Vooruitgang in onderhandelingen voor Annapolis

De laatste dagen wordt bericht dat de impasse tussen Israëli's en Palestijnen wat betreft de Annapolis conferentie is doorbroken.

De Palestijnen zouden accepteren dat er geen gedetailleerde agenda komt voor de stichting van een Palestijnse staat, en Israël zou concrete onderhandelingen na de conferentie hebben beloofd. In een ander bericht echter eisen de Palestijnen dat Israël de eerste fase van de Routekaart uitvoert, en beweren dat zijzelf dit al hebben gedaan. Dat laatste is natuurlijk een lachertje.

 

Overigens is het een goed teken dat beide partijen het nu over de Routekaart hebben, en menen dat uitvoering van de eerste fase cruciaal is voor een twee-statenoplossing. Hopelijk geeft de conferentie beide partijen het broodnodige vertrouwen in het vredesproces om serieus aan hun verplichtingen in de Routekaart te werken. Want het moge duidelijk zijn dat beide de Routekaart tot nu toe slechts lippendienst hebben bewezen.


Ratna

----------

PA agrees to disband terrorist groups before statehood

Mark Weiss , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 8, 2007
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380772098&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israeli negotiators on Friday reported significant progress in talks with Palestinians Friday; a development which could pave the way to agreement on a joint statement to be issued ahead of the US-sponsored Middle East conference in Annapolis later this month.

Late Wednesday, Israeli sources said, Palestinian negotiators accepted Israeli security demands. These assert that progress following the conference will depend on the Palestinians fulfilling obligations set down in the first stage of the road map peace plan, namely the disarming and disbanding of all terror groups.

The breakthrough was reportedly achieved during a late-night meeting between chief Israeli and Palestinian negotiators Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qurei.

In response to the reports of progress in the talks, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team who claimed he had attended the said meeting between Qurei and Livni, told Israel radio that the "breakthrough" was being trumpeted for more than it was worth.

"I did not sense that there was any progress in the talks with the Israeli side," the negotiator said. He then laughed and further retorted, "What's new about the principle stating that the implementation of commitments depends upon [the Palestinians] fighting terror? Indeed, it appears in the road map, and we of course agreed to the road map."

Israeli sources also reported progress on Thursday, with Palestinian negotiators easing their demands that the peace conference lay out a specific timetable for statehood.

Israel expected to receive a formal confirmation from the US on Friday as to the date of the Annapolis peace conference. Reports Thursday night suggested President George W. Bush would host an opening evening for the delegations on November 25, with two or three days of summit talks to follow.

Israel will be represented at Annapolis by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and a negotiating team made up of officials from the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign and Defense ministries.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will head the Palestinian delegation, which will include former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala).

Israeli sources confirmed Thursday night that the prime minister was considering a settlement freeze ahead of Annapolis. According to some Israeli officials, a de facto settlement freeze has already been in place for the last five years.

But in a report issued Wednesday, Peace Now said that despite the government's pledge to stop settlement expansion, dozens of new buildings had been erected inside existing settlements in the past year, and settlements were growing at a rate over three times faster than the average community growth in Israel.

Israeli and US sources said another visit to the region by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was expected before the Maryland gathering.
PA officials said Thursday they were pleased with Israeli pledges to resume peace talks after the conference and were now less concerned about the statement of principles that had bogged down earlier negotiations. Israeli, Palestinian and US officials have all indicated in recent days that sticking points are slowly being resolved.

The Palestinians had insisted the document outline the general principles of a peace agreement and provide a timeline for granting them independence. The Israelis sought a vaguer, nonbinding agreement.

With negotiators making little progress on these issues, Palestinian officials said they were turning their focus away from the document and toward post-summit talks after receiving Israeli and US assurances that peace efforts would move into high gear after the conference.

"We were hoping for a document that would include defined limits and guiding resolutions for every difficult point," said Rafiq Husseini, a top aide to Abbas. "I'm not sure we'll get it."

He said he was pleased that there is now talk of reviving the road map.

Other Palestinian officials said Abbas was especially encouraged by Olmert's speech Sunday night, in which the Israeli leader suggested that a deal could be reached by the end of Bush's term in January 2009.

Olmert described the Annapolis summit as a "starting point" for talks on Palestinian statehood, including the core issues that have scuttled past peace efforts: the final borders between Israel and a future Palestine, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Olmert also said he is ready to carry out Israel's initial obligations under the road map - a freeze in Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank - and said he expected the Palestinians to meet their road map commitment of thwarting terrorism.

A US diplomat said Washington was encouraged by the latest Palestinian position, which appears to be in line with Israeli and American thinking.

"We've never envisioned Annapolis as a meeting that hammers out core issues, but rather sets the stage for parties to work on the core issues in an atmosphere of confidence," the diplomat said.

AP contributed to this article.

Joodse kolonisten en het Zionisme

De Palestijnen smokkelen wapens, de kolonisten caravans. Dat wil zeggen, het materiaal, dat ze op de plaats van bestemming in elkaar zetten (zie artikel hieronder). Hoewel het eerste natuurlijk erger is omdat caravans niet doden, lijkt het overtreden van de wet door kolonisten epidemische vormen aan te nemen. Onlangs werden tientallen activisten opgepakt tijdens de ontruiming van een recentelijk illegaal gestichte buitenpost. Zij waren hierheen teruggekeerd nadat hij al eerder was ontruimd, een veelgebruikte taktiek.

 

Kolonisten in Hebron en andere plaatsen vallen geregeld Palestijnse burgers aan en bekogelen hen met stenen, en zetten aan tot geweld met ophitsende en racistische propaganda tegen de Palestijnen. Soms wordt openlijk steun aan de verboden Kach partij beleden.

Dit alles is niet nieuw, en in bijna iedere reportage over het conflict komt wel een kolonist aan het woord die hel en verdoemenis uitspreekt over de verraders Olmert en Peres en tot verdrijving van de Palestijnen oproept. De meeste kolonisten denken er niet zo over en zijn geen religieuze fanatici (de meesten vestigden zich op de Westoever omdat men daar snel en goedkoop een huis kon krijgen), maar hun aantal stijgt wel. Zo vindt een kwart van de Israëlische bevolking dat Yigal Amir, de moordenaar van Rabin, vrijgelaten moet worden.

Wat mij misschien nog het meest raakt is het gemak waarmee de wet wordt overtreden. Ik kan er begrip voor hebben dat die mensen daar zijn gaan wonen (al is het nederzettingenproject zowel moreel verwerpelijk alsook desastreus voor Israël), ik kan begrijpen waarom men vindt dat dit gebied de Joden toebehoort, dat men er een diepe verbondenheid mee voelt (dit geldt overigens evenzeer voor de Palestijnen), maar ik kan niet begrijpen dat overtuigde Zionisten, die achter Israël staan en willen dat het haar goed gaat, de wetten van deze staat aan hun laars lappen. Men wijst er graag op dat de Palestijnen niet in staat zijn een staat te runnen vanwege de chaos, maar de oorzaak van die chaos is wijdverbreide wetteloosheid en verachting van het wettelijk gezag. De Joodse extremisten lijken wat dit betreft op de extremisten van Hamas en Islamitische Jihad, aangezien beiden vinden dat de wetten van God zoals zij die interpreteren boven de wetten van de staat zijn verheven.

Een veelgemaakte fout (die ik hierboven ook maakte) is dat de Joodse extremisten als de ware Zionisten worden voorgesteld, die het Zionistische project van kolonisatie van het land voortzetten op de Westoever en de Golan. Zionisme wordt onterecht als equivalent van voortgaande expansie gezien. De kern van het Zionisme (van oorsprong een seculiere beweging) is niet expansie, maar uitoefening van het Joodse recht op zelfbeschikking in hun historische thuisland, waar ook na de verovering van het oude Israël (eigenlijk Judea) door de Romeinen, altijd Joden hebben gewoond. De orthodoxen waren in overgrote meerderheid antizionistisch, omdat zij meenden dat alleen de Messias hen kan bevrijden en naar het Beloofde Land leiden. De staat heeft indertijd hun steun 'afgekocht' door de orthodoxen een aantal privileges te geven, en het orthodoxe Jodendom als enige officiële Joodse religie te erkennen (naast tientallen andere religies).

 

Vandaar dat, tegen de wil van de meerderheid van de bevolking, je in Israël alleen volgens de orthodoxe halacha wet kunt trouwen. Wil een Jood met een niet-Jood (of een 'vaderjood', iemand met een niet-Joodse moeder) trouwen, dan moet men uitwijken naar Cyprus, wat dan ook dagelijks gebeurt. Bovendien kunnen Joden en niet-Joden niet op dezelfde plek begraven worden, wat pijnlijke situaties oplevert. En tijdens Pesach kun je geen gegist brood kopen. Allemaal voorbeelden die door antizionisten grif worden gebruikt om aan te tonen hoe religieus en onverdraagzaam Israël - en dus het Zionisme - wel niet is. Maar de oorsprong van deze absurde regels en wetten is in feite antizionistisch. Ze worden in stand gehouden doordat de kleine religieuze partijen bijna altijd nodig zijn om een coalitie aan een meerderheid te helpen.

Ook nu nog zijn de ultra-orthodoxen in meerderheid antizionistisch, zoals de Satmar en de veel kleinere en extremere Naturei Karteh, waarvan vertegenwoordigers op Irans Holocaust conferentie waren en waarvan een leider minister was voor de PLO onder Arafat. De verwarring is niet alleen de schuld van de antizionisten en slecht geinformeerde journalisten. De kolonisten werpen zichzelf graag op als de ware pioniers die hetzelfde doen als de Zionisten voor de stichting van Israël deden, en die nu het front vormen tegen de vijandige Arabieren. Maar terwijl de meeste verlichte journalisten en commentatoren door deze laatste leugen perfect heen prikken, en er graag op wijzen dat Israël door de nederzettingen allerminst veiliger is geworden, neemt men hun propaganda wat betreft de aard van het Zionisme voor zoete koek aan.

