Elias Zananiri: Debating a 2nd Opinion

Reversing wheels of the past is impossible. Apology can heal wounds of the past.

2008-06-14T22:01:00.000-07:00

An Apology

By: Uri Avnery
14.6.08

THIS WEEK, the Prime Minister of Canada made a dramatic statement in Parliament: he apologized to the indigenous peoples of his country for the injustices done to them for generations by successive Canadian governments.

This way, White Canada tries to make peace with the native nations, whose country their forefathers conquered and whose culture their rulers have tried to wipe out.

APOLOGIZING FOR past wrongs has become a part of modern political culture.

That is never an easy thing to do. Cynics might say: nothing to it. Just words. And words, after all, are a cheap commodity. But in fact, such acts have a profound significance. A human being - and even more so, a whole nation - always finds it hard to admit to iniquities performed and to atrocities committed. It means a rewriting of the historical narrative that forms the basis of their national cohesion. It necessitates a drastic change in the schoolbooks and in the national outlook. In general, governments are averse to this, because of the nationalistic demagogues and hate-mongers who infest every country.

The President of France has apologized on behalf of his people for the misdeeds of the Vichy regime, which turned Jews over to the Nazi exterminators. The Czech government has apologized to the Germans for the mass expulsion of the German population at the end of World War II. Germany, of course, has apologized to the Jews for the unspeakable crimes of the Holocaust. Quite recently, the government of Australia has apologized to the Aborigines. And even in Israel, a feeble effort was made to heal a grievous domestic wound, when Ehud Barak apologized to the Oriental Jews for the discrimination they have suffered for many years.

But we face a much more difficult and complex problem. It concerns the roots of our national existence in this country.

I BELIEVE that peace between us and the Palestinian people - a real peace, based on real conciliation - starts with an apology.

In my mind's eye I see the President of the State or the Prime Minister addressing a special extraordinary session of the Knesset and making a historic speech on the following lines:

MADAM SPEAKER, Honorable Knesset,

On behalf of the State of Israel and all its citizens, I address today the sons and daughters of the Palestinian people, wherever they are.

We recognize the fact that we have committed against you a historic injustice, and we humbly ask your forgiveness.

When the Zionist movement decided to establish a national home in this country, which we call Eretz Yisrael and you call Filastin, it had no intention of building our state on the ruins of another people. Indeed, almost no one in the Zionist movement had ever been in the country before the first Zionist Congress in 1897, or even had any idea about the actual situation here.

The burning desire of the founding fathers of this movement was to save the Jews of Europe, where the dark clouds of hatred for the Jews were gathering. In Eastern Europe, pogroms were raging, and all over Europe there were signs of the process that would eventually lead to the terrible Holocaust, in which six million Jews perished.

This basic aim attached itself to the profound devotion of the Jews, throughout the generations, to the country in which the Bible, the defining text of our people, was written, and to the city of Jerusalem, towards which the Jews have turned for thousands of years in their prayers.

The Zionist founders who came to this country were pioneers who carried in their hearts the most lofty ideals. They believed in national liberation, freedom, justice and equality. We are proud of them. They certainly did not dream of committing an injustice of historic dimensions.

ALL THIS does not justify what happened afterwards. The creation of the Jewish national home in this country has involved a profound injustice to you, the people who lived here for generations.

We cannot ignore anymore the fact that in the war of 1948 - which is the War of Independence for us, and the Nakba for you - some 750 thousand Palestinians were compelled to leave their homes and lands. As for the precise circumstances of this tragedy I propose the establishment of a "Committee for Truth and Reconciliation"' composed of experts from your and from our side, whose conclusions will from then on be incorporated in the schoolbooks, yours and ours.

We cannot ignore anymore the fact that for 60 years of conflict and war, you have been prevented from realizing your natural right to independence in your own free national state, a right confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, which also formed the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel.

For all this, we owe you an apology, and I express it hereby with all my heart.

The Bible tells us: "Whoso confesseth (his crimes) and forsakes them shall have mercy" (Proverbs 28:13). Clearly, confession does not suffice. We have also to forsake the wrongs we have done in the past.

It is impossible to turn the wheel of history back and restore the situation that existed in the country in 1947, much as Canada - or the United States, for that matter - cannot go back 200 years. We must build our common future on the joint desire to move forwards, to heal what can be healed and repair what can be repaired without inflicting new wounds, committing new injustices and causing more human tragedies.

I urge you to accept our apology in the spirit in which it is offered. Let us work together for a just, viable and practical solution of our century-old conflict - a solution that may not fulfill all justified aspirations nor right all wrongs, but which will allow both our peoples to live their lives in freedom, peace and prosperity.

This solution is clear for all to see. We all know what it is. It has emerged from our painful experiences, hammered out by the lessons of our sufferings, crystallized by the exertions of the best of our minds - yours as well as ours.

This solution means, simply: You have the same rights as we. We have the same rights as you: to live in a state of our own, under our own flag, governed by laws of our own making, ruled by a government freely elected by ourselves - hopefully a good one.

One of the fundamental commandments of our religion - as of yours and every other - was pronounced 2000 years ago by Rabbi Hillel: Do not unto others, what you do not want others to do to you.

This means in practice: your right to establish at once the free and sovereign State of Palestine in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, which will be accepted as a full member of the United Nations.

The borders of June 4, 1967, will be restored. I hope that we can agree, in free negotiations, to minimal exchanges of territory beneficial to both sides.

Jerusalem, which is so dear to all of us, must be the capital of both our states - West Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the capital of Israel, East Jerusalem, including al-Haram al-Sharif, which we call the Temple Mount, the capital of Palestine. What is Arab shall be yours, what is Jewish shall be ours. Let us work together to keep the city, as a living reality, open and united.

We shall evacuate the Israeli settlements, which have caused so much suffering and iniquities to you, and bring the settlers home, except from those small areas which will be joined to Israel in the framework of freely agreed swaps of territory. We shall also dismantle all the paraphernalia of the occupation, both physical and institutional.

We must approach with open hearts, compassion and common sense, the task of finding a just and viable solution for the terrible tragedy of the refugees and their descendants. Each refugee family must be granted a free choice between the various solutions: repatriation and resettlement in the State of Palestine, with generous assistance; staying where they are or emigration to any country of their choice, also with generous assistance; and yes - coming back to the territory of Israel in acceptable numbers, agreed by us. The refugees themselves must be a full partner in all our efforts.

I trust that our two states - Israel and Palestine, living side by side in this beloved but small country, will quickly come together on the human, social, economic, technological and cultural levels, creating a relationship that will not only guarantee our security, but also rapid development and prosperity for all.

Together we will work for peace and prosperity throughout our region, based on close relations with all the countries of the area.

Committed to peace and vowing to create a better future for our children and grandchildren, let us rise to our feet and bow our heads in memory of the countless victims of our conflict, Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians - a conflict that has lasted far too long.

*******

SUCH A SPEECH is, to my mind, absolutely essential for opening a new chapter in the history of this country.

In decades of meeting with Palestinians of all walks of life, I have come to the conclusion that the emotional aspects of the conflict are no less - and perhaps even more - important than the political ones. A profound sense of injustice permeates the minds and actions of all Palestinians. Unconscious or half-conscious guilt feelings are troubling the souls of the Israelis, creating a deep conviction that Arabs will never make peace with us.

I do not know when such a speech will be possible. Many imponderable factors will have an impact on that. But I do know that without it, mere peace agreements, reached between haggling diplomats, will not suffice. As the Oslo agreements have shown, building an artificial island in a sea of stormy emotions just will not do.

THE PUBLIC apology by the Canadian Prime Minister is not the only thing we can learn from that North American country.

43 years ago, the Canadian government took an extraordinary step in order to make peace between the English-speaking majority and the French-speaking minority among their citizens. That relationship had remained an open wound from the time the British conquered French Canada some 250 years ago. It was decided to replace the Canadian national flag, which was based on the British "Union Jack", with a completely new national flag, featuring the maple leaf.

On this occasion, the Speaker of the Senate said: "The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion."

We can learn something from that, too.

2008-06-12T01:29:00.000-07:00

Rethinking The National Interest

American Realism

for a New World

By: Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State
From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2008

What is the national interest? This is a question that I took up in 2000 in these pages. That was a time that we as a nation revealingly called "the post-Cold War era." We knew better where we had been than where we were going. Yet monumental changes were unfolding -- changes that were recognized at the time but whose implications were largely unclear.

And then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. As in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new urgency and with a new perspective on what constituted threats and what might emerge as opportunities. And as with previous strategic shocks, one can cite elements of both continuity and change in our foreign policy since the attacks of September 11.
What has not changed is that our relations with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy. Thus, my admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the "relationships with the big powers" -- Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.

What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy. We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As in the past, our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. The United States has long tried to marry power and principle -- realism and idealism. At times, there have been short-term tensions between them. But we have always known where our long-term interests lie. Thus, the United States has not been neutral about the importance of human rights or the superiority of democracy as a form of government, both in principle and in practice. This uniquely American realism has guided us over the past eight years, and it must guide us over the years to come.

