|
| |
1.
MORE DEBATE OVER REPORT OF ISRAEL'S INFLUENCE IN U.S.
By Tom Regan
Christian Science Monitor
April 6, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0406/dailyUpdate.html
2. PALESTINIANS TO
CONTROL SECURITY FORCES
By Steven Gutkin
Associated Press
April 6, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_hamas
3.
PALESTINIANS' HAMAS LEADER FACES MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS
By John Kifner and Greg Myre
New York Times
April 6, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/world/middleeast/06cnd-hamas.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
4. U.S. TO REDIRECT
AID FOR PALESTINIANS
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post
April 7, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040602024.html
5. EU REJECTS
PLAN TO SUSPEND PALESTINIAN AID
By Daniel Dombey
Financial Times (UK)
April 6, 2006
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/aeb754ac-c592-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html
6. ABBAS TAKES
CONTROL OF CROSSING IN GAZA
AS TENSIONS WITH HAMAS RISE
By Donald Macintyre
Independent (UK)
April 7, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article356263.ece
7.
BRITON SHOT BY ISRAELIS WAS MURDERED, SAYS INQUEST JURY
By Vikram Dodd
Guardian (UK)
April 7, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1748854,00.html
8. A BAD FENCE THAT
MADE GOOD NEIGHBORS
By Akiva Eldar
Haaretz (Israel)
April 7, 2006
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/703681.html
9. HAMAS
MINISTERS RESIGN MEMBERSHIP IN MOVEMENT
TO APPEASE U.S., ISRAEL
By Arnon Regular
Haaretz (Israel)
April 7, 2006
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/703428.html
10. NEGOTIATION
ALTERNATIVES
By Daoud Kuttab
Jordan Times, Opinion (Jordan)
April 7, 2006
http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/opinion/opinion3.htm
11. NO HORIZON FOR A
SETTLEMENT
By Ali Jarbawi
BitterLemons (Israel/Palestine)
April 3, 2006 Issue
http://www.bitterlemons.org/issue/pal2.php
-------------------------------------------
1.
MORE DEBATE OVER REPORT OF ISRAEL'S INFLUENCE IN U.S.
By Tom Regan
Christian Science Monitor
April 6, 2006
Coverage of the debate over the recent paper by professors Stephen Walt
of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago that
examines the influence of Israel and its supporters in Washington over
US foreign policy has been, mostly, absent from US media. But the paper
generated vigorous debate in the British and international media and on
the Internet. Since the working paper's release, there have been
several more attacks on it, but also more support for the professors'
position on the need to look hard at the US-Israel relationship.
The Financial Times reports on Wednesday that Harvard Law School's Alan
Dershowitz posted a 15,000-word response to the Walt-Mearsheimer paper
on the Kennedy School of Government site, where the original report
appeared. In his response to the paper, Professor Dershowitz denounced
the work of the two professors as having an "illogical and
conspiratorial approach."
"What would motivate two recognized academics to issue a compilation of
previously made assertions that they must know will be used by overt
anti-Semites... that will give an academic imprimatur to crass bigotry
and... place all Jews in government and the media under suspicion of
disloyalty to America?"
The publication of the response paper marked the first time in the
Kennedy School's history that it has allowed faculty from other schools
at Harvard to answer back directly to the work of any of its professors.
Since the paper was published several other well-known authors have
condemned or disagreed with it, including David Gergen in US News and
World Report and Christopher Hitchens in Slate.com. The Washington Post
reported on Sunday that while well-known Israel critic Noam Chomsky
applauded the two professors for their courage in writing the paper,
he felt they took a naive view of US foreign policy.
University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, a vocal critic of the
war in Iraq, said the men were "incredibly bold" for trying to start
the debate. But he also said "he does not believe Jewish neocons and
their Christian supporters forced the United States into the war [as
the Walt-Mearsheimer paper contends]," and that it was George W. Bush's
decision alone.
The original working paper was also strongly defended over the weekend.
The Guardian Observer reported on Sunday that the editor of the London
Review of Books, which was the only nonacademic publication to carry a
shorter version of the original 81-page report, defended her decision
to carry the report, and also said the charges of anti-Semitism were
ridiculous. Editor Mary-Kay Wilmers, who is Jewish, said that while the
support of people like David Duke was "unsettling," it did not detract
from the debate the authors were attempting to start.
'I don't want David Duke to endorse the article,' [she] told The
Observer from France on Friday. 'It makes me feel uncomfortable. But
when I re-read the piece, I did not see anything that I felt should not
have been said. Maybe it is because I am Jewish, but I think I am very
alert to anti-Semitism. And I do not think that criticising US foreign
policy, or Israel's way of going about influencing it, is anti-Semitic.
I just don't see it.'
Ms. Wilmers also said that those making the charges of anti-Semitism
may actually encourage it in the long run.
'It serves a purpose. No one wants to be thought of as anti-Semitic
because it is thought of as worse than anything else, although it is
not worse being anti-Semitic than being anti-black or Islamophobic.
Really, one of the most upsetting things is the way it can contribute
to anti-Semitism in the long run just by making so many constant
appeals and preventing useful criticism of Israel. No one can say
Israel's posture does not contribute to anti-Semitism, yet charges of
anti-Semitism are used to justify that policy.'
The Financial Times also carried two pieces over the past week in
support of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper. On Sunday, the paper
editorialized that in the US, "Reflexes that ordinarily spring
automatically to the defence of open debate and free enquiry shut down -
at least among much of America's political elite - once the subject
turns to Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby's role in shaping
US foreign policy." The Times also said that the Walt-Mearsheimer paper
is not truly being considered, but "swept aside by a wave of
condemnation."
Honest and informed debate is the foundation of freedom and progress
and a precondition of sound policy. It is, to say the least, odd when
dissent in such a central area of policy is forced offshore or reduced
to the status of samizdat. Some of Israel's loudest cheerleaders,
moreover, are often divorced by their extremism from the mainstream of
American Jewish opinion and the vigorous debate that takes place inside
Israel. As Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, remarked in
Haaretz about the Walt-Mearsheimer controversy: "It would in fact serve
Israel if the open and critical debate that takes place over here were
exported over there [the US]."Nothing, moreover, is more damaging to US
interests than the inability to have a proper debate about the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, how Washington should use its influence to
resolve it, and how best America can advance freedom and stability in
the region as a whole. Bullying Americans into a consensus on Israeli
policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to
articulate its own national interest.
