Abbas issues emotional plea for Palestinian statehood recognition at UN

GENERAL ASSEMBLY, United Nations- It was a historic, emotional day for the Palestinian people.

Many members of the Palestinian delegation and may others sitting in the hall and balconies of the General Assembly wept as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made his passionate plea for state recognition on behalf of his people.

As a refugee himself, uprooted from his hometown in 1948 when the state of Israel was created, Abbas spoke of the pain of displacement and the suffering of the refugees. "Enough, enough, enough," he said. "It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence...to end their displacement and end their plight."

"This is the moment of truth...we are the last people to remain under occupation," the Palestinian President said.

Abbas was welcomed to the podium by applause, cheers, and a standing ovation by many delegates, not including the Americans and Israelis who seemed isolated by their rejection of the Palestinian decision to approach the United Nations. He was interrupted 15 times by applause and cheers during his speech.

Abbas did not spare the U.S. and Israel from criticism.

"I don't believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for a full membership at the UN and our admission as a state," he said.

It was obvious Abbas was impatient with Israel's rejection to halt settlement expansion and with the U.S.' inability and refusal to press Israel to accept agreed parameters after 20 years of futile negotiations.

Abbas' credibility was on line. He knew he could not go on negotiating forever. His people gave negotiations a chance and were losing patience.

 The status quo of building more settlements, changing facts on the ground, demolition of homes, the eviction of Palestinians from Jerusalem, and many more actions would have imminently led to violent protests.

The Palestinian President urged his people to use peaceful means to resist occupation.

In an unprecedented move, Abbas warned of the possibility of the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and the death of the two-state solution if the Palestinians continued to be deprived of freedom and independence.

"This policy will destroy the chances of achieving a two-State solution which enjoys international consensus, and here I warn loudly: The settlements policy threatens to also undermine the structure of the Palestinian National Authority and even end its existence," Abbas said.

It was an appointment with history for many Palestinians. For others, such as Abbas' rival Hamas, it was a symbolic move void of content.

An Arab American friend agreed and said" As long as the Palestinians approach the world with emotions, they will never get a state."

A Jordanian of Palestinian origin called me from Amman to say that the speech made him feel "proud, and hoped this UN bid will bring the Palestinians a step closer to their state."
It is not clear what step the Palestinians will take next. But whatever it is, it does not look like they're heading for negotiations with this Israeli government any time soon.

Obama's U.N. speech not about Palestine, but domestic politics

UNITED NATIONS - A last-ditch effort By U.S. officials to dissuade Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas from seeking full membership for the state of Palestine through a U.N. Security Council vote has failed. The Americans are now resigned to the fact that it's too late for Abbas to back down and efforts are now focused on dealing with the day after.

Abbas met U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday following Obama's speech at the U.N. blasted by Palestinian officials as one of the worst they have heard.
Officials who met Obama on Wednesday and who watched him deliver his speech at the U.N. said they saw a "defeated man."

"He sounded like the Palestinians were occupying Israel and not the other way around," a senior Palestinian official said, echoing the sentiments of other angry members of the Palestinian delegation at the U.N. 

Palestinian officials said the meeting between Obama and Abbas was friendly, with each leader holdingon to his position and discussing the day after the vote.

A source close to the U.S. administration said Washington was worried that once Abbas fails to gain statehood membership at the U.N., Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would take to the streets in anger.
"Why not, if the masses demonstrate peacefully, what does the world have to fear," responded one Palestinian official.

One could sense defeat and probably isolation among U.S. officials.Anger maybe for having failed.

Many observers saw Obama a shattered man as he delivered his speech at the U.N. He was tense and weak, and a disappointment.

An expert on the Middle East said Obama's speech "was part of the election campaign and was directed towards the Jewish lobby not to the heads of state and the General Assembly. It was full of factual mistakes and inaccuracies." 

Abbas may not have intentionally sought to isolate the U.S. and Israel by taking his cause to the larger international forum, but he has succeeded in  exposing the resentment by many international players to the U.S.' monopoly of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and how its bias to Israel has harmed American interests in the Arab world.

