Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘mahmoud-abbas’

Abbas to Head Fatah-Hamas Unity Government Till Planned Elections

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
meshal abbas meeting

Khaled Meshal and Mahmoud Abbas meet in Qatar

Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshal have reached an agreement that would provide for Abbas to head a Palestinian unity caretaker government until elections, which would happen sometime in the coming months.  The deal comes on the heels of the abject failure of four rounds of Jordanian sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in which the Israeli side offered a deal for a Palestinian state that essentially followed the contours of the Separation Wall.

Israeli reaction was swift, negative and predictable:

…Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warn[ed] Mr. Abbas that he could have peace with Israel or unity with Hamas, but not both.

Actually, the truth is Abbas could have peace with Israel if he accepted a neutered Palestine and permanent divorce from Gaza, the other half of the Palestinian nation.  What sort of peace would that be?

This Israeli formulation too drives me crazy:

Mr. Netanyahu disagrees that Hamas is changing. He noted in his statement on Monday that until Hamas recognizes Israel, abandons violence and accepts previous agreements with Israel signed by the Palestinian Authority — the three conditions that the United States and the European Union demand of Hamas, which has rejected them — it remains a renegade that must be shunned.

I would suggest a corollary set of Palestinian demands: until Israel recognizes a Palestinian state, abandons violence against Palestinians, and accepts previous peace deals (Oslo, Road Map, etc.) that it signed with the PA–then it remains a renegade that must be shunned.

Congress has boxed the Obama administration into a corner by mandating that any Palestinian government including Hamas within it, must be defunded.  That would remove $450-million of the $1 billion Palestine receives in foreign funding.  But given the expanding role that Qatar is taking in bringing the Palestinians together and possibly becoming the  new home in exile of Hamas, U.S. aid may no longer even be necessary.  Idiots like Gary Ackerman and the rest of the Lobby boys in Congress who devised this brilliant piece of legislation, should think about what it will be like to have the U.S. entirely cut out of having any influence with the Palestinians.  That’s what will happen if we cut the Palestinians loose.

It won’t hurt the Palestinians since they may have alternate sources of Arab funding.  But it will hurt the Israelis because they will continue their own obdurate ways as international pressure mounts against them.  Pretty soon, the only ally Israel will have left is the U.S., which will veto all necessary Security Council resolutions criticizing Israel.  But in the long-term, Israel cannot sustain this status quo.  The future will be grim.

Bibi’s Fake Settlement Freeze Offer

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

I do so love it when Israeli political figures seek to appear to offer Palestinian leaders a leg up, only to stab them in the back as they’re doing it.  Haaretz reports today that Bibi Netanyahu has offered a vague formula for a settlement freeze that has, as far as I can tell, no provision for duration and only refers to construction on government land.  This, of course, is supposed to mark Bibi as a generous fellow willing to lend a hand to his Palestinian interlocutor.

Haaretz notes that by far most settlement building is carried out by private companies and/or on private land.  So the gesture is quite an empty one.  It allows Bibi once again to pretend that he’s a good guy doing his all for peace, all the while winking as he pulls the wool over everyone’s eyes.  The only problem is that we’ve seen this magic act before and it’s not fooling Palestinians or anyone else.

Then comes this comment, which refers to the Colombian foreign minister who is trying to broker direct talks between Israel and the PA:

Abbas told Holguin that he did not oppose a resumption of negotiations with Israel, but Netanyahu would have to commit to certain steps regarding settlement construction, even if only a symbolic gesture that would let Abbas present it to the Palestinian public as an accomplishment.

There are two ways to read this: either the Israeli official who said this to Barak Ravid is incredibly tone-deaf and unintentionally created the image of Abbas as an Israeli stooge; or the official is much slyer than that and wishes to do two things–make Bibi smell like a rose while cutting Abbas down to size.  Whatever the ultimate meaning, it undermines Abbas profoundly both among Israelis and Palestinians.

We know from the Palestine Papers published by Al Jazeera, that the PA were patsies in the face of Israeli and U.S. pressure.  They were willing to sell their birthright for 30 silver coins (or less).  So portraying Abbas as weak and spineless already fits what many think about him.  So the fact that Israel seeks to reinforce the notion can only mean that Israel really doesn’t want him to succeed ultimately.

