| Author: |
|---|
via conflictsforum :
Is the Bush administration violating the law in an effort to provoke a Palestinian civil war?
Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams — who Newsweek
recently described as “the last neocon standing” — has had it about for
some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing
with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate
aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group
of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a
“hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent
overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States.
While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had
to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could
fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.
While those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and “graduated” from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen’s security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media — and in Israel. Thousands of rifles and bullets have been poring into Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan, the administration’s designated allies in the program.
Send It ,
| Bookmark this post: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
As the Hamas-led multiple missile offensive against Israel marked its first week, voices were heard in Israel and overseas, well-meaning or despairing, calling for Israel to start talks with the Palestinian Islamist group’s leaders.
Hamas soon knocked that notion on the head. After hurling some 150 missiles against Israel, one of its officials, Nizhar Riyah, issued a clear statement of intent Monday, May 21:
“Hamas is determined to wipe Israel off the map and replace it with the state of Palestine,” he said. Hamas will fight “until the last Jew is expelled” - not only from Sderot but also from Ashkelon and “all of Palestine.”
In February 2006, Hamas beat Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah in the Palestinian general elections, which the incoming Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, against every Israeli security interest, allowed to take place.
Ret. Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, then head of Israel’s national security council, strongly advised them to make the best of a bad job and engage the new Palestinian leaders in talks. This recommendation was emphatically reported by DEBKAfile’s analysts just days after the election. But it was turned down by leaders who preferred to follow advice from Washington.
Just as US State Department urged Israel to permit an election which gave Hamas its victory, officials at State also had a plan to deal with its unfortunate aftermath: a campaign spearheaded by the US and Israel, and adopted by the Middle East Quartet, to boost the Palestinian loser, Fatah and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, and boycott the winning Hamas.
It was soon clear they had backed the losing horse - and still are.
In the intervening 15 months, Hamas was not idle. Instead of breaking down under international pressure, Hamas went from strength to strength, taking advantage of Israel’s indecision and inaction and the ineffectiveness of Abu Mazen and his sidekick Mohammed Dahlan.
The Palestinian fundamentalists quickly jumped aboard the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah bandwagon. That bandwagon is now racing ahead in the Middle East arena, leaving Israel behind with the United States and its crises.
In these circumstances, and after the Lebanon War less than a year ago, Israel must on no account turn to Hamas for talks, because the only agenda on offer now would be terms for Jewish state’s capitulation and demise.
The outcome would reflect the consequences of Washington’s two years of talks with Iraqi Sunni insurgent leaders, brokered by dozens of Arab and Muslim mediators, including Jordan’s King Hussein. The result has been the exacerbation of terror in Iraq.
For Hamas, diplomacy would serve only as a respite to gear up for more aggression. Saudi King Abdullah tried his hand in Mecca earlier this year. Once again, Washington and Jerusalem were deluded into believing the Saudi royal hand could tame Hamas and persuade its leaders to share power with Fatah in a unity government.
Instead, the group was strengthened in its radicalism; three months later it has embarked on its current 20-missile-a-day offensive against Israel. Day by day, Hamas spokesmen say the blitz of the western Negev is only the first step in its open-ended war for the final goal of destroying Israel.
Olmert told his second cabinet meeting on Gaza Sunday, May 20: “We will not let Hamas dictate our time table.”
But that is exactly what he has done in all his sixteen months in the prime minister’s office.
Israel exercises less control than ever before over the time table now that a disastrous factor has entered the equation.
Hamas’s blitz against Israel is part and parcel of a savage offensive to destroy the Palestinian Authority and oust Mahmoud Abbas, which is aligned with Tehran’s overall strategy for anticipating two prospective events in 2007 and 2008:
One is the beginning of the withdrawal of the bulk of the US army from Iraq. The other is the possibility, though not certainty, of an American military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and strategic infrastructure.
