For any of my American friends who happen to wander by

For any from the U.S. who might happen to wander by this blog:

Just Foreign Policy and Jewish Voice for Peace have launched a campaign to urge President Obama to reform U.S. policy toward the Palestinians so that George Mitchell's diplomacy can succeed. They are recommending the following:

lift the blockade on Gaza,
authorize U.S. diplomats to talk to Hamas officials,
get serious about ending Israeli settlements in the West Bank,
insist that US weapons supplied to Israel be only used for self-defense, as required by US law.

You can sign their letter here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1814

The petition's deadline is February 23, 2009.

The background of the petition is provided in this article in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/a-window-for-israelpalest_b_160830.html by: John Lewis-Dickerson

This information was originally found in the comments at the Mondoweiss blog.

We are not talking about the destruction of Israel

Here is a novel idea:

Hamas (again) talks about a long term truce:

"We want to be part of the international community. I think Hamas has no interest now to increase the number of crises in Gaza or to challenge the world," Hamas official Ghazi Hamad told AP.

Hamas leaders in the past have spoken about a long-term truce with Israel, saying they want international recognition as much as an end to the blockade of the impoverished Gaza Strip.

Israel nonetheless abominates the notion of engaging the Palestinian resistance movement.

(Hamas offers long-term truce for Gaza freedom, Al Jazeera, 29 January, 2009).

From Ha'aretz:

Israel's position is based on the fact that Hamas refuses to recognize its right to exist. However, the three Hamas leaders interviewed said they would accept statehood in just the West Bank and Gaza and would give up their resistance against Israel if that were achieved.

"We accept a state in the '67 borders," said Hamad. "We are not talking about the destruction of Israel."

(Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened, Ha'aretz, 29 January 2009. )

The right to return is tied up in a lot of the statements about the "right to exist". The right to return is as follows from United Nations Resolution 194, from 1949, which:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

A recognised Israeli state means that the Palestinian people might then have to give up the right to return to lands they were expelled from, or might be seen as accepting this notion. If Hamas are accept[ing] statehood in just the West Bank and Gaza is this what they are implying? I might leave that one to the Mid-East scholars.

However, it seems moot to post the above as all discussions are being held with Fatah, the party that Israel would not engage with before Hamas, and a party who are widely seen as not necessarily representing the people (who did vote for Hamas). Of course "back door" negotiation will go on with Hamas through third parties.

Again from Ha'aretz, The champions of missed opportunities , there are the following words on why Israel might be so reluctant to negotiate (Avaraham Burg, January 16, 2009):

The truth is that we refuse to speak with them because we are incapable of speaking with ourselves. Every time we tried to make a mockery of them, we were pulling the wool over our own eyes. There are topics we have no problem discussing with the enemy: hummus, car repair shops and washing the floors. But when it comes to refugees and settlements, we don't have the courage to tell the truth to ourselves, nor are we ready to talk to ourselves about the part of the responsibility we bear for the refugee problem, its marginalization, political exploitation and the fact it remains unsolved to this day.

Nor are we ready to talk about the evacuation of settlers out of fear of the domestic price entailed in pulling out the agents of the occupation. We are incapable of acknowledging the fact that we have become a state of the settlers and that the Israel Defense Forces is the settler defense forces. Because of all these factors we are not talking to any Palestinian about anything of substance.

With Hamas, the conversation will be even more difficult. It will revolve around refugees, settlers, and one other thing: the religious dimension of the conflict. Are we really capable of holding a substantive dialogue about the religious significance of the conflict and the spiritual content of peace, or about how such an inter-religious dialogue will take shape in a time of war, or about the values of such a dialogue in a time of peace? Or about how all of us should put the genie of fanaticism back in the bottle?

Are there enough foundations in our midst that would allow for a non-violent religious protest against the faith-based murderousness that is killing our two nations and religions? For the time being, we don't have any. As a result, we are running away from the encounter, lest we be exposed as mutes or simpletons - or both.

As indicated above, who is not willing to negotiate? Who does not want peace in this region?

Here are a few more articles on similar topics. I have posted a number of them before. Quite a few are from Ha'aretz. I wonder if our papers will ever publish an article that comes even close to being as balanced as some of the Ha'aretz articles, even though it is an Israeli paper and naturally enough, presents the views of its country.


