Israeli PM orders 300 new homes at West Bank settlement

 

Settlers insist on their right to live on what they say is historically Jewish land

Israel and the Palestinians

• Barrier threat
• Netanyahu's power play
• Nuns in barrier battle
• Gazans 'inured'

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.

Continue reading the main story

“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

'U.N. Membership Will Give Palestine Hope'

Israel upholds citizenship bar for Palestinian spouses

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

Palestinian UN membership bid

• Q&A: Bid explained
• Palestinians score points at UN
• Showdown at UN
• Israeli view

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.

Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers

Israel decided to build more houses for settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem

Palestinian UN membership bid

• Q&A: Bid explained
• Palestinians score points at UN
• Showdown at UN
• Israeli view

The US has joined criticism of Israel's decision to accelerate settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem after Palestinians joined UN cultural agency, Unesco.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the US was "deeply disappointed".

Earlier, the EU said it was "deeply concerned" by the announcement. The UK, France and Germany said it would hinder efforts for peace.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a "basic right of our people".

'Unjustifiable'

Mr Carney told a White House briefing that Israel's decision did not help bring peace talks any nearer.

"Unilateral actions work against efforts to resume direct negotiations, and they do not advance the goal of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the two parties," Mr Carney said.

"That is the only way to achieve the two-state solution that both sides have as their goal."

EU policy chief Catherine Ashton urged Israel to reverse the decision and called on both sides to return to the negotiating table.

"Israeli settlement activity is illegal under international law including in East Jerusalem and an obstacle to peace. We have stated this many times before," she said.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague called the Israeli move "provocative and unhelpful".

"This settlement building programme is illegal under international law and is the latest in a series of provocative and unhelpful settlement announcements," Mr Hague said in a statement.

He also criticised Israel's temporary withholding of Palestinian tax revenues, which was announced at the same time, and called for a reversal of both decisions.

French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said the proposed settlement building "is illegal in international law and is a threat to the two-state solution".

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We are building in Jerusalem because it is our right and our duty to this generation and future generations”

Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister

Steffen Seibert, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, said building settlements in occupied areas "hinders the goal we all must have of a two-state solution and is unjustifiable".

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also said he was "deeply concerned" by the development.

"The secretary general calls on the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity and to continue to transfer VAT and customs revenues that belong to the Palestinian Authority and are essential to enable it to function, in line with Israel's obligations," his spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

'Not punishment'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said on Tuesday that a plan to build 2,000 new apartments in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would be accelerated.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said the move would speed up the destruction of the peace process.

The step has been seen by Palestinians as a response to their Unesco membership bid.

On Monday, Unesco member states overwhelmingly backed the Palestinians' membership bid, despite opposition from the US and Israel. The US says it will no longer make payments to Unesco.

Israel also said it would temporarily freeze transfers to the Palestinian Authority, which amount to around half of the PA's domestic revenue base.

An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman said on Tuesday the move was "a response to unilateral measures aimed at confronting Israel at the UN and elsewhere on the international scene".

But Mr Netanyahu denied that his government's decision was "punishment".

"We are building in Jerusalem because it is our right and our duty to this generation and future generations, not as punishment but as the basic right of our people to build in its eternal city," he said on Wednesday.

"Jerusalem will never return to the state it was in on the eve of the (1967) Six-Day War, that I promise you."

Peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel broke down more than a year ago. The Palestinians are demanding an end to settlement building.

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

Source

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

By Dana Goldstein

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

As Palestinians Push for Statehood, Israel Finds Itself Isolated

By Karl Vick / Jerusalem

Angry neighbors Protesters attack Israel's embassy in Cairo, forcing diplomats to flee

Khalil Hamra / AP

There are links between nations, cordial relations, firm bonds, alliances and strategic partnerships. But what Turkey and Israel had in mind just four years ago was something akin to being joined at the hip. The plan was to snake an extraordinary "infrastructure corridor" from Ceyhan in Turkey's south to Haifa in Israel's north, a thick bundle of pipes carrying crude oil in one, electricity in another, natural gas in yet another and in the fourth, a steady flow of fresh, sweet water, all thrumming along the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. Not only would these pipes serve as ties that bind two nations, but they would also show the world that a Muslim country could tether itself to the Jewish state, to their mutual benefit.

Which makes the events of the past few weeks all the more worrisome for Israel. With dizzying speed, Turkey has gone from offering oil and gas to Israel to threatening to send gunboats to the Gaza Strip to protect activists seeking to break Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian territory. Enraged by Israel's refusal to apologize for its killing of eight Turks (and one Turkish American) on board a blockade-busting ferry last year, Ankara has ejected Israel's ambassador, downgraded diplomatic relations and imposed military sanctions on its former ally. And that "infrastructure corridor"? It's now a mere pipe dream. (See Israel's thinkers discussing the country's challenges over the next 60 years.)

This conspicuous unfriending could hardly come at a worse time for Israel. As representatives of 193 nations gather in New York City for their annual U.N. conclave, Palestinian leaders are polishing a statehood proposal that would change the fundamental terms of the Middle East's core conflict, possibly putting them on the same legal footing as Israel.

