As Jews in America and around the world celebrate the first of the High Holy Days I want to extend my warmest wishes for the New Year. L’shana Tova Tikatevu – may you be inscribed and sealed in the Book of Life.
Rosh Hashanah marks the beginning of the spiritual calendar and the birth of the world. It serves as a reminder of the special relationship between God and his children, now and always. And it calls us to look within ourselves – to repent for our sins; recommit ourselves to prayer; and remember the blessings that come from helping those in need.
Today, those lessons ring as true as they did thousands of years ago. And as we begin this New Year, it is more important than ever to believe in the power of humility and compassion to deepen our faith and repair our world.
At a time when too many of our friends and neighbors are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, it is up to us to do what we can to help those less fortunate.
At a time when prejudice and oppression still exist in the shadows of our society, it is up to us to stand as a beacon of freedom and tolerance and embrace the diversity that has always made us stronger as a people.
And at a time when Israelis and Palestinians have returned to direct dialogue, it is up to us to encourage and support those who are willing to move beyond their differences and work towards security and peace in the Holy Land. Progress will not come easy, it will not come quick. But today we had an opportunity to move forward, toward the goal we share—two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
The scripture teaches us that there is “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In this season of repentance and renewal, let us commit ourselves to a more hopeful future.
Michelle and I wish all who celebrate Rosh Hashanah a sweet year full of health and prosperity.
2140 GMT: Is It Really OK to Criticise the President Now? We noted last evening that the chairman of the Supreme Audit Court, Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, had "taken apart the Ahmadinejad Government over its development plans, privatisation, imports, and subsidy reform".
Iran's Press TV either A) forgot to read EA or B) thought long and hard about whether it would be wise and appropriate to publicise Fazli's criticism. Finally, this afternoon it decided it was OK to let Ahmadinejad have it: "The Iranian government's plans to scrap state subsidies should not lead to 'political disputes' in the country, says the head of Iran's Supreme Audit Court."
Press also noted Fazli's comments on the suspect nature of the Government's privatisation but left out the chairman's scathing remarks on cheap imports pushing out Iranian goods and costing Iranian jobs.
At his press briefing today, Ramin Mehmanparast was asked if foreign policy had been hindered by the President's appointment of special representatives for international affairs.
Mehmanparast replied, "We believe the Foreign Ministry should not be undermined....The Foreign Ministry is the only body that makes final decision and implement foreign policy."
1540 GMT: School Days. "Free teachers", with between four and eight years of experience, from 5 provinces have protested in front of Parliament over discrimination in professional examinations and lack of jobs.
1535 GMT: Economy Watch. Khabar Online reports that about 800,000 jobs have been lost in agriculture since 2005.
1525 GMT: A New Political Contender? The supporters of the new "Front for Justice and Welfare", linked to Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, met yesterday. They defended the and his Government and sharply attacked the hardline newspaper Keyhan, which has been critical of Rahim-Mashai.
1510 GMT: Parliament v. President. Challenges to Ahmadinejad on a number of fronts....
122 of the 290 MPs in the Majlis have issued a warning to the President about "parallel actions" in foreign policy, reminding him to follow the command of the Supreme Leader.
On Wednesday the Parliament will officially present letters of impeachment of Minister of Energy Majid Namjoo and Minister of Agriculture minister Sadegh Khalilian.
1500 GMT: The Battle Within. Mohammad Nabi-Habibi, the Secretary-General of the Motalefeh party, has issued a stinging criticism of the President in Khabar Online.
Nabi Habibi rebuked Ahmadnejad for his "parallel actions" in foreign policy and said he should stop them immediately to please the Supreme Leader. While noting the "good performance" of the Ahmadinejad Governments, he added that they should also accept criticism, end quarrels, and create a better life for the people by establishing justice. He urged concentration on the creation of jobs and economic growth.
Nabi Habibi called for a Government commission with Parliament and the Expediency Council to resolve problems.
1315 GMT: MediaWatch. A quick answer to our enquiry earlier today (see 0650 GMT) about whether Thomas Erdbrink of The Washington Post, one of the few front-line "Western" correspondents in Tehran, would be returning to Iran after a break in The Netherlands.
Turns out Erdbrink's story on the Iranian opposition in Delft, published today, was developed last month, and he is already back in post in the Iranian capital.
1250 GMT: Sanctions Watch. On Monday, the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates froze four Iranian bank accounts, in accordance with the recent sanctions on 41 firms and individuals adopted by the United Nations Security Council.
A source at the CBE said the other 37 accounts on the UN list were outside the country and the amounts frozen in the UAE were "very limited".
