Tensions begin to surface as Palestine and Israel prepare for latest round of peace talks

Following on from the recent preliminary talks in Washington, the five year stalemate between Israel and Palestine is set to end this week as both countries prepare to meet in Jerusalem on Wednesday for the latest round of peace talks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have a tough job on their hands and before peace talks have even begun, tensions are already rising in both countries. 

As Israel prepares to release over 100 Palestinian prisoners in phases over the coming months, including 26 long term prisoners later today, the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, who is acting mediator between the two countries, has urged restraint as 1,200 Jewish settlement homes are green lighted by the Israeli government. There has been an expectedly negative reaction to these developments from people in both countries and which could potentially see a rise in attacks between Palestinians and Israelis. 

A substantial number of Israelis are outraged at the imminent release of the political prisoners, seeing their freedom as an insult to their loved one's memory and angry their murderers are going unpunished. In a supreme court hearing yesterday, victim's families clutched pictures of their dearly departed whilst asking judges why the 'butchers' were soon to be released. One Israeli man told the press "It's painful to pay such a heavy price just as a concession for talks." This man lost his father in a brutal attack, so his pain is understandable. However, that said, in times of war, both sides must be prepared to make concessions if they ever hope to achieve a peaceful resolution.

On the other hand, there has been a lot of tension stemming from Israel approving new homes to be built on seized land, a move which many have seen as an attempt to 'sabotage' the peace talks. As well as discontent amongst the government and the general public, a number of high profile Palestinians have condemned the approval of new settlement homes. Winner of the Sydney Peace Prize and PLO Executive Committee member, Hanan Ashrawi, has criticised the move calling it an 'extremely dangerous' policy. Whilst writer Hani Habib denounced the entire peace talks writing "The Palestinians need to quit the talks because all they (Israel) gets is more building in the settlement." Over 500,000 Israelis live in the Palestinian West Bank and despite international condemnation, the number continues to grow. Despite the fact that the UN have repeatedly condemned the occupation of Palestinian lands, citing a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Israeli government refute these claims, calling them 'war-won' lands from the Six-Day war of 1967. To date, no country recognises the annexed lands as Israeli.

Previously President Abbas rejected any peace talks until a freeze was placed on the building of new homes in settlement areas, however Netanyanhu wholeheartedly rejected this, however talks have resumed. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the two leaders came to compromise in the pre-peace talks in Washington as Abbas allows the building to continue, whilst Netanyanhu releases Palestinian prisoners. With violent attacks between the two factions rising dramatically, during, and for a time after, any previous peace talks, we have to hope that this time an agreement is reached,  and with as little as possible blood shed.

Lora

P.S. As usual, follow me on Twitter if you enjoyed my blog! @Loradeec

Prawer Plan sparks Protest amongst the Bedouins in Israel

As peace talks begin afresh with Palestine, Israel are facing new opposition, this time from the Bedouins. As the Israeli state prepare to 'relocate' tens of thousands of people from their ancestral homes to 'modernised' areas of 'better infrastructure', protests have been breaking out across the country as the Bedouins challenge the controversial 'Prawer Plan'. 

The Bedouins are an Arab minority who have been living in the Negev area and throughout the North, for thousands of years, however, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948 it has been part of Israel. Despite the fact that the Bedouin people have been living in the area for an impossibly long time, in old villages they love and do not want to leave, Israel has sparked worldwide controversy by declaring the villages as 'unrecognised' and 'trespassers on state land'. 

Throughout the country, people have been protesting against the 'Prawer Plan', the name given to the 5 year relocation initiative. Recently, in the town of Wadi Ara people from across the country descending on a public park protesting against the proposed law and is reported to have included a number of Palestinians. One protester, Fatima Birro, told a reporter "the Prawer law is denying our right to be in our homes. We are being treated like second-class – no, fifth-class – people in our own land.'"

Like many throughout the country, Birro believes the action to be one of oppression, a bid to rid Israel, including Palestinian territories, of the Arabic people as she continues to tell the reporter 'The law to remove the Bedouin, who have been there for thousands of years, is all part of the same policy of ethnically cleansing this land of the Arabs. It’s the same with the way the Palestinians are treated in the West Bank... Where are we supposed to go?"