With most of the world sympathetic to the Palestinians, waylaying their application for statehood will require Israel to deploy diplomatic skills of the highest order. But its preparations have not been going well. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warmed up for the big event by alienating the U.S. President, at once misquoting and lecturing Obama during Netanyahu's visit to Washington in May. Then there's the Arab Spring, which knocked over the Arab neighbor Israel relied on most, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak; last week, the Israeli embassy was attacked by protesters in Cairo while the riot police stood by. The spectacular collapse of the Turkey alliance makes three strikes. (See pictures of Israelis clashing with Palestinians.)

The game's not over. Obama still plans to use the U.S. veto in the Security Council to deny Palestinians full membership. But they could take the matter to the General Assembly, where a vote would likely be lopsided, leaving Israel looking conspicuously isolated. Israelis approach the threats one at a time. The Netanyahu government is avoiding a diplomatic contre temps with Egypt, since the 1979 peace treaty between the two countries is crucial to Israel's defense. The U.N. is easier to criticize, and most Israelis feel it is generally biased toward the Palestinians. "We don't like the U.N.," says Daniel Reisner, a longtime peace negotiator and international-law specialist. "We don't trust it."

And Turkey? In a country where new homes are built with bomb shelters, diplomatic conflict is easily dismissed. "Turkey, Burkey," said Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of the Shas party, a key member of Netanyahu's ruling coalition. "God Almighty couldn't care less about them. Who are they anyway?" (See TIME's special report "The Middle East in Revolt.")

Although Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was once hailed as a vital ally, many Israelis now regard him as a neo-Ottoman, out to revive Turkish leadership of the Muslim world by beating up on the Jewish state. That's certainly how they perceived Erdogan's performance in Cairo, where he said in a Sept. 13 speech to the Arab League that Israel must "pay a price for its aggression and crimes" and that supporting Palestinian statehood was "not a choice but an obligation." Israel, he said, is "the West's spoiled child."

Across town, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was meeting with the European Union's Foreign Minister, working on a strategy to avoid the U.S. veto in the Security Council. The Europeans were urging Abbas to settle for the status of a "nonmember observer state," akin to that of the Vatican, which he could get from a vote in the General Assembly — thus avoiding the U.S. veto in the Security Council.

That would be no consolation to Israel, however, because it would very likely give Palestine access to the International Criminal Court. There, it could bring charges against Israel for building settlements on occupied territory and allegedly driving out Palestinians — it would argue that this amounts to a war crime. That changes things. Even if Abbas promises (as a condition of E.U. support) not to rush to the Hague, the mere fact that he could do so hands Palestinians new leverage in peace talks.

Not that the Palestinians are anywhere near ready for talks. For negotiations with Israel to have real meaning, Abbas' Fatah party must first reconcile with Hamas, uniting the West Bank and Gaza into one entity after new elections promised in May. But intra-Palestinian parleys have stalled: the two parties can't even agree on the time of day. Literally. In Gaza City, a university associated with Fatah keeps daylight time, while the Hamas school next door sets its clock with Egypt, an hour behind. "We are one people," wails Rewaa Fanouna, 21. "We ought to be united at least on the time!" (See pictures of life under Hamas in Gaza.)

Polls show that most Palestinians support the U.N. bid but don't necessarily understand what it might bring them. That's not surprising, given the muddy signals from their leaders on a legalistic matter. As late as Sept. 14, when this magazine printed, it was not clear whether Abbas would go the Security Council route or the General Assembly route. In any event, what Palestinians want most, after 44 years of Israeli occupation, is something the U.N. bid cannot deliver: immediate change on the ground.

Israel, meanwhile, seems unperturbed by the loss of so many friends. Netanyahu seemed willing to sour relations with the White House because he was confident it would play well back home: his selective quotation of Obama's call for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders (leaving out the crucial qualifier "land swaps") was a hit with the Israeli public. (See pictures of Israel.)

Isolation carries a price, however. When Israel's embassy in Cairo was besieged Sept. 9 by a mob of Egyptians protesting their own transitional military rulers and Israel's killing of five Egyptian police officers after a terrorist attack the previous month, Netanyahu was unable to reach the top Egyptian general. In the end, he had to phone Obama to ask him to intervene.

That may have been the most positive exchange between the two in months. But it's not clear if Obama can head the Palestinians off at the pass in New York City. Averting a U.N. vote would depend on a credible promise of progress in peace talks, but Netanyahu has continued to sanction the steady expansion of the settlements on the West Bank. The White House has repeatedly asked him to freeze the construction of settlements on occupied land, and the Palestinians say they won't sit down to talks while the building continues. "From what we see, the construction is speeding even in settlements deeper in the West Bank," says Hagit Ofran of Peace Now, an Israeli group that monitors settlement construction. "So it doesn't seem, at least on the ground, the government is doing anything in favor of peace." Israel too has demands, among them Palestinian recognition of its status as a Jewish state. In this and other matters, Abbas is as unyielding as Netanyahu.

There's still time, of course. There's just the chance that two client states can be coaxed to accommodate their Washington sponsor. But it's September: the days are growing shorter.

Source

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

Commentary

Palestinians deserve a state, just like Israel deserves a state. Why are we arguing over U.N recognition? America/Obama has claimed to support this yet is willing to veto it in the same moment?

