12 dec 2013
Israel's Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, said that the Palestinians need to understand that their state will be established only if Israel gets security.
The Jerusalem Post quoted livni's statements to students at Tel Aviv Universtity as saying that Israel must understand that its choice is between building another house in an isolated settlement and building security for Israel.
"My choice is clear." She continued. "Peace and security, and not settlements and isolation."
Livni said that the peace process and "its implementation will be gradual."
Livni added that Israel would not allow a situation that would result in the West Bank becoming a "replica of Gaza."
Livni concluded, "Israel is more secure when it achieves normalization with the countries of the Arab League, and when schoolchildren will not learn to hate Israel, but rather about being neighbors."
The Jerusalem Post quoted livni's statements to students at Tel Aviv Universtity as saying that Israel must understand that its choice is between building another house in an isolated settlement and building security for Israel.
"My choice is clear." She continued. "Peace and security, and not settlements and isolation."
Livni said that the peace process and "its implementation will be gradual."
Livni added that Israel would not allow a situation that would result in the West Bank becoming a "replica of Gaza."
Livni concluded, "Israel is more secure when it achieves normalization with the countries of the Arab League, and when schoolchildren will not learn to hate Israel, but rather about being neighbors."
US Secretary of State John Kerry was marking his 70th birthday leaving again for Israel, in his dogged quest for an elusive Middle East peace deal.
But there will not be a gift-wrapped agreement awaiting him when he is due to land back in Israel on Thursday, less than a week after his last trip to Israel.
The top US diplomat, who joked this week about his "commute" to the Holy Land, is embarking on his 20th overseas trip since he took office in January. It will be his ninth night trip to Israel and the West Bank.
On Thursday he is due to have dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he will also meet with President Mahmoud Abbas, before then heading east to Vietnam and Manila.
As he seeks to keep the Palestinians and Israelis on track to reach a deal within in tight nine-month deadline, Kerry reiterated warnings late Wednesday that the status quo was unsustainable.
"I've heard all the arguments from all the pundits on all sides," Kerry told an event organized by Foreign Policy magazine.
"The conflict is too frozen. It's too complicated. They don't trust each other enough. There's no way possible that there are the ingredients to try to make peace. It's a fool's errand to believe that the future could be better than the past. President Obama and I reject that cynicism," the online magazine quoted him as saying
Kerry met Monday with Israeli chief negotiator Tzipi Livni and her Palestinian counterpart Saeb Erekat in Washington for three-hour trilateral talks.
But after initial optimism following the relaunch of the direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in July following a three-year hiatus, hopes are now beginning to fade.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top official with the Palestine Liberation Organization, on Monday said Kerry's ideas on future security arrangements which were presented to the Palestinian leadership last week, had provoked a "real crisis."
"These ideas will drive Kerry's efforts to an impasse and to total failure because he is treating our issues with a high degree of indifference," Rabbo told AFP.
The proposals focus on security arrangements in the Jordan Valley which runs down the eastern flank of the West Bank, with commentators saying it would allow Israel to maintain a long-term military presence there.
But State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki stressed: "This is not a, 'Here’s a plan, please ask for an up or down.'"
"This is an ongoing discussion."
Israel negotiator warns right-wingers seeking to derail peace
Israel's chief peace negotiator on Thursday accused a key coalition partner of deliberately seeking to sabotage talks with the Palestinians by ramping up settlement construction.
Speaking just hours before the arrival of US Secretary of State John Kerry on his second visit within a week, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni accused the far-right national religious Jewish Home of deliberately promoting settlement projects in a bid "to derail" the ongoing negotiations.
"More building, more announcements of building in isolated settlements are meant to prevent us reaching peace," she told an audience at Tel Aviv University in remarks broadcast Thursday on public radio.
"That is their deliberate intention, to derail the negotiations. To cause the other side to walk out of the room," she said.
Jewish Home controls the housing ministry, giving it a key role in promoting Israeli construction on land the Palestinians want for a future state.
"When one speaks of the Jewish Home's veto power in the government, everyone is concerned with its veto on issues of religion and state," said Livni, whose centrist HaTnuah party is also part of the coalition.
"They have another veto -- with more (settlement) building, they place a veto on peace. They must not be allowed to use this informal veto, this illegitimate veto," she said.
Kerry is due to arrive in the evening for another round of shuttle diplomacy aimed at driving forward the peace talks, which have been brought to the brink of collapse by a series of major settlement announcements, enraging the Palestinians.
Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin, of the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu, said the talks would go nowhere as long as the Palestinians refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and to accept an Israeli military presence along the eastern edge of their future homeland, bordering Jordan.
"So far the Palestinians say 'no' to everything; so Kerry can come here many more times but ... I don't think anything is going to change," he told public radio.
During the trip, Kerry will meet Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah before heading to Jordan on Friday from where he will continue on to Asia.
But there will not be a gift-wrapped agreement awaiting him when he is due to land back in Israel on Thursday, less than a week after his last trip to Israel.
The top US diplomat, who joked this week about his "commute" to the Holy Land, is embarking on his 20th overseas trip since he took office in January. It will be his ninth night trip to Israel and the West Bank.
On Thursday he is due to have dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he will also meet with President Mahmoud Abbas, before then heading east to Vietnam and Manila.
As he seeks to keep the Palestinians and Israelis on track to reach a deal within in tight nine-month deadline, Kerry reiterated warnings late Wednesday that the status quo was unsustainable.
"I've heard all the arguments from all the pundits on all sides," Kerry told an event organized by Foreign Policy magazine.
"The conflict is too frozen. It's too complicated. They don't trust each other enough. There's no way possible that there are the ingredients to try to make peace. It's a fool's errand to believe that the future could be better than the past. President Obama and I reject that cynicism," the online magazine quoted him as saying
Kerry met Monday with Israeli chief negotiator Tzipi Livni and her Palestinian counterpart Saeb Erekat in Washington for three-hour trilateral talks.
But after initial optimism following the relaunch of the direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in July following a three-year hiatus, hopes are now beginning to fade.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top official with the Palestine Liberation Organization, on Monday said Kerry's ideas on future security arrangements which were presented to the Palestinian leadership last week, had provoked a "real crisis."
"These ideas will drive Kerry's efforts to an impasse and to total failure because he is treating our issues with a high degree of indifference," Rabbo told AFP.
The proposals focus on security arrangements in the Jordan Valley which runs down the eastern flank of the West Bank, with commentators saying it would allow Israel to maintain a long-term military presence there.
But State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki stressed: "This is not a, 'Here’s a plan, please ask for an up or down.'"
"This is an ongoing discussion."
Israel negotiator warns right-wingers seeking to derail peace
Israel's chief peace negotiator on Thursday accused a key coalition partner of deliberately seeking to sabotage talks with the Palestinians by ramping up settlement construction.
Speaking just hours before the arrival of US Secretary of State John Kerry on his second visit within a week, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni accused the far-right national religious Jewish Home of deliberately promoting settlement projects in a bid "to derail" the ongoing negotiations.
"More building, more announcements of building in isolated settlements are meant to prevent us reaching peace," she told an audience at Tel Aviv University in remarks broadcast Thursday on public radio.
"That is their deliberate intention, to derail the negotiations. To cause the other side to walk out of the room," she said.
Jewish Home controls the housing ministry, giving it a key role in promoting Israeli construction on land the Palestinians want for a future state.
"When one speaks of the Jewish Home's veto power in the government, everyone is concerned with its veto on issues of religion and state," said Livni, whose centrist HaTnuah party is also part of the coalition.
"They have another veto -- with more (settlement) building, they place a veto on peace. They must not be allowed to use this informal veto, this illegitimate veto," she said.
Kerry is due to arrive in the evening for another round of shuttle diplomacy aimed at driving forward the peace talks, which have been brought to the brink of collapse by a series of major settlement announcements, enraging the Palestinians.
Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin, of the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu, said the talks would go nowhere as long as the Palestinians refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and to accept an Israeli military presence along the eastern edge of their future homeland, bordering Jordan.
"So far the Palestinians say 'no' to everything; so Kerry can come here many more times but ... I don't think anything is going to change," he told public radio.
During the trip, Kerry will meet Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah before heading to Jordan on Friday from where he will continue on to Asia.
11 dec 2013
The undersecretary of the ministry of prisoners said Wednesday that the Palestinian leadership would not commit to an agreement to free Palestinian prisoners if the US postpones the release of a third batch which is scheduled for Dec. 29.
