You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Mahmoud Abbas’ category.
September 26, 2009 in Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Peace Process, West Bank | Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, United Nations | Leave a comment
By Jose Rodriguez
Yesterday, September 24, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before the United Nations. It was an impassioned speech, an angry speech, that he opened with a rebuke to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was also a rebuke to the United Nations, who allowed Ahmadinejad to speak at the UN the day before. The Iranian President had recently denied the Holocaust’s existence, which prompted Netanyahu to spend a great deal of his time presenting documents proving the existence of the Holocaust, and even more time talking about the threat of anti-Semitism to Israel’s existence.
While Netanyahu is absolutely correct in demonstrating the truth about the Holocaust, and while he is absolutely correct in describing anti-Semitism as evil, he is wrong in attempting to portray Israel as an underdog, vulnerable to the evil Muslims and Arabs that surround them. The truth is that Israel is the strongest nation, militarily, in the region; and the truth is that Israel has the strongest ally possible: the United States.
A common theme appears in Netanyahu’s speech that is part of the Israeli psyche– that there is always the possibility that another Holocaust could occur. It is so indelibly burned into their collective consciousness, especially since Israeli politicians continually invoke those memories, that the Israelis live in perpetual fear. It does not matter that in every military engagement since 1948, Israel emerged victorious. It does not matter that the U.S. has, for the most part, delivered military weaponry to support Israel in its wars. The truth is that the Holocaust will never, never, be replicated because the world community, and the United States in particular, would never, never, allow such an horrific event.
Netanyahu rebukes the United Nations for allowing Ahmadinejad a platform to speak, as though it would be better to simply deny him an ability to speak at the UN, a right that every world leader has, whether we agree with them or not. Ahmadinejad’s speech, on the contrary, gave many countries the opportunity to get up and leave, demonstrating their solidarity with Israel and their disgust with the filth and lies emanating from Ahmadinejad’s mouth. The French delegation led about twelve other delegations, including the United States, in a walk-out during the Iranian President’s speech, symbolizing their extreme disagreement with Ahmadinejad and their unwillingness to dignify his speech with their presence.
Another chunk of the speech was dedicated to the Palestinians, who he described, as Abba Eban once did, as participants who willingly miss opportunities for peace. This is patently false, and extremely offensive. He began by citing the failure of the Palestinian leadership, in 1948, to accept the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states. While this is an accurate statement, it nonetheless is false in its implications. The fact is that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians, and had belonged to them for 2,000 years (some Palestinians would argue that they have been there far longer, since they trace their roots to the land as far back as Abraham, as the Jews do). The Palestinians constituted a majority in Palestine– roughly 1.35 million Palestinians, whereas there were only 650,000 Jews. They had been promised, since the end of World War 1, their own state. The British Mandate was intended to provide the Palestinians the necessary guidance and support they would need in order to reach full statehood. However, there had been a substantial immigration of Jews into Palestine, who intended to take the land away from the Palestinians. As the Peel Commission suggested in 1937, and the UN carried out in 1948, the land of Palestine was to be divided without the approval of the Palestinians, who constituted an overwhelming majority of the population and had historical ties to the land thousands of years old. However, by 1949, the Palestinians had been driven from their land, and the Jews constituted a majority in a land where they previously had been a minority.
So, naturally, they opposed the partition of Palestine (especially since the UN plan allocated more land to the Jews than the Palestinians) on grounds that they had natural rights to statehood that were being usurped by colonial powers (i.e., Britain and the U.S.). But it was too late for the Palestinians. The full and horrific extent of the Holocaust came to light, and out of sympathy and guilt, the UN created a homeland specifically for the Jews, and ran roughshod over the inherent right of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination in their own land.
I know that this is a topic that inflames people’s passion. In the U.S. we are so reflexively supportive of Israel that if anyone is even remotely critical of the state then they are accused of being anti-Semitic, or any other horrible pejorative they can think of. A great deal of this, I suspect, is that they do not know enough about the region or its history to intelligently debate the subject. So, they revert to name calling in order to cut off any discussion. It is wrong and it is not right. It is un-American, quite frankly. Ironically, in Israel, people have this debate every day and it is an honest and open debate, yet we in this country cannot.