The other piece on the controversy the Financial Times carried was from
Mark Marzower, professor of history at Columbia University, who wrote
Monday in an opinion piece called, "When vigilance undermines freedom
of speech," that what is striking about the whole debate is not so much
the content of their report but how "discussing the US-Israel special
relationship still remains taboo in the US media mainstream." Prof.
Marzower writes that is seems that it is all but impossible "to have a
sensible public discussion in the US today about the country's
relationship with Israel."
If fear of being tarred as an anti-Semite - and there is no more toxic
charge in American politics - blocks the way, what anti-Semitism
actually implies in today's America is increasingly unclear. Over the
past century, secularization, wealth and prestige have bolstered the
place of American Jewry in national life. Polls suggest that seriously
anti-Semitic views are now found only among a small minority of
Americans. Yet, fear of anti-Semitism has not vanished. Where once it
was suspected - and often found - in the workplace and the domestic
political arena, it is now expressed in terms of sensitivity towards
criticism of the Jewish state. Often ambivalent about the methods of
lobby groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), American Jews generally share the committee's ultimate goal of
maintaining a high level of US support for Israel. As Earl Raab, the
veteran commentator, has noted, there is a sense that if America
abandons Israel, it also may be in some way abandoning American Jewry
itself. In the process, the line between anti-semitism and criticism of
Israeli policy has become blurred. Defending what Bernard Rosenblatt,
the distinguished interwar Zionist, predicted would be "the Little
America in the East" is seen by many as synonymous with defending Jews
as a whole.
Marzower also wrote that there is no reason that the relationship
between Israel and the US should not be subject to the same kind of
cost-benefit analysis as any other any other relationship the US has
with another country.
In perhaps the most balanced view of the debate about the working paper
and the response to it, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, an English journalist and
author whose books include "The Controversy of Zion" which won a
National Jewish Book Award, writes that "the American reaction is
puzzling to Europeans," and he says is another example of the great
transatlantic rift.
On the eastern side of the Atlantic, it has long been recognized that
there is an intimate connection between the United States and Israel,
in which Aipac clearly plays a major role. The degree to which this has
affected American policy, up to and including the war in Iraq, has been
discussed calmly by sane British commentators - though also, to be
sure, played up maliciously by bigots.
In America, by contrast, there has been an unmistakable tendency to shy
away from this subject. As Michael Kinsley wrote in Slate in the autumn
of 2002, both supporters and opponents of the coming war did not want
to invoke classic anti-Semitic images of cabals, arcane conspiracies,
and malign courtiers whispering into the prince's ear. Such motives are
honorable, and yet there is always a danger when something is wilfully
ignored. As Kinsley said, the connection between the invasion of Iraq
and Israeli interests had become "the proverbial elephant in the room.
Everybody sees it, no one mentions it." Until now, at any rate.
Mr. Wheatcroft also wrote that no one needed Walt and Mearsheimer to
point out the work being done by Israeli lobbyists because they are
happy to point it out themselves, especially on the website of Aipac,
which "proudly quotes Bill Clinton's description of Aipac
as 'stunningly effective' and John McCain's praise of its 'instrumental
and absolutely vital role' in protecting the interest of Israel.
Perhaps Mearsheimer and Walt would have done better to confine
themselves to that website as their source." And ultimately, he says,
the key question in the entire debate is, Has the relationship been a
success on its own terms?
When Mearsheimer and Walt ask if there are really strategic imperatives
on the American side for ''unwavering support" of Israel, that is at
least worth discussing as a hypothesis. But it's scarcely more
fascinating than the question of whether such support has been to the
long-term benefit of Israel.
Bolstered by American aid, successive Israeli governments tried to
strengthen their settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza, the policy
[New York Times columnist Tom] Friedman calls insane. Ariel Sharon at
last gave up the dream of a Greater Israel, including his promise to
remain in Gaza ''for Zionist reasons." And now Ehud Olmert, when he has
formed his new government, will withdraw from most of the West Bank.
Might not much blood and treasure have been saved if Israel had been
obliged to make those choices years ago?
Back to top
2. PALESTINIANS TO
CONTROL SECURITY FORCES
By Steven Gutkin
Associated Press
April 6, 2006
Gaza Strip - The new Palestinian prime minister said Thursday that his
Cabinet will take control of the Palestinian security forces, putting
his Hamas-led government on a collision course with President Mahmoud
Abbas.
Deepening the tension, Abbas installed a longtime ally as head of the
three security branches in a battle for control of the 58,000-member
police force, and he told Hamas it had to clear all foreign policy
moves with him.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told The Associated Press that he rejects
any attempts to take power away from Hamas, which won Jan. 25
parliamentary elections. His Cabinet was sworn in last week.
"There are attempts to create parallel frameworks to some ministries in
the Palestinian government," Haniyeh said in an interview at his Gaza
City headquarters. "But I don't think (Abbas) can keep up this pressure
and take away power from this government."
Abbas' actions appeared aimed at persuading the international community
that he, not Hamas, is in charge. Western donors have threatened to cut
off desperately needed aid if Hamas does not renounce violence and
recognize Israel's right to exist, conditions the Islamic militant
group has rejected.
Abbas, a moderate who was elected president last year, retains wide
powers. He is the head of the National Security Council, which has
final say over the Palestinian security forces, and he can issue wide-
ranging decrees that do not need parliamentary approval.
Haniyeh said Abbas had assured him the security forces would remain
under the control of the Hamas-led Cabinet, which, he said, did not
take power "on the back of a tank" but in "transparent and fair
elections."
But hours later, Abbas appointed a longtime ally, Rashid Abu Shbak, to
head the three security services that fall under Interior Minister Said
Siyam, in addition to agencies already under the president's authority.
Though Siyam would technically be Abu Shbak's boss, any dispute between
the two would be resolved in the Abbas-headed National Security Council.
Abu Shbak said he was authorized to hire and fire officers in the three
security branches.
"Any recruitment of directors or deputy directors for any of the three
services will be made through me," he said. His appointment reduced
Hamas' authority over the security apparatus to cutting checks for its
officers.
Security officers on the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, many of
whom came from the ranks of Abbas' Fatah Party, were divided on
whom they would side with in a fight for their loyalty.
Ahmed Abu Sayah, a member of the preventive security service, which was
responsible for a 1996 crackdown on Hamas, said he would not accept a
Hamas leader. "We hate them and they hate us," he said in Gaza City.