The law to enforce the controversial law has passed through one of three stages of Israeli Parliament back in January and went largely unnoticed by the average joe of the international community. However, Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has noticed it, and has in fact condemned the law who has said it "legitimize(s) forcible displacement and dispossession" which the Israeli foreign minister called a 'display of ignorance.' Because a U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights would naturally be in the habit of making general statements without properly checking all the facts first...

The Bedouins are originally a nomadic group and are happy living in small communities; favouring a traditional lifestyle which still incorporates modernity. For these people, to be forced from the land of their ancestors, leaving behind the freedom and space of the Negev desert, and into purpose built towns where people from all different communities live on top of each other, is never going to be productive and could easily spark a conflict similar to that of Palestine. 

Whilst war between East and West continues to ravage neighbouring countries, we cannot be allowed, nor indeed allow ourselves, to forget the dispossessed; the Palestinians, and soon the Bedouin people too.  

Lora

Please note, quotes from Fatima Birro were obtained from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-our-land-protests-at-plan-to-remove-bedouins-from-ancestral-villages-8748966.html a highly recommended read from Alistair Dawber, a correspondent to my favourite newspaper The Independent

P.S. If you like my blog, feel free to follow me on twitter @LoradeeC

American citizens urged to leave Yemen as terror threat level increase

Following on from pulling diplomatic staff from Yemen, along with a number of Middle East and African countries last week, the U.S. have now urged all American citizens to leave the Arab country immediately with the expectation of an imminent attack. The drastic measure has been replicated by the British government who have also recalled embassy staff, with both countries stating the move has been 'out of an abundance of caution'. 

A reported 4 U.S. drone strikes have occurred in the last ten days, resulting in the deaths of 4 al Qaeda militants, as well as an attack on a mosque in the capital, Sanaa, which seen a bomb thrown into the mosque killing one and injuring a further 12. Following on from this, a secret message was intercepted from high level al Qaeda operative, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In the message, al-Zawahiri tells al-Wujayshi to 'do something' about the attacks. As Ramadan ends this week, and with tensions running high, now would be a significant time to launch an attack on the West. 

After an attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya,last year which killed four Americans, including the American ambassador it is unsurprising that the country is taking such drastic steps to ensure the safety of it's citizens. However, what is surprising is that if the US intercepted these messages, why would they make such a public statement telling the world they were withdrawing embassy staff instead of discreetly pulling them out. It could be a staged pre-emptive move in order to stop any plans that may be afoot following on from the drone attacks, which, if it is the case, could be a fairly antagonistic move. However, I may be too cynical and the US and British governments are simply acting out of genuine concern for their people with no ulterior motive (which would be a first). Regardless of their motives, I think it's fairly safe to say that any attacks al Qaeda may have planned for the Western diplomats in Yemen, will be unlikely to come to fruition. However, it may be worth while for the U.S. and U.K embassies to put other diplomats in the neighbouring area of high alert, if al Qaeda want retaliation, I am sure they will find a way to get it.

Lora  

Iranian Inauguration Sparks Hope

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has ignited hope in his people after declaring in his inauguration speech, that as well as tackling the failing economy, the government will be less involved in the daily lives of the people and granting more rights to women. Replacing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June after a landslide victory, the cleric's moderate stance has been welcomed by the Iranian people and Western political powers alike. 

 Rouhani's inauguration is the first swearing in that foreign dignitaries were invited to attend since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. That Western diplomats were even invited to attend the event shows the previously controversial Middle Eastern country is taking positive steps in foreign relations.

Later in his speech, Rouhani directly addressed Western nations, as the cleric advised “If you want an adequate response, you shouldn't speak the language of sanctions, you should speak the language of respect". A reference to the sanctions imposed on Iran over the development their nuclear weapons programme. This is a bit harsh perhaps, considering his more radical predecessor was intent on riling the Western powers as much as possible. However, in light of the rest of his speech as well as having foreign dignitaries present, these potentially inflammatory words appear to be Rouhani is simply displaying a resolute stance; that whilst Iran is keen to improve relations, it will not be a push over to the Western world.

