PALESTINIAN STATE BY NEXT AUGUST

ROBIN SHEPHERD ON NEXT AUG PALESTINIAN STATE
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/2631

Will UK join push for ultimate solution of MidEast peace through the United Nations? NOV 5,10

Will UK join push for ultimate solution of MidEast peace through the United Nations?Amid all the brouhaha over British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s visit to Israel this week, the key question of the moment has yet to be asked: If peace talks fail, will Britain join France and others in openly declaring that a Middle East peace might have to be imposed through the United Nations? I have not seen a clear and unambiguous quotation from the Foreign Secretary or any of his senior officials to that effect. But if you put together everything that is being said and everything that is not being said, and you set that against the international mood music my instincts tell me that we are ineluctably heading towards the UN route. For example, as the BBC’s MidEast headline today roars: Mid-East peace talks: UK says window closing. But what does that mean in practice? That Britain would be prepared simply to let matters rest should that window ultimately close? That the UK would say: a plague on both your houses and retreat back to the island and wash its hands of the whole business? If only the British outlook were characterised by such indifference. Here is how the BBC characterises the British position in its article today:

Mr Hague said that both sides had obligations, but that it was largely up to Israel to break the impasse.We do want Israel to announce a new moratorium on settlements [said Hague]… That is what the whole of Europe wants, that is what the United States wants,he said.In other words, Israel is going to get the blame if and when the talks collapse.It is not that there is anything new in all this. It is just that the Arab/Palestinian side has been remarkably successful in portraying Israel as the intransigent party in a current round of peace talks representing history’s last chance for a solution. Either there is an agreement on the way or something radical will have to be considered. And that something would be an imposed settlement authorised by the UN Security Council sometime in the middle of 2011.Look. I have no proof, and this is little more than speculation. But given that British foreign policy in the Middle East has long been driven by a foreign office that is almost as slavishly deferential to the Arabs as it is to the United Nations, given that the new British government is almost entirely opportunistic in the management of its foreign policy, given (see last posting but one) our new strategic ally France has mooted the UN route, and given that the Palestinians and the UN are already preparing the way for such a move, the notion that Britain is going to jump on the bandwagon has a certain inevitability about it. The Palestinian/Arab side can hardly be under any illusions as to how weak Britain has become under the new government and how prone it is merely to go with the flow of global events.At the very least, it would be good if the journalists would start posing the question. Because if Britain and France do join forces diplomatically (as they have recently agreed to do militarily) on this issue, this would constitute a powerful combination to help legitimise and energise a movement that already has the support of dozens of nations in the Arab and Musim world.The UN route would be a disaster for Israel’s security. But it is the looming issue of the moment, and we urgently need clarity on precisely where Britain stands on the matter.

Before the storm: Palestinian ability to go through UN for unilateral declaration of statehood not to be underestimated OCT 30,10

Before the storm: Palestinian ability to go through UN for unilateral declaration of statehood not to be underestimated Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz has written an extensive analysis of the prospects of the Palestinian leadership opting for a unilateral declaration of statehood, probably sometime in 2011, as an alternative to working for a negotiated end to the conflict. It is crucial to understand the issue since it could add an entirely new dynamic into the situation, give new momentum to the Palestinian cause, and simultaneously put Israel in a perilous situation.There are many reasons to be concerned about a move towards a unilateral declaration of statehood, not least because the Palestinians would undoubtedly want to go beyond the demilitarised state being offered by the Israeli government and also because they would then seek to argue that Israel is not merely an occupying power but also an invading power. This they could use as a justification for renewed resistance, for which read terrorism.Horovitz has produced an excellent analysis and I recommend reading it in full. But since, at nearly 3,000 words, some readers may not have the time to go through it from beginning to end, I offer here a bullet point rendition of what I take to be the most important points, along with some comments of my own. Points taken from Horowitz’s piece (which are my words, not his) are in bold italics while my own comments follow in normal script:

** Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has himself declared a summer 2011 deadline for Palestinian statehood. Stop the press right here: summer 2011 is effectively tomorrow. In other words, the threat should be treated as imminent.

** Last Tuesday, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry said to Fayyad: We are in the home stretch of your agenda to reach [statehood] by August next year, and you have our full support.The day before, PA President Mahmoud Abbas repeated what is an increasingly common theme from PA officials in threatening a resort to the United Nations in the context of a possible unilateral declaration of statehood. In other words, the potential move to a unilateral declaration of statehood with recognition at the UN should not only be treated as imminent, senior UN officials are sounding increasingly positive about such a possible move.

** Important and influential governments are also sounding more receptive to the idea. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner recently said that if the negotiations became deadlocked France cannot rule out in principle the Security Council option. These are dangerous and irresponsible words which could encourage the Palestinian side to deliberately deadlock peace talks so as to get a better deal at the UN.

** It is true that the Americans have said they would veto any such deal. But this may not be enough to kill it. Consider the example of Kosovo whose own unilateral declaration of independence was opposed by Russia, another of the permanent security council members with veto powers. This has not stopped some 70 countries from recognising Kosovan independence which is now basically a fait accompli. The Palestinians are well aware of the Kosovo example and frequently talk about it as a precedent. As Horovitz notes, the point here is not that there is a direct analogy between Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia on the one hand and Israel and the Middle East on other. Rather, the point is that unilateral declarations of independence can build unstoppable momentum if a critical mass of nations support it and there is some sort of embryonic government (in this case the PA) to recognise.

** The Kosovo precedent is not the only one. Consider Lithuania which declared independence unilaterally in 1990 despite the fact that the Soviet Union still existed and had its armies on Lithuanian soil. This is another strong example of how a determined national movement with international support and with a governmental apparatus can build new dynamics to its own advantage.

** While fully aware of the potential dangers of any unilateral declaration of independence, too many Israeli officials underestimate the prospects of it actually happening. The Palestinians have made a unilateral declaration of independence before, in 1988 when more than 90 countries recognised it. It came to nothing, many Israelis point out. But the situation now is very different since, among other things, there is a recognised PA government. Indeed so, and in 1988 we were still in the Cold War, we hadn’t had the Oslo process or the Clinton peace efforts in 2000 and 2001, or the second Intifada, or 9/11. Nor was the demonisation of the Jewish state quite so deeply rooted in western countries as it now is.

** The Palestinians are serious about this. As Salam Fayyad said to an Italian newspaper last week: [In 2011] the United Nations will celebrate the birth of our nation… The deadline is next summer, when the Israeli occupation of the West Bank must end.That’s straight from the horse’s mouth.Once again, Horovitz has written a great analysis of a crucial issue and I recommend reading his piece in full.

