It was not accidental that US President Barack Obama ignored the Middle East issue in his annual speech known as the State of the Union address. He did not refer to the issue at all as part of his administration’s activities, which is worrying, as last year following his presidential victory, he began his speeches by speaking optimistically about the peace process. Has Barack Obama reached the same conclusion that his predecessor Bill Clinton reached by the end of his term in office following the failure of the negotiations with Yasser Arafat? Clinton advised his successor George W. Bush not to make the same mistake i.e. to avoid the [Middle East] issue as the warring factions are not serious about achieving any kind of peace. Despite the advice, Bush tried his luck when he declared his willingness to recognize two states – one Palestinian, one Israeli – as part of the peace process, however this was fruitless. A few weeks later, the events of 9/11 took place, which silenced any talk of anything other than the fight against Al Qaeda. After winning the presidential elections, President Obama was very optimistic and prioritized the Palestinian cause over other issues, including fighting terrorism, which caused him to face heavy criticism in the US. Nevertheless, Obama pushed on with his attempts, relying on the impartial mediator, George Mitchell, a man whose neutrality has never been doubted and a man who has never been accused of siding with Israel. Following months of talks, Obama was faced with a big shock after the mediator admitted to him that nobody seems interested in solving the issue. We are now about to enter a new, calm round of negotiations or perhaps a final attempt to convince both parties that negotiation is necessary in order to reach peace. Is peace more likely to be established under today’s circumstances and under the patronage of an impartial president and a fair mediator? There is a real chance as long as there is a real will to end the conflict that has forced millions to live as refugees or in exile and in conditions that any human being would not accept as part of the greatest injustice the world has experienced in decades. New features indicate that this time the attempt is to expand the map of dialogue by allowing the Syrians to take part, and this is important as there is no peace without Syria. Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership will be given reason to sit down with the Israelis without preconditions through early acknowledgment and recognition of borders in order to trade borders for settlement land. It is not an easy task but it is deserves [efforts and] attempts to push matters towards a new reality.
Read More...
By: Amira Hass
Date: 27/05/2013
×
Slain Bedouin girls' mother, a victim of Israeli-Palestinian bureaucracy
Abir Dandis, the mother of the two girls who were murdered in the Negev town of Al-Fura’a last week, couldn't find a police officer to listen to her warnings, neither in Arad nor in Ma’ale Adumim. Both police stations operate in areas where Israel wants to gather the Bedouin into permanent communities, against their will, in order to clear more land for Jewish communities. The dismissive treatment Dandis received shows how the Bedouin are considered simply to be lawbreakers by their very nature. But as a resident of the West Bank asking for help for her daughters, whose father was Israeli, Dandis faced the legal-bureaucratic maze created by the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian police is not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians. It must hand suspects over to the Israel Police. The Palestinian police complain that in cases of Israelis suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian residents, the Israel Police tend not to investigate or prosecute them. In addition, the town of Al-Azaria, where Dandis lives, is in Area B, under Palestinian civilian authority and Israeli security authority. According to the testimony of Palestinian residents, neither the IDF nor the Israel Police has any interest in internal Palestinian crime even though they have both the authority and the obligation to act in Area B. The Palestinian police are limited in what it can do in Area B. Bringing in reinforcements or carrying weapons in emergency situations requires coordination with, and obtaining permission from, the IDF. If Dandis fears that the man who murdered her daughters is going to attack her as well, she has plenty of reason to fear that she will not receive appropriate, immediate police protection from either the Israelis or the Palestinians. Dandis told Jack Khoury of Haaretz that the Ma’ale Adumim police referred her to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination and Liaison Committee. Theoretically, this committee (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry) is the logical place to go for such matters. Its parallel agency in Israel is the Civilian Liaison Committee (which is part of the Coordination and Liaison Administration - a part of the Civil Administration under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories). In their meetings, they are supposed to discuss matters such as settlers’ complaints about the high volume of the loudspeakers at mosques or Palestinians’ complaints about attacks by settlers. But the Palestinians see the Liaison Committee as a place to submit requests for permission to travel to Israel, and get the impression that its clerks do not have much power when faced with their Israeli counterparts. In any case, the coordination process is cumbersome and long. The Palestinian police has a family welfare unit, and activists in Palestinian women’s organizations say that in recent years, its performance has improved. But, as stated, it has no authority over Israeli civilians and residents. Several non-governmental women’s groups also operate in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and women in similar situations approach them for help. The manager of one such organization told Haaretz that Dandis also fell victim to this confusing duplication of procedures and laws. Had Dandis approached her, she said, she would have referred her to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which has expertise in navigating Israel’s laws and authorities.
