Fatah on The Huffington Post

CIA Working With Palestinian Security Agents Known For Torturing Hamas Supporters

2009-12-18T09:22:15Z

Palestinian security agents who have been detaining and allegedly torturing supporters of the Islamist organisation Hamas in the West Bank have been working closely with the CIA, the Guardian has learned.

Marlene H. Phillips: AZ Legislature Might Ask For Donations

2009-12-02T12:23:19Z

Arizona is in trouble. Facing a $2.2 billion deficit, the state has the second worst fiscal problems in the country (tied with Rhode Island behind California) according to a November Pew Center study.

State-level lawmakers know they have to come up with a solution. But the Republican controlled legislature refuses to consider raising taxes to address the problem. Thirty nine Republican State Senators and Representatives went so far as to sign a no-tax pledge at the urging of conservative Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform based in D.C.

This week, with their hands tied by the no-tax pledge, Republican legislators floated another idea to save the state of Arizona: ask for donations.

Calling it the "I Didn't Pay Enough" fund, Republican legislators want to let Arizonans voluntarily tax themselves by adding more to the amount they pay in state income tax. Thirty four state lawmakers, all Republican, have already backed the idea and their erstwhile leader, Norquist, heartily approves, calling it "a noble idea... so that people who feel they are undertaxed have a place to send their money."

According to a report in the East Valley Tribune, even the representative who introduced the bill, Republican Judy Burgess, admits that the voluntary tax won't make a dent in the overwhelming Arizona state deficit. Burges agreed that at least part of the reason she proposed the bill was to make an ideological and political point--to show up those who claim people will pay more taxes for services.

Norquist also agrees it's little more than a political joke, since such funds have done little or nothing to help fiscally troubled states in the past. When a smiliar bill was proposed in Kentucky under the title "Tax Me More," Norquist said: "Tax Me More Funds and their sickly low balances are just what the doctor ordered."

The editors of Arizona's two largest newspapers immediately slammed the proposal as a gimmick from the anti-tax crowd. The Arizona Republicin Phoenix published an editorial calling the idea "an ideological stunt," telling the legislature to "spare us the tax jokes" in a time of fiscal crisis. Tucson's Arizona Daily Star called the idea "a distraction," saying "it was crafted to make a point and not to solve a problem."

Bloggers and local leaders also disapprove. One of Arizona's most active political blogs, Blog for Arizona, called it the latest entry from the "GOP 'Gimmicks R Us' Shop." Jeffrey Rogers, Pima County Democratic Chair, called the bill "absolutely ridiculous."

Arizona is indeed in deep trouble. State residents are still waiting for their legislature to propose serious solutions to the ever-growing deficit. If this latest idea is any indication, it might be a long and disastrous wait.

This piece was also published at Examiner.com. Click here to read.
Read more: Arizona Republicans, Arizona-Legislature, Arizona "I Didn't Pay Enough' Fund, Arizona State Deficit, Fatah, Financial Crisis, Politics News

Daoud Kuttab: Prisoner Exchange A Reflection On Mideast Disagreements

2009-11-30T18:51:46Z
If there were a case that could illustrate the disagreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the Shalit prisoner exchange deal could be the one.

Various aspects of any such exchange, and the way different issues are being spun politically, are illustrative.

Legally, Israel refuses to recognise the over 10,000 prisoners it is holding as being prisoners of war. Nor does it accept that these prisoners deserve the title of "protected individuals," to which the Geneva Convention applies. The convention regulates how an occupying power is supposed to deal with civilians under its occupation. Israel does not accept that it is an occupying power.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, which was drawn up after the Nazi occupation of much of Europe, was agreed upon specifically to regulate the actions of a prolonged occupying power. Most international legal experts believe it to be the most appropriate and applicable international legal framework.

One stark violation of this agreement is in the area of the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, who are routinely denied basic rights, including the right of family visitations because of the inaccessibility of Israeli prisons to over 90 percent of Palestinians living in the occupied territories.

Only those with family members living in East Jerusalem (which was unilaterally annexed by Israel), or those fortunate enough to get a once-in-a-while permit by way of the Red Cross to visit their loved ones.

By refusing to accept the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as being war, Israel refuses to apply the definition of either "prisoners of war" or "revolutionaries" to those it holds in its prisons, as the first protocol of the Geneva convention, which was signed in 1977, would require. Legal experts insist that Article 43 of this convention considers some Palestinian detainees "prisoners of war."

While Palestinians consider their prisoners to be political prisoners or liberation fighters, Israel considers them terrorists who do not deserve the same rights and treatment it gives to civilian inmates.

Israel and its propagandists blast Hamas for not allowing the International Red Cross to visit its prisoners; they also decry the fact that Israel is trading hundreds of Palestinians for one Israeli. Palestinians say that Israel regularly arrests as many Palestinians as it wants every day, holding many without trial or charge. They also point out the lopsided number of Palestinians killed in Gaza (over 1,000), compared to the about 10 Israelis that were killed (some from friendly fire) in that conflict.

If press reports about the refusal of Israel to release prisoners from East Jerusalem are correct, this will reflect one more area in which the Israelis expect the world to respect their unilateral decision to consider East Jerusalem part of the occupied territory.

Furthermore, and according to international law, once occupation ends, the occupying power is obliged to release prisoners because it is illegal to transfer prisoners (Article 76) from the occupied areas to the occupying country.

Israel refused to do that after the signing of the Oslo Accords, when it withdrew from all major Palestinian cities; neither did it do so after the Israeli army left Gaza Strip. In both cases, Israel illegally transferred prisoners held in the occupied territories to prisons inside Israel.

Ironically, when the Israeli army regrouped its military forces on the international borders with Gaza, the Israeli government asked the world to consider the occupation of Gaza ended, without agreeing to release Gazan prisoners, keeping them, instead, in Israeli jails.

Politically, a prisoner exchange leaves many questions unanswered. Both Israel and Hamas refuse to recognise each other, yet they have both found it convenient to negotiate via a third party (Germany and Egypt).

Therefore, the prisoner exchange reflects the absurdity of Israel's policy which will reward Hamas while the latter refused to honour the commitments of the roadmap, which call, among other things, to a freeze of settlement activities in the occupied territories (which are also in violation of the same Geneva Conventions).

Palestinians complain that Israel rewards Hamas while denying the moderates the same treatment. They point out that repeated requests from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to end settlement activities in areas earmarked for the internationally accepted lands for a Palestinian state are rejected.

Also denied has been the repeated Abbas request for the release Marwan Barghouthi, a well-known, rather moderate, Fateh leader.

Palestinians are looking for the day when all prisoners are released, not in an exchange that is forced on Israel but rather as a result of making the wrong right, ending the occupation and allowing for an independent Palestinians state alongside a safe and secure Israel.
Read more: Geneva Conventions, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Mahmoud Abbas, Israelis, President Obama, Fatah, Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shalit, Hamas, Palestinians, World News

Daoud Kuttab: The End of the Oslo Phased

2009-11-09T08:32:19Z
In the midst of discussions regarding possible scenarios following Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' decision not to run for president, few have paid attention to the larger picture.

Abbas' refusal to run for a second term as president of the Palestinian Authority signals a clear end of the Oslo phase in which he, Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres were key players.

The Oslo process called for a step-by-step process as the best way to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The idea was that easier issues will be dealt with first, with the hope that confidence will be built between the two sides, making the resolution of the more difficult issues at a later stage possible. A five-year interim plan was suggested in the agreement signed on September 13, 1993, at the White House.

Some ambiguity was agreed upon in the written text of the agreement, but both sides were clear that the ultimate goal was the end of the 1967 Israeli occupation and the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The Palestinians reluctantly agreed then not to insist on a settlement freeze, because Rabin said he needed time to convince the Israelis of the eventuality of a Palestinian state. Rabin didn't live long enough to carry out his promise; his political heirs took the easy way out and failed to carry out this unwritten promise.

As the 20th century came to an end, it became clear that the five-year interim agreement was becoming permanent, negotiations were not reaching any conclusion and Jewish settlement building was continuing unabated. With no end in sight and the Israelis refusing to deal fairly with the requirements of peace, it was a question of time before the occupied territories exploded in a second, much more violent, uprising.

During the dark early years of the 21st century, Abbas was one of the few Palestinian leaders that clung to the hope that a negotiated process would eventually produce results that would address the minimum Palestinian national aspirations.

Sixteen years after that historic White House handshake, it has become clear that no effort is being made to convince the Israelis to come to term with Palestinian national aspirations. The number of illegal Jewish settlers in Palestinian areas has doubled and more and more Palestinians are convinced that negotiations are a waste of time.

Many still remember the threats of former Israeli prime minister Shamir to drag negotiations. Speaking to the Israeli daily Maariv, Shamir was quoted as saying: "I would have conducted negotiations on autonomy for 10 years and in the meantime we would have reached half a million people in the West Bank."

The failure of the step-by-step negotiations has focused on the need to follow a different paradigm.

Abbas outlined the Palestinian red lines. His disappointment with the US administration has led him to believe that the way out of the present impasse is to work backwards. The Palestinian leader believes that instead of wasting time in wasteful negotiations, there must be a firm decision about the end result of the negotiations and then talks can deal with a schedule for implementation of such a results, rather than what negotiations should contain.

The two-state solution has become accepted bipartisan policy in Washington. The Palestinian and Israeli public have repeatedly been polled about a compromise solution roughly on the 1967 borders, with slight adjustments and a fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Such a solution is best codified in what is referred to as the Clinton parameters. It is also detailed in the Israeli-Palestinian blueprint titled the Geneva Agreement.

Another approach is that of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad who is convinced that Palestinians must prepare for statehood in spite of the occupation. In two years, Fayyad believes that a de facto Palestine will exist and it will then seek international recognition.

The flurry of US officials' visits to Ramallah is likely to stop unless a major and important change takes place in Washington. In the meantime, Abbas will pay more attention to the home front, trying to stitch together some type of agreement with Hamas.

