Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Middle East conflict at 35,000 feet


The Middle East conflict at 35,000 feet

Passengers on an aeroplane

Related Stories

It is not just the election results that show that Israelis have different views about who should be running the country: a flight to Tel Aviv can provide a glimpse into some of the simmering tensions in the Middle East.
The conflict was awfully familiar.
The Israelis were arguing with the non-Israelis, and indeed with each other - over who was entitled to what territory.
Some were polite, but others more hostile. It was an ugly scene. At one point, I thought people might well come to blows.
And still they could not sort it out. Who was supposed to be in what seat? The plane had not even taken off yet, but already Flight 2085, from Luton to Tel Aviv, had become a microcosm of the Middle East.
Some argued from a point of legal entitlement. They held up their boarding passes, the seat number clearly visible.
"I have a right to be here," they protested. But others simply pointed out that they had got there first. I felt I had heard this before somewhere.

From Our Own Correspondent

  • Insight and analysis from BBC correspondents, journalists and writers from around the world
  • Broadcast on Radio 4 and BBC World Service
Meanwhile, bolder passengers were simply shoving their luggage - and themselves - into the places they wanted. You might call it "establishing facts on the ground".
They ignored the would-be occupants towering above them, now waving boarding cards in their faces, like title-deeds to a house.
"Sit down," yelled the exasperated air stewardess, sounding like a teacher dealing with unruly children on a school bus trip. But no-one was listening to teacher that day.
Eventually, the captain's voice came over the intercom, more imploring than commanding.
"If you do not take your seats soon, we will miss our slot, and take-off could be delayed by a very long time." In other words, if the fighting continued, everyone would lose.
That kind of reasoning has never seemed to work too well in the Middle East, and it certainly did not make an impression on Flight 2085. The stand-off continued.
Tensions rose and so did voices in English, in Hebrew and in Russian. I only speak one of those languages but I am quite sure I was being treated to a crash course in their finest insults and for the first time I found myself awfully glad that metal implements are no longer permitted in carry-on luggage.

“Start Quote

The stewardess had brought unexpected calm to a conflict-ridden flight”
And then she appeared. The heroine of the day. I do not know her name, I guess I never will, but she seemed like Florence Nightingale and Mother Teresa all rolled in to one.
A clever, sensitive stewardess came up with a compromise. "Sit down where you are for now," she said, "and we can sort out who goes where, once we are up in the air."
Brilliant. The passengers looked at her, they looked at each other, and they meekly obeyed. Those wanting a window seat accepted an aisle; couples hoping to travel together agreed to be rent asunder.
It reminded me of the Oslo Agreement, back in the day when that seemed like a solution to the Middle East problem. Let us all calm down for a bit, live in our respective places for now, and sort out the final agreement later on in the day.
I thought of telling the stewardess she had missed her metier, that instead of serving gin and tonics to rude passengers, she should be working for the United Nations - she certainly could not have made a worse job than others who have tried.
I drifted off into a reverie, imagining this diplomatic wonder-woman circling the globe, perhaps still wearing her Easyjet uniform - she would shuttle between North and South Korea, between the US and Iran - everywhere bringing her home-spun approach to international crises.
But I soon snapped out of my fantasy, because a while after take-off, a new problem arose.
Benjamin Netanyahu Benjamin Netanyahu narrowly won the election this week and now faces building a coalition
A group of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews had been given space at the back of the plane to hold a prayer meeting. They bowed, and recited, but in the process they attracted more worshippers and, who knows, perhaps new worshippers converted to the faith by this stirring display of mid-air religiosity.
Eventually there were so many offering their thanks to God that they were blocking the aisle, and the non-observant passengers found they could not reach the toilet.
One unfortunate lady found herself stuck inside the lavatory, pushing on the door but meeting resistance from the mini-congregation now gathered outside.
Soon the secular bladders were causing real problems to their owners, who began to complain that the religious people were getting things all their own way.
Now that is a complaint you will hear in Israel itself where there have been furious quarrels between zealous followers of God and those of a more sceptical inclination.
But here we were nearly a thousand miles from the Holy Land and quite a few thousand feet up in the sky.
I searched in vain for Easyjet's unappreciated ambassador-of-peace - the stewardess who had brought unexpected calm to a conflict-ridden flight.
But she had gone back to serving gin and tonics - and it looked like this time, she just did not want to get involved.

Source

Friday, December 28, 2012

Owen jones BBC Question Time (Gaza)

Monday, November 19, 2012

Anonymous message to pro-Israeli groups


Greetings from Anonymous,

It has come to our attention that conservative and pro-Israeli groups throughout the blogosphere have taken advantage of Operation Israel, attempting to solidify public opinion against Anonymous.

TheOtherMcCain.com posted an editorial this morning which stated the following: “If you ever doubted that Anonymous was a terrorist organization, they have now removed all reason for doubt.” The article only contained 55 words of original content by the site itself, the other 90 percent of the article was selected quotations by mainstream media sources.

Let us once again be perfectly clear: Anonymous does not in any way support the use of violence. Anonymous is a world wide collective of individuals whose means pursue human rights, justice, and universal equality for the citizens of every nation.

Pro-Israeli groups throughout the world have grown from a foundation of Israeli/US propaganda and lies.
They arbitrarily dismiss the apartheid system of racial segregation and oppression imposed by the Israeli government on the Palestinian people. The fact of the matter is, in the eyes of the media, only the United States and it’s allies are capable of labeling another state or organization as a terrorists. Throughout our campaign, we’ve been inundated with one response in particular; references to Hamas hiding in school buildings or using women and children as human shields. Selective memory seems to have given pro-Israeli organizations the ability to forget that in 2005 Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz appeared in court to defend the practice of using Palestinians as human shields in combat after a supreme court outlawed the practice, noting it violated International Law.

The reasons for Anonymous intervention through #OpIsrael should be abundantly clear: What is happening in Palestine is oppression. They have no navy, no army, or air force. There is no war in Gaza. There is only the continuous application of military force by Israel in an attempt to push every last person out of the Palestinian state, despite international laws that make these efforts illegal. This illegal expansion of territory by Israel in to the Palestinian state has been ongoing since1948, making refugees of over 700,000 Palestinians. Today, 
Palestinians are not permitted to live in Israeli settlements, drive on Israeli roads or even travel is the “security” areas surrounding them. These Israeli only housing developments are being built on stolen land, even while being called illegal settlements by the International Court of Justice.