GREAT POWER, OLD AND NEW

By necessity, our relationships with Russia and China have been rooted more in common interests than common values. With Russia, we have found common ground, as evidenced by the "strategic framework" agreement that President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed in Sochi in March of this year. Our relationship with Russia has been sorely tested by Moscow's rhetoric, by its tendency to treat its neighbors as lost "spheres of influence," and by its energy policies that have a distinct political tinge. And Russia's internal course has been a source of considerable disappointment, especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values. Yet it is useful to remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is neither a permanent enemy nor a strategic threat. Russians now enjoy greater opportunity and, yes, personal freedom than at almost any other time in their country's history. But that alone is not the standard to which Russians themselves want to be held. Russia is not just a great power; it is also the land and culture of a great people. And in the twenty-first century, greatness is increasingly defined by the technological and economic development that flows naturally in open and free societies. That is why the full development both of Russia and of our relationship with it still hangs in the balance as the country's internal transformation unfolds.
The last eight years have also challenged us to deal with rising Chinese influence, something we have no reason to fear if that power is used responsibly. We have stressed to Beijing that with China's full membership in the international community comes responsibilities, whether in the conduct of its economic and trade policy, its approach to energy and the environment, or its policies in the developing world. China's leaders increasingly realize this, and they are moving, albeit slowly, to a more cooperative approach on a range of problems. For instance, on Darfur, after years of unequivocally supporting Khartoum, China endorsed the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force and dispatched an engineering battalion to pave the way for those peacekeepers. China needs to do much more on issues such as Darfur, Burma, and Tibet, but we sustain an active and candid dialogue with China's leaders on these challenges.

The United States, along with many other countries, remains concerned about China's rapid development of high-tech weapons systems. We understand that as countries develop, they will modernize their armed forces. But China's lack of transparency about its military spending and doctrine and its strategic goals increases mistrust and suspicion. Although Beijing has agreed to take incremental steps to deepen U.S.-Chinese military-to-military exchanges, it needs to move beyond the rhetoric of peaceful intentions toward true engagement in order to reassure the international community.

Our relationships with Russia and China are complex and characterized simultaneously by competition and cooperation. But in the absence of workable relations with both of these states, diplomatic solutions to many international problems would be elusive. Transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and instability stemming from poverty and disease -- these are dangers to all successful states, including those that might in another time have been violent rivals. It is incumbent on the United States to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant differences.

Obviously, Russia and China carry special responsibility and weight as fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, but this has not been the only forum in which we have worked together. Another example has emerged in Northeast Asia with the six-party framework. The North Korean nuclear issue could have led to conflict among the states of Northeast Asia, or to the isolation of the United States, given the varied and vital interests of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Instead, it has become an opportunity for cooperation and coordination as the efforts toward verifiable denuclearization proceed. And when North Korea tested a nuclear device last year, the five other parties already were an established coalition and went quickly to the Security Council for a Chapter 7 resolution. That, in turn, put considerable pressure on North Korea to return to the six-party talks and to shut down and begin disabling its Yongbyon reactor. The parties intend to institutionalize these habits of cooperation through the establishment of a Northeast Asian Peace and Security Mechanism -- a first step toward a security forum in the region.

The importance of strong relations with global players extends to those that are emerging. With those, particularly India and Brazil, the United States has built deeper and broader ties. India stands on the front lines of globalization. This democratic nation promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law. Brazil's success at using democracy and markets to address centuries of pernicious social inequality has global resonance. Today, India and Brazil look outward as never before, secure in their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. In both countries, national interests are being redefined as Indians and Brazilians realize their direct stake in a democratic, secure, and open international order -- and their commensurate responsibilities for strengthening it and defending it against the major transnational challenges of our era. We have a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies with global reach, such as Indonesia and South Africa. And as these emerging powers change the geopolitical landscape, it will be important that international institutions also change to reflect this reality. This is why President Bush has made clear his support for a reasonable expansion of the UN Security Council.

SHARED VALUES AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we share values, that is transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand the ranks of well-governed, law-abiding democratic states in our world and to defeat challenges to this vision of international order. Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore, should not be judged simply by how we relate to one another. It should be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges, defend human rights and dignity, and support new democracies.

In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Chile in order to further the democratic development of our hemisphere. Together, we have supported struggling states, such as Haiti, in locking in their transitions to democracy and security. Together, we are defending ourselves against drug traffickers, criminal gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming transition and the need to support, unequivocally, the Cuban people's right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old suspicions of the United States persist in the region. But we have begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to macroeconomic development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to address problems of social justice and inequality.

I believe that one of the most compelling stories of our time is our relationship with our oldest allies. The goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace is very close to completion. The United States welcomes a strong, united, and coherent Europe. There is no doubt that the European Union has been a superb anchor for the democratic evolution of eastern Europe after the Cold War. Hopefully, the day will come when Turkey takes its place in the EU.

Membership in the EU and NATO has been attractive enough to lead countries to make needed reforms and to seek the peaceful resolution of long-standing conflicts with their neighbors. The reverse has been true as well: the new members have transformed these two pillars of the transatlantic relationship. Twelve of the 28 members of NATO are former "captive nations," countries once in the Soviet sphere. The effect of their joining the alliance is felt in a renewed dedication to promoting and protecting democracy. Whether sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq or fiercely defending the continued expansion of NATO, these states have brought new energy and fervor to the alliance.

In recent years, the mission and the purpose of the alliance have also been transformed. Indeed, many can remember when NATO viewed the world in two parts: Europe and "out of area," which was basically everywhere else. If someone had said in 2000 that NATO today would be rooting out terrorists in Kandahar, training the security forces of a free Iraq, providing critical support to peacekeepers in Darfur, and moving forward on missile defenses, hopefully in partnership with Russia, who would have believed him? The endurance and resilience of the transatlantic alliance is one reason that I believe Lord Palmerston got it wrong when he said that nations have no permanent allies. The United States does have permanent allies: the nations with whom we share common values.

Democratization is also deepening across the Asia-Pacific region. This is expanding our circle of allies and advancing the goals we share. Indeed, although many assume that the rise of China will determine the future of Asia, so, too -- and perhaps to an even greater degree -- will the broader rise of an increasingly democratic community of Asian states. This is the defining geopolitical event of the twenty-first century, and the United States is right in the middle of it. We enjoy a strong, democratic alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia, and with Japan -- an economic giant that is emerging as a "normal" state, capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond. South Korea, too, has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity. Finally, the United States has a vital stake in India's rise to global power and prosperity, and relations between the two countries have never been stronger or broader. It will take continued work, but this is a dramatic breakthrough for both our strategic interests and our values.

It is now possible to speak of emerging democratic allies in Africa as well. Too often, Africa is thought of only as a humanitarian concern or a zone of conflict. But the continent has seen successful transitions to democracy in several states, among them Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Mozambique. Our administration has worked to help the democratic leaders of these and other states provide for their people -- most of all by attacking the continental scourge of HIV/AIDS in an unprecedented effort of power, imagination, and mercy. We have also been an active partner in resolving conflicts -- from the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, to active engagement in the Great Lakes region, to the intervention of a small contingent of U.S. military forces in coordination with the African Union to end the conflict in Liberia. Although conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, and other places tragically remain violent and unresolved, it is worth noting the considerable progress that African states are making on many fronts and the role that the United States has played in supporting African efforts to solve the continent's greatest problems.

A DEMOCRATIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT

Although the United States' ability to influence strong states is limited, our ability to enhance the peaceful political and economic development of weak and poorly governed states can be considerable. We must be willing to use our power for this purpose -- not only because it is necessary but also because it is right. Too often, promoting democracy and promoting development are thought of as separate goals. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development -- and that market-driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy. Democratic development is a unified political-economic model, and it offers the mix of flexibility and stability that best enables states to seize globalization's opportunities and manage its challenges. And for those who think otherwise: What real alternative worthy of America is there?

Democratic development is not only an effective path to wealth and power; it is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence. We saw this recently in Kenya, where democracy enabled civil society, the press, and business leaders to join together to insist on an inclusive political bargain that could stem the country's slide into ethnic cleansing and lay a broader foundation for national reconciliation. In our own hemisphere, democratic development has opened up old, elite-dominated systems to millions on the margins of society. These people are demanding the benefits of citizenship long denied them, and because they are doing so democratically, the real story in our hemisphere since 2001 is not that our neighbors have given up on democracy and open markets; it is that they are broadening our region's consensus in support of democratic development by ensuring that it leads to social justice for the most marginalized citizens.
The untidiness of democracy has led some to wonder if weak states might not be better off passing through a period of authoritarian capitalism. A few countries have indeed succeeded with this model, and its allure is only heightened when democracy is too slow in delivering or incapable of meeting high expectations for a better life. Yet for every state that embraces authoritarianism and manages to create wealth, there are many, many more that simply make poverty, inequality, and corruption worse. For those that are doing pretty well economically, it is worth asking whether they might be doing even better with a freer system. Ultimately, it is at least an open question whether authoritarian capitalism is itself an indefinitely sustainable model. Is it really possible in the long run for governments to respect their citizen's talents but not their rights? I, for one, doubt it.

For the United States, promoting democratic development must remain a top priority. Indeed, there is no realistic alternative that we can -- or should -- offer to influence the peaceful evolution of weak and poorly governed states. The real question is not whether to pursue this course but how.

We first need to recognize that democratic development is always possible but never fast or easy. This is because democracy is really the complex interplay of democratic practices and culture. In the experience of countless nations, ours especially, we see that culture is not destiny. Nations of every culture, race, religion, and level of development have embraced democracy and adapted it to their own circumstances and traditions. No cultural factor has yet been a stumbling block -- not German or Japanese "militarism," not "Asian values," not African "tribalism," not Latin America's alleged fondness for caudillos, not the once-purported preference of eastern Europeans for despotism.

The fact is, few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture. The vast majority create one over time -- through the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share power justly. Unfortunately, it is difficult to grow the habits of democracy in the controlled environment of authoritarianism, to have them ready and in place when tyranny is lifted. The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but it is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. This is true but beside the point. It is more likely that tyranny has to be imposed.

The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy -- the right to choose those who will govern them and other basic freedoms. It is, instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient with them and holding them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life. It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders, support their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when their nations have experienced crippling conflicts. To do so will require long-term partnerships rooted in mutual responsibility and the integration of all elements of our national power -- political, diplomatic, economic, and, at times, military. We have recently built such partnerships to great effect with countries as different as Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Indeed, a decade ago, Colombia was on the verge of failure. Today, in part because of our long-term partnership with courageous leaders and citizens, Colombia is emerging as a normal nation, with democratic institutions that are defending the country, governing justly, reducing poverty, and contributing to international security.

