Michelle Grattan, The Age, December 7, 2007
Kevin Rudd will go to the Middle East, including Israel, during this term.
Mr Rudd made this commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who rang him offering congratulations on Wednesday night.
Mr Olmert, who called the Prime Minister at home, was particularly interested to inquire about the success of the new Labor MP for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, who is married to a cousin of Mr Olmert.
Mr Rudd and Mr Olmert discussed the Middle East peace talks and Mr Rudd wished Mr Olmert every success.
They also discussed getting together at some international event.
------------------------
Olmert joins growing list of overseas callers
Paul Maley, The Australian, December 7, 2007
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has joined the growing list of world leaders to congratulate Kevin Rudd on his recent win.
Mr Olmert called the Labor leader on Wednesday night and the two had a 10-minute phone call.
It is understood the conversation covered the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks conducted in the US city of Annapolis.
Mr Rudd's office last night confirmed Mr Olmert had phoned but refused to discuss the details of the call.
However, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy said Mr Rudd had expressed support for the talks and pledged to visit Israel at some point during his first term, as part of a broader trip to the Middle East.
The spokesman said the tone of the phone call was positive.
Mr Rudd twice visited Israel as Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, first in 2003 and again in 2004.
The last time an Australian prime minister visited Israel was in 2000, when John Howard was invited by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.
It is understood the two men also discussed Eden Monaro MP Mike Kelly, whose wife, Shelley is Mr Olmert's cousin.
The Australian understands Mr Olmert also phoned Mr Kelly to congratulate him on his victory over former special minister of state, Liberal MP Gary Nairn.
===============================
Sydney Peace Prize row
PM - Monday, 3 November , 2003 18:38:00
Reporter: Nick Grimm
MARK COLVIN: Who'd have thought that the awarding of a peace prize could create so much hostility and in so many places? The row over plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian activist, Hanan Ashrawi, has now widened to the Australian military.
A senior Australian army officer in Iraq wrote to the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, pleading with him not to proceed with the award.
It was supposed to be a private letter, but it was leaked to the media, and it's raised questions about the military's relationship to politics, and about whether the Colonel was right in linking Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Nick Grimm compiled this report.
MIKE KELLY: And people have to realise that if they're arguing against this legislation, they're arguing in favour of the maintenance of this archaic status quo.
NICK GRIMM: That's the voice of military lawyer, Colonel Mike Kelly, three years ago when he was a plain old lieutenant colonel in charge of the Australian Defence Forces Military Law Centre.
In those days, he was well known to the Canberra press gallery, as he helped to argue the merits of the Federal Government's controversial Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. At the time, it was being opposed by the Opposition parties because it opened the way for the military to be sent in against striking workers, or, it was argued, for troops to open fire on civilian protestors.
MIKE KELLY: We're in fact attempting to fix that problem.
NICK GRIMM: Now, Colonel Kelly is back in the news, apparently most unwillingly. He's currently serving in Baghdad as a senior adviser to Coalition forces. A highly regarded expert in military law, until now Mike Kelly has been noted for his writings on the legal aspects of peacekeeping operations.
But it was a letter he sent to New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, urging him to reconsider plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize this week, to the Palestinian activist Dr Hanan Ashrawi, that has brought the Colonel back into the spotlight.
Sections of that letter leaked to the media are as follows:
EXCERPT OF LETTER: It is precisely these kinds of legitimising actions that have encouraged the terrorism that I and my colleagues in the Coalition forces are engaged in fighting.
I am well aware, having studied and been involved in the counter-terrorist effort over 16 years that people like Hanan Ashwari are paraded before the Western media as a voice of reason, while out of the corner of their mouths establishing the basis for the slaughter of the innocents in a cynical, calculated, malevolent method of operating that completely dupes naïve Westerners.
You have to have spent time in this part of the world to appreciate what I am saying, but I would suggest that you credit my opinion as based on bitter experience. It would be hard to explain to a soldier here who has just lost both legs in a terrorist attack, why an Australian State Premier, supposedly an ally in this war, has been in effect, comforting the enemy.