The violence inflicted upon the civilian residents of Gaza is well documented, despite the fact that Israel has adamantly opposed intervention by human rights organizations and the IDF constantly blocks and harasses international journalists.

Despite these facts, Anonymous has not used any anti-Semitic language during our campaign. Nor have we vocalized any support for Palestinian military operations or resistance groups. Our goal was to protect the rights of Palestinian people who are threatened with silence as Israel has made attempts to shut down cell phone and internet service throughout Gaza. We know what happens to victims of oppression when the lights go dark.

It is also worthy to note, that as of yesterday, members of Anonymous participating in #OpIsrael were making attempts to augment our Gaza Care Package for civilians in Tel Aviv by translating the same documents in to Hebrew in the event that they lose access to internet service as well. We do not racially or geographically differentiate between victims of violence or oppression anywhere in the world.

Both Palestinians and Israelis need to find common ground and end the violence that has already resulted in the deaths of innocent people, including children. Israel’s advancement on Palestinian Territories and the racist oppression of Palestinian people needs to end.

We are not terrorists. Governments that fund wars, practice deceit against their own citizens, condone corruption, and turn a blind eye to the deaths of innocent people are terrorists. The word terror does not belong to Israel or the United States. We will judge you by your actions.
Peace and Freedom to all,
#OpIsrael
#Anonymous
Anonymous Gaza Care Package
#OpIsrael Information and Tools
Original PR source

Source

Monday, August 27, 2012

Gaza 'will not be liveable by 2020' - UN report

Gaza 'will not be liveable by 2020' - UN report

Palestinian men transport bags of cement through tunnels used for smuggling goods on 23 August  
Tunnels under the Egyptian border have been a lifeline for Gaza in recent years.

Related Stories

The Gaza Strip will not be "a liveable place" by 2020 unless action is taken to improve basic services in the territory, according to a UN report.
Basic infrastructure in water, health, education and sanitation "is struggling to keep pace with a growing population", according to the report.
It estimates Gaza's population will rise from 1.6m to 2.1m by 2020.
Israel tightened a blockade on Gaza after the Islamist movement Hamas came to power in the territory in 2007.
Israel says the blockade, which is policed with Egyptian co-operation and has never been fully lifted, is necessary to prevent weapons reaching Hamas.
The UN report estimates Gaza will need double the number of schools and 800 more hospital beds by 2020, and says the territory is already suffering from a housing shortage.
The report also says the coastal aquifer, the territory's only natural source of fresh water, may become unusable by 2016.
Disconnected territory UN officials point to the difficulty of improving the situation given "the closure of the Gaza Strip, violent conflict, and the pressing need for Palestinian reconciliation".
"An urban area cannot survive without being connected," said Maxwell Gaylard, the UN's humanitarian chief in Gaza.
Gaza has no air or sea ports, and the economy is heavily dependent on outside funding and smuggling through tunnels under the Egyptian border.
Even though Gaza has experienced some economic growth in recent years, the report says it "does not seem to be sustainable" and finds that Gazans are worse off now than in the 1990s.
Unemployment was at 29% in 2011 and has risen since then, particularly affecting women and young people.
Traffic through the cross-border tunnels was hit in recent weeks by violence between Egyptian security forces and militants in Egypt's Sinai peninsula, which borders Israel and Gaza.

Source

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Gaza water too contaminated to drink, say charities

Gaza water too contaminated to drink, say charities

A Palestinian boy carries chicken waterers found in a coop as he walks over debris at the site of an Israeli air strike in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip on 6 June 2012  
War damage is in part to blame for the dire state of Gaza's water and sewage systems, the report says
Gaza's only fresh source of water is too dangerous to drink because of contamination by fertiliser and human waste, a new report says.
The charities Save the Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians say the number of children being treated for diarrhoea has doubled in five years.
They say Israel's five-year blockade of the territory is preventing crucial sanitation equipment from getting in.
The blockade must be lifted "in its entirety", they say.
The report, Gaza's Children: Falling Behind, says that high levels of nitrates and other contaminants have been found in the main water supply.
Nitrates, found in faeces and fertiliser, are linked to the doubling of the incidence of watery diarrhoea in children since the blockade began, it says.
As well as the blockade, it blames war damage and chronic underinvestment.
Desperate families are turning to private water sources - without realising that this water too is contaminated, often at 10 times the safe level, the report says.
And Gaza's sewage system is "completely broken".
Israel insists that the blockade of Gaza has been eased considerably in recent months, says the BBC's Wyre Davies in Jerusalem.
It says more supplies and building materials to help reconstruction of the territory's battered infrastructure are being allowed in.
But the report says this is not enough.
"As a matter of urgent priority for the health and well-being of Gaza's children, Israel must lift the blockade in its entirety to enable the free movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza," it says.
It also calls on the international community, the Palestinian Authority and aid donors to do more.

Source

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Israeli PM orders 300 new homes at West Bank settlement

Israeli PM orders 300 new homes at West Bank settlement

Jewish settlers wave Israeli flags during a protest near Ulpana against the decision to evacuate the illegal West Bank settlement outpost (6 June 2012)  
Settlers insist on their right to live on what they say is historically Jewish land
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the construction of 300 new homes at the Jewish settlement of Beit El in the West Bank.
The announcement came hours after Israel's parliament rejected a bill to legalise settlement outposts.
Mr Netanyahu, who opposed the bill, said he would honour a Supreme Court order to demolish homes on private Palestinian land at the Ulpana outpost.
The issue has been a source of tension between settlers and the government.
All settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
The settler outposts are also illegal under Israeli law and the government agreed to remove them under the 2003 Road Map peace plan.
Reacting to Mr Netanyahu's announcement, a US spokesman said that "continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank undermines peace efforts and contradicts Israeli commitments and obligations".
"Our position on settlements remains unchanged. We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.
Buildings transferred Last year, the Israeli government committed to remove all or part of six illegal outposts following a Supreme Court ruling.

