13 may 2015
Neither of Netanyahu's previous two governments made committment to two states either, but Israel's international standing and the demands of the U.S. and Europe have changed the playing field
[Haaretz] A document detailing the basic guidelines of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new coalition, presented Wednesday to the Knesset, bears no mention of the solution of "two states for two peoples" nor does it include any intention of establishing a Palestinian state.
The document includes a general statement alone according to which, "the government will advance the diplomatic process and will strive for a peace agreement with the Palestinians and with all of our neighbors."
The document also mentions that the government will push for a diplomatic peace process while preserving Israel's security and national historical interests. "If an agreement of this kind is reached, it will be brought for the approval of the cabinet and the Knesset, and if necessary, for a national referendum as well," the document on the coalition guidelines says.
The wording of the political clause in the document is similar to the wording used in Netanyahu's previous government in 2009 and 2013. Neither of those two government expressed commitment to a two-state solution either – mainly due to the opposition of many members of Likud and its coalition partners on the right.
Rather than noting the issue of Palestinian statehood in the coalition guidelines, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clung over the last few years to his Bar Ilan address in 2009, when he accepted the principle of "two states for two peoples" and expressed support for the establishment of "a demilitarized" Palestinian state which recognizes Israel.
Although there is no apparent change in the wording of the diplomatic clause as they have appeared in Netanyahu's past government lines, there is a difference: Israel's international standing and the fact that since its last election period, the U.S. and the European Union states have demanded that Netanyahu prove – both in policy and in action – that his government is committed to the two-state solution.
U.S. President Barack Obama reiterated these remarks in an interview with the London-based Arab daily A-Sharq al-Awsat on Wednesday morning.
"We look to the new Israeli government and the Palestinians to demonstrate - through policies and actions - a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. Only then can trust be rebuilt and a cycle of escalation avoided," Obama said.
The Obama administration's demand came on the backdrop of Netanyahu's pre-election remarks backing away from the two-state solution, when the prime minister told the NRG news website that his Bar Ilan speech was no longer relevant due to the security situation in the region. Netanyahu added that a Palestinian state would not be established as long he is prime minister. Netanyahu's statements were an effort to garner votes.
Netanyahu backtracked on the comments just a few days after the election, however, saying that he was still committed to the two-state solution and his Bar Ilan speech.
"I don’t want a one-state solution," Netanyahu told NBC on March 19. "I want a sustainable and peaceful two-state solution, but circumstances have to change for that to happen."
The White House would not accept Netanyahu's clarifications.
“We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never made,” White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told the J Street conference in Washington in March.
“Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely,” he said. “An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end.”
Shortly after, Obama then told reporters that there is "real policy difference" between himself and Netanyahu when it comes to the need to establish a Palestinian state. This dispute, Obama added, will have ramifications for U.S. policy regarding the Middle East peace process.
Last month, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman warned that if the new Israeli government does not demonstrate its commitment to the two-state solution, the U.S. will have a difficult time continuing to assist its efforts to halt international initiatives on the Palestinian issue at the United Nations.
"We will be watching very closely to see what happens on this [Palestinian] issue after the new government is formed," Sherman said. "If the new Israeli government is seen to be stepping back from its commitment to a two-state solution that will make our job in the international arena much tougher... it will be harder for us to prevent internationalizing the conflict."
[Haaretz] A document detailing the basic guidelines of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new coalition, presented Wednesday to the Knesset, bears no mention of the solution of "two states for two peoples" nor does it include any intention of establishing a Palestinian state.
The document includes a general statement alone according to which, "the government will advance the diplomatic process and will strive for a peace agreement with the Palestinians and with all of our neighbors."
The document also mentions that the government will push for a diplomatic peace process while preserving Israel's security and national historical interests. "If an agreement of this kind is reached, it will be brought for the approval of the cabinet and the Knesset, and if necessary, for a national referendum as well," the document on the coalition guidelines says.
The wording of the political clause in the document is similar to the wording used in Netanyahu's previous government in 2009 and 2013. Neither of those two government expressed commitment to a two-state solution either – mainly due to the opposition of many members of Likud and its coalition partners on the right.
Rather than noting the issue of Palestinian statehood in the coalition guidelines, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clung over the last few years to his Bar Ilan address in 2009, when he accepted the principle of "two states for two peoples" and expressed support for the establishment of "a demilitarized" Palestinian state which recognizes Israel.
Although there is no apparent change in the wording of the diplomatic clause as they have appeared in Netanyahu's past government lines, there is a difference: Israel's international standing and the fact that since its last election period, the U.S. and the European Union states have demanded that Netanyahu prove – both in policy and in action – that his government is committed to the two-state solution.
U.S. President Barack Obama reiterated these remarks in an interview with the London-based Arab daily A-Sharq al-Awsat on Wednesday morning.
"We look to the new Israeli government and the Palestinians to demonstrate - through policies and actions - a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. Only then can trust be rebuilt and a cycle of escalation avoided," Obama said.
The Obama administration's demand came on the backdrop of Netanyahu's pre-election remarks backing away from the two-state solution, when the prime minister told the NRG news website that his Bar Ilan speech was no longer relevant due to the security situation in the region. Netanyahu added that a Palestinian state would not be established as long he is prime minister. Netanyahu's statements were an effort to garner votes.
Netanyahu backtracked on the comments just a few days after the election, however, saying that he was still committed to the two-state solution and his Bar Ilan speech.
"I don’t want a one-state solution," Netanyahu told NBC on March 19. "I want a sustainable and peaceful two-state solution, but circumstances have to change for that to happen."
The White House would not accept Netanyahu's clarifications.
“We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never made,” White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told the J Street conference in Washington in March.
“Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely,” he said. “An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end.”
Shortly after, Obama then told reporters that there is "real policy difference" between himself and Netanyahu when it comes to the need to establish a Palestinian state. This dispute, Obama added, will have ramifications for U.S. policy regarding the Middle East peace process.
Last month, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman warned that if the new Israeli government does not demonstrate its commitment to the two-state solution, the U.S. will have a difficult time continuing to assist its efforts to halt international initiatives on the Palestinian issue at the United Nations.
"We will be watching very closely to see what happens on this [Palestinian] issue after the new government is formed," Sherman said. "If the new Israeli government is seen to be stepping back from its commitment to a two-state solution that will make our job in the international arena much tougher... it will be harder for us to prevent internationalizing the conflict."
[Middle East Institute]
In June 1954, the leaders of China, India, and Burma (now Myanmar) issued a joint statement affirming the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence―mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence―as the basis for conducting international relations. Since then, China has adhered strictly to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ domestic turmoil, as displayed prominently over the past several years in Beijing’s response to the Syrian civil war.
However, this is not true in the shuttle diplomacy China is practicing with respect to the conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan. There, Chinese state-owned enterprises (mainly the China National Petroleum Company) have invested heavily in the oil fields of Sudan for decades, and in the oil infrastructure of South Sudan since its independence in 2011. China’s “crossing the water by feeling the stones” pragmatic style of changing its non-interference policy is happening not just in Sudan but also in many other parts of Africa and, on a smaller scale, in other parts of the world.
