Palestinians 'will not resume talks without new freeze on settlements'.

It could be the Obama's dreams of Middle East peace talks between Israel and Palestine are about to come to an end.

The Palestinian leadership confirmed yesterday that it would not return to direct peace negotiations with the Israelis without an extension to the now-expired freeze on settlement construction, amid determined but increasingly frustrated efforts by the Americans to keep the talks alive.

The executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation met in Ramallah to consider its position following the end of the moratorium last weekend. Palestinian negotiators have said repeatedly that they would not stay at the negotiating table unless the freeze were extended, and that Israel must choose between settlements and peace.

"The leadership confirms that the resumption of talks requires tangible steps, the first of them a freeze on settlements," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior PLO official, speaking after the meeting. "The Palestinian leadership holds Israel responsible for obstructing the negotiations."

Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said efforts had reached "a dead end". "There will be no negotiations in the shadow of continued settlement," Abu Rdainah said. "All the while Israel is not convinced that the political process be based on international law and justice, matters will remain in a state of paralysis for a long time."

I don't blame the Palestinians for this. In what good faith can one negotiate with a nation which is breaking international law even as you are attempting to reason with them and work out a peace deal?

Netanyahu has shown the kind of arrogance which has typified his entire career when he insisted that his refusal to extend the settlement freeze should not endanger the talks.

While giving no hint that Israel would bow to Palestinian demands, Netanyahu said he believed a "creative" solution could still resolve the impasse and keep talks alive.

"Just a month ago the Palestinians entered direct peace talks with no preconditions after my government made a range of gestures to push forward the dialogue," he said.

"Before that, over 17 years, the Palestinians conducted a direct dialogue with Israeli governments, while building in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] continued, including during the final year of the previous administration."

Settlement building has been slower under Netanyahu's current administration than under any Israeli government since the mid-1970s.

Netanyahu added: "I hope that now they will not turn their backs on peace and continue talks to reach a deal within a year."

This is a disingenuous complaint. The fact that Israel continued to build during previous negotiations shows only that the Palestinians should never have agreed to do this in the past. There are some who believe that Israel will always negotiate whilst building, as eventually there will be nothing to negotiate about, as Israel will have seized all Palestinian land.

Israel cannot be considered serious about peace whilst she continues to steal Palestinian land and flout international law.

The Israelis are now attempting to deflect blame for the expected breakdown of talks on to the Palestinians. "Now I expect the Palestinians to show some flexibility," Netanyahu was quoted as saying at the end of last week. "Everyone knows that measured and restrained building in Judaea and Samaria [the West Bank] in the coming year will have no influence on the peace map."

This is how insane Israeli politics have become under Netanyahu. He wishes to blame the Palestinians for reacting to the fact that he is breaking international law.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, peace talks, Obama, Netanyahu, Abbas

Israeli navy diverts Gaza-bound yacht.

Israel has turned away yet another boat headed for Gaza.

The Israeli navy today boarded a yacht carrying 10 Jewish activists who were attempting to break the sea blockade around Gaza, forcibly diverting the vessel to the nearby port of Ashdod.

"There was no resistance, no violence," an Israeli military spokeswoman said. "Before we boarded, we twice asked the captain not to cross the international line into Gaza waters but he refused."

But, one only has to look at who was on board to see how clearly Israel is losing the PR war over it's Gaza blockade.

Among the passengers are an Israeli Holocaust survivor, an Israeli whose daughter was killed in a suicide bombing in 1997, and a former Israeli air force pilot.

Hardly the "terrorists" that Israel usually claim are attempting to break it's blockade. All people of conscience are now waking up to the injustice of this.

Just how stubborn is Netanyahu? For how long will he insist on defending this PR nightmare for his country?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Gaza blockade

Mahmoud Abbas delays decision on whether to quit Middle East peace talks.

Netanyahu is refusing to continue her West Bank construction freeze, seriously undermining the Israel Palestine peace talks, and causing one to wonder just how serious he is about peace if he can't agree that illegal settlement building must end.

Speaking in Paris, Abbas said there would be no "quick reactions" before he consults the Arab League next week. "After this series of meetings, we might publish a position that clears up the position of the Palestinian and Arab people after Israel has refused to freeze settlements," he told reporters, after talks with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

An extension for "three or four months" would give the sides a chance to discuss the core issues, Abbas added.

Sarkozy said he "deplored the decision to resume settlement construction just as the talks were finally and concretely under way". William Hague, the foreign secretary, meeting his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, at the UN in New York, said he was "very disappointed". George Mitchell, the US special envoy, is due back in Jerusalem today to seek a way out of the crisis.

Abbas's caution reflects the high stakes following the Israeli prime minister's failure to extend a 10-month moratorium on building. Abbas and other Palestinian spokesmen had warned that they could not negotiate unless it was renewed.

The simple fact is that all Israeli building in the West Bank is illegal under international law.

Article 49 of The Fourth Geneva Convention:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Netanyahu has now made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of obeying international law. And, as is reported in today's Ha'aretz newspaper, the freeze itself was a myth.

At the end of 2009, the number of housing units that were actively being built on all the settlements together amounted to 2,955. Three months later, at the end of March 2010, the number stood at 2,517. We are therefore talking about a drop of a little more than 400 housing units - some 16 percent of Israeli construction in the West Bank over that period.

I have no idea whether or not Abbas will wish to continue negotiating with an Israeli team who are stealing their land even during peace negotiations, but I find it incomprehensible that Europe can't guard Obama's back here and make it clear that we find Israel's position utterly untenable.

I note that both Sarkozy and William Hague have spoken out, but there needs to be more of a noise made about this.

Israel's decision on whether or to extend the freeze was always going to be an indication of just how serious she was about these talks.

Well, now we have our answer.

Obama demanded settlement freeze early on in his presidency and was, in my mind, foolish to back off from that stance. It would be a travesty if Obama now finds himself pressuring the Palestinians to accept that Israel's illegal activity should be allowed to continue.

The pressure should be exerted on the law breakers, not on the occupied people.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel. Palestine, Obama, Netanyahu

Is Gideon Levy the most hated man in Israel or just the most heroic?

