Tag: Mahmoud Abbas

As Palestinians Confront a Second Nakba, the Relationship Between Israel and Hamas is ‘Complicated’

Netanyahu’s goal is to prevent the two-state solution at any cost.

Chandigarh: First coined by the Central Intelligence Agency in the early 1950s to signify the unintended consequences of covert operations, the term ‘blowback’ perhaps best describes the events in Israel and Palestine following Hamas’s October 7 terrorist strike.

For, largely unspoken, and articulated sotto voce, if at all, in the enduring fog of the Gaza war, is the indisputable reality that Israel had previously helped nurture and cosset Hamas through the ’70s and ’80s and later. According to a cross-section of analysts and overseas media reports, Israeli leaders – especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – had continued to intermittently back the Islamist terror group to cynically further their selfish political ends to retain power.

Several media outlets, including the Washington Post, have convincingly argued in recent years that Hamas was in reality Israel’s Taliban, patronised by Tel Aviv in the age-old colonial strategy of divide-and-rule for its own complex and twisted cynical ends. But in classic blowback follow-through, Hamas, under Tel Aviv’s patronage, mutated into a deadly, cunning and implacable foe for its sponsor, its ferocity culminating in last month’s well-planned hit in which it killed around 1,400 Israelis and took 240 others hostage.

Analysts said Israel’s prior backing of Hamas was prompted by its attempt to ‘manage’ Tel Aviv’s immediate point of Palestinian pain, which for the newly founded Jewish nation, was personified in its early years of existence by Yasser Arafat’s secular and left-leaning Fatah party. Fatah – meaning victory – comprised the core of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) founded in 1964 to fight for a homeland, 16 years after its people were arbitrarily rendered homeless.

And though a terrorist organisation for Israel, the PLO was recognised by neighbouring Arab states as well as India – the first non-Arab country to acknowledge it as the sole and legitimate representative of dispossessed Palestinians. Arafat, with his distinctive black and white chequered keffiyeh headdress and holstered pistol at his hip, visited India periodically.

A mural of Yasser Arafat. Photo: Anthony Baratier/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0

Consequently, Israel’s military and security establishment, facing an existential crisis, needed to offset the PLO with one of its own kind and Hamas – an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Isamiyya or Islamic Resistance Movement – ideally fitted the bill.

Affiliated with Egypt’s proscribed Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunni-Palestinian Hamas group was founded in Gaza in 1973 as an Islamist charity organisation called Mujama-al-Islamiya, by Ahmed Yassin, a near-blind and quadriplegic Imam and activist. In his proselytising endeavours, Yassin soon found an unexpected ally in Israel, which at the time controlled Gaza, having captured it from Egypt after the six-day war in 1967, and under Tel Aviv’s patronage, he set about establishing a network of kindergartens, schools, clinics, blood banks, daycare centres, youth groups and even an Islamic University.

The Palestinian imam was further emboldened by Israel loosening previous restrictions on activists promoting political Islam in Gaza, and thus proceeded to officially register his Mujama al-Isamiya first as a charity and later, once again with Tel Aviv’s backing, elevated its status to that of an association. Mujama members were also permitted by Israel to disseminate their message in occupied Gaza to build ‘goodwill’ amongst local Palestinians. Subsequently, this eventually assisted Hamas in acquiring political legitimacy, by securing control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, following elections that took place after the 2005 Israeli pull-out from the area.

Israel, for its part, then fully engaged in battling the PLO, stood back when its ‘collaborator’ Islamist group inevitably clashed with and combated its rival Fatah Palestinian secularists. In this region, a ‘collaborator’ from either the Jewish or Muslim communities co-operating with the other side, is regarded as the ultimate traitor. Even mere suspicion, in many cases, of collaborating with ‘the other’, was enough to hopelessly damn the concerned person.

Steady Israeli funding to Mujama, meanwhile, augmented its influence and reach and having attained financial solvency alongside military organisation, it ended up morphing into Hamas in 1987-88, following the outbreak of the First of three Intifadas or rebellions by Palestinians against their Israeli occupiers. However, soon after, the fledgling Hamas’s ‘sponsorship’ ties with Israel broke down as its founding Charter or Covenant refused to accept the latter’s existence and vowed to work towards its total elimination. Hamas also categorically rejected the two-state solution to the long-running conflict, committing itself to seeking an Islamic Palestinian entity over the combined territories of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through a concerted campaign of terrorism.

In short, the opening moves of what was steadily building up to the blowback were in place. But events would unravel gradually and bloodily, as they normally do in such instances, over the next three decades, in which Israel fought three wars with Hamas – in 2009, 2012 and 2014 – and enforced a 17-year-long blockade of the Gaza Strip in addition to frequent air strikes and targeted assassinations.

But the UK-based AnalystNews online news service last month stated that ‘even more ‘sinister’ was the way the Israeli authorities continued to deliberately enable Hamas. Netanyahu’s political strategy, it declared had, since 2009 revolved around keeping Hamas alive and kicking, even if it hurts Israelis. “While Israel and Netanyahu give lip service to seeking a two-state solution, Hamas provides (it) a convenient excuse to avoid pursuing one,” the news portal added.

A day after the October 7 attack, the conservative Jerusalem-based Times of Israel online newspaper went even further via an op-ed piece entitled: ‘For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces.‘

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: X/@netanyahu

Authored by the newspaper’s political correspondent Tal Schneider, the commentary stated that for years, various governments led by Netanyahu had pursued an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank – bringing Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas to his knees – while initiating moves that propped up Hamas.

The idea, Schneider stated, was to prevent Abbas – or anyone else in the PA’s (feeble) West Bank government – from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. Amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas had been upgraded from a mere terror group to an organisation with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad, Schneider wrote. Most of the time, she added, Israel’s policy was to treat the PA as a burden and Hamas as an asset.

Earlier, in 2021, Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, Gaza governor in the early 1980s, had told the New York Times that he had helped finance Hamas as a counterweight to the secularists and Leftists of the PLO and the Fatah Party led by Arafat. He admitted to funding Hamas himself with Israeli taxpayer money that was later used to kill the same people who were funding them, revealing thereby the copybook rollout of the classic blowback syndrome.

This was corroborated further by David Remick in the New Yorker in late October, when he quoted Netanyahu telling his Likud Party supporters at a closed-door meeting in 2019 that anyone who wanted to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state must support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank,” the Israeli PM had added, according to Remick.

And yet again, to further drive home the same point, Israeli general-turned-academic-researcher Gershon Hacohen said that in order to prevent the two-state option, Netanyahu was ‘turning Hamas into his closest partner’. The former two-star Israeli Defence Forces officer said Hamas was an enemy, but covertly it was a (Netanyahu) ally. He further added that Israel was wreaking devastation in Gaza in pursuit of a monster it helped spawn.