It was clear from French President Sarkozy's speech and peace proposal (talks with a one year timeline and upgrading the status of the Palestinians to non-member state at the U.N.) that other parties were willing to jump in and that from now on, the American's may find it difficult to alone dictate terms of peace.
The Quartet, consisting of the EU, the U.N., Russia and the U.S., may play a bigger role in mediating peace, despite their divided positions.
It is unclear whether Abbas' move would invite punitive actions by the mostly pro-Israel Congress and Israel itself. It is too early to say whether this was a calculated move by the Palestinian President or a gamble that would risk relations with the U.S. and some Arab states, and aid. 

It is obvious that this is the first time that Abbas publicly challenges the United States, and publicly invites other international players to have a go at resolving the decades-old conflict.
Whether Abbas' U.N. bid ails or not, the sides will ultimately return to the negotiating table. Israel will come under pressure to resume talks on the basis of Obama's principles that call for a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps of lands between the sides.
"The court is in Israel's court now," a source close to the U.S. administration said.

As the emboldened Abbas walked into the Millennium U.N. Plaza Hotel after Obama's speech on Wednesday, a South Sudan delegate ululated in support. 

Abbas determined to push for state membership, come what may

NEW YORK – Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has decided to go all the way!

His mind is set on seeking full membership for the state of Palestine at the U.N. Security Council on Friday.
His discussions with leaders and officials in New York are now focused on the day after the request submission. 
Abbas has told delegates visiting him in New York that following the submission of the state membership request on Friday, he will fly back to Ramallah in the West Bank and discuss options with the Palestinian leadership.
An official close to Abbas said: 
"President Abbas has told all his visitors the Palestinian leadership will discuss three options after the U.N.: Either go to the General Assembly and seek an upgrade in status to non-member state,or return to negotiations without pre-conditions, and the third option is to hand over the keys of the Palestinian Territories to Israel and say now you pay the cost of occupation,which really means a one-state solution."

It is clear the issue of Palestinian statehood has taken centre-stage at the UN this year. Abbas has been holding back-to-back meetings with different Arab and Western leaders and officials,  some supporting his U.N. bid, while many others trying to talk him off the idea of going to the Security Council to avert an imminent U.S. veto.

The U.S. has been consistent in its opposition to the Palestinian decision to approach the Security Council or the General Assembly for full membership and an upgrade of status.

“The Americans are telling us no Security Council, no General Assembly, direct negotiations with Israel only.  We have negotiated for 20 years, we have done what the Americans wanted us to do, and we have knocked on every door to achieve results through negotiations alone. What did we get? Nothing,” a senior Abbas aide said.

The Europeans are divided and so are the Arabs.

Abbas has been cajoled, threatened, pressured, and warned, but nothing has worked with him.

As European pressure failed to deter Abbas, the Arabs began leaning on him.

Abbas, the refugee from Safad, who remembers the pain and agony of displacement as a child in 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced to flee their homes and villages that later became part of the state of Israel.

That refugee boy, now 76-year-old President of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and President of the Palestinian Authority, is telling the world that Palestinian statehood is long overdue.

Unlike his predecessor Yasser Arafat, Abbas is not a military man and shuns violence as a means to achieve his goals. He believes he has heeded U.S. advice even when this has damaged his standing among his own people (such as the delay of discussion at the UN over the Goldstone Report).

“He has reached the point where he has no faith in the role of the American Administration as a neutral mediator. Where would he turn to for justice other than the United Nations? So he decided to internationalize the Palestinian conflict  and place the United States and others in the international community before their responsibilities,” another senior aide said.

“He will go to the Security Council on Friday and for him, it’s a win-win situation,” he added.

In New York, U.S. President Barack Obama was busy with the issue of Libya. Both US Republican presidential front-runners Rick Perry  and Mitt Romney were also in New York campaigning. They slammed Obama’s Middle East policy and insufficient support for Israel.

As he meets more delegates at his headquarters at the Millennium U.N. Plaza Hotel in New York, Abbas turns more confident that he would not drop his U.N. bid and would press ahead for full membership. He is listening as world leaders make maximalist and minimalist offers to keep the Palestinians away from the Security Council. 

The Palestinians are also split over the U.N.bid. Some say it is a symbolic move that will cost the Palestinians a lot such as deteriorated relations with Washington, the suspension of much-needed aid, and probably isolation. Others counter it is time words are translated into deed, and those who seek a two-state solution, would have a chance to prove it through a vote.

“Abbas drew attention back to the Palestinian cause as delegates frantically try to come up with offers and new ideas before Friday. He is watching and listening, but his mind is so far made up,” one aide said.

