Middle East peace talks =Palestinians lose faith in two-state solution:
Study group calls for new form of resistance to Israeli occupation with goal of single, bi-national state.
Rory McCarthy from Jerusalem, for the guardian.co.uk,
Thursday September 04, 2008.

A group of prominent Palestinian figures has proposed a radical change in strategy to demand a single, bi-national state if the current round of Middle East peace talks fails.

The Palestinian Strategy Study Group, an EU-funded project written by 27 leading Palestinian figures from across the political spectrum, argued that the current two-state framework for peace talks is failing to bring the promised independent state. Instead, it suggested ending the negotiation process that has gone on now for nearly 20 years, reconstituting the Palestinian Authority into what might become a “Palestinian Resistance Authority”, and developing a form of “smart” resistance.

“The central aim will be to maximise the cost of continuing occupation for Israel, and to make the whole prospect of unilateral separation unworkable,” it said. The final, and most striking proposal, is to shift to a “single state outcome” as the Palestinians’ preferred goal. This, it said, would regain the strategic initiative for the Palestinians.

“Although many Palestinians may still prefer a genuine negotiated two-state solution, a failure of the present Annapolis initiative will greatly strengthen those who argue against this,” the report said. “Most Palestinians are then likely to be convinced that a negotiated agreement is no longer possible.”

———–

It is not the first time a bi-national state has been proposed as a Palestinian goal, but the new report signals a marked shift in Palestinian thinking at a time when the latest peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are yet again struggling to make any headway. Questions are now being asked on both sides about the future of the two-state solution that for so long has been the framework of Middle East peacemaking.

The greatest disquiet is on the Palestinian side, where even moderates are now beginning to sense the two-state formula is moving out of reach.

“I feel that a two-state solution is losing currency amongst both our peoples and with the world community beyond,” said Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister and former World Bank and IMF economist, in a speech he wrote for a meeting of former Israeli diplomats yesterday and which was delivered by Riad Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister.

Malki himself admitted that, despite 10 months of talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, which began in Annapolis, in the United States, not a single word of agreement had been put on paper. The Annapolis process, the first such peace talks in seven years, were supposed to produce a peace agreement by the end of this year - a goal that has proved wildly unrealistic.

***
Another group, the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information, published a policy document this week with proposals for the Palestinians to change the status quo. Among the options it said were available were dissolving the Palestinian Authority, calling for a one-state solution and making a Kosovo-style unilateral declaration of independence.

However, it noted that the chief risk of calling for a single, bi-national state was that nothing would change and the status quo would simply worsen given how deeply unpopular the idea is among Israelis. “With so little support from the more powerful neighbour, it seems unlikely that the Palestinian call for unity will bring many positive results in the near term,” it said. Instead, it concluded: “We feel that a tightly coordinated non-violent campaign toward statehood is the best option.”

One of the key obstacles on the Palestinian side now is the bitter infighting between the two leading factions, Fatah and Hamas. Since last year, Hamas, the Islamist group that won elections in 2006, has been in full control of Gaza and daily seems to be dividing ever further from its rival Fatah, which effectively controls the West Bank. Even if a peace agreement was reached this year, it is hard to see how it might be implemented in Gaza without reconciliation between the rival factions, and for now that seems out of their grasp.

Hamas has long argued against negotiations with Israel. “We don’t see any fruits from the political negotiations,” Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas advisor said in a recent interview in Gaza. “So we have to make an evaluation for the whole Palestinian national project. Since Madrid in 1991 until now it’s been 17 years but we’ve seen nothing on the ground. How can I convince people that we are going in the right direction?”

On the Israeli side, opinion is more mixed. In general the two-state solution is still broadly regarded as a reasonable goal, although there are many on the rightwing who say Israel should not give up the land it captured in 1967 or who say Israelis have a Biblical right to settle in the West Bank that cannot be negotiated away.