Start Quote

I am obligated to preserve the law and preserve the settlements, and I say here that there is no contradiction between the two”
Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister
Five buildings which are home to 30 families at Ulpana, also known as Jabal Artis or Pisgat Yaakov, were built entirely on private Palestinian land, the court found.
Before Wednesday's vote in the Knesset, Mr Netanyahu had warned that he would sack anyone in his government who supported the bill to bypass the court ruling and, in effect, legalise the buildings at Ulpana, because it would have prompted international criticism.
Ahead of the vote, hundreds of settlers marched on the Knesset, insisting on their right to live on what they said was historically Jewish land.
Ulpana is part of the bigger settlement of Beit El, which is built on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Palestinians say it should be part of their future state.
Hours after the legalisation of outposts was rejected, Mr Netanyahu sought to placate settlers and right-wing critics in his own Likud party by ordering the transfer of the buildings at Ulpana to a nearby former army base in another part of Beit El and the construction next to them of 300 new housing units, reports the BBC Wyre Davies in Jerusalem.
"Israel is a democracy that observes the law, and as prime minister I am obligated to preserve the law and preserve the settlements, and I say here that there is no contradiction between the two," Mr Netanyahu said.
"This formula strengthens settlements," he added. "The court ruled what it did, and we respect its decision. In parallel, Beit El will be expanded."
Mr Netanyahu's decision will infuriate Palestinians and pro-peace groups who say the Israeli government is expanding the settlements at the expense of a peace deal with the Palestinians, our correspondent adds.

Source

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Israel upholds citizenship bar for Palestinian spouses

Israel upholds citizenship bar for Palestinian spouses

Israeli flags (file)
The law is thought to have prevented thousands of Palestinians from living with their Israeli spouses

Israel's Supreme Court has upheld a law banning Palestinians who marry Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship.

Civil rights groups had petitioned the court to overturn the law, saying it was unconstitutional.

"Human rights do not prescribe national suicide," Judge Asher Grunis wrote in the judgement.

The law was introduced in 2003, with its backers citing security concerns and the need to ensure Israel remains a Jewish-majority state.

Human rights activists and Arab politicians condemned the court's decision.

The court "had failed the test of justice", said Arab-Israeli MP Jamal Zahalka of the Balad party.

"It is a dark day for the protection of human rights and for the Israeli High Court," lawyers from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel told AFP.

"The ruling proves how much the situation regarding the civil rights of the Arab minority in Israel is declining into a highly dangerous and unprecedented situation", Arab-Israeli civil rights group Adalah, one of those that brought the petition, said in a statement.

The Citizenship and Entry Law was passed in 2003, during the second Palestinian intifada (uprising), as waves of suicide bombings targeted Israel.

Many were launched from the West Bank, some with the help of Israeli Arabs.

Initially, the law was emergency legislation which has since been extended periodically.

It was amended in 2005, allowing women over 25 and men over 35 to apply for temporary permits to live in Israel, but still ruling out citizenship for all but a handful of cases.

In 2007, it was expanded to apply to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Source


Can anyone disagree with the fact that Israel is an Apartheid state now? This ruling confirms that sentiment.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Sarkozy called Israeli PM Netanyahu 'liar'

Sarkozy called Israeli PM Netanyahu 'liar'

French President Nicolas Sarkozy (left) and US President Barack Obama in Cannes, 3 Nov 11
The comments - embarrassing for President Sarkozy - have only just emerged

Related Stories

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" in remarks to US President Barack Obama overheard by journalists.

"I can't stand him any more, he's a liar," Mr Sarkozy said in French.

"You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day," Mr Obama replied.

The exchange at the G20 summit was quoted by a French website, Arret sur Images, and confirmed by other media.

The remarks - during a private conversation - were overheard by a few journalists last week but were not initially reported, the BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris says.

Journalists at the bilateral press conference had been handed translation boxes but had been told not to plug in their headphones until the backroom conversation had finished. But those who did heard the revealing comments.

For several days there was media silence in France about the exchange - a decision had been taken not to embarrass the French president, our correspondent says.

A correspondent for Le Monde newspaper referred to the conversation without the quotes.

But Israeli newspapers have reported it in full.

It is said Mr Obama was taking Mr Sarkozy to task for voting in favour of the Palestinian bid for full membership of the UN cultural organisation, Unesco, a bid that was approved despite American opposition.

The remarks indicate a breakdown of trust with the Israeli leader which could have wider implications for the Middle East peace process, our correspondent says.

Source

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Why Fewer Young American Jews Share Their Parents' View of Israel

Why Fewer Young American Jews Share Their Parents' View of Israel


Benjamin Resnick, a student of rabbinical school at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City

Lauren Fleishman for TIME

"I'm trembling," my mother says when I tell her I'm working on an article about how younger and older American Jews are reacting differently to the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the United Nations. I understand the frustrations of the Palestinians who are dealing with ongoing Israeli settlement construction and sympathize with their decision to approach the U.N., but my mom supports President Obama's promise to wield the U.S. veto, sharing his view that a two-state solution can be achieved only through negotiations with Israel.

"This is so emotional," she says as we cautiously discuss our difference of opinion. "It makes me feel absolutely terrible when you stridently voice criticisms of Israel." (See pictures of the West Bank settlements.)

A lump of guilt and sadness rises in my throat. I've written harshly of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and assault on Gaza in 2009, and on civil rights issues in Israel. But speaking my mind on these topics — a very Jewish thing to do — has never been easy. During my childhood in the New York suburbs, support for Israel was as fundamental a family tradition as voting Democratic or lighting the Shabbos candles on Friday night.

My mom has a master's degree in Jewish history and is the program director of a large synagogue. Her youthful experiences in Israel, volunteering on a kibbutz and meeting descendants of my great-grandmother's siblings, are part of my own mythology. Raised within the Conservative movement, I learned at Hebrew school that Israel was the "land of milk and honey," where Holocaust survivors irrigated the deserts and made flowers bloom.

What I didn't hear much about was the lives of Palestinians. It was only after I went to college, met Muslim friends and enrolled in a Middle Eastern history and politics course that I was challenged to reconcile my liberal, humanist worldview with the fact that the Jewish state of which I was so proud was occupying the land of 4.4 million stateless Palestinians, many of them refugees displaced by Israel's creation. (See TIME's photo-essay on growing up Arab in Israel.)

Like many young American Jews, during my senior year of college I took the free trip to Israel offered by the Taglit-Birthright program. The bliss I felt floating in the Dead Sea, sampling succulent fruits grown by Jewish farmers and roaming the medieval city of Safed, the historic center of Kabbalah mysticism, was tempered by other experiences: watching the construction of the imposing "security" fence, which not only tamped down terrorist attacks but also separated Palestinian villagers from their land and water supply. I spent hours in hushed conversation with a young Israeli soldier who was horrified by what he said was the routinely rough and contemptuous treatment of Palestinian civilians at Israeli military checkpoints.