1245 GMT: Power Squeeze. Peyke Iran reports that electricity bills for some people in Tehran have risen five times. Khabar Online is also carrying the story.
"Unfortunately, (they are) defending a person who is being tried for murder and adultery, which are two major crimes of this lady and should not become a human rights issue," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. "If releasing all those who have committed murder is to be perceived as a human rights issue, then all European countries should release all the murderers in their countries."
Not sure that the latest Iranian protest will check the pressure, however: the Parliament of the European Union will pass a resolution on Wednesday in support of Ashtiani. On Monday, the introduction of the resolution brought more than 30 minutes of denunciation of Tehran:
1020 GMT: The Foreign Policy Battle. Key MP Ahmad Tavakoli has issued a harsh warning to President Ahmadinejad over his naming and retention of special envoys for foreign policy, amidst the growing dispute with the Foreign Ministry. Tavakoli said that ignoring the commands of Ayatollah Khamenei to cease "parallel actions" would have "grave consequences".
1015 GMT: Stopping the Lawyers. Reporters Without Borders has condemned the detention of defense attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh, whose office was raided on 28 August and who was summoned to the prosecutor's office inside Evin Prison on Sunday over charges of anti-government propaganda and conspiring against the regime
Reporters Without Borders said. “Detained journalists and other political prisoners are denied their most basic rights. Lawyers cannot visit their detained clients or see their case files. Now the repression is being stepped up a notch. By arresting lawyers, the regime is trying to gag the last dissenting voices. Lawyers’ organisations throughout the world must demand this courageous lawyer’s immediate release.”
0755 GMT: Nothing to See Here, Move Along (Nuclear Edition). And now the other side of the headline hype (see 0525 GMT). Press TV quotes Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, on the IAEA's latest statement: "After seven years of constant inspections, the report once again confirms the non-diversion of Iran's nuclear activities towards military and banned objectives
Ali Abkar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, chimes in, "Like the previous reports, the new report reiterates the non-diversion of declared nuclear material ….Therefore, we believe that the other issues mentioned in the report are minor."
It is useful to note Salehi's response to the most challenging remarks in the IAEA reports, criticising Iran's denial of inspections of its heavy water plant: "The IAEA should tell us that by which clause of the mutual agreement can it inspect the heavy water facilities. We have not found such a clause…if they prove it, I will immediately allow inspectors to visit [the plant]."
A dreamy university town in the Netherlands known as the birthplace of 17th-century painter Johannes Vermeer has become a major center for Iranian activists abroad.
Over 1,000 Iranian students, the majority fresh arrivals from Iran's best universities, are studying courses such as applied physics and aerospace engineering at the Delft University of Technology, and meeting during evenings in cafes that line the city's canals.
The university hosts one of the largest communities of visiting Iranian scholars in Europe, and many are involved with the Iranian opposition movement.
Now a question: Erdbrink, one of the few front-line "Western" correspondents who remained in Iran during the post-election conflict, by-lines the story from Delft. Is the Dutch national now outside Iran and, if so, will he be able to get back in? 0535 GMT: We're going to leave the nuclear chatter to others, unless there is a significant development. We've got more important matters to consider....
Our exclusive on the tension between the President and the Foreign Ministry, including Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's attempted resignation, was posted last night. This morning, we'll be putting up an equally important story involving former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, and tomorrow or Thursday we should have an analysis --- based on new information from inside Iran --- of the battle within the regime.
0525 GMT: As we noted at the end of last night, there will be a lot of "Western"media brushfires to put out today, with the coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on the Iranian nuclear programme. Even though there is almost nothing new of substance in the IAEA summary, most newspapers will be looking for --- actually, they have already seized upon --- a morsel of information to turn into a dramatic statement of conflict and threat.
So far, however, the Obama Administration has put out a relatively muted statement of "disappointment" in Iran over its failure to co-operate fully with the IAEA inspectors. That indicates the US Government is putting more emphasis on the possible resumption of talks with Tehran via the 5+1 Powers rather on a public conflict with Iran.
After the killing of four Israeli settlers and wounded of two others in the West Bank on 31 August, the Palestinian Authority arrested dozens of Hamas members. However, Hamas' war on the peace process has continued through an attempt to legitimise the targeting of the settlers.
On Friday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah praised Hamas for the West Bank attacks and said, "This is the way to free Jerusalem and Palestine." Supported byIran's statements calling the participants of peace talks in Washington "traitors", Hamas sharpened its tone.