NICK GRIMM: According to the Australian Defence Force, Mike Kelly is not interested in speaking to the media, and he's said to be angry that what was sent as a "private letter" has been leaked.
Today meanwhile, Bob Carr attacked the officer who he's dismissed as "clanking around in colonel's regalia".
BOB CARR: Since he very kindly sent it to the media and it was publicised in The Australian on Saturday, I have confirmed that it's been received in the office. But it is very, very wrong for someone wearing the uniform of his country, serving all Australians to find time to shoot off an intervention in Australian politics.
NICK GRIMM: The Defence Force says Colonel Kelly's views are his own and not those of the Department. A Spokesman told PM his letter does not contravene any defence instructions to its personnel and that no action will be taken against him.
Certainly, it's not matter for a court martial, but whether it was wise, is open for judgment.
NEIL JAMES: Well, the position of the Australian Defence Association is that we're somewhat surprised to see something like this appear in the media.
NICK GRIMM: Neil James is from the Australian Defence Association.
NEIL JAMES: I think the fact the letter's become public is obviously somewhat of an embarrassment. The other way of looking at the question is, is there would appear to be a somewhat tenuous connection between the peace prize being awarded to Dr Ashwari and the ensuing controversy, and Coalition operations in Iraq.
NICK GRIMM: So, Neil James in the light of that, are you surprised this letter was written in the first place?
NEIL JAMES: I'm somewhat surprised that an officer of Colonel Kelly's experience wrote a letter like this.
NICK GRIMM: But the views expressed in Colonel Kelly's letter aren't so far off the mark, according to Justice Marcus Einfeld, who has also publicly criticised the choice of Hanan Ashrawi.
MARCUS EINFELD: The problem with Dr Ashwari is that she hides under an ostensibly peace agenda, with eloquence and considerable intellect, a proposal or series of proposals that far from creating peace would in fact create war.
NICK GRIMM: Let's get it straight though, you're not actually arguing that the prize shouldn't go to a Palestinian, per se?
MARCUS EINFELD: Absolutely not. I know… I've worked with and know well a significant number of Palestinians who have made and are still making major efforts to bring about peace and an end to the senseless killing that is taking place on both sides.
NICK GRIMM: But Bob Carr says Dr Ashwari's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict will make her a worthy recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize when he awards it to her in the New South Wales Parliament, on Thursday.
MARK COLVIN: Nick Grimm reporting.
Showing posts with label annapolis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label annapolis. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
The right wing's Jerusalem gambit
A new coalition of religious hard-liners with ties to President Bush seeks to scuttle any plans for dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians.
Gregory Levey, Salon.com, December 13, 2007
On Nov. 26, the U.S. State Department got hit with an unexpected barrage of phone calls. The Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, a new coalition of American groups with hard-line views on Israel, was on the line -- all of the lines. Or so the group said two days later in a press release, proudly proclaiming that with 10,000 calls in less than 48 hours it had managed to overload the State Department's voice-mail system. The group was making known its opposition to any Israeli concessions on dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians -- an issue that was swirling around the Bush administration's peace summit taking place in Annapolis, Md.
The new coalition's dubious achievement wasn't much noticed by the media, and perhaps isn't in itself important, but it was a sign of battles to come in the year ahead, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggle to move forward with any real progress after Annapolis. Although most appraisals of the conference were reservedly positive -- after all, at least the two sides were talking seriously again after a seven-year drought -- the event also opened a can of worms.
On the eve of Annapolis, the new right-wing coalition's representatives directly lobbied a top Bush official with their concerns about the summit. Even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took notice and seemed threatened by their potential to obstruct progress -- leveling some harsh words just before the Annapolis conference apparently directed at the coalition.
Annapolis was only the beginning of a renewed series of high-level negotiations, and the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement read by President Bush at the event was purposefully vague so as to avoid angering either leader's constituents or allies. Anyone reading between the lines, however, could see that the most explosive issue of all, dividing Jerusalem, had reemerged. The new coalition of religious groups seeks to use the incendiary Jerusalem question to scuttle any of the progress promised by Annapolis. Its efforts also threaten to cause painful rifts among American Jews, and perhaps shake up some pro-Israel political alliances.
