"Al Nakba"--The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948

The Palestinian Exile, also known as Al Nakba (Arabic for "The Catastrophe"), refers to the ethnic cleansing of native Palestinian peoples ... all » during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

From December 1947 until November 1948, Zionist forces (namely the Irgun, Lehi, Haganah terrorist gangs) expelled approximately 750, 000 indigenous Palestinians--almost 2/3 of the population--from their homes.

Hundreds of Palestinians were also murdered for refusing to leave their homes. The most notable massacre is the Deir Yassin Massacre, in which an estimated 120 Palestinian civilians were brutally murdered by an Irgun-Lehi force. Other massacres include the ones at Sahila (70-80 killed), Lod (250 killed), and Abu Shusha (70 killed). About 40 other massacres were carried out by Zionist forces in just the summer of 1948.

Not only did Zionist forces conduct massacres of Palestinian civilians, rape occured as well. According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, "In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."

During Al Nakba, Palestinians were murdered, raped, and ethnically cleansed from their villages. According to Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, "In a matter of seven months, 531 villages were destroyed and 11 urban neighborhoods emptied."

Palestinians were forced into were forced out of Palestine and into neighboring countries (i.e. Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan), where they lived in refugee camps. Many were also sent to camps in West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Most Palestinian towns were demolished and taken by the newly established Israeli government to make room for new Jewish immigrants. Old Palestinian infrastructures, as well as many ruins dating back from the Canaanites, Romans, Greeks, Crusaders, Arabs, and Ottoman Turks were completely destroyed. This signified the end of historical Palestine and the birth of modern-day Israel.

Al Nakba marked the beginning of the Palestinian refugee crisis. Al Nakba destroyed a thriving and diverse Palestinian society and scattered them into diaspora. According to the UNRWA, the number of registered Palestinian refugees today is approximately 4.5 million. These refugees are dispersed throughout the world, many of which are still living in poverty-stricken refugee camps. Today, the situation keeps worsening and thousands die from malnutrition, contaminated water, or scarce medical supply.

Israel has since refused to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and has refused to pay them compensation as required by UN Resolution 194, which was passed on December 11, 1948.

Historically, the Israeli government, Israeli schools, and Israeli historians have denied that Al Nakba has occured. However, The New Historians, a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians, have recently published information recognizing the Al Nakba tragedy and controversial views of matters concerning Israel, particularly events concerning its birth in 1948. Much of their material comes from recently declassified Israeli government papers. Leading scholars in this school include Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, and Tom Segev. Many of their conclusions have been attacked by other scholars and Israeli historians, who continue deny Al Nakba even occured.
http://peaceforgaza.blogspot.com/2010/05/al-nakba-palestinian-catastrophe-of.html

Samir Karan – What is Behind “Despotic Tolerance” (also in Arabic)

The definition of despotism or oppression is very simple.

Despotism in the Greek language was equal to one man rule, a Greek citizen – whether he was a simple man or a member of the elite – did not make any differentiation between one man ruling in a magnanimous and open-minded way or not.

Now the word despotism is almost considered as out of use among the common public in the Western world – America and Europe – where they believe that democracy has spread and imposed its rule… and the one-man rule is out of existence in these countries.

But in spite of that we find in Europe and the United Sates, there are some who insist that despotism represents the overwhelming movement in these countries… Some writers demonstrate it with the fact that most people who live in these democracies do not contribute to democracy more than sometimes going to voting boxes to participate in elections. Other writers demonstrate the absence of actual democracy in these democracies by proving that most people – citizens in a more political expression – spend more of their time in playing cards than giving time thinking about state affairs.

Why should we go so far as to call the situation one of despotism? Isn’t it true that hundreds of thousands of citizens in these democracies organize demonstrations during certain crises to express their opposition to their democratic governments’ policies? After a few days or even weeks demonstrations stop – but the policies they demonstrated against and condemned continue to be implemented. How many hundreds of thousands march in American and European cities against waging war on Iraq before a single bullet had been fired, but the war was waged and continued during which all these tragedies were committed… and it was proved that it was not based on any legal basis even the claim of weapons of mass destruction that were never found, as well as the war that is still officially going on up till today’s date. Demonstrations could march here and there, but governments of democracies do not respond to these demonstrations protesting against their policies. On the contrary, they abide to the decisions of the orders of the chiefs of staffs of the armed forces, and those of the NATO. In spite of that, the general opinion is that these democracies execute the will of citizens who go to the ballot boxes.

