Will Middle East Conference Bring Peace?

Originally I was going to write an article about how Israel had no intention of returning the Palestinian land, and how Israel's chief negotiator Tzipi Livni had publicly admitted as much. I refer to an article in Thursday 01 October's International Herald Tribune, quoting Livni's response to Palestinian chief negotiator Ahmed Qureia's demand for a deadline on Israel to return the land, and for the creation of a Palestinian state encompassed by a lasting peace agreement, Livni's response was:

"Creating timetables, which are often not carried out, as it happened every time in the past, creates expectations that are then not carried out, and create violence and terror," In a joint news conference in Tel Aviv with visiting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

That was the point of asking for a deadline -- for Israel to agree to a deadline would be to confirm their definite intent to actually grant the Palestinians a state of their own. Livni not even entertaining the possibility of Israel meeting a deadline says that they have no intention of meeting their side of any necessary bargain.

That is why Israel will never agree a deadline; it is too definite. Israel wants to keep their options open, and not give back the land unless they really have to -- I have always thought the threat of the removal of U.S. support was most likely to make them do so.

An article today however, made me think about the current climate in a way I hadn't previously, and for the first time gave me hope that, just maybe, this year's big November peace conference might succeed where all those before it have failed. I read that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is determined to find peace with the Palestinians before Bush leaves office.

An official quoted Olmert as telling German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, "There are big advantages to reaching an agreement before the end of Bush's term. This is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do for both sides." The official said Olmert was keen to seize the opportunity because it was impossible to know how committed the next U.S. administration would be to solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In reality he means it is impossible to tell how committed the next administration will be to Israel -- in other words if it will be pro-Israel.

Bush and his administration has undoubtedly been one of, if not the most pro-Israel administrations for decades, and has agreed that Olmert and Israel would get to keep control of the large settlement blocs in the West Bank. This is a sizeable incentive for Israel. Israel has kept building new settlement blocs despite it being forbidden under the terms of the last U.S. led peace process: the road-map for peace. And while, in their Presidential campaigns it seems that all candidates and administrations Democrat and Republican, are pro-Israel, Olmert knows this could just be to ensure the Jewish vote, and what they do once they get in cannot be foretold.

There is a widely held train of thought, in academic circles and even in the U.N. that the settlement blocs are illegal and should all be torn down. And the Palestinians, even the moderate Abbas outright oppose any form of land-swap agreement that would let Israel keep the settlement blocs. Olmert will be weighing up the likelihood that a big priority for the next U.S. President will be to repair America's image in and relations with the rest of the world, including the U.N. Therefore: Olmert can't guarantee the offer to keep the settlement blocs will remain on the table after Bush leaves office, nor just how strongly the next U.S. President will attempt to push Israel into peace with or without the settlement blocs.

I still think Israel will try and hold out, like Olmert saying he hopes to reach agreement on borders, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem, but stopping short of saying an agreement was possible. In other words he wants to get Bush's offer of the settlement blocs becoming Israel's territory when the borders are drawn up, but doesn't want to get forced into actually giving back any of the land, and having to institute a Palestinian state -- therein losing the precious East Jerusalem for the new state's capital.

Israel has recently threatened to abandon the peace process, if Abbas attempts to bring Hamas back into the fold -- after Abbas met with Hamas members in the West Bank at his Ramallah office. Hamas are Israel's get out of jail free card, because it is likely that Hamas will launch a wave of terror to try and wreck any accord they are not part of -- as they have done in the past. This may allow Israel to get Bush's offer down on paper, while Hamas' terror will be used as justification for their not implementing it.

So, on the whole, I am not hopeful that an agreement will be reached at the conference. Israel doesn't even seem to be going into it with that in mind -- and Israel gets what it wants with Bush at the helm. Meanwhile the bloodshed continues.

Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel: To End the Qassam Rocket Attacks?

The Israeli Defense Force knows its latest policy will fail, so what is the real reason for going ahead with it?

By Liam Bailey

Sunday 28 November began Israel's latest measure to end the relentless barrage of Qassam rockets fired into Israel, by reducing the amount of fuel delivered into the Hamas run Gaza where the rockets are fired from, a measure that openly defies the 4th Geneva Convention since it collectively punishes the Palestinian people as a whole for the actions of the Qassam squads.

Everyone who knows anything about this conflict knows that this, as part of a larger drive which will eventually see Israel cut power to the Gaza strip every time a rocket lands in Israel, does not have a chance in hell of ending the Qassam attacks. In fact by increasing Palestinian resolve for resistance against the occupier bent on making their day to day lives miserable in every way it can, it might actually bring about an increase in the number of rocket attacks and even foster a new generation of suicide bombers among Palestinian children. frighteningly, statements in the Israeli press reveal that even the Israel Defense Force (IDF) knows this measure won't halt the Qassams..

So why enact a measure with a better chance of making things worse than it has of achieving its intended aim?

I can't answer this question definitively, but I will put forward several possibilities, one of which or all of which could well be the reason behind Israel's current behaviour.

The most recent and relevant possibility is Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai's explanation (from an interview on Israel radio) that the policies have nothing to do with halting the rocket fire but are simply another step in Israel's disengagement from Gaza following the withdrawal of troops and settlers in 2005.

Vilnai's exact words were:"This is the continuation of our disengagement, since the troops pulled out. This is not connected to Qassams (rockets), it is a deeper, broader disengagement."

Some analysts, such as Haaretz correspondents Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff believe the move is partly further disengagement, but mainly an outward display that the IDF and Israeli government are doing everything in their power to end the Qassam's in preparation for and to justify a planned and massive ground operation deep into the Gaza strip to end the rocket attacks.

Of course, we must throw into the mix the long-running accusation that a majority in Israel's government do not want to return Palestinian land and do not want a peace deal that would inevitably lead to them having to return the land; therefore, a majority of the government wants to perpetuate the conflict. The best way for them to do so is to continually stir up Palestinian anger with these kinds of measures. Maintaining the fervent Palestinian resistance allows them to ensure that the conflict will be perpetuated from the Palestinian side, allowing Israel to claim self-defense in their measures, which again further stirs up Palestinian anger. Put simply, it allows Israel to perpetuate the conflict and to remain the good guys in the eyes of the outside world.

Finally, another possible explanation was revealed during the recent Israeli air-strike on what was claimed to be a fledgling Syrian nuclear program a few weeks ago: that Israel is poking and prodding at the boundaries of the international community's patience, seeing just how far it can go before the international community responds so strongly that the U.S. is forced to do something about it -- all in the aim of working out how much of a response a strike on Iran might provoke.

I believe one, two, or perhaps all of the above reasons, -- and possibly more factors --explain Israel's current policies of forcing yet more pressure on a population already racked by poverty from the original Israeli-imposed and internationally followed financial embargo, which has already brought the small coastal strip to the brink of a humanitarian disaster.

War Pages Articles

• Will Middle East Conference Bring Peace?
  There's a glimmer of hope that November's meet will resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.





• Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel: To End the Rocket Attacks?
  The Israeli Defense Force knows its latest policy will fail, so what is the real reason for going ahead with it?





• U.S. Policy Consequences: Blowback or Controlled Explosion
  Can we really believe that U.S. adminstrations with all its intelligence services and advisors doesn't know the possible consequences of its often questionable actions? And if not, have U.S. policies been aiming at conquering the world's oil for decades?





• British Basra Withdrawal: You Never Know Unless You Go
  One headline in the Guardian: British leave with the job not done. And I think that about sums it up. The British Labour government's priority is to bring the troops home as quickly as possible, with an election coming up and the lack of popularity in Britain for the war and our troops continued presence in it. Not that I'm knocking it.





• Abbas Opposes Land-Swap
  Does he want peace?





• Palestinian Suffering: We Caused It, We Should Fix It
  U.N. states share a portion of blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict -- they need to stop it.





• The World After Bush

  Part I: Iraq
  Part II: Somalia





• What the Gulf Arms Sale Really Means
  There's more to it than countering the threat from Iran.





• Slim Chance of Mideast Peace
  If Blair applies the same principles as he did to Northern Ireland... All Parties must negotiate a lasting peace.





• Palestine Divided: Israel's Dream
  Israel encourages violence in Palestine, thus keeping Palestinians divided.





• Peace Is The Only Option for Israel
  Israeli air strikes in Gaza are brutal and pointless - threatening prospects for peace and ultimate Israeli security.





• Israeli Occupation: Boycott or Not?