The Independent has an article on Gideon Levy asking whether he is the most hated man in Israel or the most heroic.

It is possible to be both, especially as Levy asks questions which most Israelis have no interest in considering, let alone answering.

But I found Levy's take on Israeli attitudes to be fascinating. He begins by describing the narrative through which all Israelis are taught to view the conflict.

There’s a whole machinery of brainwashing in Israel which really accompanies each of us from early childhood, and I’m a product of this machinery as much as anyone else. [We are taught] a few narratives that it’s very hard to break. That we Israelis are the ultimate and only victims. That the Palestinians are born to kill, and their hatred is irrational. That the Palestinians are not human beings like us? So you get a society without any moral doubts, without any questions marks, with hardly public debate. To raise your voice against all this is very hard.”

And one can see why so many Israelis hate him, for he speaks with a truth which must be very hard for many of them to accept.

“How can you say it is a democracy when, in 62 years, there was not one single Arab village established? I don’t have to tell you how many Jewish towns and villages were established. Not one Arab village. How can you say it’s a democracy when research has shown repeatedly that Jews and Arabs get different punishments for the same crime? How can you say it’s a democracy when a Palestinian student can hardly rent an apartment in Tel Aviv, because when they hear his accent or his name almost nobody will rent to him? How can you say Israel is a democracy when Jerusalem invests 577 shekels a year in a pupil in [Palestinian] East Jerusalem and 2372 shekels a year in a pupil from [Jewish] West Jerusalem. Four times less, only because of the child’s ethnicity! Every part of our society is racist.”

And he makes an argument which I have always agreed with, that good friends of Israel should not stand silently by whilst she engages in actions which will ultimately harm her.

“A real friend does not pick up the bill for an addict’s drugs: he packs the friend off to rehab instead. Today, only those who speak up against Israel’s policies – who denounce the occupation, the blockade, and the war – are the nation’s true friends.” The people who defend Israel’s current course are “betraying the country” by encouraging it on “the path to disaster."

And he shares the doubts of many of us about the sincerity of Netanyahu when it comes to the current peace talks.

“There is a very simple litmus test for any peace talks. A necessity for peace is for Israel to dismantle settlements in the West Bank. So if you are going to dismantle settlements soon, you’d stop building more now, right? They carried on building them all through Oslo. And today, Netanyahu is refusing to freeze construction, the barest of the bare minimum. It tells you all you need.”

Then, he identifies why he believes Netanyahu is taking part in the current peace talks.

“If there are negotiations, there won’t be international pressure. Quiet, we’re in discussions, settlement can go on uninterrupted. That is why futile negotiations are dangerous negotiations. Under the cover of such talks, the chances for peace will grow even dimmer... The clear subtext is Netanyahu’s desire to get American support for bombing Iran. To do that, he thinks he needs to at least pay lip-service to Obama’s requests for talks. That’s why he’s doing this.”

It's terribly depressing, because everything he states rings so true. And yet he does identify some positives in this insane narrative, the first of which is that most Israelis do believe in a two state solution.

According to the opinion polls, most Israelis support a two-state solution – yet they elect governments that expand the settlements and so make a two-state solution impossible. “You would need a psychiatrist to explain this contradiction,” Levy says. “Do they expect two states to fall from the sky? Today, the Israelis have no reason to make any changes,” he continues. “Life in Israel is wonderful. You can sit in Tel Aviv and have a great life. Nobody talks about the occupation. So why would they bother [to change]? The majority of Israelis think about the next vacation and the next jeep and all the rest doesn’t interest them any more.” They are drenched in history, and yet oblivious to it.

And he sounds, at times, as if he is making the case for the boycotting of Israel, but his position is much more nuanced than that.

“Firstly, the Israeli opposition to the boycott is incredibly hypocritical. Israel itself is one of the world’s most prolific boycotters. Not only does it boycott, it preaches to others, at times even forces others, to follow in tow. Israel has imposed a cultural, academic, political, economic and military boycott on the territories. The most brutal, naked boycott is, of course, the siege on Gaza and the boycott of Hamas. At Israel's behest, nearly all Western countries signed onto the boycott with inexplicable alacrity. This is not just a siege that has left Gaza in a state of shortage for three years. It's a series of cultural, academic, humanitarian and economic boycotts. Israel is also urging the world to boycott Iran. So Israelis cannot complain if this is used against them.”

But, because most Israelis have been brought up to see Israel - and Israel alone - as the victim, he fears that any boycott would only feed into that mindset and confirm for many Israelis their belief that most of the world is anti-Semitic.

If [a boycott was] seen as the judgement of the world they would be effective. But Israelis are more likely to take them as ‘proof’ the world is anti-Semitic and will always hate us.”

And he identifies the only solution to the problem to be the intervention of the President of the United States.

“The day the president of the United States decides to put an end to the occupation, it will cease. Because Israel was never so dependent on the United States as it is now. Never. Not only economically, not only militarily but above all politically. Israel is totally isolated today, except for America."

Which is true, but terribly depressing. As we have already seen the pressure brought to bear on Obama for even daring to attempt to be even handed in this dispute.

He was initially hopeful that Barack Obama would do this – he recalls having tears in his eyes as he delivered his victory speech in Grant Park – but he says he has only promoted “tiny steps, almost nothing, when big steps are needed.” It isn’t only bad for Israel – it is bad for America. “The occupation is the best excuse for many worldwide terror organisations. It’s not always genuine but they use it. Why do you let them use it? Why give them this fury? Why not you solve it once and for all when the, when the solution is so simple?”

When Obama came to office I thought he, certainly much more than his predecessor, was serious about bringing a peaceful solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But every time Obama attempted to bring pressure on the Israelis members of the House and Senate would quickly condemn him.

Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration's very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.

These American politicians are part of the problem, not the solution. They are the equivalent of a kind uncle feeding an obese child chocolate. They make the solution to this problem impossible to achieve.

The irony is that they really do think that they are acting in Israel's best interests by making a two state solution unachievable, oblivious to the fact that any one state solution will almost certainly result in the end of the country they are seeking to defend.