That may explain why Bibi was so willing to do a deal with Hamas.  He knows neither he nor any Israeli will ever seriously negotiate with Hamas over anything more serious than a prisoner exchange.  So building up Hamas, at the expense of the PA, is a grand strategy.  Not to mention that Abbas has deliberately stuck his finger in Israel’s eye (in Bibi’s view).  So the Palestinian is only getting what he deserves.

Hamas Leader, Meshaal, Praises Abbas’ UN Bid for Statehood

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011
khaled meshaal

Khaled Meshaal, Hamas senior leader, endorses Palestinian UN statehood bid in face of opposition from Iran's Ayatollah Khameini

Hamas’s chief leader, Khaled Meshaal delivered a major address (Farsi) at a Palestine conference in Iran yesterday which shocked many by directly contradicting the view advanced by Ayatollah Khameini, who attacked the two state solution, the PLO’s support for it, and its UN bid.  Meshaal, in contrast, praised Mahmoud Abbas for his campaign for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.  Keep in mind that Meshaal said this in front of the highest leaders of Iran including Khamieni and Ahmedinejad, all of whom lined up in vehement opposition.  It took guts.

Because this is such an important statement and because it has not been reported at all in any English language site, I’m going to quote the article from the Iran’s Radio Farda (funded partially by the U.S. State Department, but whose reporting is considered reliable by Iranians I’ve consulted) in its entirety.  I thank Muhammad Sahimi for his translation from the Farsi and Golnaz Esfandiari for leading me to this source:

Khaled Meshal, head of the political office of Hamas in Syria said that the request of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, for recognition of an independent Palestinian state and full membership in the United Nations is a courageous act that must be appreciated and supported. Meshal, who was speaking in the 5th international conference in support of Palestinian Intifada in Tehran, said regarding Abbas’ request, “We cannot deny that this action has had symbolic and moral achievements.”

Meshal expressed his position while Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected, at the same conference, Abbas’ suggestion for an independent Palestine, which recognizes partitioning of the historical Palestine. Last week, Abbas asked the UN to recognize an independent Palestine based on the pre-1967 war borders that will consist of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. An independent Palestine within this area has been agreed on internationally, but so far Israel and Palestinians have not been able to reach any agreement in their peace negotiations. The main reason for the disagreement is Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the problem of Palestinian refugees.

Regarding Mahmoud Abbas’ action at the UN, Ayatollah Khamenei said in his speech at the conference, “Our aim is freedom for [all of] Palestine, not part of it. Any plan that aims to partition Palestine must be completely rejected. The idea of two states that has been covered up with membership of the Palestinian government in the UN is nothing but acceding to the Zionists demands, meaning accepting a Zionist government in the Palestinian land.”

But, describing Abbas’ action, Khaled Meshal said that it has “isolated the Zionist regime and the United States, there is a good international consensus that has revealed the [true] ugly face of the U.S.policy and Israel’s position.” At the same time, Meshal said that the action has its limitation and should not be considered as an end by itself. He demanded to “first liberate Palestinian lands and then ask the United Nations Security Coucil for UN membership.” He also warned against some of the consequences of Abbas’ action.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic implicitly accused the officials of Palestine Liberation Organization of treason, but Meshal praised them. Ayatollah Khamenei said [about the officials], “Lack of religious beliefs and separation from the people gradually neutralized them [the officials] and made them ineffectual. Of course, there are also decent, motivated and brave people in the Organization but, collectively, the Organization has gone a different way [than what it should have].”

“Their deviation [from the path of resistance] hurt the cause of Palestine and it is still doing so. They, similar to some treacherous Arab governments, turned their backs to the ideals of resistance which were, and still are, the only way for Palestine salvation, and hurt not only Palestine but also themselves.”

On the other hand, Khaled Meshal praised Mahmoud Abbas for asking the UN for recognition of an independent Palestine state and membership in the UN, despite the opposition by the United States, but added, “Now what?  Will we limit ourselves to this step? Yes, brother Abu Mazen [Abbas] did not give in to the U.S. pressure and persisted in his action. His courage is praise-worthy and we appreciate and support it.”