The group that executed the war on Iraq and played within the press and outside it fell to an extent that made American voters who – the maximum sign of their rejection – go only as far as electing “a black man” for the first time in history for the presidency of the United States of America. George W. Bush who pushed America to wage the war on Iraq, and his successor did not come out of the neo-cons, but in spite of that, the “black man” chosen by the Americans continued with executing orders of the chiefs of staff, and decided on proceeding with the Afghanistan war, and threatens to wage a more fierce war against Iran.

Then when would the citizens of these democracies execute their own will?!

It seems that this opportunity shall never offer itself under the two party political system in existence in theUnited States. And U.S. citizens shall proceed with their ordinary social life and their private personal social affairs… while the governing elite continues with imposing their policies in disregard of the extent the citizens may show opposition to them – including opposition to wars – the expenses of which are born by citizens and not by the political elites.

Thus the difference is not enormous, it’s not even felt between these democracies and despotic regimes found outside the United States and Europe. This is what we see. But the fact is proved when you try to compare internal and external policies, then one would discover that the share of foreign policies is small, it is even almost not available, in comparison with internal policies.

American and European citizens similarly – do not see that the distance between them and the influence on the trend of foreign policy of their country is so great to an extent that they cannot be overpassed, neither through street demonstrations no matter how vast they may be, nor from the side of freedom of thought, however well expressed in the media they may be. Up till now there is no logical explanation or convincing argument for the continuity of the alliance with “Israel”, not even America’s and Europe’s interests with Arabs. There is no logical or convincing explanation for the ability of American rulers, from the extreme right to the current president, Barack Obama, who is accused of leftism and socialism by his political racist foes, to swallow the Zionist entity’s challenges not only against American interests but also against America’s strategies, and the continuation in giving its unlimited support and the means to implement this entity’s security and foreign policy… including its ownership of nuclear weapons arsenal and refusal to sign the treaty to ban them.

Foreign policy became a private privilege for the ruling elite in the ruling democracies… Tomorrow, the British could elect the conservatives (which they already did / the translator), because the Labour policy was not by any means for the labuorer, but what is certain is that the conservative government when it comes shall adopt the Labour government’s position in relation to foreign policy. And the democratic British citizens should know that their country’s participation in the Afghani war and the Zionist entity’s security, strategic and colonization options are not the matters they can alter.

And we are in no better condition in the Arab homeland.

But with one important difference, which is that these Arab despotic regimes that are in power in this homeland and who are keeping it divided are not allowing large mass demonstrations in our cities’ streets to declare their opinions concerning our rulers’ internal and foreign policies.

We in the Arab homeland are in a much worse position, though we, as citizens and masses, have no influence with regard to foreign policies (Arab policies too are similar and equal to international policies) as we, to start with, lack the privilege of having the right to approach and interfere the authority’s decisions related to both foreign and local policies.

The ability of oppression Arab governments have in relation to foreign policies greatly exceeds what Western democracies have in hand, in later years clear double standards prevailed in the policies followed by most Arab governments. Arab thinkers, public policy makers and writers in general can express their opinions with almost unlimited freedom. There is liberty of expression at the time when these Arab governments granted themselves the right of ignoring what is said… especially if what is said contains specific demands. The general rule is now that you can say whatever you want concerning conditions that you reject, and I can “do” what I want concerning conditions both you accept and you reject.

With the exception of when a thinker, writer or journalist is not threatened with imprisonment, arrest or trial as we understand them and is permitted to express himself by the ruling elites. This is while the right of free expression went to the extent to include various forms complaints that were not in the past included through demonstrations and sit ins, while authorities reserved for themselves the right of confronting protests with tear gas bombs, water cannons, overhead firing, taking some of the protesters for private investigations.

