This is from Haaretz, and is worth reading and reflecting on...

A document obtained by Haaretz shows that the Palestinian Authority vehemently rejected most of Israel's security demands in negotiations at Camp David and Taba in 2000 and 2001, but contrary to what has been assumed for years, significant agreement was reached on parts of three core issues: borders, refugees and Jerusalem.

The 26-page document, signed by Gilad Sher, bureau chief to then prime minister Ehud Barak, was entitled, "The Status of the Diplomatic Process with the Palestinians Points to Update the Incoming Prime Minister."

The document, revealed as Israel and the Palestinians resume official talks following a seven-year hiatus, shows details of the Palestinians' objections for the first time, and illustrates the precise differences in the respective negotiating positions when the talks were frozen in early 2001.

The document also reveals that as early as June 2000, an "initiated separation" plan that would eventually become the basis for Israel's withdrawal from territories were being formulated, in the event talks with the Palestinians break down.

That plan received the cabinet's final approval in October 2000. The separation plan was to encompass all aspects of life, and would take place over a number of years, even while negotiations would be kept on the back burner as an option, should conditions change.

The document was presented to Barak two weeks after the elections on February 6, 2001, in which Barak lost to Ariel Sharon, and a few days before Sharon assumed office.

Among the PA's objections were the demilitarization of the Palestinian Authority; the proposed timeline for the Israel Defense Forces to withdraw from the territories; the IDF's right to emergency deployment in the Jordan Valley; and control of the skies.

The document notes that "at the Camp David negotiations, President [Bill] Clinton agreed on the security issue in the spirit of Israel's positions, but after the summit, the Palestinians reneged on most of the understandings."

Some of the details have been revealed over the years in books and articles, but most have remained ambiguous or unknown.

According to the plan:

* Israel would keep settlement blocs comprising 80 percent of the settlers in the West Bank.

* No evacuation of settlements was planned for the initial phase of the plan. At an appropriate time, it stated, isolated settlements outside the blocs or security zones would be transfered to one of the settlement blocks or to Israel.

* A wide security zone would be maintained along the Dead Sea as far north as Meholah in the Jordan Valley.

* Security forces would be beefed up in the Old City and East Jerusalem, and its environs.

The 26-page booklet was written during a long series of discussions by a team headed by Sher, which included former deputy head of the Shin Bet security service Israel Hasson; Barak's political adviser, Pini Meidan; the IDF chief of planning and strategy, Brigadier General Mike Herzog; head of the Military Advocate General's international law department, Colonel Daniel Reisner; the secretary of the negotiating team, Gidi Grinstein; the head of the negotiation administration, Colonel Shaul Arieli; his deputy, Moti Kristal; and Foreign Ministry representative Oded Eran. Then-head of the National Security Council, Major General Uzi Dayan, also contributed comments. The booklet summed up in almost obsessively thorough and precise detail all diplomatic action that had been taken vis-a-vis the Palestinians during Barak's term in office.

Far-reaching ideas
The main principle toward which Israel was working, according to the document prepared by Sher's team, was not to offer any more territory to the Palestinians before understandings were reached on all the core issues. Israel was prepared to discuss far-reaching ideas, but continually emphasized that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

Another rule was that "no issues could be agreed upon separately from others," because of the interlocking connection among all the issues. These two messages were emphasized frequently during the talks in 2000.

In preparation for the current renewal of talks, the documents were presented to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and her team a month before the Annapolis summit. The Israeli and the Palestinian teams, headed by Livni and Ahmed Qureia, met Wednesday in what was intended as the official reopening of talks, seven years after they were frozen.

During the talks at Camp David and Taba, the parties worked toward a Framework Agreement for Permanent Status (FAPS). The agreement was supposed to encompass all the core issues and offer guidelines and time tables to arrive at a solution.

In comparison, during the opening of talks between Israeli and Palestinian teams on Wednesday, the parties avoided defining the legal status of the document toward which they were working. The joint statement at Annapolis stated that the goal was a "peace agreement," a term open to interpretation.

Olmert has not yet given guidelines to the negotiating team on the present talks. However, the 2001 booklet documents 12 guidelines given by Barak to the negotiating teams.

Gaps revealed
The 2001 document reveals the gaps between the parties on all the core issues:
The parties were divided over when to make a declaration on the end of the conflict. Israel wanted the end-of-conflict declaration to be at the time of the signing of the FAPS. The Palestinians refused, and wanted all prisoners incarcerated in Israel to be released with the signing of the FAPS. Israel proposed that the prisoners be released with the Palestinian end-of-conflict declaration.

The document also reveals the nature of the Palestinian state, constituting the implementation of the right of the entire Palestinian people to self-determination. Among the differences noted was "a disagreement among the Palestinians with regard to formal recognition of the State of Israel as a Jewish state."

With regard to borders, the booklet states that the Palestinians were willing to show flexibility, and had agreed to adjustments to the June 4, 1967, borders, which were "equal in their extent and quality to meet Israel's demographic needs." The talks failed to reach an agreement over the Latrun area, the area annexed to Jerusalem after 1967, and the Dead Sea.