If we can kill them, we can talk to them

Birth pangs of a new Palestine

History did not begin with the Qassams

On the wrong side

Obama's Gaza Opportunity

Five questions for George Mitchell

The Conflict Within Hamas

The Gaza Boomerang

Israel wanted a humanitarian crisis


Oh, and here are these words of commonsense, too: Mitchell: Opening Gaza borders would help choke off Hamas smuggling, Ha'aretz, 29 January, 2009.

Talk

"I don't think any movement is going to take place as long as the fundamental rules are not observed - which means that if you don't talk to the principal parties, nothing much will be accomplished," he said.

"Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the Egyptian government can provide any leverage over the situation in [Hamas-run] Gaza.

"Mitchell already had a previous mission in the Middle East and it did not amount to much, so I don't know what he will do now. As long as there is no political will in the United States to work seriously in promoting the Arab peace initiative [on Israeli-Palestinian relations], I don't think a lot will be accomplished."

These are the words of Ziad Hafez, managing editor of the journal Contemporary Arab Affairs on Mitchell's appointment and current tour. Let's hope he is wrong, but really, so far no good. I think the commonsense of the people says yes, let all lead players negotiate. The cynicism of politics has a lot invested in the turmoil in the area, and from having a ready scapegoat. Meanwhile, people die and live miserable lives, in a decreasing area of land (open air prisons) with more and more restrictions. And obviously, reaction to this is going to spill over into the lives of other people, as well.

A new fashion, a new style

Both Obama and United Nations officials. . . called on Israel to open Gaza border crossings.

( SBS World News Australia US envoy to visit middle east as fragile truce holds, 23 January, 2009. )

Such a slow and turgid step, considering none of this had to have occurred if a foot had been applied to the brake rather than the accelerator in the last days of December, 2008, but still it is a step in the right direction:

UN humanitarian chief John Holmes said the borders must be opened to allow reconstruction of the enclave. “You have to have cement and construction materials and pipes and spare parts," he said at a UN-run school hit by an Israeli missile in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya.

Since Israel began its 22-day offensive on December 27, the army said it had allowed 2,284 truckloads of humanitarian supplies into Gaza where the 1.5 million population relies on the border crossings for virtually everything*.

*This reliance is because for three years since daring to democratically elect a government not favoured by Israel or the US, the people of Gaza have been subjected to a starvation blockade , and Israel and Egypt have closed borders with it. This is why the tunnels are necessary, even though they do also bring in weapons. Israel has not let in construction material, now and in the past, leading to widespread unemployment, as Israel fears weapons will be made from such material - my note.

As for that fragile peace:

Two women, two children and an elderly man were wounded on Thursday by fire from Israeli navy boats patrolling the Mediterranean, medics said. The army said it fired warning shots at a fishing boat.

If you read the blog Tales to Tell from a western volunteer within Gaza (Sharon Lock, I think), that shelling has not stopped since the "ceasefire" began. Rockets are still being fired into Israel, too, so one wonders what the whole sustained incursion was about.

US President Barack Obama said he was dispatching new Mideast envoy George Mitchell to shore up the fragile truce in Gaza.

. . .George Mitchell, [is] a veteran diplomat renowned for negotiating the 1998 Good Friday agreement that helped bring peace to Northern Ireland. . .

Mitchell seems to be balanced; the American Jewish community is divided over his appointment, and what his actual appointment means (that article first viewed here). However, it seems any negotiations are going to be with the very unpopular Abbas, and the Systematic War Crimes will probably largely go unaddressed, paving the way for them to be committed again, and again, and again (SBS World Australia, UN fears Systematic War Crimes).

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Territories, Richard Falk, said he had little doubt about the "unavoidably inhuman character of a large scale military operation of the sort that Israel has initiated... against an essentially defenceless population."

Also from Ha'aretz, UN human rights official: Gaza evokes memories of Warsaw Ghetto, 23 January, 2009.

He was sent back to America (refused entry) by Israel on December 15, 2008 by the way. His role was to be as follows:

In March, the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council appointed Falk, a Jewish American and professor emeritus at Princeton University, to a six-year term monitoring the human rights situation as UN Special Rapporteur in the Palestinian territories.( Israel expels UN rights envoy, Ha'aretz, December 15, 2008, and here)

He was refused entry just in time not to observe the massacres. A nice analysis on media treatment of that expulsion here.

Keep up the pressure, U.N. , even though you may be viewed as a toothless tiger. Lets hope that words are eventually passed from generation to generation as being worth more than the cycle of violence that violence breeds.

*Note: Further analysis on Mitchell's posting here (Does Israel fear its friends more than its enemies?, Paul Woodward, War in Context, January 22, 2009)