by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The Fatah organization, the dominant factor in the Palestinian Authority (PA), has called to continue the “armed struggle” against Israel.
According to the official Fatah Web site, translated by the Palestinian Media Watch organization, members of Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades announced Wednesday that they are arming themselves for war against Israel by buying guns, instead of food for their kids and by selling their wives’ jewelry.
Fatah’s Web site makes it clear that the Brigades are preparing a “harsh and painful” response to any Israeli attacks on Gaza.
The following is the transcript of the item from Fatah’s Web site:
“With the renewal of the threats emanating from the Zionist military establishment to carry out a new attack on the Gaza Strip... the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades... warned of a harsh and painful response that the occupation state is not expecting. This response was conveyed by one of the heads of the Brigades in the Gaza Strip, Abu Ahed.”
Mr. Ahed also declared that the Brigades’ activity in Gaza should be viewed as a personal endeavor, since many of the Brigades’ jihad fighters purchase weapons rather than food for their children, and many of them have even sold their wives’ gold in order to obtain weapons, since the Hamas forces have confiscated the Brigades’ members’ weapons.”
This presents a dilemma to United States policymakers.
Although U.S. law defines Al Aqsa Brigades as a terror entity, the U.S. now provides military training for the Fatah armed forces - which includes Al Aqsa Brigades.
At the direction of the U.S. government, the Israeli army has stopped pursuing wanted terrorists who are affiliated with the Al Aqsa Brigades.
The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem would not comment, on behalf of the U.S. government, with regard to threats on the Fatah’s Web site about Al Aqsa Brigades’ threats of military action against Israel.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel, Vatican in Holy-Sites Crisis
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Israeli and Vatican delegations, which this week discussed the financial and legal status of Israel’s Christian holy sites, have reached a dead end. According to Vatican sources, relations between the two are on the verge of crisis, and these same sources are also threatening to sever diplomatic ties with Israel.
The Israeli delegation, directed by Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, flew to the Vatican in order to discuss the status of the Vatican’s assets in Israel, and also the Vatican’s demand to receive ownership of the Room of the Last Supper on Jerusalem’s Mount Zion, where, according to Christian tradition, Jesus held the Passover dinner with his 12 disciples before being crucified.
The two committees were unable to reach an agreement on any issue, and decided to postpone their discussions to May 27. A source in the Vatican told the Israeli media that they had been waiting 15 years to reach an agreement with Israel over the status of the holy sites, but that Israeli governments were unable to reach a decision on any matter.
Mr. Ayalon told Ma’ariv that he’d rather not refer to the matter as a crisis, and added that the delegations had decided to part cordially and refrain from speaking of a crisis. “There was no breakthrough, and we therefore agreed to end the meeting with the phrase ‘we have agreed not to agree.’” But the deputy minister also added that “Israeli and Vatican delegations reached an impasse.”
Mr. Ayalon evinced to the Vatican that Israel would not forfeit its sovereignty and possessions in Mount Zion, where the Room of the Last Supper is located - one of the key issues of contention between the two delegations. The Vatican seeks to be the only body to operate the site and to conduct prayers taking place there, whereas Israel opposes this request seeing that according to Jewish faith, King David is buried under the hall.
Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai opposes granting the Vatican exclusive rights to the hall, and also other officials, among them rabbis and organizations dealing with activities in the Jewish Quarter, have asked that the asset remain in Israeli hands.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Israeli and Vatican delegations, which this week discussed the financial and legal status of Israel’s Christian holy sites, have reached a dead end. According to Vatican sources, relations between the two are on the verge of crisis, and these same sources are also threatening to sever diplomatic ties with Israel.
The Israeli delegation, directed by Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, flew to the Vatican in order to discuss the status of the Vatican’s assets in Israel, and also the Vatican’s demand to receive ownership of the Room of the Last Supper on Jerusalem’s Mount Zion, where, according to Christian tradition, Jesus held the Passover dinner with his 12 disciples before being crucified.
The two committees were unable to reach an agreement on any issue, and decided to postpone their discussions to May 27. A source in the Vatican told the Israeli media that they had been waiting 15 years to reach an agreement with Israel over the status of the holy sites, but that Israeli governments were unable to reach a decision on any matter.
Mr. Ayalon told Ma’ariv that he’d rather not refer to the matter as a crisis, and added that the delegations had decided to part cordially and refrain from speaking of a crisis. “There was no breakthrough, and we therefore agreed to end the meeting with the phrase ‘we have agreed not to agree.’” But the deputy minister also added that “Israeli and Vatican delegations reached an impasse.”
Mr. Ayalon evinced to the Vatican that Israel would not forfeit its sovereignty and possessions in Mount Zion, where the Room of the Last Supper is located - one of the key issues of contention between the two delegations. The Vatican seeks to be the only body to operate the site and to conduct prayers taking place there, whereas Israel opposes this request seeing that according to Jewish faith, King David is buried under the hall.
Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai opposes granting the Vatican exclusive rights to the hall, and also other officials, among them rabbis and organizations dealing with activities in the Jewish Quarter, have asked that the asset remain in Israeli hands.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel, India Intensify Their Military Cooperation
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - This week, India and Israel launched another defense summit.
The two countries convened their military chiefs for a five-day summit to review defense and military cooperation.
Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi represented Israel and was invited by his Indian counterpart, Gen. Deepak Kapoor.
“The visit to India is part of the process of strengthening the ties between Israel and India and the nations’ militaries,” a statement by the Israeli military statement said last Sunday.
Israeli military sources said Mr. Ashkenazi and Mr. Kapoor reviewed strategic relations, assessing the regional situation, including Al Qaida, and discussing experiences with new weapons and techniques. They said the review would help India decide on new weapons procurement programs with Israel.
“This was the first official visit of an Israel Defense Forces chief to India,” the statement said.
Israel has been deemed the leading military supplier of India.
The Indian military has been absorbing airborne early-warning and alert aircraft, air defense systems, aircraft upgrades, unmanned aerial vehicles, missile defense systems and light armament from Israel.
“In the past year, Israel has overtaken Russia as its main defense equipment supplier, and about 30 percent of India’s defense imports come from Israel, and that number is growing,” Indian defense analyst Behram Sahukar told the Jerusalem Post.
