Chronologie 2008 - Genfer Initiative

www.genfer-initiative.de Kontexte 2008–1 

Chronologie 2008 

Mai 2008 

26.05.2008: 

Professor Emeritus David Mumford von der Brown und der 

Harvard University, der 2008 den prestigeträchtigen „Wolf 

Foundation Prize” in Mathematik aus den Händen von 

Staatspräsident Shimon Peres erhielt, kündigt an, dass er sein 

Preisgeld, das er mit zwei anderen Wissenschaftlern teilt, der 

Bir Zeit-Universität bei Ramallah für studentische 

Austauschprogramme zur Verfügung stellen wird 1 . 


Palästinensische Quellen erklären laut Agenturmeldungen, 

dass Israel bei den Verhandlungen mit den Palästinensern 91,5 

Prozent der Westbank – ohne Jerusalem – im Austausch für 

Gebiete in Israel angeboten habe, dass aber die 

palästinensischen Unterhändler lediglich zu einem 

Gebietsaustausch in der Größenordnung von 1,8 Prozent bereit 

seien. Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert bezeichnet am 26. 

Mai vor dem Außen- und sicherheitspolitischen Ausschuss der 

Knesset die Vorstellung als „Halluzination“, dass Israel alle 

1967 eroberten Gebiete behalten könne. Gleichzeitig erteilt er 

Forderungen nach Israel als „Staat aller seiner Bürger“ eine 

Absage. Dieser, auf die Ein-Staat-Lösung zulaufende „sehr 

gefährliche Prozess“ gewinne bei den Eliten in den USA an 

Zustimmung. 


Der US-amerikanische Historiker Norman Finkelstein wird bei 

der Einreise am Flughafen Lod von israelischen 

Sicherheitskräften gehindert und nach mehrstündigem Verhör 

mit einem Flugzeug nach Amsterdam zurückgeschickt. 

Entgegen offiziellen Angaben betont Finkelstein, dem 

Verbindungen zu „Hisbollah“ und „al-Qaida“ vorgeworfen 

werden, dass er den Sicherheitskräften alle notwendigen 

Angaben gemacht habe. Der von ihm eingeschaltete 

israelische Anwalt Michael Sfarad kritisiert die Verhörmethoden 

als „Verhalten wie von Ländern des Sowjetblocks“. 


Das in Jerusalem ansässige „UN Office for the Coordination of 

Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)” berichtet, dass die Zahl der von 

Israel errichteten Sperren in der Westbank zwischen dem 4. 

September 2007 und dem 29. April 2008 um sieben Prozent 

auf 607 angestiegen sei. Während 103 Sperren abgebaut 

worden sein, seien 144 neue hinzugekommen. Im Mai 2008 

habe das Militär weitere sieben Sperren abgebaut. Israel- 

Korrespondent Jörg Bremer stellt am 26. Mai in der „Frankfurter 

Allgemeinen Zeitung“ einen Zusammenhang zwischen der 

steigenden Zahl der Sperranlagen, die vor allem der Sicherheit


der Siedler dienen würden, und dem beendigten Weiterbau der 

„Trennungsmauern“ her. 


Die israelische und die syrische Regierung verständigen sich 

auf den Beginn indirekter Verhandlungen unter Vermittlung der 

Türkei. Zu den umstrittenen Golanhöhen soll Ehud Olmert eine 

„Formel“ übermittelt haben, deren Einzelheiten noch geheim 

seien, heißt es im Umfeld des israelischen 

Ministerpräsidenten 2 . Die „Jerusalem Post“ berichtet am 23. 

Mai, dass der demokratische US-Präsidentschaftskandidat 

Barack Obama die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen begrüße. Am 

24. Mai erklärt der frühere Generalstabschef Dan Halutz in 

Beersheva, dass die Golanhöhen für die Sicherheit Israels nicht 

unverzichtbar seien. Am selben Tag weist die syrische 

Regierung israelische Forderungen zurück, als Vorbedingung 

für Gespräche die Beziehungen zu Teheran zu kappen. 

In Bethlehem treffen sich Hunderte Geschäftsleute, Investoren 

und Politiker zu einer Tagung unter dem Titel „Palestine is open 

for business“. Nach seinen Gesprächen mit Ministerpräsident 

Ehud Olmert, Außenministerin Tsipi Livni und 

Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak in Jerusalem am 22. Mai 

erklärt der französische Außenminister Bernard Kouchner Tags 

darauf in Bethlehem, dass „nichts die Erweiterung der 

Siedlungen, die ein Friedenshindernis sind und die 

palästinensische Wirtschaftsentwicklung behindern, 

rechtfertigen“ könne. Die Tagung endet mit der Zusage von 

Investitionen in Höhe von 1,4 Milliarden US-Dollar. 


Der französische Außenminister Bernard Kouchner bestätigt in 

einem Rundfunkinterview „Kontakte“ zu dem „Hamas“-Chef im 

Gazastreifen Ismail Haniyeh und dem „Hamas“-Ideologen 

Machmud Zahhar. 


Zum Abschluss seiner Besuche in Israel, Saudi-Arabien und 

Ägypten fordert US-Präsident George W. Bush auf dem 

Weltwirtschaftsforum im ägyptischen Badeort Sharm el-Sheikh 

die arabischen Staaten zu politischen und wirtschaftlichen 

Reformen auf, die Menschenrechte mehr achten und äußert die 

Erwartung, dass sie sich den Bemühungen anschließen, Iran 

von seinem atomaren Entwicklungsprogrammen abzubringen. 

Außerdem hoffe er, dass bis zum Ende seiner Amtszeit ein 

palästinensischer Staat gegründet werden könne. Mit 

politischer Führungskraft und mit Mut sei dieses Ziel zu 

erreichen, das den dauerhaften Frieden ermögliche. 

Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert kündigt eine baldige 

„strategische Entscheidung“ an, „wir stehen an der 

Wegegabelung“. Der Raketenbeschuss aus dem Gazastreifen 

müsse beendet werden.



Der Israel-Korrespondent der “Süddeutschen Zeitung” Thorsten 

Schmitz berichtet, dass zum Bau der auf 790 Kilometer 

konzipierten langen „Trennungsmauern“ bisher 90.000 

Olivenbäume in den palästinensischen Gebieten entwurzelt 

worden seien. 


Der frühere Generaldirektor im Jerusalemer Auswärtigen Amt 

Alon Liel 3 bittet in einem Offenen Brief US-Präsident George 

W. Bush um die Entendung eines Sondergesandten zur 

Überwachung der diplomatischen Kontakte zwischen Israel und 

Syrien. Die Syrer, so würden ihm – Bush – angesehene 

Orientalisten in Jerusalem bestätigen, fürchten die Iraner 

ebenso wie die Israelis 4 . 

Der Führer von „Al-Qaida (Die Basis)“, Usama Bin-Laden, sagt 

in einer Tonbandbotschaft Israel und seinen westlichen 

Verbündeten den totalen Kampf an. 

Kurz vor dem Besuch von US-Präsident George W. Bush in 

Riyadh kündigt das Weiße Haus an, dass die USA Saudi- 

Arabien bei der Entwicklung eines zivilen Atomprogramms 

helfen wollen. 

Die iranische Geheimpolizei verhaftet die gesamte Führung der 

Bahai, die mit 300.000 Gläubigen die größte nicht-moslemische 

Religionsgemeinschaft im Lande ist. Der Führung wird 

Kollaboration mit den USA und Israel vorgeworfen; in Haifa 

befindet sich das Zentrum der Religionsgemeinschaft, weil dort 

ihr Gründer bestattet ist. Im August 1980 verschwanden schon 

einmal sämtliche Mitglieder des „Nationalen Geistigen Rates“ 

der Bahai, im Dezember 1981 wurden ihre Nachfolger 

hingerichtet. 

Bei den vorgezogenen Parlamentswahlen in Kuwait, an denen 

sechzig Prozent der rund 360.000 Wahlberechtigten 

teilnehmen, verstärken die sunnitischen und schiitischen 

Kandidaten ihr Gewicht von fünf auf 26 Mandate und verfügen 

damit über eine knappe Mehrheit in der Abgeordnetenkammer. 

Eine Frau gehört ihr nach wie vor nicht an. 


In einem vertraulichen Brief an Israels Ministerpräsidenten 

Ehud Olmert setzen sich die Abgeordneten Yossi Beilin 

(„Meretz/Yachad“) und Amnon Lipkin-Shahak (Arbeitspartei) 

sowie ein früherer Chef des Inlandsgeheimdienstes „Shin Bet“ 

und ein ehemaliger Kommandeur des Militärs im Gazastreifen 

für einen vertraulichen Dialog mit „Hamas“ ein. Der Boykott der 

Islamischen Widerstandsbewegung sei gescheitert, fügt der 

frühere Direktor des „Yaffee Center for Strategic Studies“ an 

der Universität Tel Aviv und heutige Co-Herausgeber des 

Internetportals „bitterlemons“, Yossi Alpher, hinzu. 

14.05.2008:


Bei seinem Besuch in Israel betont US-Präsident George W. 

Bush die Vertiefung der strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen 

beiden Ländern. Ziel der USA sei es, seinen stärksten Partner 

und Freund zu unterstützen – Israel habe 307 Millionen 

Einwohner – und über seine „hoffnungsvolle Zukunft“ zu 

sprechen. In seiner Ansprache am 15. Mai vor der Knesset 

wiederholt Bush diese Verpflichtung und nennt Israel die 

„freieste Demokratie im Nahen Osten“. Das Regime im Iran 

bezeichnet er als einen „unverzeihlichen Verrat künftiger 

Generationen“ 5 . In seiner Erwiderung, bei der mehrere jüdische 

Abgeordnete aus Protest das Plenum verlassen – auch 

arabische Abgeordnete nehmen an der Sitzung nicht teil –, 

zeigt sich Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert davon überzeugt, 

dass die Mehrheit der israelischen Bevölkerung die 

Zweistaatenregelung unterstütze 6 . In Ramallah und Gaza-City 

demonstrieren mehrere zehntausend Menschen mit schwarzen 

Luftballons und fordern die Durchsetzung des Rechts auf 

Rückkehr. 

Im Interview mit dem „Deutschlandfunk“ bringt Israels 

Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert seine Erwartung zum Ausdruck, 

dass noch in diesem Jahr eine grundlegende Vereinbarung mit 

der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde zustande kommen 

werde. Olmert betont, dass dabei die nationalen Interessen 

Israels nicht verletzt werden dürften. Der an der George 

Washington University lehrende Politologe Nathan J. Brown 

hingegen kommt dem Schluss, dass der mit der Madrider 

internationalen Konferenz im Oktober 1991 in Gang gesetzte 

Friedensprozess zu seinem Ende gekommen sei, und stellt 

seinen Beitrag in der Mai-Ausgabe des Internetforums des 

„Carnegie Endowment for International Peace“ unter die 

Überschrift „Sunset for the Two-State Solution?“. Der Wahlsieg 

von „Hamas“ im Januar 2006 sei keine vorübergehende 

Erscheinung, und die israelische Politik habe in den 

vergangenen vier Jahrzehnten alles daran gesetzt, einer 

Zweistaatenregelung die Lebensgrundlagen zu entziehen. Die 

internationale Staatengemeinschaft schließlich habe mit ihrem 

Boykott von „Hamas“ auch die Palästinensische 

Autonomiebehörde und ihre Institutionen bestraft. 

In Ashkelon schlägt eine Rakete ein, die im Gazastreifen 

abgefeuert worden ist, und verletzt 15 Personen. 


In seiner Ansprache anlässlich der 60. Gründungsjubiläums 

Israels wendet sich der palästinensische Ministerpräsident 

Salam Fayyad an die israelische Bevölkerung mit der Frage, 

wie sie im Wissen um die damaligen Begleitumstände die 

palästinensische „Nakba“, die Siedlungspolitik, die Verbrechen 

der Siedler, die Haltung des Staates und das Verhalten der 

Okkupationsarmee feiern könne. Wenn beide Völker nicht 

gemeinsam im Rahmen des Friedens feiern könnten, gebe es 

nichts zu feiern. 

Angesichts einer drohenden Anklage gegen Ministerpräsident 

Ehud Olmert wegen Betrug, Korruption und Bestechung erklärt 

US-Präsident George W. Bush am Vorabend seines Besuchs


in Jerusalem im Gespräch mit israelischen Journalisten in 

Washington, D.C., dass der Friedensprozess nicht allein vom 

Wirken einer einzelnen Person abhänge, und nennt als 

personelle Alternativen zu Olmert Außenministerin Tsipi Livni 

und Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak. Die USA, fährt Bush 

fort, könnten keinen Frieden erzwingen, doch brauchten die 

Palästinenser einen territorial geschlossenen Staat und keinen 

„Schweizer Käse“. Auch wenn er Israel gezwungen habe, im 

Januar 2006 palästinensische Wahlen mit dem Ergebnis des 

„Hamas“-Sieges zuzulassen, bedauere er seinen Vorstoß im 

nachhinein nicht 7 . Das israelische Parteienfinanzierungsgesetz 

verbietet die Annahme von Mitteln aus dem Ausland. 


Daniel Barenboim veröffentlicht im Berliner „Tagesspiegel“ 

einen sehr persönlichen Beitrag über sein Leben als Musiker, 

Ehemann und politisch denkender Mensch in Israel 8 . 


Ein Gärtner wird im Kibbutz Aza durch eine Rakete aus dem 

Gazastreifen getötet. Die israelische Armee tötet vier „Hamas“- 

Angehörige in einem Vergeltungsschlag. 


Der Staat und die jüdische Bevölkerung begehen den 60. 

Jahrestag der Gründung Israels mit Festen, Veranstaltungen 

und Militärparaden. In palästinensischen Fenstern sind 

dagegen schwarze Fahnen zu sehen. Daniel Barenboim, Chef 

des „West-Östlichen Divan Orchesters“, den Tom Segev als 

den „berühmtesten und am meisten verehrten Israeli auf der 

Welt“ ehrt 9 , verzichtet auf seine Anwesenheit bei den 

Feierlichkeiten, zumal da die israelischen Behörden den aus 

arabischen und moslemischen Staaten stammenden 

Orchestermitgliedern die Einreise verweht hätten 10 . 

Die jordanischen Behörden untersagen Veranstaltungen aus 

Anlass des palästinensischen Flucht- und Vertreibungsdramas 

(„Nakba“) 1947/48. Vermutet wird, dass sie damit die Kritik an 

der jordanischen Politik unterbinden wollen, die damals kein 

Interesse an der Entstehung eines palästinensischen Staates 

an den Tag legte. 

Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert kündigt an, dass er zurücktreten 

werde, sollte die Justiz Anklage wegen Korruption erheben. 

Olmert wird vorgeworfen, von einem US-amerikanischen 

Geschäftsmann in seiner Amtszeit als Jerusalemer 

Bürgermeister mehrere hunderttausend US-Dollar für private 

Zwecke angenommen zu haben. 

Das „Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)“ in 

Ramallah protestiert gegen die vorübergehende Festnahme 

von drei palästinensischen Journalisten in Bethlehem, Hebron 

und Kalkilya, denen die politische Nähe zu „Hamas“ 

vorgeworfen wird, durch die „Allgemeinen Palästinensischen 

Sicherheitsdienste“. Die Festnahme widerspreche der


Pressefreiheit und dem Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung 

gemäß der palästinensischen Verfassung und internationalen 

Rechtsbestimmungen. 

Das Komitee für den internationalen Aachener Friedenspreis 

teilt mit, dass die diesjährige Auszeichnung am 1. September in 

Aachen an die israelische Frauengruppe „Machsom Watch“ 

verliehen wird. 


Nachdem die libanesische Regierung das mit Syrien 

verbundene organisationseigene Telekommunikationsnetz der 

„Hisbollah“ gekappt hat, brechen in Beirut schwere 

Straßenkämpfe zwischen Anhängern der schiitischen 

„Hisbollah“ von Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah und der Regierung 

unter Führung des Sunniten Fuad Siniora aus. Die libanesische 

Fluglinie „Middle East Airlines“ stellt ihren Betrieb ein, ihr 

Sicherheitschef Wafif Shawkeer wird entmachtet. Die Behörden 

schließen den Hafen von Beirut. Die Kämpfe greifen auch auf 

die Hafenstadt Tripoli über. Beobachter befürchten einen neuen 

Bürgerkrieg, weil das Militär in die Auseinandersetzungen 

hineingezogen werden und als Ordnungsfaktor ausfallen 

könnte. Die christlichen Parteien und Milizen halten sich vorerst 

in dem schiitisch-sunnitischen Machtkampf ersichtlich zurück, 

obwohl die „Hisbollah“ die Residenz des maronitischen 

Politikers Saad Hariri sowie seinen TV-Sender und seine 

Zeitung angreift. Die Außenminister der arabischen Staaten 

rufen in einer Dringlichkeitssitzung in Kairo die Parteien zur 

Beendigung der Gewalt auf, können jedoch ihre politische 

Hilflosigkeit nicht vertuschen. Ägypten und Saudi-Arabien 

befürchten eine schiitische Vormachtstellung in Libanon. 

Dagegen beschuldigen die Regierungen in Teheran und 

Damaskus die USA und Israel, für den Gewaltausbruch 

verantwortlich zu sein. Am 10. Mai vereinbaren Regierung und 

„Hisbollah“ einen brüchigen Waffenstand, wobei die „Partei 

Gottes“ ankündigt, den zivilen Widerstand fortzusetzen. Markus 

Bickel weist am selben Tag in der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen 

Zeitung“ darauf hin, dass die Kommandeure der im Herbst 

2006 eingesetzten UN-Schutztruppe (UNIFIL) die in der UN- 

Resolution 1701 vorgesehene Entwaffnung der „Hisbollah“ 

ablehnen, solange diese ihr nicht selbst zustimme. In einer 

öffentlichen Erklärung beschuldigt Siniora am 11. Mai die 

„Hisbollah“, in Beirut schlimmer gehaust zu haben, „als es der 

israelische Feind gewagt hat“. Tomas Avenarius erwartet am 

13. Mai in der „Süddeutschen Zeitung“ die „Hisbollahrisierung“ 

Libanons. Am 15. Mai nimmt die Regierung die Entmachtung 

des Sicherheitschefs des Beiruter Flughafens und die 

Zerschlagung des illegalen „Hisbollah“-Telefonnetzes zurück, 

das von der Armee überprüft werden soll. Daraufhin willigt die 

„Partei Gottes“ in Vermittlungsgespräche mit der Regierung in 

Qatar ein, die am 16. Mai beginnen. Das nahöstliche 

Konfliktgeschehen, kommentiert Avenarius am 16. Mai, sei 

inzwischen so eng vernetzt, dass sich die einzelnen Schlachten 

kaum mehr getrennt schlagen lassen. Nachdem bei den 

bürgerkriegsähnlichen Kämpfen 81 Menschen ums Leben 

gekommen sind, verständigen sich am 21. Mai die beiden 

libanesischen Konfliktparteien nach neunzehn


fehlgeschlagenen Versuchen auf die Wahl des bisherigen 

Oberkommandierenden Michel Suleiman zum neuen 

Staatspräsidenten am 25. Mai. Ferner wird vereinbart, dass elf 

der dreißig Personen umfassenden „Regierung der nationalen 

Einheit“ mit Angehörigen der „Amal“-Partei von 

Parlamentspräsident Nabih Berri und ihren Verbündeten 

besetzt werden, dass sie über eine Sperrminorität verfügen 

sollen und dass ein neues Wahlgesetz vorbereitet wird, das der 

demographischen Entwicklung seit den frühen 1940er Jahren 

Rechnung trägt 11 . Am 25. Mai erhält der 59jährige Suleiman bei 

seiner Wahl zum neuen Staatspräsidenten 118 von 127 

Stimmen im Parlament. Nach seiner Wahl steht die Bildung der 

neuen Regierung an. Von den dreißig Kabinettsmitgliedern 

werden drei vom Staatspräsidenten ernannt. 


Das Statistische Zentralamt Israels berichtet, dass sich die 

Bevölkerung des Landes am Vorabend der Feiern zum 60. 

Gründungsjubiläum auf 7,282 Millionen Menschen beläuft, von 

denen zwanzig Prozent arabischer Herkunft sind. 

In der Internetausgabe der „Süddeutschen Zeitung“ äußert sich 

der frühere israelische Botschafter in Deutschland, Avi Primor, 

skeptisch über die Erfolgsaussichten der gegenwärtigen 

israelisch-palästinensischen Verhandlungen. Das Versprechen 

von US-Präsident George W. Bush habe keine großen 

Chancen, bis Ende 2008 eine Verständigung durchzusetzen. 

Für die Sicherheitsbedürfnisse Israels brauche es keine 

unterschriebenen Papiere, Versprechen und internationalen 

Garantien – „das ist alles Quatsch“ –, sondern eine 

internationale Truppe, „die wirklich gerüstet ist. Und die 

zweitens eine ganz klare Mission hat, Sicherheit zu erzwingen.“ 

Dafür würde er, Primor, muslimische Truppen etwa aus der 

Türkei befürworten. Dagegen sollten die Europäer 

einschließlich der Deutschen mehr politische Verantwortung 

übernehmen. 

Nach dem Sieg bei den studentischen Parlamentswahlen an 

der Bir Zeit-Universität nahe Ramallah setzen sich auch die 

„Fatah“-Kandidaten mit 21 gegen 20 Sitze für „Hamas“ an der 

Universität in Hebron durch. 


Israels Generalstaatsanwalt Menachem Mazouz erhebt 

Anklage gegen den früheren Finanzminister Avraham Hirchson 

wegen Veruntreuung, Amtsmissbrauch, Geldwäsche und 

Bestechung. 

In einem Rückblick auf die Entstehungsgeschichte Israels zitiert 

Ofri Ilani in der hebräischen Ausgabe von „Haaretz“ aus den 

jetzt erstmals vorliegenden Tagebüchern des damaligen 

Rektors der Hebräischen Universität, Judah L. Magnes (1877 – 

1948) aus der Zeit nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Bei einer 

Begegnung mit US-Präsident Harry Truman habe er versucht, 

die Amerikaner von der Anerkennung eines jüdischen und 

eines arabischen Staates in Palästina abzuhalten, weil ihrer


Errichtung immer neue Kriege folgen würden. Magnes habe 

sogar die Verhängung von Sanktionen gegen beide Staaten 

vorgeschlagen. Am 7. Mai äußert der palästinensische 

Kulturwissenschaftler und Archäologe Nazmi Jubeh, der zum 

inneren Kreis der „Genfer Initiative“ gehörte, im Interview mit 

der Berliner „taz“ Zweifel, „ob eine Zwei-Staaten-Lösung 

überhaupt [noch] sinnvoll, logisch und hilfreich für uns ist. Dies 

ist keine Intellektuellendebatte mehr, sondern das interessiert 

inzwischen breite Schichten. Die Zahl derjenigen, die nicht 

mehr an eine Zwei-Staaten-Regelung glauben, wächst täglich.“ 

„Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN)“ fordert 

die libanesischen Behörden auf, die ausbeuterischen 

Arbeitsbedingungen der überwiegend aus dem Ausland 

stammenden Haushaltskräfte nachhaltig zu verbessern. Ihre 

Beschwerden würden die Verweigerung und Verzögerung von 

Lohnauszahlungen, verweigerte Freizeiten und Ausgehsperren 

sowie übermäßig lange Arbeitszeiten einschließen. Zum 

Missbrauch gehöre auch die unsichtbare sexuelle 

Drangsalierung von Frauen. 


In der gemeinsamen Pressekonferenz mit ihrer israelischen 

Kollegin Tsipi Livni wiederholt US-Außenministerin 

Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem den Wunsch nach einer 

Vereinbarung zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern bis Ende 

2008. Berater von Präsident Machmud Abbas werden mit der 

Ankündigung zitiert, dass dieser zurücktreten werde, wenn in 

den kommenden Monaten keine sichtbaren Ergebnisse erzielt 

würden. Zwei Tage zuvor betonte Livni in London die 

israelische „Vision zweier Staaten für zwei Völker“, die in 

Frieden, Sicherheit und Wohlstand nebeneinander leben. Es 

vergehe fast kein Tag ohne Verhandlungen. 


In einer Londoner Erklärung verlangt das „Nahost-Quartett“ 

unter Einschluss seines Repräsentanten Tony Blair 

kontinuierliche und intensive Verhandlungen zwischen Israel 

und der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde mit dem Ziel der 

Schaffung eines palästinensischen Staates in der Westbank 

und im Gazastreifen unter dem Schirm der „Road Map“. 

Deshalb beklagt das „Quartett“ die fortgesetzten 

Siedlungsaktivitäten und fordert Israel zu ihrer Einstellung auf. 

Schließlich verlangen die Außenminister von den arabischen 

Geberstaaten, ihre Zusagen von der Pariser Konferenz Mitte 

Dezember 2007 einzuhalten 12 . 

Ghait al-Omari, der in den Jahren 2001 bis 2003 zum 

palästinensischen Team der „Genfer Initiative“ gehörte und 

heute in Washington, D.C., arbeitet, warnt in einem Kommentar 

vor der Illusion, dass die Einbindung von „Hamas“ in den 

Verhandlungsprozess ihre Politik erheblich verändern würde. 

„Hamas“ weise nicht die Zweistaatenregelung zurück, doch sei 

ihr Verhalten einer kalten rationalen Logik verpflichtet. Bisher 

habe sich gezeigt, dass die Verweigerung von Kompromissen


ihr nach innen und außen genutzt habe. Gegenüber Israel 

hätten sich selbst die pragmatischsten Stimmen lediglich zu 

einer vorläufigen Waffenruhe bereit erklärt. Nach innen laute 

die Botschaft, dass sich Extremismus auszahle. Die 

Marginalisierung von „Hamas“ werde nur dann gelingen, wenn 

die moderaten palästinensischen Kräfte einen lebensfähigen 

palästinensischen Staat auf dem Verhandlungsweg 

durchsetzen könnten. Der Autor plädiert deshalb für die 

Wiederbelebung der Vereinbarungen von Annapolis im 

November 2007 13 . 

In einem Interview mit der „Frankfurter Rundschau” identifiziert 

der in Jerusalem lebende Historiker und Publizist Tom Segev 

eine gemeinsame israelische Identität, die sich vor allem in der 

hebräischen Sprache ausdrücke. Obwohl viele junge Israelis 

einen zweiten Pass besitzen, glaubten sie nicht mehr an einen 

Frieden mit den Palästinensern. Aufgrund des „religiösen 

Wahnsinns“ auf beiden Seiten glaube auch er, Segev, nicht 

mehr an den Frieden. Israel steuere noch mehr auf eine 

Apartheid zu. Am Ende laufe es entweder auf eine weitere 

Unterdrückung der Palästinenser oder auf eine binationale 

Lösung hinaus. Segev wirft Angela Merkel vor, dass sie bei 

ihrem Besuch im März die israelische Regierung völlig kritiklos 

gewürdigt habe, obwohl im Lande selbst die Diskussion über 

diese Politik offener, schmerzhafter und manchmal 

gewalttätiger sei. 

„Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN)“ 

protestiert mit anderen Menschenrechtsorganisationen gegen 

die Exekution von vier Personen in syrischen Gefängnissen im 

April. Im Verlauf des Jahres 2007 seien in Saudi-Arabien 

mindestens 158 Personen, darunter drei Frauen und Kinder, 

hingerichtet worden. 76 von ihnen seien ausländische 

Staatsbürger gewesen. 


Nach zweitägigen Beratungen verabschieden der Vatikan und 

iranische Theologen in Rom eine sieben Punkte umfassende 

Erklärung zum Verhältnis zwischen Glaube, Vernunft und 

Gewalt. Darin betonen sie, dass sich Glaube und Vernunft nicht 

widersprechen können und nicht zur Rechtfertigung von Gewalt 

missbraucht werden dürfen 14 . 

In Anwesenheit des ungarischen Verteidigungsministers, des 

stellvertretenden [israelischen] Erziehungsministers, des 

Präsidenten der Europäisch-Jüdischen Union in Frankreich, 

des früheren aschkenasischen Oberrabbiners Israels, 

hinterbliebenen [israelischen] Familien, verwundeten 

[israelischen] Soldaten und ihren Familien, Mitgliedern der 

Delegation „Zeugen in [israelischer] Uniform“ des israelischen 

Militärs, jungen Menschen aus Israel und aus aller Welt, 

israelischen Staatsbürgern sowie Freunden und Gästen aus 

aller Welt hält der israelische Generalstabschef Gabi 

Aschkenasi eine Ansprache beim „Marsch der Lebenden“ im 

früheren Vernichtungslager Auschwitz-Birkenau. Darin rühmt er 

den Mut und die Entschlossenheit der israelischen Kämpfer 

und Kommandeure bei der Ausführung des letzten Willens, der


Träume und der stillen Gebete der sechs Millionen jüdischen 

Ermordeten. „Nie wieder!“ ruft Ashkenazi der Welt zu, werde es 

Israel zulassen, bei den anderen um Gnade zu bitten 15 . 

April 2008 

April 2008: 

In seinem „War and Peace Index“ für den Monat April berichtet 

das „Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research“ an der 

Universität Tel Aviv, dass 66 Prozent der jüdischen Israelis 

nicht an eine Vereinbarung mit Syrien und 70 Prozent an keine 

Vereinbarung mit den Palästinensern glauben. Nur 19 Prozent 

befürworten den Rückzug Israels von den Golanhöhen im 

Gegenzug für einen Friedensvertrag mit Damaskus, 34 Prozent 

sind gegen Verhandlungen mit den Palästinensern, obwohl 70 

Prozent die Formel von der Zweistaatenregelung unterstützen. 

55 Prozent sprechen sich gegen die Übergabe der arabischen 

Stadtviertel Jerusalems an die Palästinenser aus, und 60 

Prozent lehnen eine gemeinsame israelisch-palästinensische 

Verwaltung der heiligen Stätten ab. 17 Prozent befürchten 

einen gewaltsamen Aufstand der arabischen Bürger gegen den 

Staat. 78 Prozent der jüdischen Israelis vertreten die 

Auffassung, dass Israel auf militärischem Gebiet erfolgreich 

sei. 


Das israelische Militär tötet mit einem Geschoss in Beit Hanoun 

(Gazastreifen) sieben Palästinenser – darunter eine Mutter mit 

vier Kindern zwischen 15 Monate und sechs Jahren während 

des Frühstücks sowie einen 17jährigen Passanten –, andere 

werden verletzt. Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert bedauert den 

Tod, macht aber wie Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak die 

Raketenangriffe von „Hamas“ verantwortlich. In israelischen 

Presseberichten wird am 30. April eine Untersuchung des 

Militärs zitiert, wonach die Toten durch die Detonation eines 

palästinensischen Sprengkörpers ums Leben gekommen sein. 

Der liberal-konservative Uzi Benziman warnt in einem 

„Haaretz“-Kommentar davor, den Tod dem Feind in die Schuhe 

zu schieben. Die offizielle Lesart erinnere an frühere Vorfälle, 

bei denen das israelische Militär später eigenes Versagen 

haben einräumen müssen 16 . 

Ein palästinensisches Militärgerichts fällt ein Todesurteil gegen 

Emad Sa’ed, der der Kollaboration mit den israelischen 

Sicherheitsdiensten beschuldigt worden ist. Präsident 

Machmud Abbas muss das Urteil bestätigen. Das „Palestinian 

Center for Human Rights (PCHR)“ appelliert an ihn, die 

Todesstrafe umzuwandeln 17 . Die Exekution wäre die erste seit 

sieben Jahren. 

Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert bezeichnet die Gründung 

des Staates Israel als das historische Wunder des 20. 

Jahrhunderts und würdigt bei der Eröffnung des Ausstellung 

„Meine Heimat“ im Holocaust-Museum „Yad vaShem“ in


Jerusalem den Beitrag, den die Überlebenden der Shoah zum 

Aufbau des Staates geleistet haben 18 . 

Nach einem Bericht der „Jerusalem Post“ hat sich die 

israelische „Pensionistenpartei“ gespalten, die bei den Wahlen 

2006 sieben Parlamentssitze errang und mit zwei 

Kabinettsposten in die Regierung einrückte. Die Abspaltung 

zweier Mandatsträger will künftig den Namen „Gerechtigkeit für 

Rentner“ führen. Sie stehen dem aus Russland eingewanderten 

und umstrittenen Multimillionär Arcadi Gaydamek und seiner 

Gruppierung „Soziale Gerechtigkeit“ nahe. 


Aus Israel kommend, sollen während der Pessach-Woche, die 

an diesem Tag zu Ende geht, über 50.000 Touristen Hebron 

besucht haben. Das israelische Militär habe alles in seiner 

Macht Stehende getan, um ihnen den Übergang über die 112 

Kontrollstellen in der Stadt zu erleichtern. Nach 

palästinensischen Angaben gibt es außerhalb der Stadt weitere 

156 Kontrollpunkte. 


In einer Ansprache vor der „American Task Force on Palestine“ 

– einem Zusammenschluss von vorwiegend USamerikanischen 

Staatsbürgern palästinensischer Herkunft – in 

Zusammenarbeit mit dem „Saban Center for Middle East 

Policy“ in Washington, D.C., äußert der vormalige Leiter des 

palästinensischen Teams der „Genfer Initiative“, Yasser Abed 

Rabbo, Zweifel daran, ob der israelisch-palästinensische 

Konflikt auf einen Kompromiss oder eine politische Katastrophe 

zusteuere. Ein Vergleich zwischen Worten und Taten der 

politisch Verantwortlichen in den USA und in Israel laufe auf 

eine Schizophrenie hinaus. Ähnliche Skepsis äußert der frühere 

Nahost-Berater von Bill Clinton, Aaron David Miller 19 , auf 

derselben Veranstaltung. Deutliche Kritik übt Miller an der US- 

Politik, der er während des Gipfeltreffens in Camp David im Juli 

2000 eine Voreingenommenheit zugunsten Israels vorhält. Der 

damalige Präsident habe keine Strategie gehabt, sondern nur 

Taktik. Am 8. Mai zitiert die „Los Angeles Times“ Abed Rabbo 

mit den Worten, dass die Zahl der Palästinenser auch im Kreis 

rational denkender Intellektueller abnehme, die noch an die 

Zweistaatenregelung glauben. Eine kleine, aber wachsende 

Zahl von gemäßigten Palästinensern würde die Auffassung 

vertreten, fährt das Blatt fort, dass die israelischen Angebote 

einer palästinensischen Unabhängigkeit weniger Gewinn 

erbringe als ein gemeinsamer jüdisch-arabischer Staat unter 

Einbeziehung der Westbank und des Gazastreifens. Nach den 

Worten von Qadura Faris, der zu den palästinensischen 

Erstunterzeichnern der „Genfer Initiative“ gehörte, sei die 

palästinensische Strategie der Zweistaatenregelung erschöpft, 

so dass die politischen Ziele überdacht werden müssten. 

Außerdem habe der politisch unabhängige Kolumnist Ali 

Jarbawi Israel mit den Worten angesprochen: „I would say, ‚Be 

our guest. Continue your occupation. But we’re going to declare


this is all one state and ask for equal rights. Are you going to be 

able to keep us under control for another 40 years?’” 

Die „New York Times“ berichtet, dass prominente USamerikanische 

Juden eine neue Israel-Lobby-Gruppe in 

Washington, D.C., unter der Bezeichnung „J Street“ gegründet 

haben 20 , um den Einfluss von Organisationen wie dem 

„American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)“ 

einzudämmen. Die Gruppe wolle Kandidaten bei den Wahlen 

im Herbst unterstützen, die sich nachdrücklich für die 

Zweistaatenregelung und die Unterstützung der 

Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde einsetzen. Zu den 

Initiatoren von „J Street“ gehöre der frühere juristische Berater 

des israelischen Teams der „Genfer Initiative“, Daniel Levy 21 . 

In AIPAC-Kreisen werde herablassend darauf hingewiesen, 

dass der Haushalt von „J Street“ nicht mehr als 1,5 Millionen 

US-Dollar beträgt, während AIPAC hundert Millionen US-Dollar 

zur Verfügung stehen. 


Unter Leitung von Qadura Faris („Fatah“) und dem früheren 

Erziehungsminister Nasser Addein al-Shaer („Hamas“) 

veranstaltet die „Palestinian Peace Coalition / Geneva 

Initiative“ in Ramallah eine Konferenz mit Jugendvertretern 

und Repräsentanten der Zivilgesellschaft. Al-Shaer, 

Stellvertreter von Ismail Haniyeh im Gazastreifen, gilt als der 

„starke Mann“ von „Hamas“ in der Westbank. 

Beim 35 Minuten dauernden Treffen von US-Präsident George 

W. Bush mit dem palästinensischen Präsidenten Machmud 

Abbas in Washington, D.C., betont Bush, dass „ein 

palästinensischer Staat“ zu seinen obersten Prioritäten gehöre 

und nicht wie ein Schweizer Käse aussehen dürfe. Gleichzeitig 

wird der Präsident aus der Umgebung von Abbas für seine 

Planungen während der Nahostreise im Mai kritisiert: Er habe 

nicht vor, ein palästinensisches Flüchtlingslager zu besuchen 

oder mit Flüchtlingen zu reden. Jon Alterman, ehemals Mitglied 

des Planungsstabes im State Department und gegenwärtig 

Direktor des Nahostprogramms am „Center for Strategic and 

International Studies“, wirft Bush vor, die Palästinenser nicht 

nur zu beleidigen, sondern sie auch zu verletzen, wenn er nach 

Israel reise, während die palästinensische Führung ihn in Kairo 

treffen müsse. Bush wird außer in Israel auch in Ägypten und 

Saudi-Arabien erwartet. Am 7. Mai verkündet Bushs nationaler 

Sicherheitsberater Stephen Hadley, dass der Besuch des 

Präsidenten in Israel rein zeremoniellen Charakter haben 

werde. Eine gemeinsame Sitzung mit der israelischen 

Regierung und der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde sei 

nicht geplant. 

In Washington wird in einer nicht-öffentlichen Sitzung der 

außen- und sicherheitspolitischen Ausschüsse beider Häuser 

des US-Kongresses ein Video vorgeführt, das nordkoreanische 

und syrische Fachleute im Sommer 2007 bei der Arbeit in einer 

Nuklearanlage im Osten Syriens zeigen soll. Der Reaktor 

wurde nach Konsultationen mit Washington am 6. September


2007 von israelischen Jagdbombern zerstört. Vier Tage später 

sollen die Syrer die Reste der Anlage gesprengt haben, um 

verdächtige Spuren zu verwischen. Westliche Fachleute 

bezweifeln allerdings, das Syrien ein volles 

Atomwaffenprogramm entwickeln könne, weil ihm dazu die 

fachlichen Voraussetzungen fehlen würden. 

Als der libysche UN-Botschafter Ibrahim Dabashi im UN- 

Sicherheitsrat die israelische Belagerung des Gazastreifens 

den deutschen Konzentrationslagern vergleicht, verlassen die 

Delegierten der USA, Großbritanniens, Frankreichs, Belgiens 

und Stoa Ricas das Plenum. Der südafrikanische Ratspräsident 

Dumisano Kumalo bricht daraufhin die Sitzung ab. 


US-Präsident George W. Bush trifft im Weißen Haus mit 

Jordaniens König Abdullah II. zusammen. 

Bundesaußenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier unterrichtet in 

Berlin den ägyptischen Staatspräsidenten Hosni Mubarak über 

den Stand der Vorbereitungen auf die für Ende Juni geplante 

internationale Konferenz zur Stärkung der palästinensischen 

Polizei und Justiz. 

Der Israel-Korrespondent der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung“ 

Jörg Bremer ziert eine ernüchternde Bilanz der 

Friedensbewegung „Peace Now“ in den vergangenen dreißig 

Jahren. Wahrscheinlich sei sie eine der erfolgreichsten 

Organisationen ihrer Art, doch scheinen ihre Vorstellungen 

eines baldigen Friedens fern zu sein. 

Eine syrische Nachrichtenagentur meldet, dass Israels 

Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert dem syrischen Präsidenten 

Bashar Assad durch den türkischen Ministerpräsidenten Recep 

Tayyib Erdogan eine Botschaft übermittelt habe, wonach Israel 

zum vollen Rückzug von den Golanhöhen bereit sei. Olmerts 

Büro erklärt dazu, dass es dazu keinen Kommentar gebe. Die 

Rechtsopposition bezeichnet die vermeintliche Bereitschaft als 

einmalige nationale Kapitulation, Olmert opfere Israels 

Sicherheit. Dagegen begrüßt Yossi Beilin („Meretz/Yachad“) die 

Absicht und fordert Olmert auf, in schnelle und intensive 

Verhandlungen über einen Friedensvertrag einzutreten. 

Dagegen bezeichnet der Generalsekretär der Bewegung 

„Frieden Jetzt“, Yariv Oppenheimer, am 24. April in der 

„Jerusalem Post“ eine Rückgabe der Golanhöhen als 

unzeitgemäß. In einem Interview mit der auflagenstärksten 

Zeitung „Yediot Achronot (Letzte Nachrichten)“ am selben Tag 

zeigt sich Olmert zu Gesprächen mit Assad bereit. Dieser 

jedoch lehnt ebenfalls am 24. April in einem Interview mit der 

Zeitung „Al-Watan (Die Heimat)“ in Qatar direkte 

Verhandlungen mit Israel ohne Beteiligung der USA ab, die er 

bis zum Amtsantritt der neuen Präsidentschaft im Januar 2009 

für nicht zum Frieden bereit hält, und verweist auf die Rolle der 

Türkei als Vermittlerin. Der syrische Außenminister Walid 

Muallem ergänzt, dass Syrien nicht zu Lasten der Palästinenser 

verhandeln werde. Das Büro des iranischen Präsidenten 

Machmud Achmadinedjad warnt Syrien, vor den


„Konspirationen und den Bürgerkriegen unserer Feinde“ zu 

kapitulieren. Nach arabischen Presseberichten verlangt Abbas 

vor dem Beginn von Verhandlungen eine schriftliche 

Zusicherung Israels, die Golanhöhen zu räumen. 


In einem Beitrag in „Le Monde“ schlägt der israelische Autor 

A.B. Yehoshua die Stationierung bewaffneten Einheiten, 

vornehmlich aus Europa, entlang der israelischpalästinensischen 

Grenze vor, um die Zweistaatenregelung 

sicherzustellen. 

In einer Anzeige verwahrt sich Meir Margalit, ehemaliges 

Mitglied der Jerusalemer Stadtverordnetenversammlung und 

heute beim israelischen Komitee gegen die Zerstörung 

palästinensischer Häuser tätig, gegen die politisch 

unverbindliche Rede von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel vor 

der Knesset am 26. März. In der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen 

Zeitung“ wirft ihr Margalit vor, dass ihr Schweigen kein 

Freundschaftsdienst für Israel gewesen sei, denn das 

Gegenteil sei der Fall. Nur wenn die Besetzung 

palästinensischer Territorien aufhöre, habe der Staat Israel 

eine politische Überlebenschance, zitiert Margalit den 

israelischen Ministerpräsidenten Ehud Olmert 22 . 

Eine Resolution des US-Repräsentantenhauses aus Anlass des 

60. Gründungsjahres Israels wird ohne Gegenstimme 

angenommen. Der demokratische Abgeordnete Dennis 

Kucinich (Ohio) äußert sich kritisch zur israelischen Politik 

gegenüber den Palästinensern, stimmt jedoch der Resolution 

zu 23 . 

Der 18. Versuch, einen neuen libanesischen Präsidenten zu 

wählen, schlägt in Beirut fehl. 

Der US-demokratische Präsidentschaftsbewerberin Hillary 

Rodham Clinton droht dem Iran im Falle eines atomaren 

Angriffs auf Israel mit „völliger Vernichtung“. 

„Al-Qaida“ verwahrt sich gegen die Behauptung des 

libanesischen „Hisbollah“-Fernsehens, dass Israel für die 

Anschläge am 11. September 2001 in New York verantwortlich 

sei. Es reklamiert die Anschläge für sich. 


Zum Abschluss seiner neuntägigen Nahostreise, bei der er 

auch mit dem Leiter des Politischen Büros von „Hamas“ in 

Damaskus, Khaled Meshal, und mit Syriens Staatspräsidenten 

Bashar Assad zusammentraf, berichtet der frühere US- 

Präsident Jimmy Carter in einem Vortrag in Jerusalem, dass 

die Islamische Widerstandsbewegung und Syrien zum Frieden 

mit Israel in den Grenzen von 1967 bereit seien. 85 Prozent 

aller Probleme einschließlich der Grenzfragen und der 

Wasserverteilung seien geklärt, wird Assad von Carter zitiert. 

Gleichzeitig wirft der ehemalige US-Präsident der israelischen 

Regierung vor, am Frieden nicht interessiert zu sein. Noch am


selben Tag bekräftigt Meshal, dass eine Anerkennung des 

Staates Israel für seine Organisation nicht in Frage kommt, und 

bietet eine zehnjährige Waffenruhe an. Die israelische 

Regierung weist diesen Vorschlag umgehend zurück. Während 

der Vorsitzende der Partei der „Sefafdischen Thorawächter 

(Shas)“ Eli Yishai Carter bittet, sich für die Freilassung des seit 

Juni 2006 von „Hamas“ inhaftierten Gilad Shalit zu verwenden, 

bezeichnet der israelische Botschafter Dan Gillerman vor 

Journalisten in Washington, D.C., am 24. April Carter wegen 

seines Treffens mit Meshal als bigott. Yossi Beilin 

(„Meretz/Yachad“) fordert daraufhin am 25. April die 

umgehende Abberufung Gillermans. Akiva Eldar berichtet 

ebenfalls am 25. April in „Haaretz“ dass US-Außenministerin 

Condoleezza Rice frühzeitig über alle Details der Reise Carters 

unterrichtet gewesen sei und dass die kritischen Querschläge 

aus dem State Department nicht von ihr, sondern von dem 

ehemals einflussreichen Berater Elliott Abrams ausgingen. In 

einem Interview mit der arabischen Fernsehstation „al-Djazeera 

(Die Halbinsel)“ am 26. April erklärt Meshal, dass die 

angebotene Waffenruhe mit Israel nur taktischer Natur sei. Der 

Kampf gehe weiter. Am 26. Mai notiert Carter in einem Beitrag 

für die „Süddeutsche Zeitung“, dass nach einer Zählung der 

israelischen Menschenrechtsorganisation „B’tselem“ zwischen 

dem 27. Februar und 3. März 2008 im Gazastreifen 106 

Palästinenser, darunter 54 Zivilisten, bei israelischen 

Militäreinsätzen getötet wurden. 

In der hebräischsprachigen Ausgabe von „Haaretz“ wird Jimmy 

Carter mit den Worten zitiert, dass die USA jeden Vertrag 

Israels mit Syrien unterstützen würden. Das habe er auch 

Bashar Assad mitgeteilt. Gegenüber Yossi Beilin 

(„Meretz/Yachad“) schlägt Carter vor, eine „syrische Genfer 

Initiative“ in die Wege zu leiten. 

In der „International Herald Tribune“ zitiert der Chefredakteur 

der Beiruter Zeitung „The Daily Star“ Rami C. Khoury aus einer 

Meinungsumfrage unter Leitung von der Politologen Shibley 

Telhami und James Zogby vom März in Ägypten, Jordanien, 

Libanon, Marokko, Saudi-Arabien und den Vereinigten 

Arabischen Emiraten. Aus ihr geht eine von 83 Prozent der 

Befragten vertretene Ablehnung der US-amerikanischen Politik 

in der Region hervor: Nach Auffassung von 65 Prozent vertritt 

Washington andere Ziele als die Förderung demokratischer 

Werte, und 61 Prozent fordern, dass sich die Amerikaner aus 

dem Irak zurückziehen und die inneren Angelegenheiten der 

dortigen Bevölkerung überlassen. 81 Prozent glauben, dass die 

Lage der Iraker vor der amerikanischen Intervention besser 

gewesen sei als heute. 50 Prozent verlangen von Washington 

die Förderung eines arabisch-israelischen Friedens. Für die 

meisten Befragten stellt der Iran keine große Bedrohung dar, 

das Land habe das Recht auf ein eigenes Nuklearprogramm. 

In der libanesischen Stadt Zahle werden zwei Mitglieder der 

christlichen Phalange-Partei erschossen. Als Hintergrund 

werden Rivalitäten zwischen christlichen Fraktionen vermutet.



Unter der Überschrift „Glückwünsche und Sorgen” veröffentlicht 

die „Frankfurter Rundschau“ einen Aufruf von deutschen 

Wissenschaftlern, Parlamentariern und Intellektuellen zum 60. 

Gründungsjubiläum des Staates Israel 24 . 


In einer Kolumne für „Haaretz” plädiert Ari Shavit für ein 

„Geschäft” mit „Hamas“: einen islamischen Staat im 

Gazastreifen im Gegenzug für die Demilitarisierung ihres 

Widerstandes. Bei „Hamas“ handele es sich um Verbrecher 

und Mörder, doch auch Israel habe durch die Vertreibung der 

Palästinenser 1948 schweres Unrecht auf sich geladen 25 . 

Einer der Mitbegründer von „Hamas“ und frühere 

Außenminister der Regierung im Gazastreifen, Machmud 

Zahhar, begründet in der „Washington Post“ den Kampf seiner 

Islamischen Widerstandsbewegung mit der Absicht Israels, 

gegen die Palästinenser „einen totalen Krieg“ zu führen, und 

vergleicht diesen Kampf mit der Gegenwehr der „mutigen 

Juden des Warschauer Ghettos zur Verteidigung ihres Volkes“. 

Der Friedensprozess könne nicht einmal beginnen ohne das 

Israels sich zuerst auf die Grenzen von 1967 zurückziehe, alle 

Siedlungen auflöse, alle Soldaten aus dem Gazastreifen und 

aus der Westbank zurückziehe, die illegale Annexion 

Jerusalems rückgängig mache, alle Gefangenen freilasse 

sowie die Küste und den Luftraum freigebe. Diese Schritte 

würden für den Beginn gerechter Verhandlungen bieten und 

den Grundstein für die Rückkehr von Millionen Flüchtlingen 

ausmachen 26 . 

