Presidente Palestino amenaza con ir ante la ONU

Palestinian president threatens to go to UN
Mahmoud Abbas signs request to join several UN agencies in move that could derail US bid to salvage peace talks.
Last updated: 02 Apr 2014 09:14

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has signed a request to join several UN agencies in a move that could derail a US push to revive faltering peace talks with Israel.

"The Palestinian leadership has unanimously approved a decision to seek membership of 15 UN agencies and international treaties, beginning with the Fourth Geneva Convention," Abbas said on television on Tuesday after signing the demand during a meeting at his Ramallah headquarters in the occupied West Bank.

"The demands [for membership] will be sent immediately" to the relevant agencies, he said.

"This is not a move against America, or any other party - it is our right, and we agreed to suspend it for nine months," said Abbas.

US Secretary of State John Kerry immediately announced that he was cancelling a trip to the region on Wednesday that Washington had hoped would result in a three-way deal aimed at extending the negotiations into 2015.

"It is completely premature tonight to draw any kind of judgment, certainly any final judgment, about today's events and where things are," Kerry told reporters in Brussels, where he was attending a ministerial meeting of NATO.

Al Jazeera's Stefanie Dekker, reporting from Jerusalem, said: "Going to the UN means the potential of going for an independent state and of turning to the International Criminal Court.

"It ups the pressure on the US and on Israel, something they [Palestinians] have always threatened. During the nine months of talks Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said they would not do this. But they were promised nine times the release of this last batch of prisoners," our correspondent said.

Under the US-brokered deal that relaunched the peace talks in July, Israel said it would release 104 Palestinians held since before the 1993 Oslo peace accords in exchange for Palestine not pressing for statehood recognition at the United Nations.

"Abbas feels he has no other choice. He is in a difficult position among the Palestinians: The settlements have doubled; home demolitions of Palestinians have doubled - and it is difficult for him to justify the talks without seeing results," Dekker added.

Release of prisoners

However, Israel has refused to release the final batch of 26 prisoners, using it as a bargaining chip to try and extend talks beyond their April 29 deadline.

The Palestinians have also repeatedly threatened to resume their action through international courts and the UN over Israel's settlement expansion on occupied territory in the West Bank and in annexed Arab East Jerusalem.

Israel on Tuesday reissued tenders for hundreds of settler homes in the East Jerusalem settlement neighbourhood of Gilo, on top of the thousands of new homes it has announced since July.

Prior to Abbas' announcement, Kerry had been due back in the region for a meeting with the Palestinian president on Wednesday, after a whirlwind visit on Monday and Tuesday.

Talks in limbo after Palestinian UN move
Hopes of breakthrough in negotiations with Israel fade after President Abbas pursues efforts to join 15 UN agencies.
Dalia Hatuqa Last updated: 02 Apr 2014 11:00


A senior Palestinian official has said there is no link between the Palestinians' move to join international organisations and a return to the negotiating table with Israel.

The comments from Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Palestine Liberation Organisation's director-general, came a day after the Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas said he had begun steps to join 15 international agencies and conventions, leading to speculation that negotiations with the Israelis had collapsed.

On Wednesday, there were signs that the move by Abbas to sign more than a dozen international conventions does not necessarily spell the end of negotiations between Palestinians and Israel.

A Palestinian source, speaking to Israel Radio, said that the PA was willing to hold off on sending applications to these international organisations should Israel release the final batch of detainees jailed before the 1993 Oslo peace accords, as originally agreed between the parties.

Abed Rabbo said Israel's failure to release the last batch of detainees left the Palestinians with little choice but to turn to international bodies. He said that the Palestinian move did not constitute a breach of the terms of the agreement which brought about a resumption of peace talks in July 2013.

"The Palestinian administration only offered to put their international organisation memberships on hold for nine months in exchange for the prisoner release," he said.

Prisoners' release

Israel had pledged to free 104 veteran Palestinian prisoners in four tranches, and in exchange, Ramallah had pledged to freeze all moves to seek membership in UN organisations until April 2014. But a crisis erupted at the weekend when Israel refused to release the final 26 prisoners, enraging the Palestinians who on Tuesday responded by resuming their approach to international agencies.

The PA said the list of the institutions and conventions it would become party to included the four Geneva Conventions, which lay down the standards of international law for war and occupation, and treaties and protocols on human, children and women's rights as well as conventions on anti-corruption and consular relations.

While most Israeli officials have kept silent on Abbas' move on Tuesday, an Israeli minister said the the Palestinians will "pay a heavy price" for requesting to join international institutions. The punitive measures he proposed included annexing large swathes of West Bank land and withholding financial aid to the PA.

On Tuesday night, several demonstrations were held across the West Bank in support of the PA's move to join international conventions and treaties. In Ramallah, Palestinians stood outside Abbas' presidential headquarters holding Palestinian flags and Fatah party banners. Similar protests took place in Bethlehem, Hebron and Jenin.

In the meantime, a settlement watchdog group said Israel was pushing ahead with plans to build more than 700 units in the settlement of Gilo built on East Jerusalem land. The move could present another obstacle in the deeply troubled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the group, Peace Now, said.

PLO asserts commitment to talks with Israel

Palestine's signing of international conventions casts shadow on peace talks' future, as Kerry cancels Ramallah visit.
Dalia Hatuqa Last updated: 02 Apr 2014 19:09

The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) has said its decision to seek membership to several UN organisations should not mean an end to US-brokered peace talks with Israel, where officials have warned of hefty prices to be paid for the move.

The PLO's director general Yasser Abed Rabbo said on Wednesday that Palestinians were committed to negotiations, and that there was no link between the move to become signatory to the 15 international conventions and a return to the negotiating table with Israel.
"The Palestinian leadership respects its commitments and wants the political process to continue, but we want a real political process, without tricks," Abed Rabbo said. "We will continue our efforts with the US administration, and will do everything we can to remove all obstacles."

His comments to the media come a day after the Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas said Palestine had begun steps to become party to 15 international conventions, leading to speculation that peace talks with the Israelis were dead.

The Palestinians want US efforts to salvage the peace process to continue, Abed Rabbo clarified. "We hope (US Secretary of State John) Kerry's efforts will be renewed in the coming days," he told reporters in Ramallah. "Kerry knows the reality. We don't want these efforts to finish."

The PLO is the highest representative body for Palestinians worldwide. The PA was created for a provisional period to manage the territories Israel withdraws from in accordance with the Oslo Accords signed between the PLO and Israel in 1993.

'Little choice'

Abed Rabbo said Israel's failure to release the last batch of pre-Oslo detainees left the Palestinians with little choice but to turn to international bodies, adding that the Palestinian move did not constitute a breach of the terms of the agreement which brought about a resumption of peace talks in July 2013.

"The Palestinian administration only offered to put their international organisation memberships on hold for nine months in exchange for the prisoner release," he said.

In a statement released on Wednesday, the PLO said "the release of prisoners was not formally linked to the negotiations process," and that the move to turn to international organisations "does not mean that [the] negotiations process is over. Indeed, the PLO remains committed to this nine month process, which ends on April 29."

Israel had pledged to free 104 veteran Palestinian prisoners in four tranches, and in exchange, Ramallah had pledged to freeze all moves to seek membership in UN organisations until April 2014. But a crisis erupted at the weekend when Israel refused to release the final 26 prisoners, prompting a Palestinian response of resuming their approach to international agencies.

The PA said the list of the institutions and conventions it would become party to included the four Geneva Conventions (which lay down the standards of international law for war and occupation) and treaties and protocols on human, children and women's rights as well as conventions on anti-corruption and diplomatic and consular relations.

The International Criminal Court was not on the list, which suggests that the move was largely intended as a pressure tactic. The ICC could theoretically open the way to war crimes charges against Israel over its settlement construction on illegally occupied territory.

'Heavy price'

While most Israeli officials have kept mum on Abbas' move on Tuesday, an Israeli minister said the Palestinians will "pay a heavy price" for requesting to join international institutions. The punitive measures he proposed included annexing large swaths of occupied West Bank land and withholding financial aid to the PA.

Kerry, who had been piecing together a complex three-way deal to push the faltering negotiations into 2015, cancelled a visit Ramallah, planned for Wednesday.

"It is completely premature tonight to draw any kind of judgment, certainly any final judgment, about todays' events and where things are," Kerry told reporters on Tuesday in Brussels, where he was attending a ministerial meeting of NATO. "We are continuing even now as I am speaking, to be engaged with both parties to find the best way forward," he said.

On Tuesday night, several demonstrations were held across the West Bank in support of the PA's move to join international conventions and treaties. In Ramallah, Palestinians stood outside Abbas' presidential headquarters holding Palestinian flags and Fatah party banners. Similar protests took place in Bethlehem, Hebron and Jenin.

In the meantime, a settlement watchdog group said Israel was pushing ahead with plans to build more than 700 units in the settlement of Gilo built on East Jerusalem land. The move could present another obstacle in the deeply troubled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Peace Now said.

Palestinian president takes a defiant stand

Will recent decisions by Mahmoud Abbas boost Palestinian rights?

Inside Story Last updated: 03 Apr 2014 19:26


Mahmoud Abbas signed more than a dozen international conventions, saying he took this course because Israel failed to release a group of Palestinian prisoners, as promised.

The Palestinians are looking for greater leverage against Israel on the international stage. But their decision prompted US Secretary of State John Kerry to cancel a trip to the region on Wednesday.

During a visit to Algeria, Kerry said negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis were at a critical moment.

For its part, the Israeli government said it had done all it could to try to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said it is up to the Palestinians no to do more.

But how effective will Mahmoud Abbas's strategy be? And could it backfire?

Presenter: Sami Zeidan

Guests:

Husam Zomlot: Senior foreign adviser for Fatah.

