Hamas on The Huffington Post

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.

Richard Grenell: Our Problematic Syria Policy

2009-11-26T13:13:33Z

I am currently in Israel, in an area called the Golan Heights, which rests alongside the Syrian border. The following is a video blog that highlights the problematic policy the United States has with regards to Syria, and its larger role in the region.

Read more: Hezbollah, Video, Iran, Hamas, Barack Obama, Syria, World News

Menachem Rosensaft: Finding Common Ground

2009-11-25T06:08:37Z

At a time when Judaeophobia -- a more accurate term than anti-Semitism in the context of Israeli-Arab or Jewish-Muslim relations -- is on a stark upswing in the Arab street, it is important for us to pay tribute to the efforts of the handful of Jewish and Muslim leaders who are fighting against hatred and extremism on both sides of the chasm that separates the respective descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.

Hardliners have long dismissed as naïve and utopian those Israelis and Palestinians who try to find common ground against the ongoing cycle of suicide bombings and rocket attacks followed by military reprisals.

They have a point. The shrill, hate-filled voices of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk continue to dominate the airwaves and shape the debate. Each time Ahmadinejad repeats his canard that the Holocaust is a "lie" and a "myth" purportedly invented by Western leaders to justify the creation of the State of Israel, we retreat to our ideological bunkers and reconcile ourselves to the disquieting probability that any perceived light at the end of the tunnel may well be a freight train heading straight at us.

Still, a consensus appears to be growing that dialogue with Israel's sworn enemies may be inevitable. The Israel government appears on the verge of exchanging imprisoned Palestinian terrorists in return for the release of IDF Sgt. Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped by the militant Hamas more than three years ago.

Shaul Mofaz, the former Chief of Staff of the Israel Armed Forces and Likud Defense Minister (now the second-in-command of the centrist Kadima Party) has not only presented an accelerated plan for Palestinian statehood but is prepared to negotiate with Hamas "if Hamas chooses and wants to sit at the negotiating table."

In this charged environment, those among us who remain committed to a political two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must recognize those individuals and organizations dedicated to bringing Jews and Muslims closer together, to shattering stereotypes and creating at least the beginning of a spirit of understanding and trust.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, a Vice President of the World Jewish Congress, believes that "Muslim leaders have an obligation to help prevent the toxic spreading of anti-Semitism among the Muslim masses . . . . In the same spirit, I believe that more Jewish leaders must speak out against Islamophobia, making clear that it is wrong to demonize an entire religion because of the hateful actions of a relative few."

Rabbi Schneier's Foundation for Ethnic Understanding has "twinned" American and European mosques and synagogues, and is endeavoring to bridge the Jewish-Muslim divide by forging a dialogue Imams and Rabbis from the United States, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The London-based Sheikh Dr. Muhammad al-Hussaini is taking part in this process because "it's absolutely critical at this juncture that there are Muslim voices that are willing to stand firmly and practice in opposition to Islamic-inspired anti-Semitism."

In France, the Foundation for the Memory of the Shoah is sponsoring Project Aladdin whose purpose is to spread awareness of the Holocaust in the Muslim world. Project Aladdin translated the Diary of Anne Frank into Arabic and Farsi. When Al-Manar, the television station of the Iranian-sponsored militant Hezbollah, called on Lebanese judicial authorities to prosecute those responsible for "distribution and import" of the classic work, Project Aladdin publicly condemned "this campaign of vilification and intimidation" and reiterated its conviction that reading the Diary "is a way towards the rejection of hatred, anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia. Reading the Diary must be one of the basic rights of every human being in any society."

Project Aladdin's Web site features Arab and other Muslim personalities who have written and spoken out about the importance of teaching the history of the Holocaust. Among them is Iraqi political analyst Bassem Mohammad Habib who denounced Holocaust denial as the result of "irrational doubt, promoted by certain parties under the guise of scientific inquiry."

Lebanese journalist Hazem Saghiya wrote in the daily pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat that Holocaust denial "is no longer tackled or discussed, except in intellectually retarded and educationally deficient circles. When the denial is being uttered by Arabs and Muslims, this adds another dimension, which is the inability to achieve any progress in reality, and then proceed to contest history with myth."

Abdulrrahman Wahid, the former President of Indonesia, and former Israeli Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, jointly declared Holocaust denial to be "the most visible symptom of an underlying disease -- partly political, partly psychological, but mainly spiritual -- which is the inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the humanity of others. In fighting this disease, religious leaders have an essential role to play. Armed with the knowledge that God created religion to serve as rahmatan lil 'alamin, or a blessing for all creation, we must guard against efforts to demonize or belittle followers of other faiths."

There are precious few positive developments these days in the Arab-Israeli conflict. If we condemn Ahmadinejad and other patrons of terrorism, we must, with equal force, commend those Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders who have the courage to speak out publicly against the continued fomentation of Holocaust denial and other manifestations of Judaeophobia in their midst. They may yet prove to be one of the most significant factors in the elusive search for peace in the Middle East.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Vice President of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants, and a former National President of the Labor Zionist Alliance.

Heather Robinson: Israeli Prisoner Exchange With Hamas: A Necessary Deal With The Devil?

2009-11-24T16:05:05Z

Is it ethical to for Israel to make a prisoner exchange with Hamas, a body that denies the right of Israel to exist?

Apparently, Israel is considering exchanging Hamas terrorists for IDF Sgt. Gilad Shalit.

Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists in a cross-border raid in June, 2006. Hamas militants, who have refused to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit him, have held him for three and a half years. In exchange for Shalit's release, Hamas is demanding the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Shalit's plight has captured the hearts of Israelis, who in a country where military service is compulsory at age 18 view the taking hostage of Israel Defense Forces soldiers with grave concern.

Of course, all Israel-supporters, and those who value human life, are praying for this young man's safe return home.

Historically, Israeli/Palestinian prisoner swaps have been grossly disproportionate, with hundreds of Palestinian prisoners-including those with blood on their hands-being released for just a few Israelis.

Or worse. In June 2008, the Israeli government, by Knesset vote of 22 to 3, decided to exchange numerous live Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners for the dead bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whose plight had consumed the nation, and broken the hearts of Israel-supporters around the world. (Regev and Goldwasser had been kidnapped by Hezbollah militants in July, 2006).

That's right, in exchange for dead bodies, Israel freed many live Palestinian prisoners, including a convicted child murderer/terrorist.

At the time, even outlets that normally blanch at Israel's self-defense seemed appalled by this decision.

It may be easy-too easy-for armchair warriors to critique the decision to undertake a prisoner exchange when it will save the life of a beloved brother, husband, son, or father.

Prisoner exchanges may be counterproductive by encouraging the practice of terrorist hostage taking (after all, the terrorists see their tactic works to get more of their people released. Is it any mystery they keep trying it?) But when, in the present moment, such an exchange will save even one life, it is hard to argue against the practice, even though it is will possibly endanger innocent lives in the future.