• Bush Vs Putin -- Cold-War or Hot-Air?





• Brown on Terror





• Who Abducted Alan Johnston?



• Croatian Bees to Take Sting out of Land-mines





• Begin the Third Intifada: An Intifada of Peace





• Extremist Does Not Mean Terrorist: Islam Too Large to be Split in Two





• Violence Unlikely to End in Somalia





• An Offer for Peace: Disarming Hamas and Fatah





• International Community: Divide and Function Part III
  Part III: Starving the Palestinians or doing the right thing?





• International Community: Divide and Function Part II
  Part II: Chemical weapons and broken promises: Iran and Iraq past and present.





• International Community: divide and Function
  Part 1: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and The War on Terror





• Nuclear Iran: If You Can't Beath Them -- Infiltrate





• Mideast Peace -- Now or Maybe Never?





• War on Terror -- Oil Conspiracy?





• Saudi Initiative: Turn Suggestions into Reality





• Saudi Initiative: Definite Possibilities





• Pacifying Somalia: United in Extremism





• Hamas Shooting: Senseless Violence





• Talking Sense In Somalia: Let the Somali people have Their Say





• War & Grief





• Preparing to Attack Iran: The Neocon Roadmap to War





• Attitudes Stop Israeli/Palestinian Peace





• Lebanese Army Standing Up to Israel:





• Somalia's Government, Somalia's Affair





• Governing Somalia





• Israel Not Facing Existential Threat





• "A Brighter Palestinian Future"





• Excluding Hamas Won't Bring Peace!





• Is Attacking Iran a Viable Option?





• Are We Losing the War on Terror?

All earlier posts can be read using the previous post button at the bottom of my old blog

Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel: To End the Qassam Rocket Attacks?

The Israeli Defense Force knows its latest policy will fail, so what is the real reason for going ahead with it?

By Liam Bailey

Sunday 28 November began Israel's latest measure to end the relentless barrage of Qassam rockets fired into Israel, by reducing the amount of fuel delivered into the Hamas run Gaza where the rockets are fired from, a measure that openly defies the 4th Geneva Convention since it collectively punishes the Palestinian people as a whole for the actions of the Qassam squads.

Everyone who knows anything about this conflict knows that this, as part of a larger drive which will eventually see Israel cut power to the Gaza strip every time a rocket lands in Israel, does not have a chance in hell of ending the Qassam attacks. In fact by increasing Palestinian resolve for resistance against the occupier bent on making their day to day lives miserable in every way it can, it might actually bring about an increase in the number of rocket attacks and even foster a new generation of suicide bombers among Palestinian children. frighteningly, statements in the Israeli press reveal that even the Israel Defense Force (IDF) knows this measure won't halt the Qassams..

So why enact a measure with a better chance of making things worse than it has of achieving its intended aim?

I can't answer this question definitively, but I will put forward several possibilities, one of which or all of which could well be the reason behind Israel's current behaviour.

The most recent and relevant possibility is Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai's explanation (from an interview on Israel radio) that the policies have nothing to do with halting the rocket fire but are simply another step in Israel's disengagement from Gaza following the withdrawal of troops and settlers in 2005.

Vilnai's exact words were:"This is the continuation of our disengagement, since the troops pulled out. This is not connected to Qassams (rockets), it is a deeper, broader disengagement."

Some analysts, such as Haaretz correspondents Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff believe the move is partly further disengagement, but mainly an outward display that the IDF and Israeli government are doing everything in their power to end the Qassam's in preparation for and to justify a planned and massive ground operation deep into the Gaza strip to end the rocket attacks.

Of course, we must throw into the mix the long-running accusation that a majority in Israel's government do not want to return Palestinian land and do not want a peace deal that would inevitably lead to them having to return the land; therefore, a majority of the government wants to perpetuate the conflict. The best way for them to do so is to continually stir up Palestinian anger with these kinds of measures. Maintaining the fervent Palestinian resistance allows them to ensure that the conflict will be perpetuated from the Palestinian side, allowing Israel to claim self-defense in their measures, which again further stirs up Palestinian anger. Put simply, it allows Israel to perpetuate the conflict and to remain the good guys in the eyes of the outside world.

Finally, another possible explanation was revealed during the recent Israeli air-strike on what was claimed to be a fledgling Syrian nuclear program a few weeks ago: that Israel is poking and prodding at the boundaries of the international community's patience, seeing just how far it can go before the international community responds so strongly that the U.S. is forced to do something about it -- all in the aim of working out how much of a response a strike on Iran might provoke.

I believe one, two, or perhaps all of the above reasons, -- and possibly more factors --explain Israel's current policies of forcing yet more pressure on a population already racked by poverty from the original Israeli-imposed and internationally followed financial embargo, which has already brought the small coastal strip to the brink of a humanitarian disaster.

Abbas Opposes Land-Swap – Do You Want Peace?

By Liam Bailey

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said that he opposes Israel's proposal to give up areas of Israeli land heavily populated by Israeli Arabs, such as the region around Umm al-Fahm, for the new Palestinian state, in order to keep Israel's settlement blocs in the West Bank while still returning 100% of the land taken in the 1967 war. I just can't believe it, it harks back to the Palestinian pig-headed stick-to-your-gunnery that is usual displayed so well by Hamas and would be so better coming from people who actually had anything to lose.

The Palestinian people want peace, and as it has widely been agreed for decades the best chance of that comes from a two-state solution where Israel returns the land it took in 1967. For Abbas now to say he opposes an Israeli offer to do just that makes me ask, and from what I know of the situation, the Palestinian people will also be wondering: does Abbas want peace?

The proposal Abbas was talking about was formulated by Shimon Peres while he was still Israel's vice-premier. The proposal was brought to light in a Haaretz article. Although I am bemused that Abbas has come out opposing the proposal, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has denied the existence of such a document anyway.

Returning the land taken in 1967 including East Jerusalem to form a Palestinian state, is one of the set-in-stone Palestinian demands for any peace deal, right of return for all refugees is another. But the main thing Palestinians want is an end to the occupation, removal of checkpoints, life-restricting Israeli security measures, and control over their own lives.

A land swap has long been thought necessary to allow Israel to return the land it took in 1967, because of the settlements it has built on the occupied land. If this document does exist, then this being the first time Israel has actually stated what land it wishes to swap for me is a big step. Another big step is Israel putting on paper a proposal to return 100% of the land taken in 1967. For Abbas to oppose such a huge step towards a massive concession from Israel, makes me wonder for the first time if those people are right, who say the Palestinians are as much an obstacle to peace as Israel. But let's remember this is not the Palestinian people, it is a Palestinian leader long-known for not putting his people first.

Many people in the analytical community, the major players in the international and Israeli political scenes are currently -- on paper at least -- touting that peace is closer than it has been for years. Shimon Peres stated Aug. 26 his belief that peace could be agreed before the international summit later this year.

UN special advisor for the Middle East Michael Williams, who is set to become Britain's Middle East representative next month, said that Israel hasn't done enough to strengthen moderate Abbas, which suggests he will follow the same old policy. That is the very policy that I believe still leaves peace a long way off; strengthening Abbas, while isolating and excluding Hamas from negotiations. This leaves the peace process open to being de-railed by the militant group staging a campaign of terror attacks. There is already talk of Hamas leaders in Damascus calling on Hamas militants in the West Bank to launch a massive suicide attack in Israel to torpedo chances of a deal between Israel and Fatah.

There is also the possibility that any agreements will be rejected by the Palestinian people as a whole who doubt Abbas' credibility and voted for a Hamas government for that reason. That of course all assumes Abbas can reach agreement with Israel. If Abbas is going to oppose every attempt Israel's makes to compromise then he is not as moderate as everyone seems to think, and nor is he likely to be the best person to achieve a Palestinian state through negotiations.

Michael Williams also said the situation is better than it has been for seven years, so as he and many other prominent people are hopeful that peace is closer than it has been for years, I will keep an open mind and see how things pan out. But until the top tier of world powers realize that all Palestinian groups and people must be behind a deal in order to offer Israel any real chance of security; a must for any deal, I just don't hold out much hope.

Palestinian Suffering: We Caused it, We Should Fix It

U.N. states share a portion of blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict -- they need to stop it.

By Liam Bailey

During the Nazi holocaust of WWII -- following orders or not -- German soldiers were responsible for the expulsion of millions of Jews from their homes, businesses and countries -- and the murder of millions more. Because of that, when the war was won the allied victors felt compelled by guilt to grant the Zionist/Jewish wish of a national Jewish state. As Britain then controlled Palestine, which is where the Zionists felt their state should be, Britain, along with the U.N. came up with a partition plan to give the Jews a portion of Palestine for their homeland.