Gerald Steinberg: Professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan Univeristy

Ben White: Author of "Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy"

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/04/palestinian-presidenttakes-defiant-stand-201443172647776278.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlxRNhXGp78

Palestinians ready to widen recognition bid
Abbas' aide says Palestine to sign up for additional UN agencies and treaties if talks collapse after April 29 deadline.
Last updated: 07 Apr 2014 19:17


Israel has reportedly asked President Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw the letters of accession to the agencies [EPA]

The Palestinians are ready to sign up the "state of Palestine" for additional international agencies and treaties if US peace efforts collapse after an April 29 deadline for a deal, a senior official said.

The warning by Mohammed Ishtayeh, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, came on Monday as US mediators tried to defuse the worst crisis in the negotiations since Secretary of State John Kerry persuaded the two sides last summer to resume talks for nine months, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Under the terms of renewed talks, Israel promised to release 104 long-held Palestinian prisoners in four groups, while the Palestinians said they would suspend a campaign to sign up Palestine, recognised by the UN General Assembly as a non-member observer state in 2012, for as many as 63 UN agencies, treaties and conventions.

After Israel last week failed to release the fourth group of prisoners on time, Abbas signed letters of accession for 15 international conventions.

Israel then said the final prisoner release was off the table.

Accession requests irreversible

Israel has since asked Abbas to withdraw the letters of accession, according to an Israeli official close to the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to discuss the dealings between the two sides with the media.

Ishtayeh said the accession requests were irreversible.

Kerry originally hoped for a peace deal by April 29. He lowered his sights after months without progress, saying he sought a framework deal by that date.

In recent weeks, negotiations focused on reaching agreement on extending the talks into 2015.

Ishtayeh said the Palestinians "are keeping the door open for any serious talks" until April 29, but that gaps on almost all issues have only widened and that Israel is not negotiating in good faith.

Israel has also accused the Palestinians of not being serious about reaching a deal.

Ishtayeh said the Palestinians will not agree to an extension unless Israel first agrees to release the final group of prisoners.

If it becomes apparent by April 29 that Kerry's efforts have collapsed, the Palestinians are set to resume the recognition campaign, Ishtayeh said, without giving a timeline.

Israeli retaliation

The 63 agencies, treaties and conventions have been divided into four groups, he said, adding that "the second tranche of UN organisations is ready for signing".

Asked about possible Israeli retaliation, Ishtayeh said he believes the Palestinians can count on continued financial aid from Europe and the Arab world.

Israel could face increasing international isolation if the Palestinian campaign for wider recognition succeeds, according to AP.

Israel has argued that it is a means of sidestepping negotiations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that "we are ready to continue talks," while condemning the Palestinian moves.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met for several hours on Sunday in the presence of a US mediator. The US consulate in Jerusalem said the meeting was "serious and constructive".

Palestinians must abandon the 'peace process'


Palestinians should not accept the current peace deal proposed by the US.
Last updated: 03 Apr 2014 14:01


[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Dr Ghada Karmi is the author of Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine.


[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
West Bank settlements are to expand with 2,553 new units, writes Karmi [EPA]

No term in the Israeli-Palestinians political lexicon has been so abused or so denuded of meaning as the "peace process". It was set up after the Oslo Accords in 1993, to settle the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians by peaceful negotiations, but has led nowhere.

Yet it is still ongoing, its latest manifestation launched in August 2013, when US Secretary of State John Kerry put forward an ambitious plan to resolve all the major issues that have bedevilled the conflict within the space of nine months. The result he envisaged was a "final-status agreement" over borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees, which when resolved, would supposedly end the conflict for good.

Now close to the deadline proposed by Kerry, it is clear that no settlement is in the offing. Desperate to salvage the process, Kerry has come up with the idea of a "Framework Agreement" that sets out basic principles for the two sides to negotiate on in future. This, he hopes, will keep the "peace process" going for longer.

Thwarting peace

Yet Israel's policy has been the exact opposite. In December 2013, Israeli ministers voted eight to three to annex the Jordan valley, and from the start of this year, West Bank settlements were set to be expanded by 2,553 new housing units. A law preventing the Israeli prime minister from discussing the status of Jerusalem or the refugee issue at the peace talks without prior majority approval from the Israeli parliament, was proposed in January.
Head to Head - Have Palestinian leaders failed their people?

The Israeli prime minister subsequently assured his Likud party ministers and other Israeli political figures that he would reject any mention of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem in the Framework Agreement. Israel has also reiterated its refusal to permit any return of the Palestinians refugees within its borders, and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has been pushing for a transfer of Arabs living in the Triangle area of the Galilee to Palestinian Authority rule. To all these conditions has been added the requirement to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

In an attempt to deter the US secretary of state further, senior Israeli officials have been accusing him of being an anti-Semite. The final straw came last week when Israel refused to release 26 Palestinian prisoners, the last of a total of 104 long time prisoners whose release was agreed on as a condition for the Palestinians' participation in the revived peace negotiations, last summer. Fearing that they would now pull out as a result of this Israeli breach of its commitments, the US has been making frantic efforts to prevent such an outcome, proposing an extension of the talks beyond the April 29 deadline. Israel has responded by offering to release the prisoners but only if the Palestinians agree to the talks' extension.

Simple facts

These absurd political manoeuvrings only serve to obscure the fundamental reality. In trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kerry's task is impossible to realise. This is not, as is often misleadingly asserted, because the issues are complex or because "painful compromises" are needed from both sides. The issues, in fact, are so embarrassingly simple it is an insult to the intelligence to have to set them down.

In plain English, one side has stolen land and resources belonging to the other and refuses to give them up. The thief is supported by powerful external agencies, while the losing side has no equivalent support. In this situation, it would be normal to call on an independent force or arbiter to compel the thief to return the stolen goods, and "compromise" would not be applicable.

But in the peace process as configured by those on the side of the thief, there is no independent agency, only an "arbiter" whose starting point is one of total commitment to the thief's welfare. How then, to solve the conflict that has arisen because of the robbery, but without penalising the robber or forcing him to return the booty? That, in essence, is where the problem lies for Kerry and his predecessors.

The "peace process" has all along been predicated on these lines, that Israel's welfare is paramount. What this has meant in practise is that pressure can only be applied to the Palestinians, and the ineffectual Arab states. Since Israel long ago won the battle to keep 80 percent of Palestine, the area behind the 1967 border and referred to as "Israel proper", it is the 20 percent that remains which Israel is fighting to keep.

Kerry's negotiations are concerned with how to divide that 20 percent in Israel's favour while giving the Palestinians something too. Since whatever he proposes requires Israel's agreement, the only room for manoeuvring he has, is to minimise the offer to the Palestinians even further to ensure Israel's acquiescence. On the other hand, if the offer is too inadequate, the Palestinians will not accept it. This dilemma has forced Kerry to draw up an interim agreement and to propose a time extension for further negotiations.  

Dividing up the 20 percent

His Framework Agreement has not been published yet, as all peace talks have been conducted in total secrecy, but from various leaks and reports it would seem that it deals with all the major questions. Israel would retain its major West Bank settlements, annexing up to 10 percent of the land.
Al-Nakba - Episode 1

The Palestinians would receive 5.5 percent of as yet unspecified Israeli land in return. Israel would have to give up the Jordan Valley, to be subsequently policed by either NATO or combined Jordanian-US troops, or some combination of troops from friendly Muslim states, with Israeli oversight of the Jordan border and the right of veto over entrants. Gaza would be connected to the West Bank by bridges or tunnels. Israel would evacuate its forces from the new demilitarised Palestinian state over a period of five years, and NATO could take their place.

The Palestinian capital would be outside Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, in the villages adjoining East Jerusalem like al-Ram, Abu Dis, or al-Aizariyya, and a multi-national committee would be in charge of the holy places in the old city. The right of refugee return would be dealt with through an international compensation fund for refugees and offers of immigration to Australia, with a token number of returnees to Israel. If all that is agreed, it would constitute the end of the conflict. Kerry is reported to be pressing both sides hard to accept these ideas, many of which have been aired before and already largely accepted by the Palestinian leadership. It is Israel that is likely not to agree, and herein lies Kerry's problem.

Intimidation and redemption

Kerry's plan contains many of the features of previous peace proposals. None of them answers to international law, Palestinian rights or elemental justice. As a Haaretz article candidly put it on January 6, to succeed, Kerry's plan demands no less than a total and abject Palestinian surrender to Israeli and US diktat. And for that reason, it should be rejected outright without extensions or delays. The Palestinians should immediately join all the UN bodies open to "Palestine" as a non-member state and especially the International Criminal Court where they must initiate proceedings against Israel's breaches of international law. They must call for an international conference to discuss a settlement of the conflict and the resolution of all their fundamental rights.

That none of this has happened so far is testament to the intimidation practised by Israel and its allies on the Palestinian leadership. They have been persuaded that pragmatism and real politik is the best option. Israel is too powerful to fight and so they should settle for what is possible. This pernicious idea has been the guiding principle of the Palestinian negotiators, with the inevitable consequence that they have been forced to concede more of their rights with each round of talks.

To this sorry state of affairs has now been added an explicit US threat, that if the Palestinians reject the Kerry peace plan, they will face a political and economic blockade. All US and European aid will stop and they will be isolated. No Arab state has so far stepped in to make up for these threatened Palestinian losses, and most are, anyway, involved with conflicts inside their own borders.

At this moment in history the world appears weary of the Palestine problem and wants to see it end. But it is imperative that the Palestinians do not respond to this situation by selling their case cheap. It is true they are weak, but they have one strength: to say "No". No peace plan can go ahead without their assent, and Kerry and his proposals will come to nothing if they refuse them. They have alternatives and it would be irresponsible not to use them. Applying to accede to 15 multilateral treaties and conventions as the Palestinian president has just done on behalf of "Palestine" is a good start, but it is not enough. The Palestinian leadership, for too long timid and self-serving, finally has a chance to redeem itself.