We heard in the Israeli media and from other sources before Abbas spoke at the UN, that Hamas officials inside Gaza denounced Abbas’s approach to the UN and instead endorsed a one-state solution.  But either this reporting was wrong, or it has been superseded, and in a major way, by a more authoritative source who not only supports the independence bid, but does so strongly and firmly.  In truth, Meshaal may differ with Abbas tactically in how or when he would have made the approach to the UN.  But this statement and the fact that it was made in Iran, in the anti-Zionist heartland, is very significant.

Not to mention that it might strengthen Abbas’ statehood bid since he will have drawn Hamas, his major rival into support for the proposal.  If the Security Council truly does want to support peace and two previously warring Palestinian political groups can endorse the same proposal, there can be no doubt that a Yes vote for statehood would advance Palestinian unity and an eventual peace agreement.

Despite the fact that Radio Farda is a U.S. sponsored media outlet, there can be little doubt that this story does not advance U.S. policy which rejects the UN statehood bid.  This makes the story all the more credible.

I doubt Meshal’s words will resonate at all in the halls of power in Tel Aviv, Washington DC, and Brussels where it should (and this fact will attest to the bankruptcy of their approach to the conflict and resolving it), but let us circulate this statement as widely as possible for the sake of those in the world who are pragmatic and believe that the Palestinians, ALL of them, can eventually come to terms with an Israeli state within 1967 borders, which in turn recognizes a Palestinian state.

Keep in mind that Israel’s far right government and its water-carriers in this country talk about “Hamastan” and the fact that Iran supplies virtually all Hamas’ missiles and weapons (without offering any proof of the claim).  Now, either Meshaal is being a fool in brooking a major patron, or Iran doesn’t provide nearly the support that is claimed, or Meshaal is one brave dude.  When you add to this that Meshaal also refused to provide Bashar Al Assad with the full-throated statement of support the latter demanded to shore up his tottering regime, you have to give the Hamas leader credit for having a backbone.  Now, if only the president of a certain western nation could copy his example.

Bibi: Tom Friedman and Bill Clinton, Great Satans

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

As I mentioned in an earlier post today, Mahmoud Abbas spoke of Palestine’s campaign for statehood as a Palestinian Spring.  Bibi responded that it might result in an Iranian winter.  But I see Bibi’s trip as the winter of his discontent, or perhaps the September of his discontent.

Barak Ravid covers Bibi’s New York UN residency (Hebrew) and notes the poor prime minister’s anger at Tom Friedman, that otherwise impeccable servant of Israel’s interests, who wrote a double-barrel blast of a column lambasting Bibi and calling him the worst, most incompetent prime minister in Israel’s history.  In Bibi’s eyes that makes Tom the Great Satan, perhaps even greater than Ahmadinejad.  Ravid says that this passage in Bibi’s speech was an implicit swipe at Friedman:

Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

Imagine the ungratefulness of Tom Friedman not understanding that Israel’s security needs as defined by the Likud, trump regional peace and stability.  All this attention from Bibi is unfortunate in a way since it will likely further inflate Friedman’s rather large ego to know a prime minister took out after him in a speech before the entire UN.

And Bibi has other nemeses as well such as Bill Clinton, who threw a decent sized bucket of cold water on Bibi in the former president’s remarks which also placed blame for the current logjam squarely on Bibi.  It gives you a measure of Bibi that, according to Ravid, he demanded that his staff call the White House and request a demur from the Obama administration regarding Clinton’s remarks.  Can you imagine the leader of a foreign country insisting that a sitting president criticize a past president.  The guys has balls.  When such a rebuff wasn’t forthcoming, Bibi contacted reporters in his entourage and gave them the White House spokesperson’s phone number and asked them to call for a comment.

Ravid describes the reception of Netanyahu’s UN speech as a sorry affair.  Many of the delegates had left and the minutes-long applause that greeted Abu Mazen’s speech was withheld from the Israeli leader.  The only applause he received was mainly from his own delegation and other Jews who were in the hall at the time.  Ravid even says of Bibi: he refused to ask himself why it is that people throughout the world don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.  After comparing the warmth and effusiveness of the reception that greeted Abbas and the coldness that Bibi experienced, Ravid closes by saying:

For anyone who had any further doubt: this [Abbas' reception] is how a political tsunami looks and that [Bibi's] is how international isolation feels.

Palestine Spring, Bibi’s Winter of Discontent

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Mahmoud Abbas delivered his UN speech today to rapturous applause from the assembled delegates.  Bibi Netanyahu–not so much.