India has sought to intensify defense and military relations in wake of the Al Qaida-aligned Mumbai attacks in November 2008, in which six Israelis and Jews were killed.
India has deemed the acquisition of naval reconnaissance and counter-insurgency systems a priority.
“Both India and Israel want to expand their military exercises, especially for the air force,” an Israeli military source confirmed.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - This week, India and Israel launched another defense summit.
The two countries convened their military chiefs for a five-day summit to review defense and military cooperation.
Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi represented Israel and was invited by his Indian counterpart, Gen. Deepak Kapoor.
“The visit to India is part of the process of strengthening the ties between Israel and India and the nations’ militaries,” a statement by the Israeli military statement said last Sunday.
Israeli military sources said Mr. Ashkenazi and Mr. Kapoor reviewed strategic relations, assessing the regional situation, including Al Qaida, and discussing experiences with new weapons and techniques. They said the review would help India decide on new weapons procurement programs with Israel.
“This was the first official visit of an Israel Defense Forces chief to India,” the statement said.
Israel has been deemed the leading military supplier of India.
The Indian military has been absorbing airborne early-warning and alert aircraft, air defense systems, aircraft upgrades, unmanned aerial vehicles, missile defense systems and light armament from Israel.
“In the past year, Israel has overtaken Russia as its main defense equipment supplier, and about 30 percent of India’s defense imports come from Israel, and that number is growing,” Indian defense analyst Behram Sahukar told the Jerusalem Post.
India has sought to intensify defense and military relations in wake of the Al Qaida-aligned Mumbai attacks in November 2008, in which six Israelis and Jews were killed.
India has deemed the acquisition of naval reconnaissance and counter-insurgency systems a priority.
“Both India and Israel want to expand their military exercises, especially for the air force,” an Israeli military source confirmed.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: IDF Says Rocket Fire Down, Hamas Threat Present
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Exactly one year after Israel’s incursion into Gaza, assessments are being made of the results of the operation.
There has been a 90 percent drop in rocket fire at Israel since the end of its military operation in Gaza, according to figures assembled by the Sderot Media Center for Information in the Western Negev and also by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesperson’s bureau.
The figures show that since the last of the soldiers left the Gaza Strip, 282 rockets were fired at Israel, but only a very small number exploded in populated areas.
In February, immediately after the operation, 88 rockets were fired at Israel, in March, 76 rockets were fired, and then the fire dropped significantly.
In June and July, for example, only three rockets were fired at Israel and, in November, 13 rockets.
Since the end of the operation, the IDF attacked 143 targets throughout the Gaza Strip in response to high-trajectory fire. Among the targets were tunnels used for arms smuggling and for smuggling activists. The majority of the attacks took place in February and March, when the rocket fire was greater.
The IDF believes that the quiet in the Gaza Strip in the past year is fragile, since Hamas continues to operate without pause underneath the surface and is renewing its smuggling practices through Philadelphi Road and by sea.
The IDF also continues its preparations for a future threat against the home front. The IDF Home Front Command is preparing to brief the population living at a distance of up to 60 miles from the Gaza Strip for a possible confrontation. The IDF does not rule out the possibility that Hamas has rockets which could reach that population area.
View the original article in the
JERUSALEM - Exactly one year after Israel’s incursion into Gaza, assessments are being made of the results of the operation.
There has been a 90 percent drop in rocket fire at Israel since the end of its military operation in Gaza, according to figures assembled by the Sderot Media Center for Information in the Western Negev and also by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesperson’s bureau.
The figures show that since the last of the soldiers left the Gaza Strip, 282 rockets were fired at Israel, but only a very small number exploded in populated areas.
In February, immediately after the operation, 88 rockets were fired at Israel, in March, 76 rockets were fired, and then the fire dropped significantly.
In June and July, for example, only three rockets were fired at Israel and, in November, 13 rockets.
Since the end of the operation, the IDF attacked 143 targets throughout the Gaza Strip in response to high-trajectory fire. Among the targets were tunnels used for arms smuggling and for smuggling activists. The majority of the attacks took place in February and March, when the rocket fire was greater.
The IDF believes that the quiet in the Gaza Strip in the past year is fragile, since Hamas continues to operate without pause underneath the surface and is renewing its smuggling practices through Philadelphi Road and by sea.
The IDF also continues its preparations for a future threat against the home front. The IDF Home Front Command is preparing to brief the population living at a distance of up to 60 miles from the Gaza Strip for a possible confrontation. The IDF does not rule out the possibility that Hamas has rockets which could reach that population area.
View the original article in the
Friday, December 11, 2009
CANADA CAN JUMP START THE PEACE PROCESS: CAN ASSERT ITS LEADERSHIP IN THE REFUGEE WORKING GROUP
CANADA CAN JUMP START THE PEACE PROCESS: CAN ASSERT ITS LEADERSHIP IN THE REFUGEE WORKING GROUP
by David Bedein
http://tinyurl.com/yz55vqc
Most recently, Israeli President Shimon Peres remarked to the European Union’s Middle East Envoy Miguel Moratinos, that the time has come to revive the dormant Refugee Working Group, comprised of 38 nations, chaired by Canada since the Madrid Middle East peace talks that were held in October, 1991. Indeed, despite the fact that Palestinian refugees and their descendents who dwell in or near United Nations refugee camps represent more than half of the Palestinian population, their fate has been overlooked by Middle East peace negotiations
Adopting the UNHCR model
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, which has serviced the Palestinian refugees for more than for half a century, has countenanced a situation in which the agency operates as an anomaly: UNRWA, founded in 1949 to provide relief to the Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the war of 1948-49, to keep them in refugee camps under the in principle promise of the “right of return” to the villages which no longer exist.
Less than one year later the UN High Commission for Refugees, UNCHR, was founded with the express purpose of protecting the rights of refugees to be rehabilitated in a permanent state of resettlement.
In real terms, this meant that UNRWA was permitted to continue to operate under its own terms with its own definition and not bound by the UNHCR Convention. UNRWA was, and remains, the only international agency devoted to keeping one specific group of refugees in a permanent state of refugee status. Why? The answer can be found on the UNHCR website, “The State of the World’s Refugees, Part 1, The Early Years puts the matter baldly: “Arab States... feared that the non-political character of the work envisioned for the nascent UNHCR was not compatible with the highly politicized nature of the Palestinian question.”
