Will Middle East Conference Bring Peace?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Liam Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Liam Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abbas Opposes Land-Swap – Do You Want Peace?

By Liam Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Gulf Arms Sale Really Means

By Liam Bailey

Although official figures have yet to be given, reports indicate that the proposed U.S. arms sale to several Gulf Arab nations will be between $5 billion and $20 billion. The countries to receive U.S. arms are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

U.S. military aid to Israel is to increase from $2.4 billion to $3 billion dollars a year, in a newly announced $30 billion ten year package. Neighbouring Arab states that have signed peace treaties and have normalized relations with Israel, namely Egypt and Jordan are to receive $13 billion over the same period.

Though there have been angry opinion articles in the Israeli press, the Israeli government says it understands the sales are to counteract Iran's growing military might and regional influence. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons, but not the only one.

For much the same reason as above shortly after the Islamic regime swept to power in Iran in 1979, the U.S. and the west supported Saddam Hussein after his offensive war on Iran became defensive: because they feared that an extremist Shiite Iranian government would take Iraq and threaten the vital oil reserves of the Middle East. But why is it necessary to arm the Arab states now, when the U.S. army is in Iraq, preventing Iran taking the country let alone advancing into the Middle East proper?

The U.S. announcing such a massive arms sale to the Arab states, which has been long opposed by the U.S.' main ally in the region -- Israel -- suggests that a U.S. pullout from Iraq could be closer than Bush wants to admit.

Iraq is a predominantly Shiite state and Iran is not without influence in southern Iraq's Shiite communities, powerful militias and even the U.S. imposed Shiite government. There has long been talk of Iran's involvement on the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian violence, as there has been talk of Saudi and other Arab state's involvement in it on the Sunni side. For the U.S. to add $20 billion worth of fuel to that proxy fire also suggests their troops will be out of the way when the proverbial **** hits the fan.

Now, the other story in the region at the moment -- relating to the arms sale -- is the new momentum behind resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, with widespread reports that Bush is determined to force both sides into agreement before he leaves office early 2009. According to most analysts the Arab Peace initiative still offers the best chance of such a resolution, not least because it supersedes the Hamas-Fatah power-struggle -- both support the initiative.

The Arab Peace initiative offers Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which should be a guarantee of Israeli security, in return for their withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (returning Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Palestinian control), and finding a just solution to the refugee issue.

Returning the land, especially even part of Jerusalem, which is an equally holy city for both Arab and Jew (hence their history of brutal wars over it), is a hard pill for the Israeli government to swallow, and harder to sell to their population, especially since Israel's military strength and reputation for brutal retaliation and collective punishment has all but guaranteed Israeli security already.

Israel has won four wars with its surrounding Arab neighbours, two of those without U.S. help. Since the U.S. started its support of Israel they have become the strongest military power in the region by far. The proposed arms sale changes that, as part of Bush's strategy to resolve the conflict as his legacy.

For a start the sale will make the Israeli population feel threatened for the first time in over two decades. It will make the Arab states a possible threat to Israel again, and at an ideal time. With Olmert struggling to stay in power he may feel pressured to accept the Arab initiative, return the Palestinian land and adequately compensate the refugees to guarantee the security of a suddenly threatened population.

For once Bush may have got something right. The arms sale, Olmert's dwindling popularity and a U.S. administration determined to resolve the conflict pronto, combine to make this conflict look a lot closer to finally being resolved. All eyes will be on the proposed peace conference later this year -- mine included.

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.

International Community: Divide and Function Part III

By Liam Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renouncing all forms of violence:

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

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

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

And Recognize Israel's right to exist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Offer for Peace: Disarming Hamas and Fatah

By Liam Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mideast Peace -- Now or Maybe Never

Liam Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamas Shooting: Senseless Violence

By Liam Bailey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparing to Attack Iran: The Neocon Roadmap to War

Liam Bailey

I was talking about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran in the very near future with my dad the other day. Now my dad doesn't follow politics or current affairs as avidly as me, i.e. he watches the T.V. news if it happens to be on, but his exact words were, "yeah, it's bubbling away nicely innit." For those not from Yorkshire in England innit means isn't it. "Bubbling away nicely" said it all for me; it put into words my own feelings on the matter. Small steps, none too significant but all in succession are threatening to lead us into another war, and I don't think anything can stop it.

Like everybody else I believed the Afghanistan invasion was purely a response to 9/11. Then the blame for the attack was shifted to Iraq, followed by rapidly intensified pressure over Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction and immediate threat to the Western world, leading very quickly to another invasion. This made me suspicious. So when Iran became the focus shortly after, I immediately started thinking Iran is the next target. Of course by that time I was a fully paid up subscriber to the theory that the two invasions were part of a massive imperialistic drive by the Neoconservatives. I waned on that when Iraq became such a massive failure and its cost spiralled.

I waned further still when I read an article, the gist of which was that the massive amount of U.S. money being spent on funding wars is threatening the very future of America, if Iran is attacked the threat will be multiplied. The U.S. war budget is running higher than America's Gross Domestic Product meaning America is spiralling deeper into debt. It went on to explain that much of America's debt is owned by banks in countries on the opposite side of the Iran debate, in the main China.

The author feared that China could wait till America was at a critically weak point, i.e. another few years of such massive defence spending and pull the rug out from under Washington. I disbelieved America would put its overstretched economy at risk by again putting its overstretched military into another --suicidally-- difficult mission.

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are currently at an all time high. China and Russia are strong allies. U.S. money is important to the Chinese economy, in capitalist investments, exports and interest payments, but I have no doubt that China would favour Russia over the U.S if the chips were down. So, the rug probably won't be removed until the Chinese economy can, not only survive, but continue to grow without U.S. money, which will probably never happen, or the chips are down, which should make me even surer that the U.S won't attack Iran.

However, in the last two weeks or so, major changes have happened. Firstly when U.S. plans for an Iran attack were released it was stated what would be needed to warrant such an attack and for the first time two things were mentioned, not only proof of a working nuclear weapon, but proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths in Iraq. I saw this as laying the groundwork in preparation for U.S. plans being good to go, and then all of sudden we'll see a "smoking gun" and all hell will break loose.

This was followed just days later by a positive buzz in the mainstream media, from U.S. officials claiming to have "compelling evidence" that components for a new type of roadside bomb, explosively formed projectiles (EFP), which are capable of piercing armoured vehicles at 100 yards, were manufactured in Iran.

There has been a lot of hype also about the EFP's being an advanced weapon, to strengthen the case for Iranian involvement in their manufacture. From what I can gather they aren't all that advanced. A six-nine inch steel pipe, sealed at one end with a projectile of shaped steel or copper either inside the pipe or fitted to the other end, therefore anyone with explosives, metal and a lump of pipe can make an EFP. As most of the attacks on U.S. forces come from Sunni's who are equally as busy killing Iran's Shia brethren, obviously there are many bomb makers in Iraq quite capable of making an EFP and nothing to do with Iran.

U.S. generals in Iraq, who likely see the Bush administration attempting similar propaganda as led to the carnage their troops are struggling to survive in Iraq, have since came out denying the proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths.

The question is: why has the future of such a dominant country been placed in the hands of China, at best a reluctant ally? And why does war with Iran and an increased risk to America's future hegemony seem so likely?

The answer: the Neocon's thirst for oil, allegiance to Israel and control of Bush administration foreign policy.

In the case of Afghanistan, a massively profitable UNOCAL pipeline was being hindered by the uncooperative Taliban regime. When 9/11 provided justification for an invasion and it was rapidly successful in removing the Taliban from power, Hamid Karzai, previously on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as Prime Minister. Neocon Zalmay Khalizad, also on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. That part of the plan was complete, and the blame for 9/11 was then put on Saddam Hussein to, along with other fabrications, justify another invasion of an oil rich country. The Neocons' UNOCAL operative Zalmay Khalizad was moved to Iraq in his U.S. ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits.

Now the case is being made for a third invasion of an oil rich country. Iran is in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan meaning an invasion can easily force Iran to fight a war on two fronts, suggesting that indeed, this may well have been their plan from the start. Many people will believe the line that any attack will be from the air only, but the U.S attack plans released recently suggest otherwise. When the gun starts smoking the plan is to attack not only Iran's fledgling nuclear sites, but to take out their entire military-industrial complex in a series of devastating air-strikes. Shock and Awe all over again.

Of course, it has been written many times that Iran's military will be a lot harder to take out than Iraq's was. So the bombing will probably be intensified, prolonged, will definitely involve bunker busting bombs and possibly even tactical nuclear weapons. Once Iran's military-industrial complex has been decimated Iran's rich oil reserves will be easy pickings for the U.S. forces occupying countries either side. The neocons taking up such prominent positions in the Bush administration will make sure they go in and finish the job.

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.