The issue of “Despotic Tolerance” – if we permit ourselves to borrow this expression from the American philosopher of German descent, Herbert Marcuse, the thinker whose name was connected with the student revolution of the sixties and seventies of the twentieth century – that was considered by some of the ruling elite a “danger” that threatens the “homeland”… which actually means a danger against the authority. And we have seen how a group of the Egyptian ruling party members had requested the “People’s Council” (The parliament) to fire with live bullets at the demonstrators because “they exceeded the allowed limits…”. From one side they don’t deserve the mercy that security forces show them, and from the other they are “communists”, “mercenaries” and “thieves”, and this demand to open fire at them with the aim of killing them is a splendid opportunity for the ruling elite to provoke their zealot children to prove their tolerance is wide enough for demonstrations, but doesn’t accept those participating in them, but just to disperse them and force them to retreat by force!

In spite of that, ruling regimes consider foreign policies a taboo domain for citizens to cross to… They can complain about the high cost of living, corruption and in general the downfall of health, human and educational services, but it shall always be a taboo to approach the conditions and the melancholies of foreign policies.

It is a taboo for Arab citizens to demonstrate against Zionist threats to wage a war against Syria, Lebanon or Gaza, it is forbidden for them to reach Zionist embassies in Cairo and/or Amman to protest against the Zionist entity’s decision to expel 75,000 Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank (the land of the anticipated Palestinian state) to Gaza (the big prisons of Palestinians in which they live under siege from all sides). They are not allowed to negatively demonstrate against the policies of Arab summit meetings and their effeteness whenever they meet in ordinary or extraordinary meetings, and their everlasting submission to the American/”Israeli” demands.

Arab authorities curbing in relation to Arab foreign policies is more dangerous than that in local affairs.

All Arab governments that concluded peace with the Zionist entities – whether they signed treaties or not yet – are interested in showing that they can pay the price internally. This is what is demanded by America before being demanded by the Zionist entity. They are asked (not to say ordered) to prove that they are able to crush any opposition to peace with “Israel”, and any support to resistance against it. And within the framework of proving this ability, meetings are taking place with the “Israeli” prime minister, his minister of defense or whoever “Israel” wishes to delegate.

How would Barack Obama’s policies in relation to “Israel” and Palestinians become bearable if they are not approved by the rulers of Egypt, Jordan and the “Palestinian Authority”. If Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcomed in Cairo (Sharm EL-Sheikh is better for weather and security wise) whenever he wishes?! Is this not alone proof that the peace process is “passing” without stopping?

We don’t hear about a demonstration against a visit by Netanyahu because this falls within the framework of the outlawed.

Arab citizens in Egypt can demonstrate against the high cost of living, corruption and even against the possibility of president Mubarak to bequest the presidency to his son… but they cannot demonstrate against a visit by Netanyahu, or the steel wall on the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip under siege, or be a supporter of Hezbollah or Hamas in confronting “Israel’s” threats with a devastating war.

This is the despotism of foreign policy during the era of “despotic tolerance” with matters of internal policies..

This could be a reflection of an involuntary perception within the Arab despotic regimes concerning Arab policies are not within the affairs of foreign “policy”…. On the contrary it is an integral part of the internal policy. But the ruling elite categorizes it as foreign to keep it outside the framework of “despotic tolerance”?!

Didn’t we say that matters were simpler during the old days of Greece while defining despotism?
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/05/12/samir-karan-what-is-behind-%e2%80%9cdespotic-tolerance%e2%80%9d-also-in-arabic/

Италия: «Израиль» испытывал на палестинцах новое химическое оружие» (!!..)

Исследования, проведенные видными итальянскими учеными-биохимиками, показали наличие токсичных и канцерогенных веществ в тканях палестинцев, которые получили ранения или были убиты во время военных операций «Израиля» в Секторе Газа в 2006 и 2009 годах.

Выводы сделаны группой специалистов, занимающихся исследованиями новых видов оружия и их поражающим действием. В состав исследовательской группы вошли независимые ученые и врачи.

В образцах тканей раненых и убитых палестинцев были обнаружены следы различных химических веществ, которые способны вызывать злокачественные опухоли, физические уродства и другие серьезные проблемы со здоровьем. Ткани людей содержали следы арсина, ртути, урана, хрома, кадмия и других химических веществ.

