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.

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.

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.

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.

Attitudes Stop Israeli/Palestinian Peace

Changes needed to allow both sides to sufficiently compromise.

By Liam Bailey

To achieve a lasting peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict some major compromises are needed from all parties. Unfortunately, because of the duration of the conflict, attitudes, policies, strategies and aims have become so engrained that such compromises have become extremely difficult. The number of people killed in the conflict has also become a factor in each side's reluctance to compromise. The additional cause now and for many years has been to ensure that those killed did not die in vain.

The Palestinian Perspective:

More Palestinians have been killed in the struggle than Israelis. Therefore the Palestinians have a greater weight on their shoulders to avenge their deaths by gaining the state and conditions they died in the fight for. However this also gives the Palestinians the greater desire for peace because as the conflict goes on they will continue to be the biggest losers in terms of civilian casualties.

The Palestinians have also come to believe that Israel does not want peace, because of the provocative tactics employed by the IDF during ceasefires and negotiations. Like the West Bank arrest raids during the recent ceasefire, and the current operation in Nablus, which has dampened hopes of restarting the stalled peace process. Israel's failure to adhere to previous peace deals, like the settlement expansions contrary to the U.S. brokered roadmap agreement, reinforces the Palestinian view.

As does the West Bank "security" wall Israel's government is building. Mainly because the Palestinians negotiations rely on the formation of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, in places the wall is well inside these borders. Palestinian Negotiations Minister Saib Uraiqat told Al Jazeera Mar. 2005:

"This is a policy of dictation and not negotiation, this prejudges and prejudices the outcome of permanent status negotiations."

This prevents the Palestinians from making any further concessions or compromise, because the concessions they have made in the past, --like the Palestine Liberation Organization's recognition of Israel-- have brought nothing in return. In their resistance lies their dignity, and their dignity is almost all they have left.

The Israeli Perspective:

The Israeli government has received heavy financial and military support from the U.S. throughout decades of conflict, they may well doubt whether this would continue if they were no longer under threat from Palestinian terror. Although the U.S. supports Israel because it is keen to keep an ally in a position of supremacy in the vital Middle East region, Israel being under threat certainly makes it easier to justify such heavy support to the U.S. public.

The Israeli government also has strong remnants of the Zionist movement that was the driving force behind the creation of the Jewish state on the very land so symbolically important to the Jewish faith. As Israeli academic and author, Ilan Pape told me in a recent interview, "Israel is an unfinished project of statehood." The Zionists crave certain lands that they believe religious heritage has dictated for the final Jewish state, hence Israel's reluctance to define borders. To this end the conflict is necessary because it diverts attention from Zionist transgressions and because the Palestinian threat begets strong security measures, like occupying Palestinian land whenever necessary and the --desired land annexing-- security wall. These measures are also extremely provocative and fuel the vicious cycle of --necessary-- violence.

The wall has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice. And the United Nations Security Council has tried many times to issue resolutions against the high civilian death toll of IDF operations, occupations and Israel's transgression of human rights laws, as well as taking measures to bring about Israel's adherence with past resolutions. The U.S. has used its veto almost every time to prevent the UNSC from condemning Israel's activities. Over the years the U.S.' unquestioning support for Israel has become engrained in the Washington psyche.

The duration of the conflict has also allowed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to become one of the strongest lobbying groups in the U.S., its primary objective is ensuring continued U.S. support for Israel. Until Israel is held accountable for its actions, the Zionist element will remain strong and will continue to strive for its dream at the expense of peace and the Palestinian population.

The threat that makes this possible is constantly manipulated to present fear for Israel's existence and to allow constant reminders of the holocaust and the guilt we should all feel, --especially the U.S.-- for failing to stop it. This aim was helped by the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel, despite the fact that Hamas has never been close to having the means to achieve this aim. It is this manipulation that makes the Israeli population support its government's reluctance to compromise for peace. Because the fear of Palestinian terrorism is amplified so the Israeli population believes that giving them their own state would not stop the terror, and in fact the terror groups would continue to force the Israeli government to concede more and more land.

This view was strengthened after the Gaza disengagement. Because the Israeli government evicted Jewish residents to allow for the withdrawal, in Israel it was seen as a significant concession by the government, but the terror continued.

