Palestine-Mandate

Tensions may be heating up again about Israeli reconstruction plans for a damaged ramp leading from the Western Wall Plaza in the Old City of Jerusalem, where Jewish worshippers pray at Judaism’s most sacred and revered site, up to the Mughrabi Gate entrance to the Haram as-Sharif mosque esplanade, the third holiest site of Islam.

A revised Israeli design to rebuild the ramp is expected to receive Israeli government approval imminently.

Depending on what is finally approved – by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior’s Regional Planning Commission – there still may be one or two problems, but the revised plan as viewed a few weeks ago by Israeli attorney Danny Seidemann, appears to be a big improvement over an earlier Israeli plan which, he said, reflected “ulterior motives”.

When the Regional Planning Commission hands down its decision, there will still be a possibility of appealing to the Jerusalem District Court if necessary, says Seidemann.

Seideman presented objections to both the original and the revised designs before open meetings at the Jerusalem Municipality, and at a more recent meeting of the Ministry of the Interior’s Regional Planning Commission, on behalf of Ir Amim, an Israeli NGO which he formed to work for the equitable sharing of Jerusalem, which Ir Amim calls a city “of two peoples and three religions”.

The Rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinowitz, confirmed that a decision on the new ramp design is now being finalized. He described the revised design as “a bridge in the air”, and said he liked the revised plan. “I hope that by September or October we will start building”, the Rabbi said. “The design was arrived at after a lot of thought, and the plans are very aesthetic”.

Adnan Husseini, a former head of the Waqf in Jerusalem, who is presently an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Jerusalem affairs, said the plan is not available, until now, “for the public”.

But, Husseini also said that the Israelis announced their original plan through the Jerusalem Municipality, and held meetings – which Palestinians apparently do not attend, so as not to confer legitimacy on the occupation – to discuss the design. The Israelis have also shown the plan to UNESCO, Husseini said, and an alternative plan prepared by Jordanians was also presented.

The situation has cooled somewhat by the involvement of UNESCO, a Paris-based organization. Though Israel has often had a tendentious relationship with many UN bodies and agencies, it appeared to have no qualms or objections in this case.

“This site one of the most sensitive places on the planet”, Israel attorney Danny Seideman said in an interview last week, “and the role of UNESCO has been very positive, fair, and evenhanded”.

UNESCO inscribed the Old City of Jerusalem on its World Heritage Site list for protection in 1981 – and in 1982 on a list of World Heritage Sites in danger. The current Director-General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura, proposed a “comprehensive plan of action to safeguard the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem”, which was approved by UNESCO’s membership in 2003.

Matsuura recently visited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the Muqata’a Presidential Headquarters in Ramallah. On the same trip, Matsuura also spent time visiting areas in Israel which are, or which may in the future become, sites designated as worthy of being listed, and protected, as part of the cultural heritage of mankind

UNESCO intervened in the Mughrabi Gate controversy last year in an attempt to open a dialog between the parties concerned. Under its umbrella, UNESCO has formally brought Jordan back into the picture concerning the Mughrabi Gate excavations and ramp renovation.

For all intents and purposes, and in actual fact, that means Israel and Jordan, two governments which are state members of UNESCO.

Israel, in its 1994 Peace Treaty with Jordan, stated that it “respects” Jordan’s “special role” in the “Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem” (but not, however, in management of the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, for which Jordan also reportedly wanted a special status during the peace treaty negotiations). The 1994 Peace Treaty also says that Jordan’s “historic role” in the Jerusalem shrines will be given “high priority” when “negotiations on the permanent status” [i.e., between Israel and the Palestinians] “will take place”.

Jordanian personnel headed the Waqf when Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967. After a period of stronger Palestinian influence in the 1990s, Jordan once again now exercises control of the Waqf’s top post, while the Palestinian Authority is in charge of nominating the Mufti.

The most recent involvement of Jordan in this controversy has been through UNESCO, however, and not through the Waqf, which prefers to avoid dealing with the Israelis as occupiers, because that would signify acquiescence to the legitimacy of Israeli authority in East Jerusalem.

Seidemann said that “Neither the Waqf nor the Jordanians ever formally participated within the Israeli approval process, though they did participate in the UNESCO deliberations”.

The Rabbi of the Western Wall said that UNESCO and the Waqf have had an opportunity to give input into the design, but “both did not come two times to meetings, and the third time UNESCO sent only low-ranking officials. Their objections were political and not actually about the design or the way it will be built”.

“There was a learning process”, Seideman said, and “the Jordanians fulfilled the role of responsible adults”.

But Seidemann says that he believes the new or revised Israeli design seems even better than the Jordanian design – though there are still problems with the revised Israeli design that must be resolved, including the fact that it would result in a significant expansion of the Western Wall Plaza by razing remaining remnants of the Mughrabi Quarter.

The Jordanian plan featured the construction of containment walls to hide the Islamic artifacts now being excavated under the crumbling ramp, Seidemann said, but he feels that the columns in the new Israeli plan are more reasonable.

The Turkish Government also initially protested the Israeli actions vocally and visibly when the controversy blew up just over a year ago. A technical mission sent by Turkey visited to examine the site, and wrote a highly critical report. Recently, however, the Turkish government seems to have all but disappeared from view on the issue.

The Jerusalem Municipality has, coincidentally, reportedly rushed through plans to permit the construction of a memorial to Ottoman war victims just outside (about 50 meters outside) the south-east corner of the Old City walls.

The Mufti of Al-Aqsa, Muhammed Hussein, denounced the whole reconstruction project during his sermon during Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of East Jerusalem on 13 June. The Mufti reportedly told worshippers that information now available indicates that the temporary wooden bridge that allows non-Muslim tourists and visitors to the Haram ash-Sharif (Mosque Esplanade) is to be replaced by a “steel bridge”.