By: Phoebe Greenwood
Date: 27/05/2013
×
John Kerry unveils plan to boost Palestinian economy
John Kerry revealed his long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East on Sunday, hinging on a $4bn (£2.6bn) investment in the Palestinian private sector. The US secretary of state, speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea, told an audience including Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that an independent Palestinian economy is essential to achieving a sustainable peace. Speaking under the conference banner "Breaking the Impasse", Kerry announced a plan that he promised would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo accords, more than 20 years ago. Tony Blair is to lead a group of private sector leaders in devising a plan to release the Palestinian economy from its dependence on international donors. The initial findings of Blair's taskforce, Kerry boasted, were "stunning", predicting a 50% increase in Palestinian GDP over three years, a cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates and almost double the Palestinian median wage. Currently, 40% of the Palestinian economy is supplied by donor aid. Kerry assured Abbas that the economic plan was not a substitute for a political solution, which remains the US's "top priority". Peres, who had taken the stage just minutes before, also issued a personal plea to his Palestinian counterpart to return to the negotiations. "Let me say to my dear friend President Abbas," Peres said, "Should we really dance around the table? Lets sit together. You'll be surprised how much can be achieved in open, direct and organised meetings."
By: Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
Date: 27/05/2013
×
Isolation Devastates East Jerusalem Economy
Thick locks hug the front gates of shuttered shops, now covered in graffiti and dust from lack of use. Only a handful of customers pass along the dimly lit road, sometimes stopping to check the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, or ordering meat in near-empty butcher shops. “All the shops are closed. I’m the only one open. This used to be the best place,” said 64-year-old Mustafa Sunocret, selling vegetables out of a small storefront in the marketplace near his family’s home in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Amidst the brightly coloured scarves, clothes and carpets, ceramic pottery and religious souvenirs filling the shops of Jerusalem’s historic Old City, Palestinian merchants are struggling to keep their businesses alive. Faced with worsening health problems, Sunocret told IPS that he cannot work outside of the Old City, even as the cost of maintaining his shop, with high electricity, water and municipal tax bills to pay, weighs on him. “I only have this shop,” he said. “There is no other work. I’m tired.” Abed Ajloni, the owner of an antiques shop in the Old City, owes the Jerusalem municipality 250,000 Israeli shekels (68,300 U.S. dollars) in taxes. He told IPS that almost every day, the city’s tax collectors come into the Old City, accompanied by Israeli police and soldiers, to pressure people there to pay. “It feels like they’re coming again to occupy the city, with the soldiers and police,” Ajloni, who has owned the same shop for 35 years, told IPS. “But where can I go? What can I do? All my life I was in this place.” He added, “Does Jerusalem belong to us, or to someone else? Who’s responsible for Jerusalem? Who?” Illegal annexation Israel occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in 1967. In July 1980, it passed a law stating that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. But Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and subsequent application of Israeli laws over the entire city remain unrecognised by the international community. Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory – along with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights – and Palestinian residents of the city are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Jerusalem has historically been the economic, political and cultural centre of life for the entire Palestinian population. But after decades languishing under destructive Israeli policies meant to isolate the city from the rest of the Occupied Territories and a lack of municipal services and investment, East Jerusalem has slipped into a state of poverty and neglect. “After some 45 years of occupation, Arab Jerusalemites suffer from political and cultural schizophrenia, simultaneously connected with and isolated from their two hinterlands: Ramallah and the West Bank to their east, West Jerusalem and Israel to the west,” the International Crisis Group recently wrote. Israeli restrictions on planning and building, home demolitions, lack of investment in education and jobs, construction of an eight-foot-high separation barrier between and around Palestinian neighbourhoods and the creation of a permit system to enter Jerusalem have all contributed to the city’s isolation. Formal Palestinian political groups have also been banned from the city, and between 2001-2009, Israel closed an estimated 26 organisations, including the former Palestinian Liberation Organisation headquarters in Jerusalem, the Orient House and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce. Extreme poverty Israel’s policies have also led to higher prices for basic goods and services and forced many Palestinian business owners to close shop and move to Ramallah or other Palestinian neighbourhoods on the other side of the wall. Many Palestinian Jerusalemites also prefer to do their shopping in the West Bank, or in West Jerusalem, where prices are lower. While Palestinians constitute 39 percent of the city’s population today, almost 80 percent of East Jerusalem residents, including 85 percent of children, live below the poverty