To prepare for the two eventualities, Tehran is building a military and logistical base in the Gaza Strip. Combined with Hizballah’s support structures in Lebanon, the Gaza base will comprise not only a threat to Israel, but also to US bases in Israel and Jordan and the American and European fleets present in the eastern Mediterranean.
Israel’s failure in the Lebanon War last year gave Iran an easy victory and a free hand for upgrading its military strength in Lebanon. Tehran is after the same effect in Gaza.
In the face of this looming juggernaut, the Olmert government would be courting disaster by entering into bargaining mode with Hamas – especially in the absence of any realistic strategy for repelling it.
The Olmert-Livni policy, joined by defense minister Amir Peretz, has consisted until now of lurching from crisis to crisis and applying patches for makeshift repairs. This path left Israel groping among hard options:
On the one hand, they have held back from ordering an effective military operation against Hamas – and not only because of the brakes applied by Washington. After the Lebanon fiasco, the trio is afraid the IDF is not up to delivering the goods, naturally preferring to make the army accountable for that conflict’s shortcomings rather than their own faulty leadership.
On the other hand, Olmert has obstinately held back from diplomacy with Hamas. Therefore, if anyone has maneuvered Israel into its present tight corner, it is not Iran or Hamas, but his misguided policies.
In these circumstances, Israel has three available courses of action:
1. To embark on full-scale war in the Gaza Strip, turning the tide of the Lebanon setback and seriously impairing Iran’s plans for exploiting the territory.
2. Carry on as before, that is dithering while the missiles rain down from Gaza – and not only against Sderot and its neighbors, but also strategic Israel towns which the improved Qassam missiles can reach. The air force will continue to execute pinpoint reprisals including targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders. Not all will hit their mark, like the attack on the Gaza home of key Hamas spiritual and strategic leader, Khalil al-Yahya, Sunday night.
3. Do nothing and wait for the American attack on Iran while the situation deteriorates, in the hope of some outside force stepping in and taking the job out of Israel’s hands.
All three options are obviously unhealthy for Israel. But not much is left for a government which is too muddled to see its way to clear and logical action in the real Middle East arena.
Send It ,
| Bookmark this post: | | | | | | |
| Written by Steven Erlanger | |
| Wednesday, 16 May 2007 | |
|
JERUSALEM, May 14 — The International Committee of the Red Cross, in a confidential report about East Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, accuses Israel of a “general disregard” for “its obligations under international humanitarian law — and the law of occupation in particular.” The committee, which does not accept Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, says Israel is using its rights as an occupying power under international law “in order to further its own interests or those of its own population to the detriment of the population of the occupied territory.” With the construction of the separation barrier, the establishment of an outer ring of Jewish settlements beyond the expanded municipal boundaries and the creation of a dense road network linking the different Israeli neighborhoods and settlements in and outside Jerusalem, the report says, Israel is “reshaping the development of the Jerusalem metropolitan area” with “far-reaching humanitarian consequences.” Those include the increasing isolation of Palestinians living in Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank and the increasing difficulty for some Palestinians to easily reach Jerusalem’s schools and hospitals. The Red Cross committee, which is recognized as a guardian of humanitarian law under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, does not publish its reports but provides them in confidence to the parties involved and to a small number of countries. This report was provided to The New York Times by someone outside the organization who wanted the report’s conclusions publicized. The leak came just days before Israel’s celebration of Jerusalem Day this Wednesday, observing the 40th anniversary of the unification of the city. The committee is better known for its role in visiting prisoners all over the world to try to ensure humanitarian conditions. It has been involved for decades with the Israeli-Palestinian situation as part of its role in upholding the Geneva Conventions, which cover the responsibilities of occupying countries. But its reports rarely surface. The report considers all land that Israel conquered in the 1967 war to be occupied territory. It was the result of nine months of work by the committee and was delivered in late February “to Israel and to a small number of foreign governments we believe would be in the best position