In short, the blowback in Gaza and Israel has just begun unravelling and its consequences – inadvertent or intended – augur another Nakba or catastrophe for the Palestinians.

 

Modi Speaks to Palestine Authority President, Condoles Deaths in Hospital Blast but No Call for Ceasefire

“Shared our deep concern at the terrorism, violence and deteriorating security situation in the region. Reiterated India’s long-standing principled position on the Israel-Palestine issue,” the prime minister said.

New Delhi: Two days after an explosion at a Gaza hospital killed hundreds, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with the Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and reiterated India’s “long-standing” position on the Palestinian cause.

While Modi expressed condolences for the loss of civilian lives and the deteriorating situation, he didn’t make any mention of the need for a stop or for a ceasefire.

After Hamas’s invasion and attacks on October 7 killed over 1,200 people in Israel, mostly civilians, Israel has conducted counter-strikes in Gaza, which has left over 3,000 dead.

On Tuesday night, a catastrophic explosion at Gaza City’s al-Ahli Hospital killed 471 people, as per the Palestinian health ministry. Hamas and the broader Arab world attributed the attack to Israel. Tel Aviv, however, claimed that a faulty rocket misfire by a Palestinian militant group was behind the explosion, a position supported by the United States.

The Indian prime minister had spoken to his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu last week to convey “solidarity”. 

After speaking to the Palestinian Authority president on Thursday, Modi wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that he conveyed his condolences at the loss of civilian lives at the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza.

“We will continue to send humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people. Shared our deep concern at the terrorism, violence and deteriorating security situation in the region. Reiterated India’s long-standing principled position on the Israel-Palestine issue,” he wrote.

Without ascribing any blame for the attack, Modi had tweeted on Wednesday afternoon that he was “deeply shocked at the tragic loss of lives at the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza”.

Expressing condolences to the bereaved, Modi posted, “Civilian casualties in the ongoing conflict are a matter of serious and continuing concern” and stated that those “involved should be held responsible”.

Echoing the prime minister, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Thursday reiterated concern about civilian casualties and adherence to international humanitarian law, but yet again didn’t explicitly call for a ceasefire and an end to violence.

At the weekly briefing, the MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi was asked whether India had a position on demands for a ceasefire in West Asia – which has seen an unprecedented level of violence and deaths since October 7.

In reply, he pointed to India having expressed concern over civilian casualties due to the ongoing conflict. “We also remain concerned about the humanitarian situation. We would urge the full respect and strict observance of international humanitarian law,” said Bagchi.

He also noted that India had “strongly condemned the horrific terrorist attack on Israel, and we believe the international community must stand together in combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations”.

Bagchi also repeated India’s Palestine policy of “advocating the resumption of direct negotiations towards establishing a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders, side by side at peace with Israel”.

He also recounted that India has contributed $29.53 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) between 2002 and 2023 towards supporting relief and rehabilitation work in Palestine.

“The Indian annual contribution to UNRWA was increased from $1.25 million to $5 million in 2018. India has pledged annual contribution of $5 million for the next two years,” said Bagchi.

At last week’s briefing, the MEA had similarly sought to expand and balance the Indian position by talking about international humanitarian law, after Modi had twice talked of only solidarity with Israel.

The Indian foreign ministry spokesperson last week said last week that New Delhi believes “that there is a universal obligation to observe international humanitarian law.” He added that there was a “global responsibility to fight the menace of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations”.

The MEA had to bring some additional nuance into India’s position as it was not in step with the rest of the Global South, including close Arab allies like the UAE, who condemned the Hamas attack but also called for an end to Israeli airstrikes and raised the demand for an immediate ceasefire.

Congress calls for ceasefire

Meanwhile, Indian National Congress president and opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge repeated the call “for an immediate cease-fire and for humanitarian assistance to the beleaguered people of Gaza”.

“The indiscriminate bombing on the hospital in Gaza and residential areas resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives of innocent men, women and children is both unjustifiable and a grave humanitarian tragedy for which the perpetrators must be held accountable,” noted Kharge’s statement on Thursday.

Congress also called “upon all sides to abandon the path of senseless violence and war and begin the process of negotiations and diplomacy so that the aspirations of the Palestinian people are fulfilled and the security concerns of Israel are also ensured”.

The opposition party had condemned the attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7. But, unlike the Indian government, the Congress also explicitly condemned the attacks by Israeli military forces on civilian areas in Gaza. Notably, the Congress statement didn’t attribute the Gaza hospital strike to anyone.

Israel Says Reporter Shireen Abu Akleh Was ‘Likely Killed Unintentionally’ by Its Forces

The US-Palestinian was shot dead on May 11 while covering an Israeli military operation in the volatile town of Jenin.

Jerusalem: Israeli investigations into the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in May concluded that she was likely to have been unintentionally shot by an Israeli soldier but was not deliberately targeted, the military said on Monday.

Abu Akleh, a US-Palestinian citizen, was shot dead on May 11 while covering an Israeli military operation in the volatile town of Jenin in the occupied West Bank in circumstances that remain heavily disputed.

The Israeli military says that troops conducting operations in Jenin had come under heavy fire from all sides and had fired back, including towards the area where Abu Akleh was standing about 200 metres from their position, but that they had not been able to identify her as a journalist.

It said “there is a high possibility that Ms. Abu Akleh was accidentally hit by IDF (Israel Defense Forces) gunfire that was fired toward suspects identified as armed Palestinian gunmen”. It said it was also possible that she was hit by Palestinian gunmen.

One of the most recognisable faces reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for two decades, Abu Akleh’s death triggered outrage across the world, particularly after police beat mourners at her funeral in Jerusalem.

Other witness accounts of the incident have disputed that Israeli positions were under fire from the area where Abu Akleh was standing when she was killed.

Also read: The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh is No Aberration

“All evidence, facts and investigations that have been conducted proved that Israel was the perpetrator and that it had killed Shireen and it should bear responsibility for its crime,” said Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Abu Akleh’s family said it was “deeply hurt, frustrated and disappointed” by the Israeli statement which it said “tried to obscure the truth and avoid responsibility for killing Shireen Abu Akleh”.

The Israeli investigation, which included interviews with the country’s soldiers, analysis of the scene as well as audio and video recordings, found it was “not possible to unequivocally determine the source of the gunfire” which killed Abu Akleh.

But Israel has repeatedly denied she was knowingly targeted by its forces and said the investigation showed that soldiers had acted according to their rules of engagement.

“We can say for 100% sure that no IDF soldier intentionally directed fire on a reporter or non-involved person on the ground,” a senior military official who briefed journalists on the findings of the investigations said.