But whatever the understandable and heart-wrenching ethical and practical dilemmas of live prisoner exchange, this commentator can see no logical or ethical justification for prisoner exchange for a dead body.

In Judaism, the body after death is sacred and to be honored. But Judaism does not exalt death above life. Indeed, this difference-this dedication to the protection and prioritization of innocent life-separates Israel from its most pernicious enemies.

That exchanges have taken place in which Israel has traded, for the dead bodies of its soldiers, live Arab prisoners who could endanger innocent lives in the future and indeed probably will, is dangerously misguided. It has likely rewarded and possibly reinforced not only the practice of terrorist hostage-taking, but terrorist hostage-killing.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should not accept any assurances or promises, but consider an exchange if and only if Shalit is returned alive and healthy, to Israeli soil. Questionable as any prisoner-swap with terrorists may be, at the very least, a live, healthy prisoner, safely returned home to Israel, should be the absolute prerequisite.

May Gilad Shalit return home soon, alive and healthy.

Netanyahu: Prisoner Swap Not A Done Deal

2009-11-24T08:13:10Z

RAMALLAH, West Bank — At the top of the list of Palestinian prisoners likely to be freed in a possible swap for an Israeli soldier is a firebrand politician many Palestinians believe is a likely future president who can pull them out of their current political deadlock.

But if released – not a sure thing – Marwan Barghouti would face a rancorous Palestinian political split, an Israeli government resistant to concessions and possible challenges from within his own party.

Eric Trager: Obama's "Dangerous" Mideast Analysis

2009-11-24T07:49:53Z

Last week during a press conference in Beijing, President Barack Obama endorsed one of the most propagandized of pop theories regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When asked about Israel's plan to build 900 apartment units in Gilo - a Jewish neighborhood of southwest Jerusalem beyond the Green Line - Obama remarked:

I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.

In other words, Israeli settlement-building causes Palestinian terrorism.

It is worth pointing out that this idea is so widely discredited that even Jimmy Carter - after initially including it in his controversial book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid - has rejected it. Of course, the main problem with this theory is that it is morally outrageous: the notion that anything justifies targeting and killing innocent civilians is repugnant to decent people.

But more importantly, the theory is flat out wrong. After all, terrorism is typically an organizationally coordinated activity, in which the costs associated with attacks (acquiring materials, building a bomb, arranging transportation, etc.) are often too high for any individual - no matter how "embittered" he might be - to bear. Moreover, terrorist organizations - like other political players - are strategic actors: they strike when the strategic environment permits them to do maximal damage, and not merely when developments on the ground make them angry.

Recent developments reinforce the extent to which strategic realities - and not Israeli construction - determine Palestinian terrorists' decision-making. This past weekend, Hamas announced that it would halt rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, with one Hamas official acknowledging that the group wanted to prevent another round of Israeli retaliation. Indeed, given the strategic environment, Hamas fears further destruction in Gaza much more than it wishes to avenge new apartment units in Gilo.

None of this should be surprising to President Obama, whose supposedly "realist" outlook should give him an appreciation for the precedence that strategic interests take over emotional ones. On the other hand, a strange pattern seems to be emerging in the President's foreign policy prescriptions: realist principles take a hiatus whenever he is dealing with the Middle East.

Gilad Schalit Deal: Israel May Swap 1,000 Palestinian Prisoners For Soldier Held By Hamas

2009-11-23T10:46:42Z

JERUSALEM — Hamas leaders raced to Egypt on Monday amid signs of progress on a deal to swap hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for a captive Israeli soldier held by the Islamic militant group for more than three years.

The exchange could boost Hamas at the expense of its key rival, Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in part because one of the prisoners to be freed is Marwan Barghouti, his main challenger.

Israeli Aircraft Strike Gaza Targets, Seven People Wounded

2009-11-22T12:37:25Z

JERUSALEM — Israeli aircraft attacked two suspected weapons-making factories and a smuggling tunnel in the Gaza Strip early Sunday in what the military said was retaliation for Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel.

The airstrikes, which wounded at least seven people – including one seriously – came despite an announcement by Gaza's Hamas rulers that the territory's military factions had all agreed to stop firing rockets. The Hamas announcement came late Saturday, after the rocket attack.

Ray Hanania: Re-Energizing The Two-State Solution To Israeli-Palestinian Peace

2009-11-20T17:10:59Z

Yes, I am running for President of Palestine in the next election, if there is one. No, I don't expect to win. But then, many long shot candidates who don't expect to win, actually find themselves winning.

Still, my goal isn't to win office but to help re-ignite the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis not by pushing the leaders to do their jobs and stop putzing around but by reaching out to the grassroots Palestinian and Israeli publics.

I figure the leaders are hemming and hawing and violating past agreements because they believe the public doesn't care any more and that things have gotten so bad that conflict seems like a better alternative. Conflict is never a better alternative.

So I threw my political hat in the proverbial election campaign ring, and I am tossing my tongue in my stand up comedian cheek, too, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, the publics of both people can return to a place of sanity and end the blame game.

Here's my campaign platform and I think it's doable because Israelis and Palestinians are already responding positively:

I support two-states, one Israel and one Palestine. As far
as I am concerned, I can recognize Israel’s “Jewish” character and Israelis
should recognize Palestine’s “non-Jewish” character.

I oppose violence of any kind from and by anyone. I reject
Hamas’ participation in any Palestinian government without first agreeing to
surrender all arms and to accept two-states as a “final” peace agreement. But I
also reject allowing Israeli settlers to carry any weapons and believe Israelis
must impose the same restrictions on them.

I can support some settlements remaining – given the reality
of 42 years of time passing -- in a dunum-for-dunum land exchange. If Ariel is
500 dunums with a lifeline from Israel, then Israel gives Palestine 500 dunums
in exchange.

Jerusalem should be a shared city and Palestinians should
have an official presence in East Jerusalem. The Old City should be shared by
both permitting open access to the city to all with a joint Palestinian-Israeli
police presence.

Palestinian refugees would give up their demand to return to
pre-1948 homes and lands lost during the conflict with Israel. Instead, some
could apply for family reunification through Israel and the remainder would be
compensated through a fund created and maintained by the United States, Israel,
Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations.

I also think Israelis should find it in their hearts to show
compassion and offer their apologies to Palestinians for the conflict.

I support creation of a similar fund to compensate those
Jews from Arab lands who lost their homes and lands, too, when they fled.

I think the Wall should be torn down, or relocated to the
new borders. I have no problem separating the two nations for a short duration
to help rebuild confidence between our two people.

All political parties, Palestinian and Israelis, should
eliminate languages denying each other’s existence, and all maps should be
reprinted so that Israeli maps finally show Palestine and Palestinian maps
finally show Israel.

A subway system should be built linking the West Bank
portion of the Palestine state to the Gaza Strip portion of the Palestine
State. Palestine should be permitted to build a seaport access to strengthen
its’ industry, and an airport to permit flights and too and from the Arab and
Israeli world.