We must now build long-term partnerships with other new and fragile democracies, especially Afghanistan. The basics of democracy are taking root in this country after nearly three decades of tyranny, violence, and war. For the first time in their history, Afghans have a government of the people, elected in presidential and parliamentary elections, and guided by a constitution that codifies the rights of all citizens. The challenges in Afghanistan do not stem from a strong enemy. The Taliban offers a political vision that very few Afghans embrace. Rather, they exploit the current limitations of the Afghan government, using violence against civilians and revenues from illegal narcotics to impose their rule. Where the Afghan government, with support from the international community, has been able to provide good governance and economic opportunity, the Taliban is in retreat. The United States and NATO have a vital interest in supporting the emergence of an effective, democratic Afghan state that can defeat the Taliban and deliver "population security" -- addressing basic needs for safety, services, the rule of law, and increased economic opportunity. We share this goal with the Afghan people, who do not want us to leave until we have accomplished our common mission. We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we must be prepared to sustain a partnership with that new democracy for many years to come.
One of our best tools for supporting states in building democratic institutions and strengthening civil society is our foreign assistance, but we must use it correctly. One of the great advances of the past eight years has been the creation of a bipartisan consensus for the more strategic use of foreign assistance. We have begun to transform our assistance into an incentive for developing states to govern justly, advance economic freedom, and invest in their people. This is the great innovation of the Millennium Challenge Account initiative. More broadly, we are now better aligning our foreign aid with our foreign policy goals -- so as to help developing countries move from war to peace, poverty to prosperity, poor governance to democracy and the rule of law. At the same time, we have launched historic efforts to help remove obstacles to democratic development -- by forgiving old debts, feeding the hungry, expanding access to education, and fighting pandemics such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Behind all of these efforts is the overwhelming generosity of the American people, who since 2001 have supported the near tripling of the United States' official development assistance worldwide -- doubling it for Latin America and quadrupling it for Africa.

Ultimately, one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institutions and civil society is to expand free and fair trade and investment. The very process of implementing a trade agreement or a bilateral investment treaty helps to hasten and consolidate democratic development. Legal and political institutions that can enforce property rights are better able to protect human rights and the rule of law. Independent courts that can resolve commercial disputes can better resolve civil and political disputes. The transparency needed to fight corporate corruption makes it harder for political corruption to go unnoticed and unpunished. A rising middle class also creates new centers of social power for political movements and parties. Trade is a divisive issue in our country right now, but we must not forget that it is essential not only for the health of our domestic economy but also for the success our foreign policy.
There will always be humanitarian needs, but our goal must be to use the tools of foreign assistance, security cooperation, and trade together to help countries graduate to self-sufficiency. We must insist that these tools be used to promote democratic development. It is in our national interest to do so.

THE CHANGING MIDDLE EAST

What about the broader Middle East, the arc of states that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan? The Bush administration's approach to this region has been its most vivid departure from prior policy. But our approach is, in reality, an extension of traditional tenets -- incorporating human rights and the promotion of democratic development into a policy meant to further our national interest. What is exceptional is that the Middle East was treated as an exception for so many decades. U.S. policy there focused almost exclusively on stability. There was little dialogue, certainly not publicly, about the need for democratic change.

For six decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a basic bargain defined the United States' engagement in the broader Middle East: we supported authoritarian regimes, and they supported our shared interest in regional stability. After September 11, it became increasingly clear that this old bargain had produced false stability. There were virtually no legitimate channels for political expression in the region. But this did not mean that there was no political activity. There was -- in madrasahs and radical mosques. It is no wonder that the best-organized political forces were extremist groups. And it was there, in the shadows, that al Qaeda found the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers in its millenarian war against the "far enemy."

One response would have been to fight the terrorists without addressing this underlying cause. Perhaps it would have been possible to manage these suppressed tensions for a while. Indeed, the quest for justice and a new equilibrium on which the nations of the broader Middle East are now embarked is very turbulent. But is it really worse than the situation before? Worse than when Lebanon suffered under the boot of Syrian military occupation? Worse than when the self-appointed rulers of the Palestinians personally pocketed the world's generosity and squandered their best chance for a two-state peace? Worse than when the international community imposed sanctions on innocent Iraqis in order to punish the man who tyrannized them, threatened Iraq's neighbors, and bulldozed 300,000 human beings into unmarked mass graves? Or worse than the decades of oppression and denied opportunity that spawned hopelessness, fed hatreds, and led to the sort of radicalization that brought about the ideology behind the September 11 attacks? Far from being the model of stability that some seem to remember, the Middle East from 1945 on was wracked repeatedly by civil conflicts and cross-border wars. Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East -- for they yielded neither justice nor stability.

The president's second inaugural address and my speech at the American University in Cairo in June 2005 have been held up as rhetorical declarations that have faded in the face of hard realities. No one will argue that the goal of democratization and modernization in the broader Middle East lacks ambition, and we who support it fully acknowledge that it will be a difficult, generational task. No one event, and certainly not a speech, will bring it into being. But if America does not set the goal, no one will.

This goal is made more complicated by the fact that the future of the Middle East is bound up in many of our other vital interests: energy security, nonproliferation, the defense of friends and allies, the resolution of old conflicts, and, most of all, the need for near-term partners in the global struggle against violent Islamist extremism. To state, however, that we must promote either our security interests or our democratic ideals is to present a false choice. Admittedly, our interests and our ideals do come into tension at times in the short term. America is not an NGO and must balance myriad factors in our relations with all countries. But in the long term, our security is best ensured by the success of our ideals: freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law.

The leaders and citizens of the broader Middle East are now searching for answers to the fundamental questions of modern state building: What are to be the limits on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders? What will be the role of the state in the lives of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics? How will traditional values and mores be reconciled with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls? How is religious and ethnic diversity to be accommodated in fragile political institutions when people tend to hold on to traditional associations? The answers to these and other questions can come only from within the Middle East itself. The task for us is to support and shape these difficult processes of change and to help the nations of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states.

The first challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, as embodied by groups, such as al Qaeda, that thoroughly reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial structure of the ancient caliphate. To resist this threat, the United States will need friends and allies in the region who are willing and able to take action against the terrorists among them. Ultimately, however, this is more than just a struggle of arms; it is a contest of ideas. Al Qaeda's theory of victory is to hijack the legitimate local and national grievances of Muslim societies and twist them into an ideological narrative of endless struggle against Western, especially U.S., oppression. The good news is that al Qaeda's intolerant ideology can be enforced only through brutality and violence. When people are free to choose, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq's Anbar Province, they reject al Qaeda's ideology and rebel against its control. Our theory of victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully -- to develop their talents, to redress injustices, and to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency: the center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the societies they are trying to radicalize.

Admittedly, our interests in both promoting democratic development and fighting terrorism and extremism lead to some hard choices, because we do need capable friends in the broader Middle East who can root out terrorists now. These states are often not democratic, so we must balance the tensions between our short-term and our long-term goals. We cannot deny nondemocratic states the security assistance to fight terrorism or defend themselves. At the same time, we must use other points of leverage to promote democracy and hold our friends to account. That means supporting civil society, as we have done through the Forum for the Future and the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and using public and private diplomacy to push our nondemocratic partners to reform. Changes are slowly coming in terms of universal suffrage, more influential parliaments, and education for girls and women. We must continue to advocate for reform and support indigenous agents of change in nondemocratic countries, even as we cooperate with their governments on security.

An example of how our administration has balanced these concerns is our relationship with Pakistan. Following years of U.S. neglect of that relationship, our administration had to establish a partnership with Pakistan's military government to achieve a common goal after September 11. We did so knowing that our security and that of Pakistan ultimately required a return to civilian and democratic rule. So even as we worked with President Pervez Musharraf to fight terrorists and extremists, we invested more than $3 billion to strengthen Pakistani society -- building schools and health clinics, providing emergency relief after the 2005 earthquake, and supporting political parties and the rule of law. We urged Pakistan's military leaders to put their country on a modern and moderate trajectory, which in some important respects they did. And when this progress was threatened last year by the declaration of emergency rule, we pushed President Musharraf hard to take off his uniform and hold free elections. Although terrorists tried to thwart the return of democracy and tragically killed many innocent people, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani people dealt extremism a crushing defeat at the polls. This restoration of democracy in Pakistan creates an opportunity for us to build the lasting and broad-based partnership that we have never achieved with this nation, thereby enhancing our security and anchoring the success of our values in a troubled region.

A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence -- assassination, intimidation, terrorism. The question is not whether any particular state should have influence in the region. They all do, and will. The real question is, What kind of influence will these states wield -- and to what ends, constructive or destructive? It is this fundamental and still unresolved question that is at the center of many of the geopolitical challenges in the Middle East today -- whether it is Syria's undermining of Lebanon's sovereignty, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability, or both states' support for terrorism.

Iran poses a particular challenge. The Iranian regime pursues its disruptive policies both through state instruments, such as the Revolutionary Guards and the al Quds force, and through nonstate proxies that extend Iranian power, such as elements of the Mahdi Army in Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world. The Iranian regime seeks to subvert states and extend its influence throughout the Persian Gulf region and the broader Middle East. It threatens the state of Israel with extinction and holds implacable hostility toward the United States. And it is destabilizing Iraq, endangering U.S. forces, and killing innocent Iraqis. The United States is responding to these provocations. Clearly, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or even the technology to build one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security.

But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression. The Iranian people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities. Indeed, the United States has reached out to them with exchanges of sports teams, disaster-relief workers, and artists. By many accounts, the Iranian people are favorably disposed to Americans and to the United States. Our relationship could be different. Should the Iranian government honor the UN Security Council's demands and suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities, the community of nations, including the United States, is prepared to discuss the full range of issues before us. The United States has no permanent enemies.