***

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister who will step down later this month, has pursued negotiations, arguing that a two-state solution is attainable. On Sunday he will discuss with the cabinet a plan to pay compensation to encourage some of the more distant settlers in the West Bank to move either to Israel or to settlements within the West Bank barrier.

Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister who is likely to replace him as head of the ruling Kadima party, also argues in favour of negotiations and has been deeply involved in the latest talks, although she has said she would resist pressure to hurry the negotiations. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, suggested yesterday that some of the Palestinian areas of Jerusalem might become the future capital of a Palestinian state, an idea which has not always been palatable to Israelis.

***

Yet there are others beginning to voice different ideas. In a newspaper column in the Yedioth Ahronoth this week, Giora Eiland, a former head of the National Security Council and former national security adviser under Ariel Sharon, said the gap between Israel and the Palestinians was “enormous” and growing.

“The maximum that the Israeli government [any government] will be able to offer the Palestinians [and survive politically] falls short of the minimum that the Palestinian government [any government] can agree to accept [and survive politically],” he wrote. Eiland argued that a final status peace deal “will not be achievable in the foreseeable future” and that new ideas should be considered. He suggested returning control of the West Bank to Jordan, who controlled it before the 1967 war.

—————–

At www.SustainabiliTank.info, we go even further - we are advocating a Three State Solution.  That is sort of a Hamasstan in the Gaza Strip - to be started under the supervision of Egypt, and a Palestine-West-Bank State that will start out with organized help led by Jordan. The aim of the two “supervising states” will have o be well defined in advance - not as annexation - but as a management for obtaining future total independence. If in the end this leads to some sort of confederation that involves also Israel, so much the better. But without first preparing the ground for some sort of clearly defined Palestinian economies (and I mean two of them in parallel) there is no future for any sort of solution.       A united -one-Palestinian entity is not in the cards, so a two State solution is also very difficult.

From:  sniffenj at un.org
Subject: UNEP Executive Director remarks at IPCC 20th anniversary.
Date: September 2, 2008
The following is the content as received - our comment is in our title to this piece.

***

31 August, 2008 Geneva - Speech by Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to the 20th Anniversary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

It was 1988 and a leap year: the Summer Olympics games were held in Seoul; the first Fair Trade label was launched in the Netherlands and UN peacekeepers won the Nobel Peace Prize.

But perhaps one of the greatest leaps occurred not in time but in environmental science with the establishment by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization of the IPCC.

Over 20 years, thousands of scientists have selflessly come together to
periodically sift, to weigh and to validate the scientific evidence on the
links between rising greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the
global climate.
The likely impacts too of climate change on humans and vital
ecosystems from glaciers and forests to river systems and coastal
settlements.
And increasingly, the price tag of lethargy and indifference if these
emissions are left unchecked.
Contrasting too with the likely economic benefits of swift and
decisive action-and adaptation- to this most over arching of
human-made threats.

In doing so the IPCC has put the sharpest and most potent lens possible on
the unsustainable development paths of the past few centuries.
It has also however shone a bright light on the choices and down the path
to the opportunities we have for a greener, fairer and ultimately more
sustainable world.

The Fourth Assessment Report, launched last year, was a milestone and was
crowned with the IPCC being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was a prize not just for the Fourth Assessment and the current and past
Panel scientists but also for the previous and current Chair, Dr Pachauri,
and his staff. { THIS IS A VERY UNCLEAR STATEMENT AND HIDES THE ONE MAN THAT WAS PROBABLY MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR FIGHTING THE CAUSE OF DISMANTLING THE INCREDIBLE LIES AND CORPORATE PUSH THAT STILL CAUSE MEDIA TO DOUBT THE PROBLEM, AND TO DOUBT THAT THERE IS AN ECONOMIC SOLUTION — THIS MAN WAS BOB WATSON — PRESENTLY STILL CHIEF SCIENTIST AT THE WORLD BANK THAT HE JOINED IN 1996. We were among the people that spoke up in 2002 when Washington decided to push him out of the IPCC leadership position.}

For undoubtedly the findings rolled out in 2007 underlined that climate
change is an environmental change phenomenon but one that goes to the core
of the UN’s mandate. { YES, YES, YES}

A point recognized not just by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee but in the
statements by retired and serving senior-ranking military in Australia, the
United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

Undoubtedly the IPCC science also underpinned and fostered the UN Security
Council debate in April 2007 when it held its first ever discussion on
climate change, peace and security.

