NOVANEWS
Dear Friends,
Gideon Shalit is home, as are a number of Palestinians, while others released were sent abroad or to Gaza , but not home. And while all this is happening, the drums of war keep drumming louder. It almost seems that the issue is no longer whether to attack Iran or not, but when. I can only hope that all those who predict or fear the event are wrong. I can only hope very very hard—for the Iranians, as well as for all the other Israeli soldiers (in addition to some 23,000 who have already paid with their lives since 1947) who will not come home, and the civilians on both sides who will forfeit their lives due to the avariciousness of leaders who care more for their seats, or expansion, or for larding the pockets of the military-industrial complex. The first 3 items below give food for thought, and, fear on this subject.
Item 4 is by Sam Bahour who maintains that “Illusionary peace negotiations can only lead to a hallucinated peace,” with which I fear I have to agree. And if there will be no peace, then what will there be? Endless violence, I guess.
The 5th item touches a truly miserable aspect of this entire miserable state of affairs. Supposedly, 300 child prisoners (under 16) were to have been among those released. Perhaps they will be in the 2nd batch, if there will actually be a 2nd batch. We are all asked to help, if we can.
If after reading the items below you still have time and energy for one more, then please check out Akiva Eldar’s piece today.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/with-shalit-deal-hamas-schooled-fatah-on-what-makes-israel-tick-1.390555
All the best,
Dorothy
Gilad Shalit and the End of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/10/17/gilad-shalit-and-the-end-of-the-israeli-palestinian-peace-process/?hpt=hp_t2
Posted by Tony Karon Monday, October 17, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit walks at Kerem Shalom crossing outside the southern Gaza Strip after his release, October 18, 2011. (Photo: Reuters)
As momentous as Tuesday’s release of Sergeant Gilad Shalit and 477 Palestinian prisoners (with another 550 to freed within two months) may be, it is unlikely to be a game-changer — or a milestone on the road to peace. Indeed, while the spectacle of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breaking the ostensible taboo on negotiating with Hamas and heeding many of its demands in order to bring home the captive Israeli soldier may look like a sea-change, it’s more likely to reinforce the stalemate in the wider conflict — and possibly even raise the danger of a new hostilities.
Despite the fervent opposition of some Israelis — from families of terror victims to prominent cabinet members — to freeing men with Israeli blood on their hands, Netanyahu’s decision remains a popular one. A poll conducted by the daily Yediot Ahronot published Monday showed that 79% of Israelis support the deal, reconciling themselves to paying a bitter price for bringing home the soldier captured, at age 19, more than five years ago. Still, it should come as no surprise in the months ahead if an Israeli government forced into what it will see as a humiliating agreement seeks to restore its self-image of resolute toughness by dealing harshly with future challenges. And the fact that Netanyahu’s climb-down on Shalit has been accompanied by the announcement of new settlement construction on occupied land underscores the sense that Israel ‘s hawkish government has no intention of making the compromises necessary to bring President Mahmoud Abbas back to the table. Abbas, after all, holds no Israeli captives, and may not have much else Netanyahu believes he needs right now.
Indeed, the Shalit agreement has been something of a setback for Abbas. Hamas’ achievement in freeing some of the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prison is a more tangible gain, in Palestinian eyes, than the hypothetical statehood amid continued occupation being pursued by Abbas at United Nations. Palestinian society doesn’t regard these men and women as criminals, but rather fighters in the national cause — a peace agreement with the Palestinians would ultimately require the release of all Palestinians who remain in Israeli custody, even if convicted of acts of terrorism.
(PHOTOS: The Five-Year Ordeal of Gilad Shalit)
But no such painful moment of reckoning is in the offing, of course, because neither side harbors any hope of negotiating an end to the conflict any time soon. The recent speeches at the United Nations by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu underscored the vast gulf between the two sides, and only the most Pollyanna-ish of Western diplomats expect anything significant to come from the current effort by the U.S. and its “Quartet” allies to restart direct talks as an alternative to Abbas’ U.N. effort. Abbas has made clear that even if he agrees to meet Israeli leaders, he won’t drop the U.N. bid — which, after all, is what forced the Obama Administration to address the issue with greater urgency.
