Ross.

On August 25, its distinguished fellow David Makovsky noted "a surge in cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority ever since Hamas ousted security officials and the mainstream Fatah Party from Gaza more than three years ago."

Never mind Hamas' democratic election as Palestine's legitimate government. In June 2007, however, working cooperatively with Israel and Washington, Abbas dissolved the unity government, instigated full blown confrontations when Israel imposed its siege, seizing West Bank coup d'etat authority as enforcer, disdaining his own people, his official role.

After spending five weeks in the region meeting with dozens of Israeli and PA officials, including Abbas, Makovsky noted that joint cooperation "substantially improved," saying "the PA no longer attempts to hide its daily security cooperation with Israel," including "weed(ing) out schoolteachers (and others) who support Hamas radicalism." In other words, anyone voicing dissent.

Mahmoud Abbas - A Treacherous Illegitimate Leader

In an August 31 article, Jeffrey Blankfort called Abbas a "double agent," saying he serves "his Israeli and US masters in plain sight," at least since Oslo when as chief Palestinian negotiator, he "played Neville Chamberlain for Tel Aviv, agreeing to surrender occupied Palestinian land" and end legitimate resistance. As "emergency" PA leader (20 months after his term expired), he's now "Israel's sheriff," suppressing peaceful demonstrations, arresting Hamas members and supporters, serving Israel, not his own people, an illegitimate Quisling head of state.

On June 19, 2003, in the London Review of Books, Edward Said discussed him in an article titled "A Road Map to Where,?" saying:

He first met him in March 1977 at a Cairo National Council meeting where he gave "by far the longest speech." In retrospect, it launched secret PLO-Israeli meetings "that made Oslo possible."

During the PLO's 1971 - 1982 Beirut years, Abbas was in Damascus, later joining Arafat in Tunis, exiled for the next decade. After the 1991 Madrid conference, he, PLO officials, and independent European intellectuals formed teams "to prepare negotiating files on subjects such as water, refugees, demography and boundaries" ahead of secret Oslo meetings, "although to the best of my knowledge, none" of it was used. Other Palestinians were excluded from talks. In the end, no tangible results "influenced the final documents that emerged."

"In Oslo, the Israelis fielded an array of experts supported by maps, documents, statistics, and at least 17 prior drafts of what Palestinians" finally signed. They, however, were allowed only "three PLO men, not one of whom knew English or had a background in international (or any other kind of) law." The outcome was predictable, a one-sided agreement for Israel, Palestinians getting nothing besides annointment as "Israel's sheriff."

In his 1995 memoir, "Through Secret Channels: The Road to Oslo," Abbas took credit as its "architect," though he never left Tunis. In fact, "Arafat was pulling all the strings," arranging his own capitulation. "No wonder then that the Oslo negotiations made the overall situation of the Palestinians a good deal worse."

Thereafter, Abbas became known for his "flexibility" toward Israel, "his subservience to Arafat, and his lack of an organized political base (until made prime minister in 2003, then president in 2005), although he is one of Fatah's founders and a longstanding member and secretary general of its Central Committee."

America and Israel were delighted with his elevation, a man seen as "colorless, moderately corrupt, and without any clear ideas of his own, except that he wants to please the white man," his masters in Washington and Tel Aviv. As a result, his "authenticity is what seems so lacking in the path cut out for" him, a stooge made president in a managed 2005 election.

Israel controlled the process, elevating him by imprisoning leading opposition candidate Marwan Barghouti on bogus murder charges, and obstructing Mustafa Barghouti 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, Israeli forces arrested him during the campaign, then expelled him from East Jerusalem to prevent his planned campaign speech. He was also excluded from Nablus and Gaza, harassed and intimidated in a process rigged for Abbas, boycotted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In a field of seven candidates, Barghouti finished second, far behind his majority. He hasn't disappointed, gets White House photo-op rewards, and his son, a millionaire businessman, admits to "collaborat(ing) with Israel." His father does it tacitly against his own people.

* 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.

