Is it real silence..or silence before a real storm?

The relative quiet we've seen so far with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be coming to an end. The new Israeli government has been formed and the international community wants to see real progress in the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

During his recent visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, US Middle East envoy George Mitchell said that the two state solution is the only way to end the conflict. Avigdor Lieberman, the new Israeli foreign minister, stated in the presence of Mitchell that Israel will work to improve the Palestinian economy. The latter responded by saying that the Israeli plan to improve the Palestinian economy must be a part of a complete plan to end the conflict by having two states for the two peoples. 

In a meeting held between White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Jewish leaders in the United States, Rahm stated clearly that the interest of the White House is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a period of four years with a result that includes two states; one Israeli and one Palestinian.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (43)

The Art of Conflict

In the 2004 Supreme Court case Beit Sourik vs. The Government of Israel and the Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, in which the legality of Israel's decision to erect the separation barrier (and the route of the barrier) was challenged, the IDF claimed to be acting as a belligerent occupier as defined in the Hague Conventions. The Supreme Court agreed this established the normative framework in which to decide the case. 

However, Israel also claims that as the disputed territories were not under sovereign control prior to 1967, international law does not apply insofar as Israel's responsibilities to the Palestinians are concerned - which is the same argument it makes with regard to the lands taken in the 1948 war.

In other words, Israel's justice system is selectively recognizing international law to further its own interests in a manner that has nothing to do with the peace process.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (10)

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)

Be loyal to yourself before being loyal to your cued ideas

Ever since I started writing political pieces about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and related subjects, I've felt that I was received by people in many different ways; some considered me an extremist, others considered me a moderate. To be honest, I was sometimes affected by readers' comments and opinions about my analyses and in discussions about the political situation in the Middle East.
 
The first time I decided to write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I convinced myself to try to look at the situation from a place located in the middle. This can be seen in my writings; I wrote about the mistakes that were made by the Palestinians in their internal situation, and I also wrote moderately and honestly - with evidence - about Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. I was not surprised when I was criticized by some of my Palestinian people, and a lot of the Israeli people. Sometimes I thought of changing the language I used depending on the readers I was addressing. Even then, I was called a hypocrite by some Israeli readers who would say that I was trying to show the good face, one that hides a different reality behind it.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (10)

The brothers' war

Recently, many efforts were made by Arab countries to reach a reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Since the Hamas coup in Gaza in 2007, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah has considered Hamas' rule in Gaza illegal. Hamas currently considers PA President Mahmoud Abbas' government illegal because, according to the Palestinian premier law, his presidential period has expired.

Both movements have been attacking each other since the division started about two years ago. Fatah claims that Hamas is trying to involve Iran and Syria in the Palestinian decision and destiny and Hamas claims that Fatah has become a 'surrendering' movement that works according to Israeli and American demands.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (14)

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. . .