This structure, the Mufti reportedly complained, would allow easier and faster access for the Israeli police and security forces, and would also expand the area currently available for Jewish women to pray in their separate section in the southern area of the Plaza facing the Western or Wailing Wall, which is below the southern end of the Mosque Esplanade.

In fact, some Palestinians in Jerusalem say, the proposed ramp appeared (in the original Israel plan) designed mainly to serve the Israeli security forces, and was wide enough for an armed vehicle to get quickly up into the Haram as-Sharif if riots break out.

Israeli attorney Seideman said that there were proposals for a structure strong enough to hold 300 Israeli police standing on the ramp at one time, in full gear.

However, with the intervention of UNESCO agreement was reached that the new ramp should not be a new security tool, but should instead restore the “status quo ante”.

While the new design may give somewhat better access for Israeli security forces, Seideman said, it will also provide greater accessibility for the handicapped, for the first time – including for Muslims with disabilities.

The ramp and the Mughrabi Gate is the only entrance to the Haram as-Sharif for non-Muslims – including Jews.

The other entrances are normally reserved for Muslims, while Muslims are not supposed to use the Mughrabi Gate.

The ramp was damaged by the elements, including a minor earthquake. Heavy rain and snow in the winter of 2004 eventually caused the collapse of what is called the “northern wall” of the structure in February 2004. It was declared unsafe.

Three years later, Israel began “salvage” excavations on the site that have aroused controversy and great suspicion, all the more so because the Israeli decisions were being taken unilaterally – as UNESCO said in a report on the controversy in the spring of 2007.

The structures tucked under the ramp which are now being excavated include part of an ancient madrasa and mosque as well as parts of homes from various historical periods. Seideman said these included structures from the Ottoman, Mameluk, and Ommayad periods. UNESCO said in a recent report that “several strata of archaeological structures (from the Herodian times to the British Mandate period) and of earth and rubble”, while the Rabbi of the Western Wall said he believed the structures were very recent.

The original Israeli plan to renovate the ramp suggested the removal of all or part of these structures, which Seidemann called “Islamic artifacts” in order to allow an enlargement of the prayer area reserved for Jewish women in front of the Western Wall.

The revised plan, as presented to the Regional Planning Commission, proposed the preservation of these structures – but with the vaults transformed into prayer halls for Jewish women. This, too, would be “very problematic, inflammatory and dangerous”, according to Seideman.

Otherwise, Seidemann said, the revised Israeli plan, which was the only one presented to the Regional Planning Commission, is very close to the original route of the ramp, and he said he considers it “reasonable”. It might be some 20 meters longer, Seidemann said, but the location, slope, and overall size are “much improved”.

The revised plan, Seidemann said, “is much more modest than the original plan”, which he called “megalomaniac”. That would have built a much larger and longer structure, he said, and would have resulted in considerable damage to very important archeological sites. And, according to Seidemann, there were a number of “hidden agendas to increase access for the Israeli police and military and the extremist settlers, and ad nothing to do with repair work.”.

There is “a reasonable chance that the decision of the Regional Planning Commission will be balanced”, he continued, but the test will not be the design of the ramp itself, but whether the area to the north of the ramp will still be marked for razing, and whether or not the idea to turn Islamic-era artifacts into Jewish prayer halls is rejected.

The Regional Planning Board, Seideman said, “is trying to do the right thing, which is rare. Their public hearing was very civil and intelligent, and there were clearly instructions from the political echelons to handle the situation responsibly. As Abba Eban once said, ‘politicans may eventually do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities’.”

By contrast, non-binding hearings held earlier at the Jerusalem Municipality had been “hostile, primitive, and racist”, Seidemann said. “This played to the grandstand, but had no real impact”.

The Haram as-Sharif is “the volcanic core of the conflict, and fundamental extremists on both sides are trying to take advantage of the situation”, Seideman said. “It makes everybody acts strangely – normal people become neurotic, and neurotic people become psychotic”.

The plateau itself is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, the site where the inner sanctum of the two Jewish temples, which housed the Ark of the Covenant, containing the Ten Commandments and the Torah, is believed to have been built.

The Western Wall is composed of huge slabs of quarried and cut stone and believed to be part of the second (if not also of the first) Jewish temples that were built – and then destroyed, first by the Babylonians, then by the Romans – in Jerusalem.

After the Mughrabi Quarter was razed, a large plaza was created for Jewish worshippers, and the stated policy of the Israeli government remains that it is open to visitors of all faiths.

The Western Wall plaza is also used for state events, including for Israeli Defense Force ceremonies for induction, promotion, and commemorations.

Nearly one thousand residents of the Old City, many of whom were 1948 refugees from the Lod region near Tel Aviv, or from West Jerusalem, were made homeless in the process of clearing the area in 1967 to create the Plaza, and became refugees for a second time. Many moved to the Shuafat refugee camp on the northern outskirts of East Jerusalem, or to Anata – both of which have now been effectively banished to the West Bank by the route of The Wall in north-eastern areas of Jerusalem..

A still-existing though some believe now eroding “de facto” arrangement worked out just after the 1967 war by Israel’s Defense Minister at the time, Moshe Dayan, gave the Waqf authority over the Haram as-Sharif mosque esplanade, while Israel proclaimed itself in full charge of the site’s Western Wall.

Despite the immense religious importance of the place, there was no Jewish challenge at the time to Moshe Dayan’s “de facto” arrangement of partitioned responsibility. The religious-national right-wing Israeli settler movement had not yet been created.