But the Shalit deal upstages Abbas, giving Hamas a victory that will be celebrated by all Palestinians (the prisoners being released come from all factions), and serving up a reminder that the group cannot be ignored or sidelined in any successful peace effort.
Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy explains:
“Given the numbers that have passed through Israeli jails over the years, the prisoner issue speaks to just about every Palestinian family. The contrast was rather stark: Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas was in South America being rebuffed by the Colombians in his appeal for support on the doomed-to-fail U.N. membership bid ( Colombia is currently on the Security Council), while Hamas was securing concrete achievements back home. Again, the timing here was crucial — Abbas had just received a boost to his popularity by defying Israel and the U.S. in making an emotional appeal to the U.N. That would anyway be difficult to sustain if the U.N. move could not be morphed into something meaningful, but now it will be further downsized as a gesture in comparison to the pictures of hundreds of prisoners embracing their freedom.”
Hamas’ ability to impose its terms for freeing Shalit also contrasts sharply with Abbas’ years of ineffectual negotiation. But while the Israelis were willing to make a pragmatic accommodation with Hamas to secure their soldier’s release, neither side will see it as a first step towards political engagement. If the Israeli government has been unable to come to terms with the more pliant Abbas, there’s no question of being able to do so with Hamas. And Hamas would likely prefer to seek pragmatic agreements on specific issues, such as prisoners, ceasefires and the Gaza blockade, boosting their own standing without having to own any of the compromises that a comprehensive peace agreement would require.
(PHOTOS: Hundreds of Palestinians Freed in Prisoner Swap)
Hamas, in fact, has shown little interest in pursuing a “grand bargain” peace agreement with the Israelis of the sort envisaged under the Oslo Agreements. And in that respect, at least, the Israelis may concur, having made no secret of their belief that a comprehensive political settlement to the conflict is not currently possible.
The Shalit deal could raise pressure on Abbas from his rank and file for progress in the stalled rapprochement with Hamas. The fact that the Israelis were forced to deal with the group in a pragmatic manner might give Abbas some cover against Israel’s refusal to deal with him if he proceeds with the unity agreement — after all, Abbas might argue, it makes no sense for Israel to acknowledge reality in its own dealings with Hamas but insist that Abbas refrain from doing so.
But regardless of whether or not he reconciles with Hamas, the Israelis are not showing any inclination to accepting Abbas’ terms for talks. Indeed, the lesson Abbas might draw is that Hamas succeeded on the prisoner deal because of the leverage it brought to the table by holding Shalit. Not that Fatah would now try to match Hamas by undertaking kidnappings of its own, but the prisoner release could reinforce efforts from within Abbas’ camp to raise Israel ‘s discomfort level with the status quo through protest action and pressing for global economic sanctions.
It’s quite possible, of course, that either Hamas or rival movements seek to repeat the Shalit experience at some point in order to free more prisoners. Should that happen, it’s also likely that the lesson taken by Israeli leaders from the Shalit experience translate into an early, high-risk military operation to free any future captives.
Even with no more kidnappings, however, the prisoner exchange is a reminder that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza remains fraught with peril, with the peace process moribund and Israelis and Palestinians only just beginning a new diplomatic, political and economic battle over the terms of their coexistence. The Gilad Shalit deal may, in fact, prove to be a first milestone of the post-peace process.
2. Haaretz,
Monday, October 17, 2011
The link between Shalit’s release and Iran ‘s bomb
The Shalit deal is meant to demonstrate that Netanyahu is a wise, fatherly leader with an aura of greatness.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-link-between-shalit-s-release-and-iran-s-bomb-1.390350
By Sefi Rachlevsky
For a determined leadership, a deal to free a kidnapped Israeli is like a candy bar waiting on the shelf. In contrast to peace and most other issues, the timing of such a deal depends entirely on Israel ‘s leadership, and public enthusiasm is guaranteed. One word – yes – and the deal is done. It’s no accident that the deal for the return of abducted businessman Elhanan Tennenbaum was orchestrated to take place on the day David Appel was indicted for bribery – a development that was supposed to have been followed by charges against then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
The Gilad Shalit deal can’t be viewed in isolation. The timing stemmed from three factors. One is the summer’s social protest. Regrettably, however, that wasn’t a major motive; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is far from viewing the protest as a threat – after all, his numbers in public opinion polls are still good.
A more significant reason is the damage the deal does to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and to the chances of a peace agreement and a withdrawal from the territories. The deal strengthens Hamas and weakens Abbas, thus reducing the diplomatic prospects. And for Netanyahu, that’s a worthy end.
Yet even this isn’t the most important point. In Netanyahu’s view, the PA president has already been thwarted in the United States by AIPAC, evangelical Christians and Congress, which, together, strong-armed U.S. President Barack Obama. Thus, it seems the real story is an attack on Iran .
Anyone who has held an in-depth discussion with the decision-making duo – Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak – could conclude that the timing of the Shalit deal is the prologue to such an attack. The operational reason – that the response to the attack will also come from Gaza , so it’s preferable that Shalit not be there – is marginal. The real issue is legitimacy.
Even an extremist leadership needs legitimacy to endanger tens of thousands of its citizens. A principal source of such legitimacy is if the adventure enjoys sweeping support from the heads of the security services, as the Shalit deal did.
But there’s one problem: No such support exists; quite the contrary. Even though Barak waged a campaign of persuasion via personal conversations, dozens of generals – past and present leaders of the defense establishment at the level of chief of staff or head of command – vehemently oppose an attack right now. Only one junior officer, Netanyahu’s military secretary, doesn’t really object.
The reason is simple: According to even the most optimistic assessments, a successful attack will delay Iran ‘s nuclear program by two years at most. But an attack will greatly strengthen the messianic wing of Tehran ‘s leadership – headed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is currently on his way out – and increase Iran ‘s determination to embark on an open race for a nuclear bomb.
Thus, an Israeli assault would merely shorten the time until an Iranian bomb was produced. Moreover, Iran ‘s motivation to use such a bomb would increase, while Western support for the nuclear deterrent that protects Israel would be undermined.
The second possible source of legitimacy is the conviction, among both Israeli citizens and the West, that Israel ‘s leadership has done everything it can to obtain an agreement that would stabilize the Middle East . An agreement would dramatically reduce the motivation for extremism in the region. An agreement, or even a sincere desire for one, would also lead the West to give Israel strategic support. Such support is essential to move to an open nuclear deterrent, obtain a NATO umbrella and curtail the salvos of thousands of missiles that would follow an Israeli assault – salvos that are liable to last for months, perhaps even years, according to individuals such as former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy.
However, the opposite is true: Israel is viewed as more extremist and more isolated than ever before.
Hence, all that remains is an attempt to create the kind of quasi-mystical legitimacy that characterizes undemocratic regimes. The Shalit deal is meant to demonstrate that Netanyahu is a wise, fatherly leader with an aura of greatness. When it’s necessary, he will worry about a single soldier, and when it’s necessary to endanger tens of thousands of people, he will do so responsibly. This accurately describes the mood of the twosome in the headlines.
Each and every opponent of an attack within the defense establishment must therefore make it clear to the duo that they can’t behave like this. It is not possible to endanger an entire nation for years via an underhanded, opportunistic maneuver – not in the dead of night; not by hastily convincing a few elderly rabbis; not in defiance of the entire defense establishment; not in defiance of all the past and present heads of the Israel Defense Forces, the Mossad, the Shin Bet security service, Military Intelligence and the Atomic Energy Commission; not in defiance of the United States; not when Ahmadinejad and his gang of messianists are growing weaker; not when there are signs of American measures in the wake of Iran’s attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s impending severe report; not when the clouds are about to burst. Just plain no.