In other words, UNHCR operates on the principle that they help the refugees under their jurisdiction to find solutions so that they might get on with their lives with permanency, while UNWRA operates under the premise that the Palestinian Arab refugees are still refugees even if they acquire a new citizenship,[as many have in Jordan] until such time as they will return to their homes in Israel, from which they or their grandparents and great-great parents fled.
Canada, in the leadership role that it plays in the RWG, could ask the 38 nations that contribute to UNRWA to ask that UNRWA operate according to the principles of UNHCR - to protect the right of refugees to be resettled instead of implementing a policy that perpetuates their suffering, while fostering the illusion of the “right of return”
For a generation, any attempts to provide the refugees with permanent residence elsewhere are blocked by the UN
Indeed, in December 1985, when Israel attempted to move refugees into 1,300 permanent houses built for them near Nablus, a UN resolution was passed demanding that Israel not move refugees, because this would violate their “right of return”.
The time has come for Canada to apply UNHCR principles into the operation of UNRWA, to protect the right of Palestinian refugees to be resettled in permanent conditions, instead of dooming Palestinian refugees to yet another generation of squalor and indignity of life in 59 teeming refugee camps spread in areas ruled by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
View the Original Link at the Winnipeg Jewish Report: CANADA CAN JUMP START THE PEACE PROCESS: CAN ASSERT ITS LEADERSHIP IN THE REFUGEE WORKING GROUP
by David Bedein
http://tinyurl.com/yz55vqc
Most recently, Israeli President Shimon Peres remarked to the European Union’s Middle East Envoy Miguel Moratinos, that the time has come to revive the dormant Refugee Working Group, comprised of 38 nations, chaired by Canada since the Madrid Middle East peace talks that were held in October, 1991. Indeed, despite the fact that Palestinian refugees and their descendents who dwell in or near United Nations refugee camps represent more than half of the Palestinian population, their fate has been overlooked by Middle East peace negotiations
Adopting the UNHCR model
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, which has serviced the Palestinian refugees for more than for half a century, has countenanced a situation in which the agency operates as an anomaly: UNRWA, founded in 1949 to provide relief to the Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the war of 1948-49, to keep them in refugee camps under the in principle promise of the “right of return” to the villages which no longer exist.
Less than one year later the UN High Commission for Refugees, UNCHR, was founded with the express purpose of protecting the rights of refugees to be rehabilitated in a permanent state of resettlement.
In real terms, this meant that UNRWA was permitted to continue to operate under its own terms with its own definition and not bound by the UNHCR Convention. UNRWA was, and remains, the only international agency devoted to keeping one specific group of refugees in a permanent state of refugee status. Why? The answer can be found on the UNHCR website, “The State of the World’s Refugees, Part 1, The Early Years puts the matter baldly: “Arab States... feared that the non-political character of the work envisioned for the nascent UNHCR was not compatible with the highly politicized nature of the Palestinian question.”
In other words, UNHCR operates on the principle that they help the refugees under their jurisdiction to find solutions so that they might get on with their lives with permanency, while UNWRA operates under the premise that the Palestinian Arab refugees are still refugees even if they acquire a new citizenship,[as many have in Jordan] until such time as they will return to their homes in Israel, from which they or their grandparents and great-great parents fled.
Canada, in the leadership role that it plays in the RWG, could ask the 38 nations that contribute to UNRWA to ask that UNRWA operate according to the principles of UNHCR - to protect the right of refugees to be resettled instead of implementing a policy that perpetuates their suffering, while fostering the illusion of the “right of return”
For a generation, any attempts to provide the refugees with permanent residence elsewhere are blocked by the UN
Indeed, in December 1985, when Israel attempted to move refugees into 1,300 permanent houses built for them near Nablus, a UN resolution was passed demanding that Israel not move refugees, because this would violate their “right of return”.
The time has come for Canada to apply UNHCR principles into the operation of UNRWA, to protect the right of Palestinian refugees to be resettled in permanent conditions, instead of dooming Palestinian refugees to yet another generation of squalor and indignity of life in 59 teeming refugee camps spread in areas ruled by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
View the Original Link at the Winnipeg Jewish Report: CANADA CAN JUMP START THE PEACE PROCESS: CAN ASSERT ITS LEADERSHIP IN THE REFUGEE WORKING GROUP
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Justice Dept. Investigation Of Peace Now Is Sought: Unregistered Agent Of Foreign Governments Questioned
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Last week, Attorney Lee Bender, head of the Beth Hillel Wynnewood-based Israel Advocacy Committee, received documentation from Karmel Israel-Nytt, a Norwegian newspaper published in Oslo, Norway with editorial offices in Jerusalem, that the Norwegian government has allocated 1.3 million Kroner, something over $200,000, to "Peace Now," a political organization which conducts surveillance of Israeli Jewish communities in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria, to determine the extent of their growth and expansion.
Norway stands out in its hostility to Israel, as one of the few Western nations to give full recognition and aid to the Hamas regime in Gaza, at a time when the U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia, the entities that form the quartet in the Middle East peace process, have predicated any recognition or negotiation with Hamas that it must first recognize Israel and cease its terror activity.
Peace Now, registered as a legal entity in the U.S. (and not in Israel, even though its projects are carried out in Israel) has received annual grants from the Norwegian government over the past eight years, along with governmental allocations from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Finland and Holland.
On Monday, Mr. Bender dispatched a letter to the Counterespionage Section/Registration Unit of the U.S. Department of Justice to ask why the U.S. government does not demand that Peace Now register as a foreign agent, a procedure required of a political lobby which receives grants from foreign governments.
The fact that Peace Now, which has operated a lobby in Washington, DC, since 1992, has never registered as a foreign agent means that it may be liable to prosecution under federal law.
Mr. Bender's letter received wide publicity on Israeli Internet sites.
On Monday, a Peace Now spokesperson appeared on an Israel radio network and denied any connection to funds received from Norway.