Mohammed Barham, a police officer in Nablus, said that though he was in
Fatah, he would take orders from whoever is in charge. "By law the
interior minister is the boss and that is acceptable to me," he said.
Also Thursday, the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Abbas
heads, ordered the Hamas-led Foreign Ministry to coordinate with it
before making major pronouncements on diplomatic policy. The PLO is
technically in charge of the Palestinians' foreign affairs.
Abbas is likely to continue amassing power to end Western sanctions,
said Khalil Shahin, a political analyst with the Palestinian newspaper
Al-Ayyam.
"I predict that he will keep stripping Hamas of more of its
authorities," he said. "(Abbas) is trying with these measures to spare
the Palestinian people more suffering and more sanctions."
Abbas has said he wants to resume peace talks with Israel, which has
shunned the Hamas government, and Haniyeh said he would not stand in
the way of those talks.
"(Abbas,) as the head of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, can
move on political fronts and negotiate with whomever he wants. What is
important is what will be offered to the Palestinian people," Haniyeh
said.
Also Thursday, Israeli President Moshe Katsav tapped acting Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert to form Israel's next government. Olmert said he
would quickly put together a coalition committed to carrying out his
plan to pull out of most of the West Bank, solidify Israel's hold over
major settlement blocs and draw Israel's final border with the
Palestinians by 2010.
Olmert has said that he preferred to carry out his plan through
negotiations, but if talks do not quickly bear fruit, he will withdraw
unilaterally.
Haniyeh denounced Olmert's threat to draw Israel's borders on his own,
saying it will leave Israel in control of Jerusalem and other
territories the Palestinians claim as part of their future state.
"This will not make the Palestinian people happy," Haniyeh said.
Dressed in a suit, Haniyeh chatted amiably in Arabic and joked during
the interview, which lasted more than half an hour.
When asked if he was a pragmatic man and would recognize Israel, he
switched to English: "That is a big question."
He then said there was no change in Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel,
renounce violence and respect all past accords signed by the
Palestinian Authority - the three conditions Israel and the West have
imposed for dealing with Hamas, which is listed as a terror group by
the U.S. and European Union.
At the same time, he struck a conciliatory tone when speaking about the
United States, saying, "we don't want feelings of animosity to remain
in the region, not toward the U.S. administration and not toward the
West."
He also denied reports that al-Qaida militants had infiltrated
Palestinian territories.
Back to top
3.
PALESTINIANS' HAMAS LEADER FACES MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS
By John Kifner and Greg Myre
New York Times
April 6, 2006
Gaza City - Barely a week in office, the Palestinian prime minister
from Hamas faces not only diplomatic isolation and a bankrupt treasury
but an intense rivalry with Fatah, the longtime Palestinian power, over
control of the heavily armed security agencies.
In an interview at his office here otoday, the prime minister, Ismail
Haniya, said he hoped the Arab League would come through with $50-
million a month for his government. He also complained about efforts by
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president from Fatah, to compete for
control of key agencies.
"There are attempts to create parallel frameworks to some ministries in
the Palestinian government," Mr. Haniyeh told The Associated Press in a
later interview, adding that he did not think Mr. Abbas could "continue
this pressure and diminish some of the authorities of this government."
One of the first acts of the Hamas cabinet, which met on Wednesday by
videophone, with 10 ministers here and 14 in the West Bank city of
Ramallah, was to freeze a round of appointments by the outgoing Fatah-
led government.
Mr. Haniya's key appointment was the interior minister, Said Siam, who
would be controlling the police and Preventive Security Service. But
now, in the latest example of the jockeying for power, Mr. Abbas has
ordered that a longtime ally, Rashid Abu Shbak, would head three
security agencies, including Preventive Security. In Gaza, the agency
is a power base for an important Fatah figure, Mohammed Dahlan, who was
once its chief.
Mr. Siam, the Hamas appointee, said he would not use Preventive
Security to imprison anti-Israel activists, adding "we will not put our
sons in prison for political membership or resisting occupation,
because occupation is the reason for the problem."
While Hamas, which won a sweeping victory in January's election, can
appoint cabinet ministers, the Palestinian Authority - and particularly
the security services - were a vast patronage machine for Fatah. Thus
the bureaucracy is largely staffed by Fatah loyalists.
Mr. Abbas also ordered that all diplomatic statements and dealings be
coordinated with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the signer of
the Oslo agreement, in which Fatah is the dominant group.
The rivalry over who would run the armed security forces surfaced last
week in a shootout here between rival groups, in which three
Palestinians were killed.
Last Friday, a mysterious car bomb killed a leader of the Popular
Resistance Committee, Abu Youssef al-Quqa, who was affiliated with
Hamas. It is unclear who was responsible, and Israel said it played no
part in the event.
A spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committee accused Mr. Dahlan of
involvement and later, at an emotional funeral, marchers
shouted "Dahlan is a collaborator."
Taking umbrage, gunmen from Preventive Security showed up and killed 3
people and wounded 35 others before calm was restored.
With its history of violence and its pledge to destroy Israel, Hamas is
branded a terrorist group by Israel, the United States and the European
Union. Israel refuses to allow Hamas officials to pass between the West
Bank and Gaza, in addition to other steps aimed at increasing its
isolation.
In fact, today, the first news Mr. Haniya received was that his cabinet
minister for Jerusalem affairs, Khaled Abu Arafa, had been arrested as
he left Jerusalem for the West Bank. The police later said he was on a
list barred from entering the West Bank for security reasons.
He was held for several hours before being released.
Asked about the incident during the interview, Mr. Haniya said "This is
totally rejected. He is part of a government elected by its people."
The most immediate problem Mr. Haniyeh faces concerns finances.
Last month's salaries for 140,000 Palestinian Authority employees -
supporting about a third of the population - have yet to be paid and it
is unclear how these or April's payroll might be met.
The Palestinians need at least $150 million a month to cover salaries
and operations, according to the finance minister, Omar Abdel-Razeq.
Most of the money has dried up. Israel stopped turning over about $50
million a month in taxes and customs revenue it collected on behalf of
the Palestinians under previous agreements. The Palestinians collect
about $35 million in taxes in their areas, Mr. Razeq said.
Other international donors, particularly the Europeans, had been
contributing the remainder of the budget money. The United States has
not been giving money directly to the Palestinian Authority for some
time, though it says it will continue with humanitarian aid channeled
through organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank.