If the new president sticks to his word, delivering change across the social and political spectrum as well as reaching an agreement on Iran's controversial nuclear programme, there is no reason why a mutually beneficial relationship with the West cannot be reached. Considering the ongoing problems in Syria and the ever escalating tension in Egypt, this olive branch is likely to be accepted with gusto by those hoping for an ease in tensions with the Middle East. Most importantly, we have to hope these promises of change are fulfilled, or at least put into action, and not simply lip service to the West.

With vast unemployment, a struggling economy, broken  international relations and an archaic attitude towards women to change, it's fair to say Rouhani has his work cut out for him. Hopefully it won't be a case of promising too much and delivering little (like Obama) and this will be the dawn of a new age in Iran.

Lora

Three down, two to go...

Good evening reader,

Okay, I promise I won't be writing about Snowden every day, but I have been doing a lot of thinking on the subject this evening...

It seems to me, the Obama Administration has gone and upset almost every continent in a very short space of time. Since Edward Snowden leaked classified NSA information that proved it was regularly collecting phone and internet data from private users worldwide, America has done little to try and ease tensions with those countries affected. Making demands, throwing insults and failing to provide an adequate explanation to any of the countries it hacked into, has done little to garner sympathy with the country and has instead given Snowden greater credence than he might otherwise have done.

Let's begin with China. Now, I think it is fairly safe to say, if I was running a country I would definitely not try to pick a fight with China. I still can't fathom why Snowden chose Hong Kong as his hide out, however I have my suspicions (see previous post) but the clever cookie went to the Asian giant well prepared.

After releasing information about indiscriminate snooping, Snowden then went on to curry favour with the Chinese by releasing information that Tsinghua University, part of the backbone of the Chinese technological infrastructure though which millions of data about citizens pass through daily, was targeted by the National Security Agency as recently as January of this year. This may have been somewhat galling to hear considering the Obama administration has spent the last two years condemning Chinese cyber-spying. With the U.S-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue taking place next month which will focus heavily on cyber-relations between the two countries, I imagine there will be a room will be filled with smug men and red faces.

Attempting to sound like an authoritative parent, a Department of Justice spokesman told the world that America was 'dissappointed' with China and have repeatedly issued statements that they 'expect' Russia to extradite the whistle blower 'without delay'. Neither country have bent to these harsh, intimidating words. It is all to easy to imagine President Putin smile at America's attempt to flex it's muscles like a ten year old child, a lot of vim but not much substance.

It is clear that America feels as though they are untouchable; the strongest most valuable nation on the planet,  and seem to have forgotten they are dealing with Russia and China, countries with a fair amount of clout themselves. So whilst America attempts to sound like an authoritative parent to two of the most powerful countries in the world, they actually come across more like the hapless supply teacher at the end of term.

On top of this, the president of the European Parliament has demanded a full explanation relating to  allegations, supposedly made by Edward Snowden, that European embassies in the U.S had been bugged and computer networks had been hacked. Hmmm, you would think that in issues of bugging, America would have learned their lesson by now... 

As for Ecuador, what a wonderful stroke President Correa made in rejecting the renewal of trade benefits declaring valiantly that Ecuador does not accept blackmail and coercion from anyone. That the deal was unlikely to have been renewed prior to Snowden's asylum request in the Latin American country is besides the point. It was a master political move in my opinion, and, all we need now is for Snowden to join the ranks of Julian Assange and be approved political asylum, then Ecuador will be firmly on the humanitarian map. The champion of whistle blowers worldwide.

So that's Asia, Europe and of South America who are all pretty peeved with America's actions lately and you can really understand why. It's hardly surprising that a trip to Africa (coincidently, a continent that China is also pretty interested in) has involved touching moments such as visiting Nelson Mandela's prison cell or speaking with the ailing ex-president's family. It appears America is trying to win favour in Africa, a place Obama has called the 'next economic success story'. Perhaps they are trying to make stronger allies with the emerging continent because at this rate, America needs all the allies it can get.