Walid al-Omari, Al Jazeera’s local bureau chief, told Reuters that Israel’s conclusions of the incident were an attempt to avoid an independent criminal investigation.

“It is clear that they are trying to perpetuate ambiguity and deception on the one hand, while at the same time clear themselves of wrongdoing by claiming that there was an exchange of fire,” he said. “These are all lies, because all the accounts and videos and witnesses disprove their claims.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists said the statement issued by the Israeli military was “late and incomplete” and “does not provide the answers–by any measure of transparency or accountability–that her family and colleagues deserve.”

A report from the United Nations human rights office in June said Abu Akleh had been standing with other reporters and was clearly identifiable as a journalist from her helmet and blue flak jacket marked with a press badge when she was shot and killed by a single bullet. A colleague was wounded in the incident by another bullet.

The report said information it had gathered suggested she had been killed by an Israeli soldier.

Palestinian officials and Abu Akleh’s own family have said they believe she was killed deliberately and they have rejected Israeli statements that there were militants near where she was standing.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement: “We welcome Israel’s review of this tragic incident, and again underscore the importance of accountability in this case, such as policies and procedures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.”

Forensic examination of the bullet which killed her, conducted under US oversight in July, failed to reach any conclusion because the bullet was too badly damaged.

A report from the US State Department in July concluded that she was probably killed by fire from an Israeli position but that there was no evidence to suggest she was intentionally targeted by Israeli forces.

(Reuters)

‘Al Jazeera Reporter Likely Killed by Unintentional Gunfire by Israeli Forces’: US

The statement by the US State Department has drawn severe criticism from the Palestinian officials who maintain that she had been deliberately targeted.

Washington: Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was likely to have been killed by gunfire from Israeli positions but it was probably “unintentional”, the US State Department said on Monday.

Independent investigators could not reach a definitive conclusion about the origin of the bullet that struck her, it said.

Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American, was killed on May 11 during an Israeli raid in the town of Jenin in the occupied West Bank under circumstances that remain bitterly disputed.

Palestinian officials criticised the report and maintained she had been deliberately targeted. Israel denies this.

Also read: Shireen Abu Akleh: Palestinians Hand Over Bullet That Killed Journalist to US Experts

One of the most recognisable faces reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Abu Akleh’s death triggered outrage across the world, particularly after police beat mourners at her funeral in Jerusalem.

The US Security Coordinator (USSC), after summarising investigations by both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Palestinian Authority, concluded that gunfire from Israeli positions was likely to have been responsible for her death, the State Department said.

“The USSC found no reason to believe that this was intentional but rather the result of tragic circumstances during an IDF-led military operation against factions of Palestinian Islamic Jihad,” the State Department said in a statement.

In a forensic analysis by third-party examiners overseen by the USSC, ballistic experts determined the bullet was badly damaged, which prevented a clear conclusion as to its origin, the State Department said.

The report did nothing to calm tensions between the two sides ahead of a visit by US President Joe Biden next week.

Palestinian general prosecutor Akram al-Khatib said the US conclusion that the bullet was badly damaged was incorrect and said Abu Akleh had been deliberately targeted.

“The American statement that they found no reasons to indicate the targeting was deliberate is unacceptable,” Khatib said. The Palestinians would continue to pursue legal action against Israel at the International Criminal Court, he said.

“Israel was responsible for killing her and it has to be held accountable,” Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said in a statement.

Israel has denied that any of its soldiers killed Abu Akleh intentionally and claimed she may have been hit by errant army fire or by a bullet from one of the Palestinian gunmen it says were clashing with its forces at the scene.

Last month, the United Nations human rights office said information it had been able to gather from the incident suggested Abu Akleh had been killed by fire from the Israeli military and not from Palestinians.

It said she had been standing with other reporters and was clearly identifiable as a journalist from her helmet and blue flak jacket marked with a press badge when she was shot and killed by a single bullet. A colleague was wounded in the incident by another bullet.

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid said Israel regretted Abu Akleh’s death but said an Israeli military investigation had concluded there was no intent to harm her and he gave full backing to the Israeli Defense Forces.

The Israeli military said it would continue to investigate the incident and a decision on whether to launch any criminal charges would be made after the operational examination.

Defence Minister Benny Gantz said Israeli forces had responded to heavy fire from gunmen in the city, which houses a crowded refugee camp that has seen regular clashes between Palestinians and Israeli troops.

“The first to bear responsibility in such events, are the terrorists who operate from within population centers,” he said in a statement.

That version of events has been rejected by Palestinians who say there were no armed fighters in the area where Abu Akleh was killed.

“The truth is that the Israeli military killed Shireen according to policies that view all Palestinians – civilian, press or otherwise – as legitimate targets,” her family said in a statement.

(Reuters)

‘Al Jazeera’ Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh Killed by Israeli Forces’: UN

While saying that it was not indiscriminate firing from Palestinians that killed the journalist, the UN human rights office accused Israel of not conducting a probe into the matter.

London: Information reviewed by the UN human rights office suggests Israeli security forces fired the shot that killed Palestinian-American reporter Shireen Abu Akleh in May, not indiscriminate firing from Palestinians, a spokesperson said on Friday.

“It is deeply disturbing that Israeli authorities have not conducted a criminal investigation,” Ravina Shamdasani told a briefing in Geneva.

Israeli and Palestinian officials have exchanged recriminations over the shooting that also led to chaotic scenes at Abu Akleh’s funeral when Israeli police officers charged at mourners.

The Israeli Defences Forces (IDF) said on Friday that it was committed to investigating Abu Akleh’s death and called on the Palestinian authorities to share access to the bullet that killed her. The Palestinian Authority has refused to hand over the bullet, saying it does not trust Israel.

“The results of the UN investigation confirm once again what we said from the start, that Israel is responsible for the killing of the journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and it must be held accountable for this crime,” Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told Reuters.

Also read: The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh is No Aberration

Shamdasani said the UN rights office had conducted its own “monitoring” of the incident – she declined to use the word investigation – and had gone through photo, video and audio material.

It had also visited the scene, consulted experts, reviewed official communications and interviewed witnesses, she said.

“All information we have gathered – including official information from the Israeli military and the Palestinian attorney-general – is consistent with the finding that the shots that killed Abu Akleh and injured her colleague Ali Sammoudi came from Israeli Security Forces and not from indiscriminate firing by armed Palestinians, as initially claimed by Israeli authorities,” she said.

The Palestinian Authority has said its investigation showed that Abu Akleh was shot by an Israeli soldier in a “deliberate murder”. Its findings lent support to several witnesses, including Palestinian journalists, who said she was killed by Israeli fire. Israel denied the accusation.

