By Daoud Kuttab

If you ever want to have a single case that can illustrate all the sources of disagreement in the Middle East all you need to do is look at the Shalit prisoner exchange deal.

Legally Israel refuses to recognize the over ten thousand prisoners it is holding to be prisoners of war because that assumes that there is a war involved in the region. Nor does it accept that they are protected individuals for which the Geneva Convention applies. The Convention regulates how an occupying power is supposed to deal with civilians under its occupation. Israel doesn’t accept that it is an occupying power. Palestinians considers their lands occupied and demand an Israeli end to the occupation in order for the establishment of a Palestinian state in accordance to international commitments. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

If there were a case that could illustrate the disagreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the Shalit prisoner exchange deal could be the one.

Various aspects of any such exchange, and the way different issues are being spun politically, are illustrative.

Legally, Israel refuses to recognise the over 10,000 prisoners it is holding as being prisoners of war. Nor does it accept that these prisoners deserve the title of “protected individuals”, to which the Geneva Convention applies. The convention regulates how an occupying power is supposed to deal with civilians under its occupation. Israel does not accept that it is an occupying power.
Continue Reading »

The following appeared in the NY Times web site  

An Absurd Situation

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University.

The case of Palestinian prisoners and the prospect of an eminent prisoner exchange between Hamas and the Israelis reveal aspects of the conflict that Israel has tried to push under the carpet for too long. Indeed, it showcases the absurdity of the Israeli army occupying an area against the wishes of its people for 42 years while refusing to honor international humanitarian law regarding the treatment of people under occupation.

It is horrifying that Israel is willing to reward radical Hamas but not freeze settlements in the occupied territories.

What’s more, it is politically horrifying that Israel is willing to reward radical Hamas with a prisoner exchange instead of honoring the commitments of the Road Map, which call for, among other things, a freeze in settlements in the occupied territories.

Israel is holding more than 10,000 Palestinians, some without charge or trial. Almost all of these prisoners are being held in contradiction to various international laws and treaties, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which regulate the actions of a prolonged occupying power. These prisoners are routinely denied basic rights, including the right of family visitations because of the inaccessibility of Israeli prisons to more than 90 percent of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. (Only families living in East Jerusalem or those who have managed to get permits through the Red Cross can visit their imprisoned loved ones.)

Close

According to international law, once occupation ends, the occupying power is obliged to release prisoners. But Israel refuses to recognize these jailed Palestinians as either prisoners of war or as “protected individuals,” insisting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a war. (When Israel regrouped its military forces to the outskirts of Gaza, it demanded that the world consider the occupation of Gaza over and yet refused to release Gazan prisoners.)

If press reports about Israel’s refusal to release prisoners from East Jerusalem are correct, it is one more example of Israel expecting the world to respect its unilateral decision to consider East Jerusalem part of the occupied territory.

Daoud Kuttab

print recommend Send link clip secure rights
larger | smaller comments: 0

RAMALLAH – A political leader’s decision not to seek re-election usually triggers fervent discussion about potential heirs. Yet, President Mahmoud Abbas’s withdrawal from the presidential election scheduled for January 24, 2010, has produced nothing of the kind in Palestine – not because of a dearth of leadership or a reluctance to mention possible successors, but because the presidency of the Palestinian Authority has become irrelevant.

Abbas’s withdrawal comes at a time when Palestinian frustration with the political process has rendered suspect the entire rationale behind the PA, established in the mid-1990’s, following the Oslo Accords. The main component of the PLO’s agreement with Israel was a five-year interim period during which negotiations were expected to lead to an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Continue Reading »

Mahmoud Abbas is in a bind. Faced with a seemingly insurmountable impasse to negotiations with Israel, the Palestinian Authority president can either resign from his PLO chairmanship or come up with some serious, unilateral action to break the deadlock. With hopes that Barack Obama would stand up to the right-wing Israeli leadership dashed, an unwillingness to return to violent resistance, and the inability to resign his presidency of the PA in protest, the Palestinian leader has no alternative but to declare a Palestinian state unilaterally.

The first question one might ask of the leader who has yet been unable to deliver a solution for his people is simply: Why not resign? Indeed fresh leadership, some argue, is just what the situation needs. But the Basic Law of the Palestinian Authority stipulates that such a resignation would prompt presidential elections within 60 days. With the recently released pro-Hamas Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Abdel Aziz Duwaik, poised to become that leader should a vote proceed, resignation is not an option for the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader.

So Abbas is left with unilateral action. The idea to declare independence is not new; a similar Declaration of Independence was made in Algiers in1988, setting forth Palestinians’ historic compromise by accepting the two-state solution: An independent and free state of Palestine alongside a safe and secure state of Israel. The declaration came at the height of the relatively nonviolent Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories, dubbed the intifada, and forced the PLO to accept the two-state solution as a means to end the occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip. The declaration was welcomed by more than 100 countries.