In addition, while Israel sought to exchange territory for 6 to 8 percent of the West Bank in order to keep the settlement blocks, the Palestinians demanded that all territorial exchanges be at a 1:1 ratio, and would not be greater than 2.3 percent of the West Bank.

In terms of safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza, Israel wanted the passage to remain under its sovereignty, but controlled by the Palestinians; the Palestinians wanted a land corridor through Israel that would be under its sovereignty.

Jerusalem
With regard to Jerusalem, it was determined that there would be two capitals, Jerusalem and Al-Quds, and that special arrangements would be made on matters of security, planning, construction and law enforcement. The Palestinians emphasized the idea of the "open city"  that the two capitals would constitute one urban unit separate from its surroundings, both Israeli and Palestinian.

In the areas outside the Old City walls, Israel's guiding principle was that Arab areas would be Palestinian, but presented a map with Jewish territorial contiguity that created Palestinian "bubbles." The Palestinians, for their part, demanded Palestinian territorial contiguity with Israeli "bubbles" connected to Jewish Jerusalem via roads.

In the matter of the "sacred basin" and the Old City, Israel wanted a "special regime," and to keep the Jewish and the Armenian quarters under its aegis. The Palestinians, however, wanted sovereignty over the Muslim, Christian and most of the Armenian quarters.

In terms of the Jewish holy sites outside the walls, the Palestinians proposed special arrangements that would benefit Israel but would not constitute overeignty.

An even more complicated issue was that of the Temple Mount. Israel suggested that sovereignty would be "ambiguous," and that powers of administration and control would be shared, or alternatively, that sovereignty would be determined based on the bond of each party to the site. The Palestinians refused both alternatives and rejected any compromise on the Temple Mount.

Refugees
On refugees, Israel refused to accept sole responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem and to any right of return, theoretical or actual. Israel did agree to recognize the suffering of the 1948 refugees; to take part in an international effort to bring in a small number of refugees 20,000-40,000 at its discretion based on humanitarian considerations only; and to contribute funds to refugee rehabilitation. Israel's condition was that the "implementation of the final status agreement would bring an end to demands and a solution to the problem."

The Palestinians demanded that Israel recognize its sole responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the refugee problem, and wanted Israel to recognize the Palestinian right of return as per UN resolution 194. However a document written during the talks stated that the Palestinians "showed understanding of the sensitivity of the issue for Israel, and willingness to find a formulation that would balance these feelings with their national needs."

The gaps on the issue of water remained at a legal level, while on the practical level agreement was extensive.

On the process of ratifying the agreement, Israel declared its intention to hold a referendum, while the Palestinians said nothing about this part of the process.

From Ha'aretz:

Israel [with the implicit approval of the United States] is to begin gradually reducing the power supply to the Gaza Strip on December 2, in response to the ongoing Qassam rocket fire at Israeli communities along the Strip, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz told the High Court of Justice yesterday.

Israel intends to cut diesel fuel supplies for transportation purposes from 1.4 million liters per week to 1.2 million, and diesel fuel supplies for power stations from 2.2 liters per week to 1.75 liters.

Please remember the 4th Geneva Convention, article 33:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

So this shows the commitment to 'peace' that Israel are demonstrating before the much-ballyhooed Annapolis Conference: violation of the Geneva conventions and collective punishment of the whole population of Gaza.

In this context, i should mention that the US Campaign to end the Israeli Occupation is raising funds for Palestinian farmers by making available Fair Trade Olive Oil grown and processed in Palestine. Purchasing the olive oil is one way to support the Palestinian struggle for independence and self-determination.

Ehud Barak is widely recognized as a "Dove" in the spectrum of Israeli politics. yet here are some of his comments since becoming defense secretary:

[...] the shortcomings he found in the defense establishment stemmed from the budget cuts of the past few years, including in programs aimed at bolstering the IDF's ability to counter emerging strategic threats in the Middle East. [...]
Another element of Barak's doctrine is the development of a "long reach" that would allow the army to operate "far from its borders, with the ability to strike accurately and painfully."

In other words, a leading "dove" proposes increasing Israel's military budget (sacrificing yet further Israel's already weakened social safety net) and the development of means to strike other countries. i wonder which countries he has in mind, under which circumstances he envisions "striking" themand whether he pays any mind to those insignificant details such as the UN Charter, which forbids unilateral military action. Then again, the US never has, so why should the leading recipient of US aid? 

there can be no doubt that the united states is a major source of instability in the Middle East: our government is the prime supplier of weapons to nearly all the states in the region. It is last week's news that the US is preparing an arms sals deal to the Gulf States (primarily Saudi Arabia) for around $20 BILLION.

In the same deal, Israel will receive $30 billion in U.S. military aid over the next decade, averaging $3 billion a year.

Where to begin? Perhaps with this quote from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: "We understand the United States' need to assist the moderate Arab states, which are standing in one front with the United States and us in the struggle against Iran,"

Ahhh, the irony of it all. Saudi Arabia is a moderate Arab State? Let us never forget that Saudi Arabia is the most extreme islamist theocracy in the world, with an atrocious human rights record. It is particularly useful to remember this fact when we hear the fearmorngers talk about the "clash of civilizations." The United States sells billions of dollars of weapons to the most fundamentalist islamic state in the world.