That trip deepened my conviction that as an American Jew, I could no longer in good conscience offer Israel unquestioning support. I'm not alone. Polling of young American Jews shows that with the exception of the Orthodox, many of us feel less attached to Israel than do our baby boomer parents, who came of age during the era of the 1967 and 1973 wars, when Israel was less of an aggressor and more a victim. A 2007 poll by Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis found that although the majority of American Jews of all ages continue to identify as "pro-Israel," those under 35 are less likely to identify as "Zionist." Over 40% of American Jews under 35 believe that "Israel occupies land belonging to someone else," and over 30% report sometimes feeling "ashamed" of Israel's actions.

Read about America's first female black rabbi.

Hanna King, an 18-year-old sophomore at Swarthmore College, epitomizes the generational shift. Raised in Seattle as a Conservative Jew, King was part of a group of activists last November who heckled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with slogans against the occupation at a New Orleans meeting of the Jewish Federations General Assembly.

"Netanyahu repeatedly claims himself as a representative of all Jews," King says. "The protest was an outlet for me to make a clear statement ... that those injustices don't occur in my name. It served as a vehicle for reclaiming my own Judaism." (See more about the debate on a Palestinian state.)

A more moderate critique is expressed by J Street, the political action committee launched in 2008 as a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" counterweight to the influence in Washington of the more hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Simone Zimmerman heads J Street's campus affiliate at the University of California, Berkeley. A graduate of Jewish private schools, she lived in Tel Aviv as an exchange student during high school but never heard the word occupation spoken in relation to Israel until she got to college.

During Zimmerman's freshman year, Berkeley became embroiled in a contentious debate over whether the university should divest from corporations that do business with the Israeli army. Although Zimmerman opposed divestment, she was profoundly affected by the stories she heard from Palestinian-American activists on campus.

"They were sharing their families' experiences of life under occupation and life during the war in Gaza," she remembers. "So much of what they were talking about related to things that I had always been taught to defend, like human rights and social justice, and the value of each individual's life." (See the top 10 religion stories of 2010.)

Even young rabbis are, as a cohort, more likely to be critical of Israel than are older rabbis. Last week, Cohen, the Hebrew Union College researcher, released a survey of rabbinical students at New York's Jewish Theological Seminary, the premier institution for training Conservative rabbis. Though current students are just as likely as their elders to have studied and lived in Israel and to believe Israel is "very important" to their Judaism, about 70% of the young prospective rabbis report feeling "disturbed" by Israel's treatment of Arab Israelis and Palestinians, compared with about half of those ordained between 1980 and 1994.

Benjamin Resnick, 27, is one of the rabbinical students who took the survey. In July, he published an op-ed pointing out the ideological inconsistencies between Zionism, which upholds the principle of Israel as a Jewish state, and American liberal democracy, which emphasizes individual rights regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. "The tragedy," Resnick says, is that the two worldviews may be "irreconcilable."

Still, after living in Jerusalem for 10 months and then returning to New York, Resnick continues to consider himself a Zionist. He quotes the Torah in support of his view that American Jews should press Israel to end settlement expansion and help facilitate a Palestinian state: "Love without rebuke," he says, "is not love."

Dana Goldstein is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the Nation Institute.

Source




Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Western powers angered as Israel agrees settler homes

Western powers angered as Israel agrees settler homes

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Israel's move could be seen as provocative

Western powers have expressed dismay at Israeli plans to build 1,100 more homes on a settlement on Jerusalem's edge.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the move "counter-productive" to peace talks while the EU said the plan should be "reversed".

The announcement comes days after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas called for full UN membership for a Palestinian state.

The new houses are to be constructed Israel at Gilo, in East Jerusalem.

Almost 500,000 Jews live in settlements on occupied territory. The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

'Provocative'

US-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are deadlocked over the issue of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Mrs Clinton said Israel's move would damage attempts to resume direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

Construction cranes in Gilo (January 2011)
Gilo is built on land captured by Israel in 1967

"We have long urged both sides to avoid any kind of action which could undermine trust, including, and perhaps most particularly, in Jerusalem, any action that could be viewed as provocative by either side," she said.

The European Union's Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton told the EU parliament that she heard "with deep regret" that Israeli settlement plans were continuing.

"This plan should be reversed. Settlement activity threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution and runs contrary to the Israeli-stated commitment to resume negotiations."

She said she would raise the issue with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when she next met him.

"He should stop announcing them and, more importantly, stop building them," she said, adding that it was wrong to get people to live in a place from which they may have to move from after any negotiated settlement is achieved.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague too urged Israel to revoke its decision.

"Settlement expansion is illegal under international law, corrodes trust and undermines the basic principle of land for peace," he said in a statement.

'Nice gift'

The plan for construction in Gilo includes the construction of small housing units, public buildings, a school and an industrial zone, according to the Ynet news website.

Start Quote

Settlement activity threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution ”

Catherine Ashton EU Foreign Policy Chief

"It's a nice gift for Rosh Hashanah [Jewish New Year]," Yair Gabay, a member of the Jerusalem planning committee, told Ynet.

The authorities have now approved the building of almost 3,000 homes in Gilo over the past two years.

The chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the decision represented a rejection of a proposal by the Quartet of Mid East negotiators - the US, the EU, Russia and the UN - for new talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, expected to be made officially on Friday.

"With this, Israel is responding to the Quartet's statement with 1,100 'NOs'," he said.

On Monday, a divided UN Security Council met behind closed doors for its first discussion of last week's Palestinian application for full state membership of the UN.

The request needs the support of nine of the 15 members of the council, but the US has said it will veto the bid.

'Discriminatory demolitions'

Israel built the settlement at Gilo on land it captured in 1967. It later annexed the area to the Jerusalem municipality in a move not recognised by the international community.

Israel says it does not consider areas within the Jerusalem municipality to be settlements.

Gilo lies across a narrow valley from the Palestinian village of Beit Jala. It became a target for militants during the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation in 2000.

Meanwhile, the UN rapporteurs on housing, water, sanitation and food rights said there had been a "dramatic increase" in the demolitions this year.

"The impact and discriminatory nature of these demolitions and evictions is completely unacceptable," they said in a statement.