Der religiös-orthodoxe Jerusalemer Bürgermeister Uri 

Lupolianski kündigt eine weltweite jüdische Spendenaktion an, 

damit durch verbesserte Bildungschancen für palästinensische 

Kinder und Jugendliche im Ostteil der Stadt dem Einfluss von 

„Hamas“ Einhalt geboten werden kann. Die Spenden sollen die 

staatlichen und kommunalen Mittel ergänzen. Colette Avital 

(Arbeitspartei), die zu den Erstunterzeichnern der „Genfer 

Initiative“ gehörte, habe bereits drei Millionen US-Dollar unter 

britischen Juden gesammelt. 

Eine sieben Personen umfassende Bundestagsdelegation unter 

Leitung von Jerzy Montag (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), dem Leiter 

der deutsch-israelischen Parlamentariergruppe, wird in Hebron 

von Siedlern tätlich belästigt und angegriffen. Die israelische 

Polizei sei untätig geblieben, berichten sie. Die Delegation 

bricht ihren Besuch ab. Die Deutsche Botschaft in Tel Aviv 

protestiert im israelischen Außenministerium. Sie selbst äußert 

sich zu dem Vorfall nicht 27 . Das Auswärtige Amt in Berlin 

reagiert „mit großem Befremden“. 


Der US-amerikanische Präsidentschaftskandidat der 

Demokraten, Barack Obama, kritisiert den früheren 

Präsidenten Jimmy Carter für seine Absicht, in Damaskus den


Leiter des Politischen Büros von „Hamas“, Khaled Meshal, zu 

treffen; er trifft mit ihm am 17. April zusammen und fordert die 

Beteiligung von „Hamas“ in den israelisch-palästinensischen 

Verhandlungsprozess. Zuvor teilt Carter mit, dass ihm die 

israelischen Behörden die Einreise in den Gazastreifen 

verwehrt haben. 


Nach dem Tod von drei israelischen Soldaten im Gazastreifen 

sterben bei Angriffen israelischer Helikopter fünfzehn 

Palästinenser, darunter mindestens fünf Kinder und einen 

palästinensischen Kameramann, der für die britische Agentur 

„Reuters“ arbeitete. Auf den westlichen Negev gehen mehr als 

zwei Dutzend „Qassam“-Raketen nieder. 

Bei einer Begegnung zwischen der österreichischen 

Außenministerin Ursula Plassnik und Yossi Beilin in Wien 

bezeichnet Plassnik die „Genfer Initiative“ als wichtigen 

Anreiz und vitales Zeichen für den Willen der israelischen und 

der palästinensischen Zivilgesellschaft zum Frieden. 


In einem Beitrag für „DIE ZEIT“ beschäftigt sich Joschka 

Fischer insbesondere mit dem künftigen politischen und 

strategisch-militärischen Gewicht Irans und betont, dass die 

nukleare Aufrüstung Teherans nicht auf eine Bedrohung durch 

die Atommacht Israel zurückzuführen sei, sondern auf eigene 

hegemoniale Gelüste und auf iranisches Prestigedenken. Die 

drohende Balkanisierung des Nahen Ostens würde nicht Israel 

nützen, sondern Iran zugute kommen, das auf eine sehr alte 

und stabile Staatlichkeit zurückblicke, sowie im Falle des Irak 

der Blindheit, Arroganz und Inkompetenz der US-Politik 

anzulasten sei. Die Zeit eines laizistischen arabischen 

Nationalismus laufe ab. An seine Stelle trete ein politischer 

Islam, der sich erfolgreich der nationalen und sozialen Frage 

bemächtigt habe. Am meisten fortgeschritten sei dieser 

Prozess mit „Hamas“ in Palästina, doch auch in Syrien und 

Ägypten zeichne sich – wenn auch nicht so radikal und schnell 

– eine ähnliche Entwicklung ab. In den arabischen Teilen des 

Irak habe sie im Gefolge der US-Intervention bereits 

stattgefunden. Der von den USA angestoßene 

Demokratieexport laufe objektiv auf die Stärkung des 

politischen Islam hinaus. Am Beispiel der Türkei werde sich 

erweisen, ob er sich in Richtung Demokratie und 

Modernisierung bewegt. Abschließend formuliert Fischer drei 

Fragen: 1. Wird der Prozess der ökonomischen Modernisierung 

schneller und erfolgreicher verlaufen als die politische 

Islamisierung und Radikalisierung? 2. Wird in der Türkei die 

Verbindung von politischem Islam einerseits sowie 

ökonomisch-sozialer und demokratischer Modernisierung 

andererseits gelingen? 3. Wird der Hegemonialkonflikt mit Iran 

zu einer militärischen Konfrontation führen oder politisch gelöst 

werden können?



Das politisch rechts stehende israelische „Begin-Sadat Center 

for Strategic Studies“ publiziert die Ergebnisse einer von ihm in 

Auftrag gegebenen Meinungsumfrage. Danach sprechen sich 

62 Prozent der jüdischen Israelis gegen und 29 Prozent für 

Verhandlungen über die Teilung Jerusalems aus. 71 Prozent 

verlangen über die Ergebnisse der Verhandlungen zu 

Jerusalem eine Volksabstimmung, während 19 Prozent dies für 

nicht notwendig halten. 48 Prozent lehnen die Berücksichtigung 

der in der Diaspora lebenden Juden in dieser Frage ab, 38 

Prozent geben eine positive Antwort darauf. Auch im Rahmen 

eines Schlussvertrages mit den Palästinensern lehnen 58 

Prozent die Teilung Jerusalems ab, während 29 Prozent dazu 

bereit sind. 45 Prozent halten eine palästinensische Hauptstadt 

in Teilen Jerusalems für nicht möglich, während sich 14 

Prozent ihr positiv gegenüberstehen. 


Uri Avnery berichtet in seinem Tagesrundbrief, dass Israels 

öffentliche Hand rund 40 Millionen US-Dollar für die 

Feierlichkeiten zum 60. Gründungsjahr bereitgestellt habe – 

obwohl der Bevölkerung nicht zum Feiern zumute sei, sondern 

die Stimmung düster sei. 


Daniel Levy, ehemaliger Rechtsberater des israelischen Teams 

der „Genfer Initiative“ und heute in Washington, D.C., 

arbeitend, referiert in seiner regelmäßigen Kolumne, dass nach 

einem Bericht des israelischen Fernsehens das Militär analog 

den Verfahrensweisen der US-Truppen in Irak plane, die 

Kontrolle aller „Checkpoints“ in der Westbank entlang der 

„Trennungsmauern“ zu privatisieren. Die 

Frauenhilfsorganisation „Machsom Watch“ habe schon 

wachsende Spannungen, explosive Auftritte und 

eingeschränkte Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten zu den 

Mitarbeitern dieser Privatfirmen beklagt. 

10.-13.04.2008: 

Die „Palestinian Peace Coalition – Geneva Initiative“ 

veranstaltet im türkischen Antalya ein Seminar mit 

palästinensischen und israelischen Regierungsangestellten, 

parlamentarischen Hilfskräften, Journalisten, Friedensaktivisten 

und Führungskräften von Frauenorganisationen. Ziel der 

Veranstaltung ist der Abbau von Vorurteilen und Stereotypen 

auf beiden Seiten unter Einbeziehung von Rollenspielen. Zu 

den Referenten gehören als Erstunterzeichner der „Genfer 

Initiative“ Saman Khoury und Menachem Klein, die über die 

gegenwärtige Atmosphäre in beiden Gesellschaften berichten. 


Nach einer Meldung der “Jerusalem Post” haben Israels 

Außenministerin Tsipi Livni und der palästinensischen 

Verhandlungsleiter Achmed Qureia („Abu Ala”) in


Geheimgesprächen die Übergabe des ehemaligen 

Fluggeländes Atarot im Norden Jerusalems an die 

Palästinensische Autonomiebehörde vereinbart. 

Yossi Verter zitiert in „Haaretz“ aus einer Ansprache von 

Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert am 7. April vor Offizieren mit 

den Worten: „Judäa und Samaria sind strategisch und 

historisch bedeutsam, doch nach meiner Auffassung werden 

wir schließlich den größten Teil der Gebiete aufgeben müssen. 

Ich sage dies mit einem Gefühl tiefen Schmerzes. Ich bin ein 

Jude, der sein ganzes Leben in dem Glauben erzogen wurde, 

dass dies das Land Israel ist, und dazu habe ich meine 

Meinung nicht geändert. Doch die Lage ist schwierig, und wir 

müssen und entscheiden. Nach meiner Auffassung hat das 

Volk in seinem Herzen bereits entschieden.“ 

In der derselben Ausgabe berichtet Yossi Verter von der 

jüngsten Meinungsumfrage der Universität Tel Aviv unter 

Leitung von Professor Camil Fuchs, wonach die Partei der 

„Grünen gegenwärtig erstmals mit drei Abgeordneten in die 

Knesset einziehen würde. Dagegen würden die Arbeitspartei 

unter Ehud Barak acht Sitze und „Likud“ unter Führung von 

Benjamin Netanyahu sechs Sitze verlieren. 

Der frühere Direktor des „American Jewish Congress“ und 

heutige Direktor des „US/Middle East Project“, Henry Siegman, 

setzt sich in einem Beitrag für die „Süddeutsche Zeitung“ 

außergewöhnlich kritisch mit der internationalen Zurückhaltung 

gegenüber der israelischen Politik auseinander 28 . 


Der seit April 2002 in israelischer Haft sitzende ehemalige 

Führer der „Tanzim“ von Fatah, Marwan Barghouti, zeigt sich in 

einem Brief an die israelische Bewegung „Frieden Jetzt“ davon 

überzeugt, dass das palästinensische Volk zu einem 

historischen Kompromiss auf der Grundlage internationaler 

Entscheidungen mit dem Ergebnis zweier in Frieden 

miteinander lebender Staaten bereit sei. Der Brief wird von 

Qadura Faris, einem palästinensischen Erstunterzeichner der 

„Genfer Initiative“, bei der 30-Jahr-Feier der Bewegung in Tel 

Aviv verlesen. Fares, der dreizehn Jahre in israelischen 

Gefängnissen gesessen hat, ist als Kritiker der geringen 

Reformbereitschaft von „Fatah“ ein politischer Verbündeter von 

Barghouti. Am 17. März hatte er Überlegungen angekündigt, ei 

der nächsten Wahl des palästinensischen Präsidenten im Jahr 

2009 zu kandidieren. 

In der Zentrale des israelischen Teams der „Genfer Initiative“ 

in Tel Aviv kündigt Yossi Beilin („Meretz/Yachad“) eine 

Nahostkonferenz unter Führung Washingtons für Mai im 

ägyptischen Badeort Sharm el-Sheikh an, um die 

Verabredungen von Annapolis im November 2007 in politische 

Ergebnisse umzumünzen. Beilins Ankündigung wird offiziell 

bestätigt.


In Ägypten finden Kommunalwahlen statt. Sie werden von 

sozialen Unruhen, bei denen zwei Menschen ums Leben 

kamen, und politischem Streit begleitet. Die in sich zerstrittene 

Moslembruderschaft rief am 7. April zum Boykott auf. Aus den 

Wahlen geht die „Nationaldemokratische Partei“ von Präsident 

Hosni Mubarak mit einem 95-Prozent-Anteil als Sieger hervor – 

die Wahlbeteiligung lag bei lediglich fünf Prozent. Nach 

Berichten arabischer Beobachter hat die Regierung erneut 

Zuflucht zu autoritären Praktiken genommen und den 

Reformprozess zwischen 2003 und 2005 eingestellt. 

Die Bundestagsfraktion von „Bündnis 90/DieGrünen“ richtet 33 

Fragen im Rahmen einer Kleinen Anfrage an die „Politik der 

Bundesregierung und EU im israelisch-palästinensischen 

Konflikt angesichts der Krise im Gazastreifen“ 29 . 


Yariv Oppenheimer, Generalsekretär der Bewegung „Frieden 

Jetzt“, die in diesem Monat ihr dreißigjähriges Jubiläum feiert, 

beschuldigt die israelische Regierung der politischen 

Doppelzüngigkeit. Ihre Rhetorik, eine Zweistaatenregelung 

anzustreben, stehe in diametralem Gegensatz zu ihren 

Handlungen, die Siedlungen in Jerusalem und in der Westbank 

auszubauen 30 . 

Der Gründer und Direktor der palästinensischen 

Menschenrechtsorganisation „Monitoring Group“ Bassam Eid 

warnt vor einer simplen Interpretation der 

innerpalästinensischen Gewalt. Im allgemeinen werde sie als 

Ergebnis des Konflikts mit Israel interpretiert, wobei die 

Uneinigkeit und die Zerwürfnisse der verschiedenen politischen 

Fraktionen, Familien und Städte übersehen würde, die Eid mit 

dem Begriff „Intrafada“ belegt. Auf sie seien zwischen dem 

Ausbruch der Zweiten Intifada im Herbst 2000 bis Ende 2007 

sechzehn Prozent der palästinensischen Toten zurückzuführen. 


Der palästinensische Präsident Machmud Abbas kündigt ein 

Referendum an, dem sich eine Vereinbarung mit Israel stellen 

soll. 

05./04.04.2008: 

Auf ihrem ersten Bundeskongress der „Linksjugend“, die der 

Partei „Die Linke“ nahesteht, wird in Leipzig die ursprünglich 

vorgesehene Formulierung einer uneingeschränkten Solidarität 

mit den Palästinensern gestrichen. 


Nach palästinensischen und israelischen Presseberichten hat 

Yasser Abed Rabbo, enger Berater von Präsident Machmud 

Abbas, die Autonomiebehörde aufgefordert, die Verhandlungen 

mit Israel einzustellen, solange die „Konspiration“ der 

Siedlungspolitik fortbesetzt wird.



Der Leiter des Politischen Büros von „Hamas“ mit Sitz in 

Damaskus, Khaled Meshal, empfiehlt in einem Interview mit der 

palästinensischen Zeitung „al-Ayyam (Die Tage)“ jenen Israelis, 

die sich für Gespräche mit „Hamas“ einsetzen, dass sie ihre 

Regierungen zur Beendigung der Aggression gegen das 

palästinensische Volk aufrufen, weil sich die Araber und die 

Palästinenser gemeinsam für die Schaffung eines 

palästinensischen Staates in den Grenzen von 1967 

ausgesprochen hätten. Die USA und „andere in der 

internationalen Gemeinschaft“ seien aufgefordert, die 

israelische Politik auf dieses Ziel zu verpflichten. „Das ist die 

Lösung.“ 

„Haaretz“ berichtet von einer internationalen Umfrage der BBC, 

wonach Iran weltweit der negativste Einfluss zugeschrieben 

wird. An zweiter und dritter Stelle folgten Israel und die USA. 

Deutschland werde der beste Einfluss auf die Welt 

zugeschrieben. 


Arabische Abgeordnete lösen in der Knesset einen Sturm der 

Entrüstung aus, als in erster Lesung ein Gesetzentwurf der 

„Nationalen Union/Nationalreligiöse Partei“ und der Partei 

„Unser Haus Israel (Israel Beitenu)“ debattiert wird, wonach die 

Bewerbung eines Kandidaten um ein Abgeordnetenmandat 

nach dem Besuch eines Feindstaates ohne vorherige 

Genehmigung null und nichtig sein soll 31 . Ein Abgeordneter der 

„Vereinigten Arabischen Liste“ bezeichnet den Entwurf 

„schlimmer als die Nürnberger Gesetze“, worauf er und seine 

arabischen Kollegen als „fünfte Kolonne“ charakterisiert 

werden. Nach Angaben der Generalstaatsanwaltschaft 

unterstützt die Regierung den Gesetzentwurf. 

März 2008 

Ende März: 

Der frühere US-Generalkonsul in Jerusalem, Ed Abington, 

verbreitet einen Brief, in dem er der Politik seiner Regierung ein 

vernichtendes Urteil ausspricht 32 . 


Israel-Korrespondent Jörg Bremer berichtet in der „Frankfurter 

Allgemeinen Zeitung“, dass die israelischen und 

palästinensischen Teams unter Leitung von Tsipi Livni und 

Achmed Qureia („Abu Ala“) die „Genfer Initiative“ als 

„Anregung“ für ihre Verhandlungen betrachten. 

30.03.2007:


In Anwesenheit von Israels Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak 

und dem palästinensischen Ministerpräsidenten Salam Fayyad 

lässt US-Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem 

gegenüber Journalisten ihre Ungeduld darüber erkennen, dass 

die israelische Regierung ihre eigenen Zusagen nicht einhält, 

die Bewegungsfreiheit der palästinensischen Bevölkerung in 

der Westbank durch die Auflösung von fünfzig Checkpoints im 

Umfeld von Jenin, Tulkarem, Kalkilya und Ramallah zu 

erleichtern. In Amman verlangt Rice am 31. März nach einem 

Gespräch mit König Abdullah II. und Präsident Machmud 

Abbas: „Settlement activity should stop – expansion should 

stop.“ 

29./30.03.2008: 

Syriens Präsident Bashar al-Assad eröffnet in Damaskus die 

Sitzung der Arabischen Liga. Die libanesische Regierung 

boykottiert die Sitzung. Saudi-Arabien, Ägypten, Jordanien, 

Jemen, Irak, Bahrain, Oman, Marokko und Somalia sind nur mit 

niederrangigen Delegationen vertreten. In Riyadh, Kairo und 

Amman wird Syrien beschuldigt, an der Beruhigung der Lage in 

Libanon nicht interessiert zu sein. Beobachter vermuten, dass 

durch Kritik an der syrischen Regierung diese in die Arme von 

Iran, „Hisbollah“ und „Hamas“ getrieben wird. Letztere fordert 

die Arabische Liga auf, ihren Friedensplan von 2002/2007 

zurückzuziehen, da Israel nicht am Frieden interessiert und nur 

die Sprache der Gewalt sowie des Heiligen Krieges verstehe. 

Die Sitzung endet mit der Warnung an Israel, dass die 

Gültigkeit des saudischen Friedensplans von Israel abhänge: 

„The continuation by the Arab side to present the Arab peace 

initiative is tied to Israel executing its commitments in the 

framework of international resolutions to achieve peace in the 

region.“ 


Der Publizist Ari Shavit fällt in „Haaretz” ein vernichtendes Urteil 

über den politischen Charakter von Regierungschef Ehud 

Olmert und spricht ihm jede Substanz jenseits liebenswürdiger 

Umgangsformen ab. Abgesehen davon, dass er keine Skrupel 

habe, morgen das Gegenteil von dem zu behaupten, was er 

heute gesagt habe, habe er versagt, das Schulsystem zu 

revolutionieren, habe das Rechtssystem beschädigt, habe vor 

den „Sefardischen Torawächtern (Shas)“ kapituliert – eine 

Anspielung auf Drohungen der Partei, im Falle von 

Verhandlungen über Jerusalem die Koalition zu verlassen –, die 

Zentralisierung der Wirtschaft vorangetrieben und die Spaltung 

der Gesellschaft hingenommen. Unter Olmert sei Israel zu 

einem rücksichtslosen Land geworden, das die Armen und 

Hilflosen aufgegeben habe 33 . In derselben Zeitung bescheinigt 

Shavit am 3. April Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak, der 

Öffentlichkeit nicht die Wahrheit über seine Pläne mitzuteilen, 

und schlägt ihm einen Brief vor, um sich politisch zu 

rehabilitieren 34 . 

Das israelische Tourismusministerium teilt mit, dass im Februar 

rund 200.000 Touristen Israel besucht haben, eine Steigerung 

gegenüber demselben Monat im Vorjahr um 46 Prozent. Von


den 200.000 Gästen seien 4.800 direkt nach Eilat 

weitergefahren, während 25.000 – mehrheitlich Russen, 

Ukrainer und Polen – über den ägyptischen Grenzübergang 

Taba einreisten und für einen Tag Israel besuchten. 


Präsident Machmud Abbas wiederholt, dass die Gespräche 

zwischen der israelischen Regierung und der Palästinensischen 

Autonomiebehörde alle zentralen Fragen einschließen: 

Jerusalem, Flüchtlinge, Siedlungen, Grenzen und Sicherheit. Er 

hoffe, dass bis Ende 2008 eine Regelung gefunden werden 

könne. 

Auf Anfragen des „Meretz”-Abgeordneten Avshalom Vilan 

erklärt der Siedlungsbeauftragte von Verteidigungsminister 

Ehud Barak, dass für Umsiedler aus dem Siedlungsblock Gush 

Katif im Gazastreifen vier mobile Quartiere in der Siedlung 

Teneh Omarim in den südlichen Hebron-Bergen aufgestellt 

worden seien. Die Siedlung liegt östlich der 

„Trennungsmauern“, von denen die israelische Regierung 

bisher behauptet hat, mit ihnen würde nicht der künftige 

Grenzverlauf präjudiziert. Vilan bezeichnet die Anlage als eine 

„schamlose Kapitulation vor der extremen Rechten“. Weiter 

berichtet „Haaretz“, dass andere Siedler aus dem Gazastreifen 

auf Zuweisungen in der Nähe von Ariel und im Jordantal warten 

würden. Am 27. März veröffentlicht Akiva Eldar in „Haaretz“ ein 

Feature über die Bewohner der Siedlung Neve Dotan in der 

nördlichen Westbank, wo zahlreiche Häuser leer stehen, und 

berichtet von Zweifeln, unter diesen Bedingungen in anderen 

Orten neue Wohneinheiten zu errichten. 

Auf Betreiben des neuen „Meretz“-Vorsitzenden Haim Oron 

beschließt eine Kommission der Knesset eine Anhörung über 

den Völkermord an den Armeniern während des Ersten 

Weltkrieges. Die Regierung erhebt keine Einwände. 

Der im vergangenen Jahr gewählte Präsident der Deutsch- 

Israelischen Gesellschaft und frühere Leiter der Konrad- 

Adenauer-Stiftung in Israel, Johannes Gerster, fordert die 

Bundesregierung auf, analog der Einrichtung von Zentren für 

Deutschlandstudien an den Universitäten Jerusalem und Haifa 

Israel-Studienzentren an deutschen Universitäten aufzubauen. 

Ziel der „seriösen Israelforschung“ müsse es sein, „zu einem 

realistischen Bild Israels in Deutschland“ beizutragen. „Mit einer 

breiteren Kenntnis über Israel heute kann das Interesse junger 

Deutscher an Israel geweckt und verstärkt werden“, erklärt 

Gerster. „Dies ist wichtig für die Intensivierung der deutschisraelischen 

Beziehungen und gegen die oft unfaire und 

unzutreffende Darstellung des modernen Israel in den 

europäischen Medien und nicht zuletzt ein ganz wesentlicher 

Beitrag gegen Antisemitismus und Extremismus in deutschen 

Landen.“ 


Hosni Mubarak und Wladimir Putin unterzeichnen in Moskau 

eine Vereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit bei der friedlichen


Nutzung der Atomenergie. Danach kann sich Russland bei der 

vorgesehenen Ausschreibung für den Bau des ersten 

Atomkraftwerks in der Nähe von Alexandria beteiligen. 


Nachdem der Vorsitzende der Partei „Unser Haus Israel (Israel 

Beitenu)” Avigdor Lieberman den arabischen Staatsbürgern in 

der Knesset damit gedroht hat, nach Bildung einer neuen 

Regierung mit ihnen „aufzuräumen“, verlassen die arabischen 

Abgeordneten und die Abgeordneten von „Meretz“ unter 

Protest das Plenum. 


Auf Betreiben des jemenitischen Staatspräsidenten Ali Abdullah 

Saleh, verständigen sich „Fatah“ und „Hamas“ in Sana’a auf 

eine Deklaration, wonach Anfang April Gespräche stattfinden 

sollen. Einen Tag später, am 24. März, streiten beiden Seiten 

über die Bedeutung der Vereinbarung. Der Sprecher des 

israelischen Verteidigungsministeriums warnt Machmud Abbas 

am 23. März vor einer Einheitsregierung. Dann würden die 

„Friedensverhandlungen“ abgebrochen. 


Jörg Bremer berichtet in der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung”, 

dass der palästinensische Chefdiplomat Saeb Erakat in einem 

Gespräch mit ausländischen Korrespondenten erklärt habe, 

Israelis und Palästinenser seien „noch nie so nah“ an einem 

Vertrag gewesen, man befinde sich derzeit in seinen 

„Geburtswehen“. Am 31. März schreibt Itamar Eichner in der 

Zeitung „Yediot Achronot“, dass sich Tsipi Livni und Achmed 

Qureia seit der Konferenz von Annapolis im November 2007 

über fünfzig Mal getroffen hätten. 

Der russische Außenminister Sergej Lawrow und Israels 

Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert geben in Jerusalem eine 

Vereinbarung bekannt, wonach Russland der 

Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde 25 Panzerwagen liefert, 

die ohne Maschinengewehre ausgerüstet sind. Weitere 25 

Wagen sollen zunächst in Jordanien gelagert werden, bis Israel 

ihrer Lieferung in die Westbank zustimmt. 


Israelische und ägyptische Unterhändler verständigen sich 

prinzipiell darauf, dass Ägypten die Elektrizitätsversorgung im 

Gazastreifen allein übernimmt. 

Der frühere Herausgeber der „Zeit, Theo Sommer, kritisiert in 

einem Kommentar den Auftritt Angela Merkels vor der Knesset. 

Darin habe sie die Frage offen gelassen, ob ihre Zusicherung, 

Israels Sicherheit sei für die deutsche Politik nicht 

verhandelbar, automatisch auch den Bündnisfall einer weiteren 

„Fehlkalkulation wie den letzten Libanon-Krieg“ einschließe und 

ob eine „einseitige Festlegung Berlins zugunsten Israels … als 

Freibrief verstanden werden mag, (der allerdings) den


Friedensprozess lediglich erschweren, nicht jedoch befördern“ 

würde 35 . 

Aus seinen Haushaltsmitteln übergibt Außenminister Frank- 

Walter Steinmeier zwanzig neue Polizeifahrzeuge an den Leiter 

der Palästinensischen Generaldelegation in Berlin, Hael Al- 

Fahoum. Gleichzeitig wiederholt das Auswärtige Amt die 

Zusage, dass zwischen 2007 und 2010 auf der Pariser 

Geberkonferenz im Dezember vergangenen Jahres 200 

Millionen Euro eingeplant sind. 

Der US-amerikanische Generalkonsul in Jerusalem übergibt 

dem palästinensischen Ministerpräsidenten Salam Fayyad 

einen Scheck über 150 Millionen US-Dollar als erste Tranche 

von 550 Millionen US-Dollar in den nächsten drei Jahren. 


In einer vom Jerusalemer Büro der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung 

in Auftrag gegebenen Meinungsumfrage des Instituts „Near 

East Consulting“ zwischen dem 25. September und dem 17 

Oktober 2007 sprechen sich 78 Prozent der Palästinenser für 

einen Staat aus, der von der Religion regiert wird. Die Mehrheit 

von 41 Prozent bezeichnet sich zunächst als moslemisch, 

gefolgt von palästinensisch mit 29 Prozent, „ein Mensch“ mit 23 

Prozent und arabisch mit fünf Prozent. 88 Prozent der 

Befragten weisen die Idee zurück, dass Frauen allein und ohne 

Zustimmung ihrer nächsten männlichen Verwandten reisen 

dürfen. Gleichzeitig würden 71 Prozent eine Versöhnung 

zwischen Arabern und Juden begrüßen. 

16.-18.03.2008: 

Eine deutsche Regierungskoalition unter Leitung von 

Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel, zu der Außenminister Frank- 

Walter Steinmeier, Justizministerin Brigitte Zypries, 

Umweltminister Sigmar Gabriel, Wirtschaftsminister Michael 

Glos, Familienministerin Ursula von der Leyen, 

Forschungsministerin Annette Schavan und 

Verteidigungsminister Franz Josef Jung gehören, reist zur 

ersten Runde der jährlichen Regierungskonsultationen nach 

Israel. Solche Verabredungen bestehen bislang zwischen 

Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien, Spanien, Polen und Russland. 

Zum Abschluss ihres Besuchs hält Merkel am späten 

Nachmittag des 18. März in der Knesset eine rund 20-minütige 

Ansprache in Deutsch, die sie mit einem in hebräischer 

Sprache gehaltenen Dank beginnt. Für ihren Auftritt ist die 

parlamentarische Geschäftsordnung geändert worden, die 

diese Ehre bisher nur Staatsoberhäuptern zuteil werden ließ. 

Der Sitzung bleiben fünf Abgeordnete fern. Inhaltlich übt sich 

Merkel mit Äußerungen zum Konflikt mit den Palästinensern, 

die – bis auf eine Würdigung Machmud Abbas’ – nur im 

Zusammenhang des Raketenbeschusses aus dem 

Gazastreifen vorkommen, in großer Zurückhaltung. Mit ihrer 

Betonung der Zweistaatenregelung knüpft sie an die Rhetorik 

der israelischen Regierung an, die es vermeidet, die Frage zu 

beantworten, wo der Staat Palästina entstehen soll. Merkel 

selbst begnügt sich mit der Anspielung, dass Israel


„schmerzliche Zugeständnisse“ zugemutet werden müssten. In 

einem Kommentar bedauert der Historiker Tom Segev in 

„Haaretz“ am 19. März, dass die Regierungskonsultationen 

eine „Veranstaltung der vollständigen und unzweideutigen 

Unterstützung der [israelischen] Politik“ von deutscher Seite 

gewesen seien. Nicht einmal US-amerikanische Politiker seien 

so weit gegangen 36 . 


In einem Interview mit der Internetausgabe der „Zeit“ betont 

Yossi Beilin, dass die wahren Freunde Israels die seien, die 

den Frieden wollen. Indem er auf Angela Merkels Besuch in 

Israel eingeht, führt er aus, dass sein Land eine solche 

Freundschaft nicht brauche. 

Der Europäische Rat der Staats- und Regierungschefs erklärt 

in einer Stellungnahme zum Abschluss seiner Beratungen in 

Brüssel, dass die israelische Siedlungstätigkeit in allen Teilen 

der palästinensischen Gebiete einschließlich Ost-Jerusalems 

nach internationalem Recht illegal sei. Außerdem wird in der 

Erklärung die kontrollierte und dauerhafte Öffnung aller 

Übergänge vom und in den Gazastreifen verlangt. 


US-Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice beschuldigt die 

israelische Regierung und die Palästinensische 

Autonomiebehörde, nicht genug zur Umsetzung der 

Verpflichtungen aus der „Road Map“ zu tun: der Auflösung der 

„illegalen Außenlager“, dem Abbau von „Checkpoints“ und der 

Einstellung der Siedlungstätigkeit. Ein Regierungssprecher in 

Washington warnt am 15. März Israelis und Palästinenser vor 

der Einschätzung, dass Präsident George W. Bush Mitte Mai 

als „lahme Ende“ zur 60-Jahr-Feier nach Israel kommen werde. 

In einem Bericht spricht Barak Ravid in „Haaretz“ von drei USamerikanischen 

Wünschen: die schrittweise Auflösung der 

„illegalen Außenlager“, die Rückführung von Teilen der 

„Trennungsmauern“ auf die „Grüne Linie“ von 1967 sowie die 

Verabschiedung eines Gesetzes zur Entschädigung von 

Siedlern, die nach Israel zurückzukehren bereit sind. 

Die Jerusalemer Polizei nimmt vorläufig den Exekutivdirektor 

der „Rabbis for Human Rights”, Arik Ascherman, unter der 

Beschuldigung fest, er habe Palästinenser im Stadtteil Silwan 

zum Widerstand gegen israelische Pläne ermuntert, 

Ausgrabungen mit dem Ziel eines Parks anzulegen, der die 

jüdische Präsenz von alters her dokumentieren soll 37 . Am 17. 

März berichtet der Friedensaktivist Reuven Kaminer 

(Jerusalem), dass die „Frauen in Schwarz“, zu denen seine 

Frau Dafna gehört, bei ihrer stillen Mahnwachen am Freitag 

Anschläge radikaler Israelis befürchten 38 . 

13.-15.03.2008: 

Das „Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research“ in 

Ramallah unter Leitung von Khalil Shikaki ermittelt in einer


Umfrage zwischen dem 13. und 15. März, dass in den 

vergangenen drei Monaten die Popularität von „Hamas“, ihrer 

Führung, ihrer Positionen und ihrer Legitimität um zehn Prozent 

gestiegen ist. Nachdem sie nach dem Ausbruch der blutigen 

Rivalitäten im Gazastreifen im Juni 2006 gesunken war, würde 

„Hamas“ im Falle von Neuwahlen 35 Prozent und „Fatah“ 42 

Prozent der Stimmen erhalten. Die Popularität von „Fatah“ im 

Gazastreifen liegt bei 43, von „Hamas“ bei 40 Prozent, während 

sich in der Westbank 31 Prozent für „Hamas“ und 41 Prozent 

für „Fatah“ entscheiden würden. Bei der Wahl des Präsidenten 

würde Machmud Abbas 46 und Ismail Haniyeh 47 Prozent der 

Stimmen erhalten 39 . 


Die in Ramallah wohnende israelische Journalistin Amira Hass 

ruft die palästinensische Bevölkerung zum gewaltfreien 

Widerstand gegen die israelische Besatzung auf 40 . 

Als Araber verkleidete israelische Sicherheitskräfte töten in 

Bethlehem vier Palästinenser, die bis 2001 an Terrorakten 

gegen Israel beteiligt waren, sich aber mittlerweile davon 

distanziert haben. An ihrer Beerdigung nehmen 50.000 

Menschen teil. 


In seinem Korrespondentenbericht schreibt Rainer Hermann in 

der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung”, dass Syrien an einem 

Friedensschluss mit Israel interessiert sei und nicht auf eine 

Verständigung zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern warten 

wolle, dessen Umsetzung mehr als ein Jahrzehnt in Anspruch 

nehme. Voraussetzung des Friedens mit Israel sei die 

Rückgabe der Golanhöhen. Dann würde Damaskus seine 

Unterstützung der „Hisbollah“ in Libanon einstellen und sich 

aus der iranischen Umarmung lösen. Bis dahin wolle das 

syrische Regime seine Unterstützung von „Hisbollah“ und 

„Hamas“ als Faustpfänder gegen den US-amerikanischen 

Widerstand durchstehen. Am 15. März berichten die Medien, 

dass das syrische Verhandlungsangebot von dem türkischen 

Ministerpräsidenten Recep Tayig Erdogan an die israelische 

Regierung übermittelt worden sei. Danach verlange Damaskus 

„offene“ Verhandlungen und das vorherige Ende der Gewalt 

zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern. Im Gegenzug habe 

die israelische Regierung Damaskus vor einer militärischen 

Unterstützung der libanesischen „Hisbollah“ gewarnt. 


Zum Erstaunen seiner Leser bekennt sich der Publizist Ari 

Shavit in „Haaretz“ zu einer „Friedenspartei wie Meretz“, die 

das Land mehr denn je brauche. Wenn der Rechtsstaat 

angegriffen werde, wenn die Reichen tun, was sie wollten, und 

wenn sich der Ministerpräsident bedingungslos der „Partei der 

Sefardischen Thorawächter (Shas)“ ausliefere 41 , brauche Israel 

eine sozialdemokratische Partei wie „Meretz“. Selbst jene, die 

nicht mit jedem Strich und Komma der „Genfer Initiative“


einverstanden seien, sollten die Hoffnung nicht aufgeben, dass 

aus den parteiinternen Wählen in der nächsten Woche eine 

Führung hervorgehe, die „Meretz“ als Menschenrechtspartei 

stärke. Während sich Yossi Beilin, Shulamit Aloni und Amos Oz 

für Haim („Jumas“) Oron ausgesprochen hätten, trete er, 

Shavit, für die Wahl von Zahava Gal-On ein, weil sie die 

politischen Gegner nicht mit Samthandschuhen anfasse, 

sondern gegen sie kämpfe. Im Gegensatz zu den meisten 

männlichen Knesset-Abgeordneten habe sie ein Rückgrat 42 . 

Uzi Benziman ergänzt in derselben Zeitung am 16. März, dass 

Oron für die Erweiterung des Friedenslagers stehe, Gal-On für 

eine klare linke Politik und der mittlerweile sich ebenfalls 

bewerbende Ran Cohen für die Sozialpolitik. Aus den 

parteiinternen Wahlen am 18. März geht Oron aus Sieger 

hervor; 54 Prozent der abgegebenen Stimmen entfallen auf ihn. 

Oron kündigt an, keine Koalition mit der gegenwärtigen 

Regierung anzustreben, weil die Regierung das eine sage und 

das andere tue. Cohen vereinigt 27 Prozent der Stimmen auf 

sich, Gal-On 18 Prozent. In seinem Abschiedsbrief als 

Vorsitzender wiederholt Beilin seine Hoffnungen, dass noch in 

diesem Jahr eine „historische Vereinbarung“ mit den 

Palästinensern erreicht werden könne 43 . Am 24. März 

veröffentlicht „Haaretz“ einen internen Revisionsbericht, in dem 

der Partei ein „Zustand der Paralyse“ bescheinigt wird. Sie sei 

zu keiner Wahlkampagne fähig, ihre Bankschulden beliefen 

sich auf 12,4 Millionen Neue Shekel (~ 2,25 Millionen Euro), ihr 

sei die Parteijugend verlorengegangen, die Führung habe ihre 

Autorität an die Parlamentsfraktion abgegeben, und der Anteil 

der arabischen Stimmen habe bei den Wahlen 2006 nur noch 

ein Viertel betragen. 

Tom Segev bricht für den mittlerweile in Essex lehrenden 

Haifaer Historiker Ilan Pappe eine Lanze. In einen Beitrag für 

„Haaretz“ bescheinigt er ihm, dass er sein Land liebe, dass er 

das Recht auf Israels Existenz nicht bestreite, aber den Staat 

nicht liebe. Seine Option, die die meisten Israelis zurückweisen 

würden, laute „ein Land, das all seinen Bürgern gehört, Juden 

und Arabern“. 

In einem Bericht über den Besuch des neuen israelischen 

Botschafters in Berlin, Yoram Ben-Ze’ev, beim Bayerischen 

Rundfunk in München vermeiden die anwesenden Redakteure 

kritische Fragen zur israelischen Politik gegenüber dem 

Gazastreifen, so dass sich der Botschafter veranlasst sieht, sie 

selbst ins Gespräch zu bringen 44 . 

In Beirut scheitert der 16. Anlauf, einen neuen 

Staatspräsidenten zu wählen. Parlamentspräsident Nabih Berri 

(„Amal“ 45 ) kündigt an, dass mit der Wahl in zwei Wochen 

grundlegende Wahlreformen verbunden sein sollen. 


Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert genehmigt die Errichtung 

von rund 750 neuen Wohneinheiten in der Siedlung Giv’at 

Z’eev bei Jerusalem 46 . Am 11. März wird die Planung von 

weiteren 400 Wohneinheiten in Neve Yaacov bekannt. Olmerts 

Pressesprecher Mark Regev betont, dass der Ausbau der


großen Siedlungsblöcke ihren Verbleib bei Israel im Falle eines 

Friedens mit den Palästinensern unterstreiche. 

Gegenüber dem US-amerikanischen Nahost-Gesandten James 

Jones legt Außenministerin Tsipi Livni die Messlatte für die 

israelische Zustimmung zu einem palästinensischen Staat noch 

einmal höher, in dem sie verlangt, er müsse nicht nur in Frieden 

mit Israel leben wollen, sondern auch in der Lage sein, den 

Terror zu bekämpfen und versprechen, alle israelischen 

Sicherheitsbedürfnisse zu erfüllen. Das gelte nicht nur für die 

Zeit auf dem Weg zum palästinensischen Staat, sondern auch 

nach seiner Gründung. Damit behält sich Israel, nach Livnis 

Worten, das Recht auf militärische Interventionen vor. 


Nach arabischen Presseinformationen hat König Abdullah von 

Saudi-Arabien angeboten, auf seine Kosten die vom 

israelischen Militär im Gazastreifen zerstörten Häuser wieder 

aufbauen zu lassen. 


Ein Palästinenser namens Ala Abu Dhaim aus dem Ost- 

Jerusalemer Viertel Jebel Mukaber ermordet, als orthodoxer 

Jude verkleidet, in der „Yeshivat Merkaz haRav 47 “ im Stadtteil 

Kiryat Moshe – auf der Überlandstraße nACH Tel Aviv gelegen 

– acht Israelis und wird bei einem Schusswechsel getötet. Beim 

Besuch der Yeshiva am 9. März wird Erziehungsministerin Yuli 

Tamir (Arbeitspartei) als „Mörderin“ und „Oslo-Verbrecherin“ 

beschimpft. Tamir muss den Besuch abbrechen. In einem 

Rundfunkinterview kündigt sie am 9. März die Überprüfung der 

staatlichen Finanzierung der Yeshiva an, weil sie keine 

demokratischen Werte vermittle. Dagegen beklagt Ehud Olmert 

ebenfalls am 9. März die toten Religionsschüler und betont, 

dass die Yeshiva „viele Generationen lang die besten Soldaten 

produziert“ habe, „die das zionistische Bekenntnis realisiert 

haben“. Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier verurteilt 

„diesen verbrecherischen Akt auf das Schärfste“. Die Yeshiva, 

gegründet von Rabbiner Zvi Yehuda Kook (1891 – 1982), war – 

damals noch in der Jerusalemer Innenstadt gelegen – im 

Februar 1974 der Ausgangspunkt für die Gründung des „Gush 

Emunim (Block der Glaubenstreuen)“, der der Siedlerbewegung 

nach 1967 erstmals eine organisierte Plattform lieferte. Der 

Attentäter selbst soll seine Tat gegenüber seiner Schwester 

damit begründet haben, dass die „die Bilder aus Gaza ihn nicht 

schlafen ließen“. 


Das polnische Innenministerium kündigt an, dass denjenigen 

Juden, die im Zuge der antisemitischen Vorfälle zwischen 1968 

und 1972 das Land in Richtung Israel verlassen haben, das 

Recht auf Wiedererlangung ihrer früheren Staatsbürgerschaft 

eingeräumt werden soll. 



Nach Gesprächen in Kairo trifft US-Außenministerin 

Condoleezza Rice in Ramallah ein, bevor sie nach Jerusalem 

weiterreist. Dabei drückt sie die Erwartung aus, dass die 

israelisch-palästinensischen Gespräche im Rahmen eines 

„aktiven Friedensprozesses“ umgehend wiederaufgenommen 

werden. 

In Washington zeigt sich US-Präsident George W. Bush bei 

einem Treffen mit Jordaniens König Abdullah II. optimistisch, 

dass noch in diesem Jahr ein Friedensvertrag erreicht werden 

könne. Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice pflichtet Bush von 

Ramallah aus nach Gesprächen mit Präsident Machmud Abbas 

und Ministerpräsident Salam Fayyad bei. 


Das israelische Militär beendet die Bodenoffensive „Heißer 

Winter“ und zieht am frühen Morgen seine Soldaten aus dem 

Gazastreifen zurück. Ein Sprecher von „Hamas“ bezeichnet 

den Abzug als „Sieg“, obwohl Israel die Luftangriffe fortsetzt, 

bei denen zwei Palästinenser sterben. Nach palästinensischen 

Angaben sind bei den Kämpfen in den vergangenen Tagen 127 

Personen getötet worden, fast vierhundert wurden verletzt. 

Mehr als 160 Raketen sollen aus dem Gazastreifen auf 

israelische Ortschaften abgefeuert worden sein. 

Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert erklärt in der Knesset, dass sich 

Israel alle Optionen für den Fall des fortgesetzten 

Raketenbeschusses offenhalte; im selben Sinne äußert sich 

Außenministerin Tsipi Livni. Am 4. März nimmt die israelische 

Luftwaffe die Angriffe wieder auf und tötet zwei als Terroristen 

bezeichnete Palästinenser – darunter einen Anführer des 

„Islamischen Djihad –, bevor am Abend israelische Panzer in 

den Gazastreifen eindringen. Die Waffenruhe hält nicht. 

Der israelische Minister ohne Geschäftsbereich Ami Ayalon 

plant nach Medienberichten die Einschaltung Ägyptens als 

Vermittler zu „Hamas“. 

Ein israelischer Siedler tötet einen 17jährigen Palästinenser 

durch einen Schuss, nachdem palästinensische Jugendliche 

auf einen Bus Steine geschleudert haben. 

Der UN-Sicherheitsrat verschärft auf seiner Sitzung in New 

York die Sanktionen gegen Iran; nur Indonesien enthält sich 

der Stimme. Die UN-Mitgliedstaaten werden aufgefordert, 

gegen Personen und Institutionen Reiseverbote zu verhängen, 

die mit dem iranischen Atomprogramm in Verbindung gebracht 

werden. Außerdem soll in begründeten Verdachtsfällen in den 

Luft- und Schiffsverkehr eingegriffen werden. Gleichzeitig 

bekräftigt die Resolution den Wunsch nach einer 

diplomatischen Regelung des Konflikts. Vom Sitz der 

Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde (IAEA) in Wien aus fordert 

deren Präsident Mohammed el-Baradei Teheran zur besseren 

Zusammenarbeit und zur Aussetzung der Urananreicherung 

auf.


Nach Agenturberichten gibt UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon 

seiner Sorge Ausdruck, dass die libanesische „Hisbollah“ ihr 

Waffenarsenal auf über 30.000 Raketen aufgestockt habe. 

Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel und Frankreichs Präsident 

Nicolas Sarkozy verständigen sich in Hannover auf eine 

„Mittelmeer-Union“, der außer den südlichen Nachbarn alle 27 

EU-Staaten angehören sollen. Nach den Worten Merkels solle 

damit der 1995 in Gang gesetzte, aber ergebnisarme 

Barcelona-Prozess fortentwickelt werden. Bis 2007 waren in ihn 

nicht weniger als 16 Milliarden Euro eingeplant worden, von 

denen siebzig Prozent abgerufen wurden. Für den Neuansatz 

sind im EU-Haushalt 16 Milliarden Euro bis 2013 vorgesehen. 

Am 13. Juli – wenige Tage nach dem Beginn der französischen 

EU-Präsidentschaft – soll in Paris in Beisein aller 

Regierungschefs, Präsidenten und Monarchen diese 

Mittelmeer-Union feierlich gegründet werden. Dem „Figaro“ 

gegenüber kündigt Sarkozy am 6. März an, dass sie zwei 

Präsidenten haben solle, einen aus dem südlichen und den 

anderen aus dem nördlichen Teil. Bei ihrem Treffen am 15. 

März in Paris verständigen sich die europäischen Staats- und 

Regierungschefs auf den Titel „Barcelona-Prozess: Union für 

das Mittelmeer“. Unabhängige Beobachter bezweifeln, ob er 

jene Erfolge bringt, die dem Barcelona-Prozess versagt 

blieben. Am 1. Mai kündigt Sarkozy zum Abschluss seines 

Staatsbesuchs in Tunesien an, dass die größte 

Herausforderung darin bestehe, das Mittelmeer weltweit zum 

saubersten Meer zu machen. Dazu gehören nach den Worten 

des französischen Präsidenten die Schaffung einer 

Atombehörde für den Transfer von Nukleartechnologie, die 

Nutzung der Solarenergie, das Wassermanagement, die 

Schaffung schneller Schiffsverbindungen, gemeinsame 

Universitäten und die Entwicklung einer gemeinsamen 

Forschungsorganisation. Politische Zielsetzungen nennt 

Sarkozy nicht. 

Der Chefredakteur des Londoner „Guardian“, Alan Rusbridger, 

entschuldigt sich dafür, dass seine Zeitung im April 2002 bei 

der palästinensisch-israelischen Konfrontation im 

Flüchtlingslager das israelische Vorgehen mit dem Angriff von 

„al-Qaida“ am 11. September 2001 verglichen habe. 

Gleichzeitig bedauert Rusbridger, dass in einer Ausgabe in der 

vergangenen Woche den Begriff „Holocaust“ von Matan Vilnai 

übernommen habe. Bei der Konfrontation im Flüchtlingslager 

kamen 54 Personen ums Leben, die Hälfte davon israelische 

Soldaten. 


Aus dem Gazastreifen gehen vierzig Raketen auf Israel nieder. 

In 14jähriger Palästinenser stirbt in Hebron durch den Schuss 

eines israelischen Soldaten. Bei israelischen Angriffen auf das 

Flüchtlingslager Jebaliyah nahe der Stadt Gaza sterben zehn 

Palästinenser. Ägypten öffnet den Grenzübergang Rafach zur 

medizinischen Versorgung von palästinensischen Verletzten. 

Das U.S. State Department verlangt das sofortige Ende der 

Gewalt. Bundesaußenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier


bedauert die Unverhältnismäßigkeit des israelischen 

Militäreinsatzes. 

Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert spricht Kritik aus dem 

Ausland jedes moralische Recht ab. 


Bei israelischen Angriffen im Gazastreifen kommen 61 

Palästinenser, darunter 16 Jugendliche und Kinder sowie ein 

Baby, und zwei israelische Soldaten ums Leben. 

Die Palästinensische Autonomiebehörde suspendiert die 

Gespräche mit Israel. Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert kritisiert, 

dass diese Entscheidung „Hamas“ in die Hände spiele. 

Auf einer Dringlichkeitssitzung des UN-Sicherheitsrates auf 

Antrag der Arabischen Liga – vertreten durch Libyen und der 

Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde – verurteilt UN- 

Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon den Beschuss israelischer 

Ortschaften vom Gazastreifen aus und bezeichnet die 

israelische Antwort darauf als „exzessiv und 

unverhältnismäßig“. 

Präsident Machmud Abbas bezeichnet die israelischen Angriffe 

als „schlimmer als den Holocaust“, während der Leiter des 

Politischen Büros von „Hamas“ in Damaskus, Khaled Meshal, 

von einem „wahren Holocaust“ spricht. Einen Tag zuvor, am 29. 