Then we ought to talk about the "special relationship" between the US and Israel. Let's forget about everything else for a moment and discuss Israel's settlement policy. Israel - eveyone agrees - is occupying the West Bank, and is therefore subject to the Fourth Geneva convention (section III, article 49), which states unambiguously that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

And yet Israel has been undertaking a MASSIVE settlement operation in the West Bank. The construction of their "separation wall" is in large part intended to protect the settlements - and was thus judged unlawful by the Interational Court of Justice.

The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem does a fantastic job of documenting the awful impact of Israel's colonial plans - as does the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which ought to be read carefully by any US citizen who wishes to gain a clearer perspective on the issue.

These two news items prove my point:

1) the Israeli Supreme court rejected petitions against the route of the West Bank separation fence in the area of Efrat, saying the route of the fence was determined to defend the settlement, located in Gush Etzion. (in other words, the Israeli Supreme court has decided that it is imperative to defend the illegal settlement despite the ICJs decision, international law be damned)

2) some of the people who live in the settlements routinely commit barbaric acts of violence against Palestinians, which very rarely get reported in the US press, but occasionally they also attack United Nations employees.

Now, if only the New York Times and the other papers had a headline that said:

US SUPPORTS RADICAL ISLAMIC THEOCRACY AND IMPLICITLY ENDORSES ISRAEL'S VIOLATIONS OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS, CREATING INSTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

To the Times:

Re: "The Hamas Conundrum"

Imagine this sentence:

"If Israel wants American aid restored (all $2 billion of it) it must begin to meet three conditions: ending violence against Palestinians, recognizing and negotiating with the elected leadership of the Palestinians, and respecting UN Security Council resolutions and the Geneva Conventions as they apply to the occupied territories."

It is impossible to even utter such a sentence in our political discourse without being subjected to vicious attacks from the defenders of political orthodoxy. And this sadly assures that our country cannot be part of a "just and lasting" settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Today I also got an email from Assaf, a former Israeli reservist who became a concientious objector. He forwarded this article, which has to do with maps. For some good ones, check here.

Without Borders
 
Uri Avnery 24.03.07
 
INCREDIBLE! In Palestinian schoolbooks, there is no trace of the Green Line! They do not recognize the existence of Israel even in the 1967 borders! They say that the "Zionist gangs" stole the country from the Arabs! That's how they poison the minds of their children!  
 
These blood-curdling revelations were published this week in Israel and around the world. The conclusion is self-evident: the Palestinian Authority, which is responsible for the schoolbooks, cannot be a partner in peace negotiations.
 
What a shock!
 
Truth is, there is nothing new here. Every few years, when all the other arguments for refusing to speak with the Palestinian leadership wear thin, the ultimate argument pops up again: Palestinian schoolbooks call for the destruction of Israel!
 
The ammunition is always provided by one of the "professional" institutions that deal with this matter. These are foundations of the far-right, disguised as "scientific" bodies, which are lavishly funded by Jewish-American multi-millionaires. Teams of salaried employees apply a fine-tooth comb to every word of the Arab media and schoolbooks, with a pre-ordained objective: to prove that they are anti-Semitic, preach hatred of Israel and call for the killing of Jews. In the sea of words, it is not too difficult to find suitable quotes, while ignoring everything else.
 
So now it is again perfectly clear: Palestinian schoolbooks preach hatred of Israel! They are breeding a new generation of terrorists! Therefore, of course, there can be no question of Israel and the world ending the blockade on the Palestinian Authority!
 
WELL, WHAT about our side? What do our schoolbooks look like?
 
Does the Green Line appear in them? Do they recognize the right of the Palestinians to establish a state on the other side of our 1967 borders? Do they teach love for the Palestinian people (or even the existence of the Palestinian people), or respect for the Arabs in general, or a knowledge of Islam?
 
The answer to all these questions: Absolutely not!
 
Recently, Minister of Education Yuli Tamir came out with a bombastic announcement saying that she intends to mark the Green Line in the schoolbooks, from which it was removed almost 40 years ago. The Right reacted angrily, and nothing more was heard about it.
 
From kindergarten to the last day of high school, the Israeli pupil does not learn that the Arabs have any right at all to any of this land. On the contrary, it is clear that the land belongs to us alone, that God has personally given it to us, that we were indeed driven out by the Romans after the destruction of our Temple in the year 70 (a myth) but that we returned at the beginning of the Zionist movement. Since then, the Arabs have tried again and again to annihilate us, as the Goyim have done in every generation. In 1936, the "gangs" (the official Israeli term for the fighters of the Arab Revolt) attacked and murdered us. And so on, up to this very day.
 
When he comes out of the pedagogic mill, the Jewish-Israeli pupil "knows" that the Arabs are a primitive people with a murderous religion and a miserable culture. He brings this view with him when he (or she) joins the army a few weeks later. There, it is reinforced almost automatically. The daily humiliation of old people and women - not to mention everybody else - at the checkpoints would not be possible otherwise.
 
