MalarkyNews

American Vice-President Joe Biden was received with red carpet treatment at the Palestinian Presidential Headquarters in the Muqata’a in Ramallah today — by polite and mildly-friendly Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and an irritated and angry, even sullen, Palestinian negotiating team.

As Biden was leaving the Muqata’a more than three hours later, Yasser Abed Rabbo (Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and now also head of Palestinian Television and Radio), was asked (in English) what had happened during the visit. He replied: “No comment” — then turned and walked away.

The Chief Palestinian negotiator, Sa’eb Erekat, was asked if negotiations had started during this meeting, and replied curtly: “No”.

An hour and a half before Biden’s arrival, the noise of the air cover being provided for the American vice-presidential visit grew noticeable.

The sirens of police cars escorting Biden’s convoy announced his arrival in the courtyard of the Muqata’a at 12h32. As his big American black terrorist-proof sedan pulled up to the edge of the Palestinian red carpet, the American vice-president began with the body language. After exchanging greetings, the two men walked side by side on the red carpet, while a Palestinian Presidential honor guard stood lined on both sides in full dress uniform (olive suits with gold shoulder braid), holding their rifles at salute. As they moved toward the door, Biden put one arm completely around the back of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), and grabbed his shoulder. Then, Biden’s other arm moved in front, across Abu Mazen’s chest, in a full-circle clinch, and he patted Abu Mazen on the lapel. Abu Mazen did not seem to mind.

[On the 9 pm Palestinian Television news, video footage from Bethlehem -- completely across on the other side of Jerusalem from Ramallah -- showed that Biden earlier did half of the same maneuver with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Biden moved his left arm around Fayyad's back and grabbed his shoulder. then letting his hand linger there for a few steps. Salam Faayad did not seem to mind, either.... Fayyad reportedly said that Palestinians appreciated Biden's "strong statement of condemnation" yesterday, after the Israeli Interior Ministry announced approval of plans to expand by an additional 1,600 housing units the Ramat Shlomo settlement next to the East Jerusalem village of Shuafat.]

At the end of the red carpet, Biden does a politician’s expert swivel around Abu Mazen, and the two men turn to shake hands while facing the photographers and cameramen. Biden waved and said, “Thank you all”.

The American Vice-President’s day began at his hotel in Jerusalem with a 7:30 am breakfast with Quartet Special Envoy Tony Blair. For his trip to the West Bank, he was not accompanied by Dr. Jill Biden.

Just after 2 pm, journalists who had been waiting in the Muqata’s new “press center” were permitted to walk across to the room where Biden and Abu Mazen were scheduled to make post-visit statements at 2:30. Journalists had been advised in advance that no questions would be allowed.

The chairs in the room were arranged, as usual, on two sides of an aisle. This time, however, the first three rows were reserved seating, and only two rows on each side were available for the press. (One Palestinian journalist joked that the three front rows were for Presidential security.)

At 2:20, the blue carpet on the speaker’s podium was vaccumed for one last time.

At about 2:45, after the entrance of senior aides, the two principals finally appeared.

Abu Mazen said that “the decision of the Israeli government announced over the last two days constitute an undermining of confidence and all efforts to launch indirect negotiations … and we ask that these decisions be revoked … I reiterate that the Palestinians remain committed to peace as a strategic option”.

The Palestinian President said, “I would like to address the Israeli people: the time has come for peace … a two-state solution, with the borders those of 4 June 1967, and East Jerusalem as our capital”.

It was important, Abbas said, to speak about “the siege on the Gaza Strip … where 25,000 houses have been reduced to rubble, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are still without shelter”. Abbas asked that UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency) be allowed to bring construction materials into Gaza.

Then, he called on the Israeli government not to waste this opportunity to make peace, and “to stop construction of settlements, and its imposed activities on the ground”.

Biden said that “our administration is fully committed to the Palestinian people and a Palestinian state that is independent, viable, and contiguous … there is no viable alternative to a two-state solution … [and] this is also in U.S. interests”, he added.

“Overcoming the divide between Israelis and Palestinians can only be achieved via negotiations … and the U.S. pledges to play an active and sustained role in these talks”, Biden said.

The decision announced yesterday by the Israeli government to advance planning

“It is incumbent on both parties to build an atmosphere of support for negotiations and not to complicate them,” Biden told reporters.

“Yesterday the decision by the Israeli government to advance planning [for new housing units in East Jerusalem} undermines that trust, and that is why I immediately condemned the activities", Biden said. He indicated that the U.S. will hold both sides accountable for moves that undermine the moves toward peace.

He also said "we must find a way to improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza", so that they would not be swayed by "the false promises of extremism".

Meanwhile, fallout continued after the announcement of settlement expansion that Biden condemned yesterday. The Associated Press reported that "Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, whose office announced the latest construction plans in east Jerusalem, apologized Wednesday for disrupting Biden's visit. But he said the problem was merely about timing, not substance. 'We had no intention, no desire, to offend or taunt an important man like the vice president during his visit', Yishai told Israel Radio. 'I am very sorry for the embarrassment ... Next time we need to take timing into account'. Ministry spokeswoman Efrat Orbach said the ministry routinely issues announcements of planning decisions immediately after they are taken. But this is not the first time that such announcements have dovetailed with visits by top U.S. officials. Plans for hundreds of settlement apartments were announced during the peace mission of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice". This AP report can be read in full here.