China’s rationale could not be simpler: protect investments. Indeed, in all of the places where China has decided to “interfere,” significant Chinese economic interests are exposed to potential harm if local conflicts or political turmoil are allowed to fester. In 2009, China surpassed the United States as Africa’s largest trading partner, and China has become the third-largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) worldwide. Chinese political activism has clearly increased—if thus far only selectively and incrementally—alongside its booming international trade.
According to this logic, therefore, China is destined to interfere in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. After all, China has acquired, either in full or in part, multiple Israeli companies of significant size. Both Chinese and Israeli companies are benefiting from partnering with each other in the high-tech startup field, with venture capital and private equity deals encompassing Beijing’s Zhongguancun—popularly referred to as “China’s Silicon Valley”—and Israel’s Silicon Wadi.
Although Chinese economic involvement with the Palestinians is not as extensive, Beijing understands well the importance of its role as an “old friend” of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Lackluster support for the Palestinian cause would not only bring complaints from Arab states but also damage China’s hard-earned international image as an advocate of justice in the developing world. Every November, Beijing continues to hold a reception commemorating the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” President Xi Jinping sent a congratulatory letter to the commemoration in 2014, a rare show of China's increased attention to the Palestinian cause, a sign no Arab country would miss. Besides, China considers having a supportive stance on the Palestinian issue a means of easing tensions with its own Muslim minorities, a crucial element in Beijing’s New Silk Road Economic Belt vision.
The Middle East serves not only as China’s indispensable source of fossil fuels but also as a vast market for Chinese-produced commodities and products. Though China has tried to diversify its energy sources and thereby reduce its dependence on Middle East producers, these efforts have proven only modestly successful. Russia is neither a reliable nor an economical alternative, judging from, among other things, the cost of transporting Russian oil to China by pipeline. Beijing has also learned the high cost of seeking to maintain stability in African countries. Therefore, compared to the alternatives, working cooperatively with the existing guarantor of order in the Middle East—the United States—is not a bad option. Being called a “free rider” for doing so is merely a nuisance. And in any case, a would-be driver needs first to be a rider in order to learn how to drive―a fact the United States would do well to acknowledge if it wants China to learn how to contribute to stability in troubled regions of the world.
Also motivating China to become more involved in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the desire to achieve balance in its relations with the United States. With growing tensions between China and the United States regarding the handling of territorial disputes in East Asia, China sometimes seeks to test vulnerabilities in the United States’ own “backyard,” whether in the Middle East or South America. No issue in the Middle East has consumed more resources and caused more chronic pain for the United States than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Each successive U.S. administration has started a new round of initiatives aimed at improving relations between the two parties, but all attempts have ended with a larger Israel and a smaller, more fragmented Palestine.
Though China is now tempted to involve itself in resolution of the conflict, and the risks and rewards of potential steps are being discussed internally, the temptation is not being acted upon. Beijing still defers to U.S. leadership—and ownership—of the matter. For the most part, this is because China does not yet have a clear, coherent Middle East policy or a group of experts and policymakers with a well-honed strategy for approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let alone resolving it.
China understands that it needs to find a way out of the vicious cycle that has repeatedly doomed U.S. efforts to mediate the conflict. Fortunately, many of the factors that complicate U.S. efforts are almost nonexistent in China. China does not have a large Jewish population, and its political system is almost completely immune to lobbying pressure and to the complexities of inter- and intra-party politics. Moreover, China not only has a cozy relationship with Israel, but also with all of Israel’s adversaries, such as Iran, Syria, and Turkey.
As for the Arab countries, their stance might be more complicated than it seems on the surface. Although there is a "comprehensive" Arab Peace Initiative that China supports, the plan is already outdated due to the many new Israeli settlements and the many lives taken in the armed conflicts that have occurred since it was first proposed in 2002 (and later re-endorsed in 2007). Besides, the political balance in the Middle East has changed dramatically in the past five years. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have altered their calculus, and it is harder than ever to get them to sit down at the negotiating table. Growing internal tensions among different Arab countries and Muslim sects, as well as the party politics within Israel, contribute to the conflict’s ever-increasing complexity.
Nevertheless, as a country that itself has a long and complicated history in handling sophisticated multi-party conflicts (the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, for example), China is better equipped than the United States to come up with a comprehensive and culturally sensitive solution to the long conflict. By working bilaterally with all countries in the Middle East, China will be able to exert greater pressure on them. Each country will be willing to give up more for long-term peace in the region because each realizes that it needs China more than China needs it. This is a position that the United States envies.
Whether China is fully ready or not, the question now is when—not if—China will “interfere” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps, as with many Chinese initiatives during the past several decades, it is better to learn a new policy while in the process of implementing it. For the time being, it is likely that China will stick to making strong diplomatic statements regarding resolution of the conflict while preparing for the day when Washington invites Beijing to participate fully in the peace process.
In June 1954, the leaders of China, India, and Burma (now Myanmar) issued a joint statement affirming the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence―mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence―as the basis for conducting international relations. Since then, China has adhered strictly to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ domestic turmoil, as displayed prominently over the past several years in Beijing’s response to the Syrian civil war.
However, this is not true in the shuttle diplomacy China is practicing with respect to the conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan. There, Chinese state-owned enterprises (mainly the China National Petroleum Company) have invested heavily in the oil fields of Sudan for decades, and in the oil infrastructure of South Sudan since its independence in 2011. China’s “crossing the water by feeling the stones” pragmatic style of changing its non-interference policy is happening not just in Sudan but also in many other parts of Africa and, on a smaller scale, in other parts of the world.
China’s rationale could not be simpler: protect investments. Indeed, in all of the places where China has decided to “interfere,” significant Chinese economic interests are exposed to potential harm if local conflicts or political turmoil are allowed to fester. In 2009, China surpassed the United States as Africa’s largest trading partner, and China has become the third-largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) worldwide. Chinese political activism has clearly increased—if thus far only selectively and incrementally—alongside its booming international trade.
According to this logic, therefore, China is destined to interfere in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. After all, China has acquired, either in full or in part, multiple Israeli companies of significant size. Both Chinese and Israeli companies are benefiting from partnering with each other in the high-tech startup field, with venture capital and private equity deals encompassing Beijing’s Zhongguancun—popularly referred to as “China’s Silicon Valley”—and Israel’s Silicon Wadi.
Although Chinese economic involvement with the Palestinians is not as extensive, Beijing understands well the importance of its role as an “old friend” of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Lackluster support for the Palestinian cause would not only bring complaints from Arab states but also damage China’s hard-earned international image as an advocate of justice in the developing world. Every November, Beijing continues to hold a reception commemorating the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” President Xi Jinping sent a congratulatory letter to the commemoration in 2014, a rare show of China's increased attention to the Palestinian cause, a sign no Arab country would miss. Besides, China considers having a supportive stance on the Palestinian issue a means of easing tensions with its own Muslim minorities, a crucial element in Beijing’s New Silk Road Economic Belt vision.
