AJC: Fatah Party Heightens Tensions, Deals Blow to Peace Prospects

NEW YORK, Aug. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- AJC expressed deep dismay with the Fatah Party, headed by Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, which is holding its first general assembly in 20 years.

"While much of the world, including Israel, favors a two-state solution, the biggest obstacle remains the Palestinians' own leadership," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Despite hopes for political reform of Fatah, and steps to renew peace negotiations with Israel, longstanding Palestinian obstinacy and rejectionism have been the prevailing messages emerging from Bethlehem."

To point, Fatah adopted a measure demanding that Israel hand over all of Jerusalem before any peace talks can resume. This came after the unopposed Abbas was elected Fatah leader, assuring he will continue to serve as Palestinian Authority President.
"Two months ago, President Abbas firmly rejected Prime Minister Netanyahu's call in his Bar-Ilan University speech to resume direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, and now Abbas ups the ante with preposterous demands on Jerusalem and other final status issues," said Harris.

"Why can't Palestinian leaders openly recognize the fact that four consecutive Israeli prime ministers have offered a two-state solution?" asked Harris. "Sixty-two years after the UN voted to establish a Jewish and an Arab state in mandatory Palestine, even so-called moderate Palestinian leaders are still saying 'no' to recognizing Israel's legitimacy."

The Fatah General Assembly is expected to continue through Tuesday. "Given the tone and substance so far, one can only wonder how much more damage to the peace process Fatah can deliver," said Harris. "The United States and the international community should recognize the regrettable fact that this Fatah leadership gathering is a slap in the face of those who seek peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians."

www.ajc.org SOURCE American Jewish Committee

Israel's Treatment.  Op Ed by James Eaves-Johnson

Published: August 5, 2009  Opinion Page, Ames Tribune

What kind of a state is Israel? Some Tribune letter writers argue that Israel should be judged based on how it treats Palestinian Arabs. Consider how Israel has treated them:

Israel ceded complete security control of Ramallah, Qalqilya, Bethlehem and Jericho to the Palestinian Authority.

Israel removed dozens of roadblocks, allowing for free travel between most Palestinian Arab population centers.

Israel has opened the border between the West Bank and Jordan to 24-hour passage of people and goods.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has called on diaspora Jews to invest in the Palestinian Arab economy.

Israel announced plans to forcibly evacuate Jews from 23 outposts in the West Bank in a single day.

This and more has happened in just the last month as part of an accelerated plan to improve the lives of Palestinian Arabs and prepare for a stable and prosperous state. Israel has done this even as Palestinian Authority President Abbas refused to negotiate with Israel for peace.

In 2005, Israel forcibly removed 7,500 Jews from Gaza to make room for Palestinian Arabs. Even Kfar Darom, which was cleansed of Jews once before in 1948 by Egyptian forces, was not spared.

Some would prefer that Israel leave the West Bank in a similar fashion. The difference is that the Gaza withdrawal led to Hamas terrorism, war, and hardship for the people of Gaza.

Israel¹s care in withdrawing from the West Bank, while ensuring its security, is leading to unprecedented prosperity for Palestinian Arabs there.

James Eaves-Johnson

Coralville

The Radicalization of Fatah 

By Khaled Abu Toameh,    August 4, 2009 

Many in Washington and some European capitals are hoping that the Fatah faction,

which controls the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, is headed toward 

moderation and reforms as it holds its sixth general assembly in Bethlehem this week.

 

But on the eve of the conference, which is being held for the first time in two

decades, there are growing indications that Fatah is actually headed in the opposite

direction.

 

Perhaps one of the most disturbing signs of the growing radicalization of Fatah can

be seen in calls by top representatives for a "strategic alliance" with Iran's dictatorial

and fundamental regime.

 

In January 2006, Fatah lost the parliamentary election in the West Bank and Gaza

Strip to Hamas largely because of its leaders' involvement in financial and moral

corruption. Since then, not a single Fatah official has been held responsible for the

humiliating defeat. Nor has Fatah drawn the conclusions from its expulsion from the

Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007.