Haaretz reported that "The Interior Minister said that he was uninformed of the district committee's plan, because the matter was simply a routine, technical authorization. 'The district committees approve plans weekly without informing me', Yishai told Israel Radio. He further said that the committee could not have predicted that the approval would spur such a political storm. 'A few days ago, hundreds of new housing units were approved in Beitar Illit, which is much more problematic', said Yishai. 'So if the committee members saw that those houses were approved without a problem, they didn't think a technical authorization in Jerusalem, which isn't part of the settlement freeze, would require the minister's knowledge'. Yishai emphasized that even though he doesn't see a problem with the actual authorization of the East Jerusalem homes, if he knew about it, he would have delayed the move by a few weeks. 'If I'd have known, I would have postponed the authorization by a week or two since we had no intention of provoking anyone', Yishai said. 'It is definitely unpleasant that this happened during Biden's visit. If the committee members would have known that the approval would have escalated to such a situation, they would have informed me', Yishai emphasized. 'I apologize for the distress this matter caused', he added".

This same Haaretz article said that "Netanyahu told Biden during their meeting in Jerusalem earlier in the day [Tuesday] that he had had no prior knowledge of the decision to authorize the additional construction, and added that the program had been drafted three years ago and only received initial authorization that day. It could take several months, Netanyahu assured him, before the program is granted final approval. Netanyahu told his guest that the regional councils are not under the political leadership’s direct authority, and that his administration tries not to interfere with their work. A high-ranking official in Jerusalem, however, said Netanyahu has ‘no problem’ with construction in Jerusalem and has no intention of apologizing for building there. The official acknowledged, however, that the announcement’s timing was harmful to Israel’s diplomatic interests. ‘We didn’t want to humiliate Biden or sow division while he is in Israel’, the official said”. This Haaretz story is here.

In another story, Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu “said he had been blindsided by the project’s announcement by the Interior Ministry, run by Shas, an ultra-Orthodox, nationalist party that is a key member of his governing coalition … Netanyahu ordered in November a 10-month halt to new housing starts in West Bank settlements but exempted those Israel considers part of Jerusalem and projects for Jewish homes in the eastern sector of the city captured in 1967. ‘Messages have been sent to Biden and the Americans that there was no intention to undermine him’, a senior Israeli official said. ‘We were genuinely surprised, just as surprised as the Americans’.” This Haaretz report is published here.

According to an English summary and translation of daily editorials, sent to journalists by the Israeli Government Press Office, Dror Eldar wrote in the Hebrew-language Ma’ariv newspaper: “I believe the Prime Minister’s people, who swear that he did not know about the tenders. This is even worse than the possibility that he did know.”

**********************

AFTER Biden issued his statement condemning the Israeli government announcement, UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon issued his own statement.

**********************

UPDATE: The Arab League decided on Wednesday evening to withdraw support for the proposed U.S.-mediated “indirect” talks. UPDATE TWO – CORRECTION: It later became clear that the Arab League Peace Initiative Committee has recommended withdrawal of support for the “indirect” talks, but the decision will have to be made at the level of Foreign Ministers

**********************

Here is what U.S. State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley said today (Wenesday 10 March) in Washington — in response, of course, to questions from journalists (i.e., he did not volunteer this on his own):

QUESTION: Has the Secretary had any discussions with Vice President Biden on his trip in Israel regarding the diplomatic announcement?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware that they have talked since he arrived in Israel.

QUESTION: And has she made any phone calls to anyone in Israel regarding that announcement?

MR. CROWLEY: Not today, as far as I know.

QUESTION: Did she make one yesterday?

MR. CROWLEY: Not as – I mean, she had a meeting with George Mitchell yesterday.

QUESTION: But she hasn’t spoken with anybody directly?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. Can you bring us up to date on Senator Mitchell – former Senator Mitchell’s schedule and tactics or any details about what he’s planning to do next week?

MR. CROWLEY: He will be back in the region next week with stops – meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. I don’t think we – we’re not prepared to announce his particular travel schedule, but I think he’ll be there early in the week.

QUESTION: How much damage did this do?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, as the Vice President made clear in his statement yesterday, this is precisely the kind of step that we continue to encourage the parties to avoid. It’s – it undermines trust and it certainly is not conducive with creating the appropriate atmosphere for the indirect talks to advance. But we are in discussions with the Israelis about this announcement and I’m sure that it will come up when the senator is in the region next week.

QUESTION: What does that mean, you’re in discussions with the Israelis about this announcement? I mean, the timing of it or what they actually announced? Both?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, the timing I think was highly unusual. But I think we’re focused primarily on what this action and the impact it’s had on the broad environment.