Dr Ghada Karmi is the author of Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Por: Redacción / Sinembargo - abril 8 de 2014 - 3:27


Jerusalén, 8 abr (EFE).- Palestinos e israelíes han acordado seguir los contactos entre sus negociadores Saeb Erekat y Tzipi Livni, respectivamente, para tratar de evitar el colapso del proceso iniciado el año pasado bajo la mediación de EU

Así lo informó hoy la radio pública israelí después de la segunda reunión que ambos han mantenido en las últimas 48 horas, en la que también ha participado el enviado estadounidense, Martin Indyk, y que la emisora describió como “centrada”.

En un encuentro que tuvo lugar a última hora del lunes en Jerusalén, y del que no se ha difundido más información, ambos acordaron proseguir el diálogo para salir del atolladero en el que entraron hace diez días, cuando Israel dejó en suspenso la liberación de la cuarta tanda de presos palestinos.

Poco después, el presidente palestino, Mahmud Abás, firmó quince solicitudes de adhesión a tratados y convenciones internacionales, y Erekat anunció nuevas condiciones para reanudar un diálogo con Israel.

Un proceso que quedó embarrado, asimismo, por la decisión israelí de sacar a concurso, en plena crisis, la construcción de 700 viviendas en el territorio ocupado de Cisjordania y Jerusalén Este.

El desencuentro, que amenaza con tirar abajo los esfuerzos de paz del secretario de Estado de EEUU, John Kerry, parece por el momento contenido.

“Las diferencias continúan pero ambas partes están comprometidas a resolverlas”, anunció esta madrugada desde Washington la portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Jen Psaki.

La reunión de anoche se produjo tras la advertencia que formuló el pasado viernes el secretario de Estado, quien anunció que Washington está reconsiderando su papel en futuras negociaciones de paz en Oriente Medio.

La radio militar israelí informó hoy de que Kerry se entrevistará el miércoles con el jefe de la diplomacia israelí, Avigdor Lieberman, que se encuentra en Washington, para tratar de consolidar el rescate del proceso negociador

El objetivo más urgente es conseguir que las conversaciones continúen más allá del 29 de abril -fin del plazo inicial de nueve meses que las partes se dieron en julio pasado.

Según la propuesta de EEUU, Israel deberá liberar inmediatamente a la cuarta tanda de 30 presos y comprometerse a excarcelar a otros cientos hasta fin de año.

Como gesto de buena voluntad, Washington anunciaría el indulto para Jonathan Pollard, un exanalista civil de inteligencia de la Marina estadounidense que en la década de 1980 fue condenado por espionaje en uno de los mayores escándalos en las relaciones entre ambos países y que, años después, se nacionalizó israelí.

Kerry deberá convencer a Lieberman para que dé su apoyo al paquete de rescate después de que éste y otros portavoces israelíes hayan anunciado que la fórmula original planteada al abrirse al crisis había dejado de ser relevante.

Israel también ha exigido a los palestinos que retiren las quince solicitudes de adhesión, una estrategia para la que el presidente Abás y el ministro palestino de Asuntos Exteriores, Riad al Malki, pedirán mañana el apoyo de la Liga Árabe.

En una rueda de prensa en Ramala, el dirigente palestino Mohamed Stayeh subrayó el lunes que la puerta del diálogo permanece abierta, pero que éste ya no puede caminar por la misma senda que antes y que Israel debe mostrar que tiene “un plan serio para poner fin a la ocupación” de Cisjordania. EFE

Latest round of talks comes as Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are faltering, and Hamas is increasingly isolated.
Fares Akram Last updated: 22 Apr 2014 10:54

The West Bank delegation is expected to meet with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Tuesday [Reuters]

Gaza City, Gaza – A delegation sent by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is set to arrive in the Gaza Strip for a new round of Palestinian reconciliation talks with rival political faction Hamas.

The West Bank delegation is expected to arrive on Tuesday afternoon and will have its first meeting with Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas' Gaza-based prime minister.

Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, told Al Jazeera that the five-member delegation includes officials from Abbas' Fatah party, leftist factions in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Palestinian businessman Munib al-Masri.


Barghouti said Israel tried to block the delegation at Erez crossing, on Gaza's northern border with Israel, but it allowed the delegates through "after [they] threatened… to travel through Egypt".

Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian political factions, have been divided since factional fighting broke out after Hamas' victory in Palestinian legislative council elections in 2006.

A year later, Hamas took control of the besieged Gaza Strip, while the US-backed Palestinian Authority rules over parts of the occupied West Bank.

Barghouti said the discussions on Tuesday would focus on implementing earlier reconciliation agreements brokered by Egypt and Qatar in 2011 and 2012. The Doha Agreement stipulated that presidential and legislative elections be held under the direction of Abbas.

"In brief, there must be no selectivity in implementing the agreements we signed," Yahia Moussa, a Gaza-based Hamas official, told Al Jazeera. "All the files should be tackled side-by-side."

On Tuesday, Egypt allowed a senior Hamas official, Moussa Abu Marzouk, into Gaza through Rafah crossing to take part in the discussions. Hamas also released 10 Fatah prisoners before the meeting as a goodwill gesture.

Abu Thaer, one of the released Fatah prisoners, said: "This is a good step to achieve reconciliation. We hope there will be more steps… as there are still other Fatah members in Hamas jails for more than seven years."

The latest round of talks comes as the two factions are under outside pressure. The PA is dealing with the looming breakdown of US-sponsored peace negotiations with Israel, while Hamas is attempting to ease a severe economic crisis in Gaza, largely due to a breakdown in relations with neighbouring Egypt.

Palestinian president takes a defiant stand
Last updated: 03 Apr 2014 19:26



Mahmoud Abbas signed more than a dozen international conventions, saying he took this course because Israel failed to release a group of Palestinian prisoners, as promised.

The Palestinians are looking for greater leverage against Israel on the international stage. But their decision prompted US Secretary of State John Kerry to cancel a trip to the region on Wednesday.

During a visit to Algeria, Kerry said negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis were at a critical moment.

For its part, the Israeli government said it had done all it could to try to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said it is up to the Palestinians no to do more.

Palestine to join 13 international conventions in move expected to further upset talks with Israel.
Last updated: 11 Apr 2014 00:17

Mahmoud Abbas threatened to join the UN agencies after Israel refused to release Palestinian prisoners [AP]

The United Nations has accepted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' request to join several UN agencies.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon accepted the applications to join 13 international conventions, and informed all 193 member states they were made in "in due and proper form."

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters Thursday that Ban informed all 193 UN member states of his acceptance, the Associated Press news agency reported.

The move comes after Israel refused to release a final batch of 26 prisoners, in an attempt to extend talks beyond their April 29 deadline, with the Palestinians retaliating by signing letters of accession to 15 international conventions.

Thirteen were deposited at the UN, one in Geneva, and one in the Netherlands.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN ambassador, said on Tuesday that Palestine will officially become a state party to 13 of the 15 conventions on May 2 and is ready with more applications to join UN agencies, conventions and treaties depending on Israel's actions.
Source:
Associated Press

Rival Palestinian groups are in Gaza for talks aimed at ending "ugly split" that has fractured relations since 2006.
Fares Akram Last updated: 22 Apr 2014 22:07

The West Bank delegation is expected to meet with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Tuesday [Reuters]

Gaza City, Gaza – A delegation sent by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has arrived in the Gaza Strip for a new round of Palestinian reconciliation talks with rival political faction Hamas.

The West Bank delegation arrived on Tuesday afternoon and went to a reception at the home of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's Gaza-based prime minister.

The five-member delegation includes officials from Abbas' Fatah party, leftist factions in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Palestinian businessman Munib al-Masri.

The official talks will start on Wednesday.


Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian political factions, have been divided since factional fighting broke out after Hamas' victory in Palestinian legislative council elections in 2006.

"The current phase is the phase of implementing what was signed in the past, not making dialogues to reach new understandings," Haniyeh said.

"We are in the final hours."

Fatah's Azzam al-Ahmad said he was happy the time had come for the factions to "end the ugly split".

"The ball is in our court as Palestinians and we should not disappoint our people and we should go ahead with reconciliation," al-Ahmad said.

Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, earlier told Al Jazeera that Israel tried to block the delegation at Erez crossing, on Gaza's northern border with Israel, but it allowed the delegates through "after [they] threatened… to travel through Egypt".

A year later, Hamas took control of the besieged Gaza Strip, while the US-backed Palestinian Authority rules over parts of the occupied West Bank.

Barghouti said the discussions would focus on implementing earlier reconciliation agreements brokered by Egypt and Qatar in 2011 and 2012. The Doha Agreement stipulated that presidential and legislative elections be held under the direction of Abbas.

"In brief, there must be no selectivity in implementing the agreements we signed," Yahia Moussa, a Gaza-based Hamas official, told Al Jazeera. "All the files should be tackled side-by-side."

On Tuesday, Egypt allowed a senior Hamas official, Moussa Abu Marzouk, into Gaza through Rafah crossing to take part in the discussions. Hamas also released 10 Fatah prisoners before the meeting as a goodwill gesture.

Abu Thaer, one of the released Fatah prisoners, said: "This is a good step to achieve reconciliation. We hope there will be more steps… as there are still other Fatah members in Hamas jails for more than seven years."

The latest round of talks comes as the two factions are under outside pressure. The PA is dealing with the looming breakdown of US-sponsored peace negotiations with Israel, while Hamas is attempting to ease a severe economic crisis in Gaza, largely due to a breakdown in relations with neighbouring Egypt.
Source:
Al Jazeera

Palestinian leaders in Gaza reach agreement to form a national unity government ending seven-year rift.
Last updated: 23 Apr 2014 20:08


A meeting of Palestinian leaders in Gaza has reached a milestone reconciliation pact that will see rival Palestinian groups form a national consensus government in five weeks - after seven years of operating under separate administrations.

