NEWS,05.06.2013

Netanyahu ready to consider peace plan

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signalled readiness on Wednesday to consider a 2002 Arab peace plan whose terms were recently softened to include possible land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians.
"We are listening to every initiative the Arab initiative has been mentioned and we are prepared to discuss initiatives that are proposals and not edicts," he said in a speech in parliament.
Netanyahu spoke during a debate on the plan, proposed at an Arab League summit 11 years ago. Israel had rejected the initiative that offered normalised ties for it with much of the Arab world, citing its call for complete withdrawal from land captured in the 1967 Middle East war as a main stumbling block.
Israel occupied the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, areas Palestinians seeks for a future state, in that conflict.
Echoing previous Israeli leaders, Netanyahu has ruled out a return to pre-1967 war frontiers, calling them indefensible.
But a month ago, Arab states appeared to soften the 2002 plan when Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, Qatar's prime minister and foreign minister, said Israel and the Palestinians could trade land rather than conform exactly to the 1967 lines.
Netanyahu, who heads the right-wing Likud party, has never endorsed the idea of territorial exchange publicly. A 2009 US diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks in 2010 said he expressed support for the concept in a meeting with US legislators.
In his address to the legislature, Netanyahu repeated a call to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to return unconditionally to peace talks that collapsed in 2010 over continued Israeli settlement building on occupied land.
Abbas has said Israel must first stop settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem before the U.S.-hosted negotiations can resume.
"Since he (Abbas) doesn't speak Hebrew, and my Arabic is not great, I am calling on him in a language we both know and saying to him, 'Give peace a chance', Netanyahu said, switching to English to utter the phrase.
"Don't miss the opportunity," he added, saying he was prepared to make "difficult decisions to move negotiations ahead" but cautioning he would take no moves that would jeopardise Israeli security.
Abbas said on Tuesday "the ball is in the Israeli court" and Israel needed to accept the Palestinians' demand for a settlement freeze so that talks could begin.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has been trying to restart the negotiations. He has made four trips to the region since taking office four months ago and a State Department spokeswoman said on Tuesday he could return to Israel and the Palestinian territories as early as next week.

Rice to be Obama's security advisor

President Barack Obama will name UN ambassador Susan Rice as his new national security advisor Wednesday, months after her hopes of becoming the top US diplomat were scuppered by the Benghazi affair.
Rice will take over from Obama's current national security advisor Tom Donilon in July, in a shake-up of his foreign policy team that will see former aide and genocide expert Samantha Power take the top United Nations job.
The move marks a swift turnaround in fortunes for Rice, 48, who pulled out of consideration to be Obama's second term secretary of state, a victim of the controversy over the attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya.
"The President will announce that after more than four years at the National Security Council, Tom Donilon will be departing as National Security Advisor in early July and will be succeeded by Ambassador Susan Rice," a US official said.
The official said that Obama would also use the ceremony to name Power, a former foreign policy aide, genocide expert and Pulitzer prize-winning author, to replace Rice as US ambassador to the United Nations, the official said.
Donilon has been at Obama's side since he entered the White House in 2009, and took over from the president's first national security advisor, retired general James Jones, in 2010.
He was at the center of the decision to pull US troops out of Iraq, to withdraw combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of next year and the killing of Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.
Donilon has also been a key figure in China policy, masterminding Obama's diplomatic 'pivot' to Asia, and recently traveled to Beijing to prepare for the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to California for talks with Obama later in the week.
His retirement has long been expected this year.
Donilon has kept a low public profile as national security advisor but has been a dominant force in the Obama administration. He is known for scrupulous preparation, driving staff hard and as an expert bureaucratic player.
He is also liked and respected by many colleagues, despite a recent profile on the Foreign Policy website which aired criticism of his personal style.
Rice, who served as an assistant secretary of state for Africa in the Clinton administration, has long been one of Obama's closest foreign policy aides, dating back to his 2008 campaign.
She was widely expected to be named secretary of state to follow the departing Hillary Clinton.
But she was accused by Republicans of deliberately misleading Americans over the origins of the attack on the Benghazi mission on September 11 last year, which killed four Americans including the ambassador.
However, recently released email traffic between top administration officials shows she had no role in crafting the talking points on the attack which she used on Sunday television talk shows to argue that the assault was part of a spontaneous anti-US protest rather than a planned terrorist attack.
At the time, Obama angrily rejected "outrageous" Republican attacks on Rice, saying she had done "exemplary work" at the UN, showing "skill and professionalism and toughness and grace."
Rice's removal from the race to be secretary of state opened the door for former senator John Kerry to take over a post he has long coveted.
She won plaudits in the White House for her work at the United Nations, lining up tough sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
She is known for a robust personal style and reputedly has sharp elbows, but she will derive considerable power from her status as one of Obama's original inner circle of foreign policy advisors.
Rice does not need to obtain Senate confirmation to serve as national security advisor, the president's closest foreign policy aide, so any residual opposition from Republicans will not be a problem for her.
Power, 42, formerly served Obama as a special assistant focusing on multilateral affairs and human rights. Before entering government, she won a Pulitzer Prize for a book focusing on American foreign policy and genocide.
The job of US ambassador to the United Nations will remain a cabinet position, a US official said.