«Полученные в нашей лаборатории данные указывают на применение «израильскими» силами в Секторе Газа экспериментальных видов оружия, последствия которого нам еще только предстоит оценить!..».
Профессор Паола Мандук убеждена: «Использованное еврейскими военными в отношении палестинских жителей химическое оружие до сих пор провоцирует опасность заражения тех, кто остался в живых, так как вещества легко распространяются по воздуху».
Выводы итальянских ученых подтверждают подозрения правозащитных организаций, независимых экспертов о том, что "Израиль" использовал последнюю войну в Секторе Газа как полигон для испытания новых видов оружия массового уничтожения. Сионисты стремятся подорвать гендерный фонд палестинской нации для реализации сионистской мечты - уничтожить народ Палестины, чтобы расчистить место для комфортной жизни евреев.
http://www.palestine-info.ru/

Cartoon of the day – Farah Filasteen

http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/05/14/cartoon-of-the-day-farah-filasteen/

В Афганистане прошел марш протеста против сил НАТО

В провинции Нангархар на востоке Афганистана прошла многочисленная акция протеста, сообщает Associated Press. Демонстрация, на которую собрались около 500 человек, была посвящена убийству силами НАТО девяти мирных жителей.

Бомбардировки коалиционных войск, в ходе которой погибли мирные жители, прошла минувшей ночью. Между тем командование силами коалиции говорит не о девяти, а восьми убитых, утверждая, что все они были боевиками. По словам военных, они стреляли по солдатам из гранатометов.

Собравшиеся перегородили дорогу и намеревались двинуться маршем на столицу провинции, Джелалабад, но были остановлены полицией. В ходе столкновения три человека получили ранения.

Недовольство населения Афганистана гибелью мирных жителей при проведении операций против движения "Талибан" является одним из главных факторов, осложняющих действия международной коалиции. По статистике ООН, в 2009 году в Афганистане погибли 2412 мирных жителей, передает lenta.ru.

Президент Афганистана Хамид Карзай неоднократно призывал союзников принять меры для снижения смертности среди мирных жителей. Он заявлял, что подобные происшествия подрывают авторитет как военных, так и самого Карзая. Ультиматумы военнослужащим предъявляли также и старейшины, от поддержки которых во многом зависит сохранение порядка на территориях, очищенных от талибов.
http://www.islamnews.ru/news-24268.html

I Stand by Palestine

In a recent interview which I conducted with the brave Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, he told me that he has never seen a nation to be as strong and powerful as the Palestinian nation.

I admire his statement. He is right in his position to say that the Palestinians are one of the strongest nations of the world. Palestinians are not well-off and sumptuous as the people of northern Europe, their annual GDP does not equate with that of Canada and France, they're not equipped with the state-of-the-art productions of technology, they don't have the capability to send all of their children to school to help them realize their dream of becoming useful and valuable individuals for the society, they don't live in edifices and penthouses and they don't earn $30,000 a year; however, they've achieved such sublime zeniths that takes hundreds of years for the other nations to accomplish.
Over the past 60 years, they've been under the incessant and unrelenting fire of a racist regime which is controlled by the people who don't understand anything of logic and reason. They've paid a high cost to preserve their values and morals against this chauvinistic regime.

Since September 29, 2000, some 6,348 Palestinians have been killed of which 1,441 ones were children; however, no "human rights" organization ringed a single alarm of sympathy with the nation of Palestine, as if that 6,348 killed people were not human beings to be taken into account.

The incarceration of a Middle Eastern journalist or the death of a Latin American activist in prison provokes so many condemnations and expressions of concern from the four corners of the world that one instantaneously comes to believe the truthfulness and honesty of those who bring up the claims of defending the "human rights"; however, it's wonderfully unbelievable that the continuous and unremitting massacre of Palestinian people, who have been under the brutal oppression of Israeli apartheid for more than 60 years, does not incite any condemnation, implicitly being admitted by the silence of "international community".

So; who is this international community? With regards to Iran's nuclear program, it is simply comprised of three countries who are opposed to Iran's development of nuclear energy, excluding 180 other countries who don't seem to be that much concerned about a peaceful country developing energy to meet its electricity needs. With regards to the Palestinian issue, however, the international community seems to have been made of no members!
Since 1967, 24,145 Palestinian homes have been destructed by Israel and, to the international community, this is not considered to be a violation of human rights; Palestinians should construct new homes for themselves, because the expansionistic nature of the Israeli regime is not inclined to be changed!, so, they're the Palestinians who should adapt themselves to the policies of Tel Aviv: Israel destructs, Palestinians get displaced, and the international community watches apathetically.

