MalarkyNews

It was a lovely, sunny, warm spring-like morning in Ramallah. It was Friday — the day off work, the day of the Friday prayer for Muslims, who would prefer to pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of East Jerusalem, if they could…if they could get a permit.

Friday is also the day of demonstrations … after at Friday prayers — at The Wall in Bil’il, Nil’in, Ma’asara, Nebi Salah…and now also, with mainly Israeli participants, at Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, north of the Old City. The Israeli Defense Forces disagree with the organizers of these demonstrations, who call the demonstrations “non-violent”. No, for the IDF, they are “violent”, because the demonstrators may “attack” (i.e., try to cross or to dismantle) the Wall, or the Fence (as the Wall is configured, in rural areas), or because some may “hurl” stones at Israeli jeeps or soldiers, once tear-gas and stun grenades and rubber bullets are fired as a method of “crowd control” (normally, a duty carried out by police, not by armed soldiers).

When there are clashes, it is true, they always spread to the narrow bottleneck that Qalandia has become, where hundreds of thousands of people a day are squeezed through, if they are lucky, in scenes that are a terrifying and stressful nightmare. The whole humiliating and often-terrifying ordeal of passing through Qalandia is mainly designed to check documents and papers — to make sure that someone is allowed, by virture of where he or she resides, to enter Jerusalem, or that they have “permits”. For those allowed to pass in cars, there is a “security inspection” of the trunks and contents of vehicles.

As we have previously reported here, the traffic on both sides of Qalandia [i.e, coming from Jerusalem, and coming from Ramallah], is completely uncontrolled, and so chaotic that it quickly becomes a total and nearly unimaginable gridlock. There are private cars, and mini-vans that provide the Palestinian “public” transportation, and huge trucks loaded with cars or with containers or large amounts of construction materials, all jammed together, with not even a centimeter of space between them — and no traffic control or direction [though recently there have been some un-armed Palestinian traffic policemen attempting with some success to control cars on the Ramallah side of the entry to Qalandia. Into this mad scene, there are forays of stone-throwing boys, countered by Israeli soldiers in battle gear, firing stun grenades and tear gas, and sometimes also shooting rubber bullets.

Today, however, as people awakened, they learned that the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, had decided on the basis of security assessments to impose a surprise and sudden total closure of the West Bank — out of concern that unrest in and around the Old City of Jerusalem might spread to the “villages” of East Jerusalem.

A total closure.

Article from UN-Truth read more here

It was a lovely, sunny, warm spring-like morning in Ramallah. It was Friday — the day off work, the day of the Friday prayer for Muslims, who would prefer to pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of East Jerusalem, if they could…if they could get a permit.

Friday is also the day of demonstrations … after at Friday prayers — at The Wall in Bil’il, Nil’in, Ma’asara, Nebi Salah…and now also, with mainly Israeli participants, at Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, north of the Old City. The Israeli Defense Forces disagree with the organizers of these demonstrations, who call the demonstrations “non-violent”. No, for the IDF, they are “violent”, because the demonstrators may “attack” (i.e., try to cross or to dismantle) the Wall, or the Fence (as the Wall is configured, in rural areas), or because some may “hurl” stones at Israeli jeeps or soldiers, once tear-gas and stun grenades and rubber bullets are fired as a method of “crowd control” (normally, a duty carried out by police, not by armed soldiers).

When there are clashes, it is true, they always spread to the narrow bottleneck that Qalandia has become, where hundreds of thousands of people a day are squeezed through, if they are lucky, in scenes that are a terrifying and stressful nightmare. The whole humiliating and often-terrifying ordeal of passing through Qalandia is mainly designed to check documents and papers — to make sure that someone is allowed, by virture of where he or she resides, to enter Jerusalem, or that they have “permits”. For those allowed to pass in cars, there is a “security inspection” of the trunks and contents of vehicles.

As we have previously reported here, the traffic on both sides of Qalandia [i.e, coming from Jerusalem, and coming from Ramallah], is completely uncontrolled, and so chaotic that it quickly becomes a total and nearly unimaginable gridlock. There are private cars, and mini-vans that provide the Palestinian “public” transportation, and huge trucks loaded with cars or with containers or large amounts of construction materials, all jammed together, with not even a centimeter of space between them — and no traffic control or direction [though recently there have been some un-armed Palestinian traffic policemen attempting with some success to control cars on the Ramallah side of the entry to Qalandia. Into this mad scene, there are forays of stone-throwing boys, countered by Israeli soldiers in battle gear, firing stun grenades and tear gas, and sometimes also shooting rubber bullets.

Today, however, as people awakened, they learned that the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, had decided on the basis of security assessments to impose a surprise and sudden total closure of the West Bank — out of concern that unrest in and around the Old City of Jerusalem might spread to the “villages” of East Jerusalem.

A total closure.

Article from UN-Truth read more here

It was a lovely, sunny, warm spring-like morning in Ramallah. It was Friday — the day off work, the day of the Friday prayer for Muslims, who would prefer to pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of East Jerusalem, if they could…if they could get a permit.

Friday is also the day of demonstrations … after at Friday prayers — at The Wall in Bil’il, Nil’in, Ma’asara, Nebi Salah…and now also, with mainly Israeli participants, at Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, north of the Old City. The Israeli Defense Forces disagree with the organizers of these demonstrations, who call the demonstrations “non-violent”. No, for the IDF, they are “violent”, because the demonstrators may “attack” (i.e., try to cross or to dismantle) the Wall, or the Fence (as the Wall is configured, in rural areas), or because some may “hurl” stones at Israeli jeeps or soldiers, once tear-gas and stun grenades and rubber bullets are fired as a method of “crowd control” (normally, a duty carried out by police, not by armed soldiers).

When there are clashes, it is true, they always spread to the narrow bottleneck that Qalandia has become, where hundreds of thousands of people a day are squeezed through, if they are lucky, in scenes that are a terrifying and stressful nightmare. The whole humiliating and often-terrifying ordeal of passing through Qalandia is mainly designed to check documents and papers — to make sure that someone is allowed, by virture of where he or she resides, to enter Jerusalem, or that they have “permits”. For those allowed to pass in cars, there is a “security inspection” of the trunks and contents of vehicles.

As we have previously reported here, the traffic on both sides of Qalandia [i.e, coming from Jerusalem, and coming from Ramallah], is completely uncontrolled, and so chaotic that it quickly becomes a total and nearly unimaginable gridlock. There are private cars, and mini-vans that provide the Palestinian “public” transportation, and huge trucks loaded with cars or with containers or large amounts of construction materials, all jammed together, with not even a centimeter of space between them — and no traffic control or direction [though recently there have been some un-armed Palestinian traffic policemen attempting with some success to control cars on the Ramallah side of the entry to Qalandia. Into this mad scene, there are forays of stone-throwing boys, countered by Israeli soldiers in battle gear, firing stun grenades and tear gas, and sometimes also shooting rubber bullets.

Today, however, as people awakened, they learned that the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, had decided on the basis of security assessments to impose a surprise and sudden total closure of the West Bank — out of concern that unrest in and around the Old City of Jerusalem might spread to the “villages” of East Jerusalem.

A total closure.

