Happiness for Sale

HAPPINESS FOR SALE
Mike Ghouse, December 31,2007
www.MikeGhouse.net

A sale transaction requires consideration for exchange of products and services. The consideration in buying happiness is your effort. Happiness is on Sale, it is on sale, because the effort required is minimal against the gain. Though a lopsided transaction, the supply is plentiful and does not take away anything from anyone but enrich every one with a heart felt smile.

Remember the last time you helped someone? You got some one up when he or she fell and you were thanked profusely for that act of kindness, do you recall that joy? You were beaming and your fellow workers and friends wanted to know what it was; you humbly shared the small experience.

Do you recall the twinkle in your eyes and wanted to praise those two that made the national news recently? When a man fell on the tract in New York subway, the other man jumped to save his life risking his own. Then a Bangladeshi student stood up against the bullies who beat up the subway passengers who wished Happy Hanukkah to that bully.

Life becomes meaningful and powerful when you do things for others; it is the anecdote against sorrow that surrounds us from time to time. That is the wisdom in Bahai, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islam, Jain, Jewish, Native religions, Shinto, Sikh, Wicca, Zoroastrian and other faiths – living for the sake of others, a proven formula for happiness.

Way back in 1978, my Peugeot 504 failed me on a Saudi Freeway to Dhahran, I stood there in 116 degrees heat waving at every vehicle that drove on a full throttle going over 140 MPH. I was dying with thirst and blisters were all over my lips and my face, I looked like some one from the western movies. The drivers, who wanted to stop, could not do so within a walking range. After nearly five hours of eternity, a man finally stopped and drove his Toyota truck the full half mile in reverse. His Burqa Clad wife was with him on the passenger’s side and in the back were a couple of goats and sheep. I was imagining sitting with the goats and started feeling faintly, but he pulled his wife closer to him and asked me to hop in that little Toyota. I was too tired to worry where I was going. He gave me the life giving water and drove.

We barely communicated with my minimal Arabic and his English, we went to his home some where in the outer rim of the town of Abqaiq. His family brought in the tea and other refreshments followed by a huge dinner with several of his friends. He had one of his friends haul off my car and was getting it fixed; the fuel injection vehicles don’t work very well in that kind of heat. I had purchased that Car from Nick Gruev, an Albanian American friend out of Houston.

The Sheikh’s friends came were fixing the Hubbly Bubbly (Huqqa) and passing it between their friends, I was dreading to put that thing in my mouth should it come to me, sure enough it did and reluctantly I pretended puffing it. Around 8 PM, his mechanic friend drove up with my car.

As I was ready to leave, I thanked Shaikh Ahmed Al-Sabah profusely and pulled my wallet to pay, he pushed my hand and said “Aqhi, you are my guest and don’t even think of it.” I pleaded, it was the greatest favor a stranger has done to me and I asked, how I can pay.

He looked at me intently and asked, would you promise me something? In gratitude I said yes, but shuddered what now? He took time and looked at me again and said these life changing words to me “Next time, if you see some one needing help, would you stop and help?” I eagerly said Yes, satisfied; he asked again, are you sure? I gave an emphatic yes, to which he said, “Alhamdu Lillah (praise the lord) that is my reward.

I buy happiness at every nook and corner; it is very satisfying to see other people in their full human form when they give their beautiful smile. A genuine smile is the most beautiful thing on the earth, nothing compares to it.

Every day, you have those opportunities. Make an effort in doing things for others and see how easy it is to be happy.

Here are a few thoughts for you to ponder:

Push yourselves to be prejudice free against people from every meeting, incident, TV shows, and work or news items that you come across.
Find excuses to greet other people and wish them well, don’t worry what they think of you, just do it and see the response and counter response.
Work on bringing humility and fight off every thought and action that gives you the idea that your race, faith, nation, culture, language or life style is superior to others.
Commit to yourselves that your words and actions do not flare up conflicts, but mitigate them.
Commit yourselves that you are going to do your share of living for others, for starters one hour a week will enrich you with joy.
It does not take any money; it is your goodwill that brings you the joy. It is yours to keep and is on sale.

Best wishes for 2008

CommentstoMike@Gmail.com

© MIKE GHOUSE 2007- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com or (214) 325-1916

Annapolis - Include Hamas

Don't Ignore Hamas
Hamas won't attend this week's peace talks, but it can still sink them.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1126/p09s02-coop.html
By Yossi Beilin

Moderator: " Although some of us may not like Hamas, they need to be in the picture to get decisions implemented. We cannot bring peace unilaterally without the parties to conflict participating in it. " I wrote that on 20th of November, in the very first article of this blog. I debated about it, as the extremists will pounce on me, but then, that is the precise reason why things don't happen; People don't speak up. Since then 2 Israelis have called for including Hamas.

Hamas's victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006, and its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June, were very bad news for those who believe in Israeli-Palestinian peace. But as Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) prepare to launch formal negotiations on final status – for the first time in seven years – Israel should seek to reach a cease fire with Hamas as soon as possible.

This is not an easy position for an Israeli to take. Hamas is a religiously fanatical organization that has used the worst kind of terrorist violence against Israelis. That Hamas won parliamentary elections does not automatically render it politically legitimate. Democracy is about more than winning elections, and Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip was a flagrant demonstration of its readiness to defy democratic principles.

But politics is full of paradoxes, and Hamas's takeover of Gaza did create an opportunity. Put schematically, as Gaza fell to the "bad guys," the West Bank was reclaimed by the "good guys," who quickly distanced themselves from Hamas and set up their own pragmatic (in some ways, liberal) government. For Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas could now be recast as the politically sanitized partner that Mr. Olmert had insisted he so dearly wanted.

Yet even as the new status quo has allowed Olmert and Mr. Abbas to embark on a serious process, it also presents both leaders with unprecedented challenges. Hamas's control of Gaza gives it a political and geographical platform from which to disturb – even to spoil – any peace talks. Already Hamas permits the constant firing of Qassam rockets into Israel, and it threatens to carry out suicide bombings inside Israel. If it continues to be sidelined, Hamas will probably try to thwart the upcoming meeting in Annapolis, Md., and the process the participants hope to ignite, by escalating the violence to such a degree that the parties will find it difficult even to meet, let alone negotiate peace.

In other words, precisely because Israel and the PLO are ready to sit down and talk, Hamas cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, a broad coalition has formed of those who believe that it not only can be ignored but should be. This coalition includes the majority of Arab states, which support an embargo on Gaza for fear that Hamas's political success there would strengthen radical Islamism in their own countries, as well as in the US, the European Union, and the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, which is determined to force Hamas to admit failure and give up power.

Against such a broad coalition, it is hard for an Israeli to talk about engaging Hamas, let alone about a cease fire. But unlike many others, Israel cannot afford to pretend that Hamas does not exist. Hamas is our next-door neighbor, not that of Washington or Brussels or (with all due respect to Egypt's sensitivity to the dangers of fundamentalist fervor) Cairo. We are responsible for the lives and security of our citizens, whether they live within range of the Qassam rockets or in the bustling centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Israel also continues to share residual responsibility for the welfare of the 1.4 million Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied for nearly 40 years. The fact, moreover, that Israel continues to exercise control over all but one of Gaza's entry and exit points, as well as over its airspace and sea territory, places additional responsibilities on it.

Given that the current policy of containment has not quelled the violence across its border, Israel should opt for another way. The only option that I see serving the cause of peace is to enter into a dialogue with Hamas through a third party in order to reach a cease fire. Such an agreement would include the total cessation of mutual violence; arrangements at the border to allow goods and services to pass in and out of the Gaza Strip; the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted in June 2006; and a commitment by Hamas to prevent all attempts to undermine this week's meeting in Annapolis and the resulting process.

The prospects for making progress on peace will be greater if we establish peace on the ground here and now.

Yossi Beilin is a member of the Israeli Knesset and chairman of the Meretz-Yachad Party. He is a former justice minister as well as the architect of the unofficial Geneva Initiative, a comprehensive and detailed draft agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. ©2007 The Washington Post.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Annapolis - the Iran factor

Behind Mideast summit – the Iran factor
The Annapolis talks on Tuesday are shadowed by a nation not there.
By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Moderator - Is this a farce democracy agenda our President is pursuing? Decisions are made for the people without their presence, without their participation? At Annapolis on Tuesday, everyone will be there to party, except the affected party. The Palestinians of Gaza or their represenative must be there for us to be sincere with spreading democracy. It is about them as much about the Palestinians of the west bank and Israelis, we are calling this conference for them, without them? How arrogant can we be to believe that we are right?

WASHINGTON - When the Bush administration holds a meeting this week to formally relaunch the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, one uninvited guest will be looming large over everyone's shoulder: Iran.

Tuesday's meeting in Annapolis, Md., was once envisioned as a three-day conference to kick off the negotiation of final-status issues. It's now an incredibly shrinking 24-hour gathering, but its occurrence at all is in no small measure a result of the rise of Iran and its brand of radical Islam in the Middle East.

