David Cameron resigns as patron of the Jewish National Fund

source: guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/29/david-cameron-resigns-patron-jnf


David Cameron has stepped down as a patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in a move pro-Palestinian campaigners claim is a result of pressure but which Downing Street insists is part of a general review of the prime minister's charity connections.

The JNF was only one of a number of charities from which Cameron stepped down, said Downing St. His predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair continued to be JNF patrons throughout their tenure.

The JNF was originally set up to buy land in Palestine to establish Jewish settlements before the creation of the state of Israel. Now it is a global charity which describes itself as the "caretakers of the land and people of Israel", specialising in planting forests. Critics say it expropriated land belonging to Palestinians and has obliterated pre-1948 Arab villages by planting forests and parks. The JNF is involved in the demolition of Bedouin villages in the Negev desert as part of an afforestation plan.

Sofiah Macleod of the UK-based Stop the JNF Campaign said the organisation's lobbying had led Cameron to withdraw. "There has been a change in public opinion and awareness about Israel's behaviour and there was specific pressure on [Cameron] to step down from the JNF," she said. "We believe he has stepped down as a result of this political pressure. Given the establishment support that the JNF has received, it's not a decision he will have taken lightly."

The Stop the JNF Campaign wrote an open letter to the prime minister this month, claiming the JNF had committed war crimes against the Palestinian people and urging his resignation as patron.

An early day motion tabled in the Commons in March regretted Cameron was a JNF patron and said revoking its charitable status should be considered. However, Downing St insisted Cameron's resignation was part of a wider review.

"Following the formation of the coalition government, a review was undertaken of all the organisations and charities the prime minister was associated with. As a result of this review, the prime minister stepped down from a number of charities – this included the JNF," it said in a statement.

Traditionally, the leaders of the three main political parties have become patrons of the JNF. However, Cameron's resignation means that none of the current three leaders are JNF patrons.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign welcomed the decision. "It reflects the fact it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend public support to racism," campaign director, Sarah Colborne, said in a statement.

"The JNF plays a critical role in facilitating the continued dispossession and suffering of Palestinians."

The JNF did not respond to a request for comment. In a letter to the Guardian last October, Samuel Hayek, JNF UK chairman, said: "To accuse the JNF of being "actively complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians' represents a distortion of the truth on the grandest of scales.

"Our environmental and humanitarian work is not based on any political or religious affiliation, but rather on supporting Israel and its population – whatever their background. This was the case before the modern state of Israel was created and will continue to be the case long into the future."


British PM removes his name from list of Jewish National Fund patrons


source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/british-pm-removes-his-name-from-list-of-jewish-national-fund-patrons-1.364641
 
British Prime Minister David Cameron has removed his name from a list of patrons of the UK branch of the Jewish National Fund - and pro-Palestinian activists have taken credit for the move.


Cameron's decision to drop his link with the charity was explained by his office as simply having to do with "time constraints." In an e-mail, Downing Street reiterated the explanation without going into details. "The Prime Minister stepped down from a number of charities - including the JNF," the office wrote.

Downing Street declined to comment on the fact that the Stop the JNF Campaign has actively lobbied for Cameron to withdraw as a patron of the charity. The prime minister became an honorary patron of the JNF five years ago, after he became the leader of the Conservative Party.


In its last open letter to Cameron, sent two weeks ago, Stop the JNF characterized the JNF's British Park in Israel as one that was planted "in order to cover over the remains of the Palestinian villages of Ajjur and Zakariyya, destroyed in 1948, and to prevent the original population and their descendants from returning."

Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Sarah Colborne said in a statement that Cameron's decision "reflects the fact that it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend their public support to racism." She added: "The Jewish National Fund plays a critical role in facilitating the continued dispossession and suffering of Palestinians."

Netanyahu asked Canada PM to thwart G8 support for 1967 borders

source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asked-canada-pm-to-thwart-g8-support-for-1967-borders-1.364635

G8 statement would have supported Obama's policy that Israeli-Palestinian talks should be based on 1967 lines with land swaps.

At the request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper thwarted an announcement Friday by the G-8 countries that would have supported U.S. President Barack Obama's statement that talks between the Palestinians and Israel should be based on the 1967 borders with exchanges of territory.

The G-8 countries - the United States, Russia, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada - met in France on Thursday and Friday to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Obama presented his Middle East policy to the G-8 as an alternative to a unilateral Palestinian move to seek support for statehood in the United Nations General Assembly in September, and to clarify to the Palestinians that the international community takes a dim view of the Palestinians' move to win statehood in the United Nations.

According to a senior government official in Jerusalem, Israel was concerned over the implications of a specific mention of support for Obama's call for negotiations based on the 1967 borders and exchanges of territory, so the prime minister's bureau and the Foreign Ministry began working on the matter as early as the middle of last week.

The Foreign Ministry instructed its envoys in the various capitals to ask that the G-8's concluding statement emphasize three things: that a Palestinian state will arise only through direct negotiations, not through a unilateral move in the United Nations; opposition to Hamas-Fatah reconciliation as long as Hamas rejects the Quartet's conditions; and opposition to a mention of the issue of 1967 borders and exchanges of territory. However, there was concern over whether inclusion of the latter issue could be prevented, the official said, because at least seven out of the eight G-8 countries supported including it.

Tuesday, after Netanyahu's speech to Congress, he telephoned Harper, who heads a rightist government under whose leadership Canada has become one of Israel's greatest allies.

The senior government official said Netanyahu told Harper that mentioning the issue of the 1967 borders in the statement, without mentioning the other issues, such as Israel as a Jewish state or opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, will be detrimental to Israeli interests and a reward to the Palestinians.

"The prime minister is in constant contact with various leaders in moving ahead the diplomatic process," Netanyahu's bureau said.

Since a decision on the statement requires consensus, Canada's efforts led to a release of the statement without reference to the 1967 borders.

The statement released expressed general support for the Obama speech, but called for the establishment of a Palestinian state through negotiations, not unilaterally, and for Hamas to accept the Quartet's conditions.

Harper said Friday that he thought the statement issued was "balanced." He also said it was important not to "cherry-pick" Obama's statement. "I think if you're going to get into other elements, obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama's speech. Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be de-militarized."

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spoke over the weekend with Canada's foreign minister, John Baird, and thanked him for Canada's position during the G-8 deliberations. "Canada is a true friend of Israel and with a realistic and proper view of things, it understands that the 1967 borders do not conform to Israel's security needs and with the current demographic reality," Lieberman said.