to help support our efforts for the implementation of humanitarian law,” said Bernard Barrett, a spokesman for the committee in Jerusalem. Israeli officials said that they respected the committee and that they had cooperated with it gladly on issues ranging from the release of captured Israeli soldiers to asking its officials to give briefings on international law to Israeli diplomats and commanders serving in the occupied West Bank. They confirmed having received the report, but disagreed with its premises and conclusions. “We reject the premise of the report, that East Jerusalem is occupied territory,” said Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. “It is not. Israel annexed Jerusalem in 1967 and offered full citizenship at the time to all of Jerusalem’s residents. These are facts that cannot be ignored.” Israel, he said, “is committed to a diverse and pluralistic Jerusalem, to improving the conditions of all the city’s inhabitants and to protecting their interests as part of our sovereign responsibility.” He added, “If any population in Jerusalem is thriving and growing, it is the Arab population.” He also noted that Israel made great efforts to ensure health care for Palestinians, pointing to 81,000 entry permits in 2006 for Palestinians needing care inside Israel. Conditions have worsened for Palestinians in East Jerusalem, which has long had inferior services. Security restrictions and the barrier that runs around and through parts of East Jerusalem were Israel’s response to suicide bombings after 2000, but they made it much more difficult for Palestinians to move into and out of Jerusalem. It is virtually impossible for Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza to move to Jerusalem if they were not born in the city; even visiting requires a permit that can be hard to get. Natural population growth and building restrictions in Arab parts of the city means that large families often share very small apartments. Palestinians argue that the building restrictions are meant to suppress the growth of the their community; the Israelis counter that zoning restrictions are imposed throughout the city. The Red Cross report notes that the separation barrier “was undertaken with an undeniable security aim,” but adds, “The route of the West Bank barrier is also following a demographic logic, enclosing the settlement blocs around the city while excluding built-up Palestinian areas (thus creating isolated Palestinian enclaves).” Mustafa Barghouti, spokesman for the Palestinian unity government, welcomed the report, calling it consistent with the rulings of the International Court of Justice, which said in a nonbinding opinion in 2004 that Israel’s security barrier was illegal where it crossed the 1967 lines into occupied territory. “Israel violates international law with impunity, and couldn’t continue this blunt violation for 40 years if it did not feel impunity toward the international community,” Mr. Barghouti said. Source: New York Times |
by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
It is common knowledge among us that outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair was an evil when it came to the region's affairs and waged wars on its people, from the invasion of Iraq to Palestine, Sudan, terrorism, and other significant events. The truth is that the man played a positive, yet silent, role in minimizing the damage and containing crises.
His opponents portrayed him as George Bush's loyal lap dog, while the man played an exceptional role in reducing the US tension following the 11 September attacks. Blair also succeeded in creating another wing with the US President that counterbalances the Pentagon group, which believed that the United States had the right to have an international presence using force and political influence. I am aware that Blair flew several times to Washington in order to persuade the White House of the dangers of expanding the war on terrorism and the importance of creating an alliance with the Islamic countries instead of Washington fighting Al-Qaeda alone. Blair was also more than once willing to rejuvenate the Palestinian question, which was marginalized by the issues of terrorism and Iraq. Some Arab countries resorted to Blair in times of serious crises in order to persuade the US Administration to modify or mitigate the acute stands of Bush's government.
Blair was certainly loyal to his friend Bush -- a friendship necessitated by work requirements -- but he was Bush's best adviser on Arab affairs. I am aware that nobody can understand Blair's history because Blair is unable to promote himself, and he was always keen not to publicly criticize Bush's administration, regardless of the extent of disagreement between the two.
On another note, we should realize that the relationship between London and Washington is essential and strategic, and any prime minister would have done the same -- be he a member of the Labor, Conservative, or Liberal Democratic parties. This was the case with John Major and the more so with Margaret Thatcher.
