Arab response to Obama peace initiative?

The Egyptian government supported newspaper Al Gomhouriya has shown the response of one of the closest United States Arab allies to the Obama peace initiative, calling on the Palestinians to adhere to "resistance" (terrorism).

 

Egyptian Government Daily 'Al-Gumhouriyya': The Palestinian People, All of It, Should Adhere to the Path of Resistance

In response to statements byPalestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the sixth Fatah conference regarding the Palestinians' right to resistance, [1] the Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhouriyya published a short editorial supporting his position and calling on the Palestinians to persist in resistance in order to obtain their rights.

The following is a translation of the editorial: [2]

"PA President Mahmoud 'Abbas provoked the wrath of the radical racists who rule Israel when he mentioned, at the Fatah conference, that the Palestinians have a right to resistance [muqawama] if the peace process has failed to restore their historic rights, and especially [their right] to their stolen land, to an independent state and to the return of the refugees.

"The angry racists in Israel have deluded themselves [into thinking] that the Palestinian people have laid down their arms, to which they clung so steadfastly throughout their exhausting and noble struggle, and have capitulated to the illusion of the peace process and the [empty] talk of the negotiation tables. The Palestinian people has gained nothing [from the peace process] except strife among comrades-in-arms, which are [now] divided into [two camps] - the fighters and the negotiators; while the Israelis have gained time to carry out their plans to Judaize Jerusalem and settle the West Bank, and to prepare for throwing those whom they call 'Israeli Arabs' over the Green Line.

"The Palestinian people, all of it, has no choice but to cling to the path of resistance, like all the oppressed people who seized their freedom and rights through force and steadfastness, struggle and unity..."

---

[1] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 538, "Fatah Members: The Principle of Resistance and Armed Struggle Must Not Be Relinquished," August 6, 2009, http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA53809.

[2] Al-Gumhouriyya (Egypt), August 7, 2009.

A miltary option in Iran?

Of course there is a military option in Iran, as there is always a military option. The questions are, who is willing to pay the price, and what is the alternative? It is quite true that raising the possibility of miltary action makes it clear to Iran that the USA means business about stopping Iranian weapons programs. It can also scare everyone half to death.

 

AUGUST 6, 2009, 11:35 P.M. ET
There Is a Military Option on Iran
U.S. Air Force and Naval forces could do serious damage to Tehran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails.

 

By CHUCK WALD
In a policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Iran, "We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage." But the Iranian government has yet to accept President Obama's outstretched hand. Even if Tehran suddenly acceded to talks, U.S. policy makers must prepare for the eventuality that diplomacy fails. While there has been much discussion of economic sanctions, we cannot neglect the military's role in a Plan B.

 

There has been a lack of serious public discussion of the military tools available to us. Any mention of them is either met with accusations of warmongering or hushed with concerns over sharing sensitive information. It is important to discuss, within legal limits, such a serious issue as openly as possible. Discussion strengthens our democracy and dispels misinformation.

 

The military can play an important role in solving this complex problem without firing a single shot. Publicly signaling serious preparation for a military strike might obviate the need for one if deployments force Tehran to recognize the costs of its nuclear defiance. Mr. Obama might consider, for example, the deployment of additional carrier battle groups and minesweepers to the waters off Iran, and the conduct of military exercises with allies.

 

If such pressure fails to impress Iranian leadership, the U.S. Navy could move to blockade Iranian ports. A blockade—which is an act of war—would effectively cut off Iran's gasoline imports, which constitute about one-third of its consumption. Especially in the aftermath of post-election protests, the Iranian leadership must worry about the economic dislocations and political impact of such action.

 

Should these measures not compel Tehran to reverse course on its nuclear program, and only after all other diplomatic avenues and economic pressures have been exhausted, the U.S. military is capable of launching a devastating attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

 

Many policy makers and journalists dismiss the military option on the basis of a false sense of futility. They assume that the U.S. military is already overstretched, that we lack adequate intelligence about the location of covert nuclear sites, and that known sites are too heavily fortified.

 

Such assumptions are false.

 

An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would mostly involve air assets, primarily Air Force and Navy, that are not strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the presence of U.S. forces in countries that border Iran offers distinct advantages. Special Forces and intelligence personnel already in the region can easily move to protect key assets or perform clandestine operations. It would be prudent to emplace additional missile-defense capabilities in the region, upgrade both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expand strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia to pressure Iran from all directions.