Then what happened? The unilateral declaration failed to significantly alter the reality on the ground. In the ensuing years, the Oslo peace process failed to produce an end to the occupation, and Palestinians began searching for an alternative to the talks. The process’s five-year interim period expired in May 1999, leaving many Palestinians worried that the status quo of occupation would become a permanent reality. After the failed Camp David II talks, the violence of the second intifada, and finally, the tragedy of September 11, there was little remaining chance that a unilateral action would succeed. Washington had no stomach for any Palestinian action that was opposed by Israel, and the staunchly pro-Israel U.S. Congress issued a number of sharply worded resolutions against such declarations of Palestinian statehood.

But today is not then. A decade has elapsed since the end of the interim period, and for the last five years, the Palestinian Authority has been led by the moderate Abbas. He deeply believes in negotiations and has delivered near total security in cooperation with Israel and the United States. So while unilateralism does not provide any guarantee of success, it does offer the potential to help a frustrated leader, whose every effort has yet to yield a firm solution, sort out some of the dilemmas facing Palestinians now.

A declaration of independence would allow the Palestinians to demarcate a state covering territory that best reflects minimal Palestinian requirements — without having to negotiate those red lines. This is particularly important because the building of Israeli settlements has continued in Palestinian territories, encroaching on the lines drawn in the Road Map. These settlements were the very reason that Mahmoud Abbas decided to give up on what appears to be a useless peace process – one that gives more and more of the Palestinians’ land away. Unilaterally declaring his own lines may be the only choice remaining.

Any such unilateral Palestinian action will also push the ball not only into the Israeli court, but into the court of Western countries, especially the United States and members of the European Union. These countries will be hard pressed to oppose a Palestinian declaration following years of failed negotiations by a moderate leader such as Abbas, who is so clearly committed to a nonviolent resolution to the conflict. Western powers would also find it difficult to refuse recognition of a state declared within the internationally recognized borders of June 4, 1967.

Israel can be expected to move quickly to nip this unilateral eventuality in the bud. Israeli leaders know that if the idea sees the light of day, it may develop a dynamic of its own. But the Palestinian leadership, the Israelis, and to a lesser degree the Americans, have only themselves to blame for allowing a conflict as volatile as that of today’s Middle East to unravel. If reaching an independent Palestinian state is in the national interest of the United States, as President Obama has said, then it would be ill advised to deny that inevitability to Palestinians — whether they achieve it through negotiations or unilateral action.

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. His email is info@daoudkuttab.com

credit Foreign Policy on line edition

The following appeared in the Jordan Times

Radio Balad experience highlighted in Paris

AMMAN (JT) – The experience of a Jordanian radio station was highlighted in an international meeting at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris last week titled “Voice and Empowerment through Community Media”. Attendees in an international UNESCO conference co-sponsored by AMARC, the world association of community radio stations, heard about the efforts of Radio Al Balad’s listeners’ club, according to a statement from the station. “During the Israeli war on Gaza, members of this club were able to enrich the station’s broadcasting by providing live eyewitness reports from different parts of Amman after Friday prayers,” Station Director Daoud Kuttab told participants from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The final resolution of the conference, co- sponsored by AMARC, called on UNESCO member states to facilitate the working of community radio stations and to cancel licence fees and other obstacles.

17 November 2009

By Daoud Kuttab

In the midst of discussions regarding possible scenarios following Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ decision not to run for president, few have paid attention to the larger picture.
Abbas’ refusal to run for a second term as president of the Palestinian Authority signals a clear end of the Oslo phase in which he, Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres were key players.

The Oslo process called for a step-by-step process as the best way to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The idea was that easier issues will be dealt with first, with the hope that confidence will be built between the two sides, making the resolution of the more difficult issues at a later stage possible. A five-year interim plan was suggested in the agreement signed on September 13, 1993, at the White House.

Some ambiguity was agreed upon in the written text of the agreement, but both sides were clear that the ultimate goal was the end of the 1967 Israeli occupation and the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The Palestinians reluctantly agreed then not to insist on a settlement freeze, because Rabin said he needed time to convince the Israelis of the eventuality of a Palestinian state. Rabin didn’t live long enough to carry out his promise; his political heirs took the easy way out and failed to carry out this unwritten promise.

As the 20th century came to an end, it became clear that the five-year interim agreement was becoming permanent, negotiations were not reaching any conclusion and Jewish settlement building was continuing unabated. With no end in sight and the Israelis refusing to deal fairly with the requirements of peace, it was a question of time before the occupied territories exploded in a second, much more violent, uprising.

During the dark early years of the 21st century, Abbas was one of the few Palestinian leaders that clung to the hope that a negotiated process would eventually produce results that would address the minimum Palestinian national aspirations.
Sixteen years after that historic White House handshake, it has become clear that no effort is being made to convince the Israelis to come to term with Palestinian national aspirations. The number of illegal Jewish settlers in Palestinian areas has doubled and more and more Palestinians are convinced that negotiations are a waste of time.