 

 

Ratna

____________

Ynetnews

Peace Now: Settlers smuggling caravans to territories

Group issues report showing that settlers bypassing ban on moving caravans to West Bank by assembling them on site; report also finds population growth in settlements three times higher than in rest of country

Efrat Weiss
Published: 11.07.07, 09:09 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3468629,00.html

Settlers have found a way to circumvent the ban on transporting caravans to the West Bank, by assembling them on site instead, a new Peace Now report on the settlement project in the territories reveals.

According to the report, this new method of transporting construction materials to the settlements and not prefabricated caravans, has allowed the establishment of hundreds of new unauthorized housing units in the region.

The group's periodical report further stated that the population growth among settlers was three times higher than that of the population within the Green Line, mainly due to the natural population increase and the relocation of ultra-Orthodox families to the region.

According to Peace Now, the findings of their bi-annual report indicate that the government continues to violate its commitments as stipulated in the road map for peace - construction in the territories has not been halted and no outposts have been evacuated.

For instance, construction projects are being carried out in 88 settlements, most of them on the "Israeli" side of the security fence.

Yesha Council: Settlement project thriving

Furthermore, the construction of the new Judea and Samaria police headquarters in the E1 zone near Maale Adumim is nearly completed. Peace Now claims that the construction plan will finalize the isolation of east Jerusalem from the West Bank and divide the Palestinian territory in half, disrupting the territorial contiguity and preventing access to east Jerusalem.

Responding to the report, the Yesha Council said: "We are pleased that this year too the population growth was three time higher than in the rest of Israel. Peace Now's report proves that the settlement project in the West Bank continues in full speed, despite terror, the freezing of construction, political pressure and legal decrees.

"We thank Peace Now for documenting this important Zionist project and hope next year will see over 300,000 residents living here."

Israël boycot bespreking in Damascus

Onterecht wordt de bezetting veelal als argument genoemd voor de boycot van Israëlische producten, firma's, wetenschappers, toeristen, en buitenlandse firma's die met Israël zaken doen.

The once-influential Damascus office was set up in 1951 and was funded by the Arab League to track down foreign companies that do business with or support Israel and then ban them from operating in the Arab world.

De AbvaKabo, UCP, Goede Waar & Co (vroeger de Alternatieve KonsumentenBond) en de Natuurwinkels gaan dus terug op een lange traditie met hun ijveren voor een boycot van Israël. Een aantal Arabische staten heeft overigens ook heel wat Palestijnse slachtoffers op hun naam staan, zoals Syrië (aanvallen op Palestijnse vluchtelingenkampen in Libanon), Jordanië (verdrijving van de PLO in 1970), en Koeweit (doden en verdrijven Palestijnen nadat zij de kant van Sadam Hoessein hadden gekozen).

 

In Libanon leven Palestijnen in vluchtelingenkampen in erbarmelijke omstandigheden, en kunnen geen Libanees staatsburger worden hoewel velen er geboren zijn. Het Libanese leger heeft onlangs meedogenloos huisgehouden in een Palestijns vluchtelingenkamp om extremisten die zich er schuilhielden te verdrijven. Als de Arabische staten zo begaan zijn met het lot van de Palestijnen, waarom houden zij de vluchtelingen dan in kampen en verhinderen actief hun inburgering?

 

Zij weten dondersgoed, en geven openlijk toe, dat het zogenaamde 'recht op terugkeer' een einde zal maken aan Joodse zelfbeschikking. De vluchtelingen worden dan ook als pionnen gebruikt in hun strijd tegen Israël. Palestijns leed is alleen dan een probleem wanneer het door Israël wordt veroorzaakt. Helaas gaan veel organisaties in het Westen die zeggen voor de Palestijnen op te komen mee in deze hypocrisie.

Ratna
----------

Arab delegates meet on Israel boycott
Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 5, 2007
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380741113&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Delegates to a Syrian-based anti-Israel office began talks in Damascus Monday on ways to revive momentum for the Arabs' boycott of the Jewish state.
Eight Arab countries stayed away from the four-day meeting, including Egypt and Jordan which have signed peace treaties with Israel.

Those attending the gathering, held twice a year at the headquarters of the Central Boycott Office in Damascus, included delegates from 14 Arab states and Palestinian territories.

Topping the agenda was the boycott of companies that do business with Israel and ways to abort attempts by some Israeli companies to penetrate Arab markets.

The commissioner general of the organization, Tunisia's Mohammad al-Tayyeb Bouslaa, stressed that the boycott was needed because of the "flagrant Israeli aggression" on the Palestinians and the continued Israel occupation of Arab lands.

"Boycott is legitimate and we cling fast to it so long as it is considered a tool of pressure on Israel to force it to bow to give back the usurped Arab lands and rights," Bouslaa told the meeting's opening session.

Mohammad Ajami, head of the Syrian office for the boycott of Israel, told reporters the boycott still remained "influential and a popular Arab demand."

"Some Arab countries are committed to the meeting after they have discovered that peace with Israel is a mirage and a lie," Ajami said.

The once-influential Damascus office was set up in 1951 and was funded by the Arab League to track down foreign companies that do business with or support Israel and then ban them from operating in the Arab world.


*** Balanced Middle East News ***
MidEastweb http://www.mideastweb.org
Subscribe - mail to mewnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

MewBkd - Background & analysis -
mail to Mewbkd-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Peace Index oktober 2007 - Israëli's willen vrede, maar verwachten weinig van Annapolis

Peace Index, October 2007 - 65% say: "Most of the Palestinians have not accepted Israel's existence and would destroy it if they could"

Uit deze enquete blijkt dat een meerderheid vrede belangrijk vindt, en bovendien bereid is de bezette gebieden op te geven om het democratische karakter van Israël te behouden en om vrede met de Palestijnen te sluiten.

Tegelijkertijd is men sceptisch over de aanstaande vredesconferentie in Annapolis en meent tweederde dat de Palestijnen Israël zouden vernietigen als zij konden.

Ratna
----------

Peace Index: October 2007 - Unenthused by Annapolis
By Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann Haaretz 7 November 2007
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/921155.html

The frequent reports about the approaching Annapolis conference have not changed the Jewish public's expectations: As we found last month, only the rate of those who think the conference can yield a basic clarification of the disputes between Israel and the Palestinians, or significantly advance the chances for a peace agreement, is lower than the rate of those who think it might bear fruit. Indeed, compared to last month's survey, the public was more interested in reports about the conference, but the large majority continues to follow them only sometimes, or not at all.

The limited interest in the conference does not stem from public apathy about the need to renew the peace process. Although many say this need is more urgent for the Palestinians than for Israel, those who say it is more important to Israel and those who see it as equally important for both sides comprise a critical mass. This view is certainly linked to the prevailing assessment that the Palestinians now constitute a serious security threat to Israel; many perceive peace as a means to reduce the threat. Today, as in the past, a large majority also believes most of the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel and would destroy it if they could. This climate may well explain the wide support for the government's decision to respond to the Qassam fire with measures that harm the civilian population, such as cutting off electricity and limiting the supply of fuel.

Nevertheless, it appears that the Jewish public does not fear the Palestinian threat will make it collapse. A large majority believes that if the present situation continues, Israeli society can hold out longer than Palestinian society can. Similarly, a significant percentage believes that now, seven years after the outbreak of the second intifada, Israeli society is in better shape than Palestinian society. Along with the confidence in Israeli society's resilience, the prevailing view is that to reach a peace agreement, Israel will have to make larger concessions than the Palestinians - which may explain the disagreements on renewing the peace process.

As for choosing between possible concessions on Israel's part, the Jewish public appears to have a clear order of preferences. It clearly favors keeping Israel democratic and Jewish and reaching a peace agreement, as opposed to preserving the Greater Land of Israel. And it clearly prefers maintaining the state's democratic character to maintaining its Jewish character, though the gap is smaller than for the previous choice, and also is smaller than it was in the past.

Those are the main conclusions that emerge from the Peace Index survey carried out on October 29-30, 2007.

Low interest

A large minority of the Jewish public - 40 percent - thinks the Annapolis conference could yield a basic clarification of the disputes between Israel and the Palestinians, while a majority of 50 percent does not think so. The rest do not know. A similar segmentation emerged on the question of whether the conference can significantly advance the chances of reaching a permanent peace agreement: Only 40 percent said yes, while 51 percent said no. These findings are very similar to those from September: Time has not increased expectations for the approaching conference. The public's interest in the conference preparations also remains quite low, though it increased slightly over the previous month. Currently, 27 percent steadily follow the reports about the conference, 47 only sometimes, 23 percent not at all, and the rest had never heard of the conference or did not answer (the corresponding rates last month were 20 percent, 48 percent and 29 percent, respectively).

On the question of who more urgently needs to renew the peace process, 37 percent said it was the Palestinians, 29 percent chose Israel, and 29 percent said both (3 percent said neither, and the rest do not know).
However, even though the public somewhat tends to view the Palestinians as having a greater need to renew the peace process, combining those who think Israel has a greater need and those who see it as urgent for both sides yields a clear majority (57 percent) for the view that Israel, too, needs peace. The limited interest in the preparations for Annapolis does not necessarily mean the public does not see peace as important.

The assessment that peace is important to Israel could be linked to the widespread view (68 percent) that the Palestinians constitute a serious security threat (29 percent do not think so). Indeed, a correlation was found between seeing the Palestinian threat as high and seeing peace as vital for Israel. Among those who think the Palestinians constitute a threat, the same number - 33 percent - view peace as more important to Israel as those who believe it is more important to the Palestinians. But among those who do not think the Palestinians constitute a threat, the rate of those viewing peace as more important to the Palestinians (49 percent) is much higher than the rate of those who consider it more important to Israel (20 percent).