THE QUESTION is, of course, whether schoolbooks really have that much influence on the pupils.
 
From earliest childhood, children absorb the atmosphere of their surroundings. The conversations at home, the sights on television, the happenings in the street, the opinions of classmates at school - all these influence them far more than the written texts of the books, which in any case are interpreted by teachers who themselves have been subject to these influences.
 
An Arab child sees on TV an old woman lamenting the demolition of her home. He sees on the walls in the street the photos of the martyred heroes, sons of his neighborhood, who have sacrificed their lives for their people and country. He hears what has happened to his cousin who was murdered by the evil Jews. He hears from his father that he cannot buy meat or eggs, because the Jews are not allowing him to work and put food on the table. At home there is no water for most of the day. Mother tells about grandpa and grandma, who have been languishing for 60 years in a miserable refugee camp in Lebanon. He knows that his family were driven out from their village in what became Israel and that the Jews are living there now. The hero of his class is the boy who jumped on a passing Israeli tank, or who dared to throw a stone from a distance of 10 meters at a soldier who was pointing a gun at him.
 
[...]

What can schoolbooks change here?
 
And on the Jewish Israeli side? From the earliest age, the child sees the pictures of suicide attacks on TV, bodies scattered around, the injured being taken away in ambulances with blood-curdling shrieks from their sirens. He hears that the Nazis slaughtered his mother's entire family in Poland, and in his consciousness Nazis and Arabs become one. On every day's news he hears bad things about what the Arabs are doing, that they want to destroy the state and throw us into the sea. He knows that the Arabs want to kill his brother, the soldier, without any reason, just because they are such murderers. Nothing about life in "the territories", perhaps just a few kilometers away, reaches him. Until he is called up, the only Arabs he meets are Israeli Arab workers doing menial work. When he joins the army, he sees them only through gun sights, every one of them of them a potential "terrorist".
 
For a change in the schoolbooks to have any value, reality on the ground must change first.
 
DOES THAT mean that schoolbooks have no importance? It should not be underestimated.
 
[...]
 
Forty years have passed, and the name "Israel" does not appear in Palestinian schoolbooks, nor, I assume, on any school map from Morocco to Iraq. And the name "Palestine" does not appear, of course, on any Israeli school map. Only when the young Israeli joins the army, does he see a map of "the territories", with its crazy puzzle of Zones A, B and C, settlement blocs and apartheid roads.
 
A map is a weapon. From my childhood in Germany between the two World Wars I remember a map that was hanging on the wall of my classroom. On it, Germany had two borders. One (green, if I remember correctly) was the existing border, that was imposed by the treaty of Versailles after the (first) World War. The other, marked in glowing red, was the border from before the war. In thousands of classrooms all over Germany (then governed by Social-Democrats) the pupils saw every day before their eyes the terrible injustice done to Germany, when pieces were "torn" from her on every side. Thus was bred the generation which filled the ranks of the Nazi war machine in World War II.
 
(By the way, some fifty years later I was taken on a courtesy visit to that school. I asked the principal about that map. Within minutes, it was brought out from the archive.)
 
NO, I do not make light of maps. Especially not of maps in schools.
 
I repeat what I said then: the aim must be that the child in Ramallah sees before his eyes, on the wall of his classroom, a map on which the State of Israel is marked. And that the child in Rishon-le-Zion sees before his eyes, on the wall of his classroom, a map on which the State of Palestine is marked. Not by compulsion, but by agreement.
 
That is, of course, impossible as long as Israel has no borders. How can one mark on the map a state which, from its first day, has refused, consciously and adamantly, to define its borders? Can we really demand that the Palestinian ministry of education publish a map on which all the territory of Palestine lies inside Israel?
 
And on the other hand, how can one mark on the map the name "Palestine", when there is no Palestinian state? After all, even most of those Israeli politicians who profess - at least pro forma - to support the "two-states solution" will go to great lengths to avoid saying where the border
between the two state should run. Tzipi Livni, the Foreign Minister, is totally opposed to the announced intention of her colleague, Minister of Education Yuli Tamir, to mark the Green Line, lest it be seen as a border.
 
Peace means a border. A border fixed by agreement. Without a border, there can be no peace. And without peace, it is the height of chutzpa to demand something from the other side that we totally refuse to do ourselves.

Rachel Corrie (1979 - 2003) was a US college student who was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza, on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq. Rachel was trying to prevent the bulldozer from demolishing the house of a Palestinian family.

No-one has been put on trial for her murder.

The following is from an email she wrote home from Gaza: Nevertheless, no amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it - and even then you are always well aware that your experience of it is not at all the reality: what with the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen, and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the army destroys wells, and the fact, of course, that I have the option of leaving. Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean. When I leave for school or work I can be relatively certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting halfway between Mud Bay and downtown Olympia at a checkpoint with the power to decide whether I can go about my business, and whether I can get home again when I'm done.

From Haaretz:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Winograd Commission that his decision to respond to the abduction of soldiers with a broad military operation was made as early as March 2006, four months before last summer's Lebanon war broke out.