What are the Palestinians expecting at the U.N. in September?

The Palestinians are confused. The contradicting and often vague comments and statements made Palestinian officials regarding the Palestinian quest for recognition as a state by the United Nations has left the people at a loss.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says the move to seek recognition for the State of Palestine at a U.N. meeting planned for September is not a “stunt”, and though negotiations remain his first option, Israel's failure to stop settlements expansion and failure to renew meaningful talks has compelled him to seek the United Nations help to end the conflict peacefully.(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html?_r=1)

Then Abbas says if he is presented with a peace offer before September, he will back down. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4084937,00.html)

Most Palestinian officials I have spoken to, particularly diplomats and officials working hard on seeking recognition at the U.N. insist that with or without new peace offers, the U.N. bid is going ahead.

There is little understanding even among senior Palestinian officials about the technicalities of trying to win that recognition. Contradicting statements are also made about how to go around the imminent U.S. veto, how they will use the U.N. laws and by laws and regulations, intense lobbying, diplomatic battles, etc…to win recognition.

Then there is the question of what happens the day after. What if the Palestinians do not win the recognition after raising the hopes of their people? Some anticipate a “Third Intifada” or uprising, and Israel prepares for the day and places its troops on high alert. Others say they will continue the diplomatic struggle because the “recognition battle” starts by submitting the request to the U.N. Secretary General in July and the process proceeds for a year.

I went to Ramallah, where the Palestinian leadership is based in the West Bank, to try to understand. I met Palestinian diplomats working at the U.N., senior Palestinian officials, journalists and columnists, Abbas advisers and others. I left with more confusion and with the belief that not many people really know what’s brewing in Abbas’ mind.

“It’s a win-win situation,” said one senior Abbas aide.

“We are going to the U.N. regardless of any peace offers we might get because any peace proposal so far has failed to bring about a halt to settlements construction and (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu has clearly rejected talks based on the 1967 borders,” he said.

This statement has been echoed by at least three other senior Palestinian officials.

Another source close to Abbas said the Palestinian leader was clear when he repeatedly stressed that negotiations were his first choice and if he was presented before September with a peace offer that leads to an Israeli commitment to stop Jewish settlements building and to restart talks based on U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech (1967 borders with agreed swaps), Abbas would abandon the U.N. bid and renew talks.

Will there be recognition in September? Have the Palestinians secured the recognition of the required 130 states? The normal Palestinian was told “Yes” by some officials, and “No” by others, and “We will get there by September” still by some other officials.

A Palestinian official working at the U.N. said the Palestinians have so far won the recognition of 114 states only, but they will effort to reach the 130 states. However, this is not sufficient for the Palestinians to gain recognition for the State of Palestine as a new member at the U.N.

Nasser Qidwa, the former top Palestinian diplomat at the U.N. was very clear.

“Unfortunately, there will be no recognition of the State of Palestine in September. It is not going to happen,” Qidwa said.

“Why? Because the vote by the Security Council is a requirement and there’s no way going around this,” he added.

Some other officials had told the press how they can go around this by using other mechanisms, including the two thirds of the General Assembly votes and the Uniting for Peace Resolution, and explained other U.N. technical methods that the Palestinian on the street has no understanding of.

The U.S. veto is important. The United States has so far cast 27 vetoes only on resolution in favor of the Palestinians. In his last speech on the Middle East, President Obama has vowed to continue to defend Israel in all public international forums. This will continue, even if the U.S. was isolated internationally by being the only country casting the veto.

So, we know there is no recognition in September. Do the Palestinians have a plan?

Yes, they say.

“This is a process that begins in September. This is not the end,” a senior Palestinian diplomat at the U.N. said.

“We plan to take the state recognition a step forward and we are certain we will win an improvement of our status at the United Nations,” he said.

Will the Palestinians be closer to a state after September?

Yes and No, officials say.

Yes, because the struggle at the U.N. will continue and the international community will work harder to present peace proposals that are based on the 1967 borders. Pressure will increase on Israel to accept Obama’s offer to restart talks on the basis of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps. How long can Israel reject and resist. Obama’s speech was significant because he was the first U.S. President to publicly state what has been a long-time private U.S. policy.

Washington believes that a peaceful end to the conflict rests with having a Palestinian state next to Israel on the West Bank, (including East Jerusalem), and Gaza Strip. Swaps would be negotiated between the sides, and thus the issue of the settlements would be resolved once the borders have been agreed. That was the basis on which Obama’s former peace envoy George Mitchell worked for months before he resigned.

