posted Jun 8, 2011 9:10 AM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Jun 8, 2011 9:20 AM
]
 By Husam Bajis
Photo: Archbishop Atallah Hanna, Husam Bajis and Kadi Taisir Tamimi. I am a Palestinian-American. I had lived in the United States, but in 2006 I lost my faith that America was interested in finding a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and I packed my bags and headed for South America. I felt compelled to seek alternate solutions outside American borders, and furthermore I sensed turbulent times within them. It was accurate foresight that caused me to choose Brazil because I knew that the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations were an emerging global power that could deliver more for Palestine than the United States, the Quartet, or the United Nations Security Council. It is necessary for more sovereign nations to become involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as their people must realise that events occurring in the Holy Land have a global effect. There is plenty of evidence to argue that much of the current turmoil in the Middle East is a direct result of the instability caused by Israeli-American policies implemented to advance Israeli interests at the expense of its neighbours. I believe that today, more than ever, we need to urgently find international consensus and a balance that will be the foundation for a solution.
In 2006, I believed that Brazil was a country that could take the initiative and provide enough positive input to get both sides to the table. Having lived there, I am sure.
When my flight landed in Sao Paulo I had a Portuguese vocabulary of probably a dozen words and no working knowledge of Brazilian society or culture. It was with difficulty that I managed to seek out a trusted law firm that would handle all the legal aspects I was to encounter in my future endeavours.
The initial week of my journey was very difficult as I had no accommodations and was moving from one place to another. Ultimately I landed in the northern part of Brazil to start my mission. It wasn’t a random decision that made me head in that direction, but it was the fact that 1,000 Palestinians lived in the city of Manaus, the capital of the state of Amazonas. The majority of them are successful merchants with numerous retail stores affording them financial independence. It was through contacts made by networking within the community that I was able to land myself some office space. It was also through the Palestinian community that I met a wonderful lady who was campaigning to run for the position of mayor of Manaus. She accommodated me and accepted my mission and assisted me with whatever I needed to become successful. Throughout my stay in Brazil I was continuously humbled by the generosity of the Brazilian people. I was eventually introduced through my new contacts to the attorney who was to envision the formula of success for the committee that I founded and which I called the Comitê Brasileiro de Interesse Nacional Palestino.
Once office space was secured and my nascent NGO was ready for take-off I began to seek a board of directors. It was my goal to involve as many international individuals as possible. I felt it was important to have diversity on the board. I sought people who were new to the intricacies of the conflict, people who were, in a sense, unbiased and not yet indulged in either peacemaking efforts nor in conflict resolutions. It was important for my NGO to be different and fresh. We had to choose a different road that no one had yet ventured down. As we were to become new players on the scene I wanted new ideas. The search for a board later led me to south-central Brazil. There I went to the city of Mogi das Cruzes, Sao Paulo, which later became one of two sites for the homes of Palestinian refugees who were brought from the border of Syria and Iraq. The other site was Porto Alegre.
From Mogi das Cruzes, I again sought accommodations for some days through my compatriots through whom I also obtained additional legal assistance to help me in my search for a board of directors. I was later led to another city, in the state of Sao Paulo, the city of Cotia. There I was given the key to the city by the mayor and finally formed the board that I so badly needed to start laying the bylaws of the committee. In addition to the office space in Manaus, which is where I essentially launched the organisation with personal funds that I had saved up, I also took out office space in the city of Sao Paulo. I proceeded with the board to draw the outline of the projects to start establishing contacts within the field.
Our main objective was simple. Through building a relationship between Brazil and the Palestinian Authority we hoped to assist in establishing an independent state of Palestine. This relationship with the government of Brazil became critical to the committee. The time that the committee spent in establishing contacts within the government of Brazil and holding meetings in the state capital of Brasilia with government representatives was far greater than any project that we spent time on throughout the history of the committee. I still feel as strongly now as I did then that Palestinians need a foreign agenda far more than they need an internal agenda in the occupied territories. If Palestine is to gain its independence, the chances of it happening through external efforts are far greater than the chances of independence to be gained through domestic events. Initially, I began to coordinate the committee’s objectives with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in hope of building relations with its members, but this approach was not fruitful. The PLO members and the Palestine mission in Brasilia had placed their faith in official dialogues, which were difficult to access.
Yet we persisted, and a proud moment for our committee came with the drafting of a proposal that was signed by the foreign minister of Brazil, Celso Amorim, and the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority, Riad al Malki. The statement declared that both sides would begin working together to improve relations. We had it down to the names of the people who would meet, how often they would meet, and the programmes that would be initiated.
Some of the projects that we work on are founded upon the ideas of peace camps. One such project is the Dialogues Project where we bring together Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. I don’t think one could ever meet a Palestinian who would not tell you that the most viable solution to the conflict is the one-state solution. No Palestinian can live in a Palestinian state and say that Haifa, Safad, Akka, Ramla, and Lod are not part of their nation. Never will a Palestinian be able to come to terms with the fact that these towns that they have historical ties to are not part of their state. In addition to the Dialogues Project, we also have the Bridges of Palestine Program, where we promote economic development as being key to a successful Palestinian state.
I feel that most politicians whom you would find in the Palestinian Authority will tell you that a one-state solution is the best solution, with Jews, Christians, and Muslims being one people in a cohesive land. Certain details are interesting to ponder such as “a common language.” Hebrew and Arabic can be the formal languages though. This is, I think, a dream because so far it has been difficult for both peoples to come to terms with each other and recognise the sufferings of the other side and shake hands. It’s the peace of the brave, which the late Yasser Arafat called it. Peace can only be for the brave, be it one state or two states. We need brave people who can step up to the plate and not be intimidated by the detractors, people who will make an attempt to do good things for the benefit of the other.
In Brazil, there is a population of roughly 55,000 Palestinians, with the majority living in the southernmost state, Rio Grande do Sul, where there is a population of around 20,000 Palestinians. Some of the Palestinians who are living in Brazil are third-, fourth-, and even fifth-generation Brazilians. It was an interesting experience to meet so many of the diaspora Palestinians in Brazil. Without exception, whenever I travel, be it in the Middle East or the Far East, the first thing I do upon arriving in a city is to seek out the Palestinian community. Invariably it is always there no matter where you find yourself in the world. There are grassroots efforts within Palestinian communities not only to elevate themselves within their adopted societies but also to benefit the entire society. These efforts are rarely heard about in the mainstream media. Palestinians living in the diaspora take pride in themselves and always maintain a strong emotional attachment, if not a physical one, to the home country. For them Palestine never ceased to exist on the maps. For them Palestine may not exist as an independent nation but continues to exist in their hearts as an idea that will never die. It is people such as these whom I sought out in Brazil and throughout my travels in general. I felt that these communities in exile were actual Palestinian neighbourhoods and villages transported from their native land and juxtaposed together with the native towns of a new and foreign land. These communities and the Palestinians who formed them function and operate as they did prior to 1948, when many of them became refugees when they were forced to leave their homes.