line. “How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t control your resources? How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t have any control of your borders?” said Zakaria Odeh, director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, of “this kind of fragmentation, checkpoints, closure”. “Without freedom of movement of goods and human beings, how could you develop an economy?” he asked. “You can’t talk about independent economy in Jerusalem or the West Bank or in all of Palestine without a political solution. We don’t have a Palestinian economy; we have economic activities. That’s all we have,” Odeh told IPS. Israel’s separation barrier alone, according to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), has caused a direct loss of over one billion dollars to Palestinians in Jerusalem, and continues to incur 200 million dollars per year in lost opportunities. Israel’s severing and control over the Jerusalem-Jericho road – the historical trade route that connected Jerusalem to the rest of the West Bank and Middle East – has also contributed to the city’s economic downturn. Separation of Jerusalem from West Bank Before the First Intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) began in the late 1980s, East Jerusalem contributed approximately 14 to 15 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). By 2000, that number had dropped to less than eight percent; in 2010, the East Jerusalem economy, compared to the rest of the OPT, was estimated at only seven percent. “Economic separation resulted in the contraction in the relative size of the East Jerusalem economy, its detachment from the remaining OPT and the gradual redirection of East Jerusalem employment towards the Israeli labour market,” the U.N. report found. Decades ago, Israel adopted a policy to maintain a so-called “demographic balance” in Jerusalem and attempt to limit Palestinian residents of the city to 26.5 percent or less of the total population. To maintain this composition, Israel built numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements inside and in a ring around Jerusalem and changed the municipal boundaries to encompass Jewish neighbourhoods while excluding Palestinian ones. It is now estimated that 90,000 Palestinians holding Jerusalem residency rights live on the other side of the separation barrier and must cross through Israeli checkpoints in order to reach Jerusalem for school, medical treatment, work, and other services. “Israel is using all kinds of tools to push the Palestinians to leave; sometimes they are visible, and sometimes invisible tools,” explained Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER). Al-Hammouri told IPS that at least 25 percent of the 1,000 Palestinian shops in the Old City were closed in recent years as a result of high municipal taxes and a lack of customers. “Taxation is an invisible tool…as dangerous as revoking ID cards and demolishing houses,” he said. “Israel will use this as pressure and as a tool in the future to confiscate these shops and properties.”
By the Same Author
Date: 06/02/2010
×
A Fresh Attempt at Negotiations
It was not accidental that US President Barack Obama ignored the Middle East issue in his annual speech known as the State of the Union address. He did not refer to the issue at all as part of his administration’s activities, which is worrying, as last year following his presidential victory, he began his speeches by speaking optimistically about the peace process. Has Barack Obama reached the same conclusion that his predecessor Bill Clinton reached by the end of his term in office following the failure of the negotiations with Yasser Arafat? Clinton advised his successor George W. Bush not to make the same mistake i.e. to avoid the [Middle East] issue as the warring factions are not serious about achieving any kind of peace. Despite the advice, Bush tried his luck when he declared his willingness to recognize two states – one Palestinian, one Israeli – as part of the peace process, however this was fruitless. A few weeks later, the events of 9/11 took place, which silenced any talk of anything other than the fight against Al Qaeda. After winning the presidential elections, President Obama was very optimistic and prioritized the Palestinian cause over other issues, including fighting terrorism, which caused him to face heavy criticism in the US. Nevertheless, Obama pushed on with his attempts, relying on the impartial mediator, George Mitchell, a man whose neutrality has never been doubted and a man who has never been accused of siding with Israel. Following months of talks, Obama was faced with a big shock after the mediator admitted to him that nobody seems interested in solving the issue. We are now about to enter a new, calm round of negotiations or perhaps a final attempt to convince both parties that negotiation is necessary in order to reach peace. Is peace more likely to be established under today’s circumstances and under the patronage of an impartial president and a fair mediator? There is a real chance as long as there is a real will to end the conflict that has forced millions to live as refugees or in exile and in conditions that any human being would not accept as part of the greatest injustice the world has experienced in decades. New features indicate that this time the attempt is to expand the map of dialogue by allowing the Syrians to take part, and this is important as there is no peace without Syria. Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership will be given reason to sit down with the Israelis without preconditions through early acknowledgment and recognition of borders in order to trade borders for settlement land. It is not an easy task but it is deserves [efforts and] attempts to push matters towards a new reality.
Date: 11/11/2009
×
How Will the Palestinians Survive Without Mahmoud Abbas?