Abbas and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had also negotiated  based on these principles but they disagreed on the location and percentage of the areas that would be swapped.

All parties are aware that the opportunity for a 2-state solution is closing.


Israeli President Shimon Peres recently told CNN in an interview that failure to strike a deal with the Palestinians urgently threatens the Jewish character of the Israeli state.
"If there will be one state without a clear majority or an un-Jewish majority, that is against everything we are trying to work for," Peres said. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4084332,00.html)

 The West Bank is still completely under occupation, settlements are still expanding, Arab East Jerusalem is quickly being taken over by the Israelis, and the Palestinian people are convinced there is no real basis for future talks.

Will the Palestinians wait indefinitely for the U.S. and the international community to convince Israel to return to the talks?  Experience has taught us that the situation would explode any time.

It could be a third uprising, but not necessarily a violent one. The situation could lead to a strong push for a one-state solution, a nightmare scenario for Israel. Refugee leaders in exile are already debating ways to push for that solution and the younger generation in the Palestinian Territories is already losing hope for a 2-state solution.

Obama understands Israel's strategic interests more than its leaders

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress on Tuesday full of “No’s will not give the Palestinians the state they aspire for and will not achieve the security and peace the Israelis so badly need.

For the Palestinians, negotiations under Netanyahu’s terms would seem futile. Their choices are to go to the United Nations to seek recognition for a state on the 1967 borders, or take to the streets in non-violent protests demanding an end to the 44-year-old occupation, or both.

Netanyahu insists that Israel is not a “foreign occupier” because the land is the Jews’ ancestral homeland.

He has told the Palestinians: 

-        Recognize Israel (borders to be determined by Israel) as the state of the Jewish people

-        No to the right of return of refugees

-        No to the return to the 1967 borders

-        No to a unity pact between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas

-        No a divided Jerusalem
(http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-to-congress-ready-to-make-painful-compromises-but-jerusalem-will-not-be-divided-1.363802)

The standing ovation and the extensive applause Netanyahu received from members of the Congress made the Palestinians wonder whether the Israeli leader represented the Americans more than U.S. President Barack Obama.

Congressmen applauded as Netanyahu challenged Obama’s speech that outlined the parameters  for peace between the Palestinians and Israel. 
The Palestinians’ experience tells them that Obama is serious about ending the conflict and helping the Palestinians achieve self-determination, though he might mean well, he is unable to press Israel to make the compromises  required to return to meaningful peace talks.

Does Netanyahu understand the factors that led to the popular explosions in Tahrir Square in Egypt, the mass protests that led to the toppling of Tunisia’s president, and protests elsewhere in Yemen, Syria, and Libya?  

Has Netanyahu not been informed of far-reaching proposals made by former Israeli prime ministers such as those made by Ehud Olmert and the understandings reached at Taba in 2000 between negotiators from both sides?

 The Israeli leader may have won a diplomatic battle in Congress, but how will he win when his country becomes more isolated in the region? Egypt is moving away from Israel. The departure of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has brought about huge changes that have a great impact on Israel. One example is the effect the reopening of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza will have on Israel.

How will Netanyahu react when the Palestinian masses move towards the checkpoints in non-violent protests and the refugees march towards the borders from neighbouring states?

The scenario is more conflict and death.

Obama has asked the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to make the necessary compromises to restart talks. It is obvious Obama understands the changes that are reshaping the Arab World and has rushed to support the peoples’ quest for freedom and dignity. It seems obvious that Obama understands better than Netanyahu where the strategic interests of Israel lie.

There is still a chance for talks to begin but as Obama said, peace cannot be imposed, it must be negotiated.

Obama's Middle East speech creates controversy among Israelis and Palestinians

U.S. President Barack Obama raised great hopes in 2009 when he addressed the Muslim World and the Arab young generation from Cairo. His words then on ending occupation and halting settlement expansion on occupied land gave many Palestinians and Arabs a sense that there was truly a “new beginning.” A few months later, the hopes were dashed.

I was among several journalists who interviewed the new President in 2009 immediately after his Cairo University speech in June. Having covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a very long time, I believed only strong intervention from the U.S. could help the sides engage in a serious peace process, but I was sure the new U.S. President would have a very hard time translating his words into action and enforce a settlement freeze.  