The terror continued because the Palestinians were still under the Israeli microscope, still had no control of their border and were still enduring flyovers and high decibel sonic booms from Israeli fighter jets, thought to cause pregnant women to miscarry. Thus Palestinians saw the disengagement as creating an open air prison and a propaganda tactic to strengthen support for Israel's government at their expense. It worked, like all similar tactics in the past, the disengagement strengthened the Israeli view, that their government wants only peace. The provocative actions over the years suggest the opposite.

Needed for Peace:

The Palestinians too, are guilty of allowing other issues to cloud their judgment and supersede their desire for peace. It is the Israeli government though that needs to take the first step.

Until Israel puts Zionism back in its box --having served its purpose--, and makes some sort of compromise to counter the Palestinian views caused by the years of the cruel occupation and Zionist land grabs, there will be no compromise from the Palestinians. Until there is compromise from the Palestinians, especially over the right of return, which Israel cannot grant because it would end their Jewish status, there will be no final status agreements and no lasting peace.

Israel won't take the first step until the international community starts holding it accountable for its actions, and this won't happen until the U.S. stops shielding it from the UNSC. This, if it ever happens will likely come in line with U.S. pressure on Israel to commit to achieving a lasting peace with the Palestinians, and perhaps a threat to withdraw support if they don't. This would put significant pressure on the Israeli government to commit to peace, but will only happen if U.S. interests in the region change drastically.

If Israel committed unquestioningly to peace, after the initial doubts, it would undoubtedly trigger a similar commitment from the Palestinian population and government. Such a commitment from both sides is what is really needed to end this conflict.

Lebanese Army Standing Up to Israel:

Stronger stance may be an attempt to regain support for the Lebanese government.

By Liam Bailey

Since the Second Lebanon war --as it is called in Israel-- between Israel and Shiite Hezbollah militia based in South Lebanon in 2006 there has been relative calm in border areas. In the last week a series of events has heightened tensions between forces on both sides of the border. This time the Lebanon army is facing off against Israeli forces, not Hezbollah.

Dec. 24 saw a tense stand-off between Israeli forces and the Lebanese army. The National News Agency reported that Lebanese infantry soldiers were on a routine border patrol, when they were surprised by an Israeli patrol on the other side of the barbed wire fence. Some of the Israeli soldiers were pointing their weapons at the Lebanese and the Lebanese army mobilized troops ready to deal with any ensuing military action. The Israeli soldiers withdrew to the Israeli settlement of Mutilla and Spanish troops from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon took over the patrol, with three bulldozers to prevent any ensuing clashes. Under the UN brokered Resolution 1701, which brought the ceasefire that ended the summer conflict, the Lebanese army and UNIFIL were designated to patrol the border.

Just two days before the ground forces incident at the border. Lebanese anti-aircraft guns fired on Israeli warplanes as they flew low altitude reconnaissance missions over South Lebanon Dec. 22. Israeli jets have been flying such missions over Lebanon for years, but this is the first time the Lebanon army has opened fire. In the recent war, between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli warplanes flew thousands of combat missions, inflicting heavy civilian casualties. The Lebanese army remained neutral. UN Resolution 1701 reiterated the UN's support for Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty. The resolution has not stopped the flyovers, which have continued, without response from the Lebanese army, since the war ended.

Earlier this month Lebanese and Israeli troops exchanged fire. According to totallyjewish.com The Israeli Defence Forces [IDF] were combing for mines between the Israeli fences and the Lebanon border. Lebanese troops, who accuse the IDF of crossing the border, fired shots into the air. The IDF warned that they would respond if the shots continued, when their warning wasn't heeded the IDF fired two tank shells in the direction of the gunfire. No injuries were reported.

Throughout the summer war, the Lebanese military had remained neutral and the government seemed reluctant for them to fight Israeli forces. The Lebanese army acting now in this way, to me, signifies an attempt by the Lebanese government to counter Hezbollah's growing support and influence in South Lebanon.

Hezbollah started out as a militia in 1985 and its main objective was to force an end to the [first] Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. Since then Hezbollah has evolved into a hybrid political movement/militia with popular support from Lebanon's predominant Shia population. Hezbollah is heavily armed and massively funded by Iran and Syria and had 14 seats in the Lebanese parliament, before the Nov. resignations.