G8挺歐巴馬 支持以巴重回1967年邊界

轉貼來源: 中央廣播電台
http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=299051&id=6&id2=2

八大工業國家(G8)領袖今天(27日)表示，支持美國總統歐巴馬的主張，以色列和巴勒斯坦的和平協定，應該奠基於回到1967年六日戰爭前的邊界狀態。

正在法國召開高峰會的八國集團在一項聲明草案中，呼籲以色列和巴勒斯坦回歸實質的和平談判，以達成最終永久協議為著眼點。

聲明中指出，為達成這項目標，八國集團強烈支持歐巴馬在5月19日提出的建議。

根據歐巴馬的建議，以色列和未來巴勒斯坦國的邊界，應該以1967年六日戰爭前的界線為準，在經過雙方同意交換某些領土後，使雙方的邊界都能安全且獲得相互承認。

對於歐巴馬的建議，以色列隨即表達反對立場。總理尼坦雅胡(Benjamin Netanyahu)24日在美國國會發表演說，明確表示以色列絕對不會撤回到1967年的邊界。他並且重申，耶路撒冷是以色列永久、不可分割的首都。


潘基文：歐巴馬提出中東和平「好」建議

轉貼來源: 中央廣播電台
http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=299079&id=5&id2=2

聯合國秘書長潘基文(Ban Ki-moon)今天(27日)說，美國總統歐巴馬(Barack Obama)提出以1967年六日戰爭之前的疆界，作為巴勒斯坦建國後，與以色列的邊界，並且建議以、巴雙方透過交換土地來達成這項目標，有助於以、巴化解多年來的仇恨，並且可望達到真正的中東和平。
潘基文接受法國「世界報」訪問時指出：「歐巴馬勾勒出協助以、巴達成和平藍圖的一系列重要方針，可望解決以、巴在安全及領土上的問題。」

潘基文說：「我知道以色列並不歡迎歐巴馬所提出的這項和平計畫，但是顯而易見的是，若是要避免以、巴不斷爆發衝突，絕對有必要重啟和平談判。」

他說，若是以、巴爆發衝突，可能會迫使聯合國必須在是否承認巴勒斯坦建國的問題進行表決，而且巴勒斯坦也已表態，準備在今年9月的聯合國大會上，提出建國決議案。

潘基文表示，雖然聯合國大會不見得會通過巴勒斯坦建國案，但是「一定會在政治層面上，造成某種程度的影響」。

Egypt to open Rafah border permanently

Egypt opens Rafah border with Gaza

source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/201152872159493180.html

Egypt has reopened its Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip, allowing people to cross freely for the first time in four years - a sharp departure from the policies of former president Hosni Mubarak.

The opening on Saturday morning provided long-awaited relief for Palestinians - a move ushered in by Egypt's new government in a bid to ease the suffering of Gaza residents.

Al Jazeera's Nicole Johnston, reporting from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, said there will still be restrictions in place, preventing men younger than 40 from leaving the coastal territory.

"It will allow basically all women to leave Gaza, also children under the age of 18 years will be allowed to leave, as well as men over the age of 40 years. However, those between the ages of 18 and 40 years will require an Egyptian visa," she said.

"Visas would have to come from Ramallah. Sources in Hamas say they have been told by the Egyptian authorities over the last few weeks that they [Egyptians] do intend to open some sort of representative office inside Gaza, so that people can get the visa from there."

Among the first to cross the reopened border post were two ambulances ferrying patients from the hitherto-blockaded Gaza Strip for treatment in Egypt as well as a minibus carrying a dozen visitors. About 400 Gazans were reported to be waiting at the crossing.

Israeli siege

The crossing is seen as the main gateway for the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Among the other border posts, it is the only crossing not controlled by Israel.

Rafah has been mostly closed since 2007 when Israel imposed a siege on Gaza after Hamas took over the Strip.

Our correspondent said that Hamas used to have a list of people who needed to go through the border crossing, and that list currently has 12,000 names on it.

"That list used to be sent through to the Egyptians who then vetted it and allowed around 300 people a day through it - but it was very limited and now it will be free and open for most people," she said.

The crossing is to open to people for eight hours a day from 9:00am, apart from holidays and Fridays, giving Gazans a gateway to the world as Rafah is the only crossing that does not pass through Israel.

Commercial traffic will continue to have to pass through border points with Israel to enter the impoverished Palestinian enclave.

"In the future, Hamas says that it would like this to become a terminal for goods," our correspondent said.

"But a lot of people in Gaza say that if the Rafah border crossing becomes a commercial goods terminal, then Israel could place all responsibility for Gaza on the Egyptians, which people do not want because Gaza is still occupied by Israel."

The United Nations has called the Gaza blockade illegal and repeatedly demanded it be lifted.

Source:

Al Jazeera and agencies

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/2011525174117897741.html

Egypt will permanently open its Rafah border crossing starting from Saturday, the country's official news agency reported, easing a four-year blockade on the Gaza Strip.

The news agency MENA said on Wednesday that Egypt's new military rulers had set the date for the opening of the crossing as part of efforts "to end the status of the Palestinian division and achieve national reconciliation".

It said the Rafah border crossing would be opened permanently, starting on Saturday, from 9am to 9pm every day except Fridays and holidays.

Minha Bakhoum, spokeswoman for the Egyptian foreign ministry, told Al Jazeera that the decision was taken to ease the suffering of Gaza residents.

"This comes in the context of the decision taken by the new Egyptian government to help end the disunity between Palestinian factions, in the absence of any resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," she said.

Siege 'not over'

Mustafa Barghouti, a long time activist and former Palestinian presidential candidate, told Al Jazeera that re-opening the border was a "big step forward".

"Hundreds of people have lost their lives because they could not get medical care in Gaza, thousands of students have lost their studies, and thousands of businesses have suffered," Barghouti said.

"But the siege is not over. Construction material is still forbidden and that means that the 25,000 houses that were destroyed by Israel during the war on Gaza cannot be rebuilt."

"We appreciate the Egyptian initiative - this is one of the big changes after the Egyptian revolution."

Al Jazeera's Nicole Johnston, reporting from Gaza, said there would still be restrictions in place, preventing men younger than 40 from leaving the strip.

"It will allow basically all women to leave Gaza, also children under the age of 18 years will be allowed to leave, as well as men over the age of 40 years. However, those between the ages of 18 and 40 years will require an Egyptian visa," she said.

"Visas would have to come from Ramallah. Sources in Hamas say they have been told by the Egyptian authorities over the last few weeks that they [Egyptians] do intend to open some sort of representative office inside Gaza, so that people can get the visa from there."

Sharp departure from past

The decision is a sharp departure from the policies of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, who had restricted the movement of people and goods through the Egyptian-Gaza border.

"One of the military's first and important announcements was to abide by all international agreements that the previous government had committed to," said Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Cairo.

One of those agreements commits Egypt to granting access to the crossing to European monitors. Sources told Al Jazeera that European monitors had not been notified that the border would be opening on Saturday.

"Certainly this is going to cause some concerns for Israel, particularly as to what mechanism is going to be put in place," our correspondent said.

Sources at Rafah said it was unlikely that all the mechanisms needed to be put in place could actually be ready in time to deal with the flow of people expected to come out of Gaza.