What about the United Nations Security Council?! Well, it's parading its capability to function as the authorized representative of Israel in the United Nations. 65 UNSC resolutions have been adopted against Israel during the period between 1955 and 1992; none of them have been heard by the Tel Aviv officials, and UNSC didn't take any step to hold the occupying regime accountable. So, why should there exist such a body if its resolutions are so ineffective and useless? Why should the member states continue passing resolutions if they're going to be operationalized discriminatorily?

Why didn't the 5 bigs of UNSC ever object to Israel's disobedience to the Resolution 452 which called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories? Why didn't the permanent members of UNSC ever protest to Tel Aviv's defiance against the Resolution 456 which deplored the ongoing settlements and asked all the member states not to assist Israel's settlement program?

Why didn't Israel's violation of Fourth Geneva Convention in deporting hundreds of Palestinians in the occupied territories in 1992 ever motivate any objection by the international community? Why was the adoption UNSC Resolution 799 followed by the international community's silence and inaction?

I stand by the people of Palestine, because they don't breach the international regulations. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they are standing on their own feet. I stand by the people of Palestine because they don't occupy, terrorize and massacre. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they don't pay the mainstream media to stage psychological warfare. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they haven't been subject to any UNSC resolution. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they haven't been supported by any of the imperialistic powers so far. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they don't receive $7.0 million of military aide from the United States per day. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they don't dream of expanding their frontiers from the Euphrates to Nile. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they've been, and are, submissive to the laws of morality, laws of humanity. I stand by the people of Palestine, because they're real human beings.
Kourosh Ziabari, Independent, Freelance Journalist from Iran
http://www.paltelegraph.com/opinions/editorials/6009-i-stand-by-palestine

"Красный крест" подтверждает создание США пыточной тюрьмы в Афганистане

Представители Красного Креста утверждают, что Соединенные Штаты создали в Афганистане особую тюрьму на военно-воздушной базе в Баграме.

Девять бывших заключенных этой тюрьмы рассказали в интервью Би-Би-Си, что их держали в отдельном здании и подвергали пыткам. Международный комитет Красного Креста (МККК) подтвердил, что американские власти, начиная с августа 2009 года, передают имена задержанных, содержащихся в отдельной тюрьме в Баграме.

Подтверждение комитета было прислано в ответ на запрос журналистов о том, существует ли объект, который многие бывшие заключенные называют «тюрьма Тор». Заключенные этой тюрьмы говорят, что их держали в полной изоляции, в холодных камерах с постоянно включенным светом. По их словам, американские военные не давали им спать.

Комментируя эти утверждения, вице-адмирал Роберт Харвард, который руководит тюремными объектами США в АФганистане, отверг факт существования такого объекта, а также издевательств над заключенными. Он утверждает, что единственной тюрьмой США в Афганистане является «место временного содержания Парван».
http://www.islamnews.ru/news-24195.html

I'm Not Anti American - America is Anti Me!

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2010/05/im-not-anti-american-america-is-anti-me.html

Activist groups: No funds for Israel

By Andrew Beale | DAILY LOBO
A group of students at UNM is following the University of California Berkeley’s trend by starting a “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” campaign against Israel.

This means the removal of school funds from groups that make a profit in Israel, said Nada Noor, a spokeswoman for UNM’s Coalition for Peace and Justice in the Middle East.
“Our aim is not to target Israel for the sake of targeting Israel but rather target companies engaging in and profiting from illegal, destructive and inhumane behavior,” she said. “Unfortunately, this will take a lot more than a Google search to locate.”

UC Berkeley and UC San Diego students recently brought motions to their student senates, but both were ultimately shot down, Noor said.
“A senate vote in favor of a divestment resolution would be nice, but a silent vote in favor is less significant than a prolonged debate. If you think about it, that’s why UC Berkeley’s campaign was still a great success,” she said.