New Pakistan PM vows to improve economy

As he stepped into the prime minister's job for the third time Wednesday, Nawaz Sharif vowed to improve Pakistan's limping economy and end American drone strikes. It was a nod to the voters who elected a man viewed as a pro-business conservative to tackle problems including a fiscal meltdown, power outages, and spillover from the war in neighboring Afghanistan.
His success in an office he was forced out of by a military coup in 1999 will hinge on how quickly he can address Pakistanis' most basic needs such as electricity and jobs, but many analysts believe his strong mandate at least gives him a fighting chance at success.
Sharif was elected by parliament Wednesday after his party won the 11 May nationwide elections. He was sworn in hours later by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
The country of 180 million people that Sharif must now lead is weighed down with a host of problems: unemployment, electricity blackouts, inflation, corruption and militancy. In a speech long on rhetoric but short on specifics, Sharif vowed to address the country's myriad of problems.
"I will do my best to change the fate of the people and Pakistan," he said.
Sharif is the first Pakistani leader to serve three terms. He was elected prime minister in 1990 and then again in 1997, thrown out of office in 1999 by a military coup, spent nearly eight years in exile, and then five years in opposition before returning to power.
During the campaign, he sometimes lashed out at the US and its policy of using unmanned aerial vehicles to kill militants in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Speaking to parliament after being elected, he once again called for an end to the drone policy.
"This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now be closed," Sharif said to widespread applause. "We do respect others' sovereignty. It is mandatory on others that they respect our sovereignty."
But he gave few details on how he might end the strikes. Many in Pakistan say the strikes kill large numbers of innocent civilians, something the US denies, and end up breeding more extremism by those seeking retribution with the US
The US considers the drone program vital to battling militants such as al-Qaeda, who use the tribal areas of Pakistan as a safe haven.
Many analysts say such anti-American sentiment may mellow or take a backseat to more pressing economic concerns in Sharif's administration. Pakistan will require American support for the likely economic bailout it will need from the International Monetary Fund, and the two sides both have an interest in finding a peaceful solution to the war in neighboring Afghanistan.
Sharif has also said that he would like good relations with the US and in his speech noted the need to pay attention to the concerns of "other countries."
But for most Pakistanis the drones are secondary to the issues that will define Sharif's tenure in office: the economy and electricity.
Over the last five years of the previous administration, power outages, some as long as 20 hours, have plagued the country. People suffer through sweltering summers, and in recent years gas shortages in the winter have left people unable to heat their houses.
Companies struggle to find a way to run businesses without a reliable source of electricity.
Sharif and his team of advisors have been meeting continuously with officials from the country's power-related industries and interim government officials from affected ministries to map out a strategy.
The new prime minister listed a litany of problems facing Pakistan during his speech, including unpaid loans, unemployment, a disillusioned youth, extremism and lawlessness, and widespread corruption.
Pakistani voters will be watching closely to see what he does to solve those problems.
Outside the parliament, Mohammed Aslam, who came from Sharif's hometown of Lahore to the capital for the ceremony, said he voted for Sharif because he promised to solve the electricity crisis. But he warned that Pakistanis will not tolerate bad governance for another five years.
"If he fails, he will go home next year," he said.
One thing going in Sharif's favor is his strong mandate. The previous Pakistan People's Party government kept their fragile coalition together for five years but had to constantly make concessions to smaller partners.
Sharif's party has a 176-seat majority in the 342-member house and a strong platform from which to address the country's economic problems. Sharif, who comes from a Pakistani business family that made its wealth in the steel industry, has widespread business support.
"I do actually see a lot of resolve. They have a very strong mandate," said Werner Liepach, Pakistan country head for the Asian Development Bank.
Sharif made little mention of the militant attacks and the fighting in Pakistan's tribal areas that have killed thousands of civilians and security forces. He has been accused of failing to go after extremist groups accused of sectarian violence that have a fairly open presence in Punjab province, despite the fact that Sharif's PML-N has controlled the province and its police for the last five years.
Sharif noted the historic nature of Wednesday's ceremony. His assumption of office marks the first time a democratically elected government has handed over power to another in the country's 65-year history.
"Now it should be decided forever that Pakistan's survival, protection, sovereignty, progress, prosperity and respect in the international community depends upon strengthening democracy in Pakistan," he said.