The Middle East serves not only as China’s indispensable source of fossil fuels but also as a vast market for Chinese-produced commodities and products. Though China has tried to diversify its energy sources and thereby reduce its dependence on Middle East producers, these efforts have proven only modestly successful. Russia is neither a reliable nor an economical alternative, judging from, among other things, the cost of transporting Russian oil to China by pipeline. Beijing has also learned the high cost of seeking to maintain stability in African countries. Therefore, compared to the alternatives, working cooperatively with the existing guarantor of order in the Middle East—the United States—is not a bad option. Being called a “free rider” for doing so is merely a nuisance. And in any case, a would-be driver needs first to be a rider in order to learn how to drive―a fact the United States would do well to acknowledge if it wants China to learn how to contribute to stability in troubled regions of the world.
Also motivating China to become more involved in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the desire to achieve balance in its relations with the United States. With growing tensions between China and the United States regarding the handling of territorial disputes in East Asia, China sometimes seeks to test vulnerabilities in the United States’ own “backyard,” whether in the Middle East or South America. No issue in the Middle East has consumed more resources and caused more chronic pain for the United States than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Each successive U.S. administration has started a new round of initiatives aimed at improving relations between the two parties, but all attempts have ended with a larger Israel and a smaller, more fragmented Palestine.
Though China is now tempted to involve itself in resolution of the conflict, and the risks and rewards of potential steps are being discussed internally, the temptation is not being acted upon. Beijing still defers to U.S. leadership—and ownership—of the matter. For the most part, this is because China does not yet have a clear, coherent Middle East policy or a group of experts and policymakers with a well-honed strategy for approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let alone resolving it.
China understands that it needs to find a way out of the vicious cycle that has repeatedly doomed U.S. efforts to mediate the conflict. Fortunately, many of the factors that complicate U.S. efforts are almost nonexistent in China. China does not have a large Jewish population, and its political system is almost completely immune to lobbying pressure and to the complexities of inter- and intra-party politics. Moreover, China not only has a cozy relationship with Israel, but also with all of Israel’s adversaries, such as Iran, Syria, and Turkey.
As for the Arab countries, their stance might be more complicated than it seems on the surface. Although there is a "comprehensive" Arab Peace Initiative that China supports, the plan is already outdated due to the many new Israeli settlements and the many lives taken in the armed conflicts that have occurred since it was first proposed in 2002 (and later re-endorsed in 2007). Besides, the political balance in the Middle East has changed dramatically in the past five years. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have altered their calculus, and it is harder than ever to get them to sit down at the negotiating table. Growing internal tensions among different Arab countries and Muslim sects, as well as the party politics within Israel, contribute to the conflict’s ever-increasing complexity.
Nevertheless, as a country that itself has a long and complicated history in handling sophisticated multi-party conflicts (the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, for example), China is better equipped than the United States to come up with a comprehensive and culturally sensitive solution to the long conflict. By working bilaterally with all countries in the Middle East, China will be able to exert greater pressure on them. Each country will be willing to give up more for long-term peace in the region because each realizes that it needs China more than China needs it. This is a position that the United States envies.
Whether China is fully ready or not, the question now is when—not if—China will “interfere” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps, as with many Chinese initiatives during the past several decades, it is better to learn a new policy while in the process of implementing it. For the time being, it is likely that China will stick to making strong diplomatic statements regarding resolution of the conflict while preparing for the day when Washington invites Beijing to participate fully in the peace process.
Holy See treaty, yet to be signed, switches diplomatic relations from Palestinian Liberation Organization to state of Palestine.
The Vatican officially recognized the state of Palestine in a new treaty finalized Wednesday, immediately sparking Israeli ire and accusations that the move hurt peace prospects.
The treaty, which concerns the activities of the Catholic Church in Palestinian territory, makes clear that the Holy See has switched its diplomatic recognition from the Palestine Liberation Organization to the state of Palestine. The agreement "aims to enhance the life and activities of the Catholic Church and its recognition at the judicial level," said Monsignor Antoine Camilleri, the Vatican's deputy foreign minister who led its six-person delegation in the talks.
The Vatican had welcomed the decision by the UN General Assembly in 2012 to recognize a Palestinian state. But the treaty is the first legal document negotiated between the Holy See and the Palestinian state and constitutes an official recognition. Vatican officials stressed that although the agreement was significant, it certainly did not constitute the Holy See's first recognition of the State of Palestine. "We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook," Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said.
The Israeli foreign ministry said it was "disappointed" by the development. "This move does not promote the peace process and distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations," the ministry said in a text message. "Israel will study the agreement and will consider its steps accordingly."
The treaty was finalized days before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visits Pope Francis at the Vatican. Abbas is heading to Rome to attend Francis' canonization Sunday of two new saints from the Holy Land.
The Vatican has been referring unofficially to the state of Palestine for at least a year. During Pope Francis' 2014 visit to the Holy Land, the Vatican's official program referred to Abbas as the president of the "state of Palestine." In the Vatican's latest yearbook, the Palestinian ambassador to the Holy See is listed as representing "Palestine (state of)."
The Vatican's foreign minister, Monsignor Antoine Camilleri, acknowledged the change in status, given that the treaty was initially inked with the PLO and is now being finalized with the "state of Palestine." But he said the shift was simply in line with the Holy See's position.
The Vatican officially recognized the state of Palestine in a new treaty finalized Wednesday, immediately sparking Israeli ire and accusations that the move hurt peace prospects.
The treaty, which concerns the activities of the Catholic Church in Palestinian territory, makes clear that the Holy See has switched its diplomatic recognition from the Palestine Liberation Organization to the state of Palestine. The agreement "aims to enhance the life and activities of the Catholic Church and its recognition at the judicial level," said Monsignor Antoine Camilleri, the Vatican's deputy foreign minister who led its six-person delegation in the talks.
The Vatican had welcomed the decision by the UN General Assembly in 2012 to recognize a Palestinian state. But the treaty is the first legal document negotiated between the Holy See and the Palestinian state and constitutes an official recognition. Vatican officials stressed that although the agreement was significant, it certainly did not constitute the Holy See's first recognition of the State of Palestine. "We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook," Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said.
The Israeli foreign ministry said it was "disappointed" by the development. "This move does not promote the peace process and distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations," the ministry said in a text message. "Israel will study the agreement and will consider its steps accordingly."
The treaty was finalized days before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visits Pope Francis at the Vatican. Abbas is heading to Rome to attend Francis' canonization Sunday of two new saints from the Holy Land.
The Vatican has been referring unofficially to the state of Palestine for at least a year. During Pope Francis' 2014 visit to the Holy Land, the Vatican's official program referred to Abbas as the president of the "state of Palestine." In the Vatican's latest yearbook, the Palestinian ambassador to the Holy See is listed as representing "Palestine (state of)."
The Vatican's foreign minister, Monsignor Antoine Camilleri, acknowledged the change in status, given that the treaty was initially inked with the PLO and is now being finalized with the "state of Palestine." But he said the shift was simply in line with the Holy See's position.