Februar, bedauert Israels stellvertretender 

Verteidigungsminister Matan Vilnai in einem Rundfunkinterview, 

dass sein Land ‚ „keine andere Wahl“ habe, als militärisch 

massiv zu operieren, und dass die Palästinenser „eine größere 

Shoah über sich bringen, weil wir unsere ganze Kraft auf Luft- 

und Bodenschläge einsetzen werden“. Vilnais Sprecher 

bedauert später die Verwendung des Begriffs: Sein Chef habe 

nie beabsichtigt, sich auf den Holocaust zu beziehen. 

Februar 2008 


In der hebräischsprachigen Ausgabe von „Haaretz“ erscheint 

ein Interview mit dem Berater von Präsident Machmud Abbas, 

Yasser Abed Rabbo – dem Leiter des palästinensischen Teams 

der „Genfer Initiative“ und heutigen Leiter des 

Exekutivausschusses der PLO (ohne Mitglied von „Fatah“ zu 

sein) –, in dem er sich im Falle des Scheiterns der 

Verhandlungen mit Israel für die einseitige Ausrufung des 

Staates Palästina ausspricht. Auf die Frage nach dem Modell 

dieser Unabhängigkeit führt Abed Rabbo aus: „Wir werden die 

Unabhängigkeit ausrufen und erklären: Israel ist der 

Angreiferstaat, der Gebiete eines anderen souveränen Staates 

besetzt. Wir werden die Arabische Liga um ein Treffen bitten, 

bei dem sie unsere Unabhängigkeitserklärung anerkennt, und 

wir werden das von der ganzen Welt erbitten. Wir werden der 

Welt sagen: Ihr habt innerhalb von 24 Stunden Kosovo


anerkannt, erkennt uns auch an.“ Auf die Frage nach der 

Reaktion der USA und der Europäer bemerkt Abed Rabbo: „Ich 

vertraue darauf, dass einige Staaten Europas auf diese Idee 

positiv reagieren werden. Ich glaube, dass sie ihre Sympathie 

zum Ausdruck bringen, weil sie wissen, dass wir das Maximum 

im Verhandlungsprozess gegeben haben, das war 1988 

anders.“ Abed Rabbo spielt damit auf die virtuelle 

Unabhängigkeitserklärung Palästinas seitens der PLO im 

November 1988 an. Er räumt ein, dass Abbas der Idee 

ablehnend gegenübersteht. Abed Rabbo gesteht Ehud Olmert 

guten Willen zu, fürchtet jedoch, dass er auf einen 

palästinensischen Staat in vorläufigen Grenzen hinarbeite, was 

weder von der palästinensischen Bevölkerung noch von den 

arabischen Staaten akzeptiert würde. Eine strategische 

Partnerschaft mit „Hamas“ hält Abbed Rabbo für ebenso 

unmöglich wie eine solche zwischen „Meretz“ und „Shas“ in 

Israel. Im Zuge der einseitigen Unabhängigkeitserklärung 

schlägt er vor, dass die Palästinenser zum Checkpoint Kalandia 

ziehen und dort unbewaffnet und gewaltlos für ihre 

Souveränität demonstrieren. Beispielhaft führt er das 

palästinensische Dorf Bil’in an, das ohne die Geschosse von 

„Hamas“ gegen die Besatzung kämpfe. 

Nach israelischen Presseberichten werden mindestens 26 

Palästinenser bei einem Schusswechsel in der Ortschaft 

Jabaliyah im nördlichen Gazastreifen durch israelisches Militär 

getötet. „Haaretz“ berichtet, dass seit dem 25. Februar 

insgesamt mindestens 49 Palästinenser getötet worden seien. 

In der palästinensischen Bevölkerung wird der Vorwurf laut, 

dass „Hamas“ sie zu Geiseln des Kampfes gegen Israel 

mache. 


Mindestens 18 Palästinenser werden durch Operationen des 

israelischen Militärs im Gazastreifen getötet, darunter drei 

Kinder und ein Baby. Mehr als dreißig „Qassam“-Raketen 

gehen auf israelischem Territorium nieder. 


Seit dem 26. Februar feuert „Hamas“ über achtzig Raketen auf 

Israel ab. Dabei kommt ein 30jähriger israelischer Student in 

Sderot ums Leben. Auch ein Wohnhaus in Ashkelon wird von 

einer Rakete der „Grad“-[Katyusha-]Serie getroffen. Das 

israelische Militär tötet fünf als „Hamas“-Aktivisten bezeichnete 

Palästinenser im Gazastreifen. Von Tokio aus warnt 

Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert davor, dass Israel keine 

Führungsfigur von „Hamas“ schonen werde. 

Noemi Chazan, Mitglied von „Meretz/Yachad“, emeritierte 

Politologin an der Hebräischen Universität in Jerusalem und 

vormalige Vizepräsidentin der Knesset, wird zur Präsidentin des 

US-amerikanischen „New Israel Fund“ gewählt. Sie tritt ihr 

neues Amt im Juni 2008 an.


Nach einem Eklat bei Treffen zwischen dem saudischen 

Außenminister Saud al-Faisal mit dem syrischen Präsidenten 

Bashar Assad bricht Riyadh die diplomatischen Beziehungen 

zu Damaskus ab. 

Die Europäische Union protestiert in einem Schreiben an die 

Regierung des Iran gegen den Entwurf eines neuen Gesetzes, 

wonach künftig „Apostasie, Ketzerei und Zauberei“ mit dem 

Tode bestraft werden sollen. Sollte das Gesetz in Kraft treten, 

würde es besonders die Anhänger der „Bahai“ treffen, deren 

Religion sich im 19. Jahrhundert vom Islam gelöst hatte. 


„Haaretz“ veröffentlicht eine Umfrage, wonach sich 64 Prozent 

der israelischen Bevölkerung für und 28 Prozent gegen einen 

Waffenstillstand mit „Hamas“ aussprechen. Auch die Hälfte der 

„Likud“-Wähler unterstütze einen solchen Schritt. 

Der heute vorgesehene weitere Versuch, einen neuen 

Präsidenten zu wählen, ist in Beirut auf den 11. März vertagt 

worden. Die USA entsenden ihren Lenkwaffenzerstörer „Cole“ 

ins östliche Mittelmeer, weil die Region die Stabilität im 

gesamten Nahen Osten von großer Bedeutung sei. 

Ein Gericht in Ottawa weist eine Klage zurück, mit der ein 

kanadischer Staatsbürger in seinem Pass die Eintragung 

seines Geburtsortes Jerusalem mit dem Zusatz „Israel“ 

durchsetzen wollte. Das Gericht erklärt, dass Israel gemäß dem 

UN-Teilungsplan vom November 1947 in keinem Teil 

Jerusalems Souveränitätsansprüche erheben könne. 


Israels stellvertretender Ministerpräsident Haim Ramon erklärt 

vor einem Kontrollausschuss der Knesset, dass nach Angaben 

aus dem Verteidigungsministerium sämtliche 450 

Wohneinheiten der seit 1975 errichteten Siedlung Ofra 

(Westbank) auf privatem palästinensischem Grund und Boden 

errichtet worden seien. Keiner der Teilnehmer, darunter 

Repräsentanten der Siedlerbewegung, widerspricht den 

Angaben Ramons. Ein Berater von Verteidigungsminister Ehud 

Barak erklärt zusätzlich, dass in den rund hundert Außenlagern 

(„outposts“) der Siedlungen etwa siebentausend Menschen 

leben. 

Tausende Palästinenser folgen im Gazastreifen friedlich dem 

Protestaufruf des von „Hamas“ kontrollierten „Komitees gegen 

die [israelische] Belagerung des Gazastreifens“, indem sie eine 

Menschenkette entlang der rund vierzig Kilometer langen 

Verbindungsstraße zwischen dem Norden und Süden des 

Landstrichs ziehen. Die israelische Armee sichert die Grenze 

vor Übergriffen durch ein großes Aufgebot. Gleichzeitig töten 

nach Augenzeugenberichten israelische Soldaten drei 

„Hamas“-Aktivisten. 

Jericho wird an das Elektrizitätsnetz Jordaniens 

angeschlossen. Die Kosten sind von der Regierung Norwegens


und von der Islamischen Entwicklungsbank übernommen 

worden. 

Ida Funk, Nili Mirsky und Tuvia Ruebner erhalten den 

israelischen Literaturpreis 2008. Eine rechtsgerichtete 

Gruppierung „Professoren für den Frieden“ protestiert dagegen, 

dass der Jerusalemer Politologe Zeev Sternhell ebenfalls den 

Israel-Preis erhalten soll. 


Das israelische Kabinett stellt 350 Millionen Neue Shekel (~ 66 

Millionen Euro) für die Befestigung von 3600 Wohnungen in 

einem 4,5 Kilometer breiten Abschnitt zum Gazastreifen in den 

kommenden zwei Jahren bereit. 

Die israelische Regierung und die Palästinensische 

Autonomiebehörde setzen Verhandlungsteams für die strittigen 

Themen von Jerusalem über die Flüchtlingsfrage bis zu 

Sicherheit, Handel und Wasser ein. 


Der stellvertretende israelische Ministerpräsident Haim Ramon 

regt in Tel Aviv ein Gesetz an, wonach alle Siedler östlich des 

„Trennungszauns“ in der Westbank entschädigt werden sollen, 

wenn sie sich für den Verzicht auf ihre Wohnorte entschließen. 

Der Bürgermeister von Sderot, Eli Moyal, befürwortet 

gegenüber dem britischen „Guardian” eine Waffenruhe mit 

„Hamas“, um den „Qassam“-Beschuss aus dem Gazastreifen 

zu stoppen, damit „das Töten unschuldiger Menschen auf 

beiden Seiten“ aufhört. Am selben Tag demonstrieren 

zehntausend Israelis in der Stadt ihre Solidarität mit den 

Einwohnern. Im Nachgang erklärt Moyal, dass seine 

Bemerkungen von der Zeitung aus dem Zusammenhang 

gerissen worden seien. 


Yossi Verter zitiert in „Haaretz“ einen mit den Verhandlungen 

zwischen Israel und der Autonomiebehörde vertrauten Minister 

mit den Worten: „Sie sprechen offenkundig über alles, aber 

sprechen über alles nicht wirklich.“ 


Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert beklagt bei einer 

Tagung, dass die zwanzig Prozent der nichtjüdischen 

Bevölkerung Israels seit vielen Jahren auf verschiedenen 

Gebieten unter der Ungleichbehandlung leiden würden. 

Das türkische Parlament verabschiedet mit 242 der 341 

anwesenden Abgeordneten ein neues Stiftungsrecht, das die 

Eigentumsrechte der christlichen und jüdischen Minderheiten – 

die keine Rechtspersönlichkeiten sind – ausweitet und die 

Rückgabe enteigneten Besitzes vorsieht. Aufgrund eines 

Gerichtsurteils aus dem Jahr 1974 beschlagnahmte der Staat


in die Tausende gehende Immobilien im Wert von rund 150 

Milliarden US-Dollar entschädigungslos, die diese Stiftungen 

nach 1936 erworben hatten. 


Yasser Abed Rabbo, enger Berater von Präsident Machmud 

Abbas und einstiger Leiter des palästinensischen Teams der 

„Genfer Initiative“, spricht sich für die einseitige Proklamation 

des Staates Palästina aus, wenn die Verhandlungen mit Israel 

stocken. Abbas weist die Idee zurück. 


Vor den anstehenden Kommunalwahlen in Ägypten beginnt 

eine Verhaftungswelle gegen die verbotenen Moslembrüder. Im 

454 Sitze umfassenden Parlament sind sie als „unabhängige 

Kandidaten“ mit 88 Mitgliedern vertreten. 

Die palästinensische Nachrichtenagentur „Maan“ meldet, dass 

im „Orient House“ in Ost-Jerusalem wieder dreißig bis vierzig 

Personen arbeiten. Die einstige PLO-Zentrale in der Stadt war 

2001 von den israelischen Behörden mit der Begründung 

geschlossen worden, dass sich ihre Tätigkeit gegen die 

politische Souveränität Israels über die Stadt richte. Ein 

Regierungssprecher bestätigt am 21. Februar die Fortdauer der 

Schließung. 

In einem Meinungsbeitrag für eine Zeitung in Doha (Golf- 

Emirate) plädiert die frühere US-Außenministerin Madeleine K. 

Albright an die im November zu wählende neue US- 

Präsidentschaft, nicht länger die Welt in gute und böse 

Menschen zu teilen, den Islam nicht als den Feind Amerikas zu 

betrachten, nicht zu glauben, dass sich die USA über das 

Gesetz erheben könnten, und mit Entschiedenheit für einen 

ausgewogenen („even-handed“) Frieden zwischen Israel und 

dem palästinensischen Volk zu sorgen. Amerika müsse mehr 

lernen und weniger Lehren erteilen. 


In Beirut versammeln sich mehr als hunderttausend Menschen 

im Gedenken an den ehemaligen Ministerpräsidenten Rafik 

Hariri, der am 14. Februar 2005 ermordet wurde. Bei dem 

Anschlag kamen weitere 22 Personen ums Leben. Wenige 

Kilometer entfernt findet eine große Trauerkundgebung für den 

am 12. Februar in Damaskus ermordeten „Hisbollah“-Führer 

Imad Mughniyah statt. 


In der Nacht zum 13. Februar wird in Damaskus der 45jährige 

Chef des militärischen Arms der libanesischen „Hisbollah“ Imad 

Mughniyah getötet. Mughniyah soll am Tod von 300 Menschen 

bei einem Attentat auf den US-Marinestützpunkt in Beirut und 

an zwei Anschlägen auf die dortige US-Botschaft 1985 sowie 

an der Entführung einer amerikanischen Passagiermaschine


beteiligt gewesen sein. Der US-Geheimdienst setzte eine 

Belohnung von 25 Millionen US-Dollar zur Ergreifung 

Mughniyahs aus. Israel wirft ihm vor, für die Bombenanschläge 

auf das jüdische Gemeindezentrum in Buenos Aires 1992 und 

1994 verantwortlich zu sein, bei dem 114 Menschen starben, 

bestreitet aber die Verantwortung für den Anschlag in 

Damaskus. „Haaretz“-Kommentator Ari Shavit vermutet am 22. 

Februar, dass Israel für den Anschlag auf Mughniyah 

verantwortlich sei. Ein Frieden mit Syrien würde Israel einen 

kalten, aber stabilen Frieden bringen sowie Iran und die „Partei 

Gottes“ in Libanon isolieren. Am 26. Februar beschuldigt die 

Witwe Mughniyahs von Teheran aus das syrische Regime der 

Ermordung ihres Mannes. In arabischen Medien wird darüber 

spekuliert, ob die nächste turnusmäßige Sitzung der 

Arabischen Liga in Damaskus wie geplant mit der Teilnahme 

der obersten Repräsentanten der arabischen Staaten 

stattfinden wird. 

Der Informationsminister der Arabischen Liga stimmt auf Antrag 

Ägyptens und Saudi-Arabiens einer Charta zu, die es den 

Mitgliedstaaten erleichtern soll, Nachrichtensendern die Lizenz 

zu entziehen, die kritische Talkshows ausstrahlen 48 . 


Der Chefberater der „Hamas“-Regierung, Achmed Yousef, 

schreibt in „Haaretz“, dass sich Israel nicht über den 

Terroranschlag in Dimona – dem ersten innerhalb von fünf 

Jahren – wundern dürfe, nachdem durch israelische Angriffe im 

Gazastreifen Hunderte Palästinenser ums Leben gekommen 

oder schwer verletzt worden seien. In den vergangenen zwei 

Jahren seien zweitausend Palästinenser getötet worden, ein 

Verhältnis von 40 zu 1 gegenüber den israelischen Opfern. 

Yousef erinnert daran, dass „Hamas“ seit lange für einen 

langen Waffenstillstand plädiert habe und dass neun Monate 

vor ihrer Wahl im Januar 2006 eine einseitige Waffenruhe 

befolgt worden sei. „Wenn die Menschen in Sderot wissen 

wollen, warum Raketen um sie herum fallen, sollten sie ihre 

eigene Regierung nach dem Gründen fragen.“ Yousef 

beschuldigt gleichzeitig Präsident Machmud Abbas, sich der 

israelischen und amerikanischen Drohung zu beugen, nicht mit 

Hamas zusammenzuarbeiten, so dass er sein 

Verhandlungsmandat verloren habe. Angesichts der 

israelischen Politik in den palästinensischen Gebieten bleibe 

den Palästinensern nichts als der Widerstand. Yousef 

verzichtet darauf, sich zur politischen Verantwortung von 

„Hamas“ gegenüber der eigenen Bevölkerung zu äußern. 

In den frühen Morgenstunden nehmen die israelische Armee, 

die Polizei und der Sicherheitsdienst Betreiber von vierzehn 

Wechselstuben in Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarem, Ramallah und 

Hebron (Westbank) mit der Begründung fest, dass sie ihre 

Gewinne an palästinensische Terrorgruppen weitergeleitet 

hätten 49 . Gideon Levy berichtet am 21. Februar in „Haaretz“ 

aus Hebron, dass die dortigen Geldwechsler nach eigenen 

Angaben täglich mindestens 100.000 US-Dollar tauschen und 

dass sich Soldaten persönlich bei den Razzien bereichert 

hätten.


11.-13. Februar: 

Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert führt Gespräche mit der 

Bundesregierung in Berlin. Die Schwerpunkte liegen auf dem 

israelisch-palästinensischen Konflikt und der atomaren 

Bedrohung durch Iran. Es fällt auf, dass Außenminister Frank- 

Walter Steinmeier nicht an gen Gesprächen teilnimmt, sondern 

sich in Staaten Westafrikas aufhält. In der gemeinsamen 

Pressekonferenz mit Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel stellt 

Olmert eine Vereinbarung über die Grenzfragen mit den 

Palästinensern noch 2008 in Aussicht; sie sei das „das 

einfachste“ der drei Hauptprobleme (neben Jerusalem und der 

Flüchtlingsfrage). Im Blick auf den Gazastreifen deutet Olmert 

Meinungsverschiedenheit mit Merkel an. Für den 17./18. März 

sind erstmals in Jerusalem israelisch-deutsche 

Regierungskonsultationen vorgesehen 50 . 


Der Sammelbewegung „Frieden Jetzt” wird ihre 

Gemeinnützigkeit entzogen. Ihre bildungspolitische 

Organisation „Sha’al Education Enterprise“ sei keine wohltätige 

Organisation, sondern äußere sich politisch zugunsten der 

Zweistaatenregelung. Der Antrag auf Entzug der steuerlichen 

Vergünstigung kam von einem Mitglied der 

rechtsextremistischen Partei „Moledet (Heimat)“-Partei. „Peace 

Now“ kündigt Einspruch an. Die „Jüdische Stimme für 

gerechten Frieden in Nahost!“, die deutsche Sektion der 

„European Jews for a Just Peace“, protestiert scharf gegen 

diese Entscheidung und fordert das israelische 

Justizministerium auf, sie rückgängig zu machen 51 . 

Der Nahostkorrespondent der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen 

Zeitung“ Rainer Hermann berichtet, dass ein ägyptisches 

Berufungsgericht das Urteil einer unteren Instanz aufgehoben 

habe, wonach zum Islam konvertierte Kopten nicht zu ihrer 

ursprünglichen Religion zurückkehren dürfen, so dass ihnen 

das Innenministerium die Eintragung als Christen verweigern 

konnte. Der Aufstieg in staatliche Ämter und in der Armee ist 

den Kopten, die rund zehn Prozent der Gesamtbevölkerung 

ausmachen, versagt. Einige Kläger führten ins Feld, dass sie 

zum Islam wegen ihrer Heirat mit einer Muslima übergetreten 

und nach der Scheidung diesen Schritt rückgängig machen 

wollten. Die koptische Kirche selbst lehnt Scheidungen strikt 

ab. 


Die “Jerusalem Post” berichtet unter Bezug auf einen 

Angehörigen der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde, dass 

sich Israel bei Geheimgesprächen zur Teilung Jerusalems 

bereit erklärt habe. Ein politisches Verwirrspiel setzt ein 52 . 


In einem Essay für „London Review of Books“ über die Zukunft 

des Gazastreifens weist der Direktor des „US/Middle East


Project“ und Professor des „Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East 

Program at the School of Oriental and African Studies“ an der 

Universität London, Henry Siegman, das Argument von 

„Hamas“ zurück, dass seine Raketen nur zwei oder drei Israelis 

getötet hätten, während durch die israelischen Angriffe auch 

palästinensische Frauen, Kinder und alte Menschen tödlich 

getroffen würden. Dass die „Qassam“-Raketen nicht in 

israelischen Kindergärten eingeschlagen seien, sei kein 

humanitäres Verdienst von „Hamas“ und des „Islamischen 

Djihad“, sondern reines Glück. Andererseits seien die 

amoralischen Angriffe auf israelische Zivilisten keine Lizenz für 

Israel, die Zivilbevölkerung in Gaza fast verhungern zu lassen. 


Bei einem Selbstmordanschlag im Geschäftszentrum von 

Dimona im nördlichen Negev sterben drei Personen. Einer der 

beiden Attentäter wird getötet. 


Nach zwölf Tagen – seit der gewaltsamen Öffnung am 23. 

Januar – riegeln die ägyptischen Behörden das letzte Teilstück 

der Grenze zwischen dem Sinai und dem Gazastreifen wieder 

ab, gestatten aber einen kleinen Grenzverkehr. 

Januar 2008 


Israels Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert und 

Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak nehmen den 617 Seiten 

starken Bericht der Winograd-Kommission zur Untersuchung 

des zweiten Libanon-Krieges im Sommer 2006 aus den 

Händen des Vorsitzenden Eliyahu Winograd entgegen 53 . 

Olmert lehnt einen Rücktritt ab, obwohl der Bericht auch ihm 

Versagen anlastet. Das Militär räumt in einer Antwort Fehler ein 

und verweist auf deren Behebung in der Zwischenzeit 54 . 


Ägyptische Sicherheitskräfte und „Hamas”-Angehörige 

beginnen mit der Sicherung der Grenze zwischen dem 

Gazastreifen und dem Sinai durch Stacheldraht. 

In einem Beitrag für die „International Herald Tribune“ gibt 

Daniel Barenboim bekannt, dass er zusätzlich zur israelischen 

die palästinensische Staatsbürgerschaft angenommen habe. 

Barenboim, dessen Familie in den 1950er Jahren aus 

Argentinien eingewandert war, begründet seine Entscheidung 

mit der Diskriminierung der palästinensischen Bevölkerung in 

Israel und mit der israelischen Besatzungspolitik in den 

palästinensischen Gebieten, die eine Zweistaatenregelung 

verhindere. Barenboim fordert alle Israelis auf, seinem Beispiel 

zu folgen und die palästinensische Staatsbürgerschaft 

anzunehmen 55 .



Ehud Olmert und Machmud Abbas treffen in Olmerts 

Jerusalemer Residenz zu einem zweistündigen Gespräch 

zusammen. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Lage an der Grenze 

zwischen den Gazastreifen und Ägypten. 

Bei Auseinandersetzungen in Beirut kommen acht Personen 

ums Leben. 

George Habash stirbt 81jährig an Herzversagen in Amman. Der 

in eine griechisch-orthodoxe Familie in Lydda (Lod) geborene 

Habash verließ 1948 mit seinen Eltern das Land auf der Flucht, 

studierte Medizin in Beirut und gründete nach dem Junikrieg 

1967 die „Volksfront für die Befreiung Palästinas (PFLP)“. Viele 

Jahre machte die Volksfront durch Terrorakte und 

Flugzeugentführungen von sich reden. Ende 2000 legte 

Habash sein Amt als Generalsekretär der „Volksfront“ nieder. 


In einem Vorort von Beirut wird der Geheimdienstoffizier Eid 

Wissam durch eine Autobombe ermordet. Der 31jährige Tote, 

mit dem zusammen drei weitere Personen sterben, arbeitete 

bei der Aufklärung mehrerer Anschläge mit, so an Ermittlungen 

um die Ermordung von Ex-Premier Rafik Hariri am 14. Februar 

2005. 


Mehrere hunderttausend Palästinenser aus dem Gazastreifen 

stürmen die von Israel errichtete und von „Hamas“ 

niedergerissene eiserne Sperranlage am „Philadelphi-Korridor“ 

in Rafach, um sich auf der ägyptischen Seite mit Lebensmitteln 

und Gütern des täglichen Gebrauchs zu versorgen. Die 

ägyptischen Streitkräfte schreiten auf Anordnung von Präsident 

Hosni Mubarak zunächst nicht ein. Die Sprengung der eisernen 

Grenzanlage wird als schwere Niederlage des israelischen 

Sicherheitskonzepts gewertet. Mubarak lädt den 

palästinensischen Präsidenten Machmud Abbas für den 30. 

Januar nach Kairo ein. Nach dem Gespräch lehnt Abbas 

Kompromisse mit „Hamas“ ab, obwohl ägyptische Diplomaten 

ihn dazu drängen. 

Der deutsche Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier und der 

palästinensische Ministerpräsidenten Salam Fayyad treffen in 

Berlin zusammen. Dabei bringt Steinmeier die Erwartung zum 

Ausdruck, dass „bis zum Jahresende [2008] die Weichen für 

einen palästinensischen Staat gestellt werden können“ 56 . 


Israel schränkt die Lieferung von Benzin und die Durchleitung 

von Elektrizität in den Gazastreifen ein. 



Ministerpräsident Ehud Olmert ordnet an, dass mit Ausnahme 

von Maale Adumim und Beitar neue Baugenehmigungen in 

Ost-Jerusalem jenseits der einstigen „Grünen Linie“ seiner 

Genehmigung bedürfen. 

Nach dem Bericht des „Human Rights Council“ für die UN- 

Vollversammlung gibt es in der Westbank und in Ost-Jerusalem 

149 Siedlungen. Gegenwärtig würde in 88 Siedlungen gebaut, 

um dem Bevölkerungswachstum von 4,5 Prozent Rechnung zu 

tragen. Außerdem gebe es 105 Außenlager der Siedlungen 

(„outposts“). 38 Prozent der Westbank bestünden aus 

Siedlungen, Außenlagern, Militärzonen und israelischen 

Naturreservaten, in die die Palästinenser keinen Zugang 

haben. 83 Prozent der Siedler in der Westbank wohnen und 69 

Siedlungen liegen innerhalb – das heißt westlich – der 

„Trennungsmauern“, deren Länge auf 721 Kilometer geplant 

sei. Davon seien 59 Prozent fertiggestellt und seit dem Votum 

des Internationalen Gerichtshofs in Den Haag vom Februar 

2004 um zweihundert Kilometer erweitert worden. Wenn sie 

endgültig gebaut seien, würden 60.000 Palästinenser in 42 

Dörfern und Städten innerhalb der „Trennungsmauern“ liegen; 

dreizehn Prozent der Westbank mit wertvollen 

Wasserressourcen und reichen landwirtschaftlichen Böden 

wären abgetrennt. 


Das Europäische Parlament wirft Ägypten 

Menschenrechtsverstöße vor. Darauf sagt Kairo den für den 

23. Januar geplanten Menschenrechtsdialog mit der EU ab. 


Nach einem Zusammenstoß zwischen israelischen Soldaten 

und bewaffneten Palästinensern sperrt Israel alle Übergänge in 

den Gazastreifen. 

13./14.01.2008: 

In Herzliya findet die Konferenz „Ein Abkommen in diesem 

Jahr“ der Genfer Initiative mit hochrangigen Referenten und 

Gästen statt 57 . 


US-Präsident George W. Bush trifft zu seinen dreitägigen 

Besuch in Israel und Palästina ein, bevor er bis zum 16. Januar 

weiter nach Bahrain, die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate, nach 

Saudi-Arabien und Ägypten reist. Bush war 1998 als 

Gouverneur von Texas zum ersten und letzten Mal in Israel. 


Der diplomatische Korrespondent von „Haaretz” Aluf Benn 

berichtet von Plänen, die die israelische Regierung dem USamerikanischen 

Präsidenten George W. Bush bei seinem 

bevorstehenden Besuch unterbreiten will. Danach soll die


„Road Map“ des internationalen Quartetts durch eine israelischamerikanische 

Verständigung über die eingeschränkte 

Souveränität eines künftigen Staates Palästina erreicht werden, 

die dem israelischen Militär die Operationsfreiheit in der 

Westbank einräumt, Israel die Lufthoheit sichert, die Grenzen 

zu Jordanien kontrollieren lässt, Palästina vollständig 

demilitarisiert, eine internationale Truppe in der Westbank 

stationiert und Israel einen militärischen Zugriff auf das 

Jordantal sichert 58 . 

Ehud Olmert stattet dem jordanischen König Abdullah II. in 

Akaba einen Kurzbesuch ab. Dabei erinnert der Monarch den 

israelischen Ministerpräsidenten an seine Verpflichtungen von 

Annapolis im November 2007, einseitige Schritte zu 

unterlassen, die Fortschritte beeinträchtigen würden. Im 

Gegenzug diskutiert Olmert die Spannungen mit Ägypten 

wegen der von den dortigen Behörden zugelassenen Rückkehr 

palästinensischer Pilger aus Mekka ohne Einschaltung 

israelischer Sicherheitskontrollen. Bei den Gesprächen wollen 

Abdullah und Olmert Medienberichten zufolge außerdem 

Programm und Inhalt des bevorstehenden Besuchs von US- 

Präsident George W. Bush in der Region abstimmen. Tags 

zuvor, am 2. Januar, empfing Abdullah den palästinensischen 

Präsidenten Machmud Abbas. 

US-Präsident George W. Bush bezeichnet die israelische 

Siedlungspolitik als „ein Hindernis“ für die 

Friedensverhandlungen und erwartet ihren erfolgreichen 

Abschluss im Jahr 2008 59 . 

In Beirut scheitert der zwölfte Versuch, einen neuen 

Staatspräsidenten zu wählen 60 . Am 12. Januar soll die Wahl 

endgültig stattfinden, doch wird befürchtet, dass die prosyrische 

„Hisbollah (Partei Gottes)“ diesen Versuch erneut 

hintertreiben könnte. 

Januar 2008: 

Der Außenpolitische Sprecher der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion, 

Gert Weisskirchen, berichtet in der Januar-Ausgabe der 

„Jüdischen Zeitung“ über die erste Tagung der „Organisation 

für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit (OSZE)“ Anfang Dezember 

2007 in Tel Aviv 61 . 

1 Ofri Ilani: U-S. Prof. gives Israeli prize money to Palestinian 

university, in „Haaretz“-online 26.05.2008: 

The American mathematician David Mumford, co-winner of the 2008 

Wolf Foundation Prize in Mathematics, announced upon receiving the 

award yesterday that he will donate the money to Bir Zeit University, 

near Ramallah, and to Gisha, an Israeli organization that advocates for 

Palestinian freedom of movement. 

"I decided to donate my share of the Wolf Prize to enable the 

academic community in occupied Palestine to survive and thrive," 

Mumford told Haaretz. "I am very grateful for the prize, but I believe 

that Palestinian students should have an opportunity to go elsewhere 

to acquire an education. Students in the West Bank and Gaza today 

do not have an opportunity to do that."


The Wolf Foundation awards prizes of $100,000 each year "to 

outstanding scientists and artists for achievements in the interest of 

mankind and friendly relations among peoples," its web site says. It is 

considered one of the most prestigious international honors in 

mathematics. 

Mumford, professor emeritus at Brown University and Harvard 

University, shared this year's prize with Pierre Deligne and Phillip 

Griffiths of Princeton University. According to the Wolf Foundation, he 

was recognized for his "work on algebraic surfaces; on geometric 

invariant theory; and for laying the foundations of the modern algebraic 

theory of the moduli space of curves and theta functions." 

Mumford, who received the prize from President Shimon Peres in the 

Knesset, said he has already contacted Bir Zeit University and Gisha, 

and they have agreed to accept his donation. "The achievements I 

accomplished in mathematics were made possible thanks to my being 

able to move freely and exchange ideas with other scholars," he said. 

"It would not have been possible without an international consensus on 

an exchange of ideas. Mathematics works best when people can 

move and get together. That's its elixir of life. But the people of 

occupied Palestine don't have an opportunity to do that. The school 

system is fighting for its life, and mobility is very limited." 

"When I visited Israel in 1995, there was a feeling of hope, but that is 

not the situation today," he added. "Education for people in the 

occupied territories gives them a future. The alternative is chaos." He 

said his decision was not aimed at Israel. "I have tremendous regard 

for Israel, which is without a doubt a major force in the mathematics 

world. But unfortunately, the Palestinians cannot take part in this 

prosperity." 

2 Amos Harel and Barak Ravid: Olmert to Haaretz: Syria contacts are 

‚historic breakthrough“, in „Haaretz“-online 21.05.2008: 

Israel and Syria will begin indirect negotiations in Istanbul in a few 

weeks, in an effort to reach a peace agreement. The talks will be held 

through Turkish mediators. 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz on Wednesday that "there 

had been a development in Syrian positions and the contacts with 

Syria are a historic breakthrough." Olmert added that "these 

exchanges have been ongoing for a long time and they have now 

matured." 

On Monday [May 19, 2008], a secret mini-conference was held in 

Istanbul to establish the framework of the negotiations and its content. 

At the end of the meetings a coordinated joint declaration announced 

that talks will begin. 

"Israel and Syria began indirect peace talks under Turkish auspices," 

the statement read. "Both sides declared that their intention is to 

conduct these talks in good faith and with an open mind. They decided 

to conduct the dialogue in a serious and continuous manner in a bid to 

reach a comprehensive peace in accordance with the framework 

established at the Madrid peace conference." 

At the 1991 Madrid peace conference, it was decided to hold direct 

negotiations between Israel and its neighbors on the basis of United 

Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. 

The efforts to reach agreement on starting talks began in February 

2007 with the exchange of informal notes between Syria and Israel 

through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

The talks on Monday involved, on the Israeli side, the Prime Minister's 

Bureau chief of staff, Yoram Turbowicz, and his political adviser, 

Shalom Turgeman. Syria was represented by the legal counselor of 

the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Riad Daoudi. The Syrian official is a veteran 

of behind-the-scenes talks with Israel, and held talks with Uri Sagie, 

adviser to Ehud Barak, even after talks with Syria broke down in 2000. 

Facilitating the indirect talks was Erdogan's foreign policy adviser, 

Ahmet Davutoglu.


Speaking Wednesday at a Tel Aviv conference on education, Prime 

Minister Olmert said that "negotiations with Syria will not be easy and 

will not be simple, it may take a long time and it will involve 

concessions. 

"After evaluating all the data and receiving the opinion of the defense 

establishment, I reached the conclusion that the chance [for success] 

is greater than the risk, and with this hope we are today getting on our 

way." 

Olmert added that the resumption of negotiations with Syria is a 

national obligation that must be tried. "That was the same conclusion 

that [Yitzhak] Rabin, [Benjamin] Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak had 

reached when each in turn invested efforts in this direction and were 

even willing to make painful, extraordinary concessions in order to 

reach peace with Syria," Olmert said. 

"The years that have passed have not improved our security situation 

along the northern border, which is still a source of major concern 

regarding the deterioration of our security situation. Under such 

conditions it is always best to talk and not shoot, and I am happy that 

the two sides have agreed to talk.' 

A senior source in the Prime Minister's Bureau declined to offer details 

on the content of the talks but said they were held while the 

representatives of Israel and Syria sat in separate rooms, with the 

Turkish facilitators shuttling between them. According to the Israeli 

source, the two sides agreed to hold indirect meetings every few 

weeks in Istanbul. 

"The fact that the Syrian president agreed to the framework of the 

negotiations grants credibility to his intentions," the senior source said. 

"It is obvious to us that if we reach agreement it will be respected and 

it will be possible to implement it. 

"During the talks Israel did not make any preliminary promises on the 

Golan Heights and did not refer to the promises made by Rabin," the 

source said. He was referring to a 1994 promise Rabin made to U.S. 

Secretary of State Warren Christopher, that if Syria met Israel's 

security conditions, Israel would withdraw from the Golan Heights. 

However, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Wednesday 

night during a visit to Bahrain that Israel had commited to withdrawing 

to the June 4, 1967 lines, noting that this was not a new development. 

"Already in 1993 the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin commited to 

this, and since then all other prime ministers have followed," the Syrian 

minister said. 

He also expressed hope that Israel will be serious in the talks so that 

progress will be achieved and make direct talks possible. 

Talks between Israel and Syria at Shepherdstown in 2000 stalled over 

the question of the border of June 4, which the Syrians claim 

constituted the border on the waterline of Lake Kinneret, while Israel 

maintains that because the lake has dried up over the years, the 

waterline moved several hundred meters. Over the years, the 

waterline had served as an unofficial border. 

Former Syrian information minister, Mahdi Dahlallah, said Wednesday 

night that if there is a peace agreement "then there will no longer be 

any need for resistance," a direct reference to Hezbollah in Lebanon 

and also Hamas. 

Dahlallah said that the "resistance is not an end in and of itself but a 

means for restoring land that was taken away, and therefore if this 

territory is restored there is no reason for resistance." 

Meanwhile, senior Israeli security figures suggested Wednesday that 

there should be no exaggerated expectations of the renewed talks. 

The same sources said that it is hard to believe that the exchanges will 

come to fruition in the near future, certainly not in terms of a peace 

agreement between the two countries. 

At the Israel Defense Forces, the assessment is that a major 

component that may encourage a Syrian agreement for an accord 

depends on American involvement.


IDF sources say that if the Bush administration is willing to place the 

talks under its aegis and Syrian President Bashar Assad is convinced 

that U.S. support will be extensive in return for peace with Israel, 

progress will be achieved. 

Syria "is not as interested in making peace with Israel as it is in making 

peace with Washington," said Itamar Rabinovich, who served as an 

Israeli negotiator in the last round of talks with Syria 

The U.S. administration had been updated on the status of the talks 

between the two sides, and Washington announced Wednesday that it 

is not opposed. 

"We were not surprised by it, and we do not object to it," said White 

House spokeswoman Dana Perino on the unexpected joint 

announcement by Israel and Syria on Wednesday that they were 

conducting indirect talks through Turkey. 

Perino said that the United States was not involved in the effort, which 

was "a decision undertaken by Israel," but added that the 

administration hoped "that this is a forum to address various concerns 

we all have with Syria – Syria's support of terrorism, repression of its 

own people. And so we will see how this progresses." Israel informed 

Egypt and the Palestinian Authorities of the existence of indirect talks 

with Syria before the official announcement Wednesday. It sought to 

assure the Palestinians that Israel is in no way opting for the Syrian 

track at the expense of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. 

3 Alon Liel bemühte sich im Frühjahr 2007 um Schritte der 

Entspannung zwischen beiden Staaten, so die Eintragung am 

12.04.2007 in dieser Rubrik. 

4 

Alon Liel: Please, Mr. President, in “Haaretz”-online 16.05.2008: 

Dear President Bush, 

Welcome to Israel. I believe that your visit at this time is more 

important than ever, because two days spent in Israel are vital to 

understanding our situation. 

These two days have helped to bring you up to speed as to the mood 

of the country on its 60th birthday, the feeling of despair that hangs 

over a nation surrounded by a sea of fundamentalism. These 48 hours 

are giving you a first-hand look at the political situation of our prime 

minister. This trip is also allowing you to check the pulse of Palestinian 

public opinion; perhaps even to reflect on your miscalculation (not the 

first) in gambling on the moderate forces in Lebanon to gain the upper 

hand over their nemesis, Hezbollah. 

While here, you can gain a keener sense of the way the sands are 

blowing than if you had remained in Washington, which is now 

preoccupied with figuring out who will be the next occupant of your 

soon-to-be-former residence. 

I assume you have come with gifts for our 60th birthday that are you 

are eagerly unpacking from your suitcase. While I do not discount your 

sincerity and goodwill, I would like to ask for one particular present that 

I'm sure you did not bring, but which could be put to immediate use. It 

is a gift that can keep at bay a future conflagration that threatens the 

region, a gift that perhaps can salvage America's standing in the 

Middle East. It is a gift that bears strategic importance for the State of 

Israel and has the potential to simultaneously give a boost to Prime 

Minister Ehud Olmert. Mr. President, I know it is hardly respectful to 

ask for gifts, but this time it is urgent. Sir, I am asking you to appoint a 

special envoy whose task would be to oversee diplomatic contacts 

between Israel and Syria. This is a gift that won't cost you much, and it 

may seem unnecessary to you, but for us it would be a lifesaver. 

Mr. President, you've already appointed numerous envoys to the 

region during your term in office, only to see a solution to the Israeli- 

Palestinian problem move further out of reach. I promise you, sir, that 

this time you won't be wasting an envoy. Your new emissary will


enable us to jump-start the process that could change the balance of 

power in the Middle East. 

Mr. President, as the one who has run the world for the past eight 

years, and by extension the Middle East, you have played no small 

part in the regional gains by Shi'ite fundamentalists who threaten us 

from every direction. You were so focused on the nuclear bomb that 

had yet to be produced that you didn't bother to concern yourself with 

the most potent conventional weapon there is in Iran: winning hearts 

and minds in the region – hearts and minds that you have managed to 

repel and which are now in the possession of Iranian President 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranians don't need to use the bomb. 

With their heads, their mouths and the Koran, they beat us with a 

knockout punch. 

Mr. President, Syria is not a natural member of the Iranian 

fundamentalist camp. Just ask the most renowned Orientalists at a 

university not far from where you stand today in Jerusalem. The 

Syrians fear the Iranians almost as much as we do. You have a onetime 

opportunity to stop Syria from falling completely into Iranian 

hands. Mr. President, give us a chance to at least ensure quiet on our 

northern front. We have our hands full as it is with Hamas in the Gaza 

Strip and, perhaps very soon, the West Bank. Please, Mr. President. 

Even though you may not view this gift as significant, we can put it to 

immediate use. Even your fellow citizens will benefit from it at the end 

of the day. 

Dr. Alon Liel, a former director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is 

chairman of the Israel-Syria Peace Society. 

5 US President before the Knesset, 15 May 2008: 

President Peres and Mr. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, thank very 

much for hosting this special session. President Beinish, Leader of the 

Opposition Netanyahu, Ministers, members of the Knesset, 

distinguished guests: Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in 

Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past 

two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the 

world's great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the 

American people with these words: Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach. 

(Applause.) 

It is a rare privilege for the American President to speak to the 

Knesset. (Laughter.) 

Although the Prime Minister told me there is something even rarer – to 

have just one person in this chamber speaking at a time. (Laughter.) 

My only regret is that one of Israel's greatest leaders is not here to 

share this moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, a 

friend. The prayers of the American people are with Ariel Sharon. 

(Applause.) 

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel 

Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on 

the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." 

What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It 

was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and 

Moses and David – a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael. 

Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the 

United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's 

independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to 

be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world. 

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source 

of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the 

shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. 

When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted 

the words of Jeremiah: 

"Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my 

country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns


names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many 

Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state. 

Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before the dream was 

fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the 

tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust – what Elie 

Wiesel called "the kingdom of the night." Soulless men took away lives 

and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the 

Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God. 

(Applause.) When news of Israel's freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, 

a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She 

later said: "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. 

Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human 

words." 

The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a 

struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the 

violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving 

democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed 

immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free 

and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, 

and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. 

You have fought valiantly for freedom. 

My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When 

Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an 

agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see 

world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation 

and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the 

talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any 

obstacle stand in the way of their destiny. 

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have 

touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of 

Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited 

Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this 

historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall 

again." Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America 

will be at your side. 

This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It's also an opportunity 

to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by 

clear principles – shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and 

unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international 

elites. 

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So 

we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, 

and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. 

(Applause.) 

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So 

we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely 

passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in 

the Middle East than any other nation in the world. (Applause.) 

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. 

So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms – whether by those who 

openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse 

them. 

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So 

we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We 

also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no 

nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its 

destruction. (Applause.) 

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives 

is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror 

and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our 

resolve. (Applause.) 

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our 

time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great


ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals 

of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other 

side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by 

committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies. 

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at 

its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim 

the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays 

to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, 

or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into 

office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who 

carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire 

for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a 

special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including 

Americans and Israelis. 

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the 

"elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant 

"Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden 

teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest 

duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the 

Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the 

map. 

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in 

these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is 

deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn 

responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have 

seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who 

espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 

21st century. 

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and 

radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have 

been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As 

Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator 

declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have 

been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false 

comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by 

history. (Applause.) 

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with 

Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a 

tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, 

and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 

million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million 

strong, because the United States of America stands with you. 

(Applause.) 

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying 

the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing 

Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading 

sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be 

an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, 

the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) 

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the 

ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and 

tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident 

right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a 

gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way 

to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not 

pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a 

place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search 

for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their 

conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be 

partners in peace. 

The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great 

lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. 

Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We


must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of 

tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people 

who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the 

moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally 

acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, 

we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue 

the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future. 

That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. 

So as we mark 60 years from Israel's founding, let us try to envision 

the region 60 years from now. This vision is not going to arrive easily 

or overnight; it will encounter violent resistance. But if we and future 

Presidents and future Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in 

our ideals, here is the Middle East that we can see: 

Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world's 

great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish 

people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long 

dreamed of and deserved – a democratic state that is governed by 

law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to 

Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent 

societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy 

and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with 

today's oppression a distant memory and where people are free to 

speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al Qaeda and 

Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region 

recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of 

their cause. 

Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of 

tolerance and integration. And this doesn't mean that Israel and its 

neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region 

answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and 

jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, 

Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a 

normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be 

fully and finally realized. 

This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But 

think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe 

was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to 

envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. 

When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American 

battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would 

be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America's 

closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert 

with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable 

that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful 

nations on the earth. 

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of 

transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new 

generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of 

freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand 

firm on the solid rock of universal values. 

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel's independence, the last British 

soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish 

quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a 

senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar – the key 

to the Zion Gate – and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a 

key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands 

trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, "Who had 

granted us life and permitted us to reach this day." Then he turned to 

the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: "I 

accept this key in the name of my people." 

Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state 

that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern 

society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves


the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a 

mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on 

the United States of America to be at your side. God bless. 

(Applause.) 

6 MP Ehud before the Knesset, 15 May 2008: 

Madam Speaker of the Knesset, 

The Honorable President of the State of Israel, Mr. Shimon Peres, 

Honored Guest of this House, the Honorable President of the United 

States of America, Mr. George Bush, and Mrs. Laura Bush, 

Madam Secretary of State, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, 

Government Ministers, 

Members of Knesset, 

The Honorable US Ambassador to Israel, Mr. Richard Jones, 

The Honorable Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Salai 

Meridor, 

Dear Guests, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

The State of Israel and the Israeli Knesset are honored to host you, 

Mr. President, in the home of Israeli democracy, the house where the 

free will of the Israeli people is manifested, through its delegates and 

elected representatives. On behalf of the citizens of Israel, on behalf of 

the Government of Israel and on behalf of the members of this House, 

I warmly welcome you as the President of a great nation, the leader of 

the Free World, and as a true, steadfast and loyal friend of the State of 

Israel. 

The deep-rooted friendship between the United States and Israel is not 

an accidental one, and it cannot be taken for granted. It is a friendship 

predicated on shared values and on a moral, human and social 

destiny, the main principles of which are individual liberty, social justice 

and peace. The greatness of the United States lies in its willingness 

and ability to act and sacrifice for the sake of a global, international 

order based on democracy, human rights, free economy and the 

achievement of peace. The distinction between a way of life which is 

worth defending and that which must be opposed has always been, 

and still remains, clear and sharp. In the words of American President 

Harry Truman, who, sixty years ago, supported the establishment of 

the State of Israel: 

"One way of life is based upon the will of a majority, and is 

distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free 

elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and 

religion, and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life 

is based upon the will of a minority, forcibly imposed upon the majority. 

It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio; fixed 

election, and the suppression of personal freedoms". 

In a world where the American light-tower prevailed, the Jewish people 

rose, through tremendous efforts, from the abyss of the Holocaust to 

the pinnacle of revival, and founded, by the heroism of its sons, the 

democratic State of Israel. Since then and throughout the years, 

despite the changes of governments in Washington and governments 

in Jerusalem, the alliance of friendship between our peoples and 

countries has remained solid and continued to grow stronger and more 

powerful. 

The United States' identification with the Jewish people's struggle for 

national revival was demonstrated even before the establishment of 

the State of Israel, with its demand to open the gates of the Land of 

Israel to Holocaust survivors. Precisely sixty years ago, just a few 

minutes after the State of Israel's declaration of independence, the 

United States was the first country to grant us recognition. When the 

nascent, indigent nation took upon itself the challenge of absorbing 

hundreds of thousands of destitute Israeli refugees from Europe and 

Arab states, your country lent a hand and provided loans and financial 

aid. Later, when the Soviet Union was arming Israel's enemies who


conspired to destroy us, the United States supplied Israel with the 

means to defend itself. When the courageous outcry was heard from 

behind the Iron Curtain "let my people go!", it was American pressure 

which led to the opening of the gates for the mass immigration of our 

brothers from the Soviet Union to Israel. And of course, it was 

American President George Bush Sr. who acted to bring to Israel the 

masses of Ethiopian Jews in the operation later known as Operation 

Moshe. 

In the international arena, the UN General Assembly, the Security 

Council, and on countless other occasions, the United States 

consistently stood by Israel, often in splendid isolation, and in the face 

of a malicious, biased, automatic bloc, comprised mostly of totalitarian 

countries and dictatorships. 

Today, on your visit to Israel, allow me to express the appreciation and 

gratitude of the people of Israel for your nation's leadership and for its 

dedication to its moral, historic and universal role as the torchbearer of 

democracy, justice, freedom and peace. 

Mr. President, 

The United States and Israel have a long-standing strategic alliance. 

This alliance also encompassed the economic relations between our 

two countries. In the first decades following the establishment of the 

state, the economic aid was unilateral, and was undoubtedly an 

important component in strengthening the Israeli economy. 