06.01.2013

The Israeli Elections: The Left in Search of Identity

 

All the polls taken in Israel ahead of the upcoming Knesset elections indicate a static situation, so far as the division between right and left is concerned. The only significant changes are inside the two main blocks, that of the current coalition and that of the opposition. So far as the coalition is concerned, this blog already relayed the meteoric rise of Naftali Bnnett and his Jewish Home party at the expense of Likud. Altogether, the parties comprising the current Netanyahu coalition maintain their 65-68 seats, as opposed to the 52-55 seats held by the current opposition parties. A dramatic, and as yet unforeseen, change should take place for this electoral map to turn around, dethrone Netanyahu and bring in a new leader for Israel. Never say never, particularly in reference to Israeli politics, and to what happens in a country which prides itself with having never a dull moment, yet this is a dull campaign, henceforth the expectation for a last-minute upheaval may most likely remain an expectation, not a reality. Right and left in Israel are terms which do not correspond with the accepted European and to a large extent also American definitions of right and left, nor in regard to the class divisions, nor concerning attitudes towards socioeconomic issues. Every American reader equates support for Obamacare with the left, but in Israel, it was a Likud, a right-wing government, which instituted a state-run health insurance legislation. American readers also automatically put unions and their membership in the left-wing column, but in Israel it is different. One of the main power brokers of the Likud party, MK Haim Katz, is also the chairman of the union of the Israel Aircraft Industries, the largest public industrial employer in Israel; and this is just one, though prominent, example. Grover Norquist would be terrified to find out that in Likud, whose leader PM Netanyahu likes to compare himself to conservative Republicans, there are many who openly call for more taxation, particularly on the rich, as a way of paying for the welfare state that they want Israel to be.So, in order to have a better sense of the otherwise confusing world of Israeli politics, we can go by one definition of left versus right, and this is the attitude towards the conflict with the Palestinians, the notion of a two-state solution and the attitude towards settlements. Here, too, the picture is somewhat murky and unclear. There are five parties competing for about 40 seats, as about 10-12 go to the three Arab parties. The fact that the Arab-Israeli vote goes mainly to Arab parties, and less and less to center and center-left Jewish parties, is one of the ringing failures of parties in Israel which claim to present an inclusive political platform, one that could provide a political home for many Israeli Arabs. Those who want to combine support for Palestinian national aspirations with a drive to better their lot in the State of Israel, with its built-in Jewish majority and character. There are Arab candidates in the parties of the center and left, but these people seem to have no troops behind them. This is just one of the failures of the center and left, in terms of broadening their electoral base. Three other big blocks of voters continue to be firmly in the right-wing column, and out of reach for the center and left; Sepharadic voters, Jews from the former Soviet Union, and religious voters. These three blocks constitute the backbone of the right-wing coalition, and they continue to be impregnable to the Israeli left. This is not good news to the five parties of the center and left, better news to Netanyahu, but still potentially troubling for him, because the current polls show him losing ground to the right-wing religious parties, something which will greatly curtail his freedom of action after the elections. Here there is a potential opportunity for the center left, but one which is being sadly wasted. The Labor leader, Shelly Yechimovitz, who competes with Bennett for the no. two slot after Likud is committed not to join a coalition led by Netanyahu, and so is the marginal Meretz party. The movement of former FM Livni, Yesh Atid we have a future of Yair Lapid and what is left of the Kadima party under Shaul Mofaz are ready to join Netanyahu, but without the religious right wing. Confused? You ought to be, and so are many Israeli voters who otherwise would have liked to vote against Netanyahu, but feel that under current circumstances their vote will be to no avail. One of them is Yuval Diskin, a former head of the General Security Service and a fierce critic of Netanyahu from the left, who called for likeminded people to abstain from voting altogether. Clearly, sweet music to the ears of Netanyahu and Lieberman. With the center and left so fragmented over their priorities, unable to find the minimal workable common denominator, Netanyahu cruises ever more easily towards another term. So, on January 23rd the all too familiar ritual of soul-searching and self-blame, so familiar to the Israeli center and left, is expected to commence in full force.