QUESTION: Can you just say – well, why do you think the timing is highly unusual?

MR. CROWLEY: I think –

QUESTION: I mean, I know why, but I’m trying to get you to say it. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: Look, it would be unusual for an Israeli Government to take this kind of action while a vice president is standing next to the prime minister. But we are talking to the government and trying to understand what happened and why. And clearly, as we’ve said, we want to see the parties press forward with negotiations, and they both have a responsibility to avoid actions that we think undermine the process.

QUESTION: Do you think the Secretary feels betrayed, then, by this? I mean, this was highly –

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think – well, it is highly unusual. I’ll – but as to how it happened, why it happened, I will defer to the government of Israel to explain. But we – clearly, the Government of Israel has a responsibility, the Palestinian Authority has a responsibility, now that they have agreed to indirect talks, to take the appropriate actions and avoid the kind of actions that undermine trust.

QUESTION: Do you believe that Netanyahu and the government actually knew that this was going to happen on that very day?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I’ll defer to the prime minister to describe whether this was expected or unexpected, but we’ve condemned the action. And that also is probably an exceptional thing to do with a U.S. leader in Israel, but we – obviously, it represents the seriousness with which we took this announcement. And both the Vice President in his discussion with President Abbas today and Senator Mitchell following up on that will continue to encourage the parties to move forward. We think this kind of situation is, in fact, the reason why we believe that they have to get into negotiations so they can put these issues on the table and resolve them and get to a formal agreement.

QUESTION: Okay. Has Senator Mitchell made any calls since the events of yesterday? And as a follow – not a follow-up, but a follow-up to an earlier –

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sure that between Senator Mitchell and his team, we have been in very close contact with the Government of Israel today.

QUESTION: Did Senator Mitchell sit in in the meeting with – that Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon today earlier? The deputy foreign minister was here and saw, I believe, Deputies Steinberg and Lew.

MR. CROWLEY: If there was such a meeting, I’m sure he was there.*

**********************

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

A shocking story: Ma’an News Agency reported from Chicago today that “Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, said on Monday the Palestinian Authority (PA) urged him to step down after he criticized the PA’s treatment of a UN war crimes report”.

Ma’an added that Falk “said PA officials formally approached him in February asking him to resign, arguing that he is unable to carry out his responsibilities since Israel detained him at Ben Gurion International Airport and deported him in late 2008. But, he stressed in an interview, ‘what they [the PA] say formally and what they say informally are quite different … Informally they say different things, things that are essentially untrue, that my health doesn’t me allow to do the job or that I’m a partisan of Hamas’, Falk added”.

As Ma’an said in its article, “Falk’s mandate is narrowly defined to include only the human rights record of the occupying power, Israel, in the occupied West Bank and Gaza – he does not report to the UN on the ”
actions of the PA or the Hamas government in Gaza”.

The Ma’an report noted that “Falk did raise hackles in Ramallah when he publicly criticized the PA for delaying UN action on judge Richard Goldstone’s report that accused Israel and Palestinian militias of committing war crimes during the 2008-2009 Gaza war … President Mahmoud Abbas’ decision, under US pressure, to delay a vote in the UN Human Rights Council on Goldstone’s report provoked a political crisis, including calls for Abbas to step down, or even for the dissolution of the PA”.

Falk, a professor emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, was appointed to succeed John Dugard as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 in the late spring of 2008. He made one trip to Israel and the West Bani a few weeks later, and irritated government officials [Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor basically said that one of the main problems was that Falk told Israeli officials he was coming in his personal capacity, then allowed himself to be introduced at a meeting in Ramallah as the UN special rapporteur...] When he returned in mid-December 2008 on an official UN mission, he was denied entry, detained in very uncomfortable conditions overnight at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, and then deported. He has not been allowed to visit Israel or the occupied Palestinian territory since then.

Ma’an also reported that Arabic-language news reports surfaced last week, which Falk confirmed in an interview, that “the Palestine Observer mission to the UN in Geneva also delayed consideration in the UN Human Rights Council of his [Falk's] most recent report detailing Israeli abuses of Palestinians’ rights … He says the PA-appointed ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khreishah, put forward a resolution in a recent plenary session of the Human Rights Council which delayed a discussion of his own report on Israeli rights violations from March until June. The resolution passed unanimously. Falk, a Princeton international law expert, said he is ‘not happy’ about the PA’s actions, but has no plans to resign. ‘I feel that it’s very important not to succumb to this pressure …We’re supposed to be independent’, he added”.

Ma’an said that its “repeated phone calls to the Palestinian mission at the UN in Geneva were not returned”. The Ma’an story can be read in full here.

The Ma’an story made reference to an article written by Nadia Hijab, an independent analyst and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies, in which she said that the PA was more discrete than Israel in its attacks on Falk, and “has quietly suggested to Falk himself that he resign. One reported reason is that Falk can’t do his job because Israel will not allow him into the country”.