"There's no doubt if the border is opened freely for all, there's going to be a massive influx of Palestinians, who would want to get out for the first time since the siege was put in place," said Mohyeldin.

Gazans have circumvented the blockade by operating hundreds of smuggling tunnels under the 15km Gaza-Egypt border, which have been used to bring in all manner of products, as well as people.

Israel says Hamas, which controls Gaza, has used the tunnels to import weapons, including rockets that can reach main population centres in Israel.

The crossing has been mostly closed, in line with Israel's blockade on Gaza, imposed since 2007 when Hamas took control of the coastal territory.

內唐亞胡「妥協」 巴勒斯坦斥宣戰

轉貼來源 聯合新聞網
http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR3/6358585.shtml

以色列總理內唐亞胡24日在國會對參眾兩院的議員發表演說，他表示，願意做出痛苦的妥協，來達成歷史性的中東和平，但他提出以色列與巴勒斯坦達成和平協議的條件，包括耶路撒冷不可分割和是以色列的首都、以色列保留耶路撒冷的郊區和特拉維夫附近地區、有限的土地換和平、以色列不會回到1967年前的邊界、巴勒斯坦難民和其後裔只能重回未來的巴勒斯坦國境內，不得回到其舊居地。

巴勒斯坦總統阿巴斯的高級助理夏斯24日反應相當負面。他指出，內唐亞胡提出的和談條件，無法讓談判恢復，內唐亞胡堅持保留巴勒斯坦要求建國的主要部分土地，是對「巴勒斯坦的宣戰」。

內唐亞胡24日在對立場比白宮更同情以色列的國會議員說，為了真正的和平，以色列願意放棄部分祖先的土地，一些以色列人已屯墾的土地可畫在以色列最後的邊界外，但他堅持不會回到1967年的邊界，未來的巴勒斯坦國也必須完全非軍事化，以色列陸軍將繼續沿約旦河駐軍。

內唐亞胡在國會的演說是他在華府訪問的高潮，歐巴馬總統19日呼籲談判建立巴勒斯坦國，以色列回到1967年的邊界，並且進行雙方同意的土地交換和平。內唐亞胡起初對歐巴馬的宣布非常憤怒，但過去數日他則強調兩人有共識之處。美國國會議員顯然熱衷表現支持以色列的立場，有意在2012年大選前，討好美國政治中最有力的選民團體之一—猶太人，而內唐亞胡也有意向歐巴馬顯示他獲得了國會兩黨議員的支持。

內唐亞胡在演說中也呼籲阿巴斯撕毀與被美國視為恐怖組織的哈瑪斯的和解協議，他說，以色列不會與一個巴勒斯坦版的凱達組織談判。阿巴斯則定25日與巴勒斯坦解放組織和其法塔運動的領袖討論其下一步行動。

【2011/05/25 世界日報】@ http://udn.com/

Palestine Papers: Why I blew the whistle

source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201151432144832519.html

(The Palestinian house key is the symbol that represents collective memory of the Palestinian diaspora [Getty])


In Palestine, the time for national reconciliation has come. On the eve of the 63rd commemoration of the Nakba, this is a long-awaited and hopeful moment. Earlier this year, the release by Al Jazeera and the Guardian of 1,600 documents related to the mislabelled "peace process" caused deep consternation amongst Palestinians and in the Arab world. Covering more than ten years of talks (1999-2010) between Israel and the PLO, these "Palestine Papers" illustrate the tragic consequences of a highly inequitable and destructive political process grounded on the assumption that the Palestinians could effectively negotiate their rights and achieve self-determination while enduring the hardship of the Israeli occupation.

Since my name was circulated as one of the possible sources of these leaks, I would like to clarify here the extent of my involvement in these revelations and explain my motivations. I have always acted in fact in the best interest of the Palestinian people, in its entirety, and to the full extent of my capacity.

My own experience with the "peace process" started in Ramallah in January 2008 after I was recruited as an adviser for the Negotiation Support Unit (NSU) of the PLO, specifically in charge of the Palestinian refugee file. That was a few weeks after a goal had been set at the Annapolis conference: the creation of the Palestinian State by the end of 2008. Only 11 months into my job, in November of that same year, I resigned. By December 2008, instead of the establishment of a State in Palestine, I witnessed on TV the killing of more than 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli army.

"The peace process is a spectacle, a farce, played to the detriment of Palestinian reconciliation, at the cost of the bloodshed in Gaza."---Ziyad Clot in Il n'y aura pas d'Etat palestinien (There will be no Palestinian State)

My strong motives for leaving my position with the NSU and my assessment of the "peace process" were clearly detailed to Palestinian negotiators in my resignation letter dated of 9th November 2008.

The "peace negotiations" were a deceptive farce, whereby biased terms were unilaterally imposed by Israel and systematically endorsed by the US and EU capitals. Far from enabling a negotiated fair end of the conflict, the pursuit of the Oslo process has deepened Israeli segregationist policies and justified the tightening of the security control imposed on the Palestinian population as well as its geographical fragmentation. Far for preserving the land on which to build a State, it has tolerated the intensification of the colonisation of the Palestinian territory. Far from maintaining a national cohesion, the process I participated in, albeit briefly, proved to be instrumental in creating and aggravating divisions amongst Palestinians. In its most recent developments, it became a cruel enterprise from which the Palestinians of Gaza have suffered the most. Last but not least, these negotiations excluded for the most part the great majority of the Palestinian people: the 7 million-Palestinian refugees. My experience over those 11 months spent in Ramallah confirms in fact that the PLO, given its structure, was not in a position to represent all Palestinian rights and interests.

After I resigned, I believed I had a duty to inform the public of the most alarming developments of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. These talks were unfair, misleading and became unsustainable. Tragically, the Palestinians were left uninformed of the fate of their individual and collective rights in the negotiations and their divided political leaderships were not held accountable for their decisions or inaction.

Shortly after the Gaza war, I started to write about my experience in Ramallah. In my book published in France in September 2010 under the disillusioned title "Il n’y aura pas d’Etat palestinien" (There will be no Palestinian State Ed. Max Milo), I concluded: "The peace process is a spectacle, a farce, played to the detriment of Palestinian reconciliation, at the cost of the bloodshed in Gaza." Therefore, in full conscience and independence, I later accepted to share some information with Al Jazeera specifically with regard to the fate of Palestinian refugee rights in the 2008 talks. Other sources did the same, although I am unaware of their identity. Taking these tragic developments of the "peace process" to a wider Arab and Western audience was essential and justified by the public interest of the Palestinian people. I had no doubt at that time that I had a moral, legal and political obligation to proceed accordingly. My conviction and motives have not been altered since.

Today, I am relieved that this first-hand information is available to the Palestinian people scattered in the occupied Palestinian territory, in Israel and in exile. In a way, Palestinian rights are back in their holders' possession and the people are now in a position to make enlightened decisions about the future of their struggle. I am also glad that international stakeholders to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can access these documents. The world can no longer overlook that while Palestinians’ strong commitment to peace is genuine, the fruitless pursuit of the "peace process" framed according to the exclusive conditions of the occupying power lead to disastrous compromises which would be unacceptable in any other region of the globe.