Ziad Abu Ein told Ma’an that the deal included the release of 104 veteran prisoners and in exchange the PA would not go to UN organizations seeking recognition for nine months. However, he said, if the release is postponed the PA will go to international organizations and sue Israel internationally.
Abu Ein said that the Palestinian leadership did not receive any official request from the US to postpone the release of the third batch.
However, it was reported on Monday that US Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the delay of the next batch of Palestinian prisoners scheduled for release.
Abu Ein explained that the Palestinian Authority perceived the step as connecting political events and the prisoner release, which contradicts the agreement and is rejected by the PA.
Abu Ein added that Kerry’s earlier comments about the third batch of prisoners was an attempt to pressure President Mahmoud Abbas to accept US proposals to move forward negotiations.
Ziad Abu Ein told Ma’an that the deal included the release of 104 veteran prisoners and in exchange the PA would not go to UN organizations seeking recognition for nine months. However, he said, if the release is postponed the PA will go to international organizations and sue Israel internationally.
Abu Ein said that the Palestinian leadership did not receive any official request from the US to postpone the release of the third batch.
However, it was reported on Monday that US Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the delay of the next batch of Palestinian prisoners scheduled for release.
Abu Ein explained that the Palestinian Authority perceived the step as connecting political events and the prisoner release, which contradicts the agreement and is rejected by the PA.
Abu Ein added that Kerry’s earlier comments about the third batch of prisoners was an attempt to pressure President Mahmoud Abbas to accept US proposals to move forward negotiations.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) decided Tuesday to bring the case of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails to the international spotlight, in an attempt to put more pressure on Israeli authorities to free them, according to the Jerusalem Post.
The report announced that the PA decided to “raise the issue of sick prisoners held in occupation prisons, especially those suffering from serious diseases, with all international forums.”
The PA held Israeli authorities accountable for the lives and wellbeing of the inmates, adding that Israel has “violated international laws” in its dealing with the prisoners.
As it has done before, the PA requested that the European Union Parliament inquire into the conditions of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
It is worth mentioning that US Secretary of State John Kerry threatened Monday to delay the third phase of Palestinian prisoner release, which the PA said would cause the immediate collapse of the negotiations.
The report announced that the PA decided to “raise the issue of sick prisoners held in occupation prisons, especially those suffering from serious diseases, with all international forums.”
The PA held Israeli authorities accountable for the lives and wellbeing of the inmates, adding that Israel has “violated international laws” in its dealing with the prisoners.
As it has done before, the PA requested that the European Union Parliament inquire into the conditions of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
It is worth mentioning that US Secretary of State John Kerry threatened Monday to delay the third phase of Palestinian prisoner release, which the PA said would cause the immediate collapse of the negotiations.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was scheduled to start his ninth trip of shuttle diplomacy between Palestinian and Israeli leaders on this December 11. However, the bridging "security arrangements," which he proposed less than a week earlier on his last trip, have backfired and are now snowballing into a major crisis with Palestinian negotiators who view Kerry's "ideas" as a coup turning the US top diplomat from a mediator into an antagonist.
Kerry's "ideas" had provoked a "real crisis" and "will drive Kerry's efforts to an impasse and to total failure," the secretary general of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Abed Rabbo, said on this December 9.
Resumption of the peace talks and U.S. involvement in the negotiations with Israel were both on record Palestinian demands. Disappointed by the deadlocked negotiations and more by the way Kerry decided finally to get his country involved, the Palestinian presidency expectedly stands now to regret both demands.
Kerry's shuttle diplomacy during his current trip seems more aimed at controlling the damage his "ideas - proposal" caused than at facilitating the deadlocked Palestinian – Israeli bilateral talks.
On this December 6, Kerry said that (160) American security specialists and diplomats, headed by General John Allen, the former commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, had drafted the "proposal," believing "that we can contribute ideas that could help both Israelis and Palestinians get to an agreement."
According to leaks published by mainstream Israeli media, including Israeli Channel 10 news, Haaretz, Maariv, Yedioth Ahronoth and DEBKAfile, as well as by the official Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam, the U.S. "security arrangements" propose:
* Demilitarization of the future State of Palestine.
* U.S. monitoring of its demilitarization.
* To put the border crossings into Jordan under joint Israeli-Palestinian control.
* Maintaining an Israeli military presence deployed along the western side of Jordan River after the establishment of a Palestinian state.
* Installing Israeli early warning stations on the eastward slopes of the West Bank highlands.
* Postponement of arrangements for the final status of Gaza Strip, i.e. severing the strip from the status planned by Kerry's proposal for the West Bank.
* All of the foregoing are on the background of the U.S. recognition of an understanding that the large Israeli illegal colonial settlements on the West Bank would be annexed to Israel, according to the letter sent by former U.S. President George W. Bush to the comatose former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon in April 2004, to which the incumbent administration of President Barak Obama is still committed.
Kerry and his administration have obviously coordinated a political coup by the adoption of the Israeli preconditions for recognizing a Palestinian state almost to the letter, turning the Palestinian priorities upside down and changing the terms of reference for the Palestinian – Israeli negotiations, which Kerry succeeded to resume and sponsor late last July.
When he announced the resumption of talks on last July 29, Kerry declared that his goal would be to help the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a "final status agreement'" within nine months.
Now, President Barak Obama, speaking at Brookings Institution's Saban Forum in Washington last Saturday, says there would have to be a "transition process" and that the Palestinians wouldn't get "everything they want on day one" under an accord, which initially may exclude Gaza, and let the "contiguous Palestinian state," which he had previously promised, wait. The aim of the negotiations now is to reach a "framework that would not address every single detail," he added.
And now Kerry, on the same occasion, was speaking about a "basic framework" and establishing "guidelines" for "subsequent negotiations" for a "full-on peace treaty," i.e., in his game of words, another "road map."
Kerry moreover hinted that the negotiations might have to extend beyond the agreed upon nine months, thus, from a Palestinian perspective, planning to buy Israel more time to create more colonial facts on the occupied Palestinian ground.
Kerry's "ideas" alienated the Palestinian "peace camp" and negotiators led by Fatah, which rules the Palestinian Authority (PA) and leads the PLO, who have put "all their eggs in the U.S. basket" for the past two decades, let alone all the other PLO member factions who are against the resumption of the negotiations with Israel for pragmatic reasons, but first of all because they did not trust the U.S. mediator; Kerry has just vindicated their worst fears. Non-member organizations like Hamas and al-Jihad oppose the negotiations as a matter of principle.
On December 8, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, according to The Times of Israel three days later, met with the American consul general in Jerusalem, Michael Ratney, and formally rejected the proposal, saying that the Palestinian position was "unequivocal": no Israeli presence, though the Palestinians would tolerate a third-party military presence.
On the same day on the occasion of the first 1987 Palestinian Intifada against the 1967 Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories, the PLO Executive Committee in a statement said the Palestinian people will not accept Kerry's proposed plan, which the committee's secretary general Abed Rabbo described as "extremely vague" and "open-ended."
On the same day in Qatar, the PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erakat, commenting on Kerry's proposals, said that the Palestinian leadership "perhaps" committed a "strategic mistake" by agreeing to the resumption of negotiations with Israel instead of seeking first the membership of international organizations to build on the UN General Assembly's recognition last year of Palestine as a non-member state.
The former second in command in Erakat's negotiating team, Mohammad Shtayyeh who resigned his mission recently because there was no "serious Israeli partner," called for replacing the U.S. sponsorship of the negotiations by an international one, on the lines of the Geneva conferences for Iran and Syria, because the U.S. sponsorship is "unbalanced."
Former negotiator Hassan Asfour wrote that kerry's plan, which he described as a "conspiracy," would "liquidate the Palestine Question and end any hope for a Palestinian state," adding that its rejection is a "necessity and national duty" because it "violates the red national lines."
Member of the PLO executive committee and former Palestinian chief negotiator, Ahmad Qurei', said Kerry's plan replaces the land for peace formula by a security for peace one as the basis for Palestinian – Israeli talks.
Abed Rabbo said last week in Ramallah that if the U.S. accepts that final borders are set according to what Israel determines are its security needs "all hell with break loose."
Kerry who on his last eighth trip warned Israelis of a Palestinian third Intifada seems himself laying the ground for one. His "ideas" clash head to head with the Palestinian repeated and plain rejection of long or short term interim or transitional arrangements based only on Israel's security.
He seems obsessed with Israel's security as "the top priority" for Washington, both in nuclear talks with Iran and peace talks with the Palestinians. In his press availability at Ben Gurion International Airport on December 6 he used the word "security" and "secure" twenty times in relation with Israel, but no words at all about the Israeli "occupation" and "settlements."