One of Blair's attributes is that he is not an elusive politician like French President Jacques Chirac, for he does not evade his responsibilities. Blair admitted to the mistakes in Iraq, yet he insisted that the Iraq battle was essential and inevitable. The battle, he believes, was spoiled by the fatal mistakes of the postwar administration. He is well aware that victory can be claimed by many unlike defeat, as is the case in Iraq.
Many have judged Blair based on the Iraqi issue, but forgot, if not failed to notice, that he was the British prime minister who reached an understanding with everybody in the region the most. Unlike Washington, he did not take any extreme stands toward any Arab country. He sought to communicate with Syria at a time when Washington had a definite wish to boycott it; however, Damascus, as usual, rejected his efforts. He also tried to ease the tension with the Iranians, but Tehran was faster by announcing the [uranium] enrichment, denying the inspectors access [to nuclear plants], and antagonizing the international community.
Blair may be the product of a traditional relationship between Washington and London, but he was a leader who ruled for ten difficult years, during which he had historic stands.
via mfa.gov.il:
The Arab League initiative is positive in calling for normalization of relations with Israel. However, it contains some problematic aspects as well.
Israelhas no desire to control the lives of Palestinians, and wishes only to defend its citizens. When Palestinian terrorists target Israelis, they not only undermine the national aspirations of Israelis, they alsobring death and tragedy to their own people by distancing the realization of Palestinian national aspirations.
The Arab states have a particularly important role to played. Moderates on the Palestinian side need pan-Arab support for the compromises a final agreement with Israel will entail. Arab moderates can act as a catalyst for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation.
For this reason, Israel views positively the recent initiative advanced by Saudi Arabia as a vehicle for Israeli-Arab interaction to promote the peace process.This is an important development that Israel welcomes, and it is ready to engage Arab states in dialogue to advance it.
The Arab League initiative is positive in calling for normalization of relations with Israel. However, it contains some problematic aspects as well, such as insistence on a Palestinian “right of return” and a predetermination of the border issues.
It must be understood that the establishment of a Palestinian state must resolve the Palestinian claim of ‘return’ - just as the establishment of Israel provided the answer to the historic aspirations of the Jewish people to return to their homeland. Similarly, it must be understood that the 1967 ceasefire lines were not permanent, and there was no continuous territorial connection between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The League’s insistence regarding the refugees and territory shows an unrealistic aspiration for gains beyond what existed in 1967.
Workers in Cairo’s vital public transport sector threatened to go on strike earlier this month if the state did not meet their list of demands. The incident was only the latest in a spate of strikes and protests in recent months that local commentators attribute to the steadily rising cost of living.
"These workers’ actions are a result of the crushing economic situation," Magdi Hussein, secretary-general of the Labour Party, officially frozen by the government since 2000, told IPS. "But with the current political upheaval in Egypt, workers have begun breaking down the wall of fear by wielding the weapons of the strike and the sit-in."
Egypt has seen an unprecedented number of organised labour actions in the last six months. Since the beginning of this year, more than 50 strikes and labour protests have been called, with 11 in the last week of April alone.
Labour actions have been organised in several of Egypt’s most important industries, in both the public and private sectors. In addition to pubic transport, these have included the textiles, construction and industrial manufacturing sectors.
The biggest labour action was in December, when some 25,000 workers participated in a strike at the state-owned Egypt Company for Spinning and Weaving in the Nile Delta city of Mahalla. After three days of striking, which reportedly cost the company some 12 million dollars, workers’ demands for promised bonuses were finally met.
Notably, the recent labour unrest has been marked by the absence of official union representation, with most actions being independently organised by workers themselves. The reason for this, say labour organisers and commentators, is that the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) -- the only legal union representation available -- has largely failed to protect workers’ rights.
Spokesmen for the government, meanwhile, have suggested that clandestine communist groups or unlicensed workers’ associations have had a hand in organising the recent wave of strikes. Late last month, authorities shut down the Cairo-based Centre for Trade Union & Worker’s Services, an independent organisation devoted to labour rights issues, triggering a storm of condemnation from human and civil rights groups.