The very sanctity of the site protected it, for years, from Jewish militant agitation. Mainstream rabbinic interpretation taught that Jewish Law forbids Jewish people to go up to the Temple Mount.

The Rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinowitz, said in an interview last week with this journalist that this remains his belief and official position.

Rabbi Rabinowitz explained that the prohibition of visits to the site is “not because it is not ours. It is ours. But it is because of the sanctity of the place. It is where the Holy of Holies stood. Jews who go there must purify themselves with the [sacrifice of the] Red Heifer, which we do not have now”.

The first Temple was built by King Solomon over 500 years B.C. (before the start of the Common or Christian Era, which began with the birth of Christ). The second Temple was built in the same time period, about 50 years after the destruction of the first Temple. The second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.

Some rabbis have more recently adopted the view that Jews could go to the Temple Mount – as long as they avoided certain specific areas. Jewish visitors generally walk only around the perimeter of the mosque esplanade, and they avoid wearing leather while visiting the site.

Rabbi Rabinowitz explained that “There are a very few activists, a very small percentage, who do not observe Jewish Law. And even those who do go up to the site, do not go to every place there”.

The Rabbi said that “the entire Temple Mount, like the rest of Jerusalem, is under Jewish authority. Jerusalem has been important to us for generations, for thousands of years, wherever in the world Jews found themselves”. And, he noted, his grandfather was expelled from the Old City in the war of 1948.

“The current agreement, made in 1967, for the Waqf to take care of the Temple Mount, is in place until today”, the Rabbi said. “They are in charge of the Temple Mount, and we are in charge of the Western Wall. The excavations on our sides are open to the public, but we do not know about everything that’s going on up there”.

Excavations carried out on the esplanade directly under Al-Aqsa Mosque to create more prayer space have been a source of anguish for many Israelis, who believe that valuable antiquities were removed and tossed out carelessly, and there are continuing recovery efforts to sift through the soil that was removed.

The connection between the Rabbi and the Waqf is through the Israeli police, he said, and there is “full cooperation”. He explained that the contacts are not on a daily basis, but “only if things come up” – although the police and the Waqf authorities are in touch on a regular basis.

As far as the Rabbi is concerned, he said, he “would prefer not to have the Mughrabi Gate at all. We do not go up to the Temple Mount, so it is not a concern to us. There are other entrances that could be used”, he added.

He said he “would be very interested if all of that were to be removed”, because that would enable an extension of the women’s prayer area at the Western Wall. “In 1967, they didn’t see the need [for a large women’s area]”, the Rabbi added, “but now we see the need”. However, the Rabbi said, a decision was made to remove only a part of what is being excavated.

The Israeli government is firmly of the view that it has the right to make any decisions about what happens in the Western Wall plaza because it has been declared “an area of Jewish sovereignty” since the 1967 war.

Two days into the 1967 war, on 7 June, Israeli troops took East Jerusalem. The first step, taken three weeks later in the Knesset, was “the extension of Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to the eastern neighborhoods of the city”, as the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs says.

Then, on 30 July 1980, Israel proclaimed a new “Basic Law” stating that Jerusalem [by then, meaning the greatly expanded “Greater Jerusalem” defined after the 1967 war] is “the eternal and undivided capital of Israel”, as well as the seat of Israel’s government.

The United Nations has taken the position that these actions are “null and void”.

For the Waqf, and for Palestinians, as well as for many others around the world, the areas that Israel conquered in 1967 – including East Jerusalem — are still under belligerent military occupation.

Adnan Husseini, a former head of the Waqf, who is presently an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Jerusalem affairs, said that there was a small police post on the Haram as-Sharif during the Jordanian time, which the Israelis took over.

But he feels the police should generally remain outside. “The police should be on all the gates all the time”, he said, “because they should be taking care of the situation”.

But, Husseini said, the police are now “moving everywhere inside the Mosque. And it’s not just the police with blue clothes. It’s also the border police with olive green uniforms, and even special police for more dangerous confrontations who carry automatic weapons. They are using all kinds of security, and it’s not any more a holy place”.

Al-Aqsa Mosque, he said, “started to be a mosque 1400 years ago…It is a key between earth and heaven, and the instructions of prayers started in this place”.

“What we need is to stop any intervention or threat coming from the outside”, Hussein said, “but instead the police responsibility has changed, and the police are now more concerned about the Muslims coming to pray. They control them, instead of controlling the settlers. They allow groups inside, in violation of the agreed instructions for visits. But some are coming not under the umbrella of religion, but with political goals, to change the status of the place. And the police are allowing it. This is a provocation. And this is part of the Israeli policy towards changing the status of the Mosque”.

Husseini said that the settlers are “very extreme” and have engaged in “violence in and around the Old City”. And, he said, “when the settlers enter the Mosque, they try to pray. But they should pray in their own places…Everyone should pray in his own place. They (the settlers) wanted to change this Mosque into a synagogue and to pray there. But touching religious issues creates troubles and hatreds”.

“All the time we have protested to everyone”, Husseini added, “because they are hurting, and touching the feelings of others, and this is dangerous”.

The caption reads: “An Israeli soldier delivers blindfolded Palestinian prisoners to a military base near the northern Gaza Strip”.

FIrst of all, we need to know where these Palestinians were taken prisoner:  Was it in Gaza?  Was it in the West Bank? Or, was it in Israel itself?

Then, we need to know where is the military base?