U.S. commitment to Israel's security is "ironclad," "spans decades," "permanent," "paramount" and a "central issue" in the work of the United States for both final agreements with Iran and Palestinians, he said. President Obama last Saturday said that this commitment is "sacrosanct."
George Friedman of Stratfor on December 3 reported that "Israel's current strategic position is excellent" and "faces no existential threats." About "the possibility that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon," Friedman wrote: "One of the reasons Israel has not attempted an air strike, and one of the reasons the United States has refused to consider it, is that Iran's prospects for developing a nuclear weapon are still remote."
Despite objections to Kerry's "security arrangements" by the Israeli defense and foreign cabinet ministers, Moshe Ya'alon and Avigdor Lieberman, the chief Israeli negotiator and justice minister Tzipi Livni admitted that the proposed American security framework addresses a large part of Israel's security needs.
Obsession with "Israel's security" could not be interpreted as simply a naïve commitment out of good faith by an old hand veteran of foreign policy like Kerry.
More likely Kerry is dictating to and pressuring the Palestinian presidency with the only option "to take" his proposal or "leave it," to be doomed either way, by its own people or by the U.S.-led donors to the PA. With friends like Kerry, Palestinian Abbas for sure needs no enemies.
Ironically, Kerry's "ideas" create a solid political ground for a Palestinian consensus that would be an objective basis for ending the Palestinian divide and reviving the national unity between the PLO in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip as a prerequisite to be able to stand up to Kerry's "coup."
Such a development however remains hostage to a decision by President Abbas who is still swimming against the national tide because he has made peace making through negotiations only the goal of his life and political career.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. This article expresses the author's opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of Palestine News Network .
Kerry's "ideas" had provoked a "real crisis" and "will drive Kerry's efforts to an impasse and to total failure," the secretary general of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Abed Rabbo, said on this December 9.
Resumption of the peace talks and U.S. involvement in the negotiations with Israel were both on record Palestinian demands. Disappointed by the deadlocked negotiations and more by the way Kerry decided finally to get his country involved, the Palestinian presidency expectedly stands now to regret both demands.
Kerry's shuttle diplomacy during his current trip seems more aimed at controlling the damage his "ideas - proposal" caused than at facilitating the deadlocked Palestinian – Israeli bilateral talks.
On this December 6, Kerry said that (160) American security specialists and diplomats, headed by General John Allen, the former commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, had drafted the "proposal," believing "that we can contribute ideas that could help both Israelis and Palestinians get to an agreement."
According to leaks published by mainstream Israeli media, including Israeli Channel 10 news, Haaretz, Maariv, Yedioth Ahronoth and DEBKAfile, as well as by the official Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam, the U.S. "security arrangements" propose:
* Demilitarization of the future State of Palestine.
* U.S. monitoring of its demilitarization.
* To put the border crossings into Jordan under joint Israeli-Palestinian control.
* Maintaining an Israeli military presence deployed along the western side of Jordan River after the establishment of a Palestinian state.
* Installing Israeli early warning stations on the eastward slopes of the West Bank highlands.
* Postponement of arrangements for the final status of Gaza Strip, i.e. severing the strip from the status planned by Kerry's proposal for the West Bank.
* All of the foregoing are on the background of the U.S. recognition of an understanding that the large Israeli illegal colonial settlements on the West Bank would be annexed to Israel, according to the letter sent by former U.S. President George W. Bush to the comatose former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon in April 2004, to which the incumbent administration of President Barak Obama is still committed.
Kerry and his administration have obviously coordinated a political coup by the adoption of the Israeli preconditions for recognizing a Palestinian state almost to the letter, turning the Palestinian priorities upside down and changing the terms of reference for the Palestinian – Israeli negotiations, which Kerry succeeded to resume and sponsor late last July.
When he announced the resumption of talks on last July 29, Kerry declared that his goal would be to help the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a "final status agreement'" within nine months.
Now, President Barak Obama, speaking at Brookings Institution's Saban Forum in Washington last Saturday, says there would have to be a "transition process" and that the Palestinians wouldn't get "everything they want on day one" under an accord, which initially may exclude Gaza, and let the "contiguous Palestinian state," which he had previously promised, wait. The aim of the negotiations now is to reach a "framework that would not address every single detail," he added.
And now Kerry, on the same occasion, was speaking about a "basic framework" and establishing "guidelines" for "subsequent negotiations" for a "full-on peace treaty," i.e., in his game of words, another "road map."
Kerry moreover hinted that the negotiations might have to extend beyond the agreed upon nine months, thus, from a Palestinian perspective, planning to buy Israel more time to create more colonial facts on the occupied Palestinian ground.
Kerry's "ideas" alienated the Palestinian "peace camp" and negotiators led by Fatah, which rules the Palestinian Authority (PA) and leads the PLO, who have put "all their eggs in the U.S. basket" for the past two decades, let alone all the other PLO member factions who are against the resumption of the negotiations with Israel for pragmatic reasons, but first of all because they did not trust the U.S. mediator; Kerry has just vindicated their worst fears. Non-member organizations like Hamas and al-Jihad oppose the negotiations as a matter of principle.
On December 8, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, according to The Times of Israel three days later, met with the American consul general in Jerusalem, Michael Ratney, and formally rejected the proposal, saying that the Palestinian position was "unequivocal": no Israeli presence, though the Palestinians would tolerate a third-party military presence.
On the same day on the occasion of the first 1987 Palestinian Intifada against the 1967 Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories, the PLO Executive Committee in a statement said the Palestinian people will not accept Kerry's proposed plan, which the committee's secretary general Abed Rabbo described as "extremely vague" and "open-ended."
On the same day in Qatar, the PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erakat, commenting on Kerry's proposals, said that the Palestinian leadership "perhaps" committed a "strategic mistake" by agreeing to the resumption of negotiations with Israel instead of seeking first the membership of international organizations to build on the UN General Assembly's recognition last year of Palestine as a non-member state.
The former second in command in Erakat's negotiating team, Mohammad Shtayyeh who resigned his mission recently because there was no "serious Israeli partner," called for replacing the U.S. sponsorship of the negotiations by an international one, on the lines of the Geneva conferences for Iran and Syria, because the U.S. sponsorship is "unbalanced."
Former negotiator Hassan Asfour wrote that kerry's plan, which he described as a "conspiracy," would "liquidate the Palestine Question and end any hope for a Palestinian state," adding that its rejection is a "necessity and national duty" because it "violates the red national lines."
Member of the PLO executive committee and former Palestinian chief negotiator, Ahmad Qurei', said Kerry's plan replaces the land for peace formula by a security for peace one as the basis for Palestinian – Israeli talks.
Abed Rabbo said last week in Ramallah that if the U.S. accepts that final borders are set according to what Israel determines are its security needs "all hell with break loose."
Kerry who on his last eighth trip warned Israelis of a Palestinian third Intifada seems himself laying the ground for one. His "ideas" clash head to head with the Palestinian repeated and plain rejection of long or short term interim or transitional arrangements based only on Israel's security.
He seems obsessed with Israel's security as "the top priority" for Washington, both in nuclear talks with Iran and peace talks with the Palestinians. In his press availability at Ben Gurion International Airport on December 6 he used the word "security" and "secure" twenty times in relation with Israel, but no words at all about the Israeli "occupation" and "settlements."
U.S. commitment to Israel's security is "ironclad," "spans decades," "permanent," "paramount" and a "central issue" in the work of the United States for both final agreements with Iran and Palestinians, he said. President Obama last Saturday said that this commitment is "sacrosanct."
George Friedman of Stratfor on December 3 reported that "Israel's current strategic position is excellent" and "faces no existential threats." About "the possibility that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon," Friedman wrote: "One of the reasons Israel has not attempted an air strike, and one of the reasons the United States has refused to consider it, is that Iran's prospects for developing a nuclear weapon are still remote."
Despite objections to Kerry's "security arrangements" by the Israeli defense and foreign cabinet ministers, Moshe Ya'alon and Avigdor Lieberman, the chief Israeli negotiator and justice minister Tzipi Livni admitted that the proposed American security framework addresses a large part of Israel's security needs.
Obsession with "Israel's security" could not be interpreted as simply a naïve commitment out of good faith by an old hand veteran of foreign policy like Kerry.
More likely Kerry is dictating to and pressuring the Palestinian presidency with the only option "to take" his proposal or "leave it," to be doomed either way, by its own people or by the U.S.-led donors to the PA. With friends like Kerry, Palestinian Abbas for sure needs no enemies.