One thing that has become apparent since Snowden came forward a month ago, is that America has been put on a platform and it's quite clear to all that America isn't as strong as it would like us to think it is. It's muscles are weak, pumped full of pomp and air.

American power is waning.

Lora

P.S. Come back and see me tomorrow when I will be writing about the political and social turmoil that is causing Egyptian upheaval a mere year after Mohamed Morsi took up the mantel of Presidency. 

Snow Way Out?

Hello there,

Like many people, I have been held captivated by the ever unfolding saga of Edward Snowden. Actually, that is perhaps putting it somewhat mildy... I think it's safe to say I have become slightly obsessed. Every twist and turn, every article and blog I can find, I devour like a starved man.

We live in the dawn of a new era, and as this strange, new, technological landscape unfurls before our eyes it is paramount we try to get it right from the get go.

It is naive to think the political powers of the world don't have the technological know-how to check up on our every virtual move. However, the fact is, just because they have this power, doesn't mean they should feel it is their right to wield it. I have the power to rob a person, or kill someone but I choose not to, instead I choose to respect the rights of people; their right to life, their right to property etc, and I do not use power in a negative way because it is, quite simply, wrong and unjust.

Respecting and adhering to human rights is the very cornerstone of ethics.

So why do the 'ethical' American government feel, that under the thin veil of 'protection in the name of preventing terror', that they can use their power in whichever way they want? Terrorists existed before the advent of the internet and mobile phones when we had infinitely more privacy and terrorists will continue to exist when we don't, they will find ways to avoid technological detection.
Snooping on us indiscriminately in the name of our safety?  I feel patronised. Okay I will concede that in the right circumstance, surveillance can be beneficial.. However, if such an instance does occur, shouldn't the NSA consult judges in the suspect's country instead of simply their own and shouldn't the government of the suspect be privvy to such information?

Snowden has done the right thing. The whole affair has gone from strength to strength, showing the secrets of American surveillance and exposing just how little power America yields over China and Russia, Ecuador, Venezuela... exposing to the public their own waning power.

As Snowden languishes in limbo, stuck in the no man's land of Shermetyevo airport and waiting on the ever unlikely acceptance of his Ecuadorian asylum request, I find myself getting a little suspicious. Considering that Venezuela has publicly backed the NSA whistleblower and has extended an offer of asylum, I'm not entirely sure why Snowden is still holding out on Ecuador? Perhaps I am missing something, I am but a humble accounts assistant, however I cannot quite comprehend why, with at least two Latin American countries considering asylum, did Snowden feel the need to travel to a country that has an extradition treaty in place with America?

Whilst I wholeheartedly support Edward Snowden, I can't shake the niggling suspicion that at least part of the whole saga may be somewhat staged. If Snowden was already in a safe country when he spoke to The Guardian, would the world have stayed as enthralled as long as we have with Snowden's revelations? I am inclined to think not, the danger and thrill of an impossible situation, escaping from America's clutches at the last minute as an administrative error prevents extradition to his home country, liaising with the anti-secrecy powerhouse Wikileaks, stuck in an airport with no way out... throw in a love story and it sounds more like next summer's blockbuster. Which it probably will be.

Regardless of this, if Snowden's actions were to generate as much publicity for as long as possible, is that really a bad thing? Drawing as much attention as possible to the leak that gave us definitive proof that the American government can and are keeping tabs on people world wide (although not in their own country of course, they do have principles after all) is a good thing in my opinion.

We need more people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, people who are willing to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of the truth. People who place naked government secrets on the worldwise stage and give us, the plain old common people, the opportunity to decide if their actions are good, just and moral. After all, governments should be accountable to their people. With that in mind, should we really allow the prosecution of those who brings such dark secrets to light? If immoral actions are perhaps the only course of action shouldn't we at least be granted opportunity to have an input into such decisions, particularly if heinous and hideous crimes are frequently being committed in our name?

Who knows how this will all pan out, I guess we'll just have to wait with baited breath and hope for the best outcome. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the future of our privacy depends on it.

Lora.