Meanwhile, there is wide agreement among the Jewish public (65 percent) with the statement, "Most of the Palestinians have not accepted Israel's existence and would destroy it if they could." Note that this finding is not exceptional; similar rates have been found in the Jewish public since the mid-1990s. The widespread fears of the Palestinian threat, combined with the ongoing Qassam fire from Gaza, may well explain the wide support for the government's decision to respond to the attacks with measures that also harm the civilian population, such as cutting off electricity and limiting the fuel supply. Seventy-one percent support such measures, while only 12 percent oppose them. Among the opponents, a slightly higher rate say this is due to humanitarian concern (harming the civilian population) than for utilitarian reasons (these measures will not stop the Qassam fire). Among voters for all the parties, a majority of only Meretz voters opposed to the government's decision.

Social resilience

Nevertheless, as opposed to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who says Israeli society is weaker than a spider web, the Jewish public has high regards for Israeli society's resilience in the conflict with the Palestinians. Seventy percent say that if the present situation continues, Israeli society can maintain its inner strength better than Palestinian society can, while only 12 percent think the opposite. Similarly, in response to the question, "Seven years after the outbreak of the second intifada, when you think about the state of Israeli society and of Palestinian society, which of the two, in your opinion, is doing better?" 63 percent chose Israeli society and 14 percent Palestinian society (14 percent responded that the two are doing equally badly, 2 percent that they are doing equally well, and the rest did not know).

Along with its confidence in Israeli society's resilience, most of the Jewish public (58 percent) thinks that if the peace process is renewed, Israel will have to make larger concessions than the Palestinians will, while only 20.5 percent say the Palestinians will have to concede more. This may partly explain the disagreements on renewing the peace process. In any case, the public appears to have clear preferences regarding concessions.
Between preserving the Greater Land of Israel and preserving a Jewish majority in the country, 27 percent prefer the first objective, 56 percent the second, and 11 percent see them as equally important (2 percent think neither is important and the rest do not know). Similarly, when the choice is between preserving the Greater Land of Israel and signing peace agreements with Arab states and the Palestinians, 54 percent prefer the latter alternative and 31.5 percent the former (9 percent view them as equally important, 1.5 percent ascribe importance to neither, and the rest do not know). However, between maintaining the Jewish character of the state and maintaining its democratic character, 48 percent prefer the second and 34 percent the first (14.5 percent see them as equally important and the rest do not know).

Although these indeed show a clear gap in favor of democracy, it is smaller than the two preceding disparities. Furthermore, when we looked into this question more than a decade ago (June 1996), the same gaps emerged regarding the choice between the Greater Land of Israel and preserving the Jewish majority and between the Greater Land of Israel and signing a peace agreement, but the gap in favor of democracy was larger: At the time, 57.5 percent favored preserving democracy and 29 percent preferred maintaining the country's Jewish character. In other words, democracy is still in the lead but, whereas its status has declined not inconsiderably, the status of Jewish nationality has strengthened.

The peace indexes: Oslo Index: 40.7 (Jewish sample: 37.6)

Negotiations Index: 53.3 (Jewish sample: 49.4)

The Peace Index Project is conducted at the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Studies and the Evans Program for Conflict Resolution Research of Tel Aviv University, headed by Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann. The telephone interviews were carried out by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University on October 29-30, 2007 and included 599 interviewees who represent the adult Jewish and Arab population of Israel (including the territories and the kibbutzim). The sampling error for a sample of this size is 4.5 percent. For the survey data see: http://www.tau.ac.il/peace

Ban Ki-Moon veroordeelt misbruik UNRWA school door terroristen

Goed nieuws van de VN. Hopelijk luistert UNRWA, waar voor het overgrote deel Palestijnen werken (waaronder Hamas leden), naar de duidelijke woorden van Ban Ki-Moon. Beter dan hopen is het wanneer de VN voor controle mechanismen zorgt die dergelijk misbruik voorkomen.

 

Ratna
-----------

Ban Ki-Moon orders probe after rockets fired at Israel from UNRWA school


HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NOON BRIEFING
BY MARIE OKABE
DEPUTY SPOKESPERSON FOR SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON
Thursday, November 8, 2007
www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=949
...

SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS ABUSE OF U.N. FACILITIES;
URGES AVOIDANCE OF ACTIONS ENDANGERING CIVILIAN LIVES


In response to questions at briefings over the past two days about reports that Palestinian militants last week launched rockets at Israel from a school run by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the UNRWA Commissioner-General spoke about this yesterday, and the Secretary-General has asked that UNRWA fully investigate this incident.

According to their inquiry, the school had been evacuated at the time of the incident to ensure the safety of the staff and children during an Israeli military incursion. While the school was empty, militants entered the compound and fired rockets at Israel.

The Secretary-General condemns this abuse of UN facilities, which is a serious violation of the UN's privileges and immunities.

He calls on all involved in this conflict to avoid actions that endanger the lives of civilians, especially children, and that put at risk UNRWA's ability to carry out its humanitarian mission.


--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

IDF reservisten: Hamas mannen vechten als soldaten

This time they encountered a Hamas cell on the edge of Absan, a village west of Khan Yunis. Two Hamas men died in the brief, close-range battle. The paratroopers were impressed by their adversaries' discipline and good equipment. "The fingerprints of Iran and Hezbollah are all over it," a veteran intelligence officer said. "The Palestinians never looked like this."

Die spullen worden via Egypte de Gazastrook ingesmokkeld, net als de Hamas strijders die in Iran een training ontvangen.
Ondertussen is men al in voorbereiding op een grootschalige operatie in Gaza:

They also know they'll be called back to Gaza within a few months for a major offensive assault. Their commanders are already readying them with cliches about "two trains heading full force at each other."


Als het Westen dat wil voorkomen, kan het wellicht Egypte serieus onder druk zetten om de wapensmokkel tegen te gaan, of de grens zelf met een flinke ploeg gaan bewaken (Volgens een overeenkomst die in 2005 - na Israëls terugtrekking - is gesloten, waren er waarnemers van de Europese Unie gestationeerd, maar die waren niet erg effectief, en zijn ermee gestopt na de overname van Gaza door Hamas).

Ratna
--------------

Last update - 04:31 08/11/2007

IDF reservists: Hamas men fight like soldiers
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/921831.html

Reserve-duty paratroopers who completed a month of duty in the Gaza Strip last week say that facing militant groups such as Hamas was like taking part in a "mini-war."

During the patrol company's operations deep in Palestinian territory, four Hamas militants and one Israel Defense Forces soldier, Sergeant-Major (Res.) Ehud Efrati, were killed. "The people we killed weren't terrorists, they were soldiers," an officer in the company told Haaretz.

"In a direct confrontation, the IDF has superiority over them, but in all parameters - training, equipment quality, operational discipline - we are facing an army, not gangs," he said.

"On the professional level, Hamas in the Gaza Strip is nothing like the terrorists we dealt with before. We saw the bodies of their men after the incidents. They had elastic bands on their pant legs. How many reservists do you know in the IDF who are that well kitted out, with elastics on their pants?"

In a move fairly rare for reservists, the paratroopers were part of the offensive operations in the strip. For the past several months the IDF has been carrying out raids a few kilometers into Gaza on a regular basis. Within the space of about two weeks, the company had three live-fire incidents with Hamas - a lot for a reserve force that ostensibly was called up for ongoing security operations.

Efrati joined the next operation, too. This time they encountered a Hamas cell on the edge of Absan, a village west of Khan Yunis. Two Hamas men died in the brief, close-range battle. The paratroopers were impressed by their adversaries' discipline and good equipment. "The fingerprints of Iran and Hezbollah are all over it," a veteran intelligence officer said. "The Palestinians never looked like this."

On the bodies of the Hamas fighters the reservists found, in addition to their weapons, night-vision equipment identical to the IDF's. And it was not from Israel. "It's available on the Internet, you can order it from eBay and have it sent to an Arab country and then smuggle it to Gaza," the intelligence officer said.

The Palestinian cell managed to get very close to the border fence, near Kerem Shalom, and plant a large explosive device which exploded without causing injuries. The reserve company's next operation, on October 29, was to hit the Hamas cells that were firing mortar shells regularly on Kibbutz Kerem Shalom.

Two and a half kilometers from the fence, into the strip, suspicious movement was detected. A secondary force readied a makeshift ambush. The two armed Palestinians apparently heard something. One let off a burst of gunfire from about 90 meters away, without aiming. One bullet hid a grenade on Efrati's vest. It exploded. He was killed instantly.

The reservists say, however, that the incident did not end in defeat. They recovered quickly, killing one of the gunmen and wounding the other, who fled toward Rafah. "When we returned to the fence we counted off. Forty-one men went out; 40 returned. I don't wish that feeling on any commander," an officer in the company said.

Fighting on the fence

The skirmishes between the IDF and Hamas in recent months are in a predefined theater, a situation that is expected to continue at least until the Annapolis summit due later this month.

The IDF operates within a band about three kilometers beyond the perimeter fence, reaching the outskirts of Gaza City, Khan Yunis and Rafah. The ground-force raids are aimed at hitting the units launching Qassams and mortar shells into Israel, keeping Hamas from establishing permanent positions near the border and gathering intelligence on the terror networks by making arrests in residential areas.

Hamas, which provides a support "umbrella" for the smaller organizations launching the rockets, dispatches cells to harass the IDF. It also deploys defensive forces at the entrances to settled areas based on its analysis of the IDF's routes.

The result, say the reservists, is that every penetration into the strip of more than one kilometer faces coordinated resistance from Hamas. "Shooting, sharpshooters, mortar shells. Pass the one-kilometer mark, the war is on. They're not suckers," a company officer says.

In the absence of approval for a major operation in Gaza, the IDF has opted for an intensive series of small operations. The driving force behind them is the commander of the Gaza Division, Brigadier-General Moshe Tamir. Probably the leading IDF expert on these types of tactics, Tamir learned his craft a decade ago in Lebanon from then Northern Command head Amiram Levine. The weak spot of the method is the relatively high risk to soldiers' lives.

The reserve officers accept both the method and their role of being in the advance force. "If these missions were left to the regular soldiers, like before the withdrawal from Lebanon, no one on the home front would understand what's happening in Gaza. Every reserve soldier who returns home from a month in Gaza says exactly what's going on there to the civilians around him," the officer says.