There are things that even a duo, the one half of which is brave and talented, can’t do on its own. They have no mandate. Not now. Not like this.
3. Simon Tisdall’s world briefing
Previous | Index
A week or two or so ago i read an email from someone that Israel had a few week window of opportunity to attack Iran . I don’t remember where i read it or the details, one factor was weather, but i forget the others. And then there was the “red flag” false rumor about Iran being responsible for the assassination or attempted assassination of the Saudi diplomat (sorry for displaying my terrible memory here) -the point is that i tucked those disturbing stories into the back of my worry pile. And then i read this. If this is true – any way to mobilize against such stupidity to stop it? I’ve heard of shooting ones self in the foot – but this would be more like shooting ourselves in the stomach or head. Actually – i’ would feel it most in my heart.
Or perhaps this is all foolish rumor . . . Or sanity will prevail at the highest levels without intervention. . . . Sorry if i’m passing along something that is not true. Sorrier if it is true ,however. . .
thanks, pat
Sources: US Gives Israel Green Light For Iran StrikeFabricated terror plot provides pretext for intervention following Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visitPaul Joseph Watson The Obama administration’s fabricated terror plot blamed on Iran represents the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran set to take place within the next two weeks, according to confidential military sources who spoke with Alex Jones.
|
http://activistpost.net/survive-chaos.html
|
|
|
“In recent weeks, intense discussions have taken place in Israeli military and intelligence circles about whether or not to launch a military strike against Iran ’s nuclear facilities. Apparently, the key question in the debate was how to ensure that the United States took part in the attack or, at the very least, intervened on Israel’s side if the initial strike triggered a wider war,” writes Patrick Seale of Gulf News.That intervention has now been mandated by the announcement of the fabricated terror plot, which was actually concocted last month but only made public now. While U.S. intelligence officials prepare to release claims about a “chain” of plots that will be blamed on Iran, Time Magazine reports that the Obama administration is preparing to use the accusations to take action beyond mere isolation tactics. “If the Administration fails to win support for a significant escalation of sanctions or other forms of punishment for the Tehran regime after presenting evidence of the latest allegations of Iranian malfeasance, the ball will land back in Obama’s court,”writes Tony Karon. “Having made the case that Iran has crossed a red line, he will be under growing pressure to act — or risk entering a highly polarized election season haunted by a “soft on Iran ” charge.” With neo-cons rushing to support aggressive measures against Iran , Obama will now be given right cover to pursue yet another act of regime change. As wepostulated back in February last year, Obama is being blackmailed into supporting an attack on Iran as the only way to save his presidency. We also speculated that an assassination attempt would be used as the pretext to implicate Iran . Geopolitical experts have been consistent in their warnings that Israel was preparing to strike Iran this fall. Back in July, 21-year CIA veteran Robert Baer told KPFK Los Angeles that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning an attack on Iran in September to coincide with the Palestine bid for UN membership. Speaking with the Alex Jones Show today, former State Department official Steve Pieczenik, who has numerous inside intelligence sources having worked in several sensitive positions during the course of his career, also indicated that the terror plot was completely fabricated and that it would be used a pretext to justify a military strike against Iran. Pieczenik also pointed out that Israel had recently taken delivery of a large amount of bunker buster missiles. As we have documented, the alleged assassination plot against Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, which is now being cited by everyone from John Kerry to John McCain as a justification for a potential military strike, is a complete fantasy. Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer has revealed that an FBI insider with a high security clearance told him no records whatsoever detailing the plot existed within DOJ channels, clearly indicating the whole episode was manufactured. It has also now emerged that the alleged “mastermind” behind the plot was a drunk pothead who liked to frequent with prostitutes and was described by those who know him as a “joke”. Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. ————————-http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/sources-us-gives-israel-green-light-for.htmll==================== |
4. Illusionary peace negotiations can only lead to a hallucinated peace
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/769
Sam Bahour
The world seems to be in deep, collective amnesia. We have been here before—at a point where half-baked initiatives and distorted negotiations based on the power imbalance on the ground and non-compliant with international law were touted as “the right formula” and “the way forward”. It’s wake-up time.
