By: Ghada Karmi

With the odds stacked so strongly in Israel's favour, Palestinians rightly view the US talks with dread

What an irony that the Palestinians' arch-enemy, Israel, should also be their saviour. There is a real danger that the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks  due to starton September 2 in Washington could yield a botched deal that falls far short of the needs of international law or elemental justice, and sets back the cause of Palestine for decades, if not for ever. Fortunately this will not happen as long as Israel's obduracy can be relied on to save the Palestinians from such an outcome.

Time and again, when Israel was thrown a lifeline by Arab neighbours that could have ensured its legitimacy and security, its folly and greed lost it those opportunities. But, since they came at great cost to Palestinian rights, Israel's obduracy had the perverse effect of safeguarding those rights. All peace proposals after 1967 were based on maintaining Israel as a regional power and forcing the Palestinians to settle for less than they were entitled to. They were repeatedly offered paltry settlements that legitimised Israel's hold on most of their land and undermined their right of return. Had Israel agreed, the Palestinian cause would have been lost long ago.

When in the 1979 Camp David negotiations Egypt sought to give the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza a basis for a future independent state, Israel refused. It spurned a succession of Arab peace proposals, most recently the Saudi plan of 2002, offering Israel peace and recognition in return for a Palestinian state. And when, in the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO finally capitulated and accepted Israel's occupation of Palestine's remnants so long as it would enable the establishment of an independent state on this morsel, Israel responded by taking more land.

Decades of Israeli rejection and the reality of Israel's western support finally persuaded the Palestinian leadership to get what it could. Where once Palestinians fought against dispossession and for their right to reparation and return, today's browbeaten leadership has settled for a set of aspirations that bear little relation to rights or justice. It is this defeated leadership, reportedly under US pressure to attend or have Palestinian Authority funding withdrawn, which will take part in the talks.

The aim is a two-state settlement, which will supposedly end the conflict. The parameters are familiar from past (and, failed) peace proposals, and grossly unfair to the Palestinians. Historic Palestine will be partitioned roughly along the 1967 lines into a Jewish state on 78% of the land, plus an undefined area of the West Bank also to become Israeli, and a Palestinian state on the remainder – less than 20%. How much of East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinians has not been determined, and there will be no return of refugees.

Israel's prime minister has set conditions before the talks. Israel will keep the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital, and the Palestinian state must be unarmed, with its borders and airspace under surveillance. Nothing will happen unless the Palestinians first recognise Israel as Jewish and guarantee its security.

Despite such preliminaries, the indications are that Israel is not serious about a deal. Its moratorium on settlement building, which in any case excluded East Jerusalem, will end on 27 September. Israeli commentators are sceptical about Binyamin Netanyahu's intentions. Moty Cristal, a former Israeli prime ministerial adviser, believes he "is buying time, looking for ways to stay away from action on the ground". Nonetheless, President Obama, with mid-term elections looming, lacking a foreign policy success and focused on Iran, is determined to see a result.

How could that be achieved, within the constraints of an Israel that cannot be pressured and a weak, unrepresentative Palestinian leadership that excludes Gaza and Hamas? And since Israel's position rejects all the main Palestinian requirements – land, Jerusalem, refugees – progress, if any, can only be made by demanding more concessions from the weaker side. This will mean less land available for the putative Palestinian state, reducing its viability. Hence Jordan's and Egypt's presence at the talks to work out a deal that provides an extension for the West Bank into Jordan, and Gaza into Egypt. No other permutation is possible. Israel will lose very little, but even this may be too much for its "greater Israel" proponents.

If some version of this scenario were to happen and the Palestinian side were bamboozled into agreeing, it would destroy the Palestinian cause and wreak havoc within Palestinian ranks. Such an outcome haunts many Palestinians, who neither trust nor respect the negotiators and think they might sign away Palestinians' rights. This may be unfair, but they can rest assured that if there is any possibility of a peace deal emerging from Washington, the Israeli side – if not theirs – will never let it happen.

source:

Following a visit yesterday to some young prisoners being held at the Megiddo Prison, lawyers for the Ministry of Detainees have stated that the young prisoners testified under oath that they had been interrogated and systematically electrocuted and tortured by Israeli intelligence officers in settlements near to Palestinian cities.

According to Salim Redouane who was arrested near Qalqilya on 08.05.2010, he was kept in a camp near Tzofin for 3 hours before being transferred to the settlement of Ariel where he was questioned by Shin Bet interrogators. His head was repeatedly hit against the prison room wall in an effort to get him to confess and he was beaten severely. The investigators threatened to burn his skin if he did not confess to the accusations against him.

Another detainee, Mohamed Ali Radwan, informed the lawyers that he was arrested at his home in Qalqilya Azzun on 3/8/2010 and one of the soldiers forced him to take off his shirt in order to use it as a blindfold. He was handcuffed and then taken somewhere near the village where he was told to hand in what was in his possession before he was hit in the back with a rifle butt and kicked repeatedly in the stomach and on the back. One of the soldiers then dragged him across the ground which resulted in deep wounds on his hands and he was taken to the Ariel settlement where he was questioned for several hours and was hit on the head, in the face and all over his the body.