I would urge the Arab World to renew their offer to
normalize relations with Israel if Israel agrees to support the creation of a
Palestinian State.

And I would ask both countries to establish embassies in
each other’s country to address other problems.

While non-Jewish Palestinians would continue to live in
Israel as citizens, Jews who wish to live in settlements surrendered by Israel
could become Palestinian citizens and they should be recognized and treated
equally.

If Jews want to live in Hebron, they should be allowed to
live in Hebron and should be protected, just as non-Jews. In fact, for every
Jewish individual seeking to live in Palestine, a Palestinian should be
permitted to live in Israel. In fact, major Palestinian populations in Israel
could be annexed into Palestine (like settlements).

Another concept is to have non-Jews living in Israel
continue to live there but only vote in Palestinian elections, while Jews
living in Palestine would only vote in Israeli elections. A special citizenship
protection committee could be created to explore how to protect the rights of
minorities in each state.

Israel and Palestine should create joint-governing and
security agencies working with the United States to monitor the peace, and
establish an agency to pursue criminal acts of violence.

You tell me who has a better campaign platform that makes more sense among Israel's and Palestine's leaders?

Everyone knows what the answer is, we just need to find people with courage to start saying it. But Palestinians and Israelis don't have to wait until their leaders suddenly see the light and stop pandering to the extremists.

Enough is enough! Yalla Peace!

My campaign web site is www.YallaPeace.com. Join in this movement, not to make me president, but to give our children a better future than the nightmare of a past and present we now have.

Azeem Ibrahim: Why Israel Is Safer (From Iran) Than It Might Seem

2009-11-20T11:20:20Z

Is Iran's nuclear energy program just a cover for making nuclear weapons? If so, can it be prevented? And if not, will it attack Israel?

In thinking about these questions, it might help to imagine a scenario in which Iran did have nuclear weapons capability. I believe that doing so reveals three reasons why they would be unlikely to use it directly against Israel. None of these make it any less likely that Iran would seek to transfer their know how to Hizbollah, Hamas, or other groups. They just mean that the direct threat to Israel from an Iranian strike has been exaggerated.

First -- Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's foreign policy.

Most of the arguments that Iran is a threat to Israel center around Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. But he does not make Iranian foreign policy, Khameini does. Khameini has been in office since 1989, throughout the period of relative detente with the West during Khatami's presidency, and through the violent and volatile Ahmadinejad years. Yes, there is evidence that Khameini is a tyrant comfortable sanctioning violence to hold onto power in Iran; no, there is no evidence that he is a psychopath whose hatred of Israel would drive him to order the murder of millions. Yes, there is evidence that he sanctions the sponsorship of anti-Israel terrorism to increase his influence in the region, but no, there is no evidence that he values a confrontation with Israel the reprisal from which would inevitably cause Iranian casualties and threaten the regime's already weak power structure (from within even if not from without).

Second -- Mutually assured destruction would prevent a nuclear first strike in the middle east, just as it did in the Cold War.

Renowned nuclear thinker Sir Michael Quinlan's (architect of decades of British nuclear policy and world expert on nuclear strategy) excellent thesis on nuclear strategy takes as its premise that nuclear weapons prevents conventional war between those states which possess them. Since their first use in 1945 that has remained true. He argues that they guarantee that any war between nuclear states stays within very limited confines as a result of their both having nuclear weapons. The Cold War seems to bear this out.

The counterargument is that the above rules do not apply because Ahmadinejad is crazy. The two counterarguments to this are that:

Iran has not actually shown irrationality in its foreign policy

As explained, Ahmadinejad doesn't run the foreign policy anyway

In short, if Iran had nuclear weapons, both Iran and Israel would know that any nuclear first strike by either would have unthinkable results and they wouldn't do it.

Third -- A nuclear first strike would not serve any realistic conception of Iran's interests.

There is plenty of evidence that Iran's strategy has been to increase its influence in the region. If this is so, a nuclear strike would not realistically serve that agenda.

Iran would alienate all allies

...lose any moral authority it may have acquired with allies such as Chavez etc

...very likely harm Palestinians due to extreme geographical proximity between Jewish and Palestinian populations, contributing further to the above two points

Fourth -- Israel has a sophisticated -- and tested -- anti-missile system called Arrow, which could knock out a potential Iranian first strike.

The Iranians are trying to buy an equivalent anti-missile system from Russia. But until they do, Israel can defend against Iranian missile attacks.

Conclusion -- Yes, there is a real danger that if Iran had nuclear weapons capability it could transfer that to Hizbollah, Hamas, or other groups, like they have in the past. Although Israel has conventional military superiority in the regions where those groups operate, that threat is not to be belittled.

But the particular threat that Israel is talking up -- that of a conventional nuclear strike from Iran if it makes nuclear weapons -- is overblown.

Jamal Dajani: The Saudi-Iranian Neo Cold War

2009-11-13T10:04:38Z

It's been four months since I described Yemen as a powder keg ready to explode. At the time the entire world was riveted to the television, watching the unfolding events of the "Velvet Revolution" in Iran. The Yemeni keg has since exploded. It is currently on the verge of causing regional conflict.

For more than a week now, Saudi Arabia has been carrying out military operations on its remote southern border to punish Houthi rebels from neighboring Yemen who crossed over and attacked one of its patrols. Both Yemen and Saudi Arabia have accused Iran of arming the rebels.

Accusations and counter accusations have been flying between the two rival regional powers. On Tuesday, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned that, "those who pour oil on the fire must know that they will not be spared from the smoke that billows."

This is not the first time Saudis and Iranians have faced off in the region. The rivalry between the two countries has been out playing its course for years, extending from the Persian Gulf (where the name alone is a point of contention, Saudis refer to it as the Arabian Gulf) into Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Like the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been supporting their factions in all these countries, either militarily, financially, or both.

Both Tehran and Riyadh used Lebanon as their own battlefront to settle scores to the point of almost tipping the country into another civil war less than two years ago. Iran has been accused of pumping millions of dollars into Gaza and supplying Hamas with arms, while Saudi Arabia has been supporting the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Many Iraqi Shiites have accused Saudi Arabia of aiding the Sunni insurgency in the country.

Nowadays, even Hajj (Islamic pilgrimage) is not spared from being a subject of contention between the two rivals. The Saudi government has recently issued a warning against pilgrims staging demonstrations during this year's Hajj, which runs from November 25-29. Although Iran was not specifically mentioned in the Saudi statement, Tehran replied that it would take "appropriate measures" if Iranian pilgrims were interfered with in any way. The Islamic Republic of Iran has long complained about the mistreatment and harassment of its pilgrims to Mecca by Saudi authorities during the Hajj season.