Abbas visits Pope on Saturday
After years of negotiations, the Vatican and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as well as the Palestinian Authority have agreed on a draft treaty for the Vatican’s recognition of the Palestinian State. The treaty is expected to be signed and come into effect later this year. PA President Abbas is scheduled to visit Pope Francis on Saturday.
Pope Francis visit to Palestine in May 2014.
(NSNBC) The Holy Sea, the capital of the Roman Catholic Church confirmed that the Vatican and the PLO have agreed on a final draft treaty for the Vatican’s official recognition of Palestine. The treaty is expected to be signed and come into effect later this year.
Negotiations about the treaty have been underway for years. The treaty began taking shape during a bilateral meeting between representatives of the Vatican and the PLO and PA in the interim Palestinian capital Ramallah on January 30, 2013.
The negotiations in 2013 were headed by the Palestinian Foreign Minister Dr. Riad al-Malki and the Vatican’s Msgr. Ettore Balesteror, the Vatican’s under-secretary for the Holy Sea’s Relations with States.
The treaty was completed on Wednesday, May 15, 2015 and reflects a sea-change in the Holy Sea’s relations with the PLO and the Palestinian State. The Vatican also welcomed the U.N. General Assembly’s 2012 decision to recognize Palestine.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to visit Pope Francis at the Vatican on Saturday, before the canonization of two new Catholic Saints from the Holy Land on Sunday.
The Vatican has repeatedly expressed its position against Israeli government’s attempts to suppress both the Christian and the Muslim cultural and religious heritage in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The PLO, for its part, repeatedly warned against what is described in terms such as “the colonization of Christmas”. Pope Francis visited Palestine one year ago, in May 2014.
After years of negotiations, the Vatican and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as well as the Palestinian Authority have agreed on a draft treaty for the Vatican’s recognition of the Palestinian State. The treaty is expected to be signed and come into effect later this year. PA President Abbas is scheduled to visit Pope Francis on Saturday.
Pope Francis visit to Palestine in May 2014.
(NSNBC) The Holy Sea, the capital of the Roman Catholic Church confirmed that the Vatican and the PLO have agreed on a final draft treaty for the Vatican’s official recognition of Palestine. The treaty is expected to be signed and come into effect later this year.
Negotiations about the treaty have been underway for years. The treaty began taking shape during a bilateral meeting between representatives of the Vatican and the PLO and PA in the interim Palestinian capital Ramallah on January 30, 2013.
The negotiations in 2013 were headed by the Palestinian Foreign Minister Dr. Riad al-Malki and the Vatican’s Msgr. Ettore Balesteror, the Vatican’s under-secretary for the Holy Sea’s Relations with States.
The treaty was completed on Wednesday, May 15, 2015 and reflects a sea-change in the Holy Sea’s relations with the PLO and the Palestinian State. The Vatican also welcomed the U.N. General Assembly’s 2012 decision to recognize Palestine.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to visit Pope Francis at the Vatican on Saturday, before the canonization of two new Catholic Saints from the Holy Land on Sunday.
The Vatican has repeatedly expressed its position against Israeli government’s attempts to suppress both the Christian and the Muslim cultural and religious heritage in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The PLO, for its part, repeatedly warned against what is described in terms such as “the colonization of Christmas”. Pope Francis visited Palestine one year ago, in May 2014.
A group of former high-ranking European officials urged the EU, in a letter dispatched Wednesday, to adopt a tougher strategy to pressure Israel within the terms of the incoming Netanyahu government line-up.
The letter, a copy of which was published by the news site Ynet, is addressed to EU Foreign Relations Chief, Frederica Mogherini, and the foreign ministers of EU nations, with copies to US Secretary of State John Kerry, European Council President Donald Tusk, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Parliament President Martin Schulz.
Titled “A new approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the letter addresses the apparent political shift rightward in Israel, apparently referring to the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March and his establishment of a right-wing coalition with a razor-thin majority.
“We have for some time regarded the Oslo-Madrid process as effectively defunct. The opportunities it presented through its focus on the center ground in the substance for a settlement were suffocated by mutual distrust, by Palestinian disunity and by Israel’s lack of interest in an outcome of this kind, as evidenced by large-scale settlement expansion,” the letter reads.
“Netanyahu expressed various views on Palestine in and around the recent election campaign, most of them cold to the concept of an independent Palestinian state. We are convinced in our own mind that he has little intention of negotiating seriously for a two-state solution within the terms of this incoming Israeli government. We also have low confidence that the US government will be in a position to take a lead on fresh negotiations with the vigor and the impartiality that a two-state outcome demands,” it continues.
Ynet reported that the signatories to the letter proposed that the EU treat Israel and Palestine as separate political entities. The EU, the letter reportedly said, should allot a period of time for negotiations at the end of which the outcome must be a two-state solution.
They proposed that the EU’s relations with each party to the conflict be contingent upon their will to advance a two-state solution. European countries should support Palestinian efforts to join international treaties and institutions while on the other hand increasing the labeling of Israeli products made in the settlements, they said.
The authors suggested that the EU begin to play a larger role in peace negotiations, arguing that Washington, which chaperoned all previous rounds of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks — even those nominally co-sponsored by other parties — had failed to broker a solution.
Among the signatories were former foreign ministers and prime ministers of leading European countries like Spain, France and the Netherlands. Some of the officials served in the past in leadership roles in the EU and NATO.
In April, the acting foreign ministers of 16 of the European Union’s 28 member states sent a similar letter to Mogherini asking her to promote the labeling of settlement-made products in store chains throughout Europe.
European leaders call for campaign of pressure on Netanyahu
Former European officials address letter to EU calling for new policies in light of Netanyahu re-election; Obama to Arabic media: 'Palestinians deserve an end to the occupation.'
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu works toward the swearing in of his fourth government, a letter was uncovered by Ynet on Wednesday morning, sent by former European officials to US Secretary of State John Kerry and Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign minister, saying that Netanyahu's re-election demands a new policy - one that would focus on forcing Israel to the negotiating table with the Palestinian Authority.
"We have for some time regarded the Oslo-Madrid process as effectively defunct," wrote the officials who included Spain's previous Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos, former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine, former Prime Minister of Holland Dries van Agt, former Prime Minister of Ireland John Bruton, and others.
The letter, a copy of which was published by the news site Ynet, is addressed to EU Foreign Relations Chief, Frederica Mogherini, and the foreign ministers of EU nations, with copies to US Secretary of State John Kerry, European Council President Donald Tusk, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Parliament President Martin Schulz.
Titled “A new approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the letter addresses the apparent political shift rightward in Israel, apparently referring to the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March and his establishment of a right-wing coalition with a razor-thin majority.
“We have for some time regarded the Oslo-Madrid process as effectively defunct. The opportunities it presented through its focus on the center ground in the substance for a settlement were suffocated by mutual distrust, by Palestinian disunity and by Israel’s lack of interest in an outcome of this kind, as evidenced by large-scale settlement expansion,” the letter reads.