Israel's Election (and Settlements) Are Killing the Two-State Solution

 

Israel's upcoming Jan. 22 parliamentary election had been expected to be a status quo affair leading to an easy victory for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead, it's turned into a race to the extreme right that is threatening to kill the two-state solution. And Washington seems oblivious. The latest polls still show Netanyahu emerging as the next prime minister, but in a weakened position atop a coalition filled with politicians adamantly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. This new configuration will narrow Netanyahu's freedom of action and ability to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, moderates President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have both lost popular support to Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence. How much longer can the moderates hang on, absent some progress toward a Palestinian state, before the Islamic winds blowing through the Arab world sweep them away?It's a major headache for President Obama, who no longer has the luxury of non-engagement in the Middle East. Without swift, firm and decisive action to reignite a meaningful peace process and to push for a swift deal, the two-state option may disappear forever, leaving Israelis and Palestinians alike facing a future of endless conflict in a region already racked with instability. Obama has been hanging back during the Israeli election campaign and until he can put together his national security team for his second term. But the need is now urgent. He needs to rally his Quartet partners -- the EU, the UN and Russia -- and put together a concrete plan and timetable for a solution. Obama should consider an early trip to the Middle East to get things back on track. Whatever tactics he adopts, the president urgently needs to use political capital and diplomatic muscle to get the parties back to the table and then make the no doubt difficult concessions necessary for a deal because the alternatives are truly frightening.The parameters of such a plan remain clear: an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines with some small land swaps; secure borders for Israel; an equitable deal on Jerusalem and, of course, statehood for the Palestinians.We're now past the point of apportioning blame for a diplomatic deadlock that is almost two-and-a-half years long. Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around but the overriding fact is that Israeli settlements are fast eating away at possibility of ever establishing a Palestinian state and Israel's lurch to the political right is accelerating that process. New Israeli plans to build in the East Jerusalem settlement of Givat Hamatos would cut Bethlehem off from Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, while proposed new settlements in an area known as EI east of Jerusalem would drive a massive wedge between the north and south of the West Bank.Israeli politicians have been indulging in what can only be described as a settlement frenzy. As Netanyahu's Likud-Beitenu block has slipped back in the polls, the story of the election has been the meteoric rise of the extreme right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) Party whose leader, Naftali Bennett, advocates the immediate annexation of 60 percent of the West Bank. Bennett looks like he is emerging as the leader of the third and possibly even the second largest party in the new Knesset with up to 18 seats, the same as is projected for the opposition Labor Party which once dominated Israeli politics. Netanyahu's own ranks now include figures like Moshe Feiglin, a firebrand who wants to rebuild a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount where the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques now stand the third holiest site in Islam. He was arrested there this week trying to pray, a deliberately inflammatory act. Past attempts to encroach on what Muslims call the "Noble Sanctuary" have been met by outrage and violent resistance. In September 2000, a visit to the site by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon surrounded by hundreds of riot police was the spark that ignited what became known as the Second Intifada which, in the next five years, took the lives of an estimated 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. Feiglin also found time to address a "one-state solution" conference in Jerusalem where he outlined a plan to pay Palestinian families $500,000 each to emigrate. Because of the low birth rates in Western nations, they will welcome immigrants who "know how to build," he said. This is the same man who told The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg nine years ago: "You can't teach a monkey to speak and you can't teach an Arab to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches. "Several other Likud parliamentarians attending the conference, including Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, who said Israel should move toward the gradual or total annexation of the West Bank while scrapping the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993, which still provide the framework for an eventual peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.Last week, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who is No. 3 on Netanyahu's election slate, said "two states for two peoples was never part of Likud's election platform." Knesset Member Tzipi Hotovely, No. 15 on the list, said Netanyahu had only adopted the policy to "placate the world." Without vigorous U.S. leadership at the highest level, we may soon be looking at a Middle East in which both sides are governed by extremists who reject the other's right to exist on the land. That's not a future anyone should want to see.