Ultimately, the many threats that Iran poses must be seen in a broader context: that of a state fundamentally out of step with the norms and values of the international community. Iran must make a strategic choice -- a choice that we have sought to clarify with our approach -- about how and to what ends it will wield its power and influence: Does it want to continue thwarting the legitimate demands of the world, advancing its interests through violence, and deepening the isolation of its people? Or is it open to a better relationship, one of growing trade and exchange, deepening integration, and peaceful cooperation with its neighbors and the broader international community? Tehran should know that changes in its behavior would meet with changes in ours. But Iran should also know that the United States will defend its friends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.

A third challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly that between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our administration has put the idea of democratic development at the center of our approach to this conflict, because we came to believe that the Israelis will not achieve the security they deserve in their Jewish state and the Palestinians will not achieve the better life they deserve in a state of their own until there is a Palestinian government capable of exercising its sovereign responsibilities, both to its citizens and to its neighbors. Ultimately, a Palestinian state must be created that can live side by side with Israel in peace and security. This state will be born not just through negotiations to resolve hard issues related to borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem but also through the difficult effort to build effective democratic institutions that can fight terrorism and extremism, enforce the rule of law, combat corruption, and create opportunities for the Palestinians to improve their lives. This confers responsibilities on both parties.

As the experience of the past several years has shown, there is a fundamental disagreement at the heart of Palestinian society -- between those who reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and those who do not. The Palestinian people must ultimately make a choice about which future they desire, and it is only democracy that gives them that choice and holds open the possibility of a peaceful way forward to resolve the existential question at the heart of their national life. The United States, Israel, other states in the region, and the international community must do everything in their power to support those Palestinians who would choose a future of peace and compromise. When the two-state solution is finally realized, it will be because of democracy, not despite it.

This is, indeed, a controversial view, and it speaks to one more challenge that must be resolved if democratic and modern states are to emerge in the broader Middle East: how to deal with nonstate groups whose commitment to democracy, nonviolence, and the rule of law is suspect. Because of the long history of authoritarianism in the region, many of the best-organized political parties are Islamist, and some of them have not renounced violence used in the service of political goals. What should be their role in the democratic process? Will they take power democratically only to subvert the very process that brought them victory? Are elections in the broader Middle East therefore dangerous?

These questions are not easy. When Hamas won elections in the Palestinian territories, it was widely seen as a failure of policy. But although this victory most certainly complicated affairs in the broader Middle East, in another way it helped to clarify matters. Hamas had significant power before those elections -- largely the power to destroy. After the elections, Hamas also had to face real accountability for its use of power for the first time. This has enabled the Palestinian people, and the international community, to hold Hamas to the same basic standards of responsibility to which all governments should be held. Through its continued unwillingness to behave like a responsible regime rather than a violent movement, Hamas has demonstrated that it is wholly incapable of governing.

Much attention has been focused on Gaza, which Hamas holds hostage to its incompetent and brutal policies. But in other places, the Palestinians have held Hamas accountable. In the West Bank city of Qalqilya, for instance, where Hamas was elected in 2004, frustrated and fed-up Palestinians voted it out of office in the next election. If there can be a legitimate, effective, and democratic alternative to Hamas (something that Fatah has not yet been), people will likely choose it. This would especially be true if the Palestinians could live a normal life within their own state.

The participation of armed groups in elections is problematic. But the lesson is not that there should not be elections. Rather, there should be standards, like the ones to which the international community has held Hamas after the fact: you can be a terrorist group or you can be a political party, but you cannot be both. As difficult as this problem is, it cannot be the case that people are denied the right to vote just because the outcome might be unpleasant to us. Although we cannot know whether politics will ultimately deradicalize violent groups, we do know that excluding them from the political process grants them power without responsibility. This is yet another challenge that the leaders and the peoples of the broader Middle East must resolve as the region turns to democratic processes and institutions to resolve differences peacefully and without repression.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRAQ

Then, of course, there is Iraq, which is perhaps the toughest test of the proposition that democracy can overcome deep divisions and differences. Because Iraq is a microcosm of the region, with its layers of ethnic and sectarian diversity, the Iraqi people's struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape not just of Iraq but of the broader Middle East as well.

The cost of this war, in lives and treasure, for Americans and Iraqis, has been greater than we ever imagined. This story is still being written, and will be for many years to come. Sanctions and weapons inspections, prewar intelligence and diplomacy, troop levels and postwar planning -- these are all important issues that historians will analyze for decades. But the fundamental question that we can ask and debate now is, Was removing Saddam from power the right decision? I continue to believe that it was.

After we fought one war against Saddam and then remained in a formal state of hostilities with him for over a decade, our containment policy began to erode. The community of nations was losing its will to enforce containment, and Iraq's ruler was getting increasingly good at exploiting it through programs such as oil-for-food -- indeed, more than we knew at the time. The failure of containment was increasingly evident in the UN Security Council resolutions that were passed and then violated, in our regular clashes in the no-fly zones, and in President Bill Clinton's decision to launch air strikes in 1998 and then join with Congress to make "regime change" our government's official policy in Iraq. If Saddam was not a threat, why did the community of nations keep the Iraqi people under the most brutal sanctions in modern history? In fact, as the Iraq Survey Group showed, Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated.

The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe.
The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East were thus linked. So, too, was the war on terror linked to Iraq, because our goal after September 11 was to address the deeper malignancies of the Middle East, not just the symptoms of them. It is very hard to imagine how a more just and democratic Middle East could ever have emerged with Saddam still at the center of the region.

Our effort in Iraq has been extremely arduous. Iraq was a broken state and a broken society under Saddam. We have made mistakes. That is undeniable. The explosion to the surface of long-suppressed grievances has challenged fragile, young democratic institutions. But there is no other decent and peaceful way for the Iraqis to reconcile.

As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of its transformation is being felt in the rest of the region. Ultimately, the states of the Middle East need to reform. But they need to reform their relations, too. A strategic realignment is unfolding in the broader Middle East, separating those states that are responsible and accept that the time for violence under the rubric of "resistance" has passed and those that continue to fuel extremism, terrorism, and chaos. Support for moderate Palestinians and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for democratic leaders and citizens in Lebanon have focused the energies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the states of the Persian Gulf. They must come to see that a democratic Iraq can be an ally in resisting extremism in the region. When they invited Iraq to join the ranks of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Plus-Two (Egypt and Jordan), they took an important step in that direction.

At the same time, these countries look to the United States to stay deeply involved in their troubled region and to counter and deter threats from Iran. The United States now has the weight of its effort very much in the center of the broader Middle East. Our long-term partnerships with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia, and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead of helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.

A UNIQUELY AMERICAN REALISM

Investing in strong and rising powers as stakeholders in the international order and supporting the democratic development of weak and poorly governed states -- these broad goals for U.S. foreign policy are certainly ambitious, and they raise an obvious question: Is the United States up to the challenge, or, as some fear and assert these days, is the United States a nation in decline?

We should be confident that the foundation of American power is and will remain strong -- for its source is the dynamism, vigor, and resilience of American society. The United States still possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race, religion, and culture into the fabric of our national and economic life. The same values that lead to success in the United States also lead to success in the world: industriousness, innovation, entrepreneurialism. All of these positive habits, and more, are reinforced by our system of education, which leads the world in teaching children not what to think but how to think -- how to address problems critically and solve them creatively.

Indeed, one challenge to the national interest is to make certain that we can provide quality education to all, especially disadvantaged children. The American ideal is one of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. This is the glue that holds together our multiethnic democracy. If we ever stop believing that what matters is not where you came from but where you are going, we will most certainly lose confidence. And an unconfident America cannot lead. We will turn inward. We will see economic competition, foreign trade and investment, and the complicated world beyond our shores not as challenges to which our nation can rise but as threats that we should avoid. That is why access to education is a critical national security issue.
We should also be confident that the foundations of the United States' economic power are strong, and will remain so. Even amid financial turbulence and international crises, the U.S. economy has grown more and faster since 2001 than the economy of any other leading industrial nation. The United States remains unquestionably the engine of global economic growth. To remain so, we must find new, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly sources of energy. The industries of the future are in the high-tech fields (including in clean energy), which our nation has led for years and in which we remain on the global cutting edge. Other nations are indeed experiencing amazing and welcome economic growth, but the United States will likely account for the largest share of global GDP for decades to come.

Even in our government institutions of national security, the foundations of U.S. power are stronger than many assume. Despite our waging two wars and rising to defend ourselves in a new global confrontation, U.S. defense spending today as a percentage of GDP is still well below the average during the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have indeed put an enormous strain on our military, and President Bush has proposed to Congress an expansion of our force by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. The experience of recent years has tested our armed forces, but it has also prepared a new generation of military leaders for stabilization and counterinsurgency missions, of which we will likely face more. This experience has also reinforced the urgent need for a new kind of partnership between our military and civilian institutions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the provincial reconstruction teams that we deploy in Afghanistan and Iraq are a model of civil-military cooperation for the future.
In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008, it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come. But it should not be the U.S. military that has to do it. Nor should it be a mission that we take up only after states fail. Rather, civilian institutions such as the new Civilian Response Corps must lead diplomats and development workers in a whole-of-government approach to our national security challenges. We must help weak and poorly functioning states strengthen and reform themselves and thereby prevent their failure in the first place. This will require the transformation and better integration of the United States' institutions of hard power and soft power -- a difficult task and one that our administration has begun. Since 2001, the president has requested and Congress has approved a nearly 54 percent increase in funding for our institutions of diplomacy and development. And this year, the president and I asked Congress to create 1,100 new positions for the State Department and 300 new positions for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Those who follow us must build on this foundation.

Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will. We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. There have been times in the past eight years when we have had to do new and difficult things -- things that, at times, have tested the resolve and the patience of the American people. Our actions have not always been popular, or even well understood. The exigencies of September 12 and beyond may now seem very far away. But the actions of the United States will for many, many years be driven by the knowledge that we are in an unfair fight: we need to be right one hundred percent of the time; the terrorists, only once. Yet I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too.

Ultimately, however, what will most determine whether the United States can succeed in the twenty-first century is our imagination. It is this feature of the American character that most accounts for our unique role in the world, and it stems from the way that we think about our power and our values. The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States, because we do not really accept that our national interest and our universal ideals are at odds. For our nation, it has always been a matter of perspective. Even when our interests and ideals come into tension in the short run, we believe that in the long run they are indivisible.

This has freed America to imagine that the world can always be better -- not perfect, but better -- than others have consistently thought possible. America imagined that a democratic Germany might one day be the anchor of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. America believed that a democratic Japan might one day be a source of peace in an increasingly free and prosperous Asia. America kept faith with the people of the Baltics that they would be independent and thus brought the day when NATO held a summit in Riga, Latvia. To realize these and other ambitious goals that we have imagined, America has often preferred preponderances of power that favor our values over balances of power that do not. We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless to change the world. Indeed, we have shown that by marrying American power and American values, we could help friends and allies expand the boundaries of what most thought realistic at the time.

How to describe this disposition of ours? It is realism, of a sort. But it is more than that -- what I have called our uniquely American realism. This makes us an incredibly impatient nation. We live in the future, not the past. We do not linger over our own history. This has led our nation to make mistakes in the past, and we will surely make more in the future. Still, it is our impatience to improve less-than-ideal situations and to accelerate the pace of change that leads to our most enduring achievements, at home and abroad.

At the same time, ironically, our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We understand how long and trying the course of democracy is. We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to three-fifths of a man. Yet we are healing old wounds and living as one American people, and this shapes our engagement with the world. We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect. This gives us reason to be humble in our own endeavors and patient with the endeavors of others. We know that today's headlines are rarely the same as history's judgments.

An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome. Indeed, we already see glimpses of this better world. We see it in Kuwaiti women gaining the right to vote, in a provincial council meeting in Kirkuk, and in the improbable sight of the American president standing with democratically elected leaders in front of the flags of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the future state of Palestine. Shaping that world will be the work of a generation, but we have done such work before. And if we remain confident in the power of our values, we can succeed in such work again.

2008-06-11T08:44:00.001-07:00

HM King Abdullah II & President Abbas Meet In Amman.
Both Leaders Underline The Necessity To Maintain Palestinian National Unity
And To Achieve Progress In The ME Peace Talks.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and HM King Abdullah II of Jordan met in Amman today, Wednesday, and discussed the latest efforts by the Palestinian President to solidify Palestinian unity and to achieve progress in the Middle East peace process.

"His Majesty King Abdullah II held talks today with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the Palestinian National Authority's (PNA) initiative to enhance Palestinian national unity as well as peace making efforts," announced Petra, Jodan's News Agency in a news despatch from Amman after the meeting. It said that HM King Abdullah II reiterated that the call by president Abbas for national dialogue "must mark a starting point towards bolstering Palestinian national unity, enabling Palestinians restore their legitimate rights and establishing their viable independent state on their national soil."

The King underlined Jordan's support for these efforts as well as the importance of continuing international involvement to achieve tangible progress in the peace negotiations to establish the independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian national soil in West Bank and Gaza Strip."The current escalation in Gaza and the Israeli threats of wide military operations against the Gaza Strip as well as the Israeli policy of building more settlements mainly in Jerusalem pose great threat to the security and stability of the region," said King Abdullah.In this context, King Abdullah and President Abbas underlined the importance of forcing Israel to respect the international agreements, such as discussing the final status issues, to reach a just and everlasting settlement for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.President Abbas briefed the King on the PNA stance that aims to start a national dialogue with Hamas, as well as his view towards this issue.President Abbas also briefed King Abdullah on the outcome of his recent meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as well as results of his talks with Saudi and Egyptian leaders. President Abbas expressed the Palestinian people's appreciation for Jordan, under the leadership of HM King Abdullah.

Talking to the press after the meeting, President Abbas said he discussed with King Abdullah how should the future mechanism me to address internal Palestinian problems as well as issues related to the final status talks with Israel.

Asked if he would support a joint declaration with Hamas after the latter ceases its hostile media campaign against the PNA, President Abbas said that hostile media rhetoric is damaging to all parties and what matters first is that Hamas stops its incitement against the Palestinian National Authority. Then, our response will certainly be positive."

Addressing the situation in Gaza, President Abbas reiterated his call on Israel to avoid further escalation of the tension in the Strip and called on all parties in Gaza to stop firing their rockets on Israel's southern towns.

2008-06-11T03:19:00.001-07:00

Fayyad Won't Run For Presidential Elections
Supports President Abbas' Call For Dialogue
Rules Out An Agreement With Israel By The End Of This Year.

"I have a very strong feeling, or should I say fully confident, that a political settlement will hot happen this year but international effort should continue to sustain the probability of reaching an agreement through making every step to cease Israel's settlement activities," said Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Fayyad is expected to attend a three way meeting between himself, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who is due in the region next Sunday.

Meeting with representatives of the local press in Ramallah on Tuesday, the prime minister said there are three major priorities that need to be addressed before anything else. They are the cessation of Israel's settlement policy; changing Israel's security behavior and allowing freedom of access to goods and people throughout the Palestinian territories and between the Palestinians territories and the outside world.

Speaking of the current internal problem in the Palestinian territories and mostly of the situation in the Gaza Strip, Fayyad said that two conditions need to be met by all parties involved in order to get out of the current internal impasse. All Palestinian factions, he said, should agree on forming a caretaker government that would stay in power until new elections are held and all Palestinians should support an immediate end to armed anarchy while adhering to political pluralism. He admitted that the Palestinian National Authority needs Arab assistance to end this weird situation and therefore "we welcome every Arab hand that helps us solve this problem."

Fayyad revealed that between the years 2006 and 2007 some 50,000 Palestinians have left the country while ten times of this figure are ready to leave once conditions are ripe for them to leave. He noted that the fact that every one had a gun of his own and used it in whichever way he wanted had ultimately led to this number of Palestinians leaving their country. "This armed anarchy brought us damage more that it brought to anybody else. That is why we insist on one law, one gun rule. Political pluralism is necessary and can be handled through elections. Dialogue is always the means to settle differences between various political groups."

Speaking of dialogue, Fayyad praised the initiative declared by President Abbas a week ago and said it came "to show how serious the president is in his effort to restore unity to our homeland and to fight the phenomenon of illegitimate rule in the Gaza Strip."

Fayyad said he would not run for presidential elections and praised the success of the Palestine Investment Conference that was held recently in Bethlehem. He said that other conferences are being contemplated because "we are thinking in various directions in order to sustain the achievements of the Palestine Investment Conference as an annual event to be held regularly once every year or every two years at the latest." Sub-conferences on a variety of topics were also contemplated, including a conference in Nablus and another one in Chile for Palestinians living abroad with emphasis on information technology and other fields, said Fayyad.

"We all have our responsibilities towards our brothers in the Gaza Strip as same as towards our people in the West Bank," said Fayyad adding that "the most important matter we want to achieve now is to lift the siege on Gaza, which we consider a major challenge." "We demand the immediate reopening of the border crossings based on the initiative we declared by which the PNA would take full control of the border crossings," he said stressing that 60 percent of the PNA current expenditures are spent in the Gaza Strip to cover salaries and social aid. He pointed out that the siege on the Gaza Strip is so hard that neither the Palestinian National Authority, nor the United Nations or non-governmental bodies are able to implement any projects in the Strip.

Fayyad promised the minute the border crossings are open the PNA would act "as aggressively in the Gaza Strip as it has been doing in the West Bank in order to address the immediate needs of those who are badly in need for assistance." In the West Bank, he said, there are more than 600 different projects, of which 150 have been already implemented. The intensity of work in the Gaza Strip, he promised, will be almost identical to that in the West Bank if not more.

2008-06-11T02:07:00.000-07:00

President Abbas gains some public support and Hamas’s popularity drops

2008-06-10T14:24:00.000-07:00

With Abbas taking the initiative by renewing dialogue with Hamas,

and with Hamas failing to open the Rafah Crossing or force Israel to agree to a ceasefire,

President Abbas gains some public support and Hamas’s popularity drops

Dear all,
The poll results below speak for themselves. Every detail is not only important but is also crucial to understand the dynamics of Palestinian public opinion. At the end of the day, Palestinians look around for whatever tangible change on the ground to judge if things are or are not moving in the right direction.

The poll results show how important and perfect timed was the initiative declared by President Abbas to launch dialogue with Hamas for the sake of implementing the Yemen initiative. The Presidential announcement a week ago came at a time after literally every one in the world failed to offer a proper and doable solution to the ongoing saga of more than 1.5 million Palestinians entangled in the Gaza Strip.

The flow of events in the last year, and precisely since Hamas militarily took over the Gaza Strip, have proved that things cannot really move forward if President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad were to be excluded. Israel has spent the whole last year trying to reach an agreement with Hamas while at the same time claiming it does not negotiate with a "terrorist group." Israel, until today has failed to take a decision as to what it should vis-a-vis the situation in the Gaza Strip. Egypt, on the other hand, has been doing its best to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas but to no avail. And in the meantime, people in besieged Gaza Strip are somehow left on their own, suffering of the anvil of Israel's siege and of the hammer of Hamas' behaviour.

Only a solidified role by the Palestinian President, supported by the Arab countries in the form of deploying Arab forces along with the Presidential Guard on the border crossings between the Gaza Strip and Egypt and in the vicinity of Gaza International Airport can contribute to lifting, perhaps gradually, the siege on the Gaza Strip.