United Nations officials here say the Gaza Strip could face a
humanitarian crisis of major proportions . In addition to the
possibility of the cutoff of government salaries, Israel has kept the
Karni crossing frequently closed for much of the last three months,
citing security threats, further hurting the weak economy.
If the government salaries are not paid, the United Nations will have a
hard time coping with even basic needs, with about 25,000 families
being added to the food distribution list.
The United States has said that it will not deal with any ministry
controlled by Hamas, effectively cutting off the government, but that
it will continue contacts with President Abbas.
Hamas acknowledges that it cannot completely sever its dealings with
the Israelis on many every day issues. Israel controls electricity and
water systems in the Palestinian areas and food, medicine and all
commerce must pass through checkpoints, requiring coordination.
Back to top
4. U.S. TO REDIRECT
AID FOR PALESTINIANS
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post
April 7, 2006
After an exhaustive review, the United States plans to terminate
assistance for building projects in Palestinian territories and
redirect much of its annual aid to the Palestinians toward basic
humanitarian needs, such as education, health and food, as well as
increased assistance for democracy promotion, Bush administration
officials said yesterday.
The primary agency for Palestinian refugees, the U.N. Relief and Works
Agency, is set to receive about a 30 percent increase in aid in
response to an emergency appeal for additional funding, officials said.
UNRWA currently gets about $80 million from the United States. The
administration had budgeted an additional $150 million in aid to
Palestinians in fiscal 2006, much of it coordinated through the U.S.
Agency for International Development.
The shift in aid priorities was set in motion after the unexpected
victory by the radical Islamic organization Hamas in January
legislative elections.
But it has taken much longer than expected to set the new parameters
for aid, in part because the Justice Department wanted to be sure the
new regulations did not inadvertently interfere with criminal cases
against people charged with aiding charities linked to Hamas and other
designated terrorist groups, officials said. Justice lawyers were
concerned that defendants would use the new regulations to make the
case that the United States sometimes allowed for charitable assistance
of terrorist organizations.
One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the
new policy had not been announced, said crafting the new rules had
posed a difficult challenge because they did not want to increase the
suffering of the Palestinian people. The Hamas-led government has
already missed a payroll for 140,000 people.
"There is some tension between squeezing the government and supporting
the people," the official said. "You want to try to mitigate that."
Adding to the pressure on Hamas, U.S. officials appear increasingly
confident that Arab governments that have traditionally backed the
Palestinian Authority, such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya and the
United Arab Emirates, will begin to limit their support in the wake of
the Hamas victory.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice approved the new policy this week,
and Assistant Secretary of State C. David Welch plans to go to Capitol
Hill today to brief lawmakers, officials said. The lengthy review
process has increased anxiety at non-governmental agencies that help
the Palestinians, since officials were uncertain which projects might
run afoul of the new rules. Many feared that the regulations will be so
tight that they will be unable to continue many of their projects.
"We're all waiting," said Theodore Kattouf, president of America-
Mideast Educational and Training Services.
Shortly after Hamas won the elections, the United States and other key
bankrollers of the Palestinian Authority said they would end assistance
as soon as Hamas took control of the cabinet, unless the organization
recognized the right of Israel to exist. The United States in the past
did not provide much direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority --
and immediately demanded the return of nearly $50 million in direct
aid -- but officials needed to determine whether indirect assistance,
such as road or school construction projects, would also be affected.
In the end, officials decided that any project that had a connection
with a government ministry would be ended.
The United States, for now, does not contemplate providing any funding
to the office of President Mahmoud Abbas, an official said. Abbas was
elected last year on a platform of reaching a peaceful settlement with
Israel but much of his authority has been eroded by Hamas's victory.
At the request of the Israeli government, the one exception to the new
rules will be a relatively small amount of money to combat an outbreak
of the avian flu in Gaza. That money will need to be coordinated with a
Hamas-led ministry.
Andrew Whitley, director of the UNRWA liaison office in New York, said
the agency has a staff of 13,000 in the West Bank and Gaza, supporting
70 percent of the population in Gaza and about 28 percent in the West
Bank. UNRWA has asked international donors to support a $95 million
emergency appeal, but he said in light of recent events the
request "may be revised upwards."
Back to top
5. EU REJECTS
PLAN TO SUSPEND PALESTINIAN AID
By Daniel Dombey
Financial Times (UK)
April 6, 2006
Back to top
European Union diplomats have rejected a proposal to suspend
direct aid to the Palestinian Authority because some EU countries
consider the measure "too brutal".
Representatives of the 25 EU member states refused to endorse a
European Commission proposal that would have suspended co-operation
with the PA, led by Hamas, the militant Islamist group.
Countries such as France and the UK said it would send a wrong and
even "brutal" signal if the EU halted aid to the PA without first
developing ideas on alternative ways of delivering assistance.
Earlier this year, Jack Straw, UK foreign secretary, and Philippe
Douste-Blazy, his French counterpart, lobbied the Commission to
disburse more aid to the PA before Hamas took office - but were only
partially successful. With a recent average of ?500m ($614m, £350m) a
year, the EU is the Palestinians' biggest donor.
The issue will be discussed by EU foreign ministers on Monday. In
addition to trying to forge EU policy on contacts with and aid for the
PA, ministers will look at whether to grant visas to Hamas officials
and how to continue Euromed meetings between the EU and Mediterranean
and North African countries now that Hamas has taken office.
Some EU officials argue that eventually Europe will have to engage with
Hamas, which, together with its parent group the Muslim Brotherhood, is
becoming one of the Arab world's most popular and electorally
formidable organisations.
The debate indicates Europe's more gradual approach to demands agreed
with the US on the Hamas-led PA. While Washington insists the PA must
renounce violence, recognise Israel and abide by past agreements, some
European diplomats see such calls more as broad principles.
The draft text for Monday's meeting also calls on Israel to resume
transfers of $50m a month in Palestinian tax and customs revenue that
it is withholding.
At present, much EU aid is in fact frozen. But many European diplomats
are calling for a case-by-case approach to aid projects that may
involve some co-operation with PA officials.
Back to top
6. ABBAS TAKES
CONTROL OF CROSSING IN GAZA
AS TENSIONS WITH HAMAS RISE
By Donald Macintyre
Independent (UK)
April 7, 2006
Gaza - Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, is planning to take
direct control of at least one key crossing into Gaza as part of a move
triggering tensions with the Hamas-led government.
Mr Abbas's determination to assume security control of the Rafah
crossing between Gaza and Egypt emerged as the Palestine Liberation
Organisation (PLO), which he heads, demanded that the Hamas-controlled
cabinet clears with his office statements made to world leaders.