And should Netanyahu be playing along with these talks without being serious about coming to a deal with the Palestinians, these same American Senators will be the first people to applaud him and to condemn Obama should he speak out in condemnation.

I wish Obama well, but the task he is confronting will be a seriously lonely road. And the first people to ambush him will be members of his own House and Senate.

Levy's article is fascinating and can be read here.

Tags: Gideon Levy, Israel, Palestine, Obama

Natanyahu hints at placing IDF forces in PA state after any deal.

Netanyahu is hinting that he believes IDF forces should be able to continue to operate within the borders of any new state of Palestine, and is citing historical precedents to back up his position.

Germany, Japan and South Korea have had foreign troops on their soil for an extended period and nobody said that was “an affront to their respective sovereignties,” Netanyahu said, referring to US troops that were stationed in those countries following World War II.

Netanyahu said he did not believe an international force would be able to provide Israel with the security guarantees it needed, and that “the only force that can be relied on to defend the Jewish people is the Israel Defense Forces.”

It's a non starter and further proof that the peace talks are doomed as long as Netanyahu is in power.

Why would the Palestinians accept the presence of the IDF on the soil of any new Palestinian state? Does Netanyahu imagine that their liberation should feel no different from their occupation? That the people who dropped white phosphorous on them will remain on their soil after they have won their liberation?

Netanyahu has on numerous occasions said that an Israeli presence on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state, meaning along the Jordan River, would be necessary to prevent the type of arms smuggling taking place from Syria to Hizbullah in southern Lebanon, and from Egypt to Hamas in Gaza. The prime minister stressed the need for solid security arrangements on the ground so as not to repeat the mistakes made in Lebanon and Gaza.

One seriously wonders how negotiations can possibly succeed when both sides are starting so many miles apart.

Netanyahu is asking Obama to release Israeli spies - and offering to continue the settlement freeze for a mere three months if his outrageous request is granted - and imagining that he is being reasonable.

Now he is demanding that the new Palestinian state should look and feel no different from the occupied territories.

Negotiating with Netanyahu must be exhausting. He comes at every argument from the most extreme position - like, free my spy and I will obey international law for three months - and imagines that he is somehow offering a concession. That he is the one prepared to make sacrifices for peace.

The prime minister said the idea of coming to a framework agreement within a year was his idea, and that “If I have such a partner who is prepared to make a historic compromise, as I am, I think one year should be enough time.”

What historic compromises does Netanyahu imagine that he is offering? He is being outrageous and yet imagines that he is offering "historic compromise".

The IDF operating on Palestinian soil after a peace deal is simply unacceptable. Netanyahu must know this.

How serious is this man about peace whilst making these ridiculous demands? Demands that he must surely know are completely unacceptable?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, peace talks

Israel seeks release of spy in exchange for extending settlement freeze.

For thirteen years Israel denied that Jonathan Jay Pollard was even their spy, claiming that he worked for an unauthorized rogue operation.

How things change.

Israel is seeking the release of an American jailed for life for spying for the Jewish state in return for concessions in the renewed peace process with the Palestinians, including the extension of a partial freeze on the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.

According to Israel's army radio, the prime minister's office has approached Washington with a deal to continue the moratorium for another three months in return for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a former navy intelligence analyst convicted of spying in 1987. Binyamin Netanyahu, has long pressed for Pollard to be freed, but winning his release would help him sell concessions to rightwing members of his cabinet and the settlers.

Army radio said that Netanyahu had asked an unnamed intermediary to sound out the Obama administration on the proposal, but it is not known what response was received. Other Israeli media reported that the prime minister dispatched the intermediary to approach the Americans "discreetly, and unofficially".

So, Netanyahu is willing to hold off on the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements for a mere three months if the United States would be willing to free an Israeli spy who handed Israel "tens of thousands" of secret American intelligence documents? A man who is serving a life sentence for his crimes.

You have to admire Netanyahu's chutzpah. I think that is simply an outrageous request. And yet Netanyahu puts it forward as if it is in the interests of peace that it be granted.

Remember, Israel's behaviour regarding Pollard caused genuine outrage at the time:

Israel agreed to cooperate with the investigation in exchange for immunity for their people. They needed the agreement since many of the Israelis involved lacked diplomatic immunity. However, according to Ronald Olive, the NCIS investigator responsible for capturing Pollard and a member of the delegation that traveled to Israel for debriefing, the Israelis failed to live up to their agreement.

For instance, when asked to return the stolen material, the Israelis handed over a few dozen lowly classified documents.^[22] At the time, the Americans knew that Pollard had passed tens of thousands of documents, possibly over a million.[citation required] The Israelis created a schedule designed to wear down the Americans, including many hours per day of commuting in blacked out buses on rough roads, and frequent switching of buses.^[22] This left the Americans without adequate time to sleep and prevented them from sleeping on the commute.^[22] The identity of Pollard's original handler, Sella, was withheld. All questions had to be translated into Hebrew and answered in Hebrew, and then translated back into English, even though all the parties spoke perfect English.^[22] The Americans were treated with hostility from the moment they arrived in Israel to the moment they left.^[22]

Commander Jerry Agee remembers that, even as he departed the airport, airport security made a point of informing him that "you will never be coming back here again"; Agee found various items had been stolen from his luggage, upon his return to the United States.^[22] The abuse came not only from the guards and officials, but also the Israeli media.^[22]

Aviem Sella, Pollard's initial Israeli contact, was eventually indicted on three counts of espionage by an American court.^[23] Israel refused to allow him to be interviewed unless he was granted immunity. America refused because of Israel's previous failure to cooperate as promised. Israel then refused to extradite Sella, instead giving him command of a prestigious air force base. The U.S. Congress responded by threatening to cut aid to Israel, at which point Sella stepped down.^[24]

And yet Netanyahu now proposes an exchange involving Pollard as if none of this history exists. That's his price for Israel remaining in the peace talks with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu has said Israel does not plan to extend the moratorium on settlement building, and officials are not commenting on how the issue might be resolved, saying only that Israel "does not want people leaving the table".