In one especially telling passage he likened the Palestinian demand for statehood to the Arab Spring, calling it the Palestinian Spring.  But Bibi warns in his speech that it could turn into an Iranian winter (a nuclear winter, of course).  But it is Bibi who’s suffering through winter, a winter of the world’s discontent with Israel’s intransigence.

Didi Remez offers a scan from Maariv which notes Bibi is using his tried and true method of advancing Israel’s interests on the world stage: bribery.  Just as he bribed Romania and Bulgaria to vote No on statehood by offering 1,000 Israeli work permits to each, he’s offer “foreign and military aid” to Portugal, Nigeria, and Gabon to secure their No votes.  There’s nothing like a country that argues its case solely based on merit, is there?

bibi netanyahu 2011 un speech

Bibi's UN sophistries

Bibi’s speech (full text) was full of his usual sour-dourness.  Imagine he flies all the way to New York to address the General Assembly and all he can muster is dark imprecations about the UN being a “place of darkness” for Israel and ” a theater of the absurd.”  Of course, he’s referring largely to the Zionism is Racism resolution which harkens back to the dark ages of the 1970s.  No one appears to have told Bibi that times have changed and that in today’s world Israel is rightly condemned not for Zionism, but for killing civilians and other acts which many consider violations of international law.

Among Bibi’s many sins of omission and commission are this conflation of the PA and Hamas:

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

In fact, the PA has performed diligently in guaranteeing security in the West Bank and for Israel as well.  No missiles are launched from Fatah territory into Israel.  Yet somehow this good is transformed into bad and Fatah and Hamas are conflated as if they are one and the same.  In fact, Israel has refused to encourage any political process by which the PA might be governed democractically by either Fatah or Hamas.  In effect, Bibi has only himself to blame.

Someone he also counted up Hamas’ missile inventory and discovered that all “10,000″ Grad rockets have an Iranian imprint on them.  Curiously, not even his own intelligence agencies have made such a vague, unproven claim.

Bibi begins his speech on a note of sheer chutzpah claiming to reach out his hand in peace to every state which Israel has affronted through war and acts of violence including Turkey, Syria, and last but not least the Palestinians.  It reminds me of that old saying: you can’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.  That’s pretty much what Bibi’s doing here.

He is the ultimate chutzpan (someone showing chutzpah), saying he’s willing to go anywhere to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, even willing to meet Abbas right there in New York at the UN.  If that’s so then why did Avigdor Lieberman, Yuli Edelstein and Ron Prosor make such an ostentatious point of exiting the hall during Abbas’ speech (Hebrew here)?  And believe me, such senior officials don’t decide on their own to take such a flagrant and public action.  Their boss, the prime minister, surely knew what they planned to do and approved it.  And if he didn’t then he’s a leader who doesn’t know how to control his subordinates.

Both Bibi and Barack said in their speeches that peace cannot be won through UN resolutions.  They conveniently forget that national independence can indeed be won through such resolutions, which was how Israel won its recognition as a new state in 1947.

Israel’s PM raises the specter of “militant Islam,” that bogeyman so useful to Islamophobes and radical right-wing Israelis everywhere.  When the odds are against you you can always pull out the specter of bin Laden to shock and frighten your audience.  There is yet another noxious element to the abuse of this trope: it confuses the Palestinian struggle for nationhood with a religious holy war.  There is no religious war between Israel and Palestine.  There is a war for national independence and rights, which is not the same thing.  To claim anything else is a lie.  But a lie that is convenient to all the radical Judeans (settlers) who envision a final Gog and Magog between the religious forces of Good and Evil.

I wouldn’t mind Bibi likening “militant Islam” to a noxious reptile if he’d also do the same for militant Judaism (in the form of the settler movement):

[Our] critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions…They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam…They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

As Yousef Munayyer points out, if Palestinians likened the settlers to reptiles, the latter would be the first to shrey about anti-Semitism.  Yet somehow, Bibi gets a pass.  Bibi I’ll make you a deal: you call the settlers creeping insects, crawling reptiles or other noxious treif animals and I’ll be OK with all the crocodile stuff.  Deal?

Here, Israel’s leader adds further insult to injury:

Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza.

