Israelis back out of negotiations to release captured IDF soldier

Haaretz.com "PRC: Israel backs out of Shalit release deal at the last minute" by:Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service 3/17/07 Government officials in Jerusalem denied reports saying that Israel backed out of negotiations with the PRC (Popular Resistance Committees) for the release of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for imprisoned Palestinian officials. According to Israel Radio, Abu Mujahed, a PRC spokesman in the Gaza Strip, said Israel backed out of negotiations at the last minute. Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was captured last June in the Gaza Strip, was a major point of contention during the war with Lebanon over the summer. The prisoner exchange Israel reportedly backed out of was set to include all the leaders of Palestinian factions jailed in Israel, including renowned Hamas and Fatah leaders. Mujahed said the PRC is waiting for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval, but that if Israel rejects the offer, "we would then return to the starting point." The exchange includes plans to free prisoners, some of whom are serving life sentences, which was a major point of dispute in negotiations. The Palestinian negotiators refused to compromise on their position, and, according to Mujahed, Israel refused to negotiate as well, calling on Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, whose return was being negotiated, to pressure Israel into agreeing to the negotiations. He also assured Noam Shalit that his sons' captors are treating him humanely.
This is definitely a complicated issue for Israelis, seeing as their need for security and their desire to have Shalit freed are butting heads. At the time of Shalit's capture, I recall watching a TV interview with his father, who said he'd rather see the Israel defend herself as a nation than see them give up Palestinian militants for his son. In this light, I support Israel backing out of these negotiations, especially knowing that Shalit is in no immediate danger. While the circumstances are horrible, the negotiations were completely unfair, with Palestinians demanding the release of multiple high security and significant prisoners in exchange for only Shalit.

New PA Unity Government leaves loose ends in rleation to

March 15, 2007
Haaretz
"Abbas, Haniyeh finalize PA unity government deal despite fresh clashes"
by:Haaretz Service and News Agencies
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/837793.html

At the same time the PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh agreed on the composition of the new unified government, nine people (including two children) were wounded in an outbreak of factional violence in the Gaza strip. Still however, according to Haniyeh, "Today is an occasion to celebrate."
But who is celebrating? Definitely not Israelis or Americans whose peace talks in the past weeks failed to be productive because of the build up to this moment.
The full lineup of the new unity government cabinet will be made public Thursday, and submitted for parliament approval Saturday.
The fighting that emerged at the same time the unity government was formed began, according to a Fatah commander, after Hamas men had abducted a gunman during a shootout. Four Hamas men and one Fatah man were taken hostage, according to the general.
Under the new government, Hamas will will have nine cabinet posts, and Fatah will get six (Yet another intricacy the US, Israel and probably the EU will have problems with, seeing as they all three have deemed Hamas, who will be holding the majority stake in the new government, a terrorist organization.). The new government will hold a special session on Saturday morning to discuss the political platform of the newly formed government and hold a vote of confidence.
Israel, who previously got along with Fatah government officials to a significant degree, has sworn to boycott the unity government, including the non-Hamas officers, unless the government officially recognizes Israel, renounces violence and accepts interim peace deals.
The agreement of the unity government, "contains a vague promise to "respect' previous Israeli-Palestinian pacts. It does not commit the incoming government to abide by those pacts, nor recognize Israel and renounce violence," the article says. A failure to recognize Israel, end violence and engage in peace plans would put the newly formed government out of sorts with the US, EU, UN, Russia and Israel, among others.
The factional fighting put Abbas and Haniyeh under pressure to cut the deal quickly. Hamas blamed Fatah-loyal security forces for a killing in Gaza City, but Fatah denied any responsibility, this being only one of several attacks between members of Palestinian factions in the West Bank/Gaza region.