So, I am saying that, for the above reasons, Britain, Germany and the UN -- meaning all developed nations -- bare equal responsibility for the Palestinian's suffering, which I will detail below. Israel has had nearly 60 years to do the right thing, it is time for the world to step in and right the wrong it played a big part in creating.

Most Palestinians live with unemployment, depression, poverty and hunger; it has got so bad that child beggars are entering Israel from the supposedly better off West Bank. Children sent by parents who can't afford to feed them, to face the danger of knife point robbery and sexual abuse for a few dollars, tells us just how desperate the situation is in the West Bank -- and it's even worse in Gaza.

Worse still all Palestinians are likely to feel: fear, anger, misery, hopelessness and despair on an almost daily basis, whereas we in the west might experience one or two of those feelings on an average day.

Here's why: Israel is the occupying nation. With their check-points and border restrictions they keep Palestinians from visiting family and friends, which is likely to cause loneliness, hopelessness and depression, from getting to jobs and making exports difficult causing unemployment and poverty. Fear comes from air-strikes and arrest operations. And all the above causes and exemplifies Palestinian anger.

The more Israel gets away with, i.e. remaining in the world's favour despite atrocities and violations of international law, the worse it gets, and the less likely a Palestinian state becomes. Like Israel failing to abide by the 4th Geneva convention regarding the treatment of civilians by an occupying force. Israel does not regard the Geneva convention as applying de jure to the West Bank and Gaza strip -- yet says that the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not apply to the occupied territories because they are covered by the Geneva Convention. That is a clear example of Israel saying we are above international law – and getting away with it.

In the summer war with Lebanon last year Israel used depleted uranium bombs and cluster bombs in civilian areas. Lebanese civilians are still paying for the latter with their lives, and the damage the uranium may have done to the soil, crops and women's fertility remains to be seen.

The 10ft high security wall Israel is building has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice, not to mention the hordes of human rights groups, Israeli and global, speaking out about the huge atrocity it is. Israel keeps on building and the U.S. keeps treating her as a massive ally. Any attempts made by the U.N. Security Council to put a kerb on Israel's behaviour by issuing a resolution is vetoed by the U.S., who actually have the audacity to say the resolutions are biased against Israel. Israel acts like a rogue state and remains in the world's good books and cheque books.

The Palestinians want their own state and control over their own borders and destiny, but only Israel can give them it and that would cost Israel a lot of land and money, their sacred Jerusalem and chance for a greater Israel. Israel doesn't want to give up land, it wants to take more and Israel is the one in control. The wall is a good example of Israel wanting to take more Palestinian land, as the wall is kilometres inside the proposed Palestinian state, when it could provide the same security from inside Israel's proposed border. All this should mean Israel isn't impartial, yet Israel can still influence how the world deals with the Palestinians.

Israel is a prosperous state, receiving billions of dollars in aid from the U.S.. So who can blame the Palestinians for feeling despair and hopelessness when Israel on top of all the other bad things it causes in their lives was able to make the world stop giving aid to the Palestinians because they expressed their free will and elected Hamas. When the U.S. is following Israel's policy and constantly providing aid and acting on Israel's interests, of course the Palestinians are going to feel that the west is biased and miss-trust any efforts or initiatives they make towards peace, especially the U.S.. This feeling that they aren't being treated fairly again worsens Palestinian anger, as does Israel continually getting away with violations like the wall.

I saw a programme once about the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands, I couldn't imagine anything worse than soldiers your nation is at war with being in control of your day to day lives. At least the Channel Islanders had hope that the allies would be victorious and they would be liberated. Imagine living under an occupation that makes your life an impoverished misery, with the constant feeling that it is never going to end -- that this is all your life will ever be. That, to me, is Palestinian life.

It needs to stop! Jews suffered the modern world's worst atrocities for five years. But, although there has been no one atrocity on the scale of the holocaust, the mass expulsions, civilian massacres like the one in Lebanon last year and those before, the ever-lasting toll on civilians always running much higher that that of Israel, the home demolitions, and the general misery I talked about above, combined over 60 years to mean the Palestinians have suffered just as much. Death from a thousand cuts.

All the above should mean the world makes sure the Palestinians get their own state, as Britain and the U.N. decided Jews were entitled to their own state because of their suffering in the holocaust.

The UN, well the states that make it up should foot the bill for the Palestinian state. Offering the refugees, say, 2 million U.S. dollars for all they lost and the years of suffering. It should force Israel to give back all the land it took in 1967 including East Jerusalem, giving them a set time to decide what land it needs to swap; give Israeli land equivalent of any Palestinian land it needs to keep to maintain the security of all Israelis, including settlement blocs.

Paying the refugees should mean Israel has no reason to refuse, but if that combined with Israel's reliance on international assistance isn't enough to force their hand, no option should be taken off the table. Israel will complain about their security but with the full UN on the case, guarantees to ensure Israel's security could certainly be made. It's time to forcibly remove all obstacles and give peace a chance.

Slim Chance of Mideast Peace

If Blair applies the same principles as he did to Northern Ireland... All parties must negotiate a lasting peace.

By Liam Bailey

Some say that making the second most hated man in the Muslim world, Tony Blair, the envoy to the region with the highest Muslim population in the world, is like making an ex klu-klux clan leader a liaison to the black community. If Blair sticks to his pro-American roots he will be as much use as Middle East envoy as an indoor wind-farm. Current American policy is, as usual, exactly the same as Israel's policies for dealing with the Palestinians and Arab states, favouring Abbas' Fatah and trying to isolate and squash the more-popular-because-they-are-more-militant-Hamas.

Blair brokered the Northern Ireland peace process by realizing that peace would only last if all parties were involved in negotiations.

So if Blair realizes that his pro-Americanism was responsible for his fall from grace, which I think he must, his personality and character dictating that he seek to do well in his new job, should mean he will start going against America and applying the same principles to the Middle East as he did to Northern Ireland.

I hope he does so soon. This week, U.S. foreign secretary Condoleeza Rice has said "there will be a Palestinian state" and there is talk of U.S. President Bush pushing both sides to find an agreement before he leaves office early 2009. Israel's Prime Minister Olmert said he thought it was necessary to pull out of the West Bank and made Abbas an offer to discuss the principles of a Palestinian state, such as its institutions and government – leaving final status issues such as borders and refugees to the end of negotiations.

This just days after Israel released 250 Fatah prisoners from its jails, was undoubtedly another attempt to bolster support for Abbas' new emergency cabinet currently controlling the West Bank, but also a possible sign that Israel is realizing the occupation can't go on forever.

There is much hype about the planned peace conference later this year, scheduled to see all the major players, Abbas, Olmert and leaders of the neighbouring Arab states, everyone except Hamas. Some would ask why Hamas would be needed; if an agreement were reached surely the Palestinians would force Hamas to go along with it?

Fatah have lost all credibility in the eyes of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian people don't trust Abbas, any agreement would be met with scepticism. Palestinians would think he had betrayed them behind the scenes, in order to reach a favourable deal and line his pockets.

Also, for any deal Israel will need to give up control of the land taken in the 1967 war, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian state therein. Although a land-swap agreement where Israel gives back some of its land in order to keep Palestinian land where it is thought to be necessary for security or to encompass settlement blocs. Israel agreeing to this will hinge on the Palestinians guaranteeing Israel security. Without Hamas on board they would likely wage a terror campaign throughout the negotiations, as we saw during the Oslo process. This would prevent the Palestinians making any such guarantee.

What's more, Israel knows that the Palestinians can't guarantee their security unless all the parties are behind any cease-fire or peace-process. So, their current attempts to prevent Hamas from taking part in any thing democratic or peaceful back-up those that say Israel is trying to prevent peace.

On the bright side, if Blair manages to wangle Hamas and Islamic Jihad a seat at the peace conference table, a Palestinian guarantee of Israeli security can be believed. Obviously Israel won't trust them but hopefully the international community and Blair will make them give the benefit of the doubt. What's more if a deal is reached, it will have the trust and support of all Palestinians -- who know Hamas won't sacrifice their rights -- making cessation of attacks even more likely.

With Northern Ireland, once thought to be the most intractable conflict, now enjoying peace and prosperity, hopefully Blair can shake off his American-poodles tail and end the world's truly most-intractable conflict.