 

Conflict may reveal previously undetected Iranian facilities as Iranian forces move to protect them. Moreover, nuclear sites buried underground may survive sustained bombing, but their entrances and exits will not.

 

Of course, there are huge risks to military action: U.S. and allied casualties; rallying Iranians around an unstable and oppressive regime; Iranian reprisals be they direct or by proxy against us and our allies; and Iranian-instigated unrest in the Persian Gulf states, first and foremost in Iraq.

 

Furthermore, while a successful bombing campaign would set back Iranian nuclear development, Iran would undoubtedly retain its nuclear knowhow. An attack would also necessitate years of continued vigilance, both to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites and to ensure that Iran does not revive its nuclear program.

 

But the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing. If the Iranian regime continues to advance its nuclear program despite the best efforts of Mr. Obama and other world leaders, we risk Iranian domination of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, threats to U.S.-allied Arab regimes, the emboldening of radicals in the region, the creation of an existential threat to Israel, the destabilization of Iraq, the shutdown of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, and a regional nuclear-arms race.

 

A peaceful resolution of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly be the best possible outcome. But should diplomacy and economic pressure fail, a U.S. military strike against Iran is a technically feasible and credible option.

 

Gen. Wald (U.S. Air Force four-star, retired) was the air commander for the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and deputy commander of the U.S. European Command. He was also a participant in the Bipartisan Policy Center's project on U.S. policy toward Iran, "Meeting the Challenge."

Oslo Revisited: Are the Fundamental Assumptions still Valid?

INSS Insight No. 122, August 7, 2009
Shalom, Zaki 

http://www.inss.org.il/research.php?cat=45&incat=&read=3150

 

In a Newsweek interview on June 22, 2009, former prime minister Ehud Olmert stated that in his talks with Mahmoud Abbas, he had made fairly detailed offers towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, including:

a.       Willingness by Israel to give the Palestinians 93.5-93.7 percent of the territories. The Palestinians would receive an additional 5.8 percent as part of a land swap.

b.      A safe passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Olmert did not state who would have sovereignty and control over this passage.

c.       Israel is not willing to accept the Palestinian demand for the right of return. At the same time, in the framework of a humanitarian gesture, Israel would be willing to accept the return of a defined number of refugees. Olmert did not specify a number, but made it clear that it would be "a very, very limited number."

d.      On Jerusalem, Olmert proposed that the Holy Basin be under no national sovereignty and be managed jointly by Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

Saeb Erekat, who was responsible for negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians, confirmed that Olmert's statements were correct.

There can be no doubt that this was a far reaching proposal, perhaps more so than all other offers ever made to the Palestinian leadership. Commentator Aluf Benn wrote (Haaretz, June 26, 2009) that Olmert offered to internationalize the Old City and its environs, i.e., he was willing to concede Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Mount of Olives, and perhaps even the City of David, and hand it over to a consortium with an Arab majority. No Israeli leader before Olmert supported internationalization of any part of Jerusalem. Even Yossi Beilin's Geneva accord spoke of dividing sovereignty in the Old City between Israel and a Palestinian state, not handing it over to an international entity.

The rejection of Olmert's offer as well as previous offers by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David (July 2000) and the Clinton parameters cast a heavy shadow of doubt over fundamental assumptions underlying the Oslo process. Two of these assumptions were:

a.       The Palestinian Authority, represented by the PLO, was working to realize the Palestinians' right to self-determination by forming a Palestinian state on territory conquered by Israel in the Six Day War.

b.      The Palestinian Authority was willing to reach an historic – and territorial – compromise with the State of Israel and the Zionist movement.

The rejection of the Barak and Olmert offers reflects what much of Israeli public opinion has long felt, namely, at critical moments the Palestinians find it difficult to make a decision in favor of a pragmatic compromise and almost perforce miss opportunities to realize their national aspirations. They thereby confirm the longstanding Israeli line, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." This assessment contrasts sharply with the model of the Zionist movement, which in its desire to obtain any territory whatsoever for the persecuted and existentially threatened Jewish people adopted a radically pragmatic attitude and was willing to accept almost any diplomatic plan, provided only that a sovereign Jewish state would be established in its framework.

The Palestinian leadership has demonstrated a radically different approach and seemingly operates on the principle of all or nothing. This questions the sincerity of the drive to establish an independent Palestinian state as a concrete political plan, as opposed to a vision for future generations. It is hard not to wonder whether the Palestinian leadership is intentionally blinding itself, thereby ignoring the fact that the dream of a Palestinian state is rapidly evaporating – although certain Palestinian leaders have admitted in recent months that the goal of establishing a Palestinian state is running aground on the shoals of reality.