They also know they'll be called back to Gaza within a few months for a major offensive assault. Their commanders are already readying them with cliches about "two trains heading full force at each other."

In contrast, perhaps, to what the public has heard, they don't blame anyone. They were equipped and trained properly and feel ready for their appointed missions. "We didn't come to whine. The state must see to two things: To compensate properly the few who bear the burden of reserve duty and to [budget] sufficient reserve days for training so the failure of the Second Lebanon War isn't repeated."

And it is very important to them to speak about Ehud Efrati, their friend for over 20 years. "At Ehud's funeral his father, Avishai, said the state must protect the people of Sderot," an officer in the company says.

"That was true nobility, and it is typical of his family. Ehud was a hero, pure and simple. To go forward, at his age, with a wife and three children, one just a few months old - that is true heroism. Ehud knew he was doing something important. His children, when they grow up, need to know that."

Tientallen arrestaties tijdens evacuatie buitenpost Westelijke Jordaanoever

Vorig weekend heeft Israël - heus waar - een illegale buitenpost ontruimd. Eén hele buitenpost! O.K., deze buitenpost bestond pas sinds een paar weken, toen tijdens het Joodse Sukkot feest rechtse activisten 5 van zulke buitenposten creëerden. En toegegeven, hij was al eerder ontruimd maar de activisten waren teruggekeerd.

 

Dat zal nu niet gebeuren, want de meesten werden door de politie gearresteerd. Hopelijk worden ze een tijdje in voorarrest gehouden, in afwachting van hun straf. En hopelijk is deze ontruiming een klein voorproefje van de daadkracht die de Israëlische regering de komende weken aan de dag zal leggen. Je moet, wat betreft het Midden-Oosten, immers nooit de hoop opgeven.   

 

Ratna
----------

Ynetnews

Dozens arrested during evacuation of West Bank outpost

Shortly after arrest of 32 settlers from Shvut Ami outpost, right-wing activists declare they will return to settlement; Legal Forum for Land of Israel sends request to police to suspend chief of Border Guard in West Bank for confiscating video of evacuation

by Efrat Weiss
Published: 11.04.07, 19:44 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3467641,00.html

Thirty-two right-wing activists who were arrested Sunday morning during the evacuation of the Shvut Ami illegal outpost in the West Bank vowed to return to the site once again.

Shortly after 3 pm Sunday afternoon, Border Guard officers arrived at the outpost located near the settlement of Kedumim in northern Samaria in order to evacuate all residents.

Shvut Ami is one of five illegal outposts erected by right-wing activists during the most recent Sukkot holiday. Around 200 people arrived to the outpost on the day of its establishment and, although many have since left, a couple dozens remained. The outpost has been evacuated by security forces on a number of occasions but settler activists have consistently returned to the site.

When police arrived this time, there were approximately 50 people at the outpost.

Security forces claim that right-wing activists at Shvut Ami caused damage to two police cars during the course of the most recent evacuation. Security forces arrested 32 rightist activists for disorderly conduct in a closed military area.

Members of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, a consulting group for settlers and right-wing activists, claim that police arrested a photographer who documented the evacuation and confiscated his videotape.

The Forum sent a letter to Chief of Police, Major-General Dudi Cohen, requesting that he suspend the Chief of Border Guard Police in the West Bank, Shlomi Even-Paz, for allegedly confiscating the video.

The Forum also plans to file a complaint with the Police's Internal Investigations Unit.

Lately, Palestinians living in northern Samaria have been complaining that settlers living at Shvut Ami have been stoning their vehicles and subjecting them to abuse.

Hezbollah houdt grote militaire oefening in zuid-Libanon

Volgens VN resolutie 1701, na de Libanon Oorlog vorig jaar aangenomen en door zowel Hezbollah, Libanon als Israël geaccepteerd, moest Hezbollah zich terugtrekken ten noorden van de rivier Litani en al zijn posities in zuid-Libanon overdragen aan UNIFIL en/of het Libanese leger. Wapensmokkel dient bestreden te worden, alle gewapende groepen (lees: Hezbollah) ontwapend, en de Libanese regering en het leger moeten volledige soevereiniteit uitoefenen, inclusief het geweldsmonopolie.

Deze resolutie blijkt eens temeer een farce. Er zijn talloze rapporten en andere bewijzen over wapensmokkel vanuit Syrië, de VN heeft dit officieel erkend en er zijn ongenoegen over uitgesproken, maar er gebeurt niks. Ondertussen neemt het zelfvertrouwen van Hezbollah zienderogen toe, culminerend in een grootschalige legeroefening in zuid-Libanon. De assertiviteit en macht van Hezbollah vergroten niet alleen de kans op een nieuwe confrontatie met Israël, maar bedreigen ook de Libanese regering en samenleving. De afgelopen jaren zijn verschillende anti-Syrische (en dus ook anti-Hezbollah) politici en journalisten vermoord. De macht van Hezbollah holt wat er over is van de Libanese democratie verder uit.

Ratna
----------

Ynetnews

Report: Hizbullah conducted mass military drill in southern Lebanon
Organization said to have held largest 'defensive' military exercise ever; drill lasts three days, preparations undetected by UNIFIL forces

by Ali Waked
Published: 11.05.07, 09:30 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3467765,00.html

Hizbullah conducted its largest military exercise ever in southern Lebanon several days ago, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported Monday.

According to the report, the exercise was three days long and spanned thousands of the organization's fighters. Hizbullah Secretary-General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah was said to have commanded the drill personally.

The exercise, said the paper, was meant to deter Israel from launching another assault against Lebanon, and increase Hizbullah's readiness.

Hizbullah terrorists gathered south of the Litani River for what was called an "exercise of defensive nature against an overall Israeli strike".

The drill included the mass deployment of fighters, including thousands of infantry guerillas, anti-tank missile units, anti-aircraft missile units, the engineering unit and the organization's star units of rocket launchers.

The drill reportedly took into account the IDF's deployment near the Israel-Lebanon border, as well as the deployment of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) and Lebanese forces in southern Lebanon.

UNIFIL, stressed the report, "was amazed by the covert action of Hizbullah, which was able to keep the drill under wraps right up to its start."

The Israel Air Force, added the report, followed the exercise with "unprecedented activity along the border".

"We hope the enemy, like our friends, will understand Hizbullah's willingness to stop any Israeli threat," said Nasrallah at the drill's conclusion.

Hizbullah, said Al-Akhbar, conducted the drill while aware of the mass intelligence activity in the area, both by Israel and by other nations.

Holocaust ontkenning en Joden in Iran

Een tijdje geleden meldde het nieuws een opvallende TV serie in Iran, waarin een Iraanse diplomaat Joden uit Frankrijk smokkelde om ze uit de klauwen van de nazi's te redden. De serie is te zien op de Iraanse staats TV, en zou door haar sympathie voor de Joden en hun lot in schril contrast staan tot uitspraken van Achmadinejad. Of wilden we vooral zien dat het toch allemaal wel meevalt daar in Iran?

Roya Hakakian, een Joodse vrouw uit Iran, helpt ons uit de droom:

In the end, however, the program offers little more than an aesthetically pleasing venue for the regime's usual diatribes. Its linchpin is a conspiracy theory: Two Israeli agents assassinate the chief rabbi of Tehran to frighten the Iranian Jewish community into leaving Iran for Israel. The noble chief of the Iranian embassy in France, Abdol Hossein Sardari, who facilitated the escape of hundreds of Iranian and French Jews by providing them with Iranian passports, is portrayed as a mere opportunist motivated by bribes.

 

Dat wil niet zeggen dat de Iraniërs allemaal antisemieten zijn, integendeel:

Unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad steals the spotlight. With his threats toward Israel and his dreams of a nuclear Iran he has engendered a fear, however legitimate, that too often blinds Western and Israeli leaders of the broader, more complex realities of the Iranian people. American, European and Israeli media are full of dire warnings about the threat of a nuclear Iran. There is little mention of the plight of the Iranians themselves, or the ripe opportunity presented by a nation disenchanted with 30 years of theocratic rule: A people that has historically been friendly to Jews, can, with some effort, be so once again.

 

Een goed artikel over een onderwerp waarover veel onzin wordt beweerd. Hakakian ziet niet alleen de gevaren, maar ook hoop.

Ratna

 

Met dank aan Am Isseroff http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/11/holocaust-denial-in-iran-explaining.html

____________________________________

Holocaust Denial and Tehran
By ROYA HAKAKIAN

November 3, 2007
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB119405232890781222,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep

 

 

Dictatorships bear paradoxes. I came across a set of them 10 years ago, when I hosted a dinner for two female Iranian medical students who'd come to Yale Medical School on a rare academic exchange program. These impressive women had climbed to the top 10th percentile in a man's profession, in a man's country. But I was stunned to learn that -- despite 16 years of education at some of Iran's premiere schools -- neither had ever heard of the word "Holocaust," or thought of Hitler as anything but the German equivalent of Napoleon.

Tehran's Holocaust denial did not begin with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It began in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution and the subsequent miseducation of the entire post-revolutionary generation. The Holocaust did not exist in the textbooks of my two young guests, and there was hardly any literature about it in Persian.

Now, millions of Iranian youths are hearing about the Holocaust for the first time through the airing of a government-sponsored soap opera called "Zero Degree Turn." In it, the Islamic Republic's handpicked director, Hassan Fatthi, breaks the regime's taboos. Beautiful women appear without the Islamic dress code. Men and women also come together, hold hands, and even fall into a fleeting embrace.

In the end, however, the program offers little more than an aesthetically pleasing venue for the regime's usual diatribes. Its linchpin is a conspiracy theory: Two Israeli agents assassinate the chief rabbi of Tehran to frighten the Iranian Jewish community into leaving Iran for Israel. The noble chief of the Iranian embassy in France, Abdol Hossein Sardari, who facilitated the escape of hundreds of Iranian and French Jews by providing them with Iranian passports, is portrayed as a mere opportunist motivated by bribes.

The good news is that Iran is now home to a highly rebellious young generation that is deeply disenchanted with the status quo and suspicious of government propaganda in all its forms, including misinformation about Jews and Israel. Iranians actually possess a healthy curiosity toward Israel. In the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah, for example, young Iranians were reportedly not interested in supporting Hezbollah, and were vehemently against their government's investment in it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad steals the spotlight. With his threats toward Israel and his dreams of a nuclear Iran he has engendered a fear, however legitimate, that too often blinds Western and Israeli leaders of the broader, more complex realities of the Iranian people. American, European and Israeli media are full of dire warnings about the threat of a nuclear Iran. There is little mention of the plight of the Iranians themselves, or the ripe opportunity presented by a nation disenchanted with 30 years of theocratic rule: A people that has historically been friendly to Jews, can, with some effort, be so once again.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, along with his coterie of fundamentalist radicals, is already a threat to Israel and the region. But they do not represent everyday Iranians. And as much as the regime in Tehran would like to deny it, a more accepting, rational view of Israel was once held by Iranian leaders.

In the early 1960s, several leading Iranian intellectuals traveled to Israel on the invitation of the Israeli foreign ministry and for the most part, the travelogues of their trips amounted to what may be the longest love letter to Israel ever to be penned in Persian. That sentiment, of course, would change dramatically. But for several years at least, it seemed that it would determine the attitude of an entire generation toward Israel.

Iran's Holocaust education could begin in Iran itself. Through the Port of Pahlavi in 1942, tens of thousands of Polish refugees, Jewish and non-Jewish, escaped the Nazis found a safe haven in Iran. Eventually, the majority of them relocated to other parts of the world. Yet, hundreds fell in love with "Persia" and stayed. Iranians could learn of their shared history with the Jewish people by visiting the hundreds of Polish graves in Tehran's Doulab cemetery alone.

Despite the regime's anti-Semitic rhetoric, the people have held fast to the values of their ancient civilization. They pride themselves on the idea that they have accepted members of other religions and ethnicities as equals, and as Iranians.

 

Ms. Hakakian is the author of "Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran" (Three Rivers Press, 2005), a memoir of growing up Jewish in Iran.

 

Verklaring van Israëlische ambassadeur over rapport VN Mensenrechtenraad

Hopelijk nemen veel landen in de Verenigde Naties de volgende woorden van de Israëlische afgevaardigde, Dan Gillerman, ter harte. Je hoeft geen kolonist of Groot-Israël aanhanger te zijn om te zien dat er een en ander niet klopt in de vorig jaar hervormde VN Mensenrechtenraad.

 

 

Ratna
------------

My delegation does not ask for special treatment. Israel, like any other country in this hall, should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis. All we ask is that the international community stands by its own values and lofty principles, if it is to be truly effective in achieving its goal of promoting and protecting human rights around the world.

Statement by Ambassador Dan Gillerman
Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations

Third Committee
Agenda item 65
"Report of the Human Rights Council"
United Nations, New York
6 November 2007
http://tinyurl.com/3yotp7

Mr. Chairman,

Six decades ago - as the nascent United Nations was only beginning to sift through the ashes of the Second World War, the Nazi atrocities, and horrors of the Holocaust - the leaders of the world gathered together and drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration would ultimately set the stage for the world body, placing human rights and individual freedoms at the top of the world agenda for years to come. The world watched with great anticipation and hope, championing the elevation of human rights as the only way to prevent the evils of the past.

In the coming year - 2008 - the international community will celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of this milestone document, which was intended to be a bulwark against oppression and discrimination. And yet, today, nearly sixty years after the establishment of human rights as a principle pillar of the United Nations, the question must be asked: what has happened to that clarion call for human rights and what has happened to this United Nations?

Mr. Chairman,

In its early years, the Commission on Human Rights was the UN's main organ to vitalize and advocate for the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world. But over time, the Commission failed miserably in its mandate and expectations, and gradually degenerated into a dysfunctional body. It reached such a nadir that former Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself pointed to what he called the "declining credibility" and "legitimacy deficit" of the Commission, which, in his opinion, "cast[ed] doubt on the overall reputation of the United Nations." So frustrating was the Commission that the General Assembly of the United Nations ultimately decided to shut it down, and to replace it entirely with a new body, the Human Rights Council.
And the world watched, yet again, with great anticipation and hope, championing human rights as the only way to prevent the evils of the past. Yet the moral bankruptcy and numerous shortcomings of the Commission have not become ancient history. For although different in name, the Commission and the Council, in essence, are one and the same.

The real burning - literally burning - human rights situations in our tormented world have certainly not been reflected in the Council's deliberations, and one wonders, sadly, if they ever will.

Since inception, the Council has focused primarily on Israel, subjecting it to 12 discriminatory, one-sided resolutions and three special sessions. This reflects nothing less than the immoral, automatic majority enjoyed by some.
The only other specific country situations addressed by the Council were Myanmar and Darfur, the latter where the resolutions on it not only failed to find the Sudanese government culpable for atrocities, but even had the audacity to congratulate Sudan for its cooperation.

Perhaps then it was not surprising to see the Council's blindness when it came to the human rights of Israelis. Where was the Council's condemnation of Palestinian terrorism against Israel in the face of daily and indiscriminate shelling of homes, schools, and kindergartens by Qassam rockets? What did the Council have to say last July during the unprovoked, massive bombardment of our northern border towns and in the heart of our civilian villages? What has the Council done - if anything - in response to the repeated incitement and calls for Israel's destruction and denial of the Holocaust by the president of Iran? Nothing. Indeed, the Council's silence is deafening - eerie and frightening - and, alas, though deeply disappointing, not the least surprising.

After all, the Council's membership includes some countries whose own records on human rights fall markedly below the standards of the international community, and who cannot genuinely serve as a beacon for human rights when their respective performances are so dismal and poor.
According to Freedom House, more than half of the Council's 47 members are considered "not-free" or only "partially free" countries.

More importantly and most flagrantly, many of these same countries share a political agenda that precludes the State of Israel, and utterly dismiss our inherent right to live in peace and security in our homeland.

Mr. Chairman,

While the ritualistic and virulent campaign against Israel in the Council is abhorrent and intolerable, equally troubling is the Council's resulting disregard for serious human rights violations in many other parts of the world, including among its own members. Under the new institution building package, the special rapporteurs on human rights violations by Cuba and by Belarus were eliminated without any serious discussion or consideration, in blatant disregard for the constituent mandate which established the Human Rights Council, General Assembly resolution A/60/251.

Like its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, the actual Human Rights Council has also adopted a separate standing agenda item on Israel, while the other human rights situations combined from all over the world, have been crammed into one, single agenda item.

Countless others suffering around the globe, living under tyrannical rule and oppression and violated by human rights abusers, do not gain this Council's attention. Look around the world at the pain and anguish of these people. Where is the world body's commitment to human rights, to its sacred Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the very bodies it created - recreated - in order to protect and ensure the dignity and rights of each and every individual? The world still watches with astonishment. Yet the Human Rights Council decides to focus on one particular conflict - and for the wrong reason entirely.

The bell tolls for all those concerned with safeguarding and protecting human rights in our world today. This is our wakeup call, and it is high time to listen.

Listen before its loud and lurid sound deafens us all.

Mr. Chairman,

My delegation does not ask for special treatment. Israel, like any other country in this hall, should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis. All we ask is that the international community stands by its own values and lofty principles, if it is to be truly effective in achieving its goal of promoting and protecting human rights around the world.

Mr. Chairman,

Sadly, the ghosts of the past Commission haunt the present Council. The Human Rights Council is surely not an improvement on the Commission, and in some ways it is even worse. Hence, Israel - as a member state of this organization - cannot accept the institution building package as is. Israel will call for a vote on the package, and calls on the Member States to consider what message they send with their votes. Compromise - or worse, concessions and lowest common denominators, which some Member States seek as alternatives - are detrimental to the protection of human rights.

Mr. Chairman,

As the noted English statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." If the good men and women of the international community stay silent, and allow for the Human Rights Council to fail in its mission, it will have been complicit in the downfall of human rights as a core value of this organization.

The international community cannot stand idly by. It must voice its conscience and flex its moral might. It cannot let the vision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fall prey to hypocrisy, politics, and prejudice. For that would disastrous for the human rights cause - not only for the United Nations, but for all mankind.

Talking of good men and women, allow me, Mr. Chairman, to voice a personal note. I have been here for nearly five years. I know many of you personality. I know you are indeed good men and women. I know that deep down you feel what I feel, and that if you could, you would voice the same sentiments.

Today, more than ever, and on this issue more than any other, I urge you to do so. Even in this glass building there comes a moment to lay political considerations and expediency aside and do the right thing. If ever there was such a moment, it is now. Let us for once rise above the cynicism and the "what does it matter" and "who cares" of UN jargon.

It does matter, and we should care. The human rights victims matter and the world cares. There are names and faces behind this issue. Those faces and that world are watching us today. Those names and those faces are waiting for us to do the right thing.

Please, let us do it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Duizenden Palestijnen vragen Israëlisch staatsburgerschap aan

Terwijl Nederlandse journalisten Israël verwijten te weinig compromisbereid te zijn, houden Arabische inwoners van Oost-Jeruzalem serieus rekening met een toekomstige deling van de stad. En daar zijn ze niet onverdeeld blij mee, vandaar dat het aantal aanvragen voor de Israëlische nationalitiet de afgelopen maanden drastisch is gestegen.

 

Ik heb hier al eerder geschreven over dergelijk begrijpelijk maar toch ook wel erg inconsequent gedrag. De Palestijnen en Arabische inwoners van Jeruzalem en Israël willen erg graag een Palestijnse staat; het liefst in heel historisch Palestina, maar een meerderheid is met tegenzin bereid zich neer te leggen bij een staat op de Westoever en Gazastrook. De meeste Israëli's zijn met tegenzin bereid aan zo'n staat mee te werken, mits aan een aantal veiligheidseisen wordt voldaan. Jeruzalem is, met de vluchtelingen, het grootste struikelblok. De Palestijnen eisen Oost-Jeruzalem en de gehele Oude Stad op, en Israëls officiële positie is nog steeds dat Jeruzalem de ondeelbare hoofdstad van Israël is en zal blijven.

 

Jeruzalem lijkt voor beide partijen dus heel erg belangrijk. Maar voor veel Arabische residenten wegen de betere sociale voorzieningen die Israël biedt zwaarder dan hun nationale gevoelens. Moet Israël daarvoor zijn mogelijk meest pijnlijke en historische compromis gaan sluiten, namelijk deling van Jeruzalem? De claims van de Palestijnen worden er niet geloofwaardiger op, hoe begrijpelijk hun twijfel aan de Palestijnse Autoriteit ook is.

 

 

Ratna

----------

Thousands of Palestinians apply for Israeli citizenship
Intensive talks over division of Jerusalem has prompted its Palestinian residents to make a move once considered the ultimate treason

Ronny Shaked YNET Published: 11.07.07, 10:22 / Israel News
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3468672,00.html

Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem calling to set up an appointment with the Interior Ministry to apply for an Israeli citizenship will discover the next available interview date is only in April.

In the months leading up to the upcoming Annapolis peace conference talk of a future division of the city has prompted a staggering increase in nationalization requests by Palestinians seeking to escape life under the Palestinian Authority.

Some 250,000 Palestinians currently reside in Jerusalem. Only 12,000 of them have sought to obtain an Israeli citizenship since 1967, an average of about 300 new citizens a year.

But over the past four months the Interior Ministry has registered an unprecedented 3,000 applications, primarily residents of the Arab neighborhoods unlikely to remain under Israeli sovereignty according to the political initiative currently on the agenda.

The 240,000 non-naturalized Palestinians in the city currently hold the status of permanent residents. As Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem they were also eligible to participate in the elections held by the Palestinian Authority.

As accepting Israeli citizenship was viewed by many within the community as tantamount to treason, most Palestinians opted to remain permanent residents and enjoy the benefits of living under Israeli sovereignty - full welfare rights, municipal voting rights and unrestricted movement - without putting their loyalty to the Palestinian Authority into question. The average Palestinian family in East Jerusalem currently receives a $770 monthly stipend from Israel.

"They've weighed the pros and cons of life under the Palestinian Authority and those under Israel and they've chosen," said residents in East Jerusalem of their naturalization-seeking neighbors.

33-year-old Samar Qassam said his motivation to apply for Israeli citizenship was to seek a better future for his family. Along with his wife and son, Qassam once lived in the Old City but recently moved to Beit Safafa, an Arab village south of Jerusalem.

"I was born in Jerusalem, this is where I grew up and this is where I make my living. My entire life is here. My wife comes from the West Bank, so I do fear she may be deported and therefore filed a naturalization request for her as well. I want to keep living here with my wife and child without having to worry about our future. That's why I want an Israeli citizenship," Qassam said.

"I don't know what the future holds. There's talk of the Palestinian Authority coming to Jerusalem.

Personally, I don't think that will happen. But only God knows what will happen. I work as a mechanic for an Israeli company, I have both Jewish and Arab friends. I speak Hebrew and go out to Tel Aviv and Akko in the evenings. I just want a better future," he said.

Deelnemers Annapolis conferentie onder druk

Vanwege de dreiging van Iran en de moslimextremisten, verwachtte de regering Bush de (relatief) gematigde Arabische staten makkelijk warm te kunnen maken voor de aanstaande Annapolis conferentie. Dat viel wat tegen. Te veel toegeeflijkheid zou overkomen alsof ze de Palestijnse zaak verraden, en kan daarmee de extremisten juist in de hand spelen.

 

Met oorlogen en boycots hebben ze Israël echter niet klein gekregen in het verleden, en de status quo laten voortbestaan werkt eveneens de extremisten in de hand, die hen ervan beschuldigen niets te doen om hun 'Palestijnse broeders' te helpen.

 

Welbegrepen eigenbelang zou daarom vereisen dat ze - zoals Sadat van Egypte voor hen - de stap wagen om de hand uit te steken naar Israël, en echt te gaan onderhandelen over vrede en erkenning van de Joodse staat, inclusief diens aanspraken op (een deel van) de Oude Stad in Jeruzalem.

 

 

Wouter

_________________

Jerusalem Post / Nov 1, 2007 23:32 | Updated Nov 2, 2007 12:41
Analysis: Israel bound to feel the heat ahead of Annapolis

 

By HERB KEINON
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380715981&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This week, for the first time, word began filtering out that the US was starting to lean on Israel to take some steps to ensure a successful meeting at Annapolis.

The US, according to diplomatic officials, sent a clear message that Washington has spent a great deal of time, energy and political capital on this event, and wants to make sure it succeeds. The message to Jerusalem was that Israel would have to start evacuating settlement outposts, obligations spelled out under the road map, if it expected the Palestinians to fulfill their own road map obligations.

With US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice due to arrive on Saturday night for her eighth visit this year, and the looming advance of the end of fall - the date by which the Americans have said the long-discussed Annapolis meeting would be held - crunch time is fast approaching.

And, as it approaches, Israelis should buck up for a degree of pressure from Washington that hasn't been felt for a long time.

Because while the Annapolis meeting is, on the surface, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and President George W. Bush's efforts in his last year in office to put his two-state vision on track, it is not solely - or even primarily - about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also about American needs, and American interests in the Middle East.

With the US experiment in Middle East democracy-building not exactly a resounding success, its eyes now are set on creating an arc of moderate Arab regimes, from the Persian Gulf to North Africa, to act as a bulwark, when it withdraws from Iraq, against Iran and marching Shi'ite extremism.

The two major issues concerning the US in the region right now are Iraq and Iran - not necessarily in that order - and then Israel.

When Bush first broached the idea of a Mideast meeting in July, he seemed to be wagering that the "moderate" Arab countries - like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco - would jump at the opportunity to attend and give a lending hand, if not out of a recognition that Israel was an established entity, then at least from their own domestic considerations. And these considerations were simple: a realization by these regimes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fed the extremists in their own midst, and that it was in their own interest to deprive the extremists of this "nutrition."

The idea was that with Iran going after nukes, and terrorism and global jihad knocking at their own door, these moderate regimes would finally be willing to come out of the closet and give legitimacy to Israel-Palestinian negotiations.

But the moderate states did not jump on the bandwagon, partly because of concern about how attendance at the conference, which would be interpreted as endorsing Israel's right to exist, will be taken by the masses.

Now, just weeks prior to one of the dates being bandied about for this meeting, November 26, it is still not clear whether Saudi Arabia - a key in making Annapolis a success because of its unique standing in the Arab world - will even attend.

Hence the pressure on Israel from Washington. The Bush Administration simply cannot afford another Mideast failure.

If the US fails to pull off the Annapolis meeting, the ripple effects will extend to Iran. It will, first and foremost, be an indication that the Iranians now have more pull in the region then the US, because the Iranians are doing whatever they can to throttle the meeting.

Interestingly enough, as much as Washington is antipathetic toward Syria, it needs Syria in Annapolis because having it there would send a strong message to Iran. Syria is a test, and whether it can be lured to the conference will be an indication of whether it can be lured out of the Iranian orbit, or whether it is locked in with Teheran.

But part of the bait to lure Syria to the conference would obviously be something that Israel would be expected to pay - a willingness to talk about the Golan Heights. Israel will also be asked to pay for the bait needed to lure a reluctant Saudi Arabia to the table as well.

If the US cannot get Israel and the Palestinians at Annapolis to agree on a paper that will be endorsed by the moderate Arab world, then the Saudis won't come, and the Iranians - who oppose the conference - will emerge as the winners. Surely not a prospect Israel relishes.

But if the Saudis do show up at Annapolis, and if the Syrians decide to come as well, Israel will be expected to pay the price for getting them there. And that price will be paid to a Palestinian leader, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who represents - at best - only half the Palestinians.

As Rice comes to shepherd Israel and the Palestinians down the final stretch toward Annapolis, neither option looks overly appealing.

Israëls veiligheid sleutel tot overeenkomst Palestijnse staat

Onderstaand bericht suggereert iets duidelijkere taal dan in de speeches die Livni en Olmert zondag gaven voor het Saban Forum.
___________________________

Israel's security seen as key to deal for Palestinian state
Reuters / Published: November 4, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/04/africa/mideast.php?WT.mc_id=rssafrica

JERUSALEM: Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, told Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state, Sunday that any deal Washington hoped to broker for a Palestinian state would not be implemented until Israel's security was assured.

Rice is on her third visit to the region in six weeks. She is trying to bridge gaps between the two sides before the United States hosts a conference that is expected to take place in the last week of November in Annapolis, Maryland.

Israel and the Palestinians are still at odds over a joint document for the conference, which would serve as a starting point for negotiations on core issues ranging from borders to the fate of Jerusalem to millions of Palestinian refugees. Israeli leaders have insisted that any future agreement could be put into effect only after the Palestinians met their obligations under a U.S.-backed "road map" for peace charting reciprocal steps towards statehood.

The 2003 blueprint requires Palestinians to crack down on militants and for Israel to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and remove dozens of outposts set up without Israeli government permission.

The Palestinians "need to understand that the implementation of future understandings would be implemented only according to the phases of the road map - the meaning is security for Israel first and then the establishment of a Palestinian state," Livni told reporters, with Rice at her side.

"Nobody wants to see another terror state in the region," Livni said, an indirect reference to fears that Hamas, the Islamist part that took over the Gaza Strip in June, could do the same in the West Bank, where the Fatah faction of President Mahmoud Abbas holds sway.

Rice told Livni that she hoped her visit would help to "advance the work you are doing bilaterally with the Palestinians as well as continuing to plan for the Annapolis meetings."

Rice told reporters that it was very unlikely there would be agreement on a document during her two-day trip, during which she will also meet separately with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and Abbas.