And then comes the inevitable, bitter comedy of all such situations:

Olmert stated that he had decided in earlier meetings that Israel's goal in an operation would be the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for the deployment of the Lebanese army along the Israeli border and the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Ah, Israel, the grand enforcer of UN Security Council resolutions, of which it violates more than any other country in the world (with US support to the tune of $2 billion a year and more....)

I found a fascinating interview/book review on Ha'aretz:

Nissim Levy served in the Shin Bet security service for 20 years. In his job as field coordinator in 1984 in Lebanon, and in refugee camps in the Gaza Strip before and after the Oslo Accords, he was in regular contact with the "other side." The endless searches for one more bit of information and the firsthand contact with the residents, those who "want to throw us into the sea," did not turn him into an Arab-hater who is tough on security matters. Perhaps even the opposite.

In his first novel, "Shana bli tzipporim" ("A Year Without Birds"), which was published in Hebrew a few weeks ago by Am Oved, he describes the experiences of a Shin Bet coordinator in Lebanon who is pursuing terrorists that have harmed Israel Defense Forces soldiers. The searches are not always successful, and even when they are, the question that hovers throughout the story is: "What the hell are we doing here?" In reply to the question as to whether the book is autobiographical, Levy refers to the preface he wrote: "If any of you believes that this is a work of the imagination, I apparently have a well-developed imagination. If any of you believes that it actually happened, he was apparently there."

"Unlike Gaza," explains Levy, "the process in Lebanon did not begin with the fact that I was the occupier and they were the occupied: It began with the fact that I was the redeemer and they were glad I had come. Slowly but surely, because of the things I do, because of my thoughtlessness as a nation, as a government, I gradually exacerbate the situation. I turn my friend into my enemy."

It strìikes me that tthere are lessons here for US citizrens both in regards to our current position in Iraq and in terms of our understanding of the role Israel (and, more importantly, the US) plays in teh Israel-Palestine conflict.

and there is more:

Levy once again recalls the concept of "a snowball of hate": "Let's say that in a certain village there's someone who carried out a terror attack against soldiers. The moment you've traveled to the village, taken the man and left, you've created another four potential terrorists. You have to understand that. I had no hesitation when I had to enter homes. But imagine that you are entering a small room where five people are sleeping, and to get to my Mohammed I have to step on four. That's exactly the snowball I'm talking about. On the way to entering a village to arrest someone I'm already doing damage, and the question is why have we reached this situation. Today, if the chief of staff, after dropping a bomb that killed four children, says that he feels only a tremor in the wing - what is the Palestinian who lives there supposed to think?"

As someone who is familiar with the conditions of the Palestinians in Gaza, do you feel empathy toward them?

"Ehud Barak once said that if he were a Palestinian he would join a terror organization. If I were in their situation, I would make our lives bitter. I would not blow up women and children. I'm totally opposed to that. But yes, I would fight against the foreign occupier. When you take a person and put him up against the wall and don't leave him many options, then what do you want him to do?

"Let's forget our patriotism for a moment. If a boy in Be'er Sheva falls in love with a girl in Haifa, what does he do? He picks up the phone, makes a date and drives to see her. If a boy from Bethlehem falls in love with a girl from Nablus, what does he do? He has to cross checkpoints, he needs a 1,001 permits. The moment that you reach the conclusion that you have nothing to live for, you immediately find that you have something to die for."

Are soldiers legitimate targets?

"Yes. In this battle soldiers are legitimate targets. My father was in the Etzel [the Irgun, a pre-1948 right-wing Jewish military organization that fought the British and Arabs]. There was the British occupier and he fought against it. The Palestinian is fighting against the Israeli occupier. When you come and call someone a 'terrorist,' the definition is totally subjective. I consider the Etzel fighters freedom fighters, and the British considered them terrorists ...

"Weren't we the ones who invented this business of sacrifice? Who sanctified 'it is good to die for our country'? Didn't we sanctify those who were the first to charge in order to save the homeland? Okay, so the Palestinians have taken it to much greater extremes. Do you think that if we were in their situation we wouldn't have suicide bombers? Isn't Baruch Goldstein a suicide bomber? [Goldstein, a Jewish doctor, fired at Muslim worshipers in the Tomb of the Patriarchs in February 1994, killing 29 and wounding 150]."

There is an interesting article in Haaretz about the new settlement being planned by the Israeli government in the West Bank:

the Americans had been informed of the Israeli intention to expand the community [called Maskiot] and to build a settlement there to absorb dozens of families formerly from Gush Katif. The news upset the U.S. State Department and even the White House. The European Union also demanded explanations from Israel, and EU countries urged their ambassadors in Israel to check where in heaven's name the remote settlement is located. They discovered that Defense Minister Amir Peretz had personally signed the building permits for 30 residential units there. This was the first time in almost a decade that Israel had established a settlement in the territories.

[...] The heads of the Maskiot program understood that something bad was about to happen. Although they had received all the necessary permits and even flaunted the signature of the defense minister, expansion work on the premises has come to a standstill, and the area that was prepared for the construction of new residential units has been abandoned. The heavy machinery has disappeared. Attempts to contact the Defense Ministry and other ministries were met with an embarrassing silence.