Many still remember the threats of former Israeli prime minister Shamir to drag negotiations. Speaking to the Israeli daily Maariv, Shamir was quoted as saying: “I would have conducted negotiations on autonomy for 10 years and in the meantime we would have reached half a million people in the West Bank.”
The failure of the step-by-step negotiations has focused on the need to follow a different paradigm.

Abbas outlined the Palestinian red lines. His disappointment with the US administration has led him to believe that the way out of the present impasse is to work backwards. The Palestinian leader believes that instead of wasting time in wasteful negotiations, there must be a firm decision about the end result of the negotiations and then talks can deal with a schedule for implementation of such a results, rather than what negotiations should contain.

The two-state solution has become accepted bipartisan policy in Washington. The Palestinian and Israeli public have repeatedly been polled about a compromise solution roughly on the 1967 borders, with slight adjustments and a fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Such a solution is best codified in what is referred to as the Clinton parameters. It is also detailed in the Israeli-Palestinian blueprint titled the Geneva Agreement.

Another approach is that of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad who is convinced that Palestinians must prepare for statehood in spite of the occupation. In two years, Fayyad believes that a de facto Palestine will exist and it will then seek international recognition.
The flurry of US officials’ visits to Ramallah is likely to stop unless a major and important change takes place in Washington. In the meantime, Abbas will pay more attention to the home front, trying to stitch together some type of agreement with Hamas.

The PLO will most likely gain much from Abbas’ decision, as the Palestinian leader will likely de-emphasise the status of the president of the Palestinian Authority, while raising the profile of his position as the chairman of the PLO’s executive committee.

Abbas cannot resign from his post, so as not to allow the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council to take over, and he has not given up his position as the head of the PLO and the leader of its biggest faction, Fateh. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any Palestinian official from the PLO will be running for the position of president without Abbas’ approval until a new mechanism for an end to the occupation is found.

12 November 2009

The following blog appeared in the New York Times “Room for Debate” section
Abbas Has Not Resigned

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University.

President Abbas’s decision not to seek another term as head of the Palestinian Authority complicates issues but it also clarifies them. The announcement comes at the end of a turbulent few weeks that saw President Obama humiliate him in New York by asking him to a photo op with Prime Minister Netanyahu and then ordering him to withdraw support for the Goldstone report, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lecturing him in Abu Dhabi and then lavishing praise on Mr. Netanyahu for the unprecedented act that the right-wing Israeli has yet to take.

The Israelis and the Americans couldn’t dream of finding a better Palestinian leader than Abbas.
The Palestinian leader has also been kicked around by radical Palestinians and the Islamic Hamas movement for his unwavering faith in a peace process that seems to be politics as usual in yet another spineless U.S. administration.

The Israelis, the Americans, the international community and any genuine proponent of a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict couldn’t dream of finding a better Palestinian leader. Mr. Abbas has publicly attacked his own party’s hot heads declaring his opposition to the militarization of the intifada. He also mocked Hamas for its useless rockets against Israel and convinced delegates to the Sixth Fatah convention that nonviolent negotiations are the way forward.

Close

Mr. Abbas’s frustration is understandable. Instead of the other parties responding to his moderation, they interpreted them as a reflection of the weak party to the conflict. Palestinians might be weak but they are clearly stubborn on what it is that they will not concede on.

In his public statement Thursday, Mr. Abbas laid out his own red lines: an independent state on the 67 borders including East Jerusalem and a fair solution to the refugee problem. By restating that position he has declared a shift in the paradigm. Instead of negotiations leading to a solution, he has said that his involvement in any negotiations has to be based on how to implement this universally accepted two-state solution.

Late last month, Mr. Abbas signed a decree announcing the Jan. 24 date for presidential and parliamentary elections. Two weeks earlier, he had also signed the Egyptian reconciliation agreement with Hamas in which he was willing to accept a six-month postponement of such elections if there is reconciliation. The Hamas refusal to sign that document left him with little choice but to carry out the constitutional mandate. Mr. Abbas, of course, has not resigned. Any such resignation will mean that the Hamas-supported, recently released by Israel, speaker of the Palestinian legislative council, will become president for 60 days until new elections take place.

The announcement that he will not seek another term becomes crucial only if elections will indeed take place. In 2006, Mr. Abbas refused all suggestions to the contrary and organized elections that led to the overwhelming victory for Islamists. While his and other Palestinian Liberation Organization nationalists will certainly win, it is highly unlikely that he will go ahead with such elections without Gaza’s participation and without some type of national unity agreement.

By Daoud Kuttab

As first lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton was the darling of Palestinians and Arabs when late in Bill Clinton’s term she uttered the hot button word: Palestine. Since then, she has been swinging depending on the political winds.

As a senator for the state of New York, she became a staunch Israeli supporter, standing by Israel whether justifiably or not. To win the US presidency, she continued this pro-Israel stance, but as secretary of state in the Obama administration, she flipped back.

Continue Reading »