Related posts:

• Israel grant Abbas $1 billion only if Fatah kills Hamas
• West chooses Fatah, but Palestinians don’t
• A Visit to Fatah’s Torture Chamber

By Omar Karmi | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, did not consult the Palestine Liberation Organization over talks with Israel. Tara Todras-Whitehill / AP Photo

Perhaps nothing better illustrates this than a rather awkward security crackdown Thursday in Ramallah, when leftist factions convened a meeting to protest against Mr Abbas's decision to accept the US invitation to the talks. Security officials justified the actions of dozens of plainclothes security officers, who disrupted the meeting and prevented a press conference from being held, as a legal measure against an "illegal rally".

But privately, Palestinian Authority officials expressed their dismay at what looked to most like an effort by security services to stifle dissent.

And dissent there is.

All Palestinian political factions, bar one, have denounced the direct talks, some in harsher language than others.

Only Fatah, Mr Abbas's own group, supports direct talks. Even among its members, though, there are plenty of disapproving voices.

Ordinary Palestinians, as well as the political factions, feel they have little influence on the Palestinian leadership's decisions. The Palestinian polity is broken. There is no functioning parliament. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are divided under the leaderships of rival factions. The PA government under Salam Fayyad was appointed by presidential decree and elections - presidential, parliamentary and municipal - have all been postponed indefinitely.

Even the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is chaired by Mr Abbas and represents Palestinian interests in international forums, including negotiations with Israel, was not properly consulted about the decision to go to direct talks. The US invitation to the talks was accepted, without a quorum as normally required by the PLO's rules, at an emergency meeting of its executive committee.

At the heart of the discontent is the decision to agree to go to direct talks absent any of what Israel defines as "preconditions": a complete settlement construction freeze and clear terms of reference for negotiations that would frame the talks along international resolutions.

The Palestinian side had hoped the statement of the Quartet on the Middle East - the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European Union - on August 20, which described the negotiations as an effort to "end the occupation that started in 1967", would form the basis of the invitation. But neither Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, nor George Mitchell, the US special envoy, made any reference to that statement in their invitation to talks, issued that day.

Instead, as US officials have made clear over the past week, the agenda and terms of reference will be set in the first months of direct negotiations. While Washington asked both sides not to take "provocative measures", an apparent reference to Israel's temporary and partial settlement construction freeze due to end on September 26, it was scant consolation.

The Palestinian leadership's subsequent attempts to justify their decision to go to talks have also been clumsy.

"I understand people's frustrations," Saeb Erekat, the PLO's chief negotiator, said at a press conference on August 23. Yet he went on to say the PLO saw the Quartet statement as the "turning point", ignoring the fact that the invitation itself made no reference to that statement.

It was a point not lost on those at the press conference, who were also not impressed by Mr Erekat's statement that the Palestinian delegation would walk out of the talks should settlement construction anywhere in occupied territory "including East Jerusalem" continue.

The problem, as one local reporter commented after the press conference, is that no one believes it.

"There is a real leadership crisis in the Palestinian arena," said Diana Buttu, a Palestinian analyst and a former legal adviser to the PLO, adding that it "is not responsive to the people it represents or even the factions it represents".

"We know that come September 26, Erekat will have to back down on what he said about settlement construction," Ms Buttu said. "Even if the settlement construction freeze is extended, it is still a partial construction freeze and not one that includes East Jerusalem, as he stipulated."

Ms Buttu said she understood that the Palestinian leadership had come under "enormous international pressure" to accept the invitation to talks. But, she suggested, it would be better served if it were more forthcoming. Instead, "the leadership lies, directly, to its own people, and that's why its credibility is so low".

In this respect, the lack of functioning political institutions works in the leadership's favour, said George Giacaman, the co-founder and a board member of Muwatin, the Palestinian Institute for the Study of Democracy.

"Without functioning institutions, there is no real way for dissenting voices to make their opposition felt," Mr Giacaman said. And while this lack of accountability mattered to Palestinian leaders, "the leadership is weighing international pressure against popular pressure and it seems the former takes priority".

With little credibility and no diplomatic breakthrough, the situation could conflagrate.

"The direct talks will lead to direct failure," Ms Buttu said. "Failure could lead to another intifada, but not necessarily one against Israel. This one might well be directed against the Palestinian Authority."