However, following a Tuesday morning seminar at the Israeli Knesset Parliament session at which foreign government funding of Israel-based political groups was documented and discussed, the Peace Now spokesperson appeared on the Israeli TV on Tuesday night and said that Peace Now was proud to receive funds from foreign governments, including Norway. The Peace Now spokesperson said on Israeli TV that Peace Now had received more than 1.1 million dollars from foreign governments.
The U.S. Department of Justice has not yet responded to Mr. Bender’s demand that the federal government require Peace Now to register as a foreign agent of a foreign government.
View the original article at
JERUSALEM - Last week, Attorney Lee Bender, head of the Beth Hillel Wynnewood-based Israel Advocacy Committee, received documentation from Karmel Israel-Nytt, a Norwegian newspaper published in Oslo, Norway with editorial offices in Jerusalem, that the Norwegian government has allocated 1.3 million Kroner, something over $200,000, to "Peace Now," a political organization which conducts surveillance of Israeli Jewish communities in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria, to determine the extent of their growth and expansion.
Norway stands out in its hostility to Israel, as one of the few Western nations to give full recognition and aid to the Hamas regime in Gaza, at a time when the U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia, the entities that form the quartet in the Middle East peace process, have predicated any recognition or negotiation with Hamas that it must first recognize Israel and cease its terror activity.
Peace Now, registered as a legal entity in the U.S. (and not in Israel, even though its projects are carried out in Israel) has received annual grants from the Norwegian government over the past eight years, along with governmental allocations from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Finland and Holland.
On Monday, Mr. Bender dispatched a letter to the Counterespionage Section/Registration Unit of the U.S. Department of Justice to ask why the U.S. government does not demand that Peace Now register as a foreign agent, a procedure required of a political lobby which receives grants from foreign governments.
The fact that Peace Now, which has operated a lobby in Washington, DC, since 1992, has never registered as a foreign agent means that it may be liable to prosecution under federal law.
Mr. Bender's letter received wide publicity on Israeli Internet sites.
On Monday, a Peace Now spokesperson appeared on an Israel radio network and denied any connection to funds received from Norway.
However, following a Tuesday morning seminar at the Israeli Knesset Parliament session at which foreign government funding of Israel-based political groups was documented and discussed, the Peace Now spokesperson appeared on the Israeli TV on Tuesday night and said that Peace Now was proud to receive funds from foreign governments, including Norway. The Peace Now spokesperson said on Israeli TV that Peace Now had received more than 1.1 million dollars from foreign governments.
The U.S. Department of Justice has not yet responded to Mr. Bender’s demand that the federal government require Peace Now to register as a foreign agent of a foreign government.
View the original article at
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Group Sues North Korea over Role in Terror Attack
Jerusalem - An Israeli group has filed suit against North Korea on charges of supporting a major attack against the Jewish state.
Shurat HaDin, an Israeli law center, has filed a suit in a U.S. district court in San Juan, Puerto Rico for the families of the victims of the 1972 attack in Israel. In an attack on Lod Airport, 26 people were killed and 80 others were injured by attackers alleged to have been trained by North Korea. The attack was also attributed to the Japanese Red Army (JRA) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
"This will be the first time North Korea is being held to account in a U.S. court for its support of terrorism over many decades," Shurat HaDin said Tuesday.
Most of the victims in the 1972 shooting were Catholic pilgrims from Puerto Rico who had come to visit the Holy Land for the first time. The court complaint alleged that Pyongyang - North Korea's capital - had trained and financed the three attackers, who used automatic weapons, ammunition and grenades. Two of the three attackers were killed and the third was captured and sentenced to prison in Israel.
"North Korea was behind the attack," Shurat HaDin said. "As the trial will show incontrovertibly, in the months leading up to the massacre, the leaders of the JRA and PFLP met each other and with North Korean officials, who provided funding, intelligence, training, and other material support for the terrorists."
The trial was scheduled to begin on Thursday in the U.S. federal district court in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The plaintiffs have argued that North Korea supported JRA's plan to target Israel as part of its campaign to promote communist revolution.
North Korea, removed from the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors in 2008, has been identified as a leading weapons supplier to Iran and Syria. Israel has asserted that Pyongyang helped build the huge underground network for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Shurat HaDin has filed two other lawsuits against North Korea.
"It is widely known that one of the world's most oppressive regimes, North Korea, is also a consistent supporter of terrorism, including providing weaponry, training bases, and funding for Palestinian terrorist organizations," Shurat HaDin said.
Shurat HaDin, an Israeli law center, has filed a suit in a U.S. district court in San Juan, Puerto Rico for the families of the victims of the 1972 attack in Israel. In an attack on Lod Airport, 26 people were killed and 80 others were injured by attackers alleged to have been trained by North Korea. The attack was also attributed to the Japanese Red Army (JRA) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
"This will be the first time North Korea is being held to account in a U.S. court for its support of terrorism over many decades," Shurat HaDin said Tuesday.
Most of the victims in the 1972 shooting were Catholic pilgrims from Puerto Rico who had come to visit the Holy Land for the first time. The court complaint alleged that Pyongyang - North Korea's capital - had trained and financed the three attackers, who used automatic weapons, ammunition and grenades. Two of the three attackers were killed and the third was captured and sentenced to prison in Israel.
"North Korea was behind the attack," Shurat HaDin said. "As the trial will show incontrovertibly, in the months leading up to the massacre, the leaders of the JRA and PFLP met each other and with North Korean officials, who provided funding, intelligence, training, and other material support for the terrorists."
The trial was scheduled to begin on Thursday in the U.S. federal district court in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The plaintiffs have argued that North Korea supported JRA's plan to target Israel as part of its campaign to promote communist revolution.
North Korea, removed from the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors in 2008, has been identified as a leading weapons supplier to Iran and Syria. Israel has asserted that Pyongyang helped build the huge underground network for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Shurat HaDin has filed two other lawsuits against North Korea.
"It is widely known that one of the world's most oppressive regimes, North Korea, is also a consistent supporter of terrorism, including providing weaponry, training bases, and funding for Palestinian terrorist organizations," Shurat HaDin said.
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel, Turkey Keep their Military Ties
JERUSALEM - Israel and Turkey have managed to retain military cooperation despite rising political tension, a report by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs said.