Finally, I feel reassured that the people of Palestine overwhelmingly realise that the reconciliation between all their constituents must be the first step towards national liberation. The Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians in Israel and the Palestinians living in exile have a future in common. The path to Palestinian self-determination will require the participation of all, in a renewed political platform.

Ziyad Clot is a French lawyer of Palestinian descent and author of "Il n'y aura pas d'Etat palestinien" Ed. Max Milo (There will be no Palestinian State). He was a legal adviser in the Annapolis negotiations between Israel and the PLO.

Netanyahu doesn't want peace

Obama to aides: Netanyahu will never do what it takes to achieve Mideast peace

source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-to-aides-netanyahu-will-never-do-what-it-takes-to-achieve-mideast-peace-1.362964

Comment reported in New York Times comes amid growing tensions between Washington and Jerusalem over the U.S. President's backing of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.

U.S. President Barack Obama does not think Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will ever make the concessions necessary to achieve a Middle East peace deal, the New York Times cited Obama aides as saying on Friday.

The comments attributed to associates of the U.S. president comes amid what is turning become into a veritable war of words between Israel and the U.S., following Obama's Mideast strategy speech on Thursday in which the American leader voiced his support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.

Following Obama's speech, Netanyahu, who is set to meet the U.S. president later today, said Thursday that Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.

"Israel appreciates President's Obama commitment to peace," Netanyahu said, but stressed that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding that Israel withdraw to "indefensible" 1967 borders "which will leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."

In what seems to be a response to Netanyahu's comments, Obama aides told the New York Times that the U.S. president did not believe Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of concessions that would lead to a peace deal.

Those comments, which seem to heat an already intense atmosphere between Netanyahu and Obama, comes just hours before a fateful meeting between the two leaders in the White House on Friday.

Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor expressed disappointment Thursday in regards to Obama's Mideast policy speech, saying he failed to propose a serious plan for achieving Mideast peace.

"Today, the president outlined his hopes for Mideast peace – a goal that we all share – but failed to articulate a serious plan for achieving this goal," Cantor said in a statement. "This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself."

"The President’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace. In reality, Israel - since its creation - has always proven willing to make the sacrifices necessary for peace, while the Palestinians on numerous occasions have rejected those offers."


Friedman: Netanyahu doesn't want peace
 
source: ynet news
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4070400,00.html

NYT columnist Thomas Friedman slams prime minister for 'spending his time in office trying to avoid peace deal'

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wasted his two years in office without truly attempting to achieve peace with the Palestinians, controversial New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written in his latest opinion article.

"Netanyahu has not spent his time in office using Israel’s creativity to find ways to do a (peace) deal. He has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal — and everyone knows it. No one is fooled," Friedman wrote.

Ahead of Netanyahu's meeting with US President Barack Obama on Friday, Friedman added that "the only way for Netanyahu to be taken seriously again is if he risks some political capital and actually surprises people".

Regarding the prime minister's comments during a Knesset speech, in which he said Israel was willing to cede certain areas in negotiations, Friedman responded, "Fine, put a map on the table. Let’s see what you’re talking about. Or how about removing the illegal West Bank settlements built by renegade settler groups against the will of Israel’s government."

The columnist added that Netanyahu should not be addressing the US Congress, but rather the "Palestinians down the street".

Advertisement

"And it is equally silly for the Palestinians to be going to the United Nations for a state when they need to be persuading Israelis why a Hamas-Fatah rapprochement is in their security interest," Friedman wrote.

The columnist also called on the US to prevent another Mideast conflict. "The best we can do now is manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable," he wrote.

Obama Speech on Middle East

source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/2011519174053886277.html

I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark – one million frequent flyer miles. I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.

Today, I would like to talk about this change – the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader – Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home – day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this Revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

This lack of self determination – the chance to make of your life what you will – has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and diversion won’t work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world – a world of astonishing progress in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”

In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”

In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”

In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age – a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways – as Americans have been seared by hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens – a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.

That’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then – and I believe now – that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.

We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.

And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest– today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.

That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high –as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab World’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi launched a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intended it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad

Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people.

We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.

In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion – not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.

Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

My Administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.


I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.


The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

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. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”

That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, ‘peaceful,’ ‘peaceful.’ In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of non-violence as a way to perfect our union – organizing, marching, and protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self -evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa – words which tell us that repression will fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. It will not be easy. There is no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Green shoots emerge at Qalandia checkpoint

source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201151611522564602.html

Thousands of activists took part in the mass protests planned across the region to commemorate the 'Nakba' - the 63rd anniversary of the expulsion of Palestinians to make way for the state of Israel [Lazar Simeonov]

The organisers predicted chaos at Qalandia and they were right.

At around 10:30am on Sunday, a small group of protesters marched through Qalandia refugee camp. They made it within 100 metres of the infamous checkpoint, which separates Ramallah and West Bankers from Jersualem, before being swiftly dispersed with tear gas.

From that moment on, the action settled into a familiar pattern of Palestinian stones against Israeli military hardware.

A few dozen Israeli soldiers were able to police the event with a comfort that was only threatened when the wind changed direction and blew their own tear gas back at them. Away from the hostilities, makeshift field hospitals were overflowing with casualties.

There was no Tahrir moment, but there were signs that Palestine is beginning to capitalise on the successes of the Arab Spring. A credible youth movement is developing here, capable of coordinating a series of protests over three punishing days, and spilling into three neighbouring countries.

National unity?

Palestinian resistance efforts have been hampered by internal divisions, yet there was little evidence of them at Qalandia's protests. The as-yet unnamed youth movement, which first came to prominence through a series of public hunger strikes for unity, has worked hard to establish connections that cut across barriers of class, religion, political allegiance and geography.

Transport was arranged for representatives from the villages best known for their grassroots, non-violent resistance efforts - Bi'lin, Nil'in and Nabi Saleh. Their presence gave the protest credibility, and a link to the popular movement that has done so much to win hearts and minds in the struggle for liberation.

Mohammed al Khatib, an activist with no party affiliation, was impressed with how political divisions were overlooked.

"Whenever someone was hurt, everybody would help. I was suffering with [tear] gas and the people who came were Fatah and Hamas guys who hated me. The same people who were ruining our events in the past," al Khatib said.

That is not to say there were no internal attempts to undermine the march.

The Nakba protests are in commemoration of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were forced to become refugees after the state of Israel was established in 1948 [Lazar Simeonov]


Up the road in al Manara Square, a Palestinian Authority (PA)-sponsored celebration of the Nakba diverted thousands from the main effort at Qalandia - forgoing any challenge to the Israeli occupation. Over the past fortnight, several prominent activists from the youth movement were arrested by the PA, revealing the split loyalties which still plague the Palestinian government.