"These actions by the Israeli authorities violate human rights and humanitarian law and must end immediately."

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

What is Palestine supposed to do when Israel keeps taking more and more of it's land?

It does a peaceful resolution of asking for U.N membership, so that it can negotiate with Israel on similar footing, and the U.S threatens a veto?

Facts on the ground. That's what Israel is trying to change. If it can get enough Israelis living on Palestinian land, it will change the facts on the ground and take more land than it deserves.

Palestinians have broken zero U.N resolutions. Israel has broken more than 50.

The U.S is not an even handed broker, and the veto and oppression of the Palestinian people is proof of that.

Actions speak louder than words.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Q&A: Palestinian bid for full membership at the UN - The strength of 120 countries united for Peace - U.N Standing Ovation!

Q&A: Palestinian bid for full membership at the UN

Palestinians wave their national flag at a demonstration in Gaza
Recent rally against Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory on the anniversary of the 1967 war.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has formally submitted a request to join the United Nations as a full member state. He said the request entailed international recognition on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as a capital.

The idea is strongly opposed by Israel and its close ally, the United States.

Here is a guide to what is likely to happen and its significance.

Q. What are the Palestinians asking for?

The Palestinians, as represented by the Palestinian Authority, have long sought to establish an independent, sovereign state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza - occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six Day War. However, two decades of on-and-off peace talks have failed to produce a deal. The latest round of negotiations broke down one year ago.

Late last year, Palestinian officials began pursuing a new diplomatic strategy: asking individual countries to recognise an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. Now they want the UN to admit them as a full member state. Currently the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) only has observer entity status. This would have political implications and allow Palestinians to join UN agencies and become party to international treaties, such as the International Criminal Court, where they could take legal action to challenge the occupation of territory by Israel.

In a televised speech on 16 September, Mr Abbas said: "We are going to the United Nations to request our legitimate right, obtaining full membership for Palestine in this organisation".

Map

Q. What is the general process?

There are clear procedures at the UN which began its annual General Assembly General Debate in New York on 21 September.

In order for the Palestinians to be admitted as a member state, they would need the approval of the 15-member UN Security Council. Any Council recommendation for membership would then need a two-thirds majority vote in the 193-member General Assembly for final approval.

United Nations General Assembly
Palestinians believe over two-thirds of the General Assembly would recognise their statehood.

At the start of the process, Mr Abbas submitted a request to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on 23 September. Mr Ban then needs to hand the application to the Security Council which would establish a committee.

The Council would need nine votes out of 15 and no veto from any of its permanent members to pass a decision. However, the US has made clear it will wield its veto power. The UK and France would almost certainly abstain because they cannot endorse UN membership of a state they have not recognised bilaterally.

If as expected, the US vetoes, or the PLO decides to back down on its plan for full membership, it can submit a resolution to the General Assembly. A vote could be held within 48 hours of submission but would probably be delayed until after the General Debate ie late September or early October. This would give more time to negotiate a text that would have maximum support, from European countries in particular. Approval would require a simple majority of those present. There is no veto.

Q. What might a resolution say?

A resolution could ask for support for the Palestinians to be admitted to the UN as a "non-member observer state", an upgrade from the PLO's current status as observer. This status is held by the Vatican and has been held in the past by countries such as Switzerland.

Palestinian UN membership bid

  • Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
  • They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
  • Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN
  • They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza
  • Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option

This would improve the Palestinians' chances of joining UN agencies and the ICC, although the process would be neither automatic nor guaranteed. Among Palestinians, there are also questions over whether an observer state of Palestine could represent the diaspora community of refugees in the same way as the PLO does. Speaking on 16 September, Mr Abbas denied the status of the PLO would be affected.

Diplomats say that elements of a General Assembly resolution could also include acknowledgement of the number of countries that have recognised Palestinian statehood (currently 126 according to the Palestinian ambassador at the UN), and an appeal to the Security Council to accept the Palestinians as a full member. The resolution could also include parameters for future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Palestinians can follow either the Security Council or General Assembly paths, or do both.

Q. Is this symbolic or would it change facts on the ground?

Who currently recognises Palestine?

Palestinian flag

Yes No

Source: UN, Foreign ministries




Permanent Security Council members

(with veto)

  • China
  • Russia
  • France
  • UK
  • US

Non-permanent Security Council members

  • Bosnia- Hercegovina
  • Brazil
  • Gabon
  • India
  • Nigeria
  • Lebanon
  • S. Africa
  • Colombia
  • Germany
  • Portugal

All General Assembly members

122

71

Getting UN recognition of Palestinian statehood on 1967 borders would largely have symbolic value, building on previous UN decisions. Already Security Council resolution 242, which followed the Six Day War, demanded the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Although Israel disputes the precise meaning of this, there is wide international acceptance that the pre-1967 frontiers should form the basis of a peace settlement.

The problem for the Palestinians is that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects these borders as a basis for negotiations. In May, when President Barack Obama called for border talks based broadly on 1967 lines, Mr Netanyahu described the idea as "unrealistic" and "indefensible". He says that new facts on the ground have been created since 1967: almost half a million Israelis live in more than 200 settlements and outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Mutually agreed land swaps have been discussed in previous talks as a way to overcome this problem.

The Palestinians argue that admission of Palestine as a full member state at the UN would strengthen their hands in peace talks with Israel especially on the final status issues that divide them: the status of Jerusalem, the fate of the Jewish settlements, the precise location of the border, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, water and security. Israel says that any upgrade of the Palestinian status at the UN, is a unilateral act that would pre-empt the final status talks.

Q. Why is this happening now?

The main reason is the impasse in peace talks. However, the Palestinians also argue that their UN plan fits with an agreed deadline. The Middle East Peace Quartet - the European Union, United States, Russia and UN - committed itself to the target of achieving a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict by September 2011. Last year, the US President Barack Obama also expressed a hope that this deadline would be met. The Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, says that Palestinians have succeeded in building up state institutions and are ready for statehood. The World Bank and IMF have said the same.

Recent Arab uprisings also appear to have energised Palestinian public opinion. Officials have urged civil society groups to hold peaceful demonstrations to show their backing for the UN bids.

Q. How is this different from previous declarations?

In 1988, the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, unilaterally declared a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. This won recognition from about 100 countries, mainly Arab, Communist and non-aligned states - several of them in Latin America. UN membership of Palestine as a sovereign state would have much greater impact as the UN is the overarching world body and a source of authority on international law.