Palestinians do not forget so easily. The deep wounds they carry, of dispossession since the violent creation of Israel in 1948, military occupation since 1967 and non-stop institutional discrimination against Palestinians inside Israel , have never had a chance to heal. Yet Palestinians cling to international law as the way out of their conflict with Israel . I often wonder if one-tenth of what has happened, and continues to happen, to Palestinians were to befall the citizens of London, New York, or Melbourne, would those communities, six decades later, still be begging the international community to uphold the body of law that was designed to keep the peace, or would they choose outright violence to free themselves from foreign military domination? Evidently Palestinians are either extremely bad fighters or they have opted for extreme restraint in the face of insurmountable odds. I think it is a mix of both.
The facts on the ground are bitter, very bitter. To end the perpetual turmoil and enable permanent stability and normalcy in the region, an unambiguous frame of reference for negotiations must be acknowledged and adopted before the first word is spoken at the table. This is not rocket science, although some would like us to believe it is.
Consider some examples: when you visit your local department store, the retailer does not unconditionally sell you a product. Both of you agree to terms of purchase, including, for example, your ability to get a refund. If this transaction goes bad for any reason, civil law is your recourse. Likewise, when someone robs a bank and is apprehended, the judicial process does not call the parties to the courtroom for an unconditional, coffee-shop-like chat to solve their grievances. Exactly the opposite: lawyers make a living by maintaining careful positioning of their case within criminal law and precedents, providing the judge and jury with a baseline legal frame of reference to judge the case. Anyone who has ever sat on a jury knows exactly what I refer to; some things spoken in the courtroom are admissible and some are not. The relevant lesson here is that, whether buying a pair of pants or holding a thief accountable, we all need and accept documented reference points so that we can all coexist in this world.
Consider the sad fact that, for the 20 years since the Madrid talks, Palestinians have failed to insist on a proper legal frame of reference for facilitating an end to Israel ‘s military occupation. Having belatedly rectified that by requesting UN membership, why are Palestinians now seen as unreasonable in calling for a clear frame of reference (ie, no settlement building) for the negotiation process? The truth is, as a former Palestinian diplomat, Afif Safieh, put it, the Palestinians have been “unreasonably reasonable” and I fear that the international community is now expecting them to stay that way forever.
Launching historic peacemaking negotiations is not the same as asking the Palestinians and Israelis to conduct a dialogue. Dialogue can be variously facilitated, although since the construction of Israel ‘s illegal separation barrier it has been severely hampered. Political negotiations, however, are not “dialogue” and must have a suitable legal foundation. Only the seriously naive or the seriously disingenuous—hoping, perhaps, to discredit the Palestinian side in advance—would promote a resumption of negotiations without a clear and formal frame of reference, especially after the long list of diplomatic failures over the past decades. The only legal framework applicable in this conflict is international law, in all its parts.
Many world leaders unconditionally support a peace process while failing to see that such a process is not, in and of itself, the goal. The goal is a just and sustainable resolution; by focusing on the “process” detached from the framework of applicable international law, they align with the camp still trying to defend the indefensible: dispossession, discrimination and military occupation of another people.
Sixty-four years have served only to change the reference points for borders in a manner cruelly disadvantageous to the Palestinians, so that calls to respect at least the 1949 Armistice line (the 1967 green line) are no longer respected.
Palestinians must expect that remaining on the same path will result in Israel ‘s gobbling up more land while the international community fumbles the quest for a workable initiative. Meanwhile, the entire two-state paradigm is collapsing. Thus, the real question today is not whether negotiations can serve a two-state solution, but rather, whether a two-state solution is still in the equation. If so, then maybe Palestinians should challenge the legality of UN Partition Plan Resolution 181 instead of seeking membership based upon it.