“Netanyahu expressed various views on Palestine in and around the recent election campaign, most of them cold to the concept of an independent Palestinian state. We are convinced in our own mind that he has little intention of negotiating seriously for a two-state solution within the terms of this incoming Israeli government. We also have low confidence that the US government will be in a position to take a lead on fresh negotiations with the vigor and the impartiality that a two-state outcome demands,” it continues.
Ynet reported that the signatories to the letter proposed that the EU treat Israel and Palestine as separate political entities. The EU, the letter reportedly said, should allot a period of time for negotiations at the end of which the outcome must be a two-state solution.
They proposed that the EU’s relations with each party to the conflict be contingent upon their will to advance a two-state solution. European countries should support Palestinian efforts to join international treaties and institutions while on the other hand increasing the labeling of Israeli products made in the settlements, they said.
The authors suggested that the EU begin to play a larger role in peace negotiations, arguing that Washington, which chaperoned all previous rounds of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks — even those nominally co-sponsored by other parties — had failed to broker a solution.
Among the signatories were former foreign ministers and prime ministers of leading European countries like Spain, France and the Netherlands. Some of the officials served in the past in leadership roles in the EU and NATO.
In April, the acting foreign ministers of 16 of the European Union’s 28 member states sent a similar letter to Mogherini asking her to promote the labeling of settlement-made products in store chains throughout Europe.
European leaders call for campaign of pressure on Netanyahu
Former European officials address letter to EU calling for new policies in light of Netanyahu re-election; Obama to Arabic media: 'Palestinians deserve an end to the occupation.'
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu works toward the swearing in of his fourth government, a letter was uncovered by Ynet on Wednesday morning, sent by former European officials to US Secretary of State John Kerry and Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign minister, saying that Netanyahu's re-election demands a new policy - one that would focus on forcing Israel to the negotiating table with the Palestinian Authority.
"We have for some time regarded the Oslo-Madrid process as effectively defunct," wrote the officials who included Spain's previous Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos, former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine, former Prime Minister of Holland Dries van Agt, former Prime Minister of Ireland John Bruton, and others.
The letter sent by former European officials.
The letter blamed "Palestinian disunity," and, "Israel's lack of interest," as the reasons for the failure of the peace process so far before attacking Netanyahu specifically, saying, "We are convinced in our own minds that he has little intention of negotiating seriously for a two-state solution within the term of this incoming Israeli government."
In order to change the status quo of failed peace talks, the letter's signatories insist that EU relations with both Israel and the Palestinians should be based on their efforts to reach a peace agreement, a policy which currently translates into support for Palestinian efforts to join international institutions and a boycott Israeli goods produced in the West Bank.
Yet criticism was not limited to Israel and its potential peace partner. The letter also questioned America's role in talks between Israel and the Palestinians, suggesting that they envision the EU playing a central role in the future. "We... have low confidence that the US Government will be in a position to take a lead on fresh negotiations with the vigor and the impartiality that a two-state outcome demands."
The letter blamed "Palestinian disunity," and, "Israel's lack of interest," as the reasons for the failure of the peace process so far before attacking Netanyahu specifically, saying, "We are convinced in our own minds that he has little intention of negotiating seriously for a two-state solution within the term of this incoming Israeli government."
In order to change the status quo of failed peace talks, the letter's signatories insist that EU relations with both Israel and the Palestinians should be based on their efforts to reach a peace agreement, a policy which currently translates into support for Palestinian efforts to join international institutions and a boycott Israeli goods produced in the West Bank.
Yet criticism was not limited to Israel and its potential peace partner. The letter also questioned America's role in talks between Israel and the Palestinians, suggesting that they envision the EU playing a central role in the future. "We... have low confidence that the US Government will be in a position to take a lead on fresh negotiations with the vigor and the impartiality that a two-state outcome demands."
In an interview with Arab media, US president stressed need for two-state solution despite difficulties in reaching an agreement; 'I will never give up hope'.
US President Barack Obama gave an interview on Tuesday with Asharq al-Awsat, an Arabic international newspaper based in London.
"I will never give up on the hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians," said Obama, "Palestinians deserve an end to the occupation and the daily indignities that come with it. That's why we've worked so hard over the years for a two-state solution and to develop innovative ways to address Israel's security and Palestinian sovereignty needs."
Obama's comments came prior to a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in which he is due to sit with key leaders of six Arab nations from the Middle East. While his hope remains, Obama said, "It's no secret that we now have a very difficult path forward. As a result, the United States is taking a hard look at our approach to the conflict," suggesting that the EU is not alone in considering policy adjustments with Israel.
"Addressing the lasting impact in Gaza of last summer's conflict should also be central to any effort," concluded Obama. "Ultimately, the parties will need to address not just Gaza's immediate humanitarian and reconstruction needs, but also core challenges to Gaza's future within a two-state context, including reinvigorating Gaza's connection with the West Bank and reestablishing strong commercial links with Israel and the global economy."
US President Barack Obama gave an interview on Tuesday with Asharq al-Awsat, an Arabic international newspaper based in London.
"I will never give up on the hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians," said Obama, "Palestinians deserve an end to the occupation and the daily indignities that come with it. That's why we've worked so hard over the years for a two-state solution and to develop innovative ways to address Israel's security and Palestinian sovereignty needs."
Obama's comments came prior to a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in which he is due to sit with key leaders of six Arab nations from the Middle East. While his hope remains, Obama said, "It's no secret that we now have a very difficult path forward. As a result, the United States is taking a hard look at our approach to the conflict," suggesting that the EU is not alone in considering policy adjustments with Israel.
"Addressing the lasting impact in Gaza of last summer's conflict should also be central to any effort," concluded Obama. "Ultimately, the parties will need to address not just Gaza's immediate humanitarian and reconstruction needs, but also core challenges to Gaza's future within a two-state context, including reinvigorating Gaza's connection with the West Bank and reestablishing strong commercial links with Israel and the global economy."
12 may 2015
By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine
If you think that the UN was wrong in labeling Zionism as a racist movement, think again.
Of course, Zionist crimes, committed in the name of Judaism and the Jewish people, have not stopped ever since Zionist supremacists declared their plans to create an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine in the late 19th century.
Zionist Jews employed every form of depravity and immorality to achieve their goal.
But the goal was evil, just as the means used to reach that goal were decidedly evil. This was the case 68 years ago, when Israel was created through blood, fire and terror. It will always be evil.
The passage of 68 years will not morph a hideous crime into a charitable enterprise. Israel will always be a crime against humanity, no matter how many people celebrate its achievements and sing its hymns.
Israel is built upon a foundation of evil and sinfulness. Such a state will not prosper or have an everlasting longevity. It will eventually meet the same fate that other evil states and empires eventually met.
Bennett's Talmudic fascism
Naftali Bennett, the number-2 figure in the new Israeli government was quoted recently as saying that he would never agree to give non-Jews in Israel equal rights.
When asked what he would tell Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas should he meet with him, Bennett said rather bluntly "I will order him to make me a cup of coffee."
Needless to say, "asking the Arabs to make coffee for Jews" is a slogan often invoked by leaders of religious-Zionist settlers especially when explaining their attitudes toward the Palestinians.