Like the original Cold War, both countries have launched sophisticated misinformation campaigns against one another. A propaganda war has raged between Iranian and Saudi government controlled media. During the Iranian election, Saudi media and its proxies viciously attacked the Iranian regime, highlighting poll irregularities, and the brutality of the Iranian Basij security forces. The Iranian media has constantly questioned, and on many instances mocked, the House of Saud's role as the custodian of the Holy Islamic sites in the Kingdom.

Last week without warning, two satellite companies, the Egyptian-owned Nilesat and the Saudi-managed Arabsat pulled the plug on Iran's Arabic-speaking news channel, al-Alam, or the World. Nilesat's executive director, Ahmed Anis, announced that the broadcasting was cut due to contract violations; however, media sources throughout the Middle East suggest that al-Alam's support for the Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen angered Saudi officials, who in turn used their influence to take it of the air.

So far, both countries have shied away from direct military contact. Iran and Saudi Arabia, like the US and the USSR of old, have been competing in a series of peripheral surrogate conflicts. Could their relations be strained enough to lead to direct confrontation? Everything seems to be possible these days in the Middle East.

Sharmine Narwani: Interview: Hezbollah And Hamas on Obama, Netanyahu, Terrorism ... And Oprah

2009-11-09T15:30:53Z

In early August and late October, I met with Hamas' Usama Hamdan and Hezbollah's Ammar Mousawi, chiefs of their respective organizations' foreign relations portfolios. The two groups are vastly different in structure, level of development and historical experiences, but share much in common too. Each can credit its origin to Israeli occupation. Hamas was born on the eve of the first Palestinian Intifada, from a single incident when an Israeli truck mowed -- some claim deliberately -- into a carload of Palestinian workers in the Gaza strip. Officially formed in 1985, Hezbollah, in turn, was jumpstarted by Israel's 1982 invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon. Although Hamas is a Sunni organization and Hezbollah a Shiite one, both groups embrace Islamic values as their core ideology and driving principle, though their political actions appear to be driven more by realpolitik than Quranic mandate. And the two groups form part of an increasingly powerful Mideast bloc that unapologetically refuses to accept any regional status quo that features an occupying and militarily adventurous Israel.

Hamas and Hezbollah are both seasoned denizens of the US State Department's List of Terrorist Organizations, a designation that seems odd when one considers that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese would fall through the cracks without the vital social services -- healthcare, education, employment, infrastructure development -- these two groups provide their indigenous populations. Ask a secular Palestinian or Lebanese civilian which of their political parties they trust most, and even the most begrudging among them may name Hamas or Hezbollah as the "cleanest" of their politicians.

And this influence continues regionally. Polls throughout the Middle East consistently point to Hezbollah's secretary general Hassan Nasrallah as the most popular leader in the Arab world. Hamas' Khaled Meshaal is never far behind -- a far cry from his main political opponent, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whose US-supported Fatah party is viewed as corrupt and incompetent, sometimes even by its own supporters. Despite US and Israeli efforts to isolate these groups by swathing them in the dreaded "terrorist" label and all that implies post 9-11, even pro-US Arab leaders are careful not to malign these groups. Popularity rubs off, so to speak.

But this isolation from mostly Western nations has taken its toll. Officials of both groups recognize that any resolution of conflict in the Middle East will likely necessitate US and European involvement. Concurrently, it appears that the West has copped on to a similar notion - that any resolution of regional conflicts will in turn necessitate the involvement of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

As a result, former US officials and current European officials have been making quiet pilgrimages to Beirut and Damascus for some years now - with occasional reciprocal visits - to try to build relationships and influence these groups. Tellingly, Hezbollah's Mousawi was meeting with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner just hours after our final interview. The going has been hard, but he points to the European Union's non-interference policy during the June Lebanese elections as a dividend of improved communications.

So where do things stand on rapprochement? What do they think of Obama? Do they have "hope" that US policy will "change?" What do they think of the peace process? Extremist groups in the Mideast - who are the worst offenders? Do they find inspiration in Americans and who might these figures be? Hamdan and Mousawi had plenty to say.

On Obama...

Ammar Mousawi: There is no doubt that we find certain traits that are distinguished in the character of Obama -- that he is no repetition of former US presidents. When we listen to his speeches, we certainly note something new. However, the political forces that make policy in the US allow any exceptional steps to be only limited. There is no doubt that there is a change in tone, but it is doubtful that there will be a change in policy. If change were to take place, it would not be in Cairo University -- it would have to be in the US Congress.

We know that Obama is experiencing political difficulties from his opponents. He is being besieged in domestic policy challenges and internal issues - healthcare reform, issues of his roots. So when he declared his ambitious approach for his solutions for the Mideast, they sent him the Israel lobby to put him in a corner.

Usama Hamdan: I think there has been no change since Obama became president. In fact, I believe we faced a great failure last month (when the US administration caved on the issue of an Israeli settlement freeze in the West Bank). It was a minor failure, but a failure nonetheless. Brings me as a Palestinian to ask why Palestinians should accept any conditions when Israel doesn't. I liked Obama's Cairo speech, but we have to see what happens on the ground.

The US is putting itself in a corner by thinking it is their responsibility to protect Israel in the region when Israel is doing the attacking. Someone has to be courageous enough - there must be conditions for Israel. If you have a child that doesn't have to follow rules, he will be spoilt. Israel is the US's spoilt child.

The US has to say to the Israeli government "That's it." They can do that. It is not so simple, but it is not too difficult either. Who in the world will support Israel against the US? Fifty percent of Europeans identified Israel as the biggest threat to peace and stability in the world -- not in the Middle East -- but in the world.

I understand that Obama is facing internal and external problems and pressures. But his priorities are not clear to us -- he seems confused. Palestinians will not wait forever.

On Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

Usama Hamdan: Netanyahu has always been against a genuine peace process. We had experience with him when he was prime minister from 1996-98 -- he undermined the Oslo Agreements, he divided the issues - there is a very bad experience with him. Adding to this is his foreign minister is Avigdor Lieberman -- the worst political figure in all the world. Add to that Ehud Barak. We are facing a government formed of extremists. Netanyahu, Lieberman and Barak? The worst combination in Israeli history.

Ammar Mousawi: One of the unfortunate aspects of Obama's term as president is that it is coupled with Netanyahu's. Netanyahu is not ready to even have an "apparent" flexibility toward peace.

On being called "terrorists:"

Ammar Mousawi: The War on Terror's objective was to corner legitimate resistance and prevent it from achieving its mission. The West still resists differentiating between resistance and terrorism -- and that is done on purpose. Resistance is defined as a legal fight against occupation as opposed to terrorism, which is defined as systematically killing innocent people. We are interested in having a dialog with the West because we would like to make them aware of our point of view. Resistance is part of world history -- it is not an uncommon thing. All these negative positions taken by the West are because of their support for Israel and unwillingness to see that the people of this region have the right to exist in peace. After the failure of all their attempts to destroy these resistance groups through military and political means, they concluded that they must now know more about us, how we operate. And so the dialogue begins.

(Hezbollah has been on the US terrorism list since 1999. Only the US, Israel and Canada recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.)