Talk about hypocrisy. America is not in favor of a two state solution. It is in favor of the status quo. Actions speak louder than words.

The status quo means more settlements, less peace, more deaths, and more terrorism around the world because of the lack of peace and the willingness to demonize the other side.

Palestinians head for UN state showdown

By Wyre Davies BBC News, Jerusalem

Israel has seen the political landscape rapidly transform around it

Related Stories

• Obama presses for Mid East reform
• Full Obama speech with analysis
• Egypt disillusioned with Obama

Not for the first time this year, Israel finds itself a nervous spectator as tumultuous events in the region around it rapidly change the shape and nature of the Middle East.

The domino-like fall of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, not forgetting the violent turmoil in Syria, caught almost everyone by surprise and, arguably, left Israeli politicians floundering for a coherent policy response.

The Israeli government was criticised in many quarters for its lukewarm response to the Arab Spring - concerns about regional security and the rise of Islamic political parties were perhaps seen as more important than expanding political pluralism in the Middle East.

Justifiable criticism or not, those were events almost exclusively beyond Israeli control and over which it could ultimately have had little or no influence.

The thorny issue of recognition for a Palestinian state is different story.

The right-wing coalition government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it abundantly clear that it opposes "unilateral" Palestinian moves towards statehood, either as a full member of the UN, via the Security Council, or for "Enhanced Observer Member" status, via a majority vote in the General Assembly.

Israel says either option seriously undermines negotiations towards a two-state solution - Israeli and Palestinian states existing side by side - saying that such a course of action will not lead to peace or the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

On this occasion, Europe is arguably a more important player than the United States”

• Obstacles to peace

There have also been threats, from Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his deputy Danny Ayalon, that if the Palestinians go to the UN, Israel would consider changing the status of east Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements.

"If the Palestinians independently take blunt unilateral steps to declare statehood, then all [previous] agreements are nullified," said Mr Ayalon on his Twitter account earlier this week.

Warnings and threats aside, Israel stands accused of doing little to offer the Palestinians a constructive and viable alternative.

The airport limousine services and VIP security details must have been stretched to their limits as a succession of senior US and European diplomats shuttled between Cairo, Jerusalem and Ramallah this week.

The goal of Tony Blair, Catherine Ashton, Dennis Ross and David Hale to extract some genuine concession or initiative from the Israelis that would persuade the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to drop his bid for statehood at the UN and to return to peace talks.

There has been considerable international pressure on the Palestinian side, too, to refrain from the UN option but the Palestinians are confident momentum - and much of the world - is on their side.

Israel's long-established position is that there can be no "pre-conditions" to the resumption of talks and refuses to countenance suggestions that it should stop building in illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land or offer any other concession to Mr Abbas.

Time 'running out'

There has been much analysis in Israel that, as consistent and firm as the position of Mr Netanyahu is, it only serves to increase the country's isolation at a time when Israel is losing friends and supporters in the region.

The US believes Palestinian statehood should only come through peace talks
(Why not through U.N and international community, like Israel was established?)

Recent difficulties with Egypt and Turkey aside, many Israelis feel their government is being out-manoeuvred by the Palestinian UN initiative and is not coming up with a credible, coherent response.

Israel knows the United States will use its veto in the Security Council to oppose the declaration of a Palestinian state, should it come to that.

And while it will back its strongest ally in the region, Washington would rather not have to use that veto because of the message it would convey in the wider Arab world.

US President Barack Obama has, after all, declared his wish to see the Palestinian flag flying at the UN, albeit as a consequence of successful peace talks with Israel.

That is why, on this occasion, Europe is arguably a more important player than the United States.

If a majority of EU countries - especially the French, Germans and British - support Palestinian recognition at the UN that could make life very uncomfortable for Israel.

The position of European governments is not yet clear - that is what the diplomats are busy finalising this week - but recent polls in Europe suggest their populations strongly support the idea of Palestinian membership at the UN.

Israel's diplomats around the world have been busy too, putting forward arguments against Palestinian upgrading or full recognition at the UN.

An aide to Prime Minister Netanyahu this week told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper: "Israel is not isolated... we should stop the self-flagellation as if we were to blame for everything."

But many senior Israelis are convinced that a return to negotiations with the Palestinians will allay tensions, not only in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Israel but in the region as a whole.

With time running out, what might be required now is a gesture from Israel that can make that a reality and avoid a showdown in New York next week.

Source

Mid-East shuttle dipomacy ahead of Palestinian UN bid

Catherine Ashton extended her visit for further talks with Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel and the Palestinians

• Israel protests rattle Netanyahu
• Q&A: Palestinian statehood bid
• Poisoned atmosphere in talks
• Heated diplomacy of statehood bid

Senior US and international envoys have begun a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy to try to head off a Palestinian bid for UN membership.

US diplomats Dennis Ross and David Hale, as well as EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Middle-East envoy Tony Blair are in the region to try to revive stalled peace talks.

Palestinians are preparing a bid for UN membership later this month.

Israel has warned of "harsh and grave consequences" if the move goes ahead.

Mr Ross and Mr Hale arrived in Israel on Wednesday and held talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, the US State Department said.

They were due to travel to the West Bank on Thursday for talks with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Baroness Ashton also held talks with Mr Netanyahu on Wednesday morning, and announced she was extending her visit for further talks in the evening.