In conclusion, not enough good can be said about how the people of Brazil welcomed me with open arms. They accepted my ideas and my mission and assisted me in every step of the way to create better relations between our governments and our peoples. There are around 12 million Arabs in Brazil and they have become an integral part of Brazilian society. Case in point: the second-largest fast-food chain, after McDonald’s, is a chain called Habib’s, which serves authentic Middle Eastern cuisine on the go. It’s fast food with a drive-thru where you can get your kefta, stuffed grape leaves, sfiha, and keeba on the go.
Arabs and Palestinians have an established presence in Brazil. It is therefore essential to make use of the goodwill that Brazilians feel towards us and try to involve them in being an honest broker in the peace process. Let us not forget that in the current political landscape, power is shifting, and Brazil is guaranteed a spot in the future as a potentially significant player for years to come.
Husam Bajis is the executive director of the Comitê Brasileiro de Interesse Nacional Palestino.
|
posted Feb 3, 2011 12:40 PM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Feb 28, 2011 9:43 PM
]
The PA leadership (Fatah) has never showed a decisive and clear commitment in organizing new election, both on local and general level.
Any democratic system should be characterized by fair, democratic and periodic elections, giving to the population the opportunity to choose its national representatives periodically. Since the first general election, held in January 1996, the Palestinian leadership has no longer been subjected to this kind of democratic assessment in order to evaluate the real capabilities of the Palestinian governors, their effective consensus as well as their accountability among the Palestinian society. In accordance with the Oslo Agreements, the current mandate of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) would have expired in May 1999.
All of the Palestinian Local Councils are appointed, not elected. Consequently, it comes to be interpreted as a lack of democratic legitimacy and a shortage of accountability towards the citizens. This policy has been also accompanied by the stagnated political process between Israel and the Palestinians.
Actually, the elections have also been dramatically obstructed by the awful Israeli occupation throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The sieges and closures imposed everywhere, the ongoing construction of the “apartheid” wall, the growing deployment of Israeli military forces as well as the continuing enlargement of the settlement program, especially across the West Bank territory, have certainly had a remarkable impact on this topic. Furthermore, it is undeniable that the inception of the current Al-Aqsa Intifada, sparkled in September 2000, has even played a key role in preventing the holding of general and local elections.
However, it would be important to bear in mind as even during the first general election held in January 1996 the “external” conditions were not as different as the current portrait described above. At that time, the Israeli occupation was also extremely tight and, through the deployment of Israeli troops throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the freedom of movement resulted enormously restricted and some times denied.
In this scenario, the failure to hold local and general elections might be likely explained as an attempt to keep the political forces of opposition away from any governmental process and activity, even at local level. The fact that both secular and Islamic movements have expressed their desire to take part to the elections as well as their quickly growing consensus within the Palestinian people, has widened the PA leaders’ fear of losing prominent governmental positions, being aware of the erosion of their support within the civil society.
The Palestinian society desperately supports the necessity of holding fair and democratic election processes, both on local and general level. Even though the enormous disappointment and lack of confidence towards the present Palestinian leadership, Palestinian people firmly recognize the great significance of fair elections and their unimaginable benefits to the Palestinian Authority’s stability as well as to the creation of a viable, democratic and independent Palestinian State. As showed below, the Palestinian population’s demand for new election is extremely wide-spread throughout the OPT.
Statistics highlighting corruption within the Palestinian governmental system. (“An-Najah National University” September 2004).
|
Total
|
|
|
Support
|
Reject
|
No Opinion
|
|
Corruption exists in all the PA institutions
|
70.4
|
24.8
|
4.8
|
|
Corruption exists in the Presidential Institution only
|
34.0
|
55.0
|
11.0
|
|
Corruption exists in the Council of Ministers only
|
44.2
|
46.3
|
9.5
|
|
Corruption exists among the PLC members only
|
37.6
|
52.1
|
10.4
|
|
Corruption exists in the security apparatuses only
|
45.6
|
44.1
|
10.3
|
Main reasons explaining the ongoing corruption (“An-Najah National University” September 2004).
|
|
Total
|
West Bank
|
Gaza Strip
|
|
The poor performance of the PA leadership
|
12.1
|
10.7
|
14.4
|
|
Holding ministry positions for long time
|
11.3
|
12.7
|
8.8
|
|
Absence of general and local election processes
|
14.6
|
15.1
|
13.8
|
|
Unavailability of a law punishing corrupted officers within governmental institutions
|
46.5
|
45.9
|
47.6
|
|
The poor performance of the Judicial System
|
9.8
|
9.8
|
9.8
|
|
posted Feb 3, 2011 1:23 AM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Feb 6, 2011 7:23 PM
]
February 3, 2011
Dear Friends of PNIC,
It is a very sad day for Palestine that the Palestinian National Interest Committee (PNIC) no longer has the belief that a positive outcome with regards to independence, will come from the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), being directed and guided for over 16 years solely by Fatah, with its current leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Moving forward, PNIC no longer supports Mahmoud Abbas as the proper representative of the people of Palestine, and we urgently call on Mahmoud Abbas to step down as president of the PNA, for the interest of the Palestinian people.
PNIC has worked hard for over 5 years to progress and give publicity to the independence for Palestinians, and to improve international relations between foreign government bodies and the PNA.
Due to certain policies implemented on the ground, and abroad, by the PNA, PNIC is no longer committed to encourage interest and activity in and improving the position of the PNA. In this dimension, we call upon the PNA leadership to cease the placement of obstacle ahead of Palestinian NGO's in the homeland, and abroad.
PNIC will therefore in the pressing short term focus on assisting the homeland and her people on holding free, and open democratic elections.
It is also noteworthy to mention that PNIC does not support the Islamic movement Hamas that is governing the Gaza strip and including its members strongly feel that Hamas betrayed the Palestinian people, and is enforcing themselves upon a people of Gaza.
Sincerely,
Palestinian National Interest Committee
|
posted Oct 11, 2010 6:45 PM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Feb 6, 2011 7:46 PM
]
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT: OPTIONS FOR PEACE
As the Israeli and Palestinian camps move further and further apart, it appears that direct negotiations will bring little advancement to the peace process. In order to define the limits of the negotiating terrain and to stop the widening gap between the two parties, negotiators can no longer set aside the central issues of Jerusalem, territory and refugees. During this time of minimal progress in bilateral talks, it is worthwhile to examine possible regional and international peace initiatives that might help restart the peace process. The Amadeus Institute will host a half-day of discussion and debate dedicated to new peace initiatives at the 2010 MEDays Forum in November.