This of course presumes that Hezbollah rules Lebanon, which is not the case.  Hezbollah may have veto power over the current government, but that’s not the same as ruling.  Lebanon is far too complicated a country politically and ethnically for Hezbollah or Islamism to prevail there.

Here Bibi again posits an imaginary militant Islam tearing up peace treaties:

It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan.

If those peace treaties are torn up it will only be Israel’s fault because it didn’t resolve the underlying conflict with all the frontline Arab states.  No one, as far as I know has said a word about tearing up the treaty with Jordan.  Again, this is Bibi’s delusion.

Here, Netanyahu attempts to rewrite history:

In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it.

Easy for Bibi to talk about Camp David when he himself opposed, and has opposed virtually every major peace effort.  And easy for him to call it a sweeping offer when he wasn’t the Palestinian leader being asked to accept half a loaf.  The Camp David offer was simply not enough territory for Arafat to be able to accept it, and even senior U.S. negotiators like Aaron David Miller have conceded this in books they’ve written.

Bibi further advances the preposterous argument that the West Bank promises to become a terror state with missiles smuggled into the Hebron Hills to rain down on Israelis living below.  And he has the chutzpah to call this scenario “very real.”  The only thing raining down on the Hebron Hills are the bullets and blows of far-right settlers beating up Palestinian farmers and shepherds and burning their fields.

In a further insult to injury, Bibi adds another canard to the list of infractions in his speech.  He advances the lie that the PA’s UN observer called for Palestine to be “Judenrein.”  This is a flat-out lie.  What the ambassador did say was that he envisioned something that virtually every major Israeli center-right politician has said hundreds of times over–that the two peoples should be separated from each other for their own security.  He said nothing about no Jews being allowed within Palestine, but rather that the two states should be separated.  In fact, Palestinians leaders and even some religious settlers envision a future in which Jews may live within Palestine as long as they take Palestinian citizenship and accept Palestinian sovereignty.  I only wish Israel’s leaders would do the same for Palestinian refugees seeking to return to their historic homeland.

One of the most incredible fictions Netanyahu advances is the notion that his historic claim to the land is confirmed by the fact that he can read his family name in historic Israelite inscriptions:

In my office in Jerusalem, there’s a — there’s an ancient seal. It’s a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there’s a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin — Binyamin — the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria [sic] 4,000 years ago, and there’s been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.

His Diaspora family name was not Netanyahu, but Miliekovski.  In other words, national identity isn’t just inherited.  It isn’t based on fact or history alone.  It can also be a construct.  There’s nothing wrong with that as the Palestinians to an extent have done just the same.  But what IS wrong with this process is if you confuse historical fact with your own personal definitions or aspirations.  Bibi’s claim to the land is a Zionist construct which he and others fill with meaning.  It is created or willed, not God-given and certainly not solely determined by history.

Bibi’s sophistries continue with this one:

So let’s meet here today in the United Nations. Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

What’s to stop you, Bibi?  How about thousands of Israeli troops maintaining a massive Occupation along with 500,000 Israeli settlers displacing the former Palestinian landowners and residents of that land?  How about that?  This situation reminds me of the midrash of God holding Mt. Sinai over the heads of the Israelites and offering them the Torah and asking whether they accept it.  They had little choice, did they?  Well, Abbas is saying that Palestinians have free will and they won’t be railroaded by superior power into a sham deal.

Bibi asks this interesting question about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday — can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons?

A fair question perhaps.  But can the world imagine Bibi Netanyahu armed with 400 nuclear weapons?  Why is a single Iranian weapon more dangerous than Israel’s 400?  And does the world truly believe that Ahmadinejad is any less a radical troglodyte for his country’s interests than Bibi is for his?

Another telling passage from his speech:

Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This of course is a delusion.  Israel doesn’t welcome the Arab Spring.  It’s petrified of it.  What Israel wants is an Arab Spring that continues Israeli hegemony over the region and its interests there.  This will not happen.  So Bibi here is spouting pure sophistry.

What this speech proves more than anything else is that peace is impossible given the current Israeli leadership.  There is nothing but deafness on that side.  So if Obama, the UN, the Europeans, the Quartet want peace they must bring it themselves by imposing a settlement.  But the first step in doing this is throwing a bucket of cold water in Bibi’s face, and recognizing a Palestinian state will do that.