Editor's Notes: Unilateralism is no mirage
By DAVID HOROVITZ 10/29/2010 16:23 JERUSALEMPOST.COM

Netanyahu's right: Palestinians won’t achieve peace with Israel by unilaterally declaring establishment of Palestine. But they're not talking about peace. They're talking about statehood.The months go by, and while Israel keeps its head buried in the sand, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s declared summer 2011 deadline for Palestinian statehood draws nearer.Photogenically picking olives with Fayyad on Tuesday, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry offered his stamp of approval for the purportedly soon-to-be-established Palestine.All international players are now in agreement that the Palestinians are ready for statehood at any point in the near future, Serry said to Fayyad. We are in the home stretch of your agenda to reach that point by August next year, and you have our full support.A day earlier, the PA President Mahmoud Abbas had spoken about the possibility of seeking statehood unilaterally, via what he termed a resort to the United Nations.Other PA officials have frequently invoked this option of late, bemoaning Israel’s ostensible torpedoing of peace hopes and looking to the international community for unilateral recognition.A couple of weeks ago, the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner made plain that even some countries that consider themselves to be firm friends of Israel might not prove deaf to Palestinian efforts toward unilateral recognition, saying that France cannot rule out in principle the Security Council option if the negotiating process is beset by prolonged deadlock.And officials within the US administration, while indicating to their Israeli counterparts that the US would veto any effort by the Palestinians to seek binding UN Security Council backing for the unilaterally declared establishment of Palestine within the pre-1967 lines, have also been stressing the limits of their veto power. Look at the case of Kosovo, for instance, they suggest. This is a nation that has not been recognized by the Security Council, where permanent member Russia is implacably opposed, but whose statehood – declared by its parliament in February 2008 and recognized by some 70 countries, including the US – is nonetheless something of a fait accompli.

The Kosovo precedent is certainly not lost on the Palestinians. Earlier this month, Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti urged that an independent Palestine be declared now on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including east Jerusalem and that the world community be pressed to recognize it and its borders, as it did in the case of Kosovo.Serene in the face of such ostensible pressures, the Israeli government continues to insist that there is no credible, viable path to statehood for the Palestinians via the unilateral route.Opening Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared that We expect the Palestinians to honor their commitment to hold direct negotiations. I think any attempt to bypass them by appealing to international bodies is unrealistic...

But is it?

THE KOSOVO precedent is plainly quite different from the Palestinian context. (Indeed, Israelis who have spent time in Kosovo say that people there often compare their emergence to that of Israel.) But there are numerous critical parallels and themes that Israel would be extremely foolish to ignore.Independent Kosovo was born out of the fragmentation two decades ago of Yugoslavia, and what proved to be the impossibility of peacefully resolving the conflicting demands of one of the former Yugoslavia’s six constituent republics, Serbia, with those of the Albanian majority in what had been the autonomous area of Kosovo. The unilateral declaration of statehood followed years of violence, international intervention, the designation by the Security Council in 1999 of Kosovo as a UN protectorate, and the terminal failure of a succession of efforts to foster substantive negotiations between Kosovo’s Albanian leadership and Belgrade.A fragmenting federation, war, NATO involvement on the ground and the absence of anything remotely close to an agreed framework for resolving the crisis – in all these aspects Kosovo differs utterly from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict arena. Just to be on the safe side, furthermore, the US made explicit, when recognizing Kosovo, that this process represented no legal precedent whatsoever.Where the potent similarities begin, however, is that in Kosovo, as with the Palestinians, the international community was galvanized by a group that sought independence from another party whose rule it did not accept; and where that group was impatient and felt that it had sufficient strength to advance its cause.Kosovo’s road to independence featured an earlier declaration of a separate republic, in 1992, which went nowhere because, as Nikolas Gvosdev pointed out in an article in World Politics Review a few days ago, it had no formal governing presence in any part of the territories it claimed as its state and no real institutions of state. But by 2008, Kosovo did have a functional governmental apparatus in at least part of the territory it claimed, and it has subsequently gained a certain critical mass of international recognition.

As a result, Gvosdev notes with what ought to be dramatic resonance for Israeli ears,any future talks with Serbia will be aimed not at getting Kosovo to give up its independence, but rather at determining the conditions and arrangements under which Belgrade will accept an independent government in Pristina.Try re-reading that sentence with certain substitutions after a unilateral assertion of Palestinian statehood: Any future talks with Israel will be aimed not at getting Palestine to give up its independence, but rather at determining the conditions and arrangements under which Jerusalem will accept an independent government in east Jerusalem.The echoes from Kosovo of that shift to international acceptance over the past couple of decades drastically undermine official Israel’s insistently sanguine response to the Palestinians’ unilateralist threats. Fayyad’s entire state-building exercise has been designed to demonstrate, Kosovo-style, the attainment of a formal governing presence in at least part of the territories being claimed and the establishment of a functional governmental apparatus.And much of the international community has long-since been won over. So Israel’s blithe, dismissive reminder that the Palestinians have little to show from their last attempt at the unilateralist route – the 1988 declaration of statehood that won recognition from some 90 nations – is simply outdated. We are not in 1988 anymore.Kosovo is not the only cautionary tale. Gvosdev cites the case of Lithuania to demonstrate that a potential state need not be in full control of the territory it claims in order to gain international recognition:

When Lithuania redeclared its independence in 1990, he writes, numerous states... recognized its status as a sovereign member of the international community, even though the Soviet Union rejected such a claim and refused to withdraw its forces from Lithuanian soil. By the time the USSR accepted the reality of Lithuanian independence on September 6, 1991, a separate Lithuanian government had already been functioning for more than a year. Even the United States, which was one of the last states in the world to extend de jure recognition, had already begun to deal with a government in Vilnius on a de facto basis.THE PALESTINIANS themselves, it is asserted in the prime minister’s circle, don’t believe they have a serious unilateral option. Even Fayyad, it is stated, knows that borders, for instance, have to be demarcated by agreement.Everyone understands that a solution must be negotiated, sources close to Netanyahu have repeatedly stated. Everything else is a mirage. They know that. We know that.Every now and again, it is noted in Jerusalem, the Palestinians come out with statements threatening variously that Abbas will resign, they’ll dismantle the PA, they’ll shift to seeking a one-state solution or they’ll go the unilateral route. This rhetoric is viewed as a case of the Palestinians essentially saying, Hold us back. Our commitment to reconciliation is not real. We have other options. In fact, though, runs the Jerusalem mantra: There are no other options.Essential aspects of statehood, it is pointed out, include a defined territory, a defined population, effective government and the recognition of other states. Official Israel, as far as I can understand, believes the Palestinians to be deficient in at least two of those areas.One might acknowledge that they represent a defined population and they could certainly count on widespread international support. But in the official Israeli assessment, they lack a defined territory – negotiations having thus far failed to define borders – and they lack effective government – which is less a critique of Fayyad’s institution-building efforts and more a factual description of the practical limitations of PA authority, over such basic areas as controlling what goes in and out of its would-be Palestine. Official Israel, largely unmoved by evidence to the contrary in cases such as Kosovo and Lithuania, evidently wants to believe that these deficiencies doom the notion of unilateral statehood.