A year after it conquered the authority in the Gaza Strip, Hamas must have reached to the conclusion that it cannot rule through megaphones of hollow slogans or through the barrel of its militants' guns. That is why the Presidential announcement should this time obtain the positive response of Hamas. Mistakes can be done and that is natural. But repeating the same mistake is tantamount to ignorance or lack of responsibility. When it comes to the way matters developed in the Gaza Strip over the past year, any repetition by Hamas of its mistakes in not listening to the sounds of reason coming from Ramallah will be nothing but treason. No wonder the popularity of Hamas is dropping. No wonder it will drop more and more should the movement fail to learn from its past mistakes. In the final analysis, power is the people's. No one is above the power of the people. And the only way to gauge the people's will is of course the ballot boxes. That is what President Abbas has reiterated on numerous occasions and this is perhaps what freaks Hamas away from any agreement. It knows it has no chance of winning any further if its present mistakes continue in the future as well.

Now to the poll:

From: "Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research
9 June 2008
PRESS RELEASE
Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (28)
With Abbas taking the initiative by renewing dialogue with Hamas, and with Hamas failing to open the Rafah Crossing or force Israel to agree to a ceasefire, Abbas gains some public support and Hamas’s popularity drops
5-7 June 2008
These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 5 and 7 June 2008. This period witnessed the declaration by the President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Mahmud Abbas of his desire to renew dialogue with Hamas. It also witnessed continued closure of the Rafah border crossing despite Hamas’s attempt to open it. Indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel on a ceasefire failed to produce agreement while the threat of a possible Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip escalated further. Total size of the sample is 1270 adults interviewed face to face in 127 randomly selected locations. Margin of error is 3%. This press release cover domestic Palestinian issues; issues related to the peace process and Israeli-Palestinian relations will be covered in a separate joint Palestinian-Israeli press release. For further details, contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, or Walid Ladadweh at tel 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org.

Main Findings:
Findings indicate a limited decline in the various indicators of Hamas’s power in the second quarter of 2008 compared to the first quarter of the year. Decline can be seen in the popularity of the movement, the popularity of its prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, and in the percentage of those who describe Haniyeh’s government as legitimate. By contrast, Mahmud Abbas’s popularity and the positive evaluation of his performance increase compared to his standing in the first quarter of this year. Moreover, positive evaluation of conditions in the West Bank increases as feelings of safety and security improves. A majority believes that the recently deployed Palestinian security forces have succeeded in enforcing law and order in the areas of their deployment in the West Bank. As expected, the largest percentage believes that Abbas is more able than Hamas’s government in reaching a peace agreement with Israel. But surprisingly, the largest percentage believes that Abbas is also more able than Hamas’s government in forcing Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians.
The changes in the second quarter of 2008 might have been the result of two developments: Abbas has taken the initiative away from Hamas when he gave the green light for a resumption of dialogue with Hamas and Hamas has failed in moving forward any of the issues it championed during this period. These issues included the opening of the Rafah border crossing and forcing Israel to agree to a ceasefire with the Islamist group. In the first quarter of this year, Abbas and his government, headed by Salam Fayyad, were seen by the public as impotent in confronting Israel’s policies such as settlement construction and the increased restrictions on movement. By contrast, Hamas was seen as successful in breaking the siege on Gaza and in retaliating against Israel by carrying out two major armed attacks inside Israel, such as the suicide attack in Dimona and the attack at Merkaz Harav religious school in West Jerusalem. The measures taken by Hamas in the first quarter of 2008 managed to present the Islamist group as successful in confronting Israel at a time when Abbas and his government were seen as lacking the initiative.
The Gap between the standing of PA President Mahmud Abbas and Hamas’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has increased to 12 percentage points in favor of Abbas. If new presidential elections are held today, and the only two candidates were Abbas and Haniyeh, the former would receive the support of 52% and the latter 40%. This finding represents an increase in the popularity of Abbas which stood at 46% last March compared to 47% for Haniyeh. If the competition was between Marwan Barghouti and Haniyeh, the former would receive 61% to Haniyeh’s 34%. Level of non-participation in the presidential elections would reach 39% if the competition was between Abbas and Haniyeh and 27% if the competition was between Barghouti and Haniyeh.
Moreover, the gap between Fateh and Hamas increases from 7 percentage points last March to 12 percentage points in this poll. If new parliamentary elections are to take place today, Hamas would receive 31% (compared to 35% last March) and Fateh would received 43% (compared to 42% last March).
Satisfaction with the performance of Abbas reaches 46% in this poll (compared to 41% last March). Moreover, 33% (compared to 30% last March) say the performance of Fayyad’s government is good or very good and 38% say it is bad or very bad. By comparison, 37% (compared to 39% last March) say the performance of Haniyeh’s government is good or very good and 35% say it is bad or very bad.
Findings indicate that 45% (compared to 49% last March) believe that Haniyeh should stay in office as prime minister while 47% say he should not. By contrast, 42% (compared to 38% last March) say Fayyad’s government should stay in office and 51% say it should not. 29% say Haniyeh’s government is the legitimate Palestinian government and 31% say Fayyad’s government is the legitimate one; 7% say both governments are legitimate and 28% say both are illegitimate. Three months ago, 34% said Haniyeh’s government was legitimate while 29% said Fayyad’s was legitimate.
Perception of personal and family security and safety increases in the West Bank from 32% last March to 40% in this poll. But the percentage of personal and family security and safety in the Gaza Strip is higher than in the West Bank as it reaches 49% (compared to 46% in Gaza last March). In this regard, 57% say that the deployment of the Palestinian security forces in some cities and towns in the West Bank has succeeded or somewhat succeeded in enforcing law and order while 34% say the deployment has failed to do that. When asked about their perceptions regarding the true purpose of the deployment, 35% said the purpose was to enforce law and order, 28% said it was to disarm the resistance forces, and 23% said it was both, the enforcement of law and order and the disarming of the resistance forces.
While only 23% give a positive evaluation of the status of democracy in the Gaza Strip under the Hamas government, the percentage for the West Bank under Fayyad’s government is higher (33%). Moreover, while only 5% describe the overall conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as good or very good, the percentage for the overall conditions in the West Bank is higher (25%).
A majority of 59% describes PA handling of the case of the smuggling of mobile phone in the car of the former speaker of the Palestinian parliament as a cover for corruption while only 28% describe it as an example of fighting corruption.
About half of the Palestinians (49%) say that the PA under Mahmud Abbas is more able than Hamas’s government under Ismail Haniyeh to reach a peace agreement with Israel while only 15% say the Hamas government is more able to do so. Moreover, 41% believe that the PA under Abbas is more able than Hamas’s government to force Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians while only 25% believe Hamas’s government is more able to do so. Even if the choice was between Abbas and Marwan Barghouti, Abbas comes on top with 31% while only 28% believe Barghouti would be more able than Abbas to force Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians.
This PSR survey was conducted with the support of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ramallah
End of press release

Give Obama Some Time Before Judging Him.

2008-06-06T14:32:00.000-07:00

Give Obama Some Time Before Judging Him.

As a Palestinian commentator or analyst, I find it very hard for me to defend the remarks made by Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama in his speech before the powerful Washington lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. In his speech, Obama expressed his "unshakeable commitment to Israel's security" and his support for Jerusalem to remain the undivided capital of Israel. Was Obama speaking as a political amateur who understood nothing of the Middle East? Or was he fully aware of what he said and hoped that through his speech he would manage to drum up support for his candidacy against the Republican candidate, John McCain?

Obama's appearance before AIPAC was almost the first and most prestigious exposure he had immediately after he declared his candidacy on behalf of the Democratic Party in the upcoming presidential elections in the US. Given a chance to speak before the most powerful Jewish lobby in the US, Obama felt it was his golden chance to appease the Jewish voters, though some American experts believe that 80 percent of the Jewish votes are likely to go to McCain regardless of what Obama says.

Can someone build on that speech to suggest that the words Obama said will be the main guidelines of his foreign policy once he steps into the Oval Office? Certainly not. Almost every other American presidential candidate was so generous in not only pledging unlimited support to Israel but also in voicing strong pro-Israel rhetoric like calling for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. However, every one of those, once steps into the President's shoes, would immediately say that in principle, he supported what he pledged but things on the ground and US interests with the Arab world do not allow this pledge to be implemented.

In an interview to CNN a day after his AIPAC speech, Obama backtracked somehow and said that the future of Jerusalem is a matter for the Palestinians and the Israelis to decide in their final status negotiations. He also criticized Israel over its settlement policy and blamed President George Bush for not doing more to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. The promising words from Obama came when he spoke of the need to "have a contiguous and cohesive Palestinian state that functions effectively." Based on his criticism of the way the current US Administration dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict, one can easily understand, or at least hope, that Obama, if elected, will fold up his sleeves and address the conflict shortly after he takes office. "The Middle East peace process is so important that we can't reserve it to the end of a presidency. We've got to start soon and I'm going to be absolutely committed to making that happen," he said.

Many Palestinians and Arabs seem to be worried because of Obama. They believe that because of the strong campaign launched against him by certain Jewish circles in the US, Obama might try to do the undoable to convince the American public and Israel that he indeed is a close ally to Israel. He might find it difficult to play an impartial role in pursuing a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, they explain. Nevertheless, one thing is clear. No presidential candidate can be judged based on what he says in open meetings before elections. History has told us of so many US candidates who set for themselves certain foreign policy lines, which they reshuffled soon after they were elected. Obama may not be an exception. He is not the first to follow this zigzag route. He is certainly not the last one either. Give him some time. Only then, we can judge him.

A New Opportunity For Dialogue Or Just An Illusion?

2008-06-04T23:46:00.000-07:00

A New Opportunity For Dialogue Or Just An Illusion?