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, told a French news agency that peace talks would be over if Israel abandoned the settlement freeze. "The negotiations will continue as long as the settlement remains frozen," he said. "I am not prepared to negotiate an agreement for a single day more."

Netanyahu is playing hard ball. He knows the peace talks will collapse if he does not agree to a further settlement freeze and he is trying to extract a large price for doing so.

But, this is why I have so little hope regarding these peace talks. Netanyahu's attempted blackmail is further proof of the extremity of the coalition of which he is a member. Does anyone seriously believe that these guys want peace? Netanyahu thinks he can appease them - for a mere three months - if the US agrees to release an Israeli spy. And he puts forward this notion as if it a perfectly reasonable thing to request.

It's hard to remain optimistic when watching this nonsense play out.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Netanyahu, peace talks, Israel, Palestine, settlement freeze, Jonathan Pollard

Palestinian source: U.S. pressuring Abbas to continue talks even if settlements expand.

As the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks begin, Barack Obama is said to be pressuring Abbas to continue the talks even if Netanyahu refuses to stop settlement building. Word from the Palestinian side is warning that this would be impossible for Abbas to agree with.

A senior Palestinian source told Haaretz that the American administration renewed its pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stay in direct negotiations with Israel, even if some construction in the settlements resumes after the end of the current moratorium. The source warned that Abbas would not be able to agree to a renewal of construction and will be forced to withdraw from the talks.

According to the source, a Palestinian okay to the renewal of construction just as direct talks are resumed is politically impossible. Sources in Ramallah said yesterday that both the Israelis and Americans know Abbas' likely course of action.

It is obviously unlikely that Netanyahu will formally agree to suspend construction, after all, he also has his street to play to. But one would hope that an agreement could be reached where there was an understanding that this would cease.

But Abbas, if sources are to be believed, has certainly turned up prepared to compromise.

Abbas would not be able to give up Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem and especially the Temple Mount, but large Jewish neighborhoods would be retained by Israel. If this much is achieved, Abbas will be able to agree that the refugee issue will be resolved primarily within the borders of the new Palestinian state, with only a few tens of thousands receiving Israeli citizenship as a humanitarian gesture.

At the moment, the Palestinian Authority does not seem to be determined to demand Israel take historical responsibility for the refugee problem.

Abbas is, rightly, insisting that any land swap be done on a 1:1 basis in both size and quality. There will be no swapping of fertile Palestinian land for Israeli deserts as has been offered in previous deals.

The most obvious problem at the moment is the city of Ariel:

The PA does not believe it can agree to the city being annexed to Israel in a future agreement, since it is located near the middle of the West Bank, cutting into the territorial contiguity of a future state.

However, the PA might agree to allow some settlers to remain as Palestinian citizens, and realizes other settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim and the Jewish neighborhoods around Jerusalem - will remain in Israeli hands in a future agreement.

Netanyahu spoke of "painful concessions" being needed from both sides. Abbas has certainly arrived prepared to compromise on refugees and other areas, even if he is not hiding the fact that he is suspicious of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the process. This suspicion was also reflected in the comments of Mubarak.

Egyptian President Mubarak, with whom Netanyahu has forged a close relationship over the past year and a half, reminded him that he would soon be put to the test and challenged the Israeli leader to make good on his peace pledges.

"I met Netanyahu a few times since his election," Mubarak said at the ceremony. "He told me again and again he was serious and wants peace. Now is the time to show it."

We are all thinking the same thing. Netanyahu can talk the talk, now he must show us if he can walk the walk. It's easy to say that you want peace. But can he make the "painful compromises" he talks of in order to get it? And can he bring that right wing coalition he leads with him if he is prepared to do it?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, peace talks, Netanyahu, Abbas, Clinton, Obama

Obama warns Middle East leaders 'chance may not come again soon'.

George Bush favoured Israel "too much" according to a majority of Americans, who wanted to see Israel penalised for building new settlements on Palestinian land.

And yet, often, when US politicians vote on matters relating to Israel and the Middle East, they produce a uniformity of opinion which resembles the kind of landslides only achieved in dictatorships or banana republics.

So, Obama has a very good point when he reminds Netanyahu and Abbas that they are facing, a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again".

A majority of US politicians don't appear to want peace in the Middle East, or they certainly don't favour any pressure ever being applied to the Israelis to bring such a peace about.

Under Bush's disgraceful presidency the Palestinians were mistreated and subjected to Israeli wars and blockades, with not a single word of protest from the American president.

Under Obama, it feels different. Obama is at least attempting to be an honest broker, which the fury of certain US politicians attests to.

"The purpose of the talks is clear. These will be direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. These negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. The goal is a settlement negotiated between the parties that ends the occupation which began in 1967, and results in the emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish state of Israel and its other neighbours," he said. "We are under no illusions. Passions run deep. Each side has legitimate and enduring interests. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight ...

"After all, there's a reason that the two state solution has eluded previous generations. This is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult. But we know that the status quo is unsustainable."

The president said that it was in the national interests of all involved, including the US, that the conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion.

Again, Obama stresses that it is "the US's interest" that this matter be resolved. He is the first president I know to make this distinction, to imply that US interests and Israeli interests are not one and the same.

This is why he makes me believe that he is serious about being an honest broker, as other US politicians appear to think that the US must always side with Israel.

"This administration is doing things that I think jeopardize our national security because they are playing such hardball with our ally in the region," said Representative Eric Cantor, the number two House Republican.

"Peace is what we are about in this country and we're about trying to facilitate that, but it should be peace on Israel's terms," he said in a breakfast with reporters to discuss the dispute.

It is this natural tendency to always take the side of the Israelis which has prevented peace between the two sides. The US has never asked that Israel compromise, it has always insisted that any deal reached should favour the Israelis, rather than insist that Israel adhere to international law. They have always favoured asking that the occupied people ensure the security of their occupiers rather than seriously engaging in the ending of the occupation.

