Dear Mr. Netanyahu, I admit that I did not hold my breath in anticipation of your speech. I heard that your first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, said it is not important what the gentiles say - what is important is what the Jews do. Since I stood on the White House lawn next to Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton, 15 years have passed, and you have had eight prime ministers. Each one, including you, Sir, during your first term, "extended a hand of peace," and promised "a new horizon." But what remains from those festive speeches at the signing ceremony for Oslo "B" and at the Wye Plantation? What has changed since you sort of adopted the road map? And what did we get out of the Annapolis declaration? No one knows better than you what happened since we signed the Oslo Accords, where we totally relinquished the vision of a whole Palestine in favor of a Palestinian state covering 22 percent of the territories. Just to be on the safe side, I will remind you that according to the data of your Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of settlers in the West Bank has exploded from 110,000 at that time to approximately 300,000. In Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem there are an additional 80,000 residents, so their numbers just about reach 200,000 at present. With this sort of "natural growth," there could have been a majority long ago in the area between the Jordan River and the sea. Seriously, if you were a Palestinian and the land of your forefathers was transformed into what you yourselves describe as "unauthorized outposts," would you give your support to someone like me, who is openly opposed to the intifada and who threw in his lot in favor of negotiations with you? You like to talk about terrorism versus "the economy of peace." But what have you done to show the Palestinians that terrorism and the Qassams are of no benefit? How many work permits have you granted to the miserable souls living on handouts? The siege of the Gaza Strip is also not helping moderates in the Palestinian camp. I appreciate your commitment to the road map very much. You must have noticed that in its title, it states that it is "a performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Maybe this will help us convince Hamas to make a similar commitment. They are under quite a bit of pressure thanks to President Obama's speech and have already announced that they support a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. When we suggest that they say "next to the State of Israel," they ask: Why won't the Israelis first recognize a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders? If we do not move forward from this point, finally, on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative - the greatest gift to your nation since the Balfour Declaration - we will all certainly witness a Hamastan spreading to the West Bank, too. Therefore, time for talk is over and it is now time for action. The performance in the road map is based on the principle of reciprocity. It is cut out perfectly according to the way you see things. As a first stage (which was sadly supposed to have been completed in May 2003), we were asked to issue a declaration emphasizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security; it calls for an end to violence and to incitement against Israelis. By the way, there is not a single word there about a "Jewish state." You, the Israelis, were supposed to issue an unequivocal declaration, recognizing "an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state, which would exist in peace and security alongside Israel, [and call for] an end to violence against Palestinians." At every occasion we reiterate our commitment to every word of the road map and make efforts to fulfill our commitment. Since your foreign minister claims that destroying the terrorist infrastructure is a precondition to negotiations, I feel I should remind you that the road map demands that we only "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." To undertake - not to eradicate. Why don't you ask your officers and U.S. General Keith Dayton what they say about our performance against Hamas in the West Bank? Ask Ehud Barak what he is doing to advance your commitment to remove the outposts and to freeze settlements. Even Ariel Sharon did not dare include this bluff about "natural growth" in the list of reservations he had about the road map. Finally, allow me to give you a friendly tip: During my recent visit to the White House, I discovered that something substantive has changed in Washington: Since Obama replaced George W. Bush it has become much more important what the gentiles do than what the Jews say. Sincerely, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen)
Read More...
By: Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition for the Implementation of UNSCR1325
Date: 26/10/2022
×
Open letter to the UN Secretary General on the 22nd Security Council Open Debate on Women, Peace and Security Agenda (UNSC Resolution 1325)
Your Excellency Secretary General On the 22nd anniversary of UNSC Resolution 1325 and the annual open discussion at the Security Council for the advancement of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, the Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition for the Implementation of UNSC Resolution 1325 would like to bring your attention to the fact that the suffering of Palestinian women living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) has unprecedentedly escalated since this resolution was passed, due to the Israeli occupation’s ongoing, hostile policies, systematic violations of human rights and grave breaches of international humanitarian law that are disproportionally impacting women and girls in the OPT. These violations include extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, restriction on movement, military blockades, house demolitions, land confiscation and illegal de-facto and de-juri annexation, in addition to the ongoing isolation of areas of the OPT from one another. This has had both individual and collective impact on the lives of women, impeding their access to resources, compounded by the deteriorating economic situation due to the occupation’s control and dominance over land and resources. Added to this is the rise in poverty levels due to unemployment, military blockade on the Gaza Strip for over 15 years and the occupation’s exercise of systematic long-term violence against the Palestinian protected population in the OPT, settlement expansion combined with settlers’ violence and vandalism The Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition strongly believes that 22 years since the passage of UNSC Resolution 1325 has not resulted in concrete measures for the advancement of the women, peace and security agenda to Palestinian women living under Israeli prolonged military occupation. A lot still need yet to be made by the Security Council to maintain peace and security for Palestinian women living under military occupation. To the contrary, complications