[The rabbi of the pre-army program, Azualos at Makiot] has managed to learn that the first Zionist rule is to establish facts on the ground; the second rule is to ignore the protests of the world. "They'll shout and we'll continue to instill pride in the young men who come here," he said. "We will give them spiritual strength, we will teach them halakhot (religious laws), we will deepen their faith and their knowledge of the Jewish heritage."

[...] Now the Americans and the Europeans are threatening to put an end to the party. But nobody in Maskiot gets upset by the foreign intervention. Between lessons the 52 students are busy with building, plowing, gardening, setting up an animal corner, cooking and fixing up the place. They are certain that once the diplomatic uproar subsides the trucks and bulldozers will return, and that it won't be long before Maskiot becomes a milestone of renewed settlement momentum in the territories.

It is interesting to read that the work has stopped because the US has done nothing more than to voice its displeasure - they certainly haven't cut the $2 billion aid program, which has no parallel with any other country in the world. It suggests that the US could do MUCH MORE to curb Israeli expansionism in the West Bank, not to mention all of the numerous other Israeli violations of teh Geneva Conventions and UN security council resolutions.

It remains to be seen whether the rabbis of Maskiot are correct - and whether the media in the US will beforced to recognize the two rules of Zionism described above.

From Ha'aretz:

The Institute for National Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said in its annual report, released Tuesday, that Iran will possess nuclear weapons unless military action is taken against it, and Israel would be capable of carrying out such an attack

"Time is working in Iran's favor, and barring military action, Iran's
possession of nuclear weapons is only a matter of time," the institute said in a statement distributed at a news conference where it released its annual assessment of the Middle East's strategic balance.

Israel considers Iran to be its most serious threat. It dismisses Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is designed solely to produce energy and is worried by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, but has said he hoped other ways could be found to keep Tehran from becoming a nuclear power. In 1981, Israel destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor in a surprise air attack.

A member of the institute's board, Brigadier General (res.) Giora Eiland said there would not be a military strike without a full "strategic and military" understanding with the U.S.

"Even if, at the end of the day, Israeli jets are going to carry out, or execute, this attack, it might be perceived - and rightly - as an understanding between the United States and Israel," Eiland said.

Will this make the news in the US?

From Haaretz and the Times:

WASHINGTON - Israel's plan to settle 30 Jewish families on a former army base in the occupied West Bank would violate terms of a U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, a U.S. official said yesterday.

Notice that the US doesn't say that placing settlements violates the 'road map' - they DON'T say that it would violate international law, particularly the fourth Geneva Convention, Section 3, article 49, which says clearly: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The Reuters article that appeared in Ha'aretz has some information that (unremarkably) was absent in the Times article:

Some 260,000 settlers live in the West Bank, among 2.5 million Palestinians. The World Court has branded Israeli settlements on land captured in the 1967 Middle East war as illegal. Israel disputes this.

Israel and the US BOTH dismiss international law.

And the US backs these violations with its unparallelled aid package to Israel - $2 billion a year, with fabulous and umatched conditions for Israel. When any "condemnation" of Israeli policy come sfrom Washington, we should understand (as the Isaraeli government surely does) that it is purely symbolic, unless some material reduction of aid is used to back up the condemnation.

I read Ha'aretz (the main Israeli newspaper) pretty frequently, and I consistently find great insight on the situation in the region. For example:

A delegation of U.S. senators, led by the Senator John McCain, a possible Republican presidential candidate for 2008, and the self described "Independent Democrat" Joseph Lieberman, met on Monday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. McCain and Lieberman urged Israel not to be tempted by Syria's recent overtures regarding negotiations. [yet we are to believe that the US and Israel want 'peace?]

According to the press release issued by the prime minister's bureau, the senators expressed vehement opposition to talks with the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. They told Olmert that the Baker-Hamilton report, which recommended U.S. talks with Syuria and Iran, has not been adopted by the U.S. administration, which continues to oppose contacts with Tehran and Damascus.

McCain said the issue of the Golan Heights is completely unrelated to U.S.-Syrian relations. [Israel has been occupying Syrian territory and building settlements there since 1967 in violation of international law. The US gives Israel $2 billion a year - more than any other country in the world - despite the ongoing violation] He said the real question is whether Syria wants a genuine peace [Syria has recently said that they would be interested in peace negotiations without preconditions. So who exactly is seeking peace?] and is willing to abandon Hezbollah. McCain said he has seen little indication that this was indeed the case.

In the meanwhile inside the country that is courted and encouraged in its unilateralism by two major power brokers in the US senate, this is happening:

The Knesset Education and Culture Committee decided on Monday to summon Education Minister Yuli Tamir to answer questions about her decision to include Israel's pre-1967 border in textbook maps.

During the session, Kadima party and right-wing MKs lashed out at Tamir for her decision made two weeks ago to include the so-called Green Line border which excludes the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights from Israel.

National Religious Party Chairman MK Zevulun Orlev presented the committee with the 1967 Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee decision to remove the Green line -as well as the pre-1948 British Mandate border- from all but historical maps.