U.S. coordinated direct negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority will begin on September 2, 2010 (1). While this may seem like progress, the potential for a much needed breakthrough in the peace process is unlikely, because the two camps have moved farther apart over the past several years (2). Since the election of Netanyahu in Israel in April 2009, Israeli religious conservatives have gained a greater voice in the country’s policy, and most particularly on the issue of Palestine. The Netanyahu government has directly challenged the United State’s calls for a complete stop on the construction of settlements (3). Additionally, even after the flotilla incident of May 2010, the blockade on Gaza is only slowly changing (4). On the Palestinian side, internal divisions between Fatah and Hamas prevent a unified negotiating position. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas does not see direct negotiations as a worthwhile endeavor at this time (5). As achieving peace through bilateral talks between Israel and the PA becomes less likely, it is essential to reexamine the determining factors of final status negotiations and discuss possible regional and international solutions which might bring about positive change. DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANSThe challenges of the first Intifada brought together the Israeli government and the PLO, which would become the PA, in face-to-face negotiations for the first time. The end result was the Declaration of Principles (1993) and the Oslo Interim Agreement (1995). However, these two agreements, which became known as the “Oslo Accords,” sidelined any discussion of final status issues until a later date. The failed Camp David II negotiations under US President Clinton, and the onset of the second Intifada in 2000, demonstrated that Oslo had failed to bring about lasting peace. Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the political victory of Hamas have added to this political instability. Any true peace effort must address the final status issues that were previously postponed, including Jerusalem, territory and refugees.
Jerusalem, or El Quds, and particularly the 9 square kilometers that make up the walled Old City (6), is of central importance for religious, political and social reasons.
The world’s three largest religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - all consider the Old City to be of sacred importance. For Jews, the Temple Mount is essential to the history of a chosen people who were promised a land, and who built, and rebuilt, a temple to worship their God. For Christians, the city is holy because it is where Jesus was condemned to death and crucified. Finally, for Muslims, it is at Negotiations Resume- no Fanfare and no New Peace Religion,” Foreign Policy, 14 May 2010.
The Haram al-Sharif that Mohammed ascended into heaven. This makes Jerusalem the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina.
Politically, Israel would like to control all of Jerusalem as a single entity, while Palestinians want East Jerusalem. According to Israelis, the Old City must be governed by Israel, and Jerusalem must remain enacted as a single entity protected by the Israeli government. Palestinians desire to control the Haram al-Sharif, to receive restitution for lost property and to govern East Jerusalem (7). Clearly, the political demands of both Israelis and Palestinians cannot both be completely satisfied.
Additionally, any decisions on Jerusalem will have social repercussions. According to the Jerusalem Old City Initiative, in 2002, there were approximately 35,000 residents in the Old City, 11.3% of which were Jewish, and 88.7% of which were Arab or Armenian (8). Changes in governance over this territory would affect the daily life of individuals carrying either Israeli or Palestinian citizenship. Laws governing property ownership, working permits and community services will have to be reformed in order to accommodate any final status agreement (9). TERRITORYThe continued Israeli development of settlements is a violation of international humanitarian law and has been condemned by the United Nations, the United States and Europe on several occasions (10). These settlements slowly decrease the amount of land on which a Palestinian state could be established. As reported by B’Tselem, more than 300,000 Israelis live in 121 settlements and approximately 100 outposts. This covers about 42% of the land area of the West Bank. Israel recognizes that 21% of current settlements are built on private Palestinian property (11). The construction of a separation wall in July 2008 has added to this dilemma by separating over 90 Palestinian communities from their agricultural land (12). While the Netanyahu government has imposed a ten month moratorium on settlement activity, which will expire at the end of September, settlement development continues to be approved.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on July 12, 2010 that a council approved the construction of 250 new settlement apartments in East Jerusalem (13). Additionally, in late July 2010, 55 structures in the West Bank village of Farasiya were destroyed by the IDF’s Civil Administration, potentially facilitating the construction of future settlements (14). REFUGEESAfter the 1948 war, the United Nations Conciliation Commission reported that there were approximately 726,000 Palestinian refugees. By the end of the 1967 war, an additional 300,000 Palestinians were forced to flee to Jordan, Syria and Egypt. As of June 2004, there were approximately 4,186,711 Palestinian refugees. Those living in Syria are not considered to be citizens while those living in Jordan have full citizenship (15).
The concern with refugees in final status negotiations is the “right of return.” Palestinians base this claim on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194(III) of December 1948 (16). Debate centers around whether this would be a return to national soil or to specific homes. Additionally, questions about how refugees would be compensated, and whether or not compensation would simply be for lost property or reparations for historical injustice, remain unanswered. According to Rashid Khalidi, if one uses 1984 prices as a base, reparations would cost between $92 billion and $147 (US dollars) (17).
Israel sees the refugee issue as merely humanitarian, and, as such, claims that the question of refugees has no place in political negotiations. Palestinians, on the other hand, see the refugee situation as both humanitarian and political in nature (18).
To complicate matters even more, the Israeli Pensioners Ministry claims that Jews that emigrated from Arab countries to Israel should be considered “refugees” and should be compensated for their lost property. As of 2007, according to the ministry, “the estimated value of Jewish property lost in Arab countries is 50 percent more than the value of the property of Palestinian refugees and is valued at billions of dollars.” While these Jewish emigrants’ refugee status may be debatable, such statistical claims will make a solution to the refugee issue increasingly difficult to find (19). ALTERNATIVE PEACE INITIATIVESGiven the challenges facing bilateral Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, and the need to address final status issues as completely as possible, it is worth examining the various peace initiatives available today. These include initiatives involving solely Israel and Palestine along with farther reaching regional and international propositions. INITIATIVES SOLELY FOCUSED ON ISRAEL AND PALESTINE QUARTET ROADMAPIn April 2003, the Quartet – the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia- published their “Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” According to this document, a final and comprehensive settlement between Israelis and Palestinians could be achieved by 2005 through three distinct phases. Initially, terror and violence would end and Palestinians would focus on building up institutional power. Phase I would culminate in elections in May 2003. In phase II, or the “transition” phase, an independent state would be established with provisional borders. Additionally, an international conference would be held to finalize the state’s new constitution. Finally, during phase III, which would take place from 2004-2005, a permanent status agreement would be reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the conflict would end (20).
As is apparent, the Quartet Roadmap was overly optimistic and overly ambitious. Arguably, by 2010, not even Phase I of the Roadmap has been accomplished. Palestinian institutions remain weak, and divisions between Hamas and Fatah continue to grow (21). As a result, no unified Palestinian elections have taken place. Nonetheless, the idea of benchmarks in the peace process is significant if any sustainable progression towards peace is to be achieved. GENEVA INITIATIVEUnlike the Roadmap, which may have failed because governments attempted to impose it on society, the Geneva Initiative was formulated by Israeli and Palestinian civil society. The Geneva Initiative was proposed in 2003 by former Israeli and Palestinian officials independently from their governments. The chief representative of the Israeli team, Yossi Beilin, was the Minister of Justice under Yitzhak Rabin, and the chief Palestinian representative, Yasser Abed Rabbo, was the Palestinian Authority’s former Minister of Information. The Initiative received strong backing from civil society, but government officials, particularly on the Israeli side, were hesitant. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon called the negotiations “subversive,” (22) while Arafat viewed the Initiative as positive and supported it (23).