Obama’s speech today, his first since the Arab Spring blossomed, was a major address that outlined the American policy in the Middle East and North Africa, a policy based on backing political reforms and helping nations demanding freedoms and dignity.(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa)

He acknowledged that the U.S. had not been an actor in the Arab popular uprisings and articulated America’s policies and role in the new Middle East in a new context now that Osama Bin Laden was killed, and combat troops out of Iraq.

He warned Syrian President Bashar Assad of increased isolation if he continued to use force to quell his peoples’ uprising and bluntly said: “President Assad now has a choice. He can lead the transition, or get out of the way.”

He was also blunt in his call for allies Bahraini leaders to use dialogue and not force, though it was questionable why he stumbled or hesitated while speaking about Bahrain.

I may be skeptical, but I did not find his words on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict sufficient to revive the negotiations that were suspended following  America’s failure to enforce a settlement freeze.

I found his words were meant at telling both sides they were expected to make serious concessions to revive the peace talks and end the conflict.

Obama’s public endorsement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders is new, but this is not a major U.S. policy change. Former U.S. President George Bush endorsed this, Hillary Clinton stated this before. Actually Israeli leaders, including former Israeli leader Ehud Olmert, were all negotiating a solution based on the 1967 borders with agreed swaps. The disagreement was on the percentage of the land that would be swapped.

The U.S. President’s idea of a solution based on resolving the border and security issues first were not new either because his envoy, George Mitchell, who resigned last week, had worked on this with the Palestinians and Israelis for months but failed to achieve progress because the issue of settlement expansion, especially in Jerusalem, obstructed progress. Condoleeca Rice had also made an effort to reach understandings on territory first.

I believe the more critical and new elements in Obama’s speech were:

-        His rejection of Palestinian plans to seek the United Nation’s recognition of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.

-        His remarks on a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank. The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected new interim deals and are seeking a final deal that will end occupation and create a state. The Israelis want to keep a military presence in the Jordan Valley on what it says are security grounds.

-        Delaying the sensitive issues of Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. This might be a non-starter for the Palestinians who have seen how the Oslo interim deals have failed to bring about an end to occupation.

-        When Obama lays down the foundations of a peace process and then says: “Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away,” he is basically saying, I will not take serious action to translate my words into action.

Many Palestinians and Arabs are skeptical of Obama’s words on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because he went so high up on the tree in 2009 when he insisted on halting settlements expansion, but then not only did he climb down fast, but he applied pressure on the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas  to accept talks without any preconditions. Abbas lost credibility and came under pressure to halt negotiations.

Obama was right to back the Arab revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. He has done the right thing for America by stating his unequivocal support for nations seeking democracy and reforms, but when in the same breath he says: “We will stand against attempts to single it (Israel) out for criticism in international forums,” he raises eyebrows among those same young people who led the revolutions in the Arab world and he may be  sending the wrong message.

 Immediately after his speech, young Arabs were tweeting skepticism of Obama's support for self-determination while he rejects a symbolic move by the Palestinians to create statehood.

Israelis tweeted their rejection of Obama’s endorsement of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and saw this as a major U.S. policy shift.

Refugees from Syria appeal for help, tell tales of fear and death

Al-Rameh, Wadi Khaled, Lebanon, May 18 - Ten women from the Syrian towns of Tal Kalakh and Aridah sat on the porch of a small house  of a Lebanese family hosting them in the border village of al-Rameh describing the violence and fear they said had led to the displacement of thousands from their homes.
A child screamed and ran to her mother's lap at the sound of bullets in the background.
They said they fled on Saturday, leaving their money and belongings behind, as well as some male family members who they said could be either arrested or killed.

"I saw three bodies of men in pools of blood outside our home on Saturday in Tal Kalakh. Nobody dared to drag them out of the streets. Our houses were fired at by tank shells and bullets, we were terrified," a 17-year-old girl told me.

"We heard of many more killed. There were snipers everywhere. The armed Shabeeha (thugs), and armed Alawite civilians as well as the army were burning and destroying homes. Tanks were surrounding the town," her mother added.
Another woman from al-Aridah town on the border with Lebanon, said she was making breakfast for her family when she heard shots outside her home. She looked out her window and saw tanks coming down the hill.
"Our neighbours the Alawites turned into armed gangs against us the Sunnis. We were surprised because we never thought they held so much hatred for us. They burned, destroyed and shot," another woman said.