Although the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the new high-level negotiations, some of AIPAC's major donors and allies are involved with the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. The coalition is also being aided in its efforts by evangelical Christian groups and supported by figures such as G. Gordon Liddy. It is directed by an influential former fundraiser for George W. Bush, Jeff Ballabon.
Ballabon is a Washington lobbyist who served as a major fundraiser for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign and was the architect of a strategy that has sought to bring Orthodox Jews into the Republican fold, in an effort to balance the overwhelmingly Democratic voting habits of mainstream American Jews. Just before the conference in Annapolis, Ballabon, along with Christian leaders and representatives of various Orthodox groups, met with Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, to make sure their point of view, and the force of their commitment, were understood by the administration. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hadley reportedly assured them that, for the time being, the issue of Jerusalem was in fact not on the negotiating table.
Some interesting fissures have begun to crop up along with the new coalition. A few weeks before the Annapolis meeting, a congressional letter requesting increased aid for the Palestinian Authority -- which would help it meet some of its obligations toward achieving peace -- was endorsed by AIPAC, surprising many in Washington lobbying circles. (The Israeli government had not opposed the aid.) That decision earned AIPAC a sharp rebuke by one of its most important donors, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who said, "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them." Adelson, reportedly the third richest person in the United States and a prominent donor to the Republican Party, is also a major donor to the Zionist Organization of America, a group that, although lacking anything near the clout that AIPAC wields, is still influential among Middle East hawks in the GOP. And it is a core member of the new Coordinating Council. The national president of ZOA, Mort Klein, told Salon in an interview that "Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn't give away any part of Washington." He added, "Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It's not mentioned even once in the Quran."
ZOA has been active for a long time, but has never gotten the kind of political attention enjoyed by AIPAC and other more mainstream groups, or by the Christian evangelical groups pushing hawkish Middle East polices who have joined the Coordinating Council. What has changed is that the obstructionist agenda of the ZOA and the evangelical groups is now being aided by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish member organizations of the newly formed coalition -- many of which have, prior to now, stayed aloof from international politics.
Agudath Israel, for example, an umbrella organization of ultra-Orthodox American Jews and a member group of the Coordinating Council, recently broke its long-held rule of not delving into Middle East politics by speaking out against the division of Jerusalem. The Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in the United States, also recently broke its tradition of supporting the policies of the Israeli government, issuing a press release that sharply criticized Olmert's statements at Annapolis because he "did not explicitly resist Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas' claim to a piece of Jerusalem."
That a successful peace deal would necessitate some sharing of Jerusalem is at this point essentially a given in the eyes of most political leaders. It has been floated subtly by Prime Minister Olmert's Cabinet allies, is quite clearly supported by many in the State Department and is thought of as an absolute minimum for agreement by Abbas.
To Orthodox Jews, however, Jerusalem is a red line (just as it is to their opposites on the Muslim side). Any perceived threat to sole ownership of the holy city summons dangerous levels of emotion and energy, even from those who would not normally pause from their prayers and everyday lives to wade into the swamp of Middle East politics. It is these thousands of Americans, normally not involved in Middle East discourse, that may give the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem the strength and potential to be a real obstacle to peace in the year to come.
These stirrings stateside have not gone unnoticed by the Israeli government. In response to the lobbying intended to preempt any talk of dividing Jerusalem, Olmert stated, "Israel is sovereign to decide on any issue regarding Israel." The message was that Jerusalem is an issue to be determined by Israel itself, and not by its hard-line American cheerleaders.
To be sure, the views of this new American coalition of religious right-wingers don't come anywhere near representing the consensus of American Jewry or of Israel's mainstream supporters in the United States -- whose views, unlike those of the CCJ, don't generally turn on Scripture but rather on issues of peace and security. Still, the vigor with which these actors have recently entered the debate, and the determined efforts with which they will likely proceed over the next year, aren't going to make anything easy for those striving for a Middle East accord of any kind.