Under the agreement announced on Wednesday, rival groups Fatah and Hamas will form a government together under the umbrella of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The groups plan to form a national unity government in five weeks and will hold elections in six months.

At a news conference, leaders of all the groups said the past divisions had taken a toll on the Palestinian goal of establishing an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader who announced the terms of the agreement, said the deal came as "the entire city of Jerusalem has been painted Jewish with an attempt to wipe out the Arab identity and desecrate the Muslim and Christian sanctities".

Azzam al-Ahmed, the Fatah delegation head, said he hoped the pact "will be a true beginning for a true partnership in all our spectrums; political, social and societal".

The Palestinian factions have been at odds and sometimes even at war with each other since 2007 – following Hamas’s democratic win in Gaza.

Since then, Hamas has independently ruled the 40-kilometre long Gaza strip, home to nearly 2 million Palestinians - while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, from Fatah, governs areas of the West Bank – home to more than 2 million Palestinians.

The two-sides met and signed deals in 2011 and 2012 in meetings in Cairo and Doha – but never with the desired result of unification.

The new agreement, reached in only two days, will honour the terms of both agreements.

The deal also comes at a crucial time when the US-led talks between the Israelis and Palestinians are at a stalemate.

Israel cancelled a session of peace negotiations scheduled for Wednesday night after the announcement of a new Palestinian government.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said in a statement that "whoever chooses Hamas does not want peace".

"I said this morning that Abu Mazen (the Fatah-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) needs to choose between peace with Israel and an agreement with Hamas, a murderous terrorist organisation that calls for the destruction of Israel and which both the United States and the European Union define as a terrorist organisation," Netanyahu said.

Avigdor Liberman, the Israeli foreign minister, described the signing of the agreement as "tantamount to a signature on the end of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority".

Some Palestinians, weathered by divisions in the past, told Al Jazeera they remained sceptical of the new agreement.

Ramallah resident Nur Hamad, said she supported reconciliation "because we have to be one nation".

"No factions, only a Palestinian nation, but I don't think Fatah and Hamas are going to succeed," Hamad said.

And Mariam abu Daqqa, an activist in Gaza said, "We are saying to both Fatah and Hamas for the sake of Palestine and the Palestinian children, you must get unified against the Israeli occupation."
Source:
Al Jazeera

Middle East

Government approved 14,000 new homes on occupied land during nine months of US-brokered talks, Israeli monitor says.
Last updated: 29 Apr 2014 14:38



[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
All Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory are illegal under international law [AP]

Israel promoted plans or approved tenders for nearly 14,000 new settler homes on occupied Palestinian land during the nine months of peace talks, an Israeli monitor group said as the negotiation period formally ended.

The Peace Now group said on Tuesday that the scale of the plans for East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank was "unprecedented", with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government approving the equivalent of about 50 new homes a day, or about 1,500 a month.

According to Peace Now's figures, there were on average about 1,385 settler homes approved during Netanyahu's first government, while an average of 1,389 a year were approved under the government of Ehud Olmert.

"Netanyahu broke construction records during the nine-month peace talks," Yariv Oppenheimer, the head of Peace Now, told the AFP news agency.

All Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory are illegal under international law.



Palestinians had wanted a complete settlement freeze as a fundamental condition of resuming talks. Netanyahu rejected the notion that settlement building ran counter to peace efforts.



The Peace Now report was released on the same day a US-imposed deadline expired for progress on Israeli-Palestinian talks.



Israel last week suspended negotiations with Palestinian leaders after Hamas, which controls the West Bank, agreed to form a unity government with the West Bank-based Fatah.



However, their progress had stuttered ever since their relaunch last year by the US secretary of state, John Kerry.

Mosque demolished

Also on Tuesday, the Reuters news agency reported that Israeli forces had demolished several structures, including a mosque, in a Palestinian village.

A Reuters correspondent witnessed several hundred soldiers deployed in Khirbet al-Taweel, in the occupied West Bank, around dawn.

They guarded six bulldozers that reduced to rubble buildings that were constructed without Israeli permits. Palestinians say such documents are nearly impossible to obtain.

Villagers said the stone mosque was built in 2008, and that soldiers removed prayer rugs and holy scriptures before tearing it down.

Other razed buildings included three one-storey family houses, animal shelters and a communal well. Locals said around
30 people were made homeless.

The Israeli army did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"I went to make my dawn prayers at the mosque and found the army surrounding it," said resident Abdel Fattah Maarouf, 63. "Then they tore it down. They want this area so they can build settlements in it."

Secretary of state says Israel risks becoming an "apartheid state" if two-state solution fails, US website reports.
Last updated: 28 Apr 2014 19:10


US Secretary of State John Kerry has said that Israel risks becoming "an apartheid state" if there is no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Kerry's comments were published on Sunday by The Daily Beast news website, which obtained a recording of his remarks on Friday to the Trilateral Commission, a non-governmental organisation which includes senior officials and experts from the US, Western Europe, Russia and Japan.

"A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second class citizens - or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state," said Kerry.

"Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to."

The US-based The Daily Beast reported that senior US officials have rarely used the term in reference to Israel.

Jen Psaki, the spokesperson for the US State Department, said: "Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers Olmert and Barak, was reiterating why there's no such thing as a one state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish State."

"[Kerry] was talking about the kind of future Israel wants and the kind of future both Israelis and Palestinians would want to envision. The only way to have two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution. And without a two state solution, the level of prosperity and security the Israeli and Palestinian people deserve isn't possible," she added.

Kerry has been conducting more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy trying to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Earlier in April, he urged Israeli and Palestinian leaders to prevent the negotiations from collapsing, saying it was regrettable that both sides have taken steps recently that are not helpful in promoting peace and ending the decades-long conflict between the two sides.

The "crime of apartheid" include "inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime," according to the 1998 Rome Statute.

Apartheid was insitutionalised from 1948 to 1994 in South Africa, and was a means of racial classification and segregration.
Source:
The Daily Beast

Why dissolving the Palestinian Authority may just be the wisest step towards a final settlement of the conflict.
Last updated: 28 Apr 2014 07:02

Massoud A Derhally is a freelance business intelligence, risk advisory and media consultant and a former Middle East reporter for Bloomberg News.

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
With unqualified US backing, Israel has consistently put the onus on the Palestinians for the success of any peace talks, writes Derhally [AFP]

Since the launch of the so-called peace process in Madrid in 1991, the world has seen endless rounds of talks with numerous deadlines that are set, and then expire. Shuttle diplomacy efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry at securing peace between Palestinians and Israelis - as noble as they may be - were doomed to fail from the start.

Why would this round succeed when others have failed? The elusive peace agreement has always hinged on Israel's willingness to shed its colonialist aspirations, its recognition of the rights of Palestinians and fundamentally the bold acknowledgement that it wronged them in 1948. The tenuousness of reaching a solution to a 66-year-old conflict is also a reflection of how far a US president is willing to go in pressuring Israel into making meaningful concessions that can anchor a lasting peace agreement.

Over the course of more than two decades, the US has struggled to define itself as an honest peace broker in the Middle East. Its presidents and lawmakers have repeatedly capitulated to the vested interests entrenched in domestic constituencies - like AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, its allies the evangelical Christian Right coalition and the powerful settler lobby - which help define presidential elections and how foreign policy is shaped in the US.

These domestic considerations have and continue to act as the "Achilles Heel" of US policy in the Arab world. They colour US views of the region, giving Israel the latitude to act as it pleases, secure in the knowledge it will not be punished even as it continues to violate countless international laws. With this unqualified US backing, Israel has consistently put the onus on the Palestinians for the success of any peace talks while it intransigently pursued an expansionist policy that expropriated more Palestinian land and continued to build illegal settlements.

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scuttled earlier peace efforts by refusing to freeze settlement construction during US President Barack Obama's first term, Kerry tried to muster momentum towards a deal with the hope of securing a legacy for the administration akin to the 11th hour initiative by former US President Bill Clinton at Camp David in 2000. Faced with Kerry's diplomacy, the Israeli leader demanded a new maximalist condition: That Palestinians not only recognise Israel as a state but also racially as a Jewish state even though about 21 percent of its population isn't.

This definition that Israel is a Jewish state, no Palestinian leader or citizen can accept, because it means negating the Palestinian narrative.

- Ahmad Tibi, Arab-Israeli member of the Knesset

Ahmad Tibi, an Arab-Israeli member of the Knesset, told me: "No state has ever required the world to define it. With this demand, Netanyahu wants to obligate the Palestinians with a historic letter of surrender. This definition that Israel is a Jewish state, no Palestinian leader or citizen can accept, because it means negating the Palestinian narrative."

In the 1980s, faced with the first Palestinian intifada or uprising, Israel demanded the Palestinian Liberation Organization recognise its right to exist before any dialogue takes place between the two parties. Arafat did so twice: In 1988 in Sweden and bearing an olive branch, again at the United Nations General Assembly in Geneva after the US denied him a visa to travel to New York. Most significantly, he did so conceding 78 percent of historic Palestine, marking perhaps the most salient concession ever given to Israel since its creation.

Arafat's 1988 pivotal concession at the UN became a benchmark for Israel in negotiations, paving the way for decades of flawed peace talks that were based on the outcome of the 1967 Six Day War. The emerging narrative assumes the occupation of Palestinians began two decades after Israel's creation and crucially negates past historical facts like the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. This became the framework for future negotiations. A lack of reference to the root of the conflict; namely the expulsion and exodus of more than 750,000 indigenous Palestinians and the absence of restitution or compensation for their descendants is inherently why peace talks have failed.

It's no surprise then that the Olso peace process, concluded on the White House lawn between the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his Israeli counterpart Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, did not end the conflict. The Declaration of Principles as it is known was a framework agreement that allowed Israel to manage the conflict without providing any firm commitments on its part to the Palestinians. Major issues related to existing and future Israeli illegal settlements, water rights, the fate of Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem and discussions about an emerging Palestinian state were not addressed.

