NOVANEWS
-
Abbas and Mashaal: Commitment hailed a new era of ‘partnership’
-
Israeli newspaper owner says Obama can’t stop settlers’ ‘apartheid regime’ because of ‘Jewish lobby’
-
Palestinian thinkers weigh in on the threats to attack Iran
-
Israel plans forced transfer of 27,000 Bedouins in West Bank and Jerusalem
-
On Shabbos the rabbi stood outside neighbor’s house shouting F-you at his ‘Free Palestine’ bumper sticker
-
Salon: Israel pushes US warmongering via neocon dog-tail-waggers
-
Ed Rendell keynotes fundraiser for Israeli army
-
Migron settlement ordered removed by 3/12. Will it happen?
Abbas and Mashaal: Commitment hailed a new era of ‘partnership’
Nov 25, 2011
annie
Khaled Meshal, left, the leader of Hamas, and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, who leads the Fatah movement, met Thursday in Cairo to discuss a unity government.(Credit: Reuters)
While many of us were celebrating Thanksgiving yesterday Abbas and Mashaal met in Cairo, the first public follow up since their reconciliation in order to form a unity government.
Jerusalem Post:
“There are no differences between us at all, and we agreed to work as partners and share responsibilities,” Abbas told reporters after the meeting. “We share the same responsibility toward our people and cause.”
Ma’an News
Exiled Hamas chief Khalid Mashaal said Friday that Israeli threats after reconciliation talks with Fatah leader President Mahmoud Abbas “would not scare us but rather assure us that reconciliation is the right track for the Palestinian people.”
……….
The reconciliation deal, which set out a path to a unity government of technocrats and elections within a year, had stalled over continuing disagreement, in particular over the candidate to head the new cabinet. Abbas supported the current premier in Ramallah Salam Fayyad, who was rejected by Hamas.
On Friday, Mashaal said it was still too early to discuss Hamas’ nomination of a prime minister, after the meeting with Abbas that both insisted ended remaining disagreements between them.
……
Abbas and Mashaal on Thursday approved a two-page document reiterating their commitment to the main elements of the original deal, and hailed a new era of “partnership.”
Meanwhile it’s mostly gloom and doom over @ NYT
“Rival Palestinian Leaders Meet but Fail to End Rift”
Isabel Kershner and Fares Akram framed the disagreements, via anonymous officials, as “rosy” public statements hiding a “deadlocked” albeit admitting the leaders didn’t address the “deadlock” over who would lead the interim government.
Neither of the leaders directly addressed the deadlock over the appointment of a unity government……….
[D]ifferences between the sides clearly prevailed, and since the signing of the accord disincentives for further cooperation have mounted……….
Sounds like neither side discussed candidates at this round of talks.
Israel and the West say they will not deal with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless the Islamic group recognizes Israel, renounces violence and accepts all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas has shown no sign of agreeing to those conditions, and the prospect of a unity government threatens the Palestinian Authority’s relations with Israel, Europe and the United States.
….
Mr. Barhoum said that the two sides agreed to some confidence-building measures, like stopping politically motivated arrests, and that they had also reached understandings on a political program defining relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the shape of a future Palestinian state. He did not elaborate on the content of those understandings.
Reached understandings on a political program defining relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the shape of a future Palestinian state ? Really. That sounds promising. This is probably driving Netanyahu nuts. No wonder it sounds like someone’s got their knickers in a twist. Back to Jerusalem Post:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev said following the meeting that “the closer Abbas gets to Hamas, the further away he gets from peace.”
…
To the extent that Abbas moves away from Hamas and to direct negotiations with Israel, he said, “peace will be advanced, and this will serve the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
…..
Regarding the $100 million of Palestinian tax revenue that Israel has refused to release to the PA since the Palestinians were accepted as a member of UNESCO earlier this month, the officials said that no decision had been taken to free the money.
Over the past week, Israel has come under intense diplomatic pressure from around the world to release the funds. “One thing is clear,” the officials said. “Had Abbas signed a unity government agreement with Hamas, there would be no chance whatsoever that the money would continue to flow.”
I hear deadlock, but today, it’s not between Fatah and Hamas.
Israeli newspaper owner says Obama can’t stop settlers’ ‘apartheid regime’ because of ‘Jewish lobby’
Nov 25, 2011
Philip Weiss
![schocken 2](http://mondoweiss.net/images/2011/11/schocken-2.jpg)
Amos Schocken in Haaretz’s offices. (Photo: Michal Chelbin/The New Yorker)
Amos Schocken, owner of Haaretz, writes in Israel (not here, no way) that the settler movement Gush Emunim is building an “apartheid regime” in Israel and Palestine and that it is supported by the “Jewish lobby” in the U.S. That lobby is “totally addicted” to settler policies; and this explains Obama’s collapse.
In trying to understand Obama’s reversal of his declaration in Cairo in 2009, Schocken does what Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations swears never to do; he ascribes political influence on the Democratic Party to American Jews. Mead would classify Schocken as an anti-semite for saying this.
As to Schocken’s question, Why they fell into line? He does not understand the minority Jewish experience. American Jewish leaders were instructed after ’67 and ’73 that they were the only thing preventing Israel’s destruction and that they must support Israeli leadership, no matter what. (Chuck Schumer: I am Israel’s guardian.) These are religiously-loaded instructions that young Jews are trying to reform. Thanks to Paul Mutter.
The term “apartheid” refers to the undemocratic system of discriminating between the rights of the whites and the blacks, which once existed in South Africa. Even though there is a difference between the apartheid that was practiced there and what is happening in the territories, there are also some points of resemblance. There are two population groups in one region, one of which possesses all the rights and protections, while the other is deprived of rights and is ruled by the first group. This is a flagrantly undemocratic situation.
Since the Six-Day War, there has been no other group in Israel with the ideological resilience of Gush Emunim, and it is not surprising that many politicians have viewed that ideology as a means for realizing personal political ambitions. Zevulun Hammer, who identified this ideology as the way to capture the leadership of the National Religious Party, and Ariel Sharon, who identified this ideology as the way to capture the leadership of Likud, were only two of many. Now Avigdor Lieberman, too, is following this path, but there were and are others, such as the late Hanan Porat, for whom the realization of this ideology was and remains the purpose of their political activity.
This ideology views the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime as a necessary tool for its realization. It has no difficulty with illegal actions and with outright criminality, because it rests on mega-laws that it has adopted and that have no connection with the laws of the state, and because it rests on a perverted interpretation of Judaism. It has scored crucial successes. Even when actions inspired by the Gush Emunim ideology conflict with the will of the government, they still quickly win the backing of the government. The fact that the government is effectively a tool of Gush Emunim and its successors is apparent to everyone who has dealings with the settlers, creating a situation of force multiplication.
This ideology has enjoyed immense success in the United States, of all places. President George H.W. Bush was able to block financial guarantees to Israel because of the settlements established by the government of Yitzhak Shamir (who said lying was permissible to realize the Gush Emunim ideology. Was Benjamin Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan University speech a lie of this kind? ). Now, though, candidates for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination are competing among themselves over which of them supports Israel and the occupation more forcefully. Any of them who adopt the approach of the first President Bush will likely put an end to their candidacy.
Whatever the reason for this state of affairs – the large number of evangelicals affiliated with the Republican party, the problematic nature of the West’s relations with Islam, or the power of the Jewish lobby, which is totally addicted to the Gush Emunim ideology – the result is clear: It is not easy, and may be impossible, for an American president to adopt an activist policy against Israeli apartheid.