26 apr 2014
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday he was still ready to extend stalled peace talks with Israel, as long as it met his long-standing demands to free prisoners and halt building on occupied land. Israel suspended the troubled, U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Abbas on Thursday after he signed a unity pact with rival Islamist group Hamas - a movement which has sworn to destroy Israel.
Commentators said the discussions had already hit a brick wall and the United States had been struggling to extend them beyond an original April 29 deadline for a peace accord.
Abbas, for the first time since the suspension, said he was still open to re-starting the talks and pushing on beyond the deadline. There was no immediate response from Israeli negotiators.
"How can we restart the talks? There's no obstacle to us restarting the talks, but the 30 prisoners need to be released," Abbas told a meeting of senior leaders in the Palestine Liberation Organisation at his presidential headquarters in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah.
"On the table we will present our map, for 3 months we'll discuss our map. In that period, until the map is agreed upon, all settlement activity must cease completely," he told the officials, who were gathered for a two-day conference to asses the Palestinian strategy to achieve statehood.
Commentators said the discussions had already hit a brick wall and the United States had been struggling to extend them beyond an original April 29 deadline for a peace accord.
Abbas, for the first time since the suspension, said he was still open to re-starting the talks and pushing on beyond the deadline. There was no immediate response from Israeli negotiators.
"How can we restart the talks? There's no obstacle to us restarting the talks, but the 30 prisoners need to be released," Abbas told a meeting of senior leaders in the Palestine Liberation Organisation at his presidential headquarters in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah.
"On the table we will present our map, for 3 months we'll discuss our map. In that period, until the map is agreed upon, all settlement activity must cease completely," he told the officials, who were gathered for a two-day conference to asses the Palestinian strategy to achieve statehood.
Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel has called for boosting settlement construction in occupied West Bank following a reconciliation deal between Palestinian rival factions Fatah and Hamas. "Israel should resume construction projects in the settlements and seek to impose its sovereignty over the areas (C) in the future," Ariel said, according to Radio Israel.
According to a report issued by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), area (C) constitutes 60% of the West Bank territories where about 300 thousand Palestinians live.
In the same context, U.S. President Barack Obama described PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's decision to form a unity government as "unhelpful" and would undermine negotiations with Israel.
Obama said on Friday that a pause in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians may be needed so both sides can consider the alternative to negotiating.
He stressed, however, the importance of peace talks between both sides.
On the other hand, US State Department said that Abbas promised in a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that the new government that will be formed following the Palestinian reconciliation will recognize Israel.
Abbas told Kerry that the future unity government with Hamas will be his government and represents his policies – it will recognize Israel, abide by past agreements and will renounce violence, US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
“We are in a holding period where parties need to figure out what is next," Psaki added in a press conference regarding negotiations.
"We have always thought there could be a point where we needed to pause and both sides needed to look at what was possible. And we're clearly at that point now", she clarified.
In their turn, leaders of the House of Representatives’ Appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid Reps. Kay Granger, a Republican, and Nita Lowey, a Democrat, said the agreement clearly threatens the money the Palestinian Authority has grown accustomed to receiving.
"This is an irresponsible path forward and this agreement should be abandoned immediately if the Palestinian Authority is serious about the peace process," Granger said in a statement.
Lowey said she would be working with the State Department on the logistics of suspending aid unless Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reverses course.
For his part, Senator Lindsey Graham called the Palestinian Authority's move a "provocative act", and said he hoped Congress "will take a forceful stand against this decision."
But in another tone, Imam and preacher of Al-Aqsa Mosque Sheikh Yousef Abu Sneineh has welcomed Palestinian reconciliation agreement, calling for its immediate implementation.
During his Friday sermon, Sheikh Abu Sneineh stated that this agreement is an initial step to end the division and unify Palestinians' efforts in face of Israeli occupation.
On the other hand, he denounced Israeli violations and break-ins against occupied Jerusalem and al-Aqsa Mosque, condemning Israeli racist restrictions on Palestinian worshipers' access into al-Aqsa Mosque.
Sheikh Abu Sneineh called for paying attention to Jerusalemites' daily suffering due to Israeli Judaization schemes and confiscation policy.