The report asserted that the Islamist government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has kept their military partnership with Israel despite their political crisis this year. Still, the Center, in a report by a leading U.S. analyst, warned that Israeli-Turkish relations were threatened by Ankara’s strategic alliance with Syria.
“Israel’s military relationship with Turkey, including ongoing joint air force training, military exchanges, and arms sales, appears to be secure for the time being,” the report, titled “The Islamist Transformation in Turkish Politics,” said. “Should bilateral political tensions continue, and as Ankara and Damascus enhance strategic ties, inevitably Israeli-Turkish military-to-military relations will suffer.”
Authored by former U.S. Defense Department analyst David Schenker, the report did not detail current Israeli-Turkish military cooperation. Instead, Mr. Schenker pointed to Turkey’s cancellation of Israel’s participation in the NATO-aligned Anatolian Eagle exercise in October 2009.
In the wake of the cancellation, the Turkish government announced plans to conduct a Turkish military exercise with Syria. The report said Ankara’s decision was expected and reflected the policy of the ruling pro-Islamist Justice and Development Party.
The report said Turkey’s key motive for a military alliance with Israel, launched in 1996, was Ankara’s war with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). By 1999, Turkey had forced Syria to expel PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and later arrested him. Since 2002, Syria and Turkey have signed 46 agreements, including a military training pact.
“Turkey no longer needed Israeli assistance to pressure the Syrian government to change its policy of providing safe-haven to the terrorist Kurdish Worker’s Organization,” the report said.
Mr. Schenker, now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, said Ankara’s embrace of Syria over the last three years reflected the decline of Turkey’s military. He said Mr. Erdogan’s party, which has succeeded in marginalizing the military, has been promoting relations with such countries as Qatar, Sudan and Syria while rejecting pro-Western Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia.
“Today, the Turkish military can do little to impact the policies of the Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party), which promote solidarity with Islamist, anti-Western regimes while dismissing secular, pro-Western Muslim governments,” the report said.
The report said Turkey began weakening its relationship with Israel as early as 2006. This year, however, Ankara sparked a crisis with Israel during its war with Hamas as the Turkish government improved relations with Syria. This included the first Syrian-Turkish military exercise in April.
“Clearly, 2009 was a watershed year for the Turkey-Syria bilateral relationship and a year of setbacks for Israeli-Turkish ties,” the report said. “While the long-term implications of these developments remain to be seen, the current trajectory is not cause for optimism.”
Mr. Schenker said Turkey’s support for Iran and Syria has raised concern within NATO. He said Ankara’s pro-Iranian policy could harm U.S. interests in the Middle East. “Perhaps more worrisome is the prospect that Ankara may, over time, pursue a closer foreign policy alignment with Iran that would undermine U.S. and Israeli regional interests,” the report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The report asserted that the Islamist government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has kept their military partnership with Israel despite their political crisis this year. Still, the Center, in a report by a leading U.S. analyst, warned that Israeli-Turkish relations were threatened by Ankara’s strategic alliance with Syria.
“Israel’s military relationship with Turkey, including ongoing joint air force training, military exchanges, and arms sales, appears to be secure for the time being,” the report, titled “The Islamist Transformation in Turkish Politics,” said. “Should bilateral political tensions continue, and as Ankara and Damascus enhance strategic ties, inevitably Israeli-Turkish military-to-military relations will suffer.”
Authored by former U.S. Defense Department analyst David Schenker, the report did not detail current Israeli-Turkish military cooperation. Instead, Mr. Schenker pointed to Turkey’s cancellation of Israel’s participation in the NATO-aligned Anatolian Eagle exercise in October 2009.
In the wake of the cancellation, the Turkish government announced plans to conduct a Turkish military exercise with Syria. The report said Ankara’s decision was expected and reflected the policy of the ruling pro-Islamist Justice and Development Party.
The report said Turkey’s key motive for a military alliance with Israel, launched in 1996, was Ankara’s war with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). By 1999, Turkey had forced Syria to expel PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and later arrested him. Since 2002, Syria and Turkey have signed 46 agreements, including a military training pact.
“Turkey no longer needed Israeli assistance to pressure the Syrian government to change its policy of providing safe-haven to the terrorist Kurdish Worker’s Organization,” the report said.
Mr. Schenker, now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, said Ankara’s embrace of Syria over the last three years reflected the decline of Turkey’s military. He said Mr. Erdogan’s party, which has succeeded in marginalizing the military, has been promoting relations with such countries as Qatar, Sudan and Syria while rejecting pro-Western Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia.
“Today, the Turkish military can do little to impact the policies of the Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party), which promote solidarity with Islamist, anti-Western regimes while dismissing secular, pro-Western Muslim governments,” the report said.
The report said Turkey began weakening its relationship with Israel as early as 2006. This year, however, Ankara sparked a crisis with Israel during its war with Hamas as the Turkish government improved relations with Syria. This included the first Syrian-Turkish military exercise in April.
“Clearly, 2009 was a watershed year for the Turkey-Syria bilateral relationship and a year of setbacks for Israeli-Turkish ties,” the report said. “While the long-term implications of these developments remain to be seen, the current trajectory is not cause for optimism.”
Mr. Schenker said Turkey’s support for Iran and Syria has raised concern within NATO. He said Ankara’s pro-Iranian policy could harm U.S. interests in the Middle East. “Perhaps more worrisome is the prospect that Ankara may, over time, pursue a closer foreign policy alignment with Iran that would undermine U.S. and Israeli regional interests,” the report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel battles with Iran over Pacific Islands
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Israel does not intend to give up on the Pacific Ocean islands and let them fall into the hands of Iran, as happened with the Solomon Islands. The support of the Solomon Islands, however, was “bought” by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s country for a grant of only $200,000.
Next month, the presidents of three of the island states that are considered strong supporters of Israel - Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, will be coming to Israel for an official visit. They will meet with Israeli President Shimon Peres and, perhaps, also with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and will be paid royal honors.
Israeli officials ascribe great importance to the support of these Pacific islands, mainly because it can be transferred easily from one side to another. A year ago, Iran signed a memorandum with the Solomon Islands stating that it would fund scholarships in the amount of $200,000 for students living there to study medicine in Cuba. The payment was not long in coming: The Solomon Islands voted in the United Nations (U.N.) for adopting the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, which blasted Israel for its counterattack in Gaza last year.