In conversation with some in Israeli officialdom this week, I ventured the suggestion that the resort to unilateralism, at the very least, would surely ratchet up the pressure on Israel. The international community is less sympathetic to Israel, and more impressed by the Palestinian leadership’s credentials and ostensible capacity to maintain stability, than it was when Yasser Arafat tried the unilateral declaration route 22 years ago, I noted. And so, if Palestine is being stymied because of the failure to negotiate core issues like agreed borders with Israel, then a Palestinian unilateralist effort would surely provoke intensified calls on Israel to negotiate those borders, and other core issues, in a spirit of greater compromise.The frustrated response was that Israel is ready to negotiate. In rather anguished terms, it was noted that the Palestinians claim they need other solutions because the talks are going nowhere, but that the talks are only going nowhere because the Palestinians are refusing to negotiate. And as for the Palestinian claim that settlements are the problem, the official line from Jerusalem was that the settlement enterprise does not preempt a negotiated solution, that no planned construction will affect the contours of peace, that the overwhelming majority of proposed construction is within the settlement blocs, and that the minority of building that is outside the blocs – an extra house or two here and there in an isolated settlement – won’t make a difference, because it would either be dismantled under a peace agreement or would be on the Palestinian side of the border.These may all be eminently reasonable arguments, but none of them, I repeated, is likely to forestall international pressure if the Palestinians do opt for the unilateral route.The point was acknowledged. Of course there’d be pressure, one source finally allowed. And then he added, ruefully: You don’t think we’re under pressure already? TRADE MINISTER Benjamin Ben-Eliezer this week spoke for some in the government who are internalizing the growing perceived international legitimacy of Palestine. Time isn’t merely working against us, observed Ben- Eliezer, who just got back from talks in Washington. It’s racing against. Racing.Many in the Israeli diplomatic hierarchy, moreover, understand that the world has changed in the past couple of decades – and specifically that the US no longer calls the shots globally in the way that it once could. American economic dominance, American military dominance and American diplomatic dominance have receded. There are more global power centers. The US itself, recognizing these changes, works more readily with international forums.For Israel, for whom the alliance with the US remains paramount, these shifts have nonetheless required a shift in diplomacy, a diversified investment of effort and energy.In terms of the conflict with the Palestinians, these shifts have also required a gradual internalization that the Middle East peace Quartet – that constellation of would-be mediators comprising the US, UN, EU and Russia – potentially carries real weight, and is no longer just a diplomatic construct designed to give the international community a superficial sense of involvement, while only the US really matters.

This changing climate again renders some of the public Israeli comments on unilateralism – the blasé dismissal of a unilateral Palestine as a mirage and a pipe dream – unconscionably complacent. And Netanyahu’s own assertion on Sunday that attempts at unilateralism will not give any impetus to a genuine diplomatic process completely misses the point.By definition, a resort to unilateralism will not give any impetus to a genuine diplomatic process. The whole thrust of unilateralism is an escape from a genuine diplomatic process – an attempt to achieve, without agreement, ambitions and gains that could not be won at the peace table, and to achieve them without the concessions that a genuine diplomatic process would require.OTHER ISRAELI arguments against unilateralism also seem unlikely to give the Palestinians much pause. It is suggested that a unilateral declaration of statehood, though endorsed by long sympathetic nations, might be strongly resented by other, fairer-minded countries that oppose the abandonment of the diplomatic process. But one wonders how many such nations there might turn out to be, and how grave a concern that would be for the Palestinians, given the international hostility to Israel right now, and Israel’s perceived responsibility for the failure of the direct talks to date.It is asserted that unilateral statehood might cause problems of legality for the Palestinians in countries where their independence was not recognized. Would a President of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas be accorded a White House welcome in a US that had not formally recognized his country, or a Downing Street hearing in a Britain that was similarly withholding recognition? Here, too, it is unlikely that the Palestinians would be too fearful of a diplomatic cold shoulder; American or British mandarins would presumably prove capable of finding a legaldiplomatic finesse to solve such problems.It is argued that a resort to unilateralism would breach the Oslo Accords and that various signatories and witnesses to these and other interim agreements, including the US, EU, Egypt and Jordan, might resent the breach and withhold recognition. They might. They might not. A concern for the Palestinians? Possibly. But enough to deter them? Unlikely.Officials have issued vague threats about Israel’s capacity to take unilateral actions of its own should the Palestinians pursue the unilateral route. Risibly, anonymous officials were quoted in some newspapers here last week warning that Israel might respond by dismantling isolated settlements or reviving Ehud Olmert’s convergence plan for the removal of tens of thousands of settlers from areas outside the settlement blocs. As threats and warnings go, these are absurd. Don’t declare statehood because, if you do, we’ll take steps that would ease the process for you?! The Palestinians are hardly going to be quaking at the prospect.

Perhaps Israel might seek to unilaterally annex the major settlement blocs. But Israel would want to annex them anyway in the context of a negotiated accord; this way, the Palestinians might reason, Israel would simply be annexing with less legitimacy and less support, and without the Palestinian leadership having compromised and condoned it.Another purported bulwark against Palestinian unilateralism is the notion that the subsequent legal vacuum of voided accords and conflicting assertions of authority could cause chaos and violence on the ground, to the detriment, among others, of the Palestinian Authority. This seems a more credible consideration for the PA to bear in mind. Then again, Abbas and Fayyad may have an elevated sense of their capacity to maintain relative stability. Or they may be prepared to risk chaos and violence.And, finally, it is noted that a unilateral declaration of statehood – with many of Palestine’s key parameters and fundamental aspects still unresolved – is no substitute for the benefits of finding a binding, detailed, stable agreement with an enemy turned full peace partner. As Netanyahu said on Sunday, peace will only be achieved through direct negotiations.That argument, of course, is undeniable...if your goal is peace. The thing is, however, that the Palestinians are talking about something else. About statehood. About a process that would give international weight to their demands no matter what the immediate practical implications, and no matter how many problems – all the core issues, plus the question of the fate of Gaza – remain unresolved. International support for statehood, without the necessity to come to terms with Israel, to legitimize Israel.AT TUESDAY’S olive-picking event, timed to coincide with the 65th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, Fayyad expressed the hope that when we celebrate the 66th UN Day next year, we will be celebrating also the emergence of a Palestinian state.A day later, he told an Italian newspaper that he would give Israel one more year of grace. These colonies, he said of the settlements, can no longer be there. They are illegal everywhere; here and in Jerusalem.In 2011, he said more bluntly this time, the United Nations will celebrate the birth of our nation... The deadline is next summer, when the Israeli occupation of the West Bank must end.Israel can talk dismissively about pipe dreams and mirages. But Fayyad isn’t being light-headed. He’s a perfectly clear thinker. And he knows exactly where Palestine is heading. Israel doesn’t.