The PLO will most likely gain much from Abbas' decision, as the Palestinian leader will likely de-emphasise the status of the president of the Palestinian Authority, while raising the profile of his position as the chairman of the PLO's executive committee.

Abbas cannot resign from his post, so as not to allow the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council to take over, and he has not given up his position as the head of the PLO and the leader of its biggest faction, Fateh. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any Palestinian official from the PLO will be running for the position of president without Abbas' approval until a new mechanism for an end to the occupation is found.

Read more: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Bill Clinton, Mahmood Abbas, Salam Fayyad, Gaza, Ramallah, Abbas, Fatah, Plo, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Hamas, Palestinians, World News

Shimon Peres Calls On Mahmoud Abbas Not To Quit

2009-11-07T19:56:48Z
TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel's president on Saturday called on Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to rescind his decision to stand down, invoking the memory of Yitzhak Rabin at a public commemoration for the assassinated Israeli premier.

Shimon Peres spoke to a crowd of thousands at the square where Rabin was gunned down by a Jewish extremist who opposed his peace policies on Nov. 4, 1995.
Read more: Jerusalem, Gaza, Middle East Peace, Netanyahu, Oslo Peace Accord, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Politics, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Us, Mideast Peace, Peres, World News

Abbas Not To Seek Re-Election, Say Palestinian Officials

2009-11-05T10:59:19Z

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has said he will not seek re-election when elections are held in January, Palestinian officials said.

"The president insists on not running in the upcoming election," an official from the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) executive committee said on Thursday.

Another PLO official said Abbas will give a speech later on Thursday explaining his decision not to run.

Abbas recenty issued a decree announcing that presidential and parliamentary polls would take place on January 24.

But the Hamas-run interior ministry in the Gaza Strip ordered Palestinians in the territory not to take part in elections.

Read more at Al Jazeera English
Read more: Palestinian Authority, Palestine, Palestinian Territories, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas Fatah, Palestinians, Fatah, Hamas, World News

Christopher Herbert and Victoria Kataoka Rebuffet: Weekly Foreign Affairs Roundup

2009-10-30T16:15:58Z
This Week's Top Stories in Foreign Affairs:

Iran Rejects Uranium Transfer Deal
SI Analysis: In a show of shrewd and bizarre diplomacy, Iran says that it was willing to cooperate with the West over its nuclear program but sought to change provisions in a deal reached last week that would have marked a massive detente in the standoff between the international community and Iran over its nuclear program. Essentially Iran is refusing to transfer its enriched uranium to Russia for its conversion to nuclear fuel without actually saying so. Iran's dithering and stalling was expected. What the international response will be is unknown at this point. There may be a brief effort to renew the deal, but unless Iran commits quickly and clearly to it strong energy sanctions are likely (if the US and Europe can still convince Russia to go along with them).

Zelaya To Return to Power in Honduras
SI Analysis: In a surprise development ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya will likely return to power in Honduras, after US diplomats reached an agreement with interim President Roberto Micheletti. Zelaya's return is dependent on Congressional approval of the deal that also stipulates that the 29 November Presidential elections must take place, the international sanctions against Honduras be lifted and a truth commission be created.

War Reports:

Afghanistan and Pakistan
SI Analysis: Ahead of runoff elections on 7 November between incumbent Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, international observers and experts warn of likely widespread fraud and proffer a pessimistic outlook for Afghan governance regardless of the result; the candidates launch reciprocal barbs -- with Abdullah at one point even threatening to boycott the polls; and a spate of Taliban attacks across the country aim at keeping people away from the polls. Perhaps surprising to Western pundits though, the Afghan sentiment is reportedly rather optimistic, as most Afghans believe that overall the situation in their country is improving. Meanwhile, two US helicopters crash resulting in 14 US casualties. US President Obama will wait on the results of the election to announce the new US strategy in Afghanistan, though two options both with troop increases ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 were subject to a round of war games to project likely results and response by the Taliban and Afghan government conducted by the Pentagon this week. Elsewhere, there was a flurry of debate over the New York Times story that contends Ahmed Wali Karzai, the President's brother and known thug and drug lord, is on the CIA payroll.
In Pakistan, US Secretary of State Clinton openly criticized the Pakistani state's leniency on certain Taliban and Islamist extremists. She also announced a series of controversial US aid packages to Pakistan. Just after her arrival a massive car bomb killed over 100 people in Peshawar. Pakistan took great umbrage to the criticism in light of its recent crackdown on militants in South Waziristan and Swat, Taliban factions that are responsible for a series of bloody attacks across Pakistan. But the tension between Pakistan and the US is really over the presence of Taliban and foreign extremists who take refuge in Pakistan, conducting attacks not in Pakistan but in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Iraq
SI Analysis: Following a massive terrorist attack in downtown Baghdad that killed over 155 people and wounded over 700, analysts are warning of the return of radical political Sunni insurgents to Iraq. This attack is the latest in a series ahead of the elections aimed to intimidate Iraqis and thwart the smooth governance of the Iraqi state. At best, this is an action by a relatively small and unpopular group of foreign militants whose power is waning. A recent report on the improved security situation in southern Iraq around Basra supports this hypothesis. At worst, it would suggest the re-emergence of both nationalistic and foreign extremists opposed to the Shia-majority Iraqi government. Meanwhile, a stalemate preventing the passing of an effective electoral law in Kirkuk endures, thus presenting an impediment to January elections taking place.

Under the Radar and Analysis in Brief:

Chinese and American Military Detente
SI Analysis: Chinese General Xu Caihou meets US Defense Secretary Robert Gates in Washington in the first high level military meeting between the two countries in more than three years. Gates will reportedly reciprocate and travel to Beijing soon. This is a significant and positive development since US/Chinese military relations have suffered in recent years. The most notable events have been a series of naval standoffs in the South China Sea, cyberattacks on US governmental and military databases that have been traced back to China and China's destruction of one its own satellites as a clear demonstration of an effective and asymmetrical military deterrent to the US expansion and development in space. Moreover, the US has regularly accused China of opacity regarding its military growth and budget and expressed concern regarding its rapid increase in military expenditures.

Low Level Tension Endures in Lebanon
SI Analysis: As PM-elect Saad Hariri struggles, perhaps in vain, to form a coalition government (recent hangups have centered around opposition leader Michel Aoun's claim in the Telecommunications Ministry), tensions between Israel and Hezbollah (and Lebanon as a whole by extension) continue to simmer at a low but real intensity. Following a recent rocket attack from southern Lebanon into Israel, Israel retaliated with rocket fire. There were no casualties on either side. Following the skirmish, Lebanese and UN officials diffused four Katyusha rockets in an abandoned house in southern Lebanon, most likely a Hezbollah weapon's cache. It is important for the Lebanese government to be able to form a strong and legitimate centralized government in order to decrease the legitimacy of Hezbollah and its militia as an extra-governmental independent actor in southern Lebanon and to more effectively resolve its long-standing conflicts with Israel.

Indian Insurgents Act Out in West Bengal
SI Analysis: A train in the Indian state of West Bengal is hijacked and then released by Maoist Naxalite rebels there, an ongoing low level insurgency group.

Very Fragile Prospects of Peace Talks
SI Analysis: US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell travels to Israel ahead of Secretary of State Clinton, slated to arrive there Saturday and hopefully relaunch the peace process. Following her visit, she will meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the UAE. Meanwhile, intra-Palestinian tension rises as Hamas instructs Palestinians to boycott next year's elections called by President Mahmoud Abbas, citing Fatah's unilateral action on this matter.

You can read this Foreign Affairs Roundup at Simple Intelligence and on the Huffington Post.
Read more: Abdullah Abdullah, Maoist Naxalites, Pakistan, Fatah, Obama, Iraq, Lebanon, Hamas, China, Karzai, Iran, Clinton, Israel, Afghanistan, Honduras, Us, World News

Hamas Bans Elections In Gaza Strip

2009-10-28T09:46:42Z
GAZA CITY : The Hamas-run interior ministry in the Gaza Strip said on Wednesday that it will ban the organisation of elections called for by Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas in the coastal territory.
Read more: Palestine, Hamas Gaza, Hamas Fatah, Israel-Palestine, Obama Hamas, Palestine Elections, Fatah, Hamas, Israel Hamas, Hamas Fatah Reconciliation, World News

Benjamin Netanyahu On Iranian Threat: "The Issue Is Not The Security Of Israel But Of The World"

2009-10-24T16:23:33Z
NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth spoke to Netanyahu in Jerusalem last week. Excerpts:

WEYMOUTH: What did you think of the Goldstone report?
NETANYAHU: I thought there were limits to hypocrisy, but I was obviously wrong. The so-called human-rights commission accuses Israel--which legitimately defended itself against Hamas--of war crimes.
Read more: Netanyahu, Holocaust, Gaza, Palestinian, Fatah, Iran, Obama, Human Rights Abuses, Hamas, Nukes, War Crimes, West Bank, Jerusalem, Nuclear Weapons, Two State Solution, Human Rights, Barack Obama, Geneva, Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas Fatah, Goldstone Report, Red Cross, Israel, Un, Gilad Shalit, War Crime, World News

Daniel Levin: Historical Revisionism on the Temple Mount

2009-10-19T16:10:09Z
Last week, clashes on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem provided a Fatah spokesman, Dmitri Dilani, another opportunity to reaffirm the Palestinian Authority's denial of any Christian or Jewish historical connection to the Temple Mount. "Do not call it the Temple Mount," Dilani corrected an American interviewer. "No one can find any trace of the Temple. The area you refer to is only a Muslim holy site."

It seems Iranian President Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial is not the only historical revisionism taking root in Middle Eastern politics. The assertion that no Judeo-Christian history ever happened in Jerusalem is fast becoming a central tenet of Palestinian nationalism.

Last month, the top religious official in the Palestinian Authority, Sheik Tamimi, issued a more sweeping denial of any ancient Hebraic or early Christian presence in Jerusalem, saying all excavated artifacts proving those traditions' historical link to the Mount are "forgeries." In Jerusalem, archaeology has long been politics, but this open rejection of a Judeo-Christian connection to Jerusalem has become -- like a weed slowly swallowing an ancient ruin -- a growing force that may permanently endanger Jerusalem's ancient and modern past.