In my opinion, the new PA unity government is not a good thing for Israel. First off, the new PA government is mainly controlled by Hamas, the group Israel had been fighting to get out of power, and who was replaced by a more (supposedly) cooperative Fatah government. Regardless of the fact that Fatah was supposed to be a more favorable party in the face of Israelis, Hamas still had informal control of Gaza and the West Bank. With Hamas having nine of 15 spots in the new government, they are basically regaining control. It is obvious from the violence that has emerged between Hamas and Fatah party members and that continues to go on between them that the two parties are not united in ideologies, aside from their dislike (outright hatred and denial on the Hamas side) for Israel and its very existence. The government is either going to be short-lived due to the inability of the parties to get along and make unified decisions, or a takeout by Israel because of continued violence. I don't see this government bringing any sort of additional peace to the troubled region, or otherwise improving the situation for Palestinians or Israelis.

Israel airs dirty laundry as courts look for end to stench

"The Economist"

"Bad smells and fresh air - Israel"
March 10, 2007

There has been a ridiculous amount of talk about the corruption of Israeli government officials in the news over the past number of weeks. Everyone from the president, to the prime minister, to the police chief, to the minister of justice has come under fire for allegations ranging from rape to money laundering to falsification of testimony. It is, no doubt, because of this, that Israel has been slipping in the annual perceptions index kept up by Transparency International, "a Berlin-based anti-corruption watchdog." Back in the 70s, then PM Yitzhak Rabin resigned just because of allegations that his wife had some money in (then-illegal) overseas bank accounts. Today an accusation like that would barely make the news, the article says. It goes on to question, "is the putrefaction really worsening or are more people just noticing the smell?" A little bit of both seems to be the verdict. One opinion is that as Israel has become "less ideological, idealist and egalitarian than its pioneering early days, politics has become more of a personal career and politicians abuse their positions more often." But at the same time that the army and the presidency have come into this new and scrupulous light, the coutrs and state comptroller have gained strength and the public is "no longer willing to excuse leaders for improper behavior."--personal or political. More Israeli women are reporting sexual harassment in the workplace, and issues are being given more publicity than ever before. The corruption, however, needs to be fought so as not to lower the country's moral standards. Recommendations from a former supreme court justice include giving the parliament's ethics committee the power to fine legislators who step out of line, or bar them from certain jobs and chairmanships. There would definitely be more constraints put on them than in other countries, but that could also be seen as a check to make sure they don't have too much power.

So Israel definitely has some dirty laundry-- but who doesn't. And then again, things like the Lewinsky scandal draw a lot of interest. I think at this point, since SO many officials have been brought up for corruption, and so much attention has been paid, something definitely needs to be done. The suggestion that constraints be placed on politicians is a good one, provided that it is actually enforced and executed in a reasonable way. It is within the reasonable expectations of the people to have a representative government that is moral and upstanding, and it is the duty of the courts to ensure that. While I do feel, as I have said in other posts, that this entire thing has become trivialized to a point of nausea, there is some definite action that needs to be taken here. A system needs to be set into motion that will sanction these actions, and prevent future acts of this type from recurring within the Knesset.

Israeli Economy Booms Despite Setbacks

"Israel's economy leaps upward despite unrest; Growth in 2006 at 5.1 percent"
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Abraham Rabinovich

Feb 26 2007

2006 marked the third straight year of economic growth above 5 percent for Israel, even despite conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian militants. The cost of the war was only reported to be 0.3 percent of the Israeli GDP, and not the previously estimated 1 percent, making the growth rate for 2006 5.1 percent. According to the article, "The three consecutive years of strong growth have been accompanied by high levels of foreign investment that has been relatively unaffected by violence in the Palestinian territories and intermittent attacks on Israelis." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared in a speech in December, only four months after the war with Lebanon, that Israel's economy had never been healthier and that the small nation's exports exceeded their imports by billions of dollars for the first time.

"This is the first year in the history of the state in which exports exceed imports by billions of dollars," he said.
Additionally, The Economist has ranked Israel among the five fastest-growing emerging markets in the world, up 12 places from 48th largest economy in the early '80s to 36th largest from 2001-05, during which period it survived two Palestinian intifadas and two wars with lebanon, the Gulf war and numerous attacks from Iraqi missiles.