Quartet at Loggerheads Over Disagreement on Peace Negotiations

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Whatever you may say about the Palestinian plan to apply for statehood at the UN, you must concede it has overturned just about everyone’s apple cart of consensus and expectations.  Apparently, it has caused a deep rift within the Quartet itself.  That body arrogated to itself the responsibility for encouraging both sides to return to the negotiating table.  During better days, the members seemed to be generally on the same page, though their individual national interests and agenda diverged greatly.  But with the Palestine’s aggressive campaign this week, those diverging interests have been highlighted.  Indeed, according to a NY Times report, the Quartet is on the verge of total disarray, with the Russians presumably taking a very different approach than Europeans and the U.S.:

Representatives of the so-called quartet — the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia — were still trying late Thursday to reach an agreement on a statement about moving peace negotiations forward, intended to counterbalance the controversial proposal for United Nations membership that Mr. Abbas has vowed to present. The future of the Quartet could be at risk, some diplomats suggested, with the Americans and the Europeans, close to an agreement, ready to abandon the other two members and issue a statement by themselves.

I hope the Russians hold fast.  I’m deeply suspicious of any statement supported by the U.S. or even the Europeans, who seem much more attuned to the needs of this Israeli government than those of the Palestinians.

There simply can be no agreement unless all parties hammer Netanyahu hard for his intransigence and foot-dragging.  Right now, none of the parties seems prepared to do that.  So getting both sides back to the table is a pipe dream, Quartet or no Quartet.

The U.S., its allies, and the NY Times have developed a narrative which labels the Palestinians as obstacles to a peace settlement.  They call Mahmoud Abbas “Hamlet” for his supposed dithering in the face of the “blandishments” offered to him in return for Palestinians’ acquiescence in a peace deal.  The latest volley, is a shameful op-ed by Ehud Olmert (he of the Slimfast boxes full of cash transferred to him during his stay at posh Manhattan hotels, compliments of his Diet King friend, S. Daniel Abraham) in which he claims he offered Abbas a state with territory “equivalent” to the size of pre-67 West Bank and Gaza.  This is the “deal” that Olmert and the Times views as too good to refuse, which Abbas somehow refused (imagine the ungratefulness).  What Olmert left out, and you can fill in by reading the Palestine Papers, is that the disgraced former prime minister’s offer (no mention of the serial bribery charges against Olmert in the credits for his NY Times op-ed) included a measly 5,000 refugees allowed to return to Israel, out of 400,000 who might reasonably be expected to wish to do so according to the Geneva Accords.  These 5,000 would return not on the basis of any legitimate claim under international law, but “on a humanitarian basis,” whatever that means.  Not to mention that Olmert’s territorial offer wasn’t even equal to what was offered to Arafat in Camp David.

Whatever failings the Palestinians and their leaders may have, it is not them that is the obstacle.  Offer them something real, something legitimate and they will respond.  Offering them gornisht as has so far been the case, and you will merit a blank stare (something like the one on Abbas’s face as he listened to Obama’s abominable UN speech yesterday), and rightfully so.

Even Bill Clinton, who deserves some measure of blame for the failure of past peace initiatives, has gotten religion.  At his Global Initiative today in New York, he placed blame solely on Netanyahu.  The ex-president’s perspective is interesting:

“The Israelis always wanted two things that, once it turned out they had…didn’t seem so appealing to Mr. Netanyahu,” Clinton said, adding that Israel wanted “to believe they had a partner for peace in a Palestinian government, and there’s no question — and the Netanyahu government has said — that this is the finest Palestinian government they’ve ever had in the West Bank.”

Furthermore…Israel was also on the verge of being recognized by the Arabs, adding that the “king of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians … we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership.”

This is huge…. It’s a heck of a deal,” Clinton said, adding: “That’s what happened. Every American needs to know this. That’s how we got to where we are.”

“The real cynics believe that the Netanyahu’s government’s continued call for negotiations…and such means that he’s just not going to give up the West Bank,” he added.

Though Bill Clinton’s shepherding of the Middle East peace process was far from perfect, Obama and the NY Times editorial writers should pay a lot closer attention to Bill Clinton’s views than those of Dennis Ross.  This mess is Bibi’s, with Ross as his enabler.  Unfortunately, the two have dragged the current U.S. president into the mess as well.