Usama Hamdan: We were listed on the US terrorism list in 1993 just because Israel asked for it -- before that we had direct contacts with the Americans. We even sent a letter to then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asking why. They know that they are wrong in this. They know that anyone who supports rights and justice supports the Palestinians. We want them to accept Hamas as the choice of the Palestinian people - they must respect the fact that Palestinians are committed to their rights. They will talk with us eventually. We are not in a hurry for that.

In the West, they try to shape you before dealing with you. This is the Palestinian experience. They've done this with Fatah. Hamas' position is to say what we are, what we stand for - clearly - and we can defend our rights best that way.

On Extremist Islamic Groups:

Usama Hamdan: All Islamists should want the good of their people. The most important point is how they deal with their own communities. In my belief, you have to be a good man to your own people - not push them hard or kill them if they don't accept your point of view. In Rafah, Gaza this August, we had clashes with a minority group which started killing Palestinians just because they had different ideas, by putting bombs in internet cafes, beauty salons and wedding parties.

We are against groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban for this reason. We condemned the attacks of 9-11, the explosions in London, the Madrid bombing when it was clear to us that these were not accidents.

Ammar Mousawi: We try to promote a positive image of Islam that is open to dialogue between people and cultures. We are not responsible for the actions of groups that present a different picture of Islam. We do not agree with the behavior of these groups -- they give a negative view of Islam. But the question is who created and supported these extremists?

What gives life to these entities is the policies of the West: unlimited support for Israel will cause this extremism. All the wars in Afghanistan will feed this extremism. We are in a situation where we will have wars with no end. Sovereignty, development, mutual respect, the right to determine your own destiny -- these issues need dialog, not wars.

Hezbollah condemns the deliberate killing of innocent people -- it promotes in us a sense of sadness as happened with 9-11, London, Madrid. And if there are some differences between us and the US, this is not the way to sort out our problems -- these acts are not excusable.

Mr. Mousawi, what is the status of efforts to form a Lebanese unity government -- and what are the chances of such a government being successful in overcoming the deadlocks and disagreements of the past?

We believe there are currently good chances for the formation of a national unity government, having overcome the most serious obstacles. We have finally reached agreement on the inclusion of Jubran Basil as a member of the cabinet, and General Michel Aoun has been granted the Telecommunications Ministry, both issues having been points of contention for the opposition.
As for the issue over various ministries, we are still deliberating the cabinet posts that will go to the opposition, but we are hopeful that things will go smoothly.

Mr. Hamdan, what is the status of efforts to form a Palestinian Unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah? How will this impact the holding of elections in 2010?

I have to say that we are still committed to the Palestinian reconciliation and we are willing to have this reconciliation for the benefit of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause. I believe that Mahmoud Abbas' move to hold elections on January 24, 2010 has undermined these efforts, but we are still working with the Egyptians to overcome this problem. However, I believe that no elections will take place without reconciliation between the two parties. On this same issue, a few days ago, Abu Mazen declared a clear failure in the peace process, saying that he will not be a candidate in the upcoming election. I think that was supposed to be a helpful step to go back to the Palestinian dialogue, because when you feel there is a failure in the process, you have to go back to the people. I think Abu Mazen was saying there is a failure in the political track, and he invited all the people to support national unity, to face the Israeli threat. This may help Palestinian unity.

No one can trust that there will be real elections without Palestinian unity and so it will be a waste of time and a new complication in the Palestinian cause if there is an election without this unity.

There must be a change in the Israeli mentality because they must understand that without ending the occupation, there will be no peace.

Outside of your own bloc, name a Middle Eastern leader you admire and tell us why:

Ammar Mousawi: I admire the Emir of Qatar who made something of his country -- it is small, but he has made it into a country of influence. They've helped us in rebuilding what Israel destroyed in its 2006 attack on Lebanon. The Emir was the first and only Arab head of state to come to the suburbs of Beirut to witness the horrifying destruction of the Israeli aggression. And we thank him for this because it motivated our own Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to come himself. Imagine the prime minister of all Lebanon didn't see the urgency to visit this area that had taken heavy bombardment and destruction? We are embarrassed in one sense, and angry on the other hand.

Your thoughts on US Middle East policy?

Ammar Mousawi: America is a great nation -- to get to this place has taken some great people, and a certain individuality that is renowned through history. We have no issues with the American people, we share many concerns with them on their government's policies. We have in the Middle East paid a heavy price for US policy. There are many Americans paying for these failed policies of previous administrations. Bush's ratings in the US dropped into the 20s. Therefore, can anybody be surprised if we say we object to aspects of US foreign policy?

We would like to say to Americans that they are subjecting themselves to a double standard - on one hand talking about values and on the other hand resisting and undermining these very values through their unconditional support of Israel's actions. The way they have received and treated the Goldstone Report has caused an uproar here.

I tell you this - America will not find anyone to assist it to come out of its Mideast crisis other than this bloc of nations that Hezbollah belongs to. If we count today the total US crises - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, even Pakistan, what does the supposed Arab "moderate" bloc have and what does our group have in terms of cards to help the US. The strength is in the hands of our resistance bloc.

Usama Hamdan: The US administration has to realize that Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, not the other way around. But they are sending weapons to be used against Palestinians every day -- at least $2 billion worth is sent to Israel annually. They have to put these basic facts on the table before pointing a finger at Hamas' rockets. We have said before we are ready to engage in a prolonged ceasefire if there is a complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian lands -- they did not even try to respond to this offer.

There is a peace process. Hamas opposes that peace process, not because we like to be against it, but because we believe there is no real peace. The Israelis and the sponsors of the process, mainly the US administration, were not creating peace through negotiations, they were dismantling the Palestinian cause. If you go through the Oslo Agreement, you discover that this agreement pushed aside the main issues that created the conflict -the status of Jerusalem, the land, sovereignty of a future Palestinian state, the right of return for refugees, and our natural resources. They said all of these have to be negotiated afterward!

We have an Arab saying that goes: the one who is safe from punishment will act badly. Israel feels it is totally protected, that it can do anything -- it feels it is a country above the law when the US uses its veto to protect Israel at every turn. If the Arabs work to protect their own interests, talk to the Americans about their mutual interests, I think the Americans will see the value of re-balancing their strategic interests in the region.

At the moment, nobody in the region can view the US as an honest broker of peace. That is because of the history of American foreign policy. The US has to make a major change - they have to show that they are balanced on the Palestinian issue and not just following the line of the Israeli lobby in the US.

Mr. Hamdan, are there any US presidents you admire, and why?

George Washington, because he led his people to independence. And John F. Kennedy, because he tried to make a change for the better.

Mr. Mousawi, do you watch any American television shows? Any particular programs you admire?

My wife likes the Oprah show, and I watch it with her sometimes -- Oprah seems to cover some interesting topics of social value.

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.