In recognizing all this we must also recognize two very special
people-Mostafa Tolba and Godwin Olu Patrick Obasi who, as heads of their
respective UN agencies in 1988 had the vision and the determination to
establish the IPCC.

Indeed one wonders whether the Kyoto Protocol, its inventive market
mechanisms and the current UN Framework Convention negotiations towards a
post-2012 regime, would even be a reality if it had not been for foresight
of these two parents of the Panel.

It is a mark of the Panel’s veracity, transparency and courage that such an
active and wide-ranging political process is underway and that the debate
is on how to deal with climate change not whether it is a reality or a
chimera—that has been empirically and scientifically laid to rest.

It would be an even greater tribute to the Panel’s scientists, both past
and present, if Governments can find their own courage, tenacity and
collective will to rise above their differences and seize the moment.

There are just some 500 days for Governments to deliver what the world is
waiting for in Copenhagen in 2009—the facts and figures from IPCC delivered
in 2007, and which powered the Bali Climate Convention meeting into high
gear, remain as valid and as sobering today as they did just over six
months ago.

Indeed the science emerging recently from a wide variety of respected
institutes is in many ways even more sobering and certainly not less.

So there is no need to idle, slide into reverse or take detours on the Bali
Road Map—there is a need to find the highest gear possible to speed all
countries on their way to a landmark deal.

***

What of the future?

It is clear that there is an urgent need to translate the IPCC’s global and
regional assessments onto the sub-national, national and even local level
in order to focus developing country and donor country efforts on
climate-proofing vulnerable economies.

So I am delighted to note that UNEP is now cooperating with the IPCC and
other partners on a European Commission-funded project with these very
aims.

It is part of a wider effort of outreach aimed at bridging the knowledge
gap on the implications and actions needed as a result of the Fourth
Assessment Report.

Under this umbrella UNEP is taking a lead in the next phase of the
Assessments of Impacts and Adaptation of Climate Change -with the guidance
and assistance of you: the current IPCC scientists.

This is aimed at encouraging the research of the future IPCC scientists
from developing countries while bringing focus to impacts and thus
adaptation measures at the level of the ecosystem and river catchment
basin.

We are here to celebrate 20 years of the IPCC—its place in the history
books is clear in terms of climate science.

The final entry as a result of the Panel’s work may, however, prove to be
far larger.

For if that science can be fully and frankly translated into political
action we will have gone a long way to not only overcoming climate change.

The international community will have also embarked on a path that will
also address other persistent and emerging concerns- from overcoming
poverty and biodiversity loss to one where tensions and conflicts over
scarce resources can at best be managed and at the very best, overcome.

Science is knowledge and thus it is power but also empowerment of
politicians, business men and woman, civic leaders, the UN and the public.

The dictionary defines an imperative as a ”plea”; a ”duty”; something
that is ”impossible to evade or ignore” and an ”obligation”.

This is what the IPCC has handed to this generation of presidents, prime
ministers and politicians, indeed to this generation overall—facts and
figures that cannot be ignored and a duty and an obligation to act, and to
act fast.