The group is working to investigate which companies that have contracts with UNM are profiting from illegal activities in Israel, Noor said. She said the wave of student movements from the campaign is similar to student movements against the South African apartheid.
“As we know, the BDS campaigns against South Africa’s apartheid system began with students at universities around the country,” she said.
Donald Gluck, president of the Israel Alliance at UNM, said he thinks protests that are aimed against Israel, such as movements for BDS, are inherently racist.

“What bothers us is it doesn’t seem like Israel behaves worse than other countries,” he said. “If Israel behaves just as well as Somalia, or better than them, how come they come down on Israel? Because Jews are there.”

Noor said her group is working for BDS against other countries that have committed human rights abuses.

“Other issues members are serious about include divestment from ongoing human rights violations in Sudan and China,” she said. “This should be applied to this particular issue as well as other human rights and environmental issues.”

Israel Alliance spokeswoman Lynn Provencio said a BDS campaign could end up hurting the people it’s trying to help.

“We think this is a bad deal from several directions. (The Palestinian) economy relies on the Israeli economy quite a bit, so if you harm Israel’s economy you’re not doing Palestine any good,” she said. “This isn’t a movement aimed at helping the Arabs. It’s aimed at hurting Israel.”

Marc Prowisor, who spoke at UNM last week and works with security projects in Israel, said the BDS movement is likely to hurt Palestinian residents of Israel.

“I think it’s ridiculous. … The more companies that are hurt, the people really getting hurt are the Arab residents,” he said. “People just don’t realize the reality there, because they don’t live it.”

The best solution to any conflict in Israel is “to understand the full dynamics. I’ve always gotten along with my Arab neighbors,” Prowisor said.

“There’s so many different parties involved. It’s classic Middle East. There are parties that want to live in peace, and there are parties that simply don’t,” he said. “People prefer war to peace. It’s more profitable, I guess.”

The campaign won’t have any serious effect on Israel’s economy, Noor said.

“The goal of BDS was never to change Israel’s behavior or policies,” she said. “In fact, even a decent BDS campaign is unlikely to exert any economic pressure on Israel at all.”

That doesn’t mean the campaign is worthless, Noor said, because it still gets people to talk about the issue.

“It sheds light on the direct relationship we have with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the effects their conditions (have) on ours. The issue seems far too distant in mainstream media,” she said.

Noor said her group is also working for “Socially Responsible Investing.”

“SRI is about more than divesting from the bad; it is also about investing in the good and improving current investments,” she said.

“Socially Responsible Investing (means) taking responsibility for our direct and indirect actions.”
http://www.dailylobo.com/index.php/article/2010/05/activist_groups_no_funds_for_israel

MMohsen Saleh – Ten Israeli Negotiating Strategiesohsen Saleh – Ten Israeli Negotiating Strategies

Israel's ten-part negotiating strategy with the Palestinians is designed to prolong negotiations as long as possible, while creating unavoidable facts on the ground, writes Mohsen Saleh* (from Al Ahram Weekly)

Israel has a negotiating strategy that is designed to prolong the negotiations, allowing more time for the construction of facts on the ground and putting it in a position to impose its will on the "final-status" talks. In fact, the strategy can be broken down into 10 distinct sub-strategies, done in the article that follows.

Overall, the Israeli strategy is based on conflict management, not conflict resolution, and it seeks to weaken its opponents bit by bit until they are convinced that the only option for a solution is the one made available by Israel — hence Israel's prolonged negotiation process.

As a result, Israel dismisses the international conference approach to finding a comprehensive settlement, and it has always refused to reveal its trump cards, instead adopting a step-by-step policy in negotiations. This policy breaks agreements into separate tracks and then fragments them further into stages.

Israel has also benefited from its democratic system, which mostly serves only its Jewish citizens. Making good use of its scientific institutions and research centres, as well as its strategic and political experience, it manages the negotiating process with great professionalism, drawing on its power and the opportunities that are available to it.

Israel has benefited from a lack of parity in the balance of power in its favour, since it controls the land and people's lives and has the military capability to defeat all the Arab armies combined. It has benefited from its strong international influence through the world Jewish and Zionist movements and its ability to influence decision-making in the West, particularly in the United States.