Because people are so ignorant of the facts and of history, I put try to put it in the simplest of terms: How would you like it if the UN, without our consent, were to partition the United States? How would you feel if the UN said, “We’re going to give over half of the United States to the Native Americans, a quarter to the Mexicans, and the U.S. can live in the remaining quarter”? I don’t think too many Americans would appreciate that. In fact, if you think the TEA Party people are pissed, just wait and see how many more people would be equally pissed, if not more, if the UN did this to us.
And, again, he defended the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces, who waged an aggressive and indiscriminate war against the people of Gaza. Granted, as he stated, there were elements of Gaza (Hamas) who were firing rockets into Israel, threatening the safety of Israeli citizens. However, there is a prevailing rule in International Law regarding proportionality and protection, at all costs, of civilians. According to Israeli Human Rights group B’tselem, IDF killed 1,387 people, with 773 civilians killed, including 320 children under the age of 16 and 109 women over the age of 18. Only 330 people killed were active combatants, and another 248 were Palestinian security forces, most of whom were killed on the first day as a result of aerial bombing. B’tselem could not determine the status of 36 people.
Only 13 Israelis were killed during the war: 5 were soldiers in Gaza, 3 were civilians killed by rocket fire, 1 was a security officer in Israel killed by rocket fire, and four were killed in friendly fire. Though this is not to demean the lives lost, it is, nonetheless, an example of the disproportionate use of force by the IDF.
Part of the anger and resentment in Gaza stems from Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which has crippled their economy, stymied the freedom of movement, and denied Gazans important resources, such as medicine, food, and fuel. The Pope has even expressed his desire to see the embargo lifted: “Please be assured of my solidarity with you in the immense work of rebuilding which now lies ahead and my prayers that the embargo will soon be lifted.” This anger has, obviously, manifested itself in violence.
Be assured, this violence is not aimed at the overthrow or destruction of Israel, but is intended to show the Israelis the price of occupation. It is also, in their eyes, an act of self-defense.
And finally, Netanyahu asserted that Palestinians have never recognized Israel’s right to exist, which, again, is patently false. It is Israel who has never recognized the right of Palestinians to exist. It is hardly worth noting since it is so obvious, but I will list just a few examples to make the point.
* On December 14, 1988, after several attempts to satisfy the U.S.’s definition of accepting the right of Israel to exist, Arafat held a press conference in Geneva, Switzerland. There, he said, “We want peace…we are committed to peace, and we want to live in our Palestinian state and let others live.” He outlined several key points: The PLO accepted UN Resolution 242, the PLO promised recognition of Israel, and the PLO also renounced terrorism.
* In 1993, Yassir Arafat wrote a letter to then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. In the letter, Arafat, on behalf of the Palestinian people, formally recognized the right of Israel to exist. In the letter, Arafat wrote: “The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.” That sounds pretty definitive and unambiguous. He went even further: “In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.”
* More recently, in 2002, President Bush made a feeble attempt at brokering a peace agreement through his “Roadmap for Peace.” As a pre-requisite for negotiations, the Palestinians had to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The fact that negotiations were undertaken proves that President Bush must have been assured that the Palestinians met that requirement. The Palestinian negotiators also put out this statement: The “Palestinian leadership issues [an] unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.”
The bottomline is that the balance of power is in favor of Israel. They have unlimited U.S. military and economic support, they have control over the territories, they are the ones who can simply pull back to the pre-1967 lines. The Israelis argue that a pull back would endanger them, and they point to Gaza as proof. However, if they were to allow the Palestinians to create their own state, as they are entitled to, then there would be no more grievance. Arab states all across the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, and including Hamas, have already stated that they would recognize Israel’s right to exist if they allowed Palestinians to have statehood and if they pulled back to their pre-1967 lines.
It’s that simple.
So long as there are hardliners, like Netanyahu, who keeping moving the field goal posts back, and insisting that any future Palestinian state must bend to the will of Israel, there can be no solution.
In the end, there may have to be an imposed settlement, whether they like it or not.