The Geneva Initiative attempts to solve all three major issues of final status negotiations. The Initiative calls for a permanent status agreement that embraces the mutual recognition of two states, including the creation of an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state. In terms of territory, Israel would be able to keep certain Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem along with settlements beyond the Green line. However, there would be a 1:1 exchange of territory, and Israel would be required to provide alternative land to the Palestinians. Additionally, Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem would belong to Israel, and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem would belong to the newly formed Palestinian state. An international religious authority would govern the holy sites in Jerusalem with the Temple Mount belonging to Palestine, and the West Wall belonging to Israel. Regarding refugees, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 would be resolved permanently and completely through compensation for refugee status and lost property. Additionally, borders would be returned to those of June 4, 1967, and a corridor would link Gaza and the West Bank. An International Implementation and Verification Group would be created to monitor the implementation of the accords (24).
This proposal remains on the table and might be a beneficial way to address the problems facing current negotiations. The Annex included in the Accords provides detailed maps of exactly how such an initiative would be carried out. UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATEIf agreement between the two societies is too complicated and unreachable, the Palestinian Authority could declare statehood unilaterally. The French and Spanish Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Bernard Kouchner and Miguel Angel Moratinos respectively, wrote an editorial in the French newspaper “Le Monde” on February 23, 2010 calling for the recognition of a Palestinian state by the European Union as early as October 2011 (25). This political recognition would be granted at a European
Peace Summit held exactly 20 years after the Madrid negotiations of October 1991. In the Ministers’ original conception of the project, the state of Palestine would receive international recognition even if negotiations with Israel were not yet complete. However, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has stressed the importance of negotiations in achieving any tangible solution (26).
Palestinian and Israeli representatives have differing views on this proposition. Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat stated in July 2010 that the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state was “not on the agenda,” and that the international community was free to recognize the PLO’s 1988 declaration of independence. For the Palestinian Authority, it is Israel, thorough the construction of settlements, that is getting in the way of peace (27). Israel, on the other hand, flatly opposes the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and sees it as an “imposed solution” which will not be effective (28).
The largest constraints to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state are weak “state” institutions and the lack of unity between Hamas and Fatah. Even if the PA benefited from 8 percent economic growth in 2009 and increased financial transparency (29), this is insufficient for the successful establishment of a state. Additionally, the Palestinian Legislative Council has not held a meeting since Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. As a result, no laws have been passed. In a similar vein, President Abbas is beginning to lose legitimacy because there have not been recent elections (30). Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment goes so far as to say that Palestinian institution building is “severely” limited (31). If one adds the division between Fatah and Hamas, it is clear that no united Palestinian position currently exists, thus making a solid peace agreement improbable. RECONCILIATION OF HAMAS AND FATAHWithout a unified Palestinian government, it is unlikely that a peace agreement will be signed between Israelis and Palestinians. Since Hamas’ electoral victory in 2005, Hamas and Fatah have moved further and further apart. The political relationship between Hamas and Fatah has progressively worsened due primarily to decisions made by international actors. In January 2006, the Quartet outlined the conditions it required of a new Palestinian government. These included a government that was non-violent, chose to recognize Israel and accepted all previous agreements, including the Quartet’s Road Map. However, shortly after Hamas established its government in March 2006, U.S. and European leaders declared that they would stop sending aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government. These states claimed that Hamas was a terrorist organization and did not fulfill the Quartet’s conditions. In February 2007, representatives of Hamas and Fatah attempted reconciliation and signed the “Mecca Agreement” which was moderated by Saudi Arabia. This agreement required the formation of a “national unity government” with ministers from both parties. However, the new Prime Minister, Haniyya, was a member of Hamas and the US refused to support his government. Shortly after, in June 2007, Hamas attacked Fatah and took complete control of Gaza (32). Egypt has sought to reassert itself in the region by facilitating reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas. Beginning in 2008, Cairo tried to bring the two parties together through negotiations (33). By October 2009, talks bordered on agreement, and President Mahmood Abbas, as the representative of Fatah, signed the agreement proposed by Egypt. However, Hamas refused to sign the document stating that it would only agree to Egypt’s plan if significant changes were made (34). Many argue that Hamas feared that it would lose legitimacy if it signed the agreement as it stood. Additionally, the US government discouraged this mediation process privately (35). After the aid flotilla incident in May 2010, a Palestinian committee was formed to seek reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. However, this committee found itself disbanded at the end of June because the “gap between the rival parties is unbridgeable.” Hamas refused to receive the committee’s delegation in the West Bank. Hamas officials claim that the US has pressured PA President Abbas not to reconcile with them (36). REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVESMoving beyond plans that concern only Israelis and Palestinians, the involvement of a greater number of parties, through regional and international initiatives, may bring about the momentum necessary to further peace negotiations. SYRIA AND ISRAELA peace agreement between Israel and Syria could result in numerous benefits for both parties, and could advance the peace track between Israel and Palestine. Syria remains the last significant Arab state in opposition to Israel. One can still speak of an Arab-Israeli conflict because Syria has launched attacks against Israel via Lebanon, at least until Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005 (37). Since the Madrid conference in the early 1990s, both Israeli and Syrian leaders have struggled to achieve peace. Negotiations fell apart in 1996 and 2000 because the parties could not agree completely upon border, security, water and diplomatic issues (38). Syria has repeatedly called for a return to the borders of June 4, 1967, which include the return of the Golan Heights. Israel desires security and water guarantees (39).
Since 2000, the peace track between Syria and Israel has become much more complex. Syria’s current connections with Hizballah, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Hamas have been detrimental for Israel, which feels more and more under threat in the region (40). Additionally, while a peace treaty would be beneficial for Israel and Syria, concerns have been raised about the actual implementation of any agreement. Should either party fail to live up to its promises, tensions will certainly increase in the region (41).
Nonetheless, given the immobility of the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the proximity talks between Israel and Syria, which have been coordinated by Turkey since 2008, should be further pursued (42). As Paul Salem of the Carnegie Middle East Center explains, “progress on the Syrian-Israeli track is where progress in the Arab-Israeli peace process is most possible (43).” This opening may facilitate future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. THE ARAB PEACE INITIATIVEMoving beyond just Syria, the involvement of the entire Arab subsystem might be the push needed to achieve peace. The Arab Peace Initiative was proposed by then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002, and was approved by the Arab League at the Riyadh Summit in March 2002. It calls for a comprehensive peace and the full normalization of relations, both economically and politically, between Israel and all 22 Arab states. The Initiative requires the full withdrawal of Israel to the June 4, 1967 borders, the establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and the resolution of the Palestinian refugee question (44). Unfortunately, the timing of the Initiative was not ideal, as it was proposed in the middle of the second Intifada (45). Not long after its announcement, the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rejected the Initiative and sought to continue pursuing a bilateral peace option (46). The greatest Israeli concern revolves around references to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 and the Initiative’s call for a “just resolution to the refugee problem (47).”