During the research for my recent novel, The Last Ember, I saw the physical consequences of this revisionism. The Waqf Authority -- the Islamic land trust that has administered the Temple Mount since the 12th century -- has used bulldozers to destroy Judeo-Christian ruins beneath the Mount. I toured the rubble firsthand and saw the crushed Herodian-era glass, Temple pottery, and smashed Templar crosses. The Israeli archaeologists sifted through the piles like medics surveying a battlefield with no survivors.

The Supreme Court of Israel has declared that the Waqf Authority violated antiquities laws on 35 occasions by removing more than twenty thousands of tons of archaeologically rich soil, and dumping them in the adjacent Kidron Valley. Because of the touchy international jurisdiction of the Mount, neither UNESCO officials nor Israeli archaeologists can enforce archaeological supervision. The Waqf carefully regulates the entrance of non-Muslims like Manchu priests guarding the forbidden city. Christians and Jews may enter only four hours daily, and no non-Muslim prayer is permitted on the sacred site.

In 2007, a U.S. Congressional bill was introduced "condemning the Waqf's digging activities at the Temple Mount site and deploring the destruction of artifacts vitally important to Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths."

Sadly, the media response to this pandemic of physical revisionism on the Temple Mount has been silence. The UN World Heritage Sites Committee has not pressured the Waqf to permit supervision of its construction of subterranean mosques beneath the Temple Mount.

Before the UN last week, Netanyahu responded to Ahmadinejad's modern revisionism by holding up a photocopy of a Nazi memo that outlined the extermination of the Jewish race. But he combated the ancient revisionism, too. He quoted the inscription on a UN building near where he stood. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation," he told the other UN delegates, reminding them that those words were written by the Jewish prophet Isiah in Jerusalem nearly 3000 years before. "We are not strangers to that land."

Ancient historical revisionism has consequences beyond the history books, as special U.N. envoy George Mitchell's failure last month to bridge gaps between Israel and the Palestinian negotiators reminds us. Why should the international community be able to assist building the region's future when it won't commit to protecting the last ember of its ancient past?
Read more: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Historical Revisionism, Jerusalem, Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu, Fatah, Waqf Authority, Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, Temple Mount, World News

Edgar M. Bronfman: Peacemaking Demands Peacemakers

2009-10-15T09:09:38Z
I recently wrote in these pages about the need for Israel to stop settlement construction in the West Bank, and for the Arab world to take real responsibility in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While immensely important, additional measures by all parties need to be undertaken as well. This third article of a four part series (see here and here) will highlight some of the other qualities that peace requires, primarily vision and courage.

----------

In politics, as in business, leadership is crucial. Much of what has gone wrong in the pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace is due to a lack of strong leadership, primarily among the Palestinians. While there is still a lot Israel can do - especially current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - we shouldn't be under any illusions: there is still not an effective and strong Palestinian partner on the other side capable of delivering on a two-state solution.

Starting from the time of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, it is clear that what peace demands is vision and courage. My old friend Yitzhak Rabin broke many taboos when he signed the Oslo Accords and embarked on the path of peace. I was in attendance in the Rose Garden when Rabin shook Yasser Arafat's hand; it was the epitome of courage in the pursuit of a peaceful vision. Like Sadat, Rabin paid the ultimate price at the hands of a religious fundamentalist.

More recently, Ariel Sharon took the unprecedented step of unilaterally removing the settlements from the Gaza Strip. Before 2005, not many people believed it likely that Sharon of all people would take such a step. However, he was convinced by his closest associates that if Israel retained control of the territories, then eventually Arabs would outnumber Jews between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. This would effectively spell the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

We will never know how a healthy Sharon would have carried on the withdrawals from the rest of the occupied territories. What happened in Gaza after Israel's disengagement made such a move impossible. After all, the moderate Fatah party of Mahmoud Abbas lost the 2006 parliamentary elections to the rejectionist Hamas. Hamas followed this up by violently seizing control of Gaza itself. The rest we all know: over 3,000 rockets raining down on Israeli civilians, military retaliation on the part of Israel, and even more bloodshed.

But this shouldn't have surprised us. For years Yasser Arafat ran the Palestinian Authority as a corrupt personal fiefdom. The mismanagement of the Palestinians' affairs under Fatah explains a lot about Hamas' increased popularity and strength. The only remedy is better leadership and reformed governance on the part of moderate Palestinian leaders.

Despite recent security, political and economic improvements in the West Bank, there is still much work to be done on the part of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. A written plan for statehood is one thing; changing the endemic culture of corruption and division inside the Palestinian Authority quite another, and will take time.

In addition, in the occupied territories Abbas only controls half of the Palestinians; the other half is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist group that has yet to even recognize Israel's right to exist. But even in the West Bank, governed by Abbas, there are plans apparently in place to name streets after terrorists and murderers. Even worse, the recent Fatah Congress in Bethlehem inexplicably perpetuated the foolish notion of "armed struggle," with one news report describing a large poster of a child with a gun being displayed prominently at the conference.

Taken together, is it any surprise that negotiations with Israel have not been able to move forward? For the Palestinians, there is still no real leadership, no one who speaks for all of them, and no one who can get them the state they so desperately want. This must change.

The Arab world, specifically the oil-rich Gulf states, and the international community under the coordination of Tony Blair, need to help Abbas develop better systems of governance. Serious amounts of money - already pledged but still not delivered - need to be infused for economic development projects and jobs in the West Bank in order to bolster Abbas' legitimacy. US envoy George Mitchell needs to continue emphasizing the central roles that an end to corruption and reformed leadership must play in any realistic peace process. And, for their part, Palestinian leaders need to speak out consistently and courageously for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has accepted a two-state solution to the conflict, with conditions. While not perfect, this has to be viewed as a courageous step on his part. More will hopefully be forthcoming.

Palestinian leaders need to reciprocate and lay out their own vision for peace. Raising points of contention over final status issues, like Jerusalem, even before they have shown the slightest ability to manage their own affairs and credibly implement agreements, needs to be remedied going forward.

Based on the Gaza precedent, Israel should not simply be expected to withdraw from territory and let it devolve into a state of anarchy. The West Bank is simply too close to Israel's major population centers and infrastructure to allow it to become another launching pad for rockets. A credible Palestinian government needs to be in control, guaranteeing that a future Palestinian state not be taken over by terrorists. An essential precondition to any of this is courageous and visionary leadership.

Read more: Palestinian Authority, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Edgar Bronfman, West Bank, Ariel Sharon, Fatah, Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas, Two-State Solution, Israel, Peace, World News

Hamas Rejects Egyptian Plan To Reconcile With Fatah

2009-10-15T08:39:09Z
DAMASCUS, Syria — Syrian-based leaders of the Islamic militant Hamas said Thursday the group will not sign an Egyptian-mediated proposal to reconcile with rival Fatah unless it is amended to say Palestinians have the right to keep fighting Israel.

The joint statement by Hamas and seven other radical, Damascus-based Palestinian factions came in response to a pressing deadline by Egypt to respond to their proposal within days.
Read more: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Egypt Fatah, Fatah, Hamas, Egypt, Hamas Fatah, Hamas Egypt, Egypt Hamas, World News

Olivia Sterns: Rocky Reasoning in Jerusalem

2009-10-13T12:41:29Z
Last week a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council kindly gave me a ride home from Ramallah to Jerusalem, and stopped at the Mount of Olives so my friend and I could see one of the best views of the Old City.

We told him we had wanted to visit the famous Dome of the Rock -- known to Jews as the Temple Mount site, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary (Haram al-Sharif) -- but it was closed for security. A nice view was the best we could do.

View of the Dome of the Rock from the Mount of Olives

The previous day I had tried to enter the site but Israeli guards who control access to the area told me that unless I was a Muslim over 50-years-old, it wasn't going to happen.

Being a compulsive sightseer, I wrapped myself in a headscarf and walked to the next entry point. I tried to persuade the new set of guards that I did in fact qualify. I underestimated the seriousness of the situation, and unsurprisingly they were unamused.

The day before I went on an exhaustive tour of the Old City, that included an in-depth look at Jerusalem's architectural history, the Roman ruins, the Muslim quarter, the Byzantine churches, etc. We even went underground on a 1km walk through a narrow, ancient aqueduct with water up to our knees (which I highly recommend...this is the tunnel David is thought to have used to conquer Jerusalem).

We had an Israeli tour guide, who described the significance of the Dome of the Rock site: Jews believe the rock inside is the foundation stone, where God created the world in its present form and where Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, while Muslims believe it is the spot from where the Prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven.

He also explained to us that the site was closed because a few days earlier Palestinians had thrown rocks at Jews who had entered the sacred area to pray. This is highly controversial and considered illegal to many, including Rabbi Elyashiv, a senior ultra orthodox leader.

Our friendly guide also added that wheelbarrows full of rocks had later been found near the al-Aqsa mosque, which were intended to throw at Jews worshiping on the Western Wall...literally a stone's throw away on the edge of the complex.

A day later, standing on the Mount of Olives, admiring the sunny golden dome, and its glistening mosaics, the same Fatah rep told us he witnessed this event first-hand --- and no rocks were thrown. He told us the instigators were six Jewish extremists who were breaking rules by coming to worship, and who were guarded by more than 20 Israeli guards at the time. He dismissed reports of the wheelbarrows (on a side note, he's a Christian).

Israeli police who responded to the event told the Associated Press that rocks were thrown by Palestinians at French tourists.

These disputed accounts capture the incredibly frustrating misinformation and slander that constantly comes from all sides in Jerusalem.

While the debate over the incident could be plausible, the debate it is seemingly grounded in is inexcusable: archaeology.

Israel, and the majority of contemporary archaeologists, believe that the Temple Mount is the site of the mighty Second Temple, which represents the high point of the Jewish Kingdom, some 2000 years ago. They say the Western Wall, which they visit today, was once part of Herod's ancient building.