Abu Akleh was shot dead on May 11 while she was covering an Israeli military raid in the city of Jenin in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

“Our findings indicate that no warnings were issued and no shooting was taking place at that time and at that location,” Shamdasani said.

“At around 06h 30, as four of the journalists turned into the street leading to the camp, wearing bulletproof helmets and flak jackets with ‘PRESS’ markings, several single, seemingly well-aimed bullets were fired towards them from the direction of the Israeli Security Forces,” she said.

“One single bullet injured Ali Sammoudi in the shoulder, another single bullet hit Abu Akleh in the head and killed her instantly.”

In a statement responding to Shamdasani’s briefing, the IDF insisted there had been an exchange of fire between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen.

“Ever since the incident, the IDF has been investigating and reviewing the circumstances of Ms. Abu Akleh’s death,” the statement said.

“The IDF investigation clearly concludes that Ms. Abu Akleh was not intentionally shot by an IDF soldier and that it is not possible to determine whether she was killed by a Palestinian gunman shooting indiscriminately in her area or inadvertently by an IDF soldier.”

In a previous statement, the Israeli military said it identified a soldier’s rifle that may have killed Abu Akleh but that it needed to analyse the fatal bullet to be certain.

(Reuters)

Israel Accused of ‘Apartheid’ Crimes Against Palestinians by Human Rights Watch

The Israeli foreign ministry refuted the report and accused HRW of running an anti-Israel agenda for years.

Jerusalem: An international rights watchdog accused Israel on Tuesday of pursuing policies of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians – and against its own Arab minority – that amount to crimes against humanity.

New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a 213-page report which, it said, was not aimed at comparing Israel with apartheid-era South Africa but rather at assessing “whether specific acts and policies” constitute apartheid as defined under international law.

Israel‘s foreign ministry rejected the claims as “both preposterous and false” and accused HRW of harbouring an “anti-Israeli agenda,” saying the group had sought “for years to promote boycotts against Israel“.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the report.

Just weeks ago the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it would investigate war crimes in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the Israeli military and armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas named as possible perpetrators.

In its report, HRW pointed to Israeli restrictions on Palestinian movement and seizure of Palestinian-owned land for Jewish settlement in territory occupied in the 1967 Middle East war as examples of policies it said were crimes of apartheid and persecution.

“Across Israel and the (Palestinian territories), Israeli authorities have pursued an intent to maintain domination over Palestinians by exercising control over land and demographics for the benefit of Jewish Israelis,” the report says.

“On this basis, the report concludes that Israeli officials have committed the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution,” as defined under the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the 1998 Rome Statute.

A statement from Abbas said: “It is urgent for the international community to intervene, including by making sure that their states, organizations, and companies are not contributing in any way to the execution of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine.”

Also read: Israel’s Election: With Netanyahu’s Victory Unlikely, What Happens Next?

Boycott accusations

Israeli officials fiercely object to apartheid accusations.

“The purpose of this spurious report is in no way related to human rights, but to an ongoing attempt by HRW to undermine the State of Israel‘s right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people,” strategic affairs minister Michael Biton said.

Israel‘s foreign ministry said HRW’s Israel programme was being “led by a known (BDS) supporter, with no connection to facts or reality on the ground,” referring to the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

The report’s author, HRW Israel and Palestine director Omar Shakir, was expelled from Israel in 2019 over accusations he backs BDS.

Shakir denies that his HRW work and pro-Palestinian statements he made before being appointed to the HRW post in 2016 constitute active support for BDS.

Shakir told Reuters that HRW would send its report to the ICC prosecutor’s office, “as we normally do when we reach conclusions about the commissions of crimes that fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.”

He said HRW also sent the ICC its 2018 report about possible crimes against humanity by Abbas’s Palestinian Authority and the Islamist militant Hamas.

Also read: COVID-19: Israel Fully Vaccinates Majority, No Longer Needs People To Wear Masks Outdoors

ICC probe

The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor said in March that she would formally investigate war crimes in the Palestinian territories, after ICC judges ruled that the court had jurisdiction there.

The Palestinian Authority welcomed the ruling but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced it as anti-Semitism and said Israel does not recognise the court’s authority.

HRW called on the ICC prosecutor to “investigate and prosecute individuals credibly implicated” in apartheid and persecution.

HRW also said Israel‘s 2018 “nation-state” law – declaring that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country – “provides a legal basis to pursue policies that favour Jewish Israelis to the detriment” of the country’s 21% Arab minority, who regularly complain of discrimination.

Palestinians seek the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, areas captured in the 1967 conflict, for a future state.

Under interim peace deals with Israel, Palestinians have limited self-rule in the West Bank; Hamas runs Gaza.

(Reuters)

UNSC Watch: US Returns to Pre-Trump Palestine Policy, No Consensus on Libya Sanctions Chair’s Report

A weekly analysis on UN Security Council proceedings as India begins its two-year tenure at the body.

New Delhi: The last week of January saw a change in US policy on major international issues – and this time the platform was the 15-member United Nations Security Council.

A week-old Biden administration presented a return to Washington’s traditional approach on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute at the quarterly open debate on the ‘The Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Question’ on January 26.

The virtual meeting was briefed by senior UN officials, the Palestinian foreign minister and Israel ambassador, but all eyes were on the United States.

US envoy-designate Linda Thomas-Greenfield is still to be confirmed by the Senate, so acting US ambassador to UN Richard Mills was the messenger to convey the changes.

“Under the new administration, the policy of the United States will be to support a mutually agreed two-state solution, one in which Israel lives in peace and security alongside a viable Palestinian state,” stated Mills.

Ahead of this meeting, there had been two significant development in the region. Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas announced a calendar of elections this year – legislative on May 22, presidential on July 31 and National Council on August 31.

On the Israel side, there was an acceleration in developing around 2,700 settlement houses in West Bank.

There was no specific reference to the election announcement or new settlement housing. But Mills did bring in a critical view of settlements in a sentence urging both Israel and Palestine to bridge the trust deficit by taking specific steps. “In this vein, the United States will urge Israel’s government and the Palestinian Authority to avoid unilateral steps that make a two-state solution more difficult, such as annexation of territory, settlement activity, demolitions, incitement to violence, and providing compensation for individuals imprisoned for acts of terrorism.”

Also read: UNSC Watch: In New York, India’s Balancing Act Between West and Russia Over Belarus

Mills then announced that the US would restore aid to Palestinians and re-open the Palestinian embassy. “President Biden has been clear in his intent to restore US assistance programs that support economic development and humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people and to take steps to re-open diplomatic missions that were closed by the last US administration.”

US had closed down PLO’s diplomatic mission in Washington in 2018 on the grounds that Palestinian leaders had not engaged with Washington’s peace effort and tried to get International Criminal Court (ICC) to begin an investigation of Israel. The Trump administration also closed down its US consulate general in Jerusalem which dealt with Palestinian affairs by merging it with the newly relocated US embassy to Israel in the divided city.