In al Manara, a sea of yellow Fatah flags made a show of division - at Qalandia, only the national Palestinian flag could be seen. But when the 'celebration' fizzled out, hundreds made the short journey south to join a more fitting Nakba commemoration.

Fadi Quran, one of the youth movement's senior figures, defined success by progress. "In the long run, this will be useful for building unity of purpose," he said. "You can see there is more trust between the people, we have the numbers and the connections."

Before the event, the movement had convened seminars to educate youths on strategies of non-violent resistance, as well as providing advice on how to cope with police brutality. The efforts will intensify toward future actions, but the traditional resistance of burning tires and throwing stones will not change overnight.

"We need to give the world a picture of non-violent Palestinian resistance," Quran said.

Israeli officials had made statements that the military would allow the protest; instead the 'most moral army in the world' fired a steady stream of tear gas and rubber bullets into the crowd, yet again defying their own regulations.

"I have not seen this many casualties in one day since the Second Intifada," said Dr. Sami Dar Nakhla, director of the field hospital. In total, over eighty protesters received treatment, of which twenty were hospitalised - including three paramedics.

Dar Nakhla found evidence of the army using new and brutal forms of crowd control.

"This teargas is toxic, it is the first time I have seen it. It is causing fits, seizures and unconsciousness," he declared.

The repressive Israeli response even extended to Arabic-speaking collaborators planted in the crowd, who made several discreet arrests. Over the course of Nakba weekend, the Israeli military injured hundreds of Palestinians and killed several more, in an indication of how seriously they viewed its threat.

Military response

Before the weekend, a senior Israeli commander revealed that the military "can't wait for this weekend to be over".

During three days the army's resources have been pushed to the limit by actions in Nabi Saleh, Qalandia, Gaza, Jaffa, Lebanon and Syria. In Cairo, Ankara, Athens, Washington and London solidarity marches have added their voice to the calls for Palestinian liberation.

At this critical moment between the Hamas-Fatah unity deal and September's UN resolution on Palestinian statehood, the challenge for activists is to maintain unity and momentum.

The inexperienced youth movement will face sabotage attempts from inside and out, yet support is growing for their progressive, pluralist values, even within the more conservative villages and refugee camps. They can provide a face of Palestinian resistance that the world will recognise from the Arab Spring, and one their opponents will struggle to demonise.

Their movements have gained strength in numbers over the three months of their existence. The next rallies will benefit from better organisation and purpose, as well as lessons learned from Qalandia.

Their greatest weapon is the reservoir of national pride and identity that unites Palestinians even after decades of stifling oppression.

They are pioneers of the art of uprising, they were fighting tanks in the streets long before Ben Ali or Mubarak ever faced a challenge, and they have struggled alone in the dark without representation or even rational hope.

Now that a ray of light has emerged on the horizon, that spirit is revitalising.

It could be seen yesterday in Qalandia, at the 'front', where for every young boy to be carted off in an ambulance, another took his place. The Israeli military may be relieved the weekend is over; but they should also know that it was just the start.


Their Independence is our Nakba; Thousands of Palestinians March on Thursday

source: PNN
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10025&Itemid=56

By Munjed Jadou – PNN Editor in Chief- Their Independence is our Nakba. That is the slogan that was chosen for this year protests. In Bethlehem same as West Bank and Gaza Strip main cities; school students, teachers and politicians as well as religious leaders; both Muslims and Christians, marched affirming the right of return to the today’s 4.7 million refugees in and outside Palestine.


“Our massage this years that we will return, we will start to implement laws of right of return, we will march to Israeli checkpoints demanding to go home. We are working day and night to achieve our goal, right of Return to the villages we were expelled from in 1948.” Monther Amria, head of the Nakba Committee in Bethlehem told PNN.
Today’s protests marked the start of daily actions until May 15, were people will gather in Ramallah, central West Bank, and Gaza City demanding the right of return.

Bishop Attallah Hanna from the Orthodox Church reterated Palestinians right to Jerusalem. “We are gathered in the manager square in Bethlehem, as one people, Christians and Muslims to reiterate that we are Palestinians we are Arabs, and we demand our right of return and our right to Jerusalem and that right of return does not decay with time.” Bishop Hanna told PNN.

From his part Legislative Council member, Mohamed al-Laham, said in an interview with PNN that the most important characteristic of today’s activity that its shows that Palestinians still demand right of return, which is guaranteed by international laws, led by the United Nations resolution 194. al-Laham stressed that Israel must understand that its military power will not be able to erase the memory of the Nakba and the anniversary of the tragedy.


"They can kill and destroy but our people will continue to demand their rights, we call upon the international community to achieve justice for the Palestinian people after 63 years of displacement” al-Laham concluded.


In May 15th 1948 Jewish forces who later became Israel’s army destroyed hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns; killing hundreds and expelling an estimated of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes. Now 1.5 million Palestinians still live in Israel, they also had representation in the protests:“Our hope and dream is to achieve the Palestinian Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital.” Mohamed Naf’e from the Communist Party in Israel commented.

Earlier this week the Israeli army announced that it well increase deployment of troops in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and borders. This increase was in response to groups on Facebook calling for civil disobedience in the Palestinian territories while in states sharing borders with Israel the organizers asked people to mobilize rallies to the Israeli borders.

Security forces fire on Cairo 'Nakba' rally

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/20115165445325517.html

At least 353 people were injured, one of them critically, when Egyptian security forces attacked a pro-Palestine demonstration outside the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Sunday night, according to witnesses and the Health Ministry.

Activists told Al Jazeera that army and internal security troops used tear gas, rubber-coated bullets and live ammunition to disperse thousands of protesters who had gathered to mark the 63rd anniversary of the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" - the day in 1948 that Israel declared its independence and thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled form their homes.

At least two protesters were shot by live ammunition, while others were hospitalised after inhaling tear gas or being hit by rubber-coated steel bullets, some of which penetrated the skin, witnesses said.

One protester, Atef Yehia, was shot in the head, while another, Ali Khalaf, was shot in the abdomen. Both survived, though Yehia was being kept on a ventilator and would likely suffer brain damage, his friend said on Monday afternoon.

The crackdown on the protest also marked a setback for activists campaigning to limit the military's judicial power in post-revolutionary Egypt. A senior police officer told Al Jazeera that 137 protesters had been arrested and would be questioned by a military prosecutor. As they awaited questioning, the protesters was being held in Hikestep military prison on the outskirts of Cairo, according to activists and a human-rights lawyer.

Surge toward building prompts shooting

The violence began at around 11pm after a group of protesters surged toward the front of the multi-story office building that contains the Israeli embassy and managed to push aside some of the barriers that had been erected in front of the ground-floor entrance, witnesses said.

The crowd had called for Egypt to break off its diplomatic ties with Israel and for the Israeli flag to be taken down from the building.