In effect, Israel was party to an agreement that had no defined outcome, yet which sought security commitments from the weaker Palestinians without recognising their narrative of suffering or right to self-determination. Talks have continued along this trajectory under Shimon Peres, Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, allowing Israel to anchor its discriminatory apartheid policies towards Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

US Vice President Joe Biden illustrated the double standards of US policies regarding Israel and its occupation of Palestinians while visiting Ukraine this month. In a speech from Kiev admonishing Russia for its presence in Crimea, Biden said: "No nation has the right to simply grab land from another nation."

Israel's colonisation, ethnic cleansing and expropriation of Palestinian land which contravene this cardinal principle, enshrined in international law after World War II, doesn't appear to meet the US threshold of land grabbing.

As the formal April 29 deadline set for the conclusion of the Middle East peace talks expires, it's clear that to bring about peace, Israel needs to move beyond the mantra and behaviour of a colonialist power, much like South Africans did.

As Tareq Abbas, son of the Palestinian president, told me: "The Israelis haven't adhered to Oslo, which was supposed to be a road to an independent state; they didn't give us a state and they didn't even give us the road to it, while always undermining... the Palestinian Authority. I used to support the two-state solution and if it happens, I will accept it, but I believe they will not give us a state so the best solution for us is to ask for our human and social rights and be citizens in one democratic country."

That anyone in Israel's leadership has the courage to follow in the path of President FW de Klerk, who set Nelson Mandela free and ended the apartheid regime in South Africa, appears unlikely at present.

Dissolving the Palestinian Authority as President Mahmoud Abbas suggested this month, after Israel reneged on releasing Palestinian prisoners, may just be the wisest step towards a final settlement of the conflict.

Massoud A Derhally is a freelance business intelligence, risk advisory and media consultant and a former Middle East reporter for Bloomberg News.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera

After 70 years of futile diplomacy and conflict, time may well be on the side of the Palestinians.
Last updated: 29 Apr 2014 12:09
John Bell

John Bell is Director of the Middle East Programme at the Toledo International Centre for Peace in Madrid.


As peace talks stand on their last legs, or threaten to morph into another extended exercise in political agony, some are already writing obituaries about the Kerry process and the two-state solution. Over the last nine months, while the talks were taking place, Israel approved tenders for 14,000 new settler homes, a pace described as "unprecedented" by Peace Now. Meanwhile, Hamas and Fatah have demonstrated surprising initiative, and announced a surprise transitional unity government to the dismay of Israel and the US mediators.

It seems very likely that another attempt has bit the dust, and gone the way of its forbearers. Indeed, many are distracted by other international events, or simply fed up with the endless peace process. During two decades of such efforta, an intifadah has occurred, Iraq was invaded, several Arab dictators have fallen, and Syria crumbled into a violent dust - and that's only in the Middle East. Time has eroded major countries and bastions of power, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict holds on, intractable, defiant of time.

Enough time has passed to know that US diplomacy doesn't work in this area, but not enough, it seems, to accept an alternative mediator, method or solution. Much has changed on the ground in Israel and Palestine as well from the rise (and decline?) of Hamas, to the strengthening of the political right in Israel. Settlement building in the West Bank has expanded, as has the gobbling up of East Jerusalem, and the refugees' plight keeps worsening, but the political solution to the conflict remains elusive.

Many have indeed concluded that the two-state solution is not feasible, leaving a troublesome selection between status quo, chronic conflict and a one-state solution. Time has passed, yet, it remains a defining factor for both peoples.

Time has eroded the idea of Israel as David vs the Arab Goliath, public and political opinion across the world is firmly with the Palestinians as the victim, even if that has not yet be translated into political pressure on Israel.

Israel continues to play for time, as it has from its genesis. A tactical brilliance, and a confidence in the practical, as well as short-term advantage, have always defined Zionism - and many Israelis are secure in that strategy. This is compounded by a disbelief in long-term prognostications and the need to react to them today: "In the long run, we're all dead," as economist John Keynes famously said. Given this, the bottom line is that Israel does not yet feel the imperative for a two-state solution, ie, the need to make the sacrifices today for tomorrow.

The sacrifices of today

For the Palestinians, on the other hand, despite considerable suffering, the fall back is the long term, and the inevitability of Israel passing into oblivion through war or slower erosion, demographic or otherwise. Palestinians may lose the military struggle and never settle in the negotiations, but they have time on their side. They are already making the sacrifices of today for tomorrow - or so it is hoped.

Despite these varying bets, time may come back to haunt the sides, and especially Israel. New forces have already been unleashed that will only grow. Time has eroded the idea of Israel as David vs the Arab Goliath, public and political opinion across the world is firmly with the Palestinians as the victim, even if that has not yet be translated into political pressure on Israel.

Europeans are targeting products from the settlements, some pension plans are disinvesting or considering it, and the b BDS movement, boycott, divestment and sanctions, is not stopping. Israel's settlement enterprise is considered illegitimate everywhere except among a few diehard supporters. It may simply be a question of time until the pressure on Israel builds sufficiently. The two state solution may be simply delayed until the "political time" necessary for the Israeli system to absorb the inevitable takes place, or cause Israel a systemic political indigestion.

The great irony is that, while Israelis pursue their agenda oblivious of time, change may eventually catch up and in unexpected ways. Time has its own logic and a somewhat twisted humour. By the time Israelis are ready for two states, it may well be time for a one-state solution, and a full Palestinian readiness for that eventuality. Settlements will have grown, the discussions on the toughest issues, Jerusalem and the refugees, will have gotten more difficult, and the region will have experienced a few more flips and somersaults. Any readiness to compromise with Israel will have slipped that much further into the distance, possibly beyond any retrievable horizon.

Such is the nature of the game of those who flirt with or trample on time. It can wreak its nasty and unexpected revenge. Israelis can take credit for having fought off the corrosive effect of Middle East politics for as long as possible, but their belief in the immediate has blinded them to the imperatives of the long term; what worked in the past may not work in the future. Palestinians can take succour in their "sumud" (Arabic for steadfastness) in the face of a powerful enemy, but there have been opportunities lost in favour of ideals. Indeed, if Palestinians don't complete their unification process, their cause may be subsumed over time into much larger and more powerful regional forces: Jerusalem is not only a Palestinian cause, and the refugees are an issue across the Arab world.

Despite all the hubris derived in standing up against venerable time, or its denial, time is the victor in the end. This is especially so for those who neither anticipate nor adapt to its endlessly creative dispensations.

After 70 years or more of futile diplomacy and conflict, it may well be time for Israelis and Palestinians to try a new tack. Instead of a hyper fixation on the short term, or a passive bet on the long, they can shape possibilities through bold sacrifices and innovative solutions. Only this way does anyone earn time's elusive respect and succesfully influence its speeding course.

John Bell is Director of the Middle East Programme at the Toledo International Centre for Peace in Madrid.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Oficializa la ONU adhesión de Palestina a tratados globales
Pl

Periódico La Jornada
Sábado 3 de mayo de 2014, p. 23

Ginebra. Justo un mes después de que Palestina solicitó su adhesión a 15 tratados y convenios internacionales, la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU) oficializó ayer su incorporación a cinco, todos vinculados con los derechos humanos. El portavoz del Alto Comisionado de la ONU para los Derechos Humanos, Rupert Colvillen, informó que Palestina quedó integrada a la Convención sobre los Derechos de los Niños, Contra la Tortura, la relacionada con la Eliminación de toda forma de Discriminación Racial, Contra las Mujeres y sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad.

Israel's creative dispossession tactics

Even Palestinians can't help but be impressed by Israeli ingenuity in circumventing the law in their colonial quest.
Last updated: 03 May 2014 08:26
Nora Lester Murad

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Bedouin Israeli youths march with banners calling on Israel to stop the house demolition policy [AFP/Getty Image]

At first, the visit by the Israeli Civil Administration (ICA) to Jabal al-Baba on April 9 seemed routine. A Bedouin community in the E1 area, Jabal al-Baba has had 18 demolition orders pending since February. Residents were not surprised, then, when officials delivered stop-work orders on three more insulated residential structures. Under Israeli law, these structures can be demolished - but only after a 21-day delay, during which residents have the right to appeal to the Israeli courts.

But the Israeli authorities didn't wait for the legal process to run its course; they returned to Jabal al-Baba and retrieved the stop-work orders they had distributed just hours before.

"We were happy," said Suleiman Kayyed Jahalin, a member of the community. "We thought the Israelis had changed their minds and weren't going to demolish our homes after all. We were wrong."

A representative of an international NGO that delivers aid to the community described how the Israeli Civil Administration returned several hours later with soldiers and dismantled the three homes. Once dismantled, the ICA didn't have to wait for their demolition orders to survive a legal challenge; they simply confiscated the parts of the houses under an Israeli law that entitles them to confiscate building materials, equipment or cars without any advance notice.

Although Israel dismantled and confiscated the homes rather than demolishing them, the result is the same: Human beings that lived in shelters are now homeless. A total of 111 additional members of the Ras al-Baba community live under impending threat of having their homes demolished.

Although Israel dismantled and confiscated the homes rather than demolishing them, the result is the same: Human beings that lived in shelters are now homeless. A total of 111 additional members of the Ras al-Baba community live under impending threat of having their homes demolished. In fact, the United Nations reports that most of the 2,800 Bedouins residing in the E1 area have demolition orders against their homes (plus two schools). These Palestinian communities are considered among those most at risk of forced displacement.