***

Now to the point of the 500 days to the December 2009 meeting in Copenhagen that did not mention the December 2008 meeting in Poznan, Poland:

It is clear that with the US Presidential elections of November 2008, the Poznan meeting has become totally unnecessary, as there will be no functioning US representation at that meeting. For Mr. Ahim Steiner to regain his personal credibility on the issues, it would be in place to state clearly that for reasons of saving CO2 emissions caused by unnecessary travel to an unnecessary meeting - that meeting should be canceled, or rescheduled for May 2009. Just to step in the UN political line will not help the subject that I know he cares for personally. (the www.SustainabiliTank.info opinion)

***********************************

Received from:

Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
  Permalink | Printer Friendly |  Email This Article
Posted in Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Reporting from Washington DC, Global Warming issues, Real World's News, Future Meetings, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, Egypt, Nairobi

del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?

Discuss this article

*****

We visited him on his boat right here in New York, then later in Tel Aviv. He was one of a kind. His bringing ice cream to the children of Gaza did not end the will to fight - but showed that it is possible to be humane.
Yes, we know, some of the children that got his ice cream are now in the Hamas. But then, would they have been any better without that ice cream? It did nevertheless attempt to put a human face to the conflict, and it is not his fault that it did not lead to a more solid understanding.

If not the Palestinians and the Egyptians - there were hundred of thousands of Israelis that understood him. His spirit continues to be present at the Uri Avneri round table - every Friday night at least.

A coincidence - his death was announced on the day Barak Obama assumes the leadership of the Democratic Party of the US. We wonder what he would have said and post also the following tidbit:

And the New York Times correspondent from Jerusalem wrote the following version:

From www.FT.com

Africa mourns loss of a leader unafraid to speak his mind

One Sunday in late June, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president who died yesterday aged 59, was on the eve of the most momentous day of his career.He had been the first…
Aug 20 2008, By Tom Burgis, Financial Times
Zambian president dies in France

Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president who was laid low by a stroke hours before he was…would like to inform the nation that our president, his Excellency Dr Levy Mwanawasa, died this morning at 10.30am at Percy Military Hospital,” Rupiah Banda…
Aug 19 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, FT.com site
Zambian leader’s health worsens

The health of Levy Mwanawasa, the ailing Zambian president who has been a sharp critic of Robert Mugabe, his Zimbabwean counterpart, has deteriorated, his deputy…
Aug 18 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, FT.com site
Zambian mystery

The fate of Levy Mwanawasa, Zambia’s president, was last night shrouded in confusion amid reports that he had died in a Paris hospital after suffering a stroke…
Jul 04 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, Financial Times
Zambia refutes rumours of president’s death

Zambia on Thursday moved to end the confusion surrounding the fate of Levy Mwanawasa, dismissing reports that the president had died in a Paris hospital after suffering a stroke.”These are false and malicious rumours…
Jul 04 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, FT.com site
International pressure on Mugabe grows

…Mugabe if he claims victory in Friday’s poll.In some of the toughest words on Zimbabwe yet from an African leader, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president and current chairman of the Southern African Development Community, described the situation…
Jun 24 2008, By James Blitz, Tom Burgis and William Wallis, Financial Times
International pressure to replace Mugabe grows

…Mugabe if he claims victory in Friday’s poll.In some of the toughest words on Zimbabwe yet from an African leader, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president and current chairman of the Southern African Development Community, described the situation…
Jun 24 2008, By James Blitz, Tom Burgis and William Wallis, Financial Times
Global pressure to replace Mugabe grows

…Mugabe if he claims victory in Friday’s poll. In some of the toughest words on Zimbabwe yet from an African leader, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president and current chairman of the Southern African Development Community, described the situation…
Jun 23 2008, By James Blitz, Tom Burgis and William Wallis, FT.com site
Africa must act to avoid being engulfed by Zimbabwe’s disaster

…President Paul Kagame is among the first to raise his head above the parapet, joining Botswana’s Ian Khama and Zambia’s Levy Mwanawasa in a growing band of African leaders who are prepared to condemn a tyrant. Not only has Robert Mugabe put southern…
Jun 25 2008, By Michael Holman and Greg Mills, FT.com site
Harare buffeted by winds of change blowing through region

…sea-change in the thinking of the 14- nation Southern African Development Community.Regional diplomats indicate that Levy Mwanawasa, Zambia’s president, and Ian Khama, Botswana’s new leader, are impatient with the region’s traditional reverence for…
May 01 2008, By Alec Russell in Cape Town, Financial Times

***

Africa mourns loss of a leader unafraid to speak his mind.