The first signs of friction between Mr Abbas and the new cabinet since
it was sworn in last week came at the same time as Israel arrested a
cabinet minister, Khaled Abu Arafa, in Jerusalem. Mr Abu Arafa, an
independent who serves as Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, was detained
for several hours after being forced out of his car by police when he
rejected orders to leave it.
The official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported that Mr Abbas was
assuming jurisdiction of all the Gaza border crossings - which includes
Karni - which has been closed by Israel for much of the past three
months, causing mounting food and other shortages in the Gaza Strip.
Mr Abbas is under pressure to wrest responsibility for the crossing
from the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior, headed by the Hamas
minister Said Siyam, because of threats that the EU monitors there will
leave their posts because of a ban on contacts with Hamas.
But a Palestinian official said last night that while Mr Abbas was
determined to assume control of Rafah to prevent it closing altogether,
there was still debate over whether he should take responsibility for
the hardship inflicted by the closure of other crossings, including
Karni. The official also said Mr Abbas was seeking to take over Rafah
with Hamas's agreement but would have to do so without it if there was
a crisis.
Palestinian farmers and suppliers yesterday petitioned the High Court
of Justice to open the Karni crossing between Israel and Gaza and "end
the economic asphyxiation" of the Gaza Strip. According to their claim,
the closure has caused losses of more than $24m (£14m) to the
Palestinian economy.
Meanwhile the PLO - the umbrella body dominated by Fatah, the losers in
the January election, but of which Hamas is not a member - issued a
surprisingly strong statement criticising recent declarations by the
new ministers and insisting they abide by previous Palestinian
Authority agreements - one of three central demands made by the Western
powers.
It accused the new government of making "conflicting statements which
would provide Israel and those who are behind it with the pretext to
impose siege on our people and thwart the international community
efforts to end the occupation and settlements to our land."
While it was not immediately clear how far the PLO statement bore the
personal stamp of Mr Abbas, the apparently mounting issues between the
two wings of the administration were due to be discussed at a meeting
between Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian Prime Minister and Mr Abbas,
who is also known as Abu Mazen.
Mr Haniyeh said: "This is an elected government, not an appointed one.
Brother Abu Mazen confirmed to me more than once that he will not touch
the authority of the current government."
A source close to Mr Abbas said that a plan - strongly rejected by
Hamas - to put Rashid Abu Shabak, a former security chief in Gaza under
the old administration, in charge of internal security had been
shelved. Mr Haniyeh had said: "The government does not accept the
creation of parallel bodies that may take away its authority."
Back to top
7.
BRITON SHOT BY ISRAELIS WAS MURDERED, SAYS INQUEST JURY
By Vikram Dodd
Guardian (UK)
April 7, 2006
The shooting dead of British cameraman James Miller by an Israeli
soldier in Gaza was murder, an inquest jury found yesterday. The jury
also said Israeli authorities had "not been forthcoming" about how and
why Miller, 34, was killed by a single shot fired by the soldier.
The verdict provides Miller's family with a springboard to seek the
Israeli soldier's prosecution in Britain for intentionally shooting
dead an unarmed non-combatant. The family's lawyers said the killing
breached the Geneva convention and the jury's finding that the shooting
was intentional put pressure on the British government to act.
They will press the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to seek the
extradition and prosecution of the soldier in Britain for the May 2003
murder if Israel continues to refuses to try him. Miller's killer was
named at St Pancras coroner's court in London as Lieutenant Heib.
The coroner, Andrew Reid, said he would write to the attorney general
about how similar fatalities could be prevented. A court official said
this could include a request for Lord Goldsmith to examine how the
soldier could be prosecuted.
The jury unanimously found that Miller, from Braunton, Devon, was
unlawfully killed. Its forewoman said: "This was an unlawful shooting
with the intention of killing Mr James Miller. Therefore we can come to
no other conclusion than that Mr Miller was indeed murdered." At that
moment the cameraman's family started to sob. The jury added: "It is a
fact that from day one to this inquest the Israeli authorities have not
been forthcoming in the investigation into the circumstances
surrounding Mr Miller's death."
Miller was making a documentary when he was killed as he and colleagues
tried to leave a Palestinian house where they had been filming. An
award-winning documentary maker, he and two colleagues were clad in
body armour and protective helmets and clutching a white flag with a
torch shining on it when they came under fire from an Israeli armoured
personnel carrier.
After the verdict, the cameraman's sister, Katie Miller, said: "I wake
up every morning and I am struck by the horror of the fact that
somebody murdered James. It is still another point in the journey."
Colonel Geoffrey Miller, the cameraman's father, said: "It's been three
years of protracted torture brought about by the Israelis." The family
alleged at the inquest that Foreign Office officials had tried to
pressure them into giving in to Israeli demands. Col Miller said of the
British government: "They've been totally supine and ineffective. At
one stage they were as obstructive as the Israelis."
Miller's mother, Eileen, 67, said: "We've managed to rally enough
resources to fight this, but Palestinians can't fight this, and there's
been hundreds of Palestinian deaths."
The Israeli embassy said a two-year investigation had been carried out
into the shooting, but the results were "inconclusive and could not
provide a basis for proceeding under criminal law".
A spokesman for the attorney general said: "The attorney general has
asked to see a full report of the inquest, including the evidence that
was given, so he may consider the implications of the verdict."
Back to top
8. A BAD FENCE THAT
MADE GOOD NEIGHBORS
By Akiva Eldar
Haaretz (Israel)
April 7, 2006
Many Palestinians fated to live on the wrong side of the separation
fence in Jerusalem have begun to flock to the Israeli side, with some
unusual results. In Pisgat Ze'ev this week, we found happy Arabs and
several satisfied Jewish neighbors.
"There will be riches and abundance, for the Arab, the Christian and my
son, because my flag is the flag of purity and honesty, which will
purify both banks of the Jordan." Ze'ev Jabotinsky, "Left of the
Jordan," Paris, 1930.
The Majaltun family, an Arab family from annexed East Jerusalem, has a
good time living on Simcha Holtzberg Street, named after the man best
known for helping Israel Defense Forces war wounded. The balcony of
their pleasant two-floor apartment looks onto the new two-story
penthouse of the Qudsaya family. Six months ago the Qusayas locked up
their home in the Beit Hanina neighborhood across from the main road
and put up a cross in the new apartment they bought in the Pisgat Ze'ev
neighborhood in northern Jerusalem.