Hezbollah's support increased during the July war as it is called in Lebanon the population grew angry at what seemed like indiscriminate killing of Lebanese civilians by the Israeli forces, and at the government for not ordering the army to take action. Hezbollah held its own in many gun battles with Israeli forces building acclaim for the group. The people who believed Hezbollah were responsible for starting the war were angry with the group for prolonging the conflict.

When the war ended Hezbollah were credited with a victory because, although heavily outmanned and outgunned they maintained fierce resistance until international pressure forced Israel to withdraw. The so called victory increased Hezbollah's support even further at a time when government popularity was dwindling.

Hezbollah attempted to capitalize on the situation, demanding a unity government late Oct.-early Nov., which would have given the group veto power in government decisions. When a deal was not reached five Hezbollah and AMAL members resigned Nov. 12, bringing fears over whether the government could continue. Eight members would have to resign before the government could be considered dissolved, but it was feared that without sufficient representation of the majority Shia community the government would struggle.

Hezbollah planned a protest to ratchet up the pressure on the government but it was postponed when Christian and anti-Syria (Hezbollah's ally) industry minister Pierre Geymal was assassinated Nov 21. Some blamed Syria for the attack because their operatives had been deemed responsible by a UN investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al Hariri. This also means Hezbollah could have carried out the attack, because both shared the aim of further undermining the government. Conspiracy theorists blamed Israel for the attack to foment sectarian tensions, which it did excellently, whoever was responsible.

The planned Hezbollah protest went ahead Dec 1, their leader Hassan Nasrallah released a statement:

"We appeal to all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration on Friday to rid us of an incapable government that has failed in its mission."

800, 000 Hezbollah supporters and those supporting other opposition groups, did as he said, and took to the streets in a protest sit-in surrounding the government offices and other areas in central Beirut. The Army cordoned off the government offices and protesters planned to keep up the blockade until the government resigned. According to a senior opposition source a dialogue between Arab diplomats and opposition leaders was successful in easing the blockade and ending the protest.

An undercurrent of sectarian tension remained as well as a strong lack of faith in the government, and doubts over its survival. Then and currently the Lebanese government is under tremendous pressure, pressure that Hezbollah is keen to maintain. Therefore, the recent actions of the Lebanese army acting against the IDF and Israeli jets, when they failed to act against the Israeli onslaught in the summer, can easily be viewed as an attempt by the Lebanese government to regain the faith of their people.

Israel Not Facing Existential Threat

I wrote this article Feb 11 2007, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

Israel Not Facing Existential Threat

Israel, the U.S. and others are exaggerating the threat from a nuclear Iran.

By Liam Bailey

I received an e-mail from Israeli newspaper, Haaretz daily with the subject line: Stand up to --Ahmadinejad. Inside was an advertising banner with the subject line above a picture of an exuberant Ahmadinejad speaking into a microphone. The banner linked to a two minute video by Aish.com, [Aish HaTorah, a yeshiva in the Old City of Jerusalem].

The Video

It is actually a slideshow. It starts with a picture of Adolf Hitler. Followed by a gruesome picture of tens of undernourished adult males, one standing, the rest lying in what I can only describe as a wall of pigeon-hole bunks. I assume it was taken in a liberated concentration camp. The narrator says: "Imagine you could have stopped Hitler in 1938." another wall of pigeon holes, this time much smaller filled with human skulls. "Imagine you could have stopped him, but didn't."

Showing Ahmadinejad above the quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," the narrator announces: "Today a new Hitler is on the world stage calling for the destruction of the state of Israel." The narrator falls silent for the display of two more pictures of Ahmadinejad above the quotes: "The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm" and: "The Elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple."

Ahmadinejad's Intentions and Israeli Lies

The first quote about Israel being wiped off the map is a matter of international debate. Some analysts say Ahmadinejad has never made such a statement, that it is an intentional mistranslation by Israel or their supporters to overstate the danger from Iran. If they are right and only the latter two quotes can be accredited to Ahmadinejad, he is not alone in wanting Zionism to be eliminated, which doesn't necessarily mean exterminating Jews or obliterating Israel. In my recent interview with Israeli author and academic Ilan Pape, he said: "Israel has to be de-Zionised to a point before any genuine reconciliation can be attempted." He was talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The Hitler/Ahmadinejad Comparison

Whether Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be wiped off the map" or not, the comparison to Hitler and the holocaust is a blatant misrepresentation of one of the world's most horrific acts. In 1938 the world was a different place, not least in the perception of Jews. 1938 was in an era when stereotypes were treated as fact and taught to children. Discrimination was accepted, in some cases even expected of people. Jews were stereotypically evil, greedy and devious and persecuted because of it.