The vote surprised Israel because the Solomon Islands were considered a strong ally.
“This is part of a long-term effort to preserve and nurture relations with countries with which we would like to keep in contact,” explained Michael Ronen, the director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Pacific desk. Mr. Ronen, who also serves as the ambassador to these islands, emphasized that Israel does not intend to offer money, as Iran did. “I will defeat the Iranians on my court by offering humanitarian and medical assistance, which Israel has made sure to give these islands throughout the years, without promising money or making my assistance conditional upon political support, as the Iranians have done,” he said.
The Pacific Ocean region has sixteen countries, including Australia and New Zealand. All the rest are tiny countries. Since size does not matter, the votes of 13 of these countries matter in votes that take place in the U.N. Tiny Micronesia’s vote is equal to that of enormous China.
Israel was among the first of the countries outside the Pacific region to recognize the independence of the island nations in the 1980s and formed diplomatic relations with them. Since then, Israel has worked a great deal in those countries, sending them medical equipment, vaccines, medicines and medical specialists. Thus, for example, an Israeli ear, nose and throat specialist has been in Nauru for the past three weeks at the request of the Nauruan government. Equipment worth $130,000 was sent to Samoa as assistance in coping with the damage from the latest tsunami. Israel also assisted the Solomon Islands, despite its vote in favor of the Goldstone Report, and continued to send it medical equipment in order to help it cope with diabetes, which is widespread there. The result of this ongoing assistance has been that in the U.N. votes, these countries have supported Israel or abstained from voting against it.
However, in recent years, countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba have tried to change this situation by means of money, and Israel is trying to stop this from happening.
“Israel extends its hand to all countries, great and small,” Mr. Ronen said. “In the Pacific region, we have found tiny and far-flung states that know a great deal more about us than we know about them, and that have shown us extraordinary friendship. In the U.N., there is an almost absolute majority against Israel and, therefore, we are making every effort to keep them with us.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Israel does not intend to give up on the Pacific Ocean islands and let them fall into the hands of Iran, as happened with the Solomon Islands. The support of the Solomon Islands, however, was “bought” by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s country for a grant of only $200,000.
Next month, the presidents of three of the island states that are considered strong supporters of Israel - Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, will be coming to Israel for an official visit. They will meet with Israeli President Shimon Peres and, perhaps, also with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and will be paid royal honors.
Israeli officials ascribe great importance to the support of these Pacific islands, mainly because it can be transferred easily from one side to another. A year ago, Iran signed a memorandum with the Solomon Islands stating that it would fund scholarships in the amount of $200,000 for students living there to study medicine in Cuba. The payment was not long in coming: The Solomon Islands voted in the United Nations (U.N.) for adopting the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, which blasted Israel for its counterattack in Gaza last year.
The vote surprised Israel because the Solomon Islands were considered a strong ally.
“This is part of a long-term effort to preserve and nurture relations with countries with which we would like to keep in contact,” explained Michael Ronen, the director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Pacific desk. Mr. Ronen, who also serves as the ambassador to these islands, emphasized that Israel does not intend to offer money, as Iran did. “I will defeat the Iranians on my court by offering humanitarian and medical assistance, which Israel has made sure to give these islands throughout the years, without promising money or making my assistance conditional upon political support, as the Iranians have done,” he said.
The Pacific Ocean region has sixteen countries, including Australia and New Zealand. All the rest are tiny countries. Since size does not matter, the votes of 13 of these countries matter in votes that take place in the U.N. Tiny Micronesia’s vote is equal to that of enormous China.
Israel was among the first of the countries outside the Pacific region to recognize the independence of the island nations in the 1980s and formed diplomatic relations with them. Since then, Israel has worked a great deal in those countries, sending them medical equipment, vaccines, medicines and medical specialists. Thus, for example, an Israeli ear, nose and throat specialist has been in Nauru for the past three weeks at the request of the Nauruan government. Equipment worth $130,000 was sent to Samoa as assistance in coping with the damage from the latest tsunami. Israel also assisted the Solomon Islands, despite its vote in favor of the Goldstone Report, and continued to send it medical equipment in order to help it cope with diabetes, which is widespread there. The result of this ongoing assistance has been that in the U.N. votes, these countries have supported Israel or abstained from voting against it.
However, in recent years, countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba have tried to change this situation by means of money, and Israel is trying to stop this from happening.
“Israel extends its hand to all countries, great and small,” Mr. Ronen said. “In the Pacific region, we have found tiny and far-flung states that know a great deal more about us than we know about them, and that have shown us extraordinary friendship. In the U.N., there is an almost absolute majority against Israel and, therefore, we are making every effort to keep them with us.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Hamas, Hezbollah Continue Partnership
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Hamas terror organization representatives in Lebanon, led by Osama Hamdan, Hamas's bureau director in Beirut, met Wednesday with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.
Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashaal has recently revealed that his organization had consulted several times with Hezbollah's leadership.
This meeting carries new significance, since Hezbollah, this week, assumed the role of a full coalition partner in the Lebanese government.
As part of the official coalition agreement, Hezbollah inserted a clause to renew the official state of war that exists between Lebanon and Israel since 1948.
Unlike Jordan and Egypt, which have signed official peace treaties with Israel to end the state of war that had existed since 1948, Lebanon has only signed armistice agreements since the 1948 war. The new government in Lebanon, at the urging of Hezbollah, issued a statement on Thursday that, “The armed struggle with Israel will continue until all conquered land in the hands of Israel is recovered," referring to the entire land mass that composes the current state of Israel.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Hamas terror organization representatives in Lebanon, led by Osama Hamdan, Hamas's bureau director in Beirut, met Wednesday with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.
Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashaal has recently revealed that his organization had consulted several times with Hezbollah's leadership.
This meeting carries new significance, since Hezbollah, this week, assumed the role of a full coalition partner in the Lebanese government.
As part of the official coalition agreement, Hezbollah inserted a clause to renew the official state of war that exists between Lebanon and Israel since 1948.