Palestine Divided: Israel's Dream

By Liam Bailey

We all know what “divide and conquer” is all about. It is a strategy Israel has deployed over the last couple of decades, if not to exactly conquer, but to effectively pacify the people they conquered in 1967–allowing them to continue pursuing their strategic, expansionist and cultural interests.

But the responsibility must also be divided, because if the Palestinians' so-called government forgot about power and control of their non-state and had realized that their cause is so fragile that only a united front has any chance of success, then Israel's tactics of exacerbating rivalries would never have gotten off the ground.

Not only did it did get off the ground; it has proved to be an exceptionally successful tactic for ensuring Israel's continued control, not only of the Palestinian territory and its sham Authority, but over the day-to-day life of every Palestinian.

Israel began to grow scared and pondered a new strategy when the Palestine Liberation Organization and its movement seemed to be gaining too much support among Palestinians and as a movement was getting too powerful. A new strategy was needed. A new group was emerging, a religious extremist group called Hamas. From slow beginnings Hamas is now extremely well armed and perhaps the most powerful Palestinian militant group, certainly the most powerful in Gaza.

Hamas' power grew with Israeli support, weapons and funds-the same kind of support they are now giving to Fatah. When the Islamic movement began to emerge in the late 1970's Israeli leaders sought to strengthen the movement. Believing that if the Palestinians were immersed in their religion they would pose less of a problem, and at any rate, their support for one group would automatically exacerbate the rift ceding from the Palestine Liberation organization fear of holding onto their control. Israeli leaders believed two groups, rivalling each other and working from a different mandate, would be a whole easier monster to control.

Also, many people believe former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did not want peace. Sharon saw bolstering Hamas as a good way of ensuring the violence would continue and talks would be doomed to failure.

It is not clear when this support for Hamas ended, The arrest in 1989 of the main benefactor of their supporting policy, Sheikh Deir Yassin, suggests around that time, but there has been too much political turmoil and cross manipulation to really be sure. When Hamas won democratic elections early last year, things really changed for Israel. Hamas' turn towards democracy suggested they were becoming more moderate, and with the widespread support of the Palestinian people, Israel feared they may be forced to find an agreement with a moderate but still credible Hamas.

Now, Hamas was too big for its boots and Israel began a policy of weakening the monster they had created and strengthening the PLO's now controlling faction, Fatah, against the now powerful Hamas. They began by attempting to strip Hamas of their support base by starving the already impoverished Palestinian people with the internationally supported financial blockade.

To strengthen Fatah, Israel has done many things, from making concessions, such as releasing a fraction of the Palestinian tax revenues held by Israel under the blockade and promising to make other concessions, like removing check-points to make life easier for Palestinians. But the worst leg of the policy has been the massive campaign by Israel and their U.S. backers of arming Fatah gunmen. Even after Fatah and Hamas agreed the Palestinian National Unity government, still the arms continued to flow. Still Hamas' anger continued to grow at Israel's attempts to provide Fatah with the means to defeat them. Abbas' lack of control over his armed factions, as seen in recent news of Fatah gunmen ruining a new exam system Abbas tried to implement-thus prevented the Hamas-Abbas security plan being implemented, particularly in Gaza; and fighting between the two factions, concentrated in the coastal strip, began anew.

This led to the crowning achievement of Israel's divisionary tactics. Hamas eventually routed Fatah's forces and sent them fleeing to the West Bank, where they still have a sizeable power-base, thus bringing about a completely divided Palestinian cause: Fatah ruling the West bank, if only on paper, and Hamas controlling Gaza. There were fears that Hamas would begin trying to take control of the West Bank, but they haven't materialized yet.

The divisionary tactics continue, with the Israeli cabinet approving the release of 250 Fatah prisoners Jun. 9, suggesting that Israel would like the fighting to continue in the West Bank and is increasing Fatah forces to make it more likely, and probably more drawn-out.

In the latest rhetoric, Abbas has said that Hamas is allowing Al Qaeda members into Gaza – a claim which Hamas have denied, saying Abbas is attempting to stoke resentment against them. And Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has said he doesn't think there can be any kind of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah leader Abbas. Olmert said Abbas had told him he would never make peace with Hamas and would always combat them.

Olmert's government is predominantly right-wing, the Israeli right wing is the flip-side of Hamas' charter, where Hamas' charter calls for taking back all of Palestine, wiping Israel out as it goes, Israel's right wing's greater Israel beliefs want all the land to be Israel. Whereas lately Hamas has moderated its agenda, now falling in line with the most widely sought after two-state solution, Israel's right-wing's biggest fear is having to negotiate and eventually give back land for the two-state solution. It is clear from Israel's constant interference and antagonizing one group by supporting the other, that they fear a united Palestinian resistance.

A united Fatah-Hamas, with a moderate Hamas, might just force Israel's hand. So Israel is keen to maintain Palestinian violence–too busy fighting each other to fight for what's theirs. I just hope the. It's time to unite in the face of a common enemy and with the sole aim of achieving the Palestinian dream. Which is Israel’s greatest nightmare.

Peace Is The Only Option for Israel

Another dreadful week is underway in Palestine in a rapid sequence of events.

Amid ongoing air-strikes by Israel, Hamas has emerged from vicious factional fighting to take control of Gaza. Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas responded by dissolving the recently formed Palestinian unity government and naming a secular prime minister for the new "emergency government". It will control the West Bank, where Fatah is still the more powerful group.

Meantime, Israel has hinted at releasing millions in tax revenues to the new government, which have been withheld since Hamas were elected and even after they joined with Fatah. There is also talk of ending the international siege on the Fatah-controlled West Bank. Both events are occurring under the continued campaign of strengthening Abbas and Fatah and turning Palestinians against Hamas.

An Israeli minister has called for even more action against Hamas. Benjamin Ben-Eliezer advocates targeting the entire Hamas organization, including members of the government. He said: "We have to put them all in the cross-hairs".

Israel has been pounding Hamas positions in Gaza with air strikes for over a week, and rockets are continuing to fall. With Hamas now in charge, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is coming under pressure to re-occupy the strip.

Whether they like it or not, Israelis should realize that, every air strike and assassination in Gaza and the West Bank, hardens Palestinian resolve.

Even though Palestinians are under occupation, impoverished, restricted, suffering humiliation and under fear of Israeli bombs and snipers, there will always be Palestinian resistance movements, and they will always have popular support. Israel has been launching air strikes and carrying out assassinations for decades, and Israelis in towns near Gaza are in more danger than they ever have been from the increasing rocket attacks.

The only way Israel can kill Palestinian resistance is to actively seek out a way to end the occupation, return the land gained in 1967 or its equivalent, and find a solution to the refugee issue that can be accepted by both sides.

It is said Israel can't relinquish the land because it would put them back to the strategic weakness that led to them fighting two defensive wars in 1948 and 1967. Israel should be proud that it was able to repel such attacks with what was then a relatively small, poorly equipped army. An army that has increased in size and bought more arms, advanced weaponry and Weapons of Mass Destruction in the last 40 years than anyone who would threaten it.

During that long time span, the Israeli army has become feared and revered -- and not to mention U.S. support becoming an engrained policy. I believe that if Israel ends the occupation, there is a good chance of securing a peaceful Middle East, certainly more likely than continuing on the current path: the continuing financial blockade increasing poverty in a previously impoverished place, and with the 10 metre high wall Israel is building around settlements, isolating Palestinian areas and adding to the hopelessness and desperation of all Palestinians. Not to mention the anger at regular assassinations in the West Bank and periodic air strikes and ground incursions in Gaza, and the civilian death tolls.

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and since Hamas won the Palestinian election in early 2006, Israel has been blinded to peace by its desire to destroy Hamas. Attempting to destroy their popular support with the internationally supported financial blockade, and, since factional fighting broke out with renewed brutality, by arming Fatah and launching targeted strikes against Hamas militants and rocket squads.

The strikes have been intensified since Hamas withdrew from the ceasefire with Israel. Hamas taking control of Gaza is proof that this policy has been a massively bad idea, because any group that doesn't actively fight to end the occupation will not have credibility in Palestinian eyes. Fatah being armed by the Israeli government for the factional war solidified Fatah and their leader Abbas' image as Israel and the U.S.' lap-dog .And as Fatah continues to be favoured and armed by Israel at the expense and to the detriment of the people's favourite, Hamas, any shred of credibility for Palestinian Authority President Abbas and his secular Fatah party slips away. Israel's collateral damage therefore increases support for Hamas even further.