The Initiative continues to gain traction in both the Arab and the international communities. After the re-approval of the Initiative at the Riyadh Summit of April 2007, Arab foreign ministers met in Cairo to determine how to realistically implement the Initiative. The United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations have all backed the plan. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has also expressed interest in the “positive aspects” of the Initiative (48). However, since the Turkish flotilla incident of May 2010, representatives of several Arab countries have called for a withdrawal from the Arab Peace Initiative. The Islamic society Manama, the third largest political block in the lower chamber of Bahrain’s parliament, has called for Bahrain to pull out of the Initiative (49). Likewise, several MPs in Kuwait no longer back the plan, and the Kuwaiti parliament approved a non-binding recommendation urging the government to pull out (50). Even so, Saudi King Abdullah has recently reiterated his commitment to the Initiative while speaking with President Obama (51). THE UNION FOR THE MEDITERRANEANThe Union for the Mediterranean, which involves the Northern and Southern states situated near the Mediterranean, provides a possible indirect avenue towards resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Union was created in 2008 under the auspices of French President Nicholas Sarkozy. In its two year existence, it has sought to pragmatically build interest-based cooperation between European countries and countries that border the Mediterranean Sea. It seeks to upgrade the European Union’s political relationship with its Mediterranean partners, and to
promote co-ownership through the co-presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean, which is shared between a European country and a Southern country. Finally, it aims to establish concrete relationships through visible, large-scale projects (52).
Although the Union for the Mediterranean has been unwilling to directly involve itself in resolving the issues facing Israel and Palestine, the membership of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Egypt in the Union promotes the possibility of peace by other means (53). Through projects focused on economic, cultural and human rapprochement, perhaps tensions between the countries might decrease.
However, this seems to be an unjustified hope given the paralysis faced by the Union for the Mediterranean after the Gaza war. Tensions exist between the different members of the Union, and the June 7, 2010 meeting of the Union for the Mediterranean was postponed to encourage progress in the indirect negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Perhaps, as Alvaro de Vasconcelos writes, the UfM will take on a greater role in solidifying peace after a treaty has been signed. He writes, “Certainly one day, if there is peace in the Middle East, regional cooperation between Israel and its neighbors will be the best way to consolidate peace and achieve development (54).” BRAZIL AND THE PEACE PROCESSComitê Brasileiro de Interesse Nacional PalestinoAs a newly emerging power, Brazil has increasingly sought, since 2003, to put its mark on the Israel-Palestine peace process. Approximately 12 million Arabs, 100,000 Jews and 50,000 Palestinians live peacefully in Brazil, and Brazilian Palestinians, through the lobbying arm of the Brazilian Palestinian National Interest Committee, have been able to influence government policy vis-à-vis the conflict ( 55).
Brazil was the first country to obtain observer status at the Arab League. In March 2010, the Brazilian government committed 10 million US dollars to the Palestinian Authority. To maintain balance, Brazil is also part of a free trade agreement between Mercosul, or the South American common market, and both the Palestinian National Authority and Israel (56). President da Silva has called for the participation of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in future peace negotiations (57).
However, the Israeli government may see Brazil as biased in favor of the Palestinian camp. During President da Silva’s recent visit to Israel and the West Bank, he placed a wreath on Arafat’s grave but refused to visit the tomb of Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism. While da Silva suggested that he could not fit the second tomb visit into his schedule, the Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman saw this as an insult and boycotted Lula’s meeting in Israel (58).
Overall, the involvement of Brazil in the peace process adds the voice of an emerging country to a discussion often dominated by the developed world. Brazil has not been directly involved in the complex history of the conflict and can bring a “blank sheet” to the discussion (59). However, it is unlikely that Brazil will be able to seriously influence the process. The refusal of the United States to acknowledge the fuel swap agreement between Iran, Brazil and Turkey implies that the US still holds a firm grasp on international decision making in the Middle East region (60). Brazil’s lack of permanent membership status on the United Nations Security Council also limits its power to influence the peace process. CONCLUSIONAs the Israeli and Palestinian camps continue to move further apart, the need to define the limits of the negotiating terrain becomes increasingly important. All of these initiatives seek to address the final status issues of Jerusalem, territory and refugees. These issues cannot continue to be sidelined if a true resolution is to be reached. While no single initiative will bring about complete peace between the two parties, different aspects proposed by each of the above initiatives are worth considering. Benchmarks, civil society and a united Palestinian government are all essential. Through the involvement of a wider regional and international community, not only would a peace agreement have greater potential of being signed, but it would have significant economic and political effects61. Israeli reconciliation with Syria, the entire Arab world and Europe could spark economic productivity in the region. Additionally, the involvement of an emerging power in the peace process acknowledges the shift that is taking place in the international balance of power. It is certain that peace will not be imposed upon Israel and the PA. However, the consideration of these broader initiatives will begin to pull the two parties closer together instead of further apart. This report was originally published on Institut AMADEUSREFERENCES- “Israel, Palestinians to Resume Peace Talks September 2,” Associated Press, 20 August 2010; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay and Mark Landler. “U.S. and Israel Shift Attention to Peace Process,” New York Times, 7 July 2010.
- Bronner, Ethan. “In Mideast Talks, Scant Hopes From the Beginning,” New York Times, 20 August 2010; Danin, Robert. “The Daunting Prospects for Mideast Talks,” Council on Foreign Relations, 20 August 2010; Levy, Daniel.
- Bronner, Ethan. “As Biden Visits, Israel Unveils Plan for New Settlements,” New York Times, 9 March 2010.
- Frenkel, Sheera. “With Obama Meeting Tuesday, Israel Eases Gaza Blockade,” McClatchy Newspapers, 5 July 2010.
- “Egypt: Obama Has ‘Committed to Exerting Efforts towards Direct Peace Talks,’” The Associated Press and Haaretz, 28 July 2010.
- Bell, Molloy, et al. “The Jerusalem Old City Initiative Discussion Document: New Directions for Deliberation and Dialogue,” University of Toronto, p. 8.
- Ibid. p. 19-22
- Ibid. p. 9
- Ibid. p. 11-12
- See, for example, UN resolution 446; “Biden Condemns New Israeli Settlement Plan,” USA Today, 9 March 2010; “Statement by High Representative Catherine Ashton on Israel-Palestine Proximity Peace Talks,” European Union, 30 June 2010, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/115546.pdf
- “By Hook and by Crook: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank,” Relief Web, 6 July 2010.
- “Land and Settlement Issues,” Global Policy Forum, http://globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/israel-palestine-and-the-occupied-territories/land-and-settlement-issues.html
- “Council Approves Construction of 32 new Homes in East Jerusalem,” Haaretz, 12 July 2010.
- Hass, Amira. “IDF Destroys West Bank Village after Declaring it a Military Zone,” Haaretz, 21 July 2010.