Ironically, Kerry's "ideas" create a solid political ground for a Palestinian consensus that would be an objective basis for ending the Palestinian divide and reviving the national unity between the PLO in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip as a prerequisite to be able to stand up to Kerry's "coup."
Such a development however remains hostage to a decision by President Abbas who is still swimming against the national tide because he has made peace making through negotiations only the goal of his life and political career.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. This article expresses the author's opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of Palestine News Network .
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to arrive to the region, today, in order to push the last of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the Palestinian News Network (PNN) has reported.
Palestinian sources expect a round of talks to be conducted by Kerry, with officials in Jerusalem and Ramallah, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow -- talks which are crucial to the fate of negotiations between the two sides.
The sources confirmed, again, to Al-Ayyam newspaper, disappointment on the part of the Palestinians, in regard to the new U.S. proposals on security measures, stating that Washington had already adopted the Israeli position.
John Kerry is the 68th and current United States Secretary of State. He has served in the United States Senate, and as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He served an abbreviated four-month tour of duty as a naval officer in South Vietnam and, upon returning to the US, became an outspoken opponent against the conflict in Vietnam and U.S. war policy there.
Palestinian sources expect a round of talks to be conducted by Kerry, with officials in Jerusalem and Ramallah, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow -- talks which are crucial to the fate of negotiations between the two sides.
The sources confirmed, again, to Al-Ayyam newspaper, disappointment on the part of the Palestinians, in regard to the new U.S. proposals on security measures, stating that Washington had already adopted the Israeli position.
John Kerry is the 68th and current United States Secretary of State. He has served in the United States Senate, and as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He served an abbreviated four-month tour of duty as a naval officer in South Vietnam and, upon returning to the US, became an outspoken opponent against the conflict in Vietnam and U.S. war policy there.
10 dec 2013
A senior Palestinian official said the United States was asking Palestinians to make security concessions in peace talks with Israel, in an aim to silence Israeli criticism of world power diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear programme The accusations by Yasser Abed Rabbo, who joined Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a meeting with the US secretary of state, John Kerry, last week, further clouded hopes of achieving a negotiated accord by an April target date.
Mr Kerry, who is expected to return to the region later this week, presented both sides with suggestions last Thursday about how Israel might fend off future threats from a Palestinian state envisaged in the West Bank land that it now occupies.
Israel has long demanded that any eventual accord allow it to retain swathes of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as well as military control of the territory’s eastern Jordan Valley — effectively, the prospective Palestine’s border with Jordan.
But Mr Abed Rabbo told Voice of Palestine radio that Mr Kerry had plunged the process into crisis by seeking to “appease Israel through agreeing to its expansion demands in the Jordan Valley under the pretext of security”.
US acquiescence to Israel’s security demands was aimed at “silencing the Israelis over the deal with Iran and achieving a fake progress in the Palestinian-Israeli track at our expense”, Mr Abed Rabbo said.
He was referring to the November 24 interim accord reached in Geneva between world powers and Iran, whereby Tehran agreed to some curbs on its disputed nuclear programme in exchange for the easing of international sanctions.
Dan Shapiro, the US ambassador to Israel, said yesterday there was no quid pro quo between the Iran and Palestine talks.
“These two issues concern both Israel’s security and our security and the interests of all the Middle East, that it be a more quiet and stable region. But we do not see any linkage in which we seek to give on one issue and receive on the other,” Mr Shapiro said.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, initially condemned the Geneva deal as an “historic mistake” that risked helping Iran’s struggling economy, while leaving it with the means to make a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear drive is peaceful.
The Geneva deal further strained Mr Netanyahu ties with the Obama administration, which is mindful of support for Israel in the US congress, though the Israeli prime minister struck a more conciliatory tone last week. Still, talks remain strained a deal appears far off.
On Sunday, Mr Netanyahu said that any agreement that emerged from the talks will likely initially result in a “cold peace”, and therefore Israel must insist on “ironclad security arrangements” to protect itself.
“It is not too much to ask. It is the minimum requirement for peace. But it is not the only requirement,” Mr Netanyahu said. “I don’t delude myself. I think that any kind of peace we’ll have is likely, initially, to be a cold peace and it must withstand the forces of terrorism and the ravaging forces of radicalism and all the forces backed by Iran and others that will try to unravel the peace.”
Mr Shapiro said Gaza’s government would have to change for Palestinian statehood to be fully realised.
“We are talking about two states for two peoples. The Palestinian state will also include Gaza. But there has to be a change to the regime there. That is clear.”
Mr Kerry, who is expected to return to the region later this week, presented both sides with suggestions last Thursday about how Israel might fend off future threats from a Palestinian state envisaged in the West Bank land that it now occupies.
Israel has long demanded that any eventual accord allow it to retain swathes of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as well as military control of the territory’s eastern Jordan Valley — effectively, the prospective Palestine’s border with Jordan.
But Mr Abed Rabbo told Voice of Palestine radio that Mr Kerry had plunged the process into crisis by seeking to “appease Israel through agreeing to its expansion demands in the Jordan Valley under the pretext of security”.
US acquiescence to Israel’s security demands was aimed at “silencing the Israelis over the deal with Iran and achieving a fake progress in the Palestinian-Israeli track at our expense”, Mr Abed Rabbo said.
He was referring to the November 24 interim accord reached in Geneva between world powers and Iran, whereby Tehran agreed to some curbs on its disputed nuclear programme in exchange for the easing of international sanctions.
Dan Shapiro, the US ambassador to Israel, said yesterday there was no quid pro quo between the Iran and Palestine talks.
“These two issues concern both Israel’s security and our security and the interests of all the Middle East, that it be a more quiet and stable region. But we do not see any linkage in which we seek to give on one issue and receive on the other,” Mr Shapiro said.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, initially condemned the Geneva deal as an “historic mistake” that risked helping Iran’s struggling economy, while leaving it with the means to make a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear drive is peaceful.
The Geneva deal further strained Mr Netanyahu ties with the Obama administration, which is mindful of support for Israel in the US congress, though the Israeli prime minister struck a more conciliatory tone last week. Still, talks remain strained a deal appears far off.
On Sunday, Mr Netanyahu said that any agreement that emerged from the talks will likely initially result in a “cold peace”, and therefore Israel must insist on “ironclad security arrangements” to protect itself.
“It is not too much to ask. It is the minimum requirement for peace. But it is not the only requirement,” Mr Netanyahu said. “I don’t delude myself. I think that any kind of peace we’ll have is likely, initially, to be a cold peace and it must withstand the forces of terrorism and the ravaging forces of radicalism and all the forces backed by Iran and others that will try to unravel the peace.”
Mr Shapiro said Gaza’s government would have to change for Palestinian statehood to be fully realised.
“We are talking about two states for two peoples. The Palestinian state will also include Gaza. But there has to be a change to the regime there. That is clear.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry is to fly back to Israel just days after his last visit amid a Palestinian warning that his proposals on security would lead to "total failure."
Kerry will head to Israel on Wednesday, five days after he landed back from Jerusalem and after spending most of the weekend meeting in Washington with Israeli leaders.
"This is an important time in the negotiations, and he felt it was important to return to the region," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters in Washington, adding that Kerry would spend two days in Israel and Ramallah for talks.
The announcement came after Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top official with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), on Monday said that Kerry's ideas on the future configuration of security arrangements which were presented to the Palestinian leadership last week, had provoked a "real crisis".
"These ideas will drive Kerry's efforts to an impasse and to total failure because he is treating our issues with a high degree of indifference," he told AFP.
The proposals focus on security arrangements in the Jordan Valley which runs down the eastern flank of the West Bank, with commentators saying it would allow Israel to maintain a long-term military presence there.
The US suggestions reportedly won a positive reaction from the Israelis, but were sharply dismissed by the Palestinians as "very bad ideas, which we cannot accept."
Israel has always insisted on maintaining a military presence in the Jordan Valley, but the notion has been rejected out of hand by the Palestinians who claim it would make a mockery of their sovereignty and merely perpetuate the occupation.
"(Kerry) only wants to win over the Israelis and (allow) settlement expansion at our expense," Abed Rabbo charged.
Psaki denied reports that Kerry and the administration of President Barack Obama were seeking some kind of interim framework ahead of a full peace accord.
"Just to be absolutely clear, we are not focused on an interim deal, we are focused on a final deal," Psaki told reporters, while adding "there of course will be a process to getting there."
Earlier on Monday, an Israeli newspaper said that Washington was considering delaying the planned release of another 26 veteran Palestinian prisoners in a bid to pressure Ramallah into agreeing to its security proposals.
Several senior Palestinian officials reacted by stressing that the leadership would not accept any delay in the releases, which are due to take place at the end of the month.
Abed Rabbo too rejected any delay in implementing the third phase of releases -- one of the conditions agreed on that brought the two sides back to the negotiating table for the first time in nearly three years.
Last week, Haaretz newspaper said Kerry was pushing to get some form of agreement on security as a way of driving the direct negotiations forward.
"The Americans hope that if they come to an understanding with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu on the security issue, they can demand (he) begin to present clear positions on the border of the future Palestinian state," the paper said.
Although Kerry's proposals have reportedly gone a long way in addressing Israel's security demands, they have also pushed the Israeli leader in to a tight corner, commentators said.
Writing in the top-selling Yediot Aharonot, Nahum Barnea said Kerry's plan had posed Netanyahu with "a serious problem."
"The military plan ... robs Netanyahu of the immediate argument that he raised every time he was called upon to discuss drawing up the future border between Israel and Palestine: security arrangements."
The US plan "reopens the internal debate on the 1967 lines and the fate of the settlements," he said, suggesting that the pressure could cause Netanyahu's coalition to collapse.
Bidding to keep the peace process on track, Kerry met Monday in Washington with Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat and his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni.
Over the weekend he also held his first talks with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman since the latter returned to his post after a corruption scandal
On a positive note Monday Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians signed a historic water-sharing initiative, at the World Bank in Washington, that could protect water resources in the region amid rising demand.
"It gives a glimmer of hope that we can overcome more obstacles in the future," said Silvan Shalom, Israel's minister of energy and water resources, at the signing.
"We showed that we can work together despite the political problems," echoed Palestinian water minister Shaddad Attili.
Kerry will head to Israel on Wednesday, five days after he landed back from Jerusalem and after spending most of the weekend meeting in Washington with Israeli leaders.
"This is an important time in the negotiations, and he felt it was important to return to the region," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters in Washington, adding that Kerry would spend two days in Israel and Ramallah for talks.
The announcement came after Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top official with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), on Monday said that Kerry's ideas on the future configuration of security arrangements which were presented to the Palestinian leadership last week, had provoked a "real crisis".
"These ideas will drive Kerry's efforts to an impasse and to total failure because he is treating our issues with a high degree of indifference," he told AFP.
The proposals focus on security arrangements in the Jordan Valley which runs down the eastern flank of the West Bank, with commentators saying it would allow Israel to maintain a long-term military presence there.
The US suggestions reportedly won a positive reaction from the Israelis, but were sharply dismissed by the Palestinians as "very bad ideas, which we cannot accept."
Israel has always insisted on maintaining a military presence in the Jordan Valley, but the notion has been rejected out of hand by the Palestinians who claim it would make a mockery of their sovereignty and merely perpetuate the occupation.
"(Kerry) only wants to win over the Israelis and (allow) settlement expansion at our expense," Abed Rabbo charged.
Psaki denied reports that Kerry and the administration of President Barack Obama were seeking some kind of interim framework ahead of a full peace accord.
"Just to be absolutely clear, we are not focused on an interim deal, we are focused on a final deal," Psaki told reporters, while adding "there of course will be a process to getting there."
Earlier on Monday, an Israeli newspaper said that Washington was considering delaying the planned release of another 26 veteran Palestinian prisoners in a bid to pressure Ramallah into agreeing to its security proposals.
Several senior Palestinian officials reacted by stressing that the leadership would not accept any delay in the releases, which are due to take place at the end of the month.
Abed Rabbo too rejected any delay in implementing the third phase of releases -- one of the conditions agreed on that brought the two sides back to the negotiating table for the first time in nearly three years.
Last week, Haaretz newspaper said Kerry was pushing to get some form of agreement on security as a way of driving the direct negotiations forward.
"The Americans hope that if they come to an understanding with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu on the security issue, they can demand (he) begin to present clear positions on the border of the future Palestinian state," the paper said.
Although Kerry's proposals have reportedly gone a long way in addressing Israel's security demands, they have also pushed the Israeli leader in to a tight corner, commentators said.
Writing in the top-selling Yediot Aharonot, Nahum Barnea said Kerry's plan had posed Netanyahu with "a serious problem."
"The military plan ... robs Netanyahu of the immediate argument that he raised every time he was called upon to discuss drawing up the future border between Israel and Palestine: security arrangements."
The US plan "reopens the internal debate on the 1967 lines and the fate of the settlements," he said, suggesting that the pressure could cause Netanyahu's coalition to collapse.
Bidding to keep the peace process on track, Kerry met Monday in Washington with Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat and his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni.
Over the weekend he also held his first talks with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman since the latter returned to his post after a corruption scandal
On a positive note Monday Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians signed a historic water-sharing initiative, at the World Bank in Washington, that could protect water resources in the region amid rising demand.
"It gives a glimmer of hope that we can overcome more obstacles in the future," said Silvan Shalom, Israel's minister of energy and water resources, at the signing.
"We showed that we can work together despite the political problems," echoed Palestinian water minister Shaddad Attili.
Yasser Abed Rabbo argues that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposals to address Israeli “security concerns” will lead to the “total failure” of the negotiations, says the Daily Star.
The Secretary-General of the PLO Abed Rabbo, criticized Kerry for trying to “appease” Israel.
Abed Rabbo told the Voice of Palestine radio station that Kerry was to blame for the current crisis in the peace talks with Israel.
“Apparently, Kerry wants to appease Israel by fulfilling its expansionist demands in the Jordan Valley under the pretext of security,” the PLO official argued.
The proposals focus on security arrangements in the Jordan Valley, and commentators say that it would allow Israel to maintain a long-term military presence there. Israel has always insisted on maintaining a military presence in the Jordan Valley, but the notion has been rejected out of hand by the Palestinians who claim it would make a mockery of their sovereignty and merely perpetuate the occupation.
U.S. acquiescence to Israel’s security demands was aimed at “silencing the Israelis over the deal with Iran and achieving a fake progress in the Palestinian-Israeli track at our expense,” Rabbo added.
Abed Rabbo claimed that Kerry was trying to “buy Israeli silence” over the recent nuclear deal between Iran and the six big powers. “Kerry is trying to achieve an imaginary success on the Israeli-Palestinian track at our expense,” he added.
Rabbo also accused Kerry of endorsing a “disparaging” attitude in his dealings with the Palestinians. “The US should appease Israel at the expense of its own interests and not those of the Palestinians.”
Earlier Monday, an Israeli newspaper said Washington was considering delaying the planned release of another 26 veteran Palestinian prisoners in a bid to pressure the Palestinian Authority into agreeing to its security proposals and this was understandably what caused Rabbo to lash out at both the Americans and the Israelis. He finished the interview with Voice of Palestine saying: “We insist on full implementation of the prisoner agreement, including releasing the third batch at the end of December.”
The Secretary-General of the PLO Abed Rabbo, criticized Kerry for trying to “appease” Israel.
Abed Rabbo told the Voice of Palestine radio station that Kerry was to blame for the current crisis in the peace talks with Israel.
“Apparently, Kerry wants to appease Israel by fulfilling its expansionist demands in the Jordan Valley under the pretext of security,” the PLO official argued.
The proposals focus on security arrangements in the Jordan Valley, and commentators say that it would allow Israel to maintain a long-term military presence there. Israel has always insisted on maintaining a military presence in the Jordan Valley, but the notion has been rejected out of hand by the Palestinians who claim it would make a mockery of their sovereignty and merely perpetuate the occupation.
U.S. acquiescence to Israel’s security demands was aimed at “silencing the Israelis over the deal with Iran and achieving a fake progress in the Palestinian-Israeli track at our expense,” Rabbo added.
Abed Rabbo claimed that Kerry was trying to “buy Israeli silence” over the recent nuclear deal between Iran and the six big powers. “Kerry is trying to achieve an imaginary success on the Israeli-Palestinian track at our expense,” he added.
Rabbo also accused Kerry of endorsing a “disparaging” attitude in his dealings with the Palestinians. “The US should appease Israel at the expense of its own interests and not those of the Palestinians.”
Earlier Monday, an Israeli newspaper said Washington was considering delaying the planned release of another 26 veteran Palestinian prisoners in a bid to pressure the Palestinian Authority into agreeing to its security proposals and this was understandably what caused Rabbo to lash out at both the Americans and the Israelis. He finished the interview with Voice of Palestine saying: “We insist on full implementation of the prisoner agreement, including releasing the third batch at the end of December.”
The White House stated that U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, would be visiting Tel Aviv and Ramallah on Wednesday November 11 to hold separate talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Kerry would be talking about the “progress” of direct talks between Tel Aviv and Ramallah, and intends to hold talks with Netanyahu about the Iranian “nuclear file”.
Kerry just left the region four days ago following separate meetings with Netanyahu in Jerusalem, and Abbas in Ramallah.
He asked both officials to allow more time for political talks, and extend them for several more months.
Kerry said he believes “direct talks are closer than ever to reaching a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority”.
Israel insists on various conditions and demands, including ruling out any withdrawal from occupied Jerusalem, borders, and wants to maintain control over natural resources.
It also is ongoing with its illegitimate settlement construction and expansion activities in the occupied West Bank, including in and around occupied East Jerusalem, and refuses to recognize the internationally guaranteed Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees.
Kerry would be talking about the “progress” of direct talks between Tel Aviv and Ramallah, and intends to hold talks with Netanyahu about the Iranian “nuclear file”.
Kerry just left the region four days ago following separate meetings with Netanyahu in Jerusalem, and Abbas in Ramallah.
He asked both officials to allow more time for political talks, and extend them for several more months.
Kerry said he believes “direct talks are closer than ever to reaching a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority”.
Israel insists on various conditions and demands, including ruling out any withdrawal from occupied Jerusalem, borders, and wants to maintain control over natural resources.
It also is ongoing with its illegitimate settlement construction and expansion activities in the occupied West Bank, including in and around occupied East Jerusalem, and refuses to recognize the internationally guaranteed Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees.
9 dec 2013
US secretary of state John Kerry decided to shelve the release of the third batch of Palestinian prisoners at the end of the current month in order to pressure de facto president Mahmoud Abbas to soften his positions in the peace talks with Israel, Maariv newspaper stated. Maariv quoted a Palestinian official source as saying that the office of Kerry told the Palestinian negotiators about his decision in this regard after Abbas refused the US plan about the security arrangements in the Jordan Valley.
The source added that Kerry is determined to achieve progress in the negotiations between Abbas and Israel and release a statement in this regard during the coming month.
The Jordan Valley security plan was tabled by Kerry during his latest visit to the region last week.
In a related context, another Palestinian official source told Quds Press that the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah "is seriously mulling over Kerry's security plan in the Jordan Valley."
He added that the PA accepted the presence of US military experts in the West Bank in order to prepare and train the Palestinian security forces in accordance with Kerry's security plan.
For his part, Israeli war minister Moshe Yaalon expressed strong reservations on the US security plan in the West Bank and stressed the need for giving Israel the freedom to act military in the territories of the future Palestinian state.
The Hebrew radio quoted Yaalon as saying that he has reservations on most of the West Bank security arrangements suggested by the US, especially with regard to the withdrawal of the Israeli army from most of the West Bank territories, except the Jordan Valley.
He said that any peace agreement with the Palestinians must guarantee the Israeli army the freedom to act and move in all Palestinian-controlled areas in order to thwart what he called terrorist attacks against Israel, adding that providing the Palestinian side with advanced security equipment is not enough.
The Israeli war minister also expressed his refusal of any Palestinian presence at border crossings as suggested in the US security plan.
The source added that Kerry is determined to achieve progress in the negotiations between Abbas and Israel and release a statement in this regard during the coming month.
The Jordan Valley security plan was tabled by Kerry during his latest visit to the region last week.
In a related context, another Palestinian official source told Quds Press that the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah "is seriously mulling over Kerry's security plan in the Jordan Valley."
He added that the PA accepted the presence of US military experts in the West Bank in order to prepare and train the Palestinian security forces in accordance with Kerry's security plan.
For his part, Israeli war minister Moshe Yaalon expressed strong reservations on the US security plan in the West Bank and stressed the need for giving Israel the freedom to act military in the territories of the future Palestinian state.
The Hebrew radio quoted Yaalon as saying that he has reservations on most of the West Bank security arrangements suggested by the US, especially with regard to the withdrawal of the Israeli army from most of the West Bank territories, except the Jordan Valley.
He said that any peace agreement with the Palestinians must guarantee the Israeli army the freedom to act and move in all Palestinian-controlled areas in order to thwart what he called terrorist attacks against Israel, adding that providing the Palestinian side with advanced security equipment is not enough.
The Israeli war minister also expressed his refusal of any Palestinian presence at border crossings as suggested in the US security plan.
US Security of State John Kerry decided to postpone the release of the third batch of the Palestinian prisoners scheduled to be released at the end of this month, Maariv reported It reported that Kerry put pressure on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in order to soften his positions towards the negotiation process with Israel.
Palestinian media sources reported that Kerry's decision came after Abbas refuted U.S. security proposal in the Jordan valley .
The sources reported that Kerry determined to develop a joint Israeli- Palestinian peace statement next month.
Palestinian media sources reported that Kerry's decision came after Abbas refuted U.S. security proposal in the Jordan valley .
The sources reported that Kerry determined to develop a joint Israeli- Palestinian peace statement next month.
Member of Hamas Political Bureau Mousa Abu Marzouk said that U.S. President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry's statements prove US role in deepening the Palestinian internal division. The current negotiations aim at reaching a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians based on a two-state solution, he said in a comment on his Facebook page on Monday.
Abu Marzouk pointed to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's previous statements when he was asked about Hamas's rejection to talks' resumption, where he stated that the movement would be preoccupied with other things. “This position coincides with American threats to halt financial aid to the PA in Ramallah in the event it went ahead in national reconciliation”, he added.
He noted that such statements came in light of the frequent calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and for holding elections in the West Bank, and in light of the continued incitement campaign against Hamas in a bid to isolate it.
He also pointed to stopping bonuses and freezing all promotions for employees from Gaza Strip who were forced by the government of Salam Fayyad to leave their jobs, saying that such measures came as a prelude to political disengagement with the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas leader renewed his movement's rejection of the International Quartet's conditions and of security coordination in the West Bank and of the negotiations' results.
Abu Marzouk pointed to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's previous statements when he was asked about Hamas's rejection to talks' resumption, where he stated that the movement would be preoccupied with other things. “This position coincides with American threats to halt financial aid to the PA in Ramallah in the event it went ahead in national reconciliation”, he added.
He noted that such statements came in light of the frequent calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and for holding elections in the West Bank, and in light of the continued incitement campaign against Hamas in a bid to isolate it.
He also pointed to stopping bonuses and freezing all promotions for employees from Gaza Strip who were forced by the government of Salam Fayyad to leave their jobs, saying that such measures came as a prelude to political disengagement with the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas leader renewed his movement's rejection of the International Quartet's conditions and of security coordination in the West Bank and of the negotiations' results.
8 dec 2013
By Khalid Amayreh
Despite the fact that the ongoing American-mediated talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have achieved absolutely no progress toward reaching a prospective peace deal that would end decades of military occupation, the PA leadership seems prone to caving in to American-Zionist pressure and blackmail, which would violate long-standing Palestinian national constants.
Indeed, the very consent of Palestinian negotiators to discuss with Zionist counterparts Israeli whims, such as retaining occupation presence along the Jordanian-Palestinian borders draws a question mark on the Ramallah leadership's commitment to these constants.
This is the reason why virtually all Palestinian factions, apart from Fatah, are warning the Ramallah group that any farcical deal that might be reached with Israel under the current circumstances won't be binding to the Palestinian people.
The fears of the Palestinian Main Street that the PA leadership might be cajoled to cede inalienable Palestinian rights are not groundless or phobic in nature. On the contrary, they are too real to be dismissed as disingenuous.
The PA today is undergoing political and especially financial conditions that are very much similar to the conditions haunting the PLO prior to the conclusion of the Oslo Agreement.
We all remember that the PLO was in the early 1990s on the verge of bankruptcy which really forced it to harrow toward signing the infamous agreement, which enabled Israel to keep virtually all the assets of its military occupation by creating a police state without a state called the "self-rule authority," utterly bereft of any real power or authority.
The Oslo Accords were so vague that both Israel and the PLO held diametrically contradictory interpretations of the agreement. Israel said the agreement allowed it to go on building settlements while the PA continued to claim that the agreement was a first step toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
The scandalous contradictions of how the Oslo Agreement was understood by the two sides were eloquently voiced by Israeli President Shimon Peres who remarked that the agreement contained no stipulations preventing PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat from dreaming. "I cannot put guards at Yasser Arafat's lips," said Peres, the clearly-insolent certified war criminal.
Déjà vu
Following the conclusion of the ignominious Oslo Agreement, PLO officials and spokespersons sought to justify the historic failure by saying that the PLO leadership had to sign the accords in order to save itself from demise.