Members of the Central Security Forces responded with a heavy volley of tear gas, driving the protesters back with support from military troops on the scene. Witnesses said the army forces - a mix of regular soldiers and military police - first fired in the air to disperse the protesters but then aimed at the crowd.

Protesters responded by burning tires in the street and throwing stones.

"The army was running after us, shooting rubber bullets," said Sanaa Seif, an activist who attended the protest. "I kept on hearing gunfire from everywhere, and someone told me that there was gunfire from the Central Security Forces ... I wasn't sure if it was rubber or live, people were saying rubber."

In the chaos, a friend of Seif's, Youssef Bagato, was shot by a rubber-coated bullet that lodged in his back and had to be taken to a hospital.

Another protester had fainted nearby, and Seif and her friends helped him into the entrance of a building to recover. They found Khalaf suffering from a bullet wound below his stomach.

The group moved Khalaf inside a nearby shop to hide him from security forces but were forced to leave by the owner, who feared they would be found. They moved to a main street and put Khalaf into a cab with his friends to be taken to a hospital.

Yehia, who also had been hit during the initial retreat from the security forces, was taken first to the nearby Om el-Misreyeen Hospital and then to the more advanced Kasr el-Aini Hospital in central Cairo.

He had been struck by a single bullet above his right eye and was awaiting surgery on Monday afternoon, his friend, Sabry Khaled, told Al Jazeera. Doctors said he would likely suffer brain damage.

Yehia, who is in his early twenties, owns an Internet cafe and uses the income to support his three sisters and mother, Khaled said. His father died several years ago.

"He's just like any other Egyptian who loves his country" and wanted to express his anger with Israel in a peaceful way, Khaled said.

Unclear fate for detainees

Street clashes continued for several hours after security forces dispersed the crowd, and at around 4am, Central Security Force and army troops closed in on the remaining protesters and arrested dozens.

Mohamed Effat, a freelance journalist, chronicled the arrests on Twitter.

"They pointed their guns at us, forced us to lie on our stomachs, fired heavily into air, cussing at and hitting us. An officer told me whoever looked up would be smacked on the neck," he wrote. "Last thing was that they took our phones and IDs, queuing us to put in [Central Security] cars while yelling 'Have fun in military prison rev[olutionary] youth'."

Effat was released, but among those still detained were Tarek Shalaby and Mosaab Elshamy, two activists who had been prominent during the revolution.

Shalaby had activated the mobile phone livestreaming service Bambuser shortly before his arrest, leaving some video and audio of the incident posted online.

He had returned to Cairo at around 3am on Monday morning after an unsuccessful attempt to join a "Nakba Day" protest at the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. The army shut down that demonstration, erecting several checkpoints along the road toward Rafah and preventing bus companies from ferrying protesters from Cairo.

In the wake of the revolution that unseated President Hosni Mubarak and replaced him with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the army has exercised nearly complete power, and thousands of Egyptians - including at least hundreds of demonstrators - have been forced into military trials that many describe as lacking due process.

Mona Seif, an activist working against such trials, said that the arrests on Sunday night and Monday morning indicated that the armed forces were still exercising their sweeping law enforcement powers.

"I thought we had started to make some progress on this, as in they started to refer people to civil trials and not military trials, but apparently this is not true," said Seif, who is also Sanaa Seif's sister. "A spokesman for the Suprme Council of the Armed Forces said a couple of days ago that anything that happens within the presence of the army is the army's responsibility ... and since they are basically everywhere, this is them telling us that whatever happens in this country, it will be referred to a military prosecutor."

Human rights lawyer Ragia Omran and relatives of the detained protesters traveled to Hikestep to visit the detainess and gather more information about them. As of Monday afternoon, it was unclear whether interrogations had begun or what charges might be filed.

"We had an idea before that the army and police aren't very good," Khaled said. "But what happened last night and what happened to my friend made this idea concrete."

Palestinians in Lebanon, at the lonely end of the Arab uprisings

source: guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/16/palestinian-refugees-lebanon-right-to-return

Never is a refugee's right to return brought into question – except when that refugee is a Palestinian

(Lebanese soldiers patrol next to Palestinian refugees during demonstrations to mark the 63rd anniversary of Nakba Day at the Lebanese-Israeli border in Maroun al-Ras, 15 May 2011. Photograph: Hassan Bahsoun/EPA)


Climbing up the mountain to reach the Palestinian right-of-return protest in Maroun al-Ras in south Lebanon on Sunday felt a bit like being back in Tahrir Square.

The thousands of mostly Palestinian refugees were smiling as they joked about the strenuous climb, and helped each other up the mountain to reach the site where they were going to stage their demonstration. Some knew it could even be dangerous, but that didn't matter as much as the rare opportunity to join together and call for their rights.

The small elevated Lebanese village just overlooking the border with Israel became a massive parking lot as buses carrying Palestinian refugees and Lebanese from across Lebanon converged for a protest commemorating what Israeli historian Ilan Pappé calls the "ethnic cleansing" by Zionist militias of more than 700,000 Palestinians from their lands and homes in 1948 – what Palestinians refer to as the "Nakba", or catastrophe. Large buses had difficulties reaching the top of the mountain, and rather than wait, protesters chose to make the half-mile climb by foot.

Men and women, young and old, secular and religious, were all present. This was the first time in 63 years that Palestinian refugees would go to the border in their tens of thousands and call for their right to return home. For most, it was their first time even seeing the land that they've grown up hearing described in precise detail through the popular stories of elders old enough to remember life in what is today considered Israel.

The Israeli regime not only keeps under occupation more than 4 million people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and limits the rights of more than a million Palestinian citizens of Israel, it also denies more than 5 million refugees the fundamental right of return to the place they were forced to flee.

While Palestinians have always protested against Israeli occupation, this year, inspired by the wave of uprisings across the Arab world, Palestinians called for their own protests on 15 May, the day they commemorate the Nakba.

In Lebanon, a rally didn't go as planned. Soon after speakers began addressing the crowds in Maroun al-Ras, thousands of Palestinians broke off and headed down the opposite side of the mountain – through land littered with Israeli landmines – towards the fence on the border. There they called for their right to return, climbed and placed Palestinian flags on the fence, and many began throwing stones at soldiers they couldn't even see.

Israel is showing itself to be no different to the infamous despotic Arab regimes in its willingness to use brutal force against people demanding their rights. This was clear yesterday when more than a dozen were killed and hundreds injured in Lebanon, Syria's occupied Golan Heights, and in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. In Lebanon, 10 were killed and more than 100 injured, including Lebanese soldiers, when Israel opened fire on protesters at the border fence.

The number of refugees at the fence would have been even greater had the Lebanese army not set up a blockade halfway down the mountain preventing thousands of others from joining the protesters below.