Q. Who supports and opposes the UN option?

Recent polls suggest this course of action is supported by most ordinary Palestinians in the occupied territories. Mr Abbas's main Fatah faction backs it, although there is less enthusiasm from its political rival, Hamas, the Islamic group which governs Gaza.

After the recent Palestinian reconciliation deal, Hamas leaders accepted there was a broad consensus on the establishment of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, though they formally still refuse to recognise Israel. Following Mr Abbas's speech on 16 September, they described the UN appeal as carrying "great risks".

Within the wider region, the 22-member Arab League has given this approach its full backing.

President Obama greeting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last September
The latest US push to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations quickly stalled.

The main opposition comes from Israel. "Peace can only be achieved around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement will not bring peace," Mr Netanyahu told a joint session of the US Congress in May. Israeli officials have warned that any UN bid could terminate the peace process. They also worry that possible Palestinian accession to the ICC could lead to the pursuit of war crimes charges at the Hague and say there is potential for rising tensions to trigger violence in the West Bank. Settlers there have received Israeli military training in preparation for this scenario.

The US has joined Israel in vociferously urging the Palestinians to drop their UN bid and return to negotiations, which were previously derailed by the settlement issue. In his recent major speech on the Middle East, President Obama dismissed the Palestinian push as "symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations". The White House sent two envoys to the region to try to persuade the Palestinians to change their minds. However, Palestinian officials say the Americans presented no alternative to going to the UN.

Only nine out of 27 European Union countries have formally recognised a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. Others are looking increasingly favourably on the idea. This is mainly because of their frustration with Mr Netanyahu's government in Israel-Palestinian peace talks and what they see as its recalcitrance over settlements. Britain, France and Germany are likely to support a General Assembly resolution only if it includes a clear roadmap back to the negotiating table.

In the coming days, both Palestinian and Israeli delegations will be on a diplomatic drive to win countries around to their point of view.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas makes UN statehood bid

President Abbas received a standing ovation as he announced his application to the UN

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has submitted his bid to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state.

To rapturous applause in the General Assembly, he urged the Security Council to back a state with pre-1967 borders.

He said the Palestinians had entered negotiations with Israel with sincere intentions, but blamed the building of Jewish settlements for their failure.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said he was reaching out to Palestinians and blamed them for refusing to negotiate.

"I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace," he said in his speech in New York.

"Let's meet here today in the United Nations. Who's there to stop us?"

Mr Netanyahu added that the core of the conflict was not settlements but the refusal of the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Meanwhile the Quartet of Middle East mediators - the UN, EU, US and Russia - said in a statement it wanted Israelis and Palestinians to meet within one month to agree an agenda for talks, and aim for a peace deal by the end of 2012.

At the scene

Mahmoud Abbas was greeted with warm enough applause in New York but in Clock Square in Ramallah, where a huge crowd gathered around a big screen to watch him in the purple light of evening, the reception was rapturous.

He is not a spellbinding speaker and he may never hold a crowd in quite this way again. The gathering in Ramallah had hoped that he would portray their case to be included among the nations of the world with passion and they weren't disappointed.

It was not a vast gathering but it was tightly packed into the small square, and the noise reverberated around the streets of the city.

Mr Abbas sometimes frustrates his Palestinian followers but in defying the US threat to veto his application, he has delighted them. Everyone packed into Clock Square knows this will not produce statehood immediately but there is a vague hope that it will enhance Palestinian status in future talks.

Hours after receiving it, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon transmitted the Palestinian request to the Security Council.

Nawaf Salam, Lebanon's ambassador to the UN and the current Security Council president, said the application would be discussed on Monday.

In order to pass, it would need the backing of nine out of 15 council members, with no vetoes from the permanent members, but it could take weeks to reach a vote.

Israel and the US say a Palestinian state can only be achieved through talks with Israel - not through UN resolutions.

'Come to peace'

President Barack Obama told Mr Abbas on Thursday that the US would use its UN Security Council veto to block the move.

"I call upon the distinguished members of the Security Council to vote in favour of our full membership," Mr Abbas told the General Assembly, in what was for him an unusually impassioned speech.

He added that he hoped for swift backing. Many delegates gave him a standing ovation, and some were clapping and even whistling in support.

BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says this is significant because the Palestinians may yet apply to the General Assembly for enhanced status if their Security Council bid fails.

"I also appeal to the states that have not yet recognised the State of Palestine to do so," Mr Abbas said.

"The time has come for my courageous and proud people, after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering, to live like other peoples of the earth, free in a sovereign and independent homeland," he said.

Benjamin Netanyahu: "Palestinians should first make peace with Israel, and then get their state."

He urged Israel to "come to peace".

And he said the building of Jewish settlements was "the primary cause for the failure of the peace process".

A spokesman for the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, criticised the speech.

Salah Bardawil said Mr Abbas had deviated from the aspirations of the Palestinian people by accepting the 1967 borders, which he said left 80% of Palestinian land inside Israel.

'Future and destiny'

Meanwhile in the West Bank, crowds roared their approval as Mr Abbas demanded UN acceptance of a Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders.

"With our souls, with our blood, we will defend Palestine," they said.

Palestinian UN membership bid

  • Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
  • They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
  • Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN
  • They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza
  • Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option

Mr Abbas had called for peaceful marches in support of his initiative, but some clashes were reported:

  • One Palestinian was shot dead by Israeli troops during clashes in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, Palestinian sources say
  • At the Qalandiya checkpoint, Israeli troops fired tear gas on stone-throwing Palestinian youths
  • In the village of Nabi Saleh, protesters burned Israeli flags and pictures of President Obama

The process began with Mr Abbas presenting a written request for a State of Palestine to be admitted as a full UN member state to the UN secretary general.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas at the UN says that until the last minute, Western diplomats tried and failed to stop the Palestinians making the request.

Even now, efforts are under way to restart direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians in an attempt to defuse tensions, our correspondent says.

Currently the Palestinians have observer status at the UN.

Source

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Barack Obama 'will veto' Palestinian UN bid

Barack Obama 'will veto' Palestinian UN bid

President Obama says there can be "no short cut" to a lasting peace


Barack Obama has told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas he will veto his bid for UN membership, as he tried to persuade him to drop the plans.

But Mahmoud Abbas vowed to press ahead during a meeting with the US president, the White House said afterwards.