September 24, 2009 in Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestine, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Peace Process, president barack obama | Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, Middle East Peace Process, Palestinians, president barack obama, United Nations | Leave a comment
By Jose Rodriguez
President Barack Obama spoke today to at the United Nations. His speech urged the world to take stronger action on the threat of Global Climate Change; he insisted that the United States is no longer beholden to the “go it alone” mentality that dominated the Bush administration; and he reminded that all nations must be aggressive in their economic policies in order to prevent a backslide into economic ruin.
He also spoke firmly on the issue of Middle-East peace. He affirmed that he would continue to work for a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. He called on Palestine to rein in their militants, while reminding Israel that their settlements were not legitimate in the eyes of the United States. While aware that the peace process would be difficult, and that it would require Israel to recognize Palestinians have legitimate claims, and that it would require Palestinians to recognize that Israel has a right to exist.
There came a moment when the President reminded the UN body that we are “all God’s children.” He stressed that we all have the right to live in dignity, and that it was not acceptable for Gazans to have to live without clean drinking water. It was a not so subtle reminder that there is a moral component in bringing about a lasting peace to the people who live in the Holy Land.
The President of the United States has my full support on this issue.
On Tuesday, the President met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As acknowledged in the speech, the President knew that it would be difficult to forge a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This was demonstrated on Tuesday when Netanyahu refused to halt all settlement construction in the West Bank, only agreeing to a time- limited freeze. Mahmoud Abbas, who had refused to meet with Netanyahu until he halted all settlement building, allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with Netanyahu, though that was a moment of embarrassment for him. They see Obama as even-handed, something they have not seen from previous Presidents, so Abbas (as a token of goodwill) agreed to the photo-op.
The President, after meeting both leaders, demonstrated his annoyance and impatience : “It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations; it is time to move forward… Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. So my message to these two leaders is clear: despite all the obstacles, all the history, all the mistrust, we have to find a way forward.” The way forward will be difficult as Netanyahu and Abbas have different goals: Abbas wants complete independence and statehood, whereas Netanyahu wants to maintain the occupation with limited Palestinian self-rule.
Afterward, Netanyahu claimed that Abbas had given up his preconditions (an implicit self-congratulatory remark, since he did not have to stop all settlement construction) and agreed to negotiations; Abbas has said that negotiations must be on final status issues, including the refugee problem and the issue of Jerusalem. On this issue, Abbas has the full support of President Obama, who insists that negotiations will include the refugee problem, borders, Jerusalem, and guaranteed security for Israel. Netanyahu, like every one of his predecessors, would prefer to kick that can down the road and only speak about future topics for future final status negotiations.
While Netanyahu seems to have won this round of diplomacy, there are signs that the President’s patience is growing thin and that he will compel the Israelis to be honest participants in negotiations. According to aides within the Obama administration, the President reminded Abbas and Netanyahu that the upcoming negotiations will be based on past agreements, including Oslo and the Clinton parameters.
There are also rumors that President Obama will summon both leaders to Washington D.C. to begin final status negotiations. However, Netanyahu, who has seen his poll numbers rise as he has defied President Obama, may not be willing to play ball. The failure of any upcoming negotiations would only further erode Abbas’ authority, as his numbers have fallen due to a failure to bring about any concessions or promises from Israel in the last decade. That has happened because Israel has refused to make any significant movement toward peace, as President Bush was not particularly interested in peace in the Middle-East and he was content to just allow the Israeli government to do whatever it pleased.
In the end, it might very well be that the Obama administration will have to impose a settlement on both parties, whether they like it or not.
Yesterday, both Hamas and Israel brushed aside the UN Resolution calling for a cease-fire, and continued their violent campaigns.
Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert openly disregarded Resolution 1860, calling it, “impractical.” Israel, instead of accepting the Resolution, struck 70 targets. Israel now is preparing to move into “Phase Three” of the invasion, which will require more ground troops going into more densely populated areas, risking higher civilian casualties. So far, since Operation Cast Lead was launched on Dec. 27th, 10 Israeli soldiers have been killed in action, while over 820 Gazans have been killed, and over 3,300 have been wounded. While each death is tragic, one must remember International Law, which dictates that the aggressor must keep the rule of Proportionality in mind.