Unlike Jordan and Egypt, which have signed official peace treaties with Israel to end the state of war that had existed since 1948, Lebanon has only signed armistice agreements since the 1948 war. The new government in Lebanon, at the urging of Hezbollah, issued a statement on Thursday that, “The armed struggle with Israel will continue until all conquered land in the hands of Israel is recovered," referring to the entire land mass that composes the current state of Israel.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Lieberman, Berman Fail To Press Fayyad
Lieberman, Berman Fail To Press Fayyad
Monday, December 07, 2009
Jerusalem - At a recent press conference in Ramallah, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz described how “two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel,” Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., former Democratic vice presidential candidate, and current Representative Howard Berman, D-Ca., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “nodded their encouragement” when Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. Mr. Fayyad outlined a Palestinian state in formation regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions, conveying the notion that all is well with Palestinian statehood plans.
Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked might have centered around these issues:
Renunciation Of PLO State Of War With Israel
The charter of Fatah, the predominant element in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the PA, to this day, continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.
Cessation Of Incitement From PA Textbooks
The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts:
• Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.
• Fail to recognize the State of Israel.
• Demonize Jews and Israel.
• Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.
• Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.
It is disingenuous for Mr. Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Mr. Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?
Cessation Of PA Pursuit Of Hamas As A Partner
The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an “elephant in the room” that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the U.S. and the European Union as a terrorist entity. Yet, in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a “unity government,” negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord, which saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but, in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?
Renunciation Of The “Right Of Return”
The “right of return,” promoted for 60 years by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Mr. Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees all refugees except Palestinians, operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but, instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a rage-inducing state of limbo. Mr. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the “right of return.” Isn’t it time to ask for Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman to ask Mr. Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?
David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us
Monday, December 07, 2009
Jerusalem - At a recent press conference in Ramallah, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz described how “two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel,” Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., former Democratic vice presidential candidate, and current Representative Howard Berman, D-Ca., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “nodded their encouragement” when Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. Mr. Fayyad outlined a Palestinian state in formation regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions, conveying the notion that all is well with Palestinian statehood plans.
Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked might have centered around these issues:
Renunciation Of PLO State Of War With Israel
The charter of Fatah, the predominant element in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the PA, to this day, continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.
Cessation Of Incitement From PA Textbooks
The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts:
• Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.
• Fail to recognize the State of Israel.
• Demonize Jews and Israel.
• Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.
• Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.
It is disingenuous for Mr. Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Mr. Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?
Cessation Of PA Pursuit Of Hamas As A Partner
The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an “elephant in the room” that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the U.S. and the European Union as a terrorist entity. Yet, in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a “unity government,” negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord, which saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but, in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?
Renunciation Of The “Right Of Return”
The “right of return,” promoted for 60 years by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Mr. Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees all refugees except Palestinians, operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but, instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a rage-inducing state of limbo. Mr. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the “right of return.” Isn’t it time to ask for Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman to ask Mr. Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?
David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us
Friday, December 4, 2009
Palestinians Uncompromising on Right of Return
As originally published in the Winnipeg Jewish Report
By Rhonda Spivak
BETHLEHEM- Although many Palestinians in the West Bank say they are interested in "peace," the vast majority of those encountered on a recent visit to the area, insisted that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to homes and villages they left during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
Osama Alhrithi, a fourth-year law student at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, said that even if Israel withdrew to the Green Line[ Israel's pre-1967 borders] and all Jewish settlements over the Green Line were dismantled, any Palestinian refugee who wants to return to his home that he left in 1948 should be able to come back."There are a lot of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, and if they want to come back, that is their holy right," he said.
Rami Sleimyyeh, a Muslim who works as a liaison officer for the Palestinian Authority in Hebron, nodded in agreement with Althrithi. Alhrithi's view that Israel, rather than a future Palestinian state, ought to be obliged to take in waves of Palestinian refugees was typical even among those who said they supported Fatah, not Hamas. It was also the predominant view among those people whom The Winnipeg Jewish Report encountered at a conference devoted to promoting dialogue and peace, held in Beit Jalla, near Bethlehem, put on by the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information this past summer.
Ra'id Abdalla Otair, director of the Palestinian Authority's ministry of health in Tulkarem, said: "All refugees in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere should be asked to come back to their land in Israel, in Haifa, and Jaffa and Akko."
Otair, who is also the representative for the NGO, Future Vision, dismissed the possibility that Palestinian refugees would receive some form of financial compensation and return only to a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. "People in Tulkarem like [to have] all Palestine," he said.
Badia Dweik, from Hebron who also attended the conference, said he became disenchanted with Fatah after former PA president Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo accords, because, among other things, it didn't deal with the refugee issue.
"The two-state solution is a big lie. Most of my friends are pushing for a one-state solution [where Jews would be a minority in a Palestinian majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River]. When there is 'one state', the Palestinian refugees can live wherever they want. Maybe the refugee can come back to the same house he left if it is still there. Maybe a refugee from Lebanon can come back to Haifa, and even if his house has been demolished, he can still live in that area."
Sumayah Soboh, a Muslim sociologist from Bethlehem, who also advocates a one-state solution, said: "Any Palestinian refugees who want can return to their land. Maybe the one state could be called 'Jew Palestina.' I am angry with Fatah for saying there could be two states. There shouldn't be a Jewish state, but just one state, one leader, one God, one people."
Soboh's sister, Mary, an occupational therapist, and her mother, Jamileh, a speech therapist, both agreed with her.
Firas Arafat, a pharmacist from Hebron, said that only if Israel returned to the pre-67 borders and dismantled all of settlements would he agree to forgo the right of return."I know [former U.S. president] Jimmy Carter just came to the Gush Etzion Jewish settlement [in June 2009] and told the Jews there that they would remain part of Israel in the future. I respect Jimmy Carter, but I don't agree. Israel must get out of every Jewish settlement in the West Bank," he said.
Mari Sadi, a Christian Palestinian artist from Bethlehem, said "We hope that all of the refugees will be able to come back. I have many relatives in Jordan and the U.S. and a lot of different lands. They are from Nazareth and Haifa and Jaffa, and they should be able to come back. They will want to come back."
Inam Mitwassi and Laila Nazzal, Christian Palestinian artisans in Bethlehem, agreed with Sadi that Israel should go back to the '67 line and Palestinian refugees should be able to return to the pre-67 Israel. Lorette Zoughbi, who runs a small patisserie in Bethlehem, said she accepted the two-state solution. "If we ask for everything, all we'll get is nothing." But then she added, "My grandfather had a house in Katamon and in Jaffa. I still have the keys. We' ll never give up our land."