He also called for the release of Palestinian detainees who are exposed to torture and maltreatment in Israeli jails.
According to a report issued by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), area (C) constitutes 60% of the West Bank territories where about 300 thousand Palestinians live.
In the same context, U.S. President Barack Obama described PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's decision to form a unity government as "unhelpful" and would undermine negotiations with Israel.
Obama said on Friday that a pause in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians may be needed so both sides can consider the alternative to negotiating.
He stressed, however, the importance of peace talks between both sides.
On the other hand, US State Department said that Abbas promised in a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that the new government that will be formed following the Palestinian reconciliation will recognize Israel.
Abbas told Kerry that the future unity government with Hamas will be his government and represents his policies – it will recognize Israel, abide by past agreements and will renounce violence, US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
“We are in a holding period where parties need to figure out what is next," Psaki added in a press conference regarding negotiations.
"We have always thought there could be a point where we needed to pause and both sides needed to look at what was possible. And we're clearly at that point now", she clarified.
In their turn, leaders of the House of Representatives’ Appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid Reps. Kay Granger, a Republican, and Nita Lowey, a Democrat, said the agreement clearly threatens the money the Palestinian Authority has grown accustomed to receiving.
"This is an irresponsible path forward and this agreement should be abandoned immediately if the Palestinian Authority is serious about the peace process," Granger said in a statement.
Lowey said she would be working with the State Department on the logistics of suspending aid unless Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reverses course.
For his part, Senator Lindsey Graham called the Palestinian Authority's move a "provocative act", and said he hoped Congress "will take a forceful stand against this decision."
But in another tone, Imam and preacher of Al-Aqsa Mosque Sheikh Yousef Abu Sneineh has welcomed Palestinian reconciliation agreement, calling for its immediate implementation.
During his Friday sermon, Sheikh Abu Sneineh stated that this agreement is an initial step to end the division and unify Palestinians' efforts in face of Israeli occupation.
On the other hand, he denounced Israeli violations and break-ins against occupied Jerusalem and al-Aqsa Mosque, condemning Israeli racist restrictions on Palestinian worshipers' access into al-Aqsa Mosque.
Sheikh Abu Sneineh called for paying attention to Jerusalemites' daily suffering due to Israeli Judaization schemes and confiscation policy.
He also called for the release of Palestinian detainees who are exposed to torture and maltreatment in Israeli jails.
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday a "pause" might be needed in U.S.-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, suggesting leaders on both sides lacked the will to make the necessary compromises. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul, Obama called the Palestinian move "unhelpful" and said it was one of a series of choices the two sides had made in recent weeks that had hurt the chances of reaching a peace deal.
"There may come a point at which there just needs to be a pause and both sides need to look at the alternatives," Obama said, offering a grim assessment of nine months of direct talks that were overseen by Washington but ultimately led nowhere.
While Obama insisted he was not ready to abandon his quest for Middle East peace, he said: "What we haven't seen is, frankly, the kind of political will to actually make tough decisions, and that's been true on both sides."
Palestinian movements Hamas and Fateh have agreed on a unity pact to end a seven-year schism, attracting an Israeli anger and an American disapproval.
The new deal requires the application of the previous Doha and Cairo agreements concluded between the movements during the last two years.
"There may come a point at which there just needs to be a pause and both sides need to look at the alternatives," Obama said, offering a grim assessment of nine months of direct talks that were overseen by Washington but ultimately led nowhere.
While Obama insisted he was not ready to abandon his quest for Middle East peace, he said: "What we haven't seen is, frankly, the kind of political will to actually make tough decisions, and that's been true on both sides."
Palestinian movements Hamas and Fateh have agreed on a unity pact to end a seven-year schism, attracting an Israeli anger and an American disapproval.
The new deal requires the application of the previous Doha and Cairo agreements concluded between the movements during the last two years.
'Judea and Samaria' means that the territory belongs to Israel
By Uri Avnery
Imagine a war breaking out between Israel and Jordan. Within two or three days the Israeli army occupies the entire territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. What will be the first act of the occupation authority?