To detain Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory and take them outside of that territory — as in this case, to Israel — would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The caption also says: “An Israeli negotiator was due to travel to Egypt on Thursday in a bid to speed up indirect negotiations with the Hamas movement for the release of a soldier the Islamists have held for two years”

Apparently, either the photographer and/or the caption writer were aware of the irony of Israel continuing to “detain” Palestinians while the Israelis themselves are utterly preoccupied with the return of one IDF soldier (Gilad Shalit) who was captured at Kerem Shalom and held captive for the past two years inside Gaza, and with the issue of the return of two soldiers (or their bodies) who were captured by Hizballah in a disputed area along Israel’s northern border just after Shalit was seized near Gaza.

The Hizballah action, which triggered a massive Israeli military response — now known as the Second Lebanon War — was aimed at taking the pressure off Gaza and increasing the pressure on Israel, both to change its policies, and to negotiate for the release of its captured men.

This photo w.as taken apparently today for AFP by David Buimovitch

From Ma’an News Agency on Friday 20 June: …”Israeli forces used a new kind of weapon capable of firing 30 tear gas bombs at once, and dozens of demonstrators suffered from gas inhalation … Tear gas bombs fired by the Israeli soldiers also set a grove of olive trees on fire, burning about ten trees. Israeli soldiers also used another weapon known as ‘the scream’, which they had used three years ago in Bil’in. This weapon makes a terrible sound that affects the middle ear, causing people who hear it to lose balance and fall to the ground. Bil’in residents have held non-violent protests against the Israeli separation wall each week for over three years. In 2007, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled in favor of the villagers and ordered the Israeli army to dismantle a segment of the wall so that villagers would regain access to some of their lands. The Israeli army has yet to re-route the wall in the village, refusing to comply with the Court’s order for ’security reasons’.” The full news report can be read here .

According to the Associated Press here :

• The truce takes effect at 6 a.m. Thursday (11 p.m. EDT Wednesday).

• All Gaza-Israel violence stops. After three days, Israel eases its blockade on Gaza, allowing more vital supplies in.

• A week later, Israel further eases restrictions at cargo crossings.

• In the final stage, talks are conducted about opening the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt and a prisoner exchange to free Corporal. Gilad Schalit, held by Hamas-affiliated groups for two years.

Gideon Litchfield, the correspondent of The Economist magazine in Jerusalem, posted this on his blog, Fugitive Peace, on 17 June 2008:
“Home after a long day in Ramallah interviewing Fatah people about whether their party can ever get it together. It’s like listening to Marxist student politics (which, after all, is what Fatah started out as). Long rants about local committees, district committees, regional committees, ad hoc committees, sub-committees; the central committee, the higher committee, the revolutionary council; protocols, rules and constitutions; agendas both hidden and explicit; struggle, unity, fawda (chaos) and fitna (strife); the cadres, the party, the movement, and the national interest, which someone is always either pursuing or undermining, and often both at once.” …

The blog can be found here .

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the Muqata’a Presidential Compound in Ramallah at noon on Sunday.

The main message Rice heard from Palestinian officials was a demand, yet again, to put pressure on Israel to stop its settlement activities on occupied Palestinian land.

But this is one argument that seems to have been won in advance – though how much pressure will be put, and how effectively, remains in question.

In her opening statement at the press conference, Rice said, “It’s important to have an atmosphere of trust and confidence…Actions and announcements are having a negative effect.” She did not specify which actions, or which announcements, but from the apparently satisfied reactions of President Abbas and members of his team, it seems she was referring to something Israel had done or said.

No party should be taking steps to pre-judge the outcome of the negotiations, Rice said sternly. She added that the US will not consider such actions or announcements as influencing the final status negotiations between the parties, and that the solution will be achieved on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

However, in response to a question from a journalist, Rice indicated that the US would not support a draft resolution being discussed in the UN Security Council about the recent announcements of expansion in Ramat Shlomo and other settlements around Jerusalem. “My strong view,” Rice stated, “is that this is not an issue which will benefit from Security Council action.” She did say that she was concerned, in particular, about those outposts “which are illegal under Israeli law.”

As to what pressure she might put on Israeli officials to stop settlement activities, Rice explained that “the Israeli government is a sovereign government and taking its own decisions, but it is Israel that has a strong interest in building an atmosphere of confidence…and so it is in Israel’s interest to do everything it can to build confidence.”

While en route to the region, Rice was asked in an exchange with journalists on board her flight to Tel Aviv on Saturday evening: “Are you not annoyed that every time you go there, there is a new announcement of settlements, either just before you come or just after you leave?”

Rice replied: “Unfortunately, there have been a few whether I’m coming or not.. Look, it’s a problem. And I think it’s a problem that I’m going to address with the Israelis. And … as the President said today …it gives us every reason that we really ought to be determining the boundaries of the state, because what’s in Israel will be in Israel at that point, and what’s in Palestine will be in Palestine. And that’s the best way to resolve this, but you know, I repeat, we’ve talked a great deal about the importance of Roadmap obligations, and this one isn’t being met”.

Rice also said that she will be talking with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad — “so I’ll also have an opportunity to talk about what is another track of Annapolis. The negotiations are one track, but the – improving the lives of the Palestinians and building the institutions of the Palestinian state is another track, and that’s the one in which I’m most involved with Prime Minister Fayyad”.

It appears that Rice will be having one “trilateral meeting” — apparently today, Sunday — with Rice meeting the heads of the two negotiating teams — Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi LIvni, and Palestinian former Prime Minister Ahmad Qurei (Abu Alaa).

Rice will have dinner on Sunday evening with embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

A second “trilateral meeting” will be held on Monday, nvolving Fayyad and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak — who, as Prime MInister Olmert has said, is in charge of the West Bank (and, from a distance, of Gaza).