Ten New Year's Resolutions for U.S. Policy Towards Latin America

 

U.S. policy towards our Latin American neighbors is, as usual, in need of a few New Year's resolutions. Here goes:Ban assault weapons. Three months before the murders of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, 110 victims of violence and advocates from Mexico traveled across the United States calling on us to take action to stop the violence that has claimed over 100,000 lives in Mexico during the last six years. They asked us to ban the assault weapons that arm Mexico's brutal cartels. Some 70 percent of assault weapons and other firearms used by criminal gangs in Mexico come from the United States. The United States should reinstate and tighten the assault weapon ban and enforce the ban on the import of assault weapons into our country, which are then smuggled into Mexico. Do it for Newtown. Do it for Aurora. Do it for Mexico's mothers and fathers who have lost their children to senseless violence. Deliver comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats and Republicans alike should heed the message delivered by the Latino vote in 2012 and provide a path to citizenship for the eleven million people living in the shadows in the United States and build a flexible, sensible legal immigration system for the future. This historic step would help families and the economy in the United States and Latin America, and would do more to improve U.S.-Latin American relations than any other single action. And right now, the Obama administration should protect the rights of migrants and border communities by stopping deportation practices that send migrants back to dangerous areas to be preyed upon by cartels, and by ensuring U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents are held accountable for abuses. Support peace in Colombia, with justice. In 2013, there's a real chance to end the longest-running conflict in the Americas. The Obama administration sensibly backs Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos' negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. But we should also be listening to the voices of families of the disappeared and kidnapped, and the mothers of children murdered by Colombia's army, who are calling for justice along with peace. There must be accountability and truth for the murder, torture, forced displacement and rape perpetrated by all actors: the paramilitaries, the guerrillas and the country's own armed forces. The sad truth is that the Santos administration is moving backwards in accountability for army abuses. Without full truth and a strong measure of justice, there cannot be a lasting peace.Try this on for size: a rational policy towards Cuba. The United States should launch a serious dialogue that aims at lifting the failed, 50-year embargo. We know this won't happen overnight. For starters, we should end the travel ban that divides us from our neighbors just off the Florida coast. The Obama administration should also take Cuba off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism; there is no earthly reason it belongs there in 2013. The accusation of giving shelter to Colombia's guerrillas was one of the few rationales for Cuba's inclusion; now Cuba is lauded by Colombia's government for hosting peace negotiations. If we support peace in Colombia, how can we not recognize Cuba's contribution?End the militarized approach to drugs. Latin American presidents of all political persuasions are telling us: we must rethink the "War on Drugs," which has brought suffering without results. For starters, we should stop the tactics that cause the most harm while doing the least good: counternarcotics campaigns that bring Latin American armies into the streets; aerial spraying, which destroys food as well as drug crops. And we should focus on the public health approaches here and abroad that do the most good and the least harm: providing treatment when and where addicts need it; evidence-based prevention campaigns; youth employment and building resilient communities.Focus on aid that helps people, not guns and military aid. As we face another battle on budget cuts, why not put military aid to Latin America on the chopping block. There's no war anywhere in the region, if Colombia's peace talks succeed. Focus on aid that actually helps people: disaster assistance, including reconstruction aid for Haiti; aid for health care, education, micro-loans, improving justice systems, and community development. Ensure that aid programs are consulted with the people they intend to benefit.Speak up for human rights. While the United States isn't perfect, as our Latin American friends readily tell us, our government should speak up for human rights in this hemisphere. But do it fairly. When a left-wing government restricts freedom of the press, the United States should speak against this. When governments the U.S. favors  like Colombia and Mexico fail to prosecute human rights abuses committed by their militaries, the United States should press for justice, including by suspending military aid when needed. Decisively support human rights in Honduras. Honduras is in crisis. Since the June 2009 coup in Honduras, human rights protections, never strong, have been severely weakened. Human rights defenders, LGBT community members, leaders in poor farming communities, and opposition activists have been threatened and killed, in crimes for which there is no justice. Military, police and private security guards are unaccountable. The United States should suspend military and police aid to Honduras while using aid and tough diplomacy to help Honduras strengthen the failing justice system. Support the Inter-American human rights system. To its credit, the Obama administration has actively supported the Inter-American human rights system, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which many Latin American governments of left, right and center have recently sought to weaken. 2013 will be an important year to join with civil society groups across the Americas to ensure reforms strengthen, not weaken, this system's role as the last recourse for victims who fail to attain justice in their countries. Finally, clean up our own act. The United States' voice on human rights will be stronger, of course, if our government sticks to human rights principles in its own actions. Drone strikes that kill civilians, rendition, indefinite detention and complete lack of due process for terror suspects weaken U.S. credibility in Latin America as well as in other regions of the world. Now, if we could keep these resolutions, 2013 would be a banner year for U.S.-Latin American relations.

NEWS,13.08.2012

An Impediment or an Opportunity for Peace?

 