So, with someone as fair as Obama in the White House, it is, as he says, a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again". And yet, still, I can muster no confidence in the proceedings. For one reason and one reason alone: I simply do not believe that Netanyahu is serious about peace. I cannot envision any scenario where this man is able to sell peace, should he even want to, to the right wing coalition which he leads. And this scepticism is replicated I notice in both Israel and Palestine.

The White House initiative has been met with wide scepticism in Israel and the occupied territories over whether the other side is ready for peace, particularly given the rejection by hard-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet of compromises such as dismantling settlements.

The thing I don't understand about this is the Israeli intransigence. A two state solution suits the Israelis as, because of demographics, a one state solution would mean the destruction of Israel in all but name. And even the name might go.

Why can't Netanyahu and the Israeli right wingers see that? The world will not watch Israel ethnically cleanse that land of the Palestinians, so what solution - other than a two state solution - do Israeli right wingers envisage? An Apartheid state in which they control a people to whom they deny a vote? A continuation of the present system in which violence always bubbles away just below the surface? What?

I simply don't get it.

It is in Israel's best interests for Netanyahu to seize this moment, and yet I have no faith that he will do so.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Obama, Abbas, Netanyahu

U.S. sees Washington peace talks as start of year-long process.

Both the Obama administration and the Palestinian Prime Minister are talking very similar timetables for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The Obama crowd state:

"While the parameters of an ultimate, comprehensive peace agreement are well known, we do not expect to achieve peace in one meeting," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters.

"But I think we want to see the launch of a vigorous process that will involve significant involvement by the leaders themselves, as well as regular interaction with their respective negotiating teams, including the full participation of the United States, supported by other countries in the region and around the world," he added. Crowley said that the administration thinks it can reach agreement "within a one-year time frame."

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is saying roughly the same thing:

The Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad yesterday unveiled a detailed blueprint for completing the independent state he insisted would be ready in 2011 if Israel lived up to its "moment of reckoning" in the coming weeks of negotiations.

Fayyad identified what he sees as the key to whether or not the talks will be successful or not.

He added that the talks would have to answer questions such as "What kind of state does Mr Netanyahu have in mind when he says 'Palestinian state'"?

"I think this is a most fundamental question," he went on. "I believe, without wishing to really prejudge what will happen in the next few days, the next few weeks, we are approaching that moment of reckoning."

That really is crucial to what happens next. I personally think Netanyahu only used that phrase to appease Obama. I see no way for the right wing coalition he leads to arrive at any compromise which would be acceptable to the Palestinians.

And yet, both the Obama camp and the Palestinians are talking of an agreement being reached within a year.

That puzzles me. Where does this optimism come from? On what is it based? Do they seriously think that Netanyahu is going to concede and give them back the West Bank?

Even Netanyahu is talking of the possibility of peace.

"I am not naive. I see all the difficulties and hurdles and despite this, I believe that a final peace agreement is a reachable objective. Of course, this does not depend just on us," he said on Monday.

Maybe I am simply the worst cynic on the planet, but I can't envision any peace deal which Netanyahu could plausibly sell to a government dominated by pro-settler parties, including his own. With that in mind, I simply don't get where all this optimism is coming from.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Fayyad, Abbas, Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, Obama

Gaza doctor writes book of hope despite death of three daughters.

This video was made famous during the Israeli war against Gaza as it highlighted for many Israelis the plight of innocent Palestinians caught up in the conflict. It was broadcast live over the Israeli airwaves.

People heard the pain of Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish - a Palestinian who made his living delivering Israeli babies - as he phoned an Israeli friend, who happened to be appearing live on television, and told him of the death of his three daughters from Israeli shelling.

It would be perfectly understandable should a person who has suffered such pain descend into bitterness and recrimination, but Abuelaish has instead written a book, which has been translated into 13 languages, including Hebrew, entitled "I Shall Not Hate."

I Shall Not Hate – published in Canada in April, and out in Britain in January – has had an extraordinary impact. Sitting in the home of his extended family in Jabalia, northern Gaza, Abuelaish – back on a month-long visit from Canada where he now lives and works – reads out emails on his BlackBerry from strangers expressing their sympathy, gratitude and support.

The book has been translated in 13 languages, from Finnish to Turkish – but most importantly copies will soon be available in Hebrew or Arabic. A book tour in the US is scheduled for January; proceeds from sales and appearances will go to Daughters for Life, the charitable foundation Abuelaish set up.

He explains his choice of title. "I'm against any violence. Violence and the military approach proved its failings decades ago and that will never, ever change. No one evaluates; we just continue blindly.

"As Palestinians and Israelis we have failed to change course. We just continue with the same approach which aggravates, escalates and widens the gap of hatred and bloodshed. It's easy to destroy life but very difficult to build it."

Would it not be understandable to feel hate after what has happened to him? "There is a difference between anger and hate. Anger is acute but transient; hate is a poison, a fire which burns you from the inside. We need to be angry, but direct it in a positive way."

One can't help but feel humbled when one witnesses someone rising above such pain, exhibiting an ability to forgive that we hope we would possess, whilst our astonishment at his achievement must make us doubt whether or not we ever could.

"Two weeks before the war came, [the girls] wrote their names in the sand. Where are their names now? Written in stone on their tombs. But I tell you one day their names will be written in metal and stone at schools and medical institutions dedicated to their memory. Words are stronger than bullets. We have to offer a message of hope to those who believe in hate and revenge."

It's an extraordinary achievement that a man who has lost so much should still find the ability to talk of peace and reconciliation. People like Abuelaish should be leading the peace talks rather than the politicians. When Abbas and Netanyahu finally sit down together, someone like Abuelaish should be in the room to provide both of them with perspective.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Abuelaish, Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Abbas

Israel Under Netanyahu: Isolated and Unwilling to Listen.

The Israelis have made it clear that they have no intention of assisting the United Nations Human Rights Council's investigation into the deaths of nine peace protesters killed after the IDF boarded a peace flotilla headed for Gaza, and that they regard the UN as "obsessive".

Israel does not intend to cooperate with the United Nations Human Rights Council's investigation into Israel's interception of a Gaza-bound flotilla at the end of May. The raid resulted in nine deaths.