"I hope that in the coming days what we will be able to achieve together will be something that enables the negotiations to start," she said.

Analysts say the 27-member EU could split over the issue of Palestinian statehood if it comes to a vote at the UN, with some states backing the effort and others likely to oppose it.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday spoke to Mr Blair - who represents the Quartet of international Middle East negotiators - and to Baroness Ashton, state department spokesman Mark Toner said.

Continue reading the main story

• Palestinians head for UN state showdown
• Q&A: Palestinians' UN statehood plans

"This is part of our intensive effort here to find a way forward," he added.

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

Since then, the Palestinians have launched a campaign to join the UN as a full member state with international recognition based on their 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as a capital.

The UN begins its annual General Assembly general debate in New York on 21 September.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on Wednesday, warned of dire consequences if the Palestinians went ahead.

"From the moment they pass a unilateral decision there will be harsh and grave consequences," he said.

"I hope that we shall not come to those harsh and grave consequences, and that common sense will prevail in all decisions taken," he added.

Some hardline Israeli politicians have called for Israel to annex sections of the West Bank if the Palestinians go ahead.

Source

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

Commentary

All these threats simply for asking to be recognized as a country?

Everyone already recognizes Palestine, but this U.N bid could make it official and binding.

Yet they respond with threats of violence? Historians of the future will write wondering how such people today lived. How people like you and me could DENY the right of people to live, safely and securely in their own home.

Israel deserves it's existence, and it is flourishing as a result. Surely the Palestinians deserve the same.

Lets not pillage and plunder their people any longer...

Enough is enough. Give them liberty, don't give them Death.

Palestinian Statehood bid in United Nations - Making sense and finding truth in Media Bias

The ignorant/biased/criminal claim made by the U.S Ambassador that U.N statehood recognition of Palestine, is useless and a waste of time:

(Obviously since she is the American Representative, she is biased in her beliefs and positions)




Reply about this claim:

Why the big fuss if this move is useless? Obviously, it will make a difference and Israel/America's response to this move is PROOF that U.N statehood recognition of Palestine does matter.

'Paranoid Israel sees Gaza flotilla as another attack'

Israel PM defiant over Obama border proposals

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu rejects pre-1967 border agreement call

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Obama and Netanyahu statements in full
• As it happened: Obama speech
• Full Obama speech with analysis

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected US President Barack Obama's call for peace with the Palestinians based on pre-1967 borders.

After tense talks at the White House, a defiant Mr Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to compromise but there could be no peace "based on illusions".

Mr Obama, who formally adopted the principle on Thursday, admitted there were "differences" between the views.

But he said such differences were possible "between friends".

In his speech to the state department on Thursday, Mr Obama stated overtly for the first time that the peace talks should be based on a future Palestinian state within the borders in place before the 1967 Middle East War.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states," he said.

This proposal has been a key demand of the Palestinians in the negotiations.

But speaking in the Oval Office after their meeting, Mr Netanyahu flatly rejected this proposal, saying Israel wanted "a peace that will be genuine".

"We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakeable facts."

'Demographic changes'

Israel was "prepared to make generous compromises for peace", he said, but could not go back to the 1967 borders "because these lines are indefensible".

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

The Israeli prime minister couldn't be clearer: At the moment there is no basis for new talks and he won't buy the president's plans”

Mark Mardell BBC North America editor

He said the old borders did not take into account the "demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years".

An estimated 500,000 Israelis now live in settlements built in the Palestinian West Bank, which lies outside those borders.

The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Mr Obama said there were obviously "some differences" in the "precise formulations and language" used by Israel and the US, but that this "happens between friends".

He did not bring up the matter of the borders in his joint conference with Mr Netanyahu.

But he said Palestinians faced "tough choices" following the recent reconciliation deal between Fatah, which runs the West Bank, and Hamas, which governs Gaza and still denies Israel's right to exist.

Mr Obama said true peace could only occur if Israel was allowed to defend itself against threats.

The BBC's Paul Adams in Washington says that while notion of a peace agreement based on 1967 lines is not news, Mr Obama has clearly angered Mr Netanyahu by formally adopting it.

Mr Netanyahu has come under increasing pressure as world figures and organisations, including American's partners in the Middle East Peace Quartet, EU, UN and Russia - lined up to back Mr Obama's position.

Arab League chief, Amr Moussa, also called on President Obama to remain committed to the plan.

But in the absence of a viable peace process, it is unclear what will come of US-Israel talks, says our correspondent.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

I'm glad that at least there is a clear cut position and that Israel is being confronted on all sides by this logical first step for peace.

There is no alternative at this point for any Palestinian state to exist without the 1967 borders.

Such a state would be a crippled West Bank and Gaza, a shadow of Palestine's former self. That's why such a deal is unacceptable to the Palestinian people and even to the weak boned Fatah.

At the end of the day Isreal needs to remember that it truly stole all the land it currently sits on and to be speaking as if it owns claim to it all and that it decides all the terms is very proud and very haughty.

Similar situations occurred in Northern Ireland and the violence still hasn't fully disapated after years of peace talks and unneeded deaths.

A country should never steal or usurp the land of another. Injustice will always lead to pain.