When Hitler's views began emerging, for those who didn't hate Jews, such entrenched stereotypes made them indifferent. In short the Jews had no friends in the world capable of or willing to stop Hitler. Today the situation is very different.

No Comparison

The holocaust was a horrific and tragic occurrence. The world not even attempting to stop it pre-emptively was a disgrace. However, the world's guilt over not stopping the holocaust, even if only indirectly, led to the partitioning of Palestine for a Jewish homeland.

In its infancy Israel faced threats from the Arab countries surrounding it, who really did want to carry out a second holocaust, who really did want, and try to wipe Israel off the map. As Egypt's President announced before the Sinai war: "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." The U.S began supporting Israel militarily in the sixties and rescued Israel from the brink of defeat by airlifting military supplies during the Yom Kippur war , the aggressors Egypt and other neighboring Arab states learned that the U.S wasn't going to let Israel be defeated.

Since then and currently Israel faces a very small threat from neighboring countries, some have signed peace accords. The others are reduced to funding internal resistance groups against Israel's occupation, none of which is anywhere near capable of wiping Israel off the map.

Let's assume Ahmadinejad does want Israel wiped off the map.

Far from having no friends, Israel is now in the "in" crowd, with the most powerful friends in the world: the U.S., U.K. and any other states wanting to stay in America's favor. With the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), perhaps the most powerful lobby in America, America's world influence and massive nuclear arsenal, Israel is one of the world’s best protected countries. If this support wasn't enough to deter anyone considering an attack, or "the destruction of Israel", Israel has a sizeable nuclear arsenal of its own, widely thought to be 200-400 active nuclear warheads. This is a significant deterrent against attack.

If Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, then Tel Aviv has the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, bigger than China or France. Iran is years from even having one workable nuclear warhead, and depending on the size and weight of the prototype building a missile to carry it could take just as long. Thus, Israel has sufficient capabilities to defend itself, along with protection from the U.S. as No. 1 nuclear proliferator.

What's more Ahmadinejad's patriotism is the driving force behind the dramatic showdown with the U.S. and the world over wanting the country's right to nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel has not ratified. His patriotism will prevent him from risking the total obliteration of his country by attacking Israel. So, Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, at least until they have the capabilities to disable the U.S and Israel. I'm sure you'll agree, that, without outside help this is many years away.

The Lies

Israeli officials know that there is no such "second holocaust" or existential threat from a nuclear Iran. As Gareth Porter reported in the Electronic Intifada:

An article in the online journal of a hard-line think-tank, the Ariel Centre for Policy Research, in August 2004 revealed that "one of the options that has been considered should Iran publicly declare itself to have nuclear weapons is for Israel to put an end to what is called its policy of 'nuclear ambiguity' or 'opacity'. The author, Shalom Freedman, said that in light of Israel's accumulation of "over 100 nuclear weapons" and its range of delivery systems for them, even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons within a few years, the "tremendous disproportion between the strength of Israel and an emergent nuclear Iran should serve as a deterrent."

Why the Lie

You may be wondering why Israelis would want to create mass hysteria on the basis of lies, the same reason it denies Palestinian right of return, and is building a great wall around the Jewish state... Zionism's greatest fear, Israel becoming predominantly Arab.
You may be confused, Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh explained in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, saying that under the threat from a nuclear Iran:

"most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with their families; and Israelis who can live abroad will. People are not enthusiastic about being scorched." Thus the danger, Sneh elaborated, is that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would "be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs."

The Real Threats

Therefore, the fear is not over the existence of Israel, but over how Israel exists. I suspect Washington's war planners know the existential threat is non-existent, but have their own reasons for failing to dispel the myth. America does not want allied Israel's Middle East hegemony to end, especially not in favor of an enemy as staunch as Iran.