Hijab’s also reports in her article, published on the Agence Global website, here that “Palestinian human rights advocates … have acted as a group to support the implementation of the Goldstone Report and to protect Falk and his role … Last month, 11 Palestinian human rights groups wrote to the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay expressing dismay at the PA actions against Falk … More recently, 19 Palestinian groups wrote to PA president Mahmoud Abbas criticizing Falk’s treatment and pointing out the repercussions for the Palestinians’ internationally recognized human rights”.

Hijab states that “The attacks on Falk and Goldstone are hard for the two men to bear. And they tear at the very fabric of international law and the mechanisms put in place to uphold it. The Human Rights Council has stepped on a slippery slope by agreeing to postpone Falk’s report. Instead of listening to the PA (and Egypt) the Council should have backed its special rapporteur. If it does the unthinkable and relieves Falk of his duties because the PA does not want him, the system of independent special rapporteurs would be undermined … Undermining the Goldstone Report would be an equally harsh blow to the human rights system”.

An informed source at the UN in Geneva clarified today that “1) the Palestine Mission did ask for postponement of consideration of the Fall report about which they had disagreements on certain terminology and methodology etc. In my view this was a mistake since a) the differences are not critical b) they had the option of publicly taking him to task on them c) Palestine should not be making a precedent of governments interfering in UN reports and d) its good for them to have problems with Falk as it makes him all the more credible in his criticism of Israel. 2) They did not ask him to relinquish his post, though making as much fuss about him as they did adds up to the same outcome”.

What were the Palestine Mission’s specific problems with Falk and his report? The source in Geneva explained that “Their ‘formal’ reservations were to do with Falk implying in his report that Hamas was the government authority that should investigate war crimes on their side (which upsets the PA which pretends to be the legitimate government authority), and something about him exceeding his mandate by refering to possible Palestinian violations of human rights (since the report is supposed to be about Israeli practices) and some other relatively inconsequential point. Bottom line, they never liked him, he was never pliable enough for them, he is too independent and outspoken and the REAL reason is of course his Jazeera interview last October”.

Meanwhile, the source in Geneva said that UN Human Rights Council has scheduled a debate on 22 March, in a follow-up to the Special Session on Gaza that was held in October, and four resolutions are to be considered: one on follow-up to the Goldtsone report, one on Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, one on self-determination, and one on Israeli practices (which normally would have been shaped by the Falk report) and which will concentrate on Jerusalem, which will be informally distributed later this week — and which will include a paragraph concerning the on-going desecration of the Mamilla Cemetary in West Jerusalem.

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

Is that the whole point?

Are these proposed U.S.-led “indirect” talks between Israelis and Palestinians intended only to keep a holding pattern until the Palestinian local and municipal elections scheduled for 17 July?

Voter registration for these Palestinian elections began on Saturday 6 March, and will continue until 16 March.

UPDATE: The P.L.O. Executive Committee has agreed in a meeting in the Muqata’a in Ramallah on Sunday to the proposal to enter a four-month period of “indirect” negotiations with Israel with U.S. mediation …U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for four hours on Sunday, and the two will meet again on Monday before Mitchell heads to Ramallah for meetings with Palestinian officials. The U.S.-sponsored “Annapolis process” of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations which began in late November 2007 were broken off by Palestinian leaders at the end of December 2008 when the Israeli Defense Forces began an unprecedented + massive military operation (that lasted three weeks) against Hamas in Gaza. The Annapolis process began with great fanfare and the declared intention to arrive at the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008 …

The BBC is reporting that Fatah Central Committee member Azzam al-Ahmad said: “We think it’s unlikely that these indirect negotiations with the [Benjamin] Netanyahu government will succeed … But we want to give an opportunity to the US administration to continue its efforts’.”The BBC report is posted here

Ma’an News Agency reported that the P.L.O. Executive Committee had what it calls a “controversial” vote on the proposal for “indirect” talks, and that some members objected. Ma’an said that “Senior PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo [he is also Secretary of the Executive Committee] told reporters following the four-hour meeting … [that] ‘This decision of the Palestinian leadership was taken with the objection or disagreement of a number factions and members of the Executive Committee’, he said, without divulging names”. According to Ma’an, Abed Rabbo told journalists that “In light of the Arab stance and on the basis on its national responsibility, the Palestinian leadership decided to give the US proposal a chance, holding indirect talks between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, which will initially focus on the issues of borders and security.” The Ma’an report also indicated that “The communist Palestinian People’s Party said in a statement following the meeting that it had voted against a return to negotiations. The group said the PLO was ‘embarrassed’ by Abbas’ decision to ask the Arab League to support a return to negotiations. ‘The decision to resume talks should be only up to the organizations of the PLO with all of our appreciation and respect for the support of the Arabs to the Palestinians and their cause’, the statement said”. This report is published here.

Everybody knows, as Leonard Cohen has sung, that the chances of a breakthrough as a result of these “indirect” talks is minimal. Everybody knows, as well, that failure will lead to a worsening of The Situation …

This is the drama of the present moment.