By Tom Burgis

Published: August 20 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 20 2008 03:00

One Sunday in late June, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president who died yesterday aged 59, was on the eve of the most momentous day of his career.

He had been the first to break the longstanding deference of African rulers towards Robert Mugabe, condemning the abuses that had culminated in the Zimbabwean autocrat claiming victory in a discredited election. As early as March last year, Mwanawasa had referred to the “sinking Ti-tanic” that was Zimbabwe’s inflation-battered economy.

Now, as the serving chair of the southern African bloc, the retiring former lawyer would carry the hopes of many Zimbabweans into an African Union summit in Egypt at which Mr Mugabe would try to stare down his counterparts into legitimising his flawed triumph.

For a man most at ease in small gatherings, assiduously reading his briefing papers or escaping to the family farm for the planting season, the ordeal ahead was immense. Alphabetical seating by country was to have put him next to Mr Mugabe.

It proved too much. Always in poor health since the car crash 17 years earlier that left him with slurred speech, Mwanawasa suffered a stroke. Even as he was flown to the Paris hospital where he would die seven weeks later, the summit was welcoming Mr Mugabe back to the fold, thwarting the efforts of a handful of Mwanawasa’s like-minded peers.

The second son of 10 siblings, Mwanawasa was born in Mufulira, near the Congolese border, in 1948, 16 years before Zambia’s independence from Britain.

A crusading legal career established his public profile. When the one-party state of Kenneth Kaunda unravelled into elections in 1991, Frederick Chiluba, the victorious leader of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy, appointed Mwanawasa as vice-president.

In 2001, disillusioned with the pervasive corruption of the Chiluba regime, Mwanawasa turned on - and ousted - his mentor. Within weeks he had stripped his predecessor of immunity from prosecution. A London court later found that Mr Chiluba had salted away $46m (€31m, £25m) of public funds.

Mwanawasa’s anti-graft offensive won him the allegiance of international donors who flooded state coffers with aid. China came calling too, tempted by some of the world’s richest copper deposits. Economic growth rose from just over 3 per cent a year when he took office to 6 per cent last year.

Yet, as his critics point out, about seven in every 10 Zambians still live on less than $2 a day. “Wealth has trickled downwards but it has not trickled outwards to the rural areas,” said a European diplomat in Lusaka. “That challenge is only just beginning.”

It is not clear who will take up that challenge. Mwanawasa avoided anointing an heir. His death has thrown his party into turmoil as cabinet ministers who thought they had three more years to jockey for position face an election within three months. The discord may open a window for Michael Sata, the opposition leader who came second when Mwanawasa won a second term in 2006 and who has lambasted the government’s fiscal orthodoxy.

Those who knew Mwanawasa, who had six children with his wife Maureen and two from a previous marriage, describe a man whose unspectacular oratory masked a deep conviction.

Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwe’s opposition, yesterday lamented the death of “a good friend and comrade”. He added: “Sadly, he has left us at this most trying time.”

Terror War Re-Evaluated as Musharraf Steps Down.
By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 19, 2008

America and Pakistan’s neighbors are being forced to re-evaluate their strategy in the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban after the resignation yesterday of President Musharraf, whose nine-year reign included a decision after September 11, 2001, to cooperate closely with America in the fight against international terrorism.

President Musharraf of Pakistan responds to people gathered after the farewell ceremony in Islamabad yesterday. Officials in Washington yesterday were careful to balance statements of praise for Mr. Musharraf with expressions of confidence that his successors would do just as well. But in New Delhi, where Mr. Musharraf’s recent misfortunes are seen as a probable cause for the renewal of Pakistani-Indian hostilities in the disputed region of Kashmir and elsewhere, officials were almost openly ruing his departure.