It is fair to say that any deal reached by Fatah will be seen to concede too much to Israel, because whatever it concedes, Palestinians will be dubious about what has been given away behind the scenes. No deal that isn't accepted by all Palestinians would last more than five minutes, and Palestinians will accept no deal that isn’t at least overseen and accepted by Hamas. If Israel realized that peace was the only way to secure their population, then they must also realize their current air strikes are targeting their best chance of reaching a lasting agreement with the Palestinians.

There may be the opportunity for a ceasefire agreement to end the current Gaza fighting, now solely between Hamas and Israel. If this is done properly it could lead to direct Israel-Hamas talks that could secure a peace deal, which would likely be accepted by the majority of Palestinians. Israel's Fatah-dog would no doubt succumb to Israel's wishes. I don't hold out much hope.

My take is that Israel hopes that the more bombs it drops and civilians it kills, the more it will turn Palestinians against the "terrorists", but after two decades of these policies, Palestinians turned to Hamas anyway -- showing that it is time for a change. Until Israel realizes this, there will be no peace and no security for Israelis.

Israeli Occupation: Boycott or Not?

The British University and College Union (U.C.U.) recently voted in favour of discussing a boycott of Israel's academia in protest at Israel's continued occupation and abuses of Palestinian academic freedom. It has caused no end of furore from Jews and Israel supporters around the world, as well as the obvious anger by Israelis and Israeli academics -- not to mention the furious calls for counter measures.

Measures by people like Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who claimed to have set-up a team of 100 of the world's best lawyers to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone targeting Israeli universities. Dershowitz also said he would get tens of thousands of the world's most prominent academics to boycott British academia, a call immediately supported by 2000 American scholars, including nine Nobel Laureates, who vowed to boycott any event that excludes Israelis.

The British and global media has been filled with articles by academics, some arguing the case for a boycott and others arguing just as adequately against. I hate to say that I am -- for once -- forced to sit on the fence, wait, and see what happens.

A while back I would have supported a boycott, after interviewing Ilan Pape, an Israeli academic and avid campaigner for the boycott initiated by Palestinian civil society, which has been struggling to take any kind of hold. Ilan Pape, like many supporters of the Palestinian boycott and those for the British U.C.U. to start one, draw parallels between the South African Apartheid and Israel. They believe because the boycott of the S.A. apartheid regime was instrumental in bringing equality in South Africa, that a similarly run boycott could force Israel to moderate its behaviour and eventually grant equal rights to Arabs in Israel and a viable state of self-determination to the Palestinians.

I now believe that any boycott of Israel might do nothing more than worsen the siege mentality inside Israel, which comes from relentless and frequent attacks -- firstly from the surrounding countries and now from the surrounding Palestinian terror groups.

This siege mentality causes Israelis to believe that relinquishing any land will put them at the same strategic weakness that led to them defending against massive attacks in 1948 and 1967. As Reuven Kossover, an Israeli Jew commented on one of my other articles: "Any solution that strips us of strategic depth is suicide. A country whose borders is 16 kilometers wide can be cut in half by a determined tank attack."

In fact Israelis are always at threat, and the threat is usually portrayed by their government as a threat to their very existence. Jews, who endured the holocaust -- the worst atrocity of the 20th century --, know all about fearing for their existence. Then they were granted a supposed Jewish haven by the U.N. General Assembly and the British, who were given control of Palestine after WWII. Immediately they had to fight to create their state, against an Arab enemy wanting to drive them into the sea.

The surrounding Arab enemies never accepted the creation of Israel, so the Jews feared that the next war could be just around the corner. If anything another attack was more likely due to Arab anger about the forced expulsion of Arabs by Jewish forces.

In 1948 Israeli and Jewish solidarity was at an all time high; after the holocaust and their succesfully repelling the first Arab attack. According to the Israeli government the Arabs had left their homes willingly -- or on the word of the Arab invaders, who told them to leave and return when the war was won. Of course Israelis were going to believe their government over the ruthless Arabs.

So, Israelis were living in their new State of Israel, -- in fear of the next war, which came in 1967, then in fear of the next war, which came in 1973. Their fear has been added to by regular skirmishes with Palestinian and other terror groups since the first Intifada began in 1987, culminating in the Lebanon war and a major Gaza incursion last summer. Now Israel is embroiled in further Gaza fighting and Israelis live in fear of the next rocket or terror attack. As if that wasn't bad enough, their government's propaganda is telling them that a nuclear Iran will bring a second holocaust. Propaganda picked up by U.S. conservatives, Presidential candidates and (the Neocons) anyone desiring U.S. control over Iran's oil reserves.

This constant existential fear has built the siege mentality to incredible proportions, and continued Jewish solidarity, preventing any real resentment of Israel's oppression from within. Largely because Israelis value whatever security they have, and accept that whatever lengths their government goes to, is -- as it is portrayed -- part of the continuing fight for their security.

Such attitudes will be worsened by people living securely in a far off land, initiating a boycott against a state that's government -- in Israeli's eyes -- has done nothing more than attempt to secure its population. Any increase in this siege mentality, increasing solidarity between all Israelis in supporting their government's policies will continue to push the possibility of any lasting peace further into the distance.

However, the reasons I am not completely against the boycott is that, I still agree with Ilan Pape on the possibility that such a boycott by academics might make Israelis begin to look at their government's actions more closely. This might begin a wave of discontent at their government's handling of the occupation, which, while it would probably start small might grow given time.

And the amount of anger that this has caused inside Israel shows that it is very hurtful to them; their desire to end it may eventually cause them to begin forcing change from within.

Also, the media hype is drawing attention to the fact that intelligent people are so against Israel's actions that they are willing to put their union and its credibility on the line to take a stand. This is important because Israel has continually gotten away with its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, -- which Israel says does not apply to the occupied territories -- U.N. Resolutions and U.N. and other international laws. Not least because of unwavering, unquestioning and unconditional U.S. support, which has run at an all time high under Bush, and the candidates to succeed him as President show no signs of ending it.

So, support of Israel seems to be important in the quest for American votes, meaning opinion polls and pundits must tell the candidates it is important to most Americans. Also a factor is the large amounts of campaign funding from the Jewish community seeking to ensure continued U.S. support for Israel.

However, if the threats of counter-boycotts and such like don't stifle the debate or lead to the boycott being trashed, the U.C.U.'s controversial stand could finally begin to change the level of support for Israel in the U.S. and around the world. If this happens in America then politicians and Presidents may be forced to change their stance toward Israel. This in turn may force Israel to fall into line with international law, and maybe even to end the occupation in pursuit of peace.

Like I said I am going to sit on the fence over this and see where it leads.

Begin the Third Intifada: An Intifada of Peace

By Liam Bailey

Ever since the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections, Gaza has been getting slowly destroyed. Only one major move can save it from complete destruction: a third Intifada.

Gaza's destruction has resulted from the Israeli imposed financial blockade, which was of course followed up by the U.S. and the international community. The siege is causing severe poverty. Not to mention the multiple Israeli air and artillery strikes in the past year, hitting infrastructural targets like a power station and bridges, giving already restricted Palestinians less freedom of movement. Then there are the errant shells hitting houses and killing civilians and children. And finally a major ground operation in the summer of 2006. All of this has resulted in the killing of hundreds of civilians in the past year.

But Gaza is also being steadily destroyed from the inside, because poverty is accompanied by depression and hopelessness — and with hopelessness comes rising criminality. Gaza has no official police or security forces but does have guns and rockets aplenty, and targets never too far away. Rising crime is an increasing nightmare, causing the Gaza strip to slowly implode, most notably with increased inter-factional violence between Hamas and Fatah. The fighting has been intensified because the U.S. and Israel support Fatah with money, arms and a campaign of making them look most likely to end the occupation — in the hope they will paralyse the popular but "extremist" Hamas movement.

The fighting had lulled after the unity deal was signed in February in Mecca - a deal for a government that went some way in meeting Israel's demands in return for lifting the siege amid hopes that an end was near.

But the siege and worsening poverty continued. Rising crime has led to the noose around Gaza tightening even further. One of the few sources of income in Gaza consisted of foreign journalists and other visitors. The kidnapping of BBC journalist Alan Johnston sent them running for the hills.

Fatah attempted to restore order and the faith of outsiders by flooding Gaza with their security forces, which I don't doubt was done at least in part with good intentions. But I can also understand why Hamas was decidedly nervous and angry with the flood of Fatah gunmen, given their history of rivalry along with the U.S.-Israeli desire for Fatah to regain control of the Palestinian Authority. So, the fighting began anew, lessening any chance of outsiders returning.