Article from UN-Truth read more here

Fallout continues on Thursday, days after serial Israeli government announcements of settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Israel’s Kadima Party, led by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is considering calling a no-confidence vote against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Kadima won the February 2009 elections by a narrow popular vote, but Livni was not asked by State President Shimon Peres to form the next (now the current) Israeli government because Peres thought the Likud party had a better chance of forming a viable coalition — which he did by assembling one of the largest and reportedly the furthest-”right” of any government in Israel’s history.

Today, AFP is reporting that “Israel’s Labour Party may quit the ruling coalition over the decision to build 1,600 settler homes in annexed Arab east Jerusalem, Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon warned on Thursday. ‘Members of the Labour Party have more and more difficulty in taking part in a coalition government that they joined with the purpose of relaunching the peace process with the Palestinians’, Simhon told army radio. ‘The anger of (US Vice President Joe) Biden is justified. A grave error has been committed (by Israel) and there is a price to pay’, he added. This AFP story is posted here.

Of equal if not greater significance, Al-Jazeera television is reporting that Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa (Egypt’s former Foreign Minister) said he has been informed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that there will be no “indirect” talks for now, because of Israel’s recent announcements of settlement construction. Al-Jazeera is also reporting that Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat has said there will be no “indirect” talks unless Israel cancels the decision to expand Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem by 1,600 housing units.

The Israeli Government Press office, which is part of the Prime Minister’s office, this morning sent out an email to journalists stating that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday (Wednesday), 10.3.10, summoned Interior Minister Eli Yishai and expressed his displeasure at the timing of the announcement of another stage in the planning process of a Jerusalem building project. In light of the ongoing disagreement between Israel and the US on building in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Netanyahu said there was no need to advance the planning process this week and instructed Interior Minister Yishai to adopt procedures to prevent such an incident from recurring. Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to US Vice President Joe Biden and expressed his regret over the unfortunate timing. The Prime Minister informed the Vice President that this specific project had moved through various planning stages over several years. The final approval process will in all likelihood take more than a year and the beginning of actual construction would likely take several years”.

It should be noted that the Israeli government said the same thing, to former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — but about the opening of Israeli police headquarters and expansion in the E-1 area between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim, which is half way across the West Bank toward the Dead Sea and Jordanian border. But it didn’t take years — it took about three months, for it to open and begin functioning in the E-1 site in the West Bank.

UPDATE: When Biden finally did speak at Tel Aviv University at mid-day Thursday — he was over an hour late for a scheduled speech (followed by a Q + A session with students) — he praised the statement issued in Netanyahu’s name this morning (quoted just above), saying that [though it's hard to read this in the actual full text we cited above] (1) PM Netanyahu announced that he was creating a mechanism to avoid what happened [the announcement about moving forward on the approval process for the 1,600 housing units in the Ramat Shlomo settlement in East Jerusalem just near the Shuafat village neighborhood], and (2) the statement said that actual construction will take several years. Biden said, “That’s significant, because it allows time for negotiations to resolve the issue“. Biden added that it was also significant because “when it [the Netanyahu position, presumably] was announced, I was in the West Bank”.

Biden then said that “the U.S. will hold either side accountable for actions that inflame tensions or impede progress toward negotiations”.

He added that “These indirect talks are only that — the only way to resolve the final status issues ins through direct talks … but the process has to begin”.

Biden also said, about the current situation here, that “this is no way to live. The status quo is not sustainable”. And, he said, the creation of a Palestinian state will help Israel’s security…

Biden noted that the Israeli government announcements on settlements over the past two days were “very touchy subjects, both in Israel and in my own country, because it undermines the trust needed for negotiations … and this is why I at the request of President Obama condemned it immediately”. This remark was greeted with applause and cheers. However, Biden seems to have had such a sense of place that he felt it was unnecessary to mention that this is a very touchy subject also among Palestinians.

After Biden’s speech, Al-Jazeera television interviewed for reaction a member of the Fatah Central Committee, Sabri Saydem (a recent Palestinian Authority minister who resigned, as required by party leader Mahmoud Abbas, upon his election to the powerful Fatah Central Committee). Saydem took a generally positive view of Biden’s remarks, and called it a potentially “historic speech”. He said that Biden had essentially said that “walls and settlements are not sustainable, and that Israeli should come to terms with the reality that there will not be peace/security unless there is a Palestinian state.

Saydem also said it was significant that Biden had said Netanyahu had explained he is “creating a mechanism” to prevent the recurrence of the crisis over these Israeli settlement announcements — though, Saydem said, “it remains to be seen if Israel is going to comply with the American wish that it stop settlement activities, and stops constructing The Wall”. The days to come will be quite critical, Saydem said. He noted that the Arab League Committee has now recommended that “There will be no direct or indirect talks unless these 1,600 housing units are cancelled by Israel, and it [Israel] stops any further decision to be taken in the future” — and the whole policy stopped. And, he said, “The Palestinian street is not ready to go to any talks under these circumstances”.

Saydem also picked up on one of Biden’s anecdotes — Biden recounted that the first time he met the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (it’s only woman PM to date), she said to him during a “photo op” that Israel has a “secret weapon”, which was, she said, that “we have no other place to go”. Saydem told Al-Jazeera that “We Palestinians also share this secret weapon … and we have no other place to go, either”.

Article from UN-Truth read more here

In a sharp statement, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, currently on a visit to Israel in which there has been a lot of schmoozing going on (but tomorrow he visits Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah), said tonight that “I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem“.

Condemn?!

Haaretz reported tonight that “The American vice president added that the ’substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them’, Biden said adding that the ‘announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict’, Biden said. ‘The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews, Muslims and Christians’. Biden also said that the U.S. believed ‘that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for people around the world. Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues. As George Mitchell said in announcing the proximity talks, “we encourage the parties and all concerned to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks”,’ Biden said”. This Haaretz article is published here.

Earlier, in a move that only built up the importance and impact of the Biden statement in Israel, the White House spokesperson also said, according to an AP report, that “the United States condemns Israel’s approval of 1,600 new settlement homes in disputed East Jerusalem. Spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday that Vice President Joe Biden, visiting Israel, would issue a detailed statement shortly”.

Earlier Tuesday, the Israeli Ministry of Interior approved the building of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo, an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood sandwiched right next to the Palestinian village of Shuafat in East Jerusalem. At one point during the day, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Interior denied that Ramat Shlomo was in “East Jerusalem” (he must have meant to say that they were in Israel’s unilaterally-declared Greater Jerusalem Municipality) — then issued a correction confirming that “the housing units in question are located beyond the Green Line”.

There are media reports tonight that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the Minister of Interior Eli Yishai (of the Shas party, an Orthodox religious party) to issue a statement saying that the announcement of the expansion of Ramat Shlomo was not timed to coincide with Biden’s visit. The Minister’s Media Adviser sent an email just before 10 pm saying that: “The Jerusalem District Planning Committee today (Tuesday), 9.3.10, approved a plan which has been in the works for over three years. This is a procedural stage in the framework of a long process that will yet continue for some time. The Committee meeting was determined in advance and there is no connection to US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel. Interior Minister Eli Yishai updated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the foregoing earlier this evening”.

The New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem Ethan Bronner wrote that “A statement issued in the name of the Interior Ministry but distributed by the prime minister’s office said the housing plan was three years in the making and that its announcement was procedural and unrelated to Mr. Biden’s visit. It added that Mr. Netanyahu had just been informed of it himself”. The NYTimes story is posted here.