"They are going through some knotty discussions, and I think those knotty discussions are going to continue for some time," Rice said Saturday.

Israel and the Palestinians are also at odds over a call by Abbas for a timeline to wrap up so-called final status negotiations for creating a Palestinian state.

Olmert opposes a time frame, cautioning that a failure to meet deadlines could deepen frustrations and touch off violence. But he has said that it was his goal to reach an accord before President George W. Bush ends his second term in January 2009. Rice was also set to meet with Tony Blair, the Middle East envoy and former British prime minister, and to make a speech in Jerusalem that was expected to encourage both sides to make bold compromises.

Israeli strikes kill 4 in Gaza

Israeli missile strikes killed four Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Sunday, Reuters reported from Jerusalem, citing local medical officials.
Israel said it had targeted militants firing rockets at its territory.
Palestinian officials said some of the dead were civilians.

Drie mannen in Oost-Jeruzlaem gearresteerd voor beramen aanslagen in Israël

Eén van de vele aanslagen die worden gepland en verijdeld.
___________________________

Last update - 20:12 04/11/2007

Three East J'lem men arrested for planning attacks in Israel 
By Ofra Idelman, Haaretz Correspondent  
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/920183.html 
 

A gag order was lifted on Sunday on the arrest of three East Jerusalem residents suspected of planning terror attacks in Israel.

Among the cell's planned attacks was a suicide attack in Jerusalem and shooting attacks on security forces on Mugrabi Gate in the Old City.

An indictment filed by the Jerusalem District Attorney on Friday reveals that at the end of 2006, 19-year-old Mamoun Abu Tir and Atallah Abu Tir, 20, both from Umm Tuba in East Jerusalem, decided to set up a terror cell. To advance the cell, Mamoun Abu Tir established contacts with a man who introduced himself as an Islamic Jihad activist in Algeria.


According to the indictment, the man send Mamud Abu Tir instructions on preparing explosives, and, in September 2007, connected him with an Islamic Jihad militant in the Gaza Strip.

The indictment also states that Mamoun Abu Tir discussed with the Gaza militant potential attacks on various figures, including the mayor of Jerusalem. The two originally discussed bringing a suicide bomber from Hebron to Be'er Sheva, but eventually decided to try and carry out an attack on Jerusalem instead.

The Gaza militant, according to the indictment, offered to bring a suicide bomber to the separation fence in Jerusalem, from where Mamun Abu Tir would pick him up. The latter agreed, and asked his friend Atallah Abu Tir to act as a driver. The two agreed to search for the ideal location for an attack in the city, and to obtain weapons for a shooting attack on forces guarding the Mugrabi Gate.

Roughly one week later, the Gaza middleman allegedly told Mamoun Abu Tir in apparent code that he should prepare to pick up a "present" in the West Bank city of Jenin. The indictment states that Abu Tir understood from this that he was to pick up a suicide bomber and an explosives belt.

Several hours later, Mamoun Abu Tir was arrested by security forces. He and Atallah Abu Tir have been charged with conspiring with an enemy during wartime, and the former also with contacts with a foreign agent.

The indictment also charges Said Amira, from the Jerusalem neighborhood of Tzur Bahar, with conspiring with an enemy during wartime. The indictment says that in early 2007, Attalah Abu Tir discussed with Amira possible attacks against Jews.

Amira is also changed with throwing a stone at Israeli police officers in 2002 after Friday prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and of membership in a terror organization, after he took part in a Hamas rally in 2004 and acted as a Hamas observer for Palestinian Authority elections in 2006

'Het enige land waar we nog nooit uit zijn gegooid is Israël'

... Op dezelfde manier is het Israëlische hooggerechtshof waarschijnlijk de enige rechtbank in het Midden-Oosten waar Arabieren tegenover de staat in het gelijk worden gesteld.
Dit laat onverlet dat Al Jazeera geen objectieve nieuwszender is en toch vooral vanuit Arabisch perspectief over de zaken bericht. Dat Al Jazeera desondanks uit alle Arabische staten, inclusief de Palestijnse gebieden is gegooid (door de Palestijnen, niet door Israël), is veelzeggend.

 

Hoever zou een Israëlisch TV station komen in de Arabische wereld? Niet ver. In een aantal landen mogen Joden niet eens komen, en kom je ook met een Israëlisch stempel in je paspoort al niet binnen. Israëlische producten komen er ook vaak niet in, en in sommige landen hebben bedrijven die handel drijven met Israël eveneens een probleem.

 

 

Ratna

---------

'The only country we haven't been kicked out of is Israel'

It's not just America that's hostile to al-Jazeera, Nigel Parsons, who launched the English version of the channel, tells James Robinson. The so-called 'Terror TV' station has ruffled feathers across the Gulf

* James Robinson
* The Observer
* Sunday November 4 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/04/television?gusrc=rss&feed=media

In Washington, the political elite call al-Jazeera 'Terror TV' - so rolling out an international version of the 24-hour Arabic news channel to extend its reach to the English-speaking world was always likely to be fraught with difficulties.

Sipping tea in a central London hotel, Nigel Parsons, the man who launched al-Jazeera English a year ago, recalls the reception he received on an early visit to Washington to meet a US Congressman. 'When I walked in he said "So you're the guys who are responsible for our kids dying in Iraq". And this was a Democrat - an ex-surfer from California.'

Parsons, an Englishman with an unassuming manner who has worked at the BBC and Associated Press, has had to fight to make AJE's voice heard. As the channel's anniversary approaches, al-Jazeera English is still not available in American homes and has been forced to rely on its website to build a presence in the US. 'Cable companies were fearful of a backlash,' Parsons says.

It has hired a posse of big-name reporters and presenters, including ex-BBC stars Rageh Omaar and Sir David Frost, to imbue the network with some star quality, and Frost helped the channel get off to a good start, securing an interview with Tony Blair in its first week in which the then Prime Minister appeared to agree that the invasion of Iraq had 'so far been pretty much of a disaster'.

Though few stories have made such a spectacular splash since then, Parsons says there have been plenty of other exclusives: 'We had five cameras in Burma when no one else could get in and that was picked up [by other networks].' So too was the channel's footage of the Pakistani army's raid on the Red Mosque in Islamabad.

After a delayed launch, which left more than 100 of its 390 journalists sitting in the Qatari desert, Parsons is pleased to be in nearly 100 million homes in more than 60 countries (market-leader CNN is in 200 million). 'I could hear the knives sharpening as launch day approached. Now that we are on air, people can judge us for what we are.'

There is no doubt that AJE's coverage is distinctive. Parsons says around 40 per cent of its output covers the Middle East, but it majors on stories in developing nations and offers a world view that is refreshingly different or dangerously subjective, depending on your personal perspective.

'We don't want to be part of the herd,' Parsons says. 'That's not saying the herd is always wrong, but following it is responsible for the mistakes that have been made. Iraq was a classic example of that. It was nothing short of a dereliction of duty, for broadcasters in particular. We assumed that our politicians knew more than we did and assumed their statements were based on fact.

'The rhetoric being used against Iran is a carbon copy of the rhetoric used against Iraq. They are already linking Iran with al-Qaeda and using that phrase "nuclear ambitions". But the media are more wary this time and there will be a lot of questions asked if there is a rush to war.'

AJE covered President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to New York 'quite differently', Parsons says. 'We were far more critical of his treatment. We are far more aware of the fact that he is not the ultimate leader of Iran. It is a very old nation that hasn't invaded anyone for 300 years and was on the wrong end of a war of attrition with Iraq.' But he also points out: 'We're not less critical of Iran. We often get thrown out of the country.'

One of the ironies of AJE's pariah status in the US is that the original Arabic-language al-Jazeera, which claims to report and reflect the view from the 'Arab street', often clashes with Middle Eastern regimes, which don't always appreciate candid criticism. 'Saudi is the most difficult one to cover. We haven't been in for years, though we're trying to. The only country we haven't been kicked out of is Israel; even the Palestinians kicked us out once.'

Those who characterise AJE's sister channel as Osama bin Laden's favourite news outlet might also be interested to learn that al-Qaeda has just issued a fatwa against AJE. 'We didn't show [bin Laden's latest statement] in a flattering enough light.'

It was those videotaped statements that first made al-Jazeera's reputation in the West, but Parsons is dismissive of those who claim they are aiding bin Laden by airing them. It has always insisted that it would not hand over tapes to the CIA and Parsons says that journalists who say bin Laden should be denied the oxygen of publicity are being disingenuous. 'If he offered you an exclusive interview in a cave in Tora Bora, you'd go. If they protest they wouldn't, they'd be lying.'

These days, other broadcasters frequently find bin Laden's tapes before al-Jazeera does, he says. 'They used to be dropped off anonymously, but are uploaded in an internet cafe now. Reuters received the last one.'

Both channels are funded by the fabulously wealthy Emir of Qatar, in part because they allow the kingdom to punch above its weight politically and diplomatically, but Parsons denies they have money to burn: 'We don't have the same commercial pressure, but we have fixed budgets. We don't have as much money as our competitors.'

Neither were its big-name signings lured with big-money offers. 'The idea that we are the Chelsea of broadcasting is a complete myth. We had a deliberate policy of not buying our way into the market. We are at the bottom end of the global pay league. I can tell you that Rageh's not being paid anything near what his agent would have liked. He could have made a lot more money elsewhere.' Reporters are attracted by the chance to do work they enjoy, travelling when they want to, but doing less 'rooftop journalism' from the edge of war zones, he claims.

The truth - however unpalatable it may be to some - is that the channel will come into its own next time there is a major conflict in the Middle East, when it hopes to use its correspondents and contacts in the region to get to places and people Western news outlets might not reach.

Parsons admits that last summer's Israeli-Lebanese conflict, which preceded AJE's launch was frustrating to watch because his colleagues had to watch the war unfold from their desert base. 'It's a dilemma. The region's seen enough conflict, but if there were another Lebanese war tomorrow, that could make us as a channel.'