Moreover, Israel has been able to exploit divisions and weaknesses in the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim world. It has also been able to exploit poor negotiating skills and management by the Palestinians, who lack experience, political vision and overall strategy and suffer from internal divisions that Israel and its allies are able to exploit to their advantage.

The first of Israel's 10 negotiating strategies means that there is always a deliberate lack of official initiatives that could determine the form of a final agreement, leaving the field open to statements made by politicians, intellectuals and military leaders without any official commitment.
Hence, there have been dozens of initiatives and ideas put forward, most of which regard Israel's problems and not those of the Palestinians. Most of these initiatives have involved the introduction of some form of Palestinian government over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, all of which are more about autonomy than about an independent state.

Ever since the project of Yigal Allon emerged one month after the 1967 war that suggested some form of autonomy for the Palestinians, projects of this sort have become the basis for most of what has followed.

Officially, the Israelis favour talking about what they reject, rather than what they will accept. For a long time, Israel has repeated a mantra of "no" reiterated by politicians and officials and adopted by most Israeli citizens. This has meant no to the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, since in Israel's view "Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel." It has also meant no to the return of Palestinian refugees to their land, occupied by Israel in 1948.

It has meant no to the removal of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and no to a Palestinian state that is completely independent with complete control over its land and borders.

Israel's second strategy is to keep the negotiating process going as long as possible, avoiding final-status talks while also avoiding reaching a dead end, which might force the Palestinians to conclude that they have no option but resistance in order to reach an agreement. The Israelis want "negotiations" to be going on permanently, pushing the Palestinian and Arab negotiators to pursue the carrot of peace while giving themselves the time to build more facts on the ground.

A third Israeli negotiating strategy means welcoming Arab and Palestinian initiatives, taking whatever concessions they include as acquired rights and then building upon them in order to demand new initiatives to achieve new concessions.

Unlike their Israeli counterparts, Palestinian and Arab negotiators focus on initiatives for resolving the conflict, while the Israelis seek only to manage it. The Palestinians and Arabs operate in a state of weakness and fragmentation, and they face a lot of external pressure, including calls to be "realistic".

They have, therefore, often included new concessions in their initiatives in order to make them more attractive to the Israelis, who then promptly welcome the concessions and demand more.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), for example, was created in 1964 with the aim of liberating all of Palestine occupied in 1948. However, in 1968 the PLO adopted the idea of one democratic state for all, Muslims, Christians and Jews alike, including immigrants and the occupying Israeli settlers.

Furthermore, in 1974 the PLO adopted a 10-point programme to establish a state on any part of Palestine that is free or from which Israelis agree to "withdraw". By 1988, it had adopted the resolution to partition Palestine and agreed to UN Resolution 242, which deals with the issue of refugees. It had also renounced "terrorism", and it attended the Madrid Conference in 1991 and signed the "self-rule" agreement in Oslo in 1993.

For their part, the Arab regimes have moved in aim from the elimination of Israel to the removal of the effects of the 1967 war. They have moved from the approval of the Rogers Initiative in 1970, then to the initiative of the Fez Summit 1982, and finally to the Arab Initiative of 2002. Meanwhile, Israel has simply moved onto more and more Palestinian land.

Israel's fourth strategy involves encouraging informal negotiations between unofficial Israeli parties, or between those with little influence on policymaking, and officials on the Palestinian side linked to the decision-making process, in order to get concessions from the Palestinians without any hint of Israeli commitments in return.

This happened with the understandings made by Yossi Beilin and Mahmoud Abbas in 1995 and in the Geneva Act in 2003. In the talks between Beilin and Abbas, the Palestinians made concessions on the right of return of refugees to land occupied in 1948, and agreed to a demilitarised Palestinian state, the existence of many Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian capital being in Jerusalem but in a village-like area. The Geneva Act introduced similar concessions on refugees, settlements, a demilitarised Palestinian state and Jerusalem.

What is important here is that the Palestinian side offered crucial concessions at an early stage, including some that could not be disclosed to the Palestinian people. However, the Israelis always regard such concessions as precedents on which to build and rights that they have acquired. Even though these understandings are not binding on the parties, it is clear that the Israelis use such concessions in subsequent initiatives.