The Annapolis conference may have been a start, but it has also unleashed a zealotry on U.S. shores that may once again help demonstrate how nearly impossible achieving Middle East peace could really be.
Gregory Levey, Salon.com, December 13, 2007
On Nov. 26, the U.S. State Department got hit with an unexpected barrage of phone calls. The Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, a new coalition of American groups with hard-line views on Israel, was on the line -- all of the lines. Or so the group said two days later in a press release, proudly proclaiming that with 10,000 calls in less than 48 hours it had managed to overload the State Department's voice-mail system. The group was making known its opposition to any Israeli concessions on dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians -- an issue that was swirling around the Bush administration's peace summit taking place in Annapolis, Md.
The new coalition's dubious achievement wasn't much noticed by the media, and perhaps isn't in itself important, but it was a sign of battles to come in the year ahead, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggle to move forward with any real progress after Annapolis. Although most appraisals of the conference were reservedly positive -- after all, at least the two sides were talking seriously again after a seven-year drought -- the event also opened a can of worms.
On the eve of Annapolis, the new right-wing coalition's representatives directly lobbied a top Bush official with their concerns about the summit. Even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took notice and seemed threatened by their potential to obstruct progress -- leveling some harsh words just before the Annapolis conference apparently directed at the coalition.
Annapolis was only the beginning of a renewed series of high-level negotiations, and the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement read by President Bush at the event was purposefully vague so as to avoid angering either leader's constituents or allies. Anyone reading between the lines, however, could see that the most explosive issue of all, dividing Jerusalem, had reemerged. The new coalition of religious groups seeks to use the incendiary Jerusalem question to scuttle any of the progress promised by Annapolis. Its efforts also threaten to cause painful rifts among American Jews, and perhaps shake up some pro-Israel political alliances.
Although the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the new high-level negotiations, some of AIPAC's major donors and allies are involved with the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. The coalition is also being aided in its efforts by evangelical Christian groups and supported by figures such as G. Gordon Liddy. It is directed by an influential former fundraiser for George W. Bush, Jeff Ballabon.
Ballabon is a Washington lobbyist who served as a major fundraiser for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign and was the architect of a strategy that has sought to bring Orthodox Jews into the Republican fold, in an effort to balance the overwhelmingly Democratic voting habits of mainstream American Jews. Just before the conference in Annapolis, Ballabon, along with Christian leaders and representatives of various Orthodox groups, met with Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, to make sure their point of view, and the force of their commitment, were understood by the administration. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hadley reportedly assured them that, for the time being, the issue of Jerusalem was in fact not on the negotiating table.
Some interesting fissures have begun to crop up along with the new coalition. A few weeks before the Annapolis meeting, a congressional letter requesting increased aid for the Palestinian Authority -- which would help it meet some of its obligations toward achieving peace -- was endorsed by AIPAC, surprising many in Washington lobbying circles. (The Israeli government had not opposed the aid.) That decision earned AIPAC a sharp rebuke by one of its most important donors, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who said, "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them." Adelson, reportedly the third richest person in the United States and a prominent donor to the Republican Party, is also a major donor to the Zionist Organization of America, a group that, although lacking anything near the clout that AIPAC wields, is still influential among Middle East hawks in the GOP. And it is a core member of the new Coordinating Council. The national president of ZOA, Mort Klein, told Salon in an interview that "Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn't give away any part of Washington." He added, "Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It's not mentioned even once in the Quran."
ZOA has been active for a long time, but has never gotten the kind of political attention enjoyed by AIPAC and other more mainstream groups, or by the Christian evangelical groups pushing hawkish Middle East polices who have joined the Coordinating Council. What has changed is that the obstructionist agenda of the ZOA and the evangelical groups is now being aided by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish member organizations of the newly formed coalition -- many of which have, prior to now, stayed aloof from international politics.
Agudath Israel, for example, an umbrella organization of ultra-Orthodox American Jews and a member group of the Coordinating Council, recently broke its long-held rule of not delving into Middle East politics by speaking out against the division of Jerusalem. The Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in the United States, also recently broke its tradition of supporting the policies of the Israeli government, issuing a press release that sharply criticized Olmert's statements at Annapolis because he "did not explicitly resist Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas' claim to a piece of Jerusalem."