Rory McCarthy, reporting in The Guardian before the Biden statement tonight, wrote that “The latest approvals were announced by the interior ministry, which said they had been passed by the Jerusalem district planning committee. A spokeswoman said there were 60 days to appeal against the decision. Ramat Shlomo, built 15 years ago, is on land captured in the West Bank in 1967 and then annexed to Israel in a move not recognised by the international community. Two years ago, when the Israeli government approved 1,300 new homes in the same settlement, the then US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, criticised the move as having a ‘negative effect’ on peace talks”. This article can be read in full here.

Of course, today’s announcement of 1,600 new housing units (calculate 5 people per unit) was not the only action taken — but to keep track of these developments is more than a full-time job, for more than one person …

Article from UN-Truth read more here

According to a report compiled by three senior Haaretz correspondents (Barak Ravid, Akiva Eldar, Avi Issacharoff) published today, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, who met with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah yesterday after two days of talks in Israel, “told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during talks this week that the understandings reached following the 2007 Annapolis Conference are non-binding in the current round of negotiations, Haaretz has learned.

The Haaretz article continued: “The Obama administration announced Monday night that Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to resume the peace process by means of indirect negotiations, facilitated by Mitchell … The announcement that negotiations are resuming came despite disagreements between the three sides over the structure of the talks … In a Jerusalem meeting with quartet envoys on Friday, Mitchell’s deputy David Hale said the negotiations after Annapolis and the understandings reached by Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qureia, as well as Ehud Olmert and Abbas, would not be binding. The talks will be based on agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, including the road map. Olmert had offered Abbas an Israeli withdrawal from 94 percent of the West Bank, and Israeli territory in exchange for the remaining 6 percent. In addition, Israel would symbolically accept 5,000 Palestinian refugees and enable international governance for the holy sites in the Old City. Abbas never responded to Olmert’s offer, but the Palestinians insisted that the negotiations resume from where they stopped during Olmert’s term as prime minister. The U.S. apparently accepted Israel’s position on the matter, which was to ignore everything that was not signed as part of an agreement. The talks will also be based on the Obama administration’s two statements from the past year: President Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations, which described the goal of a secure, Jewish state in Israel alongside a viable, independent Palestine and an end to the 1967 occupation; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement regarding a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with territory exchanges, combined with Israel’s desire for a secure Jewish state that includes ‘recent developments’, meaning the settlement blocs”. This article is published by Haaretz here.

This confirms part of what we reported yesterday — there is a difference between what the Palestinians say they want and must have, and what the U.S. mediator is now trying to impose. What will the Palestinian leadership — and the Palestinians — do now?

In a separate article published in Haaretz today, Akiva Eldar wrote that “According to a senior official in the Palestinian Authority, the Obama administration has promised Abbas that if either side fails to live up to expectations, the United States will not conceal its disappointment, nor will it hesitate to take steps to remove the obstacle. In addition, the PA was promised that the United States would not be satisfied with playing the role of messenger. According to what the official read to me, the Obama administration will present its own proposals in an effort to bridge the gaps”. This article can be read in full
here.

While the Palestinians may well have assumed that Israel would be the more likely target for any future U.S. criticism as a result of these “indirect” talks — if they ever get underway — it now seems that there could be a rebound surprise, and the Palestinian leadership could bear the brunt.

The Haaretz report, by the way, differs in one important respect from what we reported yesterday: Haaretz and other media have reported already that Palestinian President Abbas “never responded to Olmert’s offer”, while the Palestinian official we quoted yesterday said that the Palestinians had responded, during the Annapolis process, and gave the Americans (but not the Israeli side) a copy of the “territorial swap” map and documents they had prepared, which proposed an exchange of 1.9 percent of West Bank territory. The Israelis had shown, but refused to hand over any copies, of the Israeli proposal, which the Palestinian official specified had asked for 6.5 percent of the land.

With thanks to Hidar, whose comment reminded me of it, a previous post on this blog in December, showed a map published in Haaretz of what was reported as Olmert’s offer to Abu Mazen, published here, discussed an earlier Haaretz story which published — for the first time, it said — a graphic of the map, as Haaretz reconstructed it, of the “unprecedented” offer made during direct contacts in 2008 between Israel’s then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen ):

This Haaretz article, published in December, reported that “Olmert presented his map to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in September of last year. Abbas did not respond, and negotiations ended. In an interview with Haaretz on Tuesday, Abbas said Olmert had presented several drafts of his map. The version being disclosed Thursday in Haaretz is based on sources who received detailed information about Olmert’s proposals. Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Jewish population of the territories … Olmert proposed the transfer of territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence. Olmert gave Col. (res.) Danny Tirza, who had been the primary official involved in planning the route of the security fence, the task of developing the map that would provide the permanent border between Israel and the Palestinian state. Olmert’s proposed annexation to Israel of settlement blocs corresponds in large part to the route of the security fence. … Olmert reached a verbal understanding with the Bush administration to the effect that Israel would receive American financial aid to develop the Negev and Galilee to absorb some of those settlers evacuated from the West Bank. Other evacuees would have been resettled in new apartments to be built in the settlement blocs that Israel would annex. Olmert’s office said in response to the disclosure of the plan: ‘On September 16, 2008, [Olmert] presented Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] a map that had been prepared based upon dozens of conversations that the two held in the course of the intensive negotiations after the Annapolis summit. The map that was presented was designed to solve the problem of the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state. Giving Abu Mazen the map was conditioned upon signing a comprehensive and final agreement with the Palestinians so it would not be used as an ‘opening position’ in future negotiations the Palestinians sought to conduct. Ultimately, when Abu Mazen did not give his consent to a final and complete agreement, the map was not given to him’. Olmert’s office also told Haaretz that ‘naturally for reasons of national responsibility, we cannot relate to the content of that map and the details of the proposal. At the same time, it should be stressed that in the details contained in your question, there are a not inconsiderable number of inaccuracies that are not consistent with the map that was ultimately presented’.” This article is posted on the Haaretz website here.

We commented at the time that the map does not show enough detail of any Israeli intentions in the Jerusalem area, nor does it show Israeli ambitions in the Jordan valley, in the Israeli settlements around Jericho, or along a large part of the Dead Sea coastline, which Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu repeated agains just last week. In the past, the U.S. has apparently consistently opposed Israeli annexation — or anything like it — of the Jordan valley. Has that American position changed as well?.

We also noted in our earlier post that, as Ma’an News Agency reported, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told the Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December that “Today, 9000 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley consume approximately one quarter of the total amount of water made available to all 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank.” There are now more Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley than were living in Gaza at the time of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s unilateral “Disengagement” from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Herb Keinon noted in the Jerusalem Post today that “Abbas’s agreement to proximity talks shows that he, too, will cave in if the pressure is high enough … [Usually it is Israel who caves, Keinon wrote, though not everybody is likely to agree, but he continues] … Didn’t Ehud Olmert, as Jerusalem mayor, call on the government in 1996 to firmly state that it was not prepared to relinquish Jerusalem under any circumstances, only to offer Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008 half the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, as well as an Israeli pledge to relinquishing sovereignty over the city’s ‘holy
basin?’ And wasn’t it Binyamin Netanyahu who, at a Likud Central Committee meeting in 2002, said, ‘Dear friends, let me say this once again loud and clear: There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan’ – only to have embraced the ‘two-state vision’ in 2009? There is a pattern here. Israelis say things, but don’t mean them. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have set a track record of saying what they mean. Prior to Oslo, the PLO said it wanted all of east Jerusalem, including the Old City, but nobody really believed they meant it, until they remained adamant – and remain adamant – on that demand to this day … So when Abbas said for months and months that he would not enter into negotiations with Israel unless and until there was a full settlement freeze, including east Jerusalem, it seemed this was a firm Palestinian red line – not one of those pliable Israeli ones – and that he meant what he said. Well, now we see the Palestinians can also move red lines, which is worth noting as some kind of talks resume”. This article can be read in full on the JPost website here.