In his speech in Ramallah on 4 June 2008 (see text of speech below) Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas left the door open for a comprehensive national dialogue among the Palestinians with the aim of implement the Yemenite initiative. Hamas, verbally so far, welcomed the announcement by the president. It did so in the past too. Nevertheless, when matters came to genuine effort to talk and find a way to end the current situation in the Gaza Strip, Hamas backed off. Pressure by the armed militants of the group on their political leadership bore fruits on more than one occasion. Outside pressure on the same political leadership bore similar fruits on some of the occasions too.

That is why it might be a bit premature to suggest that the dialogue between the PNA and Hamas, and for this matter between FATAH and Hamas a well, will lead to substantial results.

The initiative was presented by the Republic of Yemen in March 2008 to end the feud between the Palestinian National Authority and FATAH on one hand and Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, on the other. In its first clause, it clearly calls for returning "the situation reining in Gaza prior to June 13, 2007; fulfilling the commitments signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO); and holding the anticipated legislative and presidential elections." This clause is the starting point of any Palestinian, Arab, Islamic or international effort to end the weird situation in the Gaza Strip that was caused by Hamas' military coup in June last year. For Hamas to indulge in genuine dialogue with the Palestinian National Authority, it has to accept in principle the three conditions stipulated in the Yemenite Initiative, which Hamas, by the way, accepted but backtracked later. Hamas at the time thought it would start a dialogue with the PNA only for the sake of dialogue and not with the intention of solving the weird conditions in the Gaza Strip. Whether the movement is reconsidering its stance this time or resorting to meaningless rhetoric as in the past is a question that days will answer.

Hamas will have to address this matter in the clearest manner possible. It cannot continue to hold over 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip hostages under its ruthless control until after the world accepts its own agenda. It has to think of creative ways to lift the siege on the Gaza Strip. The Presidential offer for renewed dialogue is one of those ways. At the end of the day, the ultimate interest of the Palestinian people should dictate the course of action for every Palestinian. Lifting the siege that Israel clamped on the Gaza Strip unquestionably tops the Palestinian immediate agenda. Therefore, every effort should be done in this direction, even if it comes at the expense of fundamental ideologies like the ones borne by Hamas. Otherwise, Hamas will continue to drive the Palestinian people into the abyss of illusion, and nothing but illusion.

Text of the initiative of the Republic of Yemen to end PA - Hamas differences

2008-06-04T17:44:00.000-07:00

Text of the Initiative of the Republic of Yemen for the Resumption of Inter-Palestinian Dialogue

First:
To return to the situation reining in Gaza prior to June 13, 2007. To fulfill the commitments signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and to hold the anticipated legislative and presidential elections.

Second:
To renew national dialogue on the basis of the agreements reached in Cairo in 2005 and in Mecca in 2007. These rest on viewing the Palestinian people as a whole, for which the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) constitutes the institution of political power, including the president and the elected parliament, the executive power represented by a government of national unity; as well as the commitment to follow Palestinian law in all its components.

Third:
To affirm respect for the Palestinian constitution and its application by all.

Fourth:
The formation of a coalition government of national unity, in which all groups are represented according to their representation in the Legislative Council, and its empowerment to exercise its full responsibilities.

Fifth:
The creation through the Arab League of a commission of the countries involved, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan. The Republic of Yemen has expressed its willingness to participate in this commission if requested. Such a commission will have the responsibility of implementing and putting into practice all of the above-mentioned actions.

Sixth:
The various Palestinian institutions and all of their components will be included without discrimination as to their political positions, and will comply with the supreme authority as well as the government of national unity.
March 2008

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Speech On 4th June 2008 In Ramallah

2008-06-04T17:34:00.000-07:00

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Speech On 4th June 2008 In Ramallah
Marking The Anniversary Of 5th June 1967 War Anniversary

In The Name Of God, The Almighty And The Compassionate

Sisters and Brothers,
The day we mark the anniversary of the June 1967 aggression, I found it my duty to speak to you, frankly, about the overall issues and matters that are listed on top of priorities' set of our people, who stand fast in our land, in refugee camps as well in the prisons and detention centers of the occupiers.

First, I would like to stress to all our Palestinian people and to our Arab and Islamic nation that the passage of time and decades since the occupation of our land started would never force us to give up not even a single inch of our beloved land. Consecutive Arab summits, along with the international community and our Palestinian National Council, have all ruled that our land is where we establish our independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem its capital.

Should Israel want peace and security, it has no other choice but to fully withdraw from all the Palestinian and Arab territories back to the lines of 4th June 1967.

We are for just and comprehensive peace. Peace and security, however, cannot be attained through swords of occupation or bulldozers of settlements. The Israeli decisions to annex Jerusalem and build settlements in the city and in the West Bank, along with the Separation
Apartheid wall, are void and null. These decision can never form the basis for achieving peace.

The policy of imposing settlement facts on the ground through gun barrels will lead to nowhere. Nor will it force our people to give up the sacred city of Jerusalem, the third holiest shrine in Islam. Our people reiterate their commitment to our inalienable national rights and to a just
and agreed upon solution to the question of refugees as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

All of you should be assured that meetings and negotiations that take place from time to time are an opportunity for us to stress our commitment to our firm stand to reach a just and comprehensive peace and to shove away the illusion of the Israeli negotiators with regard to
Jerusalem and to settlement presence over our land. They also form an opportunity for us to bring the international community face to face with its responsibilities.

Sisters and Brothers,
This is the time for me to reiterate our demand from the international community to intervene and put an end to this unjust siege clamped on our people in the Gaza Strip. I call upon the Arab nation to act at the international level in order to lift this siege, which, in fact, is a war crime
committed against our Palestinian People.

I salute the steadfastness of our people in our homeland, in the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem and in exile. I undertake before all of them that we will exert every effort we can in order to reach a truce and to lift the siege on the Gaza Strip.

Allow me on this day to announce to all of you our sincere national decision that illustrates how caring we are to maintain the unity of our people and of our homeland and to lift the injustice and siege that have been imposed on our people.

This decision has culminated a series of meetings and discussions within the PLO Executive Committee and with representatives of various Palestinian factions. It is a decision empowered by a national consensus.

We are all hopeful that our decision forms the common denominator for all of us to work together and to open a new chapter in our Palestinian national life.

Sisters and Brothers,
Our decision was taken out of our commitment to our unity and to our joint national future. It was taken in line with various calls that came from Palestinian, Arab and friendly parties calling on us to put an end to the state of division in our country and to restore the situation in the Gaza Strip back to pre 13 June 2007. I hereby call for holding a comprehensive national dialogue in order to implement the Yemenite initiative with all its articles, as decided by the recent Arab summit meeting in Damascus.

We are doing this in order to end the national division that has caused the worst damage ever to our cause and has increased the level of suffering of our people in Gaza. Besides, it has formed a real threat to our national scheme of independence and freedom.

For this national dialogue to succeed, I will act on the Arab and international levels to secure the support we need to augment this move in a way that would restore to our people their national unity and would form our strongest guarantee for the restoration of our inalienable rights to self determination, return and independent statehood.

As an outcome to this effort, I shall be calling for holding new presidential and legislative elections.

The PLO Executive Committee will act with me to prepare all conditions, conducive to allow success to this dialogue, which we hope will restore unity, lift the unjust siege on our people, and protect and sustain our political system that is based on democratic pluralism and our national
scheme.

May Peace Be Upon All Of You.

Livni, the Sunday Times and the timing of the expose!

2008-06-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

Livni's Role In The Mossad Exposed! Why Now?

The Sunday Times expose about Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's past as a field operative of the Mossad in Europe in the 1980s should not raise any eyebrows. Nor is the timing of the publication. In a country like Israel, where the security or military background of any political runner becomes very relevant ahead of any elections, the expose was timely though it did not give much detail on the kind of activities or actions Livni did while serving in Europe.

When incumbent president of Israel, Shimon Peres, ran in previous elections, many in Israel tried to discredit him because he was not a "uniform man." However, the leader, mocked by many in Israel as the one who was born to lose, emerged in the Israeli perception as the godfather of Israel's nuclear power. Peres, as director general of the Israeli defense ministry in the 50s, worked out the secret deal with France according to which Israel would join the French and the British in their attack on Egypt in 1956 in return for French nuclear technology. The deal went ahead in extreme secrecy until US spy satellites took shots of a domed building in Dimona, which Israel described at the time as a textile factory.

Livni, for this matter, does not differ from any other Israeli politician. They all have had their share of serving in the army or any other security apparatus. The system in Israel requires such a role and the political system seems to have been based on how good you are in the field. "How good in the field you are" may sound euphemism to how many Arabs or Palestinians you managed to kill, wound or arrest. But this is the type of role Israeli military have. For the same reason, and without drawing comparisons, every nation at war, resorts to this special security background to set out a certain criteria for its future leaders. As such, the capacity of conflict management and not conflict resolution is what dictates who should be a leader.

In this respect, the Palestinians have set a new rule, a rule that should be copied by other nations, including mostly Israel. President Mahmoud Abbas won the presidential elections in Palestine despite his "poor military career." He did not serve in the battlefield as much as in the political sphere of FATAH movement. Yet he won the support of 64 percent of the Palestinian voters in the elections that took place in January 2005. The Palestinian people wanted a leader who had a clear agenda on how to solve the conflict, and not an agenda on how to sustain it. That was impressive and the Palestinian voters should be accorded maximum appreciation for doing so.

Back to Livni, she does indeed have good chances to become the new prime minister in Israel. Who knows? She may excel where men failed. The only female prime minister in Israel's history was Golda Meir but she was not that lucky as the October War of 1973 took her by surprise and subsequently forced her to step down. Since then, not a single female leader managed to get to the top of the political echelon in Israel. There were and are many bright faces such as Yuli Tamir, Limor Livnat, Tamar Gozanski and others but none of them had the chance to be the number 1. Perhaps, male chauvinism had something to do with this. Perhaps, it was a matter of bad luck too.