That a successful peace deal would necessitate some sharing of Jerusalem is at this point essentially a given in the eyes of most political leaders. It has been floated subtly by Prime Minister Olmert's Cabinet allies, is quite clearly supported by many in the State Department and is thought of as an absolute minimum for agreement by Abbas.
To Orthodox Jews, however, Jerusalem is a red line (just as it is to their opposites on the Muslim side). Any perceived threat to sole ownership of the holy city summons dangerous levels of emotion and energy, even from those who would not normally pause from their prayers and everyday lives to wade into the swamp of Middle East politics. It is these thousands of Americans, normally not involved in Middle East discourse, that may give the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem the strength and potential to be a real obstacle to peace in the year to come.
These stirrings stateside have not gone unnoticed by the Israeli government. In response to the lobbying intended to preempt any talk of dividing Jerusalem, Olmert stated, "Israel is sovereign to decide on any issue regarding Israel." The message was that Jerusalem is an issue to be determined by Israel itself, and not by its hard-line American cheerleaders.
To be sure, the views of this new American coalition of religious right-wingers don't come anywhere near representing the consensus of American Jewry or of Israel's mainstream supporters in the United States -- whose views, unlike those of the CCJ, don't generally turn on Scripture but rather on issues of peace and security. Still, the vigor with which these actors have recently entered the debate, and the determined efforts with which they will likely proceed over the next year, aren't going to make anything easy for those striving for a Middle East accord of any kind.
The Annapolis conference may have been a start, but it has also unleashed a zealotry on U.S. shores that may once again help demonstrate how nearly impossible achieving Middle East peace could really be.
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
No peace in Israel-Palestine
Michael Shaik and Antony Loewenstein - The Age Online - 5 December 2007
It is difficult to overstate the lost opportunity that last week's Annapolis conference represents.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, had agreed to all of Israel's preconditions for negotiations by dissolving the Palestinian government of national unity, closing down more than 100 Hamas affiliated charities and sending Palestinian security forces into Nablus to liquidate the resistance cells that have held out against the Israeli army for the last seven years.
Having demonstrated his commitment to Israel's security, he needed to secure a reciprocal commitment from Israel that he can present to his people as a vindication of his policies. The peace conference at Annapolis, he was at pains to emphasise, had to produce a clear statement of principles on the core issues of the conflict (Jerusalem, borders, water and refugees) within clearly defined timeframes.
Instead he was forced to settle for an empty statement that heralded "a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition" and declared that both sides intended to reach an agreement before the end of 2008.
As with every other peace conference of the last 15 years, the statement bears little relation to reality.
In 2005 ambassadors representing 25 European nations with missions in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Tel Aviv submitted a joint report that Israel is deliberately violating both its obligations under the Roadmap for Peace and international law by working to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.
Specifically, the report warned that the completion of Israel's "Separation Barrier" and the new E1 settlement bloc in the centre of the West Bank would "complete the isolation of East Jerusalem - the political, commercial and infrastructural centre of Palestinian life".
More ominously still, the ambassadors noted that the demolition of Palestinian houses in Jerusalem and its discriminatory policies concerning Palestinian residence in the city are "almost certainly" intended "to reduce the Palestinian population of Jerusalem, while exerting efforts to boost the number of Israelis living in the city."
The former Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, once boasted that his strategy for peace negotiations was to drag them out for ten years, by which time Israel's annexation of the West Bank would have become an accomplished fact. Since his retirement, every Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" has taken place against a backdrop of Jewish settlement expansion.
Recently the Israeli NGO, Peace Now, reported that this year Israel has already built 762 settler housing units in the West Bank and had 602 under construction. On Tuesday the Israeli government announced its intention to expand the Har Homa settlement overlooking Bethlehem by 307 new homes.
Rather than confronting Israel over its colonisation of Palestinian land, the Bush administration has chosen to embrace Tony Blair's program of promoting Palestinian economic development, while ignoring Israel's deepening occupation.