The defense of innocent people and the work of justice to reclaim land rights of those it was taken from, is now what the peace talks should focus on.

Sadly I'm not optimistic about them turning to those relevant topics.

Israel destroys East Jerusalem hotel for settlements

Palestinians accused Israel of trying to "erase" them from the city

Continue reading the main story

Israel and the Palestinians

• Palestinians pursue 'Plan B' after failed talks
• Going nowhere fast?
• 'Off the record' views from officials
• Q&A: Resuming direct talks

Israeli bulldozers have demolished part a hotel in East Jerusalem to make way for 20 new homes for Jewish settlers.

The destruction of the Shepherd Hotel has angered Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas said Israel was destroying any chance of returning to peace talks by carrying out the demolition.

Israel says it has a right to build homes in any part of the city.

The Shepherd Hotel was built in the 1930s and was once home to Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who became an ally of Adolf Hitler in WWII.

Its current ownership is disputed - Israel says it belongs to a Jewish-American property developer but Palestinians say it was seized illegally after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967.

"By doing this, Israel has destroyed all the US efforts and ended any possibility of a return to negotiations," said Nabil Abu Rudeina, a spokesman for Mr Abbas.

'Erase identity'

Attempts by the US to revive peace negotiations stalled last year, after Israel refused to end settlement building on occupied Palestinian land.

"Israel has no right to build in any part of east Jerusalem, or any part of the Palestinian land occupied in 1967," said Mr Abu Rudeina.

The Palestinian governor of Jerusalem, Adnan al-Husseini, said it was the latest in a line of demolitions of historic buildings and accused Israel of "trying to erase any Palestinian identity from the city of Jerusalem".

Continue reading the main story

• Obstacles to peace: Jerusalem

The US had criticised the project as far back as 2009, when building approval was granted.

But Israeli officials said the demolition had been carried out legally and defended its decision.

"This is something that every country does in its own domain without the necessity to give any report to any other government," said the minister for national infrastructure, Uzi Landau.

Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Source

~~~~~~~~

Commentary

How do you create a country when every week more and more of it's capital and it's land are being taken?

The Hague has already deemed such actions illegal, but apparently they're not illegal enough to garner any help from the E.U, A.U, or U.S.

What a sad state of affairs it seems.

Palestinian dies after inhaling gas at W Bank protest

About 3,000 people attended Jawaher Abu Rahmeh's funeral in Bilin on Saturday

Continue reading the main story

Related stories

• Palestinians test out Gandhi-style protest
• West Bank village marks five years of protest

A Palestinian woman has died after inhaling gas fired by Israeli troops during a protest against the West Bank barrier at Bilin on Friday, medics say.

Jawaher Abu Rahmeh, 36, died early on Saturday despite undergoing hours of treatment in a hospital in the nearby city of Ramallah, its director said.

The Palestinian Authority condemned what it called an Israeli "war crime".

The Israeli military said the protest was a "violent and illegal riot" and that it was investigating the death.

Officials had "unsuccessfully contacted the Palestinian Authority to obtain a medical report", a statement added.

Military sources told Israeli media that Ms Abu Rahmah's death might have been the result of an asthmatic condition compounded by tear gas.

'Unidentified gas'

Palestinians, together with Israeli and international activists, have held weekly mostly peaceful protests against the barrier near Bilin for the past five years. Some have been attended by stone-throwing youths.

Israeli security services have fired tear gas, stun grenades, rubber bullets and, on occasion, live rounds at the protesters.

Continue reading the main story

West Bank barrier

• West Bank village marks five years of protest
• Guide: West Bank barrier

On Friday, Ms Abu Rahmeh was taking part in the demonstration with about 250 others when tear gas was reportedly fired by Israeli troops in the area.

She was later admitted to Ramallah Hospital "with very weak breathing as a result of inhaling a gas", its emergency department director, Dr Mohammed Eidi, told the Reuters news agency.

"The type of gas is still not identified. We put her on respiratory system. But she died this morning," he added.

About 3,000 people attended her funeral in Bilin later on Saturday.

Her brother, Bassem Abu Rahmeh, died during a similar protest in 2009 after being struck in the chest by a tear gas canister fired by Israeli forces.

The Palestinian Authority's chief peace negotiator, Saeb Erekat, told the AFP news agency that it condemned the "abominable crime by the Israeli occupation army in Bilin against people taking part in a peaceful demonstration and consider it an Israeli war crime against our people".

Israel says the barrier was established to stop Palestinian suicide bombers entering from the West Bank.

But Palestinians point to its route, winding deep into the West Bank around Israeli settlements - which are illegal under international law - and say it is a way to grab territory they want for their future state.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice at The Hague issued an advisory ruling that the barrier was illegal and should be removed where it did not follow the Green Line, the internationally recognised boundary between the West Bank and Israel.

Source

US scraps demand for Israel settlements freeze

The Palestinians say settlement-building and peace talks are incompatible

Continue reading the main story

Israel and the Palestinians

• Going nowhere fast?
• 'Off the record' views from officials
• Q&A: Resuming direct talks
• Mid-East talks: Where they stand

The United States is abandoning efforts to persuade Israel to renew a freeze on settlement-building as part of efforts to revive Middle East peace talks.

Washington had been negotiating with Israel to try to meet Palestinian conditions for restarting direct talks.

The Palestinians suspended talks in September after a 10-month freeze on Israeli building in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, expired.

The US says it will continue to explore ways to bring the two sides together.

A senior US official told the BBC that attempts to get Israel to renew a partial freeze on settlement construction in occupied territory had failed.

But he said this did not mean the end of Washington's efforts.

The peace talks resumed in September after a break of almost two years but were suspended almost immediately when Israel decided not to extend the ban on settlement building in the West Bank.

Incentives offered

Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak said talks with the Americans had been postponed because Washington was distracted by the fallout from the release of secret documents by the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks and the crisis over North Korea.

But state department spokesman PJ Crowley denied this was the case.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We will continue to try to find ways to create the kind of confidence that will eventually, we hope, allow [Israelis and Palestinians] to engage directly”

End Quote PJ Crowley US state department spokesman

"There is not a change in strategy, there may well be a change in tactics," he said.

"We have been pursuing a moratorium as a means to create conditions for a return to meaningful and sustained negotiations. After a considerable effort, we have concluded that this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement.

"We will have further conversations on the substance with the parties, and we will continue to try to find ways to create the kind of confidence that will eventually, we hope, allow them to engage directly."

A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he was studying the US decision before responding.

But Maen Rashid Areikat, the Palestine Liberation Organisation's chief representative to the US, told the BBC's World Today programme that Israel should be made to comply with international law over the issue of settlement building.

"We will not tolerate the continuation of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories," he said.

"I don't think that there will be a change of Palestinian position in the near future."

The Palestinians have said previously they will not return to the negotiating table while settlement building continues.

Last month, the Obama administration offered Israel a sizeable package of incentives, including jet fighters and security guarantees, in return for a 90-day extension of the previous moratorium.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to renew the freeze if the Palestinians recognised Israel as a Jewish state, but the Palestinian Authority dismissed the idea.

It is unclear how the US is planning to proceed, says the BBC's Kim Ghattas at the state department in Washington.

Palestinian and Israeli negotiators will be in Washington next week and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make a speech about the Middle East on Friday.

The fact that the Palestinians are coming means they accept that calling for a freeze first is not working, our correspondent says.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967, settling close to 500,000 Jews in more than 100 settlements. They are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

There are about 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank.

Source

Israel ponders US incentive offer on settlement freeze

Israel's 10-month construction freeze in the West Bank expired on 26 September

Continue reading the main story

Israel and the Palestinians

• Mid-East talks: Where they stand
• Q&A: Resuming direct talks
• New US aid as peace talks stall
• Hope and anger as freeze expires

Israel's prime minister has briefed his cabinet on a package of incentives the US has proposed if it renews a partial freeze on settlement construction.

Washington has reportedly said it will strengthen its commitment to oppose UN resolutions critical of Israel, and offer defence and security guarantees.