POPE BLASTS SPAIN

Pope blasts Spain's aggressive anti-church ways By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press - NOV 6,10 5:05PM

SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA, Spain – Pope Benedict XVI criticized an aggressive anti-church sentiment in Spain that he said was reminiscent of the country's bloody civil war era as he began a two-day visit Saturday to rekindle the faith.Benedict made clear his distaste for Spain's liberal bent as he arrived in the pilgrimage city of Santiago di Compostela, where the remains of St. James the Apostle are said to be buried.He was warmly received by a crowd of thousands chanting Viva el papa! but there were hints of opposition as well. About 100 people demonstrated against the pope's visit and a handful of gays kissed along his motorcade route — a preview of the gay kiss-in protest that awaits him Sunday in Barcelona.Benedict told reporters en route to Santiago that the anticlericalism seen now in Spain is like that of the 1930s, when the church suffered a wave of violence and persecution as the country lurched from an unstable democracy to civil war.The reference was striking, given the scale of violence back then, when poverty-stricken and disgruntled Spaniards burned churches and murdered priests and nuns whom they considered obstacles to much-needed change. The church claims 4,184 clergy were killed by the government, or Republican side, which accused the church of backing fascist Gen. Francisco Franco.

Nowadays, the church finds itself fighting laws supported by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government that have allowed gay marriage, fast-track divorce and easier abortions.In Spain, a strong, aggressive lay mentality, an anticlericalism and secularization has been born as we experienced in the 1930's, Benedict told reporters.The reference surprised Spaniards, with Cadena SER network saying: The Pope compares today's Spain with the Republic.The pope said Spain was a particular focus of a new Vatican effort to fight secular trends worldwide since Spain had played such an important role in reviving Christianity in centuries past. He urged Europe as a whole to rediscover its Christian roots.Europe must open itself to God, must come to meet him without fear, Benedict said in Spanish during a Mass before thousands in Santiago's central Plaza del Obradoiro. The Europe of science and technology, the Europe of civilization and culture, must be at the same time a Europe open to transcendence and fraternity with other continents.An estimated 6,000 people attended the open-air Mass in the shadow of Santiago's ornate cathedral, where Benedict prayed before the apostle James' tomb, embraced his statue and watched, a bit awe-struck, as a massive incense burner swung pendulum-like across the entire transept.Legend holds that the enormous incense burner was used to mask the pungent odor of pilgrims who had walked for weeks to reach Santiago. Nowadays, the burner is hoisted and swung from an intricate system of pulleys only during solemn occasions.After the Mass, Benedict was heading to Barcelona, where he will dedicate the famous modernist Sagrada Familia church on Sunday. The church is a monument to the traditional family — another key theme Benedict is stressing in his Spanish visit.Up to 200,000 people packed the square and cobblestone streets of Santiago's beautiful medieval quarter and lined the fog-shrouded route from the airport Saturday to catch a glimpse of the pope's motorcade, featuring his armored white popemobile. Benedict stopped several times to kiss babies handed up to him.

The pontiff said he was coming to Spain as a pilgrim — like so many of the millions of faithful who take part in the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage to this western Galician city. Their numbers swell in a jubilee year, which occurs every time the feast of St. James — July 25 — falls on a Sunday, as it does this year.Benedict has long sought to visit the shrine. The scallop shell symbol of St. James, ubiquitous around the city and on pilgrim routes that thread toward Santiago, is particularly important to Benedict: It forms a central part of his papal coat of arms.But not everyone was excited about the pope's visit.We want to let him know that he is not well received here because of the church opinion regarding sexual minorities, protester Pilar Estevez said in Santiago. Ahead of the giant kiss-in Sunday by gays and lesbians, Benedict on Saturday called the family the fundamental cell of society that forms the basis of faith and life. Church teaching holds that a family is based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and woman — not people of the same sex.

With such palpable opposition to the pope's visit, Zapatero is only seeing Benedict as he's leaving on Sunday night, letting Spain's royal family take care of protocol instead. Crown Prince Felipe and Crown Princess Letizia greeted Benedict at Santiago's airport Saturday and welcomed him to the country. Associated Press writer Harold Heckle in Madrid contributed to this report.

Israel's Barak not optimistic about Iran talks
By Richard Woodbury - NOV 6,10

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia (Reuters) – Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak expressed little optimism on Saturday about a proposed round of talks between global powers and Iran, which is under pressure over its nuclear ambitions.Iran says it will not discuss its nuclear program at the next set of negotiations with the P5+1 group, which comprises the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.The group wants Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Tehran, which has been hit with four rounds of United Nations sanctions over the last four years, says its nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful and denies it is seeking atomic weapons.We are still in the stage of diplomacy and sanctions, Barak said when asked by reporters about the prospects for the talks, which are tentatively scheduled to take place this month in Vienna.Based on experience and looking at the example which they (the Iranians) are using, which is probably the North Korean example, you can easily see ... the objective is to defy, decei(ve) and deter the whole world, he said.I would be happy to ... end up finding myself wrong based on a future development, but I wonder whether this will be the case, he told a news conference at an international security forum hosted by the German Marshall Fund.

The talks stalled more than a year ago. The P5+1 wants Iran to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for trade and diplomatic benefits, which have been on the table since 2006.Israel and Iran are arch-enemies. Israel, believed to possess the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has hinted it could attack Iran if it deemed diplomacy had failed to remove what it sees as a menace to its existence.Iran is a major, major threat to any conceivable world order. It's clear to all of us that they're determined to reach military nuclear capability, Barak said during a panel discussion at the forum.He predicted a nuclear Iran would mean the end of any conceivable nonproliferation regime. It will end up with several members of the Middle Eastern community find(ing) themselves compelled to turn nuclear.Iran has vowed to retaliate against any attacks with missile salvos on Israel and U.S. targets in the Gulf.(Writing by David Ljunggren, editing by Stacey Joyce)

Israel must extend settlement moratorium: Italy FM
- NOV 6,10

RIYADH (AFP) – Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on Saturday urged Israel to reinstate a moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank until a final peace deal is reached with the Palestinians.Europe has to make a greater effort to convince the Jewish state that it is in the best interest of Israel to reach a peace deal,he told reporters on a visit to the Saudi capital.That means Israel needs to extend the moratorium on settlement building in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem that expired at the end of September, halting three-week-old peace talks, Frattini said.An extension meaning until a final agreement ... is reached,he said.