"Tamir's decision is blatantly political," Orlev said. "It has no educational, instructive or scientific basis. As far back as 1967 the government decided that the Green Line had ceased to exist."

In other words, Israeli politicians are operating on the assumption (which is encouraged and enabled by US aid) that they have a right to set the borders of Israel based on what they can conquer and what they decide they are going to keep - to hell with international law.

The other key fact about this is that we should understand that Israeli students do not learn that there is Israeli-controlled territory which is not a part of Israel - which in fact under international law belongs to somebody else. Imagine what effect this has on those students' perception of Palestinans in the Occupied Territories, without understanding the context: that Israel occupies Palestinian land, and exercises a tremendous and arbitrary amount of control on Palestinian lives.

Editor,

Jimmy Carter says that there is a 'reluctance to criticize policies of the Israeli government' among politicians and the media. We can all put his words to the test.

The administration insists on the story of a (currently non-existing) Iranian military nuclear program as a cause of grave concern. Until recently, I had never read or heard it expressed publicly that one reason why the Iranians might want the bomb is as a deterrent against the vast nuclear arsenal possessed by
Israel (and our own).

In the past week, both our new Secretary of Defense and (apparently) the Israeli Prime Minister have brought that issue out into the open.

Let's therefore compare how many times the words "Israeli nuclear weapons" and "Iranian nuclear weapons" appear in our public discourse, and measure the reluctance described by Carter.

From Ha'aretz:

Israeli officials were shocked by Robert Gates' statement to Congress that Israel has nuclear weapons, and they are worrying over why the U.S. secretary of defense-designate made this statement.

Israeli officials were also shocked by Gates' expression of understanding for Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons: He listed all the states near Iran that do have nuclear weapons - Pakistan, India and Israel - and noted that not long ago, Saddam Hussein's Iraq also attempted to acquire the bomb. Furthermore, he said, the United States is a nuclear power, and its forces are deployed in Iran's vicinity throughout the Middle East, and Russia, another nuclear power, is also nearby.

It could be that Gates, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, was simply analyzing the situation like an intelligence officer. However, he was not testifying to Congress as an intelligence officer, but rather as a candidate for defense secretary - in which capacity he is supposed to adopt policy positions.

If this amounts to anything, if the sentence Israeli nuclear weapons becomes acceptable in Washington, and they are discusses in the same breath as we talk about Iran's nuclear programs (still only a civilian program) then for that reason alone Robert Gates is a welcome candidate as Secretary of War.

Leggendo Ha'aretz (il principale quotidiano in Israele) ho trovato alcuni commenti del PM Olmert, che "e' a favore di una proposta italiana di mandare una forza multilaterale a Gaza."

Il governo di Israele (indipendentemente dal partito al potere) si e' sempre opposto ad una presenza internazionale a Gaza. Tra l'altro, gli Stati Uniti hanno posto il veto a una risoluzione del 2001 che chiedeva la presenza di una folza multilaterale nei territori occupati. Incuriosito, ho continuato a leggere, e ho scoperto che Olmert favorisce una forza multilaterale se "l'esercito italiano si impegnera' a combattere ogni giorno il terrorismo di Hamas, a sacrificare i suoi uomini."

In altre parole, Olmert e' a favore di una forza multilaterale se la forza multilaterale perpetuera' l'occupazione di Gaza. Mi sembra una barzelletta.

Voglio sperare che la proposta di Dalema non sia di usare forze internazionali per ripetere quello che fa l'esercito di Israele fa quotidianamente. Mi auguro che Dalema stia proponendo una forza internazionale il cui ruolo sia in primo luogo impedire l'estrema violenza usata dal quarto esercito piu' potente della terra contro una popolazione largamente civile imprigionata e abusata da decenni. Un altro ruolo per una forza internazionale potrebbe essere un monitoraggio equo dei confini tra Gaza e Israele e tra Gaza e l'Egitto.

Certo, e' anche necessario che una forza multilaterale cerchi di eliminare gli attachi contro i civili in Israele - i razzi contro Sderot, e gli attacchi suicidi. Ma in quanto a "sacrificare i nostri uomini per combattere il terrorismo di Hamas"... 

l'articolo di Haaretz dice che Dalema vuole una operazione con la benedizione del consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU - che mi lascia ben sperare.

In un altro articolo di Haaretz, si parla di un'altra dimensione di questa questione: Amnesty International sta chiedendo la presenza di persone il cui incarico e' di monitorare le violazioni dei diritti umani nei territori occupati. Non sorprende che Olmert non sia favorevole...

I continue to advocate the reading of Ha'aretz, the leading israeli daily - primarily because in the fanatical islamophobic and anti-arab sentiments of almost all of the press, items such as this just don't make it through:

Chairman of the National Union-National Religious Party Zevulun Orlev criticized Education Minister Yuli Tamir on Tuesday saying she was imposing her "Peace Now" ideology on the ministry.

Orlev was referring to the instructions Tamir issued to reinstate the Green Line in all the new editions of textbooks featuring maps of Israel.