Consider how Iran plays into the picture for the following players:

• If President Bush has finally bought into a process he eschewed for seven years, it is not so much because he really believes now is a propitious moment for progress on peace. Instead, analysts say, Mr. Bush sees the need to contain Iran. He also sees how bringing Arab moderates to the table with Israel could work toward that goal.

• Saudi Arabia said it would attend a conference only if it addresses the core issues for establishing a Palestinian state. That won't happen, but still Riyadh will attend – in large part because the Saudis see as desirable any action that ties the United States into the region and challenges Iran's rise.

• And the attendance of Syria – something that both the Bush administration and Israel hoped for – reflects how Damascus is seeking to hedge its bets after having aligned itself increasingly with the regime in Tehran.

For the US, moderate Arab states, Israel, and the Palestinian supporters of Mahmoud Abbas, "finding a way to counter the threat from Tehran … is fueling this peace meeting more than any other factor," says Martin Indyk, a former US negotiator on the Middle East who is now director of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center on the Middle East in Washington.

Expectations for the Annapolis meeting, to be held at the US Naval Academy in Maryland's capital, are "lower than the Dead Sea," says David Makovsky, director of the project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert nor the Palestinian president, Mr. Abbas, is coming from a position of domestic political strength that would allow for compromise.

The best to be expected from the gathering may be a "road map-plus" formula, Mr. Makovsky says. Under such a scenario, the parties would formally agree to undertake steps – security measures on the Palestinian side, a settlement freeze and steps easing Palestinian living conditions for the Israelis – while launching final-status negotiations on issues like refugees and Jerusalem.

Still, the meeting will draw participants anxious for anything that might stall Iran's hegemonic rise in the region, Makovsky says.

The reputation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has risen in the Palestinian territories and the region as he has advocated violence over accommodation to address the Palestinians' plight. He has also skewered moderate Arab leaders for agreeing to work with Israel on peace.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has focused much of her attention this year on Iran containment, hopes to use the Annapolis meeting to "pull Syria out of Tehran's orbit," Makovsky says. As one Arab diplomat told Makovsky, the real purpose of Annapolis is to "take the Palestinian card out of Ahmadinejad's hand," he notes.

But not everyone is so sure the Annapolis meeting will have the desired geopolitical impact, while some even caution that it could end up playing into Tehran's hands.

"This is rigged for Iran to win," says David Wurmser, a former Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The objective of Tehran and in particular Mr. Ahmadinejad is to stoke a "civilizational struggle," pitting a weak and compliant Islam that is tethered to the West against an aggressive and resurgent Islam, Mr. Wurmser says. In that context, it actually serves Iran's purposes if a "humiliated" Arab world joins Israel at the conference table and doesn't receive anything concrete in return.

If the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians are seen to "march off to Annapolis to surrender" before the US and Israel, Wurmser says, "that could be a greater gift to the Iranians than anything else Iran could achieve."

Others are not so categoric, but do see cracks in Secretary Rice's strategy of containing Iran with a relaunched Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The idea that a convergence created by a fear of Iran could compel the parties to make unprecedented concessions has "elements of truth," says Dennis Ross, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former peace-process coordinator for the Clinton administration. But that vision, he says, fails to grasp another reality: that Iran's rise is seen by many in the region through the "prism" of the Sunni-Shiite divide.

One result of that particular perspective is that Sunni states like Saudi Arabia are still holding out the possibility of producing a bridge between Abbas's moderate Fatah organization and the radical Hamas, which took control of Gaza after it won elections in January. Hamas is a Sunni organization but has relied increasingly on support from Shiite Iran as the international community has sought to isolate it.

"The assumption that a common threat would produce a common approach faltered," Mr. Ross says.

The Annapolis meeting will actually kick off with a dinner at the State Department Monday, when Bush is to hold White House talks with Mr. Olmert and Abbas. Bush is also scheduled to wrap up the event Wednesday with further talks with the two key leaders.

The impact of Annapolis will really be in what comes after it, experts say. For clues on that, most will be watching for two things: who actually attends the meeting and what Bush says in the speech he will give in Annapolis on Tuesday.

Rice pressed hard for Saudi Arabia to send its foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, as a sign of its commitment to the process. He will attend, though somewhat grudgingly.

Likewise, the administration wanted Syria to send its foreign minister and publicly assured it that the Annapolis microphone would be open to them to put their chief concern with the Israelis – the occupied Golan Heights – on the conference table. But Syria's announcement that it will settle for sending its deputy foreign minister, Faysal Mekdad, reflects a hedging of its bets: While Damascus holds out hope for improved relations with Washington, and wishes to demonstrate some distance from Tehran, experts say, it does not to appear to be playing wholly into the US game plan.

As for Bush's speech, the key will be if the president sets out any kind of an agenda and timeline for the peace process – and if he outlines any of the tough issues to be addressed with specifics. Mr. Indyk of the Brookings Institution says he will watch for any mention of the "territorial compensation" the Palestinians can expect in return for the West Bank settlement blocks that Israel will not be asked to hand over to a new Palestine.

And then, what mention does Bush make of a follow-up agenda to Annapolis? Many ears will be attuned to any reference to a review conference by which point certain progress would be expected. Indyk says talk is already circulating of such a conference occurring in Moscow.

Noting that the US and the international community are basically "reinstating a process after seven years of not having a process," Ross says the crucial question will be: "What is the day-after strategy?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1126/p01s03-usfp.html?page=1

Annapolis - Jewish Question

On the Jewish Question
By BERNARD LEWIS
November 26, 2007; Page A21, WSJ

MODERATOR: Agree with the writer, this is the way to narrow down the issues. If it is the size of Israel, then the issue is on the table for discussion, but if it is existence, then the Arab states have to pinch themselves and wake up into a real world. CAVEAT: As World Citizens, we need to ponder if other nations were to accept the refugees, then we may be opening the doors of legitimacy for nations that will throw sons and daughters of the soil out. Moving Jews out of Germany legitimized Germany's illegal crimes of throwing out her own citizens. Should we subscribe to this value? What will happen in the future if one nations throws its inhabitants out and occupies, should the world continue to accept the refugees so that nation can continue occupation?

Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow's Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much-discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways -- Hindus and others from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement -- Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland into Germany.

The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in neighboring Arab countries.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.

There are signs of change in some Arab circles, of a willingness to accept Israel and even to see the possibility of a positive Israeli contribution to the public life of the region. But such opinions are only furtively expressed. Sometimes, those who dare to express them are jailed or worse. These opinions have as yet little or no impact on the leadership.

Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119604260214503526.html

Annapolis - Syria's place

Imad Moustapha: Give Syria a place at the table

U.S. and Israel are trying to marginalize Syria's role in the peace process
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-moustapha_20edi.ART.State.Edition1.4265669.html

08:42 AM CDT on Saturday, October 20, 2007

Excerpts of an editorial board interview with Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha, who addressed the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth on Tuesday.

The Associated Press
Imad Moustapha said officials at the peace conference planned next month are inviting Syria as part of the group that contains Yemen and Oman. 'We are a key player, a major player,' he said. 'And here we're supposed to be just like Yemen or Oman as ... observers?' Will Syria be participating in the peace conference the Bush administration is convening in Annapolis, Md., next month?

Syria is part and parcel of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We are a major player. Israel is occupying part of Syria. In the last 10 years, [previous U.S. administrations] consumed a lot of effort and energy trying to broker a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement. And we were on the verge of a peace agreement. It didn't materialize, but that does not mean that we should give up hope.

It's much easier to achieve peace between the Syrians and Israelis than with the Palestinians and Israelis, where the issues are more complex, more emotional. The extraordinary thing [today] is, the United States doesn't talk to us at all. They are having this peace conference, and we heard from the media that Syria would be invited as part of this group that contains Yemen, Oman. ... We are a key player, a major player. And here we're supposed to be just like Yemen or Oman as ... observers?

Our understanding is that the invitation will be extended to Syria only two or three days prior to the conference, so that we will say: "Sorry guys, this is not serious. We will not attend." And then the administration will say: "See? Syria is a spoiler." ... Our position is the following: If the Golan, which is the occupied part of Syria, will not be in the discussion, then definitely we will not attend.

We don't know why Israel launched an air strike on Syria on Sept. 6, but we assume they had some justification. If you were in Israel's shoes, could you understand why they wouldn't want you at the negotiating table?

We believe in Syria that the only way forward is to reach a peace agreement with the Israelis. We are realists. We do understand that the Israelis enjoy military superiority compared to the Syrian capabilities. ... We also understand that the Israelis know very well that, despite their sheer military superiority, they cannot impose on us forever their policies of occupation. ...

The Israelis know very well, and the United States knows absolutely well, that there is no Syrian nuclear program whatsoever. It's an absolutely blatant lie. And it's not like they think we have but they're not sure. They know. Let me be clear about it: Syria has never, ever contemplated acquiring nuclear technology. We are not contemplating it today. We are not contemplating doing this in the future – neither for military nor for civilian purposes.

Then what did Israel attack?