'Well-known concerns'

The three residential structures were constructed in February with funding from the European Commission Humanitarian and Civil Protection Department (ECHO) and the French consulate and were valued at approximately 2,000 euros ($2,770). Representatives from the donor agencies and other diplomatic staff toured the site on April 11, but the Office of the EU Representative was only willing to say, "The EU has well-known concerns about demolitions, which it has expressed on many occasions in line with our overall Area C policy. The EU will raise this issue with the relevant Israeli authorities."

Palestinian human rights advocates are disappointed that European donors have failed to act boldly to hold Israel accountable. It seems that many humanitarian actors have bought into the notion that demolition of donor-funded projects is "sensitive" and should not be addressed head-on.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has tracked Israeli demolition of donor-funded projects since 2011. They report that 317 donor-funded projects were demolished between January 1, 2011 and the end of 2013.

In another recent incident, a truck with donations from the Italian government arrived at the school in the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar on February 27. According to the principal: "A drone sailed around taking photographs and 20 minutes later, the Israeli Civil Administration showed up with three carloads of police and confiscated all our new playground equipment and construction materials." They even took the truck in which the aid was delivered.

Some human rights advocates describe the confiscation of playground equipment as "silly" while others call it "evil", but one thing is certain: Such confiscations are illegal. Diakonia, a Swedish faith-based development organisation that promotes respect for international humanitarian law, refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention when it concludes that international humanitarian law "...specifically protects against the requisition of property of relief organisations and prohibits the diversion of relief consignments from the purpose for which they are intended, except in cases of urgent necessity…"

The Italian consulate did not respond to a request for a statement.

What's at stake

The stakes are financial, legal and moral. The confiscation and demolition of humanitarian aid may result in forcible transfer, which may be considered a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva convention.

International and Israeli NGOs have documented Israeli tactics, which include denial of building permits to structures where no master plan exists, refusal to respond to community-supported master plans submitted for approval, stop-work orders for construction lacking building permits, seizure or confiscation of equipment or materials, and demolition of structures. Palestinians are often charged a fee for the demolition of their home or offered the option to self-demolish in order to reduce their fines. Seizure, confiscation and demolition lead to displacement of Palestinians, especially in Area C, and facilitate Israel's illegal settlement activities.

Thousands of Palestinians are effected by Israeli confiscations and the demolition of property, resulting in growing humanitarian concerns. However, with rare exceptions, most international donors are subdued in their criticism of Israeli demolitions in general and do not speak out publicly about the demolition of taxpayer-funded projects. To be fair, they are stuck between conflicting interests. On the one hand, international donors are legally-mandated by international humanitarian law to address the humanitarian needs of Palestinians in Area C, whether or not Israel approves. To ensure the sustainability of their humanitarian projects, they would have to obtain permits from Israel.

However, the Israeli planning and permit regime in Area C is illegal and it may also be illegal for donors to grant it validity by seeking Israeli permits. Moreover, donors who build without Israeli permits and see their funded projects demolished may expose themselves to criticism for spending taxpayers' money irresponsibly.

Increasingly, local and international aid critics are saying that by failing to hold Israel accountable, donors alleviate pressure on Israel to agree to a sustainable and just peace and are therefore complicit in the ongoing denial of Palestinian rights. They also note the spike in demolitions of Palestinian property that coincided with the renewal of US-backed peace talks. Diplomats and officials are also starting to speak out, but so far, only off the record.

Nora Lester Murad is a writer of fiction and commentary living in Jerusalem. Her blog, "The View From My Window in Palestine" is at www.noralestermurad.com.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera

Israel and Palestine: Two states and the extra step
It is time to consider the benefits of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation.
Last updated: 14 May 2014 08:41

John Bell is Director of the Middle East Programme at the Toledo International Centre for Peace in Madrid. He is a former UN and Canadian diplomat, and served as Political Adviser to the Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General for southern Lebanon and adviser to the Canadian government during the Iraq crisis in
Palestinian refugees can have the right of return to the Israeli-Palestinian confederation while residing in the Palestinian state, writes Bell [AFP]

The search for new directions for Israel and Palestine is on. Apartheid? One state? Israeli unilateral withdrawal? Tortuous negotiations? The reality is that it may be time to look at things in a new way in Israel and Palestine: two states, and one (necessary) extra step.

The lessons for the future may come from an unusual place: current reality. The "facts on the ground" in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (over half a million settlers), the impossible Israeli political system, the deep demands of the Palestinians, and the unravelling of the Arab world may all have something to tell us.

Putting it simply, matters are much more "mixed up" today in the Middle East than was originally intended by the nation-state arrangements of the early 20th century. Dysfunctions plague the whole Levant: minority/majority group conflicts, the rush for central power and control, and oppression of one ethnicity by another.

"Carving up the land" through borders, and the consequent ardent defence of those borders, has been the answer of choice until now. But, in all these invented states we see ethnic conflict, oppression, and state systems that are "bipolar": either too weak, or too strong - all symptoms that something is fundamentally wrong with the inherited structures.

In the case of Mandate Palestine, the division into two states was never completed and, instead, the matter settled into chronic conflict. However, this political geography suffers from similar afflictions as its neighbours, as do the negotiations to settle the matter once and for all.

Brain-numbing puzzles

Many are coming to the realisation that dismantling Jewish settlements is too gigantesque a task; fantasies of transferring the Palestinians, an impossibility; Jerusalem, practically, if not politically, indivisible; and the refugees - well, no one quite knows what to do with the refugees. Yet, despite these brain-numbing puzzles, the two sides are, ultimately and against all wishes, going to have to find a way to live together.

Imagine if Israelis and Palestinians don't aim only for the very difficult two states, or the turmoil of one state, but for a confederation of some kind, where the two peoples live in different rooms, but under one roof.

One idea that one hears increasingly about is the "one-state" solution based on equal rights for all. Except for the rights, the current condition is already that problem (not solution) for all to see. Israel is the effective sovereign from the sea to the river and the Palestinian Authority is highly circumscribed. It takes little more than a sleight of hand to provide a minimum of control for Palestinians, and rationalise and mitigate the occupation.

The idea of one state also ignores the reality that Israeli Jews will be the most powerful in this state for a long time to come, and the fight for Palestinian rights, long and weary. Furthermore, many Israelis want nothing to do with an answer that ultimately threatens Jewish demography.

As a result, both polities are still mostly contemplating the elusive two-state solution. Palestinians need independence, and Israelis, security and a Jewish state. Therefore, the separation that two states provide seems necessary. However, achieving two states may need one further step from the start.

Imagine if Israelis and Palestinians don't aim only for the very difficult two states, or the turmoil of one state, but for a confederation of some kind, where the two peoples live in different rooms, but under one roof. This is not a new idea, forms of federation or confederation have been advocated before, including in the excellent article by Chibli Mallat, where none other than David Ben Gurion is quoted as saying in 1930, "The regime [Palestine] must foster the rapprochement, accord and cooperation of the Jewish people and the Arabs in Palestine… [in] a federal state, comprising an alliance of cantons [autonomous districts], some with Jews in the majority, and some with Arabs."

It may be time to begin to take this idea more seriously.

Gaddafi's proposal?

A confederation would involve the two states, Israel and Palestine, living under one agreed-upon common political structure: Israel-Palestine (not the one-state Israetine that the late Muammar Gaddafi once proposed in The New York Times). This idea would involve a shared economic zone, and require an open border to work properly. But, it also provides each people with key needs met, independence for the Palestinians, and preservation of a Jewish state for Israelis. Some may reflexively balk at this "extra step", but there is another silver lining: It also helps resolve some of the toughest issues in the two-state negotiations.

Palestinian refugees can have the right of return to the Israeli-Palestinian confederation while residing in the Palestinian state. Jewish settlers in the West Bank would have the option of being resident in the Palestinian side of the confederation, given they are already there. Political franchise would be separate: Israelis vote in Israel and Palestinians in Palestine, but there would be free movement between the two sides of the entity. This would encourage economic links, but also free refugees to visit their ancestral homes, settlers to go to Israel fluidly, and Palestinians today blocked by the wall to go to the beach that is only 40km away.
Special Series: Al-Nakba - Episode 1

Jerusalem can be an open undivided city, with the unique status of belonging to both the Israeli and the Palestinian portions of the confederation, and the capital of both. All the security arrangements being mooted today for the city under a two state solution, such as a hard border between the highly intertwined Jewish and Arab neighbourhoods, or a ring of checkpoints around the whole city, would be unnecessary. The division of powers between the states and the confederal structure will be complex, but maybe not as difficult as today's endless arguments over territorial sovereignty.

Given current political fixations, the two sides can phase the process and build trust: a) agree on the borders of two states, or even a partial solution to calm the situation, meet immediate needs and demonstrate progress, b) proceed to the confederative dimensions. Why not stop at two states in that case?

Ultimate goal of confederation

The two-state deal may not be agreed to properly and fully without the ultimate goal of confederation. Without the overarching vision, the agreement on the toughest issues, Jerusalem, the refugees and settlements, will remain partial and problematic. If this idea were ever to occur, it may also be that Jordan would be keen to join this potential economic and cultural powerhouse with Jerusalem as its common centre.
The time is right so start to think forward along these lines because it may be the only sustainable answer for the 70-year-old quandary. Those who shirk at the notion should compare it with the other available options: apartheid state, conflict, opprobrium, occupation and even war.

Palestinians would likely be more open to the idea, and Israelis less so, fearing for their security and dissolution in a lake of local Arabs. But, the confederation will permit Israelis to preserve their state through a separate political franchise and control over residency, while Palestinians' political and economic needs will be met, which will mean the end of conflict.

The vestiges of Sykes-Picot are withering in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The classic two state negotiations are as stale as dry bread, and new arrangements will have to be found. Instead of being the problem par excellence, the Israelis and Palestinians can transform themselves into a paragon for others, using what is now their terrible problem for common benefit. The idea may even spur Lebanese, Syrians and Iraqis to seek innovative solutions of their own.