The role of the Lebanese army in preventing Palestinians from protesting against Israel represents what many refugees in Lebanon believe is a main hindrance in order for them to return. In Lebanon, refugees live with few civil rights, many in refugee camps enclosed by barbed-wire fencing and army checkpoints. Last year, thousands protested in Beirut calling for rights in order to return.

Sunday's protest wasn't ended by Israel's force but by that of the Lebanese army. After hours at the fence, Lebanese soldiers moved in and began firing their M16s in the air non-stop, creating a stampede of frightened protesters who sprinted back up the incline. People fell on top of each other, some hurled themselves to the ground to seek cover. As the crowd continued rushing up the mountain, the army fired teargas until all were gone.

Taking a break near the top, I met two young men sitting side by side. They asked me to photograph them – one was Lebanese and the other a Palestinian refugee – to show that it wasn't only Palestinians protesting for the right of return.

I asked Mahmoud, the refugee from the Ain al-Helweh camp, what he thought of the Lebanese army, which at that point was still shooting in the air. He told me: "They're just like the Israelis. Both of them are stopping us from returning home."

I pointed out that the Israelis were killing people at the fence and asked if he thought he could return by protesting. "Let [the Lebanese army] give us the chance, and let's see what happens."

The fight with the Lebanese army highlights the complicated journey Palestinian refugees must take to achieve their rights. Not only this, but yesterday there were only a handful of international journalists covering the important demonstrations, and many commentators don't see the refugees' struggle as legitimate. Never is a refugee's right to return to the lands he/she was forced to flee brought into question, except when that refugee is a Palestinian. Often the fate of the Israeli regime is raised when considering the rights of Palestinian refugees. Yet when Egyptians, Libyans and others took to the streets in the Arab world, it wasn't a concern for the justice-supporting international community what became of the regimes they battled against. In many cases, internationals have even joined in calls for their ousting.

Yesterday Palestinians climbed back down the mountain and into their buses to return to more than a dozen refugee camps, unrecognised "gatherings" and other areas around Lebanon. After 63 years in exile, it's time that the same international solidarity offered to the various people in the Arab world be offered to Palestinian refugees in their battle for freedom.


The price of return

source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/2011525152847823808.html

Seventeen-year-old Mohammed al-Saleh grew up in Burj al-Shemali refugee camp in south Lebanon, caring little about politics and more about football and FC Barcelona. However, when it came to Palestine, Mohamed's 16-year-old cousin, also named Mohammed, described him as saying, "He would always say that Palestinians inside [under Israeli occupation] sacrifice a lot, and we also have to sacrifice."

His sacrifice came on May 15, Nakba Day.

On that day, hundreds of buses carrying tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon travelled south to the border with Israel to stage a demonstration calling for the right to return. It was that same border that 63 years ago thousands of Palestinians crossed after more than 700,000 fled their homes fearing attacks by Zionist militias. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion announced the independence of the Israeli state, causing a snowball effect of violence in the ensuing struggle for self-realisation - Palestinians commemorate May 15 as the Nakba, or "catastrophe", memorialising their dispossession.

The protest was supposed to take place atop a small mountain in the village of Maroun al-Ras over looking the border and northern Israel, but as 42-year-old Mahmoud, a demonstrator from the Wavel camp in eastern Lebanon said during the protest, "there is no acting logically when someone sees his land for the first time."

Thousands of refugees broke away from the planned protest site and marched down the mountain through minefields left by Israel's 22-year occupation of south Lebanon and to the border fence where they continued their protest. Some threw stones across the fence at hidden Israeli soldiers well beyond a stone's throw away.

"We're going down [to the fence] because this is our land," said 25-year-old Ibrahim, from one of the unrecognised "gatherings" (similar to refugee camps although with few services provided by the UN or the state) in south Lebanon. "If we want to return and achieve our rights, then this is the only way we can do it."

Shots rang out from across the fence, and one by one the casualties were carried by other protesters back up the mountain's steep incline and into ambulances. One of the first was Mohammed al-Saleh, killed by a single bullet to the side of his chest.

'The weight of Palestine'

Days after the protest, posters reading "The martyr of Palestine and the right of return", with Mohammed al-Saleh's picture hung all over the Burj al-Shemali refugee camp.

In the al-Saleh family's Burj al-Shemali home, Mohammed's mother, Maryam, sat expressionless surrounded by her friends and family while Samah, her 16-year-old daughter, served coffee and dates to the guests. Maryam would only smile when relatives told anecdotes about Mohammed, whose picture she wore around her neck.

Her husband Samir passed away during heart surgery a year ago, leaving Maryam to take care of the couple's three children: Mohamed, Samah and seven-year-old Jihad. Now, pictures of Mohammed have joined those of his father on the walls of the family's home.

The room went quiet when Mohammed's grandmother, Ghadnana, recalled leaving Palestine at the age of seven during the Nakba. She explained how they lived on a main road where they feared Zionist militias could easily attack, so they came seeking refuge in Lebanon on foot, never imagining they'd be unable to return.

On Nakba Day, younger refugees joked that climbing the hills to reach the protest site must've been similar to what their grandparents went through when they came to Palestine. Many young people offered assistance to the elderly, struggling to make the difficult climb.

Mohammed's cousin, who shared his name, recalled when he reached the top, "When I saw Palestine, I felt I wanted my soul back. [I went down] and threw stones because I wanted to return the people of the camp."

Twenty-eight-year-old Wael, a close friend of Mohammed who was beside him when he was shot just metres from the fence, explained that it wasn't planned to protest so close to the border. "Had we known that we'd reach the fence, I would've brought a slingshot to shoot marbles because the rocks were too big to go through the fence."

Mohamed's uncle, Abu Ali, explained that the youth "aren't military specialists, they're just people who love Palestine. There was no plan to cross the border, just pure enthusiasm that drove them."

Maryam, who also went to the protest that day but in a different bus than Mohamed, described the moment when she heard the news about her son, "I was walking with my younger son at the protest when some boys came up [the mountain] and told me news that Mohammed had been killed. They told me that they think it could be another Mohammed and not my son, I replied, 'no, it's my son'."

Mohammed's body was taken to a hospital in nearby Bint Jbeil. After hearing the news, Maryam went with a few close relatives to identify the body.

"There were many bodies at the morgue. We walked past each until we reached the last one," explained one of Maryam's sisters. "Before his mother could see his face, she saw Mohammed's socks and was certain it was him. She didn't cry, she didn't scream. She's strong, she carries the weight of Palestine."

A bleak situation

Since the unprecedented protest at the border on May 15, organisers are again calling for similar actions in the coming weeks and months. However, special preparations were made on May 15, and the Lebanese army agreed to remove a chain of checkpoints that otherwise prevent Palestinian refugees in Lebanon from travelling to the south of the country.


After the Nakba Day protest carried on for a number of hours, protesters began chanting to turn the area next to the border into "Tahrir Square" - the iconic epicentre of the Egyptian uprising earlier this year - before the Lebanese army moved in and began firing non-stop in the air, sending protesters running back up the mountain. Palestinians who protested on May 15 are sceptical that the Lebanese army would allow future protests calling for the right of return along Israel's border.