Palestinians intifadas and two wars in Lebanon in addition to being on the fringe of the 1991 Gulf War, in which it was hit by dozens of Iraqi missiles. S&P updated Israel's credit rating this month from "stable" to "positive", reflecting the "improved resilience of Israel's public finances and economy to geopolitical shocks after a three-year period of fiscal consolidation and strong economic growth."
On the negative side of things, the Histadrut, the Israeli labor federation, has called for a broad general strike this week which will likely effect government offices, and even public transportation, airports and schools. The strike is a result of the government's failure to pay thousands of municipal employees because of issues with the transfer of funds between the national government and municipalities.
Israel's GDP is significantly reduced by the vast amount of money it spends on its military forces, but a good amount of Israel's money comes from foreign investment--with the country attracting a total of $20 billion last year alone, most of which goes into the technology field, in which Israel has always excelled, with many of Israel's technological advancements being spinnoffs and innovations from the military division. The Tel Aviv stock market, the article says, has gone up about 25 percent since the war, even with the threat of more fighting with Hezbollah, Syria and possibly Iran. The economy's buoyancy can be explained by "free-market policies, budgetary restraint, tax cuts, privitization and the opening of the market to the free movement of goods, services and capital. Inflation is near zero, and reserves stand at $28 billion."

Nehemia Shtrasler, economics editor of the Ha'aretz newspaper, said the economy's buoyancy is explained by free-market policies, including budgetary restraint, tax cuts, privatization and the opening of the market to the free movement of goods, services and capital. Inflation is near zero, and reserves stand at $28 billion.

I think that Israel's economic growth just further proves the resiliency and strength of the country. The Israeli economy's growth over the past 5 years has been far greater than that of any western country, and especially that of any other country in the middle east. Their ability to sustain such a significant and well-trained and equipped army in addition to bearing the weight of a war and numerous attacks, and all the while still being able to grow economically shows the country's strength even more. A huge amount of this growth can be attributed to foreign investment and the tourism industry. Still though, Israel's strong economy proves its stability and gives weight to their side in the argument over their right to existence.

Reading Response Paper #3--"We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families"

The Hutus and the Tutsis are the two major tribes that live in Rwanda. The tribes have been engaged in a continuous battle over the years, with each one, at times, having the upper hand. The tension between the Hutus and the Tutsis is historical, with the presence of a mutual disrespect for the other tribe, and a battle for social dominance ever present. The tension between the tribes grew and intensified over the years, eventually bringing about a violent and bloody genocide. The historical conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis is hard to exact, as it has been passed down orally through the generations, but it is an accepted fact that both tribes were immigrants to Rwanda. The Tutsis, who originate from the Nile Region—probably Ethiopia—moved in from the East and North. The Hutus came from the Bantu family and were the first of the two tribes to come to Rwanda. The difference in where these peoples came from, globally, lends to a significant difference in their physical appearances, with the Tutsis typically being tall and gangly, with slim faces, and the Hutus possessing the complete opposite characteristics, being known as short, dark colored, round faced people with big lips. Throughout the years, however, a generation of mixed race has emerged—children who have one Hutu and one Tutsi parent—have made it difficult to distinguish between the tribes. This generation emerged as a result of one-time friendly relations between the tribes. These good relations can be attributed to the fact that they were able to speak the same language and share land, leaders and mutual enemies against whom they could unite. This mixed race that has emerged from the inter-relations of the two tribes makes it difficult to label the Hutus or the Tutsis as a distinct ethnic group. Their respective gene pools have been so intertwined that their distinctions no longer set them apart as separate ethnicities. The harmony between the tribes gradually evaporated, as the Tutsis attained greater status than the Hutus in public social spheres and distanced themselves from the Hutu people. The Hutus were modest famers, while the Tutsis raised cattle (a far more glamorous profession). In 1860 when King Mwami Kigeri Rwabuiri, a Tutsi, gained power, he brought immense wealth and political strength to his people. After his death in 1894, Germany assumed control of the country and, knowing very little about Rwandan culture or societal structure, embraced the pre-existing structure of the country, rather than trying to overhaul it. This only added to the upper hand the Tutsis already had on the situation, because of the German reinforcement of their position. At the end of World War I, authority over the German colony of Rwanda was transferred to Belgium, and the new ruler made life even harder for the Hutus. Tutsis could pretty much make Hutus their slaves, and had the authority to tax them as well. Hutu disdain toward the Tutsis intensified—turning to hatred and the Tutsi mindset that looked down on the Hutus intensified as well, creating a crash course bound to end in fighting. This situation can’t really be looked on as a caste system, as there was a significant degree of social mobility, until Rwanda lost its autonomy to Germany and then Belgium. The distinction between the two groups has definitely changed a lot over time. In today’s terms, it has become more of a distinction of origin and social status, as well as one of political rights and restrictions, than race or ethnicity.