- Brynen, Rex. “Palestinian Refugees: An Overview,” Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet, http://prrn.mcgill.ca/background/index.htm
- The resolution states that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date…”
- Brynen, Rex. “Palestinian Refugees and Final Status: Key Questions,” Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet, http://prrn.mcgill.ca/background/background_resolving.htm
- Brynen, Rex. “Much Ado about Nothing? The Refugee Working Group and the Perils of Multilateral Quasi-negotiation,” INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS 2, 2 (NOVEMBER 1997)
Joffe-Walt, Benjamin and the Media Line. “New Office Begins Investigating Lost Property of Middle East Jews,” Jerusalem Post, 28 July 2010. “A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” text released by the US State Department, 30 April 2003. See Dunne, Michelle. “A Two State Solution Requires Palestinian Politics,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 2010. The Tavis Smiley Show, NPR, 4 December 2003. Rubinstein, Danny. “PA: Arafat Okayed Geneva Accord,” Haaretz, 14 October 2003. To view the entire Geneva Accord document visit: http://www.geneva-accord.org; The Tavis Smiley Show, NPR, 4 December 2003. Kouchner and Moratinos. “ À quand l’État palestinien ? ” Le Monde 23 February 2010 Keinon, Herb and AP. “French Reconsider Recognizing Palestine , ” The Jerusalem Post 23 February 2010 “Erekat: No Unilateral Declaration of Palestinian State,” Haaretz 13 July 2010 Barak Ravid, Barak. “EU Initiative: Recognition of Palestinian State by Next Year,” Haaretz 21 February 2010 “À quand l’État palestinien ? ”By MM. Kouchner and Moratinos, Le Monde 23 February 2010 Dunne, Michelle. “A Two State Solution Requires Palestinian Politics,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 2010, p.1 “L’Egypte programme une sortie de crise à Gaza,” L’express.fr, 27 January 2009. Abu Toameh, Khaled. “Hamas, Fatah Crisis Continues,” Jerusalem Post, 19 June 2010. Abu Toameh, Khaled. “Hamas-Fatah Gap Unbridgeable,” Jerusalem Post, 30 June 2010; Dunne, Michelle. “A Two State Solution Requires Palestinian Politics,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 2010, p. 12; Issacharoff, Avi and Barak Ravid. “U.S. to Egypt: Fatah-Hamas deal undermines Israel-PA Talks,” Haaretz, 13 November 2009. Abu Toameh, Khaled. “Hamas-Fatah Gap Unbridgeable,” Jerusalem Post, 30 June 2010. Khashan, Hilal and Simon Haddad. “The Coupling of the Syrian-Lebanese Peace Talks: Beirut’s Options,” Security Dialogue 31, no. 2 (2000): 201 – 214; Murden, Simon. “Understanding Israel’s Long Conflict in Lebanon: The Search for an Alternative Approach to Security During the Peace Process,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 27, no. 1 (2000): 25-47. Salem, Paul. “Syrian-Israeli Peace: A Possible Key to Regional Change,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, December 2008, p. 5 Hof, Frederic C. “Mapping Peace Between Syria and Israel,” United States Institute of Peace Special Report, March 2009, p. 1 Salem, Paul. “Syrian-Israeli Peace: A Possible Key to Regional Change,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, December 2008, p. 6 Ben-Meir, Alon. “The Arab Peace Initiative: Now or Never,” Facts and Arts, 5 May 2010. Toumi, Habib. “Bahrain Urged to Pull Out of Arab Peace Initiative,” Gulf News, 4 June 2010. “Kuwait MPs Call for Withdrawal from Arab Peace Plan,” AFP, France 24, 1 June 2010. “Saudi King: Peace Initiative Still on Table,” Palestine Note, 29 June 2010. Asseburg, Muriel. “Euro Conflict Management in the Middle East,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2009, p. 4-5. “Mediterranean Union Launched Amid Hopes for Peace,” Deutsche Welle-World, 13 July 2008. De Vasconcelos, Alvaro. “The Union for the Mediterranean: Political Deadlock,” Med. 2009, p. 174 The Brazilian Palestinian National Interest Committee, a non-profit grassroots movement, seeks to “assist the establishing of an independent Palestinian state.” Its website may be accessed at: http://www.bpnic.org/ “Why Brazil Must Enter the Peace Process,” by PNIC staff, Palestinian National Interest Committee, 5 July 2010. “Brazil: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah Vital to Peace,” Press TV, 23 March 2010. “Brazilian President: ‘I Dream of a Free Palestine,’” Palestine Note, 17 March 2010; « Brazil President in West Bank: I Dream of a Free Palestine,” by News Agencies, Haaretz, 17 March 2010. “Editorial: Brazil’s Peace Bid,” Arab News, 16 March 2010. Sanger, David E. and Michael Slackman. “U.S. is Skeptical on Iranian Deal for Nuclear Fuel,” New York Times, 17 May 2010; “U.S.: Turkey-Brazil Nuclear Swap Deal is too Little too Late,” Reuters, 29 May 2010. According to Mohammad Mustafa, Palestinian Authority President Abbas’ top economic advisor, the Palestinian economy could grow by 20% annually if peace were signed with Israel. See Ferziger, Jonathan. “Palestinian Economy May Grow 20% with Peace Agreement, Abbas Advisor Says,” Bloomburg, 4 August 2010.
|
posted Oct 10, 2010 12:18 PM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Oct 10, 2010 12:23 PM
]
There are many ways you can help secure and strengthen the relationship between Palestine and the international community.
Whether you want to become a PNIC member or make a donation, your generous contribution to our lobby will yield tangible results.
PNIC is working on making Palestine more then just a realization, rather a sovereign independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, by ensuring international support for Palestinians. Make an online credit card contribution or make a contribution by mail. |
posted Oct 10, 2010 11:32 AM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Oct 10, 2010 12:04 PM
]
Photos of recent Brazilian Workers Party events that PNIC has taken part of in London. Photos by Marcio Darlei Macedo
 |
posted Jul 4, 2010 11:03 PM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Jul 5, 2010 5:29 AM
]
By João Novaes, March 21 2010
Israel plans to build homes in East Jerusalem, Palestinians demand halt to restart peace talks
The Israeli settlements in territories claimed by Palestinians returned to the center of discussion this week, with international pressure on the Israeli government to stop the construction of 1,600 houses in the eastern portion of Jerusalem. The measure has drawn criticism even from the more traditional Israeli ally, the United States.
Last Friday (19), the diplomatic Quartet group on the Middle East (comprising of the U.S., European Union, Russia and the UN), which attempts to establish a plan for peace between Jews and Palestinians, called on Israel to freeze all settlements, and the Palestinians to not take steps that would undermine the start of negotiations. The diplomats also outlined a plan for both parties to achieve peace in two years.
The Israeli public is divided - according to research commissioned by the newspaper Yediot Aharonot on Friday, 51% of respondents are in favor of building new settlements in Jerusalem, compared with 46%. In another survey, published the same day by the journal Haaretz, the difference is 48 to 41%, respectively.