"Two bullets from snipers outside our home flew near my face while I was in my room," one said.
An older refugee woman from Aridah said her aunt was shot in the head and killed while fleeing on the bridge that separated her Syrian town from the Lebanese al-Rameh village. Another relative fleeing with her was shot and wounded in the leg.

"We didn't dare go near them to rescue them, the shooting was heavy. A Lebanese soldier braved the bullets and went to drag her inside Lebanon, he too was shot and wounded in the leg," she said, with tears welling up in her eyes.
Another woman said the fleeing woman and their children had to crawl across the bridge because "bullets were falling above our heads like rain."

According to the refugee families, some 5,000 people had fled the town of al-Aridah of 33,000.
Women said few men had succeeded to cross into Lebanon. Many of those who did, were either elderly men or crossed illegally at night.

The international media was not allowed to cover the protests inside Syria and stories by refugees could not be independently verified.

Men, who had managed to flee, gathered near the river bank that overlooked Aridah town. A few men they said were armed thugs, were seen riding motorcycles in the empty town across the river. There was no other sign of life there.
They too had stories to tell about the brutality they saw.
One young man said he had to crawl for hours out of Tal Kalakh Saturday night.
"As I was crawling, I felt dead bodies beneath me," he said.
He said the tanks and troops stormed into Tal Kalakh on Saturday a day after a demonstration called for the downfall of the regime. The men said they called for the toppling of the regime when they felt their demands for the release of prisoners went unheeded.
Asked how long their displacement would take, one man said: "I will not return. If I go back, I will either get killed or arrested."

WHAT IS OBAMA WAITING FOR?

Several Turkmen from Zara town said the too had fled on Sunday. They believed they were targetted in retaliation for Turkish Prime Minister Rajab Tayeb Ordogan's position on events in Syria.

"Ask  (U.S. President Barack) Obama what is he waiting for? Why is he not calling on Bashar Assad to step down? It didn't take him that long to call for the removal of Hosni Mubarak and Zein Bin Ali of Tunis?", one of the Turkmen said. "We're without food, communications, and electricity. Hasn't he heard of the mass grave in Dar'aa?"
Human rights lawyer Razan Zaitouna said the army and security forces have killed at least 27 civilians since the army moved into Tal Kalakh.

On Wednesday, Obama imposed sanctions on Syrian President Bashar Assad and six other senior Syrian officials. The move reflected Washington's frustration with Syria's lack of response to international condemnation of its crackdown on political protests in the country.

Human rights groups say at least 700 civilians have been killed in two months of clashes between Syrian forces and protesters seeking an end to Bashar Assad's 11-year rule.
In an interview published in the al-Watan local paper on Wednesday, Bashar Assad acknowledged for the first time that the security forces had made a mistake handling the protests.
The protests are the most serious challenge to Assad's rule.

"We have no confidence in him, we appeal to the world to help us," one young man said.

Nakba Day protesters try to claim the "Right of Return" with their bodies

Lebanon - When the masses are driven by a dream, hope, and suppressed anger, no force can control the outpour of emotions or stop the surge of the crowds.

That is what happened over 20 years ago when on "Nakba Day" thousands of Palestinians and Jordanians went in buses and cars to demonstrate near King Hussein Bridge at the Jordanian-Israeli border. I was among the masses covering the story for UPI. Despite the heavy presence of the Jordanian army and the calls for restraint by Unionists and political party leaders, the sight of Palestine so close, yet so far, across the bridge, prompted the masses to charge towards the border. The scene was chaotic, teargas and shots in the air could hardly stop the crowds who were hypnotized by the determination to move on and enforce their Right of Return.

Today, on the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba, when the Palestinian refugee problem was created along with the establishment of the State of Israel, thousands of people in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt protested at those countries' borders with Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza held their own demonstrations near fences and walls that separate them from the rest of the Palestinian Territories or from Israel.  

Thousands of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese were shuttled from Saida to the border area in buses this morning. People were also shuttled from different parts in Syria to the border. The fact that they were allowed to reach the border could be interpreted as an encouragement by Hizbullah and the Syrian regime.

Hundreds effectively destroyed the border fences and entered the other side. Four were killed by Israeli fire on the border with Syria. 10 were killed in Lebanon. 