According to a senior Israeli official, the sense at the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office is that cooperating with the investigative committee would only confer legitimacy upon the UNHRC, which has consistently acted against Israel.

"This is an unnecessary committee," the official said, "which is the product of an obsession with Israel."

When nine people are killed on a peaceful protest people tend to become "obsessive" about finding out what happened. It's known as a quest for justice and it's a pretty common reaction when injustice is perceived.

But then, Israel under Natanyahu is becoming an ever harder place to understand. The laws which this Knesset are proposing are deeply troubling.

The blatant flouting of basic laws and civil rights is a common theme running through every recent bill: the loyalty bill sponsored by Yisrael Beiteinu's David Rotem, intended to deny citizenship to those who are not "loyal to the state;" the bill to deny the Islamic Movement's legal status, sponsored by Likud's Ofir Akunis; legislation seeking to deny support to "unpatriotic" filmmakers, sponsored by Michael Ben Ari (National Union ) and Ronit Tirosh (Kadima ); the conversion bill, the Nakba bill and many others like them mock the principles of equality and freedom in Israel's Declaration of Independence.

No other Knesset has submitted so many bills under the guise of "preserving state security" that show open preference to Jews over Arabs in all walks of life.

It seems almost inevitable that, in a country run by Netanyahu and Lieberman, where the Arab is treated like a second class citizen, that a case like this would emerge.

Saber Kushour is under house arrest on appeal of his eighteen month sentence for having sex with an Israeli woman without revealing that he was an Arab. No-one is suggesting that he used force. The woman freely admits that she had sex with him willingly. But, she is arguing that she would not have had sex with him had she known that he was an Arab and that this is, therefore, rape.

"I am paying the price for a mistake that she made," Kushour, 30, told the Observer. "I was shocked at the sentence – it shows a very vivid and clear racism." The message from the judge, he says, was that "because you are an Arab and you didn't make that clear, we are going to punish you".

In his verdict, Judge Zvi Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."

[...]

Kushour's conviction has transfixed Israel. Some see echoes of a primeval – and racist – instinct to protect "our" women against outside marauders. Others are outraged at what they see as a blatant injustice, pointing to a backdrop of widespread, systematic and – some say – growing discrimination against Arabs who make up 20% of Israel's population.

"This is a most amazing decision by the court," says Tamar Hermann of the Israel Democracy Institute. "Deception is one thing – but to be convicted of rape?" It has, she says, "struck a sensitive chord in the Israeli mainstream of Arabs pretending to be Jews."

The issue of identity is paramount in a land where both communities regard each other with suspicion and hostility.

Yuval Yonay, a sociology professor at Haifa University, in one of Israel's few mixed cities, says Kushour's behaviour "might be improper but it is not rape".

He says that in 16 years of teaching at a university where 20-25% of the student population is Arab, he has "never even heard of a mixed relationship". Discrimination against Arabs is, he says, evident at all levels.

The 18th Knesset is a deeply troubling one, moving further and further to the right. It is dismissive of the opinion of the rest of the world, it is passing laws which are clearly racist, and it is doing so against the will of the majority of Israelis.

And yet Netanyahu remains strangely popular. Why?

An article in Ha'aretz argues that, "when under threat, particularly mortal threat, humans tend to react psychologically by entrenching their worldviews."

Part of the explanation is quite concrete: Two realistic threats have indeed emerged in the last years. The first is the possibility that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, a threat that most Israelis see as catastrophic. The second is from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which have moved from suicide terrorism to rocket attacks on Israel. Israel, for the first time since 1973, is faced with security threats to which it has no clear-cut answer. As a result Israel launched massive attacks in Lebanon in 2006 and against Gaza in 2008/9 under the assumption that the price of rocket attacks must be destruction on a substantial scale. This has pushed Israel into unprecedented international isolation.

Israel’s electorate reacted to this sequence of events exactly as predicted by existential psychology: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli public was unwilling to tolerate any criticism of the massive destruction in Gaza, and in the 2009 elections it moved strongly to the right and effectively erased the Israeli left.

The result is a vicious circle in which Israel feels that its existential fears are not taken seriously. Israel’s electorate moves towards leaders who address but also keep reinforcing its fears. International opinion becomes ever more negative, which in turn reinforces Israel’s isolation which in turn raises existential fears.

Of course, Netanyahu is playing up these fears, talking of a world similar to 1938 and casting all who oppose him as Chamberlains. But he is leading Israel to a fearful place.

Israel, under Netanyahu, is becoming more and more isolated. And, as she does so, she is slipping further and further to the right.

This suits Netanyahu, but it is not in Israel's long term interests. Israel used to pride itself as beacon of democracy in the Middle East, but it is now a place where an Arab can be convicted of rape simply for being an Arab.

One day Israel will look back on it's 18th Knesset with a deep sense of shame.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Lieberman

Tricky Bibi.

A new video has been released of the man Obama described recently as "a man of peace". It turns out, when he thinks that the video is switched off, he has views which are utterly contrary to the views of "a man of peace".

Gideon Levy describes what was on it:

Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he's even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse's mouth.

And how did he do it? He recalled how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations," and insisted he choose those same locations, such as the whole of the Jordan Valley, for example. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords," he boasts. The real Netanyahu also brags about his knowledge of America: "I know what America is. America is something that can be moved easily." For the White House's information.

He calls then-U.S. President Bill Clinton "extremely pro-Palestinian," and says the Palestinians want to throw us into the sea. With such retrograde beliefs, no one can convincingly argue that he wants an agreement.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Netanyahu opposed the Oslo Accords as, at the time, he marched in front of a coffin bearing the legend, "Rabin is murdering Zionism". Which is why I was so gobsmacked at Obama's wish to portray this guy as "a man of peace". I'd love to know what Obama bases that on. There is certainly nothing which Netanyahu has ever done which could be said to advance the cause of peace.

Levy goes on to say that this video should be “Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel.”

Netanyahu also states that the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable."

And this:

“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”

Can we please stop this pretence that Netanyahu has any intention of seriously negotiating a peace deal?