This meeting with Barak and Fayyad will focus on “improvement of the lives of Palestinians” through greater ease in “movement and access”: On this point, however, Rice refused to be drawn into a pointed criticism of Israel for failing to meet another Road Map obligation. Instead, she said politely, more could be done in this regard.

“I do think that there are improvements in Jenin on all of the elements, improvements on security with the Palestinians having responsibilities there, improvements in terms of movement and access, and the beginnings of improvements in terms of the economic side. I am told that there are other areas where there have been some improvements in movement and access as well; for instance, you know rather than — more random stopping of vehicles rather than every vehicle, that kind of thing. But it’s not enough, and there certainly and clearly needs to be more. And I understand the security considerations as well as anyone, but the obligation was undertaken to improve the lives of Palestinians and we’re going to have to work very hard if we’re going to make that true in a broader sense”

But both problem areas — continued Israeli settlement building, and humiliating hindrances in movement — are equally pressing, and have an equally awful impact on the present and on the future in the occupied Palestinian territory.

In a situation in which there is a media black-out on the negotiations themselves, Rice nonetheless offered a glimpse into the current approach, in which she denied reports that she has suggested the two parties focus first on defining the borders: “Part of the difficulty in negotiations like this is that the issues are intertwined. You know, borders and security, issues concerning Jerusalem, and issues concerning borders, and issues concerning refugees — they’re all part — and by the way, not only the big four of final status, but also issues of state-to-state relations, issues of economic relations. They’re all very intertwined. And I believe the parties have adopted the right strategy here, which is that they work on all of them, recognizing that some may move more quickly than others, but also recognizing that nothing can be agreed till everything is agreed. And it’s just very difficult to imagine a circumstance under which you could separate somehow the border issue from these other important issues. That doesn’t mean that you can’t work on the border issue separate from the others, but it’s hard to imagine that you could really resolve it without dealing with the companion issues … I’ve encouraged the parties not to hesitate to push ahead if something is moving, but the idea that you could have a separate agreement, I think that just doesn’t make sense”.

Gaza was hardly mentioned in Rice’s discussion on Saturday with journalists en route to the region, except to say that “Everybody knows that the situation in Gaza is extremely difficult”, and “We all know what needs to happen in Gaza”.. Hamas, in Rice’s view, is ultimately responsible for all the problemsi n Gaza, and, she noted, Egypt is working hard to find a solution.

The solution, according to Rice is that: “The rocket fire needs to stop. There needs to be a more sustainable circumstance for the people of Gaza, meaning that there will need to be sustained openings of the crossings, enough at least to permit humanitarian conditions to – humanitarian needs to be met. And ultimately, I would hope that they can get back to something that looks more like the Movement and Access Agreement of November 2005, which everybody’s focused on as an endpoint”.

Gaza was also hardly mentioned in the Rice-Abbas press conference on Sunday. Abbas said something about hoping to reach an agreement “that will put an end to the suffering in the Gaza Strip”, and about re-gaining national unity “based on the Yemeni initiative that was adopted by the Arab summit in Damascus. If we succeed, it is quite important we regain national unity on the basis we have described”, he added.

Here is the full text of an interview I did yesterday in the Ramallah offices of the Palestinian Medical Relief Society, headed by Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, who is a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council for the Mubadara – Independent Palestine list, and who was Palestinian Authority Minister of Information under the short-lived National Unity Government that was disbanded just about a year ago after Hamas routed Fatah security forces in Gaza.

In this interview, Dr. Barghouti answers questions about the revival — at least in a limited role, at first — of the Palestine Legislative Council, and possible moves towards healing of the split between the West Bank and Gaza by national reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas:

Question: Dr. Barghouti, I wanted to ask you first of all about the Palestinian Legislative Council. It reportedly met for the first time in a long time on the 5th of June, last Thursday and welcomed the initiative of President Abbas…

Answer (interrupting the question): Not exactly, no. We did not have a meeting of the Legislative Council. And that was not the purpose of the meeting. The meeting took place as a follow-up of a previous meeting which we had had between heads of different groups in the parliament, because we are very worried about the fact that there is a concentration of all the powers in Palestine in the hands of the government – whether in Gaza or in the West Bank, and both governments practically have eliminated the role of the Legislative Council. And what we are seeing is the government practicing legislative authority in addition to executive authority, although its status, legally, is questionable. We gathered to find a way, in a situation where one-third of the members of parliament are in Israeli jails, obstructing the possibility of reconvening the Council, and with the situation of division between the West Bank and Gaza, where both people cannot reach each other. In the situation of this paralysis caused by these factors, we have to find a way to bring back the role of the Legislative Council. And what we decided was to act although informally but effectively: we had a meeting with the participation of a good number of people from different factions, and we decided to create a committee that represents all the groups, including Fatah, Hamas, Mubadara, DFLP, all the people who are in the Council, to regain the supervisory as well as legislative role of the Council.

What we are doing is that, according to the law, each member of the Legislative Council is entitled to practice his duties, even if the Council is not meeting. So what we are doing is, collectively, translating this individual right into action – which means, we will have three major committees and they will start acting next week.

One will revise (review) all the legislations that were made by the President on his own, on the recommendation of the Government, and we will express our opinions about it. We will also try to restrain this flow of laws by the President which should not be that much, because he cannot issue a decree unless it is really, really an emergency and urgent, while what is happening is that there is a flow of laws without justification. Second duty will be for a committee that will facilitate the observatory role, the control role of the Council, on the work of the government, including revising the budget and seeing what’s going on. And finally there will be a committee that will continue to look at peoples’ needs and how this can be reflected in the policies.

Practically, we are getting the Palestinian Legislative Council out of the freezer, and we are bringing it back to life, out of necessity, but mainly out of concern that the whole democratic system is jeopardized.