We must not forget that the Palestinian president – no matter who he might be – is an important figure not just for the West Bank, but for the entire Arab world. This is because the Palestinian President is the guardian of the most important cause – the Palestinian Cause – and therefore possesses exceptional [political] legitimacy in the Middle East's political arena. Therefore the issue that we are facing is one that concerns everybody. Mahmoud Abbas has thrown everybody into a state of confusion after announcing that he does not intend to stand for re-election in the forthcoming Palestinian presidential elections that are scheduled to take place in 9 weeks. Everyone involved now finds themselves facing a real dilemma as a result of this announcement. Hamas, who called Abbas a traitor and attempted to have him removed from office, and once even tried to assassinate him, do not know whether to rejoice or be worried [for the future]. The Palestinian Authority leadership did not seem surprised by Abbas's decision, and nobody has yet dared to announce their candidacy to succeed him. Despite their implicit criticism of Mahmoud Abbas, the Americans have said that they will engage with him regardless of his [official] position, giving the impression that they will insist upon his presidency. The Arab governments – who each have a different position towards President Mahmoud Abbas – have remained silent, but they do not want him to leave office, at least not until he has put the Palestinian house in order. And so will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas truly leave office next January? Yes, but without the presence of Mahmoud Abbas the government – which almost spilt during the last Fatah elections – will be defenseless. It has been made clear that the issue of political succession is a serious one in a society that has become accustomed to having leadership imposed, rather than the people being asked which leader they would prefer. In a society where culture and the practice of democracy has failed to take root must suffer an electoral climate where rule is imposed from above. This is what happened during the previous Palestinian elections, and the dispute with Hamas allowed Fatah to gain access to everything. Fatah floundering in its search for an alternative to Mahmoud Abbas in itself can be considered a positive. This is to say that – despite its internal division – Fatah has matured and maintained disciple in the post-Arafat era with none of the Fatah leaders challenging Mahmoud Abbas's leadership after he assumed the presidency in 2004. This is a rare example of discipline, especially as several of the Fatah leaders consider themselves to be Arafat's rightful successful, however they accepted Mahmoud Abbas's presidency even though he won only 62 percent of the Palestinian vote. Mahmoud Abbas's decision to leave the game of politics has placed everybody in an awkward position as they had already made plans based upon the assumption that Fatah would win at the forthcoming elections, Hamas would boycott the elections, and Mahmoud Abbas would be re-elected. However Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to quit, and he seems to mean what he says. Abbas has required that the terrifying question "who will be the next Palestinian president?" be raised. There is no consensus over a leader other than the consensus that there are no decisive leaders in the Palestinian arena, and there is no ready alternative [to Mahmoud Abbas] to lead the Palestinian people. The single name being put forward is that of Marwan Barghouti, the commander who raised his profile by leading the First Intifada 22 years ago. The Israelis attempted to extinguish his popularity by imprisoning him on a number of different occasions, finally sentencing him to life imprisonment. Barghouti was an important field commander, but is untried as a political leader. Ultimately he is the only figure that Fatah can put forward that would cancel out Hamas's claims of martyrdom and championing [of the Palestinian Cause], but there are several obstacles to him being named leader.
Date: 19/10/2009
×
Before Mitchell Announces His Failure
Nine months have passed since George Mitchell was entrusted with the task of preparing a peace plan between the Arabs and Israel, which the US President took on in order to set up a Palestinian state. The US President thought that it would take him a mere two weeks to start the negotiations, but no one appears to have learned from the past. The one thousandth plan for negotiations is currently in the process of announcing its failure, and the reason is the same one that recurs in every project of negotiations. It is the Israeli prevarication and repeated Arab stubbornness. The Arabs do not look at the finishing line where the big prize lies. The Israelis succeeded in preoccupying Mitchell and the PA with talk about halting the settlement activity, and this move enabled them to procrastinate. We cannot blame Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his wasting of time because the Palestinians themselves are in line with the Israelis and the two sides engaged in a match of wrestling that wasted time and a golden opportunity. And we now see Mitchell leave us empty handed and unable to start negotiations. I listened to statements made by chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat whom I regard with respect. He repeated the same conditions on starting the negotiations, as if negotiation were an American, not a Palestinian and Arab dream in order to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state. In fact, I failed to understand the philosophy that makes him rigidly adhere to this condition, not because I differ with his view on the legitimacy of halting the settlement activity, but because it is a minor condition in a more important issue. If the negotiations succeed, the settlements, including most of the ones where the Israelis live, will be evacuated, just as the Israelis evacuated the Sinai settlements after the Camp David Accord and just as the Gaza settlements were demolished when Israel withdrew from the Strip. A final resolution will decide which settlements will be exchanged, which ones will