Back to the timing: local Palestinian elections are moving ahead although Palestinian Presidential and Legislative Council elections, proclaimed last 24 October, and scheduled for 24 January, but were postponed “indefinitely” in early November by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who explained that he was endorsing the position of the Palestinian Independent Elections Commission that it would be impossible to hold elections on 24 January under the “current conditions” – taken to mean the continuing split between a West Bank ruled by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (in which Fatah is the dominant political movement), and a Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas.

Presumably, the idea must be that if Fatah can win big in the local elections, Hamas will be … less head-strong. Hamas won many posts in the last Palestinian local and municipal elections (2004-2005). Hamas is not banned from participation in the proposed forthcoming balloting, but it has declared the announced July local elections as “illegal”. This is probably an indication that Hamas will probably not participate … They will be self-excluded. There will be a Hamas-free Palestinian political and administrative structure. Then what?

Hamas was urged by everybody to transform itself into a political party and contest elections — which it did, as the “Change and Reform Party” in January 2006. Then, the major powers backed Israel is boycotting the results — because Hamas has what is regarded as a difficult, hard-line position regarding Israel.

In addition, Fatah was humiliated and furious at the Hamas victory, and the movement has proved to be not very good at losing.

Not-so-secret hopes of ousting Hamas by force ended with a rout of Palestinian/Fatah Preventive Security forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called this a “military” coup, and responded with a “political” coup, disbanding a three-month-old “National Unity” government and creating a new Hamas-free “Emergency” government that has been changed twice since.

Talks on Fatah-Hamas reconciliation have not yet come to an end, or to any fruition. Hamas, which won a surprise victory of some 60 to 70 percent of the seats in the 2006 elections for the Palestinian Authority (PA) Legislative Council (PLC) elections, is still not yet integrated into the overarching Palestinian Liberation Organization (P.L.O.) despite a 2005 Cairo agreement — Hamas wants a share of seats in the P.L.O.’s National Council in the same proportion to the seats it won in the 2006 Legislative Council elections, and Fatah is adamantly, bitterly opposed to that. Fatah officials have said privately that they would not concede any more than 25 percent of the seats in the Palestine National Council (PNC).

Hamas has maintained its insistence on recognition of its 2006 electoral victory — but by now the terms of office-holders elected in 2006 should have come to a natural end. Since Hamas has not agreed, yet, to reconciliation terms that are, it has to be said, highly favorable to the international-donor-backed Palestinian Authority (though not necessarily to Fatah, unless they are willing to play the game the “right” way), it appears that efforts are being made to simply push Hamas aside in a wave of confusing and contradictory claims of legitimacy that few Palestinians have much patience for any more.

It is, for most Palestinians, a painful and embarrassing mess. It is also, potentially, a tragedy in the making.

One Israeli media report today makes an interesting direct link between the impending local and municipal elections, and the proposed “indirect” Israeli-Palestinian talks. In today’s SUMMARY OF OP-EDS FROM THE HEBREW PRESS, translated into English + sent out to journalists by email from the Israeli Government Press Office (part of the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, is one item saying that a Yediot Ahronot op ed article written by Alex Fishman “asserts that ‘Local [Palestinian] authority elections are a real test of strength of legitimacy for the Abu Mazen-Fayad duo.  The Palestinian Authority cannot stand for elections with a record of concessions on the national issue.  Therefore, until after the elections, nothing will come of the contacts with Israel.”

However, if not much is expected out of these U.S.-led “indirect” negotiations — even at the end of the four-month set period – how do both these political leaderships think they’re going to be able keep a lid on this explosive situation?

And, at the end of the four-month period that is expected to start this week, the Israeli-announced unilateral ten-month settlement freeze (which even the Israeli Ministry of Defense, who rules the West Bank, says is being violated in a significant number of places) will be nearly over.

Haaretz journalist Zvi Bar’el wrote in an article published today that “The fact is that this result [the expected start of "indirect" talks] could have been achieved in November, when the building freeze, but the issue was allowed to drag on until March.  It can be assumed that things will stall once again, at the same point, in July, when the time comes for direct negotiations. But then it will only be two months before the scheduled end of the settlement freeze, when will be able to breathe comfortably once more, to build and settle en masse … Indirect talks are a good trick when the other side is an enemy with which there is no dialogue and agreement must be reached on the initial conditions for negotiating, or for entities that do not recognize each other.  This was the case for the indirect talks between Israel and Syria that were meant to formulate preconditions and to summarize what had been agreed to that point, or for the indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas.  With the Palestinians, however, the situation is fundamentally different. For many years now both parties have recognized one another.  They have cooperated on security issues and have recognized each other’s needs.  They have signed agreements, and above all they both recognize the right of the existence of two states, side by side … Israel and the Palestinians do not need any more confidence-building measures, the lifting of roadblocks or the razing of outposts.  Each knows the other all too well, and knows that these are hollow steps that even if they are carried out will only contribute to the occupation’s extension … The Palestinian price tag for direct talks will not change in the indirect talks.  A settlement freeze was and has remained a fundamental condition of the Palestinians.  The view that East Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital does not match Jewish construction there. The territory of Palestine, which theoretically is the easy part of the negotiations, is also known, as is the territorial contiguity that is necessary in order to have a viable state. The settlements are contrary to these principles and removing a large portion of them is a necessary requirement.  But the right-wing government, even when it is decorated with some symbols of Labor, is contrary to freezing settlements, and certainly opposed to their dismantling.  The Palestinians’ basic conditions are antithetical to the conditions for the existence of a Netanyahu government. Therefore, it does not matter what the format of the talks will be.  Because in the balance between the government’s survival and the conditions for the state’s existence, the government is of course more important.  The only encouraging sign we can draw from these talks is in the fact that the American mediator has become part of the actual price tag.  Because he is the one who in the end will have to rule on who is to blame for the failure. This is the only element that can threaten Israel and the Palestinians. But if we are to judge by the degree by which the Americans have shown they are committed to a resolution of the conflict, we should not hold our breath. They softened their tough stance on the settlement freeze pretty fast”… This analysis is published here.