Only a small number of Palestinians encountered, appeared willing to make concessions regarding the issue of Palestinian refugees. Fatima, a Muslim Palestinian said she believed "there should be a "Palestine and Israel," and she added, "We must finish this conflict. To end it, refugees should return only to the Palestinian state."
When contacted to discuss these findings, Guy Lupo, the chairperson of the dovish organization, One Voice, in Be-ersheba said that polls done by his organization have shown that "most Palestinians want recognition of their right of return, but most will not actually use the right of return."
He added that the maximum figure for the number of refugees and their descendents spead out everywhere in the world is 11 million. If one percent returned, "then we'd be talking about 100,000 people. Israelis fear that it could be 10% [ of Palestinian refugees]that return, which would be 1 million people. This issue is not something that can be solved tommorrow. But we think that there is a way to market the issue to the Palestinian people in the context of an overall agreeement. Some Palestinians will be willing to give up recognition of the right of return. Others will be satisfied with recognition only, others will agree to compensation in lieu of returning, and about 100,000 people could be allowed to return on the basis of the principle of family unification."
Rhonda Spivak is an attorney and writer. She is a member of the Canadian & Israel Bar Associations, and now edits the Winnipeg Jewish Report
By Rhonda Spivak
BETHLEHEM- Although many Palestinians in the West Bank say they are interested in "peace," the vast majority of those encountered on a recent visit to the area, insisted that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to homes and villages they left during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
Osama Alhrithi, a fourth-year law student at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, said that even if Israel withdrew to the Green Line[ Israel's pre-1967 borders] and all Jewish settlements over the Green Line were dismantled, any Palestinian refugee who wants to return to his home that he left in 1948 should be able to come back."There are a lot of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, and if they want to come back, that is their holy right," he said.
Rami Sleimyyeh, a Muslim who works as a liaison officer for the Palestinian Authority in Hebron, nodded in agreement with Althrithi. Alhrithi's view that Israel, rather than a future Palestinian state, ought to be obliged to take in waves of Palestinian refugees was typical even among those who said they supported Fatah, not Hamas. It was also the predominant view among those people whom The Winnipeg Jewish Report encountered at a conference devoted to promoting dialogue and peace, held in Beit Jalla, near Bethlehem, put on by the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information this past summer.
Ra'id Abdalla Otair, director of the Palestinian Authority's ministry of health in Tulkarem, said: "All refugees in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere should be asked to come back to their land in Israel, in Haifa, and Jaffa and Akko."
Otair, who is also the representative for the NGO, Future Vision, dismissed the possibility that Palestinian refugees would receive some form of financial compensation and return only to a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. "People in Tulkarem like [to have] all Palestine," he said.
Badia Dweik, from Hebron who also attended the conference, said he became disenchanted with Fatah after former PA president Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo accords, because, among other things, it didn't deal with the refugee issue.
"The two-state solution is a big lie. Most of my friends are pushing for a one-state solution [where Jews would be a minority in a Palestinian majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River]. When there is 'one state', the Palestinian refugees can live wherever they want. Maybe the refugee can come back to the same house he left if it is still there. Maybe a refugee from Lebanon can come back to Haifa, and even if his house has been demolished, he can still live in that area."
Sumayah Soboh, a Muslim sociologist from Bethlehem, who also advocates a one-state solution, said: "Any Palestinian refugees who want can return to their land. Maybe the one state could be called 'Jew Palestina.' I am angry with Fatah for saying there could be two states. There shouldn't be a Jewish state, but just one state, one leader, one God, one people."
Soboh's sister, Mary, an occupational therapist, and her mother, Jamileh, a speech therapist, both agreed with her.
Firas Arafat, a pharmacist from Hebron, said that only if Israel returned to the pre-67 borders and dismantled all of settlements would he agree to forgo the right of return."I know [former U.S. president] Jimmy Carter just came to the Gush Etzion Jewish settlement [in June 2009] and told the Jews there that they would remain part of Israel in the future. I respect Jimmy Carter, but I don't agree. Israel must get out of every Jewish settlement in the West Bank," he said.
Mari Sadi, a Christian Palestinian artist from Bethlehem, said "We hope that all of the refugees will be able to come back. I have many relatives in Jordan and the U.S. and a lot of different lands. They are from Nazareth and Haifa and Jaffa, and they should be able to come back. They will want to come back."
Inam Mitwassi and Laila Nazzal, Christian Palestinian artisans in Bethlehem, agreed with Sadi that Israel should go back to the '67 line and Palestinian refugees should be able to return to the pre-67 Israel. Lorette Zoughbi, who runs a small patisserie in Bethlehem, said she accepted the two-state solution. "If we ask for everything, all we'll get is nothing." But then she added, "My grandfather had a house in Katamon and in Jaffa. I still have the keys. We' ll never give up our land."
Only a small number of Palestinians encountered, appeared willing to make concessions regarding the issue of Palestinian refugees. Fatima, a Muslim Palestinian said she believed "there should be a "Palestine and Israel," and she added, "We must finish this conflict. To end it, refugees should return only to the Palestinian state."
When contacted to discuss these findings, Guy Lupo, the chairperson of the dovish organization, One Voice, in Be-ersheba said that polls done by his organization have shown that "most Palestinians want recognition of their right of return, but most will not actually use the right of return."
He added that the maximum figure for the number of refugees and their descendents spead out everywhere in the world is 11 million. If one percent returned, "then we'd be talking about 100,000 people. Israelis fear that it could be 10% [ of Palestinian refugees]that return, which would be 1 million people. This issue is not something that can be solved tommorrow. But we think that there is a way to market the issue to the Palestinian people in the context of an overall agreeement. Some Palestinians will be willing to give up recognition of the right of return. Others will be satisfied with recognition only, others will agree to compensation in lieu of returning, and about 100,000 people could be allowed to return on the basis of the principle of family unification."
Rhonda Spivak is an attorney and writer. She is a member of the Canadian & Israel Bar Associations, and now edits the Winnipeg Jewish Report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