A Pakistani-born diplomat yesterday said it is ironical that Mr. Musharraf, after long being maligned as a ruthless dictator, could end up ushering in a new, more democratically oriented government in Islamabad. “He left like Nixon did, under pressure of probable impeachment,” the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. “Then again, he is also the first Pakistani leader to leave on his own, without being hanged, assassinated, or deposed by the military. For Pakistan, that is a certain step forward.”

But it was unclear yesterday whether Mr. Musharraf would stay in Pakistan, where some are calling for him to be put on trial, or be forced to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or the West. Asylum in America “is not on the table,” Secretary of State Rice said yesterday. According to reports from the region, a Saudi plane departed Pakistan yesterday without picking up Mr. Musharraf, after sitting on the tarmac for hours. A leader of the ruling coalition in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, spent years in Saudi exile after he was deposed as prime minister in a 1999 military coup by Mr. Musharraf, who was then chief of the army.

“President Musharraf has been a friend to the United States and one of the world’s most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism,” Ms. Rice said in a statement.

“President Bush appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups,” a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said. He added: “We’re confident that we will maintain a good relationship with the government of Pakistan.”

American officials said they were confident that the uneasy ruling coalition of the moderately Islamic party led by Mr. Sharif and the Western-oriented party that was led by Benazir Bhutto until her assassination and is now led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari; son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani, would cooperate with America on the war on terror as closely as Mr. Musharraf did. “The war against extremism is bigger than one man,” a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said.

Mr. Musharraf’s “departure is a loss for the U.S. because the civilian government will not do as good a job against terrorism,” a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told The New York Sun.

In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, “What we needed in Pakistan is someone to stand with us, and Musharraf did just that,” a Bush administration official said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. America reciprocated to the tune of $10 billion in military support for the Pakistani government after Mr. Musharraf promised to dedicate his army and intelligence services to the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Now, according to some in Washington, the best remaining Pakistani partner in the war on terror is the current army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who has yet to express a preference for any party. Meanwhile, the partnership between the Pakistan Muslim League-N and the secular Pakistan Peoples Party is fragile and unlikely to maintain Mr. Musharraf’s tight grip over the army and the country’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence.

India is specifically concerned that a resurgent ISI could shift Pakistan’s attention to Kashmir and hostilities with New Delhi from the war on terror and the Afghan border. As speculation about Mr. Musharraf’s departure increased in recent weeks, India’s national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, told a Singaporean newspaper, the Straits Times, that the president’s absence would leave “a big vacuum.” India is “deeply concerned about this vacuum because it leaves the radical extremist outfits with freedom to do what they like, not merely on Pak-Afghan border but clearly our side of the border too,” Mr. Narayanan told the paper.

In recent years, the long-standing tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad have eased under Mr. Musharraf. The two countries established commercial ties, while the situation in Kashmir grew calmer. During the last few weeks, however, cross-border attacks have increased, Pakistani-backed pro-independence Kashmiri fighters have intensified their activities, and diplomatic talks have slowed. Additionally, both India and Afghanistan blamed the ISI for the bombing in July of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

—————-

So, all acknowledge that the real power in Pakistan - military dictatorship or not - is in the hands of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and who rules over them? Quite clearly, there never was a Pakistani Ataturk - and what do these generals want? Whatever it is - it is not democracy.

What does Military Nationalism mean in a Pakistani context? Where is their loyalty when it comes to the Taliban, and even Al-Qaeda? What was their historic relationship to the Saudi Arabian money pipeline, or to the US involvement in the Cold War heating-up proxy-stage in Afghanistan with the introduction of religious extremism well funded via the Saudis? Will someone start using this Sunni potential as an antidote to the Iranian Shia element in the larger Islamic World? Historically, it was just only Pakistan, who besides the Saudi monarchy, recognized the annexation of Jerusalem by Jordan. Without a military hand ruling in Islamabad - this being replaced by a politically broad, but weak, alliance - will the ISI, and everybody else, find it more convenient to spend the ISI time now in playing the fields outside Pakistan, rather then trying to muddle the waters at home? Will anyone look under the rug of the old nuclear materials, and know-how sales, and will there be a second round of this sort of sales - specially as they have more to offer then Iran or North Korea?