Establish a settlement in Petra? Expropriate land near Aqaba?
No. The very first thing will be to decree that the territory will henceforth be known as “Gilead and Moab”.
All the media will be ordered to use the biblical name. All government and court documents will adopt it. Except for the radical Left, nobody will mention Jordan anymore. All applications by the inhabitants will be addressed to the Military Government of Gilead and Moab.
Why? Because annexation starts with words.
Words convey ideas. Words implant concepts in the minds of their hearers and speakers. Once they are firmly established, everything else follows.
The writers of the Bible already knew this. They taught “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.” (Proverbs 18:21). For how many years now have we been eating the fruit of “Judea and Samaria”?
When Vladimir Putin last week restored the old name of “New Russia” to the territory of East Ukraine, it was not just a semantic change. It was a claim for annexation, more powerful than a salvo of cannon shots.
Recently I listened to a speech by a left-wing politician, and was disturbed when she spoke at length about her struggle for a “political settlement” with the Palestinians.
When I remonstrated with her, she apologized. It was a slip of the tongue. She had not meant it that way.
In Israeli politics, the word “peace” has become poison. “Political settlement” is the vogue term. It is meant to say the same. But of course, it doesn’t.
“Peace” means much more than the formal end of warfare. It contains elements of reconciliation, of something spiritual. In Hebrew and Arabic, Shalom/Salaam include wellbeing, safety and serve as greetings. “Political settlement” means nothing but a document formulated by lawyers and signed by politicians.
The “Peace of Westphalia” put an end to 30 years of war and changed the life of Europe. One may wonder whether a “Political settlement of Westphalia” would have had the same effect.
The Bible enjoins us: “Seek peace and pursue it!” (Psalms, 34:14) It does not say “Seek a political settlement and pursue it.”
When the Israeli Left gives up the term Peace, this is not a tactical retreat. It is a rout. Peace is a vision, a political ideal, a religious commandment, an inspiring idea. Political Settlement is a subject for discussion.
Peace is not the only victim of semantic terrorism. Another is, of course, the West Bank.
All TV channels have long ago been ordered by the government not to use this term. Most journalists in the written media also march in step. They call it “Judea and Samaria”.
“Judea and Samaria” means that the territory belongs to Israel, even if official annexation may be delayed for political reasons. “West Bank” means that this is occupied territory.
By itself, there is nothing sacred about the term “West Bank”, which was adopted by the Jordanian ruler when he illegally incorporated the area in his newly extended kingdom. This was done in secret collusion with David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, who wanted to erase the name “Palestine” from the map. The legal basis was a phony conference of Palestinian “notables” in Jericho.
King Abdallah of Jordan divided his fief into the East Bank (of the Jordan river) and the West Bank.
So why do we insist on using this term? Because it means that this is not a part of Israel, but Arab land that will belong – like the Gaza Strip – to the State of Palestine when peace (sorry, a Political Settlement) is achieved.
Until now, the semantic battle remains undecided. Most Israelis talk about the “West Bank”. “Judea and Samaria” has remained, in common parlance, the realm of the settlers.
The settlers, of course, are the subject of a similar semantic battle.
In Hebrew, there are two terms: Mitnahalim and Mityashvim. They essentially mean the same. But in common usage, people use Mitnahalim when they mean the settlers in the occupied territories, and Mityashvim when they speak about settlers in Israel.
The battle between these two words goes on daily. It is a fight for or against the legitimacy of the settlement beyond the Green Line. Up to now, our side seems to have the upper hand. The distinction remains intact. If someone uses the term Mityashvim, they are automatically identified with the political Right.
The Green Line itself is, of course, the leftist concept. It makes a clear distinction between Israel and the occupied territories. The color comes from the fact that this border – actually the 1949 armistice line – was always marked on the maps in green. Until.
Until the (left-wing) Minister of Labor, Yigal Alon, decreed that henceforth the Green Line would no longer be marked on any map. Under an old law dating back to the British Mandate, the government owns the copyright for all maps printed in the country, and the Minister of Labor was in charge.