Q: But I understood from you last year that the reason the Council could be frozen – and I thought the reason that it was frozen – was because of President Abbas’ decision to continue the Emergency Government beyond the period stipulated in the Draft Basic Law…

A: No, the reason for its freezing is mainly the fact of Israel’s arresting one-third of the members of parliament. But the second reason is because both Fatah and Hamas could not agree to meet. And if they meet under the situation where one-third of the members are in jail, would that reflect on the voting or not? So, all these were complications. But the main factor that is preventing the council from properly working is the arrest of about 48 members of our council.

Q: The meeting that was held on the 5th of June, and then again yesterday, on the 8th of June, was it just among members in Ramallah? Or, was there a video link with Gaza?

A: No, there was no video link with Gaza, because the people in Gaza are meeting on their own. And that is also questionable. This meeting in Ramallah was the only meeting where all the groups are participating, and not just one party. In Gaza, Hamas people meet alone.

Q: Even though all the parties [who were elected] are participating, you don’t actually have any participation of people from Gaza?

A: But we have participation from Hamas?

Q: I saw a report about a week ago that the Minister of Health in Gaza had asked the Legislative Council – I assumed in Gaza, but maybe it was here in Ramallah – to arrange to have the workers in the Ministry of Health in Gaza, who are being paid their salaries by Ramallah, come back to work because they are needed in the medical institutions in Gaza. Who was he appealing to? Who was he talking to, then?

A: I don’t know. I didn’t receive any appeal from his side. So, I don’t know about it. What I know is that the Legislative Council itself cannot become a reason for division or part of the division. It should try to be part of unity efforts. And that’s what we are trying to do. What I know is that we have two governments, in West Bank and in Gaza, and both are illegal. What I know is that the meetings in Gaza that are taking place are not consistent with the law. The difference between the meetings we’re having in Ramallah and the meetings in Gaza is that in Ramallah we are not claiming that we’re meeting as Legislative Council. We’re meeting as members of the Legislative Council, trying to make some effort to save the democratic structure, to prevent the collapse of the democratic structure, to prevent the situation where all the principle of separation of authority is vanishing because of this situation, this unusual situation.

Q: Is there any thought of linking up with the Legislative Council members in Gaza?

lasA: We could do that, we could do that – if they agree on the method that we are using now, yes, why not? The day before yesterday we spoke with the President of the Council in Gaza, Mr. Ahmad Bahr, who’s acting President, actually. And we are discussing. They have some ideas about how to regain the role of the Council. We’ll see. This is part of the national dialog about regaining the unity. But that is possible.

Q: The revival of the meetings of the members of the Legislative Council here coincides with the announcement last week by President Abbas…

A (interrupting the question): No, it started before. You have to remember that we started this effort three months ago, when we initiated a committee on our own to investigate the death of Majd al-Barghouthi, in Ramallah prison. After that, we also initiated another committee to investigate the death of Abu Khattar (sp???) from Gaza. In both cases, we acted on our own. We have the right to do so. We appointed a committee to investigate both cases. The first committee finished its job and presented a very important report that was published, about the torture in prisons that should stop. And now the second committee is finishing its work, and hopefully within one week it will be out. So the efforts to start to reactivate the Palestinian Legislative Council started a long time before the new initiative of the President, and it’s independent of it.

Q: Is the investigation into the death of Abu Khattar (sp???) in Gaza, is that being done in coordination with people in Gaza? With people in the Legislative Council in Gaza?

A: Yes, and with the government there. They both are cooperative.

Q. And the results of the investigation into the death of Majd al-Barghouti, here, show that he was tortured in prison, and you asked for improvements…

A: We asked the President to issue immediate decrees, or immediate orders, to suspend any form of torture in prisons, which he promised to do. We asked him to present to the courts, or present to justice, anybody who participated, covered up, or initiated, or ordered acts of torture – and we also reported that the autopsy report that was presented to us was inconsistent with professional approach, and that they have to make some actions in this regard in order to make sure that the autopsy structure, which is under the government, should function in a professional way. And the report was published, and it received very good appreciation, I think. The question is, how far were the recommendations that were made, implemented? We are not sure yet – we have to examine that.

Q: You said that the main reason for the members of the Legislative Council deciding to meet was to counter the flood of legislation that is being made by the Executive. Does the Executive appreciate your initiative?

A: When we first met with the President, we demanded that no new decrees would be issued without us first reviewing them, and we demanded to review the already-issued legislation. Because, anyhow, all existing laws that were issued as decrees by the President would have to be revised (reviewed) by the Council the moment it meets. And the Council could dismiss these decrees, if it wants, or change them. So, he promised that he will convene us when any new decree is being prepared. This did not happen. That’s why we are meeting now, and initiating the new committee, which will make sure that what we agreed about with the President will be implemented.

Q: Could you explain what you think the status is of the government in Ramallah and of the government in Gaza? And why are they illegal?

A: If we follow the basic law strictly, both of them are illegal, because neither of them have the approval of the Legislative Council. One of them was dismissed by the President, which is his right – I mean the government which is now acting in Gaza – so it shouldn’t exist. The other one in Ramallah was initiated as an Emergency Government, but the right to have that Emergency Government is limited only to one month – but it exceeded one month, and it’s lasted almost one year now. So, in both cases, there is a legal problem, and there is a strange reality. Of course Israel carries a big share in that, by destroying the democratic system here. But we cannot say that it is Israel only – it’s also the Palestinian division, internally, especially the behavior of Fatah and Hamas. The behavior of both of them has violated the rule of law, it’s violated democratic principles, and it is quite factional. That’s why what we see here is an effort from the Legislative Council, with the participation of members from all parties, to prevent a deterioration to the level that Palestine, again, becomes an autocracy, instead of sustaining or keeping what we have achieved of a democratic system, in anticipation that, hopefully, sometime soon we will be able to go to elections again. We don’t want the system to be destroyed in the process of division. That’s why we are doing what we are doing today. But what we say is that executive authority, executive government cannot continue to function without control (checks and balances), cannot take on itself the responsibility of legislation, and substitute itself for the Legislative Council, and cannot continue to act without being accountable to the Legislative Council.