Israel attacked a military installation in Syria. This is not unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ... It's easy for Syria right now to launch a missile against an Israeli target. But where this will lead to – another destructive war in our region similar to what happened last summer in Lebanon? ... What did this [Lebanon] attack lead to? Nowhere. Israel attacked Syria a month ago. What did this lead to? They did not destroy our military capability. It served domestic reasons in Israel, and it served some special, narrow-minded agendas here in the United States.

How does it serve Israel's agenda to keep this quiet? Israel hasn't said a word about this attack.

Israel didn't say anything, but this suited Israel very well, because suddenly ... everybody in the United States is discussing this "Syrian nuclear program." Everybody – particularly The New York Times – every two or three days they have a new article about the Syrian nuclear program. And we are flabbergasted in Syria. I have written three letters to The New York Times telling them: Have you forgotten what you have done prior to the Iraq war, when you published all the fallout stories about the Iraqi WMDs? Don't you realize that you're being "Judith Millered" for the second time within five years?

I'm trying to tell The New York Times: Look, be careful. Can't you see that you are being led into extremely dangerous territory? You are accusing a country of doing something it has not even contemplated doing – based on nothing. Based on leaks from Israeli agents who are very happy playing this game.

What was attacked, and what was the damage? Were there any deaths?

Minor damage. The military significance of it was minor. ... Nobody died. None. It was a military warehouse. ... All I'm saying is that every story that has to do with a Syrian nuclear program is an absolutely false story, full stop. Nothing whatsoever that Syria is doing has to do with nuclear technology for reasons that are simple for anyone to analyze: We are realists. We understand that if Syria even contemplated nuclear technology, then the gates of hell would open on us.

Annapolis - A Joke

THE ANNAPOLIS conference is a joke.
Though not in the least funny.
Uri Avnery, November 23, 2007
Washington Post Letters

Like quite a lot of political initiatives, this one too, according to all the indications, started more or less by accident. George Bush was due to make a speech. He was looking for a theme that would give it some substance. Something that would divert attention away from his fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something simple, optimistic, easy to swallow.

Somehow, the idea of a "meeting" of leaders to promote the Israeli-Palestinian "process" came up. An international meeting is always nice - it looks good on television, it provides plenty of photo-opportunities, it radiates optimism. We meet, ergo we exist.

So Bush voiced the idea: a "meeting" for the promotion of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Without any preceding strategic planning, any careful preparations, anything much at all.

That's why Bush did not go into any details: no clear aim, no agenda, no location, no date, no list of invitees. Just an ethereal meeting. This fact by itself testifies to the lack of seriousness of the entire enterprise.

This may shock people who have never seen close up how politics are actually conducted. It is hard to accept the intolerable lightness with which decisions are often made, the irresponsibility of leaders and the arbitrary way important processes are set in motion.

FROM THE MOMENT this idea was launched, it could not be called back. The President has spoken, the initiative starts on its way. As the saying goes: One fool throws a stone into the water, a dozen wise men cannot retrieve it.

Once the "meeting" had been announced, it became an important enterprise. The experts of all parties started to work frantically on the undefined event, each trying to steer it in the direction which would benefit them the most.

- Bush and Condoleezza Rice want an impressive event, to prove that the United States is vigorously promoting peace and democracy, and that they can succeed where the great Henry Kissinger failed. Jimmy Carter failed to turn the Israeli-Egyptian peace into an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Bill Clinton failed at Camp David. If Bush succeeds where all his illustrious predecessors have failed, won't that show who is the greatest of them all?

- Ehud Olmert urgently needs a resounding political achievement in order to blur the memory of his dismal failure in the Second Lebanon War and to extricate himself from the dozen or so criminal investigations for corruption that are pursuing him. His ambition knows no bounds: he wants to be photographed shaking the hand of the King of Saudi Arabia. A feat no Israeli prime minister before him has achieved.

- Mahmoud Abbas wants to show Hamas and the rebellious factions in his own Fatah movement that he can succeed where the great Yasser Arafat failed - to be accepted among the world's leaders as an equal partner.

This could, therefore, become a great, almost historic conference.

"IF ALL these hopes were something more than pipedreams. None of them has any substance. For one simple reason: no one of the three partners has any capital at his disposal.

- Bush is bankrupt. In order to succeed at Annapolis, he would have to exert intense pressure on Israel, to compel it to take the necessary steps: agree to the establishment of a real Palestinian state, give up East Jerusalem, restore the Green Line border (with some small swaps of territory), find an agreed-upon compromise formula for the refugee issue.

But Bush is quite unable to exert the slightest pressure on Israel, even if he wanted to. In the US, the election season has already begun, and the two big parties are bulwarks standing in the way of any pressure on Israel. The Jewish and Evangelistic lobbies, together with the neo-cons, will not allow one critical word about Israel to be uttered unpunished.

- Olmert is in an even weaker position. His coalition still survives only because there is no alternative in the present Knesset. It includes elements that in any other country would be called fascist (For historical reasons, Israelis don't like to use this term). He is prevented by his partners from making any compromise, however tiny - even if he wanted to reach an agreement.

This week, the Knesset adopted a bill that requires a two-thirds majority for any change of the borders of Greater Jerusalem. This means that Olmert cannot even give up one of the outlying Palestinian villages that were annexed to Jerusalem in 1967. He is also prevented from even approaching the 'core issues" of the conflict.

- Mahmoud Abbas cannot move away from the conditions laid down by Yasser Arafat (the 3rd anniversary of whose death was commemorated this week). If he strays from the straight and narrow, he will fall. He has already lost the Gaza Strip, and can lose the West Bank, too. On the other side, if he threatens violence, he will lose all he has got: the favor of Bush and the cooperation of the Israeli security forces.

The three poker players are going to sit down together, pretending to start the game, while none of them has a cent to put on the table.

THE MAJESTIC mountain seems to be getting smaller and smaller by the minute. It's against the laws of nature: the closer we get to it, the smaller it seems. What looked to many like a veritable Mt. Everest first turned into an ordinary mountain, then into a hill, and now it hardly looks like an anthill. And even that is shrinking, too.

First the participants were to deal with the "core issues". Then it was announced that a weighty declaration of intentions was to be adopted. Then a mere collection of empty phrases was proposed. Now even that is in doubt."

"Not one of the three leaders is still dreaming of an achievement. All they hope for now is to minimize the damage - but how to get out of a situation like this?

As usual, our side is the most creative at this task. After all, we are experts in building roadblocks, walls and fences. This week, an obstacle larger then the Great Wall of China appeared.

Ehud Olmert demanded that, before any negotiations, the Palestinians "recognize Israel as a Jewish state". He was followed by his coalition partner, the ultra-right Avigdor Liberman, who proposed staying away from Annapolis altogether if the Palestinians do not fulfill this demand in advance."

"Let's examine this condition for a moment:

The Palestinians are not required to recognize the state of Israel. After all, they have already done so in the Oslo agreement - in spite of the fact that Israel has yet to recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own based on the Green Line borders.

No, the government of Israel demands much more: the Palestinians must now recognize Israel as a "Jewish state".

Does the USA demand to be recognized as a "Christian" or "Anglo-Saxon state"? Did Stalin demand that the US recognize the Soviet Union as a "Communist state"? Does Poland demand to be recognized as a "Catholic state", or Pakistan as an "Islamic state"? Is there any precedent at all for a state to demand the recognition of its domestic regime?

The demand is ridiculous per se. But this can easily be shown by analysis ad absurdum.

What is a "Jewish state"? That has never been spelled out. Is it a state with a majority of Jewish citizens? Is it "the state of the Jewish people" - meaning the Jews from Brooklyn, Paris and Moscow? Is it "a state belonging to the Jewish religion" - and if so, does it belong to secular Jews as well? Or perhaps it belongs only to Jews under the Law of Return - i.e. those with a Jewish mother who have not converted to another religion?"

"Are the Palestinians required to recognize something that is the subject of debate in Israel itself?

According to the official doctrine, Israel is a "Jewish and democratic state". What should the Palestinians do if, according to democratic principles, some day my opinion prevails and Israel becomes an "Israeli state" that belongs to all its citizens - and to them alone? (After all, the US belongs to all its citizens, including Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, not to mention "Native-Americans".)

The sting is, of course, that this formula is quite unacceptable to Palestinians because it would hurt the million and a half Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. The definition "Jewish state" turns them automatically into - at best - second class citizens. If Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues were to accede to this demand, they would be sticking a knife in the backs of their own relatives.

Olmert & Co. know this, of course. They are not posing this demand in order to get it accepted. They pose it in order that it not be accepted. By this ploy they hope to avoid any obligation to start meaningful negotiations.

Moreover, according to the deceased Road Map, which all parties pretend to accept, Israel must dismantle all settlements set up after March, 2000, and freeze all the others. Olmert is quite unable to do that. At the same time, Mahmoud Abbas must destroy the "terror infrastructure". Abbas can't do that either - as long as there is no independent Palestinian state with an elected government.