In return, Israel would stop building for 90 days in the occupied West Bank.

US President Barack Obama said that Israel's review of the proposal was a "promising" sign.

However, the Palestinian Authority reacted negatively to the proposal because the halt would not include East Jerusalem.

The settlement row has derailed US-brokered direct peace talks, which resumed in September after almost 20 months and broke down only weeks later, when the previous construction freeze expired.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967, settling close to 500,000 Jews in more than 100 settlements. They are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

There are about 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank.

'Not final'

Israel's government was split over whether to accept the new US offer when it was presented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, according to reports in the Israeli media.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

[It] will lead us down a slippery slope and into another crisis with the American administration after three months, or perhaps even sooner”

End Quote Moshe Yaalon Israeli Vice Premier

Some ministers are said to have requested further reassurances from Washington, while Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon called it a "honey trap".

"[It] will lead us down a slippery slope and into another crisis with the American administration after three months, or perhaps even sooner," he was quoted as saying by the Haaretz newspaper.

Mr Yaalon was reportedly one of four members of Mr Netanyahu's Likud party who opposed the deal, which would see Israel halt all new projects started since 26 September, when the previous freeze ended.

But the prime minister said the proposal was "not yet final".

"It is still in process of formulation by our and US teams. If and when the formulation is completed, I will bring it up in the appropriate government forum," he explained.

"In any event, I insist that any proposal provides an answer to the State of Israel's security needs both in the immediate range and against threats Israel will face in the coming decade."

Continue reading the main story

Israeli settlements on occupied land

• More than 430,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, alongside 2.5 million Palestinians
• 20,000 settlers live in the Golan Heights
• Settlements and the area they take up cover 40% of the West Bank
• There are about 100 settlements not authorised by the Israeli government in the West Bank

• An Israeli settlement in close-up
• In the shadow of an Israeli settlement

According to diplomats, the US has said it will not ask Israel to extend the new freeze when it expires, provide 20 F-35 fighter jets worth $3bn, veto or oppose any initiatives at the UN Security Council critical of Israel, and sign a comprehensive security agreement with Israel at the same time as any peace deal is finalised.

Mr Obama welcomed Israel's approach to the proposal.

"I commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for taking, I think, a very constructive step," he said.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the deal was discussed when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Mr Netanyahu on Thursday.

The Palestinian Authority - backed by the Arab League - has pledged not to return to the talks without a full settlement construction freeze, but have given US negotiators until early November to try to break the impasse.

Washington has been trying desperately for two months to revive deadlocked peace talks, and a 90-day freeze may be enough to get the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, our correspondent says.

Within those three months officials hope to get serious discussions under way about the borders of a future Palestinian state, she adds.

Last month, Mr Netanyahu offered to renew the freeze if the Palestinian Authority recognised Israel as a Jewish state, but it dismissed the idea.

Palestinian officials have argued in the past that recognising Israel as a Jewish state would compromise the rights of 20% of the Israeli population that is not Jewish, and cancel the right of Palestinian refugees to return.

Source

Israel passes bill on withdrawal from land

Talks with Palestinians have broken down over the issue of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem

Continue reading the main story

Israel and the Palestinians

• Mid-East talks: Where they stand
• Q&A: Resuming direct talks
• New US aid as peace talks stall
• Hope and anger as freeze expires

Israel's parliament has passed a bill setting stringent new conditions before any withdrawal from the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem.

The bill requires a two-thirds majority in the Knesset before any withdrawal could be approved.

Failing that, the proposal would be subject to a national referendum.

Analysts say the move could complicate peace efforts by making it more difficult for any Israeli government to make territorial withdrawals.

The bill - passed by a 65-33 majority - was backed of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said it would prevent "irresponsible agreements".

Likud Party MP Yariv Levin, who proposed the bill, said it was of "the utmost national importance for retaining the unity of the people".

Unlike the occupied West Bank, which Israel has never formally annexed, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are considered by the Israeli government to be under its sovereignty.

The international community considers both the Golan and East Jerusalem to be occupied territory.

Syria requires the return of all of the Golan Heights as the primary condition for a peace treaty with Israel.

Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.

'A mockery'

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank condemned the move.

"With the passage of this bill, the Israeli leadership, yet again, is making a mockery of international law," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.

"Ending the occupation of our land is not and cannot be dependent on any sort of referendum."

There was no immediate comment from Syria, which lost the Golan Heights to Israel in the 1967 war.

Damascus wants the land back in return for peace but many Israelis regard the heights - which overlook northern Israel - as a strategic asset.

Israel has occupied the West Bank - including East Jerusalem - since 1967, settling nearly 500,000 Jews in more than 100 settlements. They are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Source

'US - Israel's partner in crime, not a referee'

CrossTalk: War or Peace? (ft. Norman Finkelstein)

Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace

Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace

By Karl Vick / Jerusalem

Israelis at the beach in Tel Aviv

Uriel Sinai / Getty Images for TIME

Heli and Eli sell condos on Exodus Street, a name that evokes a certain historical hardship in a neighborhood that suggests none at all, the ingathering of the Jews having entered a whole new realm here. The talk in the little office is of interest rates and panoramic sea views from handsomely appointed properties selling on the Ashdod waterfront for half what people are asked to pay in Tel Aviv, 18 miles (29 km) to the north. And sell they do, hand over fist — never mind the rockets that fly out of Gaza, 14 miles (22.5 km) to the south. "Even when the Qassams fell, we continued to sell!" says Heli Itach, slapping a palm on the office desk. The skull on her designer shirt is made of sequins spelling out "Love Kills Slowly." "What the people see on the TV there is not true here," she says. "I sold, this week, 12 apartments. You're not client, I tell you the truth."

The truth? In the week that three Presidents, a King and their own Prime Minister gather at the White House to begin a fresh round of talks on peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter. They're otherwise engaged; they're making money; they're enjoying the rays of late summer. A watching world may still define their country by the blood feud with the Arabs whose families used to live on this land and whether that conflict can be negotiated away, but Israelis say they have moved on. (See pictures of 60 years of Israel.)