The anticipation of the Biden administration’s approach having a more positive impact was evident from the statements of most of the participants.

Arab League secretary-general Ahmed Aboul Gheit hoped that new US government would correct “unhelpful measures and policies and relaunch the political process”. Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki stated that it was time to “repair the damage left by the previous United States administration”.

In his intervention, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilead Erdan, spent a considerable amount of time arguing that Iran should be one of the main topics to be discussed in a debate on West Asia.

Slamming the Palestinians for refusing Israel’s offers, he asserted that the Palestinian government’s call for a peace conference was a mirage. “Don’t be fooled by this; it is only another distraction. Abbas knows a conference will not bring peace. The only way to achieve real peace is through direct, bilateral negotiations,” he said in his speech.

He also disparaged President Abbas’ announcement of elections, indicating that it was only done to curry favour with the new Biden administration.

India’s permanent representative to UN, T.S. Tirumurti welcomed the announcement of the elections and urged that all steps are taken to “ensure that these elections are held smoothly, fulfilling the democratic aspirations of the Palestinian people”.

Tirumurti also supported Palestine’s proposal to “hold an international peace conference with the participation of all relevant parties to achieve the vision of a sovereign and independent Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel”. He also had stated that India’s support for the peace conference was in the context of a comprehensive solution to the conflict by achieving the two-state solution “through direct negotiations between the two parties”.

No consensus 

At the briefing on Libya for council members by the acting special representative and head of United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) Stephanie Williams, India – as the new chairman of the 1970 Libya sanctions committee – should have also been briefing the council.

However, India was not able to present a briefing as chair. Sources stated that the chair’s report is usually factual and finalised through consensus between the 15 members. With some of the members taking a polar opposite stance on a few issues, there was no agreement on the chair’s statement..

However, India, in its own statement at the meeting, asserted that the credibility on the sanctions regime in Libya depends on its strict compliance. “Blatant violations of the arms embargo are a serious threat to peace and stability in Libya and need to be condemned. This Council should also look at options to address the issue of management of frozen assets,” said Tirumurti.

He also stated that lasting peace in Libya could only come after there was complete departure of foreign fighters. “We are well past the deadline of 90 days set by the Libyans themselves when they signed the Ceasefire Agreement for departure of all foreign fighters.”

UN secretary general Antonio Guterres had also called for foreign fighters to “leave the Libyans alone” .

US envoy Mills specifically named “Russia, Turkey, and the UAE, to respect Libyan sovereignty and immediately cease all military intervention in Libya”.

Also read: UNSC Watch: Now in Security Council, India Gets a Taste of Polarised Division in an Open Debate

Tirumurti also reminded that India had been one of the original countries to have raised red flags when the western countries pushed through resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya in 2011. “We had then conveyed our reservations on the way these two resolutions were rushed in the Council. India had called for a calibrated and gradual approach and stressed on the importance of political efforts to address the situation. Ten years down, enduring peace still remains a dream in Libya and the Libyan people continue to bear the brunt of actions taken by this Council and the international community”.

The other major debates last week were on covid-19, where several countries expressed concern that the gap in vaccination between the rich and developing world could impact international peace and security.

The Security Council also unanimously extended the mandate of the UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus till July 31, 2021. The resolution specifically raises concern about Turkey opening part of seaside resort Varosha on Cyprus’s east coast.

Next week

With the start of a new month, the United Kingdom will take over the presidency of the Security Council. While the programme of work for the month will be decided on Monday, there is expected to be two signature events on climate change to be chaired by UK prime minister Boris Johnson and UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab. However, these are not likely to take place in the first week of February, as the invitations for high-level participation has not yet been circulated to UNSC members.

This is a weekly column that tracks the UNSC during India’s current term as a non-permanent member. Previous columns can be found here.

Sudan Becomes Third Arab State to Set Aside Hostilities With Israel This Year

US President Donald Trump sealed the agreement in a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.

Washington: Israel and Sudan agreed on Friday to take steps to normalise relations in a deal brokered with the help of the United States, making Khartoum the third Arab government to set aside hostilities with Israel in the last two months.

US President Donald Trump, seeking re-election on November 3, 2020, sealed the agreement in a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and Transitional Council Head Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, senior US officials said.

Trump’s decision this week to remove Sudan from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism paved the way for the accord with Israel, marking a foreign policy achievement for the Republican president as he seeks a second term trailing in opinion polls behind Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Netanyahu hailed it as a “new era” for the region, but the Palestinian leadership, watching as more of their Arab brethren appear to give their quest for statehood a lower priority, called it a “new stab in the back.”

“The leaders agreed to the normalisation of relations between Sudan and Israel and to end the state of belligerence between their nations,” according to a joint statement issued by the three countries that also promised US help for Khartoum to secure international debt relief.

Israel and Sudan plan to begin by opening economic and trade links, with an initial focus on agriculture, the joint statement said. A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said such issues as the formal establishment of diplomatic ties would be resolved later.

Trump touted the deal to reporters in the Oval Office with the Israeli and Sudanese leaders on the line in a three-way phone call, saying at least five other countries wanted to follow suit and normalise relations with Israel.

“Do you think ‘Sleepy Joe’ could have made this deal?” Trump asked Netanyahu, using the president’s pejorative nickname for Biden a day after their final, rancorous debate of the 2020 presidential campaign. “Somehow I don’t think so.”

Netanyahu, reliant on bipartisan support for Israel in Washington, responded haltingly: “Well, Mr President, one thing I can tell you, is, um, uh, we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America.”

Trump’s aides view his pro-Israel policies as appealing to Christian evangelical voters, who are among his biggest supporters.

In recent weeks the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain became the first Arab states in a quarter of a century to agree to formal links with Israel, forged largely through shared fears of Iran.

Trump insisted the Palestinians also “are wanting to do something” but offered no proof. Palestinian leaders have condemned recent Arab overtures to Israel as a betrayal of their nationalist cause and have refused to engage with the Trump administration, seeing it as biased in favour of Israel.

Also read: Breaking Taboo, UAE, Bahrain Sign Formal Agreements With Israel at White House

“No one has the right to speak in the name of the Palestinian people and the name of the Palestinian cause,” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement.

Terrorism list

Trump announced on Monday he would take Sudan off the terrorism list once it had deposited $335 million it had pledged to pay in compensation. Khartoum has since placed the funds in a special escrow account for victims of al Qaeda attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

The White House called Trump’s intention to remove Sudan from the terrorism list a “pivotal turning point” for Khartoum, which is seeking to emerge from decades of isolation.