His only regret so far, he says, is that AJE didn't go on a publicity push in America: 'We've been very weak on marketing. I would have taken one of those big Times Square electronic signs and put a slogan up saying "The rest of the world is watching; why aren't you?". It's debatable whether that would have won it a wider audience in America, but it would certainly have provoked an interesting response.'

 

Toespraak premier Ehud Olmert op Saban Forum

Hieronder Olmert's speech op het Saban Forum (zie ook: Livni's speech op het Saban forum).

 

Evenals Livni houdt Olmert het vooral bij mooie woorden en algemeenheden, geen duidelijke eisen of ferme uitspraken, evenmin concrete toezeggingen, maar vooral 'verbiage'. Hij gaat uitgebreid in op de vraag waarom een conferentie, waarom nu, en het doel, maar echt wijzer wordt je er niet van.

Annapolis is a landmark, it is an international seal of approval, on the path to negotiations and of the genuine effort to achieve the realization of the vision of two nations: the State of Israel - the nation of the Jewish people; and the Palestinian state - the nation of the Palestinian people.

There will not be negotiations on the vision; there will be no bargaining about this fundamental goal which the U.S. President, George Bush, declared so eloquently: "Two countries for two peoples".  A Jewish state for the Jewish people - a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

We will not negotiate about the right of existence for the State of Israel as a Jewish state.  We will not bargain about the right of the Palestinian people to their own state.

Both are fundamental conditions, basic positions, obvious understandings which cannot be denied.  All the basic questions, all the substantive problems, all the historic questions which are pertinent to the disagreement between us and the Palestinians are on the agenda.  We will avoid none of them, we will not run from discussing any of them.

Helaas is Israëls bestaansrecht voor de Palestijnen geen uitgemaakte zaak, want zij eisen een onbeperkt recht op terugkeer van de vluchtelingen. Het is dus één van beiden: of alles ligt op tafel en staat ter discussie, inclusief Joodse zelfbeschikking, of Olmert moet expliciet zeggen dat recht op terugkeer onbespreekbaar is. Me dunkt dat Palestijnse soevereiniteit over de Klaagmuur en de Joodse begraafplaats ook onbespreekbaar is, maar ook daar laat hij zich niet over uit.

Annapolis will not be a place for negotiations, but it will certainly be a starting point.  Annapolis will be the jumping-off point for continued serious and in-depth negotiations which will not avoid any issue or ignore any division which has clouded our relations with the Palestinian people for many years.

Waarom geen onderhandelingen op Annapolis? Als geen enkel probleem of punt van 'disagreement' vermeden dient te worden, als we niet 'weglopen van het bespreken ervan', dan waarom geen onderhandelingen op Annapolis? Waar is Olmert bang voor? De Palestijnen stellen eisen aan de lopende band, dus veel erger kan dat niet worden. Is hij bang dat hij op die eisen in zal moeten gaan? Dat hij moet verantwoorden waarom hij ze niet, of sommigen niet, of nu niet, in wil willigen? Dat hij, kortom Israëls belangen in concreto zal moeten verdedigen en dit zal moeten onderbouwen?

 

Ratna
----------

"We agreed that if and when we reach an understanding with the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, this understanding will be implemented according to the Roadmap, with all its phases and its sequence."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Speech at the Saban Forum
November 4, 2007
www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/53A152A9-3B49-4413-8901-197EA4E79086/0/sabanENG041107.doc

Distinguished Guests,

At the outset, I wish to say something personal.

Today, November 4, is the anniversary of the tragic murder of the late Yitzhak Rabin.  We held the official memorial service according to the Hebrew date two weeks ago, and last night masses of people gathered in Rabin Square to commemorate his memory as they do every year.

However, today, November 4, is the day seared in our collective consciousness as the day of the murder.  He will never be forgotten.

I bow my head in profound sorrow to the memory of Yitzhak Rabin.  He was a special man who left his mark - which will never be erased - on the life of our country.

I mentioned that I would say something personal: from where I am now, I understand the difficult dilemmas and the power of the suffering Yitzhak Rabin dealt with.  Rabin did not charge towards the peace process with excessive enthusiasm.  More than anything, he exhibited doubt, hesitation, and was repeatedly tormented by the cost of peace and the risks it entailed.

However, when he saw a chance, he acted to realize it.  When he recognized an opportunity, he did not undermine it, but rather he was willing to take chances, to expose himself to criticism, to face the accusatory voices both domestic and international. He did everything in order to realize the opportunity.

He made no political considerations.  He did not take into account temporary benefits, inter-party balances of power, and what could be worthwhile.  He weighed all the doubts against the hopes, the fears against the chances, the horrible loneliness against the weight of responsibility - and acted.

This is Rabin's legacy.  All the rest are slogans which often cover up the lack of desire to act.  This is a legacy to which I am obligated; this is a legacy according to which I intend to lead the State of Israel over the coming months - before the meeting in Annapolis, during it and most importantly after it.

Tonight, I wish to remember my predecessor, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Exactly two years ago, in this place, I sat together at the head of the table with the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon.  This was only days after the implementation of the Disengagement Plan, and ahead of the upcoming elections.

I have no doubt that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon intended to continue advancing the peace process between ourselves and the Palestinians.

Disengagement was not meant to be isolated from the wider context of our relations with the Palestinians.  Arik contemplated the continuation of the path, versus the need to realize the Roadmap.  It was necessary to reach purposeful, substantial, open and daring negotiations with the Palestinians.

I am committed to this inheritance with all my heart, with all my strength. I do not intend to be satisfied with statements.  Chances and opportunities are not slogans, but rather a working plan - and they obligate me.

Why Annapolis?

Annapolis is a landmark, it is an international seal of approval, on the path to negotiations and of the genuine effort to achieve the realization of the vision of two nations: the State of Israel - the nation of the Jewish people; and the Palestinian state - the nation of the Palestinian people.

There will not be negotiations on the vision; there will be no bargaining about this fundamental goal which the U.S. President, George Bush, declared so eloquently: "Two countries for two peoples".  A Jewish state for the Jewish people - a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

We will not negotiate about the right of existence for the State of Israel as a Jewish state.  We will not bargain about the right of the Palestinian people to their own state.

Both are fundamental conditions, basic positions, obvious understandings which cannot be denied.  All the basic questions, all the substantive problems, all the historic questions which are pertinent to the disagreement between us and the Palestinians are on the agenda.  We will avoid none of them, we will not run from discussing any of them.

Annapolis will not be a place for negotiations, but it will certainly be a starting point.  Annapolis will be the jumping-off point for continued serious and in-depth negotiations which will not avoid any issue or ignore any division which has clouded our relations with the Palestinian people for many years.

That is why - Annapolis.

Why now?

Because it is time.  Years ago, the Oslo Accords were signed.  I was not among its supporters.  I feared its negative effects.  At the time, I estimated that its results would not lead to peace between us and the Palestinians.  The opportunity which ripened then collapsed under the furor of terror; the lack of credibility of the Palestinian leadership at time and the stormy disagreement in Israeli society, which ended with three bullets in Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's back.

There was another chance developing in 2000 - the special effort made by the State of Israel which reached its peak at the Camp David summit in July of that year.  That meeting unfortunately ended with an explosion that led to the bloody Intifada, which even today continues in the most sensitive areas of our lives.

Now is the time.  The Palestinian leadership is headed by men committed to all the agreements previously signed with the State of Israel.  We do not ignore their weaknesses; we are completely aware of the failures of the Palestinian Authority - of the lack of stable governing mechanisms, of the total disintegration of the security mechanisms in Judea and Samaria, of the Hamas rule over the Palestinian parliament and of the violent control of the murderous organizations in the Gaza Strip.  Their control allows for unceasing firing of Qassam missiles at residents in the south of the country.

We have abundant reasons to postpone Annapolis; we have very convincing arguments - why the conditions are not yet ripe in the Palestinian Authority to take practical and comprehensive responsibility to implement the understandings with the State of Israel which have yet to be enacted.

However, ladies and gentlemen, we are capable of facing these constraints.
Under the existing circumstances, we have a partner and we are not willing to postpone negotiations to a later date, at which point our partner might not be capable of fulfilling the mission.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, and Salaam Fayyad, its Prime Minister, publicly state - without hesitation and despite the inherent difficulties of the complex relations within Palestinian society - that they want to live with us in peace.  This is an opportunity - it should be taken.

We agreed that if and when we reach an understanding with the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, this understanding will be implemented according to the Roadmap, with all its phases and its sequence.  The Palestinians are obligated to fight terrorism and to completely change their internal reality. It should be remembered that the Roadmap sets out a series of steps for the State of Israel.  These steps, like the obligations of the Palestinians, have yet to be implemented.  We will not concede to the Palestinians on any of the obligations outlined in the Roadmap, and we will not avoid fulfilling our own obligations to the letter.  Some of them are difficult, some will create considerable political hardships - and I have no intention, no matter how difficult it is, of attempting to escape the obligations imposed on the State of Israel.

I recommend to each of the leaders and involved parties to deal bravely and unhesitatingly with all the components of this opportunity, this chance.  Be open to hope and face the genuine and clear risks and difficulties so that the process may move ahead.

What next?

After Annapolis, we will enter into vigorous, ongoing and continuing negotiations.  If we and the Palestinians act with determination, there is a chance that we can achieve real accomplishments perhaps even before the end of President Bush's term in office.  There is no intention of dragging the negotiations on endlessly; there is no reason to suffer the same foot-dragging which previously characterized our discussions. There is no basis for the assumption that someone will attempt to circumvent dealing with the fundamental issues which are a condition for realizing the vision of two states living side-by-side in security and peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Guests,

This is a good moment.  I am excited by the chance to contribute to our chances.  I know all the excuses and arguments why not, but I believe - from the bottom of my heart - that the time has come.

In this spirit, I will come to Annapolis; to extend my hand in friendship and good will to all those who come to the meeting, and I promise: the State of Israel will be there.  Indeed, we will come with caution; we will examine every issue responsibly; we will consider every proposal sensitively; but we come in good will, happily and full of hope.