Now, we are afraid that the current leadership of the same PLO will commit even a greater blunder by signing a decidedly and manifestly treasonous accord with Israel under the rubric of saving whatever can be saved.
Under such a criminal deal, billions of dollars would be pouring on the West Bank from all directions and Palestinians would be once again induced with the illusionary prospect of becoming the Singapore of the Middle East. And as in 1993, many Palestinians and Arabs would be carried away with the false euphoria, and people like this writer, who display reservations and objections about the crime, would be called all sorts of names, including "enemies of peace," "nay-Sayers," "perennially-pessimists" and "day-dreamers"- if not terrorists and enemies of the people.
Needless to say, such epithets would probably find acceptance and understanding by certain sectors among Palestinians, who are tired and exhausted of the conflict.
None the less, the truth must be proclaimed, even at the risk of opposing the current, at the local, regional, and international level.
And the truth is that the deal that might be struck under the current circumstances would be uglier than ugliness itself. Such a deal would result in the decapitation of the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland at the hands of invading Jewish terrorist gangs coming from overseas, with the aid of Western Christian powers in Europe and North America.
The deal would mean that the bulk of Arab East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli control, which means hundreds of criminal Jewish colonies would be rendered "legitimate." But as we all know, and the world knows, these illegitimate colonies are the offspring of acts of rape. Hence, legitimizing them would be akin to legitimizing rape.
The deal would also mean that Israel would remain in control of Palestinian border-crossings, air space, and territorial water and water resources for a prolonged period while giving Palestinians a false semblance of sovereignty.
Yes, the Palestinians would have the right to use the grandest of names to call their "state." But this state would be eviscerated of substance even of dignity, as it lacks viability, sovereignty, and territorial contiguity.
Needless, to say, such a "state" would be a greatest disaster that might befall the Palestinian people and their enduring national cause. It would be the laughingstock of the world.
Hence, we all must be vigilant as to the direction of the so-called peace talks between Israel, a state thoroughly intoxicated by its insolence and arrogance of power, and the PA, a de facto vanquished supplicant that cannot really be entrusted with our people's legitimate rights, including first and foremost the sacred right of return.
Now a final word to the Israelis: Don't you ever think that Mahmoud Abbas or Sa'eb Urikat or any other Palestinian leader is authorized to cede or even compromise Palestinian rights. If Yasser Arafat couldn't do it, it would be a great folly to think that Mahmoud Abbas would or could.
Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated Palestinian journalist living in Hebron in the West Bank.
Despite the fact that the ongoing American-mediated talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have achieved absolutely no progress toward reaching a prospective peace deal that would end decades of military occupation, the PA leadership seems prone to caving in to American-Zionist pressure and blackmail, which would violate long-standing Palestinian national constants.
Indeed, the very consent of Palestinian negotiators to discuss with Zionist counterparts Israeli whims, such as retaining occupation presence along the Jordanian-Palestinian borders draws a question mark on the Ramallah leadership's commitment to these constants.
This is the reason why virtually all Palestinian factions, apart from Fatah, are warning the Ramallah group that any farcical deal that might be reached with Israel under the current circumstances won't be binding to the Palestinian people.
The fears of the Palestinian Main Street that the PA leadership might be cajoled to cede inalienable Palestinian rights are not groundless or phobic in nature. On the contrary, they are too real to be dismissed as disingenuous.
The PA today is undergoing political and especially financial conditions that are very much similar to the conditions haunting the PLO prior to the conclusion of the Oslo Agreement.
We all remember that the PLO was in the early 1990s on the verge of bankruptcy which really forced it to harrow toward signing the infamous agreement, which enabled Israel to keep virtually all the assets of its military occupation by creating a police state without a state called the "self-rule authority," utterly bereft of any real power or authority.
The Oslo Accords were so vague that both Israel and the PLO held diametrically contradictory interpretations of the agreement. Israel said the agreement allowed it to go on building settlements while the PA continued to claim that the agreement was a first step toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
The scandalous contradictions of how the Oslo Agreement was understood by the two sides were eloquently voiced by Israeli President Shimon Peres who remarked that the agreement contained no stipulations preventing PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat from dreaming. "I cannot put guards at Yasser Arafat's lips," said Peres, the clearly-insolent certified war criminal.
Déjà vu
Following the conclusion of the ignominious Oslo Agreement, PLO officials and spokespersons sought to justify the historic failure by saying that the PLO leadership had to sign the accords in order to save itself from demise.
Now, we are afraid that the current leadership of the same PLO will commit even a greater blunder by signing a decidedly and manifestly treasonous accord with Israel under the rubric of saving whatever can be saved.
Under such a criminal deal, billions of dollars would be pouring on the West Bank from all directions and Palestinians would be once again induced with the illusionary prospect of becoming the Singapore of the Middle East. And as in 1993, many Palestinians and Arabs would be carried away with the false euphoria, and people like this writer, who display reservations and objections about the crime, would be called all sorts of names, including "enemies of peace," "nay-Sayers," "perennially-pessimists" and "day-dreamers"- if not terrorists and enemies of the people.
Needless to say, such epithets would probably find acceptance and understanding by certain sectors among Palestinians, who are tired and exhausted of the conflict.
None the less, the truth must be proclaimed, even at the risk of opposing the current, at the local, regional, and international level.
And the truth is that the deal that might be struck under the current circumstances would be uglier than ugliness itself. Such a deal would result in the decapitation of the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland at the hands of invading Jewish terrorist gangs coming from overseas, with the aid of Western Christian powers in Europe and North America.
The deal would mean that the bulk of Arab East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli control, which means hundreds of criminal Jewish colonies would be rendered "legitimate." But as we all know, and the world knows, these illegitimate colonies are the offspring of acts of rape. Hence, legitimizing them would be akin to legitimizing rape.
The deal would also mean that Israel would remain in control of Palestinian border-crossings, air space, and territorial water and water resources for a prolonged period while giving Palestinians a false semblance of sovereignty.
Yes, the Palestinians would have the right to use the grandest of names to call their "state." But this state would be eviscerated of substance even of dignity, as it lacks viability, sovereignty, and territorial contiguity.
Needless, to say, such a "state" would be a greatest disaster that might befall the Palestinian people and their enduring national cause. It would be the laughingstock of the world.
Hence, we all must be vigilant as to the direction of the so-called peace talks between Israel, a state thoroughly intoxicated by its insolence and arrogance of power, and the PA, a de facto vanquished supplicant that cannot really be entrusted with our people's legitimate rights, including first and foremost the sacred right of return.
Now a final word to the Israelis: Don't you ever think that Mahmoud Abbas or Sa'eb Urikat or any other Palestinian leader is authorized to cede or even compromise Palestinian rights. If Yasser Arafat couldn't do it, it would be a great folly to think that Mahmoud Abbas would or could.
Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated Palestinian journalist living in Hebron in the West Bank.
The United States said Saturday it had conducted its deepest-ever analysis of Israel's security needs and believed a two-state solution with Palestinians could include sufficient guarantees to safeguard the Jewish state.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry revealed some details of the US effort to convince Israel that its security could be ensured in any final peace deal.
Kerry said US Middle East security envoy General John Allen was working closely with Israeli forces to test scenarios and work out how to satisfy Israeli needs for years to come.
"He is helping us make sure that the border on the Jordan River will be as strong as any in the world, so that there will be no question about the security of the citizens, Israelis and Palestinians, living to the west of it," Kerry said at the Brookings Institution's Saban Forum.
"Never before has the United States conducted such an in-depth analysis of Israel's security requirements that arise from a two-state solution," Kerry said.
Obama said earlier at the same event that Allen had concluded "that it is possible to create a two-state solution that preserves Israel's core security needs."
"That's his conclusion, but ultimately he's not the decision-maker here, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli military and intelligence folks have to make that determination."
Allen briefed Netanyahu on his conclusions on Thursday.
Kerry said more than 160 US experts were coordinating with the Palestinians and the Jordanians as well as Israelis and running multiple scenarios, including future border issues and terrorism, to pinpoint Israel's needs.
He described the process as a "critical threading of the needle that needs to happen."
"What we put on the table is deadly serious, real."
Kerry said multiple US government, intelligence and military agencies were working with Israelis and Palestinians on security -- which he billed as a make or break issue for his long-running initiative to broker peace between the two sides.
Netanyahu has said that under any peace agreement, Israel "must be able to defend itself, by itself, with our own forces" -- an allusion to the reported debate over security in the Jordan Valley, which separates the West Bank from neighboring Jordan.