From the Mount of Olives, our Fatah host denied this flat out. He insisted that "not a single stone proves the Second Temple was there."

We asked him where he thought it was then and he gestured about 100 meters to the side, in a non-committal way. Some Arabs nearby, who were also taking in the view, overheard his comment and aggressively agreed. They believed that Jewish visitors violated the site.

Such anger is nothing new. Nine years ago Ariel Sharon's visit to the holy area sparked the second intifada. This time around already dozens have been injured in subsequent protests, though yesterday the site re-opened.

Looking at the excavation site in-person, it's hard dispute the Israeli theory, but I don't know enough about archaeology, and I haven't found anything reasonable that uses science to discount it (please comment below if you have suggestions).

Either way, it seems that where a building stood 2000 years ago is a question of science, not faith, but it stokes such deep hatred that it clouds clear thinking.

Read more: Haram-Ash-Sharif, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Dome of the Rock, West Bank, Jerusalem, Warren's Shaft, Fatah, King Herod, Israel, Mount of Olives, Temple Mount, World News

Fatah Agrees To Egyptian Deal With Hamas

2009-10-13T09:39:39Z
RAMALLAH, West Bank - Fatah has agreed to an Egyptian proposal for the two main Palestinian factions to separately sign a long-delayed unity deal by October 15, a senior party official said on Tuesday.
Read more: Egypt Israel Gaza, Egypt Gaza Border, Fatah, Hamas, Hamas Fatah Reconciliation, Hamas Fatah, Egypt, World News

Christopher Herbert and Victoria Kataoka Rebuffet: Weekly Foreign Affairs Roundup

2009-10-09T17:31:03Z
This Week's Top Stories in Foreign Affairs:

North Korea Back at the Table, maybe
SI Analysis: North Korea says that it will return to six party talks to discuss its rogue nuclear weapons program, but beforehand they insist on holding direct talks with the US. It is widely believed that Chinese pressure brought leader Kim Jong-Il back into the fold. This week South Korea released a report that DPRK has over 100 sites related to its nuclear program; the report also outlined what significant advantages the North has been able to extract from the international community in aid and money throughout its dealings over its nuclear program.

Peace Laureate Obama
SI Analysis: The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to US President Barack Obama. The surprise announcement recognized Obama's policy of engagement, cooperation and diplomacy as well as his willingness to engage with US adversaries. The committee also lauded Obama's ambitious vision for a world free of nuclear weapons, a healthy environment and Middle East peace.

War Reports:

SI Analysis on Afghanistan and Pakistan:
A spate of high profile bombings marked the news this week: In Pakistan, the bombing of the UNFP in Islamabad and a market place in Peshawar, prompted many to speculate that the Pakistani Army will be even more resolved in their fight in the Tribal Areas against the Taliban. Meanwhile, the new Taliban leader in Pakistan, Hakimullah Mehsud, made an impressive PR showing, by releasing a video dispelling rumors he had been killed. The attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul reignited fears that the Pakistani Intelligence Service might still be aiding the Afghan Taliban, despite its fight against the Pakistani Taliban. Whether or not there was Pakistani involvement in this case, there are unacknowledged conflicts of interest between Pakistan and Afghanistan and their relations with their respective Taliban insurgencies. This conflict needs to be addressed, as much if not more than the possible troop increases and nation-building programs in Obama's forthcoming new Afghanistan strategy.

SI Analysis on Iraq:
Iraqi lawmakers delayed a debate and vote on a crucial oil law until after Parliamentary elections in January. This is a serious problem because lawmakers have still yet to find a compelling way to divide and share Iraqi oil treasure between its central and regional governments and justly between its different ethnic and religious constituencies. In fact, the oil laws that currently govern are Saddam-era ones. Until consensus on an oil law is reached, there will be latent tensions and potential for sectarian strife and possible violence. Meanwhile, however, PM al-Maliki and many other Iraqi political leaders made efforts to form broad coalitions across religious and ethnic groups ahead of elections. Some say this shows signs of political maturity and stability; others say it is a ruse to retain political control.

Analysis in Brief:

Bringing Syria Back into the Fold
SI Analysis: The recent Western overtures to Syria may be bearing fruit. Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad traveled to Washington last weekend, the first kind of high level visit in 5 years. Meanwhile, Saudi King Abdullah made a visit to Damascus, an important sign in a thaw in Saudi-Syrian relations since the assassination of Rafiq Hariri and the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. The prospect of making lasting and constructive ties with Damascus could have far reaching benefits, notably: the curbing of illicit transit of weapons and funds to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (and the mitigation of the threat of Iranian asymmetrical retaliation in the case of conflict); the promotion of a stable and autonomous Lebanese government; the prospect of peace talks with Israel over the Golan Heights and ensuring Iraqi security by curbing the transit of foreign fighters through Syria's border.

A Breakthrough in Burma, maybe
SI Analysis: Still under house arrest, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi met with leaders of the military junta to discuss how she can help lift the international sanctions against Myanmar. This was the first such meeting in two years and in response to a letter Suu Kyi wrote at the end of September. This change in the junta's position to meet with Suu Kyi and allow her to meet with American, European and Australian envoys is a result of international pressure, especially from China and Russia, to release Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and hold open and free elections.

Palestinian Reconciliation Delayed and Israeli-Palestinian tensions rise.
SI Analysis: The Palestinian Authority's response to the UN Report on the 2009 Israeli invasion of Gaza, known as the Goldstone report, is affecting Fatah's domestic image and could be the source for a breakdown in Palestinian reconcilition and President Mahmoud Abbas' legitimacy to broker peace with Israel. Reasons for the PA's refusal to endorse the report are unclear but it has elicited massive Palestinian dissent and anger. Meanwhile, violence between Palestinians and Israelis broke out in Jerusalem and Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of Israel's Islamic Movement, was briefly arrested.

Speculation of the Week: A Nuclear Iran Due to A Russian Capability
SI Analysis: Rumors abound that Netanyanhu's trip to Russia at the beginning of September revealed that Russian scientists were aiding Iran in developing its nuclear weapons capability. If this were indeed the case, it could be the reason for the change in Russian sentiment towards the Iranian nuclear program. It is one thing to do nothing to stop the slow progression of a nuclear program that may or may not be gaining ground, it is quite another to be complicit in speeding its development.

This briefing can be seen in the Huffington Post and on the Simple Intelligence site.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-herbert-and-victoria-kataoka-rebuffet/new-strategy-for-afghanis_b_283915.html

Read more: Syria, Iran, Burma, Palestinian, Pakistan, Fatah, Nobel Peace Prize, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, World News

Jamal Dajani: The Vichy Government of Palestine

2009-10-09T09:48:06Z
It is not the first time Palestinians have called for the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas. When Hamas swept to victory in the Palestinian Parliamentary Elections in January 2006, angry mobs from the defeated Fatah party staged rallies in the Gaza Strip, calling for his resignation. Many gathered outside the parliament in Gaza City, setting fire to government cars and firing shots into the air.

Today, the anger is subtler, but more poignant. Palestinians from all walks of life are stunned and disappointed by Abbas, who withdrew Palestinian support for a vote in the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva to have the Goldstone report sent to the U.N. General Assembly for possible action, the first of many steps towards possibly establishing war crimes tribunals to investigate Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Just a few days before Abbas suspended action on the Goldstone report, a poll showed the Palestinian president with a 55 percent approval rating compared to the 32 percent for Gaza's Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. A new poll has not been conducted yet, but one thing is certain: today, Abbas would be lucky to receive double digits. Across the board, Palestinians have been calling for his resignation.

"He is a traitor. He sold the land [to the Israelis] ... now he sold our blood," says Abed M. from Qalandia Refugee Camp just outside of Ramallah.

Abed's sentiments are not unique. Posters which first appeared in Gaza showing Mahmoud Abbas with a black X across his face and the words, "To the trash heap of history, you traitor, Mahmoud Abbas," have made their way to West Bank and even to East Jerusalem.

A few days ago, Gaza professors threw shoes at his defaced image and Hamas has called Abbas' decision "a betrayal of the blood of the martyrs."

Meanwhile, rumors have been spreading like wild fire in the West Bank and Gaza. A news segment aired on al-Aqsa TV, a Hamas-controlled satellite station broadcasting out of Gaza, featured a guest analyst who claimed that Israel threatened to release a video tape showing Palestinian leaders urging Israel to be tougher on Hamas during the Gaza offensive unless the PA backed down over the Goldstone report. Another story circulating on the Palestinian street is about Abbas' children and their investments with Israeli partners. The Israeli government has reportedly threatened the PA that it would refuse to license a new Palestinian mobile phone company, partially owned by one of Abbas' sons, if the PA pushed for the adoption of the Goldstone Report in Geneva.

On Wednesday one senior Palestinian Authority figure, Yasser Abed Rabbo conceded the move was a "mistake."

"A mistake?" fired back former Knesset member Azmi Bishara on Al Jazeera TV, "a mistake is when I press the wrong floor on the elevator."

Just an hour after the Goldstone debacle erupted, I called a colleague of mine (who shall remain anonymous) working in Ramallah as a stringer for a foreign news agency to ask him whether this issue will have a lasting damage on the Palestinian Authority. He quickly corrected me and said, "You mean the Vichy Government of Palestine."

Read more: Palestinian Authority, Palestine, Palestinian Territories, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Mahmoud Abbas, Vichy Government, Gaza, Middle East, Goldstone Report, United Nations, Fatah, Hamas, Al Jazeera, World News

Amjad Atallah: How To Kill Your Friends, Big and Small

2009-10-02T14:42:05Z
Palestinians today woke up to two news stories -- one that made them celebrate and one that made them cringe. Unfortunately, the U.S. was not involved in the celebratory story.

Yesterday, the Palestine Liberation Organization's representative at the United Nations in Geneva pulled a resolution at the Human Rights Council that appeared to have widespread backing. The resolution would have recommended the findings of the Goldstone Report to the General Assembly or Security Council. The Goldstone Report, you will recall, found that both Israel and Hamas may have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity and recommended concrete steps to investigate the crimes.