However, today I can proudly say that the relations are no longer 

based merely on dependence, but rather on cooperation and mutual 

benefit. In the fields of trade, technology, research and development 

there is a true partnership between our countries, a partnership 

founded on economic considerations, but also on shared values and a 

worldview which attributes great value to the Israeli entrepreneurship 

and ingenuity. 

The United States and Israel also share the concept that democracy 

and market economy walk hand in hand and that this combination is 

the winning recipe for growth and welfare. The United States opened 

its gates for Israel's entrepreneurial forces, so that they can thrive in 

the vibrant economic framework which America leads. Numerous 

Israeli companies are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and 

cooperation in the field of hi-tech between Israel and the United States 

resulted in groundbreaking successes of international standards. 

Dear Friend, 

Your visit to Israel on the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary 

celebrations is a wonderful gesture of personal and inter-state 

friendship. However, it is not only a courtesy visit. This visit provided 

another important opportunity for us to discuss the advancement of a 

peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in accordance with 

your vision, Mr. President, of two states for two peoples. Your 

personal involvement, and the commendable efforts of the Secretary 

of State, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, is vital for the success of the intensive 

negotiations taking place between us and the Palestinians. 

When, eventually, we reach with the help of G-d an historic peace 

treaty between us and our Palestinian neighbors, it will be submitted 

for the approval of this House, which represents the entire spectrum of 

opinions in the State of Israel. Knowing the differing views in this 

House and the sentiments of the citizens of Israel, I am convinced that 

a peace agreement which fully reflects the vision which you introduced 

to the world in June 2002, and which is based on two states for two 

peoples – a Jewish state and a Palestinian state living side by side in 

peace and security – will be approved by a vast majority of the 

Knesset members and will be supported by an overwhelming majority 

of the Israeli public. 


The Middle East is a region fraught with danger. The firm actions 

taken by the United States throughout the years against sources of 

aggression, violence and terrorism are aimed at defending the justice


and preventing a fundamental undermining of stability in our region – 

stability which is so vital for world peace, the international energy 

market and the global economy. 

There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that confronting the 

murderous, fundamentalist threat of terror, which is devoid of any 

moral inhibitions, is the most important challenge currently facing 

democratic societies across the globe. We had a reminder of this only 

yesterday afternoon, when a rocket struck a mall in Ashkelon and 

injured innocent citizens. 

The outcome of this confrontation will have far-reaching repercussions 

on the future and way of life of the Free World. You, Mr. President, will 

be remembered as the one who courageously, and without hesitation, 

took the reigns of leadership and stood firmly and determinedly against 

this formidable challenge. 

The most severe source of threat currently to the stability of the Middle 

East and to world peace is, as you know, Iran. The danger lies in the 

pretentious ambition of the regime in Tehran to achieve regional 

hegemony, its cynical use of terror and religious hatred to further its 

aims, and its obvious pursuit of nuclear capabilities. The Iranian 

President's threats to wipe Israel off the map, and the preparations he 

makes to carry this out through long-range missiles and nuclear 

capabilities, compel us to be ready to defend ourselves. But the threat 

is not aimed at Israel alone, and the majority of countries in the region 

also see themselves threatened. 

Israel believes that while the severity of the Iranian threat forces us not 

to rule out any other course of action, presenting a united international, 

political and economic front against Iran, and more severe and 

effective sanctions, is a necessary, even if not final, step on the right 

path to curbing the Iranian threat. 


On its 60th anniversary, Israel has no stronger desire than to achieve 

peace with its Palestinian neighbors and other Arab states. Your 

continued support of the effort to achieve peace and security in our 

region is America's greatest gift to the State of Israel on its 60th 

anniversary. 

Allow me please to convey through you to the American people, to 

both Houses of Congress and to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 

who, throughout all these years, persevered in their bipartisan support 

of Israel, our tremendous gratitude for the generous and vital political, 

economic and security aid that they have given us. 

Prophet Isaiah, son of Amotz, whose voice and universal vision of 

peace and justice were heard here, in the eternal capital, in Jerusalem, 

2,700 years ago, called in his prophecy for the opening of the gates of 

the city for the entry of a "righteous nation": "Open ye the gates, that 

the righteous nation that keepeth faithfulness may enter in.” 

The gates of Jerusalem, the gates of the State of Israel and the gates 

of the hearts of the people of Israel are open to you, Mr. President, as 

the head of a great nation and friend, which seeks justice, freedom 

and peace. 

Welcome, and welcome to all those who accompany you on this 

important visit, which symbolizes, more than anything else, the spirit 

and depth of the special alliance between our peoples and countries. 

And on a more personal note: it may not always be acceptable on 

these official occasions, which are often subject to quite a few strict 

rules of protocol, but I fear that such an occasion will not repeat itself 

in your capacity as President of the United States. So, I wish to say to 

you personally, from one person to another, one father to another, one 

son of great parents to another, and to a warm and sensitive family 

man such as yourself: political life provides all of us with many 

occasions in which statements are made, registered in the protocol, 

echo in the air and later fade away as if they were never made. 

What you heard today, with your lovely wife and supportive team, is 

the truth. It will not fade away and disappear. Not necessarily because


it is registered in the Knesset records, but because it comes from the 

heart – my own personal heart, the heart of the entire Knesset and the 

heart of the people of Israel. 

Today, more than any other day, the Knesset gives an accurate, true 

and deep expression to the entire people of Israel, and all this is 

thanks to you and for you. 

May you be blessed. 

7 Excerpts in „The Jerusalem Post“-online 12.05.2008: 

Newly returned to White House following the wedding of his daughter 

Jenna at his Texas ranch this weekend, US President George W. 

Bush was in notably good spirits as he sat with The Jerusalem Post 

and three other Israeli journalists in the Oval Office on Monday. 

He spoke about the moral principles that underpin his presidency and 

about the challenges posed by Islamic extremism. But he did not say 

unequivocally that he believed he could thwart Iran's nuclear drive 

before leaving office. 

Ahead his visit to Israel later this week, the president also stressed his 

continuing belief that an accord can be reached this year between 

Israel and the Palestinians. He said he had witnessed the emergence 

of the belief in Israel that the Jewish state's long-term survival depends 

on there being a Palestinian state. And he added that he himself could 

not envisage the Middle East evolving in the absence of such a 

Palestinian state. 

President Bush's opening remarks: 

I'm looking forward to my trip to Israel, and Saudi and Egypt. There's 

no better place to talk about democracy, and the history of democracy, 

and the challenge of democracy in dealing with existential threats and 

terrorism and state sponsored terrorists than in the Knesset. 

I hope at the end of the speech [I'll give in the Knesset], people will 

say, "If vision accounts for anything, he has got a vision of how to deal 

with the extremists and radicals." 

Bush on the corruption allegations against Prime Minister 

Olmert, and whether an accord with the Palestinians is still 

possible in 2008: 

I do [think a deal is still possible]. Let me say something about Olmert. 

It's a legal matter inside the system. The system will deal with it. 

My relationship with the prime minister has been nothing but excellent. 

I find him to be an honest guy who loves his family. He's easy to talk 

to. He's a strategic thinker. So we'll see what happens. 

The vision of a state is such a powerful notion, such an important 

notion for Israel's very existence, that I do believe that we have a 

chance to get something defined. This is not an Olmert plan. This is a 

plan of a government. Tzipi Livni is handling the negotiations. Ehud 

Barak is involved. 

During my presidency, there's been clarity for people to see the world 

the way it really is. A failed leadership of Hamas in Gaza, for example. 

Plus [there's been] the emergence of thought in Israel that the only 

way to exist in the long-term is for there to be a Palestinian state. And 

it's a powerful idea. I believe in powerful ideas. I believe that with US 

help, the negotiators can come up with the definition of a state. 

The state won't exist until certain obligations are met. But it's the 

definition itself which becomes a powerful engine for the 

marginalization of people who murder innocents to achieve their 

objectives. 

That's really what the struggle is about. It's the same struggle in Iraq 

and it's the same struggle in Lebanon. The Middle East is where the 

great ideological conflict is being played out. And an effective Bush 

foreign policy is to put the focus of the United States squarely in the 

middle of the Middle East. That's like our top priority. It is the top 

priority of this government. 

Bush on the prospects for halting Iran's nuclear drive in his term:


Iran is an incredibly negative influence. They are sending weapons into 

Iraq and we're pushing back hard and will continue to do so. 

Hizbullah is no longer the great force against Israel. All of a sudden, 

they've turned against their own people. 

Hamas is not a classic political party trying to better people's lives. 

They are trying to destroy Israel. That's the truth. 

The other truth is that Iran is involved in funding Hamas and Hizbullah 

and it's that Iranian influence which I'm deeply concerned about. But 

there needs to be more than just the United States concerned about it. 

We take [seriously] this issue of [Iran] getting the technology, the 

know-how on how to develop a nuclear weapon. All options are on the 

table. Of course you want to try to solve this problem diplomatically. 

What definitely will be done [before I leave office will be the 

establishment of] a structure on how to deal with this, to try to resolve 

this diplomatically. In other words sanctions, pressures, financial 

pressures. You know, a history of pressure that will serve as a 

framework to make sure other countries are involved. 

Bush on how to tackle the current instability in Lebanon: 

I'd advise the world backing [Prime Minister] Saniora. He's a good guy. 

He's tough and he's in a really tough situation. I admire him. Lebanese 

democracy is vital for the Middle East. This is again a case of people 

receiving outside funds to destabilize democracies. 

Bush on what he'll be demanding from Israel during his visit, 

including on settlements: 

I will come not as somebody who demands, but as someone who 

encourages. The United States cannot impose peace. Lasting peace 

happens when people understand, in this case, that the definition of 

the [Palestinian] state is the first step toward peace. And it's hard work. 

So what I'll be doing is encouraging people to see if they can't reach 

agreement on what the borders of a state will look like, for example. 

Because once you can define the borders of the state then you can 

deal with the settlement issue in much more concrete terms. 

I'm not running for the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm just trying to be a guy to 

use the influence of the United States to move the process along. 

All I've tried to do is wade in and add some legitimacy to the two-state 

solution. I've been the first president to articulate it. To me it's the only 

solution. I just don't see how the Middle East evolves without a 

Palestinian state that's free and democratic. I don't see how the Middle 

East can involve without a democratic Lebanon, or without an Iraq that 

succeeds. And, by the way, Iraq is succeeding. 

Bush on whether he would consider an Iranian attack on Israel 

the equivalent of an attack on the US: 

I made it clear that if the world wants to avoid [World War III], then we 

better deal with the Iranian issue now. Implicit in that is that if they 

have one of those things and lob it at Israel or at other friends of ours, 

there'll be a response. 

Bush on his vision for Israel's borders, and Mahmoud Abbas as a 

peace partner: 

We believe in a contiguous [Palestinian] state. It can't look like Swiss 

cheese. That's why we've been talking about these outposts. Some of 

these remote settlements. The question is how much territory can the 

sides settle on. I don't want to give your newspapers a screaming 

headline, "Bush says this is what the borders ought to look like." But 

Bush does reiterate what he told the world [and in] the letter [to Ariel 

Sharon in 2004, which some understand as indicating American 

support for Israeli expansion into the West Bank to encompass major 

settlements]. 

Bush on possible Israeli-Syrian dialogue: 

I have made some very clear conditions for the United States to talk to 

[Syria]. Early on in my administration we said, you're housing Hamas, 

you're enabling transit of materials to Hizbullah in Lebanon. Since 

then, they've made life miserable for the young democracy in Iraq. It's 

easy to get our attention. And that is actually to become a constructive


force. A positive force. A force for peace. Not a force that continually 

uses these extremist groups to destabilize the nationhood. That's the 

position of the United States, separated from Syria by an ocean. 

Israeli politicians have got to come up with their own vision of security. 

And I have never told Olmert one thing or another about what to do 

about his security. That's not what friends do. 

He's made the decision that he made, the idea of trying to get 

dialogue. I know him well. And I know he's as concerned as any other 

person that's ever been the prime minister of Israel. 

The biggest long-term threat to peace in the Middle East is Iran. The 

Iranian connection to Syria is very troubling. Anything done should 

keep that strategic reason in mind. Of all the people who understand 

the existential threat that the Iranians pose, it's the Israelis. 

Bush looking back on what he's done as president: 

In terms of Israel, I hope that history will say that this is a guy who 

clearly saw the world the way it is. Ideological conflicts require a 

combination of force and vision in order to marginalize and defeat... 

I can assure you that al-Qaida, Hamas and Hizbullah don't think about 

the comforts of life. They are driven. And the fundamental challenge 

facing this world is well, countries like the United States, be prepared 

to continue to stay in the lead. 

You asked legacy and all that business, which I don't worry about by 

the way. I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out 

what happened inside this Oval Office. But one of [those legacies] has 

got to be, he clearly saw the threat and he did something about it. 

8 

Daniel Barenboim: Meine Heimat, eure Heimat, in „Der 

Tagesspiegel“ 10.5.2008: 

Einige Jahre lebte er in Jerusalem. Er hat einen israelischen Pass und 

einen palästinensischen. Der Dirigent Daniel Barenboim über Israel 

In meinem Dirigentenzimmer in der Staatsoper Unter den Linden 

hängen Bilder, die mich daran erinnern, was ich sehe, wenn ich in 

meinem Haus in Jerusalem aus dem Fenster schaue. Die Farben sind 

verblichen, hie und da kräuselt sich das Papier, trotzdem kann man 

die Ansichten gut erkennen. Die Altstadt, den Felsendom mit seiner 

leuchtenden Kuppel, Mauern, Tore. Manchmal sitze ich vor einer 

Vorstellung in diesem Zimmer, betrachte die Bilder und denke an 

Jerusalem, an Israel, meine Heimat. Vor 1989 soll das Zimmer ein 

Refugium der Staatssicherheit der DDR gewesen sein. Wäre ich 

sentimental, würde mir das sicher helfen, nicht sentimental zu werden. 

Aber ich bin nicht sentimental, dafür geht mir die Lage im Nahen 

Osten viel zu nahe. 

Ich habe seit 1952 einen israelischen Pass. Seit ich 15 bin, reise ich 

als Musiker durch die Welt. Ich habe in London gelebt und in Paris, 

jahrelang bin ich zwischen Chicago und Berlin hin- und hergependelt. 

Vor dem israelischen Pass besaß ich bereits den argentinischen, 

später kam der spanische hinzu. Und seit 2007 bin ich der einzige 

Israeli auf der Welt, der bei Grenzkontrollen auch einen 

palästinensischen Pass vorzeigen kann. Ich bin der lebende Beweis 

dafür, dass einzig eine pragmatische Zweistaatenlösung (besser noch 

eine Föderation aus drei Staaten: Israel, Palästina und Jordanien) der 

Region Frieden bringen kann. 

Was ich antworte, wenn Leute sagen, ich sei blauäugig und doch nur 

ein Künstler? Dass ich in der Tat kein politischer Mensch bin – auch 

wenn ich Ben Gurion und Schimon Peres schon als Kind die Hand 

schütteln durfte. Weil mich nie das Politische interessiert hat, sondern 

immer das Menschliche. Insofern fühle ich mich gerade als Künstler in 

der Lage, die Situation zu analysieren. 

Meine Großeltern väterlicher- wie mütterlicherseits waren russische 

Juden, die nach den Pogromen von 1904 nach Argentinien flohen. 

Was die Geschichte meiner Familie betrifft, habe ich als Kind leider 

nicht viele Frage gestellt. Zum einen war ich sehr mit mir selbst 

beschäftigt, zum anderen war es normal, dass sich bei uns ständig


etwas änderte. Die Geschichte meiner Großeltern mütterlicherseits 

aber kenne ich gut. Als sie – er 16, sie 14, beide waren allein – im 

Hafen von Buenos Aires ankamen, hieß es, es dürften nur Familien 

von Bord, das Aufnahmekontingent sei erschöpft. Da packte mein 

Großvater meine Großmutter und sagte: Wir heiraten! Und das taten 

sie. An Land trennten sich ihre Wege. Nach zwei oder drei Jahren 

haben sie sich dann wieder getroffen, richtig verliebt und ihr ganzes 

restliches Leben miteinander verbracht. 

Jene Großmutter war eine glühende Zionistin. Schon 1929 reiste sie 

mit ihren Töchtern – darunter meine 17-jährige Mutter – für ein halbes 

Jahr nach Palästina, um zu sehen, ob man dort leben könnte. Die 

Familie meines Vaters hingegen war vollkommen assimiliert, das 

„gelobte Land“ spielte keine Rolle, jedenfalls so lange nicht, bis meine 

musikalische Begabung entdeckt wurde. Plötzlich wollten meine 

Eltern, dass ich als zukünftiger Künstler in einer Mehrheit aufwachse 

und nicht als Teil einer Minderheit in der Diaspora. Die Überzeugung 

wiederum, dass Normalität ein wesentliches Kriterium meiner 

geistigen Entwicklung sein würde, war Wasser auf die Mühlen meiner 

zionistischen Großmutter: Die Barenboims beschlossen, nach Israel 

auszuwandern. 

Unsere erste Station 1952 war Salzburg, wo ich am Schlusskonzert 

eines Sommerkurses des Dirigenten Igor Markewitsch teilnahm. Die 

Reise dauerte 52 Stunden: Zwischenlandungen in Montevideo, Rio, 

Sao Paulo, Recife, auf der Isla del Sol, in Madrid – und dann mit dem 

Zug von Rom nach Salzburg. Als Neunjähriger sprach ich nur 

Spanisch und ein bisschen Jiddisch. In Buenos Aires war ich mir 

keines jüdischen Problems bewusst gewesen, in Salzburg begann ich 

es zu spüren. Jüdische Freunde nahmen mich mit nach Badgastein zu 

einem großen Wasserfall und erzählten mir, dass während der 

Nazizeit Juden dort hineingeworfen worden waren. Ich bekam eine 

erste Ahnung vom Schicksal des jüdischen Volkes und weiß, dass 

mich auch die Erzählungen meiner Eltern über den Holocaust tief 

beunruhigten. 

Im Dezember erreichten wir Israel. Es war Winter, das Schuljahr hatte 

längst begonnen, ich musste ad hoc ein neues Alphabet und eine 

neue Sprache lernen. Aber da ich ein unkompliziertes und 

kontaktfreudiges Kind war, habe ich mich schnell angepasst. So fing 

bald ein neues, schönes, sehr intensives Leben an. Alles war Aufbruch 

und Aufbau! In den Straßen von Tel Aviv – man stelle sich vor! – lernte 

ich Fußball spielen. Später schloss ich mich einer Jugendbewegung 

an. Ich weiß noch, wie sehr wir auf Jungen mit Oberlippenbärten 

herabblickten und auf Mädchen, die Lippenstift benutzten: Beides 

hielten wir für oberflächlich, für schlicht nicht wesentlich. 

Da meine Familie kein Geld hatte, wurden wir in der ersten Zeit von 

einem Onkel aus Brasilien unterstützt. Seine Tochter ist heute 

brasilianische Botschafterin in Slowenien. Was den Namen betrifft, so 

wurden wir damals angehalten, diesen ins Hebräische zu übersetzen, 

ganz im Sinne eines neuen jüdisch-israelischen Selbstbewusstseins. 

Ben Gurion etwa, den ich später als Staatsmann und Visionär sehr 

bewunderte, kam aus dem polnischen Plonsk und hieß ursprünglich 

David Grün. Er wollte meine Eltern unbedingt davon überzeugen, dass 

ich mit dem Namen Barenboim (der jiddischen Version von Birnbaum) 

niemals berühmt werden würde. Viel besser wäre doch Agassi (hebr.: 

Birne) – da könnte man zur Not glauben, man habe es mit einem 

Italiener zu tun. Nun, keiner von uns war von dieser Idee wirklich 

begeistert. 

Absolut gesehen ist die Zeit, die ich in Israel verbracht habe, nicht 

besonders lang. Sie beschränkt sich auf die Jahre von 1952 bis ’54 

und zwischen ’56 und den frühen Sechzigern. Auf allen Konzertreisen 

begleiteten mich meine Eltern, ihrer Meinung nach brauchte ich ein 

möglichst „normales“ Familienleben. 

Das Europa der frühen fünfziger Jahre war von den Folgen des 

Krieges schwer gezeichnet. Auch insofern empfand ich den


Unterschied zu Israel als besonders groß. Israel war damals der 

sozialste, idealistischste, glücklichste Staat, der sich denken lässt. 

Niemand hatte das Gefühl, er würde lediglich „für den Staat“ arbeiten, 

diesen gab es ja nicht. Der Staat entstand vor unseren Augen, speiste 

sich aus unserem Idealismus, unserem alltäglichen Engagement, 

unserer Arbeit. Jude in Israel zu sein, das bedeutete auch: nicht mehr 

nur freie Berufe zu ergreifen wie in der Diaspora (Künstler, Anwalt, 

Arzt, Bankier), sondern auch Bauer zu sein, Polizist oder Soldat. Staat 

und Heimat, Heimat und Staat verschmolzen zu einer Einheit. 

Die Linke in Israel, die Arbeitspartei, war bis 1977 an der Macht. 29 

Jahre lang. Warum? Die Traditionalisten hatten nach dem 

Unabhängigkeitskrieg von 1948 keine Chancen mehr, die Religiösen 

warteten auf den Messias – und die Sozialisten blieben übrig. Erst 

nach dem Sechstagekrieg 1967 haben sich diese Koordinaten massiv 

verschoben. Die Idee eines „Ur-Israel“ verblasste. Plötzlich gab es 

billigere Arbeitskräfte aus den palästinensischen Gebieten, wenig 

später tauchten die ersten israelischen Millionäre auf. Das 

sozialistische Gleichgewicht geriet aus den Fugen, das Israelbild 

kippte. 

Ich bin in Israel mit europäischer Kultur und europäischen Werten 

groß geworden, die Direktorin meines Gymnasiums war eine 

Kunsthistorikerin, wie sie für Berlin-Dahlem typisch gewesen wäre. Mir 

kam das sehr entgegen, denn in meiner pubertären Trotzphase zählte 

für mich nur Israel, seine Gegenwart und Zukunft. Alles andere war 

vorbei. Mit 19 oder 20 wurde ich zum argentinischen Wehrdienst 

eingezogen. Zwei Aufschübe konnte ich erwirken, schließlich fiel mir 

vor den Behörden ein, dass ich israelischer Staatsbürger war. Die 

Folge: Mit meinem argentinischen Pass konnte ich überallhin, nur 

nicht nach Israel – und mit meinem israelischen Pass konnte ich 

überallhin, nur nicht nach Argentinien. 

1966 begegnete ich in London der Cellistin Jacqueline du Pré. Wir 

fühlten uns sofort zueinander hingezogen, persönlich wie musikalisch, 

und beschlossen zu heiraten. Ganz ohne meinen Einfluss trug 

Jacqueline sich mit der Absicht, zum Judentum überzutreten. Der 

Gedanke an Kinder spielte dabei sicher eine Rolle, außerdem kannte 

sie viele große Musiker, die Juden waren. Für ihre Karriere war das 

nicht nur förderlich, es hieß, sie habe sich mit der „jüdischen 

Musikmafia“ eingelassen. 

Im Juni 1967 heirateten wir in Jerusalem, unmittelbar nach dem 

Sechstagekrieg. Ben Gurion, der sich aus Musik nicht viel machte, 

nahm an unserer Hochzeitsfeier teil. Es beeindruckte ihn, dass ein 

nichtjüdisches englisches Mädchen sich so mit seinem Land 

identifizierte. Als der Krieg gegen die arabischen Staaten unmittelbar 

bevorstand, waren wir am 31. Mai mit einer der letzten regulären 

Maschinen nach Israel geflogen. Fast jeden Abend gaben wir 

Konzerte. Das letzte fand am 5. Juni in Beerscheva statt, in einem Ort 

auf halbem Weg zwischen Tel Aviv und der ägyptischen Grenze. Als 

wir nach dem Konzert nach Hause fuhren, kamen uns die ersten 

Panzer entgegen. 

Nach 1967 hat Israel sich sehr nach den USA ausgerichtet – nicht 

unbedingt zu seinem Vorteil. Die Traditionalisten sagten, die neu 

besetzten Gebiete geben wir nicht mehr her. Die Religiösen sagten, 

das sind nicht besetzte, sondern befreite, ja biblische Gebiete. Damit 

war das Ende des Sozialismus in Israel besiegelt. Seither wird der 

Konflikt im Nahen Osten weltpolitisch instrumentalisiert. 

Jahrzehntelang las man in riesigen Schlagzeilen von immer neuen 

Kriegen und Attentaten. Das hat die Situation in den Köpfen 

zementiert. Heute sind andere Krisenherde „wichtiger“, und über den 

Nahen Osten liest man fast gar nichts mehr. Das ist noch schlimmer. 

Viele Israelis träumen, dass sie aufwachen – und die Palästinenser 

sind weg. Und die Palästinenser träumen, die Israelis seien weg. 

Beide Seiten können längst nicht mehr zwischen Traum und Realität 

unterscheiden. Das ist der psychologische Kern des Problems.


Seit den sechziger Jahren habe ich mich in Israel nicht mehr so 

wohlgefühlt. Natürlich ist es meine Heimat, meine Eltern sind beide in 

Jerusalem begraben. Immer wenn in Israel Krieg herrschte, habe ich 

dort gespielt: 1956, 1967, 1973. Die Musik war meine „Waffe“. 1970 

aber, nach dem schwarzen September, sagte Golda Meir, was soll 

dieses Gerede von den Palästinensern? Wir sind das palästinensische 

Volk! Da hat es in meinem Kopf „Klick“ gemacht. Das war moralisch 

nicht in Ordnung. 

Die Juden haben ein Recht auf diesen Staat. Der Holocaust und das 

schlechte Gewissen der Europäer nach ’45 haben diesen Anspruch 

noch verstärkt. Was sich leicht vergisst: Es gab auch einen 

gemäßigten Zionismus, es gab Leute wie Martin Buber, die von 

Anfang an die Nichtjuden mit bedachten, die in Palästina lebende 

Bevölkerung. Der militante Zionismus hingegen hat sich gedanklich 

nicht weiterentwickelt. Er basiert bis heute auf einer Lüge: Das Land, 

das die Juden besiedelten, war eben nicht leer! 

Heute haben viele Israelis nicht die geringste Ahnung, was für ein 

Gefühl es ist, ein Palästinenser zu sein. Wie es ist, in einer Stadt wie 

Nablus zu leben, in einem Gefängnis für 180 000 Menschen. Dort gibt 

es kein Restaurant, kein Café, kein Kino. Nichts. Wo, bitteschön, bleibt 

hier die jüdische Intelligenz? Ich spreche nicht von Gerechtigkeit und 

nicht von Liebe. Warum aber füttert man den Hass im Gazastreifen 

immer weiter? Eine militärische Lösung wird es niemals geben. Hier 

kämpfen zwei Völker um ein und dasselbe Land. Dabei kann Israel so 

stark sein, wie es will, die Unsicherheit, die Angst wird bleiben. Der 

Konflikt hat sich nach innen gefressen, er nagt an der jüdischen Seele. 

Das hat man zugelassen. 

Man wollte Land haben, wo es nie Juden gegeben hat, und man baute 

Siedlungen dort. Alle Palästinenser halten das für eine imperialistische 

Provokation – zu Recht. Ihr Widerstand ist absolut nachvollziehbar und 

verständlich. Nicht die Gewalt. Aber ihr Nein. 

Wir Israelis müssen endlich den Mut haben, auf diese Gewalt nicht zu 

reagieren. Den Mut, zu unserer Geschichte zu stehen: Die 

Palästinenser durften nicht erwarten, dass wir uns nach dem 

Holocaust um andere kümmern konnten. Wir mussten überleben. Das 

haben wir getan, jetzt aber schauen wir gemeinsam nach vorn. Der 

israelische Ministerpräsident, der das vertritt, ist noch nicht geboren. 

Im Grunde sind wir heute nicht weiter als 1947, als die Vereinten 

Nationen die Teilung Palästinas beschlossen. Schlimmer noch: 1947 

hat man sich eine binationale Lösung vorstellen können, 60 Jahre 

später scheint sie undenkbar. In Israel spricht man heute im Blick auf 

die Zweistaatenlösung von Trennung, ja von Scheidung. Was für ein 

Zynismus! Scheiden lasse ich mich doch nur von jemandem, den ich 

einmal geliebt habe … 

Ich leide unter dieser Situation, und alles, was ich mache, hat auch mit 

diesem Leiden zu tun: Ob ich in Israel Wagner dirigiere (keineswegs 

als Erster!) oder vor der Knesset aus der israelischen Verfassung 

zitiere, ob ich 1999 gemeinsam mit dem palästinensischen 

Schriftsteller Edward Said das West-Eastern Divan Orchestra gründe 

oder – wie unlängst in Jerusalem – ein Konzert für zwei Völker 

veranstalte. Es macht mich wahnsinnig, zu sehen, wie viel Unrecht wir 

Juden täglich begehen und wie sehr wir damit die zukünftige Existenz 

Israels gefährden. So sarkastisch es klingt: Ich bin froh, dass ich 1942 

geboren wurde. Ich werde es hoffentlich nicht mehr erleben, dass es 

keinen Staat Israel mehr geben könnte, so wie ich es auch nicht 

erleben werde, dass möglicherweise die klassische Musik in unseren 

Denken und Fühlen keine Rolle mehr spielt. 

Ich lebe seit vielen Jahren nicht mehr in Israel, und ich bin mir meiner 

Außenwahrnehmung sehr bewusst. Manchmal werde ich gefragt: Was 

ist ein Jude? Da antworte ich: Ein Jude, der 2008 in Berlin 

antisemitische Erfahrungen macht, ist ein anderer als derjenige, dem 

das 1940 widerfährt. Damals fühlte man sich bedroht, heute denke ich 

an Israel, mein Land. Heute kann ich sagen: Entweder du setzt dich


mit mir auseinander, du Antisemit, oder wir gehen beide getrennte 

Wege, basta. Das macht einen existenziellen Unterschied. 

Kurzfristig bin ich, was den Frieden im Nahen Osten betrifft, 

pessimistisch, langfristig bin ich eher optimistisch. Was mir Hoffnung 

gibt? Das Musizieren. Denn vor einer Symphonie von Beethoven, vor 

Mozarts „Don Giovanni“ oder Wagners „Tristan “ sind alle Menschen 

gleich. 

Der Autor ist Generalmusikdirektor der Berliner Staatsoper Unter den 

Linden. Aufgezeichnet von Christine Lemke-Matwey. 

9 Tom Segev: Heiliges verrücktes Land, in „Frankfurter Allgemeine 

Zeitung“ 09.05.2008. 

10 Vgl. die Eintragung unter dem 29.01.2008 in dieser Homepage. 

11 

Sana Abdallah: Lebanese Foes Finally Agree, in „Middle East 

Times“ 22.05.2008: 

AMMAN – Rival Lebanese leaders have reached an accord after five 

days of often bitter negotiations in Doha bringing to an end an 18month 

national crisis that brought the country perilously close to the 

edge of civil war. 

Qatar's Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassem on Wednesday 

announced that the pro- and anti-Western camps had made a deal 

paving the way for the election of army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman as 

president, a position that has been vacant since November. 

The choice of Suleiman as president, a seat that is reserved to a 

Maronite Christian, was never in dispute. 

The agreement also allows the formation of a new unity government 

that gives the ruling majority 16 portfolios, 11 for the Hezbollah-led 

opposition, and three to be chosen by the elected head-of-state. 

It also entails a compromise on the parliamentary electoral districts in 

Beirut, which apparently was forged after fierce bargaining that 

threatened to derail the reconciliation dialogue, which began on Friday. 

The rivals also agreed to ban the use of weapons in any internal 

conflict. This met the ruling majority's demand that Hezbollah 

guarantees to never again turn its guns inwards. 

Militia gunfights earlier this month between battle-ready opposition 

militias and lightly-armed pro-government gunmen in west Beirut and 

the Druze mountains resulted in the deaths of at least 65 people in six 

days of clashes. 

The first signs that Lebanon was returning to normality emerged in 

downtown Beirut with the opposition on Wednesday dismantling the 

sit-in tents that had littered the trendy area for the past year and a half 

and had paralyzed businesses there. 

Reports from Beirut said hundreds of jubilant people and shop owners 

took to the streets to celebrate the accord, while the opposition 

leadership in the capital promised to "rehabilitate" the downtown area. 

The move came less than an hour after House speaker Nabih Berri, 

head of the opposition Shiite Amal movement, announced from the 

round table in Doha that the sit-in protest was over. 

Opposition officials in Beirut said the protest had achieved its 

objectives that demanded a fair share of representation in the 

government after the ruling camp agreed to give them more than onethird 

of the portfolios, thus granting them veto power on critical policy 

decisions. 

In the meantime, while the Qatari prime minister said the president 

would be elected within 24 hours, Lebanese officials expected 

parliament to convene to elect Suleiman on May 25, to allow time for 

invited Arab and international dignitaries to attend this long-awaited 

event. 

This date is symbolic for Lebanon, as it marks eight years since the 

end of the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, a liberation credited to


the Shiite Hezbollah organization's military wing, known to the 

Lebanese and Arabs as the resistance. 

Until Tuesday night, it appeared that negotiations in Doha were 

deadlocked, after the Arab mediating committee gave the politicians 

until Wednesday to respond to one of two proposals to end the crisis. 

The Qatari hosts had evidently persisted, and the emir personally 

intervened to ensure that the talks would not end in failure. 

Negotiations continued until dawn. 

Officials from both sides said the deal was a compromise solution that 

had no winners or losers, in a multi-confessional system that many 

Lebanese say cannot afford to have a single dominating sect. 

Independent Lebanese analysts suggest that beyond the closed doors 

in Doha subtle negotiations were taking place between regional and 

international backers of either side of the Lebanese divide. 

As the crisis continued to escalate over the past 18 months, politicians 

from both camps had repeatedly acknowledged that their problems at 

home could not be solved without the United States and its French and 

Saudi allies – which back the ruling majority – and Iran and Syria that 

back the opposition. 

Though unclear what role may have been exercised by the foreign 

backers to persuade the two sides to forge the deal, analysts said that 

Qatari leaders must have been instrumental in succeeding where 

others had failed, thanks to its ability to maintain balanced negotiations 

by maintaining strong ties with both sides of the Western and anti- 

Western poles playing out in the region. 

Pundits suspected that the foreign powers had urged their Lebanese 

allies to defuse tensions after the outbreak of civil strife became 

precariously close to all-out civil war – a result that no one wanted. 

Thus, the Lebanese accord was quickly and warmly welcomed by 

Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and France, while commentators expected 

Washington to follow suit. 

Coincidentally – or perhaps not – shortly after the declaration of the 

Lebanese accord, it was announced in Damascus and Jerusalem that 

Israel and Syria had resumed peace negotiations through Turkish 

mediation, ending an eight-year freeze in this track of the peace 

process. 

It is difficult to confirm whether this development is linked in any way to 

the breakthrough by the Lebanese rivals, but analysts say that 

whatever way the Syrian-Israeli negotiations take will certainly reflect 

on Lebanese politics. 

Vgl. auch die Eintragung am 10.03.2008 in dieser Rubrik. 

12 Quartet Statement of May 2, 2008: 

Representatives of the Quartet–U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice, High Representative for European Common 

Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, European Commissioner 

for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner, and Slovenian Foreign 

Minister Dimitrij Rupel—met today in London to discuss the situation in 

the Middle East. They were joined by Quartet Representative Tony 

Blair. 

The Quartet expressed its strong support for ongoing Israeli- 

Palestinian negotiations and encouraged the parties to make every 

effort to realize the shared goal of an agreement on the establishment 

of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008. Commending the parties for 

their continuous and intensive negotiations, the Quartet emphasized 

the urgent need for progress and called on the international community 

to remain constructively engaged in support of negotiations with the 

goal of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and 

Gaza and an end to the conflict. 

The Quartet emphasized the importance of visible progress on the 

ground to build confidence and create an atmosphere supportive of 

negotiations. The Quartet welcomed concrete steps by both sides in


the wake of the trilateral meeting between Secretary of State Rice, 

Prime Minister Fayyad and Defense Minister Barak, and stressed the 

urgent need for rapid and continued implementation of these and 

previous commitments to improve conditions on the ground. 

While taking note of some positive steps, including the removal of 

some roadblocks and an outpost by Israel, and improved security 

performance by the Palestinian Authority, the Quartet noted that much 

more remained to be done to improve the situation on the ground in 

order to change the conditions of life in the West Bank and to keep the 

political process on track. 

In this context, the Quartet expressed its support for Quartet 

Representative Tony Blair, and underscored the urgent need for 

progress and close donor coordination. It also expressed its strong 

backing for the planned Bethlehem Conference on Private Sector 

Investment in May as well as the parties' agreement to improve 

security and economic conditions in Jenin, which can offer a model for 

important progress on the ground. 

Noting the particular importance of justice sector reform, the Quartet 

looked forward to the meeting that will take place in Berlin in June to 

promote and coordinate donor assistance in this area. 

The Quartet called upon both sides to fulfill their obligations under the 

Roadmap. It also called on both sides to refrain from any steps that 

undermine confidence or could prejudice the outcome of negotiations. 

In this context, the Quartet expressed its deep concern at continuing 

settlement activity and called on Israel to freeze all settlement activity 

including natural growth, and to dismantle outposts erected since 

March 2001. 

It called on the Palestinian Authority to fulfil its commitments to fight 

terrorism and to accelerate steps to rebuild and refocus its security 

apparatus. It urged Israel and the PA to increase cooperation in that 

respect and to facilitate the delivery of security assistance to the 

Palestinian Authority. 

The Quartet condemned continuing rocket attacks from Gaza on 

southern Israel, including against Sderot and Ashkelon, as well as the 

terrorist attacks at a seminary in Jerusalem on March 6. The Quartet 

also expressed deep concern at Palestinian civilian casualties, 

including the recent death of a mother and four of her children in 

Gaza. It called for an end to all violence and terror and urged all 

parties to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of affected 

civilians in accordance with international law. 

Noting its deep concern over humanitarian conditions in Gaza, the 

Quartet called for continued emergency and humanitarian assistance 

and the provision of essential services to Gaza without obstruction The 

Quartet expressed its continuing concern over the closure of major 

Gaza crossing points given the impact on the Palestinian economy 

and daily life. The Quartet condemned the terrorist attack on Nahal Oz 

fuel terminal on April 9, and noted that such attacks on the Gaza 

crossings interfere with the supply of essential services and undermine 

the interests of the Palestinian people. Principals strongly encouraged 

Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt to work together to 

formulate a new approach on Gaza that would provide security to all 

Gazans, end all acts of terror, provide for the controlled and sustained 

opening of the Gaza crossings for humanitarian reasons and 

commercial flows, support the legitimate Palestinian Authority 

government, and work towards conditions that would permit 

implementation of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. 

Looking forward to a productive meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison 

Committee, the Quartet encouraged all parties to do their part to 

support Palestinian institutional capacity building and economic 

development. The Quartet called for all donors to follow through on 

pledges made at the December 2007 Paris Donors' Conference. 

Underlining the crucial role of Arab states in support of the peace 

process, and the importance of the Arab League peace initiative, the


Quartet encouraged the Arab states to fulfil both their political and 

financial roles in support of the Annapolis process. 

The Quartet also discussed the proposal for an international meeting 

in Moscow to lend continued support to the parties in their negotiations 

and efforts on the ground. 

The Quartet authorized its envoys to continue to work to facilitate the 

achievement of all of these goals. 

The Quartet reaffirmed its commitment to a just, lasting, and 

comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on UNSCRs 242, 338, 

1397 and 1515. 

13 Ghait al-Omari: The Perils of Unconditional Engagement, via 

www.middleeastprogress.org 02.05.2008: 

The issue of whether or not to engage Hamas boils down to the 

following question: would such engagement help moderate the 

organization, or would it simply improve Hamas’ chances of 

dominating the Palestinian political scene and encourage extremism 

throughout the Middle East? For now, any engagement that goes 

beyond achieving de-escalation in Gaza would serve to bolster Hamas 

at the expense of those working toward a two-state solution. 

Those who argue that engagement would bring about a significant 

change in Hamas’ policies proceed from a faulty assumption regarding 

the way the organization thinks. Hamas does not reject the two-state 

solution and engage in terrorism because it fails to understand what is 

objectionable about this approach, or because it is unaware that this 

contradicts the basic values and behavioral norms of members of the 

international community. Its behavior is based on a cold, rational costbenefit 

calculation. This calculus relates to Hamas’ domestic political 

goals, the regional dimension and its relations with Israel. Like any 

political party, its primary goal is to gain and hold onto power, in this 

case within Palestinian society. 

In any engagement, Hamas—like any rational political actor—will seek 

to maximize its benefits and minimize its costs. It will use any 

international dialogue it can achieve to send one overriding message 

to its local, regional and global constituencies alike: namely, that it can 

maintain its positions regarding the peace process, Israel and the use 

of violence, while at the same time gaining international legitimacy. It 

will argue that it provides at least as many benefits as its secular 

opponents, without making any compromises. Engaging Hamas 

without the terms of engagement being clear and without it first paying 

the political price of admission to the international club—particularly by 

accepting the two-state solution and disarming—amounts to a political 

free lunch. As recently demonstrated by President Jimmy Carter’s 

meetings with Hamas, it will pocket and cash the gains from cost-free 

engagement without feeling any incentive to change. 

On the domestic front, Hamas seeks exclusive dominance over 

Palestinian political life. Since the Oslo Accords, it has consistently 

used terrorism to undermine the peace process. Hamas has also 

exploited the lack of results from this process to undermine its main 

rival, the secular nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) 

and discredit the PLO’s political platform of statehood through 

negotiations. It is no coincidence that in the numerous so-called 

“Palestinian national unity” talks, Hamas was unwilling to compromise 

on its anti-two state platform or to relinquish its arms and militias. 

These are strategic assets that Hamas wants to keep in reserve to use 

when it sees fit. This was vividly demonstrated in Gaza last June and 

more recently when Hamas led the breach of the Rafah border with 

Egypt. 

At the regional level, Hamas is part of the larger trend of revolutionary 

political Islam which represents the main challenge to pro-Western 

regimes in the Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood and other similar 

organizations in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere are looking to see how 

far Hamas can push the envelope. Similarly, pro-U.S. Arab


governments are watching nervously to see whether the international 

community will be wittingly or unwittingly complicit in undermining 

Palestinian leaders like President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister 

Salam Fayyad. Any hint of international legitimization of an unmodified 

Hamas will cause the various regional players to draw their own 

lessons. 

In terms of relations with Israel, even the most pragmatic Hamas 

voices have stated a willingness only to accept Israel as a matter of 

transient practical necessity. They speak only of a temporary truce that 

will not bring about a permanent end to the conflict. This might not be 

a matter of immediate concern for those interested in short-term 

security stabilization, which could explain the Israeli public’s interest in 

engaging Hamas. However, the long-term implications in terms of 

regional normalization and stabilization, as well as in terms of 

encouraging extremism and irredentism, are problematic. 

Unconditional political engagement with Hamas would send a myriad 

of unhelpful messages. To the Palestinian public, the message would 

be that extremism pays while moderation does not. To Arab Islamist 

parties, the message would be that terrorism and violent coups will not 

only be tolerated, they will be rewarded. To pro-Western Arab 

governments, the message would be that they cannot rely on Western 

support. To Israel, the message would be that it is doomed to live in a 

sea of hostility and that the best it can hope for are short periods of 

calm that punctuate a future of perpetual conflict. 

Even if Hamas does gain international legitimacy, it will not go away. 

The question of what to do with Hamas and its considerable capacity 

to play the role of a spoiler remains. In the long term, primacy within 

the Palestinian political arena will be determined above all by the 

outcome of the peace process: if negotiations produce a viable 

Palestinian state, moderates will reap the political rewards. If 

negotiations fail, Hamas will be able to claim that its platform of 

“resistance” is the only avenue left for achieving Palestinian national 

aspirations. 

To get to a final peace agreement, the Annapolis process has to be reenergized 

and re-focused. As progress continues to be made by the 

Palestinian and Israeli negotiators on the large permanent status 

issues, visible changes must begin to occur on the ground. The 

Palestinian public needs to feel that Israel is serious about 

peacemaking and that the moderates are able to produce results. In 

particular, a settlement freeze is essential to restore faith in the peace 

process, while improvement in the daily lives and freedom of 

movement for Palestinians will help maintain a sense of hope. For its 

part, the Palestinian national movement needs to start rebuilding its 

own credibility in the fields of good governance and the imposition of 

law and order. Efforts undertaken by Prime Minister Fayyad in these 

fields are critical. If inefficiency, corruption and security chaos are not 

rooted out, and if Fatah—as the leader of the PLO and the Palestinian 

Authority—continues to be seen as a stumbling block in the way of 

reform, Hamas will continue to have public appeal. 

In the short term, however, it could be possible to reach security 

stabilization with Hamas without paying too high a political price. A deescalation 

package brokered by an Arab country that has pre-existing 

relations with Hamas (a role being played effectively by Egypt today) 

and an end to the siege of Gaza through the reopening of the Gaza 

crossing points under Palestinian Authority control, can help avoid— 

for a period of time, at least—a deeply destabilizing all out military 

confrontation in Gaza. 

Once a measure of calm is achieved, political capital and energy 

should be focused not on the futile and counterproductive strategy of 

courting and rewarding Hamas for free. Rather, those who want to see 

long-term stability and the victory of moderation in the Middle East 

should focus on ensuring the success of the peace process and 

securing the establishment of a Palestinian state to live alongside


Israel. Once that is achieved, Hamas will have to face the real 

challenge of either accepting the terms of the new political reality or 

consigning itself to irrelevance. 

14 

Text der gemeinsamen Erklärung, in „Frankfurter Allgemeine 

Zeitung” 02.05.2008, S. 2: 

1. Glaube und Vernunft sind beides Geschenke Gottes an die 

Menschheit. 

2. Glaube und Vernunft widersprechen einander nicht, aber Glaube 

kann in einigen Fällen über der Vernunft sein, aber nie gegen sie. 

3. Glaube und Vernunft sind in sich nicht gewalttätig. Weder Vernunft 

noch Glaube sollte für Gewalt gebraucht werden; 

unglücklicherweise wurden beide zuweilen missbraucht, um 

Gewalttaten zu begehen. In jedem Fall können diese Ereignisse 

weder Vernunft noch Glaube in Frage stellen. 

4. Beide Seiten stimmen überein, in der gemeinsamen Förderung 

wahrer Religiosität fortzufahren, in besonderer Spiritualität, um die 

Achtung für heilig gehaltene Symbole zu ermutigen und moralische 

Werte zu fördern. 

5. Christen und Muslime sollten über Toleranz hinausgehen, in der 

Anerkennung der Unterschiede, doch im Bewusstsein der 

Gemeinsamkeiten, und Gott dafür dankbar sein. Sie sind berufen zu 

gegenseitigem Respekt und verurteilen deshalb die Verspottung 

des religiösen Glaubens. 

6. Verallgemeinerungen sollten im Gespräch über Religionen 

vermieden werden. Unterschiede zwischen den Konfessionen 

innerhalb des Christentums und des Islams sowie die 

Verschiedenheit historischer Kontexte sind wichtige beachtenswerte 

Faktoren. 

7. Religiöse Traditionen können nicht auf der Basis eines einzelnen 

Verses oder einer Passage in den jeweiligen heiligen Büchern 

beurteilt werden. Sowohl eine Gesamtschau als auch eine adäquate 

hermeneutische Methode sind notwendig für ihr faires Verständnis. 

15 Speech of IDF Chief of the General Staff [Gabi Ashkenasi] for the 

“March of the Living”, Auschwitz-Birkenau, May 1, 2008: 

His honor, the Hungarian Defense Minister, 

His honor, the Deputy Education Minister, 

His honor, the Chairman of the European-Jewish Union in France, 

His honor, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Israel Me'ir Lau–A 

brand plucked out of the fire; 

The bereaved families; 

The wounded soldiers and their families; 

Members of the IDF 'Witnesses in Uniform' delegation; 

Teenagers from Israel and from around the world; 

Fellow Israelis; 

Distinguished guests and friends from around the world: 

I am honored to be here today and to share this significant experience 

with you. I will begin in Hebrew and will say a few words in English 

later on in my address. Here, on this cursed land, saturated with the 

blood of our brothers and sisters, descendants of the Jewish nation; 

Here, in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Death Camp, the most evil place on 

the face of the planet, where our people, whose only crime was being 

Jewish, were tortured and murdered in gas chambers and crematoria; 

Here, in the place where the Nazi oppressor reduced our humanity to 

serial numbers—no more names, no more faces, no identity—all that 

remained was a number branded on the forearm; 

Here in this most dreadful place, I stand on Holocaust Martyrs and 

Heroes Remembrance Day, as the commander of the Israel Defense 

Forces. 

With hundreds of Witnesses in Uniform by my side–joining the 

thousands of representatives of the IDF who come here every year, 

commanders of the ground forces, the Air Force and the Navy–the


defending force of the Jewish people, reborn in its land—with tight lips, 

a coarse voice and tears in my eyes, yet still standing tall—I salute to 

the ashes of our people and vow: "Never Again." 

We, soldiers of the IDF, emissaries of a country and of a nation, stand 

here today wearing the IDF uniform and carrying the flag of the State 

of Israel with pride in the name of the tens of thousands of the IDF 

warriors and commanders. We consider ourselves the executor of the 

last will and testament, the dream and the silent prayer of our six 

million Jewish brothers and sisters whose existence was brutally 

expunged by the Nazi oppressor. 

Major B'naya Rein, may his memory be blessed, who was killed in the 

Second Lebanon War, made the following journal entry during his visit 

to Poland in July of the year 2000: 

I've arrived home, to the cemetery of the Jewish people; the cemetery 

of my grandfather's family and the cemetery of my grandmother's 

family. Throughout my entire journey in Poland, death has followed 

me. However, I know that this death has produced lives and these 

lives include me, you, all of us. 