This remained so until Gush Shalom sued the government in the Supreme Court. Our argument was that since on the two sides of this line different laws apply, the citizens must have a map that shows them what law they have to obey at a given place. The ministry gave in and promised the court that it would print maps with the Green Line marked.
For lack of an alternative, all Israelis use the term “Green Line”. Since Rightists do not recognize this line at all, they have not invented an alternative word. For some time they tried the term “Seam-Line”, but this did not catch on.
A line between what? At the beginning of the occupation, the question arose what to call the areas just conquered.
We of the peace camp called them, of course, “occupied territories”. The Right called them “liberated territories” and floated the slogan “Liberated territories will not be returned”, a catchy rhyme in Hebrew. The government called them “administered territories” and later “disputed territories”.
The general public just settled for “the territories” – and that is the term used nowadays by everybody who has no interest in stressing his or her political conviction every time these areas are mentioned.
This raises the question about the Wall.
When the government decided to create a physical obstacle between Israel and the Occupied Territories, a name was needed. It is built mainly on occupied land, annexing in practice large areas. It is a fence in open areas, a wall in built-up ones. So we simply called it “the Wall” or “the Fence”, and started weekly demonstrations.
The “Wall/Fence” became odious around the world. So the army looked around for a term that sounded non-ideological and chose “separation obstacle”. However, this term now appears only in official documents.
With whom are we negotiating about the Political Settlement? Ah, there is the rub.
For generations, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel denied the very existence of a Palestinian people. In the 1993 Oslo Agreement, this idiotic pretense was dropped and we recognized the PLO as the “representative of the Palestinian people”. But the Palestinian state was not mentioned, and until this very day our government abhors the terms “Palestinian state” or “State of Palestine”.
Even today the term “Palestinians” evokes conscious or unconscious rejection. Most commentators speak about a political settlement with “our neighbors” – by which they do not mean the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians or Lebanese, but You Know Who.
In Oslo, the PLO negotiators strenuously insisted that their new state-in-the-making should be called the “Palestinian National Authority”. The Israeli side vehemently objected to the word “National”. So the agreement (actually a “Statement of Principles”) calls it the “Palestinian Authority” and the Palestinians themselves call it the “Palestinian National Authority”. Palestinians who need urgent medical treatment in Israeli hospitals are turned back if they bring financial documents signed by the “Palestinian National Authority”.
So the fight goes on along the semantic front. For me, the really crucial part is the fight for the word Peace. We must reinstate it as the central word in our vocabulary. Clearly, loudly, proudly.
As the hymn of the peace movement (written by Yankele Rotblit as an appeal by the fallen soldiers to the living) says:
“Therefore, sing a song to peace / Don’t whisper a prayer / Sing a song to peace / In a loud shout!”
- Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com
By Uri Avnery
Imagine a war breaking out between Israel and Jordan. Within two or three days the Israeli army occupies the entire territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. What will be the first act of the occupation authority?
Establish a settlement in Petra? Expropriate land near Aqaba?
No. The very first thing will be to decree that the territory will henceforth be known as “Gilead and Moab”.
All the media will be ordered to use the biblical name. All government and court documents will adopt it. Except for the radical Left, nobody will mention Jordan anymore. All applications by the inhabitants will be addressed to the Military Government of Gilead and Moab.
Why? Because annexation starts with words.
Words convey ideas. Words implant concepts in the minds of their hearers and speakers. Once they are firmly established, everything else follows.
The writers of the Bible already knew this. They taught “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.” (Proverbs 18:21). For how many years now have we been eating the fruit of “Judea and Samaria”?
When Vladimir Putin last week restored the old name of “New Russia” to the territory of East Ukraine, it was not just a semantic change. It was a claim for annexation, more powerful than a salvo of cannon shots.
Recently I listened to a speech by a left-wing politician, and was disturbed when she spoke at length about her struggle for a “political settlement” with the Palestinians.
When I remonstrated with her, she apologized. It was a slip of the tongue. She had not meant it that way.
In Israeli politics, the word “peace” has become poison. “Political settlement” is the vogue term. It is meant to say the same. But of course, it doesn’t.