Israeli settlers in the West Bank are legitimate targets since they are an army in every sense of the word, senior Hamas official Ezzat al-Rashk said on Saturday:
They are now a real army in every sense of the word, with more than 500,000 automatic weapons at their disposal, on top of the basic protection by the [Israel Defense Forces].
Hamas' action, rather than undermining the talks, may have strengthened the Palestinian Authority's hand in the negotiations. Officials from Ramallah are sending message to Washington that extra pressure on the PA damage the chance for peace and security of the region.
Talking to Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam on Monday morning, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas took the message further by linking it to a core demand: "We clarified that [the Palestinian Authority] would not agree to continued Israeli presence, military or civil, within a future Palestinian state." Message? want peace and security, it is that Palestinian state, existing peacefully alongside Israel, that should have a monopoly over the use of power in its terrority.
Ramallah had already warned that they would leave the negotiation table if the 10-month-freeze in the settlements did not continue. Its latest deployment of peace and security will be put to two Israeli groups: a relatively "practical" camp in giving concessions but conceding on security and a relatively "conservative" one that moving strategically to capitalise on the failure of the talks. The former one is the alliance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak alliance and the latter is the team of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Shas leader Eli Yishai.
Meanwhile, Israeli officials are playing another card on the negotiation table. Israel's ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, said on Friday that West Jerusalem is offering the Palestinians gestures, in place of extending the settlement moratorium, to keep them in peace negotiations. Indeed, the move seizes upon the PA's "security" theme, with the gestures including the removal of checkpoints and transfer of greater control of the West Bank to Ramallah.
Yet all of this may be overshadowed by the news from diplomatic circles who said on Sunday that Israel is considering calling off the meeting with the PA's negotiating team, scheduled to be held in Jericho on Monday, after news of the discussion was leaked to the press. [Editor's Note: The meeting has been cancelled.]
So, before the scheduled high-level meeting in Sharm-e-Sheikh on 14 September, the question is put forth: can the Palestinian Authority's own "security" card, ironically brought into play by its rival Hamas, offer a way forward in talks or will the sticking points over Israeli settlements --- the moratorium on West Bank expansion ends in less than three weeks --- ensure that there is no movement?
This weekend a friend suggested that, when her interest and that of others returned to the Middle East because of developments such as the launch of Israel-Palestine direct talks, it might be helpful to provide essential background information.
Neighborhoods. Colonies. Facts on the ground. Suburbs. Unauthorized outposts. Jerusalem.
Whatever you call Jewish areas outside of Israel's 1967 border, the peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that opened at the White House will have to confront what to do with a half-million Israelis living in disputed territory that Palestinians want for their new state.
There are other intractable coreissues, such as refugees and security, that must be worked out before a peace deal can be signed. But the question of settlements, which are seen by some Israelis as bargaining chips in a future land-for-peace agreement with the Palestinians, may be the most difficult to tackle. And they could end talks even before they seriously begin.
A 10-month moratorium on settlement construction, imposed in November under pressure from an Obama administration eager to set favorable conditions to restart peace negotiations, runs out Sept. 26. Netanyahu has said he won't extend the freeze even though Abbas has made clear he'll walk out if construction resumes.
Never mind that construction never really ended: Projects that had already been approved or started were grandfathered in. Schools, community centers and other public buildings were exempted from the moratorium, as was East Jerusalem. And when violations are added to the concrete mix, there has been no actual let-up in the pace of construction.
"Negotiating over the future of the West Bank while still building settlements is akin to two people talking about splitting a pizza pie while one of the parties is nibbling on the pie," said Ori Nir of the group Americans for Peace Now. "It is nibbling away at a future Palestinian state."
But Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., told AOL News this week that the Palestinians should not "demand our concession on a core issue as a precondition for negotiating," noting that "we believe that the settlement issue is part of the borders issue, which is a core issue to be discussed only in direct talks."
So, on the eve of direct negotiations between the two sides, here is a primer on this most vexing of issues:
What is a 'settlement'? Like most things in the Middle East, there is no simple answer.
The word took on a different meaning after the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights from neighboring Arab states. Jewish Israelis soon moved across the border, or Green Line, to build residential areas they called settlements but the Arabs called colonies.
Kfar Etzion, which had been a Jewish community before 1948 and was destroyed in Israel's war of independence, was the first settlement in late 1967. The next year a group of religious Zionists moved into a hotel in Hebron, the vanguard for a population that would come to include four settlers killed by Hamas this week.
Where are the settlements?Throughout the West Bank. They range from dense urban neighborhoods to isolated hilltop trailers to small villages to sprawling new cities.