The PLO's ambassador, Ibrahim Khraishi, told the New York Times that if the report went to the Security Council it might force a U.S. veto. As a compromise to actually burying the report, as Israel and the US have demanded, the new resolution would delay its consideration by the Human Rights Council until next March.

Many Palestinians viewed the move to delay consideration of the report as more than just a diplomatic tactic to stay in America's good graces -- it reinforced a stereotype among many Palestinians that the West Bank leadership simply does not care about the civilians in the Gaza Strip. Paradoxically, it removed a legal tool that could be used to hold Hamas (as well as Israel) to account for targeting civilians.

But this wasn't the only thing on the news channels last night. Israel's on-again off-again negotiations with Hamas over the fate of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, being held in Gaza now for over three years, have resulted in a small breakthrough. Hamas has been trying to negotiate the release of some 1000 Palestinian detainees, including women and children, who have been held by Israel for years. Israel currently holds some 10,000 Palestinian political prisoners.

The small breakthrough included today's exchange of a videotape message from an apparently healthy Shalit proving that he is still alive for 19 Palestinian women including at least one originally detained when she was only thirteen years old. The exchange took place today.

It is important to note that the Israeli government and the West Bank PA are not in any negotiations over the release of Palestinian political prisoners. The West Bank PA has committed itself to achieving its aims solely through reliance on the United States and negotiations with Israel. In other words, the United States and its willingness to apply incentives or disincentives to Israel replace both violent and non-violent resistance as West Bank - PA tactics. So far, Israel has not felt any need to negotiate prisoners with Abbas or even to stop taking prisoners from within areas allegedly under Abbas' control in the West Bank.

Palestinian political prisoners are THE number one hot button issue among Palestinians under Israeli occupation. To imagine its emotional resonance, just remember how we felt when Iranians were holding American hostages or, if you are Israeli, imagine how you feel about Gilad Shalit. Palestinians are like us in this and many other respects and the best barometer of how Palestinians feel about something is to imagine how we might feel if it were us.

The impact of these two stories was visible in this morning's headlines in the on-line edition of the Palestinian news agency Maan:

Headline One: PA's Geneva envoy: I delayed the Goldstone report.

Headline Two: Israel declares victory as PA backs down at UNHRC

Headline Three: 19 women released from prison in exchange for tape

This comes on the heels of President Abbas' handshake with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations, after Abbas insisted he would only meet if there was a settlement freeze, which Netanyahu did not deliver. The headlines threaten to cement a narrative that the United States cannot possibly find comfortable:

"Fatah capitulates to US and Israeli pressure with no tangible payoff. Hamas holds firm and gets Palestinian prisoners released."

You don't need to be an Arabist, or have graduated with a PhD in Middle Eastern studies, to recognize that our pattern of behavior with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank is killing them.

The entire structure of the PA is in fact hurting our friends by tasking them with managing the occupation instead of concentrating on state-building. As such, some may argue that the PA's system of patronage, by paying civil servant salaries, is a pay-off for its quiescence. However, most Palestinians believe that this is a subsidy to reduce the cost to Israel of occupying the Palestinian territory. Israel has responsibility for the people under its occupation. Allowing the Europeans, Arabs, and Americans to assume those costs directly using the West Bank PA as a pass-through makes sense for Israel.

And while Palestinians appreciate their salaries, they, like Americans, tend to focus on issues of national humiliation rather closely. Forcing the Palestinian leadership to delay an investigation into the killing of its own civilian population reminds the Palestinian public that its leadership is being asked to entrench the occupation - not lead it to independence.

While our policy demands are counter-productive to our friends in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israel's policy demands of us are becoming increasingly counter-productive to our national interests. Israel has continued to demand that we pay for their settlement activity even when we have stated clearly that they are illegitimate. Israel continues to openly encourage Americans to demonstrate and lobby Congress for confrontation with Iran and urges American lawmakers to think of war as a necessary evil, despite admitting that even a nuclear Iran wouldn't be an existential threat to Israel. Israel keeps threatening to go to war by itself knowing it would force us to defend them when the inevitable retaliation came.

Perhaps Israeli leaders don't realize that we are fighting two wars already and they are not going well. Perhaps they don't realize a war would have a potentially devastating impact on the world economy and our "jobless" recovery. Perhaps they don't realize that a war would almost overnight raise our old rival Russia, to almost Soviet-era preeminence. Perhaps they don't realize that our actual enemy - al Qaeda - has been fantasizing of the day when its two greatest enemies, the United States and Iran would go to war with each other. General Anthony Zinni had a good list of all the other negative consequences related to a military strike when he last spoke at the New America Foundation. Perhaps Israeli leaders don't realize what a disaster this is for America or they don't care.

Either way, you can forgive a friend for putting their own interests before yours or forgive them for demanding steps of us that would be suicidal if you were especially magnanimous. But it is hard to forgive oneself for taking those steps.

We need to begin to consider the consequences of our demands on the Palestinians, particularly before we have begun to end the occupation, and Israel needs to consider the consequences of their demands on us, particularly while we are in difficult wars. Friends should treat each other better.

Read more: Iran, Human Rights Council, War, Richard Goldstone, Russia, Fatah, Israel, Plo, Political Prisoners, Hamas, Gilad Shalit, Al Qaeda, World News

James Zogby: A New Path of Palestinian Resistance

2009-09-18T18:03:18Z
Despite the continuing horrors visited upon Palestinians, their deep political divide, relentless Israeli settlement expansion and more, there are glimmers of hope in the Palestinian skies. What I am referring to here, are not external developments like ongoing U.S.-led efforts to rekindle Israeli-Palestinian peace talks or growing European impatience with Israeli occupation policies. As important as these may be, more significant are the developments occurring within Palestinian society, all of which, if combined and strengthened, point in the direction of empowerment and self-liberating resistance.

Specifically, I am speaking about the recently completed Fatah Conference, the two-year plan, "Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State," announced by interim Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and the weekly demonstrations at the wall near the village of Bilin.

While critics point to its flaws, the fact that the Fatah conference was organized, at all, on the land of Palestine, is significant. It is true that it was held under occupation, but the reality is that Fatah used the space created by recent events and international pressure to organize, in spite of the occupation, and to elect a new leadership committed to ending the occupation. The sessions of the conference were heated and deliberative and, while not perfect, they were democratic. As such, its very occurrence was an act of resistance, defying a generation-long effort by the occupation to deny Palestinians their national identity and their right to organize as an independent people.

The two year plan, laid out by Prime Minister Fayyad, must also be viewed, through this same lens, as an act of resistance. As Fayyad correctly noted, Palestinians have the capacity and the need, despite the persistence of a hostile occupation, to build independent institutions, the creation of which are prerequisites of statehood. Creating accountable and transparent structures that educate the young, provide security and needed social services, foster economic growth, and organize daily life, are, in themselves, acts of resistance. They empower and self-liberate Palestinians, while denying the occupiers the control they have sought to impose.

Complementing these efforts are the weekly demonstrations at Bilin. By organizing non-violent resistance against the wall, the groups involved provide a clear example of the power of popular mobilization. That these efforts have won support is important, but they must be further strengthened, and adopted by a broad spectrum of Palestinian society, including Fatah, enabling them to become a mass expression of resistance. This will not only enhance empowerment, it will also provide needed leverage and support to the Palestinian Authority's negotiating posture.

What is distressing, of course, is that those who claim to be the "standard bearers of true resistance" have stepped up their criticism of these efforts, accusing them of abandoning Palestinian rights. Their criticisms are wrong, based, as they are, on a distorted understanding of resistance. These critics have, in fact, made a fetish of violence and, therefore, can only see resistance through the distorted lens of the application of violence. But resistance means much more than bombs and rockets, and, in fact, often times violence can be antithetical to true resistance.

In its proper sense, resistance is the strategic application of tactics, designed to counter oppression, progressively leading to liberation. As a strategy that utilizes tactics, resistance assesses the effectiveness of tactics that are available. Those that have failed, strengthening the hold of oppression, are rejected, while those that empower people, moving them forward toward liberation, are embraced and developed. Tactics are never ends in themselves. If they do not serve the strategic goal of liberation, they are cast off as counter-productive.

That is why I have long argued that the path of violent resistance leads to a dead end, while the path of non-violent resistance through direct action, institution building, and the development of popular political organization provide a promising alternative. It is important to keep in mind these are tactics, and are not sufficient, in themselves, nor are they ends in themselves. To bear fruit, they must be strengthened, combined, and used in tandem as part of a broader strategy, whose end is to establish an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just and comprehensive resolution of the issue of refugees.

One other critical element, internal to Palestinian society, must also be considered here, and that is the deep fissure that has divided the West Bank and Gaza into hostile camps. Reconciliation is an absolute necessity, since no real progress toward statehood can be made as long as the Palestinian house is divided. But, for reconciliation to occur, whether through mediation efforts still underway in Cairo, or otherwise, the leadership of Hamas must understand the disaster that its failed approach to resistance has wrought. Israel can rightly be condemned for its barbaric assaults and its inhumane blockade of Gaza (as well as its acquisitive, humiliating and deadly policies in the West Bank and Jerusalem). But Hamas refuses to recognize not only the futility, but outright stupidity, and pathological destructiveness, of its ways. To paraphrase, my friend, the late Twefiq Zayyad, "you may claim the right to armed struggle, but when you consistently use it so badly, you forfeit that right". Given recent, and not so recent, history, Zayyad's words ring true.

The time has, therefore, come to recognize that a new path forward must be found. If it is not, than no matter what external players do and don't do, the Palestinian reality will not appreciably change.
Read more: Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Fatah, Israel, Middle East Peace, Middle East Peace Process, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Hamas, World News

Daoud Kuttab: Freeze the Settlement Freeze

2009-09-11T12:09:30Z
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to approve new Jewish settlements on the eve of a possible settlement freeze is the latest round in a cycle that has been repeated so many times over the past 40 years that it would seem mundane if it were not so dangerous.