According to the testimony of Yahya Ali Abdel-Hafez, born 03.07.1995 and a resident of the Qalqilya Governorate of Azzoun, he was arrested on 05.08.2010 near the city of Qalqilya and taken to a camp near Tzofin where he was kept for 3 hours before being transferred to the settlement of Ariel and interrogated. During the interrogation, he did not recognize some of the charges against him and so he was beaten in the face several times and repeatedly electrocuted. Under duress, Yahya eventually signed the statement to avoid further torture.

Lawyers also visited Abdul Hamid Abdul Latif Sa'id Abu Haniyeh who is currently in year 10 and was born on 12/11/1994. A resident of Azzun, he was arrested on 05.08.2010 near Qalqilya, where was also taken to the Ariel settlement and interrogated by Shin Bet interrogators. He was beaten up severely before being hit hard by a large jolt of electricity. A terrified Abdul Hamid who thought he would be imprisoned at the Megiddo prison along with his brothers, signed the statement he was given.

Lawyers for the Ministry of Prisoners also visited Ahmed Hussein Mustafa who was born on 10/01/1994 and is from Jalazoun, north of Ramallah. He was arrested from his home at three in the morning on 11.02.2010 and was beaten up inside his house before being taken to the Beit El settlement. Ahmed remained in the settlement until daybreak when he was transferred to Benjamin where he was fined 2000 NIS and sentenced to 20 months in detention. His two brothers were detained in the Negev prison

Source: News of Palestine - Agencies

By: Mitri I. Musleh - The mind boggling events in the Middle East are unfolding at a faster rate than the speeding bullet. To better comprehend such events, one must critically view and analyze every political behavior concerning peace or war in the Middle East.

The United States, the Quartet and the European Union ‘EU’ have decided that the Palestinians and the Israelis must hold direct talks on September 2, 2010 and within one year, should conclude their discussion with the proposed Two-State solution, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and harmony.

The Palestinians will be assured to have a viable state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel will have the security and the acceptance by its neighbors it had always prolonged to have. The US is leading those talks and will somehow ensure its successes simply because it will free the US foreign policy makers to move on to deal with other pressing policy maters in the world.

In so far, Israel was reluctant to accept any of the preconditions set forth by the Palestinians. As an example, Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman announced on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 that ‘there is no reason for not resuming construction in the West Bank settlements’.
Dr. Sa’eb Erekat, Chief Palestinian negotiator, warned that his team will pull out of the direct talks if Israel does not extend settlement freeze. Palestinian opposing parties to the direct negotiations denounced the talks as ‘unrepresentative’.

Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh said that ‘the Palestinian Authority’s decision to resume direct negotiations reflects a failed policy and will not succeed’.

Israel’s Netanyahu said that ‘the Israeli people will not accept the quartet vision of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem its capital’. The US, the Quartet and the EU agreed with the Israelis and the Palestinian preconditions are off the agenda list for now.

President Mahmoud Abbas will be attending the Washington negotiations despite heavy opposition to the resumption of peace talks with Israel.

President Abbas’s decision to attend these talks has upset several Palestinian within the Palestine Liberation Organization including members of the negotiating committee, Hamas leadership and some other leftist groups within the Palestinian ranks.

I am a firm believer that if you want to talk peace, you have to talk with your foe in an open and honest dialogue.

In a way, direct talks are a positive step needed to achieving peace and putting an end to occupation, hostility and friction.

Any preconditions set forth by either side of the conflicting parties, regardless of right or wrong, may affect any problem resolution talk’s outcome and prevent it from being successful and persuasive. There can never be any preconditions set to the talks by either side. Having said this and during dialogue, each conflicting party would try and negotiate any or all points of concern in order to achieve a stage of appeasement for each and all points presented by either  side.

The objection to the direct talks by the various players should have no bearing on the outcome of the talks. If and when the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators are able to reach a comprehensive agreement that will appease both sides, then the objecting parties would have no choice but join the peace ranks or forever remain at state of war with each other.

As I mentioned earlier, the success of such talks would depend on the honesty and integrity of either conflicting party. In so far, these points are lacking and I do hope that once negotiations start, both the Israelis and Palestinians will show sincerity, compassion, honesty and integrity.

What happens if these negotiations fail to reach a peaceful agreement?

The Palestinians would have to re-evaluate their strife for the past sixty years and try and determine their successes and failures. What would lie ahead for them is just another 60 years of occupation and humiliation, their strategy however, would have to change.

Their objective will remain the same, and their demands might slightly change. Rather than try and work outside the system, they should try and work from within the system. Rather than using armed struggle as means to achieving the end, they should struggle to achieve citizenship and voting rights within an Israeli State using peace and civil disobedience measures as means to achieve the end.

If the current Israeli State leadership, naming Netanyahu, Lieberman and other Israeli leaders, do not stop their greed and accept a Two State solution as outlined by leading countries of the world, the Jewish State as envisioned by Netanyahu and world Zionism will seize to exist. Further, the Israeli people would have to live another sixty years without guaranteed security and complete isolation making Israel today, tomorrows South Africa.

source:

 

The increasingly cosy relationship between the extremist, racist EDL movement and the ultra-racist Zionist movement in the UK is becoming more and more visible with each passing demonstration that they attend. It is now a common sight to see a mass of Israeli flags at an EDL rally and a mob of EDL members at a pro-Israel rally. This is an association which is at once revealing as to the true nature of the Zionist movement whilst also a source, one would assume, of much distress and embarrassment to right minded Jews who would blanch at such a self-defeating and counter-productive association.