There is an ongoing debate in and outside of Israel as to whether or not this is the right time to forge peace with the Palestinians in light of the regional upheavals and instability. The peace process, at this juncture, is hopelessly frozen while the expansion of the Israeli settlements and the continued internal Palestinian strife and factionalism increasingly dims the prospect of reaching an agreement. That said, the Arab Spring, which has triggered the rise of the Arab youth against their governments and has been accompanied by uncertainty, is not an impediment but an opportunity to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-state solution. The reality on the ground strongly suggests that maintaining the status quo will be particularly detrimental to Israel.Those inside the Netanyahu government who suggest that now is not the right time to seek a peace agreement with the Palestinians because of the regional turmoil and the existential threats that Israel now faces are both misguided and disingenuous. On the contrary, given the threats from Iran and its surrogate Hezbollah and the potential consequences of a failed state in Syria, it is a particularly critical moment for Israel to forge peace with the Palestinians. By doing so, Israel would be in a position to focus on the vastly more serious threats emanating from its real adversaries and would prevent the rise of a Palestinian fifth column, should Israel become mired in these regional conflicts. To enhance their positions, those who oppose peace now offer three faulty arguments to justify their stance.First, the Palestinians cannot be trusted and Israel "correctly" points to the precedents of the partial disengagement from the West Bank between 1993 and 2000, the complete withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. From the Israeli perspective, all of these moments attest to the Palestinians' inability or unwillingness to forge a permanent peace, despite having ample opportunities.Second, due to Palestinian factionalism and infighting, there is no credible partner with whom Israel can negotiate as the Palestinians have been unable to sustain a unity government. The Netanyahu government is convinced that even if an agreement is reached, it will still prove transient.Third, there are extremist Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others, along with non-Palestinian factions, including Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, that are vehemently antagonistic toward Israel and remain committed to its destruction.However, none of the three arguments above can pass careful scrutiny. These types of arguments are used as excuses and a cover for the Netanyahu government's deep conviction that the Jews have an inherent right to whole "land of Israel". This remains an indefatigable nonstarter to reaching a peace agreement that requires significant territorial concessions, including the conversion of Jerusalem to the capital of Israeli and Palestinian states. From the Netanyahu government's perspective, the conditions of no peace and no war that currently prevail are preferable to a compromise of the Jews' historical rights and through a strong and determined will, Israel will eventually triumph.In light of the reality on the ground, which both the Israelis and the Palestinians alike must face by virtue of their inevitable coexistence, Israel must act now because the passage of time may well be to its detriment, if not its very existence. There are three critical issues that increasingly work against Israel.Considering Israel's demographic situation, its evolutionary path has shifted radically as emigration from Israel over the past two decades (about one million) is roughly equal to the immigration into Israel for the same period. This, along with low birth rates relative to the Palestinian population, continues to erode the sustainability of Israel's national character as a Jewish state. Should this growing demographic imbalance between the Jewish and Palestinian populations continue, Israel will be forced to either establish a single state (an unacceptable proposition for them as it will instantly make the Jewish population a minority) or resort to apartheid policies that will be vehemently rejected by the international community.In recent years Israel has been fortunate that Gaza and the West Bank were generally quiet with limited resistance to the occupation and only marginal rocket attacks from Gaza that the Israeli military was able to handle with ease. Maintaining the occupation, however, and the continuance of the creeping expansion of the settlements, coupled with the uprisings of Arab youth against their own governments, now make it only a matter of time before the Palestinians will be inspired, if not forced, to rise against the occupation. They will not remain indefinitely passive, as they clearly see that the longer they wait, the more their land will be consumed, resulting in an irreversible reality on the ground that will deny the rise of an independent and viable state.Moreover, Israel will continue to face intensifying pressure from the international community due to the perpetuation of the status quo, which will dramatically increase Israel's isolation. For the United States and the European Union, who continue to be steadfast supporters of Israel, the lack of progress has a destabilizing effect on the region, which directly and indirectly impacts their national strategic interests and undermines Israel's national security. Israel should not be surprised if its closest allies, especially the U.S., decide to advance their own frameworks for peace largely based on prior Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in an attempt to save Israel from charting its own disastrous path.In a broader context, Israel's current enemies, specifically Iran and Hezbollah, will continue to exploit the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to their advantage. To counteract this encroaching threat, Israel can at least begin to neutralize its antagonists' positions by taking steps that open the door for a negotiated solution and normalization of relations with the Arab states by accepting the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for negotiations. While this strategy may not initially and necessarily change the principle objection to Israel's very existence by actors such as Iran and Hezbollah, Israel could shift the geopolitical conditions in the region in its favor. As I was convincingly told time and time again by top Arab officials, the Arab states are prepared to move toward establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel once an Israeli-Palestinian peace is achieved. They cite the changing dynamics in the region in the wake of the Arab spring and the ensuing battle between Sunnis led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Shiites led by Iran who seeks regional hegemony.Despite the complex situation that Israel finds itself in, the basic question remains: how much longer can it sustain its present course without experiencing horrific and self-inflicted wounds? Israel must face the inevitable now while it is still in a strong position to negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians, a population that has, and can continue to, withstand the test of time. Unlike the precipitous withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and Gaza, any agreement with the Palestinians should be made with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and should be based on a quid pro quo that would involve phased withdrawals from the West Bank over a few years in order to foster mutual trust and normalization of relations while ensuring Israel's national security.Set against the context of the Arab Spring, Israel remains an oasis of stability with its economic, military and technological advantages continuing to strengthen over time. The inability of the Palestinians to change the dynamics in their favor has deepened the Israelis' complacency while removing any sense of urgency to solve the conflict, as they remain intoxicated by their military prowess and the deceptive calm before the storm. Simply put, passively waiting for the region to achieve a modicum of stability while Israel further entrenches itself in the territories is a non-starter as the Arab upheavals are not a fading phenomenon and will remain an engine of change for years, if not decades, to come. The Palestinian's turn will come sooner than expected.I must emphasize that the Palestinians, by their own violent actions and hostile public utterances, have directly contributed to the Israelis' skepticism and deepening of their conviction that the Palestinians are not partners to be trusted nor are they a population with whom they can negotiate a lasting peace. That said, it is up to Israel not to allow past experiences to blur its vision for the future and it must now chart its own future course by ending the occupation under specific "rules of disengagement" with the Palestinian Authority. Israel must never abandon the principles of equality and human rights regardless of race, color or religion, as they are the very basis on which the state arose from the ashes of the Holocaust.Netanyahu will eventually have to answer to the Israeli public as to what he has achieved over the past four years. The Israelis must now determine whether or not Netanyahu has made the conflict with the Palestinians considerably worse since he took office in 2009 and what price Israel will have to pay for his misguided and ominous policies.