Article from UN-Truth read more here

The U.S. State Department has just released the following statement in the name of U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell: “I’m pleased that the Israeli and Palestinian leadership have accepted indirect talks. We’ve begun to discuss the structure and scope of these talks and I will return to the region next week to continue our discussions. As we’ve said many times, we hope that these will lead to direct negotiations as soon as possible. We also again encourage the parties, and all concerned, to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks”.

This suggests that Mitchell is leaving — and will not participate in a second meeting with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) on Wednesday, when U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is expected to pay a visit to the Muqata’a presidential compound in Ramallah, after 36 hours of talking in Israel — about Iran.

What happened today? Mitchell was in the Muqata’a in Ramallah, meeting President Abbas and Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat — who are the two people who are now charged with any negotiations, according to one informed Palestinian official. Mitchell’s aide David Hale was apparently also present. The meeting lasted approximately three hours.

UPDATE: Palestinian Television news at 9pm tonight showed an initial meeting between Mitchell and Abbas with four aides on each side — on the Palestinian side: Yasser Abed Rabbo, Saeb Erekat, Mr. X (unidentified), and Nabil Rudeineh; and on the American side: U.S. Consul-General in Jerusalem Danny Rubenstein, Mr. X, Ms. X, and Mr. X.

[Haaretz carried a story that earlier reported: " 'Today President Abbas will hand a written response to Senator Mitchell about our acceptance of the proposal of the proximity talks', Erekat told Reuters". This Haaretz report is posted here.]

This journalist was told this evening that Abu Mazen gave Mitchell a “letter”: “I cannot elaborate, but it contains the terms of reference [for the negotiations] that we Palestinians believe are right”, the informed Palestinian official said. “The P.L.O. gave President Abbas a mandate. We are still waiting for the American response”.

The Palestinian official said that at this point, there are not either “proximity talks” or “negotiations” — but instead “just setting the terms of reference for the negotiations”.

“We are here to negotiate to obtain our freedom. If this turns out to be just an attempt to make a good PR [public relations] campaign for Mr. Netanyahu, then of course we are not willing to do simply that”.

This Palestinian official added that “this is the problem we have with the Americans — they are speaking about ‘relaunching’ these negotiations, while we want to ‘resume’ negotiations at the point they ended on 27 December 2008 [the day Israel launched an unprecedented three-week military operation against Hamas in Gaza]. But Israel doesn’t want to do that”.

According to this Palestinian official, maps were “shown” during the Annapolis process of negotiations in 2008. But, he said, the Israeli interlocutors “refused to hand over any maps or any papers”.

So, he said, “based on some references, we know what parts of the West Bank Israel would like to keep, but we don’t know what Israel really wants”.

He said each side made an offer during the Annapolis process. The Palestinians, he said, “gave an offer to exchange [or swap] 1.9 percent of the West Bank. We also showed this to the Americans and gave them a map”.

The Israelis, he said, indicated they “had an idea of swapping 6.5 percent of the land”.

So, he said, it should be expected that “any solution that comes out of negotiations would be between these two figures”.

However, he said, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, who was asked to form the present government after Israeli elections in February 2009, may intend to ask for 20 percent or more: “He has said he wants to keep the Jordan Valley — this means that Israel intends to control our borders. He has said that he wants all of Jerusalem — we cannot give up East Jerusalem. And he has said he will keep [the West Bank Jewish settlement of] Ariel — which sits on the western aquifer that contains 85 percent of the water used in the West Bank, and we cannot play with our water sources”.

What will happen now? “I’m not 100 percent sure”, the Palestinian official said. “We Palestinians are not willing to accept another round of failed negotiations”. He noted that the situation is now “very tense”, and recalled that Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat said earlier today that this is “the last chance for a peaceful solution”. [See the Haaretz story linked above, here: "Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that
the indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians would be a last chance to keep the Middle East peace process alive. 'The relationship has deteriorated to this stage where the U.S. is trying to save this peace process with the last attempt - by the way, mark my words - this will be the last attempt in order to see if it can be a tool to make decisions between Palestinians and Israelis', he told Army Radio".

Ali Waked, writing in YNet, spoke to Erekat himself after the meeting with Mitchell and reported that Erekat said "the Palestinians made it clear to Mitchell that if the Israelis increase the settlements, raids of cities and assassinations during each of his visits to the region, this casts a serious doubt over the American peace efforts." Waked also wrote that "The remark was made as the United States released an official statement saying that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to launch indirect talks mediated by Mitchell ... The Palestinians have agreed to resume the negotiations indirectly in principle, but have asked Mitchell for several clarifications and demanded that Israel stop embarrassing the Palestinian Authority with announcements on new construction plans in the West Bank. Erekat said that the settlement issue was the focus of Abbas and Mitchell's meeting, which lasted about five hours. During the meeting, the Palestinian president expressed his resentment over the Israeli declaration on 112 new housing units slated to be built in the settlement of Beitar Illit. Defense Ministry officials say the discussed plan was approved by the Olmert government. A Palestinian source told Ynet that the Palestinians were discouraged by the inefficiency of the talks and that the American pressure on Israel has led to nothing so far. He said that the Palestinians estimate that the negotiations are only damaging the Palestinian leadership's reliability"... This Ali Waked report in YNet is published here.

Laura Rozen wrote an assessment, Parsing the Mitchell statement, published on Politico.com here, reporting that "Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell issued a statement from Israel today which on its face seemed a quiet victory wave on achieving agreement for Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks over the weekend. But a former Israeli official reading the statement interprets it differently, to suggest they haven't agreed on what they are going to be talking about indirectly ... 'The text indicates that he will NOT announce anything while Biden is here', the former Israeli official interprets. 'There will be a generic statement on the sides's 'willingness' to participate in 'indirect talks' but nothing on terms of reference, [specific] issues etc.’, the former Israeli official interpreted”.

Haaretz later reported that “It was unclear, however, whether the indirect talks had already begun. [U.S. State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley told reporters he thought they had. ‘I believe they have started’, Crowley said. ‘I think they are underway’. Pressed on whether he was sure the indirect talks had begun, Crowley said: ‘I am certain’.” This Haaretz report is posted here.

Article from UN-Truth read more here

Palestinian officials are saying that they were under too much pressure from the Europeans and the Arabs to resist any longer accepting an American proposal to undertake “indirect” or “proximity” talks with Israel after more than a year of no negotiations. “It’s only for four months”, Palestinian officials say, apologetically, with a shrug of the shoulders. “Then we’ll know whether Israel is serious or not…”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) took the proposal to a meeting of Arab League Foreign Ministers last week, which on Wednesday gave him the go-ahead, the green light, the fig leaf he felt he needed.

Reports vary: the Arab League Foreign Ministers reportedly said the UN Security Council would be engaged straight away if there are no concrete results after four months. There are other reports that the U.S. has made, or will be asked to make, a pledge that it will not exercise its veto power in the UN Security Council to protect Israel from the consequences of a failure in the negotiations. There are reports that a definition of borders will — or will not be — the first item of business.