Two of the three largest settlement blocs, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion, lie close to Jerusalem and are viewed by many Israelis as suburbs they hope to keep in a land swap with the Palestinians. A third bloc, Ariel, sticks into the northern West Bank like a finger and is more controversial. Its new cultural center is the target of an actors' boycott.
Also close by the Green Line are several recently built ultra-Orthodox cities, including Modi'in Illit. They have attracted religious settlers in search of more affordable housing for families that typically can have 10 or more children.
Since the 1990s, about 100 illegal outposts have sprung up in isolated areas of the West Bank. Unlike other settlements, they have not been authorized by the Israeli government, although a 2004 report found officials often look the other way.
How many settlers are there? According to the group Peace Now, which keeps the most comprehensive database based on government information and its own research, there are about 290,000 settlers in 120 settlements in the West Bank. In addition, there are another 190,000 Israelis living beyond the Green Line in east Jerusalem.
Israel does not count Jerusalem residents as settlers because it annexed the eastern part of the city and some adjoining areas in 1967 and considers itself to have sovereignty there. The international community and the Palestinians, who want the eastern half of the city for their capital, don't recognize the annexations.
SN: The peace process has been going on for 19 years -- what in your view has been the major reason for its failure thus far?
KM: Three reasons. First of all, Israel does not want peace. They talk about peace but they are not ready to pay the price of peace. The second reason is that the Palestinian negotiator does not have strong cards in his hand to push the peace process forward. The third reason is that the international community does not have the capability or the desire to push Israel towards peace.
SN: On Thursday, direct talks begin again between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel -- the US has worked hard to bring this about. What are your thoughts on this round, the US role, and prospects for a breakthrough?
KM: These negotiations are taking place for American and Israeli considerations, calculations and interests only. There are no interests at all for us as Palestinians or Arabs. That's why the negotiations can only be conducted under American orders, threats, and pressure exerted on the PA and some Arab countries.
The negotiations are neither supported nationally nor are they perceived as legitimate by the authoritative Palestinian institutions. They are rejected by most of the Palestinian factions, powers, personalities, elites, and regular people -- that is why these "peace talks" are destined for failure.
This represents a perfect example of how the US administration deals with the Arab-Israeli conflict --- how American policy appears to be based on temporary troubleshooting instead of working toward finding a real and lasting solution.
Consecutive US administrations have adopted this same policy of "managing conflict" instead of "resolving conflict". This can be useful for American tactical and short-term purposes, but it is very dangerous on the long-term and the strategic levels. This approach will ultimately prove catastrophic for the region.
SN: There is debate about whether Hamas accepts the premise of a two-state solution -- your language seems often vague and heavily nuanced. I want to ask if you could clarify, but I am also curious as to whether it is even worth accepting a two-state solution today when there has been so much land confiscation and settlement activity by Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
KM: Hamas does accept a Palestinian state on the lines of 1967 --- and does not accept the two-state solution.
SN: What is the difference between the two?
KM: There is big difference between these two. I am a Palestinian. I am a Palestinian leader. I am concerned with accomplishing what the Palestinian people are looking for --- which is to get rid of the occupation, attain liberation and freedom, and establish the Palestinian state on the lines of 1967. Talking about Israel is not relevant to me --- I am not concerned about it. It is an occupying state, and I am the victim. I am the victim of the occupation; I am not concerned with giving legitimacy to this occupying country. The international community can deal with this (Israeli) state; I am concerned with the Palestinian people. I am as a Palestinian concerned with establishing the Palestinian state only.
SN: Can you clarify further? As a Palestinian leader of the Resistance you have to give people an idea of what you aspire to -- and how you expect to attain it?
KM: For us, the 20 years of experience with these peace negotiations --- and the failure of it --- very much convinces us today that the legitimate rights of Palestinians will be only be gained by snatching them, not by being gifted with them at the negotiating table. Neither Netanyahu nor any other Israeli leader will ever simply gift us a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority has watered down all its demands and is merely asking for a frame of reference to the 1967 borders in negotiations, but Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to accept even this most basic premise for peace. Nor will America or the international community gift us with a state --- we have to depend on ourselves and help ourselves.
As a Palestinian leader, I tell my people that the Palestinian state and Palestinian rights will not be accomplished through this peace process --- but it will be accomplished by force, and it will be accomplished by resistance. I tell them that through this bitter experience of long negotiations with the Israelis, we got nothing -- we could not even get the 1967 solution. I tell them the only option in front of us today is to take this by force and by resistance. And the Palestinian people today realize this -- yes, it has a steep price, but there is no other option for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people tried the peace process option but the result was nothing.