Tags: Netanyahu, Oslo Accords, Obama, Israel, Palestine

Israel set to force all citizens to swear oath to Jewish state.

Israel is set to pass a new law which would require new citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to a "Jewish and democratic" state.

By ensuring the mention of Israel as "a Jewish" state, this is an oath which Arab Israelis would be loathe to take.

Israeli Arabs, who comprise 20 percent of the population and live in some of the country's most under-privileged communities, have resisted such a loyalty oath on the grounds that only a state defined by all its different ethnic groups would make them feel equal.

Adalah, a prominent Israeli Arab advocacy group, said the new policy "requires all non-Jews to identify with Zionism and imposes a political ideology and loyalty to the principles of Judaism and Zionism".

The wording of the oath, which would apply to new applicants for citizenship, was slammed by Arab advocacy groups, who accused Israel of "racist" policies that attempt to link citizenship to ideology.

"It's another step in the direction of getting the Arabs out of Israel," said Uri Avnery, a former MP and founder of the Israeli Gush Shalom peace movement. "Parliament has become a lynching mob."

The Israeli parliament under Netanyahu and Lieberman's ultra-nationalist party has, indeed, become akin to a lynching mob. They have recently sought to ban boycotts against Israel.

The third bill, submitted to the Knesset Law Committee for approval on 15 June by 24 Members of Knesset from both the coalition and the opposition, is more comprehensive, and seeks to outlaw any activities promoting any kind of boycott against Israeli organisations, individuals or products, whether in illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) or in Israel proper.

The bill targets Israelis, the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians and foreign governments and individuals, and, if passed into law, will impose fines, economic sanctions and entry bans against initiators or supporters of boycott activities.

This is one of the most extreme governments Israel has ever had and yet the rest of the planet, possibly fearing accusations of anti-Semitism, continue to act as if this is just another Israeli government, whilst they pass laws which are truly shocking.

"There's a steady deterioration of Israeli democracy and a steady rise of right-wing ideologies in the Knesset," said Avnery. "Parliament is turning into a danger for Israeli democracy."

This was the inevitable result of Olmert's decision to allow Lieberman into the Israeli cabinet.

Raleb Majadele, one of nine Labor MKs opposed to the inclusion of the right-wing Yisrael Beteinu party in the government, said at the time that this would prove to be a "black day for the Knesset of Israel, a black day for democracy." Mariappan Jawaharlal once stated that Lieberman was "a ticking time bomb in the heart of Israel."

When one hears of Israel seriously proposing these new laws, one can't help but think that they both had a point.

The status quo in Israeli society is not represented by the extreme right-ring coalition government cobbled together by Netanyahu, but the longer such policies are allowed to be expressed without any serious dissent in the country the more that Israeli society will begin to accept them as the norm and the march even further to the political right will continue.

These are dangerous waters.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Arab Israelis, Netanyahu, Lieberman

Netanyahu's second chance.

There's an interesting editorial in today's Ha'aretz newspaper which seeks to put Obama's description of Netanyahu as "a man of peace" into some kind of context.

They see what has happened as Obama giving Netanyahu "a last chance" to step back from the brink and make peace with the Palestinians.

But don't get confused: Obama's gestures of friendship, which can be partly attributed to the impending congressional elections, do not change anything about the administration's basic policy.

Obama has made it clear that his goal was, and still is, the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. And he expects Netanyahu to help reach that objective, through negotiations with the Palestinians and confidence-building measures aimed at strengthening the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and improving the economic situation in the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu must take advantage of the chance he has been given, say yes to Obama, and act seriously and swiftly to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestine.

I personally hold out no hope that Bibi will ever seriously negotiate to create a state of Palestine. Greater Israel is in his DNA, it is simply unthinkable that he will turn away from the things which have defined him his entire life and become serious about ending this conflict.

Indeed, the Chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has pointed out that it is Netanyahu who is stopping any resumption of peace talks through his stance on illegal settlement building.

Asked if he expected more U.S. pressure on the Palestinians in the wake of Tuesday's meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, Erekat said: "The whole world and the U.S. administration knows that the one who is blocking the door to direct negotiations is Netanyahu."

"We are sincerely interested in starting direct negotiations, but Netanyahu keeps closing the door in front of us," Erekat told Voice of Palestine Radio. "Netanyahu must decide if he wants peace or settlements. He cannot have both."

So, Obama has been effusive in his praise, but now Netanyahu must show if he is serious when he talks of peace.

I suspect that he is not, that he is simply making noises and promises which he has no intention of keeping.

Netanyahu was careful not to make any statement deviating from the political line of the watchful right wing. He did not say the words "Palestinian state" and focused on warning of the security risk involved in withdrawal and on the demand to change Palestinian textbooks. Once again, it seems that Netanyahu prefers his political partnership with Avigdor Lieberman, Moshe Ya'alon and Eli Yishai to a partnership with the president of the United States.

There was nothing in Netahyanu's statement which led me to believe that he is serious about this at all. When Netanyahu talks about "security risks" all I hear is that, "I would love to do it, but I can't".

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine

Obama calls Netanyahu "a man of peace".

Obama now joins George Bush in saying the utterly ridiculous in order to appease Israel. Bush said that Ariel Sharon was " a man of peace", a comment so ridiculous as to be beyond parody.

And now, from Obama, we get this:

Obama said he believed the Israeli prime minister was a man of peace.

Tell me one thing in the whole of Netanyahu's history that would lead any rational person to that conclusion?

This is the man who marched behind a coffin bearing the legend "Oslo is the death of Zionism". This is the man who some thought should be charged with incitement shortly after the assassination of Yitzak Rabin.

I am honestly at a loss to explain just what Netanyahu has done to bring about such a sudden change in Obama's tone.

Despite the dramatic change in public tone, there was little sign of significant movement on the underlying issues that led the Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, to say last month there had been a "tectonic shift" in relations.

The two leaders avoided speaking publicly about the issues that have led some in his administration to question whether the Israeli government is as serious about negotiations as it says.