This manifestly racist mindset is encapsulated by the Biblical terms "water carriers and wood hewers" which refer to the treatment non-Jews were entitled to receive in ancient Israel.
Of course, there are many other Biblical verses which exhort the Children of Israel not to oppress "strangers living amongst you… because you yourselves were once strangers in the Land of the Pharaoh".
But Zionism, including religious Zionism, has very little to do with the sublime ideals of Prophetic Judaism. This is why, we notice that purportedly religious Zionists select the worst and most barbaric verses from the Old Testament and seek to apply it to the Palestinians.
Criminal versus genocidal
If classical Zionism is manifestly criminal, and it undoubtedly is, religious Zionism is decidedly genocidal.
Several years ago, a Jewish settler leader from the northern West Bank by the name of Daniela Weis gave a speech before a group of settlers in Hebron's Old Quarter. In her speech, she urged the settlers to "adopt Joshua's way to deal with the Palestinians."
"Would you choose Rabin's way or Joshua's way in dealing with the Palestinians," she asked. And the answer came loud and in unison: "We choose Joshua's way."
This genocidal fanaticism is not rhetorical or meant just to scare the Palestinians. It is rather a built-in character of the religious Zionist ideology as taught by its founder Abraham Kook.
This the same Kook that wrote that "the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews-- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."
Evil ideology, evil conduct
The settler ideology cannot be innocuous since it is not confined to the theoretical framework.
In 1994, a settler from the settlement of Kiryat Arbaa near Hebron descended on the Ibrahimi Mosque nearby and sprayed Muslim worshipers with bullets, using his army-issued machinegun.
He murdered 29 worshipers and injured numerous other people, many with serious disabilities that would stay with them for the rest of their lives.
Most of the settlers and their supporters enthusiastically gloated over the massacre as the grave of the murderer became a pilgrimage site.
A few years later, another religious Zionist asked a Palestinian cabbie to give him a ride from Jerusalem to Kfar Saba, north east of Tel Aviv. When the settler got to his home, he invited the Arab driver to drink a cup of coffee. However, instead of the cup of coffee, the settler came up with a dagger, stabbing the taxi driver to death.
Still, when the murdered was interrogated by the police, he told them that he heard his neighborhood synagogue's rabbis saying that the life of a non-Jew had no sanctity.
Last year, three settlers kidnapped an Arab child, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, and took him to an abandoned place. There they pumped gasoline into the boy's mouth, and then set the boy on fire, burning him alive.
Who will call the spade a spade?
Now, the same kind of evil-minded people have a great influence on the upcoming Israeli government. For example, Ayelet Shaked from the far-right HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) party was given the portfolio of justice minister as part of a deal that saw PM Netanyahu gather enough support to form a coalition and control the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.
Last year, Shaked, a nice-looking young woman, attracted global attention and criticism when she posted a Facebook status denouncing Palestinians, during Israel’s 50-day military offensive in Gaza.
"The Palestinian people [have] declared war on us, and we must respond with war ... Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings.
"Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two peoples. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people."
Now, do the governments and peoples of the world have the courage to call the spade a spade, especially when it comes to Zionist criminality?
It is not enough to celebrate the annual anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany. It is also imperative to fight Nazi ideals and Nazi ideas everywhere. Including in Israel.
Unfortunately this is not being done with regard to Israel as the capitals of Europe and North America will soon receive Shaked and her equally racist colleagues with all the required trappings.
That would be the ultimate insult to the victims of Nazism, Jews and non-Jews alike.
If you think that the UN was wrong in labeling Zionism as a racist movement, think again.
Of course, Zionist crimes, committed in the name of Judaism and the Jewish people, have not stopped ever since Zionist supremacists declared their plans to create an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine in the late 19th century.
Zionist Jews employed every form of depravity and immorality to achieve their goal.
But the goal was evil, just as the means used to reach that goal were decidedly evil. This was the case 68 years ago, when Israel was created through blood, fire and terror. It will always be evil.
The passage of 68 years will not morph a hideous crime into a charitable enterprise. Israel will always be a crime against humanity, no matter how many people celebrate its achievements and sing its hymns.
Israel is built upon a foundation of evil and sinfulness. Such a state will not prosper or have an everlasting longevity. It will eventually meet the same fate that other evil states and empires eventually met.
Bennett's Talmudic fascism
Naftali Bennett, the number-2 figure in the new Israeli government was quoted recently as saying that he would never agree to give non-Jews in Israel equal rights.
When asked what he would tell Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas should he meet with him, Bennett said rather bluntly "I will order him to make me a cup of coffee."
Needless to say, "asking the Arabs to make coffee for Jews" is a slogan often invoked by leaders of religious-Zionist settlers especially when explaining their attitudes toward the Palestinians.
This manifestly racist mindset is encapsulated by the Biblical terms "water carriers and wood hewers" which refer to the treatment non-Jews were entitled to receive in ancient Israel.
Of course, there are many other Biblical verses which exhort the Children of Israel not to oppress "strangers living amongst you… because you yourselves were once strangers in the Land of the Pharaoh".
But Zionism, including religious Zionism, has very little to do with the sublime ideals of Prophetic Judaism. This is why, we notice that purportedly religious Zionists select the worst and most barbaric verses from the Old Testament and seek to apply it to the Palestinians.
Criminal versus genocidal
If classical Zionism is manifestly criminal, and it undoubtedly is, religious Zionism is decidedly genocidal.
Several years ago, a Jewish settler leader from the northern West Bank by the name of Daniela Weis gave a speech before a group of settlers in Hebron's Old Quarter. In her speech, she urged the settlers to "adopt Joshua's way to deal with the Palestinians."
"Would you choose Rabin's way or Joshua's way in dealing with the Palestinians," she asked. And the answer came loud and in unison: "We choose Joshua's way."
This genocidal fanaticism is not rhetorical or meant just to scare the Palestinians. It is rather a built-in character of the religious Zionist ideology as taught by its founder Abraham Kook.
This the same Kook that wrote that "the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews-- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."
Evil ideology, evil conduct
The settler ideology cannot be innocuous since it is not confined to the theoretical framework.
In 1994, a settler from the settlement of Kiryat Arbaa near Hebron descended on the Ibrahimi Mosque nearby and sprayed Muslim worshipers with bullets, using his army-issued machinegun.
He murdered 29 worshipers and injured numerous other people, many with serious disabilities that would stay with them for the rest of their lives.
Most of the settlers and their supporters enthusiastically gloated over the massacre as the grave of the murderer became a pilgrimage site.
A few years later, another religious Zionist asked a Palestinian cabbie to give him a ride from Jerusalem to Kfar Saba, north east of Tel Aviv. When the settler got to his home, he invited the Arab driver to drink a cup of coffee. However, instead of the cup of coffee, the settler came up with a dagger, stabbing the taxi driver to death.
Still, when the murdered was interrogated by the police, he told them that he heard his neighborhood synagogue's rabbis saying that the life of a non-Jew had no sanctity.
Last year, three settlers kidnapped an Arab child, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, and took him to an abandoned place. There they pumped gasoline into the boy's mouth, and then set the boy on fire, burning him alive.