I myself have heard a number of Livni's acquaintances describing her political views. According to them, she has a considerable margin of flexibility that can match the main parameters of the Geneva Initiative and the Arab Peace Initiative. Behind closed doors, they said, Livni adopts courageous stands. Nevertheless, they added, she is very stubborn when it comes to the question of Palestinian refugees' right of return. She strongly rejects any formula that suggests Israel should allow, even a limited number of Palestinian refugees, to return.

This question in itself can be solved through the principle the Arab Peace Initiative presents. It speaks of an agreed resolution to the question of refugees based on UN Resolution 194. Livni, and for this matter, any future prime minister in Israel, will have to deal with this matter in practical terms, not ideological.

In negotiations, each party reaches a point where ideologies and arguments on the past should not be allowed to disrupt agreements on the future. The past is unchangeable. The sad memories are inerasable. However, the needs for a better life and future are unquestionable. That is exactly the point where genuine leaders are judged. That is why the Palestinians think highly of their president, Mahmoud Abbas. That is the background, against which the Israelis should elect any future leader. The rule should not be the criterion of how successful was the military past of any given candidate. It should be based on how genuine is her or his plan for reaching the two-state solution along the 1967 lines.

2008-05-30T13:11:00.000-07:00

Anti-Olmert Campaign. Why Now?

The rapid developments inside Israel and the semi-certainty with which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be forced out of office raise a few questions that not every one can answer.

The charges brought against Mr. Olmert refer to the early 90s, long before he ran for the mayoral post in Jerusalem against the late mayor of the city, Teddy Kollek. At the time, Olmert was a rising star in the Likud Party. It seems that those in power at the time were happy to see a Jewish millionaire giving the kind of assistance Mr. Talansky allegedly gave to Olmert to beat Labour Party's Mayor Kollek. Envelopes may or may not have been filled up with cash and handed out to Olmert. They may or may not have been filled with cash and handed over also to others within the top echelon of the Likud Party. What matters at the moment is the question: why now?

Yes. Why now? Why, after so many years, the story goes out to the public? Where was Mr. Morris Talansky throughout all those years and why has he remained silent over more than 15 years? What is the meaning of the saying that the story was disclosed at a time when Olmert, after the renewed talks with Syria and possibly in light of his talks with the Palestinians, was about to sell out the land of Israel? The course of events in the latest months gives way to more than one reason to assume that a hidden agenda is stirring the whole anti-Olmert campaign. And I will try to explain how.

Back in the year 2000, right after the collapse of the Camp David talks, sponsored at the time by US President Bill Clinton and attended by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the two negotiating teams returned home. Right afterwards, intensive effort was made to avoid heading to a frontal showdown. The two parties managed to bridge, partly though, their gaps during the months that followed Camp David talks. When then Likud Chairman Ariel Sharon announced his intention to pay a visit to the Noble Sanctuary of Al Aqsa Mosque, known to Israelis as the temple mount, it was clear that Sharon's motivation had many things to do with his hidden agenda. Sharon served as minister in various governments of Israel and did not think of visiting the site. Nor did he think it was appropriate for him to go on such a tour that could stir anger among not only the Palestinians but also the Arab and Islamic Worlds.

However, when Sharon took the decision, it was clear that he felt something was being cooked behind scenes between the Palestinian leadership and Israel. The best way to torpedo an agreement in making, in Sharon's eyes, was to go ahead with that provocative visit and stir a reaction among the Palestinians that is not easy to contain.

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, sensing that things were getting out of control and that both sides might find themselves in a frontal collision if that visit took place, asked PM Barak to do his best not to allow it. "If you really mean what you just called President Clinton on the phone that you are a genuine partner to peace, I ask to prevent Mr. Sharon from visiting the mosque. If not, such a visit might stir anger among the Palestinians. They may take to the streets and demonstrate. They may even go further in a wave of violence that neither me nor my security forces would be able to contain. It may blow up all what we have so far achieved," said Arafat to Barak as both stood on the balcony of the latter's house in Kochav Yair. The two leaders took to the balcony after a lengthy phone call between Barak and Clinton in which the Israeli prime minister spoke on the phone and Arafat listened. "I rang you, Mr. President, to say that we have ironed out lots of our differences and Mr. Arafat, who is standing next to me, will find out that I am a real partner to the peace of the braves with him. I will even be more generous to him than the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin," said Barak to President Clinton referring in the last few words to the slain prime minister of Israel who was gunned down by an extreme right wing activist after attending a peace rally in Tel Aviv's Kings' Square on 5 November 1995.

When Arafat finished his request, Barak replied with a chilly response. "This is an internal Israeli matter and with due respect, I won't allow any one to interfere," he said. The visit went on and the rest of the story is known to all.

Today's anti-Olmert campaign may be a reminiscence of what happened then. This time, however, the right wing opposition under Benyamin Netanyahu found that it would be better to burn Olmert and to execute a political or character assassination against him in order to prevent the signing of an agreement possibly in making between the Palestinian leadership and Israel.

President Abbas and Premier Olmert have met at least eight times over the past year. Along with them, the negotiating teams of the Palestinians under Ahmad Qurei, Abu Ala'a, the former prime minister and a senior leader of FATAH movement, and of the Israelis under Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, have held dozens of hours of sessions. Some estimate that the two sides have already spent over one hundred and twenty hours in meetings that were held in several places in Israel. Can one assume that all those meetings led to nowhere? It is extremely inconceivable to suggest that nothing was reached between the two parties. It is also clear that the two parties understand how detrimental prior publication of what they agreed can be to the talks and that it may explode that understanding in their faces. At the end of the day, what matters is the ability of the two parties to reach an agreement and not just to provide news material to the press, at the expense of a possible success.

Why now was the question I raised earlier. Why know has Talansky's alleged financial aid to Olmert come out? It is clear: Someone sitting somewhere in the Knesset, most certainly within the Likud Party, felt it is about time to undermine every effort Olmert has done to reach a deal, or at least a shelf agreement with the Palestinian President. Such an agreement, if signed even at the level of a non-paper document, would certainly be binding for any future government in Israel. Such an obligation is the last thing someone from the Likud would like to face once, if ever, is elected prime minister in Israel.

May God help us, Palestinians and Israelis alike, when the future of our two peoples depends on the personal agenda of those with minimal national responsibility and maximal personal ambitions.

Palestinian Economy, Israel and Jawwal

2008-05-30T08:25:00.001-07:00

A note to remember. The Palestinian National Authority has just scored yet another success as over 1,200 businessmen from Palestinian, Arab and international private sectors have attended a two-day investment conference in the city of Bethlehem. The meeting was a great opportunity for the PNA to illustrate the mounting trust those businessmen have in the PNA, its President, Mahmoud Abbas, its Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, and its government. It showed beyond any doubt that the PNA has managed to clear itself to a large extent from the corruption label that has stuck to part of its branches and arms over the past thirteen years or so, since t the Oslo Accords were singed between the PLO and Israel. Approximately $ 1.2 billion in foreign investment were pledged to the Palestinian Territories, marking a genuine and considerable step that will eventually help the ailing Palestinian economy.

Was that enough? And I am not referring to the amount of private investments pledged as much as I refer to the role the Israeli government is playing vis-a-vis the economic viability of the Palestinian Territories.

Out of this amount, some $650 million were accorded to the second cellular phone company slated to start in the Palestinian Territories. Some 2,500 jobs are promised in this new project and its impact on the economy goes without a say. In a country badly wrecked with such an unemployment rate as high as 65 percent in some areas, created job opportunities become of maximum importance.

But after months of negotiations through the PNA between the new company and Israel, the latter has failed to receive the frequencies it needs to operate the new cellular network of communications in the Palestinian Territories.

Under the Oslo Agreements, Israel and the PNA should agree on frequencies for aired television and radio programs as well as for telecommunications frequencies. Does any one have a convincing answer why Israel up to this moment has failed to sign the new frequencies agreement? Why has Israel up to this moment prevented this huge project to kick off the ground.

I would say no security impacts can be linked to Israel's failure to accord the frequencies. I would add by saying that the behaviour of the Israeli government in this respect shows how indifferent it is to a matter of quintessential importance not only to the Palestinian President or the government but also to the Palestinian people at large.

Having said that, I still remember the whole load of difficulties and obstacles the Israeli authorities placed in the route of currently the sole cellular communications provider in Palestine, Jawwal. There were times in which sophisticated equipment purchased by Jawwal from abroad had been held in Israeli ports for very long periods of time, causing not only technical problems to Jawwal but also costing them large amounts of money paid for storing that equipment. So Israel allowed itself to forcefully store equipment that does not belong to her and also forced the owners to pay for storage? It seems that Israel must have thought that this would be a very easy and superbly guaranteed way to make money. Just force the Palestinians to pay. We will keep their equipment and they will end up paying us for hindering their job! How weird?!

There is no chance for a genuine economic development in the Palestinian Territories without Israel's proactive role in terms of helping such a process. Israel is easier to blame but is the party that has the upper hand in almost every aspect of Palestinian life. It enjoys the supreme control of the Palestinian Territories, decides who can or cannot leave or return to the PNA areas and, more seriously, keeps its grip over hundreds of Israeli army road blocks that are scattered throughout the West Bank preventing Palestinians from moving freely within the West Bank. These restrictions on movement on the Palestinians have become a subject for every foreign visitor to discuss with Palestinian and Israeli officials alike. Even US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke on this matter a few times. President George Bush addressed this issue in his joint news conference with President Abbas in Ramallah on 10 January 2008 but nothing seems to have changed.

Israel needs to know that the era of talking of gestures towards the Palestinians is over. Now is the time for Israel to act responsibly. Every step Israel makes to empower more the Palestinian National Authority and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is in the best interest of not only the Palestinians but also of Israel. The bottom line: Israel should do more and more and speak less and less.