Jewish communities in the West Bank have grown by major proportions. These communities have expanded under all Israeli governments, including significantly left wing governments. This clearly demonstrates that the process of Jewish settlement in the territories is deeply rooted within Israeli society, governing institutions, bureaucratic labyrinths, and political systems. Realistically, the Palestinians must conclude that barring anything drastic in the near future, Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria will expand with time, while the dream of a Palestinian state will consequently wither.

Following the withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 and the disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, the belief among much of the Israeli public in the land-for-peace formula has eroded. In contrast to the original optimism, withdrawal led to escalation and two bloody military confrontations. The results of Israel's February elections likely reflect this turnaround.

Any move towards a settlement that includes the formation of a Palestinian state, however small, will almost certainly require the evacuation of about 100,000 Israelis from the West Bank. The political reality in Israel gives rise to serious doubts regarding the likelihood of any government in the foreseeable future that would be able to carry out such a measure in the Israeli political arena.

Rejection of the Olmert plan may indicate that the Palestinian leadership regards the establishment of a state as part of its long term national vision, but not as an element in its concrete work plan. If (and this is a significant "if") this is indeed the Palestinian leadership's position, it can be explained in part by its serious concern that establishment of a Palestinian state will necessarily be accompanied by an almost complete withdrawal of IDF forces from Judea and Samaria. This would mean that the massive preventative actions conducted daily by the IDF and other security forces against terrorist organizations throughout the West Bank would be almost completely halted. In these circumstances, the status of the current Palestinian leadership would be greatly weakened. It is very likely that within a short time Hamas would succeed in driving it out of power. Therefore, the current leadership would presumably try to preempt any such scenario, even though it will never be able to admit this.

Another possible explanation is that the Palestinian leadership believes that time is on its side. From an historical perspective, the Palestinian national leadership can look back at recent decades with great satisfaction. The combination of diplomacy and violence brought a national movement that was rejected and ostracized both internationally and in the Arab world to the status of a powerful organization that frequently receives a highly significant place on the global agenda. This organization has to a great extent redesigned the political map in Israel, and was perhaps responsible more than any other factor for the rise and fall of Israeli leaders in recent decades. It caused a dramatic movement on the Israeli right towards the center and even to the left. The speeches by Palestinian leaders at the Fatah summit (August 2009) demonstrate that they continue to endorse the combination of political activity with popular resistance as a winning formula.

It is thus possible that the Palestinian leadership believes it has no reason to accept a compromise, even an offer as magnanimous as Olmert's; after all, historic experience indicates continual erosion in Israeli positions with respect to "the territories." In these circumstances, they might believe that future Israeli governments will have to make much more generous offers to the Palestinians. President Obama's determined efforts to halt Jewish settlement in the West Bank, including Jerusalem while ignoring understandings on this issue with the preceding US administration, and the erosion in the Likud's position on the issue of the establishment of a Palestinian state, as reflected in Binyamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar Ilan University, are likely to reinforce these Palestinian assessments.

In any case, the rejection of the Olmert proposals questions the validity of the assumptions regarding the willingness of the Palestinian leadership to reach an historic territorial compromise with Israel – assumptions that formed the basis of the decision to embark on the Oslo process. The phrase "territorial compromise" is basically an abstract concept that is difficult to translate into concrete physical terms. What many Israelis regard as a compromise, even a far reaching one, is not necessarily regarded as such by the Palestinians. Moreover, for significant parts of the Israeli public, the Olmert plan presumably represents less of a compromise and more of a yielding to the dictates of the Palestinian Authority.   

Good news about Iran?

Iran will require a least four more years to produce weapons grade uranium, according to experts. That is good news, as it gives everyone in the Middle East time to do essential things like write their wills - we have at least four more years to live, all other things being equal. Of course, experts have been wrong before. It is important to realize that the reality, whatever it is, did not change, only the pronouncements of experts. In 2001, the experts would have assured us that Iran had no uranium enrichment program at all, and the experts would have been wrong.

 

These experts are the same sort of people who could not see the Islamic revolution coming in Iran. They are the same experts who did not predict 9-11, and who insisted that there were WMD in Iraq. Quite a good record! So we had better believe them, right?

 

Another cause for confidence is that the report was prepared by Dennis C. Blair. Blair is the fellow who tried to appoint Arab lobbyist Charles Freeman to an important intelligence post. Freeman is the guy who said that the Tibet protests against Chinese occupation were race riots, and approved of the Tienanmen massacre, which he claimed was too tardy. So we know that Blair has excellent judgement.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

Iran Years From Fuel For Bomb, Report Says
U.S. Analysts Also Discount Strength Of Russian Military

 

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 7, 2009

 

Despite Iran's progress since 2007 toward producing enriched uranium, the State Department's intelligence analysts continue to think that Tehran will not be able to produce weapons-grade material before 2013, according to a newly disclosed congressional document.

 

The updated assessment, by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, emphasizes that the analysis is based on Iran's technical capability and is not a judgment about "when Iran might make any political decision" to produce highly enriched uranium.

 

The intelligence community agrees that a political decision has not yet been made. According to the assessment, State Department analysts think such a decision is unlikely to be made "for at least as long as international scrutiny and pressure persist."

 

The views on Iran's nuclear program are contained among answers in a document supplied by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence after a hearing in February. Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, obtained the document through a Freedom of Information Act request and published it Thursday on his Web site.

 

Among items included in the document is an analysis of Russia's military status. Blair concluded the Russian military "is a shadow of its Soviet predecessor." Its conventional forces are "not a direct military threat to central or western Europe," and its ability to project large forces abroad "is very limited."

 

In fact, according to the intelligence analysis, Moscow appears to be emphasizing the creation of a "smaller, more professional, mobile, survivable, highly technical military," one more adapted to deal with countries on its borders, except for China. The analysis describes recent Russian naval activities in the Mediterranean, the Indian and Pacific oceans, and the North Atlantic as "show the flag" exercises.

 

As a sign of the limitations, Moscow has "consistently" kept its defense spending to less than 3 percent of its gross national product in recent years. U.S. defense spending this year is around 4.7 percent of its gross domestic product.

 

The collapse of world oil prices, along with the worldwide economic slowdown, has helped curb Russia's defense spending. The intelligence report says that the country faces its first recession in years and that its companies are about $450 billion in debt to Western financial institutions.

 

Closer to home, Blair said that the intelligence community continues to look for al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States and that the FBI is particularly interested in people with contacts with "militants in Pakistan's FATA," the area near the Afghanistan border.

Secret of Zionist conspiratorial success revealed: The Other Israel

Don't reveal this pernicious Zionist plot to anyone.  

 

The 'other Israel'

 

'War-torn' land is in fact economic, scientific, cultural powerhouse

 

Yoram Ettinger
Published:  08.07.09, 00:15 / Israel Opinion

 

1. Bankruptcy rate in Israel is one of the lowest in the world (19% increase during the first half of 2009), compared with the US - 45% increase, Spain - 58%, Spain - 75% and Switzerland - 15% (Yedioth Ahronoth, July 27, 2009).

 

 

2. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange has rebounded to its September 10, 2008 (meltdown) level, scoring a 50% surge (Yedioth Ahronoth, July 27).

 

3. Sequoia Capital and Tanya Capital led a $15.5MN round of private placement by Israel's Kontera (Globes, July 24). Intel Capital, Cisco, Greylock Ventures and Menlo Ventures participated in a $13MN round by Israel's AeroScout (Globes, June 29). The Boston-based media giant, Medtronics, invested over $10MN in the Israeli VC fund, TriVentures (Globes, June 23). Motorola Ventures, Stata Venture Partners, Argonaut and Walden participated in a $10MN 4th round by Israel's Amimon (Globes, July 15). Arts Alliance Digital Ventures invested $9MN in Israel' YCD Multimedia (Globes, June 23). Innogest, Italy's largest venture capital fund, invested $8MN in the Israeli-Italian company, beeTV (Globes, June 4). The Boston-based Globespan Capital and Spark Capital invested $7.5MN in Israel's 5min, their 3rd investment in Israel (Globes, July 24).

 

 

 

4. Intel Vice President for Technology and Manufacturing Group and General Manager of Intel Israel (6 plants, 6,500 employees!), Maxine Fassberg: "We have developed breakthroughs in Israel that have changed the face of computerization…In Israel, we are developing and manufacturing network and communication products as well as microprocessors – in parallel to spearheading the mobile domain in Intel Corp. Among the technologies developed here are MMX, which constitutes the basis of the Pentium processor, platforms for Intel Centrino mobile computers and the Intel Core 2Duo processor. In addition, the first fast Ethernet and first wireless LAN (Local Area Network) were developed here…(Jerusalem Post, May 23, 2009).

 

 

 

5. The Med's best-kept secret (excerpts of Willy Stern, The Weekly Standard, July 27, 2009):
 

 

"Perhaps nowhere else on the globe does there exist a greater discrepancy between perception and reality than Israel. The press portrays the country as a savage land racked by war and terrorism... The reality, though, is a country of 7.4 million people whose stock market and economy are humming along quite nicely (at least in contrast to the rest of the globe) and whose citizens revel in their chic Mediterranean lifestyle…

 

 

 

"In Israel, life goes on. The Western newspapers just don't notice… Israel today has become a vibrant, functioning jewel of a nation tucked into the eastern flank of the Mediterranean. Tel Aviv looks more like San Diego or Barcelona than Baghdad or Kabul. On a recent five-mile run along Tel Aviv's Gordon Beach, I saw Israeli yuppies cycling the boardwalk on $1,500 Italian mountain bikes, teenagers in full-body wetsuits surfing the breakers, a deep-cleavaged Russian model (nobody seemed to know her name) doing a photo shoot in a skimpy bikini whilst middle-aged Israeli men with potbellies and hairy chests shamelessly gawked, rows of high-priced yachts docked at the Tel Aviv marina, an endless stream of private planes on final approach to small Sde Dov Airport, and two Israeli soldiers in drab green uniforms making out in the sand and drinking Heineken. A nation at war? It seemed more like high season at Coney Island…

 

 

 

"Israel has a world class cultural scene. Want to see Franco Zeffirelli and Daniel Barenboim? No problem. The Alvin Ailey Dance Company visits. The opera plays to audiences at 97 percent capacity. Even at lower pay, (Israel) attracts the best talents from around the globe…

 

"Israel enjoys top universities, upscale restaurants, million-dollar homes, hoity-toity architecture, and the like. In the fourth quarter last year, when the global economy went all to hell, Israel's annual, quarter-over-quarter rate of GDP was only off 0.5 percent, the best figure in the industrialized world. (The United States was off 6.3 percent and Japan 12.1 percent.) 'Think about the resistance of our economy in recent times,' suggests Zvi Eckstein, deputy governor of the Bank of Israel. 'Our prime minister (has a stroke). The war in Gaza. The war in Lebanon. The government gets replaced. But we've maintained a stable macroeconomic structure and a strong high-tech sector…'

 

 

 

What's the secret? A very conservative banking system…No mortgage crisis…A current account surplus since 2003…Negligible inflation…Prudent governmental fiscal policy… Healthy integration into the world economy. Last year, 483 Israeli high-tech companies raised a whopping $2.08BN (only US companies raised more). All the major tech players – Google, Microsoft, IBM – have large research centers in Israel. They go where the talent is…'Israel is today the third-hottest spot (after Silicon Valley and Boston) for high-tech venture capital in the world…' Israel produces more science papers per capita than any other country. Israel lags behind only the United States in number of companies listed on NASDAQ. Twenty-four percent of Israel's workforce has a university degree; only the United States and Holland have a higher number. Israel leads the world in scientists and technicians per capita…
 
"The cell phone? Developed in Israel. Ditto for most of the Windows NT operating system and for voice mail technology. Pentium MMX Chip technology? Designed in Israel. AOL Instant Messenger? Developed in Israel. The list goes on. Firewall security software originated in Israel. The latest breakthrough is the "PillCam," a video camera that can be swallowed and aids physicians in diagnosing intestinal cancer…it seems the other Israel - the land not of terrorists but of milk and honey and goats - may finally be being discovered."

 

 

Smoking the sewage pipe

http://www.israel21c.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7092:smoking-the-sewage-pipe&catid=61:social-action&Itemid=140

Palestinian boys walking past a canal pumping sewage directly into the Mediterranean in Gaza City. Photo by Wissam Nassar/Flash90.

The concept of achieving peace through pipes may have originated with Native Americans, but today, unbeknownst to most of us, Israelis and Gazans are seeking peace through sewage pipes.

It was a wild idea back in 1997, and perhaps it is even more unrealistic today. However, against the odds - and working around their governments - the mayors of the Israeli city of Ashkelon and the Palestinian Authority's Gaza City have taken it upon themselves to try to cooperate with each other.

Ten years ago the vehicle was an educational project in high-tech. Today, they're coming together over waste water.

By car, the two cities are only about a 20-minute drive away from each other. But in fact, they are worlds apart. Most people in both cities have never met one another.