 

Hopes that the conference would pave the way for the emergence of a new and

younger leadership have faded as old guard officials of Fatah appear determined to

hold on to their positions regardless of the price.

 

Fatah is therefore unlikely to emerge stronger and younger from its sixth general

assembly. By adopting a hard-line approach toward the conflict and blocking reforms,

Fatah is sending a message both to the Palestinians and the world that it's still not

ready for any form of compromise or reforms. As such, Fatah remains part of the

problem, and not part of the solution. 

 

During the three-day conference, about 2,200 delegates would be required to vote for

new members of Fatah's two most important decision-making bodies: the Central

Committee [21 seats] and the Revolutionary Council [120 seats].

 

The Central Committee has long been dominated by old timers and former cronies of

Yasser Arafat who over the past four decades have stubbornly resisted attempts to

inject fresh blood into the committee.

 

The Revolutionary Council, on the other hand, consists of representatives of both the

old guard and the new guard. But this council has never been taken seriously and its

decisions are regarded by the Fatah leadership as nothing but mere recommendations.

 

Days before the conference was opened in Bethlehem, Fatah members were surprised

to discover that Mahmoud Abbas and his old guard colleagues had selected more

than half of the delegates who were invited to the meeting.

 

In protest, young guard representatives decided to drop their candidacy for the

prestigious Central Committee after realizing that their chances of beating the old

guard members were slim, if not impossible. This means that the committee will

continue to be controlled by former Arafat cronies, some of whom are even publicly

opposed to the Oslo Accords with Israel.

 

To further strengthen the old guard camp, Abbas sought and received permission

from Israel to allow Mohammed Ghnaim, a hard-line Fatah leader, to move from

Tunisia to the West Bank. Ghnaim is one of a handful of senior Fatah leaders who

remain strongly opposed to the Oslo Accords, insisting that the "armed struggle"

against Israel is the only way to "liberate Palestine."

 

Ghnaim is now being touted as Abbas's successor as head of Fatah and the

Palestinian Authority as to ensure the continuity of the old guard hegemony over the

affairs of the Palestinians in the West Bank.

 

Many Fatah operatives, including some of Abbas's closest allies in Ramallah, have

made it known that they would oppose any move to abandon the "armed struggle"

option during the Bethlehem assembly.

 

Their statements came in response to reports according to which the Fatah

conference is set to endorse a more moderate and pragmatic approach toward the

conflict with Israel.

 

Moreover, a majority of Fatah members appear to be vehemently opposed to the idea

of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. A draft plan of Fatah's political platform that

was leaked to some Arab media outlets last week clearly states that Fatah will remain

strongly opposed to Israel's demand that the Palestinians recognize the state as a

homeland for the Jewish people.

 

In other signs of continued intransigence, the political platform opposes any

concessions regarding the "right of return" of Palestinians to their original homes

inside Israel. 

UJC Mourns Victims of TA Shooting

August 4, 2009

UJC/The Jewish Federations of North America mourns the fatal shooting of two young Israelis at a gay youth center in Tel Aviv this past weekend.



Those killed were Liz Trubeshi, 16, of Holon and Nir Katz, 26, of Givatayim. Fifteen others were injured.



According to news reports, a masked attacker walked into a community center for gay and lesbian youth on Nachmani Street around 11 p.m. Saturday, firing an automatic rifle indiscriminately. No one has been arrested and police are considering that the attack was either a hate crime or motivated by a personal dispute.


"We are appalled and saddened by the murders at the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association," said UJC President and CEO Howard Rieger. "Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims and we hope the attacker will be swiftly brought to justice."



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also condemned the attack as a violation of Israel's democratic values, and called for greater tolerance. Memorial ceremonies have been held in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Washington, DC.



May the families of the victims be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem and may the names of the victims be forever as a blessing.
       



To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
leave-3660282-5847217U@lyris.ujcfedweb.org <mailto:leave-3660282-5847217U@lyris.ujcfedweb.org>

Israel report on Gaza War rejects charges one by one

Ynetnews: Israel published an official 160-page report on Operation Cast Lead, the military offensive launched in the Gaza Strip in January.