Q: What would it take for the Legislative Council to meet again?

A: A majority (a quorum) of votes. We need a meeting where there is a majority of votes. The President should call for that meeting. There should be a majority of votes. And during that meeting there should be elections for the new presidium of that Council.
The problem is that you cannot get a majority of votes because Hamas lost its majority, due to the fact that many of their members are in jail. Fatah does not have a majority alone. So, neither of them can convene, alone, the Council — you see? And we, the independents would not go to any Council that is not unified, anyhow. So, that is the problem – the absence of majority. If Fatah comes, Hamas does not come. If Hamas comes, Fatah does not come. What we need is an agreement. Of course, if the people are out of jail, Hamas automatically have a majority, and then the Council can meet. But, the fact that one-third of Hamas (parliamentary) members are in jail is preventing the normal procedure, and requires an agreement between the two factions to have the Council meet. That is why it is not able to meet.

Q: Once it does meet, what impact would that have on the legitimacy of the current government in Ramallah?

A: It depends on what the members of the Council want. They can dismiss it, automatically. Immediately after the Legislative Council meets, it has the right to dismiss or accept or approve the Government.

Q: And what impact do you think it might have on the government in Gaza?

A: The same, the same. I mean, the government in Gaza cannot act, legally speaking, as a caretaker government because it was dismissed. That’s why I did not stay as a Minister of Information [of the National Unity Government], because I think I was dismissed. I can’t stay in that position. Some others are continuing to function in Gaza, because there is a new arrangement. But in both cases there is violation of the Basic Law. And the cause of that is the division between Fatah and Hamas.

Q: What do you think is going on in Gaza, now – and my question includes the attacks on the crossings from Gaza, the attacks on Israel ….

A: What you see in Gaza is a terrible situation of humanitarian crisis which is unprecedented, where people are stuck in practically a jail, with 1.4 million people living in less than 360 square kilometers, with lack of supply of everything – food, oil, medicines, everything. It’s a disaster. More than 120 people have died already because of this situation. And what we need is lifting the siege. The military actions that take place from time to time, which are sporadic, can be immediately finished if Israel accepts the several offers that were made for complete cease-fire. Up till now, the Palestinians have made the offer and the Israelis are not responding. This is what’s happening.

Q: There are reports, and analysis, that the attacks are being made in order to provoke an Israeli military attack on Gaza.

A: No, I think Israel is not responding to the offers for a cease-fire, because it is preparing a military attack on Gaza, and it seeks reasons or excuses for conducting such a huge military attack which could lead to a disaster.

Q: It also looks as though if Israel does nothing – but continues the siege – it almost accomplishes the same objective, by allowing the situation to continue …

A: No, Israel can do something better than these two options, which is to accept cease-fire.

Q: And the various initiatives to bring about Fatah-Hamas rapprochement – I don’t know, Senegal, and Cairo, and Damascus and I don’t know what – these efforts to reestablish Palestinian unity, do you think any of them are serious, and could be productive?

A: We still don’t know. It’s early to say. But we welcome the initiatives, we welcome any efforts to end this internal conflict. We think that Palestinians, united, are better partners in every aspect, including for making real peace in this region. And that’s why we will not stop working as hard as we can to regain Palestinian unity, and not only regain Palestinian unity but regain Palestinian democracy. At the end of the day, when we get to the point of unifying everything together, immediately we will have to go to elections, because people have the right to choose, and we have to accept the democratic opinion of the people. So, I think the new developments are promising, the fact that the President made an initiative is useful and very, very encouraging. Hamas responded positively but that‘s not enough. What we need is real dialog that is fast, quick, and productive – and a strong will on both sides to be able to sustain and prevent the effect of external pressures that could be exercised, as has been the case in previous times, to prevent the establishment of national unity again.

Q: In your opinion, was President Abbas’ initiative really an initiative? Because afterwards it was said, oh well, he meant exactly what he meant before, and he meant that the Yemeni initiative should be implemented as understood before, which meant that as a precondition the Hamas takeover of Gaza has to be rescinded …

A: It doesn’t matter what you call it, it matters that before he was saying ‘You retreat first, and then I’ll have dialog’, while now he said ‘I’m ready to have dialog’. That’s a change.

Q: But it is being said that he did mean (to say to Hamas): ‘You have to retreat first’ …

A: There are different explanations. I will not accept explanations from people around him. I want explanations only from him. And from him, what we heard is an opening, a serious opening, positive opening for dialog.

Q: And the elections – are you talking about new Legislative Council elections, or new Presidential elections?

A. Both. When we speak about elections, we speak about both – Presidential, and Legislative Council elections.

Q: There are reports that Fatah will support Mahmoud Abbas again as it’s (presidential) candidate…

A: They have the right to choose whoever they want … President Abbas has the right to two terms.

On the day that Palestinians were marking 41 years of occupation, Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat told journalists in his office in Ramallah on Thursday, “we are a nation that is interrupted – economically, socially, politically, and in every sense. Yet in 2008, there are those who do not understand, even external forces”.