U.S. ‘Ideas’ to Resolve Israel-Palestine Negotiation Impasse, Same-Old, Same-Old

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

This week’s Israel-Palestine quiz:

Who was recently referred to as sometimes sounding like “an Israeli diplomat?” a.Dennis Ross b. Barack Obama c. Tony Blair d. Danny Ayalon or e. all of the above?  For the answer, read on…

Today’s NY Times reports a strong statement by Nabil Shaath defending the PA’s decision to take its statehood campaign to the UN Security Council.  But what especially struck me about Shaath’s statement was his stinging dismissal of David Hale and Dennis Ross’ intervention on behalf of the Netanyahu government (yes, you heard me right–read farther below):

Mr. Shaath was blunt in his dismissal of the elements of a statement presented to Mr. Abbas on Thursday by Dennis B. Ross and David M. Hale, two senior American officials. Tony Blair, the former British prime minister and Quartet representative, has been the central player in drafting the statement. Quartet envoys were due to meet in New York on Sunday.

Mr. Shaath said the statement “violated six parameters of the peace process,” including accepting Israeli settlement growth, calling Israel a “Jewish state,” pre-empting discussion of a right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel, and rejecting efforts to unify rival Palestinian factions: Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, which rules in Gaza.

In other words, all that the pro-Israel flacks in the Obama administration could come up with was a vague commitment to do something on behalf of Palestinian interests in return for the PA giving up almost all of its key national interests in the negotiations.  It would accept Israel as a Jewish state, renounce the Right of Return, and renounce any effort to reconcile with Hamas.  And this is a serious proposal, how?  What this proposal does is advance Israel’s narrow interests in maintaining the status quo.  It gives Palestine nothing.  That’s why Shaath made this telling comment about Tony Blair, one of Ross’ partners in crime in this little caper:

Mr. Shaath said that when he himself saw the Quartet statement proposal: “I gulped. This was the statement that was supposed to persuade President Abbas not to go? Mr. Blair doesn’t sound like a neutral interlocutor. He sounds like an Israeli diplomat sometimes.”

Why not?  Blair was Bush’s poodle, why not be Bibi’s as well?  More likely though, Blair is doing Obama’s bidding in hopes of some prestigious international post as befits His Eminence.

Henry Siegman adds his voice to the debate with another sharp rebuke of Obama policy:

America has absurd[ly] insisted…most recently [via] President Obama on September 12 — that a Palestinian state can be achieved only as a result of an agreement between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. Surely President Obama must know that left to their own devices, Netanyahu and Abbas will never reach a two state agreement, and that the only purpose a resumed “peace process” would serve is to continue to provide a cover for further Israeli land grabs in the West Bank.

The U.S. might have persuaded President Abbas to abandon the U.N. initiative in favor of resumed negotiations had it reassured him that if the Netanyahu/Lieberman government does not offer them a peace plan within a reasonable period of time based on the 1967 borders, agreed-upon equal territorial swaps and the sharing of Jerusalem, the U.S. would itself present such a plan to the Security Council.

Unfortunately the U.S. lacked the political courage to do so. Instead of enabling President Abbas to withdraw his U.N. initiative by providing him with a justification for such a move, the U.S. has sought to intimidate Palestinian leadership into changing course by threatening to exercise its veto in the Security Council and ending America’s financial support for the Palestinian Authority. Leaving aside the perverseness of this threatened “punishment” — which will not only end Israeli-Palestinian security collaboration but will increase the likelihood of a third Intifada — when has an American president recently threatened an Israeli government with any kind of punishment for their rejection of U.S. advice, even when Israeli actions have been in clear violation of international law?

If anyone can get access to the original proposal submitted by Hale and Ross to Abbas, I’d love to publicize it here.

On a related note, Haaretz reports that the Israeli government may institute emergency laws which would compromise the rights of detainees in anticipation of supposed riots which Israel anticipates in response to the Palestinian failure in the UN:

According to the plan, the police will be authorized to detain any suspect for up to nine hours instead of three hours, as currently stipulated by the law. This will allow the police sufficient time to investigate the role of the suspect in any disturbance, and is based on the assumption that there will be large numbers of suspects held.

Another assumption is that it will be necessary to create large and isolated holding areas where the police can evaluate whether a person in custody will be arrested or released.