In the future, Israel and Palestine will most likely drift into this space of "living together" anyway. The only question is whether they will do so half asleep and resistant to the idea, botching the moves and violently bumping into each other along the way, or through a conscious and bold move into their inevitable future. It is time to consider the benefits of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation.

John Bell is Director of the Middle East Programme at the Toledo International Centre for Peace in Madrid. He is a former United Nations and Canadian diplomat, and served as Political Adviser to the Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General for southern Lebanon and adviser to the Canadian Government during the Iraq crisis in 2002-03.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Open Gaza's seaport, end the blockade
Opening Gaza's seaport can provide Palestinians humiliation-free access to the world.
Last updated: 15 May 2014 07:53
[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Hanine Hassan is a PhD candidate at Columbia University. Her research focuses on the long-term effects of humiliation as a tool of oppression by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
For centuries Gaza port was a busy maritime hub [Reuters]

The nonchalance with which the West has been observing the slow decomposition of the Palestinian social fabric in Gaza in its eighth year of Israeli blockade amounts to a level of criminal complicity in the face of international law.

The ongoing Israeli blockade - recently in full cooperation with Egypt - of the tiny coastal strip has been defined as the collective punishment of approximately 1.6 million civilians. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed". Therefore, the Israeli collective punishment of the inhabitants of Gaza is a violation of international law, and as such a war crime.

Siege and blockade are causing severe shortages of essential supplies from building materials to medicine and generating a sense of despair. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has stated that "the number of patients' applications submitted in March 2014 to Israeli authorities for health access through Erez Crossing was the highest since the WHO began monitoring access in 2005. The increase in need reflects the continuing problems of access through Rafah border to Egypt and lack of drugs, especially chemotherapy and lack of medical disposables".

Additionally, three referral patients died in March while waiting for approval to exit Gaza, including a young woman who died one day after being interviewed by Israeli security officials. In addition, according to Gaza Ministry of Health's statistics until 2010 at least 373 patients have died while waiting for specialist medical treatment outside the Gaza Strip. These patients were not granted their right to optimal and rapid treatment, as Israeli Authorities gamble with their lives behind a bulletproof fence.

The UN, the ICRC, the EU and many states and humanitarian organisations have repeatedly condemned Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, calling it "a direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law". The Israeli government was urged to remove the restrictions on Gaza's borders and to allow free import and export of goods into the strip.

However, all calls urging both Israel and Egypt to open their land crossings and ease their restrictions are going unheeded. Should the world want to redeem itself, easing the blockade on Gaza by re-opening Gaza's seaport routes to the outside world, would be a first step. This would provide Palestinians in Gaza a secure and dignified passageway and free them from dependence on the usually absent goodwill of Israel and Egypt to respect humanitarian law.

At maritime crossroads

Gaza City has a long history as a crossroad of regional trade and travel. As a port city, Gaza was a stop on the Incense Road from the 7th century BCE to the 2nd century CE. In more recent history, until World War I, Gaza seaport was a main hub for import and export trade to southern Palestine, and its hinterland, including Jordan and Iraq.
Special Series: Al-Nakba

Since 1967, Israel has exercised full control of Gaza's 43km coastline and territorial waters, blocking ships from reaching the city. Gaza seaport is the only Mediterranean port closed to shipping.

Between 1967 and 1994, the existing infrastructure was severely neglected. Railways, air and seaports were no longer at the free disposal of Palestinians and were only there to serve Israel, its army and its settlers.

As part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Netherlands and France governments committed $42.8m to the reconstruction of the Gaza seaport and to the training of port personnel. A Dutch-French consortium that specialises in seaports signed a construction contract in July 2000 with the Palestinian Authority. The work was scheduled to be completed by August 2002.

The contractor started mobilising, but all construction activities were halted due to the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000. In 2002, the Israeli navy attacked the Palestinian naval police base and patrol boats in Gaza, causing extensive damage to the harbour and no further implementation of the project was allowed.

Opening the seaport

As the siege on Gaza is tightening, rebuilding the port would provide Gaza with its own outlet. It would not only provide Palestinians freedom of movement, but it would also contribute to reviving the economy and improving social and political life in the strip.

In 2010, the Council of the European Union stated that "the situation in Gaza remains unsustainable. The continued policy of closure is unacceptable and politically counterproductive". However, the EU has not ceased supporting Israel in its Gaza blockade over Hamas' takeover of the strip. The time is past ripe for the EU to reconsider its policies and implement and respect its own resolutions. In June 2010 the European Parliament urged EU Member States to "take steps to ensure the sustainable opening of all the crossing points to and from Gaza, including the port of Gaza, with adequate international end-use monitoring".

Establishing a maritime window from Gaza to the outside world is not an impossible task, if the focus is put on Israel's state violence, war crimes and human rights violations.

The EU should stop supporting minor and inconsistent humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, as an unsustainable tactic to delay the next big catastrophe. Instead, the EU should focus its efforts to push for the opening of a maritime route to Gaza. The EU Border Assistance Mission in Rafah (EUBAM Rafah), established in 2005 to monitor the operations of the border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, is maintaining its operational capability and is ready to re-engage should a political solution be reached.

The Gaza harbour can be developed to incorporate passengers and cargo handling terminals. Ships from Gaza could dock in Cyprus, and passengers could board their airplanes at Larnaca Airport to any destination they wish, without having to suffer any humiliation from the Egyptian and Israeli authorities.

The seaport could be made operational within months, and Israel's fears and objections over who would control the port and inspect the cargo could be handled by the deployment of international monitors on site. EUBAM, in agreement with the Palestinian Seaport Authority, could deploy an international naval force to monitor the Gaza seashore.

Turkey, which has taken to heart Gaza's ongoing humanitarian crisis, is in its final stage of negotiations with Tel Aviv regarding the 2010 Mavi Marmara solidarity ship that was boarded by armed Israeli commandos, leading to the tragic murder of nine Turkish civilians. In 2013, Israel officially apologised to Turkey.

The negotiations have focused on two main points: the compensation of the victims' families and the ending of the Israeli siege. In this regard, Turkey can demand Israel to supply Gaza with a maritime route to Cyprus, or to one of Turkey's harbours.

This alternative should be promoted by the Egyptian and Palestinian governments, as it would serve their long-term interests. The Palestinian Authority should welcome and work towards solutions to end the siege of Gaza, and not link it to the Palestinian internal division or to Israel's fruitless negotiations. In the context of the Palestinian reconciliation process, the local government of Gaza has declared previously its willingness to hand over the management of border crossings.

The West and Turkey should cooperate to end eight shameful years of Israeli blockade on Gaza. The only obstacle they currently face is Israel and its ability to manipulate them by playing the victim and waving the security card.

The international community should not be complicit in Israel's crimes and should pressure it into accepting the opening of Gaza to the world. After eight long years of suffering, it is imperative that Palestinians in Gaza are given an opportunity to live in dignity and peace.
Hanine Hassan is PhD candidate at Columbia University. Her research focuses on the long-term effects of humiliation as a tool of oppression by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Follow her on Twitter: @Hanine09

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera

Bedouins defiant despite Israel eviction plan
A new wave of demolitions at al-Araqib Bedouin village in the Negev left residents determined to return to their land.
Jonathan Cook Last updated: 14 Jun 2014 11:02
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
Email Article
Print Article
Share article
Send Feedback
Al-Araqib is the Bedouins' symbol for struggle to win recognition of their communities [Silvia Boarini/Al Jazeera]

Israeli security forces entered the embattled Bedouin village of al-Araqib in the Negev on June 12 to evict a handful of families who had sought sanctuary in the community’s graveyard.

Bulldozers tore down an improvised mosque, caravan and several shacks that had been set up in the cemetery by 30 residents after the rest of the village had been destroyed dozens of times over the past four years.

"Hundreds of security forces stormed the cemetery, a place where my father and grandfather are buried," Awad Abu Freih, a village leader, told Al Jazeera. "Israel has no shame. It has violated our sacred land."

Thabet Abu Ras, an expert on Israeli land policy at Ben Gurion University in the Negev, said the invasion of the cemetery was a "dangerous escalation" by the government. "It will provoke a severe reaction. The government has only one policy towards the Bedouin: force and more force."

Al-Araqib, which is located a few kilometres north of the Negev’s main city, Beersheva, has become a symbol of the struggle by tens of thousands of Bedouin to win recognition for dozens of communities the government claims are illegally built on state land.

Abu Ras said Israel considered al-Araqib a test of its determination to move the Bedouin off their tribal lands and into "townships" built specially for them decades ago.

"The government fears al-Araqib. Other Bedouin look to it for inspiration," he told Al-Jazeera. "They see the villagers are refusing to leave their land despite the now 70 demolitions."

IN THE STREAM: Israel's unrecognised

Eviction orders, issued last month and posted on the mosque, included the names of two Bedouins buried in the cemetery. This prompted fears that the Israeli authorities might also be planning to demolish the graveyard.

Mickey Rosenfeld, a police spokesman, said several structures had been removed, but the graves would not be destroyed.

Israeli police had been regularly visiting the cemetery since March, taking photographs and measurements, said Haia Noach, director of Dukium, an Israeli organisation campaigning for equal rights for the Negev’s Bedouin.

Rabbis for Human Rights had described the earlier intrusions as a "desecration of sacred ground".

Dozens of Bedouins, including two members of the Israeli parliament, backed by solidarity activists, had joined the families on June 11, in preparation for the eviction orders taking effect the next day.

The villagers of al-Araqib began burying their dead in the cemetery exactly a century ago. Abu Freih said: "It is the clearest proof that, contrary to the state’s claims, our ancestors were settled here well before Israel’s creation in 1948."

Land claims by 35 Bedouin villages, relating to nearly 1,000sq km of the Negev, are yet to be settled by Israel’s highest court, despite years of legal battles.