“Peace” means much more than the formal end of warfare. It contains elements of reconciliation, of something spiritual. In Hebrew and Arabic, Shalom/Salaam include wellbeing, safety and serve as greetings. “Political settlement” means nothing but a document formulated by lawyers and signed by politicians.
The “Peace of Westphalia” put an end to 30 years of war and changed the life of Europe. One may wonder whether a “Political settlement of Westphalia” would have had the same effect.
The Bible enjoins us: “Seek peace and pursue it!” (Psalms, 34:14) It does not say “Seek a political settlement and pursue it.”
When the Israeli Left gives up the term Peace, this is not a tactical retreat. It is a rout. Peace is a vision, a political ideal, a religious commandment, an inspiring idea. Political Settlement is a subject for discussion.
Peace is not the only victim of semantic terrorism. Another is, of course, the West Bank.
All TV channels have long ago been ordered by the government not to use this term. Most journalists in the written media also march in step. They call it “Judea and Samaria”.
“Judea and Samaria” means that the territory belongs to Israel, even if official annexation may be delayed for political reasons. “West Bank” means that this is occupied territory.
By itself, there is nothing sacred about the term “West Bank”, which was adopted by the Jordanian ruler when he illegally incorporated the area in his newly extended kingdom. This was done in secret collusion with David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, who wanted to erase the name “Palestine” from the map. The legal basis was a phony conference of Palestinian “notables” in Jericho.
King Abdallah of Jordan divided his fief into the East Bank (of the Jordan river) and the West Bank.
So why do we insist on using this term? Because it means that this is not a part of Israel, but Arab land that will belong – like the Gaza Strip – to the State of Palestine when peace (sorry, a Political Settlement) is achieved.
Until now, the semantic battle remains undecided. Most Israelis talk about the “West Bank”. “Judea and Samaria” has remained, in common parlance, the realm of the settlers.
The settlers, of course, are the subject of a similar semantic battle.
In Hebrew, there are two terms: Mitnahalim and Mityashvim. They essentially mean the same. But in common usage, people use Mitnahalim when they mean the settlers in the occupied territories, and Mityashvim when they speak about settlers in Israel.
The battle between these two words goes on daily. It is a fight for or against the legitimacy of the settlement beyond the Green Line. Up to now, our side seems to have the upper hand. The distinction remains intact. If someone uses the term Mityashvim, they are automatically identified with the political Right.
The Green Line itself is, of course, the leftist concept. It makes a clear distinction between Israel and the occupied territories. The color comes from the fact that this border – actually the 1949 armistice line – was always marked on the maps in green. Until.
Until the (left-wing) Minister of Labor, Yigal Alon, decreed that henceforth the Green Line would no longer be marked on any map. Under an old law dating back to the British Mandate, the government owns the copyright for all maps printed in the country, and the Minister of Labor was in charge.
This remained so until Gush Shalom sued the government in the Supreme Court. Our argument was that since on the two sides of this line different laws apply, the citizens must have a map that shows them what law they have to obey at a given place. The ministry gave in and promised the court that it would print maps with the Green Line marked.
For lack of an alternative, all Israelis use the term “Green Line”. Since Rightists do not recognize this line at all, they have not invented an alternative word. For some time they tried the term “Seam-Line”, but this did not catch on.
A line between what? At the beginning of the occupation, the question arose what to call the areas just conquered.
We of the peace camp called them, of course, “occupied territories”. The Right called them “liberated territories” and floated the slogan “Liberated territories will not be returned”, a catchy rhyme in Hebrew. The government called them “administered territories” and later “disputed territories”.
The general public just settled for “the territories” – and that is the term used nowadays by everybody who has no interest in stressing his or her political conviction every time these areas are mentioned.
This raises the question about the Wall.
When the government decided to create a physical obstacle between Israel and the Occupied Territories, a name was needed. It is built mainly on occupied land, annexing in practice large areas. It is a fence in open areas, a wall in built-up ones. So we simply called it “the Wall” or “the Fence”, and started weekly demonstrations.