Related posts:

• More pointless talks with Israel?
• Abbas; The Betraying President
• Hamas must rebrand and take the wind out of Israel’s and America’s sails – by Stuart Littlewood

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

In the five years since I became interested in the Palestinians, only two things of positive note have happened in the occupied territories.

The Palestinians held full and fair elections in 2006 to establish themselves as a democracy - and much good it did them.

And in Gaza these amazing people have resolutely survived a vicious land and sea blockade imposed by Israel and aided and abetted by the Western powers as soon as those elections put Hamas into government. They have resisted almost daily air strikes and armed intrusions for four years and courageously withstood the cowardly Israeli blitzkrieg of 20 months ago.

And during all that time they have endured unending barbarity and betrayal, which would have brought a lesser nation to its knees. They have come through.

I often wonder if the British could have clung on through the London blitz, which my family lived under, if they'd had nothing to fight with and nowhere to run and, in addition, they'd had to contend with Nazi tanks in the streets, thousands of checkpoints, Nazi rifle butts smashing down their front doors, and the foul stench of Nazi stormtroopers in their jackboots ransacking their homes and dragging off family members.

Palestinians have been put through that sort of mangle for decades. Death and misery still stalk their daily lives thanks to piss-poor Palestinian leadership and the international community's moral bankruptcy.

When Palestinians elected Hamas, sore losers Fatah set out to cause maximum trouble. The relentless pressures of occupation and bribery succeed in causing internal divisions and self-destruction. When an attempted coup was beaten off there were claims that Hamas "seized control" when it simply acted to enforce its legitimate authority.

With Palestine's internal squabbles continuing - even now - Yasser Arafat would be spinning under his mausoleum slab if he could see the depths to which his party has sunk.

Meanwhile, Israel's propaganda machine, unchallenged, churns out the lies that Western politicians and Western media feed on and broadcast in order to sustain the racist entity.

"Impossible to reach agreement with Israel"

Khalid Amayreh, writing in Desert Peace, describes how the Palestinian Authority's President Mahmoud Abbas is being pressed yet again by Washington to resume "seemingly futile" peace talks, while two of Fatah's veteran heavyweights speak out against any more concessions to the Obama administration.

Ahmed Qurei, a one-time aide to Arafat and a former prime minister of the PA, argued that, in view of Israel's refusal to give up the spoils of the 1967 war, it was pointless to keep talking just for the sake of it. Nineteen years of talks had achieved nothing. "It seems utterly impossible to reach an agreement with Israel. Therefore, the Palestinian people must seek alternatives... Israel is not willing to end its occupation and allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian state."

He didn't say what the "alternatives" might be, which is a little unhelpful.

At the same time Nabil Amr, former Palestine Liberation Organization ambassador in Cairo, condemned the Abbas leadership as "vacillating, inconsistent, and unable to withstand external pressure". He also had harsh words for "the mantra of American pressure", which was designed to push the Palestinian people into submission or capitulation. "There are those among us who are trying to portray American pressure as if it were expedient to our interests," said Amr. Actually, Obama is no friend. He has become a coercer, even a bully, while Netanyahu is given a free hand to dictate the rules of the game.

OK, so not all Fatah people are useless.

But there's a gaping hole at the heart of the Palestinian Authority's battered credibility - quite apart from a sickening lack of integrity. It's their failure to understand that the war of words, if conducted effectively, is more important than the war of bullets. Israeli spin doctor Mark Regev and his team of lie-mongers would be easy meat for a Palestinian media outfit that was properly trained, alert and reasonably well resourced.

Alas, the Palestinian Authority refuses to gear up to meet the challenge. So the Israelis run rings round their victim - though not as much as they used to. The Zionist regime's "crapaganda" effort has been significantly blunted not by the Palestinian Authority, which remains paralytic, but the actions of student groups and other pro-Palestinian activists around the world, who are beginning to put the Israelis in their place.

It is hugely disappointing to friends and supporters that Ramallah's hot-shots have failed to put a coherent message across, supposing they actually had one. When I was writing my book (in 2006) I tried several times through London and Ramallah to arrange a meeting with Fatah bosses. They wouldn't even give me the time of day. They simply didn't care about communicating with the outside world. So I joined the growing multitude who wrote them off as a waste of space. Their antics since then have confirmed my assessment.