Israel has always insisted that in any final agreement it would have to maintain a military presence there, and has rejected outright the idea of any third party involvement.
Obama also warned that, in the event of a final agreement, the Palestinians would have to accept Israel would require a "transition period" to ensure that the West Bank did not become a security threat akin to Hamas-ruled Gaza.
"This transition period requires some restraint on the part of the Palestinians as well. They don't get everything they want on day one," he said.
The State Department, meanwhile, said that Kerry would meet Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Sunday morning in Washington.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry revealed some details of the US effort to convince Israel that its security could be ensured in any final peace deal.
Kerry said US Middle East security envoy General John Allen was working closely with Israeli forces to test scenarios and work out how to satisfy Israeli needs for years to come.
"He is helping us make sure that the border on the Jordan River will be as strong as any in the world, so that there will be no question about the security of the citizens, Israelis and Palestinians, living to the west of it," Kerry said at the Brookings Institution's Saban Forum.
"Never before has the United States conducted such an in-depth analysis of Israel's security requirements that arise from a two-state solution," Kerry said.
Obama said earlier at the same event that Allen had concluded "that it is possible to create a two-state solution that preserves Israel's core security needs."
"That's his conclusion, but ultimately he's not the decision-maker here, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli military and intelligence folks have to make that determination."
Allen briefed Netanyahu on his conclusions on Thursday.
Kerry said more than 160 US experts were coordinating with the Palestinians and the Jordanians as well as Israelis and running multiple scenarios, including future border issues and terrorism, to pinpoint Israel's needs.
He described the process as a "critical threading of the needle that needs to happen."
"What we put on the table is deadly serious, real."
Kerry said multiple US government, intelligence and military agencies were working with Israelis and Palestinians on security -- which he billed as a make or break issue for his long-running initiative to broker peace between the two sides.
Netanyahu has said that under any peace agreement, Israel "must be able to defend itself, by itself, with our own forces" -- an allusion to the reported debate over security in the Jordan Valley, which separates the West Bank from neighboring Jordan.
Israel has always insisted that in any final agreement it would have to maintain a military presence there, and has rejected outright the idea of any third party involvement.
Obama also warned that, in the event of a final agreement, the Palestinians would have to accept Israel would require a "transition period" to ensure that the West Bank did not become a security threat akin to Hamas-ruled Gaza.
"This transition period requires some restraint on the part of the Palestinians as well. They don't get everything they want on day one," he said.
The State Department, meanwhile, said that Kerry would meet Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Sunday morning in Washington.
|
|
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett on Sunday proposed that Israel annex parts of the West Bank under its full military control where most Jewish settlers live. "I favour implementation of Israeli sovereignty over the zone where 400,000 (settlers) live and only 70,000 Arabs," said the head of the far-right Jewish Home religious party in the ruling coalition.
Bennett also ridiculed the US-brokered peace talks between Israel and Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, whose writ covers the West Bank but not Gaza, ruled by the Islamist movement Hamas. "This is all a joke. It's as if we're discussing the purchase of a car with only half of its owners," he told public radio. In another negative Israeli assessment of the peace process, Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said Saturday: "There is no partner on the Palestinian side to reach a two-state solution for two peoples." Their views contrasted with a statement by US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday at the end of his latest mission to Israel and the Palestinian territories. "I believe we are closer than we have been in years to bringing about the peace and the prosperity and the security that all of the people of this region deserve," Kerry told reporters. Direct negotiations were launched in late July but have made little apparent progress as they approach the half-way mark of a targeted nine months. |
"Israel – Palestinians are at dead end" Israel foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said ahead of a meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry . In an appearance Friday night at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy conference, Lieberman addressed Kerry's optimism in regards to a political breakthrough with the Palestinians saying that he "doesn't see a chance to achieve a comprehensive agreement."
Lieberman said that talks with the Palestinians should not have a starting point of discussing security and refugees, "but rather (start with) something simple like trust and reliability. The trust between the two sides is non-existent. It is hard to make peace when you don't believe the other side."
On Friday, moments before leaving Israel, Kerry said: "I believe we are closer than we have been in years in bringing about the peace and prosperity and security that all the people in this region deserve and have been yearning for."
Lieberman will meet with Kerry in Washington on Sunday. This meeting is particularly significant since the previous secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, refused to meet with Lieberman more than twice.
Israeli FM: No chance for deal with Palestinians
The Israeli foreign minister addressing US Secretary of State John Kerry's optimism regarding a political breakthrough with the Palestinian negotiators said "We are at a dead end", Ynet reported. During a conference in Washington at Saban Center for Middle East Policy he said he "doesn't see a chance to achieve a comprehensive agreement," The Israeli daily added.
On Friday, moments before leaving (Israel), Kerry said: "I believe we are closer than we have been in years in bringing about the peace and prosperity and security that all the people in this region deserve and have been yearning for."
According to France 24, Lieberman is a resident of the colonial West Bank settlement of Nokdim, Lieberman is known for his openly anti-Arab stance and pleaded guilty in 2001 to assaulting a Palestinian child who had hit his son.
He was fined and ordered to pay compensation to the 12-year-old Palestinian.
He has called for Gaza to be treated "like Chechnya" and urged (Israel) to treat its Hamas leaders "like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II."
And he has called for the execution of Arab-Israeli MPs who have had any dealings with the Islamist movement.
Even Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has been slurred as a "diplomatic terrorist" and Lieberman insists there can be no peace while his Western-backed Palestinian Authority is in power.
Lieberman backs colonial settlement activity and wants to keep the major settlements in return for transferring areas where many Palestinians inside 1948 historic Palestine who hold Israeli citizenship live to Palestinian control.
He once said that talks with the Palestinians should not have a starting point of discussing security and refugees, "but rather (start with) something simple like trust and reliability. The trust between the two sides is non-existent. It is hard to make peace when you don't believe the other side."
The Ynet quoted the foreign minister as saying "I am not in favor of a (population) transfer. I am in favor of an exchange of territory. I accept the Bar Ilan speech. If I were sure that a comprehensive agreement and a stable peace could be achieved I would evacuate my settlement and my home. The problem is that I don't see a chance of achieving a comprehensive agreement."
Lieberman said that talks with the Palestinians should not have a starting point of discussing security and refugees, "but rather (start with) something simple like trust and reliability. The trust between the two sides is non-existent. It is hard to make peace when you don't believe the other side."
On Friday, moments before leaving Israel, Kerry said: "I believe we are closer than we have been in years in bringing about the peace and prosperity and security that all the people in this region deserve and have been yearning for."
Lieberman will meet with Kerry in Washington on Sunday. This meeting is particularly significant since the previous secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, refused to meet with Lieberman more than twice.
Israeli FM: No chance for deal with Palestinians
The Israeli foreign minister addressing US Secretary of State John Kerry's optimism regarding a political breakthrough with the Palestinian negotiators said "We are at a dead end", Ynet reported. During a conference in Washington at Saban Center for Middle East Policy he said he "doesn't see a chance to achieve a comprehensive agreement," The Israeli daily added.
On Friday, moments before leaving (Israel), Kerry said: "I believe we are closer than we have been in years in bringing about the peace and prosperity and security that all the people in this region deserve and have been yearning for."
According to France 24, Lieberman is a resident of the colonial West Bank settlement of Nokdim, Lieberman is known for his openly anti-Arab stance and pleaded guilty in 2001 to assaulting a Palestinian child who had hit his son.
He was fined and ordered to pay compensation to the 12-year-old Palestinian.
He has called for Gaza to be treated "like Chechnya" and urged (Israel) to treat its Hamas leaders "like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II."
And he has called for the execution of Arab-Israeli MPs who have had any dealings with the Islamist movement.
Even Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has been slurred as a "diplomatic terrorist" and Lieberman insists there can be no peace while his Western-backed Palestinian Authority is in power.
Lieberman backs colonial settlement activity and wants to keep the major settlements in return for transferring areas where many Palestinians inside 1948 historic Palestine who hold Israeli citizenship live to Palestinian control.
He once said that talks with the Palestinians should not have a starting point of discussing security and refugees, "but rather (start with) something simple like trust and reliability. The trust between the two sides is non-existent. It is hard to make peace when you don't believe the other side."
The Ynet quoted the foreign minister as saying "I am not in favor of a (population) transfer. I am in favor of an exchange of territory. I accept the Bar Ilan speech. If I were sure that a comprehensive agreement and a stable peace could be achieved I would evacuate my settlement and my home. The problem is that I don't see a chance of achieving a comprehensive agreement."