But, the Palestinian leadership’s previous position that it will not engage in talks as long as Israel does not halt its settlement activities throughout the West Bank (including East Jerusalem).

Despite the Arab League Foreign Ministers endorsement of Abbas’ proposition to participate in renewed negotiations, Ma’an News Agency reported, the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit — who was “present” during the Arab League Foreign Ministers meeting in Cairo on Wednesday — said a day later that “he believed Palestinians should not enter into direct talks with Israel in light of the current controversy over heritage sites. Speaking from Cairo after a meeting of the Follow-up Committee for the Arab Peace Initiative, Abul Gheit said delegates shared his sentiments, a stark contrast to the announcement of the Arab Foreign Ministers meeting, which gave its blessing for talks to continue. ‘The committee will not remain silent over all what is going on … The Arab Follow up Committee will not make any concessions and will not support direct negotiations unless Israel changes its positions’, he said.” It is difficult to reconcile these statements. The Ma’an report is posted here.

Many Palestinians — individually and as members of political movements ranging from Hamas to Fatah, as well as the various smaller “factions” of the Palestinian left — are scornful of the decision to re-engage in talks.

Yet, the resumption of talks appears almost inevitable — unless something extremely dramatic happens. There are very persistent rumors — it is a daily topic of conversation — about an impending “third intifada”. Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass, who lives in Ramallah, wrote Friday that “Judging from articles written by both Israelis and Palestinians, the next intifada is already in the air. They are predicting it is on the way and the most punctilious know it will be ‘popular’. Bil’in and Na’alin [n.b. where there have been regular Friday demonstrations against The Wall which are almost always dispersed with bursts of tear gas] are perceived as its models. Some Palestinians are guessing it will first erupt in Jerusalem”.

Hass also wrote that “the supreme challenge facing the initiators of the next uprising – if it indeed erupts – is to prevent its descent into a so-called armed struggle, which inevitably will expropriate the street and the struggle from the public. The militarization of the second intifada led to grave disasters – personal, collective and geo-political. Off the record, many admit this but a number of factors are still preventing frank, public debate. For years the theory of armed struggle, until liberation and independence are achieved, has been held sacred. Many people feel ill at ease to criticize the militarization publicly, as though they would thereby dishonor the dead, the wounded, the prisoners and their families … The truth is that the suicide attacks on civilians gave Israel a golden opportunity to implement plans, which had always existed, to confiscate more and more Palestinian lands, using the excuse of ’security’. The use of weapons did not stop the colonialist expansion of the Jewish settlements. On the contrary. And the use of weapons only accelerated a process Israel began in 1991: disconnecting the Gaza Strip from the West Bank … many of the young men played with weapons in order to obtain social and economic status in the movement and the PA. When Fatah people dare today to renounce the sanctity of the armed struggle, their collective reputation as corrupt automatically detracts from peoples’ faith in their arguments, even if those arguments are logical. Another challenge facing the initiators of the popular uprising, if it indeed erupts in the near future, is actually a challenge that Israeli society must face. Will it once again adopt the deceptive narrative of the IDF and the politicians (’the Palestinians attacked us’, ‘terror’) and allow them, as in the two previous intifadas, to suppress the uprising using disproportionate and deadly means? These are the deadly means that, in the Palestinians’ eyes, make Israeli rule look like a series of bloody acts from 1948 to this day”. Amira Hass’ article can be read in full here.

Meanwhile — and unless the much-discussed third intifada, or something equally dramatic, happens — one Palestinian woman in the news business commented that there is now an attitude of “do what you have to do”; on the other hand, she said, “people don’t give a damn any more”.

The Fatah Central Committee (all wearing grey business suits with dress shirts + ties) met in the Muqata’a Presidential Headquarters in Ramallah on Saturday to discuss the impending U.S.-mediated talks . After the meeting, road traffic was held up for nearly ten minutes by Presidential security guards wearing olive green camouflague jumpsuits and burgundy red berets — holding big black automatic weapons with their fingers on the triggers — before an 11-car convoy (including two black vans each bristling with a crown of antennas that Palestinians say can temporarily disrupt local communications) escorting a black sedan carrying President Abbas careened around the corner as he travelled from the Muqata’a to his heavily-guarded home in small villa in northern Ramallah on Saturday afternoon.

The Executive Committee of the overall Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O. — which groups Fatah and the Palestinian “factions” other than Hamas) will meet to discuss the proposal on Sunday.

U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell arrived back in the region on Saturday night, and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is due to arrive on Sunday.

Haaretz’s veteran correspondent Akiva Eldar reported on Friday that “The United States government has committed to playing a role in indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and promised that if the talks were to fail, the U.S. will assign blame and take action, according to a document sent by the U.S. to the Palestinian Authority, which Haaretz obtained on Friday. The U.S. government sent the document to the Palestinians responding to their inquires regarding the U.S. initiative to launch indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians. ‘We expect both parties to act seriously and in good faith. If one side, in our judgment, is not living up to our expectations, we will make our concerns clear and we will act accordingly to overcome that obstacle’, it was written. This commitment by the U.S. was a determining factor in the Palestinians’ and the Arab League’s decision to agree to the U.S. proposal on indirect talks. The document also reveals that U.S. involvement will include ’sharing messages between the parties and offering our own ideas and bridging proposals’. The U.S. also emphasized that their main concern is establishing a Palestinian state. ‘Our core remains a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967′, the document read. Regarding the settlements, the U.S. noted its continued commitment to the road map, which dictates that Israel must freeze all construction in the settlements, and dismantle all outposts erected since March 2001″. This Akiva Eldar report can be view in full here.

But, the Jerusalem Post reported that “The indirect ‘proximity talks’ between Israel and the Palestinians likely to begin next week will not pick up where the discussions between then-prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas broke off in late 2008, The Jerusalem Post has learned. This issue has been a key sticking point for months, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejecting the Palestinian demand that the talks begin from the point where they ended with Olmert. Olmert offered the Palestinians nearly 94 percent of the West Bank, a land swap to compensate for most of the rest, an arrangement on Jerusalem, and the return of a small number of refugees into Israel as a ‘humanitarian gesture’ … The Post has also learned that the proximity talks will not immediately focus primarily on borders, another Palestinian demand, with Israel saying there can be no credible discussion of borders without first knowing what security arrangements will be in place”. This JPost report is published here.

Meanwhile, a Palestinian family of six from the West Bank village of Silwad was killed when their car crashed into an Israeli military Hummer on Friday near Bir Zeit, north of Ramallah, and their funerals took place on Saturday. The Jerusalem Post reported here, that “Apparently, the Palestinian car had a flat tire, causing it to divert from its course”. It is not clear what interaction there had been between the forces in the Hummer and the Palestinian family car, but the Jerusalem Post said Israeli police were investigating. But, very upset local Palestinian witnesses said on the Palestinian Television nightly news Friday saying that it was clear that Israel did not want peace.

Also on Friday, a fourteen-year-old Palestinian boy remained in critical condition after being shot in the head by Israeli Defense Forces using rubber bullets at a demonstration in Nabi Salah area near Ramallah.