Palestinian negotiators called off the talks when the moratorium expired, saying they cannot negotiate for a two-state peace deal while Israel is continually building Jewish homes on lands the Palestinians hope to reclaim.Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said the Arab League, which on October 8 gave Washington one month to get the talks restarted, would take the Palestinian case to the UN Security Council if nothing happens.The intent is to go to the United Nations to seek peace for the Palestinians, the veteran Saudi diplomat said.A committee of Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Libya set the one-month deadline but they were not specific on what action they would take if talks did not resume.They were to meet again after the 30-day period to decide on the next step.On Friday, a senior Palestinian official said the next committee meeting on the stalled US-brokered direct peace talks was likely to be delayed until the end of November.The committee will meet after the end of the one-month period and, above all, after the American side has informed us what it reached with Israel, Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas's spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP.

Gaza rocket hits Israel, no casualties: army
– Sat Nov 6, 5:28 am ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip fired a rocket into southern Israel on Saturday but caused no casualties or damage, the Israeli army said.The rocket exploded in an open field near the Gaza border, a military spokeswoman said.Since the start of this year, Palestinians have fired more than 165 rockets or mortar rounds at Israel from the Hamas-controlled coastal strip, according to the military.

Israeli fast train to run through West Bank By Karin Laub, Associated Press – Fri Nov 5, 1:53 pm ET

BEIT IKSA, West Bank – A high-speed train between two major cities seems like a must for a developed nation. But Israel's long-awaited, $2 billion Tel Aviv-Jerusalem railway is turning into a potential political nightmare after planners moved parts of the route into the West Bank.The route dips twice into the war-won territory, at one point as a short cut and at another to appease Israelis who objected to tracks in their backyard.Critics say that violates international law because the construction has seized occupied Palestinian land and won't serve West Bankers.The Palestinian self-rule government will resort to all legal and possible diplomatic methods to try to end this violation of Palestinian rights, spokesman Ghassan Khatib said. He called on foreign companies to withdraw from the project.Companies from Italy and Russia, the latter state-owned, are helping build the line, and a subsidiary of Germany's state railway provided a technical opinion for one segment, albeit inside Israel, according to Israel Railways.Any project that deepens Israel's hold over West Bank lands would appear to run counter to long-held positions of the European Union and Russia, both members of the Quartet of Mideast mediators. The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in 1967, and the United States is trying to get the two sides into negotiations for a peace deal creating a state.

Israeli government officials say they have taken steps to ensure that the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem line would one day benefit Palestinians. Transport Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadiah said planning has begun on an extension that would connect Gaza with the city of Ramallah, the West Bank's center of commerce and government. The West Bank and Gaza lie on opposite sides of Israel, and most of that line would run through Israeli territory.But researcher Dalit Baum said that idea is a cynical ploy that is only suggested in order to justify this train route as legal.Baum wrote a report on the project published this week by an Israeli watchdog group, the Coalition of Women for Peace.Most of the 6-kilometer (3.75 mile) stretch of the railway inside the West Bank runs through tunnels.However, Israel is taking Palestinian lands, some of them privately owned, for tunnel portals and access roads, Baum said. Most of the land belongs to the Palestinian villages of Beit Iksa and neighboring Beit Surik, whose residents have already been cut off from some of their lands by the construction of Israel's West Bank separation barrier.The train line will run on the Israeli side of the barrier, which Israel portrays as a shield against militants, but which others see as an attempt to draw borders unilaterally.

Omar Hamdan, the Beit Iksa mayor, said the villagers only found out about the plans to lay the tracks through their lands last year when they were alerted by Israeli peace activists. By then, it was too late to object, he said.Israel's Civil Administration, a branch of the Israeli military responsible for planning permits in the West Bank, said while the West Bank segments for the rail line have been approved in principle, land expropriation orders for Beit Iksa have not yet been issued. Officials said villagers would still have a chance to object once that happens. Local officials estimated at least dozens of acres of Palestinian land would be affected.Work has already started in the West Bank in parts near Beit Surik and Beit Iksa. The first stretch of the 34-mile (56-kilometer) rail line has been completed, starting at Ben Gurion Airport and running inside Israel.Planning for the high-speed line began in the mid-1990s, but was repeatedly delayed by objections from environmental groups and local residents.Originally, the train line was to run within Israeli territory on the edge of Mevasseret Zion, a town just west of Jerusalem and abutting the West Bank. But after residents objected, the line was moved 300 meters (yards) to the north, into the West Bank, cutting into the two Palestinian villages.The Israeli planners decided to move the route into the military occupation's jurisdiction to avoid having to negotiate a compromise with Israeli citizens, Baum wrote in her report.A second segment was planned from the start to take a short cut through a West Bank enclave that juts into Israel near the Latrun area. The high-speed train would cut the trip to 28 minutes between Tel Aviv, the seaside metropolis that is Israel's business and cultural center, and the religious center and declared political capital Jerusalem. The current train takes 90minutes and is rarely used.The two main highways linking Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, one of which also briefly enters the West Bank enclave at Latrun, often see massive traffic jams at the entrance to each city.

Russia's government-owned Moscow Metrostroy construction company and the private Italian firm Pizzarotti are involved in building the line, along with Israeli firms. The Russia firm is working on one of the West Bank stretches, said Yaron Ravid, a deputy to the director general of Israel Railways. Pizzarotti is building a segment inside Israel, he said, but an access road to the work site goes through the West Bank.Officials at Pizzarotti and Moscow Metrostroy did not respond to requests for comment.Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russia's prime minister, said Metrostroy is required to fulfill the requirements under the tender it won. Peskov said only the Israeli government can address the political issues surrounding the railway. DB International, a subsidiary of German state railway Deutsche Bahn, offered a technical opinion in 2005 about a segment inside Israel amid a dispute between Israel Railways and environmental groups, said Ravid. But Baum, the researcher, said DB International should have been aware of the problematic West Bank segments. DB International said that it was not involved in the planning or technical layout of the line.Additional reporting by Associated Press writers Dalia Nammari in Ramallah, West Ban; Elena Doroschenkova and David Nowak in Moscow; Melissa Eddy in Berlin; and Alessandra Rizzo in Rome.

Israelis mull leaving settlers in Palestine By Amy Teibel, Associated Press – Fri Nov 5, 2:18 am ET

JERUSALEM – It has become an article of faith in the Israeli-Palestinian equation: Israel's withdrawal from occupied lands must be accompanied by a removal of Jewish settlers.But perhaps there's another option.Although it's hardly mainstream thinking, voices on both sides are quietly contemplating an alternative: Perhaps some Jews can live in a future Palestine, even if only in small numbers, the way Arabs live in Israel.That would reduce Israel's challenge, perhaps avoiding possible violent settler resistance. It would also absolve the Palestinians of an uncomfortable charge sometimes leveled at them using a Nazi term — that they want a state that is judenrein, or free of Jews.By allowing those Israelis who always claim to love the land more than the state to live out their dreams ... you have the chance to defang one of the most difficult issues (among many) and set a solid foundation for a just, robust, free and democratic Palestine, said Akram Baker, an independent Palestinian analyst.The problem, of course, is that most settlers have no desire to live under Palestinian rule — and in fact moved to the West Bank to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Others are radicals who could well prove problem citizens.The antipathy is generally mutual: Palestinians tend to think that the settlers' presence there is a violation of international agreements against colonizing occupied land. They are widely hated, and it is easily conceivable that they might suffer discrimination and even vigilante violence without protection of the Israeli military.Still, proponents argue that out-of-the-box notions — on settlers and on other issues — are what is needed to nudge the current peace effort, which started in September but stalled over settlement construction, past a finish line that has eluded peacemakers during two fitful decades of negotiations.

A leading advocate, Rabbi Menachem Froman of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa, notes that improbable though the idea of Jewish citizens of Palestine might seem, the removal of all 300,000 settlers from the West Bank is equally difficult to imagine.What gets peace stuck? (The notion that) wherever there is a Jew, you can't have a Palestinian state. So you have to evacuate the Jews, like you did in Gaza, said Froman, referring to the forcible 2005 removal of 8,500 settlers from the seaside strip — an event remembered as something of a national trauma in Israel.He acknowledged the notion of leaving settlers in a future Palestine resonates very weakly among Israeli politicians.So this is where it's stalled, he said.Mainstream settler leaders don't even consider the possibility of keeping settlers under Palestinian rule.Dani Dayan, chairman of the settler umbrella group Yesha Council, called it a preposterous, insane idea that would endanger Israeli citizens.Israel has a responsibility to maintain all the communities it established under Israeli sovereignty, even in the event of a deal, Dayan said.The West Bank carries much more weight for Israelis than Gaza did, so beyond the challenge of sheer numbers, evacuating the territory would be a much more fraught endeavor.Observant Jews believe God gave the West Bank, home to the holy cities of Bethlehem and Hebron, to the Jewish people as part of the Land of Israel. Hawkish Israelis see continued control of the territory as integral to Israel's security because the West Bank borders Israel's Tel Aviv heartland.

In previous rounds of peace talks, Israel and the Palestinians have discussed swapping land close to Jerusalem, where most settlers live, for an equal amount of Israeli territory.But even under this scenario, some 75,000 settlers would have to be evacuated. The anti-settlement watchdog group Peace Now estimates that more than 2,000 are fervently ideological — raising the possibility of violent clashes. Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli peace negotiator, said he does not remember the proposal ever coming up in formal negotiations, but that he and Mahmoud Abbas — years before he became Palestinian president — suggested it in an unofficial peace proposal they crafted in 1995. Under their proposal, settlers would remain in the West Bank under Palestinian sovereignty — but in communities that would be open to Palestinians as well.Settlers rejected the notion outright at the time. Now, says Beilin, he hears it brought up more often in settler circles.It's not a central issue, Beilin said. But it's right to talk about it because ... it could be a real solution to one of the big problems facing governments, what to do with the settlers.U.S.-based Palestinian commentator Ray Hanania sees allowing settlers to live in a future Palestine as part of a broader solution of competing claims to land.Palestinians insist on repatriating Palestinian refugees who were driven from or fled homes in what is now Israel during the war surrounding the Jewish state's 1948 creation, as well as their millions of descendants.I think the trade-off is that Israel take some refugees back as part of an effort to end the conflict and to establish confidence-building,Hanania said.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not publicly stated an opinion on the idea.Palestinians do not see settlements peppering their future state, though in principle, non-Palestinians, including Israelis, would be able to live (there),said Palestinian Authority spokesman Ghassan Khatib.

No position has yet been set on details such as numbers and whether they would be citizens, Khatib said.Right now, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators aren't discussing any day-after-peace scenarios, because they aren't even sitting down to talk peace.Palestinians have refused to talk unless Israel renews a 10-month construction moratorium in West Bank settlements that expired a month ago. Israel has resisted U.S. pressure to do so.

Palestinians to give U.S. peace effort more time
By Andrew Quinn – Thu Nov 4, 7:15 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Palestinians will give the United States several more weeks to try to relaunch direct peace talks with Israel, but will not buckle on their key demand for a halt to Israeli settlement activity, a top Palestinian official said on Thursday.Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that an Arab League decision on October 9 giving the United States one month to persuade Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop settlements could slip -- but that the core demand would remain unchanged.They're saying that efforts may need two or three more weeks, Erekat told reporters after a meeting with U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell in Washington.If the Americans needed two more weeks they can have the two more weeks, Erekat said.We're waiting to hear from the Americans and there is no reason to convene the Arab follow-up committee until we hear what the Americans have to offer.The key is in Netanyahu's hands, Erekat said.The choice is his: settlements or peace. He cannot have both.Erekat declined to say whether he believed the additional time would be enough to persuade Netanyahu to stop the settlements, which have threatened to torpedo the direct talks that were launched under U.S. auspices in September.Netanyahu is due to visit the United States next week and meet with both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said on Thursday she was working non-stop to try to find a way out of the impasse.I am very involved in finding a way forward and I think we will be able to do so, Clinton told reporters in New Zealand, where she is on an official visit.

Direct talks between Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas began on September 2 in Washington but broke down several weeks later when a 10-month partial Israeli freeze on settlement building in the West Bank expired.Netanyahu has resisted U.S., Palestinian and international calls to impose a new building moratorium on settlements in the West Bank, which Israel occupied in a 1967 war. Palestinian officials have accused Netanyahu of destroying prospects for peace by allowing settlement building to continue on land that Palestinians want for a future state.Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia which is an influential voice among Arab states, signaled Arab resolve to back the Palestinians in their demands for a settlement halt.Asking the Palestinians to ignore ongoing colony construction is tantamount to asking them to accept subjugation from the start," he told reporters in a separate Washington appearance.

PLAN B?

Erekat said Palestinians remained focused on the direct talks as a way of achieving a two-state solution which U.S. President Barack Obama hopes will see a deal within a year to create independent Palestine living peacefully beside Israel.But he said the Palestinian leadership was also considering other options, including seeking both U.S. and United Nations Security Council recognition of a Palestinian state.I hope that the United States of America, when we go to the Security Council to seek a full membership for the State of Palestine, will not oppose us, Erekat said.Erekat did not give a timeline for this possible move, which the State Department said on Thursday could be an unwelcome complication.We have made clear all along that unilateral steps, either by the Israelis or by the Palestinians, undermine the direct negotiation which is the only way to resolve the core issues, reach an agreement and end the conflict, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. Erekat said other suggested resolutions to the impasse, including suggestions that the Palestinians should insist on a one state solution where the Arab majority with Israel demands equal rights, were unrealistic at least for now. Those who continue with the settlement activities may end up with the one state solution, whether they like it or not. But that's not my option,he said.(Additional reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Egypt tells Israel peace process must move forward
– Thu Nov 4, 2:18 pm ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman met Israeli leaders on Thursday and said the prospect of renewed Middle East peace talks with the Palestinians must not be allowed to slip away.We are very concerned about moving the peace process forward, he told reporters at the start of a meeting with President Shimon Peres in Tel Aviv. We still think that we have a golden opportunity, we should not lose it.Earlier Suleiman met Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also in Tel Aviv.At the meeting the parties examined ways to advance Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with the aim of bringing about their renewal and reaching a peace agreement, Netanyahu's office said in a statement.

Peace talks have been frozen since the end of September following the end of a temporary ban on Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank.Last week, Suleiman visited the West Bank with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit for talks with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.The Egyptians reiterated Arab support for the Palestinian leader's demand that Israel reimpose the settlements construction moratorium before talks can resume.Direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians began on September 2 but lasted for barely three weeks before shuddering to a halt over the settlements issue.Last month, Arab foreign ministers said they would give Washington until early November to find a way out of the impasse, but there has been little sign of progress.The ministers are expected to meet in the coming weeks to decide on a response to the stalled talks.The Palestinians view the presence of 500,000 Israelis in more than 120 settlements scattered across the West Bank, including annexed east Jerusalem, as a major obstacle to the establishment of their promised state.Israel has so far refused to renew the moratorium, insisting that the settlements issue be addressed as part of a final peace deal.

Syria's Assad says Cyprus an ally to wield influence in EU
– Thu Nov 4, 1:25 pm ET

NICOSIA (AFP) – Syria's President Bashar al-Assad said Thursday that Cyprus is an important ally within the European Union in Damascus' efforts to recover the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and secure regional peace.I want to thank the Cyprus government for its stance on the Golan issue. Cyprus is a member of the European Union but the European Union does not vote in favour of returning the Heights, Assad told reporters in Nicosia.Assad is on a two-day visit to Cyprus, his first-ever as president, aimed at boosting bilateral relations between the neighbouring countries.

Cyprus has long supported the return of the Golan Heights to Syria and backs the creation of a viable Palestinian state.Speaking after talks with Cypriot President Demetris Christofias, who visited Damascus in 2009, Assad said Syria's friendship with Cyprus was important in influencing EU member states on the Middle East peace process.Cyprus is able to convey these issues to the European Union to give the opportunity to other member states to understand in depth the substance of the region's problems, Assad said.This gives the European Union a chance to play the role that we request of it, so European proposals can achieve success in practice.

Also on Thursday the two countries signed agreements covering mutual investment in education and telecommunications, tourism, energy and port services.No details were given on the content of the agreements but Assad, who will address a business forum in Nicosia on Friday, is keen to attract investment to Syria, which is subject to US sanctions.Assad said relations between Syria and Cyprus went back thousands of years and deepened and widened during the reign of his father, Hafez al-Assad, and the island's first president Archbishop Makarios.Syria demands the return of the Golan Heights, which the Israelis captured in the 1967 Six Day War and formally annexed in 1981, in moves not recognized by the international community, as a condition for peace with Israel.

Israel army says it killed senior Islamist in Gaza blast
– Wed Nov 3, 3:13 pm ET

GAZA CITY (AFP) – The Israeli army said it killed a senior Islamist militant on Wednesday in the explosion of his car in Gaza City, adding that it held him responsible for attacks on US and Israeli targets.Mohammed Jamil al-Nemnem, 27, a senior commander of the Army of Islam, a group that espouses an Al-Qaeda-like ideology, was killed when his car exploded outside the Hamas police headquarters in Gaza City.Several hours after the blast, an army spokeswoman confirmed Nemnem had been targeted in a joint operation by the military and the Shin Bet internal security service.She charged that he had been involved in a number of attacks, one of which targeted Israeli and US nationals in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.He was involved in several attacks against Israeli targets in the last few years and he was involved in directing a terror attack against US and Israeli targets in the Sinai in coordination with Hamas elements in the Gaza Strip, she said, without giving further details.Later, Israeli army spokeswoman Major Avital Leibovich described Nemnem as a ticking bomb, who was planning a major attack against Israeli civilians.He is a senior leader and since we had the right opportunity with intelligence and operational means, we had this window of opportunity (to kill him) and we succeeded, she told reporters.

Hundreds of people turned out for the funeral of Nemnem, vowing revenge for the death of a man who was the second-in-command of the Army of Islam and believed to be behind the 2007 kidnapping of British journalist Alan Johnston.Another three people were wounded when the car exploded, medical officials in the Hamas-run health ministry said.Witnesses at the scene, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they saw warplanes in the area but no missiles, and that the explosion appeared to have been caused by a bomb inside the car.But Hamas interior minister Ihab al-Ghussein told the official Al-Aqsa television channel that an investigation showed the explosion was caused by missile fire from an Israeli drone.Leibovich said he was targeted with a bomb, but refused to give further details.The Army of Islam is one of the more radical armed groups in Gaza and took part in the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006, along with Hamas and another small hardline faction, the Popular Resistance Committees.Hamas says it severed ties with the Army of Islam after the group seized Johnston in May 2007. Hamas secured the BBC reporter's release nearly four months later after it had seized control of Gaza.Hamas has occasionally clashed with the Army of Islam and other radical groups.
In August 2009, Hamas police stormed a Gaza mosque, killing a radical sheikh and 23 of his followers after he declared an Islamic emirate in the impoverished territory and his followers brandished weapons in public.

Fayyad cancels Jerusalem visit after Israel warning
By Mohammed Assadi - Tue Nov 2, 9:43 am ET

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) – The Palestinian prime minister canceled an official visit on Tuesday to an area Israel regards as part of Jerusalem after Israel security forces were ordered to prevent such a trip.Prime Minister Salam Fayyad had been scheduled to open a road in Dahiyat al-Salam, which falls within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem as defined by Israel following its annexation of the territory after the 1967 Middle East war.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his security forces on Monday to stop the Palestinian Authority (PA) from holding any events in the Jerusalem municipality, apparently in response to Fayyad's plans.Fayyad, head of the Ramallah-based PA government, visited another area just outside the Jerusalem city limits on Tuesday, touring a school where the PA had financed renovation work.Asked by journalists why he had canceled his trip to Dahiyat al-Salam, the former World Bank economist said: What do you expect? This is an occupation.Israel prevents the Palestinian Authority from holding events in Jerusalem, which it regards as its indivisible capital. Its annexation of land in and around Jerusalem after the 1967 war has never won international recognition.The Palestinians aim to make the eastern part of Jerusalem, which includes the walled old city, the capital of a state they want to establish in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.Fayyad is leading efforts to get the Palestinians ready for statehood by building institutions with financial and political backing from Western governments.

His administration exercises limited self-rule over patches of territory in the occupied West Bank. The peace process which the Palestinians hope will deliver them statehood is now stalled due to a dispute over Jewish settlement on the land where the Palestinians want their state.As part of his state-building efforts, Fayyad has directed funds toward Palestinian areas of the Jerusalem municipality where Palestinians complain that the Israeli authorities have denied them services provided to other parts of the city.

ETERNAL CAPITAL OF PALESTINE

The Jerusalem municipality denies claims of discrimination against the city's Palestinian residents, who pay it taxes and carry Israeli-issued permits to reside in the city.In Dahiyat al-Salam, Fayyad had planned to open a new road paved with Palestinian Authority funds at a cost of $96,000. While part of Israel's Jerusalem municipality, Dahiyat al-Salam falls outside the barrier Israel has built which separates the city from the West Bank.Israel began building the West Bank barrier during the Palestinian uprising, or Intifada, earlier this decade on the grounds of security.Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who found themselves cut off from the city by the barrier fear Israel will eventually strip them of their residency permits.PA spokesman Ghassan Khatib said Fayyad aimed to highlight Israeli neglect. Education and social services are very bad, Khatib said.The Palestinian government started to implement some projects there, especially in schools,he added.Fayyad said: We are here to execute a serious enterprise; the birth of the state of Palestine.He added: These are the suburbs of the city of Jerusalem that Israel occupied in 1967 and which will be nothing other than the eternal capital of the State of Palestine.(Additional reporting by Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; writing by Tom Perry; editing by Mark Heinrich)

Hackers shut down Saudi education ministry website
– Mon Nov 1, 5:21 am ET

RIYADH (AFP) – The Saudi education ministry's website was shut down on Monday after hackers posted pictures of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and a youth wielding a syringe.Hackers calling themselves the True Promise Team posted Nasrallah's picture and blasted Saudi treatment of the kingdom's minority Shiites in the first hack, according to a cached version of the page published on the Sabq.org news website.They signed it with the name of Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric.
Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni Muslim.The first page was subsequently replaced by another hack, carrying a photo of a syringe-wielding young man or woman, the cache of which could be accessed through Google.That page appeared to give the pseudonyms of several hackers.

Republican election gains likely to embolden Israeli PM
by Steve Weizman – Sun Oct 31, 5:54 pm ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – A weakening of US President Barack Obama's Democrats in this week's Congressional elections would make Israel more resistant to demands for a new freeze on Jewish settlement, analysts say.With peace talks on hold over a dispute about settlements, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas is relying on Washington to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into halting construction in the occupied West Bank before he will return to the table.Netanyahu said on Sunday that he would fly to the United States on November 7 to address an assembly of Jewish groups and would meet Vice President Joe Biden for talks on renewal of the peace process with the aim of reaching an agreement on peace with security for the state of Israel.He will not meet Obama, who will be travelling in Asia at the time.The outcome of Tuesday's midterm vote, which is expected to see the Democrats emerge weakened, is seen as likely to harden Israel's negotiating position.Netanyahu would assess that a more Republican, or less Democratic Congress, might mean more unquestioning friends of Israel who are not likely to put heavy pressure, and are more likely to give knee-jerk support on all kinds of other issues, strategic analyst Yossi Alpher told AFP.A weakening of the Democrats could encourage Netanyahu to dig in his heels, he said.

Republican achievement ... might therefore somehow improve Netanyahu's negotiating flexibility, so he would be stalling until then, he said. The closer you get to elections, the more that makes sense.In an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post this week, US political gurus Stanley B. Greenberg and James Carville wrote that one of their recent surveys showed Republicans to be no more popular than Democrats at the moment.

Nevertheless, the pair, who coached Bill Clinton, Britain's Tony Blair and Israel's Ehud Barak in successful election campaigns, said: It is hard to imagine that November 2 will be a good day for Democrats.Jonathan Spyer, research fellow in international relations at the Interdisciplinary Centre near Tel Aviv, said Netanyahu and Abbas would each be waiting for the US election result, before showing his next hand.I think everybody expects that the Democrats will take significant losses and will be interested to see what the administration then chooses to do, Spyer said.The next move will be by the administration itself, following the midterm, and on the basis of what that move is the (two) sides will begin to shift their positions accordingly.Palestine Liberation Organisation official Hanan Ashrawi said Obama had already been so soft on Israel that it was hard to see elections making a substantial difference.It's going to be very difficult to see how the US administration can back off even more than it has so far, she said.It's going to be very difficult to see any administration that is going to be so conciliatory and willing to accept all Israeli positions the way they have done so far.Israel and the Palestinians began direct peace negotiations at the start of September but within weeks the talks ran aground after the expiry of a 10-month moratorium on settlement building.Netanyahu faces stiff opposition to a fresh freeze within his right-wing coalition government and has so far refused to reimpose the ban. Abbas is shunning talks as long as Israel continues to build on Palestinian land he wants for a future state, prompting intense US efforts to resolve the deadlock. Arab League ministers, meeting in Libya on October 8, backed Abbas's position but gave Washington one month to extract Israeli concessions and said it would review the situation then, just after the midterm results are in.

Former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, who was a regular visitor to Washington, made no secret of how important he considered Congress to be, holding frequent conference calls with key members. While the White House set policy, he used to tell aides, Congress controlled the funds for turning policy into deeds.Raanan Gissin, a former Sharon advisor, said the fragility of the US economy gives Congress, with its control of the purse strings, more clout than in the past.This time Congress plays, I would say, a much more significant role, if only because of the fact that the dollar is weak,he said. Therefore Congress can play a much more effective role. But when it comes to the actual executive decisions and moves that the president can take vis-a-vis Israel, he's still the guy who rides the horse; he's still the guy in the saddle.