Israel putting such weight on their lies taking hold in the world media, has guaranteed their fears will be a reality should Iran successfully enrich uranium to weapons grade. That is why you can rest assured, if diplomacy and sanctions fail to stop Iranian enrichment, Israel will attack with or without U.S help. There is a distinct possibility that the attack will involve the use of nuclear weapons, therefore Iran is more in danger of a nuclear holocaust from Israel.

"A Brighter Palestinian Future"

I wrote this article Feb 10 2007, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

"A Brighter Palestinian Future"

The new unity government accepts the demands, waters down the wording and expands on the stipulation.

By Liam Bailey

The new Palestinian Authority (PA) unity government is being hailed as a great thing for Palestinians. I don't deny it is a step in the right direction but tough decisions, and hopefully negotiations lie ahead. If the right decisions aren't made by all parties involved it will not improve one thing in the occupied territories. Speaking to Israel's Haaretz daily, on condition of anonymity one Israeli official said: "The conditions have not been met. This is not something we can live with." The U.S. State Department reiterated its call that the new government must meet international demands. It is clear from recent U.S. and Israel policies and their reactions to the new accord, that a serious change in Hamas' overtures will be needed if the unity government is to be treated differently than its predecessor.

The reason for hostility towards Hamas is because their charter calls for the destruction of Israel and despite the international siege since early last year they have continually refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and adhere to previous agreements made between the palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. The unity accord makes no mention of recognizing Israel or the other demand to renounce violence, only stipulating that Hamas will "respect" previous agreements made between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. Abbas had held out for a commitment to adhere to previous agreements, but Hamas held firm and the wording was watered down.The watered down wording gave weight to the reactions from the U.S and Israel, and the European Union said it would study the new administration “in a positive but cautious manner.” The Quartet, (the EU, Russia and the UN) has been pressuring the U.S for an end to the PA blockade for months. The U.S and Israel have been as stubborn as Hamas.

A Russian Foreign Ministry statement Feb. 9 welcomed the new deal between rival Palestinian factions and made a fresh appeal for the lifting of a freeze on direct aid to the Palestinian government. It remains to be seen whether the slight concession from Hamas, the first from them since they took power will allow the other Quartet members to sufficiently tighten the thumbscrews on the U.S. to end the blockade.

It is almost certain the Arab states friendly to the Palestinians will make the most of a momentous achievement by the PA and use their leverage as a much needed Middle East ally for the U.S in stabilizing Iraq and ratcheting up the pressure on Iran's nuclear regime, to secure they can get some badly needed aid back into to PA. However, while an injection of aid from friendly Arab states will alleviate the Palestinian's plight, not least in allowing them to pay their employees a full salary for the first time since Hamas were elected. This will make things exponentially better for the workforce and the third of Palestinian families they take home the bacon to.

The normalization of relations with Israel and the U.S. is what's really needed to bring PA life back to the Palestinian reality before Hamas were elected, which still isn't western life but it is a good jumping off point for a new push for peace from both sides. This would include unfreezing bank's and accounts and releasing the $800 million dollars of withheld Palestinian tax revenues and an end to the measure. The new unity in the PA gives its parties the chance to attempt normalizing their relationships with each other and the international community. They badly need the international community on their side, or at least not against them if they expect Israel to come to the table with a serious offer for peace.

What is also needed is the serious change in Hamas rhetoric towards Israel I mentioned, preferably in them accepting the three demands of the quartet. I suspect that their "respecting" past agreements will be enough to satisfy the Quartet on that demand, at least until the negotiation stage. The other demands are the hardest for Hamas to accept, and in fact, what the U.S. fails to realize, or, like Israel, doesn't care about is that Hamas accepting the most crucial demand --Israel's right to exist-- will take away the unity governments credibility in the eyes of its members, and the population at large. Such an acceptance, to Palestinians would mean accepting that Israel had the right to expel Arabs in the 1948 war. Any negotiations would then risk being interrupted or at worst derailed by gunmen and/or armed wing members attacking each other or Israel.

I have a solution. The new unity government accepts the demands and maintains credibility by watering down the wording and expanding on the stipulation. For instance:


We, the PA unity government unconditionally recognize Israel's existence within the 67 borders, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The same can be done with the renounce violence demand:


We the PA unity government make a declaration to completely renounce all forms of violence for a period of 6 months to allow preparations to be made for the full reinstatement of aid, unfreezing of accounts and return of withheld revenues in Israel and elsewhere it applies, and fresh negotiations with the starting point that adherence to Security Council Resolution 242 and the formation of a completely independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem according to the borders before the 1967 war, are a guarantee, regardless of the talks outcome.