At that moment, there was a cut in electrical power for the second time in a few minutes.
As everyone laughed, Erekat joked: “Even the electricity is interrupted”

“It should have been different”, Erekat continued, “today should have been different…but Palestinians are still Palestinians…So, what are you going to do with us?”

Erekat agreed that the current impasse in negotiations with Israel “cannot stand”.

He was speaking as some Palestinians openly speculated that the end to the negotiations with Israel are near – and saying that this is what prompted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to make an unusual call for renewed national dialogue, as if he might have dropped his preconditions, starting with the return of Gaza to Ramallah’s control, nearly one year after Hamas fighters routed Fatah forces.

But, Erekat said in response to one journalist’s question, “Abu Mazen did deliver an initiative yesterday, but it was according to the Yemeni initiative that was launched in the Damascus summit last year. Everybody knows it begins with Hamas rescinding its coup. Everyone knows, also, that Hamas won the last elections – but they have since failed – big time…When was the last time you read the Yemeni initiative? Abbas said [Wednesday evening] that he wants to see the Yemeni initiative implemented. He was very clear”.

In any case, Erekat added, anticipating other unspoken questions, any eventual outcome of negotiations with the Israelis “will be put to a referendum. If Palestinians say ‘yes’, we will implement it from our side. If the Palestinians say ‘no’, then Abu Mazen will say goodbye”.

Erekat said that the negotiations with an Israeli team led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are “serious … and, .for the first time, we have opened all files, and we are now at the prisoners’ file…We are trying to revive hope, but the choice is Israel’s … We have defined the end game, which is to end the 1967 Israeli occupation according to the Road Map. We have serious negotiations for the first time in seven years, and we are taking a needs-oriented approach”.

What is that, one journalist asked? “You know, my needs, their needs. What do you want to know? I’m not going to show you the map”, Erekat replied.

Erekat pointed out that “in Annapolis, we chose a trilateral arrangement, in which there would be a ‘judge’, an American ‘judge’ (on behalf of the Quartet) … The question here is for the Americans and the other members of the Quartet: Isn’t it time for the ‘judge’ to speak out? There is no such thing as a secret ‘judge’…Since Annapolis there have been more settlements, more incursions, more faits accomplis. Now, at a time we are trying to revive hopes for peace, this American ‘judge’ should come out in the open and say who’s complying and who’s not – giving just the truth, just the facts. Otherwise, is it a cover-up for Israeli activities? This cannot stand any more”.

“I really urge the Americans to introduce their comments”, Erekat continued. Decisions on Jerusalem, security, borders, refugees and so on are required from both Israelis and Palestinians. You as journalists should be able to call up and ask the ‘judge’ who is complying on this matter or that. This current situation cannot continue”.

A journalist then asked: “You are saying the Israelis are not serious, so what are you waiting for?” Erekat replied “There is nothing wrong with negotiations, since Adam and Eve. Negotiations are not the end, they are the means. I don’t want to stop negotiations, I want to stop Israeli settlements, I want to stop Israeli incursions. And I want the international community to help us make Israel comply with its obligations under the Road Map”.

Erekat clearly put more hope in the evaluation being made by Lt. General William Fraser – appointed as Mr. Road Map Implementation by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice just before President Bush’s visit to the region in January – than in comments made by leading contenders for the Democratic Party nomination to be the next U.S. President.

On Barak Obama: “I thought he was a man of change…but when he says that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel, I say to him, ‘Sir, you are closing all doors to peace’. I don’t care if he’s pro-Israeli or not. My concern is about those who are pro-peace or not. U.S. Policy hasn’t changed since the ‘70’s. The U.S. Embassy is still in Tel Aviv, and the U.S. policy still says that Jerusalem is occupied”.

To Hilary Clinton: “If someone loses his home, his schools, his livelihood, his parents in New York, what do you call it? We call it a catastrophe – and we have here a catastrophe that has lasted 60 years”.

Akiva Ekdar has just written this reflection in Haaretz on the pickle that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is presently in and the options:
“Kadima [Olmert's party, founded by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon] has not managed to create its own political culture. In effect, to this day, it has not succeeded in leaving a mark on any sphere in which a ruling party is involved. Olmert’s most important contribution, and what distinguishes him from Netanyahu (and also from Ehud Barak), is the replacement of the unilateral solution with the principle of consent. Sharon translated Barak’s “no-partner” doctrine into a strategy of crushing the Palestinian Authority, eliminating the political option and the unilateral approach. Olmert brought the term “permanent arrangement” back into public discourse, and transformed Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) into a regular sight on Israelis’ televisions. Too bad the peace with Syria appeared again on the agenda in the shadow of Talansky’s harsh testimony. Thanks to these processes, Olmert deserves a place in the history books, not only as the person responsible for the debacle in Lebanon and as a cigar-loving political hack.

“In addition to keeping the situation in the Gaza Strip quiet, Olmert has an additional series of means at his disposal that can enhance the status of the Palestinian partners, until the political situation in Israel is clarified. All he has to do is pull out of the drawer the list of promises he made to Abu Mazen (and to the Americans) and instruct the defense establishment to uphold them in spirit and in practice. The prime minister, after all, claims that he is continuing to carry out his duties in the best possible way even during the very difficult times he is experiencing”.

The full Akiva Eldar article can be read here .

From an article written by Meron Benvenisti and published in Haaretz:

“[P]paradoxically the right, which strives to destroy Hamas, needs to support the cease-fire and the establishment of Hamas control in Gaza. And the left, which supports a single state led by Fatah, needs to object to the establishment of a separate government in Gaza.

“This is the system of divide and conquer that will enable Israeli control over the long term. Its cornerstone is the isolation of Gaza…”

Benvenisti’s full analysis can be read in Haaretz here .