That's Ze'ev as in Ze'ev Jabotinsky, whose dream was to see Jews,
Muslims and Christians living in abundance and happiness on both banks
of the Jordan. Of the dream of the east bank there remains a
hallucinatory line in the Beitar song. On the West Bank, the section
outside the lines of June 4, 1967, the Revisionist heirs in the Israeli
government are hoping to extract "settlement blocs." The flag of the
purity and honesty of the continued occupation has been lowered to half-
mast. It was in Pisgat Ze'ev, a neighborhood established at the
beginning of the 1980s in an effort to create "Jewish contiguity" with
the Neveh Yaakov neighborhood, that we found happy Arabs this week, and
even a few satisfied Jewish neighbors.
Yusef Majaltun and Salam Qudsaya are Christians born in the Old City of
Jerusalem. Both moved here from Beit Hanina, the Palestinian
neighborhood on the other side of the main road that links the northern
and central sections of Jerusalem. The Jewish contiguity doesn't bother
Yusef, 47, who is married with three children. What's important to him
is Arab contiguity. He chose a house on the edge of the neighborhood so
he would be close to friends who come from the nearby Arab
neighborhoods to eat some of the sheep he roasts on the balcony and to
share his nargila pipe. It was important to him to live within walking
distance of Beit Hanina. On Yom Kippur, Yusef, like the rest of the
country, doesn't drive his car.
Salam, 39, who is married with four children, is not interested in
demographics. He hopes that in another few years "we'll be half and
half here. Half Jews and half Arabs. Then we'll know each other better
and there will be more peace." Many of his friends don't understand why
an Arab would buy an apartment in a building whose other tenants are
all Jews. "They say I'm a fool for buying an apartment in Pisgat
Ze'ev," says Salam. "And I tell them that whoever doesn't buy an
apartment in this nice and quiet neighborhood is a fool." Salam buys
Arab coffee for one of his Jewish neighbors and gives the children
gifts on Christmas. And if one of his children falls in love with the
daughter of the Jewish neighbor and wants to marry her? "I wouldn't
have any problem," he says. "I hope to get Israeli citizenship and even
agree to have my son serve in the army."
Yusef, whose family were refugees from Jaffa, is one of a small
minority of East Jerusalemites with Israeli passports. He voted for
Meretz-Yachad in the elections, "because it supports peace and
coexistence between Israel and Palestine." He has been living among
Jews for four years and believes there is room for everyone under the
Israeli flag. He is active in his building committee and makes sure to
greet all the tenants with a warm hello - even those who appeared
unwelcoming at first, perhaps out of the concern that the presence of
an Arab in the building would decrease the property value. Yusef knows
the Majaltun family is not the only one in 9, Simcha Holtzberg Street
that puts a Christmas tree in its living room, and he is not talking
about Arab families.
'We Don't Sell To Arabs'
It is obvious the neighbors' apparent acceptance of Salam and Yusef is
not necessarily representative of the more than 40,000 residents of
Pisgat Ze'ev. Majaltun recalls a violent incident that took place at
the corner of his street, when more than a dozen youths assaulted two
friends who were on their way to visit his 17-year-old son. The smile
leaves Salam's face as he tells of a Border Policeman who stopped his
son at the entrance to the neighborhood and wanted to know what an Arab
boy was doing in a Jewish neighborhood. Yusef got in his car and rushed
to the roadblock, rebuked the policeman and didn't let it rest until he
filed a police complaint against the officer.
Salam, the owner of a furniture factory in the Atarot industrial zone,
knows Jews are more likely to enter Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem
than they are to bring Arabs into Jewish neighborhoods. Friends who
wanted to follow in the footsteps of Yusef and Salam and move into
Pisgat Ze'ev had people telling them, without batting an eyelid, "We
don't sell to Arabs." Others were kept away more "gently," through
prices far higher than the value of the apartments in the local real
estate market.
Nonetheless, a friend brings a friend. And at this rate, in Pisgat
Ze'ev as in Neveh Yaakov, in a short time, barely a single street will
remain without a Palestinian family from East Jerusalem. A few families
have even moved into the Ramot neighborhood.
Yusef and Salam agree that they and most of their friends find their
ways to Jewish neighborhoods out of necessity - first and foremost, due
to the serious housing crisis in Arab neighborhoods. Salam bought a
nice apartment "on paper" in Beit Hanina four years ago. But the
contractor has yet to obtain a building permit from the Jerusalem
municipality, and Salam hopes to get his money back shortly. He paid
$532,000 for his six-room Pisgat Ze'ev apartment, with a balcony and a
view of the hills, and even received a generous mortgage. "Today I can
say it's good they made all these problems," he says. "Because of that
we didn't have a choice and we bought the apartment in Pisgat Ze'ev.
But I don't understand why the government lets Jews build where they
want and Arabs can't build even in their own neighborhoods."
Majaltun, a building engineer, knows a thing or two about the schtick
Jews use to make it difficult to build in Arab neighborhoods and make
Jerusalem "more Jewish." It is such gimmicks that push people like him
into neighborhoods established to "Judaize Jerusalem." Majaltun worked
for many years at construction sites in settlements, including Ofarim,
Beit Aryeh, Eli and Neveh Tzuf. "In Ofarim we blew up an entire hill
for a few homes, and in Beit Hanina, where you can barely find a vacant
plot, they decide to sell green areas." With no building rights, there
are no permits and no registration in the land registry office. Without
registration, the banks don't approve mortgages, the prices of the few
apartments rise - and the Majaltun family lands in Pisgat Ze'ev. And
that's not to mention the roadblock on the way from Beit Hanina to
school and to the bank.
Housing Crisis
Since the outbreak of the second intifada at the end of 2000, and
especially since the construction of the West Bank separation fence,
the already bad housing crisis in East Jerusalem has become even worse.
The trend of emigrating from the city to the villages around Jerusalem
has changed direction. Families that had rented out their homes in
prestigious neighborhoods such as Beit Hanina and moved to the edges of
the capital's municipal boundaries, where the housing and cost of
living are cheaper, have begun to return home.
In having the fence built, the politicians have pushed 50,000
Palestinians living in the municipal boundaries of the city to the
other side of the barrier. It's obvious they would not have considered
acting similarly toward Jewish citizens of the city. But nobody likes
walls outside their windows or security checks on the way to the
movies, and those whose bad luck it was to live on the wrong side of
the wall have begun to flock inward. The worry of losing Israeli
identity cards and National Insurance Institute payments has also
contributed to this trend.
Security establishment statistics show that some 5,000 Palestinians
with Israeli identity cards had moved from "Jerusalem envelope"
villages to neighborhoods such as Beit Hanina by the beginning of the
year. The tenants in those neighborhoods, who were forced to return the
keys to the owners, are having a hard time finding suitable housing at
a reasonable price in the Palestinian neighborhoods and are forced to
try their luck in the nearby Jewish neighborhoods.
For instance, several hundred Jabal Mukkaber residents had previously
moved to the villages of Suahra al-Sharkiyeh and Sheikh Sa'ad, where
they were able to build larger houses and decrease their cost of
living; a three-room apartment in Suahra al-Sharkiyeh rents for 100
Jordanian dinars, compared to at least 250 dinars in Jabal Mukkaber.
Over the past year, some 120 Palestinians with Israeli identity cards
moved from Sheikh Sa'ad to Jabal Mukkaber. Due to the construction of
the separation fence, some 500 people from the Izariyeh neighborhood
moved into the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, mainly to A-Tur and
Wadi Joz. Most of these people come from Hebron families, such as the
Abdins, Shweikis and Natshes, and have Israeli identity cards, but
moved to Izariyeh years ago for financial and employment reasons.
The homes that have been evacuated in the outlying neighborhoods do not
remain vacant for even a single day. Such houses are rented overnight
to residents of the territories living illegally in Jerusalem. Thus, in
summarizing the demographic balance, one can say that the separation
fence, constructed in an effort to diminish the Palestinian population
of Jerusalem, is making the city, including its Jewish neighborhoods,
increasingly Arab.
The Palestinians who leave the city and try their luck outside the
country are middle- or upper-class professionals, many of them
Christian. Today approximately 240,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem,
compared to 69,000 in 1967. In the same period, the number of
Christians decreased from 17,000 to less than 12,000. The atmosphere of
religious radicalization in the wake of Hamas' rise to power prods more
and more Christian families every day to join their relatives who have
already immigrated to the West.
Yusef Majaltun has sent his two oldest sons to study medicine in the
United States. "If there is peace, I will do everything to bring them
back to Israel," he says. "It's a great country." But in the present
situation, when we are killing one another, he will plead with them to
stay in America.
Back to top
9. HAMAS
MINISTERS RESIGN MEMBERSHIP IN MOVEMENT
TO APPEASE U.S., ISRAEL
By Arnon Regular
Haaretz (Israel)
April 7, 2006
Hamas announced yesterday that the ministers serving on its behalf in
the new Palestinian government had resigned their membership in the
organization and that others would inherit their posts in the movement.
According to the official announcement, the reason for the move is "to
enable new leaders to fill their places in the ranks of the movement."
Hamas officials admitted yesterday, however, that the organization had
issued the statement in an effort to reduce the international pressure
and economic siege on the government by presenting it as "separate"
from Hamas.
The move is also aimed at lessening internal criticism sparked by
cabinet members' attempts to convey soothing messages to the
international community and Israel.
Meanwhile, the ongoing dispute between the new government and
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas over power-sharing and
influence ratcheted up a notch yesterday. For the first time, Abbas and
the Palestine Liberation Organization's Executive Committee criticized
the Hamas government directly, and the recent actions by Foreign
Minister Mahmoud Zahar in particular. In a statement issued following a
meeting headed by Abbas and held at his Muqata headquarters in
Ramallah, the committee protested the letter Zahar sent earlier this
week to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The statement calls on the government to coordinate its moves: "The
committee emphasizes that the appeal by the Foreign Ministry to the UN
secretary general and the world on fateful matters of principle
requires advance coordination with the office of the presidency."
Renewed criticism was also directed at the guidelines of the new
government headed by Ismail Haniyeh: "The government's vague positions
and its failure to take into account the Palestinian consensus and the
fact that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the
Palestinian people, as well as its refraining from recognizing all the
agreements, undermines the international community's efforts to bring
an end to the occupation and settlement, especially in view of the
partial solutions on the agenda [the convergence plan]."
Back to top
10. NEGOTIATION
ALTERNATIVES
By Daoud Kuttab
Jordan Times, Opinion (Jordan)
April 7, 2006
Although it appears that the political stalemate continues on the
Palestinian-Israeli front, a possible breakthrough seems closer than in
the past. Various pieces of the puzzle appear to be falling into place
following the Palestinian and Israeli elections.
Three interesting statements made within 24 hours after the
announcement of the Israeli election exit polls can give us a glimpse
at what may be lying ahead.
Ehud Olmert, whose Kadima Party netted the largest number of Knesset
seats, made a peaceful overture to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas,
calling him to face-to-face negotiations aimed at producing peace.
Abbas didn't wait long, initiating a congratulatory phone call to the
Israeli leader and agreeing to participate in meaningful negotiations
that can be wrapped up within one year.
Within this same 24-hour cycle, the new Hamas prime minister, Ismael
Haniyeh, made some positive peace overtures. Speaking to reporters
after swearing in his government in front of Abbas, Haniyeh said his
government is not opposed to the idea of Olmert and Abbas
negotiating. "We will be happy to see what the president (Abbas) will
offer us and will respond to it," he said to the tens of TV cameras
stationed outside the president's office.
So here we have it. A newly elected centrist Israeli leader promises
peace talks, an internationally acceptable Palestinian counterpart
agrees, and the head of a popularly elected radical government gives
the green light.
On the face of it, all these are good signs, but why isn't anyone
celebrating?
Behind Olmert's call for face-to-face negotiations is his party's
unilateral plan that will decide how small the Palestinian state will
be. Of course, Olmert talks about the permanent borders of Israel, but
the question is simply what will be left for the Palestinians once
Olmert negotiates, with Israelis and the US, how far the Israeli army
will be pulled back.
One of the basic principles of negotiations (whether in politics or
business) is the availability of credible alternatives. It can be
expected that Olmert would rather dictate, than negotiate as an equal,
with a Palestinian partner. At every stage of the talks, the Kadima
leader will threaten to declare that there is no credible Palestinian
partner (as has been the case ever since the last serious talks in Taba
during the final days of the Barak government) and threaten to return
to the unilateral mode a la Gaza.
Abbas' negotiating abilities will be more curtailed than in the past.
Just like during the Camp David II talks, the Palestinian negotiators
will have little more than the ability to say no to whatever deal
Olmert will offer.
One difference does exist now. The existence of the Islamic Hamas
movement in the government and in the parliament means that the answers
that Abbas will have to give to the negotiators will have to pass the
test of the present government. The Hamas government has not yet
recognised Israel, nor has it presented any credible political plan.
But in various press interviews, senior Hamas leaders have suggested
the idea of a public referendum if the issue of recognising Israel will
have to be dealt with.
The key issue will continue to be how the Israelis will want to handle
the upcoming talks. If they will act as they did so far, the real
negotiations will be within Israel or between Israel and Washington.
In some ways, the threat of turning to the unilateral plan, by Olmert,
and the threat of turning to Hamas, by Abbas, might be just the right
formula to get the two parties to try and work for an acceptable
solution. For the negotiations to work, however, a serious ceasefire
agreement (or an understanding as the one with Hizbollah) needs to be
followed by confidence-building measures and then serious talks,
preferably away from the camera and press leaks.
Back to top
11. NO HORIZON FOR A
SETTLEMENT
By Ali Jarbawi
BitterLemons (Israel/Palestine)
April 3, 2006 Issue
With a series of corruption scandals that shook public confidence in
politics and politicians, a lack of vitality and charisma among
political leaders, and a lack of any pivotal and collective issue,
Israeli elections came across as tedious, not only to observers and
Palestinians, but also to Israeli voters, many of whom simply refrained
from participating.
Voter turnout was the lowest ever in Israel's history. Given the
variety of issues and concerns at hand, both internal and external, the
results were muddled. A portion voted for unilateral separation while
another voted for a continuation of negotiations. Still a third group
voted to expel and isolate Palestinians. A fourth sector opted for
religion and the Torah. A fifth group voted for pensioners.
Although Israeli elections have always resulted in a spectrum of
programs and lists represented in the Knesset, this time the diversity
in the mix was great. Sharon's absence lost seats for Kadima;
Netanyahu's presence lost seats for the Likud; Peretz gave the Labor
Party hope; the Russians became a political power; the Sephardic
religious and racist Shas advanced. Political, economic and various
social issues will intertwine in a new Israeli government that will
embrace unilateral separation from the Palestinians not because it is
the greatest common denominator among the different coalition partners,
but because it is the only common denominator.
To pass judgment on the coming government, we must first wait and see
what the make-up of the coalition will be. However we must understand
that political trends in Israel are moving right. When the Kadima party
is considered centrist, the center is effectively moving right. The
significant political consequence of this is that any future dealings
with the Palestinians and any political settlement will be more extreme
and radical than in the past. Circumstances and the Palestinian
elections have also dictated that, at the same time, Hamas sits at the
helm of the Palestinian Authority, something that will only encourage
the rightward trend in Israel.
Regardless of the make-up of the coalition, we can be certain that the
next Israeli government will claim not only that there is no
Palestinian partner to revive hopes of a political settlement through
negotiations, but that the PA is a terrorist organization and must be
isolated. The presence of a Hamas government will make it easier for
Ehud Olmert to proceed with his separation plan without negotiations.
If the Labor party is part of the coalition, it will demand
negotiations with the Palestinians, but only to reach a final
settlement not much different from what is being proposed in Olmert's
unilateral separation plan. The compromise between Kadima and Labor, if
the latter does participate in government, may be to open a channel of
negotiations with the Palestinian presidency through the PLO. The aim
of these "negotiations" is not to negotiate but to convince the
Palestinian side of the need to accept the Israeli vision of a
unilateral separation. At some stage, these "negotiations" will
inevitably collapse and the Israeli government can blame their failure
on Palestinian obstinacy.
No doubt, some parties in this government and the right wing parties
outside it will try to aggravate Palestinian sentiments during
this "negotiating" period in order to provoke Palestinian bombings
inside Israel. If these operations do take place, which they most
probably will, the Israeli government will be relieved of the burden of
these "negotiations", and Kadima will be given a green light to impose
its separation plan.
There will be opposition from right wing circles and the settlers. This
opposition will be stronger than it was during the evacuation of Gaza
Strip settlements because of the difference in the level of importance
of the West Bank to these groups.
These groups will use all possible methods to prevent the evacuation of
settlements in the West Bank and will rely on Palestinian bombings to
spread fear in Israeli society. This could either lead to a government
collapse or a strengthening of its position. It all depends on the
behavior of the Israeli majority at the time and on the positions of
international parties, particularly the US administration.
The Palestinian position, meanwhile, is much hampered by having passed
on opportunities that could have proven fruitful in confronting the
Israeli separation plan such as the dissolution of the Palestinian
Authority, and is at the mercy of Israeli politics.
Political tension in the Palestinian arena as a result of Hamas'
election victory will drive those embracing the strategy of continuous
negotiations with Israel to desperate measures to revive the process
with the next Israeli government. However, such negotiations, if they
should occur, will soon hit the wall of the Israeli separation plan.
Given their inability to exert any tangible pressure on the Israeli
government, Palestinian negotiators will not be able to achieve any
progress.
On the contrary, the internal Palestinian situation will complicate
further because of friction between Fateh and Hamas.
Hamas will adopt a wait-and-see approach regarding any political
process in order to embroil Fateh in new and futile negotiations with
Israel. Then the Palestinian government (if it still exists) will
reject the negotiations but without preventing the Israeli government
from implementing its separation plan.
What will prove important for Palestinian affairs in the upcoming stage
will not be the consequences of Israel's unilateral separation plan but
how the predicaments created by the tensions between Fateh and Hamas,
as played out between the presidency and the government and in the PLC
and in public institutions will turn out. Everyone in the Palestinian
arena will be preoccupied with the burdens of internal tensions and as
a result will leave Israel to decide the Palestinian destiny. After
that, Palestinians may decide to begin a new intifada.
Unfortunately, Palestinians oscillate between favoring negotiations at
times and the intifada at others, and offer no creative alternatives.
Confronting the unilateral plans of the Israeli government requires
that Palestinians seriously look into the option of dissolving the PA.
Israel plays unhindered with Palestinian destiny because the PA
continues to cling to its existence. Israel needs the PA in order to
implement its separation plan. Without a PA that accepts to be pushed
into isolated areas and behind a wall, the plan is useless. Palestinian
politicians are loath to admit this, but maybe the PA will dissolve
after Israel implements its plan. The question then will be: is it too
late?
Ali Jarbawi is a professor of political science at Birzeit University
in Ramallah.
Back to top
|