be demolished, and which ones will be sold in a compensation process. This is the desired ending, except in one case, continuation of the occupation. Erekat says a nice poem, but it is not practical at all. It serves the Israeli goal by blocking the plan of President Barack Obama who is in a hurry to begin negotiations. He gave himself 24 months beyond which the negotiations must not continue in order to prevent procrastination. Very regrettably, the condition of halting the settlement activity wasted one of the most important opportunities for negotiations in the history of the Arabs, represented by the presence of a fair and enthusiastic president in the White House and the designation of Mitchell as an impartial negotiator who has no hostile agenda. The PA will lose these two opportunities and will have to wait for another historical cycle until a new US president has been elected, with the hope that he will have the same sincere desire, which is uncertain. Historically, the US presidential cycle shows that every president who is enthusiastic about achieving peace in the Middle East leaves the White House to be usually succeeded by a hesitant and indifferent president. Former President Carter had a desire for peace and succeeded in enabling Egypt and Israel to sign the most important peace accord. He was succeeded by Reagan who shut the White House door eight years. Then came Bush Senior who created a [favorable] climate in Madrid, but he was succeeded by Clinton who slept seven years and woke up in the eighth year to begin successful negotiations. But these negotiations evaporated because of the Arabs' lingering. He was succeeded by George W. Bush who ruled for eight years and only opened a small window to the road map. Then came Obama who made the establishment of a Palestinian state his first official plan, but this plan was torpedoed by Palestinian conditions that played a disruptive role and served the Israeli side. Yet, Mitchell secured some concessions from Netanyahu who made a commitment for a partial halt to the settlement building. It is considered the biggest commitment ever made by any Israeli prime minister before him. However, Erekat rejected these concessions, and his stand made me think that he was working in the government of Ismail Haniyeh. So, what will happen now?
Date: 13/10/2009
×
Hamas's PR Campaign Against the Authority
Everyone knows that Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas differs much from his predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, in his method of managing crises. This prompted President Abbas many times to go into isolation and sometimes threaten to resign because he could bear internal and external pressures. Had Abu-Ammar [Yasser Arafat] been alive and had he come under such a publicity attack over the Goldstone report, he would have rushed to deny and denounce and may have used someone as a scapegoat. And before doing that, he may have sought to appease the figures who lost in the past PLO elections, disregarding the true results in order to ensure that the losers, such as Nabil Amr, would not turn against him, support Hamas, and attack him. One of the shortcomings of Abu-Mazin [President Abbas] is that he is less flexible and bargains less. Surely, he is not a political player who maneuvers right and left to avoid attacks. Rather, he sits in the middle making himself an easy target. The Goldstone report was used against him by both his comrades and opponents alike, and they all sought to settle their accounts. The funny thing is that Hamas, which used the dirtiest expressions against the Palestinian president because he agreed to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone report, is itself the party that rejected and attacked the report, considering it a Jewish conspiracy by Jewish Goldstone. From Hamas's viewpoint, Abu-Mazin suddenly became a traitor and agent, his nationality should be withdrawn, and he must be tried because he agreed to postpone the discussion of the report. Hamas has been playing the game of distortion against the PA leadership since 2005, and it made this game the primary goal in its political project. Hamas steps up the campaigns against Abu-Mazin and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad because it knows very well that the government's performance in the West Bank is the best in the history of the Palestinian leadership in terms of its fairness and commitments toward its Palestinian citizens. Historically, it has been a very familiar practice for Palestinian parties to exchange accusations to a point where each party accuses the other of being an agent. This practice is part of verbal exchanges and political frivolity. In the past, leftist Palestinian groups, and Hamas afterward, accused Abu-Ammar of selling the cause. Earlier, "revolutionary" Fatah bragged about killing Palestinian officials on the pretext of treachery. In fact, all of these moves were domestic or regional political disputes that had nothing to do with Israel whatsoever. In spite of what Abu-Mazin went through, no one at all observed that he ever used the method of liquidations, even when his men were killed when Hamas seized the entire Gaza Strip by force in a bloody street war between brothers and even when a Hamas cell was arrested as it sought to assassinate Abu-Mazin in Ramallah afterward. But this does not make him a president without mistakes. Anyway, what is currently taking place is an organized onslaught on the PA over an invented case. The Goldstone report is not worth the ink in which it was written. At best, if the report is discussed, which is unlikely, it will be submitted to the UN Security Council where it will be revoked by a veto. Besides, the report itself incriminates Hamas in the recent war and says it too committed war crimes. Very regrettably, what we see is a serious decline in Palestinian politicians' ethics. This decline weakens them and will make them lose a precious opportunity in the regional and international political climate that might strengthen their negotiating position, which is one million times more important than the Goldstone report and verbal heroisms.
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
|