Mr Obama had told the UN General Assembly a Palestinian state could only be achieved through talks with Israel.

But French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned a veto could spark another cycle of violence in the region.

Diplomatic efforts for Palestinian UN membership have intensified, with Mr Abbas preparing to submit a written application to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York on Friday.

Meanwhile, thousands of people have rallied in the West Bank in support of the move.

If Mr Ban approves the request, the Security Council would examine and vote on it. In order to pass, it would need the backing of nine out of 15 council members, with no vetoes from the permanent members.

'Badge of honour'

However, Mr Obama had indicated the US would use its veto, leaving Western diplomats trying to find ways to put off the voting process to buy more time.

And the US president made his position clear to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Abbas during meetings late on Wednesday.

Analysis

The contradictions of American policy towards the Middle East have been on display.

In his speech, President Obama praised the way Arabs in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia had seized their freedom. But even with the prospect of the US vetoing the Palestinian UN bid, the Palestinians are claiming some victories - they've put the issue of their independence back on the international agenda.

The president's speech was as much about the politics of his own re-election bid next year as it was about the politics of making peace.

His leading Republican opponent has accused him of appeasing the Palestinians. Mr Obama said nothing today that Israel and its friends will not like.

That may well be good for the Israeli government. It isn't necessarily good for Middle East peace.

"We would have to oppose any action at the UN Security Council including, if necessary, vetoing," White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes said after Mr Obama met Mr Abbas, Reuters news agency reported.

Mr Netanyahu told reporters Mr Obama deserved a "badge of honour" for his defence of Israel.

However, senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath argued that Palestinian UN membership was "morally, legally and politically acceptable in every way".

French President Sarkozy urged a compromise, suggesting the General Assembly give the Palestinians enhanced status as a non-member state to allow a clear timeline for talks - a month to start negotiations, six months to deal with borders and security and a year to finalise a "definitive agreement".

A vote on enhanced status - enjoyed by others such as the Vatican - would not require a Security Council recommendation but a simple majority in the General Assembly, where no veto is possible.

Failed talks

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said any UN vote on the issue was in any case "several weeks" away.

Mr Obama had earlier told the General Assembly: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN.

"There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.

Palestinian UN Statehood Bid

  • Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
  • They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
  • Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN
  • They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza
  • Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option

"Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians - not us - who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem."

Palestinians say their bid for statehood has been inspired by the Arab Spring, and is the result of years of failed peace talks.

In the West Bank on Wednesday, schools and government offices were shut to allow for demonstrations backing the UN membership bid in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus and Hebron.

While UN recognition would have largely symbolic value, the Palestinians argue it would strengthen their hand in peace talks.

"The end of the Israeli occupation and a Palestinian state are the only path to peace," AFP quoted Mr Abbas' spokesman as saying after Mr Obama's speech.

Mediation attempt

"We will agree to return to the negotiations the minute that Israel agrees to end the settlements and the lines of 1967," added the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina.

In his meeting with Mr Obama, Mr Netanyahu said direct negotiation was the only way to achieve a stable Middle East peace. The last round of talks broke down a year ago.

The "quartet" of US, European, Russian and UN mediators aims to give the two sides a year to reach a framework agreement, based on Mr Obama's vision of borders fashioned from Israel's pre-1967 boundary, with agreed land swaps.

Efforts are now reportedly under way to provide a basis for resumed peace negotiations, but work by mediators has yet to produce guidelines for the resumption of talks.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

2 questions for Barack Obama

1. Why are you denying Palestine U.N membership?

There is no fair or just answer to this question. I have checked every statement and website out there. The only answer is the obvious one; he is biased against Palestine and their people.

2. If this U.N membership bid is useless, why are you blocking it?


Barack Obama is simply another U.S President that oppresses the Palestinian people while the majority of the world have spoken up in defense.

120+ countries in the U.N already agree on 1967 lines, and an end to settlements in Palestinian occupied territories.

Obama is threatening America's future and inciting hatred in the middle east with this bold, cowardly, and ignorant move.


All polls show even the American people are in the majority as to how to bring peace, by recognizing legitimate U.N membership for Palestine and statehood.

I am once again validated in my decision not to vote for you in 2008. Once again I am happy that I did not live up to the hysteria, hype, and fame and instead analyzed you according to the merits of your previous positions and offices.

You have failed every test of analysis by me from the moment you hit the public's radar. You are not the honest, caring, compassionate, or fair reformer you claimed to be.

You are simply another politician that lied themselves into office. Congratulations and may your name be forever tainted with the blood of innocent victims that died due to your positions and policies.

Ahmadinejad's Words Aren't Taken Seriously at the U.N. But Are Obama's?

Ahmadinejad's Words Aren't Taken Seriously at the U.N. But Are Obama's?


Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the 1st International Islamic Awakening Conference in Tehran September 18, 2011. (Photo: Raheb Homavandi / Reuters)



NBC may have been seduced into doing a credulous exclusive "Day in the Life of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" special -- as if the embattled Iranian president was sufficiently relevant to world events as to warrant interest in his workout routine -- but no decision-makers will set much store by what he says when he turns up for his annual wretched-of-the-earth burlesque performance at the U.N. General Assembly.

That's because Ahmadinejad has long-since become the lamest of ducks after taking on Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei and the conservative clerical elite in a game of political Mortal Kombat -- and getting owned by the Mullahs. Many of his closest allies have been arrested, and his control over government and ability to influence decision-making has been demonstrably curbed. He has even been shunned by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, which helped secure his disputed reelection. When Ahmadinejad tried to inflate his significance in the Western media mind on the eve of his departure by offering to release two American hikers jailed for espionage, his rivals in the judiciary made sure the world understood that Ahmadinejad doesn't make the decisions that count by slapping down his offer.

(SEE: Photos of Tehran's brutal 2009 crackdown on the opposition.)