On the one hand, the Palestinians consider a halt to construction of settlements in both East Jerusalem and in the region of the West Bank, as pre-condition to peace negotiations. In turn, the current administration in Israel says the settlements are not harmful to the peace agreements, while Jerusalem is the "sole and undivided capital" of their country.
"There is a connotation exaggerated around the issue of settlements. Building houses does not kill anyone, firing rockets, yes. To think the entire Arab-Israeli conflict revolves around this question is an artificial vision and populist," said the spokesman of the Embassy of Israel in Brazil, Raphael Singer.
The diplomat rejects criticism that Israel does not seek to advance peace. "No country has done what we did today. We withdrew from Sinai in 1982 after signing a peace agreement in an area three times larger than ours. We left Gaza in 2005 evacuating eight thousand people, with families who were there for two generations. So everything can be negotiated," the diplomat said.
But the executive director of the Brazilian Palestinian National Interest Committee (BPNIC), Husam Bajis, has an opposite view. "The settlements affect the lives of the residents of Palestinian towns close to them. Definitely not contributing to peace and affect the relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. "
To the activist, the existence of settlements in itself is an illegal act from the standpoint of international law. These settlements are on the rise, are constructed unilaterally and considered illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention - which prohibits the taking of territory by force, preventing the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. They are also condemned by resolutions 242 (1967 after the Six Day War) and 338 (1973, after the Yom Kippur War) of the UN Security Council, demanding withdrawal from these territories. Thus, the international community has an obligation to stop these initiatives, "he said.
Second to Bajis, the presence of settlements is a source of great suffering and hardship for the Palestinian people's daily lives. "To facilitate the expansion of settlements on Palestinian land, Israel continues to build a vast network of roads connecting one illegal settlement to another. At the same time, imposing a series of restrictions on mobility and access, hampering travel from one city to another. I speak of about 2.4 million Palestinians living for generations in the West Bank," he protests.
In the opinion of Bajis, the same must occur in these two regions (West Bank and East Jerusalem) as the procedure in the Gaza Strip in 2005, when Israel unilaterally evacuated the area. "Currently, approximately 17% of the population in the West Bank is composed of Jewish settlers, making it difficult for such an evacuation to occur. By December 2009 we had 400 thousand settlers in the occupied West Bank and 280 thousand in East Jerusalem. The evacuation must be done partially, and the Palestinian Authority must help Israel this time."
At that time, the total number of evacuees was 8 thousand in all settlements in the Gaza Strip and two in the West Bank, causing serious damage to the government of then prime minister Ariel Sharon. However, Bajis recalls that if this occurs, other problems may affect the Palestinians: "The unemployment rate will certainly increase when the Israelis are gone." Singer, in turn, says Israel can discuss the topic, but recalls that many settlements already have more than twenty thousand inhabitants. "These are towns in practice."
The Solution of Two States
Bajis and Singer argue that the solution passes through the coexistence of two states. "We believe that only the establishment of a Palestinian state will bring peace to the region. Israel recognizes our right to exist, and the Palestinians, in turn, must take this into account," says Bajis.
Singer recalls the Palestinian stance in establishing pre-conditions so the conversations can start. "Historically, (the Palestinians) will always find a reason not to negotiate, and now found these 1600 houses. But if they want to resolve the impasse, we have to negotiate. Although we do not agree on some points, they can not set preconditions."
The diplomat said that Abbas, unlike Hamas, is considered by Israel a partner, but he must be willing to talk without conditions. "For the solution of two-states to become a reality, he must sit at a table. We have many things to handle but difficult to solve. Don't not just make statements to the press, we have to talk face to face, as it was decided in the past."
However, the two sides disagree on important issues, especially regarding the division of Jerusalem. "Although not everyone agrees with us, Jerusalem is part of Israel, our capital city, any country has the right to build homes in its capital." The Palestinian position argues that with the creation of their future Palestinian state, East Jerusalem becomes the capital.
International Community
Bajis believes that without U.S. support, Israel would find itself in a difficult situation. "I believe that President Barack Obama could help to halt new settlements, but as he has many affairs to settle, I'm not optimistic about that." However, the activist points out the need to look into the positive aspects of the conflict. "The two main U.S. parties already recognize the need for the existence of two independent states. We now require that Palestinians and Israelis do the same and work together to seek peace and improve the lives of the Palestinian population."
Singer already said that the international community should press for the speedy resumption of negotiations in order to avoid rising tensions . "There must be a commitment to eliminate the negative forces that are troubling the peacekeepers. I am speaking specifically of Iran, which supports groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. This policy is not only against the interest of Israel, but against the Palestinians themselves. "
Context
The Palestinians want to proclaim the West Bank and Gaza Strip a sovereign state. To do so, requires an Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since June 1967, including East Jerusalem.
According to the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians want "a state that is based on the 1967 borders." "The surface of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is 6205 km2 and we want these 6205 km2."
Israel conquered in 1967, the eastern (Arab) Jerusalem and made it its own, and considers city the eternal and undivided capital the State of Israel.
The Palestinian Authority wants to turn East Jerusalem the capital of their future state and asserts that this is a non-negotiable condition.
In peace talks at Camp David in 2000, the Israeli prime minister at the time, Ehud Barak, broke the taboo and first proposed sharing sovereignty in East Jerusalem, suggesting that Arab suburbs be under Palestinian control.
Barak also suggested giving special status to the mosque compound in East Jerusalem, the Muslim holy site built on the ancient temple of the Jews.
There are four million Palestinian refugees driven from their homes when the State of Israel was created in 1948.
The Palestinians have always demanded that Israel recognize the right of return of these people, as indicated in Resolution 194 of the UN General Assembly .
Israel categorically refuses to grant the "right of return" because it would put an end to the Jewish character of the state, but is willing to tolerate the placement of these refugees in the future Palestinian state.
Water Control
Besides this, Israel controls 80% of the ground water level, or first layer of underground water, in the West Bank. The Palestinians want to share it fairly and argue that their population grows faster and also suffers from a chronic shortage of this essential natural resource.
Israel demands the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state as the "State of the Jewish people" in any future peace negotiations. But Palestinians believe that accepting this point would mean losing the right of return for their refugees.
The Palestinian National Interest Committee is a non-profit organization whose principal mission is to work with foreign legislative bodies on legislation that strengthens the relationship with the International Community. |
posted Jul 4, 2010 10:52 PM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Jul 4, 2010 11:16 PM
]
By Husam Bajis, Palestinian National Interest Committee, January 18 2010
The Palestinian Authority needs to work on bringing together a wide spectrum of Palestinian societies on a unified agenda, in a context characterized by independence and freedom, and internal political divisions. President Mahmoud Abbas must also aim to provide a truly democratic and independent alternative for all Palestinian voters.