Musharraf or not, the incomming US President will have to worry about what goes on inside the nominal borders of Pakistan much more then the stated preocupation with Afghanistan.

nbsp;JPost.com - Aug 14, 2008 22:38 | Updated Aug 15, 2008.

Egypt: Rafah closed until Schalit freed; By KHALED ABU TOAMEH for Jerusalem Post.

The Egyptian government has informed Hamas that it will not reopen the Rafah border crossing until the movement releases kidnapped IDF soldier St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit, a Hamas official in the Gaza Strip said Thursday.

Photo of Egyptian riot police officers line up during a demonstration by Hamas supporters at Rafah crossing. (AP)

The Hamas official described the Egyptian condition as “completely unacceptable” and claimed that the Egyptians had promised to reopen the border crossing within four weeks after the cease-fire agreement that was reached nearly two months ago between Israel and Hamas. “They said the border would be opened if Hamas abided by the cease-fire and stopped the rocket attacks on Israel,” the Hamas official told The Jerusalem Post by phone.

According to the Hamas official, the Egyptians are “afraid” to open the Rafah terminal for fear of being “reprimanded” by Israel, the Americans and the Palestinian Authority.

“They are all afraid that the reopening of the border would strengthen Hamas and weaken the Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah,” he added. “[PA President] Mahmoud Abbas is also exerting heavy pressure on Egypt not to reopen Rafah. He doesn’t want Hamas to be in control of the Palestinian side of the terminal. He [Abbas] wants his men to return to the terminal, as was the case before June 2007.”
A senior Egyptian government official told Hamas leaders earlier this week that even if Cairo agreed to reopen the Rafah border, it would do so only under the terms of the 2005 US-brokered agreement that gave Abbas’s security forces exclusive control over the terminal, the Hamas official said.

“We’re not completely opposed to the deployment of some of Abbas’s loyalists at the border, but we insist that such a move be done in coordination with the legitimate Hamas government,” he explained.

The Hamas official quoted the Egyptian representative as saying that as far as Egypt was concerned, Israel still bore full responsibility for the situation inside the Gaza Strip.

“The Egyptian position is that the reopening of the Rafah border crossing would exempt Israel from fulfilling its duties toward the residents of the Gaza Strip,” he said. “The Egyptians also told us that if we wanted to import fuel, gas and food, we should do so only through Israel because they insist that the Rafah terminal be used only for the passage of civilians.”

Asked if Hamas were holding secret talks with Israel over a prisoner exchange, the Hamas official would neither confirm nor deny rumors of such negotiations.

Over the past few weeks, several Hamas officials have been critical of the role Egypt has been playing in the negotiations over the release of Schalit. Some have even suggested replacing the Egyptians with mediators from Qatar or Germany.

The Hamas officials claim the Egyptians are “biased” in favor of Israel and are putting pressure on the movement to soften its position over the case of Schalit.

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar told reporters in Gaza Thursday that his movement’s strategy was not to burn all bridges with Egypt.

He also said that as far as Hamas was concerned, Egypt remained the main party authorized to act as a mediator in the talks with Israel.The Egyptian government has informed Hamas that it will not reopen the Rafah border crossing until the movement releases kidnapped IDF soldier St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit, a Hamas official in the Gaza Strip said Thursday.

————–

The Russian giant returns.