The military and civilian leaders of Sudan‘s transitional government have been divided over how fast and how far to go in establishing ties with Israel. A sticking point in the negotiations was Sudan‘s insistence that any announcement of Khartoum’s delisting from the terrorism designation not be explicitly linked to relations with Israel.

The Sudanese premier wants approval from a yet-to-be formed parliament to proceed with broader, formal normalisation, and that may not be a quick process given sensitivities and civilian-military differences. It is still unclear when the assembly will be created.

“Agreement on normalisation with Israel will be decided after completion of the constitutional institutions through the formation of the legislative council,” Sudanese Foreign Minister Omar Gamareldin said on state television shortly after Friday’s announcement.

The new agreement was negotiated on the US side by a team that included Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, who called the normalisation deals the start of a “paradigm shift” in the Middle East.

He said Sudan‘s decision was symbolically significant because it was in Khartoum in 1967 that the Arab League decided not to recognise Israel‘s right to exist.

Sudan‘s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism dates to its toppled ruler Omar al-Bashir and has made it difficult for its transitional government to access urgently needed debt relief and foreign financing.

Many in Sudan say the designation, imposed in 1993 because Washington believed Bashir was supporting militant groups, has become outdated since he was removed last year.

US congressional legislation is needed to shield Khartoum from future legal claims over past attacks to ensure the flow of payments to the embassy bombing victims and their families.

(Reuters)

India Welcomes ‘Normalisation’ of Israel-UAE Ties, Reiterates Support for ‘Palestinian Cause’

The Palestinian leadership were quick to condemn the agreement as a “betrayal”, with Palestine president Mahmoud Abbas recalling the ambassador to UAE.

New Delhi: A day after US President Donald Trump made the surprise announcement, India has welcomed the ‘full normalisation’ of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, an agreement brokered by in exchange for Tel Aviv suspending its annexation of Palestinian territories.

On Thursday, the White House released a joint statement signed by the three countries, which stated that Gulf kingdom will work towards establishing diplomatic links with Israel. Due to this “diplomatic breakthrough”, Israel has agreed to “suspend” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to declare sovereignty over West Bank.

In the press briefing, Trump described the agreement as a “truly historic moment”, comparing it to the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty. Once the pact is implemented, UAE will become the third Arab country to recognise Israel, after Egypt and Jordan.

UAE foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan called India’s external affairs minister S. Jaishankar on Friday afternoon to brief him about the new deal with Israel.

Also read: ‘A Betrayal’: Israel-UAE Deal Leaves Palestinians Surprised, Dismayed

Articulating India’s position, MEA spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said, “India has consistently supported peace, stability and development in West Asia, which is its extended neighbourhood. In that context, we welcome the full normalisation of ties between UAE and Israel. Both nations are key strategic partners of India”.

He added that India continued with its “traditional support for the Palestinian cause”. “We hope to see early resumption of direct negotiations to find an acceptable two-state solution,” said Srivastava.

The Palestinian leadership were quick to condemn the agreement as a “betrayal”, with Palestine president Mahmoud Abbas recalling the ambassador to UAE.

“The Palestinian leadership considers this step to blow up the Arab Peace Initiative and the decisions of the Arab and Islamic summits, and international legitimacy, as an aggression against the Palestinian people, and as neglecting Palestinian rights and sacred things, especially Jerusalem and the independent Palestinian state on the borders of June 4, 1967,” said the statement, which called on Arab League to denounce the pact.

India’s statement on the agreement is not surprising as all the three nations signing the statement have become close partners of the Modi government.

When contacted, there was no response from the Palestine embassy in New Delhi to India, on the agreement.

Deal not entirely a ‘surprise’

Retired Indian foreign service officer Navdeep Suri, who had been India’s ambassador to UAE till September 2019, told The Wire that the trends towards the normalisation of ties between Israel and UAE had been clearly discernible in the last couple of years. The two countries were “driven by their joint antipathy towards Iran,” Suri said.

In July 2015, Iran and a group of six nations led by the US reached a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons programme in exchange for lifting of economic sanctions. Five months later, Israel was opening its first ever diplomatic mission in a Gulf nation, with a representative posted at the Abu Dhabi headquarters of International Renewable Energy Agency. At that time, Israel had claimed that this was neither a consulate nor a mission, but the presence of an Israeli diplomat in UAE gave out an unmistakable signal.

Suri also recalled the visit of the Israel sports minister Miri Regev in October 2018, ostensibly to attend a judo tournament. She visited the Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi and wrote in the guest book in Hebrew. “The fact that Emirati media was covering her visit and publishing her photographs indicated that the rapprochement was in the offing,” he said.

There were more signs of active Arab-Israeli backchannel links, with Emirati officials publicly laying ground of an imminent change.

“Many, many years ago, when there was an Arab decision not to have contact with Israel, that was a very, very wrong decision, looking back,” UAE minister of state for foreign affairs Anwar Gargash told Abu Dhabi based daily The National in March 2019.

He forecast, according to the newspaper report, a “strategic shift” in relations between Israel and Arab nations.

Despite the clear willingness of Emirati leadership, it took more than a year for UAE to formalise its already extensive links with Israel.

Role of US election

The timing, believes Suri, was clearly due to the forthcoming presidential election in November. “Both Israel and the Emiratis want to help Trump politically. They want him back in the White House,” he said

UAE’s aversion of the previous Barack Obama administration had been publicly articulated after Trump’s surprising win in 2016. In remarks published in the official news agency in November 2016, Gargash described the Obama administration’s tenure as “eight years of weakened American engagement in the region, which many feel has created a disconcerting vacuum”.

Even if Trump loses the elections, UAE is not likely to face any major diplomatic repercussions. The Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, who had been vice-president in the Obama administration, welcomed the agreement as a “historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East”.

Meanwhile, Trump with an eye at branding the agreement as a diplomatic victory in the election campaign, stated that the pact will be called “Abraham accord” as Abraham was “father of all three great faiths”.

U.S. President Donald Trump receives applause after announcing that Israel and the United Arab Emirates have reached a peace deal that will lead to full normalization of diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern nations in an agreement that Trump helped broker, at White House in Washington, U.S., August 13, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

West Asian reaction

In West Asia, all the Arab countries, except for Saudi Arabia, swiftly welcomed the agreement. Oman, which hosted Netanyahu on an official visit in 2018, backed UAE’s initiative to normalise ties with Israel, with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi also tweeting his appreciation.

On the other side of the aisle, Iran described the deal as an act of “strategic stupidity”.

Joining Tehran, Turkey stated that “history and the conscience of the region’s peoples will not forget and never forgive this hypocritical behaviour of the UAE, betraying the Palestinian cause for the sake of its narrow interests”. Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan said that he was considering snapping ties with UAE.