For their part, the EDL clearly scrape the bottom of the barrel for members. It is hardly a thinking man's organisation. Typically comprised of thugs and louts it is scarcely a group that any sane individual would be proud to be a member of; and yet hundreds of Zionists have signed up to be a part of the new EDL "Jewish Division". This includes individuals such as Roberta Moore, who makes a habit of inciting hatred against Muslims while running around with an Israeli flag tied around her neck like a cape. Exposing her ignorance with statements such as "Islam is not a religion but a cult" she does seem to fit the EDL's low criteria for membership. The foul vitriol she spewed at one recent EDL rally not only betrayed her ignorance of Islam but her desire to incite hatred against more than 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.

This is nothing knew and many have been forced recently to openly recant their spurious statements about Islam and Muslim organisations. Take for instance, the apology issued by The Spectator last week following Stephen Pollard's grossly absurd statement that Islam Expo is a racist, fascist and genocidal organisation! When challenged in court he claimed the remark was unintentional. Justice was served in this instance and Islam Expo won their case against The Spectator including an apology, legal costs and damages.

It is surely not hard to see why a fascist organisation recruiting Jewish Zionists seems like such a strange association at first. In their minds however, the Zionists have convinced themselves that they are manipulating the EDL, which may very well be the case. As Roberta Moore said in an interview with Haaretz recently, "They think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish division. If anything, we are exploiting them." Funnily enough this is a claim that some BNP members also share. According to one report, "BNP leader Nick Griffin has claimed that the English Defence League is being manipulated and directed by Zionists to create a race war on the streets of Britain."

OK, so regardless of who is manipulating whom, we now have Jewish Zionist members of the EDL, and EDL members taking up Israeli flags as a standard part of their protest apparel, but who else do they associate with? A photo taken on 14th August this year shows Jonathan Hoffman, the Vice Chair of the Zionist Federation, waving an Israeli flag at a counter protest outside Ahava in Covent Gardens, standing side by side with none other than Roberta Moore. At first Hoffman tried to deny any association between them and insisted that the picture was photo shopped; a lie he had to apologise for on his blog on the Jewish Chronicle website last week (24th August). Given the fact that Roberta has reportedly said "she used to support Rabbi Meir Kahane's far-right Kach party in Israel", (a group so extreme that it has even been banned in Israel and has been designated a terrorist organisation by Israel, the USA and the EU among others), this only further exposes the extremist element present within the Zionist demonstrations that people like Hoffman so regularly attends.

Hoffman should stop being so surprised and acting so wounded when he is excluded from public events given such associations. He has whined on many occasions about being ejected from or excluded from public meetings on Palestine. He complained for instance when he was stopped by police at the House of Commons from entering a meeting co-hosted by the Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), despite the fact that he was ejected for trying to get into the meeting firstly without registering and then by using a false name. However, as Sarah Colborne, director of campaigns and operations at PSC, pointed out, ‘moreover, like any organisation, we cannot welcome people who disrupt meetings, shout down speakers, refuse to let others speak, and fail to halt their disruptive activities when politely asked to do so by the chair. Such behaviour is contrary to the principles of democracy, and is actually an attempt to shut down free speech. Jonathan Hoffman, in several previous meetings, has behaved in the manner described, leading to his ejection by the police.'

Such behaviour has become the staple norm for those such as Hoffman and his cabal. Shouting down speakers as he did at the Amnesty International meeting held for Haaretz writer Gideon Levy, chaired by Jon Snow last week (24th August), was only the latest example of Hoffman's predictable and feeble attempts to disrupt any public meeting that dares to point out the human rights violations and moral inadequacies of his great nation of Israel.

The fact that people such as Moore allegedly had or have associations with the extremist terrorist groups such as Kach and are joining forces with the EDL should be a cause of concern not only to British society as a whole but to Jewish people in particular who are at risk of such extreme elements claiming to speak for them.

Zionists may temporarily revel in their acceptance by groups such as the EDL and they may be temporarily united under the banner that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but they should ask themselves, who is next on the bigoted hit list of groups such as the EDL after Islam? The memory of any Jew who joins the rank and file with the likes of the EDL seems short indeed and they do a grave disservice to all the Jewish men and women who have spent their lives tackling racism and anti-Semitism. Before they begin to rant and rave about Muslim extremism, Zionists should check out their own associates first and perhaps be more discriminating as to whom they allow to speak for them.

 source: http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk

Occupied Jerusalem-PT

 Consistent with the established Israeli policy of denying non-Jews free access to their respective religious places in East Jerusalem, the Israeli occupation authorities have placed stringent restrictions against the entry of Muslims into occupied East Jerusalem.

 Muslim males below the age of 50 and females below 45 have been turned back at Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks. The extreme measures infuriated Palestinian officials who denounced Israel for "religious intolerance" and "assault on religious freedom."

 "Israel presents itself to the world as a democracy. However, the truth is that Israel behaves like an authoritarian and racist country that practices religious discrimination and denies non-Jews basic religious freedom," said Muhammed Habbash, Minister of Waqf (Islamic Endowment) in the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.

 He denounced Israeli justifications for denying hundreds of thousands of Palestinians access to the Aqsa Mosque, especially during the Holy Month of Ramadan, as racist and unacceptable.

 "Israel cries out to the seventh heaven whenever Jewish religious or human rights are impinged upon. However, the same IsraeliState feels at ease violating the religious rights of Muslims to worship at the Aqsa Mosque.

 "This is an Islamic place; it has been an Islamic place for close to 1,400 years, and the so-called religious precautions are only a pretext to keep as many Muslims as possible from accessing the Aqsa Mosque."

 There are two main "entry points," which the Israelis consider "border terminals" through which "security-safe" Palestinians are allowed to enter Jerusalem.

 The first is the Bethlehem terminal in the south and the second is the Qalandia checkpoint in the north. At both points of entry, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Palestinians of all ages were seen trying, often desperately, to get to Jerusalem.

 The trip is a formidable challenge as most people set out for the trip shortly after dawn in order to get an early slate at the checkpoint.

 People looking "old enough" are allowed to proceed unhindered even without submitting their identity cards for a "security check." However, for the middle-aged and younger people, they had to go through a special corridor for a meticulous security check. Very often, people whose ages are less than 50 for men and less than 45 for women are turned back.

 Some would plea with the Israelis to allow them to proceed, but the Israelis will not relent "because this is the law."

 Those turned back are reminded, one more time, that Jerusalem, the would-be capital of their would-be State is still under the Israeli occupation and that they cannot even dream of freely accessing the Aqsa Mosque as long Israel remains in control of one of Islam's holiest shrines.

 In Jerusalem itself, the city is morphed into a garrison-town as thousands of Israeli soldiers and paramilitary police are deployed in the vicinity of the Haram al-Sharif or Noble Sanctuary. This is an untended reminder that al-Quds (the Arabic name of East Jerusalem) is still an occupied city and that 43 years of heavy-handed Israeli occupation have failed to "normalize" the occupation.

 In addition, cameras installed in every corner and alleyway monitor every movement as a large balloon does the same from above.

 Jerusalem is not what it used to be. The Israeli occupation authorities have encouraged fundamentalist Jewish groups to seize several buildings surrounding the Haram. It is believed that the number of real estate holdings arrogated by Jewish settler groups around the Aqsa Mosque has reached 20-24.

 The quiet seizure of Arab homes and other buildings by Jewish fundamentalists, with clear encouragement and backing of Israeli security and political authorities, has enforced Muslim fears that Israeli is harboring evil designs against the Islamic sanctuary.

 Israel, especially under the current right-wing government, which is by far the most hawkish government in the Jewish State's history, does not deny that its ultimate goal is to build a Jewish temple on "the former site" of Islamic shrines.

 The prospect generates calamitous anxiety among Muslims, both in Palestine and abroad, who warn that the demolition of the Aqsa Mosque would spark untold violence, encompassing the entire region, which would also put an end to any semblance of peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

 At the al-Aqsa esplanade, there were very few non-Palestinian Muslims present on the second Jumaa or Friday of Ramadan.

 Earlier, a number of Muslim officials, including the New Rector of Al-Azhar, the prominent Sunni-Islam academy in Cairo, called on Muslims to visit and pray at the holy Islamic places in Jerusalem.

 The call was also echoed by Habbash, the above-mentioned PA minister of Waqf and Islamic affairs.

 But the call was strongly rejected by Muslim scholars associated with the Muslim Brotherhood who argued that a visit to the Aqsa Mosque by citizens of Arab States would be a form of humiliating normalization with the Israeli occupiers.

 "I don't think it would be appropriate for our brothers from the Arab and larger Muslim worlds to come and pray in the shadow of Israeli guns. These people should come to Jerusalem as soldiers and fighters to liberate Jerusalem, not as disgraced pilgrims," said Ahmed Qawasmi, an Islamic cleric from the Hebron region.

 Meanwhile, the Imam of the Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Muhammed Hussein, has called on Palestinians to converge on the Haram al-Sharif "in the hundreds of thousands."

 "This is the way we demonstrate our commitment and bond to the First Qibla (direction to which Muslims turn during prayer) and the Third holiest sanctuary. Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is mentioned in the Quran, is considered third in sanctity right after the Sacred Mosque in Mecca and the Prophet's Mosque in Medina in Saudi Arabia.

 Despite all the restrictions, more than 100,000 worshipers were able to make it to the Mosque.

 On similar occasions two decades ago, nearly half a million people would converge on Jerusalem for Friday's congregational prayers.

source: www.ptimes.org

US President Barack Obama claims direct talks between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Israelis will end the Israeli occupation of 1967.

During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, including East al-Quds (Jerusalem), the Golan Heights in Syria, Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, and the Gaza Strip.

"The purpose of the talks is clear…These negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues," said Obama in a short speech launching his ambitious initiative to forge a Middle East peace agreement within a year.

"The goal is a settlement negotiated between the parties that ends the occupation which began in 1967, and results in the emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian state…" the Guardian quoted him as saying on Wednesday.

The US president described the Washington summit as a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again," but acknowledged that achieving lasting peace will not be easy and that "years of mistrust will not disappear overnight."

"After all, there's a reason that the two-state solution has eluded previous generations. This is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult. But we know that the status quo is unsustainable."

The new round of direct talks between Israel and the PA comes 20 months after Tel Aviv's deadly onslaught killed more than 1,400 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip at the turn of 2009.

The US invitation for talks has been met with strong opposition in the occupied Palestinian territories where the PA is accused of yielding to US and Israeli pressures to sit at the negotiating table without any preconditions.

Israel's return to the borders of 1967, the final status of the Israeli occupied East al-Quds -- which Palestinians demand as the capital of their future state -- and the fate of Palestinian refugees rendered homeless by Israeli occupation are among the key issues yet to be resolved.

Israel's insistence on resuming its settlement expansions in the West Bank following the expiry of a 10-month partial moratorium on September 26 is viewed as the main obstacle in the way to peace.

MRS/JG/HRF

AMMAN — Outspoken Arab Israeli MP Haneen Zuabi on Tuesday told a UN human rights inquiry into Israel's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that its commandos had a "licence to kill."

"I told the UN investigators in Amman that the Israeli attack was violent from the start and that the Israelis had a clear licence to kill, and they did not even try to avoid the bloodshed," Zuabi told AFP.

She was a passenger on the Mavi Marmara ferry trying to bust Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip when nine Turkish activists were killed on May 31 in an Israeli commando raid.

"I sensed that the investigators were serious about the probe. They asked clear questions and I gave them clear answers. I stressed that the Israeli commandos wanted to kill the activists, who were unarmed."

Israel says its naval commandos only resorted to force after being attacked as they reached the deck of the ferry, but the activists insist the soldiers started firing first.

Zuabi, an MP with Balad, a left-wing Arab nationalist party, sparked outrage in Israel for taking part in the pro-Palestinian protest flotilla.

In July, Israel's parliament voted to strip Zuabi of her diplomatic passport and parliamentary funding for legal defence.

The UN investigators arrived in Amman on Sunday to interview most of the 33 Jordanians on board the ship. The mission is to report back to the UN Human Rights Council at its next session on September 13-October 11.

The three experts mandated by the UN rights council have already interviewed unspecified witnesses in London and Geneva, and have met the Turkish and Israeli ambassadors in Geneva.

Israeli officials have rejected the council's mission as biased.

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.

The good news: "Netanyahu to give peace process a 'robust push". The bad news, any rational person privy to the ideology and makeup of the Israeli government knows this is not serious.

And yet, after their meeting, Barack Obama, the US president, has publically supported his Israeli interlocutor, saying he believed Binyamin Netanyahu would take "risks for peace" and praised the Israeli prime minister for easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip.

Obama also called for "direct talks" between Israelis and Palestinians irrespective of the continued illegal settlements.

All of which begs two questions: How does a defunct and discredited diplomatic process continue to masquerade as a success despite its utter failure? And why do the US and its Western allies continue to finance and pamper it when it creates more instability and conflict than peace and progress?

The short answer is bullshit.

In an attempt to define bullshit and theorise about its uses and meanings, Harry Frankfurt, the Princeton philosopher, has differentiated between bullshit and lies in his book On Bullshit, and concluded that bullshit can be more dangerous than lying.

Bullshit is more than a word; it is a chronic widespread system of rhetoric and representation that mystifies the truth. It has increasingly become a way of communication not only in the private sphere but has become part and parcel of Western propaganda.

Falafel to fanfare

At times, according to Frankfurt, sincerity also qualifies as bullshit. This is especially true when those uttering it are in denial over their true motivation. This explains why many of the stubborn advocates of the present peace process bullshit even when they are being sincere.

In fact, I cannot but shake my head in bewilderment whenever I am exposed to the "peace industry". Peace and co-existence initiatives by NGOs have used everything from falafel to fanfare and music but failed utterly to improve the situation. Instead, they have contributed to making the occupation look normal.

Having said that, I do not discount the great degree of lying in the process. But unlike the lies and deception, bullshit has created an aura around the peace process.

How many doubt that the timing of Obama's invitation to the Israeli prime minister ahead of the autumn midterm congressional elections is more about domestic politics than foreign policy?

As one Washington Post columnist commented sardonically, it would have been appropriate for Obama who reprimanded Netanyahu before, to have flown the white flag of surrender during the visit.

Mostly bullshit is about spreading half truths, fake statements that allow what amounts to a de facto war process of occupation and colonisation to masquerade as a peace process, causing major suffering and destruction.

Chimera

Since the so called "peace process" started two decades ago, all promises of progress, peace and prosperity, have turned into disappointment, conflict and regress.

After hundreds of meetings, tens of initiatives and seven interim agreements, the situation in the Israeli occupied territories might have "improved" in certain micro areas, but at a macro level it has notably worsened.

During that time, the peace process has bestowed the title of "peace partners" on an ever more aggressive Israeli occupier and increasingly discredited the Palestinian Authority (PA). In the process, colonisation deepened, the colonised suffered and nonsense triumphed.

Illegal Jewish settlements continue to proliferate and destabilise the West Bank and, in particular, East Jerusalem, despite recent assurances to the contrary.

A report by the Israeli organisation B'Tselem on the eve of Netanyahu's visit, on the proliferating Jewish settlements despite assurances to the contrary speaks volumes about Israeli deception regarding the settlement issue.

Now the Netanyahu government is promising "improvements" on its blockade of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, but the end result is clear: it will continue to police, and treat the impoverished and overpopulated refugee camp like the mega prison it has become.

Likewise, despite talk of economic revival under the PA, the standard and quality of living in the semi-autonomous areas of the West Bank is below 1980s levels, when the West Bank was under full Israeli occupation. In relation to Israel, which is now a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development - a club for developed countries - it continues to deteriorate.

It is mind boggling that the likes of Tony Blair, the International Quartet envoy, gets away with promoting improvement in life conditions and better "security" at the heart of the miserably occupied territories.

Netanyahu's focus on economic rather than political rights for the Palestinians has led to no real improvement in the movement of labour and capital, nor in true amelioration of access to healthcare or education, let alone to the outside world.

With the exception of a number of English speaking "peace process contractors" (those living off politically motivated Western aid), most Palestinians continue to live in destitution.

Comparing the situation between the refugee camps the moderates administer in the West Bank and those run by "extremists" in Gaza is like comparing the situation in two prisons.

Bluffing is of course integral to, or even indispensable for, diplomacy, but it generally has limits or is a side show for something more strategic. So what is the strategy behind the promotion of the defunct peace process?

Private club

Since the end of the Cold War, the Middle East peace process has emerged as the US regional order.

Entire peoples and states have been judged on where they stood on the peace process. Those, especially among the Arabs, who supported it have been called moderates and those who opposed it have been called extremists.

The "Peace Process" became a private club whose membership carried a number of strategic advantages, while being on the outside risked sanctions, even war.

Paradoxically, over the last two decades, both the US, the sponsor of the peace process, and Israel, its ally and peace partner, have waged destructive and bloody wars in the region.

But both remained untouched as sponsor and partner in the peace process.

If these were any other countries, they would have been sanctioned, blockaded and bombarded, even occupied.

This explains why Israel's most infamous general was referred as a "man of peace" by George Bush, the self-proclaimed US "war president".

Promoting the peace process has become a strategic reality, even necessity, regardless of its realisation or implementation.

There are far better ways to free Israelis from the political and moral burden of their occupation, and bring Palestinians liberty and independence from foreign occupation.

But the peace process is the best way to maintain Pax Americana in the region, secure Jewish support in the US while pampering the special relationship between the US and Israel.

Given the choice between peace in the Middle East and peace between the US and Israel, the Obama administration has made its choice known this week. 

source: aljazeera.net

<!--ac55acbc30894fe785653bceb34c9eb9-->

A former Israeli soldier's Facebook page has provoked outrage after she posted pictures of herself on duty posing next to handcuffed, blindfolded Palestinians.

The photographs are part of a Facebook photo album entitled: The Army – the best years of my life, posted by a young woman named Eden, from Ashdod, who completed compulsory military service last year.

The pictures, swiftly circulated by Israeli bloggers, include one in which Eden sits on concrete blocks next to a blindfolded Palestinian detainee. A comment posted beneath the picture by one of Eden's friends, notes: "You look sexiest here," to which the former soldier replies: "Yeah I know … I wonder if he's got Facebook! I have to tag him in the picture!"

The Israeli army issued a statement describing Eden's Facebook posts as "shameful behaviour". Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesperson, captain Arye Shalicar added: "It was just something very foolish and stupid – and I hoped there wouldn't be any media interest."

Ishai Menuchin, executive director of human rights group The Public Committee against Torture in Israel, said: "These cruel pictures reflect Israel's ongoing objectification of Palestinians and complete disregard of their humanity and of their human rights, and especially their right to privacy."

Menuchin ascribes Eden's behaviour to "an Israeli military culture that brings young Israelis to systematically violate the basic rights of Palestinians".

Shalicar notes that, as Eden has been discharged and the pictures do not contain information of a sensitive military nature it is unlikely that action will be taken against her.

Eden has changed her Facebook privacy settings, so that her page can now only be viewed by friends. However, thanks to bloggers who captured a screen image of the page, the photographs can still be viewed online.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/16/israeli-soldier-photos-palestinian-prisoners

Arab nations have urged Washington and several other nuclear powers to push for inspections of Israel's nuclear programme, diplomats have told the Associated Press news agency.

In a letter sent ahead of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting scheduled for September, the Arab League also sought support for a resolution that calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The letter sent on August 8 was signed by Amr Moussa, the Arab League chief.

Besides Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, the letter was also sent to foreign ministers of Russia, China, Britain and France - the four other permanent UN Security Council members.

Obama warning

The letter comes one month after Barack Obama, the US president, warned the Arab world not to use the 150-nation IAEA forum to single out Israel.

Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, agreed to work together
to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the upcoming IAEA conference.

At the time, Obama suggested that such a move would undermine the possibility of breakthrough talks on a Middle East nuclear-free zone, as proposed by the NPT conference three months ago.

But the Arab League letter says they were not attempting to single out Israel.

"Singling out a state assumes that there are a number of states in the same position and only one state was singled out," the letter says.

Referring to the NPT, the letter says: "The fact is that all the states in the region have acceded to the NPT except Israel."

Israel is commonly assumed to have nuclear weapons but refuses to discuss the issue.

Islamic nations have long called for Israel to open its programme for inspectors.

The Arab League's attempt to pressure Israel into unveiling its nuclear programme might deflect attention from Iran, which the United States and its allies accues of covertly seeking to build an atomic bomb.

Tehran denies the charge and insists its programme is for peaceful civilian purposes.

I don't know why I am at all surprised that the American Right - including the Republican Party - has decided that scapegoating Muslims is the ticket to success. After all, it's nothing new.

I remember right after 9/11 when the columnist Charles Krauthammer, now one of the most vocal anti-Muslim demagogues, almost literally flipped out in my Chevy Chase, Maryland synagogue when the rabbi said something about the importance of not associating the terrorist attacks with Muslims in general.  

It was on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, but that did not stop Krauthammer from bellowing out his disagreement with the rabbi.  Krauthammer's point: Israel and America are at war with Muslims and that war must be won.

It was shocking, not only because Krauthammer's outburst was so utterly out of place but also because the man was actually chastising the rabbi for not spouting hate against all Muslims - on the Day of Atonement.

The following year, the visiting rabbi from Israel gave a sermon about the intifada that was then raging in Israel and the West Bank.

A sermon with a twist

The sermon was a nutty affair that tearfully made the transition from intifada to Holocaust and back again.

I remember thinking, "this guy is actually blaming the Palestinians for the suffering of his parents during the Holocaust." I thought I had missed something because it was so ridiculous.

Then came the sermon's ending which was unforgettable. The rabbi concluded with the words from Ecclesiastes.

"To everything there is a season. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap ... A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance..."

He then looked up and said: "Now is the time to hate."

At first, I thought I had not heard him correctly.  He could not be calling on the congregation to hate. There were dozens of children in the room. It wasn't possible.

But it was. To their credit, many of the congregants I spoke with as we left the sanctuary were appalled. Even the right-wingers were uncomfortable with endorsing hate as a virtue.

Yet, the rabbi was unrepentant. I emailed him to complain and he told me that he said what he believed. Nice.

One could ask what the Middle East has to do with the vicious outbreak of Islamophobia (actually Islamo-hatred) that has seemingly seized segments of this country.

US Islamophobia's origins  

The answer is everything. Although the hate is directed at Arab-Americans (which makes it worse) it is justified by invoking 9/11, an attack by Muslims from the Middle East.

This hate is buttressed by the hatred of Muslims and Arabs that has been routinely uttered (or shouted from the rooftops) in the name of defending Israel for decades

Just watch what goes on in congress, where liberals from New York, Florida, California and elsewhere never miss an opportunityto explain that no matter what Israel does, it is right, and no matter what Muslims do, they are wrong.

Can anyone possibly argue that such insidious rhetoric has no impact on public opinion?

At the very least, it gives anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim bias a legitimacy that other forms of hate no longer have. Bigots who hate African-Americans or Jews, for instance, feel that they must claim that they don't. That is not the case with Muslims who can be despised with impunity.

And here the liberals are worse than the conservatives because liberals exempt Muslims and Arabs (and now Turks) from the humanitarian instincts that inform their views of all other groups.

Conservatives combine their Arab-bashing with a general xenophobia, as is evidenced by their views on immigration.

Illiberal Liberalism?

Liberals, on the other hand, single out Muslims for contempt.

They do it actively - i.e., by defending every single Israeli action against Arabs with vehement enthusiasm. And they do it passively, by refusing to evince an iota of sympathy for Muslims who suffer and die at the hands of Israelis - like the 432 Palestinian children killed in the 2008 Gaza war.

Liberals join conservatives in rushing to the floor of the House of Representatives and Senate to defend the Israelis against any accusation (remember how they robotically attacked the Goldstone report on Israel's war crimes in Gaza, not caring at about the horrors Goldstone described).  

And then they read their AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee lobby)talking points, enumerating all the terrible things Arabs have done while Israel has, Gandhi-like, consistently offered the hand of friendship. It would be laughable if the effect of all this was not so ugly.

Why wouldn't all this hatred affect the perception of Arab-Americans too? Hate invariably overflows its containers, just like hatred of Israel sometimes crosses over into pure old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

Bottom line: it's a witches' brew that is being stirred up, and it is one that will no doubt produce violence. But the witches are not all on the right. Just as many liberals are stirring the pot to please some of their donors.

I'm not saying you should not blame Fox News' Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for all this hate. But don't forget to blame your favorite liberal and progressive politicians. With a few (very few) exceptions, they are just as bad.

MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. 

source: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/08/201081912522467685.html

Israeli land seizure and ethnic cleansing should be met with arrest warrants – not arms sales and diplomatic games

The Jordan Valley, stretching all the way down the West Bank's eastern side, is a microcosm of Israel's discriminatory policies of colonisation and displacement. For 40 years, settlements have been established, military no-go areas declared, and Palestinians' freedom of movement restricted. There are now 27 colonies  in the Jordan Valley – most of them had been established by the late 1970s under Labour governments. There are also nine "unauthorised" outposts. In the 1990s, the size of territory afforded to the settlements increased by 45%.