It is vitally important for Palestinian embassies in London and other key capitals to become a ready source of newsworthy material, and to proactively set the news agenda with spokespeople speaking clear and faultless English. Until this happens it will not be possible to engage the interest of mainstream media, and Palestinians will continue to lose the propaganda battle even though truth and justice are on their side.

Yes, we all know the British media are biased. But editors say they receive press releases from the London embassy "once in a blue moon", while the Israelis take the initiative on the news front and fall over backwards to make a reporter's life easy.

"We are not trained like the Israelis," I heard one senior PA man say. Exactly. That's the problem. The PA was offered media skills training some four years ago and turned it down. There may be murky reasons. It has been suggested that the PA, in its game of "footsie" with the US, was made to promise not to embarrass Israel publicly. This has given rise to suspicions that Palestinian ambassadors around the world are gagged by the regime in Ramallah and prevented from crossing swords with their blood-thirsty opponents. Why else would headquarters have left its London office, in particular, so woefully lacking in the skills and resources needed to make a proper impact at this important time?

I don't believe they are batting for Palestine at all. But that's just a personal opinion.

The wreckage of Gaza, the great suffering and the day-to-day air-strikes against its civilians - these ongoing crimes are allowed to be lost in the smoke and mirrors of Netanyahu's scheme to divert attention towards Iran.

Netanyahu briefs Western journalists on his outrageous programme of conquest, implying that Palestinians must accept settlements declared illegal under international law and insisting that Israeli "sovereignty" over Jerusalem cannot be questioned. The PA's media experts - if they had any - could make mincemeat of Israel's preposterous claims and reframe the occupation in a way that told the world the truth.

"A house divided cannot stand"

Ordinary working people from countries far away, who put their hands in their own pockets and bravely drove with Free-Gaza convoys or sailed with mercy-mission ships, have done far more for the Palestinian cause than the internationally-funded, natty-suited poseurs who have no democratic mandate but strut the international stage achieving - well, achieving what?

Fatah have done themselves (and others) irreparable damage. They have shot their bolt. How will they command respect in the foreseeable future?

Meanwhile, it is four-and-a-half years since the fateful day Hamas was elected to power. They may have been surprised and unprepared then, but there is no excuse for squandering such a heaven-sent opportunity now. If, as the Islamic resistance movement has said before, it is prepared to accept the reality of Israel behind the internationally-recognized pre-1967 borders, its much criticized Charter no longer has a place in Hamas diplomacy. Why hasn't it been consigned to the wastepaper basket of Palestinian history and replaced with something more constructive?

Hamas must do (within chosen limits, of course) whatever it takes to abolish its sinister image and make the rest of the world feel comfortable. It must erase its 'terrorist' reputation, whether justified or not.

It must remove obstacles to cooperation. It must take the wind out of Israel's and America's sails. In short, it must reinvent itself as a matter of urgency.

It must re-brand, open the door and make itself more approachable.

This wouldn't be difficult. Hamas's government team are well educated and competent. They have been tested like no other. Some are described as hardliners but they are not generally seen as Islamic extremists, and I heard no serious complaints from the Christian community when I was there. There is every reason to believe that the tradition of getting along together is still cherished despite the best efforts of "Christian" warmongers of the West to drive a wedge between Muslim and Christian.

It seems to me that if Western politicians can enthusiastically hobnob with rabid Zionists, ignore their war crimes and persistent lawlessness, and even wave the Israeli flag for them back in London and Washington, they should find it perfectly agreeable to sit down with not-so-rabid Islamists.

But how do we get to that point?

Two years ago a Palestine strategy group produced a report called "Regaining the Initiative - Palestinian Strategic Options to End Israeli Occupation" (PDF). Besides reminding Palestinians what their strategic objectives should be, it urged them "to seize their destiny in their own hands" by refusing to enter into peace negotiations unless the international community dealt first with issues relating to national self-determination, liberation from occupation, individual and collective rights, and enforcement of international law.

Only when these priorities were met could peacemaking and state-building begin.

First things first, right?

Secondly it spelled out the need for national unity. "A house divided against itself
cannot stand... Palestinian strategic action is impossible if the Palestinian nation is unable to speak with one voice or to act with one will."