The only thing they can be sure that they have in common is a beautiful coastline that follows the Mediterranean Sea from Lebanon all the way down to Egypt. But that shining sea is heavily polluted, since Gaza has no water infrastructure and its raw sewage pours directly into the sea.

Thanks to one man's vision, the two cities will soon be working together. Ilan Juran, an American-Israeli specialist in urban infrastructure, is seeing to it that the residents of Gaza will be equipped with the same sanitation and sewage systems that are enjoyed by their neighbors in their sister city on the coast.

Partners in the hoped-for project include the mayors of Ashkelon and Gaza, the Israeli water company Mekorot, the Palestinian Water Authority, the United Nations and local municipalities.

All that remains is for Hamas to approve the plan

Ashkelon Mayor Benny Vaknin is working in full cooperation with Gaza Mayor Maged Abu Ramadan to put Juran's vision to the test. Vaknin went to Brazil to present the idea to the XVII International Media Seminar on Peace in the Middle East, a conference on Middle East peacemaking co-hosted by the United Nations' Department of Public Information and the Brazilian government at the end of July.

The plan being presented in Brazil is to build a new recycling and water management system for Gaza City and its surrounding villages based on the existing Israeli system.

It was hoped that officials from both sides would sign the agreement in Rio de Janeiro, but despite permits to travel being arranged by the Israeli side, two days before the conference, Abu Ramadan and his officials were refused permission to travel by Hamas.

Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem did attend the event, however, and they signed their names on the water works plan, without the consent of Hamas officials.

Expected to cost more than $50 million, which Vaknin believes can be raised through donations; the plant will be modelled on the eight-year old water treatment facility in Ashkelon. Gaza will receive the blueprints and Israeli specialists.

The last hurdle, according to Galit Amzallag, director of international relations for the city of Ashkelon, will be to convince the Hamas government in Gaza to agree.

Polluted water in Gaza is making kids sick

"We will raise the money and Benny [Vaknin] will give the plans of our water system, and our specialists will assist them. The only problem is when will Hamas step aside . . . They are sabotaging it. It's frustrating because we worked so hard," Amzallag sighs.

Since the most recent wave of conflict this past December, the people of Gaza have been bemoaning their city's lack of sewage treatment plants.

Not only is the sewage polluting one of their few sources of recreation - the beach - but according to journalist Rami Almeghari who reports from Gaza, small lakes of sewage are building up and creating polluted lagoons that threaten peoples' health. Kids are getting sick.

Ashkelon, a port city, that receives a sewage stream from Gaza, obviously has more than one interest in the Gaza facility, which would treat and divert the wastewater to be used for agriculture in Gaza.

But that shouldn't detract from Ashkelon's determination to go full steam ahead with the project, which in addition to clean water would also achieve improved quality of life for Gazans.

So far their Gaza counterparts have been very cooperative. When the new mayor of Gaza assumed office he readily understood the value of partnering with the Israeli side, says Amzallag, who has worked closely with Mayor Vaknin for over a decade.

Past success grants hope

Amzallag has been to Gaza City about 10 times, she says. The first time was for the joint Israel-Gaza high-tech training distance learning project.

That project rested on the cooperation between the late Mayor of Gaza City Awn al-Shawa and Mayor Vaknin. In the framework of that program teenage kids from both societies were taught computer and high-tech skills, which they in turn passed on to their younger peers. It worked well until the intifada hit.

Despite the uprising, Vaknin urged the Gaza mayor to join him on a fundraising mission to the World Bank and the United Nations in New York. A million dollars was raised and a study site complete with facilities was built in Germany. There was even enough money to pay for air fare for the participants.

With the means and neutral territory secured the project was saved and youths from Israel and Gaza learned high-tech together at month-long sessions in Germany.

Beyond water, there are other dreams for cooperation between the two cities. One is to build a railway between Egypt and Ashkelon with stops in Gaza. A second dream is to build a recycling center on the border between the two regions. If all flows well with the water project, perhaps shared railways and recycling will be a reality too.

Basic information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - A rare commodity

It's amazing what people don't know about the Middle East. In 2001 I set out to clear a small lighted path in that darkness when I began creating the MidEastWeb History of the Israeli-Palestinian Confict (now continued in a second part at History of the Israeli-Palestinian Confict Part II,

 

I am pleased to relate that the generosity of an anonymous donor has now made it possible to translate the history into Arabic:

 

تاريخ النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني، الجزء الأول    تاريخ النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني، الجزء الثاني

Please help us spread the word. We will be glad to fix any errors!

Ami Isseroff