The contradictions of such a policy are obvious. Factories throughout the Gaza Strip have been forced to close due to Israel's five month blockade, giving rise to an unemployment rate of 50%. According to the Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights, hospitals in Gaza are being forced to operate without essential medicines, medical equipment, electricity and even such basics as toilet paper and cleaning materials.
This month the UN noted the emergence of a new generation of Palestinian refugees who had been separated from their lands by the "Separation Barrier" that Israel is building through the West Bank. Last week, the UN Relief and Works Agency warned that Israel's tightening of movement restrictions throughout the Occupied Territories could lead to a threefold increase in the cost of providing food aid to Palestinians.
In their recently published book on the Israel Lobby, the American professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt hypothesise that pro-Israeli advocates have so thoroughly infiltrated the American body politic that the US government is no longer capable of recognising its national interests in the Middle East. On Friday Israeli diplomats demanded that the US withdraw a resolution to the UN Security Council endorsing the Annapolis summit on the grounds that the UN is insufficiently pro-Israeli to be involved in the peace process. The resolution was promptly withdrawn.
Since the invasion of Iraq, Israel's advocates around the world have relentlessly lobbied for a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran to stifle the country's alleged WMD program. Before such an attack could take place, America would wish to secure as much Arab support as possible by creating the impression of progress on a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
This, regrettably, has become the primary function of the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process".
Peace is the absence of violence. In the Middle East the term "peace process" has become a euphemism for normalising the violent dispossession of an occupied population.
This year the entire Arab world restated its offer to fully normalise relations with Israel in return for its withdrawal form the Occupied Territories. At a time when the West's standing in the Middle East is already compromised by its refusal to recognise the outcome of last year's Palestinian elections, the United States will gain nothing from fighting a war with Iran to uphold Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.
Michael Shaik is the public advocate for Australians for Palestine. Antony Loewenstein is journalist and co-founder of Independent Australian Jewish Voices.
It is difficult to overstate the lost opportunity that last week's Annapolis conference represents.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, had agreed to all of Israel's preconditions for negotiations by dissolving the Palestinian government of national unity, closing down more than 100 Hamas affiliated charities and sending Palestinian security forces into Nablus to liquidate the resistance cells that have held out against the Israeli army for the last seven years.
Having demonstrated his commitment to Israel's security, he needed to secure a reciprocal commitment from Israel that he can present to his people as a vindication of his policies. The peace conference at Annapolis, he was at pains to emphasise, had to produce a clear statement of principles on the core issues of the conflict (Jerusalem, borders, water and refugees) within clearly defined timeframes.
Instead he was forced to settle for an empty statement that heralded "a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition" and declared that both sides intended to reach an agreement before the end of 2008.
As with every other peace conference of the last 15 years, the statement bears little relation to reality.
In 2005 ambassadors representing 25 European nations with missions in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Tel Aviv submitted a joint report that Israel is deliberately violating both its obligations under the Roadmap for Peace and international law by working to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.
Specifically, the report warned that the completion of Israel's "Separation Barrier" and the new E1 settlement bloc in the centre of the West Bank would "complete the isolation of East Jerusalem - the political, commercial and infrastructural centre of Palestinian life".
More ominously still, the ambassadors noted that the demolition of Palestinian houses in Jerusalem and its discriminatory policies concerning Palestinian residence in the city are "almost certainly" intended "to reduce the Palestinian population of Jerusalem, while exerting efforts to boost the number of Israelis living in the city."
The former Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, once boasted that his strategy for peace negotiations was to drag them out for ten years, by which time Israel's annexation of the West Bank would have become an accomplished fact. Since his retirement, every Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" has taken place against a backdrop of Jewish settlement expansion.
Recently the Israeli NGO, Peace Now, reported that this year Israel has already built 762 settler housing units in the West Bank and had 602 under construction. On Tuesday the Israeli government announced its intention to expand the Har Homa settlement overlooking Bethlehem by 307 new homes.
Rather than confronting Israel over its colonisation of Palestinian land, the Bush administration has chosen to embrace Tony Blair's program of promoting Palestinian economic development, while ignoring Israel's deepening occupation.