Tom Friedman: "It Is Time For A Radically New Approach" Toward Israeli-Palestinian Peace

2009-11-08T10:36:23Z

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has become a bad play. It is obvious that all the parties are just acting out the same old scenes, with the same old tired clich�s -- and that no one believes any of it anymore. There is no romance, no sex, no excitement, no urgency -- not even a sense of importance anymore. The only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic habit. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has left the realm of diplomacy. It is now more of a calisthenic, like weight-lifting or sit-ups, something diplomats do to stay in shape, but not because they believe anything is going to happen. And yet, as much as we, the audience, know this to be true, we can never quite abandon hope for peace in the Holy Land. It is our habit.

It is time for a radically new approach. And I mean radical. I mean something no U.S. administration has ever dared to do: Take down our "Peace-Processing-Is-Us" sign and just go home.

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.

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

Salena Tramel: Congress, Accountability, and the Goldstone Report

2009-11-04T10:14:26Z

I have been to the Gaza Strip twice and southern Israel once since the 2008-09 war, where I had the opportunity to listen to accounts from both people about what had happened to them during that time. Israelis showed me thickly walled rooms that act as bomb shelters and explained air raid siren systems in Sderot and Ashqelon. As difficult as their situation was, nothing could have prepared me for the level of destruction I found in Gaza. I walked through bombed-out buildings like the United Nation's food and aid storage facility and the children's ward of al-Quds hospital and heard stories from people who had lost families and homes. The entire territory seemed to have been razed to the ground.

I imagine that Judge Goldstone had a similar experience in Gaza where he and his team visited with survivors while conducting the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. "It was a very difficult investigation which will give me nightmares for the rest of my life," he said in a television interview last week.

The human rights framework is critical for all parties involved to move forward in the wake of operation "Cast Lead"--and that's precisely what Goldstone's report provided to the United Nation's Human Rights Council. The council overwhelmingly voted to endorse the mission's recommendations. Now members of the U.S. House of Representatives have pushed to bury that report for good in a fast-track vote that passed 344 to 36.

Many of its critics have called the report "unbalanced" (the House Resolution uses the term "irredeemably biased"). Actually, the report was far more "balanced" than the war--it found Palestinian groups had violated international law as well as Israel. The war itself was terribly unbalanced in terms of disproportionate loss of life and livelihood. Palestinian militants killed nine Israelis, including three civilians, during the three-week conflict. While these actions should be condemned roundly, so should the actions of the Israeli military that cost at least 1,300 Palestinians in Gaza--the majority of whom were civilians--their lives. Despite all the attacks on the messenger, no one has claimed that any allegation in the report is actually false.

Congress--and all Americans for that matter--should welcome each and every investigation of human rights violations, wherever and by whomever they may have been committed. In this particular case, we provide $3 billion annually for weapons and military equipment to one of the two parties (Israel) alleged to have used those weapons illegally. We have more responsibility than any other country to ensure that serious investigations are undertaken.

Upholding the Goldstone Report in no way prevents the Israeli government from conducting an internal investigation--and they should do just that. Knesset member Yuli Tamir expressed the necessity of accountable reporting after events such as the last war with Gaza while speaking on a panel in Washington last week. "We should have had an inquiry," she said, "we will, but it will be too little, too late, and not trusted because it is coming after international pressure." Israeli human rights groups such as B'Tselem and international organizations like Human Rights Watch have already published their reports on the war.

There is obviously a lot at stake for both Israel and the Palestinians in the wake of the most violent actions against the occupied territories since the occupation itself in 1967. Another round of peace talks is about to take place, with the U.S. again taking up the part of the "honest broker". Dismissing much of what happened in Gaza will do little to earn us any respect in that role and has the potential to seriously upset that process.

Fred Abrahams: On Israel, Congress Tolerates Abuse

2009-11-04T08:03:11Z

Yesterday the US Congress gravely insulted hundreds of civilians who were wounded or killed in the most recent war in the Middle East.

By a vote of 344 to 36, the House condemned the report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, also known as the Goldstone report, which documents violations of the laws of war by Israel and Hamas during the conflict last December and January. The 179 Democrats and 165 Republicans who voted yea are helping to shield those responsible on both sides.

The resolution succumbs to predictable American politics, in which criticisms of Israeli actions are rejected as delegitimizing attacks on Israel, and even as anti-Semitism. It misses a chance to break the impunity on all sides that has dogged the conflict and impeded efforts at peace. And, most significant for US foreign policy, it gives abusive governments around the world a handy excuse to deflect US criticism of their own unlawful conduct.

The nonbinding Resolution 867 calls the Goldstone report "irredeemably biased" and says the president and secretary of state should "oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration" of the report in multilateral forums. It says the report is being used to deny Israel the right to self-defense.

The 344 supporters have apparently not read the report. The 575-page document records violations of the laws of war by Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, and concludes that all sides committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. Both Israelis and Palestinians need to carry out investigations that meet international standards or face international prosecution.

The UN Human Rights Council adopted the report's conclusions in October, and the General Assembly is scheduled to consider the report later this week. The resolution before Congress rightly condemns the Human Rights Council's past bias against Israel, but ignores that in this case the Council asked the Goldstone mission to also examine Palestinian armed groups and then endorsed the findings that Hamas committed war crimes.

The report's conclusions about Israeli violations reflect the mission's research findings and not a "pre-judged" outcome, as the resolution suggests. Israel's three-week Operation Cast Lead involved a complex and multi-faceted campaign in which hundreds of civilians died in indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks.

Co-sponsored by Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Democrat Howard Berman, the resolution is also wrong on a number of points. The resolution contends that the fact-finding mission's mandate was biased, but fails to mention that the mandate was deliberately expanded to look at both sides. And the resolution claims that Hamas significantly shaped the report's findings "by selecting and pre-screening some of the witnesses." Goldstone has adamantly rejected that claim, and no one has provided any evidence that Hamas selected or pre-screened witnesses.*

The resolution also repeats an oft-heard critique that the report "denied the State of Israel the right to self-defense." The report does not question Israel's right to use military force. It examines whether Israel and Hamas, in resorting to force, conducted military operations in compliance with the laws of armed conflict, which are designed to spare civilians as much as possible the hazards of war.

Congressional critics also ignore elements of the report that the Obama administration has embraced. Top US officials have strongly criticized the Goldstone report but have also said that the findings deserve attention and that Israel should conduct credible investigations. Some Israeli officials are now saying the same.

Rejecting the call for accountability also harms the US government's ability to push for justice in other parts of the world, such as the Congo and Darfur. When Washington turns a blind eye on violations by Israel, it gives abusive governments and their supporters a way to deflect criticisms of their unlawful conduct. It also dilutes President Obama's message in Cairo that the United States will take a more principled stance in the Middle East.

This approach and this resolution will not help Israel or the region. Instead of denouncing the report, members of Congress should urge Israel and Hamas to conduct credible investigations, bring those responsible to justice and halt the unlawful attacks on civilians that for too long has fueled hatred and hindered efforts at peace.