When 16 young men from Burj al-Shemali, including Mohammed al-Saleh's friends, wanted to go to Ein al-Helwe and offer condolences to another protester killed on 15 May, they were stopped by Lebanese soldier at the main checkpoint to the camp. Wael described the process as "humiliating" as soldiers forced them to wait for more than an hour and subjected each one to a thorough search before allowing them to enter. Similar checkpoints are in place outside most refugee camps in Lebanon.

In the Burj al-Shemali's al-Houla association, named after the region in pre-1948 Palestine from where many refugees in the camp originate, assistant director Kamal Msheirfih explained, "the future is bleak for Palestinian refugees because of their lack of rights in Lebanon."

In Lebanon, Palestinians are prevented from working at more than a dozen professions and are often forced to work illegally and are subject to exploitation. Mohammed had left school at the age of 12 to find work and provide for his family. In recent years, he earned a modest wage painting houses in the camp.

"People are depressed in the camps. They study, and when they graduate they're not allowed to work. It's a difficult situation for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon."

With little rights in Lebanon, the desire to go back to Palestine is as strong as ever. Msheirfih explained, "We hold on to the right of return to Palestine and we're willing to sacrifice for it. Even if it's the children of our children that return, it would've been worth it."

Rehoused Lebanon refugees still long for Palestine

source: Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/18/us-lebanon-palestinians-idUSTRE74H44220110518

(Reuters) - Like the crowds of Palestinian refugees who rattled Israel's border fences this week, Subhia Loubani yearns to return to the homeland she had to flee when the Jewish state was created in 1948.

Even though, unlike most of them, she has a brand-new house.

Loubani, 72, received a key last month to one of the first few homes built by UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, in north Lebanon's Nahr al-Bared camp, which was utterly destroyed in fighting nearly four years ago.

Still, she said, given a chance, "I'd leave the house and go to Palestine, my country. I can't forget Palestine."
Sunday's border protests, in which Israeli gunfire killed at least 13 people, were a reminder that the plight of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees, often ignored in interim peace deals, lies at the core of an Arab conflict with Israel that has reverberated across the Middle East and beyond for decades.

U.S. President Barack Obama, keen to revive long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, said this week the unrest sweeping the Arab world made peace efforts even more vital.

He has offered no new ideas to break the deadlock and it is not clear whether he will unveil any in a speech he is due to deliver on the "Arab spring" Thursday. For Palestinian refugees, no peace deal that sidelines them will stick.

Israel rejects any right of Palestinians to return to the land they lost as tantamount to the Jewish state's destruction.

Al Qaeda, among others, has exploited an enduring sense of injustice that helps keep the region volatile and unstable.

In Nahr al-Bared, battles between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam militants inspired by al Qaeda flattened the tiny coastal shantytown that was once home to up to 30,000 people.

Perhaps the trove of computer data found when U.S. troops killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on May 2 will reveal whether the obscure Islamist faction had any direct ties to al Qaeda.

The Nahr al-Bared fighting in 2007, Lebanon's worst internal strife since the 1975-90 civil war, killed more than 400 people, 170 of them soldiers, and pulverised 6,000 homes.

HEADLONG FLIGHT

Loubani's family ran away from the army's tank and artillery fire, losing everything except the clothes they were wearing.

"When I left Nahr al-Bared, I felt I was leaving Palestine again," said the elderly widow, recalling that collective trauma known to Palestinians as the Nakba, or national catastrophe, whose anniversary was marked by the border rallies on May 15.

Loubani, only four years old in 1948, says her father had carried her from the village of Saasaa across the frontier into nearby Lebanon and a future of blasted dreams and despair.

The word nakba also springs easily to the lips of Jihad Awad, 49, a shoe-seller among the first refugees to be rehoused. "There's no worse catastrophe than this," he said of his family's flight from Nahr al-Bared and their wrecked home.

Last month, Loubani moved into her new house with two adult daughters. Light and airy compared to the dark squalor of most refugee camps, it is sparsely furnished -- the family spent the furniture grant they received from UNRWA on medical bills.

It is also bereft of any personal possessions, keepsakes or photos. The frail lady, who has a broken leg and uses a walking frame, even lost her children's birth certificates, her marriage contract and a cache of savings when she escaped the fighting.

Wearing a white headscarf and a faded shift dotted with pink flowers, Loubani cannot shake off her fear of another conflict.

"Even when I sleep, I'm afraid I will wake to see the house destroyed again," she said. "Only God knows when war erupts. The Israelis can come any time and bombard us, so we are afraid."

Loubani, whose husband died two months before the Lebanese army began what turned into a grinding 15-week struggle to crush the Fatah al-Islam guerrillas entrenched in Nahr al-Bared, said she had doubted she would ever return to her home there.

The army, which still tightly controls access, dynamited buildings in the area even after fighting in the camp ceased.

RISING FROM THE ASHES

Painfully slowly, UNRWA is rebuilding it from scratch with proper sewers and other amenities rare in refugee camps. The handover of the first housing units to refugees may lay to rest wild rumours they were destined for Lebanese or for tourists.

Residents recall the fate of Tel Zaatar, a Palestinian camp near Beirut where some of them lived until Christian militias, then backed by Syria, besieged and demolished it in 1976. Like two other camps overrun in the civil war, it was never rebuilt.

"The crisis of confidence was acute in the period when we hadn't handed anything back," said Charles Higgins, who manages the UNRWA reconstruction project. "That has evaporated, but now there is a justified impatience to say, 'well, get on with it'."

Clearance of unexploded ordnance, approvals from urban planning authorities and rescue work to preserve archaeological remains found beneath the camp have all contributed to delays.

The homes transferred in April form the first of 72 such clusters. UNRWA has funds to rebuild 40 percent of the camp, including its own facilities, six schools and a health center.

Higgins voiced confidence that donors would provide further support once they could see the camp rising from the ashes. The funding gap is now estimated at $207 million, not including money needed to care for the refugees waiting to be rehoused.

The project, which he described as "very difficult, quite frustrating and extremely hard work," had a symbolic value apart from benefiting the residents of Nahr al-Bared.

"Palestinians aren't often people who are able to return somewhere with official sanction," Higgins said, citing cycles of forced migration and temporary shelter which some camp residents had experienced three or four times in their lives.

"For them to move back somewhere, even if it's back to a refugee camp that existed for 60 years, is quite significant."

It will mean a lot to Fadi Tayyar, an UNRWA communications officer, who is waiting for his own home to be reconstructed.

"Four years of my history are deleted. You are living, yes, but you feel you are not living until you go back.
"I have lost the area where I was a child, where I played, where I cried, where I had accidents. So I miss it a lot," said Tayyar. "My memory is still connected to these places."

(Editing by Jon Hemming)