Israeli sources said 13 people were lightly wounded on Israel's side of the border near the Druze village of Majdal Shams, including 10 Israeli soldiers, by stones hurled by Nakba Day protesters.

"We'll be back" shouted the protesters returning into Syrian territory.

These people went to claim their Right of Return with their own bodies. The Israeli army may have expected trouble at the border with Lebanon, but events showed they had least expected trouble at the usually quiet border with Syria.
The Palestinians wanted to show today that they are part of the Arab revolutions. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13406869)

What do the events of today show?

For most Palestinians, it shows that the refugees have not given up on the Right of Return,  that the old and the young living in refugee camps have not forgotten. It shows that for the Arab people, the Palestinian problem and the refugee issue is still at the core of the Middle East conflict. 

Some Israeli commentators suggested that the Syrian regime and Hizbullah may be using Nakba Day to deflect attention from the bloody incidents and protests taking place in Syria. Others said the events in Lebanon and Gaza bore the fingerprints of Iran. 

Netanyahu said the Nakba Day events were not about the 1967 borders, but rather about "undermining the very existence of Israel." (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-israel-is-determined-to-defend-its-borders-sovereignty-1.361915)

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh told a crowd of some 10,000 people in Gaza that "Palestinians mark the occasion this year with great hope of bringing to an end the Zionist project in Palestine." (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-leader-on-nakba-day-the-zionist-project-must-end-1.361798)

It is true that 63 years after the Nakba, many of those refugees uprooted from their homes and living in squalid camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza and in the West Bank do not recognize Israel's right to exist and still hope to return to their homes in what is now Israel. These people have not given up the dream. Some had hoped the 1993 Oslo accords would end their plight, but over the years, these people saw Oslo had led to further slicing of what remained of Palestine: the gradual loss of Jerusalem, and a big chunk of the West Bank eaten up by settlements. In the end, it meant more displacement.

The majority of Palestinians who believed peace negotiations would end occupation are becoming a minority, as the Israeli society is moving more and more to the right. 

"I am horrified by the way the barrier affects the Palestinians," said Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Valerie Amos during a visit to Jerusalem on the eve of Nakba Day. She noted that the Israeli policies of home demolitions and restrictive measures lead to forced displacement from Jerusalem and from the rest of the West Bank.

One-State Solution:

I was sitting with some Palestinian refugees in Beirut yesterday discussing the Right of Return and was struck by the deep conviction of those refugees who had never seen Palestine that eventually they will return to Haifa, Yaffa, Safad, and other towns and villages their parents were forced to flee in 1948.  

The discussion turned to the issue of the two-state solution. None of the six people I had coffee with believed it was still a viable solution. They were debating the possibility of lobbying for the one-state solution. They said discussions among refugees in exile were already underway to build support for the idea among the younger generation as a means to return to their homeland.  
Israel has repeatedly said it would never accept the one-state solution.    

The older generation still held on to their home keys and told stories about their childhood in Palestine.

In the camps of Mar Elias and Shatila, the young men and women hardly knew anything about Safad or Haifa, or their original towns and villages. They knew they were Palestinians from this or that village but had little or no information apart from that.

"If you want to know more about Safad, ask my father, he remembers," Salah, 16, from Shatila, told me.

But when asked if he wanted to return, he replied: "Nothing will stop me from hoping for the realization of that day."

If One Day A People Desires To Live

((THIS BLOG REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT MY EMPLOYERS))

Tunisian poet Abul Qassem Al-Shabi’s famous poem: “The Will of Life” reads:
“If, one day, a people desires to live, then fate will answer their call.
And their night will then begin to fade, and their chains break and fall.
For he who is not embraced by a passion for life will dissipate into thin air,
At least that is what all creation has told me, and what its hidden spirits declare…”
Translated by Elliott Colla.


An Egyptian man shouted anti-government slogans before setting himself on fire in Egypt today Monday. Another man also dissatisfied with his government set himself on fire in Mauritania.

Despair may have led these individuals to believe that copying Mohamed Bouazid would lead to change. Two weeks ago, Bouazid set fire to himself in the southern Tunisian city of Sidi Bouzid after police prevented him from selling his vegetables, sparking anti-government riots that toppled Zein El Abideen Ben Ali’s regime.

Last week’s protests in Algeria subsided when the government retracted on price hikes. Anti-government protests in Jordan and Libya have continued. Demonstrations against price hikes took place in several Palestinian cities. The Yemenis also protested in support of the Tunisians.