* CorrectionThis paragraph has been corrected from an earlier version that mistakenly said the resolution condemns the Goldstone report for failing to mention rocket and mortar attacks. It actually condemns the mandate of the fact-finding mission in this regard, not the report itself.

Fred Abrahams is a senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch, who led the organization's research team during the Gaza war.

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Timidity Vs. Audacity? The Tests Are Yet to Come

2009-11-03T15:46:35Z

A year ago today I was sitting on a cold floor of a dark elementary school at 5am determined to be the first in my precinct to vote for Barack Obama. I could not sleep the night even though as a veteran of other election campaign nights I could feel the anticipated outcome coursing through my veins -- one of those few and far between great election highs. How great it felt -- no artificial stimulation necessary!

The world is a far better place because Obama is president. In most of the world (but in too many vital places not necessarily so where it may matter, such as Russia and Israel) Obama has shepherded a restoration of trust and confidence in the ideals that rekindle America's role as a beacon of hope. The President has positioned himself as a first among equals on the world stage -- and has done so with aplomb, steady bearing and an incredible grasp of national security minutiae. For those who questioned this young president's national security experience he has been consistently sure-footed on the world stage and a credit to his countrymen.

And yes, just ask them. Obama and his talented national security team are globally "engaged." Engaged with Russia, engaged with Europe, engaged with Latin America, engaged with Iran, and today, even engaged in Myanmar. Engagement is great. I am all for it. But "engagement" is a means to an end, and not a national security strategy, but a tactic -- an important one given what was inherited from the un-engaging (please read pejorative into my use of this word) Bush Administration.

But to date, other than the impending monumental Afghan troop decision, there's not many "buck stops here" tests of presidential leadership on which history books are written.

Much of the initial global euphoria has given way to the hard reality of inherited messes, and the Oval Office is becoming a lonely place for our global hero, who confronts life and death choices that will shape his presidency and the nation's future.

Afghanistan is a "buck stops here" decision. So, too, is what to do about Iran's "give and take back" uranium export offer. What will Obama do if the Iranians kick more sand in his face on fulfilling its IAEA obligations? Is conflict avoidable and, if so, at what cost to our security? And what can be done to move the Israeli-Palestinian equation off its dead center? Time's a-wastin' and in a year of best intended efforts we're not much closer to any acceptable Palestinian state goal line. Extremism and terrorism remain ever constant threats to our homeland. And nothing gives me more pause than the future stability of Pakistan. Like the scene out of "Naked Gun", one can't help fearing the world's dictators and terrorists are gathered around some mountain hideaway contriving up a crisis to surely test presidential mettle.

These are the tests that may likely make a 3am wakeup call a certainty in the months ahead.

So far there has been a tendency to vocalize intent and engage in convenient can-kicking, rather than actionable resolve. That's not timidity....that's testing the state of the ship's rudder. Well, I for one am glad that the Nobel Peace Prize will sit on its rightful pedestal in the White House as a tangible reminder of what constitutes unfinished business.

But these are damn difficult problems and they would have been easier to contend with had Bush and Co. not fallen flat on their proverbial derrieres while on the job. And Cheney's neocons have the audacity to accuse Obama of making the country less safe...what temerity!

I know this President is determined to make his mark internationally -- and the canvas is before him. Transforming eloquent word into sustainable deed will be the true test of his audaciousness.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Standing Against the 'Wrong is Right' Goldstone Resolution

2009-11-03T15:08:02Z

Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt. Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist.

Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian.

The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility of all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the "Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right" resolution.

Because if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read, concerning events it has totally ignored, about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution.

How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation?

How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to the human security of jobs, education and health care?

We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of that principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim.

Hamas Missiles Can Strike Tel Aviv, Says Israel MI Chief

2009-11-03T09:23:28Z

Hamas operatives in the Gaza Strip possess in their military arsenal a missile that is capable of striking Tel Aviv, the army's top military intelligence officer told a parliamentary panel in Jerusalem on Tuesday.

The head of Military Intelligence for the Israel Defense Forces, General Amos Yadlin, told the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committee on Tuesday that Hamas has recently tested a missile capable of reaching targets at a distance of 60 kilometers.

Daoud Kuttab: Will Elections Help or Hurt Palestinian Reconciliation

2009-11-02T17:00:51Z

The decree issued by Mahmoud Abbass, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has pushed the conflict between PLO's main faction, Fateh, and the Islamic Hamas movement to yet another stage. While many consider this move very risky for the future of Palestine, others feel that it is the only democratic way out of the impasse.

It has been known for a long time that October 25 was the constitutional deadline for the current Palestinian Authority's legitimacy as an elected body. The Palestinian Basic Law, a sort of interim constitution, clearly calls for simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections. The unexpected death of Yasser Arafat and the untimely presidential elections 60 days after that, as per the Basic Law, created a problem in that in order to hold presidential and parliamentary elections at the same time, one of two things was needed. Either the parliamentary elections would be held before the end of the regular term or the presidential elections would be delayed.

Cutting short the term of the January 2006 elections was seen as political difficult due to the conflict with Hamas whose supporters won a majority of seats. Delaying the presidential elections was chosen as the lesser of two evils. Initially Hamas leaders began questioning Abbas' legitimacy after January 25, 2009. But this issue was resolved at the Egyptian-sponsored reconciliation talks and Hamas agreed not to question Abbas' legitimacy. Others have, and also tried to delegitimize the Fayyad government, but these voices were few.

Election dates came up throughout the spring and summer as the Egyptians were told clearly by Abbas and his colleagues that he would not be able to delay the elections again. At bilateral talks, Hamas leaders did not show keenness to honour this date and insisted on a six-month delay. In response, the Egyptians incorporated the Islamists' request in the hope that this would seal the reconciliation deal.

The Ramallah leadership was unhappy with the election date. While it might have been possible to delay the presidential elections and have them held simultaneously with the parliamentary elections, this time it would be hard to justify a further delay. Abbas' legitimacy and mandate being questioned more and more meant that he needed the elections in order to be able to lead, both internally and externally.

Pressure from Egypt, coupled with what seemed like a commitment from Hamas to actually hold these joint elections in June 2009, allowed Abbas and his Fateh movement to reluctantly agree to the Egyptian proposal. It wasn't clear how the extension would be legally justified, but it was agreed that if there is agreement between the PLO factions and the Islamists, then such a short delay would be publicly acceptable as a price for unity.

Hamas' procrastination in signing the Egyptian bridging proposal left the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah with little choice but to issue the decree. Since it normally takes three months to prepare for any election, Abbass called in Hanna Nasser, the head of the Independent Elections Commission, and instructed him to prepare for the elections to be held on their constitutional date, January 25, 2010.

It remains to be seen whether the elections will take place on time or, if they do, whether they will be held in Gaza as well as the West Bank. The inability to hold the elections in Gaza or a boycott by important sectors of the West Bank population and political factions will certainly hurt the Palestinian cause even if it legitimises the Ramallah leadership.