Synagogue Encouraging West Bank Settlement of Jews Draws Protesters; Gets National News Coverage

The New York Times Monday, February 26, 2007 "Seeking New Israeli Settlers, Synagogue Draws Protesters" By: Trymaine Lee

A real estate fair in Teaneck, New Jersey, sponsored, in part, by Bnai Yeshurun synagogue, that encouraged Americans to buy homes in the West Bank prompted protests, while Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, of the Bnai Yeshurun synagogue, called it a success. The fair aimed to get American Jews to buy and possibly occupy moderately priced homes in the West Bank's Jewish settlements. Homes that were bought, but whose buyers did not want to live in them would be returned to Jewish settlers of the area. Pruzansky considers the act "fulfilling a biblical commandment"--the commandment for Jews to settle in the land of Israel.
Still though, part of the 2003 "road map" to peace (drawn up by the US, UN, EU and Russia) to which Israel agreed stated that Israel would halt all settlement growth in the West Bank, and that in return, Palestinians would disarm militant groups there. Not un-historically, however, the plan stalled shortly after its introduction. The US sees Jewish settlements in the West Bank as obstacles to peace, as they are on land the Palestinians hope to one day call their state.
Pruzansky puts it in less optimistic, yet possibly more realistic terms, saying, "Peace is an illusion already... By having Jews live there, we are strengthening the land, adding a safeguard."
Israeli government, probably to Pruzansky's dismay, however, has all but cut off funding for new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank (one of the reasons for "real estate fairs" such as the one in New Jersey have come into being-- to reallocate money from the pockets of wealthy American Jews into the settlements of the West Bank).
The real estate fair was criticized by both Amnesty International and pro-Palestinian groups. Protesters chanting "racists, racists, racists" assembled across the street from the synagogue during the fair. Protesters said that "what, in essence, we are protesting--that you have a group taking land away from Palestinians, Muslims and Christians and givin it to Jewish people from all over the world." According to Pruzansky, however, these protesters didn't sour the fair, they just gave it "some free publicity".
The Amana Settlement Movement, the Israeli housing group at the fair, said the homes would be built on land owned by the Israeli government and that is designated for settlement. It is not land that is currently being inhabited, and it would not displace anyone.