In the past, we have seen individuals or political parties leading revolts and rebellions.
In Tunisia’s case, the angry masses led the change. The move was popular and secular. It is interesting to see that protests that followed in some parts of the Arab world were not led by the Islamists.

Could the Tunisia uprising have emboldened the ordinary Arab who shares the same economic grievances and absence of democracy?

Events in Tunisia sent shock waves beyond the Tunisian borders.

Has the level of anger in the Arab world reached a limit? One has to follow the outpour of comments on face book and twitter to read the sentiments of the younger generation across the Arab world. Abul Qassem al-Shabi’s poem may never have been as popular as it was last week.

Could unilateralism in Jerusalem bring the Palestinians closer to statehood

(THE VIEWS IN MY BLOG ARE PERSONAL AND DO NOT REPRESENT MY EMPLOYER)

The razing of the Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem to make room for the construction of 20 housing units for Jewish families on the site is yet another example of how the Holy City is changing.

World condemnation (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-chief-deplores-demolition-of-east-jerusalem-hotel-1.336270) and the EU envoys' recommendations in a confidential policy report are also a sign of how the international community is changing its attitude towards Israel's continuing unilateral actions. The EU is stepping up its opposition to the rapid erosion of the Arab identity of East Jerusalem. Some in the international community may be turning against Israel as frustration with lack of progress in the peace process deepens.

Palestinians' access to Jerusalem was greatly restricted following the 1993 Oslo accords. Entry to Jerusalem by West Bank Palestinians has become literally impossible during the years of the second intifada. In their policy report prepared last month, the heads of 25 European missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah urged Brussels to treat East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_01_11_eu_hom_report_on_east_jerusalem.pdf)
The report also calls for an EU presence at the demolitions of Palestinian homes, and intervention when peaceful protesters face arrest. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12150792).

International leaders are warning that Israeli actions in the city are jeopardizing the two-state solution.
But some Palestinian leaders say Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's drive to assert the Jewish identity of Jerusalem could be moving the Palestinians closer to statehood.

"Netanyahu is doing us a favor. We have little difficulty now in convincing the world Israel is obstructing a peaceful settlement and to heed our call to recognize a Palestinian state. Our next move was to push the Europeans to take a stance and step up objection to Israel's unilateral actions. He is making that task easier," a senior Palestinian official said.
Netanyahu defended his government's actions in Jerusalem by reiterating it was Israel's right to build in Jerusalem.

The failure of direct and indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to reach a final settlement prompted the Palestinians to opt for Plan B: Step up diplomatic and peaceful action against settlements construction, turn to the United Nations to issue a Security Council Resolution against settlements expansion, and win international recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians, led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, are determined to have a state by September.

"President Abbas is now considering several paths of action if he fails to get a negotiated settlement by September. He will either step down and admit failure to realize his quest for a state, or place the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, under the mandate of the United Nations. Other options are also being examined. In any case, there will be an announcement in September," an official close to Abbas said.

Fayyad is confident he is moving towards attaining his statehood goal.
"We are working hard at all levels towards achieving this goal. You might think I'm not serious when I say there will be a state, but I am," Fayyad told me during a recent visit to Ramallah.

It might seem hard for many to imagine what kind of state would be established with hundreds of checkpoints dividing the West Bank, with Jerusalem totally cut off from the rest of the Palestinian territories, with Gaza under Hamas' control, and the U.S. strongly opposed to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.

I remember in 1994, when I moved from Jordan to Jerusalem for work as a journalist, one could hardly see an Israeli walking the streets in East Jerusalem. There was a sense of a de facto division of the city: the East side for the Palestinians and the West for the Israelis.
The Orient House, the PLO's headquarters in Sheikh Jarrah, headed by the late Faisal Husseini, was running the affairs of the Palestinians in Jerusalem.
Today, the West side is still Israeli, and the Palestinians are struggling to maintain a presence in the East side.
The Palestinian Authority is banned in Jerusalem. Jerusalemite Palestinians feel abandoned by their leaders and fear for their future.

It is true we are witnessing a dramatic change in the nature of East Jerusalem, but we are also seeing a willingness by some European states to go beyond the usual criticism or silence.
The Palestinians say they are not expecting similar action by the U.S., at least not in the near future.