The Blame Game

Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated in one of his farewell speeches that the Palestinians should be blamed for "lacking the courage" to conclude a peace agreement with Israel.  In doing so, Olmert was merely following in the footsteps of Israeli leaders who came before him.

It seems blaming the Palestinians has become something of a ritual which Israeli leaders perform during their last days in office. Ehud Barak blamed Yasser Arafat for not concluding a peace agreement at Camp David - for not being ready to compromise. Although Olmert had said in the past that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was a partner for peace, and had in recent days also said that "unprecedented, dramatic and painful concessions" were necessary to achieve real peace, in the end he laid the blame for the failure to reach an agreement at the door of the Palestinians, just as Barak did

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (11)

New hope or lost faith?

On Saturday, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad declared his resignation, a move which Palestinian analysts said was aimed at encouraging the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation talks.

Fayad is considered an important man for the Palestinian Authority; he is trusted by the US and the international community since he is not affiliated with either Fatah or Hamas. There is some fear among Palestinians that his departure could interfere with the transfer of financial aid pledged to the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (11)

The end of the two-state solution?

More than eighty-seven states participated in Monday's Gaza reconstruction conference in Sharm e-Sheikh, and over $4 billion was pledged to support the institutions of the Palestinian Authority and rebuild the Gaza Strip, which was heavily damaged during Israel's 22-day war with Hamas.

However, European and world leaders said the financial support on its own was not enough, since the funds couldn't enter Gaza as long as its borders remained closed. The majority agreed the funds should be channeled through the Palestinian Authority and not through Hamas, which has controlled the coastal territory since 2007. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that America will not cooperate with Hamas unless it recognizes Israel, renounces violence and agrees to abide by previous agreements.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (69)

A policy change strikes the Middle East

Following several key steps made by the new American administration, it seems the US is changing its approach to the Middle East. Last week, Senator John Kerry visited Gaza and met with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian-American talks are still unclear but seem to be active behind the scenes. President Barack Obama, Middle East envoy George Mitchell, and other American officials are trying for a new strategy and their challenge involves breaking through the Iranian alliance and trying to negotiate with each element separately.

Obama is working on removing all the economic sanctions against Syria because of its ties with Iran and Hizbullah as he recognizes that the Syrians may play an important role in affecting the conflicts in the Middle East through their relations with Lebanon and Hamas. Sen. Kerry stated that he will ask President Assad to invest in changing the situation by applying pressure on Hizbullah and other such elements in the region.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (25)

The real situation in the Middle East

[Likud leader Binyamin]Netanyahu stated yesterday that moderate Palestinians should be strengthened and radicals should be weakened. According to him, under the curent circumstances, the possibility of holding negotiations for a two-state solution is next nothing. Netanyahu stated again that strengthening the Palestinian economy is how he will deal  with the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. 
 
Livni believes that Israel must give up land to remain Jewish and democratic. She adds that no Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their lands in Israel because their real national aspirations exist somewhere else; the Palestinian territories. This is not the first time Livni speaks of the importance of keeping Israel a Jewish state.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (15)

Answers to readers' questions

Following last week's invitation to submit your questions about anything related to Israel-Palestinian relations to our Palestinian blogger Ziad Khalil Abu Zayyad who writes on BlogCentral's The Other View, Ziad has patiently answered every question sent in. The exchange is below.

Dear Readers

I want to make several points clear. First of all I do not represent Hamas nor anyone else. I have answered you based on what I hear in the Palestinian community and people's reactions to the conflict. Some answers will be also based on what Palestinians consider beliefs. Thank you for your questions; it was interesting.

Ziad

______________________________________________________________________________________

1.  Is there any indication that talking to Hamas would make it stick to its beliefs less than it has up until now, as you claim in your post The price of political stubbornness? Is there any reason to believe that its continuous glorification of killing is just a failure of communication? Like it or not, Hamas' terror is itself a form of communication. It is they who have chosen the form of "dialogue" -- a dialogue of raw force -- that Israel has had to respond to in Gaza.

Fed Up, Barcelona

Answer: The reason I wrote in that post that Israel has to change its way of communicating with Hamas was to try and show an alternative way of thinking instead of launching a war which, in the end, brought no benefits for Israel nor for the Palestinians.

There is reason to believe that Hamas continued to fight and launch missiles because of a failure of communication between it and the West. The Palestinian Liberation Organization held beliefs that invited the Palestinians to fight Israel until the last inch of the land of Palestine is liberated but this changed after signing the Oslo agreement. It shows us that even a system built on religious beliefs that convinces its followers that it is their duty to fight in the name of God, can be changed. The United States, Israel, and the West in general refused to communicate with Hamas because they considered it an organization that is similar to any other terrorist organization in the world. In the eyes of the Arab world, Hamas differs from Bin Laden and al-Qaida since Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular consider it a movement that fights in a Holy land that has been occupied. Therefore any lack of communication with Hamas or a siege around it does not weaken it but indeed makes it more popular, more justified in the eyes of the Arabs, and stronger within the Palestinian community.

* * *

2. Hamas defines its identity as the "Islamic Resistance Movement". Its charter says very clearly that they believe negotiations are worth nothing, that only "jihad" will bring the Palestinians what they want. And what does Hamas want when it refers to the residents of Sderot as "settlers" and refuses to accept Israel's right to exist? We can hardly dismiss Hamas rhetoric, but at the same time take them serious as negotiation partners.

Petra, Bat Yam

Read the rest of this post. . .