One proposal would allow police to use force against those being detained – and not only against those being arrested, as they are now authorized to do.

While currently the law mandates that a person arrested must be brought before the court in 24 hours from the time of arrest, the proposed regulations would allow the police to extend that to 48 hours.

This would mean that for two full days there would be no judicial supervision of the police actions or decision to arrest.

That change would also harm the right of a person arrested to meet with an attorney without delay. The Supreme Court has recognized this obligation by the investigating authorities, and ruled that it is possible to disqualify admissions by suspects if the prisoner had no access to a lawyer.

Another chapter in the document proposes certain circumstances under which a minor, suspected of having taken part in protests, could be brought before a judge within 48 hours – instead of the current 12-hour limit.

Israeli criticism of the plan doesn’t revolve around violation of rights of Palestinians, but rather the rights of Jewish criminal suspects in unrelated cases which also could be trampled.  Ehud Barak said that the Palestinian UN statehood campaign was a “train wreck.”  Little did he know that it would also be a train wreck for Israeli democracy.

Abbas Going for Gold

Friday, September 16th, 2011
abbas statehood

Mahmoud Abbas announced Palestine will apply for full UN membership (Tara Todras Whitehill/AP)

In an uncharacteristically bold move for an otherwise grey figure, Mahmoud Abbas announced today that he would move for Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations with a vote in the Security Council.  This poses a huge headache for the Obama administration, whose torn and tattered Mideast policy is coming under increasing scorn from Arab nations and those of the rest of the world as well.  No doubt, the U.S. will veto a resolution in support of a proposition (an independent Palestinian state) it otherwise supports.  Added to an earlier veto of a a resolution opposing Israeli settlements (another policy is ostensibly supports), the U.S. response is certain, but ultimately futile.

Abbas’ move for full membership indicates his judgment that Obama’s (and by extension, Israel’s) position is becoming increasing untenable.  The tide is turning.  The American boat has missed the turning of the tide and is stuck on a sandbar.

Yesterday, I wrote a post analyzing the shibboleths of the anti-statehood camp (i.e. U.S. and Israeli diplomats) and one of them was the supposed certainty of Palestinian violence in the wake of frustrated expectations.  Here’s a perfect example of this nonsense from none other than Ethan Bronner and his sidekick, Isabel Kershner.  Note here the mysterious, unsourced but always useful reportorial “some,” which through overuse has become accepted wisdom:

Some fear that Mr. Abbas’s move will raise expectations among his people, with nothing changing for them on the ground. Combined with alarmed reactions from Israeli settlers, violent showdowns could erupt.

Who is ‘some?’  Is ‘some’ a real source or a made-up concept in the minds of Bronner and his U.S. and Israeli sources?  And if so, by what evidence do they posit that there will be violence?  And has their track record in predicting other events been good enough to trust this lame prognostication?  ”Nothing changing for them on the ground?  Nothing’s changed on the ground for the past 20 years, why would they expect anything different on the ground.  Where things will change is the Palestinian’s ability to mount offenses on the world stage against Israeli attacks on civilians, settlements, Occupation, etc.

Note as well, that Bronner credits the possibility for settler violence, but not the likelihood for IDF and Border Police violence, which is actually as concerning or even more so given the heightened lethality of the weapons at their disposal.  Further, you’d think that the IDF and police could handle settler violence and provocation and repress it if necessary.  The fact that Bronner worries that settlers could ignite a contagion indicates less than full faith in the abilities of Israeli authorities to contain violence from their side.

No mention, of course, that the leader of the national Palestinian non-violent protests will be Abu Rachme, who has led the Bilin anti-Wall protests for several years.  This movement has historically embraced non-violence, and therefore it will take a huge amount of provocation from the Israeli side to create serious violent disturbances.

I should add that Republican threats to turn off the spigot of U.S. to Palestine should it go forward with the UN vote will not only fail to achieve its desired objective (whatever that is), but it will further isolate the U.S.  There will be other countries, no doubt, eager to fill the vacuum that we leave in Palestine.  Perhaps Iran, Turkey, any number of states whom we’d be better off preventing from pursuing their interests in this matter (at least from the U.S. perspective).  We give them a golden opportunity.  So thanks Republicans for doing what you think is a favor for Israel, but which only harms it in the long run.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE