Did Livni mean what she said? Did Livni intend transfer of Israeli Arabs?

Jawad Boulous, Haaretz, 26.11.07. I heard Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni declare last week that the Palestinian state would provide a national solution for all the Palestinians, including those who live inside Israel. The minister in effect was offering her understanding of the real significance of Israel's insistence on conditioning its participation in the Annapolis conference on Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The connection Livni made between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian citizens of the State of Israel - by saying that both of them could find their solution in a future Palestinian state - did not leave much to the imagination, for this time the remarks were made by the foreign minister and in the name of the Israeli government, and herein lies the danger. Since the state's establishment, its leaders have refused to internalize the fact that an Arab Palestinian minority remained here. Their decision to stay and live on their lands constituted a painful reminder to the leaders of the Zionist movement about the way in which reality failed to conform to Israel Zangwill's well-known slogan that saw this as "a land without a people for a people without a land." One cannot help but be shocked at how the foreign minister dared to say what she did without the very foundations of the state being rocked. If she does not correct her statements or apologize in the near future, her direct superior, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will be obliged to clarify the government's standpoint in a clear and unequivocal manner, and instruct her to apologize. If she refuses to do so, he must show her the way out.

Over the years, Israeli leaders competed with one another in coining racist slogans that would bear evidence of their desire to rid themselves of that national minority - expressions such as "drugged cockroaches in a bottle," "a cancer in the body of the state" and "fifth column" - lines that became engraved deeply upon the consciousness of the Arab minority. These sentiments served as a reminder that at least some Israeli policy-makers believe, as part of their conceptual understanding and basic worldview, that Israel should not become reconciled to the existence of the Arab-Palestinian minority in its midst. Against this backdrop, it is possible to understand the policy of discrimination that is wielded against the Arab minority - a policy that is in fact a symptom of a sick body that refuses to accept the minority as one of its own natural organs.

Livni's declaration is seen in the eyes of many as a significant step toward the implementation of the transfer plan that in days gone by was the declared dream of marginal political figures and bodies. Now apparently we are no longer talking about a contingency plan, but rather about a fact that all the Arab population in Israel must regard with utmost seriousness and place at the head of its concerns. If this understanding is mistaken, Foreign Minister Livni and the government of Israel are obligated to declare in no uncertain terms that the state is not planning any kind of transfer.

And for their part, the leaders and institutions of the Arab minority must hold a thorough and responsible discussion, and perhaps must also rethink, the way in which they will conduct the long and ongoing struggle for survival inside this country. At the end of the road, it is not sufficient to shout and to act like a victim, since even a victim has to find ways to protect himself if he is to survive.

The author is an attorney who represents, among others, Marwan Barghouti.

Tzipi Livni and Olmert Peace

Uri Avnery, Gush Shalom, 3.11.07. LAST WEEK, the Dutch government approached the Israeli Foreign Office with a request to enable Palestinian flower-growers in the Gaza Strip to export their wares to the land of the tulips. Tzipi Livni, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, was unable to fulfill this modest request. The army forbade it. I COULD NOT help smiling when I read about Tzipi Livni's decision to set up a peace staff. The state was born in war. Its heroes were the army commanders. The evaluations of Army Intelligence and the reports of the Mossad trump all the papers of the Foreign Office. If Olmert wants to achieve a historic breakthrough, he will make sure he himself gets full credit for the achievement. If he turns it over to his rival, that means it has no chance at all. The Israeli Foreign Minister speechifies, declares and announces, but it is not clear where she would be leading our foreign policy, if she were indeed allowed to lead it. After two years on the job, her political image is pale and blurred.

One time she tries to outflank Olmert on the left, another time on the right. One day she speaks about the necessity to deal with the "core issues", another day she says that the time is not ripe for a final settlement. She supported the recent Lebanon war, but now she criticizes it severely. After the publication of the Winograd commission's interim report, she called for Olmert's resignation, intending to replace him herself, but when that little putsch-attempt collapsed, she remained in his government and continues to bear responsibility for his actions and omissions.

Livni detests Olmert, and Olmert detests Livni. True, both come "from the same village" - Ehud's father and Tzipi's father were both senior members of the Irgun. Both were raised in the same right-wing political atmosphere, both drank from the same fountain. When Livni's mother died a few weeks ago, they stood next to each other at the funeral and sang the Betar anthem: "Silence is garbage / Sacrifice blood and soul / For the hidden glory…" (Betar, which still exists, was the right-wing youth movement that gave birth to the Irgun*.)

* Irgun Commander 1943-1948. Menachem Begin

Letter warning of Zionist Fascism in Israel that Einstein, Hanna Arendt and many others sent to the New York Times 1948, protesting the visit of Menachem Begin

M. Olmert fixe des objectifs limités à la conférence de paix prévue à Washington

Michel Bôle-Richard, Le Monde, 17/09/07. Le premier ministre israélien, Ehoud Olmert, a considérablement refroidi les espoirs d'une avancée majeure des négociations avec les Palestiniens, dans la perspective d'une réunion internationale, vers la mi-novembre, aux Etats-Unis. Malgré trois rencontres, en août, entre M. Olmert et M. Abbas, les pourparlers n'ont guère progressé. Après les derniers entretiens, il avait été décidé de constituer une groupe de travail afin de faire avancer les discussions. Il devrait se réunir pour la première fois cette semaine afin de tenter d'aboutir à une position commune. Pour le moment, les divergences sont profondes. Les Israéliens souhaitent se cantonner à une déclaration

REUTERS/POOL
Ehoud Olmert et Tzipi Livni, dimanche 16 septembre à Jérusalem.

générale en vue d'objectifs communs sans s'avancer sur un calendrier. Tzipi Livni, ministre des affaires étrangères ne cesse de répéter que la réunion de Washington ne sera pas le cadre pour engager des négociations. Pour le moment, ni le lieu, ni les invités, ni l'objet même de cette réunion ne sont fixés.