Mohammed Nazzal, a Senior Hamas Official, argued that, “Nobody consulted Hamas or talked to Hamas. Nobody put Hamas in the picture, and yet Hamas is required to accept it. This is unacceptable.” Hamas also wants to have Gaza’s border crossings open, to allow humanitarian aid and much needed supplies through. As of now, roughly one million people in Gaza are without electricity, and about 750,000 are without food or water. Gaza has a population of about 1.5 million people. In total, over the last two weeks, Hamas has fired about 500 rockets into southern Israel, which have killed four people.
Most Americans, who know nothing of the middle-east conflict except for what little information they gleam from the news, tend to think of Palestinians as a monolith. They’re all Islamo-fascist terrorists who hate Israel and want nothing short of Israel’s destruction. Well, while idiotic talk-radio hosts (like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage) might believe that and their unthinking and uncritical audience accept their ignorant tirades as fact, the reality is that Palestinian society is complex, diverse, and, unfortunately, at this crucial juncture, fractured. There are Palestinians who are Muslim, Christian, and Jewish (though, in Gaza, 99.3% are Sunni Muslims); there are Palestinians who are strong advocates of peace, while there are others who insist on destroying Israel; there are Palestinians who live in Gaza, while others live in the West Bank or abroad. And the differences go on and on.
Today’s climate in the middle-east is a direct result of President George W. Bush’s non-existent strategy for dealing with the peace process. Sure, he started a “road-map” for peace, but there was never any involvement from the administration, who felt that any peace-process was too “Clintonian,” therefore making it something they wanted nothing to do with. “If Clinton was for it, then it must be bad,” their logic went. From the outset, the Bush administration did everything in their power to undo everything Clinton had worked to achieve– beginning with the dissolution of the Middle-East Envoy position. Ari Fleischer, Bush’s first Press Secretary, essentially blamed Clinton for the Second Intifada, which began in 2001: “It is important to be careful in the region, to proceed at a pace that is achievable and doable, and not to raise people’s expectations falsely so high by trying to reach something that the parties cannot agree to themselves. Failure to reach that level created unmet expectations in the region and that resulted in violence.” In 2005, in an effort to “democratize” the middle-east, Bush fought hard for elections in the West Bank and Gaza, a move that was opposed by the Palestinian Authority. In a conference with Mahmoud Abbas in October 2005, Bush argued that, “The way forward must continue to include democratic elections. The upcoming elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council offer an opportunity to open the door to the next generation of Palestinian leaders. They’ll be responsible for building a peaceful and hopeful future for their country. In the short-term, the Palestinian Authority must earn the confidence of its peoples, by holding elections and having a functioning government…” Unfortunately, as Bush had been warned, the danger of a Hamas victory could tilt the balance of power in the favor Hamas, who openly calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic theocracy in a Palestinian state (which would include Israel). Of those who opposed the election and the participation of Hamas in the elections was Ariel Sharon, who (at the time was PM) threatened not to support the process if Hamas was allowed to particiapte. Bush and Condoleeza Rice nonetheless allowed the election to continue with Hamas’ participation: “We would hope that the elections can go forward and that everyone will cooperate to make those elections go forward because elections are fundamental to the continued evolution and development of the Palestinian process,” Rice said. The election of Hamas came as a total surprise to the Bush Administration.
For many, the election did not come as a surprise. Hamas had been steadily gaining support for decades, as the failure of Fatah to reach a political settlement with Israel dragged on. Hamas’ militant stance attracted many people who felt that the political options had been exhausted. Many Palestinians also viewed the Fatah party with disdain and mistrust, as it had been corrupt for so many years under Yasser Arafat. Moreover, during the election, Hamas had made many promises to the Palestinians in Gaza, such as: fighting corruption in government, creating more jobs, and boosting their dismal economy. Hamas had a message of social reform and change that the people desperately wanted to hear. In Gaza, 81% of people lived below the poverty line (earning less than $2.20 a day), unemployment somewhere around 50%, and they were growing weary of the Palestinian Authority’s security crackdown. Hamas, on the other hand, extolled the virtues of its candidates and their participation in charities that provided food and supplies to desperate Palestinians. Though the destruction of Israel was part of Hamas’ platform, the people who elected Hamas were, instead, giving a vote against the Fatah party and in favor of a party that argued for social change and reform. Though some people certainly may have supported that platform, most people in Gaza were delivering a protest vote. Polling a month after the election demonstrates this to be true, with 43% of those who voted for Hamas (the largest group) doing so in hopes of ending corruption.