“It is these lives which have provided me with the opportunity to be a 

solider in the State of Israel. It is these lives which have granted me 

the privilege to, as an Israeli solider from the State of Israel, represent 

all of those who have lived and are now gone". 

From here, on the soil of Auschwitz, next to thousands of 

representatives of the Jewish Diaspora, we join the commemoration of 

the legacy of the millions who perished, calling to the nations of the 

world and their governments: "Learn the lesson of this most terrible 

horror, and let not its seeds sprout anew. Fight Anti-Semitism and 

racism of any kind wherever they are, and do all that is necessary to 

prevent the propagation of the violence in all its forms. 

Sixty-three years have passed since the end of the most horrible war 

humankind has ever known. Sixty-three years after the atrocity. The 

Star of David is no longer a mark of disgrace, but a symbol and a sign 

of the resurrection of the Jewish people. As the commander of the 

Israel Defense Forces, the fighting force of the mighty Jewish State, I 

stand here with pride and honor and pledge: "Never Again!" Never 

again shall we stand helpless, crying for the mercy of others. Never 

again shall we beg to be defended. Never again shall we allow our 

sons and daughters, our parents and our grandparents to be erased 

from the face of the earth. Never again shall the frightened eyes of 

Jewish children look with ghastly dread through the barbed-wire 

fences of concentration camps. Never! 

We who have had the privilege of seeing the establishment and the 

blossoming of the State of Israel; we, who have been entrusted with 

the country's fate, know that if we had had our country then, in those 

somber days, the Holocaust of the Jewish people would not have 

taken place. We remember, and will never forget, that from the killing 

and the destruction, from the ashes and the despair, we have risen to 

establish not only the Jewish State, but the military force that will 

forever provide security for the Jewish people, protecting it from any 

future attempts of persecution, torture and destruction. 

These days, after sixty years of independence, the existence of an 

independent Jewish state is not a fact that should be taken for 

granted. Even today, in our region of the world, voices are heard 

calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. Even today, we have to 

continue the struggle for our right to maintain a national home and 

safe haven for the Jewish people in their land. 

We have learned our lesson. We take threats of leaders calling for the 

destruction of Israel very seriously. 

From this sense of deep responsibility for our continued existence as a 

people in our land and for the continuity of our heritage, we have no 

choice but to continue the struggle. Since we are fighting for our very 

existence, we cannot afford to grow weary or be deterred in our 

struggle.


In the words of Mordechai Anielewicz, commander of the Warsaw 

Ghetto Uprising in his last letter on May 8th, 1943, sixty-five years ago 

this week: "It is impossible to put into words what we have been 

through. One thing is clear, what happened exceeded our boldest 

dreams. The Germans ran twice from the ghetto. One of our 

companies held out for 40 minutes, and another for more than six 

hours. The mine set in the 'brushmakers' area exploded. Self-defense 

in the ghetto will be a reality.I have been a witness to the magnificent, 

heroic fighting of Jewish men in battle". 

Two days ago, I laid a wreath and saluted at the doorstep of the 

bunker where he commanded the uprising at Mila 18 in Warsaw. Now, 

I would like to dedicate some words to our colleagues from around the 

world who stand here with us: 

I stand here today, in this heartbreaking spot, as the commander of 

the army of the Jewish nation. In the name of the Israel Defense 

Forces I salute the six million Jews who were annihilated by the Nazis 

and their collaborators. 

I vow to uphold the responsibility of the Israel Defense Forces—never 

again to allow Jewish blood to be spilled in vain. May the memory of 

those who perished in the Holocaust be forever blessed and 

remembered. 

A people which does not know or honor its past, shrouds its future in 

uncertainty. Therefore, it is crucial that new generations of IDF soldiers 

and officers make this sacred march in honor and remembrance of our 

persecuted ancestors. 

Standing here, on this cursed land that has witnessed the most terrible 

of horrors in human history, I call upon all nations' leaders to remove 

human hatred from the face of the earth; to act determinedly to erase 

anti-Semitism around the world, preventing it from ever gaining force. 

Above all, each and every one of us must do their utmost to ensure 

that never again will we walk alone. 

Here on this cursed ground, from which still cry the voices of our slain 

brothers, and as commander of the Israel Defense Forces of the 

stateof the Jewish people, I salute our six million brothers and sisters, 

who have been persecuted, deported, tortured and cruelly murdered, 

and swear that "Jewish blood shall never again be spilled in vain!" 

Blessed be the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust! 

16 Uzi Benziman: Deep regret would suffice, in „Haaretz”-online 

30.04.2008: On April 17, 1996, during the Grapes of Wrath campaign, 

Israel Defense Forces artillery fired a number of shells at the 

Lebanese village of Kanna. One hundred and two Lebanese villagers 

were killed in the attack. Israel cut short the military campaign and 

withdrew its forces. In retrospect, the shelling is seen as a decisive 

mistake which completely upset the campaign and prevented its 

objectives from being reached. The reactions on the part of the senior 

brass in the IDF reflected some embarrassment: Accusations were 

traded between Military Intelligence and the Northern Command over 

who was responsible for the serious error. The tragic attack, two days 

ago, on the Abu Muatak family in Beit Hanoun shows that the IDF has 

not learned a thing but has forgotten a great deal. 

The IDF's first reaction concerning the killing of the mother and her 

four children was one of denial of any involvement in the tragedy. 

Southern Command sources fed alternative information to radio 

broadcasters: There was no shelling from a tank on the house next to 

the one in which the family lived; there was firing from the air but it was 

aimed at armed men; if people who were "not involved" were hurt, the 

reason for this apparently was extremely powerful explosives that were 

being carried by the armed men who were hit from the air. These 

explanations were accompanied by a laconic expression of regret over 

the fact that there had been casualties and that Hamas chose to wage 

its struggle against Israel from inside areas densely populated by 

civilians.


This pattern of response—to cast doubt about the very information that 

arrives from Palestinian sources about the circumstances of the killing, 

to avoid accepting responsibility for an unfortunate event, to produce a 

version that describes the chain of developments in such a way as to 

place the source of the tragedy on the enemy, and to create a demonic 

image of the adversary as someone who is capable of purposely 

causing bloodshed among his own people so as to achieve diplomatic 

gain, or as someone who does not hesitate to stage a horrifying arena 

of death so as to besmirch Israel's name, repeats itself every time 

tragedies of this nature occur. 

Here are a few reminders. In December 2000, the young boy 

Mohammed al-Dura was killed in front of the cameras of the French 

TV network, France 2. The first reaction then on the part of Yom-Tov 

Samia, who was at the time the head of Southern Command, was: 

There is no certainty that the boy was shot by the IDF. Ever since then, 

Israel has officially denied responsibility for the boy's death. Those who 

have forgotten should be reminded that it was this hair-raising event 

that fuelled the flames of the second intifada. 

A not too short list of foreign peace activists and foreign journalists 

have been wounded or killed by our fire (including Rachel Corrie, Tom 

Hurndall, Brian Avery, James Miller and Fadel Shana). In all these 

instances, the IDF at first denied responsibility for the tragedy and 

placed it instead on the behavior of the victims. Even when the IDF 

opened investigations, the conclusion generally was that none of the 

soldiers needed to be brought to trial. Only in a few cases, when there 

was pressure from the families of the victims and from foreign 

countries, did the army's version change. That is what happened in the 

cases of the death of Hurndall and of Miller, which recently concluded 

with an agreement to pay a large amount of compensation to the 

widow. 

When 19 Palestinians were killed by Israeli shells in Beit Hanoun 

(18.11.2006), Major General Yoav Galant, the head of Southern 

Command, stated: "There is no certainty that all of them were killed by 

IDF fire." When seven members of the Ali Ghaliya family were killed 

on the Gaza beach (9.6.2006), Galant said that they may have been 

hit by an old mine (in fact it transpired that they were hit by a fresh 

Israeli shell). 

During the Second Lebanon War, the Israel Air Force hit a building in 

the village of Kanna and dozens of people lost their lives as a result. In 

this case too, the IDF at first denied its responsibility for the event and 

presented what appeared to be contradictions in Hezbollah's timetable 

detailing the way in which things developed. The IDF also claimed that 

Hezbollah had staged the display of the bodies opposite the cameras. 

Later on, the event was described by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as a 

significant diplomatic turning point that had a negative effect on Israel's 

status in the war. Since these events tend to repeat themselves, and 

since Israel, unlike its adversaries, feels embarrassment when it 

harms innocent people, it would be better once and for all to formulate 

the text of a fitting response that would first and foremost include 

accepting responsibility for a tragedy, expressing deep regret and 

empathy for the families, and mentioning the part of the enemy in 

creating the conditions in which the event took place. Ehud Olmert's 

remarks during yesterday's cabinet meeting are a suitable pattern to 

be adopted. It is a shame just that it took 24 hours to find the right 

formula. 

17 PCHR – Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Press Release, 28 

April 2008: Palestinian Military Court Sentences Emad Sa'ed to Death 

PCHR Calls upon President Abbas to reject the Ruling, and Calls for 

Abolishing the Death Penalty in Palestinian Law PCHR is extremely 

concerned over the passing of a death sentence against Emad 

Mahmoud Sa'ed Sa'ed (25 from Yatta) by the High Military Court of the 

Palestinian National Authority (PNA) that convened in the


Governmental Compound "Muqata'a" in Hebron this morning. The 

Court sentenced Sa'ed to death by firing squad for treason and 

collaborating with the Israeli occupation. The Centre calls upon 

President Mahmoud Abbas not to sign this cruel and inhumane 

sentence, and to stop its implementation. 

At approximately 10:00 on Monday, 28 April 2008, the High Military 

Court convened with Lt. Colonel Ahmad Abu Dayya as Chief Judge 

and Major Muman Fanoun and Captain Fadi Hejazi as panel judges. 

The Chief Military Prosecutor Major Issa Amr and Military Prosecutor 

First Lt. Hani El-Hieh prosecuted the case. At the end of the session, 

the Court sentenced Emad Mahmoud Sa'ed Sa'ed (25) to death by 

firing squad for treason and collaborating with the Israeli occupation. 

The decision stated, "It was proven to the Court the guilt of the suspect 

Emad Sa'ed, who is a security officer, of the crime of treason and 

collaboration with the Israeli occupation as part of a network headed 

by his uncle in the Yatta area. The defendant provided information to 

his father. And this information, according to the defendant's 

testimony, led to the martyrdom of 4 persons wanted to the occupation 

forces, the demolition of a house, and the arrest of a number of 

wanted persons. The Court based its decision on Article 131 of the 

Palestinian Military Penal Code for the Year 1979, and decided 

unanimously to sentence Sgt. Emad Sa'ed to death by firing squad." 

The defendant was arrested on 7 August 2007 by the Palestinian 

Military Intelligence. 

It is noted that this is the second death sentence issued by this Court 

in less than a month. The High Military Court convened in Jenin on 6 

April sentenced Tha'er Mahmoud Husni Ermeilat (23) from Thanaba 

east of Tulkarm to death by firing squad. He was convicted of 

murdering Ala Ayesh Mubarak (20) from Tulkarm refugee camp on 22 

October 2006. 

PCHR is extremely concerned over the continued utilization of the 

death penalty in the PNA, and: 

– Calls upon the PNA to announce a moratorium on the use of this 

form of punishment that violates international human rights 

standards, especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

(1948), the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the UN 

Convention against Torture (1984). 

– Calls upon President Mahmoud Abbas not to sign this cruel and 

inhumane sentence, and to stop its implementation. 

– Affirms that the prosecution of collaborators is a right and duty of the 

PNA since these collaborators are an occupation tool participating in 

the implementation of war crimes against Palestinian civilians. 

However, this does not necessitate the implementation of the death 

penalty. 

– Points that abolishing the death penalty does imply leniency towards 

dangerous criminals, who must be subjected to deterring 

punishment while preserving our humanity. 

– Affirms the unconstitutionality of the Palestinian Military Penal Code 

for the Year 1979 since it was not passed by the PNA and was not 

submitted to the PLC for approval. 

– Calls upon the PNA to review all legislation relative to the death 

penalty, especially the Law No. 74 for the Year 1936 effective in the 

Gaza Strip and the Jordanian Penal Code No. 16 for the Year 1960 

effective in the West Bank. The Centre calls for passing a unified 

penal code that conforms with international human rights standards, 

especially those pertaining to the death penalty. 

18 PM Olmert's 28.4.08 Speech [translated] at the Opening of the "My 

Homeland" Exhibit at Yad Vashem, via 

www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechexyad28 

0408.htm: 

Minister Ruhama Avraham Balila, 

Chairman of the Yad Vashem Council, Tommy Lapid,


Chairman of the Board of Directors, Avner Shalev, 

Director General of the Prime Minister's Office, Raanan Dinur, 

Chairman of the Center for Survivor Organizations, Noah Pelog, 

Distinguished Guests, 

All my life, I wondered in my heart of hearts whether or not the 

statement that the State of Israel was a miracle, that its establishment 

is a miracle, was true. Recently the President of France told me during 

a personal conversation that he thought the State of Israel was the 

miracle of the 20 th century. While we were sitting here, when the 

emcee said this, my friend Tommy Lapid, in a spontaneous reaction, 

whispered to me, "Why the miracle of the 20th century? It was the 

miracle of all history." I still do not know if it is true to say that it is a 

miracle or that there is something more profound here, more complex, 

more dramatic than some miraculous thing which cannot be explained 

the way that things develop and are built and exist are. 

We will not resolve this question at this time, but we can say with 

certainty that the State of Israel is a wondrous phenomenon, unique in 

human history. There was never such a human phenomenon in the 

history of any other people; there was never the phenomenon of a 

people returning to its land, of reviving its language, renewing its 

culture, rehabilitating its national and sovereign existence in an ancient 

land as happened to this people – as happened to us in the middle of 

the 20th century and since. 

One of the wonderful and moving phenomena connected to the 

establishment and renewal of the existence of a Jewish sovereignty in 

our land is the Holocaust survivors who came here, fought here, fell 

here, built here, created here, and in fact succeeded – together with 

others – to lay the foundations for what transformed the State of Israel 

into what it is today. Last year we spoke of Holocaust survivors in other 

contexts, and these too cannot be forgotten nor do we wish to. During 

this unavoidable process we grew up, and at times our feelings 

became a little tactless and blunt; we forgot that among them were 

many who no longer had the strength or the capability, and we did not 

know beforehand that we must pay attention to them and take care of 

them and help them as we should have understood and felt – and they 

were deserving. So in the heat of this argument and the things we said 

of ourselves regarding what we did not know to do and which perhaps 

we did a little last year – we forgot to speak of what the Holocaust 

survivors did in order to make the State of Israel what it is. We spoke 

of their suffering and not of their strength; we spoke of their distress 

and did not mention their contribution. We spoke of the squalor in 

which quite a few of them lived and did not emphasize enough the 

tremendous strength with which they succeeded in rising out of the 

infinite depths they experienced to the heights to which they rose in 

leading the life of this country. 

Something of this can be seen in this exhibit – which I managed to see 

in the quick glance I got of the captions and highlights. As a result of 

the impossible race which is the pace of life in this country, we are not 

aware of what occurs on a daily basis; there is a deficit in our ability to 

see clearly all the components of the larger picture because everything 

is mixed up and blended together. Something interfered with our ability 

to distinguish that some of the things which are important in all fields of 

life were created by people who came from a different world which we 

native-born Israelis can never really fully understand because we were 

born here in this unique place – it has no equal and it is ours. 

However, we did not come from the place that the Holocaust survivors 

came from. We see some areas in our spheres of life; some of the 

most prominent symbols which symbolize our lives; some statements 

and sentences which are an inseparable part of the most pronounced 

ethos of Israeliness. These are, in fact, the creative fruits of people 

who came from somewhere else, for whom the land of Israel and 

Israeliness were never taken for granted, who were considered 

strangers when they transformed these symbols to ones which


represent what we are proud to present as Israeli and Israeliness. 

Perhaps it should be said that we are proud, as this is the best and 

most beautiful part of our Israeliness. When we see it here, we gain a 

more accurate perspective of the contribution, weight and significance 

the survivors had on the life of the State of Israel, in what it was and 

what it has yet to become. 

On behalf of the Government of Israel, I thank you for choosing to 

open this exhibit on the eve of Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' 

Remembrance Day. The bottom line is not what was or even what is, 

but rather primarily what will be. From these depths, from this strength, 

from this inspiration, there is no limit to what this country can design 

for itself. 

Thank you. 

19 Zuletzt ist von Aaron David Miller das Buch erschienen „The Much 

Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace“ 

(Bantham Books 2008). 

20 In Washington, D.C., steht „K Street“ für die politischen 

Lobbygruppen, während „J Street“ als die witzige Variante mit (noch – 

„in flux“) beschränktem Einfluss verstanden werden will. In der 

Einladung zu ihrer Gründung hieß es: „J Street aims to change that 

[the political outreach of the far Right]. We are the first and only lobby 

and PAC [Political Action Committee] dedicated to ensuring Israel’s 

security, changing the direction of American policy in the Middle East 

and opening up American political debate about Israel and the Middle 

East.“ Zu den Sympathisanten und Mitgliedern gehören auch 

prominente Nichtjuden wie der frühere US-amerikanische Botschafter 

in Tel Aviv, Samuel Lewis. 

21 a) Monday, April 28, 2008 – Q & A on new dovish ‚Israel Lobby,’ in 

Meretz USA Weblog: We’ve done a short e-mail interview with Jeremy 

Ben-Ami, the founder (along with Daniel Levy) of "J Street”the new 

dovish Israel lobby and its political action committee, "JStreetPAC." 

The following are our questions and Jeremy Ben-Ami’s answers in full: 

Question: Perhaps a year ago, when stories or rumors started 

circulating of a new liberal Israel lobby, it was thought to be associated 

with George Soros. What (if anything) can you say about the role of 

Soros in your efforts? 

Ben-Ami: George Soros is not involved in or funding J Street. J Street 

is the outgrowth of 18 months of planning and discussion among pro- 

Israel, pro-peace activists about how best to establish a new political 

voice on these issues. Some of those discussions did involve Mr. 

Soros, as was reported at the time. As Mr. Soros himself wrote in the 

New York Review of Books, he decided that his personal involvement 

in the launch of such an effort would, on balance, not help the effort so 

he decided to step out of the discussions. 

Question: Wasn't your initial strategy for a two or three-way merger 

among the Israel Policy Forum, Americans for Peace Now and Brit 

Tzedek V'Shalom? What happened? How do you see your 

organization dovetailing, cooperating or coexisting with these groups 

now? 

Ben-Ami: J Street is a political effort consisting of a PAC and a 

501(c)(4) lobby. The existing pro-Israel, pro-peace groups are 

[according to formal regulations] 501(c)(3) organizations and cannot 

organizationally be part of such an effort. However, as individuals and 

outside of their roles with those organizations, the leaders of all three 

organizations as well as of Meretz USA, Ameinu, New Israel Fund and 

other progressive Jewish organizations are members of the Advisory 

Council for J Street. We are very pleased at the broad support for the 

creation of J Street among progressive activists on this issue and their 

recognition that a unified political voice and arm will be an important 

complement to the work of the existing groups.


Question: In light of the writings of Mearsheimer and Walt on AIPAC 

and the "Israel Lobby," what would you like to say to progressive 

Americans about the purpose of your group and how this would impact 

the political scene? 

Ben-Ami: For too long, the loudest voices in the American political and 

national policy debates when it comes to Israel and the Middle East 

have belonged to the far right – neoconservatives, right wing American 

Jewish leaders, and right wing Christian Zionists. These voices do not 

represent the mainstream of the American Jewish community or 

reflect its values. J Street will provide the first political voice for 

progressives on Israel. For the first time, candidates for political office 

and current office holders will know that there is organized support for 

sensible, mainstream positions on Israel and the Middle East – 

backing a two-state solution, opposing further settlement expansion, 

pursuing diplomatic opportunities to resolve conflicts rather than 

immediate resort to military options. These aren’t actually left or right 

positions; they are sensible, smart ways to be pro-Israel and to remain 

true to the values that the American Jewish community has always 

promoted of justice and peace for all. 

b) James D. Besser: New PAC To Offer Pols a Dovish Mideast View, 

in „The Jewish Week“ 26.03.2008: Almost a year after reports of an 

“alternative AIPAC” emerged in the middle of the Jewish political 

world, many of the same players are on the verge of announcing a 

revised initiative intended to get the message to politicians that the 

American Israel Public Affairs Committee is not the only pro-Israel 

voice in town, The Jewish Week has learned. 

Dubbed the J-Street Project – “K Street” has become a cipher for 

Washington’s lobbying establishment and “J Street,” missing from 

Washington’s downtown grid, has become a local “in” joke – the new 

project kicks off with a hush-hush fundraiser next Monday hosted by 

former Clinton administration official Jeremy Ben Ami and Daniel Levy, 

director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative of the Century 

Foundation. The group will be publicly launched around the middle of 

April; organizers said they will not speak publicly about the group until 

then. 

“For too long, the loudest American voices in political and policy 

debates have been those on the far right – often Republican 

neoconservatives or extreme Christian Zionists,” according to the 

invitation. “J Street aims to change that. We are the first and only lobby 

and PAC (political action committee) dedicated to ensuring Israel’s 

security, changing the direction of American policy in the Middle East 

and opening up American political debate about Israel and the Middle 

East.” 

While sources say the structure and initial goals of the new group are 

still in flux, it is expected to raise money for congressional candidates 

who advocate a stronger U.S. leadership role in ending the Israeli- 

Palestinian conflict and multilateral solutions to the region’s problems. 

The group will be headed by Ben-Ami, who served as deputy domestic 

policy adviser in the Clinton administration and later as a media 

consultant. Ben-Ami has worked with several Jewish peace groups, 

including the Center for Middle East Peace and the Geneva Initiative- 

North America. 

The J-Street board of advisers includes a number of lay and 

professional leaders of Americans for Peace Now (APN), including 

CEO Debra DeLee, as well as Marcia Freedman, founder and former 

president of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom. 

Several activists with ties to Democratic presidential contender Sen. 

Barack Obama are on the panel, as well. They include Robert Malley, 

whose involvement in Obama’s broad foreign policy advisory team has 

generated criticism from Republicans and some pro-Israel groups, and 

Alan Solomont, a top Obama fundraiser and major player in 

Democratic politics.


Also on board: David Kimche, a former deputy chief of the Mossad 

and a member of the advisory council of the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) 

– another pro-peace process group that was connected with last year’s 

efforts but which, several source say, is not directly involved in the 

current project. 

Several activists associated with the project say the goal is to offer 

lawmakers an alternative perspective that they say is closer to the 

consensus positions of American Jews than that offered by major pro- 

Israel groups like AIPAC, which they say have not supported 

aggressive U.S. peacemaking in the region. 

“I signed on because I think this is a worthwhile endeavor,” said 

Samuel Lewis, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. “I’m very 

sympathetic with the core principles: to provide a voice in favor of an 

active U.S. role in promoting negotiations and peacemaking, and a 

somewhat more balanced approach to the parties than some other 

Jewish organizations.” Like several other supporters of the new 

project, Lewis stressed that J-Street is “not meant as an alternative to 

AIPAC, or anything on that scale. But I see it as a useful addition to the 

debate; it may offer more energetic efforts in terms of lobbying on the 

Hill, where a lot of education has to be done.” 

He said the new group will be more “politically purposeful” than IPF or 

other pro-peace process groups. 

Turf issues among the various pro-peace process groups have slowed 

the creation of the new organization, according to several activists 

involved in discussions about the new group, but they expressed the 

view that Ben-Ami has largely finessed that by creating a group that 

will serve to broaden political activism by peace process advocates 

without stepping on the feet of individual groups that have their own 

lobbying operations and agendas. 

“It will be separate from the dovish organizations and not competitive 

with them,” said a source familiar with the discussions that created the 

new group. “The goal is to add another, more political layer to support 

for peace negotiations.” 

Organizers refuse to talk to the media until the official launch, but 

activists close to the process say it will focus initially on political 

fundraising aimed at helping incumbents and candidates who support 

a more active U.S. peacemaking role. 

The project is the result of a lengthy process to “figure out what to do 

to help organizations that are dovish within the American Zionist fold,” 

said a knowledgeable source. “It is very ambitious, but it is starting 

modestly.” 

This source said an initial goal was to raise $1.5 million – presumably 

with the intention of having an impact in the current election cycle. 

Planners remain secretive in large part to avoid a repetition of last 

year’s controversy. Early reports about an AIPAC competitor that 

would amalgamate the efforts of the major pro-peace process groups, 

with possible funding by mega-philanthropist and progressive activist 

George Soros, produced a storm of unwanted publicity and scared off 

some potential participants. 

In fact, Soros had never committed to the original project, and the 

current iteration includes no Soros involvement, according to several 

players. 

New Group Faces Big Obstacles 

The idea of creating an alternative lobbying voice on Mideast issues 

goes back at least 20 years. 

In 1988, leaders of the American Jewish Committee, the American 

Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League signed a letter 

criticizing AIPAC as not reflecting the consensus views of the Jewish 

community on Mideast peace issues. In the privately circulated letter, 

the groups specifically objected to AIPAC’s efforts to deny Yasir Arafat 

a visa allowing him to address the United Nations. 

But that initiative went nowhere. AIPAC established closer working ties 

to the other major Jewish organizations and during the Oslo years it


was the Jewish left that argued AIPAC was out of step because of 

what activists charged was lukewarm support for the peace process, a 

political focus that emphasized building political opposition to the 

Palestinians and resistance to any U.S. pressure on Israel. 

AIPAC’s preeminence on Capitol Hill – and the vital role played by 

networks of pro-Israel campaign givers who take cues from the lobby 

group – “misleads a lot of people into thinking there is only one 

‘Jewish’ position on the Middle East,” said University of Florida political 

scientist Ken Wald. “So it makes sense for those who don’t like that 

particular voice to do something more systematic than just talk about 

it. And the theory is that dollars are the currency of doing that.” 

But the new group faces big obstacles, he said, including a limited 

fundraising pool and the view by many community leaders that “Jews 

must present a united front” on Israel-related matters to government 

bodies. 

It also faces a political challenge because “AIPAC has been 

recognized by non-Jewish politicians as the voice of the Jewish 

community,” he said. An alternative voice “may be hard to sell to non- 

Jewish politicians who don’t want to be tarred as anti-Israel.” Jews on 

the left, he said, are less likely to put Israel-related politics at the top of 

their list of giving priorities – something AIPAC supporters and 

supports of pro-Israel political action committees have traditionally 

done. 

And the new group will face aggressive attacks from the Jewish right. 

“I’m a realist; these people will get hammered and accused of being 

anti-Israel,” Wald said. “A lot will have to do with the way they actually 

frame their arguments.” Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn 

said the new group is part of a broader trend: the effort by groups with 

different Mideast perspectives to be heard despite the dominance of a 

handful of big groups like AIPAC. 

“The most important point here is that there are significant portions of 

the Jewish community that feel dissatisfied with the way their views are 

being represented,” Kahn said. “The same is true on the other side, 

with the Orthodox Union and its decision to challenge the policies of 

the Israeli government. It’s the outgrowth of the growing awareness 

that there is legitimacy to differences in advocacy.” 

The idea has less to do with creating “alternate” AIPACs, some say, 

than ending the view in the political world that the Jewish community 

speaks as one on controversial Mideast policy issues. 

Editor at Large Larry Cohler-Esses contributed to this report. 

22 Offener Brief von Dr. Meir Margalit, israelischer Historiker, an 

Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel anlässlich ihrer Reden und ihres 

(Nichts-)Tuns auf der Israel-Reise. Mittwoch, 26. März 2008, in 

„Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“ 22.04.2008, S. 8: 

Sehr geehrte Frau Merkel, 

Schon seit langem hat man in Israel keine Reden gehört, die solchen 

zionistischen Pathos hatten, wie die Reden, die Sie bei Ihrem Besuch 

in Israel vor einer Woche gehalten haben. Sie haben es während Ihres 

dreitägigen Besuchs sehr klar gemacht, wie sehr Sie den Staat Israel 

unterstützen und gegen seine Feinde an seiner Seite stehen. Acht 

Minister, unzählige Regierungsangestellte und Sicherheitskräfte haben 

Sie mitgenommen, um mit großem Aufwand bei Ihren Gastgebern 

einen guten Eindruck zu hinterlassen. 

Trotz dem obengenannten muss ich Sie jedoch, mit allem Respekt, 

darauf hinweisen, dass Sie uns keine gute Tat erwiesen haben: 

Wenn Sie nämlich wirklich nur Israels Wohl im Sinne gehabt hätten, 

dann hätten Sie die Palästinenserfrage zumindest erwähnt. 

Stattdessen taten Sie so, als ob es Sie überhaupt nicht gäbe. Sie 

hätten mit klaren Worten erwähnen müssen, dass die israelische 

Besatzung der Palästinensergebiete unmenschlich ist und enden 

muss, dass Israel die besetzten Gebiete räumen, die Siedlungen 

auflösen, und die Belagerung des Gazastreifens beenden muss.


Wenn Sie nämlich wirklich nur Israels Wohl im Sinne gehabt hätten, 

dann hätten Sie Abu Mazen [Machmud Abbas] zumindest einen 

Besuch abstatten sollen, und sich mit dem palästinensischen Kampf 

um Unabhängigkeit solidarisch zeigen sollen. 

Wenn Sie wirklich an der Seite Israels gegen seine Feinde stehen 

wollten, dann hätten Sie zuallererst den Staat Israel selbst kritisiert. 

Die größte Gefahr, die Israel zu fürchten hat, ist nämlich 

ironischerweise nicht Iran, sondern Israel selbst. Seit 1967 betreibt der 

Staat Israel nämlich ein System der Selbstvernichtung. Jeder, der sich 

um das Wohl des Staates Israel bemüht, muss ihm helfen, dieses 

System zu beenden. 

Ich bin mir sicher, dass Sie gebildet genug sind, das zu wissen. Auch 

weiß ich, dass das Schuldbewusstsein des deutschen Volkes Ihnen 

nicht die Möglichkeit gestattet, den jüdischen Staat offen zu kritisieren. 

Zudem kann angenommen werden, dass in einem solchen Fall 

israelische Politiker Ihnen vorwerfen hätten, eine Antisemitin zu sein. 

Trotzdem sollten Sie sich nicht davon abbringen lassen, denn der 

wirkliche Antisemit ist der, der angesichts der 

Menschenrechtsverletzungen in den besetzten Gebieten schweigt, da 

es jedem klar ist, dass die Fortsetzung der Besatzung das Ende des 

Staates Israels auf sich ziehen wird. Und falls man Ihnen vorwirft, ein 

Antisemit zu sein, können Sie ja Ehud Olmert selbst zitieren, der vor 

drei Monaten sagte, dass, wenn die Besatzung nicht beendet wird, 

wird der Staat Israel beendet werden. 

Ich würde Sie gerne darauf hinweisen, Frau Merkel, dass die Mehrheit 

der Israelis eingestehen, dass die Besatzung untragbar ist und uns 

nicht weniger Schaden zufügt als den Palästinensern. Jedoch fehlt der 

israelischen Regierung die Kraft, die einzige Operation durchzuführen, 

die unser Leben retten kann: Die Entfernung des Tumors, der sich 

“[besetzte] Gebiete” nennt. Durch diesen Tumor bluten wir 

ununterbrochen, und er macht uns von Tag zu Tag schwächer. 

Und daher brauchen wir keine Solidaritätsbekundung und auch keine 

pro-zionistische Reden, sondern internationalen Druck, der die 

Besatzung beenden kann. Alleine schaffen wir das nämlich nicht. 

Jedoch mit Hilfe unserer europäischen Freunde gibt es eine Chance, 

Ruhe und Frieden für beide Völker zu erreichen. 

Zum Schluss würde ich Sie gerne darauf hinweisen, dass ich zwar 

kein Moralist bin, aber dennoch denke, dass Sie eine der wichtigsten 

moralischen Lektionen des Zweiten Weltkrieges vergessen haben: 

Nämlich, dass man bei Menschenrechtsverletzungen nicht schweigen 

darf, und dass man gegen jedes Regime, das ein anderes Volk 

unterdrückt, kämpfen muss. Heute sind wir leider die Unterdrücker. Es 

ist daher Ihre Aufgabe, mit lauter Stimme zu sagen, dass das 21. 

Jahrhundert keinen Platz für Besatzungsmächte und Unterdrücker hat, 

und dass jedes Volk ein Recht auf Selbstbestimmung hat. 

Israel braucht diesen Druck, um seiner selbst willen. Wer Israel liebt, 

muss Druck auslösen, bis die Besatzung beendet ist. 

Mit freundlichen Grüssen, 

Dr. Meir Margalit, Historiker, Aktivist der israelischen 

Friedensbewegung und ehemaliges Stadtratsmitglied von Jerusalem, 

von der Meretz-Partei. Übersetzt aus dem Hebräischen von Benjamin 

Rosendahl. Der Offene Brief ist bereits am 31.03.2008 im Internet- 

Portal „hagalil“ dokumentiert worden. 

23 a) HCON 322 EH 

110th CONGRESS 

2d Session 

H. CON. RES. 322 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas on November 29, 1947, the United Nations General 

Assembly voted to partition the British Mandate of Palestine and 

create a Jewish state;


Whereas on May 14, 1948, the people of Israel proclaimed the 

establishment of the sovereign and independent State of Israel, and 

the United States Government established full diplomatic relations with 

Israel; 

Whereas the desire of the Jewish people to establish an independent 

modern State of Israel is an outgrowth of the existence of the historic 

kingdom of Israel established in the Land of Israel 3,000 years ago, 

with the city of Jerusalem as its capital; 

Whereas for over 2,000 years, there has been continuous Jewish 

presence and residence in the land comprising the modern State of 

Israel; 

Whereas the establishment of the modern State of Israel as a 

homeland for the Jewish people followed the slaughter of more than 

6,000,000 European Jews during the Holocaust; 

Whereas since its establishment 60 years ago, the modern State of 

Israel has rebuilt a nation, forged a new and dynamic democratic 

society, and created a thriving economic, political, cultural, and 

intellectual life despite the heavy costs of war, terrorism, and 

unjustified diplomatic and economic boycotts against the people of 

Israel; 

Whereas the people of Israel have established a vibrant, pluralistic, 

democratic political system, including freedom of speech, association, 

and religion; a vigorously free press; free, fair and open elections; the 

rule of law; a fully independent judiciary; and other democratic 

principles and practices; 

Whereas Israel has developed some of the leading universities in the 

world, and 8 Israeli citizens have been awarded the Nobel Prize; 

Whereas Israel has developed an advanced, entrepreneurial 

economy, is among the world's leaders in the high-tech industry, and is 

at the forefront of research and development in the field of renewable 

energy sources; 

Whereas Israel regularly sends humanitarian aid, search-and-rescue 

teams, mobile hospitals, and other emergency supplies, to help victims 

of disasters around the world, including the 1994 Rwandan civil war, 

the 1998 bombing of the United States Embassy in Kenya, the 1999 

earthquakes in Turkey, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2005 

hurricanes along the southern coast of the United States, and the 2007 

fires in Greece; 

Whereas Israel has absorbed millions of Jews from countries 

throughout the world and fully integrated them into Israeli society; 

Whereas Israel has bravely defended itself from repeated terrorist and 

military attacks since its independence; 

Whereas successive leaders of Israel have sought to achieve peace 

with Israel's Arab neighbors; 

Whereas Israel has established peaceful bilateral relations with 

neighboring Egypt and Jordan and has made its desire to establish 

peaceful relations with all Arab states abundantly clear; 

Whereas for 6 decades, the United States and Israel have maintained 

a special relationship based on mutually shared democratic values, 

common strategic interests, and moral bonds of friendship and mutual 

respect; 

Whereas the American people feel a strong affinity for the Israeli 

people based on common values and shared cultural heritage; and 

Whereas the United States continues to regard Israel as a strong and 

trusted ally and an important strategic partner: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

That Congress— 

(1) recognizes the historic significance of the 60th anniversary of the 

reestablishment of the sovereign and independent State of Israel as a 

homeland for the Jewish people; 

(2) reaffirms its enduring support for Israel as Israel pursues peace 

with its neighbors;


(3) reaffirms its support for Israel's right to defend itself against threats 

to its security and existence; 

(4) commends the people of Israel for their remarkable achievements 

in building a new state and a pluralistic, democratic society in the face 

of terrorism, as well as hostility, ostracism, and belligerence from 

many of their neighbors; 

(5) reaffirms the bonds of friendship and cooperation which have 

existed between the United States and Israel for the past 60 years, 

and commits to strengthening those bonds; and 

(6) extends the warmest congratulations and best wishes to the State 

of Israel and the Israeli people for a peaceful, prosperous, and 

successful future. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110th CONGRESS 

2d Session 

H. CON. RES. 322 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State 

of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of close friendship and cooperation 

between the United States and Israel. 

Dem Rep Independent 

Ayes: 417 (97%) 225 192 0 

Nays: 0 (0%) 0 0 0 

No Vote: 15 (3%) 9 6 0 

b) Speech of Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) April 22, 2008: 

Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in Congress in celebrating 

Israel’s accomplishments over the past 60 years. I am happy to be cosponsor 

of this congratulatory resolution. However, like many Israelis 

and Palestinians, I have concerns about Israel’s future, its stability, its 

security and the prospect for peaceful coexistence for both 

Palestinians and Israelis. One of those concerns relates to the ongoing 

lack of resolution on the dispossession of Palestinian property and the 

dislocation of Palestinians after Independence. It must be 

remembered that about 700,000 Palestinians became exiled. Much 

Arab property was appropriated. And about 500 Arab villages were 

destroyed. On December 11, 1948, the United Nations passed 

Resolution 194, affording Palestinian refugees the right to return to 

their homes in Israel, or to compensation for their property should they 

choose not to return. To this day, the mandate of U.N. Resolution 194 

has not been fulfilled. Unfortunately, this failure remains as one of the 

most significant barriers to the realization of a two-state negotiated 

solution. 

I am also concerned for those Palestinians who did not flee and who 

became Israeli citizens after Independence. According to the Legal 

Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, today there exist 20 Israeli 

laws which explicitly discriminate against the Palestinian minority in 

Israel, who constitute 20 percent of its population. In its 2005 Annual 

Report, the U.S. State Department said that “There is] institutionalized 

legal and societal discrimination against Israel’s [Arab] Christian, 

Muslim and Druze citizens. The government does not provide Israeli 

Arabs with the same quality of education, housing, employment and 

social services as Jews.” 

Finally, Israel has a right to security and a right to defend itself. 

Accordingly, I am concerned that the 40 year military occupation of the 

West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem has been and 

continues to be brutal and unjust and undermines the security of 

Israel. It is a fact that the government of Israel continues to support the 

construction of settlements on Palestinian land, perpetuating the 

consequences of dispossession and exile. Additionally, I am 

concerned that the government of Israel has increased the number of


checkpoints which destroy a viable Palestinian economy and a vibrant 

civil society. I am concerned that the Israeli government has erected a 

wall, often on Palestinian land, that divides Palestinians from 

Palestinians, rather than divide Israel from the West Bank. As stated 

by Judge Elaraby of the International Court of Justice in his 2004 

Advisory Opinion on the legality of Israel’s separation barrier, “The fact 

that occupation is met by armed resistance cannot be used as a 

pretext to disregard fundamental human rights in the occupied 

territory.” This conundrum of a dialectic of conflict further separates 

Israelis and Palestinians alike from hopes for peace. 

H. Con. Res. 322 eloquently states the many reasons why I celebrate 

Israel’s accomplishments and I sincerely wish it a bright future. I only 

wish to add that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many Israelis and 

Palestinians as well, Israel’s future will be bright only if it includes an 

open dialogue with Palestinians, a respect for human rights and 

international law, and a society built on coexistence and tolerance. 

Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace with justice and I 

encourage the United States government to help Israel achieve that so 

the joy of future anniversaries will be unalloyed. I support the 

resolution in the spirit of reconciliation to which we must all inevitably 

turn, to achieve peace and justice with our brothers and sisters from 

whom we may be estranged. 

24 Text der Erklärung in der Rubrik „Erklärungen, Interviews und 

Anzeigen” dieser Homepage. 

25 Ari Shavit: A deal with thugs, in „Haaretz“-online 17.04.2008: We 

have a neighbor who is a murderer. Not the criminal kind, thank God. 

Not a psychopath, God forbid. No, our neighbor is a religious 

murderer. A murderer in the name of God and for God. A murderer 

who wants to eradicate us and get rid of us so that we will not pollute 

his sacred soil with our presence. A murderer who believes that the 

world will be better, purer, if we are not here. A serious murderer, a 

murderer with values, a murderer with a mission. 

Our killer-neighbor is not heartless. He is not without compassion. It 

would not occur to him, for example, to slaughter our children and 

wives. It would not occur to him to drown us all in the sea. Because of 

his human virtues and morals, he does not wish for each and every 

one of us to die a strange death. 

Instead, the neighbor wants to kill our national existence. In the term 

used by the late Yehoshafat Harkabi, his declared goal is politicide, not 

genocide. Lying in his bed at night, our neighbor fantasizes about the 

death of the State of Israel. In his actions during the day, the neighbor 

tries to hasten the death of the State of Israel. In the name of God, the 

neighbor wants to murder the State of Israel. 

The neighbor is a murderer, but the neighbor is not delusional. He has 

good reasons to hate us. Exactly 60 years ago, we deprived his 

mothers and fathers of their land. We emptied out their villages. We 

destroyed their homes. We wiped their Palestine off the face of the 

earth. And in the great heat of May-July 1948, we sent them south, in 

long columns. We sent them all the way to Gaza, like the biblical 

Hagar, leaving in their hearts that deep pain that over the years 

became a deep hatred, a deep hatred that became a claim for 

absolute justice. An absolute justice that leaves no room for life. 

Certainly not for our life. 

That is why we have such difficulties with the neighbor. The guilt and 

the terror are profound. The cultural gaps are unbearable. For 

although we live closely, side by side, we are very far apart. Opposites, 

really. The neighbor from Hamas is dispossessed, and we have 

property. The neighbor is hungry, and we are well-fed. The neighbor is 

a zealot, and we are godless. The neighbor demands justice-to-thedeath, 

and we are looking for some deal that will let us live.


He is no sucker, that neighbor. In 2006 he surprised us by triumphing 

over Mahmoud Abbas. In 2007 he surprised us by driving out 

Mohammed Dahlan and taking over Gaza. In 2008 he surprised us by 

creating a balance of deterrence against the hollow bragging of the 

Israeli government. True, the neighbor is still fairly weak. He cannot 

rise up and kill us today, nor will he be able to do so tomorrow. But 

with every year he grows stronger. With every year, he advances and 

makes incursions, slowly crumbling the settlements we built over the 

ruins of those villages. 

We, for our part, ignore him. We act like a wealthy man who lives a life 

of comfort on his estate without realizing that a disenfranchised, angry 

neighbor is watching him the whole time. For the good bourgeoisie that 

we are, after all, the most convenient way to cope with a murdering 

neighbor is to ignore him. Not to see him, not to hear him, not to speak 

with him. To pretend that he is not there, at the edge of the garden, 

just outside the garden. To pretend that there is another, more polite 

neighbor with whom we can speak. And to believe, truly to believe, that 

peace and security can one day be obtained in this neighborhood 

without solving the problem of the neighbor. Without seeing that he is 

here. Here all along. And not going anywhere. 

There are only two ways to deal with a killer-neighbor: to hit him or to 

disarm him. Perhaps one day there will no longer be any choice. 

Despite the terrible cost involved, Israel may eventually have to enter 

the neighbor's crowded trailer and beat him senseless. But before we 

are dragged into Gaza, we must exhaust the other possibility. We 

should offer Hamas a deal: an Islamic republic in Gaza in exchange 

for full demilitarization. A full and fulfilling life for a Muslim community 

of brothers, in exchange for giving up violence and arms altogether. 

Hamas will probably say no. The neighbor tends to prefer the deaths 

of Israelis over the lives of Palestinians. But if there is any chance of a 

frank negotiation with Hamas, this is the path the talks should take. 

Not a Carter-style illusion, not the temporary tactic of a passing 

tahadiyeh [truce], but a tough deal with tough terms. A street deal. A 

deal with thugs. A deal meant to give those who live on the other side 

of the fence a genuine opportunity to lay down the sword, pick up the 

Koran and become real neighbors. 

26 Mahmoud al-Zahar: No Peace Without Hamas, in “Washington 

Post” 17.04.2008: GAZA – President Jimmy Carter’s sensible plan to 

visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism 

to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has 

reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acts as if a 

few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of 

apartheid fit better. While Rice persuades Israeli occupation forces to 

cut a few dozen meaningless roadblocks from among the more than 

500 West Bank control points, these forces simultaneously choke off 

fuel supplies to Gaza; blockade its 1.5 million people; approve illegal 

housing projects on West Bank land; and attack Gaza City with F-16s, 

killing men, women and children. Sadly, this is "business as usual" for 

the Palestinians. 

Last week's attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot should not surprise 

critics in the West. Palestinians are fighting a total war waged on us by 

a nation that mobilizes against our people with every means at its 

disposal–from its high-tech military to its economic stranglehold, from 

its falsified history to its judiciary that "legalizes" the infrastructure of 

apartheid. Resistance remains our only option. Sixty-five years ago, 

the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their 

people. We Gazans, living in the world's largest open-air prison, can 

do no less. 

The U.S.-Israeli alliance has sought to negate the results of the 

January 2006 elections, when the Palestinian people handed our party 

a mandate to rule. Hundreds of independent monitors, Carter among 

them, declared this the fairest election ever held in the Arab Middle


East. Yet efforts to subvert our democratic experience include the 

American coup d'etat that created the new sectarian paradigm with 

Fatah and the continuing warfare against and enforced isolation of 

Gazans. 

Now, finally, we have the welcome tonic of Carter saying what any 

independent, uncorrupted thinker should conclude: that no "peace 

plan," "road map" or "legacy" can succeed unless we are sitting at the 

negotiating table and without any preconditions. 

Israel's escalation of violence since the staged Annapolis "peace 

conference" in November has been consistent with its policy of illegal, 

often deadly collective punishment–in violation of international 

conventions. Israeli military strikes on Gaza have killed hundreds of 

Palestinians since then with unwavering White House approval; in 

2007 alone the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed was 40 to 1, up 

from 4 to 1 during the period from 2000 to 2005. 

Only three months ago I buried my son Hussam, who studied finance 

at college and wanted to be an accountant; he was killed by an Israeli 

airstrike. In 2003, I buried Khaled–my first-born – after an Israeli F-16 

targeting me wounded my daughter and my wife and flattened the 

apartment building where we lived, injuring and killing many of our 

neighbors. Last year, my son-in-law was killed. 

Hussam was only 21, but like most young men in Gaza he had grown 

up fast out of necessity. When I was his age, I wanted to be a 

surgeon; in the 1960s, we were already refugees, but there was no 

humiliating blockade then. But now, after decades of imprisonment, 

killing, statelessness and impoverishment, we ask: What peace can 

there be if there is no dignity first? And where does dignity come from 

if not from justice? 

Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational 

crime at the core of the Jewish state–the violent expulsion from our 

lands and villages that made us refugees–to slip out of world 

consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away. Judaism – which gave 

so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers 

and modern proponents of tikkun olam–has corrupted itself in the 

detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid. 

A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step 

until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all 

settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; 

repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; 

and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and 

our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just 

negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of 

refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can 

start to be whole again. 

I am eternally proud of my sons and miss them every day. I think of 

them as fathers everywhere, even in Israel, think of their sons–as 

innocent boys, as curious students, as young men with limitless 

potential–not as "gunmen" or "militants." But better that they were 

defenders of their people than parties to their ultimate dispossession; 

better that they were active in the Palestinian struggle for survival than 

passive witnesses to our subjugation. 

History teaches us that everything is in flux. Our fight to redress the 

material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun, and adversity has taught us 

patience. As for the Israeli state and its Spartan culture of permanent 

war, it is all too vulnerable to time, fatigue and demographics: In the 

end, it is always a question of our children and those who come after 

us. 

Mahmoud al-Zahar, a surgeon, is a founder of Hamas. He is [the] 

foreign minister in the government of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, 

which was elected in January 2006. 

27 Barak Ravid: Hebron settlers threaten German MPs, in „Haaretz“online 

18.04.2008: A group of Jewish settlers in Hebron insulted and


threatened a visiting German parliamentary delegation touring the 

West Bank city yesterday. The German embassy in Israel protested to 

the Foreign Ministry that Israel Defense Forces soldiers and police 

officers did nothing to stop the settlers' attacks. The German group cut 

short its visit to the city after the incident. 

The IDF declined to comment on the incident, while the Israeli 

embassy in Berlin issued an apology. 

Seven members of the German parliament's law committee toured 

Hebron, the West Bank's largest city. The IDF control the center of the 

city to protect several hundred Jewish settlers living there. 

At the start of the visit, the legislators were cursed, insulted and 

threatened by a small group of settlers, the visitors said in a statement 

yesterday. 

"The Israeli police and army showed no willingness to step in and said 

they couldn't guarantee the safety of the delegation," the statement 

said. "In order to give the peace process a chance, the members of 

the law committee, as friends of Israel, appeal to the Israeli authorities 

to rein in the fanaticism of Jewish settlers." 

The legislators, headed by German Green Party deputy Jerzy Montag, 

leader of a German-Israeli parliamentary group, said the settlers swore 

at them, threatened them, called them "Nazis" and poured paint on 

their cars. Following the attacks the delegation members decided to 

cut their visit short and left Hebron. They said were so shocked and 

upset that they considered leaving Israel immediately in protest. 

The Israeli ambassador in Germany, Yoram Ben-Zeev, spoke to the 

lawmakers by phone and expressed his regret for the incident. Ben- 

Zeev said he will meet personally with every committee member in the 

delegation upon their return to Germany this week, to express his 

feelings and to apologize. 

The German embassy in Israel protested to the Foreign Ministry in the 

name of the German government, saying the IDF soldiers at the site 

did nothing to stop the settlers. 

"We're still looking into the circumstances of the incident," a senior 

Foreign Ministry source said. "This is not the first time that such things 

have happened and we can only regret it, especially since these are 

great friends of Israel." 

A Foreign Ministry official said members of the German delegation 

called the ministry for help during the incident. The ministry contacted 

police and asked them to intervene, but by that time the delegation 

had already left. Foreign Ministry officials said the delegation did not 

coordinate their Hebron visit with Israeli authorities, and therefore no 

preparations had been made for their arrival. 

However, German diplomats said the Israeli embassy in Berlin had 

been given complete details of the visit even before the lawmakers 

arrived in Israel. 

Noam Arnon, the spokesman for Hebron's settlers, said that while he 

does not agree or sympathize with the settlers' actions in this incident, 

"one must take into consideration that these were not innocent 

tourists." The parliamentarians were accompanied by "an extreme leftwing 

organization that incites to drive the Jewish settlers out of Hebron 

and slanders the IDF and Israel," Arnon said. "It's like the tours of the 

National Jewish Front I used to lead in Arab villages." Arnon invited the 

"representatives of European states" to visit Hebron without the 

"hostile escort" to see things as they really were. 

28 Henry Siegman: Israels falsche Freunde, in „Süddeutsche Zeitung“ 

10.04.2008, S. 2: Die Europäer glauben, aus Sühne für den Holocaust 

müssten sie alle Taten des jüdischen Staats dulden – doch damit 

schaden sie ihm. Der Gesandte des Nahost-Quartetts, Tony Blair, und 

Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel wollen also eine weitere 

Friedenskonferenz organisieren, diesmal im Juni in Berlin. Nach der 

langen Reihe fehlgeschlagener Friedensinitiativen, die mindestens bis 

1991, bis zur Konferenz von Madrid, zurückreicht, fällt es schwer zu


glauben, dass Staats- und Regierungschefs tatsächlich die gleichen 

Fehler noch einmal begehen wollen. Und dass sie keine Ahnung 

haben, warum dieser Konflikt heute noch auswegloser erscheint als 

einst. Der eigentliche Skandal ist, dass die Völkergemeinschaft zwar 

genau weiß, wo die Probleme liegen, aber nicht genug Mut aufbringt, 

sie zu benennen, geschweige denn sie zu lösen. Die nächste 

Friedenskonferenz in Deutschland – oder in Moskau, wo die Russen 

sie gerne machen würden – wird an derselben Feigheit scheitern, die 

auch alle früheren Bemühungen kennzeichnete. Es wird über alles 

gesprochen werden, außer über das eigentliche Problem. Dieses 

Problem sieht so aus: Selbst wenn man von allen Sünden absieht, die 

man den Palästinensern zuschreiben kann – ihre desaströse Führung, 

der missglückte Aufbau politischer Institutionen, die mörderische 

Gewalt der Widerstandsgruppen: Es gibt keine realistische 

Perspektive für einen souveränen palästinensischen Staat. Und dies 

vor allem deshalb, weil die zahlreichen israelischen Regierungen von 

1967 bis heute nie die Absicht hatten, einen solchen Staat Wirklichkeit 

werden zu lassen. Es ist das eine, dass Israels Regierungen darauf 

bestehen, den Palästinenser-Staat so lange hinauszuzögern, bis 

bestimmte Sicherheitsbedürfnisse erfüllt sind. Das andere aber ist, 

dass eine Regierung, die den Konflikt ernsthaft lösen wollte, niemals 

die Räumung und Teilung palästinensischen Landes auf eine Weise 

weiterbetreiben würde, bei der jedes Kind weiß, dass sie einen 

palästinensischen Staat unmöglich macht. Angesichts der 

überwältigenden Ungleichheit der Kräfte zwischen Besatzern und 

Besetzten wundert es wenig, dass israelische Regierungen einen 

regelrechten Heißhunger auf palästinensisches Land entwickelt 

haben. Erstaunlich ist etwas anderes: dass die Völkergemeinschaft so 

tut, als nehme sie Israel die Behauptung ab, das Opfer zu sein, die 

von ihm besetzten Menschen aber die Aggressoren. Deshalb erlaubt 

sie weiterhin die Enteignung der Palästinenser, dass hier die Gesetze 

des Dschungels walten. Solange Israel glaubt, sich mit dem 

Hinauszögern des Friedensprozesses Zeit kaufen zu können, um 

unwiderruflich Fakten zu schaffen – solange kann kein 

Friedensprozess gelingen. Und wenn die Völkergemeinschaft Israel 

weiterhin die Behauptung abkauft, sein Wunsch nach einer Zwei- 

Staaten-Lösung werde durch die Palästinenser enttäuscht, wird deren 

Vertreibung in der Tat unumkehrbar. Und wenn westliche Länder vor 

dem Hintergrund ihrer Schuld am Holocaust glauben, ihre Hinnahme 

eines solchen Ergebnisses sei ein Akt der Freundschaft mit dem 

jüdischen Volk, so könnte es keinen größeren Irrtum geben. Die 

Palästinenser aufzugeben, kann keine Sühne dafür sein, die Juden 

Europas aufgegeben zu haben. Und es würde auch nicht der 

Sicherheit des Staates Israel dienen. Die geradezu uneingeschränkten 

Bekundungen der Unterstützung durch Merkel und Frankreichs 

Präsident Nicolas Sarkozy sind nach den Worten des Publizisten John 

Vinocur "der Versuch, Israel zur Mäßigung mit einer Botschaft 

zwischen den Zeilen anzuhalten, nämlich: Die EU ist nicht oder nicht 

mehr euer reflexhafter Widersacher." Aber die Erwartung, unkritische 

Unterstützung werde zu einer größeren Bereitschaft Israels führen, für 

den Frieden Risiken auf sich zu nehmen, steht im Widerspruch zur 

Geschichte dieses Konflikts. Diese hat vielmehr gezeigt: Je kleiner der 

Widerspruch ist, den Israel von seinen Freunden im Westen erhält, 

desto kompromissloser wird sein Verhalten gegenüber den 

Palästinensern. Und genauso reagierte Premier Ehud Olmert auf die 

Erklärungen von Sarkozy und Merkel: Er kündigte neue Bauprojekte in 

Ostjerusalem an und genehmigte damit Wohnungsprojekte, die 

frühere Regierungen wegen ihrer negativen Wirkungen auf ein 

Friedensabkommen eingefroren hatten. Zudem erklärte 

Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak kurz nach Merkels Abreise im März, 

dass er die 500 Kontrollpunkte und Straßensperren nicht auflösen 

werde, die ein Gedeihen der palästinensischen Wirtschaft verhindern 

– was Israel schon wiederholt versprochen und ebenso wiederholt


nicht erfüllt hatte. Welche Hoffnung die Palästinenser auch immer 

gehabt haben mögen, nachdem ihnen die internationale 

Gebergemeinschaft im Dezember mehr als sieben Milliarden Dollar 

zugesagt hatte: Mit Baraks Ankündigung wurde sie zerstört. Die 

Geberländer, von der Privatwirtschaft gar nicht zu reden, werden unter 

diesen Umständen dem schlechten Geld nicht auch noch gutes 

hinterherwerfen; das haben sie früher schon oft genug getan. Was von 

den Staats- und Regierungschefs nun verlangt wird, sind keine 

weiteren Friedenskonferenzen oder clevere Korrekturen früherer 

Erklärungen – sondern der moralische und politische Mut, ihre 

Kollaboration mit jenem Riesenschwindel zu beenden, zu dem der 

Friedensprozess geworden ist. Selbstverständlich muss die 

palästinensische Gewalt verurteilt und gestoppt werden, vor allem, 

wenn sie Zivilisten trifft. Auf der anderen Seite aber: Barrikaden und 

Checkpoints der Armee, Kampfhubschrauber und Düsenjäger, 

gezielte Ermordungen und militärische Übergriffe, ganz zu schweigen 

vom massiven Diebstahl palästinensischen Lands. Ist es nicht 

vollkommen unehrlich, so zu tun, als wäre Israels Besetzung nicht 

selbst ein unerbittlicher Akt der Gewalt gegen drei Millionen 

palästinensische Zivilisten? Könnte die Besetzung auch nur einen Tag 

länger währen, wenn Israel seine Gewalt aufgeben würde? Dessen 

Pläne für das Westjordanland sind nicht viel anders als die der 

arabischen Streitkräfte, als sie 1948 den Staat Israel angriffen – ihr 

Ziel war die Annullierung des UN-Teilungsplans von 1947. Dieses 

Problem muss beim Namen genannt werden (und das ist etwas völlig 

anderes als so hohle Statements wie: „Siedlungen helfen nicht dem 

Frieden"). Und es muss gemeinsam gegen einen Kolonialismus 

vorgegangen werden, der den einstigen noblen jüdischen 

Befreiungskampf entwertet. Oder die Teilnehmer von 

Friedenskonferenzen, egal welch guter Absicht, sind nur Staffage bei 

einer grausamen Täuschung. 

29 Drucksache 16/8747 vom 08.04.2008. 

30 Yariv Oppenheimer: Settlement bloc expansion is the most 

destructive, in „bitterlemons“ 07.04.2008: Recently, the Israeli and 

international media has featured reports on progress in peace 

negotiations. Chief negotiators Ahmed Qurei and Tzipi Livni maintain 

silence about the details, but allow that the talks are ongoing, detailed 

and purposeful. Now of all times, when the core issues never before 

discussed appear to be on the agenda, the negotiating theater seems 

to be infinitely distant from the reality unfolding on the ground. While 

the negotiating teams are discussing the ways and principles for 

partitioning the Land of Israel, the reality on the ground makes it 

increasingly difficult to establish a sovereign Palestinian state. From 

week to week, there are more voices on both sides arguing that it has 

become physically impossible to remove the West Bank settlements 

and that accordingly the two-state solution is history. The original goal 

of the settler leaders to prevent any future national leadership from 

dividing the land is closer than ever to fruition, as the settlements 

continue to spread. Like its predecessors, the Olmert government is 

operating in two contradictory directions: on the one hand it issues 

declarations regarding the existential need to achieve a peace 

agreement with the Palestinians, but on the other, it approves more 

construction beyond the green line, particularly the expansion of 

existing settlements. This pattern is repeated especially when Israeli 

governments decide to advance courageously toward a political 

settlement. It is then, perhaps stemming from a desire to placate rightwing 

protests, that the government decides to move ahead with 

construction plans and alter the lay of the land almost irreversibly. The 

codename that legitimizes every act of expanding existing settlements 

and establishing new ones is the broad concept of "settlement blocs". 

As if in recognition of a fait accompli, government spokespersons


justify every new initiative to build in the territories with the excuse that 

the areas involved are settlement blocs that in any event will come 

under future Israeli sovereignty. During the first three months of 2008, 

at the height of the Annapolis process, construction took place in 101 

West Bank settlements; about 500 structures, comprising thousands 

of housing units, are currently being built. New construction plans were 

approved by the government to build a new neighborhood at Agan 

Haayalot next to Givat Zeev, north of Jerusalem. Tenders were 

released for the construction of 750 units in East Jerusalem. The 

regional planning commission approved submission of construction 

plans for 3,600 additional units in East Jerusalem. Most of these new 

construction plans are intended for empty areas located adjacent to 

Palestinian villages and neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city. 

In contrast to the pronouncements of official spokespersons, the 

ramifications of additional construction in the settlement blocs are 

often more destructive than expansion of isolated settlements in the 

West Bank heartland. While construction in the isolated settlements is 

usually limited in scope and in any case destined for eventual removal, 

the "settlement bloc" concept is a green light for building thousands of 

housing units near the borderline, in areas where the chances of 

reaching agreement to evacuate settlements are slim. Removal of 

settlements like Ofra, Bet El and Har Bracha, which are located deep 

inside Palestinian territory in the mountain heartland, will enjoy far 

broader public support than removal of communities inside the 

settlement blocs, like Maaleh Adumim, Betar Illit and the Etzion 

settlements. Moreover, Palestinian agreement to leaving part of the 

settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty within the framework of a 

peace agreement is conditioned on territorial swaps, meaning transfer 

of Israeli sovereign territory to the Palestinian state. Every built-up acre 

in the settlement blocs constitutes an additional, complicated problem 

area when it comes to determining the future borders of the two states. 

The settlement of Modiin Illit, which in early March was declared a fullfledged 

municipality, offers an excellent example of the way Israeli 

governments have obliterated the green line and de facto annexed 

territory while simultaneously proceeding with peace negotiations. In 

1993 when the Oslo accord was signed, the land adjacent to the 

Palestinian village of Bil'in was empty. Yet within three years, even as 

a process unfolded whereby Israel recognized the right of the 

Palestinian people to a state in the West Bank, construction began on 

the Modiin Illit settlement to provide housing solutions for the ultra 

orthodox sector. Today, this settlement comprises 37,500 residents. 

Plans are advancing to expand it deeper into the West Bank; just this 

week two new enlargement plans were released. The settlement 

construction dynamic, including in East Jerusalem and the blocs 

adjacent to the green line, should first and foremost concern the Israeli 

mainstream that aspires to separate from the Palestinians within the 

framework of a two-state solution. The consistent policy of expanding 

settlements renders the two-state vision that much more distant and is 

maneuvering Israel and the Palestinians into a situation where both will 

have to coexist in a single bi-national state. 

Die Bewegung „Frieden jetzt“ wurde im Gefolge eines Briefes von 348 

Reserveoffizieren vom 6. März 1978 an Ministerpräsident Menachem 

Begin gegründet. Darin schrieben sie, dass eine „Regierung, die die 

Existenz des Staates Israel in den Grenzen Groß-Israels dem Frieden 

vorzieht und guten nachbarlichen Beziehungen, (…) bei uns schwere 

und tiefe Sorge aus(löst“). 

31 In den 1980er Jahren verabschiedete die Knesset ein 

„Kontaktsperregesetz“ ähnlichen Inhalts. Es stellte Beziehungen zur 

PLO unter Strafe. Nach der Prinzipienerklärung vom September 1993 

(„Oslo I“) wurde das Gesetz kassiert.


32 Ed Abington: First-hand report on current conditions in the "Holy 

Land": I got back Saturday morning from ten days in Jerusalem and 

Ramallah where I met with many Palestinians and Israelis. I came 

back convinced more than ever that the two-state solution is dead as a 

doornail. There is absolutely no willingness on the part of the IDF to 

change the situation on the ground from the stranglehold they now 

have. In fact several Israelis said that there are an increasing number 

of IDF officers serving in the West Bank who live in the settlements 

and do everything they can to frustrate any dismantlement of 

roadblocks or other barriers. The head of a well-respected Israeli 

organization told me that former Defense Minister Amir Peretz's 

advisor for the West Bank said that the IDF does everything it can to 

frustrate positive changes on the ground per the Roadmap and Tony 

Blair's mission. The Israeli said Peretz's advisor said that the IDF had 

recruited Palestinian youngsters from Nablus to try to get through the 

Hawara checkpoint wearing a suicide belt. They were caught (since it 

was a set-up), the IDF trumpeted their arrest and used that to justify 

the continuing seige of Nablus. The boys were released within a short 

time after their arrest. 

The Office of the UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs has the 

absolute best – and most depressing – power point presentation of the 

situation on the West Bank that I have seen, layering information on a 

map showing Palestinian cities and villages, areas a, b and c, closed 

military areas, Israeli-declared nature reserves, the separation barrier, 

settlements, including their master plan for development, the Israeli 

road network for settlements, barriers and roadblocks – all of which 

puts forty percent of the West Bank off limit to Palestinians. When one 

looks at the presentation and sees how fragmented and disjointed the 

West Bank has become, and how East Jerusalem is almost totally 

surrounded by Israeli settlements, it is beyond imagination that there 

can ever be a viable Palestinian state. 

There is a sense of despair among almost all Palestinians I talked to. 

They see no willingness on the part of the Israelis to engage in 

meaningful final status talks. In fact, they say, the talks are frozen, yet 

settlement expansion is going on at a steady and growing rate. 

Tenders for new housing units are being approved almost every day, 

not only in East Jerusalem but elsewhere in the West Bank. No 

Palestinian building for any purpose is allowed in area c, even if 

Palestinians have owned the land for generations. The IDF destroys 

any building done by Palestinians in area c. The West Bank is now 

truly fragmented by checkpoints, Israeli-only roads, closed military 

areas and permanent "border-crossing"-like terminals around all the 

major Palestinian cities. Someone shipping goods to or from Nablus, 

for example, must off-load/on-load their trucks at least twice on any 

trip. 

The IDF has clamped down even tighter on the daily lives of 

Palestinians. Nabil Kassis, the president of Bir Zeit University, said that 

he has not been able to hire foreign faculty for the university for 

several years. The Israelis refuse to give foreign faculty work permits. 

In the past, foreigners would get a three month visa at the Israeli point 

of entry and after three months, go out to Jordan or elsewhere for a 

day or two and then come back in and get another three month visa. 

That practice has now stopped by the Israelis, making it even more 

difficult for anyone in the West Bank who overstays their visa. 

I found no Palestinian who had anything positive to say about Tony 

Blair's mission. One Palestinian involved in negotiations said Blair 

comes two or three days a month and spends only a couple of hours 

with the Palestinians. They see no positive changes on the ground as 

a result of his efforts. I heard that a State Department official will 

shortly join the Blair mission as chief of party. One wag unkindly 

commented that his assignment was a rare example of a rat jumping 

on a sinking ship.


The situation in Gaza is truly horrific and on the brink of a humanitarian 

disaster. UNRWA says fully 80 percent of the people in Gaza depend 

on food aid to meet the absolute minimum daily caloric intake. 

UNRWA only supplies 60 percent of daily food requirements to the 

refugees to whom it distributes food packets and depends on a 

functioning economy to supply the rest. The economy in Gaza, 

however, is close to collapse. Unemployment is over 50 percent and 

rising. Many factories have closed down altogether and have laid off 

their workers because they can't get inputs into Gaza nor distribute 

their products. The agricultural sector is collapsing. The IDF allows no 

fertilizer into Gaza, nor chicken feed, very little fuel, no spare parts for 

the water and sewage systems and is increasingly cutting off supplies 

of electricity. At least forty percent of Gaza City is permanently without 

electricity and the situation is even worse in other parts of the Gaza 

Strip. The Palestinians are pumping tens of thousands of cubic meters 

of raw, untreated sewage into the Med because sewage plants are 

breaking down. There is a huge reservoir of raw sewage in northern 

Gaza that could flood villages at any time. Ground water is increasingly 

being contaminated (it has been increasingly saline for some time). 

Drinking water is increasingly untreated because of a deterioration in 

the water treatment system due to a lack of spare parts, creating the 

danger of a pandemic in Gaza. UNRWA is worried about malnutrition 

and seeing signs of stress in pregnant women, usually the harbinger of 

malnutrition. Undernutrition is widespread among children and adults. 

In general, Palestinians recognize that it is only the international 

community that is keeping Gaza from collapsing altogether, but 

Palestinians hold out little hope that the international community will do 

much to make the situation better. And the Bush Administration is 

seen as aligning itself totally with Israel on punishing Gaza and 

unwilling to do much of anything to persuade Israel to ease the 

pressure on Gaza. I heard one anecdote that summarized US 

impotence vis-a-vis Israel. The Consulate in Jerusalem sent a 

Palestinian from Gaza to the US on a Fulbright fellowship. The 

Palestinian scholar returned to Amman almost a year ago but has 

been unable to get back to Gaza. The US has been putting him up in a 

hotel in Amman and paying him per diem for close to a year. His plight 

reminds me of the Tom Hanks movie, The Terminal, of someone who 

got stuck at JFK for a year because his country went out of existence. 

There seems to be a sense that, sooner or later, the IDF will go into 

Gaza in a big way to try to destroy the Hamas government and its 

infrastructure, which will make the humanitarian situation even worse, 

as well as result in heavy casualties. Despite the grim situation in 

Gaza, no Palestinian I talked to thought Hamas was in the slightest 

danger of being overthrown. Fatah in the West Bank has done little or 

nothing to rehabilitate itself, some two years after the 2006 

parliamentary elections. 

There is uncertainty what will happen when Mahmoud Abbas' term of 

office expires in January 2009. One Palestinian said that the 

Presidency is considering a draft election law, which would be 

promulgated by president decree since the Legislative Council has not 

met (and cannot meet) for over a year. Interestingly, the draft election 

law states that legislative and presidential elections will be held in 

2010, thereby giving Abu Mazen another year in office. I don't know 

whether this is true or not, but so much for the Bush Administration 

emphasis on democracy. Palestinians to whom I spoke could see no 

way, in any case, that elections could be held, given the political 

fragmentation between the West Bank and Gaza. And elections held 

only in the West Bank (and perhaps East Jerusalem) would have zero 

credibility. 

Palestinians see Salam Fayyad as imposed upon them by the Bush 

Administration. Some Fatah members were critical of Fayyad, 

probably because Fatah no longer feeds at the public trough. Other 

Palestinians praised his efforts but suggested that if neither the US nor


the Israelis (much less other members of the Quartet) were doing 

much to make Fayyad succeed, then what hope is there? 

I first went to Gaza and the West Bank and have been returning 

regularly for the past fifteen years, although this is my first visit for 14 

months. I always think the situation could not get worse, at least since 

2000 and the outbreak of the second intifada, but somehow it does. I 

fully expect that conditions will be even worse on the ground when I 

next visit. 

33 Ari Shavit: The man without substance, in „Haaretz“-online 

27.03.2008: Ehud Olmert has many good qualities. The prime minister 

is a good friend to his comrades, a devoted father to his children, and 

is loyal to his followers. He is not brilliant, but he is intelligent. He is not 

profound, but he is pragmatic. Energetic, diligent and level-headed. 

Olmert has many of the traits required of a decision maker. He also 

has a virtuoso ability to create networks of power, reinforce them and 

activate them in times of need. 

Olmert is a gifted and multifaceted politician. He knows how to be 

charming and how to be threatening, to play a man of the world but 

also to relate to ordinary people. It is doubtful if there is anyone in 

Israel with more connections. It is doubtful if there is anyone like him 

who knows how to woo the powerful and pal around with criminals. 

And nevertheless, the prime minister has one shortcoming that 

overshadows all his good qualities: The man lacks substance. He has 

no worldview and no overall picture of reality. He has no ethical 

foundations and no structural principles. Olmert has no core. He has 

no Tablets of Stone. In the most profound sense, he does not know 

where he came from and where he is going. That is why today he can 

say the opposite of what he said yesterday, without batting an eyelash. 

Nor does he have any difficulty saying one thing and doing another. 

Since he is guided by litigation rather than the truth, the prime minister 

is capable of changing his skin and changing his policy like a 

chameleon. That is why he is a serial exploiter of opportunities and a 

brilliant survivor, but a hopeless shaper of reality. 

As a captain without direction and without a compass, Olmert 

stretches his opportunism to the absurd and his pragmatism to the 

point of losing the way. He arouses passions and engages in sleight of 

hand and is occasionally hypnotic, but in his 40 years in politics he has 

not left any mark. Even in his two years as prime minister he has not 

done anything genuine. 

These were two important years during which Israel's prime minister 

was supposed to strengthen the country before the major historic test 

of the end of the decade. During these years he was supposed to 

pursue peace and prepare for war. To prepare the ground for dividing 

the country and prepare people's hearts for a struggle for the country. 

To stop Iran, test Syria and exhaust Hamas. To establish Israel's 

legitimacy as a Jewish and democratic nation state. To restore to 

Israel the qualities of a country characterized by excellence. To 

rehabilitate statesmanship and renew meaningfulness. To provide the 

state with diplomatic tools, national pride and a sense of direction. 

Olmert did none of this. He promised convergence, and changed his 

mind. He promised an end to the conflict, and disappointed us. He 

failed in the Second Lebanon War and failed to understand its 

significance. He did something, but not enough, on the crucial issue of 

Iran. He is losing precious time before entering negotiations with Syria, 

he did not formulate an overall and consistent strategy vis-a-vis 

Hamas and did not prepare the country for a future evacuation of the 

settlements. He did not spur the nation to stand behind the Israel 

Defense Forces and strengthen them. 

So as far as foreign affairs and security are concerned, the prime 

minister has stagnated over the past two years. But as far as domestic 

affairs and society are concerned, Olmert caused tremendous 

damage. He did not carry out the necessary revolution in the school


system. He brought about a destructive revolution in the justice 

system, surrendered unconditionally to Shas, encouraged 

centralization in the economy and accepted the widening gaps in 

society. Under Olmert, Israel has become a reckless country that 

abandons the weak and helpless. Mutual responsibility has been 

eroded, social justice has been trampled. Corruption has become 

widespread. 

In another country or another period it may have been possible to be 

more forgiving of the failures of the 12th prime minister. After all, he is 

still a neophyte. Maybe he will learn. Look, according to foreign 

sources, he has learned how to make decisions in the area of national 

security. According to economic sources, he is leading the economy in 

a reasonable manner. Not everything is black. Nor have the worrisome 

suspicions of personal corruption been proven. 

But in this country in this period being forgiving toward the government 

is a luxury. Israel today needs excellence in every area; most of all in 

the area of leadership. Olmert lacks this excellence. Nor will he ever 

have it. Even if he makes an effort to rehabilitate himself, a person 

without substance cannot rehabilitate what he does not have in 

himself. A person without a core cannot navigate toward peace and 

cannot withstand a war. A person without moral authority cannot be a 

leader in a time of trial. 

Therefore, although Olmert is a good guy and a good friend, he does 

not belong in the Prime Minister's Office. Two more critical years of 

Olmert at the helm means a dangerous gamble. 

34 Ari Shavit: Will the real Barak please stand up?, in “Haaretz”-online 

3.4.2008: [Former Minister of Defense] Amir Peretz is pathetic but 

right: Ehud Barak has no agenda. More accurately, deep inside, Barak 

has a definite agenda, but it is a secret. Since his return to politics, 

Barak has not given a name to his truth. And since he became 

defense minister, he has not voiced his credo in public. But a leader 

who does not tell the public the truth is not a leader. Publicly and 

politically he is directionless, pointless and redundant. So if Barak 

wants to live, he must emerge from the bunker immediately, face 

Israel and speak out. He must finally address his agenda in a speech. 

Here is a draft: 

Dear citizens, 

This is a time of trial. Israel is facing unprecedented challenges. Iran is 

on the verge of nuclearization, Syria and Hezbollah are growing 

stronger, Hamas is heading toward conflagration. The Israel Defense 

Forces is doing everything to prepare for the developments, but this is 

not enough. Israeli society must muster all its inner strength both to 

prevent war and to endure a war. Such mustering cannot take place 

unless we are honest with ourselves and take a hard look at reality. 

Therefore I'm addressing you as a statesman rather than a politician. 

As a patriot rather than a party functionary. For many years, our 

leaders have thrown sand in your eyes and led you astray, but now I 

am here to speak the truth, and only the truth, no matter how difficult it 

is. Just as Camp David 2000 burst the peace bubble, the Hamas 

victory and Second Lebanon War in 2006 put an end to any concept of 

a solution by unilateral action. After the shattering of those two great 

illusions, is it absolutely clear that in the years to come no one-sided 

Israeli pullout to the Green Line will be possible. As the leader of the 

peace camp and as one who did more than anyone else to achieve 

peace, I say today with pain that we will not achieve true peace in our 

generation. Therefore our generation's duty is to manage the conflict, 

while reducing the occupation and setting its limits. Our generation's 

role is to build the infrastructure that will enable Israelis and 

Palestinians to achieve peace – but not in our time. Our Palestinian 

neighbors must follow Salam Fayyad's way – they must build the 

emerging Palestine and adopt a positive life ethos. We Israelis must 

establish a strong government and form broad national agreements,


which will enable us, when the time comes, to dismantle our Algeria as 

France dismantled hers. But the ripening process will take time for 

both Palestinians and Israelis. The shelf-agreement idea is surreal and 

dangerous. The Annapolis process is reckless and groundless. Don't 

let the cynics mislead you: Those racing toward peace are the 

enemies of peace. Those wishing to win the next elections with a 

meaningless piece of paper are the ones jeopardizing the two-state 

solution. However, there is another truth, which is even more difficult to 

accept. The Second Lebanon War laid bare the real challenge Israel 

now faces – its intentions don't count, only what may be achieved 

counts. There's really no argument about where the national train 

hopes to head. But the train is going nowhere – its engine has been 

lost and the first-class coaches have been de-coupled from all the rest. 

Facing today's challenge cannot be delayed. It obliges us to demand 

excellence of ourselves, to change the government's function and 

improve the administration with 1,000 quality appointments. To 

revolutionize education and strengthen the rule of law, to bolster the 

IDF and stand behind it, to define the national goals and shared values 

we live by and fight for. To rejuvenate the Israeli spirit. Citizens of 

Israel, during the state's 60 years Israel has reached breathtaking 

achievements. As a fighter, commander and citizen I have learned to 

recognize the merits of the society we have created here. I believe in 

us, in our hidden power. But to implement these powers we need an 

accurate view of the situation, a definite action plan and an honest 

leadership. This is why I am ending my long silence today. This is why 

I stand before you tonight to tell each and every one of you what the 

state of the nation is and what the national agenda is. This is the draft, 

more or less. It could be shortened or lengthened. It could be dulled or 

sharpened. But if there is a Barak, if he still exists – let him appear 

immediately. For as Barak knows better than anyone, only he who 

dares, wins. 

35 Theo Sommer: Militärischer Beistand? Angela Merkel hat bei ihrem 

Besuch in Israel bewegende Worte gefunden. Doch deren Bedeutung 

ist auslegungsfähig, in „Die Zeit“ 19.03.2008: 

Bei ihrem Besuch in Israel hat die Bundeskanzlerin das Verhältnis von 

Deutschland und Israel auf eine neue Grundlage gestellt. Es ist ein 

schwieriges Verhältnis, auf ewig überschattet von dem 

millionenfachen Mord an Europas Juden, mit denen das Hitlerregime 

die Deutschen auf Generationen hinaus zu Schuld und Scham 

verurteilt hat. Angela Merkel hat darüber bewegende Worte gefunden 

– Worte freilich, die sie kaum ausbuchstabiert hat. 

So versicherte sie, die historische Verantwortung Deutschlands für die 

Sicherheit Israels sei Teil der Staatsräson unseres Landes. Sie setzte 

hinzu: „Die Sicherheit Israels ist für mich als deutsche 

Bundeskanzlerin niemals verhandelbar, und wenn das so ist, dann 

dürfen das in der Stunde der Bewährung keine leeren Worte bleiben.“ 

Was aber soll dies konkret bedeuten? Nur, dass wir die 

Raketenangriffe der Hamas verurteilen? Und dass wir iranische 

Drohungen gegen Israel ernst nehmen? Oder macht eine 

Unterabteilung des Führungsstabs der Bundeswehr bereits 

contingency plans für militärische Aktionen „in der Stunde der 

Bewährung"? In welchem Rahmen – UN, Nato, Koalition der Willigen – 

müsste man sich derlei Unternehmen vorstellen? Nach welchen 

Kriterien soll darüber entschieden werden? Und wie gedenkt Berlin 

das deutsche Volk auf solche eventuelle Notwendigkeiten 

vorzubereiten? 

Auch eine weitere Frage hat die Kanzlerin offen gelassen: Wie handelt 

die Bundesregierung, wenn eine schwere Krise abermals durch 

israelische Fehlkalkulation wie den letzten Libanon-Krieg ausgelöst 

wird? Impliziert die Verpflichtung auf die Sicherheit Israels in jeglichem 

Fall unsere automatische Unterstützung – auch wo israelische


Unklugheit den Widerstand der Palästinenser hervorruft, 

beispielsweise in der Besatzungs- und Besiedlungspolitik? 

Natürlich ist Israels Sicherheit „nicht verhandelbar“ – eine 

befremdliche Formulierung übrigens, denn wer wollte oder sollte 

schon Israels Sicherheit wegverhandeln wollen. Aber eine 

diplomatische Lösung, für die Angela Merkel wiederum eingetreten ist, 

für die Verwirklichung der „Vision von zwei Staaten in sicheren 

Grenzen und Frieden“ reicht es nicht aus, den Israelis Carte blanche 

zu erteilen. Eine einseitige Pauschalfestlegung Berlins zugunsten 

Israels, die als Freibrief verstanden werden mag, kann den 

Friedensprozess lediglich erschweren, nicht jedoch ihn befördern. Wer 

einen sicheren Staat Israel und einen sicheren palästinensischen 

Staat im friedlichen Nebeneinander der Völker will, der muss sowohl 

Israelis als auch Palästinensern offene Worte sagen. 

Leere Worte, um den Begriff Angela Merkels aufzugreifen, helfen in 

der Stunde der Bewährung nicht weiter, aber auch nicht in normalen 

Zeiten. Floskeln, deren Bedeutung auslegungsfähig vage bleiben, 

mögen einem Staatsbesuch zum Erfolg verhelfen. Für einen Frieden 

braucht es mehr. 

36 Tom Segev: Merkel condemns Qassams, but ignores Israel’s 

actions, in “Haaretz”-online 19.03.2008: German Foreign Minister 

Frank-Walter Steinmeier left Israel only hours before Chancellor 

Angela Merkel took to the Knesset podium Tuesday afternoon. The 

Germans meticulously calculated that the entourage of ministers 

accompanying Merkel might make her seem imperious, as though she 

were a ruler surrounded by subjects. 

Indeed, there was something imperious about the inclusion of so many 

ministers in Merkel's delegation. The Germans already have held joint 

government sessions with other governments, such as France and 

Poland. No foreign government has held a session in Jerusalem since 

the British mandate. 

Prior to her arrival, Merkel made an effort to call Palestinian Authority 

President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam 

Fayyad. But her joint session with Olmert's government was a show of 

complete and unequivocal support for its policies. Threatening Israel's 

existence is akin to threatening Germany's, Merkel said during her 

visit. Even U.S. politicians never have made such a statement. 

During her Knesset speech, Merkel spoke extensively about the 

Holocaust and her country's friendship with Israel; these were heartwarming, 

yet predictable, remarks. It is often said the two countries 

have a special relationship. Beforehand, such a remark always related 

to the Holocaust, which loomed large; nowadays, it refers to the two 

countries' affinity in almost every field, including security, cultural and 

economic ties. 

One cannot imagine Israel's cultural scene without the millions 

invested by Germany. 

MK Avishay Braverman (Labor), formerly the president of Ben-Gurion 

University of the Negev, said Tuesday that at times, Germany aided 

his institution more than the Israeli government did. 

With that in mind, it seems curious that the two countries failed to sign 

a cultural ties agreement during Merkel's trip, but the deal was not 

thwarted because of emotional residues. Rather, what prevented it 

were perfectly prosaic issues: The Germans asked that the Goethe 

Institute receive tax breaks, which Israel rejected. 

Anyone unaware of where Merkel was speaking (Jerusalem) would 

never have known it is a city where a third of its citizens have been 

living under occupation for more than 40 years, a city divided by a wall 

reminiscent of the Berlin Wall. Merkel spoke of the need for "painful 

concessions" from both sides in the name of peace. Olmert has used 

this term as well. 

She rightfully described the Qassam rocket fire on Sderot as a crime, 

but did not say a word about repeated human rights abuses in the


West Bank, the bombing of residential areas in Gaza or the 

settlements. Olmert was caught on camera telling Merkel that all the 

construction workers building a house in front of his residence are 

Arabs, and the chancellor gave a concerned nod in return. 

Had she been more balanced, Merkel might have made life in Israel 

and the occupied territories less intolerable. Perhaps she made an 

error. Either way, her unrestrained support for Israeli policy is a result 

of her biography. As she said Tuesday, she came from East Germany, 

which used to ignore its part in Nazi crimes and act as though it were 

West Germany's fault alone. 

After German unification, Merkel discovered that the moral and 

political responsibility for the genocide of the Jews rested equally on all 

Germans. Most West Germans already had grown accustomed to that 

knowledge. One of her insiders equated her stance on Israel to that of 

a convert embracing a new set of beliefs. But either way, Merkel's 

stance does not represent Germany's or Israel's public discourse. 

37 Meron Rapoport: Police arrest rabbi for ‘inciting Palestinians in 

East Jerusalem, in “Haaretz”-online 14.03.2008: Israel Police on 

Thursday arrested Arik Ascherman, the executive director of Rabbis 

for Human Rights, for "inciting Palestinians to oppose the police" in 

East Jerusalem. Heated tensions between residents of the Silwan 

village in East Jerusalem and the Israel Police erupted over excavation 

works that have recently began in the village. The excavations are 

being carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and are 

sponsored by Elad association, which promotes the "Judaization" of 

East Jerusalem. 

Silwan residents say the excavation work is being carried out directly 

underneath their homes, and have proceeded to set up a 

demonstration tent on a private lot belonging to one of the village 

residents. A few confrontations subsequently broke out, and the 

residents maintained that the police deliberately harassed them. 

On Wednesday another spat occurred between the local residents and 

settlers on behalf of Elad, and the police detained Ascherman for 

questioning. The police requested that Ascherman promise to stay 

away from Silwan for 15 days and upon his refusal to oblige, he was 

arrested and will be brought in front of a judge Friday for his remand to 

be extended. 

Ascherman's attorney on Thursday said the investigator had accused 

her client, a well-known human rights' activist, of encouraging 

Palestinians to oppose police forces, and also of preventing the 

evacuation of a wounded settler to hospital. 

The attorney further stated that Ascherman adamantly denies the 

allegations. "This is a ridiculous arrest," his attorney said. "In the past, 

the court has refused to adhere to police demands for issuing 

restraining orders against Israeli activists in Silwan." 

38 Reuven Kaminer, Jerusalem: The Personal is the Political. Dafna is 

active in Women in Black in Jerusalem. If Dafna is in the country, then 

rain or shine, she and her sisters take up their position in Hagar (Paris) 

Square denouncing the occupation and violence. 

I must admit that if there is any serious security tension in Jerusalem 

towards the end of the week, I become fraught with concern over the 

possibility that the vigil may be attacked. The criminal attack at the 

Merkaz Ha’rav Yeshiva occurred on Thursday at 8 PM. The country, 

the media and many ordinary citizens were seething with anger, most 

of it blatantly racist. If you are planning to go to the streets to continue 

the weekly protest, you are worried about Israelis who might be looking 

for revenge. There are settler crazies out there plotting away, though 

they really prefer taking out their frustrations on Palestinians. But there 

are any number of Jerusalemites, who can become unhinged. It was 

clear early Thursday evening that the vigil would be tense.


The vigil does enjoy a modicum of police protection, but it is very lay 

back. Their goal is more to protect the peace than anything else. Still, 

better than nothing. There were indeed 3-4 passers by that felt the 

need to scream and curse. Pretty ugly, but this is par for the course, 

when it looks like you can assume that the verbal attack will not get 

physical. But on Friday, March 7, 2007, the women were accosted by 

an extraordinarily viscous brute. The hooligan, who seems to have 

been an American, was brandishing the front page of a newspaper 

brandishing the photographs of the eight Merkaz HaRav victims right 

in the faces of the women and screaming Hamas Whores, Hamas 

Whores. He was of course working himself into a frenzy and 

screaming (in English). A policeman did gently move him away from 

direct physical contact with the women, but then the thug took up a 

position in the middle of the street and continued his harangue, 

explicitly demanding that the Hamas Whores submit to his crazed 

sexual demands. The police did not see this as a reason to interfere. 

He was still uncomfortably close to the vigil when it began to break-up. 

The women had previously decided to have a very small party at the 

end of the vigil for one of the participants who was marking her 99 th 

birthday. The thug had by this time gathered around him a few local 

fanatics. These grouped into a small gang of hooligans which 

accosted three groups of women on their way from the vigil, pushing 

and shoving and banging on the car of one woman. The police were 

gone by then. 

During the week, a delegation of women met with the police and 

requested a firmer hand against any form of harassment, which can 

easily set the stage for really violent attacks. Things were generally 

quiet this last Friday. 

So if you want to know the meaning of courage and steadfastedness in 

the face of mounting chauvinist tension, come then, in body or spirit, to 

their vigil and stand with the Women in Black who are standing in 

Paris Square for peace, against hatred and racism. 

39 Vgl. www.pcpsr.org. 

40 Amira Hass: The PA’s hollow protests. In “Haaretz”-online 

13.3.2008: Senior Palestinian Authority officials can justifiably say that 

settlement construction continues despite everyone's protests and 

condemnations – not only theirs. Europe is protesting, Peace Now is 

protesting, the United Nations is protesting and even Condoleezza 

Rice protests occasionally, not to mention Israel's literary elite. 

The settlements continue to expand, along with the number of roads 

closed to Palestinians. PA officials will say that the antithetical tactics 

to negotiations and protests – the Qassam rockets, guerrilla 

operations and suicide attacks – have not helped matters. In fact, they 

have only provided Israel with more excuses to confiscate land. 

The evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip, it should be said 

again, was a brilliant move by Israel to speed up the political 

separation between the West Bank and Gaza; it all the while 

masqueraded as "the beginning of the pullout." 

The condemnations heard from the PA camp are for internal purposes 

only. It is a way of telling the Palestinian public that its representatives 

are in the same boat as the weak population that suffers under 

occupation, just as the armed struggle is intended to show the 

Palestinian public which organization really knows how to exact 

revenge. The PA's condemnations prove how ridiculous and impotent 

they truly are. They signal to both Israel and the Palestinians that it 

does not matter how many new settlement homes will be erected, a 

Palestinian partner will always take his place at the "peace process" 

show. 

Negotiations and armed struggle are not the only means of fighting the 

occupation. The question of why the Palestinians have not adopted 

Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent resistance should be addressed to PA


leaders – not the millions of Palestinians who every day wage an 

unarmed struggle against the sophisticated and advanced methods of 

oppression. 

The protests would sound completely different if the protesters were to 

organize a calculated public revolt against Israel's tactics of 

annexation. 

There is no lack of opportunities. There are hundreds of concrete 

barriers blocking exits to villages. The PA could send a bulldozer to 

remove one of them every day. Senior officials could come along: 

Mahmoud Abbas or someone from his bureau, heads of security 

organizations, members of the PLO central committee, senior Fatah 

representatives, ministers and directors general. 

There are roads that are forbidden to Palestinian cars. PA officials and 

West Bank residents could form a long convoy of cars and drive on 

these roads. Many Israelis would be happy to join them. 

Building and development are banned in Area C. The Palestinian 

planning office could order the appropriate Palestinian ministries to put 

up electricity lines, to prepare the infrastructure to connect villages to 

the water carrier, to dig cisterns to collect rainwater, to build schools, 

clinics and houses. Maybe even dig wells. All of the things that the 

Israeli occupation authorities forbid to do on 60 percent of the West 

Bank. Here, too, there will be no small number of Israelis opposed to 

the occupation who will join up. 

The Civil Administration will come and destroy it all. Then build it 

again. The senior officials accompanying the work will be arrested. 

Even better. Should only the residents of Bil'in be arrested for their 

unarmed struggle against the occupation? 

It is possible to come up with hundreds of other measures of this kind, 

which could replace the official Palestinian governmental plan, and 

force the leadership away from their "make-believe state," and bring 

them back to battle for liberation. True, these measures alone cannot 

end the colonization, but they have the potential to end the status quo 

that is so convenient for Israel: expanding settlements, endless 

negotiations, protests and shootings. There is a potential here to 

change the alienated relations between the people and their 

representatives, to create a new type of Palestinian diplomacy. 

But it is also true that such a vision has no chance. The present PA 

and PLO leadership has grown accustomed to living as a 

nomenclature. They are confusing the interests of their own people 

with their relatively comfortable ceremonial status; a status that is their 

reward for being willing to participate in a spectacle of respectability 

scripted by the Americans and Europeans for the benefit of Israel. 

41 Shavit spielt darauf an, dass „Shas” den Ausbau der jüdischen 

Vorstädte Jerusalems als ihren politischen Sieg reklamiert. Vgl. dazu 

die Eintragung am 09.03.2008 in dieser Rubrik. 

42 Ari Shavit: Meretz needs Gal-On’s moral compass, in „Haaretz“online 

10.3.2008: Israel needs Meretz more than ever. With prospects 

for peace receding on the horizon, Israel needs a peace party like 

Meretz. When the rule of law is under attack, Israel needs a party of 

law like Meretz. When the rich do as they please in this country, Israel 

needs a social-democratic party like Meretz. When the prime minister 

surrenders unconditionally to Shas, Israel needs a secular party like 

Meretz. 

Even those who are not comfortable with every jot and tittle of the 

Geneva Initiative ought to hope that next week's Meretz leadership 

primary renews and strengthens Israel's human rights party. 

Meretz's current situation is not bright. The party that was once chic 

and popular has, over the years, become gray and dusty. The party of 

radical youth has become established and calcified. Premature aging 

overtook this party of the sane left.


It lost the fighting spirit that was its heart and soul. It lost its relevance 

and immediacy. It lost its ability to offer real tidings to the young, the 

subversive, the Greens and the seekers of justice. Therefore, if it does 

not choose wisely next week, Meretz is liable to turn into a pocket 

edition of its elder sister, Labor. 

The Meretz establishment believes that the best person to rehabilitate 

the party is Haim (Jumas) Oron. Yossi Beilin, Shulamit Aloni and 

Amos Oz all announced their support for him yesterday. Oron is 

indeed a worthy candidate – judicious, responsible and pleasantmannered. 

He is someone whom everyone loves to love. 

But is Jumas really the man of principle who can reignite Meretz's fire? 

Does Oron offer the new face that will win the confidence of the young 

and compete with the rise of the Greens? The man who, together with 

Haim Ramon, dismantled Hevrat Ha'ovdim (the Histadrut labor 

federation's holding company) is more establishment than any 

member of the ruling establishment. His virtues are those of Labor's 

top brass, not those of the leader of a radical, value-based party that 

needs a fresh spirit. 

Zahava Gal-On is the opposite of Oron. Not everyone loves Gal-On. 

Gal-On does not wrap the country's leaders in cotton wool; she fights 

them. Yet in an era of debased politics, she proves, day after day, that 

a different way is possible. Gal-On (like Shelly Yachimovich [Knesset 

member of the Labor Party]) has an anatomical part that most of the 

men in the Knesset lack: a spine. 

And where there is a spine, there is also a voice. A voice that speaks 

out for the rights of women, Palestinians and foreign workers. A voice 

that speaks out against those who corrupt and are corrupted. A voice 

that speaks out for the rule of law and against those who assail it. A 

voice that spoke out against the last war and against the government 

of cynics that is liable to drag us into the next war. 

Meretz members must be honest with themselves: They do not 

currently have a single leadership candidate who is capable of 

restoring the party's past glory. Only a joint leadership of Oron and 

Gal-On is capable of doing the job. And because the establishment will 

put Oron on top, the rank-and-file membership must ensure that Gal- 

On is there as well. Without Gal-On’s moral compass and strong 

voice, Meretz will not find its way.” 

43 Yossi Beilin, Tel Aviv 22 March 2008: Dear friends, With the 

election of Haim Oron (also known as "Jumes") to the leadership of 

the Meretz party last week, I stepped down as Meretz chairman after 

four years in office. I supported Jumes in this race, and I am confident 

that under his leadership the party will be in good and able hands. As I 

said last December when I announced my decision not to seek 

another term, I feel an ideological closeness with Jumes, and I look 

forward to working with him, both in the Knesset and outside, in 

pushing the Meretz agenda of peace and social justice. As always, but 

perhaps with a particular urgency in the next few months, will be our 

efforts to press on the Israeli government to reach an historic 

agreement with the Palestinians. As I see it, 2008 (and the months are 

ticking) presents us with a window of opportunity. If we do not reach an 

agreement before the year is over, we may again find ourselves in a 

long period of deadlock, be it because the new administration in 

Washington, which will take over in January 2009, will need a 

substantial period of time before it decides to invest itself in a solution 

for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; or because the new Palestinian 

president, who will succeed Mahmoud Abbas next year, might turn out 

to be someone uneager to make peace; or because Israel itself will 

have a new and rightist government, one that will be wary of reaching 

an agreement that entails giving up territory. To be sure, the 

complexities on the ground are enormous, and the odds for an Israeli- 

Palestinian agreement by the end of 2008 are, at best, limited. But I 

believe that even a small chance for a historic agreement warrants a


great effort. At the same time, and in parallel to our efforts to reach an 

agreement with the PLO, we will focus on two additional fronts. The 

first is to encourage Egypt to facilitate a ceasefire agreement between 

Israel and the Hamas, which would include arrangements at the 

border crossings of the Gaza Strip as well as the release of Gilad 

Shalit. The second involves negotiations on a comprehensive 

agreement with Syria. There is today a real opportunity for a major 

breakthrough between Israel and Syria, and this opportunity should not 

be missed. To this effect, Israel should respond favorably to the 

announcement made last week by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei 

Lavrov that Russia would like to host a peace summit in Moscow later 

this year. Such a summit would follow up on last November's 

Annapolis conference and aim specifically at launching Israeli-Syrian 

talks. In view of all these challenges, I know that Meretz will continue 

acting as the responsible opposition that it has been over the past few 

years. For my part, I will use my time to dedicate myself even more 

than I have in the last four years to advancing the prospects of peace. 

Thank you, as always, for your continued support. 

44 Assaf Uni: For German media, Gaza is not an issue, in „Haaretz“online 

10.3.2008: MUNICH – No one mentioned the Gaza Strip. The 

eight senior reporters of Bayerischer Rundfunk (Bavarian 

Broadcasting) sat Tuesday facing Israel's ambassador to Germany, 

Yoram Ben-Ze'ev. They asked him about the special relationship 

between the two countries, the conflict with Hezbollah and Iran's 

nuclear program. 

But the latest escalation in the Gaza Strip, in which three Israelis and 

more than 100 Palestinians were killed, whose shocking photographs 

were broadcast the world over and forced the Foreign Ministry to 

initiate a public relations offensive, was not mentioned in the television 

station's conference room near Munich. 

On this issue, Germany is unusual compared with the media 

throughout Europe, and Ben-Ze'ev understands this. The Qassam 

attacks against Israel and the offensive in the Gaza Strip received 

limited coverage here, perhaps because the events took place during 

the weekend, perhaps because of the severe storm that struck the 

region, or the Russian elections. 

Or maybe, just like the current German political leadership, most of the 

media is careful not to be excessively critical of Israel. Only the leftist 

newspaper TAZ published pictures of a dead Palestinian baby on its 

front page under the headline: "The Bombing of Gaza." The rest 

moved the photos and reports to the inside pages. 

"We cannot compare the media coverage in Germany to that in Britain 

or France," the ambassador said. "Israel's position here enjoys greater 

support than any other country in Europe. Of course, we need to 

constantly take action to sustain this situation, because it may 

change." 

And this is the purpose of the meetings held with the three main media 

outlets in Munich – Bavarian Broadcasting, whose Israel-based 

reporter serves as the correspondent for the public network ARD, 

senior editors of the center-left daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, and the 

editors of the conservative magazine Focus. 

The ambassador, who took up his post four months ago, says he does 

not use the term "public relations" and talks of "cooperation." But his 

meetings to present Israel's position took on an air of urgency in light 

of the Gaza operation and the continued rocket barrage against Israel. 

So what interests German television when it meets Israel's 

ambassador? "How concerned is Israel about the threat posed by 

Arab population growth?" the editors asked. "Does the UN decision to 

impose further sanctions on Iran satisfy Israel?" "How do you see the 

differences in the treatment of Israel in Germany compared with other 

European countries?" "What is Israel's reaction to the meeting 

between the German foreign minister and his Syrian counterpart?"


In the end, Ben-Ze'ev decided to raise the issue of Gaza on his own. 

"We want to make clear that we have nothing to apologize for," he 

said. "What are we supposed to do when we are faced with the daily 

bombing of Sderot for years? There is no country in the world that has 

taken so many risks to the lives of its citizens to achieve peace as 

Israel has." 

The ambassador says his aim is to share with people the dilemmas 

facing Israel. "When I sit with the editors, I want them to sense the 

misgivings Israelis face, the fact that there is no black and white." 

45 „Hoffnung“ bzw. Akronym für „Bataillone des libanesischen 

Widerstandes“. Militärischer Flügel der „Bewegung der Entrechteten“ 

(„harakat al-mahrumin“), die von dem aus Iran stammenden Imam 

Musa Sadr gegründet wurde. 

46 Vgl. dazu die Eintragung am 10.02.2008 in dieser Rubrik. 

47 Talmud-Thora-Schule benannt nach dem von den Briten 1921 

eingesetzten ersten aschkenasischen Oberrabbiner Abraham Isaac 

Kook (1865 – 1935). Von der Yeshiva ging im Februar 1974 die 

Gründung der Siedlerbewegung „Gush Emunim“ („Block der 

Glaubenstreuen“) aus. Vgl. Reiner Bernstein: Der verborgene Frieden. 

Politik und Religion im Nahen Osten. Berlin 2000, Kap. III. 

48 Marwan M. Kraidy: Arab States: Emerging Consensus to Muzzle 

Media, in “Arab Reform Bulletin” March 2008: After years of rhetoric 

about the need for a pan-Arab satellite television framework, Arab 

information ministers on February 12, 2008 adopted a charter that 

provides the tools to penalize broadcasters who attack leaders or air 

socially unacceptable content. The charter is broad ranging, covering 

news, political shows, and entertainment—even sports programs. In 

the weeks before the emergency meeting in Cairo, the Egyptian and 

Saudi information ministers lobbied their colleagues to pass the 

document, prepared by a committee of experts during the preceding 

six months. Even Syria, currently engaged in a media war with Saudi 

Arabia over Lebanon, signed off on the charter. 

While the charter’s passage seemed sudden, momentum toward 

action against satellite media has been building since the 2006 

Lebanon war. When hostilities broke out, Egyptian and Saudi leaders 

at first condemned Hizbollah’s “adventurism,” then back-pedaled in 

light of Hizbollah’s resilience and the mounting civilian casualties of 

Israel’s onslaught. In the meantime, Hizbollah’s al-Manar television 

climbed to the top ten in pan-Arab ratings, and live talk-show hosts 

struggled to prevent callers from heaping verbal abuse on pro-U.S. 

Arab leaders. Though not criticized as harshly as the Saudi 

government, the Egyptian government has been contending with an 

increasingly media-savvy Muslim Brotherhood whose views are aired 

on al-Jazeera, Hamas’s al-Aqsa television, and throughout the Arabiclanguage 

blogosphere. Thus placing political restrictions on Arab 

airwaves was a shared Saudi-Egyptian interest. 

The resulting charter attempts to appeal to several constituencies. By 

penalizing content that allegedly promotes sexual activity and alcohol 

consumption, it placates socially conservative Islamists, including 

Egypt’s Brotherhood, which for years has advocated such restrictions. 

By purporting to protect “Arab identity from the harmful effects of 

globalization,” it appeals to Arab nationalists as well as Islamists. 

Finally, the charter has a populist provision, stipulating Arab viewers’ 

rights to information, including the right to watch some sports 

competitions on free-to-air government channels even when 

commercial channels hold exclusivity agreements. In addition to 

reasserting the rights of state television channels, this gives the 

charter some street credibility with Arab publics.


The core of the charter is the prohibition of content that would 

“damage social harmony, national unity, public order, or traditional 

values”—echoing media laws in most Arab countries, virtually all of 

which have ambiguously worded language that penalizes criticism of 

leaders and thereby buttresses authoritarian rule. The ominous 

catchall provision against harming “national reputation” justifies a wide 

range of repressive measures. The charter also affirms current 

practice; several Arab states have revoked Arab satellite channels’ 

licenses to report from their territories. 

However consistent the charter may be with current laws and 

practices, implementation is likely to be uneven among Arab countries. 

Egypt and Saudi Arabia own Nilesat and Arabsat and can in theory 

disconnect undesirable channels. Although such actions carry political 

and business risks, Egypt has already demonstrated its intent to 

implement the charter by closing down the business channel al-Baraka 

on a flimsy pretext on February 24. But Qatar declined to sign the 

charter, citing potential conflict with its own laws, and the Lebanese 

Information Minister called the charter a “guiding, not binding” 

document. Journalist unions are up in arms, and many writers are 

expressing suspicion that the charter is intended to silence criticism of 

U.S. policy and align Arab countries further with the U.S.-Israel axis in 

order to counter the rise of Iran. Responding to these accusations, 

Saudi Information Ministry Director Abdullah al-Jasir explained that the 

charter “distinguishes between incitement to violence and resistance to 

occupation.” Journalists are asking whether the charter will be applied 

to foreign Arabic-language satellite channels such as the U.S. al- 

Hurra, the Kremlin’s Russia Today, and Iran’s al-‘Alam. Also, 

commercial channels are likely to sue governments for infringing on 

their exclusive sports agreements. 

It remains unclear whether the charter is merely a symbolic gesture or 

whether it constitutes a concrete step toward a repressive pan-Arab 

media policy regime. With over 400 channels peddling fortune-tellers, 

alternative medicines, Jihadi ideas, titillating bodies, and stock market 

schemes alongside more mainstream news and entertainment, a 

regulatory framework is not in itself a bad idea. But Arab governments’ 

record on finding the fine line between preventing harmful content and 

protecting freedom of expression is dismal. With growing harassment 

and arrest of bloggers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, there is 

the troubling possibility of similarly sweeping charters regulating the 

Arab internet and mobile phones. 

Syrian comedian Durayd Lahham once quipped that “the only Arab 

officials who can agree on things are interior ministers,” who exchange 

information in order to harass each others’ dissidents as well as 

terrorists. Journalists, intellectuals, and dissidents are now worried that 

although Arab regimes disagree on many issues, their information 

ministers are finding common ground on muzzling speech. 

Marwan M. Kraidy is an expert on Arab media and Associate 

Professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for 

Communication. 

49 IDF Spokespersons announce detentions, 12 February 2008: 

During a joint IDF, ISA, Civil Administration and Israeli Police operation 

overnight, the forces searched homes and offices belonging to 14 

Palestinian money changers suspected of being involved in 

transferring money for the financing of terrorist activity in Jenin, 

Nablus, Tulkarem, Hebron and Ramallah. 

IDF forces arrested five money changers and confiscated money, 

documents and magnetic media. A total of three million NIS was 

confiscated and transferred to the legal authority of the Bank of Israel. 

In addition, three handguns and other gun parts were discovered in the 

possession of four of the money changers. 

In recent years, terror organizations have raised millions of dollars and 

distributed the funds in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The


money is transferred in various ways, mainly via money changers. 

During 2007 there was a marked increase in the sums of money 

transferred to Palestinian terror organizations. 

These funds enable terrorist organizations to maintain and expand 

their infrastructure, to finance and train terror operatives and to 

purchase and manufacture weapons for the perpetration of terrorist 

attacks against Israel. These finances "fuel the wheels of terrorism," 

and motivate the terror organizations to develop various conduits to 

allow the transfer of the funds from abroad. 

Regional money changers maintain direct relations with foreign money 

changers, located in Arab countries, who are connected to various 

global terrorist organizations. The transfer process occurs in the 

following manner: Money changers abroad deliver funds to money 

changers in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, who then deliver 

them to terror operatives. It is important to emphasize that there is no 

supervision of money changers by the Palestinians Authority, which 

means that the money changers can take part in terrorist activity 

without restrictions or fear of sanctions. 

This operation is part of ongoing operations carried out in recent years 

by the IDF, the ISA, the Israel Police and other authorities, against the 

sources financing terror organizations, including: 

– In 2007 a Hamas financing operation was discovered in Jerusalem. 

This discovery revealed the Hamas fundraising routes from abroad, in 

addition to evidence of intensive Hamas activity in Jerusalem financed 

by the sources abroad. In the third quarter of 2007, a sum of 

approximately 12 million NIS was transferred to terror organizations. 

Most of the finances, approximately 8 million NIS, were transferred to 

the Hamas terrorist infrastructure in Judea and Samaria. 

– December, 2005 – The "Abu Akar" Company from Gaza was declared 

illegal by the Minister of Defense due to its assistance in funding terror 

organizations. 

– February, 2004 – 37 million NIS belonging to terror organizations were 

confiscated from main bank branches in Ramallah. These terror 

organizations provide "rewards for terror" – financial support to the 

families of terrorists injured, killed or imprisoned as a result of terrorist 

activity. These incentives encourage Palestinians to conduct terror 

attacks. Due to the provision of these funds, terrorists need not worry 

about the future of their families after a terror attack. 

The IDF will continue to operate using all legal measures against anyone 

involved in assisting or funding terrorism in order to defend the security 

and lives of the citizens of Israel. 

50 Press Conference with Prime Minister Olmert and Chancellor 

Merkel, Berlin 12 February 2008: Thank you very much Chancellor 

Merkel for your invitation and the very warm hospitality which you have 

accorded to me and my delegation. It's not the first time, you have 

done it before and I have always enjoyed coming here and listening to 

your very interesting and deep perceptions of the realities that we face 

in our part of the world. 

I am particularly happy that we decided, following talks that we had in 

the past, to expand and broaden the base of relations between 

Germany and the State of Israel. As you have so correctly said, and 

we dealt with it in our private talks, deeply, that there is a very unique 

history to the relations between the German people and the Jewish 

people in the State of Israel. And you are fully aware, and deeply 

aware, of the enormous historical responsibility of Germany, for our 

past and therefore also for building up a different future. 

And the decision to broaden the base of relations between Germany 

and Israel, on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the State of 

Israel, is a very important development which would allow both of us 

not just to strengthen the relations but also to deepen the 

understanding – on both sides – of the significance of those relations 

given the history and at the same time given the future challenges


which the State of Israel and the Jewish people face at this time in our 

lives. 

We have discussed the issues which are on top of the agenda, first 

and foremost of course the peace process between us and the 

Palestinians. We have touched on the prospects for further 

understanding which hopefully will lead to a basis of an agreement 

between us and the Palestinian Authority, but at the same time we 

have discussed at some length the complexities, the sensitivities, the 

constraints within which we have to operate, particularly the continued 

terrorist actions against Israeli citizens coming from the south, but not 

only from the south, but in other parts of the territories. 

This is a very unique situation; how to keep a certain balance, one 

hand to carry on the battle against terror and at the same time not to 

stop the momentum of negotiations between us and the Palestinians. 

The only way which I think it can be done is to indeed carry on the 

negotiations with the Palestinians in order to help build a basis of hope 

that things would look better in the future, but at the same time not to 

stop our campaign against terrorists in Gaza and in other places. And I 

think our position has been made very clear: we will continue to fight 

the terrorists. We will not stop, we will not make any discount to 

anyone, we'll reach out for everyone and we will do it with strength, 

determination, and without any delays. I don't think we have to go into 

more details precisely how we are going to do it, and I know there are 

lots of speculations, lots of discussions, lots of suggestions, and 

propositions everywhere on what we should do exactly. That, I'm 

afraid, I will not share with you, but I can say one thing: the Israeli 

Government under my leadership is absolutely determined to respond 

to the challenge of terror from Gaza in every possible manner which 

will be effective. We will not hesitate, we will not stop, we'll do what's 

necessary to be done so that terrorists will understand that that leads 

nowhere. 

At the same time we will continue our negotiations with the Palestinian 

Authority lead by Abu Mazen, and Salam Fayad, and Abu Ala, people 

who have manifested over a long period of time that they are 

committed to the commitments made by the Palestinian Authority, that 

they want to fulfil the agreements signed between Israel and the 

Palestinian Authority, and that they are opposed to terror, and that they 

are prepared to share with us the burden that is necessary in order to 

carry on towards a peaceful, and fair and just understanding that will 

lead to peace between us and the Palestinians. These negotiations 

are going on, they are not easy, we try to move on forward with the 

easier, if one can describe, or this easy relative to what is more difficult 

in this very delicate complex. Well we try to move on forward through 

those issues that can be resolved perhaps faster than others, some 

other issues are on the agenda, but they will be discussed later 

including the issue of Jerusalem. But we are hopeful that we can make 

this movement and we'll make every possible effort to continue our 

discussions and I am scheduled to meet next week with Abu Mazen as 

part of this effort in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians 

on levels will continue. 

Finally, Chancellor mentioned the issue of Iran. Israel is on the opinion 

that the Iranians are moving forward with their plans to create a 

capacity for no conventional weapons. Nothing that we know has 

changed our attitude on this issue. We are certain that Iranians are 

engaged in a serious – part of it is clandestine – operation to build up a 

non conventional capacity. There is no other reason why, while they 

receive from Russia nuclear fuel for civilian use they continue their 

enormous efforts to enrich uranium which can be of use for one 

purpose only: for the building up of nuclear power. There are other 

evidence that we posses, and we share this evidence naturally with 

our friends, that the plans of the Iranians are not as naive and innocent 

as they pretend them to be. And therefore every possible effort to stop 

it through the diplomatic channels, through the international


institutions, through the United Nations Security Councils, through the 

European Union, is of great significance and we welcome the 

leadership that has been manifested by Chancellor Merkel in this 

direction together with President Sarkozy, with Prime Minster Gordon 

Brown, and with other leaders of course in America and other parts of 

the world. This is mainly the challenge of the big powers, Israel 

inevitably is very sensitive and very interested in these efforts, and we 

will join forces and cooperate with our senior friends in order to help 

bring a possible solution that will deter the Iranians from continuing 

their programs. 

And again Chancellor Merkel, it's always very pleasant to be your 

guest and to enjoy your hospitality and your friendship. I mentioned to 

you yesterday night while we had dinner, that anywhere so gracious to 

offer Israeli wine to your guests, which was wonderful, that you were 

the first foreign leader that came to visit with me, immediately after I 

was catapult in the position of Prime Minister of Israel in January of 

2006, and your friendship and your deep emotional attitude to the 

State of Israel and the Jewish people has greatly affected me and my 

people and I wish to thank you for this. 

51 1) Dan Izenberg: Peace Now loses registrar’s approval, in 

„Jerusalem Post”-online 12.02.2008: The Registrar of Nonprofit 

Organizations has decided to withdraw the certificate of proper 

administration from the organization that provides funding for Peace 

Now, a Justice Ministry official said Monday. According to the official, 

the registrar, Yaron Keidar, recently conducted an in-depth 

examination of the nonprofit organization, known as Sha'al Educational 

Enterprises. 

The official added that Keidar found several problems involving the 

organization. The most serious was the fact that the aims of the 

organization, as it defined them, did not tally with the activities of 

Peace Now, which is a political-ideological activist movement calling 

for a two-state solution along the 1967 Green Line boundaries. This is 

problematic, as it may lead to misrepresentation regarding what the 

money of Sha'al's donors would be used for. 

The official added that unless Sha'al Educational Enterprises corrects 

the faults that Keidar discovered in his investigation, the organization 

would be dismantled. Peace Now Director-General Yariv Oppenheimer 

told The Jerusalem Post in response to the report that "we have been 

operating for 30 years under these arrangements, and no one has 

ever found fault until now. Everything is transparent and nothing has 

changed. It seems that someone in the registrar's office, for political 

reasons, has decided to cause us harm. I hope the matter will be 

resolved quickly." 

It is possible that the investigation of Peace Now by the registrar was 

sparked by a petition filed in November by Aryeh King, a member of 

the Moledet Party and head of the self-styled Office for Public 

Complaints Regarding East Jerusalem. 

In his petition, King demanded that the High Court cancel petitions 

filed by Peace Now because the movement is not a legal entity. The 

petitions he referred to call for dismantling the illegal outposts of 

Migron, Hayovel and Haresha. King wrote in the petition that "Peace 

Now is a brand name used by the public and the media. It is not now, 

and never was, a legal entity. As a result, it should never have been 

allowed to have its day in court. It should furthermore be clarified that 

distinct from Peace Now, there is a registered nonprofit organization 

called 'Sha'al Educational Enterprises.'" 

King charged that in the petition, Peace Now identified itself as "Peace 

Now–Sha'al Educational Enterprises," an entity that does not exist. He 

said Peace Now used that name to cover up the fact that it did not 

have the right to petition the court. In its response to King's petition, 

Peace Now said it had added its own name to that of Sha'al so that


everyone would know who was behind the petitions regarding the 

illegal outposts, as the name Peace Now is universally recognized. 

Peace Now's lawyer, Michael Sfard, also pointed out that the High 

Court had already rejected similar petitions filed by King in other 

cases involving Peace Now. 

2) Judith Bernstein, Vorsitzende des Vereins „Jüdische Stimme für 

gerechten Frieden in Nahost”, Pressemitteilung vom 12.02.2008: Laut 

Presseberichten ist der israelischen Bewegung „Frieden Jetzt“ der 

Status der Gemeinnützigkeit entzogen worden. Die lächerliche 

Begründung lautet, dass sich „Peace Now“ mit ihrer Abteilung für 

politische Bildung für die israelisch-palästinensische 

Zweistaatenregelung einsetze. 

Wir fordern das israelische Justizministerium nachdrücklich auf, für die 

Aufhebung dieser unverständlichen Entscheidung zu sorgen. 

Die „Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost“, die deutsche 

Sektion der „European Jews for a Just Peace“, unterstützt alle 

Friedensgruppen von Israelis und Palästinensern. In einer Zeit, in der 

zwischen den Regierungen in Jerusalem und Ramallah Gespräche 

über die Beilegung des Jahrhundertkonflikts stattfinden, ist es 

unerträglich, dass einer Bewegung wie „Frieden Jetzt“ administrative 

Fesseln angelegt werden sollen, um zu verhindern, dass sie für die 

Ideen der nationalen Koexistenz zwischen beiden Völkern öffentlich 

wirbt. 

52 1) Khaled Abu Toameh: ‚Rice to return to revive peace talks,’ in 

„The Jerusalem Post“-online 10.02.2008: US Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to return to the region soon in yet 

another attempt to prevent the collapse of peace talks between Israel 

and the Palestinian Authority, a senior PA official in Ramallah has told 

The Jerusalem Post. The official said the PA was seeking greater US 

involvement in the current negotiations with Israel, especially with 

regards to those that are being conducted secretly. "The negotiations 

are moving too slowly," he said. "There are still too many difficulties, 

although one can say that some progress has been achieved." He said 

Rice was due to visit Israel and Ramallah before the end of the month. 

According to the official, the Palestinian negotiating team headed by 

former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei had been holding secret talks 

with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and other government officials in the 

past few weeks. "There are public meetings and there are secret 

ones," the PA official explained. "The main progress has been 

achieved during the secret talks, particularly on the issue of 

Jerusalem. Today we can say that Israel is prepared to withdraw from 

almost all the Arab neighborhoods and villages in Jerusalem. Israel is 

prepared to redivide Jerusalem and this is a positive development." 

The PA is worried that a massive Israeli military operation in the Gaza 

Strip would sabotage the negotiations and has appealed to the US to 

intervene with Israel on this matter, another PA official said. He 

expressed fear that such an operation would boost Hamas's standing 

and turn the Palestinian public against the PA leadership in Ramallah. 

"Hamas wants to be in the position of the victim," the official noted. 

"They want to drag Israel into the Gaza Strip so that they can score 

points on the Arab and Islamic street. An Israeli invasion will serve 

their interests." The official said the US administration had promised to 

pressure Israel to refrain from carrying out a massive attack in the 

Gaza Strip. He said the PA believed that Israel's policy of "collective 

punishment" also served Hamas's interests because it drove more 

Palestinians into their open arms. "When you deprive a Palestinian 

from gas and electricity, he will hate Israel and the Palestinian 

Authority, and not Hamas," he added. Assistant US Secretary of State 

for Near Eastern Affairs David Welsh, who met on Saturday separately 

with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Qurei, reiterated 

Washington's commitment to advancing the peace process. Abbas 

briefed the US official on his latest initiative for a cease-fire between


the Palestinians and Israel. He also reiterated his readiness to assume 

control over the Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and 

Egypt. Qurei briefed Welsh on the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian 

negotiations. He urged Washington to exert pressure on Israel to fulfil 

its commitments in line with the first phase of the road map. These 

commitments, he added, included a cessation of settlement 

construction, an IDF withdrawal to pre-September 28, 2000 positions, 

reopening all closed PLO institutions in Jerusalem, the removal of 

illegal outposts and IDF checkpoints and the release of Palestinian 

prisoners. Qurei said he was convinced that an agreement could be 

reached with Israel before the end of this year "provided that there 

were good intentions and that the international community was actively 

involved in pushing the peace process forward." 

2) Ezra Halevi: Abbas and Livni Say Jerusalem Being Negotiated, 

Shas Denies, in “Arutz 7 News” 10.02.2008: Palestinian Authority 

Chairman Mahmoud Abbas insists that negotiations taking place 

between Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former PA Prime Minister 

Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) are dealing with the status of Jerusalem. Livni 

confirmed the claim. If true, it runs contrary to Prime Minister Ehud 

Olmert's promise to the Shas Party that such talks are not taking 

place. Shas has declared that it will bolt the coalition and bring down 

the government the moment talks over Jerusalem ensue. Abbas made 

the statements before meeting with European Parliament members in 

Ramallah Thursday. FM Livni herself confirmed the negotiations in a 

meeting with foreign diplomats a few days ago. Makor Rishon reported 

that FM Livni explicitly confirmed that in negotiations with Qurei they 

are dealing with "all core-issues, including Jerusalem." She 

acknowledged that the negotiations contradict commitments given to 

Shas by the prime minister. Shas Spokesman Roi Lachmanovitch 

dismissed the report. "Nobody is talking about Jerusalem," he told 

Arutz Sheva. "The moment Jerusalem is being discussed Shas will 

leave the government – period." Asked if he is saying that Foreign 

Minister Livni is lying, he said: "I am not saying she is lying – but I am 

saying that absolutely nobody is negotiating over Jerusalem." Shas 

Party Chairman Eli Yishai seemed to be heralding his party's eventual 

exit from the government Thursday, telling party activists in Tiberias 

that he expects new national elections to take place before the local 

municipal elections in November. 

3) Gil Hoffman, Talia Dekel and Khaled Abu Toameh: Politicians 

infuriated over secret talks on J'lem's fate, in “The Jerusalem Post”online 

10.02.2008: Reactions over secret talks between Israel and the 

Palestinian Authority as reported by the Jerusalem Post began to 

surface among politicians on Sunday. Saturday's report cited a top 

Ramallah official as saying that the Palestinian negotiating team 

headed by former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei had been holding 

undisclosed negotiations with Livni and other government officials in 

the past few weeks. "The cat is out of the bag," MK Zevulun Orlev 

(NU/NRP) told the Post. "The fact that [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert's 

government is not telling the truth over the negotiations with the 

Palestinians has been revealed. "Shas will no longer be able to say 

they didn't know. Even if the prime minister isn't telling them the truth, 

they can thank the Jerusalem Post for revealing it to them. I hope 

Shas keeps its promise and leaves the government that is dividing 

Jerusalem," Orlev said. Jerusalem Municipality opposition leader Nir 

Barkat called on Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to reveal any agreements 

reached during negotiations with the Palestinians following a report on 

Sunday in the Jerusalem Post which revealed that secret Israeli-PA 

talks have resulted in progress over the issue of Jerusalem. "I demand 

that the foreign minister, who heads the negotiations with the 

Palestinians, publicly disclose all secretive and other agreements that 

the state of Israel has reached with the Palestinians," Barkat told the 

Post. In response to the report, which quoted a senior PA official in 

Ramallah, Barkat insisted that Jerusalem was not the subject of secret


talks. Barkat, who leads a public campaign against the proposed 

division of the capital, said "any such agreement achieved on behalf of 

an Israeli official would constitute an absolute deviation to Kadima's 

basic principles, a violation to the basic law of Jerusalem, betrays the 

trust of the voter and undermines the sovereign basis of the Israel's 

Knesset. "The Palestinians must understand that neither the 

government of Israel, nor any other body on its behalf, have the right to 

promise to give up areas where Israeli law, governance and legislation 

has been implemented," he said. United Torah Judaism MK Avraham 

Ravitz criticized the negotiations, saying that if "the story is true, then 

the Jerusalem's fate is being decided like a thief in the night. It cannot 

be that while Olmert is denying that there are any talks about 

Jerusalem at all, Tzipi Livni is negotiating in back rooms with Abu Ala 

(Qurei) about the state of our capital." Meanwhile, Shas reiterated that 

it "would not stay in a government that divides" the Jewish capital. A 

spokesperson for the group told the Post that Shas would have no part 

in a coalition that gave away parts of Jerusalem. A spokesperson from 

Livni's office said that he was "not allowed to respond to anything 

going on in the [negotiating] room." The Palestinian official told the 

Post that "Israel is prepared to withdraw from almost all the Arab 

neighborhoods and villages in Jerusalem. Israel is prepared to redivide 

Jerusalem and this is a positive development. "The negotiations are 

moving too slowly," he said. "There are still too many difficulties, 

although one can say that some progress has been achieved." 

4) Nadav Shragai: Housing Min. denies delays in East Jerusalem 

construction, in “Haaretz”-online 12.02.2008: Housing Minister Ze'ev 

Boim denied Tuesday reports that the government is barring new 

housing construction for Jews in East Jerusalem, saying Prime 

Minister Ehud Olmert's order to freeze all construction that does not 

have his personal approval applies only to the West Bank. On 

Monday, Jerusalem city manager Yair Ma'ayan told the Knesset 

Economics Committee that the government was holding up 

construction of hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods of 

East Jerusalem due to the negotiations with the Palestinians. 

"There is no delay, limitation, or suspension of the construction of 

Jewish neigbhorhoods in East Jerusalem," Boim told Israel Radio. 

Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupoliansky also weighed in on the issue 

Tuesday, saying he "won't allow Jerusalem to be turned into an illegal 

outpost.” 

Following the Annapolis conference last fall, several media reports 

about ongoing construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem 

angered the Palestinians and Americans. In response, Olmert ordered 

all building in the settlements frozen, including those settlements that 

are part of the greater Jerusalem area. But with regard to East 

Jerusalem, which was formally annexed to Israel in 1967, he merely 

ordered that he be kept informed of any building plans, and he recently 

promised Shas Party Chairman and Industry Minister Eli Yishai that 

there was no freeze on construction in the capital. 

At Monday's Economics Committee meeting, however, Ma'ayan said 

that the Housing Ministry has postponed marketing 750 apartments in 

East Jerusalem's Pisgat Ze'ev neighborhood and another 150 

apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood. In both cases, he said, the 

ministry told him that Olmert had not yet approved the projects. 

Boim denied this, however, saying the tenders for the Pisgat Ze'ev 

construction were in the final stages of coordination with the 

Jerusalem Municipality, and that the tenders for Har Homa – which he 

said were for 360 units – would be published soon. 

Dov Gal, deputy director of the Housing Ministry's Jerusalem District, 

also denied the report, saying there was no order that construction in 

East Jerusalem needed approval from the government. But Ma'ayan 

said that Gal was behind the times – and several Knesset members 

said that Ma'ayan's statements had been confirmed to them by Boim 

himself.


Gal did confirm that he had been ordered to freeze construction in the 

settlements around Jerusalem, including Efrat, Gush Etzion, Givat 

Ze'ev, Adam and Beitar Ilit. MK Uriel Ariel (National Union–National 

Religious Party), who requested Monday's meeting, said that 

altogether, the Housing Ministry has halted marketing of some 2,300 

apartments in and around Jerusalem. 

In response, the Prime Minister's Office said that construction in East 

Jerusalem has not been frozen, but because of its diplomatic 

sensitivity, Olmert has asked to be informed of all building plans there, 

so that he will not be taken by surprise. 

After the meeting, Ma'ayan told Haaretz that despite this directive, the 

municipality is moving forward with plans to build some 10,000 

apartments in Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including 

Ramot, Ramat Shlomo, Pisgat Ze'ev, Neveh Ya'akov, East Talpiot, 

Har Homa and Gilo. The largest of these calls for building some 4,000 

apartments in Givat Hamatos, in the city's southern section. That plan 

is currently being discussed by the regional planning and building 

committee. 

Negative migration 

Nir Barkat, who heads the opposition in the Jerusalem city council, told 

the Economics Committee that the capital continues to suffer from a 

negative balance of migration, in part because of soaring apartment 

prices. This conclusion was echoed in a study by the Knesset's 

research division that was presented to the committee on Monday. 

The study also found that while all governments talk about developing 

Jerusalem, few actually do anything about it. 

Barkat, who belongs to Olmert's Kadima Party, also asked Foreign 

Minister Tzipi Livni to deny recent claims by Palestinian officials that 

Israel has already agreed to concessions in Jerusalem, including 

ceding the city's Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians. Alternatively, 

if the reports are true, he demanded that she "reveal all the secret 

agreements on the floor of the Knesset." 

Livni's media advisor, Gil Messing, responded that the minister does 

not comment on reports about her talks with the Palestinians, and 

therefore refused to either confirm or deny that the future of Jerusalem 

had been discussed. 

But the Palestinian comments increased pressure on Shas to quit the 

government, as it has repeatedly pledged to leave the moment 

negotiations on Jerusalem begin. 

5) Gil Hoffmann: Atias says Shas believes 'Post' report, in „The 

Jerusalem Post”-online 12.02.2008: Communication Minister Ariel 

Atias, the number two man in Shas, said Tuesday morning that he 

believes the Jerusalem Post Report that secret talks have been taking 

place between the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams on the 

issue of Jerusalem. Shas Chairman Eli Yishai had said that if the Post 

story was true the party would leave the government. 

"We get the impression that Jerusalem is being discussed," Atias said. 

"The foreign minister doesn't deny it. [Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] has 

to decide whether he wants Shas in the government or whether he 

wants what Livni is doing." 

In Tuesday's Maariv a Shas official claimed that Foreign Minister Tzipi 

Livni was holding the covert talks with the Palestinians behind the 

prime minister's back in order to force Shas to quit the coalition and 

bring down the government. "Tzipi Livni is creating upheaval [around] 

Olmert and pushing Shas out [of the coalition], the source said. 

Yishai will meet Olmert when the prime minister returns from Germany 

and will try to find out whether Livni "is the conductor and is acting on 

her own volition or whether she is being directed from above", Atias 

told Army Radio. "We cannot disregard what is happening. We cannot 

bury our heads in the sand." 

On Monday Yishai indicated that his party's days in the government 

were numbered, due to Post's story that the Palestinian and Israeli 

negotiating teams were conducting secret talks on the future of


Jerusalem. Yishai told reporters who attended his faction's weekly 

meeting that he would speak about the story in Sunday's paper with 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. He had 

not spoken to either one by press time and the Olmert associates he 

did reach downplayed the report. 

"I will check the story and if it's true, Shas will leave the government," 

Yishai told the Post. Yishai also issued a new threat that any 

diplomatic progress on any issue while Kassams fall on Sderot could 

lead to the party's departure from the coalition. Yishai escalated his 

warning beyond previous threats, which focused solely on Jerusalem. 

But Yishai's threat to leave over the Post story was seen as more 

serious, because it applied to negotiations that have already taken 

place, while the new threat deals with potential future talks. 

Yishai wrote a letter to Cabinet Secretary Ovad Yehezkel requesting 

that all decisions about what Israel should negotiate be made in the 

forum of seven ministers that met regularly during the Second 

Lebanon War. He postponed a visit to Jerusalem's controversial Har 

Homa neighborhood until Thursday, when he will be joined by MKs 

from the right wing National Union-National Religious Party. 

Sources in Shas said the Post story added to what they said was 

already tremendous pressure on the party to leave the coalition sooner 

rather than later. A Shas MK complained privately that he felt 

increasingly uncomfortable with the party remaining in a government 

that was conducting negotiations that he believed would leave Israel 

"naked" without key strategic assets. 

An official close to Olmert expressed confidence that Shas would 

remain in the coalition. The official vowed to do everything possible to 

keep the party satisfied. "If Shas wants to have an influence and 

prevent moves it opposes, it needs to remain in the government," the 

official said. "Leaving would have no value, because Shas cannot 

accomplish anything in the opposition." Opposition leader Binyamin 

Netanyahu on Monday criticized Yishai for questioning the report's 

veracity. He called on Shas to leave the coalition due to the report and 

the security situation. 

"Olmert's government is acting with weakness and confusion," 

Netanyahu said. "It's allowing rockets to fall on Sderot while they 

engage in negotiations that will result in more rockets falling in 

Jerusalem and the center of the country. I call on our friends in Shas: 

You share our opinions, our concern for Jerusalem, our concerns for 

security – I call on you to do the right thing. And the right thing is to 

stop these dangerous moves and quit the government." 

Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman and United Torah Judaism 

chairman Ya'acov Litzman mocked Yishai, saying that he would leave 

the coalition after Kadima. Yishai responded that their criticism did not 

matter to him. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who is Olmert's 

most serious foe on the Right within Kadima, is waiting for 

developments in Shas before making a decision about whether to use 

the talks on Jerusalem to attack Olmert. 

Jerusalem mayor Uri Lupoliansky declined to comment on the 

negotiations about the city's fate. His spokesman said he would not 

comment unless Livni verified the report. 

6) Mazal Mualem: Senior officials: Rabbi Yosef not ready to quit 

coalition, in “Haaretz”-online 13.02.2008: Senior Shas officials have 

criticized the escalation in recent days by party chairman and Industry, 

Trade and Labor Minister Eli Yishai of his threats to quit the coalition. 

They say that the party's spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, does 

not want to leave the government at this stage. In addition, they say, 

the calls to leave contradict the position taken by the Council of Torah 

Sages three weeks ago, according to which Shas will leave the cabinet 

only if and when the issue of Jerusalem is discussed in negotiations 

with the Palestinians. The Shas sources say that because Yosef does 

not believe that the negotiations will lead to real results on their current


trajectory, due to the weak position of Palestinian President Mahmoud 

Abbas, he sees no need for Shas to intensify its threats. 

The sources emphasized, however, that Yosef is aware of recent 

statements ascribed to Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, to the effect that 

Jerusalem has already been put on the negotiating table, and that he 

asked Yishai to request clarifications from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert 

after he returns from Germany. 

Since Yisrael Beiteinu left the government last month, over its 

objections to the "core issues" being addressed in the negotiations 

with the Palestinians, leaving Shas as the lone right-wing party in the 

coalition, Yishai has moved Shas's foreign policy positions farther to 

the right and stepped up its threats to leave the coalition. 

At first, Shas, with the approval of the Council of Torah Sages, made 

the discussion of Jerusalem its red-line issue. Later, Yishai implied 

that the raising of other core issues, such as the Palestinian refugees 

and the permanent borders of the state, were also problematic for 

Shas. On Monday he announced at a meeting of the Shas MKs that if 

progress was made in the negotiations while Qassam fire continued at 

its current rate, Shas would leave the coalition immediately. 

The Shas officials said that Yishai's latest threats point to his preparing 

the ground for pulling the party out of the government, despite Yosef's 

objections. Last week Yishai said at a conference of party activists that 

new Knesset elections could take place before the mayoral elections, 

currently scheduled nationwide for November. 

The decision to hold a joint Shas-National Union tour Thursday of the 

Jerusalem neighborhoods of Har Homa and Ir David also met with 

criticism from within Shas. The officials said it would be better to hold a 

separate tour for Shas, as originally planned. 

7) Gil Hoffman: Shas surprised by Livni–Qurei meeting, in „The 

Jerusalem Post”-online 13.02.2008: Shas chairman Eli Yishai was 

surprised to hear about the frequency of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's 

negotiations with former Palestinian Authority prime minister Ahmed 

Qurei, Shas sources said Tuesday. 

Yishai had been promised that he would be kept up to date on the 

talks with the Palestinians by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Livni, 

but he learned from Ma'ariv that Livni had met with Qurei on both 

Monday and Tuesday. Hearing about the meetings from the press 

reinforced for Shas officials that The Jerusalem Post's reports about 

secret negotiations on Jerusalem were correct. Yishai said on Monday 

that if the story were true, his party would leave the government. 

Shas officials said Yishai would meet with Olmert after the latter 

returned from his trip to Germany. Olmert told reporters in Berlin that 

Jerusalem and other sensitive subjects would be left until the end of 

talks, after agreements had been reached on other matters. "I wouldn't 

say that we have pushed the Jerusalem issue aside, but we don't want 

to corner ourselves at the beginning of negotiations," Olmert said. 

Sources close to Yishai said Olmert's statement was unsatisfying in 

light of the Shas's new threat that any diplomatic progress on any 

issue while Kassam rockets were falling on Sderot could lead to the 

party's departure from the coalition. 

Livni's associates said her meetings with Qurei were not secret, and 

denied reports about tension between herself and Shas. Ma'ariv 

reported that Shas officials believed Livni was holding covert talks with 

the Palestinians behind the prime minister's back to force Shas to quit 

the coalition and bring down Olmert's government. "We don't expect 

Olmert to scold Livni," a Shas official said. "We just want to know if 

she is conducting secret negotiations on Jerusalem." 

Communications Minister Ariel Attias, the No. 2 man in Shas's 

Knesset faction, said Tuesday morning he believed that secret talks on 

Jerusalem had been taking place. "We get the impression that 

Jerusalem is being discussed," Attias said. "The foreign minister 

doesn't deny it. Olmert has to decide whether he wants Shas in the 

government or whether he wants what Livni is doing."


8) Khaled Abu Toameh: PA officials: J’lem talks taking place openly 

and secretly, in „The Jerusalem Post”-online 13.02.2008: Hatem 

Abdel Qader, the Jerusalem affairs adviser to Palestinian Authority 

Prime Minister Salaam Fayad, confirmed Tuesday that Jerusalem is 

one of the issues currently being discussed by Israeli and PA 

negotiators. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Abdel Qader 

said Jerusalem "is not only on the table, it's also under the table." 

Asked to explain the second part of his remark, he said: "This means 

that the negotiations with the Israelis are taking place both openly and 

secretly." The Palestinians made it clear during the negotiations they 

were insisting on a full Israeli withdrawal from the eastern part of 

Jerusalem that was captured by Israel in 1967. 

"Jerusalem is one of the main core issues," Abdel Qader, who is also 

a top Fatah leader, told the Post. "Although we haven't reached the 

stage of a breakthrough in the negotiations on Jerusalem, we can say 

that the talks are continuing. The Israeli government knows that there 

will be no solution without solving the problem of Jerusalem." Abdel 

Qader dismissed the idea that Israel would retain control of some parts 

of east Jerusalem. "Our position is, 'Take it all or leave it,'" he said. 

"We have also made it clear to the Israelis that we won't accept any 

partial solutions for Jerusalem. As far as we are concerned, Jerusalem 

must be one geographic, political and religious unit." 

He said the parties were still trying to reach an agreement over which 

Jerusalem they were talking about – the city that's mentioned in United 

Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947, the one that was 

occupied in 1967 or the one that was expanded by Israel afterward. 

"On this issue, there hasn't been any progress yet," he said. 

Abdel Qader said the negotiations were not only focusing on the Arab 

part of Jerusalem, but on its west as well. "There are Jews who say 

they have rights and property in the eastern part of Jerusalem, and 

that's fine with us," he said. "At the same time, there are Arabs who 

have a lot of property in the western section of Jerusalem. So the talks 

are not only over the eastern part." As for Shas's threat to quit the 

coalition over the negotiations on Jerusalem, the PA official said he 

could not understand why the Haredi party was upset. 

"Shas is not new to Israeli politics," he said. "I can't understand why 

they're so upset. What did they think that peace could be achieved 

without [dividing] Jerusalem? Have they forgotten that [then-prime 

minister] Ehud Barak already offered us large parts of Jerusalem at 

the Camp David summit [in 2000]?" 

Abdel Qader complained that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were 

paying the price for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's coalition problems. 

"Olmert's position is very weak and we have sensed this in the current 

negotiations," he said. "He's like a woman who is dying to get married, 

but is afraid of becoming pregnant." An Israeli official on Tuesday 

denied that the question of Jerusalem is being discussed at this 

juncture in the talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The official 

told The Jerusalem Post that Jerusalem is one of the most contentious 

and sensitive issues and will therefore be raised only towards the end 

of the negotiations. Mark Weiss contributed to this report. 

9) Gil Hoffman: Olmert: Shas won’t quit coalition, in “The Jerusalem 

Post”-online 13.02.2008: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday 

that he did not believe Shas would quit the coalition over reports that 

Jerusalem was already on the table in talks with the Palestinians. "I 

see no danger to the integrity of the coalition," Olmert told political 

reporters in the Knesset. "It is clear to all of the sides that the issue of 

Jerusalem will be the last issue on the agenda with the Palestinians." 

Meanwhile, Army Radio reported that the prime minister promised 

Shas Chairman Eli Yishai that construction would continue in Jewish 

neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. 

Olmert reportedly said that he would contact the authorities charged 

with planning and construction in the Housing Ministry and inform them 

of the decision in the upcoming days. Earlier Wednesday, Rabbi


Yaakov Yosef, the eldest son of Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia 

Yosef, said that the party should quit the government forthwith and if it 

fails to do so, it bears responsibility for putting Israel in grave danger. 

In the statement, which was revealed on Army Radio and will be run in 

the Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (Israel is Ours) Shabbat leaflet over the 

weekend, Yosef also warns of missiles on Jerusalem. Shas, Yosef 

implies, cannot use the excuse that the negotiations are still far from 

fruition. "We [also] didn't believe it would happen so fast that Judea 

and Samaria would be on the negotiating table," he writes. "We can't 

let it happen. We have to struggle. We cannot give up." 

"I hope they wake up and leave as the Council of Torah Sages 

promised," Yosef says. "By remaining in the government, Shas is 

betraying the decision of the Council and putting the entire Jewish 

people in danger." In quitting the coalition, Yosef claims, Shas would 

also reap electoral benefit by garnering support from groups that 

traditionally vote for other, more staunchly right-wing parties. "If Shas 

leaves now it will help politically by winning support from traditional 

voters who are struggling against concessions on Jerusalem." 

"I say unequivocally: Shas will never forgive itself if it doesn't leave the 

government now. Every moment in this government is dangerous," 

Yosef says. Sources within Shas were quoted as saying that the 

statement by Yosef, who has already confronted his father in various 

political matters – as well as halachic issues – in the past, did not 

reflect in any way the views of the party or of its spiritual leader, Rabbi 

Ovadia Yosef. 

Meanwhile, Yishai was surprised to hear about the frequency of 

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's negotiations with former Palestinian 

Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, Shas sources said Tuesday. 

Yishai had been promised that he would be kept up to date on the 

talks with the Palestinians by Olmert and Livni, but he learned from 

Ma'ariv that Livni had met with Qurei on both Monday and Tuesday. 

Hearing about the meetings from the press reinforced for Shas 

officials that The Jerusalem Post's reports about secret negotiations 

on Jerusalem were correct. Yishai said on Monday that if the story 

were true, his party would leave the government. Shas officials said 

Yishai would meet with Olmert after the latter returned from his trip to 

Germany. Olmert told reporters in Berlin that Jerusalem and other 

sensitive subjects would be left until the end of talks, after agreements 

had been reached on other matters. 

Also Tuesday, Hatem Abdel Qader, the Jerusalem affairs adviser to 

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad, confirmed that 

Jerusalem is one of the issues currently being discussed by Israeli and 

PA negotiators. 

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Abdel Qader said Jerusalem 

"is not only on the table, it's also under the table." Khaled Abu Toameh 

contributed to this report. 

10) Barkat: Plan agreed on dividing Jerusalem, in “The Jerusalem 

Post”-online 13.02.2008: "Vice Premier Haim Ramon and PA 

negotiator Mohammad Rashid have agreed on a plan to divide 

Jerusalem," Jerusalem municipal opposition leader Nir Barkat said 

Wednesday, following a letter he received from Foreign Minister Tzipi 

Livni. 

Livni was answering Barkat's request that she respond to the 

Jerusalem Post report about secret negotiations on the future of 

capital. Barkat, a former Kadima member, has led a public campaign 

against the proposed division of the capital. On January 22, he said 

that a decision to freeze building in east Jerusalem would make Prime 

Minister Ehud Olmert the first Israeli prime minister since the end of 

the British mandate in 1948 to enact 'a White Paper' for the capital, a 

reference to the infamous 1939 British policy which limited Jewish 

immigration to Palestine. 

In her letter, Livni wrote: "At Annapolis, it was agreed that Israel and 

the Palestinians would conduct negotiations on all the core issues


without exception. "The negotiations between the Israeli and 

Palestinian delegations are being conducted with agreement from both 

sides that until there is an accord on every issue there will be no 

accord on any issue and that the contents of the negotiations must not 

be disclosed." 

She said that from past experience, Israel had learned that conducting 

negotiations "under the floodlights" will not contribute to Israel's goals 

and that "for this reason, and this reason only, I have neither related to 

reports about agreements seemingly reached during negotiations and 

nor will I do so in the future." 

"You cannot conclude anything from my lack of response and the 

absence of a denial is not any form of confirmation," stressed the 

foreign minister. Following the foreign minister's response, Barkat 

said: "Livni's letter exposes more than anything the fraudulent peace 

process led by Ramon and the prime minister. Livni refuses to reveal 

the vital information she knows, of which I was informed by senior 

officials, that there is a secret channel led by Haim Ramon and 

Mohammad Rashid and not by the Foreign Ministry." 

Barkat went on to say that the fact that Livni was aware of the reported 

secret channel and refused to admit it to the public "turns her into an 

active partner in the fraudulent peace process of which the true aim is 

to divide Jerusalem."Ramon denied the report, saying Barkat's claims 

were "absurd and unfounded." 

11) Gil Hoffman: 'Qurei doesn't decide talks' agenda', in “The 

Jerusalem Post”-online 13.02.2008: The coalition crisis over Foreign 

Minister Tzipi Livni's secret negotiations on Jerusalem with former 

Palestinian Authority prime minister Ahmed Qurei ended on Thursday 

when Shas chairman Eli Yishai received reassurances from Prime 

Minister Ehud Olmert and Livni that the capital's fate was not on the 

table. 

Livni told Yishai there was no secret channel of meetings with Qurei, 

denying statements to the contrary by senior PA officials to The 

Jerusalem Post. Olmert promised the Shas leader that Jerusalem 

would not be discussed until the end of the negotiations with the 

Palestinians and that he would make sure Livni abided by that vow. 

"We are satisfied for now, but if secret negotiations begin tomorrow, 

we are leaving," a source close to Yishai said following his meetings 

with Olmert and Livni. "He believes the prime minister and the foreign 

minister. If he didn't, we would leave the coalition." 

Olmert also promised Yishai that construction would continue in 

Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. He reportedly said that he 

would contact the authorities charged with planning and building in the 

Construction and Housing Ministry and issue new directives. 

The prime minister told reporters in the Knesset following the meeting 

with Yishai that he was not concerned about Shas leaving the 

government. "I don't feel that my coalition is being threatened," Olmert 

said. "There is no reason for Shas to leave. I don't think Shas really 

intends to leave the government. Shas will stay in the government for 

a long time." 

Asked about reports that Qurei personally confirmed that there had 

been secret talks about Jerusalem, Olmert responded: "With all due 

respect, Abu Ala [Qurei] doesn't decide the agenda for the talks. We 

established a rule that Jerusalem would be discussed last and that's 

clear to both sides." 

Kadima officials close to Olmert suggested that when he said that 

Qurei did not decide the talks' agenda, he was also sending a 

message to Livni that she could not get away with changing the order 

of the negotiations set by the prime minister. 

Coalition Chairman Eli Aflalo intends to use next Monday's Kadima 

faction meeting to scold Livni and to formally decide that Jerusalem's 

fate will not be discussed without the approval of Kadima's institutions. 

"If Tzipi wants to sell out Jerusalem, she will have to pass it in Kadima 

– but she won't succeed," a Kadima official loyal to Olmert said. "She


has an interest in elections. She wants to topple Olmert. But we will 

restrain her." Livni's associates responded that any attempts to target 

her in the faction were for ulterior political motives and would not 

succeed. She intends to return from her current trip to the US in time 

to attend the faction meeting and defend herself. 

The foreign minister already started fighting back Wednesday in a 

letter she sent to Jerusalem City Council opposition leader Nir Barkat. 

Livni responded to Barkat's request that she react to the Post's reports 

about secret negotiations on the future of the capital. 

She said that from past experience, Israel had learned that conducting 

negotiations "under the floodlights" would not contribute to Israel's 

goals and that "for this reason, and this reason only, I have neither 

related to reports about agreements seemingly reached during 

negotiations nor will I do so in the future." 

Livni said she had decided with Qurei that "until there is an accord on 

every issue there will be no accord on any issue and that the contents 

of the negotiations must not be disclosed." 

But "you cannot conclude anything from my lack of response and the 

absence of a denial is not any form of confirmation," she stressed in 

the letter. Barkat said he was unsatisfied with the foreign minister's 

response. He said he was still convinced that Livni was negotiating 

Jerusalem's future and that he had been told about another channel of 

talks between Vice Premier Haim Ramon and PA businessman 

Muhammad Rashid. 

"Livni's letter exposes more than anything the fraudulent peace 

process led by Ramon and the prime minister," Barkat said. "Livni's 

refusal to reveal the vital information she knows turns her into an 

active partner in the fraudulent peace process of which the true aim is 

to divide Jerusalem." Ramon denied the report, calling Barkat's claims 

"absurd and unfounded." Jonny Hadi contributed to this report. 

12) ‘The issue of Jerusalem will not be postponed in talks, in “The 

Jerusalem Post”-online 15.02.2008: "The issue of Jerusalem will not 

be postponed until the end of negotiations," Ahmed Qurei, head of the 

Palestinian negotiating team was quoted by Israel Radio as saying 

Friday. Qurei was responding to statements by Prime Minister Ehud 

Olmert earlier this week. Asked about reports that Qurei personally 

confirmed that there had been secret talks about Jerusalem, Olmert 

said: "With all due respect, [Qurei] doesn't decide the agenda for the 

talks. We established a rule that Jerusalem would be discussed last 

and that's clear to both sides." However, Qurei said Thursday evening 

that all 'core issues' would be on the table without exception and 

without giving precedence to any of them. Saeb Erekat, head of the 

PLO's negotiating department, said Thursday that there was no option 

to discuss certain issues without discussing Jerusalem too. "As far as 

we're concerned, Har Homa, Givat Ze'ev and Ma'ale Adumim are not 

part of Jerusalem and also Jewish neighborhoods like Ramot and Gilo 

are settlements for all intents and purposes." Erekat's statement, if 

truly reflective of the Palestinian Authority's position, places a serious 

hindrance to any progress in talks. The neighborhoods he mentioned 

are all held in wide Israeli consensus and contain the bulk of the city's 

Jewish residents. In an interview with the The Jerusalem Post to 

inaugurate 2008, Olmert said that even Israel's "good friends" see the 

country's future based on the pre-Six Day War 1967 borders, including 

a divided Jerusalem; but he added that he did not envisage a 

permanent accord along the precise '67 lines, describing Ma'ale 

Adumim, for example, as an "indivisible" part of Jerusalem and Israel. 

53 

Winograd Committee Press Release – January 30, 2008: Good 

Evening. 

1. About an hour ago we submitted the Final Report of the 

Commission to Investigate the Lebanon Campaign in 2006 to the 

Prime minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, and to the Minister of Defense, 

Mr. Ehud Barak.


2. The task given to us was difficult and complex. It involved the 

examination of events in 34 days of fighting, and the scrutiny of 

events before the war, since the IDF had left Lebanon in 2000. This 

covered extensive, charged and complex facts, unprecedented in 

any previous Commission of Inquiry. 

3. The fact that the Government of Israel opted for such an 

examination, and that the army conducted a large number of 

inquires of a variety of military events, are a sign of strength, and an 

indication that the political and military leaders of Israel are willing to 

expose themselves to critical review and to painful but required 

mending. 

4. We have included in the classified version of the Report all the 

relevant facts we have found concerning the 2nd Lebanon war, 

systematically and in a chronological order. This presentation of the 

factual basis was an important part of our work. It is reasonable to 

assume that no single decision maker had access to a similar 

factual basis. In this task we had a unique advantage over others 

who have written about this war, since we had access to a lot of 

primary and comprehensive material, and the opportunity to clarify 

the facts by questioning many witnesses, commanders and soldiers, 

including bereaved families. 

5. For obvious reasons, the unclassified Report does not include the 

many facts that cannot be revealed for reasons of protecting the 

state's security and foreign affairs. We tried, nonetheless, to 

balance between the wish to present the public with a meaningful 

picture of the events and the needs of security. We should note that 

we did not take the mere fact that some data has already been 

published in the media as a reason for including it in our 

unclassified Report. 

6. We, the members of the Commission, acted according to the main 

objectives for which the Commission was established – to respond 

to the bad feelings of the Israeli public of a crisis and 

disappointment caused by the results of the 2nd Lebanon war, and 

from the way it was managed by the political and military echelons; 

and the wish to draw lessons from the failings of the war and its 

flaws, and to repair what is required, quickly and resolutely. We 

regarded as most important to investigate deeply what had 

happened, as a key to drawing lessons for the future, and their 

implementation. 

7. This conception of our role was one of the main reasons for our 

decision not to include in the Final Report personal conclusions and 

recommendations. We believe that the primary need for 

improvements applies to the structural and systemic malfunctioning 

revealed in the war – on all levels. Nonetheless, it should be 

stressed that the fact we refrained from imposing personal 

responsibility does not imply that no such responsibility exists. We 

also wish to repeat our statement from the Interim Report: We will 

not impose different standards of responsibility to the political and 

the military echelons, or to persons of different ranks within them. 

8. Let us emphasize: when we imposed responsibility on a system, an 

echelon or a unit, we did not imply that the responsibility was only or 

mainly of those who headed it at the time of the war. Often, such 

responsibility stemmed from a variety of factors outside the control 

of those at the head. In addition, a significant part of the 

responsibility for the failures and flaws we have found lies with those 

who had been in charge of preparedness and readiness in the years 

before the war. 

9. The purpose of this press release is not to sum up the Final Report. 

Rather, it is to present its highlights. The Report itself includes 

discussions of many important issues, which are an inseparable 

part of the Report, its conclusions and recommendations. 

10. In the Final Report we dealt mainly with the events of the period 

after the initial decision to go to war, which we had discussed in the


Interim Report. Yet the events of the period covered by the Final 

Report took place under the shadow of the constraints created by 

the decision to go to war, with all its failings and flaws. We want to 

stress that we stand behind everything we said in the Interim 

Report, and the two parts of the Report complement each other. 

11. Overall, we regard the 2nd Lebanon war as a serious missed 

opportunity. Israel initiated a long war, which ended without its clear 

military victory. A semi-military organization of a few thousand men 

resisted, for a few weeks, the strongest army in the Middle East, 

which enjoyed full air superiority and size and technology 

advantages. The barrage of rockets aimed at Israel's civilian 

population lasted throughout the war, and the IDF did not provide an 

effective response to it. The fabric of life under fire was seriously 

disrupted, and many civilians either left their home temporarily or 

spent their time in shelters. After a long period of using only standoff 

fire power and limited ground activities, Israel initiated a large scale 

ground offensive, very close to the Security Council resolution 

imposing a cease fire. This offensive did not result in military gains 

and was not completed. These facts had far-reaching implications 

for us, as well as for our enemies, our neighbors, and our friends in 

the region and around the world. 

12. In the period we examined in the Final Report – from July 18, 

2006, to August 14, 2006- again troubling findings were revealed, 

some of which had already been mentioned in the Interim Report: 

We found serious failings and shortcomings in the decision-making 

processes and staff-work in the political and the military echelons 

and their interface. 

– We found serious failings and flaws in the quality of preparedness, 

decision-making and performance in the IDF high command, 

especially in the Army. 

– We found serious failings and flaws in the lack of strategic thinking 

and planning, in both the political and the military echelons. 

– We found severe failings and flaws in the defence of the civilian 

population and in coping with its being attacked by rockets. 

– These weaknesses resulted in part from inadequacies of 

preparedness and strategic and operative planning which go back 

long before the 2nd Lebanon war. 

13. The decision made in the night of July 12th – to react (to the 

kidnapping) with immediate and substantive military action, and to 

set for it ambitious goals – limited Israel's range of options. In fact, 

after the initial decision had been made, Israel had only two main 

options, each with its coherent internal logic, and its set of costs and 

disadvantages. The first was a short, painful, strong and 

unexpected blow on Hezbollah, primarily through standoff firepower. 

The second option was to bring about a significant change of 

the reality in the South of Lebanon with a large ground operation, 

including a temporary occupation of the South of Lebanon and 

'cleaning' it of Hezbollah military infrastructure. 

14. The choice between these options was within the exclusive political 

discretion of the government; however, the way the original decision 

to go to war had been made; the fact Israel went to war before it 

decided which option to select, and without an exit strategy – all 

these constituted serious failures, which affected the whole war. 

Responsibility for these failures lay, as we had stressed in the 

Interim Report, on both the political and the military echelons. 

15. After the initial decision to use military force, and to the very end of 

the war, this period of 'equivocation' continued, with both the 

political and the military echelon not deciding between the two 

options: amplifying the military achievement by a broad military 

ground offensive, or abstaining from such a move and seeking to 

end the war quickly. This 'equivocation' did hurt Israel. Despite 

awareness of this fact, long weeks passed without a serious


discussion of these options, and without a decision – one way or the 

other – between them. 

16. In addition to avoiding a decision about the trajectory of the military 

action, there was a very long delay in the deployment necessary for 

an extensive ground offensive, which was another factor limiting 

Israel's freedom of action and political flexibility: Till the first week of 

August, Israel did not prepare the military capacity to start a 

massive ground operation. 

17. As a result, Israel did not stop after its early military achievements, 

and was 'dragged' into a ground operation only after the political and 

diplomatic timetable prevented its effective completion. The 

responsibility for this basic failure in conducting the war lies at the 

doorstep of both the political and the military echelons. 

18. The overall image of the war was a result of a mixture of flawed 

conduct of the political and the military echelons and the interface 

between them, of flawed performance by the IDF, and especially the 

ground forces, and of deficient Israeli preparedness. Israel did not 

use its military force well and effectively, despite the fact that it was 

a limited war initiated by Israel itself. At the end of the day, Israel did 

not gain a political achievement because of military successes; 

rather, it relied on a political agreement, which included positive 

elements for Israel, which permitted it to stop a war which it had 

failed to win. 

19. This outcome was primarily caused by the fact that, from the very 

beginning, the war has not been conducted on the basis of deep 

understanding of the theatre of operations, of the IDF's readiness 

and preparedness, and of basic principles of using military power to 

achieve a political and diplomatic goal. 

20. All in all, the IDF failed, especially because of the conduct of the 

high command and the ground forces, to provide an effective 

military response to the challenge posed to it by the war in Lebanon, 

and thus failed to provide the political echelon with a military 

achievement that could have served as the basis for political and 

diplomatic action. Responsibility for this outcomes lies mainly with 

the IDF, but the misfit between the mode of action and the goals 

determined by the political echelon share responsibility. 

21. We should note that, alongside the failures in the IDF 

performance, there were also important military achievements. 

Special mention should go to the great willingness of the soldiers, 

especially reserve soldiers, to serve and fight in the war, as well as 

the many instances of heroism, courage, self-sacrifice and devotion 

of many commanders and soldiers. 

22. The air force should be congratulated on very impressive 

achievements in this war. However, there were those in the IDF high 

command, joined by some in the political echelon, who entertained 

a baseless hope that the capabilities of the air force could prove 

decisive in the war. In fact, the impressive achievements of the air 

force were necessarily limited, and were eroded by the weaknesses 

in the overall performance of the IDF. 

23. The "Hannit" episode colored to a large extent the whole 

performance of the Navy, despite the fact that it made a critical 

contribution to the naval blockade, and provided the Northern 

Command with varied effective support of its fighting. 

24. We should also note that the war had significant diplomatic 

achievements. SC resolution 1701, and the fact it was adopted 

unanimously, were an achievement for Israel. This conclusion 

stands even if it turns out that only a part of the stipulations of the 

resolution were implemented or will be implemented, and even if it 

could have been foreseen that some of them would not be 

implemented. This conclusion also does not depend on the 

intentions or goals of the powers that supported the resolution. 

25. We note, however, that we have seen no serious staff work on 

Israeli positions in the negotiations. This situation improved in part


when the team headed by the prime minister's head of staff was 

established. The team worked efficiently and with dedication, 

professionalism and coordination. This could not compensate, 

however, for the absence of preparatory staff work and discussions 

in the senior political echelon. 

26. This fact may have much significance to the way Israel conducts 

negotiations, and to the actual content of the arrangements 

reached. In such negotiations, decisions are often made that may 

have far-reaching implications on Israel's interests, including the 

setting of precedents. 

27. The staff work done in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning 

the adoption of a favorable resolution in the Security Council was, in 

the main, quick, systematic and efficient. At the same time, for a 

variety of reasons, it did not reflect clear awareness of the essential 

need to maintain an effective relationship between military 

achievements and diplomatic activities. 

28. We now turn to the political and military activity concerning the 

ground operation at the end of the war. This is one of the central 

foci of public debate. 

29. True, in hindsight, the large ground operation did not achieve its 

goals of limiting the rocket fire and changing the picture of the war. 

It is not clear what the ground operation contributed to speeding up 

the diplomatic achievement or improving it. It is also unclear to what 

extent starting the ground offensive affected the reactions of the 

government of Lebanon and Hezbollah to the ceasefire. 

30. Nonetheless, it is important to stress that the evaluation of these 

decisions should not be made with hindsight. It cannot depend on 

the achievements or the costs these decisions in fact had. The 

evaluation must be based only on the reasons for the operation, and 

its risks and prospects as they were known – or as they should have 

been known – when it was decided upon. Moreover, it is impossible 

to evaluate the ground operation at the end of the war without 

recalling the developments that preceded it and the repeated delays 

in the adoption of the Security Council resolution; and as a part of 

the overall conduct of the war. 

31. Against this background, we make the following findings on the 

main decisions: 

– The cabinet decision of August 9th – to approve in principle the 

IDF plan, but to authorize the PM and the MOD to decide if and 

when it should be activated, according to the diplomatic timetable 

– was almost inevitable, giving the Israeli government necessary 

military and political flexibility. 

– The decision to start in fact the ground operation was within the 

political and professional discretion of its makers, on the basis of 

the facts before them. The goals of the ground operation were 

legitimate, and were not exhausted by the wish to hasten or 

improve the diplomatic achievement. There was no failure in that 

decision in itself, despite its limited achievements and its painful 

costs. 

– Both the position of the Prime minister – who had preferred to 

avoid the ground operation – and the position of the Minister of 

Defense – who had thought it would have served Israel's interest 

to go for it – had been taken on the merits and on the basis of 

evidence. Both enjoyed serious support among the members of 

the general staff of the IDF and others. Even if both statesmen 

took into account political and public concerns – a fact we cannot 

ascertain – we believe that they both acted out of a strong and 

sincere perception of what they thought at the time was Israel's 

interest. 

32. We want to stress: The duty to make these difficult decisions was 

the political leaders'. The sole test of these decisions is public and 

political. 

33. At the same time, we also note that:


– We have not found within either the political or the military 

echelons a serious consideration of the question whether it was 

reasonable to expect military achievements in 60 hours that could 

have contributed meaningfully to any of the goals of the operation; 

– We have not found that the political echelon was aware of the 

details of the fighting in real time, and we have not seen a 

discussion, in either the political or the military echelons, of the 

issue of stopping the military operation after the Security Council 

resolution was adopted; 

– We have not seen an explanation of the tension between the 

great effort to get additional time to conclude the first stage of the 

planned ground operation and the decisions not to go on fighting 

until the ceasefire itself. 

34. A description of failures in the conduct of war may be regarded as 

harming Israel. There will be those who may use our findings to hurt 

Israel and its army. We nonetheless point out these failures and 

shortcomings because we are certain that only in this way Israel 

may come out of this ordeal strengthened. We are pleased that 

processes of repair have already started. We recommend a deep 

and systematic continuation of such processes. It is exclusively in 

the hands of Israeli leaders and public to determine whether, when 

facing challenges in the future, we will come to them more prepared 

and ready, and whether we shall cope with them in a more serious 

and responsible way than the way the decision-makers had acted – 

in the political and the military echelons – in the 2nd Lebanon war. 

35. Our recommendations contain suggestions for systemic and deep 

changes in the modalities of thinking and acting of the political and 

military echelons and their interface, in both routine and emergency, 

including war. These are deep and critical processes. Their 

significance should not be obscured by current affairs, local 

successes or initial repairs. A persistent and prolonged effort, on 

many levels, will be needed in order to bring about the essential 

improvements in the ways of thinking and acting of the politicalmilitary 

systems. 

36. For these reasons we would like to caution against dangers which 

might upset plans and delay required change processes, and thus 

produce dangerous results: 

– Fear of criticism in case of failure may lead to defensive reactions, 

working by the book, and abstention from making resolute 

decisions and preferring non-action. Such behavior is undesirable 

and also dangerous. 

– In a dynamic complex reality, one should not prepare better for 

the last war. It is also essential not to limit oneself to superficial 

action, designed to create an appearance that flaws had been 

corrected. 

– It is also essential not to focus exclusively on coping with dangers, 

but to combine readiness for threat scenarios with an active 

seeking of opportunities. 

– When speaking on learning, one should take into account that 

enemies, too, are learning their lessons. 

37. The 2nd Lebanon War has brought again to the foreground for 

thought and discussion issues that some parts of Israeli society had 

preferred to suppress: Israel cannot survive in this region, and 

cannot live in it in peace or at least non-war, unless people in Israel 

itself and in its surroundings believe that Israel has the political and 

military leadership, military capabilities, and social robustness that 

will allow her to deter those of its neighbors who wish to harm her, 

and to prevent them – if necessary through the use of military force 

– from achieving their goal. 

38. These truths do not depend on one's partisan or political views. 

Israel must – politically and morally – seek peace with its neighbors 

and make necessary compromises. At the same time, seeking 

peace or managing the conflict must come from a position of social,


political and military strength, and through the ability and willingness 

to fight for the state, its values and the security of its population 

even in the absence of peace. 

39. These truths have profound and far-reaching implications for many 

dimensions of life in Israel and the ways its challenges are 

managed. Beyond examining the way the Lebanon War was 

planned and conducted; beyond the examination of flaws in 

decision-making and performance that had been revealed in it – 

important as they may be; these are the central questions that the 

Lebanon war has raised. These are issues that lie at the very 

essence of our existence here as a Jewish and democratic state. 

These are the questions we need to concentrate on. 

40. We hope that our findings and conclusions in the Interim and the 

Final Reports will bring about not only a redress of failings and 

flaws, but help Israeli society, its leaders and thinkers, to advance 

the long-term goals of Israel, and develop the appropriate ways to 

address the challenges and respond to them. 41. We are grateful 

for the trust put in us when this difficult task was given to us. If we 

succeed in facilitating rectification of the failings we have identified – 

this will be our best reward. 

Thank you. 

54 IDF SPOKESPERSONS ANNOUNCEMENT – IDF Response to 

the Report of the Winograd Committee, January 30, 2008: 

The IDF views the report of the Winograd Committee as an important 

document, and is obliged to evaluate its contents and act accordingly 

to correct any shortcomings. As a body that is constantly under public 

scrutiny, the IDF considers this report to be important tool for detecting 

and correcting its problems and shortcomings. 

The IDF is fully aware of the failures and lessons that were revealed in 

the different fields during the Second Lebanese War, and to the 

perception that was created among the Israeli public, therefore it is in a 

midst of a comprehensive and continuing process of correction. 

The IDF did not wait for the report and immediately after the war, on 

the orders of the Chief of Staff, at the time, Lt. Gen. (res.) Dan Halutz, 

initiated a thorough process of inquiries which resulted in an extensive 

list of lessons and conclusions. 

It is emphasized, that this list was translated to an encompassing work 

plan which constitutes a major change. 

The process began during the year of 2007, which was declared in the 

IDF as "the year of strengthening and preparedness", during which 

priority was given to operational frameworks and infrastructure. 

Accordingly and as a result of the size of the challenges and gaps that 

were identified, it is important to stress that there is no single and 

immediate solution to these issues, but rather in a multi-year program, 

which will provide a comprehensive system-wide solution, according to 

the priorities defined within the program. 

Following the war, the IDF operative conception was updated and the 

priority was placed on the joint training and combat operation of the 

different branches, as well as the strengthening of the IDF land 

maneuver capability, alongside the clarifying of fighting values and the 

foundations of the moral spirit of the IDF. 

The IDF operative plans and orders were examined and rewritten 

according to the IDF's needs in a clear and professional manner. 

These plans are constantly reviewed, and their goals are updated on a 

multi-annual basis. 

During the past year, the IDF has implemented a training program 

which was unprecedented in its scale for many years. One of the 

lessons from the war dealt with the need to exercise the senior 

command, thus during 2007 the General Staff, the Air Force, the Navy 

and the four Commands (Central, Northern, Southern and the Home 

Front) participated in exercises.


In addition, divisional training exercises as well as brigade level 

(permanent army and reserve), combat support level, Air Force and 

Navy level (permanent army and reserve) exercises took place; all of 

which included mobile elements and live fire, while implementing the 

lessons and conclusions which were reached during the war inquiries. 

A special emphasis was placed on the reserve forces that have been 

defined as the "core strength" of the IDF. 

The IDF is operating according to a multi-year plan, to restock 

ammunition and weaponry in order to replace the weapons that were 

used by the IDF during the war. 

Additionally, a five year plan named "River Rapids" was inaugurated, 

with a total budget of nearly 2 billion shekels, for the completing and 

improving of the equipment in the IDF's emergency warehouses. 

As for the training of commanders, there has been a revolution in the 

instruction doctrine, as well as a decision that no officer should be 

appointed to a position for which he does not have the appropriate 

professional trainings while emphasizing the continuing nature of this 

training and instruction. 

Since the war programs for training commanders were developed 

(some of them from the foundations), improved and implanted this 

year, including a Division Commanders Course, a Brigade 

Commanders Course and unification of the Air, Land, Navy and 

Intelligence Command and Staff Colleges into one. 

In the field of the Home Front, the Command had undergone a long 

and thorough process of lesson studying, an extensive exercise took 

place and the Home Front Command's activity of the learning process 

was presented to the political echelon as well as to the State 

Comptroller Committee. 

The implementation of the lessons learned from the war was 

integrated in the work plan for 2008 as well as in the multi-year work 

plan "TEFEN" that was finalized and authorized last September. 

During the last year, many organizational changes were finalized with 

the objective of strengthening the General Staff capability to activate 

the force while focusing the land forces on building the land forces; two 

directorates were rebuilt: the Deputy Chief of Staff will serve as the 

head of the army's headquarters, with responsibility for activating and 

building the force. Medical, Logistics and Centers Branch will 

transform into a "Logistic Command" in which a logistics section was 

built. 

The chief corp. commanders – logistics, armaments, manpower and 

communications will return to the directorates of the General Staff. 

The Operating Division that was built in the Intelligence Branch will 

lead into an improvement in the procedures and operational synergies. 

In addition, in the Teleprocessing Branch, a Teleprocessing Brigade 

was established. 

Alongside the criticism and feeling of disappointment after the war, 

one must remember that IDF troops have shown great courage in the 

battlefield, and that in every contact between IDF soldiers and 

terrorists, the IDF forces prevailed. 

During the inquiries into the war, many stories of valor and bravery 

were discovered which led into awarding of different medals and 

decorations to the soldiers and officers involved. The IDF continues 

and will continue to act in order to gain and maintain the trust of the 

Israeli public, to retain quality commanders in career service and to 

strengthen the value of serving the country in the regular, career and 

reserve forces. 

The IDF Spokesperson wishes to emphasize that in order to withstand 

its tasks and future challenges, the IDF will need the trust, support and 

assistance of the Israeli people, as well as constructive criticism that 

the IDF is obligated to study and implement.


55 Daniel Barenboim: Israeli and Palestinian, in „International Herald 

Tribune“ 29.01.2008; „Middle East Times” 01.02.2008; „The Guardian” 


BERLIN: I have often made the statement that the destinies of the 

Israeli and Palestinian people are inextricably linked and that there is 

no military solution to the conflict. My recent acceptance of Palestinian 

nationality has given me the opportunity to demonstrate this more 

tangibly. 

When my family moved to Israel from Argentina in the 1950s, one of 

my parents' intentions was to spare me the experience of growing up 

as part of a minority – a Jewish minority. They wanted to me to grow 

up as part of a majority – a Jewish majority. 

The tragedy of this is that my generation, despite having been 

educated in a society whose positive aspects and human values have 

greatly enriched my thinking, ignored the existence of a minority within 

Israel – a non-Jewish minority – which had been the majority in the 

whole of Palestine until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Part 

of the non-Jewish population remained in Israel, and other parts left 

out of fear or were forcefully displaced. 

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there was and still is an inability to 

admit the interdependence of their two voices. The creation of the 

state of Israel was the result of a Jewish-European idea, which, if it is 

to extend its leitmotif into the future, must accept the Palestinian 

identity as an equally valid leitmotif. 

The demographic development is impossible to ignore; Palestinians 

within Israel are a minority but a rapidly growing one, and their voice 

needs to be heard now more than ever. They now make up 

approximately 22 percent of the population of Israel. This is a larger 

percentage than was ever represented by a Jewish minority in any 

country in any period of history. The total number of Palestinians living 

within Israel and in the occupied territories (that is, greater Israel for 

the Israelis or greater Palestine for the Palestinians) is already larger 

than the Jewish population. 

At present, Israel is confronted at once with three problems: the nature 

of the modern democratic Jewish state – its very identity; the problem 

of Palestinian identity within Israel; and the problem of the creation of a 

Palestinian state outside of Israel. With Jordan and Egypt it was 

possible to attain what can best be described as an ice-cold peace 

without questioning Israel's existence as a Jewish state. 

The problem of the Palestinians within Israel, however, is a much 

more challenging one to solve, both theoretically and practically. For 

Israel, it means, among other things, coming to terms with the fact that 

the land was not barren or empty, "a land without a people," an idea 

that was propagated at the time of its creation. For the Palestinians, it 

means accepting the fact that Israel is a Jewish state and is here to 

stay. 

Israelis, however, must accept the integration of the Palestinian 

minority even if it means changing certain aspects of the nature of 

Israel; they must also accept the justification for and necessity of the 

creation of a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel. Not only is 

there no alternative, or magic wand, that will make the Palestinians 

disappear, but their integration is an indispensable condition – on 

moral, social and political grounds – for the very survival of Israel. 

The longer the occupation continues and Palestinian dissatisfaction 

remains unaddressed, the more difficult it is to find even elementary 

common ground. We have seen so often in the modern history of the 

Middle East that missed opportunities for reconciliation have had 

extremely negative results for both sides. 

For my part, when the Palestinian passport was offered to me, I 

accepted it in the spirit of acknowledging the Palestinian destiny that I, 

as an Israeli, share.


A true citizen of Israel must reach out to the Palestinian people with 

openness, and at the very least an attempt to understand what the 

creation of the state of Israel has meant to them. 

The 15th of May, 1948, is the day of independence for the Jews, but 

the same day is Al Nakba, the catastrophe, for the Palestinians. A true 

citizen of Israel must ask himself what the Jews, known as an 

intelligent people of learning and culture, have done to share their 

cultural heritage with the Palestinians. 

A true citizen of Israel must also ask himself why the Palestinians have 

been condemned to live in slums and accept lower standards of 

education and medical care, rather than being provided by the 

occupying force with decent, dignified and liveable conditions, a right 

common to all human beings. In any occupied territory, the occupiers 

are responsible for the quality of life of the occupied, and in the case of 

the Palestinians, the different Israeli governments over the last 40 

years have failed miserably. The Palestinians naturally must continue 

to resist the occupation and all attempts to deny them basic individual 

needs and statehood. However, for their own sake this resistance 

must not express itself through violence. 

Crossing the boundary from adamant resistance (including non-violent 

demonstrations and protests) to violence only results in more innocent 

victims and does not serve the long-term interests of the Palestinian 

people. At the same time, the citizens of Israel have just as much 

cause to be alert to the needs and rights of the Palestinian people 

(both within and outside Israel) as they do to their own. After all, in the 

sense that we share one land and one destiny, we should all have dual 

citizenship. Daniel Barenboim, a pianist and conductor, is music 

director of the Staatskapelle Berlin and principal guest conductor at La 

Scala Opera in Milan. He is co-founder with Edward Said of the West- 

Eastern Divan Orchestra, which brings together Arab and Israeli 

musicians. 

56 Rede von Bundesaußenminister [Frank-Walter] Steinmeier 

anlässlich einer Diskussionsveranstaltung mit palästinensischen und 

deutschen Wirtschaftsvertretern im Haus der Deutschen Wirtschaft, 

Berlin, 23.01.2008: 

Sehr geehrter Herr Premierminister [Salam Fayyad], 

Sehr geehrter Herr Börner [Präsident des Bundesverbandes des 

deutschen Außenwirtschaftshandels], 

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, 

ich freue mich, heute zusammen mit dem palästinensischen 

Premierminister Salam Fayyad bei Ihnen zu sein. Mein besonderer 

Dank gilt den Veranstaltern, der Nordafrika-und-Mittelost-Initiative der 

deutschen Wirtschaft, dem Deutschen Industrie-und-Handelskammer 

Tag, und natürlich ganz besonders auch dem Bundesverband des 

deutschen Groß- und Außenhandels, dessen Präsident Herr Börner 

dankenswerterweise die Initiative für die heutige Veranstaltung 

ergriffen hat und unser heutiger Gastgeber ist. 

Wir können es fast täglich beobachten: Die Konferenz von Annapolis 

hat die schwierige Lage im Nahen Osten nicht von einem Tag zum 

anderen zum Besseren gewendet. Aber sie hat – und das ist für 

dieses wichtige Jahr 2008 von großer Bedeutung – Israelis und 

Palästinensern eine neue Chance auf eine dauerhafte Friedenslösung 

gegeben. 

Noch vor einem Jahr hätte dies niemand für möglich gehalten. Wir 

haben heute im Nahen Osten – mehr als je zuvor seit dem Ausbruch 

der 2. Intifada vor fast 8 Jahren – wieder Grund zur Hoffnung. Die 

Bedingungen für die Verständigung auf eine Zweistaatenlösung sind 

so gut wie seit Langem nicht: 

Lassen Sie mich dies kurz erläutern: 

– Die israelische und die palästinensische Regierung sind beide 

entschlossen, zu einem Verhandlungsabschluss zu kommen. Natürlich 

gibt es auf beiden Seiten weiter innenpolitische Schwierigkeiten. Aber


sowohl Premierminister Olmert als auch Präsident Abbas haben 

wiederholt betont, dass sie diese für überwindbar halten. 

– Palästinenser und Israelis scheinen in ihrer Mehrheit bereit für einen 

Friedensschluss, auch wenn sie dafür schmerzhafte Kompromisse in 

Kauf nehmen müssen. 

– Die Konferenz in Annapolis zeigte zudem: Erstmals seit langer Zeit ist 

die große Mehrzahl der arabischen Staaten gewillt, ernsthafte 

Verhandlungen zwischen Israel und Palästina aktiv zu unterstützen. 

Die breite Teilnahme arabischer Staaten in Annapolis hat dies 

eindrucksvoll unterstrichen. 

– Und schließlich hat der Prozess durch die uneingeschränkte 

Unterstützung von US-Präsident Bush, die er zuletzt vor zwei Wochen 

bei seiner Reise in die Region zum Ausdruck gebracht hat, an Fahrt 

gewonnen. 

Wie die gegenwärtige Krise in Gaza zeigt, gibt es manche 

Hindernisse. Andere werden kommen. Wir müssen aber die 

gegenwärtige Chance zum politischen und wirtschaftlichen Nutzen der 

gesamten Region ergreifen. 

Dieses Momentum wollen wir am Leben erhalten, indem wir die 

Bemühungen beider Konfliktparteien mit aller Kraft unterstützen. Die 

Regierungen werden die politischen Verhandlungen nur mit Rückhalt 

in ihrer Bevölkerung zum Erfolg bringen. 

Doch nur wer Vertrauen in seine eigene Zukunft hat, wird dieses auch 

in seine Regierung setzen. Die Menschen in der Region müssen daher 

eine konkrete Verbesserung ihrer Lebenssituation spüren. 

Israelis wollen ohne Bombenattentate und Kassamraketen leben. 

Die Palästinenser wünschen sich neben Sicherheit ganz besonders 

eine wirtschaftliche Perspektive. Sie wollen spüren, dass die 

Verhandlungen und das Ergebnis ihnen unmittelbar Verbesserungen 

im täglichen Leben bringen. 

Auf palästinensischer Seite bedeutet dies: Eine schnelle 

Wiederbelebung der palästinensischen Wirtschaft. 

Diese ist gewiss durch die Vielzahl der israelischen 

Sicherheitskontrollen und Bewegungshindernisse in der Westbank 

behindert. Es gilt aber gleichwohl, die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in 

den palästinensischen Gebieten neu zu beleben und die 

ökonomischen Voraussetzungen für eine Belebung zu schaffen. 

Dr. Fayyad hat den ersten, wichtigen Schritt in diese Richtung 

gemacht, als er in enger Zusammenarbeit mit dem IWF und der 

Weltbank einen Reformplan erarbeitet hat, der die Grundlage für eine 

Wiederbelebung der palästinensischen Wirtschaft legt. Er wird Ihnen 

sicher dazu mehr sagen können. 

Die Herausforderungen für die Palästinenser sind groß: Die 

palästinensische Wirtschaft, bestehend überwiegend aus kleineren 

mittelständischen Unternehmen, muss auf dem globalen Markt 

bestehen. Diese Unternehmen werden die Hauptlast für die 

wirtschaftliche Basis eines künftigen palästinensischen Staates tragen. 

Diese Aufgabe müssen die Palästinenser selbst leisten – und dass sie 

dies wollen, davon können Sie sich heute selbst überzeugen. 

Dr. Fayyad wird begleitet von Herrn Munib Al Masri, eine der 

Führungsfiguren der palästinensischen Unternehmerschaft, und Dr. 

Bassam Khoury, dem Präsidenten der Palestinian Federation of 

Industries und erfolgreicher Unternehmer. Beide haben es geschafft, 

trotz der widrigen Umstände palästinensische Unternehmen 

wirtschaftlich erfolgreich zu führen. 

Ich bin der Auffassung, dass wir diesen in der ganzen arabischen Welt 

gerühmten palästinensischen Unternehmergeist unterstützen müssen. 

Und wo immer wir können, wollen wir diese Bemühungen mit Kräften 

unterstützen. Die Bundesregierung tut dies bereits seit geraumer Zeit. 

Es sei nur der European Palestinian Credit Guarantuee Fund, die 

Unterstützung für die Erschließung eines Industrieparks in Jenin oder 

wirtschaftliche Beratung erwähnt.


Es heißt aber auch, palästinensischen Unternehmen zu helfen, 

Kontakte zu europäischen/deutschen Unternehmen zu knüpfen! Die 

Bundesregierung und ich persönlich legen großen Wert auf diese 

Kontakte. Es ist bereits das dritte Mal innerhalb der vergangenen 12 

Monate, dass palästinensische Unternehmer nach Deutschland 

kommen, und ich bin optimistisch, dass dies zu 

Geschäftsabschlüssen, zu mehr Arbeitsplätzen und höheren 

Steuereinnahmen für die Palästinenser führen wird. 

Nun ist der palästinensische Markt unter den arabischen ohne Zweifel 

nicht der größte. Die Wirkung, die von ihm ausgeht, strahlt aber in den 

gesamten arabischen Raum. Wirtschaftliches Engagement in 

Palästina wird in der ganzen Region wahrgenommen. Eine 

Stabilisierung der palästinensischen Wirtschaft hätte zudem zugleich 

politisch stabilisierende Wirkung auf die Gesamtregion. Und – wie das 

Beispiel der Herrn Masri und Khoury zeigt, kann man dabei durchaus 

auch Geld verdienen! 

Meine Damen und Herren, bei dieser Gelegenheit lassen Sie mich 

auch einige Worte zu der von Premierminister Fayyad und mir heute 

vorgestellten Initiative "Zukunft für Palästina" sagen. 

Sie zielt auf schnell umsetzbare kleinere Projekte, die den Menschen 

kurzfristig sichtbare Erfolge parallel zu den laufenden Verhandlungen 

zeigen. Sie sollen spüren, dass sich für sie etwas ändert. 

"Zukunft für Palästina" setzt genau an diesem Punkt an: Die Initiative 

umfasst schnell umsetzbare, kleine Projekte in einer Größenordnung 

von etwa 100.000 Euro, bei denen die Implementierung bereits in den 

nächsten Wochen und Monaten beginnen kann. Die Initiative wird ein 

komplementäres Instrument zu anderen internationalen Bemühungen 

sein. Sie versteht sich auch als Ergänzung zur klassischen 

Zusammenarbeit, zumal sie nach dem Anschub im Wesentlichen 

Instrument des zivilgesellschaftlichen Engagements aus Deutschland 

wird. 

Die Initiative will bewusst relativ bescheidene Projekte ins Leben rufen, 

damit die Umsetzung überschaubar, transparent und kurzfristig 

gewährleistet werden kann. Sie werden unmittelbar mit den 

palästinensischen Partnern entwickelt und mit Hilfe des Deutschen 

Vertretungsbüros in Ramallah und der Gesellschaft für Technische 

Zusammenarbeit, der GTZ ab Februar 2008 umgesetzt. 

Erste Projekte auf Vorschlag von Premierminister Fayyad wurden 

bereits identifiziert und ausgearbeitet. Es handelt sich dabei um 

Projekte, die Kindern in Kindergärten und Schulen bessere 

Lernbedingungen schaffen werden. Nach dem Anschub durch das 

Auswärtige Amt mit 6 Projekten sollen Sponsoren aus der deutschen 

Wirtschaft, Verbänden und Gesellschaft weitere Patenschaften in 

derselben Größenordnung übernehmen. Daimler, Software AG, Sie, 

lieber Herr Börner von der BAG, die Henkel- und Körber-Stiftung 

haben bereits zugesagt. Mit anderen Unternehmen und Stiftungen 

stehen wir im Gespräch. Und vielleicht findet sich auch unter Ihnen der 

eine oder andere, der daran Interesse finden könnte. Meine Mitarbeiter 

stehen Ihnen gerne für weitere Informationen zur Verfügung. 

Damit komme ich zu unserem heutigen Ehrengast, Premierminister 

Dr. Salam Fayyad. 

Dr. Fayyad ist eine der Schlüsselfiguren in diesem Prozess. Er ist trotz 

der großen Aufgaben in seiner Heimat heute in Berlin unser Gast. Er 

setzt auf konkretes Handeln und will tagtäglich einen neuen Baustein 

für eine bessere Zukunft setzen, in der Palästinenser und Israelis im 

beiderseitigen Respekt gemeinsam in einem wirtschaftlich 

prosperierenden Nahen Osten leben können. 

Und für die Wirtschaft ist Dr. Fayyad ein Mann vom Fach: Nach 

seinem Abschluss in Wirtschaftswissenschaften an der Texas 

University war er zunächst als Berater des Exekutivdirektors des 

Internationalen Währungsfonds IWF tätig und übernahm anschließend 

den Posten des IWF-Regionaldirektors in Gaza. Nach einer kurzen 

Tätigkeit als Regionaldirektor der Arab Bank Palästina wurde er im


Jahr 2002 unter dem damaligen Palästinenserpräsident Arafat 

erstmals Finanzminister der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde. 

Seit Juni 2007 ist er in Personalunion Premier- und Finanzminister der 

geschäftsführenden palästinensischen Regierung. 

Dr. Fayyad, Sie haben das Wort! 

57 Bericht in der Rubrik „Bestandsaufnahmen und Perspektiven“ 

dieser Homepage. 

58 Aluf Benn: Jerusalem seeks Bush’s okay for IDF free hand in West 

Bank, in „Haaretz“-online 03.01.2008: Israel is seeking to reach an 

understanding with the U.S. administration that would safeguard 

Israel's security interests in a future final-status agreement with the 

Palestinians and during current negotiations, government sources 

have said. 

The sources also said Israel is seeking President George W. Bush's 

support for its security demands so that such understandings can 

serve as a basis for the work of the American special security envoy 

General James Jones, who has been tasked with formulating the 

security arrangements for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to discuss these security issues with 

Bush during the president's visit here next week. At the heart of 

Israel's demands is that it remains free to act against terror in the 

West Bank for as long as negotiations last, and that demilitarization 

arrangements place limitations on the future Palestinian state. 

Discussions with administration officials on this issue began even 

before the Annapolis summit, during the visit of the Israeli delegation 

to Washington. Wednesday Olmert called a meeting ahead of the 

Bush visit with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister 

Tzipi Livni. Barak presented the security demands in detail and Livni 

discussed the importance of demilitarizing the areas that Israel would 

evacuate in the future. 

Israel wants to maintain effective military superiority in the territories 

during the talks, and ensure that it has the freedom to act against 

terror organizations in Gaza. "It is inconceivable that we would be 

prevented from continuing the extraordinary achievement against 

terror in the West Bank," a source said. 

"In the previous year no Israeli was killed within the Green Line from 

an attack that came from the West Bank. In the West Bank, four 

people were killed. In the South, it is true that quiet has not yet 

returned to Sderot, but we are carrying out an effective and focused 

offensive there. Hundreds of terrorists were killed last year." 

Israel would like the U.S. to agree to a number of limitations on the 

future Palestinian state's sovereignty. Israel wants Palestine to be 

completely demilitarized, and for Israel to be able to fly over 

Palestinian air space. Border crossings would be monitored by Israel 

in such a way that the symbols of Palestinian sovereignty would not be 

compromised, but Israel would know who was coming and going. 

Israel is to propose the deployment of an international force in the 

West Bank and along the Philadelphi Route in Rafah, and would ask 

that a permanent Israel Defense Forces presence remain for an 

extended period in the Jordan Valley. 

Jordan Valley 'tripwire force' 

According to Israel's plan, a small Israeli force would be stationed in 

the Jordan Valley as a "tripwire force" that would act as a deterrent. 

Israel would also demand Palestinian agreement that in the case of an 

emergency Israel could deploy in essential areas of the West Bank to 

thwart a threat of invasion from the East. 

Such a deployment would only take place under extreme 

circumstances, but including it in the agreement would ensure that the 

Palestinians would not object if the time came when it was needed. 

Under ordinary circumstances the West Bank would be completely 

demilitarized, with only internal Palestinian security forces on duty.


The Barak government reached agreement with the Clinton 

administration on a number of security issues with regard to a future 

accord with the Palestinians. However, monitoring border crossings 

and a long-term IDF presence in the Jordan Valley was not among 

them. The Palestinians vehemently opposed the security steps Israel 

wanted, such as the emergency IDF deployment in the West Bank, 

which they saw as damaging to their independence and sovereignty. 

Israel now seeks to reopen the discussion in the hope that Bush will 

support its demands. 

According to government and security sources, "in most of the issues 

involving the agreement with the Palestinians, Israel is the one being 

asked to give tangible things. The only area in which we have real 

demands from the Palestinians is that of security arrangements. 

Therefore it is important that the talks have the proper outline so that 

Israel can insist on its security demands and the Palestinians will not 

dilute them." 

59 Bush: Settlement expansion ‚impediment’ to peace, in „Haaretz“online 

03.01.2008: U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday 

called Israeli settlement expansion an "impediment" to the success of 

revived peace efforts and urged the Jerusalem to follow through on its 

pledge to dismantle unauthorized settler outposts. 

Speaking less than a week before his first presidential visit to Israel 

and the West Bank, Bush voiced optimism at the prospects for 

securing an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal by the end of 2008, a goal 

set at last November's Annapolis conference that has been viewed 

with some skepticism. 

Bush said he would use his trip to keep up pressure on both sides, 

including making clear to Israelis his concern about continued Jewish 

settlement activity. 

"I will talk about Israeli settlement expansion, about how that is, that 

can be, you know, an impediment to success," in an interview at the 

White House with Reuters. "The unauthorized outposts for example 

need to be dismantled, like the Israelis said they would do." 

Bush also acknowledged that part of the reason for his January 8-16 

Middle East trip is "absolutely" about efforts to contain Iran's influence 

in the region. 

Bush said that on his trip, which starts in Israel and will include stops in 

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, 

he expects questions about a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last 

month that said Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 

2003. 

"I will clarify to them that the NIE means that Iran is still a danger," he 

said. 

Bush's trip follows a U.S.-hosted conference last month in Annapolis, 

Maryland, where Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian 

President Mahmoud Abbas pledged to try to forge a peace deal by the 

end of 2008. 

Asked whether he would hold three-way talks with Abbas and Olmert 

during his visit, Bush said, "I don't know. It's not on the calendar now. 

But there will definitely be substantial talks with the Israelis and the 

Palestinians." 

60 Vgl. die Eintragung in dieser Rubrik am 12.12.2007. 

61 Gert Weisskirchen: OSZE als Friedensforum, in „Jüdische Zeitung“ 

Januar 2008: Zum ersten Mal fand in Israel eine Konferenz der 

«Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa» (OSZE) 

statt. Ihre Vorgängerin war bis 1990 die «Konferenz für Sicherheit und 

Zusammenarbeit in Europa» (KSZE). Sie wurde 1975 in Helsinki 

gegründet und hat mit dazu beigetragen, zwischen den damals 

verfeindeten Staatsblöcken Prozesse der Verständigung einzuleiten 

und den aggressiven Charakter der Grenzen in Europa abzubauen.


Der OSZE sind 56 Staaten beigetreten. Weitere haben sich als 

Partnerländer assoziiert, darunter alle nichteuropäischen 

Mittelmeerländer. Eine ihrer Aufgaben könnte es sein, ihre guten 

Dienste anzubieten, damit die Spannungen zwischen Israel und den 

arabischen Ländern reduziert werden. Um dies auszuloten, wurde am 

18. und 19. Dezember 2007 die OSZE-Konferenz der 

Teilnehmerstaaten und ihrer Mittelmeerpartner in Tel Aviv eingerichtet. 

Thema der Konferenz war «die Bekämpfung von Intoleranz und 

Diskriminierung und die Vermittlung von gegenseitigem Respekt und 

Verständnis». Zudem fand am Vortag der offiziellen Konferenz ein 

Treffen von Vertretern der «Nichtregierungsorganisationen» (NGO) 

statt. 

Die Konferenz hat es leider nicht geschafft, alle 

Mittelmeerpartnerländer der OSZE an einen Tisch zu bringen. Bei der 

offiziellen Konferenz waren Ägypten und Jordanien vertreten, auf der 

NGO-Konferenz zudem Marokko. Die Regierung Israels ist den 

Partnerstaaten der OSZE weit entgegen gekommen. Sie hat es 

konsequenterweise vermieden, Jerusalem als Standort zu benennen. 

Das war eine weise Entscheidung schon deshalb, um die arabischen 

Regierungen hinsichtlich der Jerusalem-Frage nicht unter Druck zu 

setzen. Als Einladende zu diesem Treffen hat sich die israelische 

Regierung deutlich zurückgenommen. Sie zeigte der OSZE ihre 

Bereitschaft, aktiv eine fruchtbare Diskussion unter Beteiligung der 

arabischen Staaten in Gang zu bringen. 

Mit großem Bedauern haben die Teilnehmer feststellen müssen, dass 

die Mehrzahl der arabischen Regierungen diese Chance nicht 

wahrnahm. Gründe dafür kennen wir noch nicht. Könnte es die Angst 

sein, sich einer offenen, vorurteilslosen Debatte zu stellen? Das aber 

gerade ist der Sinn des Helsinki-Prozesses: Kontroversen auf den 

argumentativen Grund zu gehen, Debatten zu starten, die darauf 

zielen, das eigene Selbstverständnis kritisch zu beleuchten. Die OSZE 

muss sich fragen, was sie tun kann, um die Mittelmeerpartnerländer 

zukünftig stärker zu involvieren. In der Region sollten auf jeden Fall 

mehr Seminare und Konferenzen stattfinden, um die Fachleute vor Ort 

einzubeziehen. In meiner Funktion als Persönlicher Beauftragter des 

OSZE-Vorsitzenden zur Bekämpfung des Antisemitismus werde ich 

dies selbst umsetzen. Im September 2008 plane ich ein Seminar in 

Rabat. 

Trotz alledem: Tel Aviv war ein Erfolg, haben doch der Ort der 

Veranstaltung und die informativen Beiträge der israelischen 

Referenten den Teilnehmern ermöglicht, Einblicke in die innere 

Entwicklung der israelischen Gesellschaft zu gewinnen. Der Eindruck 

wurde verstärkt, dass die israelische Regierung alles daran setzt, 

gemeinsam mit der arabischen Minderheit soziale 

Integrationsprozesse zu intensivieren. Zudem wurde von 

Vertreterinnen der „Nichtregierungsorganisationen“ über die Situation 

von Frauen in Israel berichtet. Israel ist sich der großen Aufgabe 

bewusst, die Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf für Frauen zu 

erleichtern. Mit der Konferenz hat der Staat Israel überzeugend 

dokumentiert, dass er bereit ist, den Dialog mit den Partnern in der 

Region selbst zu eröffnen. Allerdings: Ohne die Fähigkeit, sich 

inhaltlich mit dem Argument des Anderen auseinanderzusetzen, geht 

jeder Dialogversuch ins Leere. Die Konferenz war ein wichtiges 

Zeichen. Sie verdeutlichte die Stärke der israelischen Demokratie. 

Niemand sollte sich entmutigen zu lassen, weil die arabischen 

Regierungen sich noch ängstlich zeigten.

Chronologie 2008 - Genfer Initiative

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?