By Shlomo Avineri - The writer is professor emeritus at Hebrew University and former director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (Ha’aretz)

The war in Georgia provoked sharp, contrasting reactions around the world, from support for the small democratic country fighting for its survival (with a critical nod about what looks like incitement against Russia by President Mikhail Saaskashvili) to shock at the aggressive brutality of the Russian offensive. This war, above all, is a symbol of Russia’s return to the playing field of the Great Powers. As is customary for Russia, whether czarist or Soviet, its policy is authoritarian to its own citizens and belligerent to the rest of the world.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of perestroika created a dual illusion in the West, first, that Russia was on the high road to democracy, and, second, that the disintegration of the Soviet bloc and the severance of the East European countries from Communism had left Russia a weak country.

The first illusion led to dreams of Russian democracy, the second was responsible for disdain for Russia as a player in the international arena. Both proved mistaken.

It turns out that unlike Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other countries in which there really was a relatively easy transition to democracy and a market economy, that was not the case internally in Russia. In those countries there was a tradition of a civic society, volunteer organizations and autonomy of church and academic institutions. With the disappearance of Communist repression, it was possible to anchor the transition to democracy in these traditions and institutions.

All that was lacking in Russia: Its pre-Communist tradition was hierarchical and authoritarian, lacking a civic society, without representative or elected frameworks. In the absence of all these, the disintegration of the Communist regime led to the anarchy and chaos of the Boris Yeltsin period. This was reflected not only in a weak and insufficiently clear president, but also in the country’s disintegration. Districts and regions divorced themselves from the central government, and Soviet economic assets were stolen by those close to the government and by corrupt oligarchs.

The rise of Vladimir Putin symbolized an end to this anarchy, but an end to the dream of democracy as well.

Putin must be credited with the rehabilitation of the Russian state, the subordination of local bullies to the rule of Moscow and the restoration of some assets, mainly in the field of energy, to central control. It wasn’t done by persuasion, but with brutality and aggressiveness: The free press was reined in, the opposition parties were pushed aside, although not eliminated, the parliament was neutralized and moguls with political ambitions were expelled from the country or arrested.

Although Russia as a country was rescued, a duplicate of the authoritarian czarist regime emerged. The brutal repression of the Chechnyan rebellion broadcast a clear warning. Even the way in which Putin bypassed the constitution to gain two terms as president is testimony to his determination and his ability to maneuver. It is no coincidence that a picture of Peter the Great hangs in his office.

All this had external repercussions as well. During Yeltsin’s time the West became accustomed to seeing Russia as a giant cut down to size. The European Union and NATO expanded eastward without hindrance. But this proved a passing weakness. The entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated the limits of U.S. power, while soaring oil prices gave Russia a tremendous economic advantage, as well as European dependence on Russian gas. Thus Putin began to restore Russia to the status of a great power that cannot be ignored.

There were many signs: the unwillingness to help the U.S. to curb Iran’s nuclear program, to prove to America it is not omniscient; power games in the supplying of energy to Ukraine and the Czech Republic, which are looking Westward; and all accompanied by belligerent rhetoric, which is adding to Putin’s popularity among a population that has felt humiliated since the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The West had no strategic response to this development, and the differences of opinion between the U.S. and Europe on the issue of Iraq only made things more difficult.

The Russian demonstration of force in Georgia will obligate the West to develop a new overall policy toward Moscow. It will be quite a difficult challenge for the next U.S. President. No longer will there be an asymmetrical conflict and a delusional search for Osama bin Laden in the back of beyond, but a return to traditional great power confrontations. This is not a return to the Cold War, since Putin’s Russia is not the bearer of a universal ideology like the Soviet Union; however we can reasonably assume that it will attempt to establish its own regional hegemony.

After Georgia, will Moscow try to teach Ukraine a similar lesson? Time will tell. But the era of ignoring Russia has come to an end. The question now centers on the West’s ability to formulate a suitable response to this challenge.

———–

And What about the Middle East? - and here is the rub - let us say that we will sit and see. Furter, we are sure that the Arabs have also decided to sit and see; some may have insights already - who knows?