While I'm not sure that I am in favor of the existence of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, I definitely do not take the side of the protesters of the real estate fair either. The issue has nothing to do with racism of any kind. It has to do with the Jewish religious belief that the Jews are entitled to and meant to inhabit all parts of the land of Israel. That's why the fair was held at a synagogue and not a consulate. While there is a looming possibility of the West Bank becoming part of a Palestinian state, the area is currently one under Israeli control, and one in desperate need of modernization and development--something the Amana Settlement Movement would bring to the area. Additionally, in the "road map for peace" plan, the Palestinians did not stick to their end of the deal either, with the West Bank being the primary area for secret operations of Palestinian militant groups, and they are definitely not disarmed, so they are just as guilty as Israel in not maintaining the peace plan. The homes being sold in the West Bank are not being sold at rock bottom prices, as the protesters, one of whose signs (in the article's photograph) reads "Support Ethnic Cleansing-- Buy Stolen Palestinian Land CHEAP" would have you believe. The mean price for one of the Amana homes is in the $117,000 range-- near the same price a modest suburban home in the American Midwest would cost. On the contrary, the land is not stolen, and has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. The land is under the authority of the Israeli government, and no one would be displaced from it to build these homes or to put Jewish settlers into them. Additionally, many Jews who want to move to Israel can not afford to live in areas such as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, due to the almost astronomical cost of living there, and would not be able to realize their dream of making aliah (immigrating) to Israel otherwise. The West Bank is not the most appealing of real estate, it is, as of now, still the right of a Jew or Israeli citizen to live there, even if the Knesset isn't in full support.

Israel Enforces Curfew on West Bank Town of Nablus after two Bomb Laboratories are Found-- Palestinians find "aggression" against peace efforts...

Accompanying an article appearing in the Monday, February 26, 2007 New York Times titled "Israeli Troops Place Curfew on West Bank City", there is a picture of a desolate looking West Bank street, lined with run down Arab shops, and depicting two army vehicles patrolling down the street as, as the caption states, "A Palestinian youth ran from Israeli military vehicles yesterday in Nablus after a curfew had been imposed."--inciting the reader to look at the Israeli forces as oppressors of the poor, peaceful, disenfranchised Palestinian people. To the contrary, however, the military operation (the biggest in the area in two years) came about after Israeli forces discovered two explosives factories in two days in the city, and, if I may be so bold as to say, it looks like the kid is about to pick up a rock and throw it.
In these factories, soldiers found pipe bombs, a hand-held Lau guided missile and launcher (that had belonged to the Israeli Army), and lots of bomb-making materials. The operation to enforce the curfew began Saturday and intensified throughout the night, with 100 Israeli Jeeps and armored vehicles blocking Nablus roadways and troops began sweeps of the historical city. Palestinian responses ranged from people throwing chunks of concrete and stones to the firing of weapons, wounding two Israeli soldiers. Six Palestinians were wounded as well, by rubber coated Israeli bullets, fired in defense.
Nablus, a large city in the West Bank, is known to harbor numerous Palestinian militants, and the Israeli army regularly patrols the area, but this new operation was devised to "trim back" militant groups who were stock piling materials (such as the explosives and rockets found in the bomb factories earlier in the week). Hamas, which is much more secretive in the West Bank than in Gaza has been secretly organizing in Nablus and has been secretly recruiting for a "police force", as the one in Gaza is dominated by the rival Fatah faction.
Some 10,000 people in central Nablus were said to be under curfew, with schools being cancelled and Israeli forces taking control of the TV and radio waves. The crackdown was said to remain in effect for several days. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said this situation will, "undermine the efforts that are being made to sustain the cease-fire with Israel." Additionally, Abbas has said, "This aggression by the Israeli occupation government is like cutting the road forward after all our efforts to find peace." Hamas officials say the raid had meant to undermine efforts at creating a unified Hamas-Fatah government.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong in Israel's actions here. They found BOMB factories--- it is their duty to protect themselves, especially from a group of decentralized guerilla fighters who are ready and willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill Jews and Israelis. How can the Palestinians say that Israelis protecting themselves from bombings is undermining cease fire efforts, when these Palestinians who claim to be in a cease fire are mass producing explosives?
Additionally, I'd like to express my extreme dislike of The New York Times. Its crybaby liberal bias against Israel is pretty ridiculous. First a huge string of articles outlining how corrupt the Knesset is--when there is other more important Israel-related news to print, followed up by articles with a strong bias to the Palestinian cause. All in all, I see nothing wrong with the preventative measures taken by Israel in this situation, and I think the response of Palestinian and Arab leaders to this issue just goes further to show how untrustworthy and unwilling to compromise and reform they really are.