I imagine Bush tossing and turning in his bed at night, cursing the speechwriter who put this miserable sentence into his mouth. On their way to heaven, his curses must be mingling with those of Olmert and Abbas.


WHEN THE leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine were about to sign the Declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, the document was not ready. Sitting in front of the cameras and history, they had to sign on an empty page. I am afraid that something like that will happen in Annapolis.

And then all of them will head back to their respective homes, heaving a heartfelt sigh of relief."

Cease-Fire With Hamas now

Needed: a Cease-Fire With Hamas, Now
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201099.html

By Yossi Beilin
Friday, November 23, 2007; Page A39

Moderator: I am pleased to see a sane voice here, something I wrote four days ago that without Hamas, the peace conference is farce. http://peace-palestine-israel.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-in-israel-palestine.html

Hamas's victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006 and its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June were very bad news for those who believe in Israeli-Palestinian peace. But as Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization prepare to launch formal negotiations on final status -- for the first time in seven years -- Israel should seek to reach a cease-fire with Hamas as soon as possible.

This is not an easy position for an Israeli to take. Hamas is a religiously fanatical organization that has used the worst kind of terrorist violence against Israelis. That Hamas won parliamentary elections does not automatically render it politically legitimate. Democracy is about more than winning elections, and Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip was a flagrant demonstration of its readiness to defy democratic principles.

Palestinian farmers protest Israeli trade sanctions yesterday in Gaza. (By Abid Katib -- Getty Images)

Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

But politics is full of paradoxes, and Hamas's takeover of Gaza did create an opportunity. Put schematically, as Gaza fell to the "bad guys," the West Bank was reclaimed by the "good guys," who quickly distanced themselves from Hamas and set up their own pragmatic (in some ways, liberal) government. For Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could now be recast as the politically sanitized partner that Olmert had insisted he so dearly wanted.

Yet even as the new status quo has allowed Olmert and Abbas to embark on a serious process, it also presents both leaders with unprecedented challenges. Hamas's control of Gaza gives it a political and geographical platform from which to disturb -- even to spoil -- any peace talks. Already Hamas permits the constant firing of Qassam rockets into Israel, and it threatens to carry out suicide bombings inside Israel. If it continues to be sidelined, Hamas will probably try to thwart the upcoming meeting in Annapolis, and the process the participants hope to ignite, by escalating the violence to such a degree that the parties will find it difficult even to meet, let alone negotiate peace.

In other words, precisely because Israel and the PLO are ready to sit down and talk, Hamas cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, a broad coalition has formed of those who believe that it not only can be ignored but should be. This coalition includes the majority of Arab states, which support an embargo on Gaza for fear that Hamas's political success there would strengthen radical Islamism in their own countries, as well as the United States, the European Union, and the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, which is determined to force Hamas to admit failure and give up power.

Against such a broad coalition, it is hard for an Israeli to talk about engaging Hamas, let alone about a cease-fire. But unlike many others, Israel cannot afford to pretend that Hamas does not exist. Hamas is our next-door neighbor, not that of Washington or Brussels or (with all due respect to Egypt's sensitivity to the dangers of fundamentalist fervor) Cairo. We are responsible for the lives and security of our citizens, whether they live within range of the Qassam rockets or in the bustling centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.


Israel also continues to share residual responsibility for the welfare of the 1.4 million Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied for nearly 40 years. The fact, moreover, that Israel continues to exercise control over all but one of Gaza's entry and exit points, as well as over its airspace and sea territory, places additional responsibilities on it.

Given that the current policy of containment has not quelled the violence across its border, Israel should opt for another way. The only option that I see serving the cause of peace is to enter into a dialogue with Hamas through a third party in order to reach a cease-fire. Such an agreement would include the total cessation of mutual violence; arrangements at the border to allow goods and services to pass in and out of the Gaza Strip; the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted in June 2006; and a commitment by Hamas to prevent all attempts to undermine next week's meeting in Annapolis and the resulting process.

The prospects for making progress on peace will be greater if we establish peace on the ground here and now.

Yossi Beilin is a member of the Israeli Knesset and chairman of the Meretz-Yachad Party. He is a former justice minister as well as the architect of the unofficial Geneva Initiative, a comprehensive and detailed draft agreement between Israel and Palestine.

Annapolis: Jewish support?

Where is Jewish support for Annapolis?
By Ori Nir, November 23, 2007

Article will follow moderator notes;

"He even had a specific idea: American Jewish organizations should use their political influence to arrange for Israeli and Palestinian religious leaders to be present in Annapolis, at the time of the conference, to give the conference spiritual support. "

It is a great idea, they control the pulpit and they can influence the attitudes of their congregations positively. The true spiritual leaders counter the vainness of the politicians.

"Most American Jewish groups are either silent or, worse, they are seeking excuses to avoid supporting this peace effort. "

It is a shame, it is the same case with the good for nothing silent majority in all groups. They need to speak up, their voice is powerful, they just need to speak up in the interest of peace in the long run.

"The American Jewish extreme right always has resisted and always will resist Israel’s efforts to rid itself of its occupation of the West Bank. "

That is the problem with all religious rights, be it Christian, Muslim or Hindu, they are the real detriment to peace.

"But where are the centrist, non-messianic, mainstream Jewish groups that say they support Israel’s quest for peace? "

They are silent and hope they wake up. If they do, they will not get the chance to blame any one.

And now the op-ed by Ori Nir;

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The call for American Jewish organizations to support the current peace efforts came from an unexpected direction: Israel’s Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger. For years closely associated with the right-wing National Religious Party, Metzger recently asked representatives of American Jewish groups in Washington to “influence the American administration” to do their utmost for the success of the Annapolis peace conference.

He even had a specific idea: American Jewish organizations should use their political influence to arrange for Israeli and Palestinian religious leaders to be present in Annapolis, at the time of the conference, to give the conferees spiritual support.

Israel’s chief rabbi was accompanied by the head of the Palestinian Muslim courts as well as by other Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders. They all made pleas similar to Rabbi Metzger’s, which were very moving. So moving, in fact, that their interlocutors -- representatives of American Jewish organizations -- were too embarrassed to tell the distinguished clerics that America’s large national Jewish groups are not even expressing public support for Annapolis, let alone actively working to make it succeed.

Most American Jewish groups are either silent or, worse, they are seeking excuses to avoid supporting this peace effort.

Americans for Peace Now and several other dovish groups publicly endorsed the Annapolis process. But except for them, hardly any Jewish organization has lauded the Bush administration’s renewed interest in Israeli-Palestinian peace. Hardly any group has commended Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for his bold statements of commitment to seeking a final settlement with the Palestinians.

When asked by reporters to explain the silence, leaders of the largest national Jewish organizations -- people who typically are happy to voice an opinion on almost anything -- say that it’s too early, that the current process is too short on specifics.

Well, it’s not. The Annapolis conference is around the corner and its goals, as laid out by Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, are quite simple:

The idea is to turn the two-state solution from a vision into a reality by relaunching bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Unlike past efforts, however, this one hopefully will be supported by Arab countries and other international stakeholders.

It also offers a “political horizon” for Israelis and Palestinians: a joint commitment in advance to address all outstanding “core issues” of the conflict, including borders, the future of Jerusalem and the future of Palestinian refugees. You can either support this initiative or oppose it. But how can American friends of Israel stay indifferent to it?

Some say the Annapolis process is not likely to succeed. They may be right. A reasonable dose of skepticism is certainly healthy. But skepticism ought not be an excuse to deny support for this effort.

Most mainstream Jewish organizations, as a part of their mission statement, claim to support the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. By failing to support Israel’s current peace policy, these Jewish groups are not only being untrue to their principles. They are also taking part in turning justified skepticism into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is not surprising to see the ultranationalist, dogmatic groups rise in opposition to the peace efforts. The American Jewish extreme right always has resisted and always will resist Israel’s efforts to rid itself of its occupation of the West Bank.

But where are the centrist, non-messianic, mainstream Jewish groups that say they support Israel’s quest for peace?

Earlier this month, in a speech that warmly endorsed the Annapolis process, Olmert called on regional and international leaders to “be open to hope and face the genuine and clear risks and difficulties so that the process may move ahead.”

Jewish community leaders are well advised to heed the pleas of Israel’s political and spiritual leaders.

Ori Nir is the spokesman of Americans for Peace Now.

Annapolis : Morton Klein

Op-Ed: Annapolis has little chance of success
By Morton Klein

The article will continue after moderators Notes;

"Why do Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to promote extremism and terror? Because their goal is not a two-state solution but Israel’s destruction.".

It appears Mr. Klein is paranoid or playing the same old record "Israel's destruction". That is not in the equation, if it is there, it is empty talk. What are the choices? Not do any thing? Peace is an incessant effort and must be continued. On the other hand, a dose of goodwill does a lot more good to both the people. Israel is militarily safe and this talk needs to move from a digging in the heels to goodwill zone.