and challenges to Palestinian women have increased in terms of implementing the WPS agenda, due to Israeli impediments to its implementation. Israel, the occupying power, has also placed enormous obstacles before Palestinian women who seek to implement this resolution, given its continued occupation of the OPT and the absence of a just and durable solution to end this prolonged belligerent occupation. No concrete measures were taken by the international community to implement UN resolutions related to the question of Palestine, namely UN Resolutions 242, 338, 194 and 2334. Instead, Israel is intent on confiscating and annexing more land to build settlements, which has severed any path to the establishment of an independent and contiguous Palestinian state. Instead, OPT has been transformed into isolated islands more like the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, as indicated in the most recent evidence based-report by Amnesty International, describing Israel as an apartheid regime, where one racial group is discriminating against other racial groups. The Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition, would also like to point out to the remarkable conclusions of a UN independent Commission of Inquiry (CoI) in its recent to the UN General Assembly in New York on 20/10/2022, which considered the Israeli occupation as unlawful according to international law. The report called on the UN General Assembly to ask the International Court of Justice for an urgent advisory opinion on the illegality of this prolonged military occupation, and the impacts of the Israeli illegal measures and violations against the Palestinian civilian population in the 1967 OPT. Your Excellency UN Secretary General, As the UNSC is meeting to discuss the advancement of the WPS agenda, we would like to draw to their attention the double standards employed by the United Nations in dealing with its own resolutions, especially when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the practices of Israel, the occupying power against Palestinian civilian population. Israeli illegal policies in the OPT , has not only curtailed Resolution 1325 from guaranteeing protection for women and involving her in security and peacemaking, it has also thwarted all international tools and mechanisms for the protection of civilians in times of war and under occupation. This is due to the failure of the international human rights and humanitarian law especially the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protections of Civilians at time of War and under occupation. The reason for this is that the UN itself is discriminatory and has double standards in its handling conflicts, and peoples’ causes due to the huge imbalance in justice and the policy of impunity, which Israeli, the occupying power enjoys. These policies have allowed Israel to escape from accountability or any punitive measures in accordance to UN Charter and more specifically Article 11 of UNSC Resolution 1325, which demands that perpetrators of crimes and violations during war are not afforded impunity. The fact that Israel is treated as a country above the law, and the absence of any form of accountability has only encouraged it to commit more crimes and violations. A case in point is the recent murdering of Palestinian Journalist Shirine Abu Akleh, where no one has been held accountable thus far, although the incident was caught on tape and there is hard evidence proving that her death was the result of premeditated and extrajudicial killing by the Israeli army. During its evaluation and review of its action plan, the Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition noted that Resolution 1325 and the nine subsequent resolutions, pinpointed the reasons for the outbreak and development of conflicts in various regions of the world to racial, religious and ethnic disputes. However, it excluded women under racist, colonialist occupation, which is the case of Palestinian women under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including occupied East Jerusalem. Thus, it has disregarded all international resolutions pertaining to the rights of the Palestinian people, over and above Israel’s disregard for its responsibilities as an occupying power. This necessitates a special resolution addressing the status of Palestinian women under racist, colonialist occupation, and addressing the root causes of the suffering of Palestinian women and the major obstacle they face in meaningful political participation, and in moving forward in the advancement of the women, peace and security agenda. Mr. Secretary General, Finally, we in the Palestinian Women’s Civil Coalition for the implementation of Resolution 1325, thank your Excellency for your understanding, and for conveying our concerns to all nation states during the open debate on WPS in the Security Council this year. We call on you to dedicate ample attention to the status of Palestinian women during the 22nd Security Council meeting on Resolution 1325, with the objective to develop and push forth the WPS agenda and put into action the role of international tools of accountability. We ask you to provide the necessary protection for Palestinian women under occupation, by closely overseeing the implementation of this resolution and the party responsible for impeding its application on the ground, namely, the Israeli occupying power that has exacerbated the suffering of Palestinian women at all levels and increased discriminatory measures against them.
With our sincere thanks and appreciation,
By: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi
Date: 19/10/2021
×
Statement to the United Nations Security Council, Quarterly Open Debate on the Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestine Question
Mr. President, Esteemed Members of the Security Council, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to address you today, especially thankful to H.E. Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary and the Republic of Kenya for the kind invitation. For over 70 years, the UN and its various bodies have been seized of the Palestine question; repeatedly reviewing conditions, adopting resolutions, and dispatching fact-finding missions, to no avail. Sadly, this Council has been unable to assert authority, allowing this injustice to become a perpetual tragic human, moral, political and legal travesty. So it would be disingenuous of me to come before you assuming I could inform you of something you do not already know. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the opportunity to communicate in a candid manner, not to recite endless statistics, nor to reiterate the ongoing pain of a people, deprived of their basic rights, including even the right to speak out, admonished not to “whine” or “complain,” as a means of silencing the victim. The tragedy is that you know all of this; yet, it has had a minimal impact, if any, on the horrific conditions in Occupied Palestine. I imagine it must be disheartening and frustrating for this distinguished organization and its members to find themselves trapped in this cycle of deliberate disdain and futility. It is therefore imperative that this Council consider where it has gone wrong and what it can do to correct course and serve the cause of justice and peace. Undoubtedly, the absence of accountability for Israel and of protection for the Palestinian people has enabled Israeli impunity to ride roughshod over the rights of an entire nation, allowing for perpetuation of a permanent settler-colonial occupation. Mr. President, Much of the prevailing political discourse overlooks reality and is diverted and subsumed by chimeras and distractions proffered by Israel and its allies under such banners as “economic peace,” “improving the quality of life,” “normalization,” “managing the conflict,” “containing the conflict,” or “shrinking the conflict.” These fallacies must be dismantled. Volatile situations of injustice and oppression do not shrink. They expand and explode, with disastrous consequences. Similarly, the delusion of “imposing calm” under siege and systemic aggression, particularly as in Gaza, is an oxymoron, for calm or security on the one hand and occupation or captivity on the other are antithetical and irreconcilable. Likewise, the fallacy of “confidence-building measures” is misguided since occupation breeds only contempt, distrust, resentment, and resistance. The oppressed cannot be brought to trust or accept handouts from their oppressor as an alternative to their right to freedom and justice. The misleading and flawed “both sides” argument calling for “balance” in a flagrantly unbalanced situation is another attempt at obfuscation and generating misconceptions. Israel’s impunity is further enhanced using such excuses as being the so-called “only democracy in the Middle East” or a “strategic ally,” or having “shared values,” or even for the sake of protecting its “fragile coalition.” There has also been tacit and, at times overt, acceptance of Israel’s ideological, absolutist arguments, including the invocation of religious texts as a means to dismiss and supplant contemporary political and legal discourse and action. Hence, the so-called “Jewish State Law,” which allocates the right to self-determination exclusively to Jews in all of historic Palestine, is endorsed and normalized. In the meantime, a massive disinformation machine persists in its racist maligning and demonizing of the Palestinian people, going so far as to label them “terrorists,” or a “demographic threat,” a dehumanizing formula exploited as a way to deny the right of millions of Palestine refugees to return. Such slander has warped political focus and discourse globally. Some states have gone off on a tangent pursuing Palestinian textbooks for so-called “incitement,” or adopting the IHRA definition that conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, or criminalizing BDS, or intimidating and censoring academics and solidarity activists who stand up for Palestinian rights. These distortions ignore the unequal and unjust laws designed to persecute Palestinians, individually and collectively. It is evidenced in the defamation of our political prisoners and the targeting of their families’ livelihoods, as though Israeli military courts or prison systems have anything to do with justice or legality. The mindless refrain that Israel has the “right to defend itself,” while the Palestinian people are denied such a right, is perverse in that the occupier’s violence is justified as “self-defense” while the occupied are stigmatized as “terrorists.” We cannot afford to disregard the context of occupation and its systemic aggression as the framing device for all critical assessments and action. Excellencies, Occupied Palestine, including Jerusalem, is the target of a comprehensive and pervasive policy of colonization and erasure, of displacement and replacement, in which Israel is appropriating everything Palestinian; our land and resources; our cultural and human heritage; our archeological sites, which we have safeguarded for centuries; our history; our cuisine; the names of our streets; and most egregiously the identity of Jerusalem, as we witness in the ethnic cleansing of the Old City, Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan among others. Even our cemeteries have been desecrated such as the building of a so-called “museum of tolerance” on top of human remains in Maman’ Allah cemetery. And, Israel continues to stoke the flames of a “holy war,” with repeated assaults on our holy sites, particularly Al-Aqsa Mosque. Jerusalem is being targeted in a deliberate campaign of annexation and distortion. Israel now brazenly declares its intent to complete the settlement siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the territorial contiguity of the West Bank, with its outrageous plans for E-1, Qalandiya airport (Atarot), “Pisgat Ze’ev” and “Giv’at HaMatos.” We cannot be distracted by symbolic gestures that create a false impression of progress. Claims that the “time is not right,” or that it is “difficult now” to work for a peaceful solution, give license to Israel to persist in its perilous policies. Likewise, repeating a verbal commitment to the two-State solution, while one state is allowed to deliberately destroy the other, rings hollow. Mr. President, All of this does not preclude our recognition of our own shortcomings. We do not shirk our responsibility to speak out against internal violence, human rights abuses, corruption, or other such practices that are rejected and resented by our own people. It is our responsibility to carry out democratic reform and revitalize our body politic while ending our internal divisions. This is a Palestinian imperative. But we must caution others against exploiting our shortcomings to justify Israeli crimes or international inaction, or to condition any positive engagement on the creation of an ideal system of governance in Palestine while we languish under a lawless system of Israeli control. We ask that you, trustees of the rules-based order, uphold your responsibilities: provide us with protection from aggression and empower our people to amplify their voice, both in governance and liberation. Esteemed Members of the Council, Peace is not achieved by “normalizing the occupation,” sidelining the Palestine Question, or rewarding Israel by repositioning it as a regional superpower. Such an approach maintains the causes of regional instability and insecurity, while enabling Israel as a colonial apartheid State to superimpose “Greater Israel” on all of historic Palestine. Generation after generation, the people of Palestine have remained committed to the justice of their cause, the integrity of their narrative, the authenticity of their history and culture, and their inviolable right to live in freedom, and dignity, as an equal among nations and in the fullness of our humanity. It is time to reclaim the narrative of justice and invoke our collective will to activate the UN Charter and affirm the relevance of international law. The time has come for courageous and determined action, not just to undo the injustice of the past but to chart a clear and binding course for a peaceful future of hope and redemption. I thank you. To view the full Speech as PDF
By: Global Coalition of Leaders
Date: 04/09/2021
×
Open Letter to the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty on the Need to Impose a Comprehensive Two-Way Arms Embargo on Israel
We, the undersigned global coalition of leaders –from civil society to academia, art, media, business, politics, indigenous and faith communities, and people of conscience around the world– call upon the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to act decisively to put an end to Israel’s notorious use of arms and military equipment for the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights against Palestinian civilians by immediately imposing a comprehensive two-way arms embargo on Israel. In the spring of 2021, the world once again watched in horror as Israeli occupying forces attacked defenceless Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and inside Israel. Palestinian civilians peacefully protesting against colonisation of their land were assaulted with live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, sound bombs, tear gas and skunk water. Israel’s deadly military aggression against the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip was the fourth in a decade. Over 11 days, 248 Palestinians were killed, including 66 children. Thousands were wounded, and the reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons on hospitals, schools, food security, water, electricity and shelter continue to affect millions. This systematic brutality, perpetrated throughout the past seven decades of Israel’s colonialism, apartheid, pro-longed illegal belligerent occupation, persecution, and closure, is only possible because of the complicity of some governments and corporations around the world. Symbolic statements of condemnation alone will not put an end to this suffering. In accordance with the relevant rules of the ATT, States Parties have legal obligations to put an end to irresponsible and often complicit trade of conventional arms that undermines international peace and security, facilitates commission of egregious crimes, and threatens the international legal order. Under Article 6(3) of the ATT, States Parties undertook not to authorise any transfer of conventional arms if they have knowledge at the time of authorisation that arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which they are a Party. Under Articles 7 and 11, they undertook not to authorise any export of conventional arms, munitions, parts and components that would, inter alia, undermine peace and security or be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. It is clear that arms exports to Israel are inconsistent with these obligations. Invariably, Israel has shown that it uses arms to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as documented by countless United Nations bodies and civil society organisations worldwide. Military exports to Israel also clearly enabled, facilitated and maintained Israel’s decades-long settler-colonial and apartheid regime imposed over the Palestinian people as a whole. Similarly, arms imports from Israel are wholly inconsistent with obligations under the ATT. Israeli military and industry sources openly boast that their weapons and technologies are “combat proven” – in other words, field-tested on Palestinian civilians “human test subjects”. When States import Israeli arms, they are encouraging it to keep bombing Palestinian civilians and persist in its unlawful practices. No one –neither Israel, nor arms manufacturers in ATT States parties– should be allowed to profit from the killing or maiming of Palestinian civilians. It is thus abundantly clear that imposing a two-way arms embargo on Israel is both a legal and a moral obligation. ATT States Parties must immediately terminate any current, and prohibit any future transfers of conventional arms, munitions, parts and components referred to in Article 2(1), Article 3 or Article 4 of the ATT to Israel, until it ends its illegal belligerent occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory and complies fully with its obligations under international law. Pending such an embargo, all States must immediately suspend all transfers of military equipment, assistance and munitions to Israel. A failure to take these actions entails a heavy responsibility for the grave suffering of civilians – more deaths, more suffering, as thousands of Palestinian men, women and children continue to bear the brutality of a colonial belligerent occupying force– which would result in discrediting the ATT itself. It also renders States parties complicit in internationally wrongful acts through the aiding or abetting of international crimes. A failure in taking action could also result in invoking the individual criminal responsibility of individuals of these States for aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in accordance with Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Justice will remain elusive so long as Israel’s unlawful occupation, settler-colonialism, apartheid regime, and persecution and institutionalised oppression of the Palestinian people are allowed to continue, and so long as States continue to be complicit in the occupying Power’s crimes by trading weapons with it. In conclusion, we believe that the ATT can make a difference in the Palestinian civilians’ lives. It has the potential, if implemented in good faith, to spare countless protected persons from suffering. If our call to stop leaving the Palestinian people behind when it comes to implementation of the ATT is ignored, the raison d'être of the ATT will be shattered. Joining organisations:
Joining individuals:
By the Same Author
Date: 11/05/2013
×
Jerusalem Day Needs a Makeover
Bashaer Fayyad-Kalouti never celebrates “Jerusalem Day,” and this year was no exception. The day, which for Jews marks the freeing of the city in the 1967 Six Day War, is not a festive occasion for her. Although Fayyad-Kalouti, the wife of the outgoing Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, is a resident of Jerusalem, and holds an official, blue, Israeli identity card, she is unlikely to exercise her right to vote in the coming municipal elections in November. The same holds for most of the 370,000 Palestinians living within the city’s municipal boundaries (more on this below). For the Arabs of East Jerusalem, who constitute some 36% of the city’s population (according to Interior Ministry data), Jerusalem Day is a day of defeat and humiliation. Defeat, because on the morning of June 7, 1967, Israeli paratroopers conquered the Old City and the Western Wall; humiliation, because of the “March of Dancing Flags” held around the city each and every year on the 28th of the Jewish month of Iyar, to mark that day. Imagine this: thousands of young Israeli men and women dancing through the alleys of the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, toward the plaza facing the Western Wall, singing the praises of the “city joined and united,” waving large national flags and sometimes calling out racist invective. A true “Jewish Pride Parade.” The Palestinian residents, looking at the merrymakers from their homes and shops, get the clearest of messages regarding who controls the city and who is controlled. For an additional 31% of the city’s residents, the ultra-Orthodox non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews, Jerusalem Day is just another day of the week invented by those who violate the sanctity of the Sabbath and dare call themselves “Jews.” Under Jordanian rule (from 1948 to 1967), East Jerusalem covered only 6.4 square kilometers [640 hectares, or 2.47 square miles]. After the Six Day War, it was “reunited” with the western part of the city, which had been under Israeli control since 1948. Israel annexed an additional area of 65 square kilometers [6,500 hectares, or 250 square males] from the West Bank to the city’s municipal boundaries and the city has since been termed, “Reunited Jerusalem.” In reality, it is far from being so. If we assume that the most salient expression of “union” between the two parts of the city joined together 46 years ago is uniformity and equality in provision of public services and infrastructure — then a tall fence of discrimination divides the conquering society from its conquered neighbor. And I’m not referring to the security separation Fence. According to data compiled by Dr. Meir Margalit of the Meretz faction in Jerusalem’s city council, who is in charge of East Jerusalem affairs, as well as from the Ir Amim organization, out of the total 2011 municipal budget of NIS 4.7 billion [$1.32 billion], only some 500 million (10.7%) were allocated to the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, whose residents, as previously mentioned, constitute 36%-38% percent of the city’s population. To drive home this point, here are several select data compiled in advance of Jerusalem Day by the Association of Civil Rights in Israel: — 85% of the Palestinian children live below the poverty line; there are only three welfare centers for more than a third of the residents, compared with 18 in the western part of town; there’s a shortage of some 1,000 classrooms in the municipal school system for the Palestinian population. Despite its commitment to the Israeli Supreme Court to reduce the shortage, only several dozen are built each year. — The area allotted and planned for housing construction constitutes only 14% of the area of East Jerusalem; the maximal floor area ratio in the Palestinian neighborhoods is 25%-50%, as opposed to 75%-125% in Jewish neighborhoods; only 13% of the housing units approved for construction in the city between 2005 and 2009 were in Palestinian neighborhoods; there are only four infant wellness clinics in the East, as opposed to 25 in the West; there’s a shortage of some 50 kilometers of sewage pipes and a resulting, prevalent use of septic tanks. — No country in the world recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. There’s not a single embassy in the city and foreign dignitaries try as much as possible to refrain from meeting Israeli officials on the other side of the “municipal line” dividing the city, which is actually a section of the Green Line. The United States, Israel’s greatest friend, has not implemented the 1995 congressional resolution to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Every six months the US president signs a waiver postponing the move for reasons of national security. As far as the international community is concerned, sovereignty over Jerusalem is one of the issues that must be decided in negotiations over a two-state solution. For the US administration, The President Bill Clinton parameters, which propose adding the Palestinian neighborhoods to the West Bank under the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state is relevant today, as well. But the facts that Israel has created on the ground are having the opposite effect. Construction of the 142-kilometer Separation Fence around the city and within its boundaries, closure of passage points from the city to the West Bank and curtailment of the Palestinian Authority’s activity in the eastern part of the city, have all deepened the distinction between the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem and the Palestinian population living “across the fence.” Some 50,000 Palestinians live in the area between the Separation Fence and the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem that borders the West Bank (creating a new de facto territorial definition). On the other hand, residents of East Jerusalem enjoy freedom of trade and movement that residents of the West Bank can only dream of. Therefore, the strategy of Palestinian resistance to Israel’s annexation appears to be making way for a “if you can’t beat them, join them” approach. More and more Palestinian students opt for Israeli matriculation exams and preparation courses for Israeli universities. In this regard, there are even claims that Israel is deliberately weakening the Palestinian school system in order to cause students to transfer to the Israeli one. Young residents of East Jerusalem work in the western part of the city and spend their leisure time there, dress like their Jewish peers and speak their language. The number of Palestinian who converted their status from that of Jerusalem resident to that of Israeli citizen has soared from 85 in the year 2000 to 700 in 2010. According to the assessment of Israel’s Ministry of Interior, since 1967 some 10,000 residents of Arab Jerusalem have assumed Israeli citizenship, most of them in the last seven years. This new status grants them the right to vote to the Knesset, in addition to the right to vote for and be elected to the position of mayor and to the city council. But, as previously mentioned, if the past is anything to go by, the vast majority of Palestinians will not be going to vote in the coming November elections. For them, participating in the municipal elections is tantamount to recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the city. Perhaps it’s time to try a new approach? How about if Fayyad-Kalouti decides to run for mayor and for the city council at the head of a Palestinian group, with the support of all the Palestinian factions in East Jerusalem? If most of the Palestinian residents, who account for 36%-38% of the population, were to respond to the call and cast their ballots, Jerusalem would become an experiment in bi-nationalism — and perhaps mark an end to Zionism, as well; if the experiment succeeds, in the next elections in 2017 the Palestinian mayor could form a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox, who currently constitute 31% of residents, to divide the budgetary pie in a just manner, shut down the city on Sabbath and cancel Jerusalem Day. In conclusion: We wish to thank successive Israeli governments for preferring hollow declarations and boastful pride parades to just and logical political solutions, for the most unique city in the world.
Date: 04/05/2013
×
Netanyahu Will Ignore Arab League's Land-Swap Proposal
The April 30 announcement by Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani that the Arab states agree in principle to a land swap between Israel and Palestine, based on the 1967 border lines, failed to stir any particular excitement among Israel’s top political offices. That is a natural reaction, given the views of those leaders — it’s obvious they cannot trade sovereign Israeli territories for other territories that they also regard as their own and call “Judea and Samaria,” despite the fact that the rest of the world defines them as “occupied territories.” This is a non-starter. Even a child understands that in order to trade stamps with a friend, both of them have to at least agree that each is the proprietor of his own collection. As far as Israel is concerned, it owns most of the other side’s stamps, as well. In a previous article, I noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strenuously objects to recognizing the June 4, 1967 lines as a basis for discussion from which to launch negotiations on mutual exchanges of land. His stand is deeply rooted in the revisionist worldview on which he was raised and educated. Zionist Revisionism espoused a diplomatic struggle alongside a military one as a solution to the problem of the Jewish exile that was to culminate in the establishment of a Hebrew state in the Land of Israel along both banks of the Jordan River. Netanyahu is thus part of a school that believes Israel already made a major historical compromise when it declared independence 65 years ago: it gave up its right to sovereignty over the east bank of the Jordan. This school of thought rejects the internationally accepted Palestinian approach, which contends that the Palestinians adopted a compromise 25 years ago when they gave up their demand for a state in all of Palestine and recognized UN Resolutions 242 and 338. Those resolutions, which essentially call for Israeli withdrawal to secure and agreed-upon boundaries, define the 1967 borders (known as the Green Line) as the "peace lines" between Israel and the Arab states. In doing so, they leave the Palestinians with no more than 22% of the land of Palestine as it was defined under the British Mandate (the land between Jordan and the Mediterranean). When negotiations on a permanent arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians began at Camp David in the summer of 2000, the Palestinians responded favorably to the Israeli-American proposal to alter the 1967 boundaries in a way that would enable Israel to annex the large settlement blocks in the West Bank. After it became public knowledge that Palestinian President Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) had reached understandings in 2008 with then-prime minister Ehud Olmert regarding an exchange of territories, the Arab League and the the Organization of Islamic Cooperation still reiterated their unequivocal support for the Arab Peace Initiative. Even the major turmoil in the Middle East, including the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, did not change the Initiative. The land-swap arrangement is essential, not just as a precondition for negotiations but also as the sole formula for bridging differences between the sides over the issue of territory. It will enable Israel’s leadership to say it did not go back to the 1967 borders, as well as allow the Palestinians to say they did go back to them. For all intents and purposes, rejection of a land exchange is a rejection of a permanent settlement between the sides. This is why Hamas strenuously objects to land swaps. Paradoxically, the biggest revisionist of them all, former prime minister Menachem Begin and one of Likud's founders former prime minister Ariel Sharon were the ones who approved the interpretation of Resolution 242 as requiring Israeli withdrawal from the lands it conquered in the 1967 Six Day War — to the very last meter. Their interpretation is derived from their respective decisions to withdraw from all of the Sinai and Gaza Strip. Also ironic is the fact that while the Arabs have been focusing only on the 1967 borders, Netanyahu keeps bringing up issues relating to the 1948 problem. This is the reason he insists in all of his speeches that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a precondition for negotiations. Just this week, in a meeting with the Foreign Ministry, he stubbornly reiterated that “the root of the conflict with the Palestinians is not the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar; it’s the Israeli cities of Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and Ashkelon.” He elegantly ignores the fact that Abu Mazen officially asked the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state within the bounds of the 1967 borders and subsequently said in a television interview that he wants to go back to his family’s home in the Israeli town of Safed — but only as a tourist. The desire Netanyahu expressed at that meeting “to reach an arrangement with the Palestinians that would preclude Israel becoming a bi-national state, yet would provide it with stability and security” is no more than a regurgitation of the Bar-Ilan speech he made four years ago (which has since proven to be a bunch of hollow words). This time, too, Netanyahu refrained from mentioning the Palestinians’ inherent right to self- determination. When he talks of security, Netanyahu means complete Israeli control over the Jordan Valley. For the sake of clarity, the area of the Jordan Valley constitutes a third of the UN Resolution-granted territory the Palestinians claim between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In fact, Netanyahu’s impractical stance is moving Israel closer to the day it has to choose between two options: becoming a bi-national state or an apartheid state. The willingness to exchange lands, expressed after the meetings of the Arab League delegation in Washington with US Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, is a step forward. But it’s not surprising. The Palestinian willingness to trade lands on the eastern side of the Green Line for territory within Israel had the Arab League's support from the very start, in 2002. As far as the Islamic states are concerned, as long as Abu Mazen doesn’t consider waiving sovereignty over the holy Muslim sites and handing the Jews control over Haram al-Sharif (the Temple Mount), he is entitled to exchange territory to his heart’s content. On the other hand, Netanyahu is adhering to the 2003 decision of the Sharon government, of which he was a member, rejecting the Arab Initiative. In fact, one of the 14 conditions the government attached to its May 2003 decision to adopt the Bush-era Road Map, states that Israel “rules out any response to the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative.” But with all due respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fruitful cooperation between the United States and the Arab League is designed to achieve a far greater goal: the latest upheavals in the region have created a joint interest for the United States and the Sunni states: blocking the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis and strengthening Jordan, as well as preventing al-Qaeda’s penetration into the Sinai, Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Obama administration believes that a diplomatic breakthrough on the Israeli-Palestinian front, on the basis of the Arab Initiative, could supply the glue for a new regional alliance. This approach enables Israel to enjoy immediate defense dividends, even before it is forced to make a single territorial compromise. Israel will be able to arrive at a two-state solution based on a broad consensus among all the Arab states regarding core issues. But time is not on Israel's side. The Arab League delegates hinted to their interlocutors in Washington that if diplomatic progress is not achieved within six months, the Arab League will withdraw its initiative. This will seal the tiny remaining crack in the window of opportunity for a peace agreement. Sadly, only two Israeli government ministers saw fit to respond to the Qatari prime minister’s declaration — Justice Minister and HaTenua Party leader Tzipi Livni and Science Minister Yaakov Peri of the Yesh Atid Party. Peri, who served as head of the Shin Bet security agency (1988-1995), is one of the founders of the nonpartisan “Israeli Peace Initiative” movement, which for the past two years has been working to promote a regional approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Will these two be the only ones?
Date: 27/03/2013
×
In Israeli Foreign Policy, Everything Is Connected
The apology that President Obama extracted from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the subsequent dramatic reconciliation with Turkey only go to show that everything in the Middle East is connected. The Iranian nuclear program, the insurgency in Syria, the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab Spring – none of these topics can "go on leave." You cannot deal with the Syrian chemical threat without mending fences with Ankara. And you cannot mend fences with the Turks without taking action to mend fences with the Palestinians. We can now say that the turn of phrase "what's the connection?" which has been the quintessential Israeli stance to date is now "yok." In Turkish, this word denotes "no longer in existence" or "defunct." All of a sudden, the Prime Minister's Office passionately makes the case that Israel and Turkey have a joint interest to stop the Middle Eastern axis of evil. Presumably, Netanyahu fully understands that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will not make do with an apology and compensations to the families of the Marmara flotilla fatalities. The Muslim leader has undertaken to become the Palestinian savior, the messiah that will deliver the Palestinians from the Israeli occupation. The person who made peace with the Kurds and tried to broker a peace agreement between Israel and Syria will not sit quietly by if the diplomatic stalemate and the settlement activity lead to a third intifada. And as for the remaining threats, one single sentence that came out of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s mouth on Wednesday [March 20] was worth the massive traffic jams on the roads leading to Jerusalem and the ocean of words, of similar proportions, that jammed Israeli airwaves during President Barack Obama’s visit. I am referring to the prime minister’s public pronouncement that he believes the president’s promise that he intends to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This announcement, made at a joint news conference in Jerusalem, is truly good news for us. It ensures that at least over the coming year we won’t go to sleep at night worrying about waking up to a report of an Israeli attack on Iran and being on the verge of a regional war as a result. Starting this Passover holiday, and until the one next year, we won’t be hearing arguments in Israel’s Foreign Affairs and Security cabinet between proponents and opponents of an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Washington’s Jewish lobbyists will be freed of the need to mobilize the support of Republican members of Congress (who never miss a chance to use Israel as a hatchet with which to dig the political grave of the Democratic president) for a dangerous Israeli adventure in the Persian Gulf. On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, the Israeli public noted that the prime minister believes Obama will not allow Iran to complete its nuclear program. We all saw the Netanyahu family embracing Barack Obama. From now on, it will be hard to tell the Cohen family from [the town of] Ofakim that Obama is “a Muslim Israel basher.” The removal, albeit temporary, of the Iranian problem from the agenda makes room for the issue of Iran’s plan to deepen Shiite influence in the Middle East, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict serving to oil its wheels. Up to now, every time an important US or European personality bothered the prime minister with the question of the occupation, the settlements and the freeze in negotiations with the Palestinians, Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] would wave away the question as one would a pesky fly. He did so (as previously published on this site) when the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, tried to discuss the Palestinian issue with him. Bibi said it was a “marginal matter” and suggested focusing on the Iranian issue. He also vigorously rebutted the claim of the senior European diplomat that progress toward resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would help the West block the Iranian progress in developing a nuclear capability. Alongside a pledge not to bother him over the next few months with a strike on Iran, as well as the apology to the Turks, Obama was able to extract from Netanyahu the first positive statement in his third term about the two-state solution. But in order to force Netanyahu to reopen the Palestinian channel, Obama and Ashton need a bit of help from Palestinian Chairperson Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]. The Palestinian leader needs to relieve Netanyahu of the excuse that it is the Palestinian leadership which refuses to negotiate with the occupier on ways of ending the occupation. Al-Monitor has learned that Secretary of State John Kerry is planning a rescue operation from the settlement construction moratorium trap. Kerry's team will send Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairperson Abu Mazen an invitation for negotiations without preconditions, with the hope that both sides will avoid taking any unilateral actions during negotiations This way Abu Mazen will be able to tell his public that his demand for a construction freeze has been met, since everyone in the world regards the settlement enterprise as an unlawful and unilateral action. On the other hand, Netanyahu will dodge his first coalition crisis, giving the offensive word "freeze" a wide berth. The ball is now in the court of the Palestinian leader. Even though Abu Mazen’s precondition for resuming negotiations — a freeze on construction in the settlements — is just and perfectly legal, a wise and courageous policy requires putting a freeze on this condition. True, Obama was the one who sent Abu Mazen up that “freeze” tree and left him there alone. But with each passing day, dozens of houses are being added to settlements and outposts; each passing day reduces the odds of the two-state solution. Thus, the settlements have turned into a dual trap: They both rob the Palestinians of their land and undermine negotiations on handing it back to them. When the moment of truth arrives, if and when Bibi is forced to divulge his real two-state solution plan (assuming there is one), he will have to choose between a national coalition crisis with chairperson of HaBayit HaYehudi party Naftali Bennett, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon and Likud Knesset Member Moshe Feiglin, or an international coalition crisis with Obama, Abu Mazen and Erdogan. Don't be jealous of him.
Date: 07/11/2012
×
For the right man, Israelis would make peace
When Labor Party chief Shelly Yacimovich reads the new survey by Tel Aviv University's Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence, she'll be able to smile and tell her campaign advisers: "I told you there was no need to get worked up about the peace blather from that Abu Mazen" - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The survey, conducted in May, finds that 80 percent of Israelis don't believe it's possible to make peace with the Palestinians. Half of them don't believe it's ever possible to make peace, while half don't believe it's possible in the foreseeable future. About two-thirds support a diplomatic solution, but many more still eagerly buy the convenient argument that there's no partner. What a pity. The survey is part of a long-term study under way since 2002 led by four specialists from Tel Aviv University: professors Michael Hopp, Yochanan Peres, Izhak Schnell and Dan Jacobson. They compare their findings with similar studies they conducted in 2002, 2003 and 2005. In the first, they interviewed 3,800 Jewish Israelis in Israel proper and the West Bank, in the second 1,100, in the third 500 and in the fourth 1,200. Each survey was carried out during a relatively quiet period by two research institutes and was found to be free of errors. The (relatively ) good news is that 87 percent of secular Jewish Israelis believe in the need for peace with the Palestinians, but only half the religiously observant and a smaller percentage of the ultra-Orthodox believe this. Traditional Jews have moved to the right and are now in the middle of the road. The marginal occupation The study shows that the occupation has become a marginal element in the national debate among both secular and traditional Jews. Moreover, only about 20 percent of secular Jews see the demographic threat as an existential problem and only one-third believe the occupation and the settlements are creating a security threat to Israel. In the poll, nearly half the respondents consider Palestinian terror a major security problem; this reflects the strong influence of the second intifada and the terror from the Gaza Strip, making it hard for large segments of the population to support a compromise with the Palestinians. "These findings might well show that the policy of continuing the creeping occupation and the settlements is indeed bearing fruit and leading a change in positions among the public, even if gradual," the rearchers write. Within the Green Line, the number who consider themselves rightists or right-leaning has increased from 41 percent to 48 percent. Two-thirds of this increase comes at the expense of those who say they hold centrist positions. But between 2002 and 2012 the left has strengthened; it has grown from 20 percent to 25 percent of the population. The study shows that the right's determination to take action to advance its goals is stronger than the left's. This is seen mainly in the willingness to act against government decisions to evacuate settlements or territory, although this willingness is limited to nonviolent means. While 60 percent of the public supports a democratic solution to the conflict, 22 percent of Jewish residents of the West Bank prefer the authority of the rabbis to the authority of the elected institutions. Only six percent of the respondents (14 percent of the settlers ) see the use of violence to prevent withdrawal from the West Bank as legitimate, while 59 percent (70 percent of the settlers ) believe that the public only has the right to fight for its beliefs within the law (compared with 31 percent and 45 percent respectively at the beginning of the decade ). Around 37 percent of the secular respondents see the settlers as pioneers, compared with 32 percent in 2005, and 35 percent see them as "the bedrock of our existence," compared with 23 percent in 2005. But this is only theoretical support. About 70 percent of the respondents show a preference to remain where they are living today. Twenty percent of the religious would prefer to move to live in the territories, whereas 14 percent would prefer to leave the country. It turns out that the hard core of settlers as represented by Gush Emunim, which has pushed the Israeli government and public to settle in the territories, hasn't spread its messianic ideology among the public, or even among the settlers. It turns out that the main motivations for living in the territories, including among many of the religious, are comfort and quality of life. Compensation up to 300 percent The researchers found that it's possible to evacuate half the settlers with their consent if they are offered compensation equivalent to up to 300 percent of the value of their property. While the willingness of Israelis inside the Green Line to compensate the settlers for a loss of property during an evacuation decreased last decade, the willingness to be evacuated increased. And there was no significant change in the percentage of those who would refuse any compensation. The researchers found that the occupation splits the public between people with a neo-Zionist outlook who emphasize a nationalist-religious agenda and a moderate Zionist majority that focuses on the land inside the Green Line and promotes a social agenda. Therefore, the right is advancing its agenda unhindered, the researchers say. It's exploiting the confusion among centrists who have lost faith in the ability to achieve peace; the occupation remains on the margins of their political concerns. Still, the researchers conclude, "a leadership that takes responsibility for finding a compromise solution with the Palestinians is expected to receive the support of most of the public, just as most of the public supported [former Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, despite its disadvantages."Did you get that, Shelly?
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street, Al Massayef, Ramallah Postalcode P6058131
Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647 Jerusalem
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1 972-2-298 9492 info@miftah.org
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
|