Right again. Well-wishers like me shake their heads in disbelief at the ongoing disunity.

The report, which was funded by the EU, concluded by saying:

What Palestinians must be prepared to undertake is nothing less than a final and conclusive strategic battle with Israel... The main conclusion of the strategic review conducted by the Palestine Strategy Study Group is that Palestinians have more strategic cards than they think - and Israel has fewer.

If that's the case, the authors might consider turning their report into a fully-fledged action plan taking into account what has happened in the last two years and what might happen next if the paralysis continues, and making it a working document for the international community as well as the PA and Hamas to study.

Perhaps they have already done so.

But whoever rules in Palestine will never win any battles with Israel or the US without a proper media set-up and an effective communications strategy.

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

Related posts:

• Stuart Littlewood – Losing patience with squabbling ’2-rump’ Palestine
• Middle East history buff Hague whitewashes Israel’s villainy on the high seas – by Stuart Littlewood
• Stuart Littlewood: The Knesset comes to Westminster

Palestinians call to boycott Israeli products (Photo: MaanImages/Mushir Abdelrahman)

By Sam Bahour* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

When politicians face failure what do they do? Step down? No way. Not in Palestine at least. Over and over again the Palestinian leadership has hit a cement wall (no pun intended) in its attempts to lead the Palestinian people to freedom and independence. And with every colossal failure, the leadership looks to Palestinian civil society for direction.

The first intifada was adopted to cover for the failures in Lebanon, and the second intifada was adopted to cover for the collapse of Oslo. The current Palestinian Authority boycott of Israeli settlement products is no different. The boycott is the scaffolding that the PA is attempting to erect and climb in order to retake a leadership position. The dilemma PA leaders face is that it is very possible that they may be expending efforts to build a scaffold that others may climb to assume leadership of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence.

With an insignificant political constituency on the ground, a failed election campaign, and engaged in creating what many fear is a police state in the making, the PA finally jumped on the boycott bandwagon that civil society has struggled to assemble over the past several years, if not decades.

The PA's newly realized dedication to cleanse Palestinian markets of Israeli settlement products comes at a time when Palestinian markets are overwhelmingly dependent on the Israeli economy. This structural dependency is not new; it was nurtured over decades of direct occupation all the way up to the Oslo agreement. The Oslo period would have been an ideal time for the PA to set the tone that settlements--all settlements, but especially those in East Jerusalem--are not a negotiable issue but are illegal under international law and have no place in a peaceful solution. But that did not happen.

As a matter of fact, the PA not only ignored the illegal products from these settlements for many years, it also ignored the Israeli services that infringed on Palestinian markets, the most notorious being the unlicensed Israeli telecommunications operators who used their settlement-based infrastructure to provide service to all Palestinian areas, A, B and C. This infringement on the Palestinian marketplace not only caused real losses to the licensed Palestinian operators, who at the time had a monopoly license to provide services to the Palestinian areas, but it allowed for an economic fact on the ground to be created and take root. This fact was, and is, no less an obstacle to peace than the settlements themselves.

Today's boycott of settlement products is not a new effort, nor was it designed by the PA. It is a product of the hard work of dozens upon dozens of civil society players in Palestine and abroad. The build-up to today's boycott comes from a two-pronged civil society strategy.

The first prong is a global campaign that is much more comprehensive than just addressing settlement products. It is known as the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Campaign and emerged from a unified call from Palestinian civil society on July 9, 2005. The last few years have witnessed a series of successes for the BDS campaign that have surely not gone unnoticed by the PA.

The second prong of the strategy is a multitude of efforts that promote local production. The most notable of these efforts is the Intajuna ("our production" in Arabic) project: a donor-funded project that is managed by the Palestinian private sector player that designed it. This effort can be seen everywhere--retail points of sales, building and construction materials, and most recently in the produce markets. Intajuna provides a depth of analysis and campaigning that goes far beyond the traditional slogan of "Buy Palestinian".

It is on the backdrop of the BDS Campaign and efforts like Intajuna that the PA had its boycott awakening. The effort is welcomed by the public, and the PA is setting a good example of how non-violent efforts can be amplified when formal leadership assumes the role of leadership grounded in the community. Civil society leaders also welcome the PA's efforts, but are more cautious in their analysis because they understand that the Palestinian leadership has abruptly stifled mass civil society efforts in the past, the first intifada being the prime example when it ended with the Oslo accords.