The cycle goes something like this: American or international pressure mounts on Israel to stop settlement activities in the occupied territories. Israeli settlers and their supporters then gather even more energy to expand onto more Palestinian land, build more exclusively Jewish settlements, and destroy more Arab homes before the so-called "freeze" comes into effect.

The peace process, not surprisingly, becomes a joke while this happens. Eventually, world pressure subsides and the freeze fails to materialise. In the end, more Jewish settlements appear. Indeed, the great paradox of this cycle is that more settlements are built during times of negotiations than during times of conflict.

This pattern can be traced to 1967. Israelis understand that the only reality in politics is the reality on the ground. So long as Israeli soldiers control the occupied territories, the idea of a settlement freeze will not take root. In fact, the demand for a settlement freeze is nothing more than a call to arms to a wide group of Israelis and their supporters to go and build on stolen Palestinian land.

When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was preparing for his historic visit to Jerusalem, a group of settlers created the settlement of Elon Moreh near Nablus, the most populated West Bank city. When former United States Secretary of State James Baker began his shuttle diplomacy for peace, his ultimately unsuccessful efforts actually resulted in more settlements, with a new one started just hours before he was due to arrive for talks.

Baker postponed his visit and later vented his frustrations to the US Senate Committee on Appropriations. He resented "being greeted" every time he came to the Middle East with yet "another settlement". Baker's efforts eventually led to the Madrid peace conference in 1991, but that, too, failed to resolve the conflict. And, while Palestinians and Israelis did reach a secret agreement a few years later that was publicly declared at a White House ceremony, construction of Jewish settlements didn't stop. In fact, since the 1993 Oslo Accords the number of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories has doubled.

The creation of new settlements has often been accompanied by hostile media reporting -- even within Israel -- as well as international condemnation, yet the settlement train has not stopped. It continued to race ahead even during the days when Israel's government rotated between Likud's Yitzhak Shamir and Labour's Shimon Peres between 1984 and 1990.

The Shamir government would be defeated at the polls, and the incoming Labour government would declare a freeze on all settlement construction, even on buildings that had already been started. But, despite the decrees, ways were found to continue building, to absorb new residents, and to increase the settler population.

For the US, the settlements have proven to be an equal-opportunity obstacle, obstructing both Republican and Democratic diplomacy. The Clinton administration attempted to put brakes on then-Prime Minister Netanyahu's efforts to construct a new settlement near Bethlehem. After a short hiatus, construction resumed. The Bush-Cheney Administration, the most pro-Israeli in memory, fared no better. Today, Har Homa, built on Jabal Abu Ghnaim with the aim of cutting off Bethlehem from Jerusalem, is home to 19,000 settlers.

This cycle has become so bizarre and confusing that Palestinians are not sure whether they should hope for continued tensions with Israel (which usually means no new settlements) or for continued negotiations (which usually provide cover for building settlements). On January 5, 2007, the day Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss a new round of talks, the Israeli Construction and Housing Ministry issued a tender for the construction of more units in Ma'ale Adumim, an exclusively Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank.

Of course, whenever the Israelis defy the world over the settlements, as is now once again happening, US and other officials "denounce" and "regret" the decision. But, at the end of the day, despite these few statements and perhaps even a UN resolution of opposition, the pattern established over the past 40 years is clear: the decision stands.

Jeff Aronson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, concludes that Israeli leaders will continue to be able to fool their American counterparts on this issue. Some Israeli right-wing leaders like Menachem Begin, Shamir, and Netanyahu trumpet their settlement achievements. Others, including Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert "talked left and built right".

Palestinians are caught in a Catch-22: if they insist on a settlement freeze, Israel pre-emptively begins to build new settlements. Unless and until Israel pays a heavy price for its illegal activities in the occupied territories, it is hard to imagine a successful peace process taking shape.

Daoud Kuttab, a former professor at Princeton University, is General Manager of the Community Media Network. This article was commissioned by the Project Syndicate.

Read more: James Baker, Israeli Settlements, Clinton, Palestinian, Abbas, President Abbas, Fatah, Obama, Jewish, World News

Alon Ben-Meir: Supporting Fayyad's Vision

2009-09-01T14:34:12Z
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's unveiling of his government program to build the apparatus of a Palestinian state within two years is an admirable, bold and welcome imitative. For sixty years the Palestinians have been accused by Israel and the international community of being weak, fragmented, and harboring extremist ideologies. The plan of the thirteenth Palestinian National Authority government not only represents a blueprint for the government to address these inherent problems, but it is the first outline for a viable Palestinian state based on freedom, democracy, non-violence and international law. It should be supported by all those who seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as this commitment suggests that the culture of blame and violence must come to an end. The program further affirms that the Palestinians' nation-building must be founded by the Palestinian people, for the Palestinian people, and according to all international standards of human rights and law. Israel in particular should embrace this initiative as it would strengthen the efforts of Palestinian moderates, and set in motion a peaceful process leading to final negotiations and the two-state solution to which Netanyahu has agreed.

Israeli detractors of this plan have condemned the PA for acting unilaterally and imposing a time-line, while Palestinian extremist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have claimed the plan is far too accommodating to Israel. The irony here is that a feeble and dependent Palestinian government has gotten the Palestinian people nowhere in the past, just as ideologies of violent resistance have only resulted in more deaths, as the war in Gaza demonstrated. How can the Israelis justly accuse the Palestinians of being incapable and then rebuke the PA's plan to build a strong government? And how can Hamas reject a plan for a non-violent de-facto Palestinian state when violence has only exacerbated the Palestinians' plight? For Israelis to align themselves with Hamas in opposition to a moderate Palestinian plan for good governance is absurd.

The PA's outline for statehood offers hope to the third generation of despondent Palestinians that there is a better and brighter future where they can develop vested interest in the creation of a state of their own. A commitment to build a future based on equality and restoration of self-dignity in a non-violent atmosphere changes in a fundamental way the mindset of nearly every individual in this conflict. The forward of the plan by Salam Fayyad states specifically that:

Palestine will be a peace-loving state that rejects violence, commits to co-existence with its neighbors, and builds bridges of cooperation with the international community. It will be a symbol of peace, tolerance and prosperity in this troubled area of the world. By embodying all of these values, Palestine will be a source of pride to all of its citizens, and an anchor of stability in this region.

The majority of Palestinians who will benefit from the Fayyad plan will oppose the resumption of any violence against Israelis. An overwhelming majority of the Palestinian public already approves of a two-state solution and peace with Israel. The mere fact that the Palestinians can now take matters into their hands to build their nation will place the burden of proof on their heads. Indeed, the development of democratic political, economic and social programs that the Fayyad plan calls for will empower the people and offer a stark choice between the prospect of better life or more bloodshed. Israel will commit a serious strategic error if it chooses to stifle this effort, as it will give munitions to Palestinian extremists that Israel has no intention of allowing the peaceful rise of a Palestinian state, giving credence to continued violent resistance.

The PA's program is a fulfillment not only of the Palestinians' national aspirations, but Israel's as well. A commitment to building the infrastructure of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza will foster acceptance of Israel as a recognized independent state. The plan emphasizes peaceful co-existence with all neighboring states and a policy against any form of religious or cultural discrimination. Is this not what Israelis have been wanting since the inception of their state? Those Israelis skeptical about the Palestinians' ultimate intentions should find some consol in a written government document confirming the Palestinian government's vision of peace and democracy. The Palestinians know only too well from past experiences that any challenge to Israel's national security will render their nation-building efforts obsolete. The consequences of the second Intifadah remain etched in the memory of the Palestinian people, and may well have contributed to the emergence of the current program of moderation.

The concept of a democratic Arab state with an open market economy governed by the rule of law is no small feat. The United States has every reason to promote this goal in any way possible, and Israel should welcome the plan's premise of expanding and promoting regional trade. In addition, the Fayyad plan will also have serious implications for the Palestinian internal political struggle. Hamas operatives will have a hard time finding support for their opposition, as it will be interpreted as rejecting the principle of realizing the long-held goal-a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority is planning general elections in January of 2010, and Hamas will be hard pressed to resist joining a political process with agenda to provide goods and services to the Palestinian people.

Finally, it is important to note that the Fayyad initiative does not call for the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian state, but focuses on building the foundation for such a state, leaving all conflicting issues with Israel-including final borders, East Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees-to a negotiated agreement. What this plan states is that the Palestinian people do not need permission from anyone to prepare for such an eventuality, the principle parameters of which are recognized by the international community-including Israel. The plan's Foundation of Principles states that
We are building a democratic system of government founded on political pluralism, guarantee of equality, and protection of all its citizens' rights and freedoms as safeguarded by the law and within its limits.
This should be encouraged by Israel if it wants to have a strong partner with whom to negotiate. But if a state is declared before reaching a final agreement, it will have only provisional borders that will still have to be negotiated with Israel. What is important here is that the path chosen for Palestinian statehood is the path that of necessity precludes violence. Had the Palestinians started this process after Israel's evacuation of Gaza, there is no question that the last four years would have been dramatically different, preventing the rise of Hamas and the Israeli incursion into Gaza.

As the American sponsored Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will likely resume soon, there is no better atmosphere under which to conduct these negotiations than the non-violent climate that the Fayyad plan will hopefully foster. It is this commitment to true nation-building that will at last put an end to the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict and discredit those who still advocate violent resistance.

Read more: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Salam Fayyad, Israel, Palestinian Territories, Gaza, Middle East, Obama Middle East, Fatah, Hamas, World News

Daoud Kuttab: Fayyad's Brilliant Two-Year Plan for Palestinian Statehood

2009-08-27T18:26:25Z
Palestinians have finally started to act in a different way. Instead of cursing the occupation, the new strategy is aimed at building up the desired Palestinian state. The idea is to force the Israelis to the negotiating table rather than beg them to come. The way to do that is to work for a state as if there were negotiations. This idea has been brilliantly developed by the Palestinian prime minister.

Salam Fayyad proposal for the de facto creation of a Palestinian state within two years is a brilliant idea that is hard to ignore or oppose it.