Greek economy shrinks 6.2%

The Greek economy, struggling in a fifth year of recession, shrank 6.2% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier, official data showed on Monday.The economy contracted 6.5% in the first quarter, worse than the initially given 6.2%, according to revised figures issued in June.The Bank of Greece expects the economy to shrink 4.5% for 2012 as a whole, following a 6.9% drop last year.The country is relying on two financial rescue packages backed by the EU, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank worth around €240bn for its economic survival.Last year, private creditors agreed to write-off more than €100bn in debt, roughly half the amount they were owed, as part of a second bailout programme.Harsh austerity measures and economic reforms linked to the aid agreements have taken their toll on the economy, with unemployment hitting record highs.The conservative-led coalition government has yet to finalise spending cuts of about €11.5bn in order to unlock its next aid installment worth some €31bn.

UK tourism slumps during Olympics

The Olympics brought less tourist money to recession-hit Britain than officials promised, a trade group said on Monday, with a majority of businesses reporting losses from last year A survey of more than 250 tour operators, hoteliers and visitor attractions found that tourist traffic fell all over Britain, not just London, said UK inbound, a leading trade association representing British tour operators said. The survey said 88% of British tourism-oriented businesses reported some losses during the games compared with the same period last year. Officials are still tallying up the total number of tourists who came to or avoided  London this summer. The capital normally sees about 1.5 million tourists on average in August, but UK inbound and other trade groups say a significant number have chosen to steer clear of London, and even the rest of Britain because they thought it would be too busy. The official visitor figures won't be available until September. Tourism officials say that international Olympics visitors to London, including athletes, officials and tourists, totalled about 300 000. Domestic spectators from Britain made up the majority of people visiting games venues Restaurants and shops have complained that these games visitors did not spend as much money on food and shopping as typical summer tourists. "The people who came to the Games really didn't do very much sightseeing, didn't do very much shopping, didn't do very much eating out,"said Miles Quest, a spokesperson for the British Hospitality Association.London's hotels have hit about 80% occupancy, not more than typical August rates, Quest added.Visa, the only credit card accepted at the Olympics, reported that international visitors to Britain spent more than £450m ($705m) on their cards during the first week of the games, up by 8% on the same time last year.Around £12.7ms were spent on Visa cards in London restaurants last week, an increase of almost 20% on a year ago.