SN: While Hamas has not been a participant in the peace process, many of the Arab nations have pushed for these very negotiations. So then why have they persisted with these talks if most of them think the process is futile?
KM: This bloc (of Arab nations) which has pursued the peace process strategy with Israel is ready to continue with habitual and continuous negotiations without even a single outcome. They will continue with this peace process with Israel because they are not ready to turn to the other option.
SN: And the other option is?
KM: The confrontation of Israel. The other option is resistance --- which will gain the strong cards to pressurize Israel. In short, a weak party (this Arab bloc) will adopt a course of action though he knows that he will see no positive outcome, as he does not have his own strength and has no strong cards. At the same time there is also a great pressure on The Resistance from America and Israel in order to prevent our success. If the peace process is blocked without hope, there is no option for the Palestinian people -- for the people of the region -- but the option of continuing with resistance, even though they realize the pressure that will come, and even though they realize there is a conspiracy against The Resistance.
SN: Well one of these Arab nations that keeps pushing for the peace process is Egypt. Egypt is also a party to the siege of Gaza. And yet Hamas accepts the decision of the Arab League to choose Egypt to mediate reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. Why did Hamas accept Egypt as a mediator?
KM: There is no doubt we have differences with Egypt regarding many of its political positions and decisions. But the reasons for Egypt's mediation of reconciliation talks are different. The first is that Egypt is a major country in the region --- it is not easy for other nations to just bypass them on any issue. The second reason goes back to geopolitics and the history between Palestine and Egypt, which make Egypt more vested in the Palestinian issue than virtually any other country.
The third reason is that the reconciliation itself consists of two parties --- Hamas and Fatah. No mediator in this reconciliation effort will succeed unless both groups agree to their participation. Fatah simply refuses the intervention of any other Arab country as this will anger Egypt. We in Hamas do not refuse Egypt as the caretaker for the mediation -- what is important for us is not whether we have X or Y as the mediator, what is important to us is that reconciliation itself has to be advanced in a correct way. And it was evident in the last round that the main impediment to this reconciliation is American interference.
SN: But then does reconciliation become impossible if Egyptians always cave to US pressure?
KM: Yes, there is an American pressure where Egypt is concerned. Mahmoud Abbas is also acquiescing to that same pressure and this undoubtedly makes the reconciliation more difficult.
SN: Why, in your view, does the West not engage directly with Hamas and make you a partner to the solution? Surely the only path to a comprehensive peace is a solution agreed upon by all major parties to a conflict?
KM: The West is trying --- either because it lacks the capability or desire --- to get somewhere in the region through pressuring the Palestinian side, and not pressuring the Israeli side. The Americans are still convinced today that if they continue pressuring the Palestinian and Arab negotiators --- and not get Israel angry --- they can reach some breakthrough through this process. The time is coming when they will reach a dead-end because the Palestinian people will simply not agree to any solution which will not provide for all their legitimate rights.
SN: Well some Palestinians would. It appears that the Palestinian Authority is prepared to strike a deal that does not address the Palestinian refugees' right of return. But could that be a real solution?
KM: I am talking about a majority of Palestinians --- not the few. The Palestinian Authority cannot reach a solution with the Israelis without the approval of the majority. Any rightful representatives of the people will advocate for, and not disregard, the Palestinian people's ambitions and legitimate rights. In short, the West will discover sooner or later that any solution that will not fulfill the rights of the Palestinian people will not be successful and will not be implemented. In that very particular instance, when they finally decide to respect the desires and ambitions of the Palestinian people, they will decide to engage with the Hamas movement.
To clarify... Though we are open to them, the key for the success of any solution is not through the West or the Americans --- we believe that the key to success will come through pursuing our national rights. The change will be made from within the region --- whether America is satisfied or not --- because anyone who is awaiting change from the West today will not get any change.
SN: There are rumors that Hamas has been secretly talking to US officials for about two years --- is there any truth to this?
KM: We don't have any interest in concealing official meetings if they take place. Essentially speaking, there are no official or direct talks with the US administration, except for some meetings that happened at the side of some conference in Doha with low-profile individuals, and we do not consider these direct or official talks with the administration.
But we do consider some of these meetings as indirect talks --- we know very well that some non-US officials we meet with report to the administration. And yes, we have met some former Democrat and Republican officials, and we know that they too report to the administration. We are interested in meeting with the Americans and the West, but we do not beg for these meetings and we are not in a hurry.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 6:34 