Polling a month after Hamas’s victory in Gaza demonstrated that two-thirds of Palestinians believed Hamas should “change its policy of rejecting Israel’s right to exist. Most also support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” A poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center (JMCC) found that “58 percent of Palestinians said they favor the two-state solution, while 22 percent favor ‘a bi-national state on all of historic Palestine.’ Three percent said they want an Islamic state.” The poll also found that 66.3% of Palestinians wanted Hamas to continue negotiations with Israel, while 29.6 believed that they should not continue negotiations. Also, 51.7% believed that Hamas should end its military operations against Israel, while 51.5% also see those attacks as counter-productive to Palestinian interests. 43.8% found the operations politically justifiable, though that is a significant drop from 65.4% in June 2004.
Both Hamas and Israel need to learn to live together. Despite their harsh criticisms of one another, they are very similar. Both believe that the land of Palestine/Israel belongs to their people, and are willing to use force to achieve their objectives, leaving innocent civilian populations to get the brunt of their violence.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is preparing to send a large shipment of arms to Israel, a move U.S. officials deny is related to the conflict in Gaza. Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “The delivery of ammunition is to a pre-positioned U.S. munitions stockpile in Israel in accordance with a congressionally authorized 1990 agreement between the U.S. and Israel.” Missiles that had been sent to Israel in early December, according to the Jerusalem Post, have been used in the Gaza invasion. Israel, for its part, has already warned people in Gaza to prepare themselves for escalation via the use of leaflets. Tanks and soldiers are going deeper and deeper into Gaza, and are now getting accused by the group Human Rights Watch of “using white-phosphorus munitions in Gaza and warned of the risk to Palestinian civilians.” Not only is white-phosphorous munitions likely to cause sever burns, but it is also likely to start fires. They do acknowledge, however, that it appeared that the IDF was using the munitions to “hide military operations ‘a permissible use in principle under international humanitarian law.‘” The use of white-phosphorous munitions has been decried by human rights groups, who argue that its use should be banned. The U.S. used the same material during a military operation in Iraq and has since defended its use as being perfectly legal.
According to the Jerusalem Post, the UN is considering the use of international forces along the Gaza-Egypt border, where Israel claims Hamas is smuggling weapons into Gaza. The UN plan also would reinstate the PA’s jurisdiction over the Gaza Strip. This comes at a time when Mahmoud Abbas, whose term has ended, has insisted that he will not step down until there are parliamentary and presidential elections, as required by the PA’s constitution. His aides have indicated that he plans to create an emergency government, which will extend his term for one year.
And finally, a news report from the Gaurdian has been denied by President-elect Barack Obama’s team. The report indicated that Obama would hold negotiations with Hamas at lower levels, opting for clandestine meetings over direct talks: “The Guardian has spoken to three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.” So, according to Obama’s spokesperson, he would indeed continue Bush’s policy of isolating Hamas. Brooke Anderson, Obama’s transition team’s chief national security spokeswoman, said that he “has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements.” Even Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama in the final weeks of the election, has argued that Hamas can no longer be isolated if peace is to be achieved– it must be dealt with.
In an open letter to President Bush and Condoleeza Rice, just before the Annapolis peace conference in 2007, signatories Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee H. Hamilton, Brent Scowcroft, Theodore C. Sorensen, and others, argued that, “a genuine dialogue with the organization [Hamas] is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point.” The letter also outlined parameters for a long-lasting and durable solution:
* Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;
* Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;
* Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;
* A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees’ deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;
* Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.
This, of course, was not to be. If President-elect Obama hopes to bring real peace and security to the U.S., and to the middle-east, he would do well to heed their letter.