Friday prayers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Haram ash-Sharif mosque esplanade [which Israelis call the Temple Mount, because it is believed that the Second and possibly also the First Jewish Temple were situated somewhere on that site] in the Old City of East Jerusalem ended very badly after a sermon critical of the Israeli government decision a week earlier to name the Ibrahimi (Abraham) Mosque in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem as “heritage” sites. Israeli Border Police stormed the mosque esplanade after, they said, Muslim worshippers began throwing rocks that hit Jewish worshippers standing at the Western Wall Plaza just below Al-Aqsa Mosque. Israeli forces used tear gas and stun grenades were used on the mosque esplanade and in various nearby areas of East Jerusalem as disturbances spread. Though the Israeli police have denied that rubber bullets were used, the Jerusalem Post reported that “Ron Krumer, a spokesman for Jerusalem’s Hadassah Medical Center, confirmed an Arab woman was wounded in the head by a rubber bullet [n.b. - it is not clear where in East Jerusalem this woman was when injured] and hospitalized in serious condition”. The Jerusalem Post also reported that “Having restored calm by use of stun grenades, and following helpful intervention by other Muslim worshipers to defuse the clash, police eventually withdrew in coordination with the Waqf to allow older worshipers to leave the Temple Mount. Eight of the injured policemen were hospitalized in light condition. Five suspects were arrested during the riots”. The Qalandia “border crossing”/checkpoint between Jerusalem and Ramallah was tense, but open, late on Friday afternoon. There were no Palestinian traffic police visible as Israeli soldiers were sitting in khaki-colored hummers surrounded by a number of large rocks that had clearly been thrown at them not long earlier. Two soldiers were outside the vehicles, escorting a young teenager they were bringing back under detention. Between 50 to 100 meters further inside, a group of at least 60 even younger boys were on both sides of the street, watching intently to see what the Israeli forces were doing. Some of these younger boys were sitting on a low concrete divider in the middle of the road, and there were large rocks placed on the divider next to them. Adults were going about their business as if nothing special was going on.

Earlier in the week, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barakat announced a radical new proposal to develop municipal planning — for the first time time since the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem in June 1967 — for various neighborhoods of East Jerusalem that would mean some Palestinian (and some Israeli) housing would be legalized, while other Palestinian housing would be demolished. The new proposal was presented as an attempt to offer some nominal equality between the two communities, but there was a great lack of clarity about how it would work out in actual practice. Immediately after the proposal was announced, Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the Jerusalem mayor to carry out further consultations with the local communities before proceeding.

Twenty-four hours later, renewed disturbances were reported in northern East Jerusalem areas of Shuafat refugee camp and Al-Isawiya, and reports linked these clashes to the post-Friday prayer events.

The UN Security Council on Friday “called for restraint by all sides and an early return to the negotiating table, while voicing their concern at the current ‘tense’ situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem”, according to a report by the UN News Centre [the UN uses British English spelling]. The report added that the current UNSC President for the month of March, Ambassador Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet of Gabon, told journalists after closed-door Council deliberations that the 15 members ‘urged all sides to show restraint and avoid provocative acts’, and ’stressed that peaceful dialogue was the only way forward and looked forward to an early resumption of negotiations’.” And, the report added, “The situation in the Middle East was also among the issues discussed yesterday during a meeting between Mr. Issoze-Ngondet, in his capacity as Council President, and General Assembly President Ali Treki [of Libya]“. This UN News Centre story is posted here.

Haaretz later reported that “The permanent Palestinian observer to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, welcomed the council statement, adding that the U.S. decision not to block it ‘is a signal that the United States wants this effort to succeed’ and Israel to restrain itself. A U.S. official, however, told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the American delegation had not agreed with the statement and said it was adopted due to what the official described as ‘procedural confusion’.”  This Haaretz report is posted here.

In a regular monthly briefing to the UN Security Council on 18 February, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe (of the U.S.) said: “We call for the resumption of talks on final status issues, implementation of Road Map commitments, continued efforts to improve economic and security conditions, and a different and more positive approach to Gaza.” Pascoe was speaking on behalf of UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon — and his statements usually represent an important organizational statement that is pre-negotiated with major powers, and certainly, in this case, with the Quartet of Middle East negotiators who include the UN, the U.S., Russia, and the European Union. According to a UN summary of his statement, Pascoe told the UNSC that “Israel had indicated its readiness to accept indirect talks proposed by George Mitchell, Special Envoy of the United States to the Middle East, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had been engaged in intensive consultations and had sought clarifications. ‘The Secretary-General hopes that President Abbas will move forward on the basis of that practical proposal so that serious talks can begin … He notes Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s stated commitment to a two-State solution, although confusion as to the Government’s intentions arises from statements by various Government officials’.” The UN statement said that Pascoe had urged “Israel to extend its current 10?month freeze on the building of settlements in the West Bank to a comprehensive freeze there and in East Jerusalem”. Pascoe stated that “The status of Jerusalem is to be determined through negotiations, and we believe that a way must be found through negotiations for Jerusalem to emerge as the capital of two States”. He noted, however, “that, since his last briefing on 27 January, the Israeli authorities had identified violations of restraint orders in at least 29 settlements, while the Defence Ministry had stated that it was issuing demolition and stop-work orders against violators”. On the other hand, Pascoe said, “The fact that Israel had not evicted Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem or demolished those homes was a ‘positive development which we hope will continue’, and he called for “the reopening of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, in accordance with Road Map obligations”. This is a point that European Union leaders have recently emphasized.

Pascoe also told the UNSC that Israel’s ongoing closure of crossing points into Gaza is “counterproductive”, and “causing unacceptable hardship for the civilian population, more than half of whom are children”.  A UN press release describing his statement is posted here.

There has been recent high-level mention (by American as well as French officials) about the possibility of finally taking up a long-standing Russian proposal to hold a conference to push for progress in Israeli-Palestinian and/or Israeli-Arab negotiations — and news reports have suggested that such a conference may be convened in Moscow on or around March 19th.

That is, if nothing dramatic happens in the meantime…

Article from UN-Truth read more here

Where to begin?

Israel’s YNet news website is reporting today that Israel’s State President Shimon Peres “is unpleased by the government’s decision to renovate a selected list of heritage sites – which includes the Cave of the Patriarchs [which is also, for Palestinians and Muslims worldwide, the Ibrahimi or Abraham Mosque in Hebron] and Rachel’s Tomb [which is also, for Palestinians, the Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque in Bethlehem] – and is concerned by the move’s possible implications, Ynet has learned. The decision should not have been taken in the manner it was taken, but rather, in phases, Peres reportedly said in closed-door sessions over the weekend. ‘It was [or, should have been] possible to decide to focus on 10 sites at this time, and take more decisions later’, Peres was quoted as saying. Following several days of local riots, the president expressed his concern about the violence that may follow in Palestinian areas, while also referring to Israel’s responsibility on this front. ‘It depends on us too’, he noted. ‘We must conduct ourselves cautiously and with restraint’ … Peres added privately [however] that he intends to continue his support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as long as the latter works to renew negotiations with the Palestinians”.

Just for background, YNet added in its report, it was just last Sunday that “the cabinet approved a wide-scale plan to preserve and renovate ‘heritage sites’ at a cost of NIS 400 million (about $106 million dollars). At the last moment, after being pressured by right-wing elements and ministers, Netanyahu decided to add to the plan two sites located in the West Bank. After Hamas called for a third intifada and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned of a ‘religious war’, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad attended the Friday prayer in Hebron, called on his people to continue their struggle, but stressed that the Palestinians would not let the Israeli decision drag them to a state of violence. Netanyahu himself has tried to ease the tensions with the Palestinians several times, saying it was all a misunderstanding. ‘We have no intention of changing the status quo regarding Jewish or Muslim praying. We want to maintain the current prayer arrangements. The renovations were carried out in coordination with the Waqf. These are necessary repairs’, the prime minister said”. This YNet article can be read in full here .