Now observing 2½ years without a single suicide bombing on their territory, with the economy robust and with souls a trifle weary of having to handle big elemental thoughts, the Israeli public prefers to explore such satisfactions as might be available from the private sphere, in a land first imagined as a utopia. "Listen to me," says Eli Bengozi, born in Soviet Georgia and for 40 years an Israeli. "Peace? Forget about it. They'll never have peace. Remember Clinton gave 99% to Arafat, and instead of them fighting for 1%, what? Intifadeh." (See TIME's photo-essay "Palestinian 'Day of Rage.' ")

But wait. Deep down (you can almost hear the outside world ask), don't Israelis know that finding peace with the Palestinians is the only way to guarantee their happiness and prosperity? Well, not exactly. Asked in a March poll to name the "most urgent problem" facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty. Israeli Arabs placed peace first, but among Jews here, the issue that President Obama calls "critical for the world" just doesn't seem — critical. (Comment on this story.)

Another whack for the desk. "The people," Heli says, "don't believe." Eli searches for a word. "People in Israel are indifferent," he decides. "They don't care if there's going to be war. They don't care if there's going to be peace. They don't care. They live in the day."

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

One of Times best covers. A lot of people mention this point and get silenced very quickly, but now the silencing will be a lot harder.

Israel has everything to gain from continuing this conflict, and very little to lose.

It's only Palestine it seems, that wins through peace.

Oh and one other country wins as well, America. Remember that the 911 report cited violence in the Middle east as a key cause of the American tragedy .

General Patraeus as well has mentioned that the Palestinian issue is only making his job tougher.

When will American Politicians wake up to the fact that the Israeli government does not want peace.

It is perfectly happy continuing the conflict in and around it's country; regardless of the consequences to the rest of the world.

Rabbi Brant Rosen -- Beyond the Flotilla, the Crackdown Continues

As I read the myriad of reactions to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla tragedy last Sunday, I'm struck by one recurring theme: the sense of astonishment that these activists responded to the Israeli Navy with violence.

In other words, they didn't act according to the script. They didn't behave like proper practitioners of civil disobedience. The implication: if they had responded like the non-violent activists they were purported to be, this whole tragedy could well have been avoided.

There's only problem with this calculus: non-violent Palestinian protests have actually been ongoing throughout the Occupied Territories for years - and the Israeli military has been responding to them with much the same kind of brutality that was used against the passengers of the Mavi Marmara.

A sampling of some incidents over the past year:

- In March, 2009, Tristan Anderson, an American activist with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was shot in the head with a tear-gas canister during a non-violent protest, sustaining massive brain injuries.

- Bassem Ibrahim Abu-Rahma, a popular non-violent activist in Bilin, was killed when he was hit in the chest by a tear gas canister during a protest in April 2009.

- In June 2009 35 year-old Aqel Sadeq Dar Srour was shot in the chest and killed when he tried to assist Mohammad Misleh Mousa, a teenager who was shot by an Israeli soldier during a non-violent demonstration in Ni'lin. Mohammad was permanently paralyzed as a result of his injury.

- This past April, Imad Rizka was critically injured when he was shot in the head with a tear gas canister during a non-violent protest in Bi'lin

- Last Monday, Emily Henochowicz, a 21 year American ISM activist lost her eye when she was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a peaceful protest of the flotilla incident at the Qalandiya checkpoint in the West Bank.

These are not merely isolated incidents. Indeed, they are part of a concerted Israeli military policy to crush the grassroots non-violent movements by means of lethal force, mass arrests, and detentions. As Israeli activist Jonathan Pollak observed this past December:

Over the past six months, 31 Bil'in residents have been arrested, including almost all the members of the Popular Committee that organizes the demonstrations. A similar tactic is being used against protesters in the neighboring village of Ni'ilin, which is losing over half of its land to Israel's wall and settlements. Over the past eighteen months, 89 Ni'ilin residents have been arrested.

Israeli lawyer Gaby Lasky, who represents many of Bil'in and Ni'ilin's detainees, was informed by Israel's military prosecutors that the army had decided to end demonstrations against the Wall, and that it intends to use legal procedures to do so.

The Israeli army also recently resumed the use of 22 caliber sniper fire for dispersing demonstrations, though use of the weapon for crowd control purposes was specifically forbidden in 2001 by the Israeli army's legal arm. Following the killing of unarmed demonstrator Aqel Srour in Ni'ilin last June, Brigadier General Avichai Mandelblit, the Israeli army's Judge Advocate General, reiterated the ban on the use of .22 caliber bullets against demonstrators, to no effect. In addition to Srour, since the beginning of 2009, 28 unarmed demonstrators were injured by live ammunition sniper fire in Ni'ilin alone.

Few are likely aware that non-violent protest has been ongoing within the Gaza Strip itself long before the flotilla set sail. American journalist Ashley Bates, who blogs from Gaza, has written extensively about Gaza's "Local Initiative Against the Buffer Zone" - a non-violent campaign organized by Gazan Saber Al-Zaaneen:

In July of 2008, Apache helicopters dropped fliers warning Palestinians that they were not permitted to go within 300 meters of the border. Mr. Zaaneen knew that Israeli soldiers had shot at people and destroyed farms and houses within one kilometer of the border. Feeling that Israel would continue encroaching unless Palestinians resisted, he began organizing non-violent direct actions in the buffer zones, such as accompanying farmers as they tended their fields and searching for bodies of Palestinians killed by Israeli troops and left to rot....

People of all political stripes are welcome at his demonstrations, which now occur five days per week at border areas across Gaza...Every demonstrator must not bring weapons and must commit to non-violence. "I don't resist because I want to die," he said. "I resist because I want freedom, land, education, opportunities, no occupation. This is the message of our movement. We want the whole world to know why the Palestinian people resist."

Last April, Ms. Bates reported that Hind Al-Akra, a 22 year old female protester was seriously injured when she was shot in the abdomen and seriously injured during a Buffer Zone protest. At the time, Ms. Bates wrote "it seems only a matter of time before one of the protesters gets killed."
Just five days later, her prediction came true: a protester named Ahmad Salem Deeb was shot by Israeli troops and died of blood loss shortly afterwards.

Immediately following the flotilla tragedy, Ms. Bates cited this telling observation by an ISM worker in Gaza:

I'm surprised that Israel would go this far with internationals...The reality is that they are doing this sort of thing every day with Palestinians--farmers and fishermen are killed every day.

We will likely be debating what exactly occurred aboard the Mavi Marmara for some time to come. In the meantime, similar tragedies are occurring throughout the Occupied Territories on a virtually daily basis.

They are no less worthy of our attention.

Source