Tamir said Israel could not demand of its Arab neighbors to mark the June 4, 1967 borders, while the Israeli education system erased them from its textbooks and from children's awareness.

Two years ago Dr. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, a lecturer in language and education at Hebrew University, published research on six study books that had been published after the Oslo agreement. Some of these books were officially endorsed by the Education Ministry. Many teachers adopted other books even without the ministry's approval.

Her main findings included the disappearance of the Green Line and Arab cities in Israel from the maps in these books, and their presentation of sites and settlements in "Judea and Samaria," rather than in the "West Bank," as an integral part of Israel.

I applaud Minister Tamir's effort to eliminate a blatant degree of hypocrisy from Israeli public discourse. And i will remember to include this little fact - that in Israeli textbooks there is no such thing as an Arab Palestinian State, and that the settlements are considered an integral part of Israel, the next time that i read a racist screed about how the Arabs are rejecting peace and they deny Israel's right to exist.

Gaza Humanitarian Crisis:
A Joint Statement by Israel's Leading Human Rights Organizations

 
Nine Israeli human rights organizations issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

·        Some 80% of the population is extremely poor, living on less than $2 a day. A majority of the population is dependant on food aid from international donors.
·         In the past four months, the Israeli military has killed over 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Over half of those killed were unarmed civilians who did not participate in the fighting. Among the
dead, 61 were children.
·         About 70% of Gaza’s potential workforce is out of work or without pay.
·         On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza's only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza. Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.
·         The Gaza Strip is almost entirely sealed off from the outside world, with virtually no way for Palestinians to get in or out.  Exports have been reduced to a trickle; imports are limited to essential
humanitarian supplies.

Israel cannot shirk its responsibility for this growing crisis. Even after its Disengagement in 2005, Israel continues to hold decisive control over central elements of Palestinian life in the Gaza Strip:
1.      Israel continues to maintain complete control over the air space and territorial waters.
2.      Israel continues to control the joint Gaza Strip-West Bank population registry, preventing relocation between the West Bank and Gaza, and family unification.
3.      Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza, with exclusive control over all crossing points between Gaza and Israel, and the ability to shut down the Rafah crossing to Egypt.
4.      Israeli ground troops conduct frequent military operations inside Gaza.
5.      Israel continues to exercise almost complete control over imports and exports from the Gaza Strip.
6.      Israel controls most elements of the taxation system of the Gaza Strip, and since February has withheld tax monies legally owed to the PA, and amounting to half of the total PA budget.

The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip creates a strong case for the claim that Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip continues, along with an obligation to ensure the welfare of the civilian
population. Regardless of the legal definition of the Gaza Strip, Israel bears legal obligations regarding those spheres that it continues to control. Israel has the right to defend itself. However, all military
measures taken by Israel must respect the provisions of international humanitarian law.

The following Israeli human rights organizations call on the international community to ensure that Israel respects the basic human rights of residents of the Gaza Strip, and that all parties respect
international humanitarian law:

B'Tselem: the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories * Association for Civil Rights in the Israel *Amnesty International–Israel Section * Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights *
HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual * Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement * Physicians for Human Rights-Israel * Public Committee Against Torture in Israel * Rabbis for Human Rights

For the full three-page statement, see http://www.btselem.org/

From the BBC

Schoolgirls chanting their defiance of Israel were among the crowd that gathered to defend the two-storey home in the town of Beit Lahiya.

Along with the girls had come old men, neighbours and militants.

All of them were ready to defy the Israeli air force. They were ready to put themselves in the line of fire.

But they knew too that a similar human shield tactic had worked a few days earlier.

The Israelis had backed off knowing that to strike would cause large numbers of civilian casualties which would, of course, have played very badly in the court of international opinion.

For years Palestinians have been completely at the mercy of the Israeli air force.

But they clearly believe that now they have found a weakness.

If they know an attack is coming they can probably foil it by massing in the target zone.

The Israelis can no longer expect to limit civilian casualties by calling ahead and clearing people out.

Settlements grow on Arab land, despite promises made to U.S. from Haaretz

By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

A secret, two year investigation by the defense establishment shows that there has been rampant illegal construction in dozens of settlements and in many cases involving privately owned Palestinian properties.

The information in the study was presented to two defense ministers, Amir Peretz and his predecessor Shaul Mofaz, but was not released in public and a number of people participating in the investigations were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

According to security sources familiar with the study, the material is "political and diplomatic dynamite."

There is this tidbit of information from Ha'aretz:

Peretz weighs legalizing some West Bank outposts

By Nadav Shragai and Gideon Alon, Haaretz Correspondents, and Haaretz Service

Defense Minister Amir Peretz [of the "leftist" Labor Party] is considering granting legal status to some unauthorized West Bank settlement outposts, in exchange for which the Yesha Council of Settlements will evacuate the rest.

Security sources said Peretz met several times in recent days with leaders of the settlement movement. They said that negotiations continue on the issue of outpost evacuation.

How can Peretz do this? The 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 (section 3 is about Occupied territories)states unambiguosly:

Art. 49: [...] The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Oh, wait, i keep forgetting. The unwavering support of the US government, and its taxpayers, ensure that Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories are above the law.