The Associated Press reported on Thursday that Netanyahu had made his second or third statement in three days, trying to “defuse” the situation — however, he failed (as Israeli politicians generally do fail) to speak directly or to reach out to make any empathetic acknowledgement of Palestinian concerns: “In an interview to Israeli TV, Benjamin Netanyahu called the affair a ‘misunderstanding’, saying there was no intention to infringe on Muslim freedom of worship. He said the intent was to protect and maintain the sites. ‘This is not a political decision. It doesn’t change anything in that sense. It is concerned with preserving heritage’, Netanyahu said. This AP report is posted here.

A Haaretz editorial published today said that a widely-lambasted new campaign by Israel’s Information and Diaspora Ministry to improve the country’s image is “more than ridiculous, the campaign is disconcerting. ‘Explaining Israel’ [the name of this public relations campaign] reveals the worldview of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government: limitless self-righteousness, eternal hostility toward the Arab and Muslim worlds, a view of Palestinians as invaders and inciters, and commitment to developing the West Bank settlements. This PR drive must not be viewed just as a gimmick, or an attempt to justify the unnecessary existence of the Information Ministry. Instead, it represents how the government wants its citizens to understand their country and represent it to the world. The campaign’s Web site waxes lyrical over the beauty of Judea and Samaria and the grand achievements of the settlement endeavor, even directing visitors to the links of West Bank regional councils. The ministry warns against the evacuation of settlements and withdrawal from elevated areas, which, it says, would turn Israel into a firing range for rockets and render it vulnerable to invasion. Palestinian communities are not part of its landscape – the Palestinian Authority is portrayed as an incitement factory bent on destroying Israel, one that falsifies demographic figures and is headed by a Holocaust denier. Still, the ministry recommends that Israelis ’say with conviction that Israel will never lose hope for peace’. It is difficult to square these messages with Netanyahu’s frequent calls for ‘two states for two peoples’ and a return to peace talks. Does the prime minister really want to talk to [people he says ares] inciters and Holocaust deniers? What would they talk about – about withdrawal, which the government believes would endanger Israel?” This Haaretz editorial is published here.

Along similar lines, Jerusalem-based writer Gershom Gorenberg wrote, as part of a book review published in the latest issue of “The American Prospect“, that “You might expect Netanyahu to be careful about playing with holy fire. In September 1996, early in his previous term as prime minister, he approved opening a tunnel alongside the Temple Mount, otherwise known [i.e., to Palestinians and the Muslim world] as Haram al-Sharif. That set off a week-long mini war between Israel and Palestinians. How could he so easily give in to pressure and repeat the mistake of asserting ownership of contested holy places? While we’re at it, how does a country declare that a place outside its borders is a national heritage site? I could give quick responses based on Netanyahu’s famously flawed personality. But deeper answers to these questions — and quite a few other Middle Eastern puzzles — can be found in Israeli political sociologist Lev Luis Grinberg’s remarkably insightful recent book, Politics and Violence in Israel/Palestine. The starting point of Grinberg’s analysis is that Israel doesn’t have borders, or perhaps has too many of them: ‘If we would ask Israelis … where the state of Israel is — where its borders are — we would never receive a simple answer. … There is no consensus among Jewish citizens of the state where its borders are, where they should be, or even what the legitimate procedure is to decide on them’. Internationally, of course, Israel’s border is commonly regarded as the Green Line, the pre-1967 boundary. For internal Israeli legal purposes, the Green Line is generally where the state ends and occupied territory begins; it defines ‘the area … ruled by democratic law and elective government’, as Grinberg notes. But the Green Line doesn’t appear on Israeli maps. And for purposes of military and economic control, the state includes the West Bank with its Palestinian population. (Gaza’s status, at the moment, is even fuzzier.) Moreover, in the imagination of most Israeli Jews, it seems, the line between those who belong to the nation and those who don’t is ethnic: Jews are in. Palestinians are out, even if they live in Israel and vote. If you find this all confusing, then you understand perfectly. The reality is a mess … With violence low at the moment, most Israelis can imagine that Israeli security measures alone ended the intifada and that the current quiet can last indefinitely. This is an illusion, and a dangerous one: It ignores the Palestinian Authority’s role in restoring order in the West Bank. It also ignores the frustration with blocked diplomacy that is again rising among Palestinians — and international impatience with the Netanyahu government’s foot-dragging. Imagination shapes behavior. Believing the illusion that things can go on as they are, Israelis have largely abandoned debate of alternatives. The space for politics remains closed. So with no discussion, responding to a moment’s pressure, ignoring the dangers, Netanyahu can include two West Bank holy places in a list of Israeli heritage sites. Netanyahu wouldn’t think to consult Palestinians’ representative leadership first. He sees them as outside the borders of his politics … In physical terms, Netanyahu’s imagined Israel is the whole land. In political terms, it includes only Jews. It takes no effort to convince him to include tombs in Hebron and Bethlehem in a map of Israeli heritage sites. But a plea by Israeli critics to include non-Jewish sites within the Green Line will sound to him like static on a bad cell-phone connection — noise without meaning”. This Gershom Gorenberg article in The American Prospect can be read in full here.

Meanwhile, this “tense calm” is not showing signs of expanding. As Haaretz reported Saturday, “Scores of Jordanian politicians and trade union members staged a sit-in at the Trade Unions Complex in Amman on Saturday to denounce Israel’s addition of two West Bank holy sites to a list of Jewish heritage centers. The participants, including Muslim Brotherhood figures and leading trade unionists, chanted slogans and raised placards calling for concrete action against Israel, the declaration of jihad (holy war) and the rupture of ties with the Jewish state by all Muslim countries”. This Haaretz article can be read in full here.

UPDATE: Jordan’s King Abdallah the second weighed in on this crisis on Sunday evening, and according to a report on the Jerusalem Post website (probably picked up from Palestinian Televisions nightly news broadcast), he was quoted as condemning “Israel’s ‘provocative measures in Jerusalem’ … after a day in which security forces stormed the Temple Mount [Haram ash-Sharif] to quell Arab rioting. Abdullah made the remark after meeting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman. Abdullah called on the international community to take immediate steps to protect Jerusalem’s holy sites”. This JPost report is posted here.

And, as the AP reported earlier, “The Organization of Islamic Conference, representing 57 predominantly Muslim states, strongly condemned the Israeli government’s decision, calling it illegal and an attempt ‘to trigger religious confrontation’.  In a statement issued after a meeting of its ambassadors at UN headquarters in New York, the OIC urged the UN Security Council to take immediate steps ‘to compel the Israeli government to revoke this illegitimate action’.  It called on the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers — the UN, the U.S., the European Union and Russia — ‘to stand up to this blatant act of aggression which represents a serious provocation to Muslims … and has the serious potential to incite yet another cycle of violence to further destabilize the fragile situation in the occupied Palestinian territories’.”  The U.S. State Department has also criticized the move more than once in the past week. The AP report said that “State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday the decision was ‘provocative’ and unhelpful to the goal of restarting peace talks”.  The AP report is posted here.