"The Zionist Organization of America suggests that before there is any Annapolis-type conference, American Jews should urge their members of Congress, the State Department and Israel to demand that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority first comply with all its written commitments to end terror and incitement, and accept Israel as a Jewish state. "

Guys, meet face to face dissolves some, at least a fraction of mistrust. Let let Goodwill prevail, a lot will be done with it than placing conditions. If you want the honey, you don't kick the beehive. The old ways have not worked, and it is time to take a new approach.

............. and now the article by Morton Klein


NEW YORK (JTA) -- Before year’s end, a U.S.-sponsored conference involving Israel and the Palestinian Authority will convene in Annapolis, Md., to frame yet another plan to end the Arab-Israeli war and create a Palestinian state. Sadly, this conference has as much chance of succeeding as did Oslo because the same mistakes that ensured failure then are being made now.

During the Oslo years, the Palestinians received half of Judea and Samaria, all of Gaza, weapons and billions in aid while the world ignored Yasser Arafat’s non-fulfillment of any of his obligations to prevent terrorism, arrest terrorists, outlaw terrorist groups and end incitement to hatred and murder against Israel and Jews in their media, schools and official speeches.

We even ignored the fact that the Palestinian Authority named schools, streets and sports teams after terrorists. Indeed, Arafat was not held accountable for his lack of compliance and promotion of terror. From then until now, the Palestinian public has become more, not less, radicalized against the very existence of Israel even as Israeli concessions and U.S. funding continued.

Now the same failed scenario is unfolding with the new “Annapolis accords.” Instead of ending concessions and aid and applying pressure to the Palestinian Authority to finally fulfill its Oslo commitments, Israel and the United States are promising virtually all of Judea and Samaria, parts of Jerusalem, the forced eviction of 70, 000 Jews and hundreds of millions in U.S. aid. It’s as if the past 14 years of Palestinian terror and promotion of terror didn’t happen.

But we’re told the big difference now is that P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas is not Arafat and is a “moderate.” Is that true? Hardly.

Not only does Abbas allow the incitement against Israel to continue and refuse to arrest terrorists, but he refers to terrorists as “heroes,” and proclaims “our rifles are aimed at the occupation” and “it is our duty to implement the principles of Yasser Arafat.” He proved these anti-peace statements have meaning by endorsing the so-called “prisoners plan” and the Hamas-Mecca agreement, which called for more violence against Israel.

Here is further proof that Annapolis won’t succeed with Abbas: some U.S. aid to the P.A. president has ended up in Hamas hands; Abbas has called Hamas “an integral part of the Palestinian people”; and he promises to engage in further talks with Hamas if it cedes control of Gaza. Hamas could take over the Palestinians anytime it wishes, and Abbas knows this.

Why do Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to promote extremism and terror? Because their goal is not a two-state solution but Israel’s destruction.

The Arabs keep saying “no” whenever a state is offered. They rejected a Palestinian state in 1948; they didn’t establish one from 1948 to 1967 when they controlled Judea, Samaria, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem; and they rejected Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of statehood in 2000.

Not only does Israel not appear on any Palestinian map of the Middle East, but recently Abbas told a Palestinian TV audience, “It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel.” And this very week, both Abbas and senior P.A. negotiator Saeb Erekat refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Regrettably, the evidence makes it painfully clear that the Palestinians never wanted a state alongside Israel but rather an Arab state in place of Israel.

Yet despite all of these disturbing facts, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are willing to take some vague words in English from P.A. officials as proof of moderation, rationalize the Palestinians' anti-peace behavior and convince themselves that maybe after they are given a sovereign state, peace will prevail. But remember, North Korea, Iran and Syria are sovereign states. Are they peace-loving countries?

Even Egypt's foreign minister has advised that all should find a pretext to postpone Annapolis indefinitely, realizing it can’t succeed.

The Zionist Organization of America suggests that before there is any Annapolis-type conference, American Jews should urge their members of Congress, the State Department and Israel to demand that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority first comply with all its written commitments to end terror and incitement, and accept Israel as a Jewish state.

We must also demand that U.S. funding be conditioned on fulfilling these 14-year-old Oslo obligations and urge no consideration of Israeli concessions until this happens. Otherwise, any “agreements” will suffer the same fate as Oslo.

Morton Klein is the president of the Zionist Organization of America.

The last refuge:Uri Avnery

THE LAST REFUGE
Uri Avnery, November 20, 2007

Uri Avnery is one of my favorite writes and I have always found plenty of wisdom in his writings, and hence I am pleased to share this global item from him. He writes for Haaretz Israel, an Israeli news paper.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C20%5Cstory_20-11-2007_pg3_6

OPINION: The last refuge —Uri Avnery

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” For a failed politician, the last refuge is war

ISRAEL IS an island in the global sea. We live in a bubble. This week I was sharply reminded of this.

I was returning home from Germany. On the eve of the flight, all TV networks, from CNN and BBC to the German channels, were reporting the events in Pakistan. In the airplane, I opened Israel’s largest circulation tabloid, Yedioth Aharonoth, in order to read about the Pakistani mess. I did not find any mention of it on page 1. Nor on page 2. I found a small item on page 27. The first pages were devoted to something much more important: the shouts of protest by right-wing football hooligans when they were requested to stand up in memory of Yitzhak Rabin.

The next day, Yedioth found an Israeli angle that enabled it to put Pakistan on the front page after all: the fear that the Pakistani nuclear bomb would fall into the hands of Osama bin Laden, who would aim it at Israel. Hallelujah, there is again something to be afraid of.

But the putsch by Pervez Musharraf is a serious matter. It could well have far-reaching effects for the world in general, and for Israel in particular.

The main victim — besides, of course, the hundreds of political activists who have been thrown into prison — is George W Bush.

Machiavelli said that it is preferable for the prince to be feared rather than loved. In the same vein, it can be said that it is preferable for a president to be hated rather than derided.

And derision is what George W Bush is attracting. He has asserted in the past that his main task was to bring democracy to the Muslim world, and has assured us that the implementation of this aim was well under way. That is a laughable pretence.

What is happening in fact? In Iraq one tyrant has been overthrown, and dozens of small local tyrants have taken over. The country is bleeding and falling apart. The “democratic elections” have brought to power a government that hardly governs the Green Zone in Baghdad, which has to be secured by American soldiers.

In Afghanistan an “elected” president hardly rules the capital, Kabul. In the rest of the country, local chieftains are in control. And the Taliban are slowly and steadily re-conquering the country.

In Iran, democratic elections have brought to power an uninhibited politician with a big mouth and small achievements, whose favourite occupation is to curse the American Crusaders and the “Zionist entity”.

In Syria there is a stable dictatorship, which can carry on mainly because the Syrians believe that any alternative would be worse.

Lebanon is as far from democracy as ever. Real democratic elections, in which every citizen can vote directly for parliament without sectarian divisions, are out of the question. A new president has to be elected, but that is well-nigh impossible, the gulf between the sects is so wide. This week, Hizbullah conducted large-scale manoeuvres near the Israeli borders. Even the Israeli army was impressed.

In Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the three “moderate” (read: dictatorial and pro-American) countries, there is a very original kind of democracy. Political opposition is languishing in prison.

In Palestine, impeccable elections were held under strict international supervision, the only really democratic elections in the Arab world. George Bush would have been proud of them, if — alas — they had not been won by the “wrong” crowd — Hamas.

And now, Pakistan. It seemed that there, at least, Bush was harvesting successes. He had brought back Benazir Bhutto, another Bush favourite, and everything looked fine: a democratic regime was about to be re- installed, the president was about to hang up his uniform and form a coalition with Bhutto. But then a bomb exploded next to her armoured car, dozens were killed. The president-general, who was just waiting for such an opportunity, carried out a coup d’etat against himself, and, instead of his moderate dictatorship, has set up a much harsher regime, like a Pakistani version of the late Saddam Hussein.

As in a Hollywood comedy, George Bush is standing there with a custard pie splattered all over his face. He looks ridiculous. No president likes being ridiculous. Scary, okay; evil, okay; dumb, okay. But ridiculous — never!

That may have a direct bearing on a question that is worrying the whole world, myself included: Will he attack Iran?

The temptation is almost overwhelming. In another year, his term in office will come to an end. After eight years, he has nothing to show for it — except a continuous series of failures. But a man who (he says) holds daily talks with God cannot leave the stage of history like that.

He is longing for some sort of success in Annapolis. At the most, there will be an empty declaration signed by the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. There will be some good photo opportunities, but that will not satisfy the lions. Something much bigger is needed, something that will leave its mark in the annals of history.

What better than saving humanity from the Iranian nuclear bomb?

The German language has the expression “Flucht nach vorne” — an escape forwards. If you don’t know what to do any more, attack your nearest enemy. Thus Napoleon invaded Russia, followed years later by Hitler. Bush may attack Iran for similar reasons.

I suspect that the decision has already been made and that the preparations are already rolling. There is no proof of that, but Bush behaves as if he has decided on war.

Washington’s huge propaganda machine is working full-time to prepare the ground. Anyone who opposes is run over.