As we watch yet another bout of periodic, though tempered, enthusiasm about "direct negotiations", Israel is doing as much as possible to determine the Bantustan borders – policies exemplified in the Jordan Valley, a substantial area of the West Bank almost isolated from the rest of the occupied territories. In 2006, B'Tselem noted how the Israeli military "made a distinction between the 'territory of Judea and Samaria' (ie the West Bank) and 'the Jordan Valley', indicating that Israel does not view the two areas as a single territorial unit".

While there are areas of the West Bank that have witnessed the removal of some checkpoints, according to a senior UN official in June, "it hasn't improved at all when it comes to moving towards the east" and the Jordan Valley. Without a special permit, Palestinians who are not registered as Jordan Valley residents are prohibited from crossing the four key checkpoints controlling the area north of Jericho in their private vehicles.

The presence of the valley's Palestinians is a "problem" that Israel approaches with the tools of evacuation orders and bulldozers. Amnesty International, among others, has noticed an intensification of home demolitions and evictions, while B'Tselem sees "the current wave" as "part of Israel's ongoing efforts to remove" Bedouin Palestinians from the Jordan Valley. As Luisa Morgantini, former vice-president of the European parliament, put it recently, "an area cleansed of its inhabitants today is more easily annexed tomorrow".

Israel's strategic objectives mean disaster for the lives of Palestinians on the ground. Sitting next to his wife and children, Omar described to me a visit from the Israeli military to his community of al-Fasayil. "They arrived at 10 in the morning, with around a dozen jeeps and a bulldozer. They wanted to demolish everything immediately, and we were begging for a little time to get things out."

Other people came running to help, he said, but the soldiers only allowed his two brothers-in-law to help him move out his animals and possessions. "We wanted to save the metal door but the soldiers said, 'No, it is part of the demolition order'."

In that particular raid, the Israeli army targeted one structure used for farming and storage. But not far away, other Palestinians last month were left to survey the damage after around 70 structures were demolished, displacing 100 Palestinians. When I visited two days later, all around were piles of debris: heaps of twisted metal, plastic fragments and broken pots and pans. In the words of one Oxfam official, the scene resembled the aftermath of "a natural disaster".

This is a stark example of Israeli apartheid. Across the Jordan Valley, thriving Jewish settlements – whose very presence is illegal under international law – produce vegetables and fruits for export, their communities integrated into the main infrastructure and communications network of the Israeli state. Afforded generous "master plans" for development by the Israeli state, all around these settlements are Palestinians whose very livelihoods are threatened by the occupation.

Perhaps the main method of making normal life impossible for the Palestinians is to prevent "legal" construction. Back in April, Amnesty International cited an Israeli army spokesperson who said in 1999 that "our policy is not to approve building in Area C" (an Oslo Accords classification applying to almost all of the Jordan Valley). These restrictions, along with the settlements and the 44% designated as an Israeli "military area" or "nature reserve", mean that "in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited".

These are the realities that persuade many groups who work on the ground to draw disturbing conclusions about Israel's objectives. Amnesty International has expressed its concern that the home demolitions are "part of a government strategy to remove the Palestinian population from the parts of the West Bank known as Area C". B'Tselem suggested that Israel's motive "is not based on military-security needs, but is political: the de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley".

From the faces of Palestinian families picking over the ruined remains of their simple properties and the prospering Jewish settlements next door, to the declared intentions of leaders such as Binyamin Netanyahu, the Jordan Valley is Israeli rejectionism distilled. Land seizure and ethnic cleansing should be met with arrest warrants and sanctions, not arms sales and diplomatic games.

Governmental inaction makes it even more imperative for citizens to take action: through solidarity with Palestinians defending their community in the Jordan Valley to boycotting products and resisting corporate complicity in a regime of separation and inequality. Once more, the response of civil society shames our elected representatives.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/17/jordan-valley-microcosm-israel-colonisation

History may be written by the victors, as Winston Churchill is said to have observed, but the opening up of archives can threaten a nation every bit as much as the unearthing of mass graves.

That danger explains a decision quietly taken last month by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to extend by an additional 20 years the country’s 50-year rule for the release of sensitive documents.

The new 70-year disclosure rule is the government’s response to Israeli journalists who have been seeking through Israel’s courts to gain access to documents that should already be declassified, especially those concerning the 1948 war, which established Israel, and the 1956 Suez crisis.

The state’s chief archivist says many of the documents “are not fit for public viewing” and raise doubts about Israel’s “adherence to international law”, while the government warns that greater transparency will “damage foreign relations”.

Quite what such phrases mean was illustrated by the findings of a recent investigation by an Israeli newspaper. Haaretz revisited the Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel seized not only the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, but also a significant corner of Syria known as the Golan Heights, which Israel still refuses to relinquish.

Click here to read the complete article by Jonathan Cook, The National, 16th August 2010

When BDS activists target companies that profit directly from the occupation and are prosecuted, the illegality of the settlements will become an issue

 The acquittal this week of four London-based activists for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) raises profound issues for traders in products which originate from illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The case also poses challenging questions for the UK authorities, who have failed to confront the legal and moral problems surrounding settlement trade.

In September and December last year, the activists entered a shop selling products from cosmetics company Ahava in Monmouth Street, Covent Garden in London, and locked themselves to oil drums filled with concrete. In both cases, the shop was forced to cease trading for several hours.

Click here to read the complete article by Simon Natas, Jnews, 16th August 2010