Fateh leaders, including the imprisoned central committee member Marwan Barghouthi, are still hoping that the coming months will witness a breakthrough allowing for full Palestinian participation in the exercise of this constitutional right. Others are not so optimistic, saying that such an outcome would make the Gaza-West Bank split permanent.

The continuation of the Palestinian split has certainly made a united Palestinian stand to negotiate an end to the occupation difficult. Islamist leaders, whose ultimate goal is an Islamic state, are not in a rush to simply end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and therefore have no problem waiting in order to reach their ultimate goal.

Palestinian leaders wishing to continue peace negotiations insist that the majority of Palestinians wants a peaceful end to the occupation within the 1967 borders. In order to attain the aims of this peace-loving Palestinian majority, the Palestinian leadership feels it needs a legal mandate to continue the peace talks.

The elections are therefore mandatory if the desires of the majority of Palestinians can be converted into a policy that can be implemented.

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.

Tony Judt: Justice Goldstone and the Jews

2009-10-29T16:31:37Z

We Jews should be very proud of Richard Goldstone. In an ancient tradition of Jewish self-questioning and uncomfortable truth-telling, the author of the recent report from the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has braved personal vilification and institutional mendacity to describe the crimes committed by Israeli forces in the course of their invasion of Gaza in December 2008.

To be sure, the Goldstone Report also itemizes the crimes of Hamas, notably in its campaign of rocket-firing into Israel. But the scale of human rights abuses by Israel vastly outdoes anything Hamas could hope to have achieved: Israeli civilian victims of Hamas rocket attacks numbered less than ten. The attack on Gaza by the IDF resulted in at least 1,100 Palestinian civilian deaths. The major perpetrator of human rights abuses in this conflict is without question the State of Israel, and Justice Goldstone records as much.

That the Israel of Benjamin Netanyahu has chosen to conduct an international campaign against Justice Goldstone and his report need not surprise us. Israel refused to cooperate with the UN investigation; long before its conclusions were published, Netanyahu had set in motion a campaign to deny and denigrate them. More dispiriting, and of greater political consequence, is the pitiful and humiliating response of the Obama Administration. The "fierce urgency of now" apparently required that Washington join Tel Aviv in discrediting the Goldstone Report, and with it the UN inquiry.

This response is of course in keeping with America's long-standing determination to protect Israel against the consequences of its actions at home and abroad; but the universal international condemnation of the destruction of Gaza renders the Obama Administration's response peculiarly self-defeating -- everyone knows what happened in Gaza, so Washington's collusion in covering it up merely draws further attention to the discrediting of U.S. foreign policy and moral standing brought about by our unhealthy relationship with Israel.

There is a special irony to the public slandering of Justice Goldstone now under way. In the first place he is not only Jewish but has close family links to Israel and the Zionist ideal. Secondly, Richard Goldstone has an impeccable resumé as a critic of racism, prejudice and repression -- most notably as an active opponent for many years of the apartheid regime in his native South Africa. During the '90s he served as Chief Prosecutor at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals dealing with human rights abuses, crimes and genocide in the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. It would be hard to fictionalize a more convincing biography for an engaged and ethically uncompromising jurist in the great tradition of Jewish political activism. Goldstone's standing in the world will only rise as a consequence of Israel's short-sighted attempts to discredit the man, the report and the facts. That our own government has chosen to join in this unworthy exercise should be a source of deep embarrassment and shame.

Please join me and Jews from all over the world in signing the Jewish Appeal Letter in Support of the Goldstone Report written by Jews Say No an organization in NY. Go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/UNreport/petition.html

Edgar M. Bronfman: The Regional Economics of Peace

2009-10-28T10:39:37Z

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 final article of a four part series (see here, here, and here) will highlight some of the other issues that peace requires, primarily a regional approach to peacemaking.

A peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will likely depend to a great extent on the economic development of a future Palestinian state. As I have argued before, private sector investment -- especially in the West Bank -- is going to prove crucial in creating the right political and social context for peace.

However, both a political resolution to the conflict as well as economic reform among the Palestinians are going to require a regional approach. In this, the Arab world needs to play a much larger role than it has, primarily as an import market and as a positive influence on the overall regional business environment.

The question needs to be asked, what kind of relationship will a future Palestinian state have with its Arab neighbors? The Palestinian economy is, and will likely continue to be, highly reliant on trade. And yet, trade between the Palestinian Authority and the Arab states is extremely limited. Trade with Jordan and Egypt, for example, makes up just over 3 percent of total Palestinian exports.

Moreover, the Palestinian economy, as currently constituted, is approximately 60 percent service-based. This is not only unsustainable, but also a poor model for future growth. What the Palestinians need is real economic reform that creates goods for export, and an obligation from their Arab neighbors that they will in fact provide a ready market.

The place to start, arguably, is in the Palestinian agricultural sector. As an already important part of the current West Bank economy, agriculture and agriprocessing should be used as a base upon which to build on. Agribusiness could provide an opportunity for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects, spurred on by Israeli technical expertise in this field. In addition, agriculture -- as opposed to other industries like manufacturing and construction -- would likely prove less sensitive to Israel in security terms.

Increased Palestinian agricultural production could thereby assist in providing a more solid foundation for the economy of a future state, providing jobs, joint investment projects with foreign backers, and goods for export. In this instance, land could be a catalyst for peace, and not the overarching impediment it has been historically.

Another area where additional regional assistance is needed is with the mitigation of uncertainty and risk. What every potential private investor demands above all else is security and stability for his (or her) investment. At present, though, this is still sorely lacking in the Palestinian arena. While much of the instability is a direct result of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as well as between the Palestinians themselves, outside forces also play a destructive role.

Rockets are still being smuggled into Gaza via Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, and Lebanon's Hezbollah still supports Palestinian terror groups (while continuing to threaten Israel's northern border). In addition, Hamas still rules the Gaza Strip, providing both a physical and ideological impediment to a comprehensive resolution of the conflict. In all these cases, the Arab states have an important role to play in resolving disputes, discrediting extremists, and laying the groundwork for a real Middle East peace.

It is simply baffling that at a time when Israel has taken concrete steps to help the Palestinian economy improve (removing checkpoints and increasing freedom of movement in the West Bank), and is contemplating taking additional difficult measures (like halting settlement construction), and while the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad have signaled their intention to improve governance and security, the Arab states receive a free pass.

For years we have been told by Arab leaders that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be the foremost concern of everybody involved in the Middle East. For years, however, they have failed to take steps on their own which would ease both Israeli security concerns and Palestinian suffering.

With a regional peace initiative reportedly the ultimate objective of the new US administration, now is the time for the Arab states to be part of the solution. Matching their rhetoric for a future Palestinian state with tangible economic development projects would be an extremely positive and necessary move. The world is watching, and waiting.