And, let’s not forget the American elections: another report in Haaretz today, by Barak Raviv, says that “The U.S. administration will not put a lot of effort into the upcoming indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, opting instead to focus on the November Congressional elections, according to an internal Foreign Ministry report that was distributed to Israeli diplomatic missions abroad … ‘The recent American statements point to the adoption of wording in line, even if partially and cautiously, with Palestinian demands in regard to the framework and structure of negotiations’, the report stated. ‘Still, the [U.S.] administration is making sure to avoid commenting on its position on core issues’ … The report released recently by the Foreign Ministry’s center for political research, which focuses on strategic foreign policy, is less optimistic about the chances for progress in the next round of peace talks. The document was delivered to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and to Israeli diplomatic missions abroad several days ago. According to the report Washington is aware of the domestic political problems faced separately by both Netanyahu and Abbas and has decided to concentrate on achieving the limited goal of restarting the negotiations. The peace talks will not be at the top of the Obama administration’s agenda, the report claims. ‘In our assessment the administration will focus in the coming year on domestic issues that are expected to determine the results of the Congressional elections’, the report’s authors wrote. ‘As such, and due to the difficulties to date in achieving significant gains in the peace process we can assume that the administration’s focus on this issue will be limited and will predominantly remain in the hands of Mitchell’s teams’ … The authors of the report also predict that the administration will avoid taking any position that suggests disagreement with Israel, because of the support that Israel enjoys among both parties in Congress … A senior American official told Haaretz Saturday that the talks are expected to resume within days. ‘We told the parties that our goal is to achieve two states for two peoples through negotiations’, the U.S. official said. ‘If there are obstacles we will try to help to overcome them and to propose our own ideas, and if we think one of the parties is not meeting its obligations we will say so’.” This report can be read in full in Haaretz, 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

The 14-day detention order issued by a Gaza prosecutor for “security concerns” against British freelance film maker and journalist Paul Martin is due to expire today. There were reports yesterday that the prosecutor may ask to extend Martin’s detention for another 14 days.

Martin had returned to Gaza 14 days ago to testify in court on behalf of a Palestinian member of a militant group who was facing charges of collaboration with Israel. [The NYTimes (see below) identified this man as "Mohammed Abu Muaileq ...a former member of a rocket-launching squad who appeared in a documentary that Mr. Martin produced in 2008".]

It was reported that Martin was arrested on the basis of evidence given by [Mohammed Abu Muaileq] the man Martin had gone to Gaza to try to help defend.

Martin was arrested at the Gaza court house — one report indicated that he was arrested just after he had actually started to testify — and taken to Gaza City’s central jail.

He was subsequently visited by local Palestinians who work for the British consulate (in East Jerusalem).

Everything went quiet a day after Martin’s detention.

There were initial reports from Palestinian sources that the testimony against Martin was that he had tried, at one point, to see if he could find traces of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, who was captured by Palestinians in a cross-border raid in late June 2006 and held somewhere in Gaza ever since.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has never been able to visit Shalit. Through the intercession of various intermediaries, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Shalit has been able to send a letter to his family, and more recently a video was released showing Shalit in reasonably good health and reasonably at ease with — or, at least not terrified of — those filming the video.

There have also been reports from Palestinian sources in recent days that Martin might have been trying to trace weapons imports into Gaza.

UPDATE: Just after mid-day, Haaretz published a report from Gaza by the AP saying that Martin’s lawyer, Sharhabil Zayim, said that the detention has indeed been “extended by 15 days. The lawyer says Martin would either have to be charged or released at the end of that period. Hamas has portrayed Martin as a threat to Gaza’s security but made no specific accusation”. This AP report can be viewed on Haaretz’s website here.

UPDATE TWO: British Consulate official in Jerusalem Fadi Adeeb said two hours later that he could not — yet — confirm this news. “Up to now, we’re still awaiting the outcome, the official notification of the outcome, from our local consular staff in Gaza and from our lawyers”, he said. Adeeb said that one of the British consulate’s local Palestinian staff members has seen Martin not just once, on the day of his arrest, but several times. Adeeb said that if today’s news is true, concerning the extension of Martin’s detention, the British Consulate would be issuing a statement.