Obama said nothing about the continued construction of Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem which had prompted a bitter showdown in March after the Israeli authorities announced the building of 1,600 more homes exclusively for Jews while the US vice-president, Joe Biden, was visiting Jerusalem. Washington viewed that as a sign of contempt and evidence of Israeli indifference to the political impact of the construction on peace prospects.

Neither was there any mention of an extension to the partial freeze on building in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which is due to expire in September.

Some members of Netanyahu's coalition cabinet, such as Benny Begin, son of the former hardline prime minister Menachem Begin, have said construction will resume at full force because there is little prospect of a peace agreement.

"The prime minister said a few times that the status of settlements would be determined only in a final-status peace agreement with our neighbours," he told Israel Radio. "Such agreement is not imminent at all. In the meantime, we have to ensure that our settlements are developed."

Does anyone seriously believe that Netanyahu has any intention of coming to any kind of peace deal with the Palestinians?

Here is what he has said on the subject before:

This is from Ha'aretz today: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would never agree to withdraw from the Jordan Valley under any peace agreement signed with the Palestinians."

The Jordan Valley is the area on the far east side of the West Bank, adjacent to Jordan.

So here is what Netanyahu says Israel will never give up for a Palestinian state: (1) the entire area of East Jerusalem, massively expanded by Israel to include hundreds of thousands of Palestinians -- along with the holy sites of the Old City (2) all West Bank cities and settlements near Israel which will be incorporated into Israel itself (3) the huge city of Ariel smack dab in the middle of the West Bank.

Now, remember, Israel, without any of the occupied areas or East Jerusalem constitutes 78% of historic Palestine. The Palestinians want the other 22% to be their state, no more but no less.

Netanyahu is now ruling out a sizable chunk of that 22%, making any kind of Palestinian state impossible.

The silence from Washington should be deafening.

But Obama is now joining Bush in seeing "a man of peace" where the rest of us see no such bloody thing. My favourite line in the whole of this article is where the Palestinians are quoted stating, "Netanyahu is paying lip service to the establishment of their own state in order to pacify the Americans."

Got it in one. Anyone can say that they want peace. Indeed, Israel has been saying that since 1948. But, if you keep stealing someone else's land, it's very hard for any rational person to believe that you are serious about peace.

The reality of the settlements was highlighted by a new report by the leading Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, today, which said that Jewish settlements now control nearly half of all land in the occupied West Bank.

The report said that the settlements take over land far beyond their nominal boundaries, ostensibly for security, much of it privately owned by Palestinians in breach of an Israeli supreme court ruling. B'Tselem calculated that more than 42% of the West Bank is under the control of the 300,000 Israeli settlers who live there. Settler organisations say the settlements control less than 10%.

The day Netanyahu talks about returning stolen land to the Palestinians as a means of ensuring a settlement between the two sides is the day when I will call Netanyahu "a man of peace". I have never seen any indication that he intends to do that. Nor will I be holding my breath for him to do so.

I think Obama is being ridiculously premature in attaching that title to a man with Netanyahu's track record.

UPDATE:

Exposed: The truth about Israel's land grab in the West Bank

"The settlement enterprise has been characterised, since its inception, by an instrumental, cynical, and even criminal approach to international law, local legislation, Israeli military orders, and Israeli law, which has enabled the continuous pilfering of land from Palestinians in the West Bank," the report concluded.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama. Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine

US to press Binyamin Netanyahu to extend freeze on settlements.

Barack Obama is to push Netanyahu to extend his 10 month ban on settlement building in the West Bank in the hopes that this will make peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians more likely.

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, will come under intense pressure on Tuesday to extend his 10-month freeze on the building of settlements in the West Bank when he meets President Barack Obama in Washington – amid warnings from the Israeli right that they will vigorously oppose such a move.

Despite the moratorium, building in settlements has continued in the past seven months thanks to loopholes and violations. Preparations are under way for a construction boom this autumn.

Obama is expected to press hard for a continuation of the ban in the knowledge that large-scale settlement expansion would imperil the fragile "proximity" talks between Israel and the Palestinians. White House aides last week made it clear that the president wants to "capitalise on the momentum" provided by the freeze.

Obama's task of finding a way to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians has been made infinitely harder by the very fact that Netanyahu is currently leading Israel. Netanyahu, for all his talk of peace, is simply not interested in making the kind of deals needed for peace to be even possible. He thinks that Judea and Samaria belong to Israel, and every move he makes is tempered by that belief.

And that belief is evident in the public statements of everyone that he has chosen to surround himself with.

Israel's combative foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman – a settler himself – has publicly urged Netanyahu to resist pressure to extend the freeze, saying concessions to Palestinians have not brought results. September would pose a "big test" for Israel, he said.

At least two other members of Netanyahu's inner cabinet of seven have made their position clear. "We will renew building when the moratorium ends," said Moshe Ya'alon. "There is no chance that Netanyahu will extend the freeze," said Benny Begin.

Last week, leaders of the settlers warned that they would launch an "unprecedented struggle" if they were not permitted to resume building.

"If Netanyahu returns from the US with another commitment to a freeze, he will encounter an unprecedented response of settlers who will hound him no matter where he goes," they said in a statement.

Settlers' organisations have taken advertisements in the Israeli press, accusing the prime minister of "trampling on" the settlements. And Settlement Watch, an Israeli organisation, said that preparations are being made for a massive construction boom this autumn on the assumption the moratorium will be lifted.

"There are approved plans for between 40,000 and 50,000 housing units waiting," said Hagit Ofran. "The only thing they need is for the mayor [of each settlement] to sign the permit. On 26 September, those mayors will have a big pile of permits on their desks."

The truth is that people like Lieberman and Netanyahu do not want results, certainly not the kind of results - in terms of peace - that the rest of us are seeking.

They want land, nothing else.

Obama needs to get tough with these guys. Everything which they are doing is illegal. There is not a country on Earth which recognises these settlements.

Obama should emphasise this as he insists that all building must stop.

The argument that settlement freezes do not result in peace talks is a red herring. The settlements are illegal. Obama should not fall into the trap of arguing whether or not the freeze resulted in talks.

He should stick to pointing out what is legal and what is not.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Obama, Lieberman