Jerusalem Post: Defending Israeli actions, the government report said it was not meant to be an "assertion of infallibility," but rejected the charges one by one, attributing excessive damage and casualties to understandable wartime mistakes.

The report said Israel is investigating about 100 complaints and has opened 13 criminal inquiries. A military statement Thursday said criminal cases under investigation now number 15.

Ynetnews: Thursday's report holds Hamas responsible for the need for military operation, citing that the incessant rocket fire on Israel's south made a military strike inevitable, and that Israel did not violate international law.

In the report, Israel admits that despite taking precautionary measures, many Palestinian civilians were wounded and killed during the operation and severe property damages was inflicted.

Nevertheless, the reports states that civilian casualties and property damage do not, by themselves, constitute a violation of international law.

Hamas rocket fire was aimed at civilian population rendering it a clear violation of international law, while Israel's strikes were aimed at Hamas military targets and therefore did not breach it, said the report.

The report, dubbed "Israel's statement of defense," said that "Israel had both a right and an obligation to take military action against Hamas in Gaza to stop Hamas’
almost incessant rocket and mortar attacks upon thousands of Israeli civilians and its other acts of terrorism.

"Israel was bombarded by some 12,000 rockets and mortar shells between 2000 and 2008, including nearly 3,000 rockets and mortar shells in 2008 alone… These deliberate attacks caused deaths, injuries, and extensive property damage; forced businesses to close; and terrorized tens of thousands of residents into abandoning their homes."

Israel to Palestinian Authority: All issues are on the table. Come talk

Israel's Deputy FM Ayalon interview on AlJazeera TV
July 28, 2009




Ayalon: We call upon the Palestinians to come to the table and speak to us, at any level they want, anywhere they want, without preconditions. ... all issues are on the table, and we do understand that no solution will be arrived at without discussing everything, including Jerusalem.

Source

Is U.S. reconciled to a nuclear Iran? part 2

More evidence the Obama Administration isn't going to do much about Iran.

Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club.

The Washington Times Tuesday, July 28, 2009
EDITORIAL: Defining the threat away

The traditional threshold for a country to join the nuclear-weapons club is straightforward. Any state that tests a nuclear weapon gets in. However, on Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed more exclusive membership requirements.

Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club. Tough luck Pyongyang, you've been blackballed.

This would simply be an exercise in semantics if it weren't for the probability that Iran will soon test its own nuclear weapon. This administration, like its predecessor, has said that an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability would be unacceptable. But if Iran conducts a nuclear test sometime in the coming months, that apparently will not indicate the failure of diplomacy any more than the North Korean tests have. Faced with defeat, the State Department will define it away.

The Obama administration's willingness to accept the inevitability of a nuclear Iran could not be clearer. Mrs. Clinton said that if Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen." Yes, the United States will do "everything [it] can to prevent [Iran] from ever getting a nuclear weapon," she said. But failing that?

The secretary of state said that even a nuclear-armed Iran would be thwarted. Its pursuit of regional hegemony is "futile," she argued, because the "security umbrella" the United States would extend over the region would negate the advantages Iran seeks from atomic weaponry. Iran "won't be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate or dominate as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon," she said last week.

Tehran seems perfectly content with the futility of its pursuit. Iran has made substantial progress on uranium enrichment necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon, and most estimates agree that it will be able to construct and test a weapon within the year. Meanwhile, countries such as Israel that cannot protect their territory and people with semantic shields are preparing to take action. Israel's apparent state of readiness to exercise the military option against Iran -- and America's clear lack of readiness -- underscores the credibility gap in the U.S. position that all options are on the table. Israel is communicating a credible threat of force to Tehran, a necessary element in coercive diplomacy that the U.S. posture explicitly lacks.

The American "umbrella strategy" is purely defensive and thus more likely to encourage Iran's leaders than dissuade them. The Obama administration states firmly that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be unacceptable but at the same time indicates it will accept that. Nuclear Iran is not faced with massive retaliation but passive accommodation. That's not much of a deterrent.
------
hat tip to israelmatzav.blogspot.com