And Israel is supposed to play a central role in this piece. The Foreign Office has joined the effort and has started a world-wide campaign to besmirch Mohammed al-Baradei, the highly respected chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Every day, the obedient media publish reports by correspondents and commentators, who are but thinly disguised spokesmen for the army and the government. They tell us that within a year and a half Iran will already have a nuclear bomb, and that this will be the end of Israel and the world. As the Hebrew expression goes, the remedy must come before the disease. Therefore: Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!

One of the possible scenarios: Israel will bomb first. The Iranians will respond by launching missiles at Israel. The US will enter the action “to save Israel”. Which American politician will dare to object? Who? Hillary Clinton?

Bush is dreaming again about a war without American casualties. A “surgical” air strike. A hail of “smart” bombs pours down on thousands of Iranian targets — nuclear, governmental, military and civil. What a sweet dream: Iran soon surrenders. The regime of the Ayatollahs collapses. The son of the late Shah takes his place on the throne of his father, who himself was once restored to power by American bayonets.

As I have said in the past, I am not convinced by this scenario. What will actually happen is that Iran will close the strait of Hormuz. Through this strait, named after an ancient Persian deity, flows 20% of the world’s oil supply. It is 270 km long and, at its narrowest, only 35 km wide. A few missiles and mines are enough to close it. That would be tolerable if the war lasted a few days. But if it goes on for weeks and months, it will cause a profound world-wide crisis.

And the war will indeed go on. There will be no escape for the US from committing very large ground forces to conquer first the region bordering on the straits, and then the entire big country. The US has no available ground forces left — even before the American forces in Iraq are exposed to missile attacks from Iran and to guerrilla actions from the Shiites, who make up the majority in Iraq.

This will not be a quick and easy war. Iran is different from Iraq. Unlike Iraq, with its various peoples and sects, Iran is comparatively homogenous. This war will be an Iraq war multiplied by 10, perhaps by 100.

How shall we get through this war? There is only one way to come out of this in one piece — not to get into it in the first place. But, after all the dismal failures he has suffered in Iraq, in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan — what can persuade Bush to resist the temptation? And how to persuade Ehud Olmert, who longs for a way out of the quagmire he is stuck in?

It has been said that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. For a failed politician, the last refuge is war.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)

Israel : No right to exist?

Why Israel Has No "Right To Exist"
As A Jewish State
By Oren Ben-Dor, 21 November, 2007

Yet again, the Annapolis meeting between Olmert and Abbas is preconditioned upon the recognition by the Palestinian side of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Indeed the "road map" should lead to, and legitimate, once and for all, the right of such a Jewish state to exist in definitive borders and in peace with its neighbours. The vision of justice, both past and future, simply has to be that of two states, one Palestinian, one Jewish, which would coexist side by side in peace and stability. Finding a formula for a reasonably just partition and separation is still the essence of what is considered to be moderate, pragmatic and fair ethos.

Thus, the really deep issues--the "core"--are conceived as the status of Jerusalem, the fate and future of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories and the viability of the future Palestinian state beside the Jewish one. The fate of the descendants of those 750000 Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948 from what is now, and would continue to be under a two-state solutions, the State of Israel, constitutes a "problem" but never an "issue" because, God forbid, to make it an issue on the table would be to threaten the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The existence of Israel as a Jewish state must never become a core issue. That premise unites political opinion in the Jewish state, left and right and also persists as a pragmatic view of many Palestinians who would prefer some improvement to no improvement at all.Only "extremists" such as Hamas, anti-Semites, and Self-Hating Jews--terribly disturbed, misguided and detached lot--can make Israel's existence into a core problem and in turn into a necessary issue to be debated and addressed.

The Jewish state, a supposedly potential haven for all the Jews in the world in the case a second Holocaust comes about, should be recognised as a fact on the ground blackmailed into the "never again" rhetoric. All considerations of pragmatism and reasonableness in envisioning a "peace process" to settle the 'Israeli/Palestinian' conflict must never destabilise the sacred status of that premise that a Jewish state has a right to exist.

Notice, however, that Palestinian are not asked merely to recognise the perfectly true fact and with it, the absolutely feasible moral claim, that millions of Jewish people are now living in the State of Israel and that their physical existence, liberty and equality should be protected in any future settlement. They are not asked merely to recognise the assurance that any future arrangement would recognise historic Palestine as a home for the Jewish People.What Palestinians are asked to subscribe to recognition the right of an ideology that informs the make-up of a state to exist as Jewish one. They are asked to recognise that ethno-nationalistic premise of statehood.

The fallacy is clear: the recognition of the right of Jews who are there--however unjustly many of their Parents or Grandparents came to acquire what they own--to remain there under liberty and equality in a post-colonial political settlement, is perfectly compatible with the non-recognition of the state whose constitution gives those Jews a preferential stake in the polity.
It is an abuse of the notion of pragmatism to conceive its effort as putting the very notion of Jewish state beyond the possible and desirable implementation of egalitarian moral scrutiny. To so abuse pragmatism would be to put it at the service of the continuation of colonialism. A pragmatic and reasonable solution ought to centre on the problem of how to address past, present, and future injustices to non-Jew-Arabs without thereby cause other injustices to Jews. This would be a very complex pragmatic issue which would call for much imagination and generosity. But reasonableness and pragmatism should not determine whether the cause for such injustices be included or excluded from debates or negotiations. To pragmatically exclude moral claims and to pragmatically protect immoral assertions by fiat must in fact hide some form of extremism. The causes of colonial injustice and the causes that constitutionally prevent their full articulation and address should not be excluded from the debate. Pragmatism can not become the very tool that legitimate constitutional structures that hinder de-colonisation and the establishment of egalitarian constitution.

So let us boldly ask: What exactly is entailed by the requirement to recognise Israel as a Jewish state? What do we recognise and support when we purchase a delightful avocado or a date from Israel or when we invite Israel to take part in an international football event? What does it mean to be a friend of Israel? What precisely is that Jewish state whose status as such would be once and for all legitimised by such a two-state solution?

A Jewish state is a state which exists more for the sake of whoever is considered Jewish according to various ethnic, tribal, religious, criteria, than for the sake of those who do not pass this test. What precisely are the criteria of the test for Jewishness is not important and at any rate the feeble consensus around them is constantly reinvented in Israel. Instigating violence provides them with the impetus for doing that. What is significant, thought, is that a test of Jewishness is being used in order to constitutionally protect differential stakes in, that is the differential ownership of, a polity. A recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is a recognition of the Jews special entitlement, as eternal victims, to have a Jewish state. Such a test of supreme stake for Jews is the supreme criterion not only for racist policy making by the legislature but also for a racist constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court.The idea of a state that is first and foremost for the sake of Jews trumps even that basic law of Human Freedom and Dignity to which the Israeli Supreme Court pays so much lip service. Such constitutional interpretation would have to make the egalitarian principle equality of citizenship compatible with, and thus subservient to, the need to maintain the Jewish majority and character of the state. This of course constitutes a serious compromise of equality, translated into many individual manifestations of oppression and domination of those victims of such compromise--non-Jews-Arabs citizens of Israel.

In our world, a world that resisted Apartheid South Africa so impressively, recognition of the right of the Jewish state to exist is a litmus test for moderation and pragmatism. The demand is that Palestinians recognise Israel's entitlement to constitutionally entrench a system of racist basic laws and policies, differential immigration criteria for Jews and non-Jews, differential ownership and settlements rights, differential capital investments, differential investment in education, formal rules and informal conventions that differentiate the potential stakes of political participation, lame-duck academic freedom and debate.

In the Jewish state of Israel non-Jews-Arabs citizens are just "bad luck" and are considered an ticking demographic bomb of "enemy within". They can be given the right to vote--indeed one member one vote--but the potential of their political power, even their birth rate, should be kept at bay by visible and invisible, instrumental and symbolic, discrimination. But now they are asked to put up with their inferior stake and recognise the right of Israel to continue to legitimate the non-egalitarian premise of its statehood.

We must not forget that the two state "solution" would open a further possibility to non-Jew-Arabs citizens of Israel: "put up and shut up or go to a viable neighbouring Palestinian state where you can have your full equality of stake".Such an option, we must never forget, is just a part of a pragmatic and reasonable package.

The Jewish state could only come into being in May 1948 by ethnically cleansing most of the indigenous population--750000 of them. The judaisation of the state could only be effectively implemented by constantly internally displacing the population of many villages within the Israel state.

It would be unbearable and unreasonable to demand Jews to allow for the Right of Return of those descendants of the expelled. Presumably, those descendants too could go to a viable Palestinian state rather than, for example, rebuild their ruined village in the Galilee. On the other hand, a Jewish young couple from Toronto who never set their foot in Palestine has a right to settle in the Galilee. Jews and their descendants hold this right in perpetuity. You see, that right "liberates" them as people. Jews must never be put under the pressure to live as a substantial minority in the Holy Land under egalitarian arrangement. Their past justifies their preferential stake and the preservation of their numerical majority in Palestine.