The “Wall/Fence” became odious around the world. So the army looked around for a term that sounded non-ideological and chose “separation obstacle”. However, this term now appears only in official documents.
With whom are we negotiating about the Political Settlement? Ah, there is the rub.
For generations, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel denied the very existence of a Palestinian people. In the 1993 Oslo Agreement, this idiotic pretense was dropped and we recognized the PLO as the “representative of the Palestinian people”. But the Palestinian state was not mentioned, and until this very day our government abhors the terms “Palestinian state” or “State of Palestine”.
Even today the term “Palestinians” evokes conscious or unconscious rejection. Most commentators speak about a political settlement with “our neighbors” – by which they do not mean the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians or Lebanese, but You Know Who.
In Oslo, the PLO negotiators strenuously insisted that their new state-in-the-making should be called the “Palestinian National Authority”. The Israeli side vehemently objected to the word “National”. So the agreement (actually a “Statement of Principles”) calls it the “Palestinian Authority” and the Palestinians themselves call it the “Palestinian National Authority”. Palestinians who need urgent medical treatment in Israeli hospitals are turned back if they bring financial documents signed by the “Palestinian National Authority”.
So the fight goes on along the semantic front. For me, the really crucial part is the fight for the word Peace. We must reinstate it as the central word in our vocabulary. Clearly, loudly, proudly.
As the hymn of the peace movement (written by Yankele Rotblit as an appeal by the fallen soldiers to the living) says:
“Therefore, sing a song to peace / Don’t whisper a prayer / Sing a song to peace / In a loud shout!”
- Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com
The PLO was preparing Friday for weekend crisis talks to mull its options after Israel torpedoed the US-sponsored peace talks in response to a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation deal.
With the peace process that US Secretary of State John Kerry has fought long and hard for apparently back to square one just days before an April 29 deadline, both sides were considering their next move.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set the tone, telling the BBC that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas could "have peace with Israel or a pact with Hamas (but) he can't have both."
"As long as I'm prime minister of Israel, I will never negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas terrorists that are calling for our liquidation," he added.
US President Barack Obama, whose administration dragged both sides back to the negotiating table last July after a three-year hiatus, called the Palestinian unity deal "unhelpful."
Speaking in Seoul, Obama acknowledged the need for a "pause," but vowed he would not give up on Kerry's peace push.
Kerry himself urged both sides to "compromise," maintaining that "we will never give up our hope or our commitment for the possibilities of peace."
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said "we're in a holding period to see what the parties are willing to figure out about what's next."
The two sides have been on a collision course since March when Israel refused to release a final batch of Palestinian prisoners in line with the original deal on resuming the talks.
The Palestinians retaliated by applying to adhere to 15 international treaties and then Abbas, who heads the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah, listed conditions for extending the talks beyond the April 29 deadline.
Abbas said he would agree to an extension if Israel freezes settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem, frees the prisoners and begins discussions on the future borders of a promised Palestinian state.
Israel dismissed the conditions.
At the same time, the Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas and the Fatah-led PLO agreed to establish a "national consensus" government under Abbas within weeks.
Threats of unspecified 'measures'
The reconciliation deal infuriated Israel whose security cabinet said Thursday it would "not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by Hamas."
It also vowed unspecified "measures" in response.
The PLO leadership is to convene on Saturday in the West Bank city of Ramallah to debate the peace process and its options, with Abbas due to make a key speech on Sunday.
Israel's chief negotiator Tzipi Livni stressed Thursday night that Israel was not "closing the door" on the peace process and that punitive sanctions would not be severe or seek to collapse the PA.
Security coordination is one aspect of Israeli ties with the PA that could be impaired by new measures.
But according to Israeli newspaper Maariv, "no guidelines have been issued to the forces on the ground regarding a change in the existing security coordination policy with the PA."
The Gaza Strip -- ruled by Hamas while Abbas's writ is confined to the West Bank -- has been besieged by Israel since 2006.
The coastal enclave is in a dire humanitarian and economic situation, which pushed it towards signing the deal with PLO, despite refusing to recognize Israel and advocating armed struggle against it.
Delegates from Hamas are expected to attend the weekend PLO meeting.