But as this all plays out, Palestinians and those in solidarity with them are taking some satisfaction in watching the settlement enterprise run in circles trying to figure out a way to stop the boycott. Perhaps more interesting is that there are those in Israel itself, including the Knesset's Economic Committee, who are running in the same circles, most likely in an attempt to raise the stakes now so that the boycott does not expand to include all Israeli products and services.

If past experience is any guide, the Palestinian leadership will end up bear-hugging the entire BDS campaign approach in due time, given that the tools of boycott, divestment and sanctions are much more powerful non-violent methods than negotiating in vain with a government bent on ethnic cleansing.

* Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American management consultant living in Ramallah.

Source: bitterlemons.org

Related posts:

• “…And A Little Child Shall Lead Them”
• Want to understand Israeli society?
• Autumn Clouds lead to Gaza Tsunami

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

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

Among those involved in the Middle East peace process industry there is much talk about "time running out" for a two-state solution.

Recently, the same sentiments were echoed by the US state department, reflecting a shift in the way the Obama administration is publicly talking about the conflict.

On more than one occasion, the state department and other Obama administration figures have said that "the status quo is unsustainable". Notice again the element of time.

Time has been running out for a two-state solution since the beginning of Israel's colonial enterprise in occupied Palestinian territory in 1967. Yet despite this reality, analyses of the situation continue to repeat this now-meaningless cliche year after year, decade after decade. It seems that, to many, time in the Middle East can be magically be suspended. Gravity, in this war-torn region, ceases to affect the inverted hourglass.

The idea that time is running out presupposes some actual threshold beyond which time will actually have run out a midnight hour when the Cinderella-style fantasy of a two-state solution wakes up to the embarrassing reality of facts on the ground.

However, we never hear analysts specify where the threshold lies - at what point Israeli actions of settlement construction and expansion are considered to have finally tipped it over the edge. Without this, the two-state solution becomes the consummate zombie, very much alive in the policy discussion despite being long dead in reality.

The reluctance to draw a line is founded in fears that the line may have already been crossed. Recognition that it has been crossed would, in fact, render the two-state discussion dead and force the policy discussion into an arena that is very much taboo in Washington. This is a discussion that involves three outcomes for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: continued apartheid, ethnic cleansing, or a bi-national state. The first two are unconscionable; the last is not palatable in a staunchly pro-Israel city like Washington.

However, the consequences of not drawing a line at all are far more severe. They result in a climate where Israel feels that its continued colonisation of the West Bank will not have consequences, and the facade of a two-state discussion can continue ad infinitum.

Some argue that facts on the ground do not jeopardise a two-state solution, and that all that is needed to keep the zombie walking is to have enough people on both sides - especially the Palestinian side - who believe in it. As long as there exists a Palestinian partner who will carry the two-state mantra, this argument assumes, it doesn't matter how small or disconnected the territory left for the Palestinian state will be.

Sadly, this also does little to curtail Israel's colonial ambitions and only encourages the Israelis to constantly leverage their bargaining position, since the minimum Palestinian demands can continue to shrink as long as there is a belief among some Palestinians that the two-state possibility lives.

Recent polling of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza indicates that this belief is quickly dwindling. More than ever before, Palestinians in the occupied territories are embracing the one-state outcome. Certainly, other Palestinian communities who are stakeholders in the outcome of the resolution of conflict, like those residing in Israel and those in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, would likely be more amenable a one-state outcome as well.

Regardless of one's belief about what the preferred outcome is, there is no denying that time does march forward, even in the Middle East. With every tick of the clock, every new settlement home, wall and segregated road, we've marched towards the threshold - or past it.

A line must be drawn. The political dynamics are such that policymakers in Washington fear issuing an ultimatum to the Israelis, and would rather rewrite the fairytale so that Cinderella never has to go home and the clock will never strike midnight.