Gaza has never been so isolated and poor. And the people charged with bringing an end to the misery can find nothing better to do than kill each other, along with countless innocent civilians. At the same time, Israel's repeated operations in the West Bank led to Hamas deciding to end the ceasefire with Israel. The number of rockets being fired from Gaza increased dramatically.

So, when things were reaching their peak of outright desolation and hopelessness for the Palestinians, Israel decided to end their 6 months of restraint in the face of rocket fire and at the same time use it to up the ante on their campaign to put an end to the Hamas problem. Israel has begun a new campaign of air strikes on the rocket squads and Hamas militants, and also on Hamas members and their homes. And overnight the Israeli Security Cabinet approved intensifying the campaign.

Israeli air strikes, on top of the poverty, unemployment, restriction of movement and inter-factional violence is tearing Gaza apart. Leaving Gazans with very little to live for, driving them to ill-advised actions and in turn threatening to make the situation even worse.

One thing could save them: A Third Intifada of zero violence. An Intifada where all Palestinians unite in peaceful protest at the occupation. No guns, just hordes of angry people ready for change, ready to finally put all the violence behind them and gain their new state - by starting as they mean to go on, in peace and unity.

Imagine if you will, all the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and the refugee camps on and around the Israeli border leaving their houses together to go and take up positions in human chains along the Israeli border — in the areas where the whopping great security/separation wall doesn't make it impossible. I see them closing checkpoints, stopping traffic, halting exports, hindering trade and giving Israel a taste of the restrictions they have been forcing the Palestinians to endure for decades.

It wouldn't only get the Israelis' attention — in the You Tube, de-centralized-media-everywhere-world we live in, it would damn well get everyone's attention pretty quick. So, any ideas the Israeli Defence Forces had about opening fire on the chains would be almost impossible. Of course the I.D.F. may well have a go anyway, given their opening fire on a crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in front of cameras not so long ago. For me, the fact that the women were there as human shields to help Palestinian gunmen holed up in a mosque escape, does not justify the I.D.F. firing on them.

In the event of another such atrocity I would urge restraint by armed Palestinians, and hope the human chain of the Third Intifada remains strong until Palestinians are granted an equal and independent state, and that all refugees evacuated one way or another when Israelis gained their country, be adequately compensated and offered a new home in the new state.

International Community: Divide and Function Part III

By Liam Bailey

For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part III: Starving the Palestinians or doing the right thing?

It is particularly neccesary for the "international community" to separate its approach from that of the U.S, in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Evidence lies in the way the "international community" has followed Israel and the U.S' policies for dealing with Hamas as the newly elected Palestinian Authority government. The fair and democratic election was another demand, inferred to go before the ever-dangling carrot of a Palestinian state. But, when the Palestinian Authority did as was asked of them, in electing Hamas they did not do what Israel and the U.S. expected.

Hamas is classed as a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S -- a classification followed by most of the "international community". Some believe that Hamas' aims and means are legitimate in the face of Israel's unrelenting occupation and constant refusal to grant the Palestinians an independent state. Many, however can understand why Hamas' suicide bombings and failure to make the distinction between civilian and military puts them on the same "international" list as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Hamas however, only attacks elements of the occupation; not "international" targets.

Hamas' entry into democracy had come at the tail of months of slowly changing Hamas rhetoric, including offering Israel a "Hudna" (long running ceasefire) in return for a temporary end to the occupation and Palestinian borders, pending further negotiations. But instead of treating the changing Hamas as an opportunity to bring the popular front of the Palestinians into the "peace process" the "international community" followed the lead of Israel, and their U.S. loudspeaker and set about trying to destabilize the P.A. and bring down the newly elected government.

Israel began witholding millions in monthly tax revenues and, backed by the U.S. initiated a financial blockade of the P.A. The E.U. and the rest of the "international community" following suit shows just how much influence the U.S. has.

Not many people would relish living under the occupation and totalitarianism of a regime that your brethren in neigbouring countries had gone to war with several times. Made worse recently by the tightened border and checkpoint controls since the Second Intifada and Israel's disengagement from Gaza -- costing Palestinians their jobs in Israel. Things were bad enough for the Palestinian people. Blocking all international aid to the Hamas government made matters ten times worse.

Hamas being elected gave Israel an excuse to do what it has always been doing, putting more pressure on the Palestinian people to meet impossible demands; driving them into actions that will ensure they are continually perceived as terrorists and a threat. Of the demands that must be met to end the Palestinian blockade, the two most difficult are:

Renouncing all forms of violence:

Over the years Israel as defied the international community in failing to take down settlements, expaning settlements, and, even the U.S. demand to stop building new ones. Put simply they have continued to annex more Palestinian land despite it hindering often fervorous attempts at bringing peace. The Palestinians believe that Israel will not give up its hold on the land without a fight and that if there was no resistance Israel would simply continue its annexation. Therefore, Palestinians, including Hamas and Fatah will not renounce violence until Israel meets their demands:

Returning the land taken in the 1967 war or equivalent in land swaps, creating a Palestinian state therein with east Jerusalem as its capital, and allowing the return of all refugees.

Israel will never grant the latter, but I have always suspected that if the Palestinians were given their ownb state and sacred East Jerusalem, they would accept a compromise on the refugee issue: either full or part compensation and/or homes in the new Palestinian state.

And Recognize Israel's right to exist:

To Palestinians this means accepting that Israel had the right to expel their brothers and sisters in the 1948 war, thus relinquishing any chance of the right for their return. Israel doesn't recognize the Palestinians right to exist, what does the "international community" care if the Palestinians recognize Israel's? It doesn't, this demand like all the others are the demands of Israel, amplified by the U.S. and followed by the "international community".

The treatment of the new unity government has reinforced the view of the Palestinians and some prominent Israelis, that Israel doesn't want peace and my view that the U.S. should no longer lead the "international community" in this crisis.

The new unity government, agreed in Mecca was the power-sharing agreement that Palestinians and seekers of peace had been praying for and the two parties trying and failing to achieve. Handing government of the P.A. to Israel and the U.S' pin-up Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party, sharing power with the shunned Hamas -- the latter has slightly more power. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh remained Prime Minister. This sparked fear for the "peace process", but the deal stated Abbas would carry on any negotiations with Israel.

The impression was always given that Israel, the U.S. and the "international community" shared the hope for Palestinian unity and the latter would spring into action to ensure a just peace were it achieved. In reality something quite different has emerged.

The unity deal came shortly after a U.N. report [pdf] warned of a humanitarian disaster in the P.A, especially in Gaza should the "international community" siege not be lifted.

The new unity government has not met the demands, but it went some way to meeting the third demand: adhering to past agreements between the PLO and Israel; the unity government respects past agreements. Because, in this concession the unity government went some way to giving Israel what it externally demands in a partner for peace, while maintaining the popular support to carry through any agreement, the "international community" began talking about lifting the financial blockade.

Israel, backed by the U.S. has held firm: the Palestinian Authority must meet the three demands in full. So far the "international community" has refused to show the strength of doing the right thing at the expense of losing its pairing with the world's strongest U.S.

All the while nothing is being demanded of Israel. Every time the U.N Security Council attempts to make such demands the U.S. uses its veto power. Over 140 examples of the U.S. stopping the U.N.S.C from fulfilling its charter should be enough for the world to realize the U.N. has been rendered useless in the Israel/Palestine conflict. The same goes for the Quartet: the U.N, the E.U, Russia and the U.S. combined should be able to make both sides concede the necessary amount to end this long-running conflict, but any good they could do is tainted by the U.S' support for Israel.

The E.U, Russia and other prominent members and groups of the "international community" acting independently of the U.S is the Palestinians only hope.

An Offer for Peace: Disarming Hamas and Fatah

By Liam Bailey

Fresh hope for Middle East Peace lies in the revitalization of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, offering Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states.

In return: Israel is expected to withdraw from and create a Palestinian state on the territory taken in the 1967 war, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and offer "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem."

Through the years both populations have come to miss-trust the other side. Most Israelis will not accept their government sacrificing part of their sacred Jerusalem without firm guarantees that the violence from the Palestinians, most notably, the rocket fire will end. Not to mention the substantial settler movement within Israel who balk at the prospect of giving one inch of land, even for peace.