However, Saudi Arabia, which had led the Arab world against Iran, remained conspicuously silent, largely reflecting the domestic criticism of the deal among its citizens. According to Reuters, the Arabic hashtag “Gulfis_Against_Normalisation” was trending in third place on twitter in Saudi Arabia

Among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, UK, France and China also cheered the pact. Russia, which has balancing its ties between Israel and Iran, is the only P-5 to not issue a statement, even 24 hours after President Trump announced the agreement in Washington.

Trump’s Middle East ‘Peace Plan’ Is a Step Towards Institutionalising Apartheid

The ‘deal of the century’ demands that Palestinians officially accept that Israel has no responsibility for its inaugural act of ethnic cleansing and all brutalities on Palestinians since.

The Trump Peace Plan unveiled on January 28, represents the formal institutionalisation of an Israeli apartheid state. Most other governments – regardless of whether they enthusiastically or more cautiously welcomed the Plan or even criticised or rejected it – have invariably stated that, given the absence of the Palestinian side in the process of forming this Plan, a negotiated ‘final settlement’ is still needed.

This completely misses the point. What has happened is the logical culmination of a process of US unilateralism that began with the Trump presidency which declared undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital; endorsed the permanent annexation of the Golan Heights; cut off funding to the Palestinians; and now put forward this new plan.

This is the ‘final settlement’. It is not a proposal put forward for discussion and substantive changes through further negotiation but an ultimatum.

To grasp what the real purpose of this plan is and also who are its intended audiences – certainly not the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) which is why they were deliberately excluded in the first place – the plan itself must be dissected. It is followed by a brief survey of certain official government responses including that of India. This is because this plan, through the creation of irreversible new ‘facts on the ground’, also aims to dramatically deepen Palestine’s international isolation.

The plan

The Trump plan declared that the main illegal Israeli settlements that are in the West Bank (minus a few outliers) must now become permanent and, sure enough, within hours of Washington saying this, Netanyahu announced the formal annexation of 131 Jewish settlements. What will soon follow is the annexation of the Jordan River valley of some 80,000 hectares of agricultural land where some 65,000 Palestinians and 11,000 illegal Israelis settlers currently live.

Also read: In 10 Points, What the ‘Israel Model’ Is and Why It’s Bad for India

During the course of its longstanding occupation of the West Bank, over 70% of its water resources were routinely diverted to the settlements and to Israel behind the Wall. This process will be further exacerbated in the valley so as to force out the Palestinian farming families earning their livelihood there.

According to the new plan the Palestinians will get, area-wise. a substantially reduced set of separate Bantustans connected by roads, bridges and tunnels (also to Gaza) but with no security control over the new boundaries of this truncated and internally fragmented ‘Swiss cheese’ of a so-called state. This entity will be fully de-militarised with its air space also fully under Israeli military control.

Maps from Trump’s vision for Israel and Palestine.

The Palestinian ‘Right of Return’ – incidentally a fundamental human right – to previous homes/lands for Palestinians expelled and displaced since 1948 must be renounced. It is crucial to understand why this is so pernicious a condition. This ROR has a practical dimension and a political-symbolic one.

The former is negotiable, namely how many actually do or want to return or are given compensation and rights of residency elsewhere.

But the latter dimension is far more important and must be upheld. There can be no future establishment of an enduring peace or the transformation of the existing hostile relationship between Israel and Palestinians unless Israel admits that it’s ethnic cleansing of 1948 was a great injustice and wrong.

There could have been no new beginning between Germany and Israel and Jewry if the former did not apologise and accept its moral guilt for the Holocaust. Similarly, South African apartheid had to be recognised as fundamentally unjust and immoral and needed to be ended before relations between whites and non-whites could start on a new footing.

The same holds true for future relations between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Moreover, this plan also calls for the Palestinian side to drop all war crimes investigations against Israel including withdrawing those lodged in the International Criminal Court. So this ‘Deal of the Century’, which actually is a collusion between the US and the mainstream political parties of Israel, demands acceptance of not only its apartheid rule but that Palestinians officially acknowledge not only that Israel has no responsibility for its inaugural act of ethnic cleansing that created Israel in the first place, but for all the brutalities that have been imposed on the Palestinians since.

Watch | ‘Wide Angle’ Episode 13: Trump’s Jerusalem Announcement – The End Of The Mideast Peace Process?

The ‘twist’ in this plan is that there will be a four year waiting and a probation period for the Palestinian leadership to accept and come to terms with this new reality. Israel will freeze further annexations during this period provided the Palestinians ‘behave themselves’ i.e., pose no ‘security threat’ to Israel which will be the sole arbiter of whether or not Palestinians have behaved properly.

File Photo: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas heads a Palestinian cabinet meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah July 28, 2013. Photo: Reuters/Issam Rimawi/Pool/File Photo

In return for this complete surrender and after the end of this period, Trump has promised to organise $50 billion for Palestinian development no doubt with the support of other allies in the Middle East and Europe who can be expected to fall in line with the new arrangement once the Palestinian leadership itself falls into line. Otherwise, there will be no Palestinian state, period.

During these four years, more pressure will be put on both the Palestinians and its ostensible allies among Arab states while diplomatic criticism from other governments can be expected to fade further from its existing levels of already feeble inconsequences. Of course, the divide between Hamas and Fatah must be retained.

For the former in Gaza, more punishment for this most densely populated and impoverished region but also the sustenance of its status as the world’s largest open-air prison subject to regularised aerial bombing and shelling. For Fatah or other aspiring leaders in the West Bank, accepting the transition from being since Oslo, subcontractors of the occupation in an economy substantially fuelled by international aid, and having some limited degree of autonomy to carry out municipal rule and line your own pockets through corruption, to now becoming mere puppets in a new dispensation. Even apartheid rule requires local collaborators.

Audiences and responses

Trump’s plan which has long been in the making, apart from what it has done for the more extreme forms of Israeli Zionism, has really had three other targets in mind. One, of course, is the anticipated political fallout in the US itself. The second pertains to the Middle East, North Africa (MENA) region and especially its key actual or potential allies. The third is its European, NATO and other strategic and tactical allies among which India can certainly be counted.

Within the US this plan will have decisively shifted the goalposts. It puts an end to the waffling by previous US administrations, whether Republicans or Democrats, willing to mouth pieties about respecting international law and recognising that Palestine had a case while deliberately being blind to Israeli transgressions and continuing to give it material, military and diplomatic-political support whenever it really mattered.