So the non-egalitarian hits us again. It is clear that part of the realisation of that right of return would not only be a just the actual return, but also the assurance of equal stake and citizenship of all, Jews and non-Jews-Arabs after the return. A return would make the egalitarian claim by those who return even more difficult to conceal than currently with regard to Israel Arab second class citizens. What unites Israelis and many world Jews behind the call for the recognition of the right of a Jewish state to exist is their aversion for the possibility of living, as a minority, under conditions of equality of stake to all. But if Jews enjoys this equality in Canada why can not they support such equality in Palestine through giving full effect to the right of Return of Palestinians?

Let us look precisely at what the pragmatic challenge consists of: not pragmatism that entrenches inequality but pragmatism that responds to the challenge of equality.
The Right of Return of Palestinians means that Israel acknowledges and apologises for what it did in 1948. It does mean that Palestinian memory of the 1948 catastrophe, the Nakbah, is publicly revived in the Geography and collective memory of the polity. It does mean that Palestinians descendants would be allowed to come back to their villages. If this is not possible because there is a Jewish settlement there, they should be given the choice to found an alternative settlement nearby. This may mean some painful compulsory state purchase of agricultural lands that should be handed back to those who return. In cases when this is impossible they ought to be allowed the choice to settle in another place in the larger area or if not possible in another area in Palestine. Compensation would be the last resort and would always be offered as a choice. This kind of moral claim of return would encompass all Palestine including Tel Aviv.

At no time, however, it would be on the cards to throw Israeli Jews from their land.An egalitarian and pragmatic realisation of the Right of Return constitutes an egalitarian legal revolution. As such it would be paramount to address Jews' worries about security and equality in any future arrangement in which they, or any other group, may become a minority. Jews national symbols and importance would be preserved. Equality of stake involves equality of symbolic ownership.

But it is important to emphasis that the Palestinian Right of Return would mean that what would cease to exist is the premise of a Jewish as well as indeed a Muslim state. A return without the removal of the constitutionally enshrined preferential stake is return to serfdom.
The upshot is that only by individuating cases of injustice, by extending claims for injustice to all historic Palestine, by fair address of them without creating another injustice for Jews and finally by ensuring the elimination of all racist laws that stems from the Jewish nature of the state including that nature itself, would justice be, and with it peace, possible. What we need is a spirit of generosity that is pragmatic but also morally uncompromising in terms of geographic ambit of the moral claims for repatriation and equality. This vision would propel the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But for all this to happen we must start by ceasing to recognize the right Israel to exist as a Jewish state. No spirit of generosity would be established without an egalitarian call for jettisoning the ethno-nationalistic notion upon which the Jewish state is based.

The path of two states is the path of separation.Its realisation would mean the entrenchment of exclusionary nationalism for many years. It would mean that the return of the dispossessed and the equality of those who return and those non-Jew-Arabs who are now there would have to be deferred indefinitely consigned to the dusty shelved of historical injustices.Such a scenario is sure to provoke more violence as it would establish the realisation and legitimisation of Zionist racism and imperialism.

Also, any bi-national arrangement ought to be subjected to a principle of equality of citizenship and not vice versa. The notion of separation and partition that can infect bi-nationalism, should be done away with and should not be tinkered with or rationalised in any way. Both spiritually and materially Jews and non-Jews can find national expression in a single egalitarian and non-sectarian state.

The non-recognition of the Jewish state is an egalitarian imperative that looks both at the past and to the future. It is the uncritical recognition of the right of Israel to exist at a Jewish state which is the core hindrance for this egalitarian premise to shape the ethical challenge that Palestine poses. A recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state means the silencing that would breed more and more violence and bloodshed.

The same moral intuition that brought so many people to condemn and sanction Apartheid South Africa ought also to prompt them to stop seeing a threat to existence of the Jewish state as the effect caused by the refugee 'problem" or by the "demographic threat" from the non-Jew-Arabs within it. It is rather the other way round. It is the non-egalitarian premise of a Jewish state and the lack of empathy and corruption of all those who make us uncritically accept the right of such a state to exist that is both the cause of the refugee problem and cause for the inability to implement their return and treating them as equals thereafter.

We must see that the uncritically accepted recognition of Israel right to exist is, as Joseph Massad so well puts it in Al-Ahram, to accept Israel claim to have the right to be racist or, to develop Massad's brilliant formulation, Israel's claim to have the right to occupy to dispossess and to discriminate. What is it, I wonder, that prevent Israelis and so many of world Jews to respond to the egalitarian challenge? What is it, I wonder, that oppresses the whole world to sing the song of a "peace process" that is destined to legitimise racism in Palestine?

To claim such a right to be racist must come from a being whose victim's face must hide very dark primordial aggression and hatred of all others.How can we find a connective tissue to that mentality that claims the legitimate right to harm other human beings? How can this aggression that is embedded in victim mentality be perturbed?

The Annapolis meeting is a con. As an egalitarian argument we should say loud and clear that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.

Oren Ben-Dor grew up in Israel. He teaches Legal and Political Philosophy at the School of Law, University of Southampton, UK. He can be reached at: okbendor@yahoo.com

http://www.countercurrents.org/bendo211107.htm

Annapolis - Turbulent winds

The Turbulent Winds Of The Annapolis Conference
By Dan Lieberman ,21 November, 2007

Discussing the proposed Annapolis Conference, in face-to-face talks with the prime ministers, foreign ministers and non-government officials (NGOs) of Israel, Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, revealed how far we are from achieving peace in the Middle East and how far Annapolis is from the Earth that others walk upon. As part of a delegation of six intrepid fact finders, supported by the Council for the National Interest (CNI), a Washington based NGO that labors intensively to determine paths towards Middle East peace, I found a hopeful wind that moved Israeli and Palestinian to portray optimism. This hopeful wind slowly reduced in force in Jordan, quickly diminished when meeting Syrian vice-presidents and turned to an ill wind in meetings with the Lebanese president, prime minister and foreign minister in the second week of November.

The search for Middle East peace started on a discordant note at a meeting with Gush Shalom (peace bloc) spokesperson Uri Avnery, the most notable advocate for a just peace with the Palestinians. Uri used the words “unsure” and “window dressing” to describe the intended conference. He didn’t sense that Hamas, with whom he has close contacts, would agree to a piece of paper and voiced the opinion that Hamas would “only make a truce and not a peace pact.”
Kadima’s Knesset member Amira Dotan spoke of “Annapolis as a symbol,” with its “success defined as starting a process.” Deputy Speaker Dr. Ahmed Tibi said: “The U.S. should create the conditions for making it a success. Its failure will strengthen Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian/Syrian axis.” Other official sources were more open; expressing views that Israel is an army that has a state and Defense Minister Barak is the major culprit in preventing any peace initiative.

The Ramallah landscape of enormous white brick housing developments against the brown dirt background disguises the actual despondency and poverty of the Palestinian people. Palestinian Authority (PA) officials, especially Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki, tried to be optimistic about the Annapolis conference. They want a complete agenda with final talks, but have become more motivated, in Prime Minister Salam Fayed’s words, “by fear of failure than promise of success,” and are being forced into unwanted compromises just to justify a meeting. President Abbas’ Chief of Staff Rafiq Husseini insisted that Israel must move the separation wall to the Green Line. Interior Minister Abdel Razzah al-Yahya reiterated that “there will be no two-state solution if Israel does not withdraw to the 1967 boundaries and does not give the Palestinians “oxygen to breathe.” The lack of oxygen stifles the Palestinians, who are already torn by internecine warfare between Fatah and Hamas and by conflict with organizations in Nablus that are a combination of criminals, protestors against social and economic negligence, and militants against Israel occupation. .

The Palestinian Authority is powerless and it is not obvious how they can negotiate anything and receive approval from a majority of Palestinians, especially when they continue to experience Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank Illegal settlements have destroyed Palestinian life in central Hebron. When the Israeli military attempted to evict the settlers, the settlers broke windows and ruined the Palestinian shops. For an incomprehensible reason, the settlers have returned to their illegal positions and Palestinian shops and houses are now empty.

To enforce the settler presence, Israeli security checkpoints have been installed at all former entrances to the market. These settlers make claim to properties “taken” from Jews during riots against Hebron Jews back in 1929, but do not display any rights of inheritance or deeds to any of the properties. Can this claim of a ‘collective right’ have a legal basis? Contrast the Hebron settlers’ illegal positions and false claims with Palestinians, who have legal deeds to properties in Israel, and are prevented from recovering their properties.

A separation wall winds through West Bank territory and completely encircles West Bank cities, such as Qualqilya and Abu Dis. Residents are hindered from leaving these cities, from going to schools and from cultivating lands. The wall has also caused accumulations of water and created puddles in the Palestinian neighborhoods. The obstructive wall includes 580 fortified checkpoints every five miles. There are also flying checkpoints, settler bypass roads, a planned North South super highway for Israelis only, blocked Palestinian village roads, and travel restrictions to Jerusalem. These restrictive conditions have separated Palestinian communities and families, choked the Palestinian economy and obstructed daily exchanges between peoples. Highways slice through Palestinian lands and completely separate farm homes from agriculture. The inhumanity of all these installations and regulations is beyond belief.