But al-Araqib’s families received a tentative fillip this month when the Supreme Court appeared reluctant to back the government’s argument that the Bedouin were "trespassers".

It recommended instead that officials engage in a "fair" mediation process over Al-Araqib’s lands, possibly establishing a precedent for other villages in the same situation.

The government has said it will respond to the court’s proposal in the next few weeks. Abu Freih said the evictions from the cemetery were intended to "pre-empt" the court’s decision.

RELATED: Prawer plan buries the two state solution

At the time of the village’s first demolition in 2010, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warned that the rapid growth of the country’s Palestinian minority, which comprises a fifth of the population, posed a "palpable threat" to the state’s Jewishness.

The Bedouin have one of the country’s highest birth rates and now number 200,000, more than a quarter of the Negev’s total population despite waves of state-sponsored Jewish migration.

Netanyahu told his cabinet a possible consequence might be that "different elements will demand national rights within Israel, for example, in the Negev, if we allow for a region without a Jewish majority".

The Negev constitutes nearly two-thirds of Israel’s recognised territory, and much of it is reserved for military purposes, including Israel’s nuclear reactor and its secret nuclear weapons programme.

In 2011, Netanyahu’s government approved a plan by a senior security official, Ehud Prawer, to forcibly remove up to 70,000 Bedouin from their villages and urbanise them in seven Bedouin townships built in the 1970s and 1980s. The townships, including the largest, Rahat, languish at the bottom of all Israeli social and economic tables, according to figures compiled by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics.

Abu Freih said the goal was to empty the Negev of Bedouins so that Jews could settle in their place. "The state wants us out, but we will continue to rebuild. We are not leaving."

Following widescale protests by the Bedouin, Israel officially shelved legislation to implement Prawer’s recommendations late last year. However, Yair Shamir, the agriculture minister, has been charged with reintroducing the plan.

"There is a lot of frustration in the government that it did not succeed in passing the Prawer Bill," said Abu Ras. "My suspicion is that they are now planning to implement it on the ground without legislation. For them al-Araqib is a ‘hot spot’ - a village they need to make an example of."

In a possible sign of the internal disputes within the government, Doron Almog, Netanyahu’s senior official dealing with Bedouin affairs, resigned his post last weekend. He declined to state his reasons.

Before the wave of demolitions began in summer 2010, al-Araqib was home to more than 300 Bedouin. The few families that remained had hoped the cemetery would offer them protection.

The state wants us out, but we will continue to rebuild. We are not leaving.

- Awad Abu Freih, village leader

The residents of al-Araqib have been struggling to be allowed to return to their village since they were forcibly relocated in 1951, during a lengthy period of military rule in the Negev. Their land, along with that of many other Bedouin communities, was reclassified as belonging to the state.

The villagers were eventually resettled in Rahat, only a short distance from al-Araqib. But faced with severe overcrowding there, as well as a lack of infrastructure and jobs, many families began moving back to al-Araqib in the late 1990s and tried to revive their pastoral way of life.

Yusuf Abu Zaid, a resident of al-Araqib now living in Rahat, said many families had found it too difficult to endure four years of demolitions and had moved back to the township. "But we keep our connection by returning at the weekends and in the evenings," he said.

Only about half the Negev’s 200,000 Bedouin have agreed to live in the townships.

In the region’s master plan, much of al-Araqib’s land has been designated for two large forestation programmes. One honours the international community’s ambassadors to Israel, while the other has been paid for by a Christian evangelical TV station called GOD-TV.

Abu Freih said other parts of the village’s lands had been secretly settled by Jews in 2004. In a night-time operation the government and an international Zionist charity, the Jewish National Fund, set up caravans that subsequently became an exclusively Jewish community known as Givot Bar.

In 2002 Israel began a policy of annually spraying herbicide on al-Araqib’s crops, in an attempt to move the villagers off the land. The practise was stopped in 2007 after the Supreme Court ruled it illegal.

In a test case currently before Israel’s Supreme Court, a former resident of al-Araqib, Nuri al-Uqbi, has been presenting documents and expert testimony to show that his ancestors owned and lived on the village’s lands many decades before Israel’s establishment in 1948.

In 2010, a Beersheva judge rejected al-Uqbi’s case, backing the government’s argument that his tribe had no ownership claim on the land.

This month, however, three Supreme Court justices sided with al-Uqbi’s lawyer, agreeing that government should enter a six-month mediation process to reach a "fair solution".

Oren Yiftachel, a geographer at Ben Gurion University, said the case was the first time the Supreme Court had examined historical documents relating to Bedouin land claims.

He added: "Sixty years of Bedouin dispossession in general - and the Uqbis’ dispossession in particular - were based on a judicial and historical falsehood".

El presidente Abbas plantea la creación unilateral de un Estado palestino
La nación, con capital en Jerusalén, se alzaría sobre las fronteras previas a 1967

Israel y Hamás aceptan un alto el fuego indefinido tras 50 días de ofensiva en Gaza

Carmen Rengel Jerusalén 26 AGO 2014 - 21:37 CEST
Archivado en:

Mahmud Abbas
Operación Margen Protector
Autoridad Palestina
Israel
Territorios palestinos
Conflicto árabe-israelí
Ataques militares
Geopolítica
Palestina
Oriente próximo
Acción militar
Asia
Conflictos
Política

Enviar vídeo

El presidente palestino reza en una reunión en Ramala. / Foto y vídeo de Reuters
Recomendar en Facebook 0
Twittear 0
Enviar a LinkedIn 0
Enviar a Tuenti Enviar a Eskup
Enviar Imprimir Guardar

Desde los Acuerdos de Paz de Madrid en 1991 ha llovido mucho pero se ha avanzado poco en la construcción de una vecindad segura —no sólo hermosamente escrita en un papel— entre dos Estados, el israelí y el palestino. Así que, cansado de fracasos y al calor de la ofensiva sobre Gaza a la que anoche puso fin una tregua indefinida, el presidente palestino Mahmud Abbas apuesta ahora por iniciar un nuevo camino. Anoche, en su Mukata de Ramala, propuso al liderazgo palestino un plan que contempla un calendario para la creación de un Estado palestino de pleno derecho —ya fue reconocido como observador en Naciones Unidas en noviembre de 2012— con ayuda de la comunidad internacional, sin pasar por otro proceso negociador como el que, el pasado 29 de abril, se hundió otra vez tras nueve meses de contactos.

Según informan fuentes de la Organización para la Liberación de Palestina (OLP), la propuesta de Abbas plantea “poner fecha al fin de la ocupación”, aunque anoche el debate aún seguía y las posibles fechas no habían trascendido. Eso llevaría a crear un país, llamado Palestina, sobre las fronteras previas a 1967, esto es, con Gaza y Cisjordania más Jerusalén Este como capital, pero sin los casi 600.000 colonos judíos que ahora residen en estos dos últimos territorios. En 2011, el presidente norteamericano Barack Obama aceptó estas lindes para el nuevo Estado, algo que también hace la Unión Europea. La situación de Jerusalén es demasiado delicada para que Occidente se haya pronunciado en firme, sin embargo.
más información

Israel y Hamás aceptan un alto el fuego indefinido en Gaza
FOTOGALERÍA Gaza celebra en las calles el alto el fuego
El Gobierno palestino abre otro frente contra los soldados israelíes
Israel tilda de farsa la comisión de investigación de la ONU

Ofir Akunis, viceministro en la oficina del primer ministro israelí, Benjamín Netanyahu, replica que “ninguna nación renuncia a su patria nativa”, que “Judea y Samaria [como denomina Israel a Cisjordania] son la cuna del pueblo judío” y que retirarse a esas fronteras de hace 47 años equivaldría a un “suicidio nacional”. “Los resultados de la retirada de Gaza en 2005 no trajeron la paz, trajeron la guerra”, advierte. La propuesta llega cuando Netanyahu está cercado por las críticas de dos de sus principales aliados de Gobierno por haber negociado con Hamás y con sólo el 50% de la población satisfecho con su gestión de la ofensiva en Gaza, según un sondeo del Canal 2, cuando su popularidad llegó a superar el 85% cuando mostró su rostro más belicoso con la ofensiva terrestre. Le toca mover ficha.

Abbas hace un “intenso” llamamiento a la comunidad internacional para que lo ayude en este proceso y apadrine su hoja de ruta. El calendario podría fijarse en una conferencia internacional o a través de una resolución del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas. Allí puede toparse con EE UU, que suele ejercer su derecho de veto a favor de Israel. Si no prospera, fuentes palestinas confirman la intención “firme” del Gobierno palestino de firmar el Tratado de Roma y reconocer así la Corte Penal Internacional de La Haya, en la que podrían ya denunciar a su adversario por supuestos crímenes de guerra, contra la humanidad y genocidio, una amenaza que preocupa a Netanyahu y a Obama.

Lo que Abbas no desea, explican varios asistentes a la reunión de Ramala, es volver al escenario resultante de la Operación Pilar Defensivo de otoño de 2012, cuando también se logró un alto el fuego entre Hamás e Israel que supuestamente iba a aliviar parcialmente el cerco sobre Gaza y no se cumplió, con violaciones mutuas desde pocas horas después de la firma en El Cairo, y que ha dejado otro año y medio de aislamiento en la zona. “Hace falta una solución definitiva que no nos tenga pendientes de una crisis cada dos años. Igual que hay casas en Gaza que ya no se pueden arreglar, igualmente no podemos poner un parche a una situación de derrumbe político”, resumía un diputado de Al Fatah, el partido de Abbas.

El presidente palestino ya dijo el fin de semana a la televisión egipcia que sabía que su propuesta sería “poco ortodoxa” y que podría no gustar en exceso a EE UU, pero que ya contaba con el apoyo de los países árabes. A finales de esta semana o principios de la próxima, se lo explicará en persona al secretario de Estado norteamericano, John Kerry, que tiene previsto visitar Oriente Próximo.