Outsiders will say that the above is a small price to pay for peace -- but why should Israelis pay, for something that their military's reputation for disproportionate retaliations and collective punishment has practically gained already?

The Arabs need to offer more for Israel to accept the initiative -- disarmament could well be the answer.

Currently, the biggest threat to Israel comes from within the Palestinian territories. I believe U.N. peacekeepers could verify the decommissioning of, for arguments sake, 10% of Hamas and Fatah's arms for every 10% of land returned, both processes completing on an agreed date. After Hamas and Fatah were disarmed and the withdrawal was complete, the U.N. force could maintain the peace from parties outside the agreement, such as Islamic Jihad, to allow the creation of the new Palestinian state.

Setting up P.A. police and security forces when Israel has gained trust in the unity government's commitment to the agreement would be the U.N forces' next task.

The new P.A. force's first job: disarming all Palestinians, starting with Islamic Jihad. In an independent Palestinian state, free from Israeli forces, settlements, controls and restrictions, I can't see why anyone would refuse to give their trust and their arms to the new state's security forces.

The issue the initiative fails to deal with, the peacekeepers could: ensuring the Israeli security wall is torn down after a suitable period of Israeli security.

Israel and the Arab League both seek to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons and dominating the region, suddenly peace may not be so distasteful to governments on both sides. The Arabs offering disarmament in conjunction with Israel meeting its commitments would allow Israel to sell peace to its understandably cautious population.

Mideast Peace -- Now or Maybe Never

Liam Bailey

There are those who believe that all Israel seeks is to live in peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbours. Others believe Israel is completely driven by Zionism and its overtures of finding a peaceful solution is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Regardless, few can deny the Palestinians have suffered, perhaps worse, from the occupation – from the thousands of Palestinians killed during Israel's occupations, incursions, air-strikes, and operations in unoccupied or previously disengaged areas, to the thousands of Palestinians forced to live in abject poverty by the Israeli enforced financial blockade since 2006, not to mention the thousands forced from their homes by all the above.

Nor can anyone deny that the neighbouring Arab states are perhaps as much to blame for the Palestinians suffering. After all, if, instead of going to war they had accepted the U.N. General Assembly (G.A.) partition plan in 1947, the Arabs of Palestine would have had far more land than they would happily settle for now and there would scarcely be any Palestinian refugees. Of course Israel may have attempted to gain land by going on the offensive, but would have surely received no support for an offensive war, without which they would almost certainly have failed miserably. Either way things would probably have been far better for present day Palestinians. But what's done is done and what is needed is a solution.

The latest hope for peace is the revitalization of the 2002 Saudi initiative. The Arab League rarely speaks with one voice, but it is currently, to re-offer the most comprehensive peace package ever to Israel and therefore the best chances of future security. As it is this time being offered as a platform for negotiation rather than an easily rejected ultimatum, and given the current growth of Shiite Iranian influence in the region, as well as the world's focused attention on ending one of its longest running and most brutal occupations, if the Saudi initiative doesn't bring peace I find it hard to see what will.

For a start the rare Arab unity presents the opportunity to offer Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which was never considered possible before 2002 and has been called a "political revolution". The initiative also offers a possible compromise on the refugee issue.

Israel cannot grant full right of return because it would drastically change Israel's demography and it would no longer be a safe-haven for the world's Jews. Although the initiative mentions the implementation of U.N.G.A. Resolution 194, demanding all Palestinian refugees be (granted full right of return) allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel, and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation, it also suggests finding "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem." As the initiative was originally offered as an ultimatum, Israel, with no room for negotiations on a just solution, was scared away by the mention of Resolution 194. Now that the initiative is being offered as a basis for negotiations hopefully a "just solution" can be found quickly.

If Israel craves normalized relations with all surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians within, this is the offer for them. And it couldn't have come at a better time, when Israel needs friends like it never has before to stand against Iran. The Arab's too, being of Sunni faith are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran, and my enemy's enemy being my friend, a peaceful alliance with Israel suddenly may not seem too distasteful. Therefore negotiations, for perhaps the first time, should stand on firm ground with all parties wanting the talks to find a resolution to the conflict. Nonetheless negotiations will be difficult.

The Arab initiative demands a Palestinian state on the land taken by Israel in the 1967 war, another demand to which Israel cannot capitulate. Israel has built settlements on the land and other fixtures near its borders. Therefore, for the future security of all Israelis it is widely agreed that a land swap will be necessary, giving back land equivalent to that taken in 1967. The Arab's also demand that the new Palestinian state's capital be east Jerusalem, which has previously stuck in Israel's throat, but hopefully, in the new light of mutual determination to find an agreement, these previously in-traversable obstacles to peace can be ironed out through negotiations. A new issue for negotiations to deal with will be the security wall Israel has been building since 2002.

That said, if an agreement were to be reached on the Saudi initiative: the Palestinians were granted a state with east Jerusalem as its capital, on land equal to that taken in 1967, and the Palestinian refugees were offered a home in the new state or suitable compensation, Israel and its surrounding Arab states should enjoy a future of security and peaceful coexistence. Negotiations could secure an agreement on the wall being torn down after an agreed period of Israeli security.

With circumstances bringing all Arab states together in seeking an agreement with Israel and for the first time Israel just as eagerly seeking unity with the Arabs, it's now or never.

Saudi Initiative: Turn Suggestions into Reality

It is time to take the suggestions to the next stage

By Liam Bailey

CNN showed footage from inside a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon as part of a report of such camps becoming hotbeds for extremism and havens for exiled terrorists, because they are outside of Lebanese law enforcement jurisdiction. The interviewee said the people were living in sub-human conditions within the camps, and from the footage it was clear that if anything it was an understatement. The Arab League unanimously endorsed the revival of Saudi King Abdullah's 2002 Arab peace initiative, at their meeting in Riyadh Mar. 28-29. The Arab League also issued a joint statement calling on Israel to accept the terms of the initiative, which contains a reference to U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 stipulating all Palestinian refugees be granted a return to their homes and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation.


Israel will not accept this. Therefore, in its original form the initiative will always present an impasse. The initiative also talks of finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Among the solutions fielded is allowing the refugees to return to the territories which would become a Palestinian state if the initiative were agreed, and again giving compensation for the life they were not allowed to live. This seems to present a solution but it is never extended upon, i.e. no figures are mentioned and no guarantees are given. This needs to be done if Palestinian negotiators are to take the initiatives chances of bringing an agreement seriously, and not only on the refugee issue, but every issue covered by the initiative

In return for a full withdrawal from territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, the creation of an independent Palestinian state therein with east Jerusalem as its capital and full right of return or suitable compensation for all refugees, the initiative offers Israel a sweet deal. The normalization of relations, which by necessity means full recognition of the Jewish state by all states in the Arab League, practically all Arab states. This is something which hadn't been on the table before it was offered at the Beirut Arab League summit in 2002. For states which have never had anywhere near normalized relations with Israel, most notably Syria and Lebanon this is understandably a hard pill to swallow and something they will not give easily. It is also a pill Israel cannot afford to screw up their face at with Iran's currently growing influence in the region, and Syria's potential to influence those attacking Israel from within by cutting their funding.

But screw up their face Israel will, unless the insistence on full right of return can be suitably compromised upon. The refugee issue is a sore point for both sides. Palestinians, even in the current generation are understandably angry at Israel forcing their brethren off their family or ancestral land and into squalor. Thus, no Palestinian negotiator will accept any agreement that does not make up for the denial of a potentially good life and years of sub-human living Palestinian refugees have been forced to endure. This issue has the potential to destroy the chances of the Saudi initiative to bring peace and every future negotiation, as it has although not alone, those that have gone before.

That is why the compromises and solutions being offered need to be brought to the forefront, replacing the long running cycle of gesture and counter gesture, never anything more than empty words. For instance when the initiative advocates an Israeli pullout from the territories occupied after 1967, prominent figures on the issue argue that this is now impractical because of Israel's settlement building and the necessity to ensure future security for their population. They suggest that a land swap will be necessary giving land back to the Palestinians equivalent to that taken in 1967. Good in theory, but if the initiative is to be presented as a serious option for peace it is time to take the suggestions to the next stage. Those who need to know such a swap will be necessary --Israel's government-- already do know and have known for a long time. It is not necessary to reiterate it; instead suggestions should be made by both sides about which land could be swapped.