Ahead of the meeting, Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah told Abbas Friday he would resign if the president deemed it necessary for the formation of the new unity government.
Hamdallah, who twice in 2013 sought to resign following power struggles, sent Abbas a letter offering his resignation, official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.
With the peace process that US Secretary of State John Kerry has fought long and hard for apparently back to square one just days before an April 29 deadline, both sides were considering their next move.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set the tone, telling the BBC that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas could "have peace with Israel or a pact with Hamas (but) he can't have both."
"As long as I'm prime minister of Israel, I will never negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas terrorists that are calling for our liquidation," he added.
US President Barack Obama, whose administration dragged both sides back to the negotiating table last July after a three-year hiatus, called the Palestinian unity deal "unhelpful."
Speaking in Seoul, Obama acknowledged the need for a "pause," but vowed he would not give up on Kerry's peace push.
Kerry himself urged both sides to "compromise," maintaining that "we will never give up our hope or our commitment for the possibilities of peace."
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said "we're in a holding period to see what the parties are willing to figure out about what's next."
The two sides have been on a collision course since March when Israel refused to release a final batch of Palestinian prisoners in line with the original deal on resuming the talks.
The Palestinians retaliated by applying to adhere to 15 international treaties and then Abbas, who heads the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah, listed conditions for extending the talks beyond the April 29 deadline.
Abbas said he would agree to an extension if Israel freezes settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem, frees the prisoners and begins discussions on the future borders of a promised Palestinian state.
Israel dismissed the conditions.
At the same time, the Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas and the Fatah-led PLO agreed to establish a "national consensus" government under Abbas within weeks.
Threats of unspecified 'measures'
The reconciliation deal infuriated Israel whose security cabinet said Thursday it would "not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by Hamas."
It also vowed unspecified "measures" in response.
The PLO leadership is to convene on Saturday in the West Bank city of Ramallah to debate the peace process and its options, with Abbas due to make a key speech on Sunday.
Israel's chief negotiator Tzipi Livni stressed Thursday night that Israel was not "closing the door" on the peace process and that punitive sanctions would not be severe or seek to collapse the PA.
Security coordination is one aspect of Israeli ties with the PA that could be impaired by new measures.
But according to Israeli newspaper Maariv, "no guidelines have been issued to the forces on the ground regarding a change in the existing security coordination policy with the PA."
The Gaza Strip -- ruled by Hamas while Abbas's writ is confined to the West Bank -- has been besieged by Israel since 2006.
The coastal enclave is in a dire humanitarian and economic situation, which pushed it towards signing the deal with PLO, despite refusing to recognize Israel and advocating armed struggle against it.
Delegates from Hamas are expected to attend the weekend PLO meeting.
Ahead of the meeting, Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah told Abbas Friday he would resign if the president deemed it necessary for the formation of the new unity government.
Hamdallah, who twice in 2013 sought to resign following power struggles, sent Abbas a letter offering his resignation, official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.
The Palestinian Authority (PA)’s chief negotiator says the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas is not a terrorist organization.
Saeb Erekat said in an interview on Friday that Hamas does not need to recognize the Israeli regime as long as Tel Aviv does not recognize the state of Palestine.
“Hamas is not and will never be a terrorist organization to us,” Erekat said, adding, “Hamas is not required to recognize Israel,” because the state of Palestine is not recognized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities.
Erekat’s remarks come as the Israeli regime is angered by a deal reached between the PA and Hamas on Wednesday to form a unity government within five weeks.
The Israeli regime says the PA must choose between the so-called peace talks with Tel Aviv and Hamas.
Last Palestinian-Israeli talks broke down in September 2010, after Tel Aviv refused to freeze its settlement activities in the occupied West Bank.
Palestinians are seeking to create an independent state on the territories of the West Bank, East al-Quds (Jerusalem), and the besieged Gaza Strip and are demanding that Israel withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories.
The presence and continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine has created a major obstacle for the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East.
More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds in 1967.
The United Nations and most countries regard the Israeli settlements as illegal because the territories were captured by Israel in a war in 1967 and are hence subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbid construction on occupied lands.