The repetition of the peace talks mantra is mesmerizing, but wearing a bit thin. It has been more than a year since Palestinian leadership broke off the inconclusive Annapolis process, in the early days of the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza (27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009).

On a third day of heavy rains, Israeli police entered (or “stormed”, as the Israeli press said) the Temple Mount/Haram ash-Sharif compound at least twice on Sunday (though they did not enter Al-Aqsa Mosque itself). Clashes then spread to other areas in East Jerusalem, then died down for the moment. Some 16 Palestinians and 4 Israeli police personnel were injured by nightfall, and 7 Palestinians were reportedly detained.

The Jerusalem Post earlier reported that “police banned men under the age of 50 from the site on Sunday. Meanwhile in the West Bank, the IDF was on high alert on Sunday out of fear that settlers, celebrating Purim, would clash with Palestinians. On Saturday, the IDF clamped a closure on the territories for the duration of Purim which will end Monday night in Jerusalem. Additional forces will be deployed in defined ‘hot spots’ to prevent friction between Palestinians and settlers. While Hebron was quiet over the weekend, defense officials said there were fears that violence would escalate in the city as well as other parts of the West Bank, particularly in northern Samaria, on Purim day”.  This JPost report is published here.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad went to the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron to perform his Friday prayers.
Now, Ma’an News Agency reported that “The Fayyad government is due to hold its weekly cabinet meeting in an office the West Bank city of Hebron on Monday, in protest against Israel’s decision to include the Ibrahimi Mosque on a list of Israeli heritage sites. Hebron Governor Hussein Al-Araj said the move from Ramallah to Hebron was a signal Palestinian Authority rejected the Israeli cabinet’s decision, highlighting that Israel lacks the sovereignty needed to change Palestinian landmarks on land occupied by Israel in 1967. ‘[This] is a violation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Hebron Agreement signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority’, he said”.  This Ma’an report is published here.

Article from UN-Truth read more here

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad attended the Friday prayers at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron today.

In remarks to journalists in Hebron, Fayyad accused Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his government of “expropriating” or “annexing” the Ibrahimi (Abraham) Mosque and several other sites important to the three monotheistic religions, including Rachel’s tomb in Bethlehem. Agence France Presse reported that Fayyad said: “The Palestinian people understand extremely well that this decision has a political dimension, and that it is aimed at Israel expropriating sites that are part of an occupied territory … These sites belong to a future Palestinian state”. According to AFP, Fayyad also reaffirmed “the inalienable right of the Palestinian people on their soil”. AFP also reported that “the head of the United Nations cultural body UNESCO ‘expressed her concern” at the plan and the ‘resulting escalation of tension in the area’. UNESCO chief Irina Bokova endorsed a statement by Robert Serry, UN coordinator for the Middle East peace process, that the sites have ‘historical and religious significance not only to Judaism but also to Islam and to Christianity’.” She also “reiterated UNESCO’s long-standing conviction that cultural heritage should serve as a means for dialogue”. This AFP report is posted here.

The Jerusalem Post reported that “Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad visited Hebron on Friday and prayed at the Cave of the Patriarchs on Friday afternoon, criticizing Israel’s decision to add the site and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to the list of Jewish heritage sites marked for renovation and preservation. Speaking to reporters after prayers, Fayyad accused Israel of ‘annexing’ the Cave of the Patriarchs. ‘[Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu’s decision is dangerous and political in nature. The site is an inseparable part of the occupied Palestinian territories’, [Israeli] Channel 10 quoted Fayyad as saying”. The JPost added that “US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the administration viewed the move as provocative and unhelpful to the goal of getting the two sides back to the table. Toner said US displeasure with the designations of the Cave of the Patriarchs in the flash point town of Hebron and the traditional tomb of the biblical matriarch Rachel in Bethlehem had been conveyed to senior Israeli officials by American diplomats”. This JPost report is published here.

The declaration, last Sunday, by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and endorsed by his Cabinet, did not announce any legal annexation of the sites. But, this is what the Palestinians fear is the logic.

Palestinians also fear, not without justification through experience, that the allocation of large sums of Israeli money for the maintenance and preservation of these sites as part of Israel’s heritage is likely to entail preferential Israeli access and denial of Palestinian access.

Major-General (Res.) Giora Eiland, Israel’s former National Security Adviser who is now an analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv (and an advocate of extensive “territorial swap” involving Israel’s neighbors Egypt and Jordan), noted during the week in a press conference in West Jerusalem that Rachel’s tomb, in Bethlahem, was “on the Israeli side of the Clinton maps [of 2000-2001]“, meaning that it was considered an area that would be assigned to the State of Israel in a final peace settlement. But, Eiland noted, “I cannot say the same about the Hebron mosque” …

Rachel’s tomb it is now surrounded by The Wall in its 8-meter-high concrete block manifestation, and accessible only to Jews and Israelis who enter in guarded buses escorted by Israeli security forces. The visitors’ busses pass through a huge gliding metal gate that opens for their arrival. Under the Oslo Accords, Israel guaranteed freedom of worship and access to all holy sites under its control. In practice, I have not heard of Christian groups visiting Rachel’s tomb, though it is not as important in Christian worship. Palestinian Muslims, however, revere not only Ruth, but important historical Muslim figures from a later era who are buried there. And, there is a Muslim mosque on the site. In theory, at least, Palestinian visits are now supposedly to be allowed through permits, though I do not know of any Palestinian who has ever requested such a permit… Maybe Fayyad can ask for one for next Friday’s prayers…

[Once, in June 2004, I made a spontaneous visit to Rachel's tomb -- before it was completely surrounded by The Wall -- with two UNRWA colleagues, both female, one was Palestinian. As it happened, because we hadn't planned the visit, we were all wearing jeans (not well viewed at all by Orthodox Jews, who think long skirts are more appropriate for modest women). We parked the official UN-marked vehicle a few hundred meters away, but directly visible to the Israeli military in the control tower. As we walked forward, one Israel soldier emerged and pointed his automatic weapon straight at us. We explained we just wanted to visit Rachel's tomb, and moved forward. He waved his rifle menacingly. Then, another soldier emerged from the control tower and ran towards us, while motioning to the one with the pointed weapon to move aside. He told us we were allowed to enter. But he said to hurry, because a bus of Jewish worshippers was due to arrive any minute from Jerusalem, and they wanted the streets absolutely clear in case of any sniper fire. He went inside with us, and stopped anyone from interfering with us. We were able to spend about 30 minutes in meditation and observation on the womens' side of the tomb, without even a cross look, and we left in peace. It was a rare and actually wonderful experience -- thanks in particular to that one Israeli soldier who enforced his government's official policy that, in theory at least, and on paper, allows people of all faiths to enter all holy sites under Israeli control.]

Clashes continued for a fifth day between stone-throwing Palestinian youths and Israeli troops in Hebron about the Israeli government decision to declare the Ibrahimi Mosque an Israeli heritage site.

Ma’an News Agency reported that Jewish settlers, accompanied by Israeli soldiers, marched through downtown Hebron on Friday in support of the Israeli government decision.

Separately, a group of about 300 Israeli, Palestinian and international activists marched in the rain to call for an opening of part of central Hebron which has been locked down under Israeli military pressure for several years in favor of a Jewish settler presence in the neighborhood.

Article from UN-Truth read more here