UPDATE THREE: The New York Times reported later with help from a reporter in Gaza that “Mr. Martin was taken to court on Monday in a military minibus. Armed police officers prevented reporters from talking to him or entering the courthouse. A lawyer for Mr. Martin, Sharhabil al-Zaeem, said his client was being questioned on suspicion of violating security. Mr. Zaeem said he was ‘optimistic’ that his client would be freed without charges at the end of the investigation. The British government was ‘extremely concerned’ about the extension of Mr. Martin’s detention, according to Fadi Adeeb, the press officer of the British Consulate in Jerusalem, and called for his immediate release, noting that no charges had been pressed … The Palestinian on trial, Mohammed Abu Muaileq, is a former member of a rocket-launching squad who appeared in a documentary that Mr. Martin produced in 2008″. This NYTimes report can be read in full here.

UPDATE FOUR: Ma’an News Agency reported that a “Gaza government military court” extended Martin’s detention after … “the military prosecutor agreed … pending further investigations”. Ma’an added that Ihab Al-Ghussein, spokesperson for the “de facto government’s Ministry of Interior”, said “the journalist is being treated in accordance with international law” and that Martin “had been put in touch with his wife”. This report is published here.

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

The very estimable journalist Chris Hedges wrote in an article published by Truthdig on 1 February: “ ‘The very notion that on any given story all you have to do is report what both sides say and you’ve done a fine job of objective journalism debilitates the press’, the late columnist Molly Ivins once wrote. ‘There is no such thing as objectivity, and the truth, that slippery little bugger, has the oddest habit of being way to hell off on one side or the other: it seldom nestles neatly halfway between any two opposing points of view. The smug complacency of much of the press — I have heard many an editor say, ‘Well, we’re being attacked by both sides so we must be right’ — stems from the curious notion that if you get a quote from both sides, preferably in an official position, you’ve done the job. In the first place, most stories aren’t two-sided, they’re 17-sided at least. In the second place, it’s of no help to either the readers or the truth to quote one side saying, ‘Cat,’ and the other side saying ‘Dog,’ while the truth is there’s an elephant crashing around out there in the bushes’.” Ivins went on to write that “the press’s most serious failures are not its sins of commission, but its sins of omission — the stories we miss, the stories we don’t see, the stories that don’t hold press conferences, the stories that don’t come from ‘reliable sources.’”
…
Objectivity creates the formula of quoting Establishment specialists or experts within the narrow confines of the power élite who debate policy nuance like medieval theologians. As long as one viewpoint is balanced by another, usually no more than what Sigmund Freud would term ‘the narcissism of minor difference’, the job of a reporter is deemed complete. But this is more often a way to obscure rather than expose truth.

Reporting, while it is presented to the public as neutral, objective, and unbiased, is always highly interpretive. It is defined by rigid stylistic parameters. I have written, like most other reporters, hundreds of news stories. Reporters begin with a collection of facts, statements, positions, and anecdotes and then select those that create the ‘balance’ permitted by the formula of daily journalism. The closer reporters get to official sources, for example those covering Wall Street, Congress, the White House, or the State Department, the more constraints they endure. When reporting depends heavily on access it becomes very difficult to challenge those who grant or deny that access. This craven desire for access has turned huge sections of the Washington press, along with most business reporters, into courtiers. The need to be included in press briefings and background interviews with government or business officials, as well as the desire for leaks and early access to official documents, obliterates journalistic autonomy.
…
[F]ormer New York Times columnist Russell Baker wrote: ‘Real objectivity would require not only hard work by news people to determine which report was accurate, but also a willingness to put up with the abuse certain to follow publication of an objectively formed judgment. To escape the hard work or the abuse, if one man says Hitler is an ogre, we instantly give you another to say Hitler is a prince. A man says the rockets won’t work? We give you another who says they will. The public may not learn much about these fairly sensitive matters, but neither does it get another excuse to denounce the media for unfairness and lack of objectivity. In brief, society is teeming with people who become furious if told what the score is’. Journalists, because of their training and distaste for shattering their own exalted notion of themselves, lack the inclination and vocabulary to discuss ethics. They will, when pressed, mumble something about telling the truth and serving the public. They prefer not to face the fact that my truth is not your truth. News is a signal, a “blip,” an alarm that something is happening beyond our small circle of existence, as Walter Lippmann noted in his book, Public Opinion. Journalism does not point us toward truth since, as Lippmann understood, there is always a vast divide between truth and news. Ethical questions open journalism to the nebulous world of interpretation and philosophy, and for this reason journalists flee from ethical inquiry like a herd of frightened sheep. Journalists, while they like to promote the image of themselves as fierce individualists, are in the end another species of corporate employees”… The original article can be read in full here.

Now, the also-estimable Jonathan Cook, a British journalist now based permanently in Nazareth with his new family there, has written a reflection on the hot topic of whether or not “you have to be Jewish to report on Israel for the New York Times?”