It falls, then, on the Palestinians to draw the line. While the US and Israel perpetuate the two-state dream talk, it is the Palestinians that live in the apartheid nightmare. As long as the Palestinian Authority (PA) is willing to participate in the two-state discussion while little American pressure is put on Israel to comply with international law, the mystical perception of the Middle East as a land without time will continue.

However, the PA could declare a date by which the Israeli occupation had to end and settlements be dismantled. If this deadline is not met, the PA should dissolve the authority and convert the disjointed national movement into a broad civil rights movement seeking equal rights in a bi-national state. They would surely make many in Washington and Tel Aviv take notice.

Of course, the PA's entrenched interests and intuitions may make it incapable of doing this, but the Palestinian public is moving in this direction anyway.

* Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center.

Related posts:

• 60 Minutes: Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?
• We are running out of time for a two-state solution
• Two-state solution is no longer an option [Video]

By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

During the last two weeks people were faced with a propaganda campaign trying to convince them that there developed a crisis in the American Israeli relationships due to Israel's announcement of approving the building of 1600 Jewish only housing units in occupied east Jerusalem Palestinian suburb of Shu'fat on the day of Joe Biden's visit to Israel March 9^th.

Major media sources and many politicians declared this announcement as an Israeli slap on Biden's face, especially after the Palestinian Authority, backed by Arab leaders, had just accepted American mediation in indirect talks (proximity talks as per Hillary's description).

The announcement, in reality, was an Israeli gift to Biden that also included a framed document announcing the planting of several trees in Jerusalem in memory of Biden's mother; a loyal supporter of Israel. This was an excellent gift, rather than a slap, for the ardent self-proclaimed Zionist Biden. During his visit Biden went to Tel Aviv University to tell his audience that he is a Zionist. He proclaimed: "Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as vice president of the United States." Israel, rather than the United States, seems to be closer to Biden's heart. Biden is a living proof that one does not have to be Jewish in order to be a Zionist, as he stated in a televised interview on Shalom TV.

Zionist's main tenets are the genocide of Palestinians, the confiscation of their land, the building of more Jewish only residents, especially in Jerusalem, and the erection of the third temple in place of Al-Aqsa mosque.

The announcement also confirms the Zionist plan for the region that had been adopted by every successive Israeli leader. Every time the Palestinians and Arab leaders make another step towards peace with Israel, its leaders take a more aggressive step such as driving their tanks into Palestinian cities, confiscating more land, or building more colonies. Netanyahu's government had destroyed the Salman Al-Farisi mosque in the Palestinian village of Burin, had added the Islamic Ibrahimi and Bilal Mosques to Israel's heritage list, and besides the 60 synagogues surrounding the Islamic Al-Aqsa Mosque had announced the completion of the Hurva Synagogue (The Ruin Synagogue) few meters away from Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is seen by Moslems as another closer step towards the destruction of their Mosque.

The American/Israeli relationship has never been stronger than what it is today. The United States had supported Israel since her bastard birth in 1948 in the midst of the Arab World as an expansionist colonial state. It took the then American President, Harry Truman, only eleven minutes to recognize Israel as a state, and he did it even without consulting the Congress.

Israel constituted an important military base and a military mercenary army for the West, especially for France, UK and US. Joe Biden, in his interview on Shalom TV (previous link), had explained this fact very clearly. In 1956 Israel was a mercenary army for United Kingdom and for France against Egypt after Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized Suez Canal taking it away from British control, and had supported the Algerian revolution against the French occupation. For this service Israel received French technological help to build its nuclear reactor in Dimona, and received heavy water to contain nuclear rods from United Kingdom.

For the United States Israel served as a military base for testing new American weapons against the Palestinians. Palestine is used by Israel as the testing ground, and Palestinians as the test subjects for the new American made weapons. Many NGOs has documented the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons against Palestinians and Arabs during Israel's wars against Lebanon and against Gaza Strip.

Israel was also used by the successive American administrations as an existential threat to Arab countries especially the oil rich Gulf States. This threat has facilitated the sale of large amounts of American weapons, although ineffectual and obsolete, to the Gulf States. Such sale helped American weapon manufacturers to thrive, and also helped to siphon the oil money into the American banks. The Israeli threat to the Gulf States helped justify the building of American military bases in the Gulf States under the pretense of protecting these states.