The ball is then well and truly shifted into Israel and the U.S' courts. UNSC Resolution 242 calls for the return of the above stated land, which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. There are arguments that Resolution 242 could be backed up with force as it is legally binding under article 25 of the UN charter on the grounds of its incorporation in UN Resolution 338, presented to the UNSC by the U.S and Russia to end the Yom Kippur war. Resolution 338 may well have been backed up with force. The PA government could approach the UN about a reaffirmation of the resolutions demands for the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

There has never been a better time for Palestinians to maintain a peace, because the U.S needs friends like it never did before. The friendly Arab states, the EU, Russia, and the UN Security Council are all necessary allies for cranking up diplomatic pressure on Iran, The U.S also needs its Arab allies in stabilizing Iraq and possibly for airspace and bases in the event of war with Iran. Israel has always said that its main objective is peace and it is willing to give land to achieve it, whereas the Arabs objective is land, Israel expects them to give peace to achieve it. With the Palestinians doing everything that was expected of them, the U.S and Israel's rhetoric and incessant peace overtures would back-fire on them. There would be no excuses left.

The Palestinians would need to ensure that they resist the Israeli tactics that would undoubtedly ensue, like the West Bank arrest Raids and new settlement in the recent ceasefire. And the most recent "renovations" at Al Aqsa mosque, which led to violence after the unity government deal was reached. The clashes add further difficulty for a new government that will undoubtedly struggle to regain control after the fierce factional fighting of the last few months. These tactics are aimed at drawing the Palestinians into actions that would end Israel's uncomfortable predicament.

If the PA could keep to its side of the bargain any reluctance by Israel, which there would undoubtedly be, would be overruled by Iran's nuclear program being firmly number one on the U.S' agenda. Iran being such a U.S. priority is almost as much Israel's fault as anyone else's, vis-a-vis the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's influence in the current U.S administration. This would make it a double backfire when the U.S. applied pressure on Israel to give the Palestinians the talks they and the world community –badly needed allies-- would be shouting for.

When talks commence the ball comes back into the Palestinians court on the basis of needing to compromise on other final status issues, such as the right of return. The Palestinians want refugees to return to the very land they were expelled from, after nearly 60 years this is impractical if not impossible for Israel to grant. I read about one Palestinian refugee who, if granted the right of return, would be building his house in the grounds of Jerusalem airport. Not to mention it would risk Israel becoming predominantly Arab, which would in turn further reduce the number of Jews immigrating to Israel under their Law of Return. Two things Israel will never risk.

A suitable compromise may be accepting a limited right of return, whereby refugees could only return on the grounds that they take up land in the now formally and completely independent Palestinian state. Three generations after the Naqba many of the people expelled in the 1948 war of [Israeli] independence are no longer refugees. They or their descendants have made lives for themselves and their families elsewhere in the world and wouldn't want to return. The Palestinians clinging uncompromisingly to achieving this right in full is an unnecessary obstacle to peace.

The other thing that would undoubtedly be a new sticking point in any such negotiations would be the separation wall Israel has almost completed. When complete it originally would have enclosed the West Bank, Palestinians complained because it is built inside the land that should become the independent Palestinian state. Since it started there have been extensions to the planned route taking even more land the Palestinians feel is rightly theirs. The wall has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice. The new pressure on Israel should also be taken advantage of by the Palestinians to achieve the tearing down of the wall, again, simply by maintaining the peace from their side. If they did this, despite Israel's delaying and provocative tactics, Israel would eventually have to face the inevitable:

No security wall is needed with the PA adhering to its commitments and peacefully waiting for Israel to meet theirs. However reluctantly the U.S supported the PA, with theirs and the rest of the international community's support for the new, moderate and peaceful unity government, Israel would be left with nowhere to go.

This might prove difficult, the longer Israel delayed meeting its commitments, and, based on previous initiatives that could be years of provocative actions, the more time the Palestinians would have, for one person or small group to revert to the habits of a lifetime. I'd like to hope the Palestinians would give the new unity government the respect they expect from the international community and that it would well and truly deserve for having the courage to compromise for a brighter Palestinian future.