Observers today note, for example, that the Israelis act as if they have finished with the issue of the return of the refugees, the settlements, and a demilitarised Palestinian state with incomplete sovereignty, and now just have to resolve the future of Jerusalem.

A fifth Israeli strategy involves using "dirty" tactics against the Palestinians, putting intense pressure on negotiators to give way and accept an imposed solution. These tactics have included the siege of Gaza, assassinations and arrests, land confiscation, house demolitions, closures, the wall, barriers, settlement building, the Judaisation process, checkpoints, delaying the implementation of agreements, and so on. All these are intended to terrorise and weaken the resolve of the Palestinian people.

Such tactics make the alleviation of suffering look like a major gain, and the cessation of illegal acts by Israel, such as settlement building, look like a major concession. The application of legal rights in turn becomes something to be negotiated.

A sixth Israel strategy is that Israel seeks to remove Palestinian points of pressure by separating Palestinian joint negotiations from the so-called Arab track and by pushing the PLO to renounce "terrorism" (actually lawful resistance to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land), forcing it by default to confront those Palestinians for whom resistance remains a legitimate way of challenging the occupation.

At the same time, no date is set for the end of the negotiations, and no reference point is agreed that could bind Israel, such as those in United Nations resolutions. Nor has any agreement called on Israel to stop its settlement activity, land confiscation and the Judaisation of Jerusalem while negotiations are being held. Thus, the issues are always linked to the "generosity" of Israel and whatever crumbs it wishes to throw from the table.

A seventh Israeli strategy holds that in order to prevent the Arabs from working as one strong bloc, different "tracks" have to be created in order to divide the opposition and strengthen Israel's position. Egypt, Jordan and Palestine, for example, negotiate in isolation from each other, while Israel seeks to separate Lebanon and Syria.

Israel's ninth strategy holds that the intervention of any outside party, whether the UN, the USA or Europe, will not be tolerated if it does not fit with Israeli interests. In this way Israel gets to decide what is discussed and what to give way on with no external pressure pushing it to commit to anything.

At the Oslo talks, there was no independent reference point that could bind Israel to ending the negotiations within a specific timeframe. After the agreement, the United Nations was no longer the international umbrella managing the conflict, and UN resolutions concerning Palestinian rights to self-determination are no longer references to be invoked in discussion.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to play the role of sponsor of the "peace process," while the United Nations, Europe, Russia and others have left the process of the negotiations to the results of bilateral talks between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Israel's ninth strategy means that it divides the negotiations into myriad details, making it difficult to move forward on any one of them without agreement on all. This strategy ties up dozens of negotiators for hundreds of hours in bilateral, multilateral and international meetings. The result is that if the Palestinians obtain even the most basic of their legal rights, this appears as a hugely significant victory and a painful Israeli concession.

A problem at the Oslo meetings was that they sought to deal with too many details before agreeing on basic principles and desired outcomes. The same was true of negotiations held from 1993 to 1999 in Cairo, Taba, Wye River and Sharm El-Sheikh. First, the details concerned Gaza and Jericho, then they concerned the division of the West Bank into areas "A", "B" and "C", with special status given to the city of Hebron. After that, the details concerned the design of special tracks for settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, and borders. And then came the further fragmentation of the already small pieces.

On the settlements issue, for example, this was divided into settlement blocs, "legal" settlements, random and security settlements, those already annexed to Israel in East Jerusalem, and others that will be annexed behind the wall, and so on.

The 10th and last of the Israeli negotiating strategies involves buying time and evading the obligations of the negotiation process. The Israelis have devoted themselves to avoiding any set dates for final-status talks, and nothing escapes their procrastination and delaying tactics.
Even when dates have been set, for example those marking the establishment of a Palestinian state first by 1998 and then by 2005, deadlines have been missed. All the while, of course, settlement building has continued, and more Palestinian land has been taken by Israel. The Palestinian Authority, however, is pressured to fulfill all of its obligations, usually for the benefit of Israel and not the Palestinian people.

In all these ways, Israeli strategy is designed to prolong the negotiations, while creating new facts on the ground. In the end, the Palestinians will be left with no further means to influence the process and with nothing to negotiate, except the limited options dictated by Israel.
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/05/10/mohsen-saleh-ten-israeli-negotiating-strategies/