Fayyad's blueprint includes plans to end the Palestinian economy's dependence on Israel, unify the legal system and downsize the government. The idea, submitted by him after weeks of meetings with his ministers and staff, also involves building infrastructure, harnessing natural energy sources and water, and improving housing, education and agriculture.

An airport in the Jordan Valley, the reclaiming of the Qalandia airport and the creation of an oil refinery are some of the strategic ideas that are included in the Fayyad plan.

Talking to the press, the Prime Minister said that he wanted the American president arriving in Palestine on Airforce One, to an international airport, and not just a small airstrip.

Fayyad told the Times of London that he made the plan public in order to "end the occupation, despite the occupation". The former World Bank official kept his positive and determined attitude in his talk with the British paper.

"We have decided to be proactive, to expedite the end of the occupation by working very hard to build positive facts on the ground, consistent with having our state emerge as a fact that cannot be ignored. This is our agenda, and we want to pursue it doggedly," he told the Times.

Previous Palestinian efforts required Israel to quit the occupied territories as a prerequisite for peace. This allowed the Israelis and the international community to declare hundreds of peace plans, to which the Palestinian's strongest card was the power of saying no to anything that fell short of the publicly declared Palestinian position.

Unable to declare a counter-proposal, the hands of negotiators were tied and the public image of Palestinians was that of rejecting peace offers.

Perhaps the Bill Clinton-Ehud Barak attempt during the Camp David summit with Yasser Arafat stands as the most prominent example in which the Israelis boasted of their "generous offer" that was rejected by the Palestinian leader.

By taking the initiative and moving forcefully into a Palestinian-state-creation mood (rather than defeating occupation) the Palestinian prime minister has been able to keep the accepted Palestinian pre-June 1967 borders while appearing to all as a moderate leader. If the talk is about a de facto state declared by one side, Palestinians are not obliged to make border compromises. If the other side wants compromise, it must show serious intentions about peace in the negotiating room and not just in public declarations.

Fayyad stressed the idea of a de facto state rather than a unilateral declaration of statehood because of the existence of a congressional resolution (H CON RES 24) of the 106th Congress "expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urging the president to assert clearly United States opposition to such a unilateral declaration of statehood".

Fayyad's two-year plan of a de facto state sounds much more realistic than Bush's Annapolis promise of an independent state within one year. By putting a two-year ceiling, the Palestinian leader requires Palestinian institutions to work effectively and efficiently, but also puts the ball squarely in the Israeli court where lack of progress in the peace talks will cost the Israelis a heavy price, namely having to accept a reality on the 1967 borders.

Politically, it will be difficult for radical Palestinian groups, whether nationalist or Islamist, to oppose this plan. The Fayyad action plan doesn't compromise on Jerusalem or the right of return and is in line with the consensus issues agreed on by Palestinians.

The methodology of reaching statehood is also interesting here. Coming after the Fatah conference -- shifting from armed resistance to popular non-violent resistance -- the Fayyad plan provides a clear, doable alternative to what President Mahmoud Abbas has opposed, namely the "militarisation of the Intifada and the 'senseless' rockets".

Even Israelis will have a hard-time publicly opposing this plan. It meets rather than contradicts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's calls for an economic peace while exposing the futility of continuing any settlement activities in areas that are the focus of this plan for a de facto Palestinian state.

With this plan, Fayyad has clearly separated what is required of the civilian leadership (Cabinet) and what is expected of the political (presidency).

This is a brilliant plan that works with or without Israeli cooperation. If the Israelis want a negotiated settlement, the plan gives negotiators two years to reach it. However, if the Israelis drag their feet, a Palestinian state will exist in reality by then.

Once these tangible elements of a genuinely viable Palestinian state come into being, all that will be needed is the political will to declare statehood and enjoy worldwide recognition.
Read more: London Times, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Israel, Plo, Obama, Fatah, Salam-Fayyad, Us, Palestinian State in Two Years, Palestinian Territories, Salam Fayyad, Salam Fayyad Palestinian State Plan, World News

Why Israeli Jew Uri Davis Joined Fatah To Save Palestine

2009-08-22T19:26:07Z
Uri Davis is used to denunciations. A "traitor", "scum", "mentally unstable": those are just some of the condemnations that have been posted in the Israeli blogosphere in recent days. As the first person of Jewish origin to be elected to the Revolutionary Council of the Palestinian Fatah movement, an organisation once dominated by Yasser Arafat, Davis has tapped a deep reserve of Israeli resentment. Some have even called for him to be deported.
Read more: Fatah, Fatah Jews, Uri Davis, Israeli Jew Joins Fatah, World News

Daoud Kuttab: Americans and Ramallah Youth

2009-08-20T11:33:39Z
I had to rub my eyes a few times to be sure that what I was seeing was real. The setting was downtown Ramallah. The event, International Youth Day. The participants were wearing white T-shirts with logos on the front and back and blood red hats.

The International Youth Day, in which these Palestinians from all over the West Bank were participating, was organized by a network of youth NGOs called " We are Palestine". The theme of this year was "We will be as much as we can dream".

The day's events began with a carnival, starting from the well-known Manara Square, passing through the streets of Ramallah and ending at the Orthodox Club. Discussions throughout the day included talks about drugs and unemployment, a basketball game for disabled youths and various concerts. In addition to the troupe Bailasan and Tagareed, the evening ended with two rap concerts, by a group called G-town and with Blood in Street providing the finale.

What surprised me was not the event or the enthusiasm and number of the youth participating in it. After all Palestinians under the age of 25 constitute the majority of the population of residents living in the occupied West Bank.

My surprise was to see the public sponsor of the event. The red white and blue logo of USAID with the words "From the American people" appeared everywhere at the event and on the back of the T-shirts of all participants. The fact that USAID is sponsoring a youth event might not be totally strange in itself. But to have the American aid's logo brandished all over the streets of Ramallah, on outdoor signs and on the back of a moving sea of people really surprised me.

It was only a few years ago that young people, possibly many of the same ones celebrating Youth Day this week, were demonstrating in the same Ramallah Manara Square against Israel and its ally the US. Anti-American slogans used to be the norm at almost all Palestinian youth-led demonstrations.

What has happened? Have Palestinians become less politicized or has anti-Americanism sentiment mellowed.

I decided to conduct my own unscientific poll among the hundreds of youth gathered in Ramallah for this year's International Youth Day. My question was simple: Has it become acceptable among Palestinians to wear a hat or a T-shirt praising Americans?

The answer most respondents had can be summarized in two words: Barack Obama.

The newly elected African American president has done more to change America's image among Palestinians than any policy declaration or political activity.

People were careful to note that they are not blindly supporting the US now. Nor did they believe that everything the new American president said will be carried out. But it was clear that the presence of a son of an African immigrant in the White House has had its effects on the psyche of Palestinian youths.

Other reasons were stated. Young Palestinians have had it with the constant and intensified political rhetoric. While no one I spoke to was any less nationalist, many were willing to say that they were not willing to wait for ever for political change and that there is more to life than following the never-ending political discourse.

While some expressed disillusionment with many in the Palestinian leadership, others had words of praise for the current Palestinian prime minister, and others expressed hope in the newly elected Fatah leadership.

At one corner of the Orthodox Club's basketball court where hundreds of chairs were assembled, a group of young people was singing Fatah songs to the sound of a drum.

It is not clear whether my observations on August 19 reflect a change in the thinking of Palestinian youth or whether it is an isolated incident. But I don't remember a day in the last 20 years or more that I could see American symbols being worn without those wearing them or people around them batting an eyelid about it.

20 August 2009

Read more: Intifada, Barak Obama, Anti-Americanism, Americans, Palestinians, America, Usaid, Young Palestinians and Obama, Young Palestinians, Usaid Palestine, Barack Obama Palestinians, Fatah, World News

Christopher Herbert and Victoria Kataoka Rebuffet: Weekly Foreign Affairs Roundup

2009-08-14T15:07:18Z
These Past Two Week's Top Stories in Foreign Affairs:

Afghan Elections
SI Analysis: Presidential elections in Afghanistan will be held on 20 August. Incumbent Hamid Karzai is expected to lead the polls, thanks in part to the Pashtun's shrewd alliances with Hazara Uzbek and Tajik elders and warlords. There are 40 candidates in all; other notables include former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah (who reportedly has a lot of Iranian cash in his campaign coffers), Hazara outlier Ramazan Bashardost and former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani. If elected, Karzai says he will seek to increase Afghanistan's Army and police force as well as seek talks between tribal elders and members of the Taliban movement and the Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan, led by rebel leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Some Taliban and Pashtun militants have condemned the elections and a recent surge in violence has been designed to intimidate voters and keep them away from the polls. At least 500 of the 7,000 polling stations are in high-risk areas and American and NATO forces have been scrambling to ramp up security ahead of elections. Voter registration has been very high, a reported 17 million (though many say up to 18% may be fraudulent). Though much has been said about these elections as a referendum on the American surge in Helmand province and the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan in general, most analysts expect Karzai to win and expect little to change politically. There is a risk however that Tajiks backing Abdullah Abdullah could lash out if Karzai wins too handily. If there is a clear victory by at least a 50% majority, run off elections will be help on 1 October.

Fatah Reforming
SI Analysis: For the first time in 20 years, Fatah -- the Palestinian party with leadership in the West Bank and the only Palestinian party recognized by Israel and the US (and much of the world) -- held a congress in Bethlehem to elect new leadership and discuss party reforms. Though Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was re-elected unanimously as party leader, 14 out of 18 leading posts went to "new" leaders. Analysts hailed this as a turning point for Fatah, whose reputation for corruption and cronyism have often been cited as barriers to peace and effective Palestinian statehood (as well as the reason for Hamas' emergent popularity). Most notably two possible future leaders of Fatah emerged, Marwan Barghouti (currently in an Israeli jail) and Muhammed Dahlan. Analysts agree that Barghouti whose militant past yet current dovish posture may be the best hope to reunite Palestinians and push forward to a peace deal with Israel. In the short terms, Fatah's new leadership may make Palestinian reconciliation talks that will continue later in the month less likely to proceed (since Fatah has made a commitment to the two-state solution, which Hamas has categorically rejected). For real change and progress to be made, the new Fatah leadership must prove to the Palestinians, to the Americans and to the Israelis that now they are different . This will be accomplished for enhanced security in the West Bank and more effective statesmanship and management. (Then all that has to happen is for Hamas to accept new elections in Gaza, for Fatah to win, for the Israelis to release Marwan Barghouti and agree to substantive peace talks, and for both sides agree to a two-state solution that clearly outlines borders, a position on the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the long term status of Jerusalem. Simple right?)