De leur côté, les Palestiniens veulent parvenir à un document détaillé, avec un agenda pour sa mise en place. Mahmoud Abbas insiste pour que les question fondamentales que sont la délimitation des frontières, le statut de Jérusalem et le douloureux problème du retour des réfugiés soient abordées afin que la création d'un Etat palestinien, que tout le monde affirme appeler de ses voeux, soit véritablement au centre des pourparlers. L'un de ses proches conseillers, Nimr Hamad, a indiqué que, si la réunion de Washington "ne sert qu'à entériner une déclaration commune, cela ne vaut pas la peine d'y aller".

C'est dans ce climat que Condoleezza Rice, secrétaire d'Etat américaine, doit arriver, mardi 18 septembre, pour une visite de deux jours afin de se rendre compte de l'état d'avancement des discussions. Il ne reste plus que deux mois pour trouver la bonne formule permettant de relancer les pourparlers après sept années de blocage. Pour le moment, ni le lieu, ni les invités, ni l'objet même de cette réunion ne sont fixés.

Comme a déjà averti Amr Moussa, président de la Ligue arabe : "Nous devons nous opposer aux tentatives de vider la réunion de son sens dont je vois le signe dans certaines déclarations israéliennes." De leur côté, les Saoudiens ont clairement fait savoir qu'ils ne participeraient pas à cette réunion "si elle ne répond pas aux problèmes essentiels".

This is how the moderates look

Gideon Levy , Haaretz, 13/09/07. Haim Ramon has made a big comeback. As if renewing the Hebrew language, he has coined the term "infrastructural oxygen" - Israel should strike a blow at Gaza's infrastructural oxygen. Faithful to his suggestions in the Second Lebanon War ("It is permissible to destroy everything"), he is now the progenitor of the doctrine advocating cutting off the electricity, fuel and water supply to Gaza. Ramon is very proud of his demonic plan: "It's the first time the government has discussed these types of proposals," he said. In his eyes, the legal aspect is "hallucinatory"; there is no difference between Hamas and Al-Qaida. And what will happen if this cutoff of water and electricity to Gaza is not effective? "Until we try, we'll never know," the minister told an interviewer. That is, we are dealing with an experiment on human beings. As we all know, Ramon is a representative of a centrist party and is considered one of the party's moderates. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is a moderate, too. She also supports the Ramon doctrine. She says that, "It is inconceivable that life in Gaza continues to be normal." In the view of the moderate foreign minister, life in Gaza is "normal" - it seems she has no idea about what life is really like there - and a cutoff of supplies will bring an end to the Qassams. The hungry, thirsty and suffocating populace will exert pressure and, hocus pocus, there will be no more Qassams. These crazy ideas have elicited fewer arguments among us than the proposals to require bicycle riders to wear helmets. The whole debate was conducted in a dignified manner: One person proposes cutting off electricity, while another suggests putting an end to the supply of cigarettes and perfume. No one expresses any opposition or calls out in protest - all we have to do is hear the position of the legal advisors, to decide and then to execute. Avigdor Lieberman, Shaul Mofaz and Avi Dichter have become superfluous: The moderates are doing the necessary work. Israeli discourse has become monstrous - and the terrible thing about it is that these are no longer the proposals of the loony fringes, but rather of the centrist stream. How does the right-wing put it? "There are no moderate Palestinians." Well, there are no moderate Israelis. When it comes to us, the center is the right in disguise. But, as luck would have it, just as this incitement to commit war crimes was being raised, a report was issued at the end of last week by Human Rights Watch, a reputable and unbiased American organization. The report mentions evidence that Israel Defense Forces officers were responsible for committing war crimes in Lebanon and that Israel seriously violated international law in indiscriminately killing hundreds of citizens. Ramon and Livni's proposals have prepared the ground for the next report. After implementing the Ramon plan, the call will intensify to boycott Israel and bring those responsible for the next crime to trial. There is no room for debating legal nuances: Inflicting intentional harm against a civilian population constitutes a war crime. And 40 years of occupation in Gaza has not ended - it has only changed form. But Ramon's path is not only illegal and immoral, it is also ineffective. How long will we continue to believe that striking a population will make it more moderate? Are 40 years of bitter experience not enough to teach us that the opposite is true? Another question: Is Gilad Shalit's fate more dear to us than the fate of the children of Sderot? Why is it permissible to negotiate with Hamas when it comes to Shalit, while the option of similar talks with the group on a cease-fire - the only way to ensure the safety of Sderot's children - is considered heresy? The parents in Sderot should have been the first to call upon the government to reach a cease-fire, instead of dispatching the IDF into Gaza and carrying out Ramon's zany proposals. We should recall for a moment the last electric blackout we experienced. In June 2006, the Israel Electric Corporation implemented electric outages lasting several hours - just several hours. All hell was raised: Telephone exchanges collapsed as people stuck in elevators called for help; a resident of Ofakim who was attached to an oxygen machine was hospitalized in serious condition. Are Livni and Ramon prepared to realize the significance of cutting off "the infrastructural oxygen" for days and weeks? Are they ready to take responsibility for doing so after the world has had its say and perhaps even takes action? Several convicted statesmen are already sitting in the prisons in The Hague.