The contradictions of such a policy are obvious. Factories throughout the Gaza Strip have been forced to close due to Israel's five month blockade, giving rise to an unemployment rate of 50%. According to the Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights, hospitals in Gaza are being forced to operate without essential medicines, medical equipment, electricity and even such basics as toilet paper and cleaning materials.
This month the UN noted the emergence of a new generation of Palestinian refugees who had been separated from their lands by the "Separation Barrier" that Israel is building through the West Bank. Last week, the UN Relief and Works Agency warned that Israel's tightening of movement restrictions throughout the Occupied Territories could lead to a threefold increase in the cost of providing food aid to Palestinians.
In their recently published book on the Israel Lobby, the American professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt hypothesise that pro-Israeli advocates have so thoroughly infiltrated the American body politic that the US government is no longer capable of recognising its national interests in the Middle East. On Friday Israeli diplomats demanded that the US withdraw a resolution to the UN Security Council endorsing the Annapolis summit on the grounds that the UN is insufficiently pro-Israeli to be involved in the peace process. The resolution was promptly withdrawn.
Since the invasion of Iraq, Israel's advocates around the world have relentlessly lobbied for a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran to stifle the country's alleged WMD program. Before such an attack could take place, America would wish to secure as much Arab support as possible by creating the impression of progress on a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
This, regrettably, has become the primary function of the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process".
Peace is the absence of violence. In the Middle East the term "peace process" has become a euphemism for normalising the violent dispossession of an occupied population.
This year the entire Arab world restated its offer to fully normalise relations with Israel in return for its withdrawal form the Occupied Territories. At a time when the West's standing in the Middle East is already compromised by its refusal to recognise the outcome of last year's Palestinian elections, the United States will gain nothing from fighting a war with Iran to uphold Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.
Michael Shaik is the public advocate for Australians for Palestine. Antony Loewenstein is journalist and co-founder of Independent Australian Jewish Voices.
Monday, 10 December 2007
Monday, 3 December 2007
Palestinian refugees dream of home
November 28, 2007
One of many issues not on the agenda at Annapolis was the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.
Millions of Palestinians live outside the territories since they were forced out in 1948.
Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr went to meet some of the refugees in the Shatila camp in Lebanon's capital Beirut.
=======================
November 27, 2007
One of the fundemental issues that Hamas believes will be sidelined at the Annapolis conference is the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.
As the conference begins Al Jazeera's David Chater looks at the forgotten refugees of Al-Jalazon Camp near Ramallah.
One of many issues not on the agenda at Annapolis was the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.
Millions of Palestinians live outside the territories since they were forced out in 1948.
Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr went to meet some of the refugees in the Shatila camp in Lebanon's capital Beirut.
=======================
November 27, 2007
One of the fundemental issues that Hamas believes will be sidelined at the Annapolis conference is the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.
As the conference begins Al Jazeera's David Chater looks at the forgotten refugees of Al-Jalazon Camp near Ramallah.
A civil solution?
Khaled Diab - The Guardian - 19th November, 2007
If the Annapolis peace conference fails, then Palestinians should abandon their national struggle and demand their civil rights.
If the Annapolis peace conference fails, then Palestinians should abandon their national struggle and demand their civil rights.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Formalizing Apartheid Masked as a Peace Initiative
Neta Golan and Mohammed Khatib - October 13, 2007
Next month the US plans to host a regional meeting to discuss peace in the Middle East, or at least peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The maneuvering, deal making and negotiating about what will be on the table has been going on for some time. But the details of the agreement being discussed have been a well guarded secret but for the steady flow of leaks and trial balloons. Deciphering this information combined with facts on the ground, one can put together a clear outline of Israel’s “next generous offer.”
Next month the US plans to host a regional meeting to discuss peace in the Middle East, or at least peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The maneuvering, deal making and negotiating about what will be on the table has been going on for some time. But the details of the agreement being discussed have been a well guarded secret but for the steady flow of leaks and trial balloons. Deciphering this information combined with facts on the ground, one can put together a clear outline of Israel’s “next generous offer.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
