A 'settlement freeze' is not enough

Last week, Congressman Robert Wexler (D - FL) , a supporter of Israel and a close political ally of President Obama, stated his belief that Israel would say yes to settlement freeze. According to Wexler, Israel would not stand to lose much by making this necessary move aimed at making Arab states - who say they are ready for normalization with Israel - lay their cards on the table. 

"I want to call their bluff," Wexler said. "I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position."

In other words, Wexler has indicated that the Arabs will be considered as lacking a will for peace if they refuse to start normalization relations after Israel freezes settlement construction and growth.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (36)

The coming of the third intifada?

Since its establishment, the State of Israel has largely depended on its security forces and intelligence agencies to ensure its national security. Today, Israel believes that diminished Palestinian attacks is a result of the successful efforts of its security and intelligence forces.

Israel began building its intelligence and security forces even before the declaration of the state of 1948. Jews in Palestine did not trust the Arabs who lived among them, and often offered bribes to the Arab population in exchange for information about Arab plans in Palestine. The Israelis also went about recruiting inside the Arab world, across the Middle East, and around the world.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (66)

A new chapter in US-Arab relations?

The US has been showing brave policy shifts towards the Muslim world and the Israeli-Arab conflict. This change is mostly noted in America's view on the importance of finding a solution for the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The changes started as soon as President Obama took office. Both Europe and America have indicated that ending the conflict in the Middle East would be beneficial to the Western world and would help bring about international security.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (25)

Is Israel starting to feel US pressure?

Last week, Israel started to feel the pressure from the US as plans for a new peace initiative proposed by Obama were said to be in the works. Obama was said to deliver the contents of the plan on his visit to Cairo next week, but recent reports have suggested that his speech will focus on American ties with the Muslim world and not on the new peace plan which is rumored to refer to east Jerusalem as the future capital of an independent Palestinian State.

Since then, Israeli politicians have not stopped talking of the importance of getting Israel out of this situation in any way, including the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (16)

Iranian code and Arab support

There are growing suspicions that the US will apply pressure on Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu started his international tour by visiting Jordan where he said that the Arab world and Israel share a common threat - Iran. However, any agreement between Israel and the Arab world on the importance of limiting Iranian influence in the Middle East would not bear fruit unless Israel showed an interest in ending the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (9)

The Middle East mystery

Israel has stated that the Iranian threat must come to an end and that it is impossible to live with the idea of someone like Ahmadinejad - who has said that he is ready to "wipe Israel off the map" - having nuclear weapons. PM Netanyahu recently said that he would take responsibility and prevent anyone from causing the Jewish people another holocaust.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made several important statements regarding the Iranian threat and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Clinton said that the United States and Israel will lose the Arab support in facing Iran if the latter keeps denying the Palestinians' right to their own state. Clinton also stated that the US will not stop its financial support for the Palestinian Authority because of Hamas; according to her, the United States did not stop its financial support to the Lebanese government even though Hizbullah was a part of it. Clinton said that it is in America's interest to keep good relations with the Arabs.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (22)

Left, Right, Left, Right... to where?

The two-state solution, the one-state solution and the no-solution solution. Right, Left, extreme and moderate. These are the terms in which both Israelis and Palestinians currently describe their respective internal situations and their suggestions for ending the conflict.

The two-state solution is now considered by many Israelis, and a good percentage of Palestinians, to be defunct; they believe that the current situation and past experience prove that there will never be two states for two peoples.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (20)

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. . .

The war is over, now what?

The main goal of the Israeli operation in Gaza was not to weaken Hamas but to try and affect Palestinian public opinion since it is the Gazan population that elected Hamas and supports its agenda.

Although the Israeli government claimed victory in this war, nothing has changed in reality; Hamas still has power, the tunnels are being re-built as we speak, and the people are still supporting it, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank and in the Arab world.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (74)