Ahmadinejad's wings have been clipped to the point that his words, whether provocations and threats or conciliations, can't be taken as any indication of Iran's official stance. (There was speculation that Khamenei might even stop him traveling to New York for this week's events.) The position of the presidency has limited power in the Iranian power structure, and Ahmadinejad lost his battle to change that reality. Instead, he has been reduced to a role familiar to his reformist predecessor, Mohammed Khatami. A loose cannon he may be, but he's firing blanks. Try as he may, this week, to reclaim global attention with the usual provocations, the U.N.'s concerns are focused elsewhere. Never mind the fact that his regional role in challenging Israel has been usurped by Turkey; the Iranian President could even find himself upstaged by his mild-mannered and accommodating namesake and counterpart, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

But just as the international body is unlikely to set much store by the words of President Ahmadinejad, President Barack Obama may find himself in a not entirely dissimilar situation when it comes to the Palestinian bid for statehood recognition. The experience of the past 30 months has given many observers pause before taking to the bank Obama's pronouncements on matters Middle Eastern. That's because the President's words haven't always translated into reality, particularly when faced with Israeli defiance backed by bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.

Obama came into office determined to relaunch a peace process that had been effectively stalled (beyond occasional Israeli-Palestinian photo opportunities and non-committal chats) since President George W. Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assumed office within weeks of one another early in 2001. He began by seeking a substantive demonstration of good faith by Israel, in the form of a settlement freeze: The U.S. government had never accepted Israeli settlement construction on land conquered in 1967 -- a practice branded illegal by the U.N. Security Council. Halting the growth of the permanent Israeli presence on occupied territory that the international consensus held would belong to a future Palestinian state was the key demand from the Palestinian and Arab side for resuming talks.

In his outreach to the Muslim world in a speech in Cairo in June of 2009, Obama was blunt:

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

"And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress."

The Gaza blockade remains in force, of course it was partially eased last summer after it was challenged by a Turkish-backed activist flotilla that prompted the Israeli commando raid that left ten of the activists dead -- a matter that eventually triggered the collapse of Israeli-Turkish diplomatic relations. And according to a World Bank report released last week, the West Bank economy remains fundamentally dependent on donor aid, because the growth of its private sector choked by the occupation's restrictions.

On Obama's demand for a complete settlement freeze, Netanyahu responded by announcing a time-limited partial moratorium, and the Administration eventually managed to coax the Palestinians back to the table for three negotiating sessions shortly before last year's U.N. General Assembly session. That allowed Obama, in his U.N. address, to hail his Administration's achievement in getting Abbas and Netanyahu around a table:

"We know that there will be tests along the way and that one test is fast approaching. Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground and improved the atmosphere for talks. And our position on this issue is well known. We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed. Now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle. Now is the time to build the trust -- and provide the time -- for substantial progress to be made. Now is the time for this opportunity to be seized, so that it does not slip away... If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations -- an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."

But Israel did not extend its partial moratorium, and the Palestinians walked away from the table. By the end of last year, the Obama Administration was forced to concede defeat on settlements, and to try and move on as if it hadn't made that demand in the first place. (Another key applause line in the 2009 Cairo speech went the same way: The one in which President Obama announced that he had "ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.")

Unfortunately for the President, however, the Palestinians were having none of it; they took Israel's response on settlements -- and the ease with which it had simply walked the U.S. back on the issue -- as a signal that further talks with Netanyahu would produce no progress, and would simply provide political cover for the status quo.

For all the promise of Obama's early speeches, Palestinians -- as well as the citizenry of the Arab world and most of the rest of the developing world and even Europe -- view him as ultimately toeing a line laid down by Israel and its partisans on Capitol Hill. Needless to say, the Administration's insistence that it's opposition to the Palestinian statehood bid is based on preserving some hypothetical peace process is not taken very seriously among Palestinians, or in the wider Arab world. Indeed, a Zogby poll published in July found that Obama's approval rating across the Arab world has plummeted to around 10%, and that opinions of the U.S. are actually lower than they were in the final year of the Bush Administration. And remember, the same polling organization found his Arab approval rating about 50% in the wake of the Cairo speech. The reason for the fall is that the Arab world is paying less heed to Obama's words than to his actions.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

BBC poll shows narrow support for Palestinian state

BBC poll shows narrow support for Palestinian state

Palestinian leaders go to the United Nations in New York this week to ask to become recognised as a state

A global BBC poll suggests more people support UN recognition of Palestine as an independent state than oppose it.

Across the 19 countries surveyed, 49% backed the proposal while 21% said their government should oppose it.

The Palestinians say they will ask for full membership at the UN this week but the US says it will veto the move.

International Middle East envoy Tony Blair told the BBC he wants to make sure the move does not undermine chances of a return to peace talks.

The Palestinians are seeking international recognition of their state based on 1967 borders - the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Israel and the US say a Palestinian state can only be achieved through direct negotiation.

The last round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down a year ago.

Symbolic Palestinian UN chair A Palestinian delegation to the UN with a symbolic chair for Palestine

Mr Blair, the envoy for the Quartet of Middle East mediators - the EU, UN, Russia and the US - said he was trying to reach agreement on a framework for a return to talks.

"My objective is to secure a basis on which we can renew negotiations," he told the BBC's UN correspondent, Barbara Plett.

He stressed he did not want to stop the Palestinians from going to the UN.

But, he added, "it's only if the two sides sit down together in negotiation that we're going to get what the Palestinians really need, which is a viable Palestinian state, and what the Israelis need, which is a state that guarantees Israel's security."

Varying support

The poll, jointly conducted by the BBC and GlobeScan, saw majority support in four predominantly Muslim countries, with Chinese people also strongly endorsing the proposal.

Even in countries where opposition was strongest, more people polled supported the resolution than were against it.

Palestinian UN Statehood Bid

  • Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
  • They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
  • Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN
  • They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza
  • Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option

The United States and the Philippines both polled 36% against the resolution. But 45% of Americans and 56% of Filipinos backed recognition.

The lowest level of support was in India, with 32% in favour and 25% opposed, with many undecided.

Support was strongest in Egypt, where 90% were in favour and only 9% opposed.

In other Muslim countries, Turkey recorded 60% support, 19% opposition; Pakistan 52% for, 12 against; and Indonesia 51% for, 16% against.

Chinese were among the most enthusiastic supporters, with 56% in favour and just 9% opposed.

Public opinion in the three large European Union member states included in the poll was strikingly similar on the issue: France (54% support, 20% opposition), Germany (53% v 28%) and the UK (53% v 26%).

Overall, 30% opted for not giving a definite answer as they thought their country should abstain, or "it depends", or they did not offer a view.

But more than half of Russians and Chileans did not offer a definite opinion.

A total of 20,466 people in 19 countries were interviewed, either face-to-face or by telephone between 3 July and 29 August this year. The margin of error ranges from + or - 2.1% to 3.5%.

Poll in graphics

Source