Hamas. Rafiq Husseini summed the PA attitude with a sigh and said, “Don’t worry, this is the land of miracles. What we need is a prayer meeting.”

Jordan is also a land of miracles, its capital city Amman spanning hills with an advanced network of bridges, tunnels and super highways. Traffic is horrific and only moves because there are few traffic lights in the entire city. Jordan’s increasing prosperity and touchy stability depends upon western investment, special export privileges and friendly relations to neighbors, especially Israel.

Depending upon foreign investment, coping with the 500,000 – 700,000 Iraq displaced persons, still contending with the integration of the massive Palestinian population within, and maintaining friendly relations with Israel guide Jordan’s foreign policies. Foreign Minister Abdelelah al-Khatib, as most Middle East leaders, considered the Israel/Palestinian conflict as the core issue to be resolved before peace and stability can arrive in the Middle East. He volunteered that Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s’ Russian immigrant hardliner, has become most influential in the “peace process.” A highly important Jordanian official was blunt. He was not positive on Annapolis, believes Israel does not want peace, does not have the political will to seek peace and wants to shift the burden of more displaced Palestinians to Jordan. Minister of Planning Suhair al-Ali, as gracious as a woman can be, noted that deceased “King Hussein was into politics,” but the new King Abdullah “is more into development.” She had one plea: “No matter the results of Annapolis, don’t demonize Islam.”

Damascus is a surprise. Expect a faded grey and ancient city, still struggling with the 20th century, and find a lively, advanced city with sparkling new neighborhoods, super highways that don’t interfere with the city’s appearance and a population that is amicable and sympathetic; never a harsh look, never a bitter word, although Syria remains a totalitarian government that does not allow much free expression. To its credit, Syria has succored Palestinians forced from Israel, who have established their own neighborhoods, but still remain committed to return to their homeland. Added to its credit is the recent sacrifice in allowing 1.2 million Iraqi displaced persons (similar to Jordan, Syria refuses to call them refugees) to move among its population and secure housing, free education and entry to the health system. Syria deserves commendation for acting as a safety valve to the calamities resulting from displaced Palestinians and Iraqis that have occurred from several wars.

Not surprisingly, Syrian vice president of Foreign Relations Farouk Sharaa didn’t have much expectation for the Annapolis conference, believes all Israel’s political parties fear peace and senses that the U.S. policies encouraged Israel to attack Lebanon and continue the conflict. Israel is on a suicide path and, if Israel is a decision maker in the U.S. then the U.S. loses. The vice president contradicted an accepted belief that Syria will not accept direct assistance for the Iraqi displaced persons. NGOs and the U.S. government are welcome to contribute their assistance. CNI made news by revealing to the U.S. Press a Syrian commitment to screen Iraqi displaced persons for entry into the U.S.

The Vice president of Cultural Affair. Najah al-Attar, exhibited welcoming smiles, and sensitivity and empathy for oppressed peoples. She spoke of “there not being peace without justice,“ made references to the destruction of the Palestinians and noted that Jews lived in peace in Syria, where they were prosperous and accepted members of the parliament. A small Jewish community survives in Northern Syria, and a Rabbi is flown in each week from Turkey to perform the rabbinical rites that assure the food is kosher.

Not kosher was a clandestine trip to meet a “minor” Hamas official, who turned out to be Khalid Meshal, official leader of Hamas, exiled in Damascus. The world became more aware of Meshal when Israel’s Mossad tried to assassinate him in Amman. Jordan’s King Abdullah forced Israel to immediately supply an antidote to the poison given to Meshal by threatening to publicly hang the Mossad agents who tried to kill the Hamas leader. Meshal does not fill the western media description of a wild eyed fanatic. On the contrary, he is a friendly, deliberate and well spoken person who makes sense to the many who subscribe to similar positions.

He said that Israel does not want peace and both negotiating parties aren’t strong enough to market their results to their peoples. Meshal doesn’t delineate Hamas’ positions, but defers to a Palestinian position that accepts 1967 borders and an Arab position that has accepted the two-state solution. Since 2002, Bush has repeatedly spoken of support for a two-state solution, but where is it? The Hamas leader expects the region to be more explosive. Nevertheless, if the PA feels the Palestinian rights have been fulfilled, Hamas will welcome that. He has proposed a Hudna (truce), and if Israel responds positively, Hamas will not be an obstacle to peace. If the Right of Return is the only remaining problem, Hamas will compromise, and accept the will of the people. He claims Hamas does not encourage militancy, does not desire a theocratic state, is a national liberation movement and will let the Palestinian people decide its own government.
Lebanon greets the visitor with an ominous view of the famous Mdairej bridge, the highest bridge in the Middle East and the pride of Lebanon. The mid-section of its elegant span remains gone, destroyed by Israeli jets on the first day of war. Beirut and Southern Lebanon still show scars of the war; destroyed bridges, damaged roads, and huge holes in Beirut sections. The old section of Bent Jabal (daughter of the mountain), which was invaded by Israeli troop, is completely damaged. It is now a rubble of ancient rocks.

Lebanon is again in one of its perpetual crises; an inability to reach a parliamentary consensus and elect a new president. Although some are quick to blame Syria and Hezbollah for creating a climate of fear and for the lack of consensus, major Lebanese officials don’t agree that Hezbollah is the culprit for the impasse, just the opposite, the majority holds power by an archaic law and fears becoming a minority.

The majority is most represented by billionaire Member of Parliament (MP), Saad Hariri, son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. Saad Hariri senses a significant negative shift in Israel’s attitude towards wanting peace after Rabin’s assassination. Nevertheless, he feels Abu Mazen wants peace and Annapolis, even if delayed, must still happen.” The two sides can reach an agreement.” He is less optimistic concerning his own nation: “Money and arms are pouring into the arms of the allies of Syria.” Hariri has not moved about Beirut for 2 ½ years and has received death threats. Fifty of his fellow MPs are barricaded in the Phoenician hotel, fearful of their lives. Except for Prime Minister Siniora, who accuses Syria and Hezbollah of creating this fear, of being uncooperative and wanting to keep situations unresolved so that Hezbollah can maintain its arms, the other principal government officials support Hezbollah’s position.

Former General and now MP, Michael Aoun, described the year 2000 law that gerrymanded the nation so that the March 14 Party and its allies acquired a majority of 72 parliament seats, although receiving only 1/3 of the vote. This makes the present government illegitimate and favors Hezbollah’s proposition that the only fair solution to the impasse is a new election law, followed by a new election that will award seats in proportion to popular vote. President Emil Lahoud claims the present parliament majority has the backing of the major western powers and is working against the constitution. For this reason, the opposition, meaning Hezbollah, has the right to avoid reaching consensus. Foreign Minister Fawzi Sallougkh read carefully from a prepared document. He doesn’t believe Iran wants to dominate Lebanon and believes the U.S. should establish good relations with Iran.

Lebanese leaders were particularly angered with Israel’s aggressive attitude towards the Arab world and what they perceived as U.S. support for this attitude. They are most concerned with the negotiations that will decide the fate of the Palestinian refugees, the reason being that the refugees cannot receive citizenship in Lebanon and have created social and economic havoc for decades. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was more sanguine and more universal in his characterization of what he termed to be an Arab/Israeli conflict. He considered Israel to be guilty of the situation and leading the world into a catastrophe that will affect all peoples. He allowed permission to quote him, and my notes show these remarks:

“The Arab/Israel conflict is the maker of most problems and control of Jerusalem is a paramount issue. The conflict consumes most efforts in the region, is not restricted to the Middle East and diverts attention from other meaningful issues in all regions. The conflict started from the Balfour Declaration, arose from the extent of injustice inflicted upon the Palestinian people, is leading to further frustration in the Arab world, and is generating extremism. The Israeli 1980 invasion created Hezbollah and a new set of problems. Now, Syria, and other parties (meaning Hezbollah), are not showing cooperation and want to keep issues unresolved. Nevertheless, President Bush has been unfair to Lebanon, Arab nations and also to his own United States. The U.S. keeps preaching democracy but defends dictatorships.”
Hezbollah, the Party of God, remains the contentious focus of Lebanon politics. Nevertheless, the Lebanese government has denominated Hezbollah as a resistance movement rather than a militia so that they can keep their arms despite the truce agreement which banned militias. Hezbollah leaders are firm that they will never recognize Israel. Surprisingly, they favor a single democratic state where all peoples are equal and all religions can be practiced without interference. They claim to be politically secular and their government operations don’t contradict that thesis.

Annapolis is 50 miles from the nation’s capital, but it is light years away from the hearts and minds of Arab peoples who want assurance of peace and stability in the Middle East. That is one observer’s conclusions from travels through the Middle East capitals.

Dan Lieberman has been active in alternative politics for many years. He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly web based newsletter. Dan has many published articles on the Middle East conflicts.Email: danlan2000@att.net

http://www.countercurrents.org/lieberman211107.htm