Israel was also considered the Western frontal defense line against Communist expansion in the Middle East. Yet after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Israel lost this usefulness. Israel, though, had regained its usefulness as an American partner in war against terror after the attacks of 911. Many investigations had pointed the finger towards special Mossad demolition squad as the possible planner and executor of this attack.

Bush's alleged "global war on terror" had flipped the American/Israeli military equation upside down. The United States had become Israel's free mercenary army fighting Israel's wars in proxy. The invasion of Iraq is one clear example. The two major Iraqi oil pipe lines, one from northern Kurdish Iraq to Turkey's coast through Syria and the other from southern Iraq to the Persian Gulf, were cut off. They both were directed to Israel's Haifa ports through Jordan.

The cold war against Iran and the graduating pressure to subdue the Iranian regime through economic sanctions and incitement of internal conflict and terror attacks serve only Israel. To keep Israel the strongest military power in the region this cold war is waged under the pretense of Iran's nuclear program aimed at developing a nuclear bomb, a pretense refuted several times by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and by Iran's willingness to exchange its rich uranium. Meanwhile the Western countries are ignoring the very well established fact of Israel's stockpiling at least 200 nuclear bombs, and that France and US had signed agreements with some Arab countries, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and UAE to build nuclear reactors similar to that in Iran.

Thanks to AIPAC the American administration has become zionized. Israel's interests and welfare had gained higher priority than American interests and welfare. At the expense of the American tax payers the US had supported Israel with technology and most sophisticated weapons to attack Lebanon and Gaza Strip. Israel's terrorists and war criminals are protected and shielded by American political support and intimidation of other countries at the UN. The Congress had backed Israel's 2008 war crimes against Gaza and condemned Goldstone's Report by a vote of 334 to 36.

The Congress had approved the $3 billion annual military assistance to Israel. Using American tax money the administration is paying for free complete medical coverage for every Israeli citizen, and is subsidizing Israeli residential projects while those American tax payers lack necessary medical coverage and are losing their homes.

The Zionized American administration had ignored General Petraeus's warnings to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that the unconditional biased American support to Israel foments anti-American sentiments, and endangers the lives of American soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in the Moslem World in general. The administration seems to care about the lives of Zionist Israelis, for they are allegedly god's chosen people, more than they care about the lives of their own soldiers; some worthless goyims.

In a sign of support to Israel by the States Senate and under the initiative of Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) a letter was sent to Secretary Clinton urging her to do what she can to undermine the effects of what they call "the untimely announcement of housing construction in East Jerusalem". They also blame the Palestinian intransigence for failure to restart the peace negotiation, and asking that the administration should not publicly criticize Israel even when Israel does things to publicly embarrass the administration.

On the other hand at the Congress more than 250 members have signed onto a declaration sent to Hillary Clinton reaffirming their commitment to "the unbreakable bond that exists between the U.S. and the State of Israel ... we believe, as President Obama said, that Israel's security is paramount in our Middle East policy and that it is in U. S. national security interests to assure that Israel's security as an independent Jewish state is maintained."

In her speech at AIPAC's March 22^nd Conference Hillary Clinton gave an enthusiastic speech praising what she alleged Israel's commitment to peace and pledging America's perpetual support to Israel. "The future of both countries (US & Israel) are bound together ... our commitment to Israel's security and to Israel's future is rock solid" Hillary affirmed.

Obama's approach to Israel is reflected in his speech to AIPAC on June 3^rd 2008, while still a presidential candidate, when he stated: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided ... I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything and I mean everything."

So, what is the fuss about this so-called US/Israeli crisis? This is a double stick-and-carrot approach to the Arab leaders, who are having their summit this weekend (March 27 & 28). It is meant as a face saving for the US and giving the illusion that the administration might pressure Israel providing the Arab leaders do not come up with any strong resolutions and give the administration the time to deal with Israel. The stick comes in the Congress's commitment to Israel's security.

The ball is now in the Arab's court. What will the Arab leaders decide in their summit; the usual empty condemnations or real action this time?

* Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the "Nakba" of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the "Nakseh" of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.

Related posts:

• Against ‘Pro-Israel’
• US concern about Israel’s illegal settlements is 42 years too late
• Collage Talk