Who will call the spade a spade?
Now, the same kind of evil-minded people have a great influence on the upcoming Israeli government. For example, Ayelet Shaked from the far-right HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) party was given the portfolio of justice minister as part of a deal that saw PM Netanyahu gather enough support to form a coalition and control the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.
Last year, Shaked, a nice-looking young woman, attracted global attention and criticism when she posted a Facebook status denouncing Palestinians, during Israel’s 50-day military offensive in Gaza.
"The Palestinian people [have] declared war on us, and we must respond with war ... Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings.
"Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two peoples. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people."
Now, do the governments and peoples of the world have the courage to call the spade a spade, especially when it comes to Zionist criminality?
It is not enough to celebrate the annual anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany. It is also imperative to fight Nazi ideals and Nazi ideas everywhere. Including in Israel.
Unfortunately this is not being done with regard to Israel as the capitals of Europe and North America will soon receive Shaked and her equally racist colleagues with all the required trappings.
That would be the ultimate insult to the victims of Nazism, Jews and non-Jews alike.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas arrived in Tunisia on Tuesday in a three-day working visit at the invitation of his Tunisian counterpart al-Beji Kaid Essebsi.
Abbas was received by the Tunisian Foreign Minister Taieb Baccoushe and other senior officials at the Carthage International Airport
Abbas is expected to head to Rome from Tunisia on Thursday to meet the Italian president and FM over bilateral developments and relations.
Abbas was received by the Tunisian Foreign Minister Taieb Baccoushe and other senior officials at the Carthage International Airport
Abbas is expected to head to Rome from Tunisia on Thursday to meet the Italian president and FM over bilateral developments and relations.
11 may 2015
Israel's new coalition government, under the direction of PM Benjamin Netanyahu, has taken on Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan as its deputy defense minister, known for his previous assertion that Palestinian are "human animals".
Al Ray Palestinian Media Agency reports that a wave of denunciations have aroused after appointing him from Israeli left-wing parties, in light of his extremist positions towards Palestinians.
Meretz leader Mussi Raz warned of Ben-Dahan's previous statements, in which he was quoted to say: "The Palestinians do not deserve life," describing them as "human animals", and they are not human beings and their life and their death are the same.
Raz added on his Facebook page: " Appointing Eli Ben-Dahan from the Jewish House as a deputy defense, what means that he is responsible of the Civil Administration, the government arm in the areas, is a crime. We are talking about a person who once said that the Palestinians are a human animals- sub-humans, they are not human beings and do not deserve life."
He continued: "Imagine a European deputy minister who is responsible for the Jewish minority there, says that the Jews do not deserve life," concluding: "If anybody still has an atom of ethics should prevent the formation of this government of hatred and death."
Al Ray Palestinian Media Agency reports that a wave of denunciations have aroused after appointing him from Israeli left-wing parties, in light of his extremist positions towards Palestinians.
Meretz leader Mussi Raz warned of Ben-Dahan's previous statements, in which he was quoted to say: "The Palestinians do not deserve life," describing them as "human animals", and they are not human beings and their life and their death are the same.
Raz added on his Facebook page: " Appointing Eli Ben-Dahan from the Jewish House as a deputy defense, what means that he is responsible of the Civil Administration, the government arm in the areas, is a crime. We are talking about a person who once said that the Palestinians are a human animals- sub-humans, they are not human beings and do not deserve life."
He continued: "Imagine a European deputy minister who is responsible for the Jewish minority there, says that the Jews do not deserve life," concluding: "If anybody still has an atom of ethics should prevent the formation of this government of hatred and death."
10 may 2015
A fruit and vegetable vendor set fire to his stand in the West Bank city of Tulkarem, on Sunday, in protest over a decision by local authorities to remove the stand, which was his main source of income.
Local sources told Ma'an News Agency that Palestinian police arrested 30-year-old Muhammad Awwad, after he set fire to the stand.
Awwad set up the stand near a mosque in the center of Tulkarem, in the northern occupied West Bank, in the hope of earning a living after he was released from the Israeli prison system several months ago.
A number of municipal councils across the West Bank have cracked down on street vendors in recent years, claiming that they disrupt movement of vehicles and people and are unattractive in appearance.
In 2013, a street vendor attempted to set himself on fire in Nablus after police confiscated his fruit stall. Muhammad Yaesh, 40, poured gasoline on himself near a roundabout in the city before police prevented him from setting it alight.
Yaesh, who provided for a family of 12, told Ma'an after the incident: "I decided to set myself on fire, and to pour gasoline on myself, because I reached a desperate level. I reached a level where life and death are equal to me and have the same meaning."
The attempted act recalled Tunisian street vendor Muhammad Bouazizi, who in 2010 set himself alight following the confiscation of his stand, an act that sparked the Tunisian Revolution and revolutions across the wider Arab world.
In 2013, al-Monitor reported that Palestinian protesters in Ramallah held posters bearing slogans such as: "No salaries, no carts. God help us," and "Where is justice for the people, Abbas and Fayyad?"
The article asserted: "The fact that it was the self-immolation of a poor Tunisian cart-seller that catapulted the Arab revolutions at the end of 2010 seems to be lost on the PA government officials, who are concerned with synthetic appearances over the interests of the people they claim to represent."
Local sources told Ma'an News Agency that Palestinian police arrested 30-year-old Muhammad Awwad, after he set fire to the stand.
Awwad set up the stand near a mosque in the center of Tulkarem, in the northern occupied West Bank, in the hope of earning a living after he was released from the Israeli prison system several months ago.
A number of municipal councils across the West Bank have cracked down on street vendors in recent years, claiming that they disrupt movement of vehicles and people and are unattractive in appearance.
In 2013, a street vendor attempted to set himself on fire in Nablus after police confiscated his fruit stall. Muhammad Yaesh, 40, poured gasoline on himself near a roundabout in the city before police prevented him from setting it alight.
Yaesh, who provided for a family of 12, told Ma'an after the incident: "I decided to set myself on fire, and to pour gasoline on myself, because I reached a desperate level. I reached a level where life and death are equal to me and have the same meaning."
The attempted act recalled Tunisian street vendor Muhammad Bouazizi, who in 2010 set himself alight following the confiscation of his stand, an act that sparked the Tunisian Revolution and revolutions across the wider Arab world.
In 2013, al-Monitor reported that Palestinian protesters in Ramallah held posters bearing slogans such as: "No salaries, no carts. God help us," and "Where is justice for the people, Abbas and Fayyad?"
The article asserted: "The fact that it was the self-immolation of a poor Tunisian cart-seller that catapulted the Arab revolutions at the end of 2010 seems to be lost on the PA government officials, who are concerned with synthetic appearances over the interests of the people they claim to represent."
PLO Executive Committee member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi stated:
“Such a coalition betrays the true nature of the Israeli political system and promotes an anti-peace agenda and the language of racism, extremism and violence; it will further increase the isolation and deligitimization of Israel.
In addition to the extremism in the Likud and the ideologies of the religious parties, the Jewish Home Party, which now has control of the Israeli Civil Administration and the Security Cabinet, represents the most extreme and racist elements within Israeli society.