Saeb Erekat said in an interview on Friday that Hamas does not need to recognize the Israeli regime as long as Tel Aviv does not recognize the state of Palestine.
“Hamas is not and will never be a terrorist organization to us,” Erekat said, adding, “Hamas is not required to recognize Israel,” because the state of Palestine is not recognized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities.
Erekat’s remarks come as the Israeli regime is angered by a deal reached between the PA and Hamas on Wednesday to form a unity government within five weeks.
The Israeli regime says the PA must choose between the so-called peace talks with Tel Aviv and Hamas.
Last Palestinian-Israeli talks broke down in September 2010, after Tel Aviv refused to freeze its settlement activities in the occupied West Bank.
Palestinians are seeking to create an independent state on the territories of the West Bank, East al-Quds (Jerusalem), and the besieged Gaza Strip and are demanding that Israel withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories.
The presence and continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine has created a major obstacle for the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East.
More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds in 1967.
The United Nations and most countries regard the Israeli settlements as illegal because the territories were captured by Israel in a war in 1967 and are hence subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbid construction on occupied lands.
25 apr 2014
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas still has the chance to move away from any potential alliance with Hamas. Netanyahu claimed that his government would restart serious peace talks with the Palestinians if Abbas renounced the reconciliation agreement with Hamas.
In an interview with the American NBC network, Netanyahu reiterated his reluctance to negotiate with a Palestinian authority backed by what he labeled as a militant group.
The Israeli Cabinet for political and security affairs decided, after a long session on Thursday, to impose economic and political penalties on PA in the wake of the reconciliation agreement with Hamas.
In an interview with the American NBC network, Netanyahu reiterated his reluctance to negotiate with a Palestinian authority backed by what he labeled as a militant group.
The Israeli Cabinet for political and security affairs decided, after a long session on Thursday, to impose economic and political penalties on PA in the wake of the reconciliation agreement with Hamas.
US President Barack Obama said Friday that a decision by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas to seek unity with Hamas was "unhelpful" for the peace process.
In his first public comments on the issue since Israel halted peace talks with Palestinians on Thursday, Obama lamented the lack of political will to make "tough decisions" on either side.
But he said his administration would not give up on Secretary of State John Kerry's peace push, despite the latest setbacks and Israel's declaration that the Palestinian move had scuppered the American initiative.
Obama's statements come a day after Israel halted all peace negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization after a major reconciliation deal was signed between the two major Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas.
The agreement would reintegrate Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, into the PLO, which currently controls the West Bank.
The move ends seven years of Palestinian political division, but Israeli authorities denounced the PLO for reconciling with Hamas, which it deems a terrorist group.
Israeli officials subsequently halted talks and said they would refuse to deal with any Palestinian government backed by Hamas.
PLO leaders have maintained, however, that any government that emerges from the deal will honor previous PLO commitments, including to the peace talks and recognition of Israel.
Although Hamas has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, it has said it would not explicitly recognize the state of Israel.
Israel, however, has never explicitly recognized the right to exist of a Palestinian state.
In his first public comments on the issue since Israel halted peace talks with Palestinians on Thursday, Obama lamented the lack of political will to make "tough decisions" on either side.
But he said his administration would not give up on Secretary of State John Kerry's peace push, despite the latest setbacks and Israel's declaration that the Palestinian move had scuppered the American initiative.
Obama's statements come a day after Israel halted all peace negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization after a major reconciliation deal was signed between the two major Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas.
The agreement would reintegrate Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, into the PLO, which currently controls the West Bank.
The move ends seven years of Palestinian political division, but Israeli authorities denounced the PLO for reconciling with Hamas, which it deems a terrorist group.
Israeli officials subsequently halted talks and said they would refuse to deal with any Palestinian government backed by Hamas.
PLO leaders have maintained, however, that any government that emerges from the deal will honor previous PLO commitments, including to the peace talks and recognition of Israel.
Although Hamas has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, it has said it would not explicitly recognize the state of Israel.
Israel, however, has never explicitly recognized the right to exist of a Palestinian state.