The same goes for the refugee issue. It is no use regurgitating the possibility of open-ended compensation, which in reality could and should have been given as soon as it was clear that Israel could ever allow the refugees to return home, soon after the Arabs were expelled in the 1948 war for Israel's independence, or any time from any of the governments thereafter. If Israel is serious when it claims its only desire is to live in peace beside the Palestinians, then, to allay some of the anger Palestinians feel and go towards making up for the refugees loss, what better gesture than to promise them the very least of what they deserve, and state a clear figure to compensate all refugees as a precursor to negotiations on the new initiative?

If compensation was promised then negotiations could perhaps proceed in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, as oppose to resentment and doubt. Negotiations left to concentrate on hammering out the final borders for a Palestinian state and Israel to live side by side, and with normalized relations all round the new prospect of living out their lives in peace and security. By necessity this would also mean a promise by Israel to knock down the security wall where it impedes on the Palestinian state. The two state solution is the only viable suggestion, it's time to make it a reality.

Saudi Initiative: Definite Possibilities

The initiative has a lot of potential if obstacles can be overcome.

There is a positive buzz in the media at the moment about a revival of the 2002 Saudi initiative for Middle East peace. At first Israel seemed dismissive of the revival based on an initiative it has previously rejected, suggesting the initiative be amended slightly. This brought calls from prominent Arabs for Israel not to miss "a historic opportunity." As the revival of the initiative becomes more official and the U.S. gets on board, of course bringing Israel with, it seems that the Arabs may be the obstacle to their own prospects of bringing peace to this long conflict torn region.

Israel's main problem with the initiative is its incorporation of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, stipulating that all Palestinian refugees that want to return to their homes be allowed to do so and those who don't are compensated accordingly. Not only is this impossible for Israel because it would end their status as a Jewish state once and for all, but it is also impractical because most, maybe all of the homes and/or plots owned or inhabited by the expelled Palestinians no longer exist. This makes the Palestinians clinging to it an obstacle to their endeavours for peace. Not to mention the fact that many of the refugees have left the camps and made lives for themselves making it an obstacle worth toppling.

This problem with the initiative is the reason Israel has outright ignored its validity for five years. This is a shame because the initiative offers Israel a lot in return for the right of return as mentioned above, a full withdrawal from Palestinian territories occupied after the 1967 war and the creation of a Palestinian state. It offers the recognition of the state of Israel, full peace and normalized relations between all the Arab League member states and Israel. Normalization of relations with Israel was a taboo in the Arab world, for all states in the Arab League to ratify the initiative in 2002 was "a political revolution" as it was called in the Jerusalem Post earlier this year. The initiative was ratified again last year and all states have confirmed their continued committment to the initiative recently. Therefore the offer still stands. A political revolution in the Arab world at a time when Iran is gaining power in the region is an offer Israel really can't afford to sniff at.

That is why there has been a shift in Israeli attitudes recently, as the political momentum builds behind the revitalization of the initiative, which has reawakened support for it in the Arab world and picked up the support of the U.S.. Israeli politicians have recently been making statements to the effect that the initiative would warrant serious consideration were it slightly modified. Olmert said: "If moderate Arab countries try to advance the process along the lines of the Saudi initiative I will look at it as a very positive development" The Israelis expected the initiative to be changed so that the right of return allows refugees only to return to the new Palestinian state, not Israel. Apparently there has been a lot of manoeuvrings behind the scenes between Israel, the Saudi monarchy and the Arab league, as Saudi's monarchy attempts to have such modifications made.

Unfortunately they failed, the Arab league is to revive the initiative in its original form. Jordan's foreign minister Abdelelah al-Khatib told Reuters after a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in the Saudi capital: "The Arabs have agreed to reactivate the Arab initiative without changes. We reiterated that all Arab nations will adhere to the initiative as it is." This is understandable as it was not easy to have all the Arab states agree in the first place. To have them agree to less in return for the major concessions they are offering would have been understandably even more difficult, especially from those states who have nowhere near normalized relations with Israel, such as Syria and Lebanon. In this lies the obstacle, Israel cannot and will not accept the initiative in its original wording, therein requesting full right of return, in which case it is lucky that the initiative is being released in its original wording, but not in its original presentation.

The Saudi initiative was presented first in 2002 as an ultimatum, take it or leave it. Now, they are following suggestions and it is being presented as a platform for negotiations. Hence the positive buzz in the media. There is talk of representatives fom all the parties with a vested interest in the conflict being in the same room for the first time. That is Israel, all the Arab League member states (or one representative speaking on their behalf), and the Quartet: Russia, U.S. U.N. and E.U.. Olmert said of the proposed meeting: "If such an invitation would come my way, I would look at it in a very positive way," Olmert told a joint press conference with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. "Assuming I would get a visa, I would not hesitate to participate." Condoleeza Rice, currently on a Middle East tour promoting and trying to achieve a restart to the peace process said: "it was "premature" to talk about a major conference involving the Quartet, moderate Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians." Other U.S. officials confirmed the idea was under consideration.

Representatives from all those countries meeting, in the current climate, whereby the desire to unite in the face of a common enemy --Iran-- should give them more reason than ever before to find an agreement. Any agreement reached in that room at that historic time would be the most likely agreement to be adhered to by all parties in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hamas Shooting: Senseless Violence

By Liam Bailey

This article was originally about a glimmer of light shining on my hope that the new Palestinian unity government could bring a brighter Palestinian future. Unfortunately before I began writing an Israeli utility worker was shot and seriously wounded near a Gaza/Israel crossing. Hamas claimed responsibility for the shooting and two mortar attacks causing no casualties. Whether this has extinguished the light completely or not remains to be seen, but it has certainly slowed the momentum which seemed to finally be swinging in the Palestinians favour.

Firstly, there is hope in the fact that the new unity government is giving birth to the first real signs of disagreement between Israel and the Bush administration. Israel is advocating the new Palestinian Authority unity government receive the same treatment as its Hamas predecessor, i.e. financial strangulation and literal starvation in the form of an aid embargo and Israel withholding tax revenues. In short, financial sanctions that usually only the U.N. Security Council can impose but as usual, Israel and the U.S. can do what they want. The embargo will continue until the Palestinians succumb to the three demands and therein surrender the little dignity they have left. The three demands are to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and adhere to interim peace agreements, none of which are reciprocated by Israel.

The U.S. advocates a continuance of the policy enacted before the Mecca unity deal was reached, i.e. excluding Hamas completely from any negotiations, meetings or peace process, and dealing only with members of the more moderate Fatah party within the unity government. This is still the wrong track but the Bush administration disagreeing with Israel for the first time over dealing with the Palestinian government suggests that peace may be becoming more of an administration priority than keeping Israel sweet.

Israel's pressure for the world to maintain the financial force-field around the Palestinian Authority has continued since the new unity government was announced and amplified since the government was formed. The force-field is struggling to hold. The world knows how long the Palestinians have tried and failed to reach unity and refuses to ignore, or worse, as Israel wants, continue to punish them for what can only be viewed as a step in the right direction.

If the blockade were a wall, the foundations would have shook when Norway's deputy foreign minister Raymond Johansen ended Europe's diplomatic blockade by visiting the P.A. During the visit he announced that his country was also lifting the financial blockade and resuming normal relations with the P.A. under the unity government. The icing on the cake: Norway's decision came after meeting, not with a moderate Fatah member of the cabinet, but "an unreformed terrorist" as Israel calls Hamas leader and P.A. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

When I read about Norway's decision it got my hopes up that such a move could make it easier for others to follow suit, and may create a domino effect capable of bringing down a sizeable chunk of the financial blockade wall. However what is really necessary is normalization of Israel/Palestine relations, most notably because of the 100's of millions in tax revenues Israel has withheld from the Hamas government and will continue to withhold from the unity government. It is possible that such a domino effect could have prompted a change in U.S. responses and in turn bring Israel/Palestine relations closer to normalization.

We will never know, because the Norwegian minister hadn't even left the PA when all the hope his announcement caused was dashed by Hamas militants acting against their own interests, their own government and their own people. All Hamas' first attacks against Israel in months did was strengthen the financial wall and weaken the potential for Norway's bold move to become a significant turn in European opinion in the Palestinians favour.

It is more than possible that other states would have followed the Norwegian precedent, especially given the recent U.N. report on the devastating poverty Palestinians are enduring because of the blockade. It would have been in the PA unity government's best interests to maintain the ceasefire thus making such transitions far easier for the states involved. In other words non-violence could potentially have harmed Israel far more than violence. Therefore Mar. 19's shooting and mortar attacks were definitely senseless violence.