Appointing Ayelet Shaked, who openly advocated for the genocide of the Palestinian people and stated that ‘the entire Palestinian people is the enemy,’ as the new Justice Minister and the head of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation and the Judicial Appointments Committee is not only a threat to peace and security, but generates a culture of hate and lawlessness within Israel, compounded by Shaked’s attempts to control the Israeli Supreme Court and to pass legislation that targets civil society, as well as fundamental rights and freedoms of the Israelis.
Handing over key ministries, such as agriculture, to Uri Ariel who approved the construction of thousands of illegal settlement units in Occupied Palestine during his time as the Israeli Minister of Housing and Construction is extremely dangerous and will encourage more settler violence and the deliberate dehumanization of the Palestinian people.
Even though all signs point to the fact that this will be a short-lived government, it has the sufficient ammunition to do irreparable damage and to wreak havoc in the region and beyond.”
“Such a coalition betrays the true nature of the Israeli political system and promotes an anti-peace agenda and the language of racism, extremism and violence; it will further increase the isolation and deligitimization of Israel.
In addition to the extremism in the Likud and the ideologies of the religious parties, the Jewish Home Party, which now has control of the Israeli Civil Administration and the Security Cabinet, represents the most extreme and racist elements within Israeli society.
Appointing Ayelet Shaked, who openly advocated for the genocide of the Palestinian people and stated that ‘the entire Palestinian people is the enemy,’ as the new Justice Minister and the head of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation and the Judicial Appointments Committee is not only a threat to peace and security, but generates a culture of hate and lawlessness within Israel, compounded by Shaked’s attempts to control the Israeli Supreme Court and to pass legislation that targets civil society, as well as fundamental rights and freedoms of the Israelis.
Handing over key ministries, such as agriculture, to Uri Ariel who approved the construction of thousands of illegal settlement units in Occupied Palestine during his time as the Israeli Minister of Housing and Construction is extremely dangerous and will encourage more settler violence and the deliberate dehumanization of the Palestinian people.
Even though all signs point to the fact that this will be a short-lived government, it has the sufficient ammunition to do irreparable damage and to wreak havoc in the region and beyond.”
The First Jerusalem anti-Normalization Conference, held by the Islamic Action Front Party (IAFP), has seen the day in the Jordanian Capital, Amman.
Speakers at the inaugural address of the two-day conference stressed the need to fight normalization and mobilize mass support for de-normalization initiative.
The speakers denounced a decision by the Jordanian security apparatuses on Saturday to slap an entry ban on the Head of the Lebanon-based Islamic Group, Azzam al-Ayoubi.
The set of activities performed on the inaugural session includes presentations about and discussions of key-concepts related to the nature, strategies and repercussions of normalization.
Secretary General of the Islamic Action Front, Mohamed Awad al-Zyoud, called, in his inaugural speech, for the need to devise an Arab anti-normalization strategy, saying all deals struck with the Israeli occupation are devoid of any popular, ethical, and legal legitimacy.
Al-Zyoud’s note further laid emphasis on the need to join forces to fight the occupation in light of the simmering ad-hominem campaigns propagated on the political and socio-cultural arena in an attempt to chip away at resistance.
Al-Zyoud reiterated Jordanians’ firm rebuff of any normalization accords with the Israeli occupation, saying the Gas deal, recently struck with Israel, "does not only represent a flagrant breach to the terms of the constitution but also pools the wool over the eyes of the Council of Deputies and the Jordanian people."
Chairperson of the IAFP Women’s Sector, Hayat al-Masimi, said the party has always taken it upon itself to stand as Jordan’s bulletproof vest against the normalization virus targeted at the Kingdom and the Islamic project as a whole.
She said the Israeli occupation stakeholders have gone on the rampage to snuff out the flames of such a normalization wave and force their way out of such a swelling state of isolation.
For her part, Chairwoman Dr Dima Tahboub, stated that anti-normalization is not an option for it has been criminalized and de-legitimized by over 51 scholars.
“To defend Jordan and to do so Palestine are just one and the same,” she concluded.
Speakers at the inaugural address of the two-day conference stressed the need to fight normalization and mobilize mass support for de-normalization initiative.
The speakers denounced a decision by the Jordanian security apparatuses on Saturday to slap an entry ban on the Head of the Lebanon-based Islamic Group, Azzam al-Ayoubi.
The set of activities performed on the inaugural session includes presentations about and discussions of key-concepts related to the nature, strategies and repercussions of normalization.
Secretary General of the Islamic Action Front, Mohamed Awad al-Zyoud, called, in his inaugural speech, for the need to devise an Arab anti-normalization strategy, saying all deals struck with the Israeli occupation are devoid of any popular, ethical, and legal legitimacy.
Al-Zyoud’s note further laid emphasis on the need to join forces to fight the occupation in light of the simmering ad-hominem campaigns propagated on the political and socio-cultural arena in an attempt to chip away at resistance.
Al-Zyoud reiterated Jordanians’ firm rebuff of any normalization accords with the Israeli occupation, saying the Gas deal, recently struck with Israel, "does not only represent a flagrant breach to the terms of the constitution but also pools the wool over the eyes of the Council of Deputies and the Jordanian people."
Chairperson of the IAFP Women’s Sector, Hayat al-Masimi, said the party has always taken it upon itself to stand as Jordan’s bulletproof vest against the normalization virus targeted at the Kingdom and the Islamic project as a whole.
She said the Israeli occupation stakeholders have gone on the rampage to snuff out the flames of such a normalization wave and force their way out of such a swelling state of isolation.
For her part, Chairwoman Dr Dima Tahboub, stated that anti-normalization is not an option for it has been criminalized and de-legitimized by over 51 scholars.
“To defend Jordan and to do so Palestine are just one and the same,” she concluded.
Member of the Fatah Central Committee Nabil Shaath denied allegations, propagated by Arab media, that he has lashed out at Hamas.
The BBC Arabic TV on its Facebook page quoted Shaath as stating that Hamas is using armed resistance against Palestinians rather than Israelis.
Senior Hamas leader Ahmad Yousef, meanwhile, said in his exclusive statements to the PIC he personally spoke by phone with Shaath to check the veracity of the broadcasted statements but the Fatah official denied them firmly.
He further quoted Shaath as confirming that he is currently in the Russian capital, Moscow.
He said there is no way such statements can be released by Shaath for he has always made proof of a sincere commitment and keenness to heal the rift and work out all outstanding files.
The BBC Arabic TV on its Facebook page quoted Shaath as stating that Hamas is using armed resistance against Palestinians rather than Israelis.
Senior Hamas leader Ahmad Yousef, meanwhile, said in his exclusive statements to the PIC he personally spoke by phone with Shaath to check the veracity of the broadcasted statements but the Fatah official denied them firmly.
He further quoted Shaath as confirming that he is currently in the Russian capital, Moscow.
He said there is no way such statements can be released by Shaath for he has always made proof of a sincere commitment and keenness to heal the rift and work out all outstanding files.