The most important work of the Palestinian Authority in 2010 will be accomplished by the support of Palestinian Citizens as a vital part of the national and international plan of action. The Palestinian Authority must be the only place where everyone can take sustainable action and participate in the democratic process. Palestinian Citizens from all spectrums of life have a direct effect on the outcome of an independent State of Palestine and all activities of the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinian Authority must also work to support the various groups standing in Legislative elections, and to bring sustainable socio-economic, political and humanitarian reforms.
The Palestinian Authority must do more to help humanitarian and socio-political institutions in Palestine and coordinates socio-political activities between business, civil and government societies in order to keeping Palestine safe and expanding opportunity for every Palestinian Citizen regardless of gender, age, or social status.
The Palestinian Authority’s commitment will be reflected in a well designed agenda that emphasizes strong sustainable economic growth, adequate health care, retirement security; whereas the Government is more compassionate and transparent, responsive to the Palestinian people's needs and their expectations through open, honest and accountable Governance, thereby securing national sovereignty while protecting civil rights, human rights and fundamental freedoms; fulfilling Palestine’s international responsibilities throughout the international community’s altogether.
The goals must be ambitious: to improve the quality of life and extend economic benefits and empowerment broadly throughout Palestinian societies, government institutions and business communities. Part of the goals should seek from the Israeli government and wealthier communities across Israel a renewed commitment to collaborate and harmonize the peace efforts under way to protect justice for the Palestinian people.
The different organs, agencies and bodies of the Palestinian Authority should be involved in nearly every aspect of human rights, civil rights and human development, with activities ranging from economic development and advancement, legislative research projects, global partnership and trade, to financial and technical assistance from governments and private enterprises. The Palestinian Authority must play a vital supporting role as developing Palestinian communities and shape, and implement their strategies to stimulate socio-economic growth. The Palestinian Authority must place a high priority on communicating knowledge about development.In the year 2010, the Palestinian Authority must strive to enhance the quality of life for all people throughout the nation, through the constructive enforcement of human rights and civil rights. The Palestinian Authority thereafter must endeavor to promote understanding of the human rights systems and mechanisms for prosperity and peace and organize its activities on a local, municipal, regional and territorial basis as defined in its Constitution.
The Palestinian National Interest Committee is a non-profit organization whose principal mission is to work with foreign legislative bodies on legislation that strengthens the relationship with the International Community. |
posted Jul 4, 2010 10:30 PM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Jul 4, 2010 11:30 PM
]
By Husam Bajis, Palestinian National Interest Committee, December 17 2009
Brazil is very much interested in giving the Palestinians a stronger voice on the international stage, and the Palestinian National Interest Committee is working on building a solid foundation for Brazil’s entrance into the Peace Process, to assist in these efforts.
Brazil’s objective is clear, to improve the political, social and economic relations as priority between Israel and Palestinians. It is this notion that Brazil, a country where Arabs and Jews live peacefully, that gave the committee hope that peace is still possible.
President Lula of Brazil’s Worker’s Party has been working since 2003 to improve relations between Palestine and Israel.
The signing of a free trade agreement between Mercosul (South American Common Market), with both the Palestinian National Authority and the Israeli Government, along with a recent contribution of US $10 million from Brazil to the Palestinian Government’s economic reforms program, and the sending of medicinal products for the Palestinian people in Gaza, reinforces peace and equality in the Middle East.
Desiring to promote relations between Israel and Palestine through Brazil’s initiatives, the Committee has started leading efforts for Brazilian delegations to visit Palestine for meetings with government officials and policy makers, to improve friendship in the region and strengthen the development of economic relations, such as establishing sister city relations.
During these meetings, we hope the Palestinian National Authority reaffirms Palestinian interest to promote cooperation in areas which are of mutual interest with Brazil.
Brazil is not expecting a major breakthrough in peace negotiations, unless Israel ends the colonization and abandons the West Bank settlements. Nevertheless, the Committee is convinced the moment of opportunity to achieve concrete progress in building the Palestinian state is now and the participation of Brazil will give greater legitimacy to the peace process.
Brazil was the first country to be given observer status in the Arab League. Today there are 12 million Arabs, 100,000 Jews and over 50,000 Palestinians that call their home Brazil.
The committee is to promote Brazil as key for Palestinian-Israeli peace, by urging Members of Congress in Brazil, to adopt resolutions to help in restoring the peace process and thus resolve the humanitarian situation, in order to avoid future conflicts in the Middle East, and to support important initiatives that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian State.
The Palestinian National Interest Committee is a non-profit organization whose principal mission is to work with foreign legislative bodies on legislation that strengthens relationship with the International Community. |
posted Jul 4, 2010 10:24 PM by PNIC Staff
[
updated Jul 4, 2010 11:31 PM
]
By Daniel Roncaglia, January 8 2009
Hamas is a resistance group that exists because the Palestinians have no government, weapons, security and rights. Therefore, the historic conflict with Israel will end only when the Palestinian people achieve the legal recognition of their state. This is what the political analyst Husam Bajis believes, Executive Director of the Brazilian Palestinian National Interest Committee.
"The Gaza Strip has no legal and social autonomy. Only a unity government will give dignity to all Palestinians", said the Palestinian who lives in the United States.
According to Bajis, the group which controls the Gaza Strip is not practicing terrorism. "Not having a government and an army, the Palestinians have no protection. Before they threw rocks, now Hamas throws rockets as a means of resistance. It is the only way to defend from Israel", he says.
For him, Israel attempts to colonize the Palestinian territories, violating Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which prohibits the annexation of territories by force.
He argues that the low number of Israelis killed by rockets show the actions of Hamas are not terrorist, but an attitude of opposition. Data from the Israel Project NGO reveal that since 2003, more than 10 thousand rockets were launched at southern Israel, causing the death of 28 people.
The analyst says that Israel committed a war crime in the current offensive, which lasted 13 days and has killed over 700 Palestinians and 10 Israelis. "How can a country attack a nation that has no army? This is a war crime", he says. Second for Bajis, Israel is interested to show Hamas as a terrorist group to other countries, so as to justify their attacks.
Bajis says he defends the peace. "We need an agreement to stop the war. Who is suffering with this situation are women and children who do not have the power to speak".
The analyst believes there is no point in eliminating Hamas. "If Hamas is removed, another group will appear", he says. Bajis defends the unity of Palestinians. "The world will defend Palestine only when the Palestinians demonstrate unity", he says.
For the analyst, Barack Obama, who assumes the presidency of the United States this month, will not help to change the situation. "They have many economic problems. Will not do things different", he explains.
Bajis believes that Brazil may have a prominent role in this conflict, recalling the country supports both the legality of the Palestine Liberation Organization as well as the Palestinian National Authority.
Therefore, the committee supports the entry of the country in the UN Security Council. "Brazil is an example of a country where the coexistence between Arabs and Jews is peaceful," says the Palestinian.
The Palestinian National Interest Committee is a non-profit organization whose principal mission is to work with the foreign legislative bodies on legislation that strengthens the relationship between the international community and Palestinians. |
|