But far from being the result of a political conspiracy, most informed observers say the current labour unrest lacks any political dimension. They attribute the phenomenon to the rising cost of living, noting that inflation has continued to rise steadily ever since a major currency devaluation in 2003.
Source : IPS
Send It ,
| Bookmark this post: | | | | | | |
by Barry Rubin
Last month, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress visited Damascus, flattered their hosts, and called for talks with the Syrian dictatorship. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice broke the previous boycott by meeting her Syrian counterpart.
What has happened since then shows this approach to be totally wrong.
As demonstrated in the state-controlled Syrian media, the regime took all the calls in America for U.S. concessions as a victory proving that it could continueits policies. There is nothing subtle about it.
Mamoun Homsi is a courageouspro-democracy activist who had been one of the few independent members of Syria’spuppet parliament. In March 2002, he was thrown out of the legislature and sentencedto five years in prison. As he wasdragged off to jail, Homsi shouted, "This is a badge of honor to me and otherslike me. Long live the people!"
Released after four yearsin 2006, Homsi immediately left the country, saying there was no possibilityof changing the regime by reform and that any criticism would bring more imprisonment.He wrote Pelosi a letter urging her not to visit Syria as such a step would onlystrengthen the regime. Last week, the government seized all of his assets inthe country, leaving his family destitute.
Kamal Labwani, head ofthe Liberal Democratic Gathering, visited the United States in 2005, includingmeetings with human rights’ groups and a trip to the White House. He told theAmericans he saw that he would be arrested once he got back home. Sure enough,the Syrian police grabbed him at Damascus airport inNovember 2005.
But he was not tried. Afterall, the regime reasoned, perhaps the United States might get even tougher withSyria if they repressed a man who had just been a White House guest. Last week,confident that the current administration and its presumed Democratic successorswere caving in, the government sentenced Labwanito life imprisonment, "kindly" commuted to 12 years with hard labor.The charge? "Inciting a foreign state to attack Syria."
That’s not all. Anwar al-Bunni,a lawyer and another brave dissident, knew what held back Syria from crushingany dissent. Back in 2003, he explained, "The government’s fear that it willbe next on America’s ’regime change’ list may make it wary of committing grossviolations of human rights....Some of us say that it is only because of whatAmerica did in Iraq, the fright it gave our rulers, that we reformers stand achance here."
Bunni was proven right.Once Syria no longer had any fear, the regime sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.Two more democratic activists, one of them Michel Kilo, an articulate journalistwho most clearly expressed the hope of peaceful change in Syria, will be sentencedsoon.
The White House condemnedthe sentencing of Labwani and Bunni, including credible information that theywere tortured in prison, in an eight-line-long press release. No doubt, Syriais not intimidated.
Damascus knows that itcan continue helping insurgents next door kill Americans and murder Iraqis. Theregime understands it can continue to sponsor terrorism against Israel and Lebanon.It has a good hope of escaping indictment in the international investigationof Syrian involvement in the murder of popular former Lebanese prime ministerRafiq Hariri in February 2005.
Those who call for engagingSyria and giving it concessions are contributing, however unintentionally, tohelping the worst dictatorship in the Arab world and the leading Arab sponsorof terrorism in a post-September 11 world.
And by the way, Syria isthe main partner of radical Islamist Iran. Least publicized of all is the apparentholding of former FBI agent Robert Levinson as a hostage in Iran, where he wasvisiting in March.
Last week, Iran also arrestedon trumped-up spying charged Haleh Esfandiari, director of Middle East programsfor the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington DC and an American citizen.Her boss is former Congressman Lee Hamilton, co-sponsor of the Iraq Study Groupreport calling for engagement with Syria andIran.
The lessons about theseregimes’ extremist behavior should be clear by now. When the West extends itshand in offered friendship, they interpret thisas hands raised in surrender.