Tensions in Latin America
SI Analysis: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said that the "winds of war are blowing" in South America. An ongoing rift between Venezuela and Colombia has been exacerbated by two interrelated events: on the one hand, recent evidence was revealed that Caracas may be supporting the Colombian rebel group FARC ; and on the other, Bogota recently authorized the US to establish a military bases on its territory. Chavez sought to shore up support at the Union of South American Nations held in Quito (Boliva and Equador complied, but Chile, Peru and even Brazil demured). Colombian President Uribe embarked on an unscheduled Latin American tour to explain his position and anti-drug priorities to the region. Venezuela has slowed energy deliveries to Colombia over the rift.

War Reports:

SI Analysis on Iraq: One month after the withdrawal of US forces from US cities, Iraq suffered a spate of bombings. And conflict intensified around the area of Mosul ; there is an ongoing political dispute between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Kurds over this oil rich area of northern Iraq. The lack of a political solution has lured radical jihadist and Sunni militias, such as Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Ansar al-Islam, away from Shia targets to focus attacks on Iraqi-Kurds, thus ensuring continued conflict and an undermining of the central Iraqi government ahead of next January's elections.

SI Analysis on Pakistan and Afghanistan: As more intelligence is gathered, it appears that CIA drone attack in South Waziristan have indeed killed the chief of Pakistan's Taliban Baitullah Mehsud. This is the latest victory for the Pakistani Army's concerted effort to rout Taliban militias hostile to Pakistan in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) and its North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). At least a third of the 2 million displaced refugees have begun to return home, after strategic gains in the Swat Valley seemed to take hold. The continued action in South Waziristan however may see a strategic rift between Pakistan and its American ally, as Pakistan will seek to close deals with militias and Taliban that are hostile to Afghanistan but not Pakistan, in order to ensure supply routes and safe passage for its troops. Meanwhile, a new judiciary crisis (that could evolve into a political leadership crisis) seemed afoot as Pakistan's supreme court found that former President Musharraf's declared state of emergency in 2007 was illegal; and thus calling into question the legitimacy of proclamations, judgments and decrees made during this period, including the pardoning of current President Zardari of corruption charges. The decision also prompted the sacking and reprimanding of numerous judges. Also a report has emerged suggesting that at least three documented attempts on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal by extremist militias have occurred in recent past, prompting concern over the true safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?

Analysis In Brief :

Russian Posturing
SI Analysis: Tensions between Russia and Ukraine are heating up as disputes over Russian gas transit to Europe via the Ukraine are revived, undermining a comprehensive agreement that was reached only in January and placing more duress on a struggling Ukrainian economy. Moscow has delayed diplomatic appointments to Kiev citing the conflict and says it is eagerly awaiting new Ukrainian leadership. This is a blatant attempt to influence next January's Ukrainian presidential elections. Also of note: Russia reached agreements to set up a military base in Kyrgyzstan; the head of Russia's strategic nuclear-missile forces Nikolai Solovtsov was fired as a start of an extensive reform of Russia's armed forces; also Russia oversaw peace talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Why the Spate of Spanish Bombings?
SI Analysis: After a double bombing two weeks ago, four additional bombs exploded in Spain near Majorca. The Basque separatist group ETA claimed responsibility. This is the 50th anniversary of its inception.

Myanmar Junta's Powerplay
SI Analysis: By commuting the three year jail sentence to 18 months of house arrest for the National League for Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the ruling military junta toed the perfect line of appearing to heed international pleas for her release and yet ensuring that she will not be able to campaign for next year's elections. Despite some protest from the opposition from within the country and international rage, the junta demonstrated that it remains surely in control of the country and was reassured that all international intervention will remain symbolic and hence ineffective.

Lebanese-Israeli Tensions
SI Analysis: Suleiman promoting Lebanese unity. Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri suffered a blow in his effort to form a unity government when Druze ally Walid Jumblatt walked away from his alliance with the March 14 coalition. slate

North Korean Negotiations?
SI Analysis: After former President Clinton's ace rescuing of the two feckless journalists from North Korea, there has been much speculation whether or not the DPRK was guaranteed direct talks with the US. The US has staunchly insisted that six-party negotiations will be the only order of the day (especially since it seems to have Russia and China on its side following Pyongyang's most recent nuclear missile test). North Korea may have given up its biggest international card in exchange for a domestic victory to ensure a hold on power and a clear succession to leader Kim Jong-il's third son Kim Jong-un.

Little to Report on the Three Amigos Summit
SI Analysis: The leaders from Canada, Mexico and the United States met to vow continued unity in the fight against drugs and to publicly eschew protectionism trends in light of the global recession (though President Obama refused to lift the "Buy American" provision from the stimulus bill).

Under the Radar:

South Asian Terrorism on the Rise?
SI Analysis: Following the Jakarta attacks of late July and the Indonesian crackdown on Jemaah Islamiya and the disputed death of Indonesia's chief terrorist Noordin M. Top, there were reports of fighting between the Philippine Army and the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf on the island of Basilan in the southern Philippines. Both Indonesia and the Philippines have made a concerted effort to crackdown on the radical extremist militias over the past few years and violence seemed to lull. However, recent activity could indicate a resurgence of these groups that were forced to go underground, reorganize and reequip following the crackdowns.

China Seeking Indian Division?
SI Analysis: Despite recent bilateral talks, latent tensions between China and India endure. Notably, a recent report from the China International Institute of Strategic Studies actually suggested that China support independent movements in Assamese, Tamils and Kashmiris in an effort to divide the Indian State.

This briefing can be seen in the Huffington Post and on the Simple Intelligence site.
Read more: Russia, Hamid Karzai, Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, Pakistan, ETA Basque, Fatah, Noordin Mohammed Top, China, Aung, Elections, Marwan Barghouti, Colombia, Baitullah Mehsud, Alvaro Uribe, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chaudry, World News

Daoud Kuttab: Fatah Moves Closer To Becoming A Political Party

2009-08-12T13:47:55Z
The Fatah movement, the key Palestinian guerrilla movement within the Palestine Liberation Organization moved one step closer to becoming a political party.

With the holding of their sixth congress for the first time in occupied territories, it is hard to continue pretending to be a liberation movement. Officially, however, the over 2,000 delegates representing former Fatah fedayyin (guerillas) and intifada activists voted to continue the resistance struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Resistance however was explained in a much wider perspective than the military struggle.

Mahmoud Abbas who was unanimously elected as party leader and commander in chief made it clear that while all options are still available, our choice for ending the occupation is through negotiations. And if anyone (such as Israeli defense minister Barak) took the rhetoric on resistance seriously, congress spokesman Nabil Amr officially assured all concerned that Fatah is committed to peaceful resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict.

Signs of the move to a political party were evident all over the place. Gone were the khaki suits and militaristic paraphernalia, and instead it was replaced by men in suits and proper ID badges for all delegates. Backroom decisions and top down guidance was replaced with a democratic free fall that saw many of Fatah's historic leaders fall to the way side making room for younger and locally popular leaders. Naturally the 20 year hiatus since the last congress created a huge gap that was quickly filled with street credentials rather than military ones.

The ballot rather than the bullet process produced the failures of some of Fatah's famous names such as Ahmad Qurei and the Intisar Wazir the widow of Abu Jihad, the movements founder along with Arafat and Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad).

Holding the congress in Palestine ended the role of many of the anti Oslo leaders such as Mahmoud Jihad and Farouk Qadoumi. Sidelining Qadoumi whose accusation, on the eve of the congress, that Abu Mazen and Dahlan had helped Israel in poisoning Arafat will close the role of some of the Fatah leaders who were aligned with some of the hard line Arab countries such as Syria and Libya. President Abbas, however, showed magnanimity towards Qadoumi by calling him to return to the movement's fold, despite all that happened in the past.

Fatah guerilla leaders who have dominated the movement since its establishment were replaced by intifada activists. Most of the newly elected central committee members represent the leadership of the 1987 uprising in the occupied territories. In his speech Abbas referred to these intifada leaders telling the congress that the first intifada wrote the guidelines that has become the movement's political platform since then. Leaders like imprisoned tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti, former Preventative Security chief Jibril Rajoub and Gaza's Mohammad Dahlan are now in the driver's seat of the Fatah movement.

Dahlan who many had accused of personal responsibility for the loss of Gaza to Hamas gave a strong speech accusing the previous Fatah leadership of having lost Gaza long before it actually fell in June 2007. Speaking to clapping from the congress Dahlan detailed how the former Fatah leadership repeatedly ignored his warnings and his pleadings to the central committee members to come to Gaza and to see for themselves the situation on the ground.

The Fatah congress also dealt a blow to the abuse and corruption that has plagued the movement in recent years and especially since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Speaker after speaker insisted that the movement's weakness happened when its leaders were sucked into government positions and all the temptations that are connected to that. A resolve to attempt to distance the movement from the Palestinian Authority was the overriding sentiment in the conference. This sentiment was translated in the voting out of those who represented this duplicity, perhaps the chief among them former prime minister and leading negotiator Ahmad Qurei.

The Fatah movement has a way to go before it becomes a fully fledged political party. The overwhelming argument of delegates was that the movement must keep its options open to move back to secret underground movement if the negotiations for statehood fail while being ready for a political party if a Palestinian state is born. For the time being the conclusion of the sixth congress reflects an inclination towards a party rather than an underground resistance movement.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Read more: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Marwan Barghouti, Pakistan, Ehud Barak, Palestinians, Fatah, Hamas, Israel, Plo, Israeli Ocupation, World News