Cook said that “Shortly after I wrote an earlier piece on [New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem and Deputy Foreign Editor Ethan] Bronner [whose son has just enlisted in the IDF] , pointing out that most Western coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict is shaped by Jewish and Israeli journalists, and that Palestinian voices are almost entirely excluded, a Jerusalem-based bureau chief asked to meet. Over a coffee he congratulated me, adding: ‘I’d be fired if I wrote something like that’. This reporter, who, unlike me, spends lots of time with the main press corps in Jerusalem, then made some interesting points. He wishes to remain anonymous but has agreed to my passing on his observations. He calls Bronner’s situation ‘the rule, not the exception’, adding: ‘I can think of a dozen foreign bureau chiefs, responsible for covering both Israel and the Palestinians, who have served in the Israeli army, and another dozen who like Bronner have kids in the Israeli army’. He added that it is very common to hear Western reporters boasting to one another about their ‘Zionist’credentials, their service in the Israeli army or the loyal service of their children. ‘Comments like that are very common at Foreign Press Association gatherings [in Israel] among the senior, agenda-setting, elite journalists’. My informant is highly critical of what is going on among the Jerusalem press corps, even though he admits the same charges could be levelled against him. ‘I’m Jewish, married to an Israeli and like almost all Western journalists live in Jewish West Jerusalem. In my free time I hang out in cafes and bars with Jewish Israelis chatting in Hebrew. For the Jewish sabbath and Jewish holidays I often get together with a bunch of Western journalists. While it would be convenient to think otherwise, there is no question that this deep personal integration into Israeli society informs our overall understanding and coverage of the place in a way quite different from a journalist who lived in Ramallah or Gaza and whose personal life was more embedded in Palestinian society’. And now he gets to the crunch: ‘The degree to which Bronner’s personal life, like that of most lead journalists here, is integrated into Israeli society, makes him an excellent candidate to cover Israeli political life, cultural shifts and intellectual life. The problem is that Bronner is also expected to be his paper’s lead voice on Palestinian political life, cultural shifts and intellectual life, all in a society he has almost no connection to, deep knowledge of or even the ability to directly communicate with … The presumption that this is possible is neither fair to Bronner nor to his readers, and it’s really a shame that Western media executives don’t see the value in an Arabic-speaking bureau chief living in Ramallah and setting the agenda for the news coming out of the Palestinian territories’. All true. But I think there is a deeper lesson from the Bronner affair. Editors who prefer to appoint Jews and Israelis to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are probably making a rational choice in news terms — even if they would never dare admit their reasoning. The media assign someone to the Jerusalem bureau because they want as much access as possible to the inner sanctums of power in a self-declared Jewish state. They believe – and they are right – that doors open if their reporter is a Jew, or better still an Israeli Jew, who has proved his or her commitment to Israel by marrying an Israeli, by serving in the army or having a child in the army, and by speaking fluent Hebrew, a language all but useless outside this small state. Yes, Ethan Bronner is ‘the rule’, as my informant notes, because any other kind of journalist — the goyim, as many Israelis dismiss non-Jews — will only ever be able to scratch at the surface of Israel’s military-political-industrial edifice. The Bronners have access to power, they can talk to the officials who matter, because those same officials trust that high-powered Jewish and Israeli reporters belong in the Israeli consensus. They may be critical of the occupation, but they can be trusted to pull their punches. If they ever failed to do so, they would be ejected from the inner sanctum and a paper like the NYT would be forced to replace them with someone more cooperative. When in later years, these Jerusalem bureau chiefs retire from the field of battle and are promoted to the rank of armchair general back at media HQ – when they become a Thomas Friedman paid to pontificate regularly on the conflict — they can be trusted to talk to those same high-placed officials, explaining their viewpoint and defending it. That is why you will not read anything in the NYT questioning the idea that Israel is a democratic state or see coverage suggesting that Israel is acting in bad faith in the peace process. I do not want here to suggest there is anything unique about this relationship of almost utter dependence. To a degree, this is how most specialists in the mainstream media operate. Think of the local crime reporter. How effective would he be (and it is invariably a he) if he alienated the senior police officers who provide the inside information he needs for his regular supply of stories? Might he not prefer to turn a blind eye to a scoop revealing that one of his main informants is taking bribes, if publishing such a story would lose him his ‘access’ and his posting? This is a simple cost-benefit analysis made both by the reporter and the editors who assign him that almost always favours the powerful over the weak, the interests of the journalist over the reader. And so it is with Israel. Like the crime reporter, our Jerusalem bureau chief needs his ‘access’ more than he needs the occasional scoop that would sabotage his relationship with official sources. But more so than the crime reporter, many of these bureau chiefs also identify with Israel and its goals because they have an Israeli spouse and children. They not only live on one side of a bitter national conflict but actively participate in defending that side through service in its military. This is a conflict of interest of the highest order. It is also the reason why they are there in the first place”… Like many Jonathan Cook articles, this one is being picked up and republished on multiple websites concerned with covering this area. I first found it on Mondoweiss, here.

Article from UN-Truth read more here