Also read: Ein Rashash: A Typical West Bank Morning Under Illegal Israeli Occupation

Sanders and Warren the two candidates in the Democratic primaries have voiced their rejection but the mainstream in the Democratic Party may voice reservations about whether this will work but will not buck the new political wisdom in Israel itself and will eventually accommodate itself to this plan as it already has to all the other unilateral steps taken by Trump regarding Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The safer option currently is to concentrate on the upcoming elections, talk about Trump diverting attention from the impeachment proceedings and keep talking about Israeli security needs. Biden, the Democrat frontrunner, in his response to Trump, failed to make any reference to the Palestinians.

Benny Gantz (left), leader of Blue and White party, at an election campaign event in Ashkelon, Israel, April 3, 2019, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu smiling at a polling station in Jerusalem, April 9, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Amir Cohen/File photo, Ariel Schalit/Pool via Reuters

In Israel, the claim that this plan was mainly meant to be a diversion needed by Netanyahu given his bribery charges, does not really hold water. Washington can count on his rivals like Gantz and the other parties in whatever ruling coalition finally emerges after the March elections, to fully endorse what has been done. It is noticeable that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain and the UAE have been careful not to condemn the plan and have even suggested that the Palestinians might take it into consideration in their negotiations.

For formality’s sake, these countries have also gone along with the Arab League’s latest joint resolution rejecting the deal. Egypt values its close relationship with the US (a huge donor) and after its separate Peace treaty with Israel has had no quarrel with it. The US knows that it is Iran, not Israel that most worries these Arab states and that the gulf between these princely and dictatorial regimes and the Arab street on the Israel-Palestine issue has always been very wide. There is even the possibility that over the next four years, as mentioned earlier, these governments, that also bankroll the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Fatah, could also play their part in pushing the latter to accept what now seems unacceptable.

Britain’s Boris Johnson, as expected, has welcomed the plan while France has also done so saying it will study it carefully. Russia, needing to balance between two friendships with Iran and Israel respectively, has also taken the easy way out saying it needs to study the plan leaving it to Germany, the other main heavyweight in Europe, to somewhat surprisingly, strike a more sceptical note doubting that it can be the basis for a sustained peace.

A number of politicians belonging to the centre and rightwing parties have been aggressively critical of it. Nonetheless, the German government is buying time saying its official position will come after consultations with European partners.

So where does India fit in? Ever since the Congress government of Rao established full diplomatic relations with Israel, the Indian stance has been one of having ever closer cooperation at various levels with Israel while paying lip service and money to the Palestinian cause. With the advent of the first and subsequent NDA governments, the Sangh’s ideological admiration for Zionism has led it to go further. Where once a positive Indian vote for UN resolutions in favour of Palestine was de rigeur, now there has been the occasional abstention.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shakes hands with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi during a meeting with Indian community in the Israeli coastal city of Tel Aviv. Credit: PTI

It was during Vajpayee’s time that there was the first-ever visit of a sitting Israeli Premier, Ariel Sharon. Modi was the first Indian premier to officially visit Israel. New Delhi’s response this time was more timid than that of Germany abandoning even the formality of not annoying the PNA leadership by stating that the two sides “engage with each other including on the recent proposal put forward by the United States.” Given that this was preceded by a three-year silence by India on Trump’s declaration that undivided Jerusalem must be Israel’s capital, no one should be surprised at this implicit endorsement of apartheid. After all, why condemn that which happens abroad if something similar is what is desired on the home front!

Also read: Indian Diplomat Wants ‘Israel Model’ in Kashmir, Sets Off Controversy

As for Palestine?

As for the Palestinians, Mahmud Abbas has announced that the PNA has withdrawn from the Oslo Accords – which in any meaningful sense was already long dead – and will cut its security ties with Israel and the US. It remains to be seen what will follow from this.

Does Fatah now say Israel must do all internal policing and local political decision-making regarding everyday concerns thereby voluntarily giving up whatever powers and authority it currently has? Will it give up its call for a two-state solution and now talk of full and equal democratic rights for all in a one state Israel? Will it seriously seek unity and share authority with Hamas when in the past it has colluded with the US and Israel to deny Hamas the fruits of election victory in the West Bank, and when this will alienate many European governments which it might still want for material and political-diplomatic reasons? Past experience does not suggest any such dramatic stiffening of the spine of the current PNA leadership.

The great tragedy of a remarkable people – the Palestinians – is that they have never had the kind of leadership they have deserved. But it is their indomitable will and their relentless pursuit of justice across generation after generation that continues to prevent forces far more powerful from finishing off for good this amazing Palestinian struggle. What then might be the way forward in these dark times? Some comments here may not be entirely amiss.

First, the only realistic longer-term goal is for a fully democratised one state solution with equal rights for all its citizens regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation.

Second, a new and younger and more united leadership, which recognises how much of a dead-end both Fatah and Hamas have been, must emerge. This may not be that far off.

A boy plays in the Israeli settlement of Vered Yericho in the occupied West Bank, on September 11, 2019 Photo: Reuters/ Ronen Zvulun

Third, further democratise the internal structure of the Palestine Legislative Council by giving due and substantial representation to those chosen by Palestinian refugees outside of the occupied territories (OTs) and in this way forge a much wider and deeper unity that will be far more effective both within and without the OTs.

Fourth, Palestinian success cannot be separated from the question of what happens in Iran and the Arab world as a whole. This region remains dominated by one or the other form of anti-democratic and dictatorial rule. The overthrow of one significant power in the region and its replacement by an enduring democratic order will dramatically reignite the prospects of achieving greater justice for the Palestinians themselves and for further democratic upheaval in the region. Neither Israel nor the US can stop this once it reaches a critical level of intensity. These two struggles must be connected. For too long the Palestinian leadership has taken the failed route of ignoring this wider democratic struggle so as to secure largesse and feeble political-diplomatic support from repressive regimes.

Also read: In Palestine for Three Hours, Modi Drops Indian Support for ‘United’, ‘Viable’ Palestinian State

Fifth, pursue a completely non-violent resistance to the brutalities of Israel. This may reduce but it will not stop Israeli brutalities. However, it will also generate much wider support among the world’s ordinary public to carry out the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign and put much more pressure on their respective governments to penalise and censure Israel in various ways. In the longer run, Israel fears this more than any armed resistance.

Nelson Mandela was once asked when he knew that apartheid’s end was forthcoming. His answer needs to be treasured. He said that he knew this would happen once he and others in the anti-apartheid struggle had realised that they had caught the ‘moral imagination of enough people’. He did not say all the people or most of the people but only of ‘enough’. As long as the Palestinian people continue to remain unbowed and intransigent in their struggle for justice, despite all betrayals by leaders and governments, that time will come!

Achin Vanaik is a writer and social activist, a former professor at the University of Delhi and Delhi-based Fellow of the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam. He is the author of The Painful Transition: Bourgeois Democracy in India and The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism.