How fares the global war on terror?

Rami G. Khouri| The Daily Star

Is the global war on terror (GWOT) that the United States launched in 2011 after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks succeeding or failing? This would seem to be a compelling question for the United States and the world – but it receives surprisingly little attention. After 13 years of GWOT, events this year emphasize the significant development of militant and terror groups who now carry out dramatic and gruesome attacks that kill or kidnap hundreds of victims at a time. This is combined with the fact that some of these groups, such as ISIS, the Nusra Front, Boko Haram and others, have taken control of territories in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Mali, Yemen and elsewhere.

The attack that killed over 130 schoolchildren in Pakistan earlier this week shows that this kind of danger lurks across a very wide region of the world. Some of these takfiri militant groups control territory, allowing them to train, mobilize, propagandize and launch operations across many continents, should they wish to do so.

The fight against them is now led primarily by the United States military, through aerial attacks and associated ground operations in northern Iraq and Syria primarily, alongside drone-launched missile strikes to assassinate presumed terrorists in other countries. In the past five months, the balance sheet of success in containing, rolling back and defeating ISIS has been mixed. ISIS has been pushed back from some lands in northern Iraq that it grabbed in the late summer, but it continues to gain control of small bits of land in other parts of Iraq and Syria – and a very small number of new adherents in neighboring countries.

Earlier this week, some 8,000 Kurdish combatants combined with continuous American airstrikes to successfully liberate lands controlled by ISIS in Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria. The largest such joint air-land operation of its kind, it indicated that if the military efforts of local ground troops from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran or other countries were combined with devastating air power deployed by America, Arab states and others, ISIS and other such threats could be quickly rolled back.

That is not happening very quickly or in very many places, however, as militant groups continue to expand their operations. The most troubling aspect of such dynamics is that the underlying condition that has allowed violent groups to materialize and spread in recent decades – corrupt, violent, unjust, elitist and inept governance systems in most Arab countries – remains almost totally untouched and unchanged. The forces that give birth to ISIS or to local Al-Qaeda affiliates will continue to generate the sentiments of anger, alienation, humiliation and desperation among millions of Arab citizens. Such forces ultimately midwifed extremist movements in increasingly violent forms over the last half-century.

The more GWOT continues, the greater seems to be the expansion and impact of the very terror groups it seeks to defeat, with ISIS and the Nusra Front being the most recent examples. During the last few months that I have spent in the U.S. I have followed with growing perplexity why there is so little discussion of why the GWOT seems only to have sparked the continued birth and expansion of international militant and terror groups across the Arab-African-Asian region.

The only conclusion I can draw comprises two elements: These groups may be a menace to their local populations, but they do not seem to directly threaten the U.S. or strategic American interests; and Washington seems to feel that it can handle the existing threat through its current approach of providing air power and technical assistance to local forces on the ground.

The important lesson would seem to be that populations and government in the Arab world, Asia and Africa had better start taking the threats from these militant groups much more seriously, because the American-led international parties fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda seem perfectly willing to keep attacking from the air and containing these groups without providing the ground troops needed to remove the threat completely.

The puzzling question that poses itself at the end of this frightening year is simply, why have local Arab countries themselves been so hesitant or unable to confront and fight ISIS and other such takfiri groups? The answer would seem to be equally simple: The same government systems and power structures that allowed ISIS and Al-Qaeda to come into being cannot easily muster the legitimacy and technical capabilities needed to defeat them, or to prevent other such violent groups from rising from their ashes.

With the U.S. and other foreign powers apparently willing for now just to shoot from the air and essentially freeze conditions on the ground, this augurs badly for some Arab countries that can expect semi-permanent constant warfare, huge refugee flows, and some national disintegration for years to come.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR. He can be followed on Twitter @RamiKhouri.

Current Al-Jazeera (Arabic) Online Poll

Do you believe that the U.S. is preparing to redeploy combat troops in Iraq?

So far, 80% have voted yes.

أنت ثائر إذاً أنت إرهابي!

د. فيصل القاسم

DECEMBER 19, 2014

كلنا يعرف أن الطواغيت العرب تاجروا بالإرهاب أكثر مما تاجرت به أمريكا. ما حدا أحسن من حدا. فقد لاحظنا على مدى السنوات الماضية أن تهمة الإرهاب راحت تحل شيئاً فشيئاً محل تهمة الخيانة والعمالة المفضلة لدى الديكتاتوريات العربية. 
كيف لا وأن كل من يدّعي مكافحة الإرهاب، حتى لو كان أحقر وأبشع ممارسي العنف في العالم، يحظى فوراً بتأييد دولي لسحق خصومه، لا بل يمكن أن يحصل على مساعدة دولية، طالما أنه يدّعي مواجهة الإرهابيين. وقد لاحظنا أخيراً كيف أن العالم نسي كل ما فعله طاغية الشام بسوريا، وراح ينّسق معه ضد الإرهاب، وكأن قصف الأطفال بالكيماوي وتهجير ملايين الناس وتدمير ثلاثة أرباع البلد عمل وطني مشروع وشريف، بينما ذبح صحافي عمل إرهابي خطير. هل هناك إرهاب حلال، وإرهاب حرام؟ ألا يستوي إرهاب الذبح مع إرهاب التدمير والتجويع والتهجير واستخدام الأسلحة المحرمة دولياً؟
من الواضح أن الإرهاب أصبح كلمة السر لدى أعداء الشعوب في الداخل والخارج لإجهاض أية مطالب شعبية والقضاء على أية ثورة. فكما كانوا في الماضي يطلقون صفة «إرهابي» على كل من كان يقاوم الاحتلال ويدافع عن وطنه، ها هم الآن يشهرون سيف الإرهاب في وجه الشعوب الثائرة لإعادتها إلى زريبة الطاعة. والقذر في الأمر أن الجنرالات العرب الإرهابيين يتلقون دعماً من ضباع العالم الكبار الذين يباركون إرهاب الدولة المنظم في وجه كل من يطالب بأبسط حقوقه. ولو نظرنا إلى التاريخ الحديث لوجدنا أن الطواغيت العرب وأسيادهم في الخارج بدأوا يستخدمون بعبع الإرهاب منذ عقود، وليس فقط الآن لإجهاض الثورات وإعادة الشعوب إلى حظيرة الاستبداد. ويتساءل عبد الفتاح ماضي في هذا السياق: «أليست هذه المرة الثالثة على الأقل، في العقود الأربعة الأخيرة، لإعلان الحرب على الإرهاب في أعقاب ظهور مطالب شعبية لإحداث تغيير حقيقي في نمط السلطة في حكومات المنطقة التي لا تعرف إلا الاستبداد والفساد وتكميم الأفواه؟ ألم تكن المرة الأولى بعد أن انتهى دور من عُرفوا بالمجاهدين في أفغانستان؟ ألم يكن هناك حراك سياسي مناد بالإصلاح السياسي في أكثر من دولة عربية رئيسية وقتها، لكن بعض الأنظمة استغلت عودة من عُرفوا بالمجاهدين العرب إلى بلادهم لبدء المعركة ضد الإرهاب، فانتهى الحديث عن الإصلاح؟» 
ثم لمّا عاد الحديث من جديد عن الإصلاح السياسي، في مطلع الألفية الجديدة، جاءت أحداث 11 ايلول/سبتمبر 2001 لتقوم الحكومات الغربية والعربية بشن حربها على الإرهاب….ثم الآن وبعد ثورات الربيع العربي، لاحظوا كيف راحوا يصورون الثورات والنضال من أجل الحرية والكرامة والعدالة الاجتماعية على أنه نوع من الإرهاب. ويتساءل البعض هنا: لماذا تدخل حكومات المنطقة في تحالف جديد للحرب على الإرهاب بدل تصالحها مع شعوبها وإجرائها عمليات إصلاح حقيقية تقوم على حكم القانون ودولة المؤسسات والمواطنة التامة والتداول السلمي على السلطة والفصل بين المال العام والمال الخاص؟ 
ألم يصبح شعار مكافحة الإرهاب الحل السحري لمشاكل الديكتاتوريات العربية؟ فكل طاغية يواجه ثورة شعبية يصرخ فوراً: إرهاب، إرهاب، مع العلم أنه يكون هو نفسه صانعاً للإرهاب. فمع انطلاق الثورة السورية مثلاً «استخدم النظام ورقته التي طالما أتقنها، وأفرج عن المعتقلين ذوي الخلفيات الجهادية من سجون صيدنايا وتدمر، واعتقل الأطباء والاعلاميين وأصحاب الرأي، وابتدع جماعات إرهابية خاصة، في محاولة لتصيد التناقضات العالمية ووأد ثورة الحرية، وتجديد عقده لاحتلال سوريا بوصفه متصدياً للإرهاب».
لقد حاول النظام السوري وحلفاؤه إظهار الثورة السورية منذ أيامها الأولى بأنها مجرد عمليات إرهابية. وقد لجأوا إلى كل الحيل والفبركات والأكاذيب كي يجعلوا الثورة تبدو بأن من قام بها إرهابيون. وبعد أربعة أعوام يبدو أن العالم قد صدّقهم، وراح يتعامل مع الحدث السوري على أنه مجرد إرهاب بعد أن نجح النظام وأعوانه في تحويل الأرض السورية إلى ساحة فوضى ودم ودمار.
ليس هناك شك أبداً في أن ضباع العالم الكبار يعرفون الحقيقة كاملة بأن بشار الأسد وغيره من جنرالات الإجرام هم سبب الإرهاب وصانعوه، لكن لا بأس في المتاجرة معهم بسلعة الإرهاب طالما أنها تجهض الثورات، وتقضي على أحلام الشعوب في التحرر من الطغيان، ليبقى الطواغيت في خدمة مشغليهم في موسكو وواشنطن وتل أبيب. القوى الكبرى ترصد دبيب النمل، وتعرف من خلال أقمارها الصناعية كل شاردة وواردة، وتعرف الحقيقة، لكنها تناصر ما يناسب مصالحها. لا يهمها الدم والدمار والفوضى، طالما أن الطغاة العرب يحققون لها مرادها في الهيمنة والنهب باسم مكافحة الإرهاب.
لقد راح ضباع العالم وأذنابهم في بلادنا منذ عقود يصورون كل من قال: «الله أكبر» على أنه إرهابي محتمل، فهل يصبح من الآن فصاعداً كل من ينادي بالحرية والكرامة ولقمة الخبز إرهابياً حتى لو كان اسمه «عبد الشيطان»؟
٭ كاتب واعلامي سوري
falkasim@gmail.com

د. فيصل القاسم

Egypt: Surge of Military Trials

Decree Used to Send Protesters to Flawed Courts

•  EMAIL

Curtailing the use of military courts to try civilians was one of the few tangible gains of the 2011 revolution, but that’s out the window now. Al-Sisi’s administration is methodically reversing the reforms achieved in 2011, while the United States and other governments resume arming the government as if none of it matters.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director

(New York) – Egyptian authorities have referred hundreds of civilians to military courts based on an October 2014 decree by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. At least 820 civilians have been referred to military prosecutors in the past six weeks based on the unprecedented extension of military court authority, according to news reports compiled by Human Rights Watch.

Civil prosecutors have used the October decree retroactively, referring cases of civilians already under investigation or facing trial in civilian courts to military jurisdiction. Some had been released on bail by civilian courts.

“Curtailing the use of military courts to try civilians was one of the few tangible gains of the 2011 revolution, but that’s out the window now,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director. “Al-Sisi’s administration is methodically reversing the reforms achieved in 2011, while the United States and other governments resume arming the government as if none of it matters.”

Egypt’s military courts operate under the authority of the Defense Ministry, not the civilian judicial authorities. The judges are serving military officers. Military court proceedings typically do not protect basic due process rights or satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality of courts of law. Children can fall under the jurisdiction of military courts, which Human Rights Watch opposes under any circumstances.

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Badie, and other top leaders of the group, including Mohamed el-Beltagy, Essam el-Erian, and Safwat Hegazy, were among 310 defendants whose cases were transferred by the general prosecutor in the city of Ismailia. They had been on trial for rioting and inciting violence leading to the torching of the Ismailia Courts Complex in August 2013. The Egyptian authorities labeled the opposition Brotherhood a terrorist group in December 2013.

On the same day, prosecutors referred another 40 alleged supporters of the Brotherhood, to the Ismailia military court. They face charges arising from their alleged role in protests, inciting violence, and blocking roads. Eight of nine women and girls among the defendants are secondary school or university students who have been free on bail for several months. They now face possible re-arrest. Human Rights Watch could not confirm the ages of all defendants, but military courts in Egypt, unlike civilian courts, do not differentiate in their treatment ofchildren and adults.

On December 13, 2014, Egypt’s prosecutor general referred 439 people for trial by a military court on charges linked to their alleged participation in deadly violence that broke out after the military’s removal of former president Mohamed Morsy in 2013. Of the 439, 139 had been facing trial before an ordinary criminal court in the Minya governorate, while the others were being tried by an ordinary court in Beheira governorate. On December 4, 2014, the chief prosecutor of Menoufia governorate referred 26 men, including six students, to military prosecutors. They face charges of rioting and belonging to a banned organization – the Muslim Brotherhood.

In November, a Cairo criminal court judge referred five al-Azhar University students for trial by a military court because, he said, President al-Sisi’s decree meant that his court “lacked jurisdiction” to try the students who were accused of torching the university's control room in January. Another 11 alleged Brotherhood supporters in the Kafr al-Sheikh governorate were referred to military court trials on charges that relate to events in August. Six of them were accused of disrupting railway tracks, and the other five were accused of planting a bomb in a court.

President al-Sisi issued the October decree, Law 136 of 2014, in the absence of an elected parliament. The decree places all “public and vital facilities” under military jurisdiction for the next two years. Article 2, which officials are using to give the law retroactive effect, requires state prosecutors to refer any crimes committed at those venues to their military counterparts.

The Egyptian Observatory for Rights and Freedoms, a local-based activist group, on December 16 made public photocopies of a November 11 decision allegedly by Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat requiring prosecutors throughout the country to “compile and send any cases related to aforementioned crimes, at any stage (of investigations), to military prosecutors whenever asked to do so.” Article 95 of the Egyptian Constitution stipulates that penalties may “only be imposed for acts committed after the effective date of the law imposing it.”

“Militarizing the trials of civilians, including children, is taking Egypt in the wrong direction, and doing so retroactively compounds the abuse,” Whitson said.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (to which Egypt is a state party), has said that military courts “should not, in any circumstances whatsoever, have jurisdiction over civilians.”

According to article 93 of the Egyptian Constitution, the international human rights agreements, covenants, and conventions to which Egypt is a state party have the force of law.

Ahmed Helmy, a lawyer who has represented defendants before military courts in multiple cases, told Human Rights Watch that he believes that the authorities are acting unconstitutionally by retroactively applying the decree.

“President al-Sisi should repeal his October decree before more damage is done if he has any concern for preserving Egypt’s reputation and the new constitution he has sworn to protect,” Whitson said. “He should also annul all verdicts against civilians that military courts have handed down since his government took power and order their retrial before civil judges.”

Should Bush and Cheney Be Tried for Torture? War Crimes Case Filed in Germany Against U.S. Officials

Democracy Now!

"A human rights group in Berlin, Germany, has filed a criminal complaint against the architects of the George W. Bush administration’s torture program. The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights has accused former Bush administration officials, including CIA Director George Tenet and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, of war crimes, and called for an immediate investigation by a German prosecutor. The move follows the release of a Senate report on CIA torture which includes the case of a German citizen, Khalid El-Masri, who was captured byCIA agents in 2004 due to mistaken identity and tortured at a secret prison in Afghanistan. So far, no one involved in the CIA torture program has been charged with a crime — except the whistleblower John Kiriakou, who exposed it. We speak to Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and chairman of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, and longtime defense attorney Martin Garbus...."

Why I want Obama to veto Abbas’ UN resolution on Palestine

A SUPERB PIECE!!
By Ali Abunimah

The UN Security Council may vote as soon as today on a resolution setting a twelve-month deadline to achieve a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal and calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip by the end of 2017.

The draft was formally put forward by Jordan at the behest of Mahmoud Abbas, the de facto leader of the Palestinian Authority bantustan.

The text of the resolution was published in the Israeli daily Haaretz and is reproduced in full below.

PA foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki said, as Haaretz reports, that the resolution is a “French-sponsored version.”

Here’s why I hope that one of the permanent members – almost certainly it will be the Obama administration – vetoes this terrible resolution.

I evaluate any steps related to Palestine through a simple and consistent lens: does this measure take us closer to the fulfillment of Palestinian rights, all Palestinian rights?

These rights are set out most succinctly in the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS): an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land during and since 1967; an end to Israel’s institutionalized racism against Palestinians in present-day Israel (the areas on which Israel was established in 1948); and the return of Palestinian refugees to their land and homes.

I believe in a positive vision of a Palestine whole and free, where all people live in a decolonized and reunified territory without discrimination based on religion or ethnicity and without sectarian territorial partition.

This is why I have consistently opposed steps to “recognize” the so-called “State of Palestine.”

Those “recognition” initiatives are an effort to undo the death of the “two-state solution” and rescue Israel as a racist Jewish state, as Joseph Massad explained in an essential article for The Electronic Intifada this week.

This resolution tries to do exactly the same thing, except in a more legally binding and therefore dangerous manner. It makes the claim that “a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-state solution.”

It insists that the entire question of Palestine be reduced to the question of the 1967 occupation and that merely ending this occupation would effectively end all Palestinian claims.

The resolution uses vague, deceptive and in some places outright dishonest language that would enshrine in international law the “liberal” Zionist two-state solution and deal a devastating blow to Palestinian rights, particularly the right of return for refugees.

The places it speaks about “rights” relate to the Palestinian “right to self-determination” – a vague formula which has come to mean in effect a bantustan state and no more.

It also states the “right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders” – meaning in effect that it recognizes Israel’s “right” to be a racist state.

As of this writing, there were reports the draft could still be amended in order to try to avoid a US veto. But of course any further amendments would make it worse than it already is.

The resolution is long, so I will not go through every point but I will raise a few key issues.

The right of return

The resolution does not speak about the “rights” of Palestinian refugees. Instead it speaks about the “the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative.”

(UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948 resolves that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date” and should receive compensation).

This draft speaks of a “just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative [sic], international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194.”

This convoluted language – which refers to the Arab League “peace initiative” of 2002 – is designed to reassure Israel that Palestinians would not insist on their right of return but would instead accept various relocation and resettlement plans designed to guarantee Israel its violently gerrymandered Jewish majority. (I explained how the Arab Peace Initiative undermines Palestinian rights, especially refugee rights, in a 2008 brief for the Palestine Center.)

Palestinian refugees are not the “problem.” Israel’s denial of their rights, solely on the racist basis that they are not Jewish, is the problem.

Endorsing settlements

The draft resolution declares among other things that “the negotiated solution will be based” on “borders based on 4 June 1967 borders with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent and swaps.”

The repeated insistence on the term “based on” here is very much like when we are told that an almost entirely fictional and fantastical Hollywood movie is “based on a true story.”

This is simply a formula to allow Israel to keep most, if not all, of the illegal colonies it has built in the occupied West Bank including Jerusalem – as the Abbas authority has previously proposed and endorsed.

In fact, under precisely the same formula, Abbas offered Israel that it could keep virtually all of the settlements, resulting in what PA negotiator Saeb Erekat called, using the Hebrew name for Jerusalem, “the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history.”

It is especially notable that the draft resolution calls for a “phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967” by the end of 2017.

But nowhere does it call for the dismantling of Israeli settlements or withdrawal of settlers. It only calls for the withdrawal of “security forces.” Instead it adopts a version of the US formula that settlements are merely an “obstacle” to “peace.”

True, the draft states that the “policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

But earlier resolutions, for example UN Security Council Resolution 465 of 1980, demand that Israel actually “dismantle the existing settlements and … cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning” of new ones. This draft mentions resolution 465 in passing in its preamble but does not repeat its explicit demand that settlements must be removed from occupied land.

This is because the resolution is, in effect, pro-settler and pro-settlement.

Replacing Israeli with American occupation?

Along the lines of previous failed “peace” initiatives, this draft resolution calls for Israeli occupation forces to be replaced by “a third-party presence.” In the past, Palestinian Authority figures have spoken of asking American or NATO armed forces to take the place of Israeli occupation forces to act as Israel’s proxy and protector.

In this way, Israel would be relieved of all the direct costs of occupation but would continue to enjoy its full benefits.

“State-building”

The draft resolution repeats the lie that over the last few years under the dictatorial leadership of Abbas there has been “important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts.” Many have debunked this lie, but I have done so in detail in my book The Battle for Justice in Palestine.

The only thing that Abbas has built is a terrifying “security” apparatus – a police (non)state that collaborates with the Israeli occupation to suppress Palestinians.

Such is the oppression and fear of this petty dictatorship that two-thirds of Palestiniansin the West Bank are now afraid of criticizing Abbas lest they be harassed or worse by his Israeli-backed and American- and EU-financed militias and intelligence.

The vision this Abbas-backed resolution puts forward is the same old prison for Palestinians masquerading as “self-determination” and “statehood” that Palestinians have resisted and rejected for decades.

The fact that Israel opposes the resolution should not fool anyone. This is because, as Massad explained, the current Israeli government prefers forcible annexation of all the land to the step-by-step “liberal” Zionist approach that this resolution embodies.

But in the end the result is the same: Israel gets the settlements and the land and gets to remain a racist state while Palestinians surrender their rights.

We are now in the bizarre position where the most likely course to save Palestinians from this disaster is an American veto.

Full text: Draft UN Resolution

This is the draft of the UN resolution as published by Haaretz:

Draft Resolution (17 December 2014)

Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,

Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,

Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012 and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,

Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties,

Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),

Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,

Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;
2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

• borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps 
• security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.
• A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);
• Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;
• an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;

1. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;
2. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;
3. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;
4. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;
5. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;
6. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;
7. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;
8. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;
9. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;
10. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;
11. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

ISIS Retakes Iraqi City of Baiji, Troops Flee to Oil Refinery

Officials: Refinery Given Priority Over City

by Jason Ditz, December 18, 2014

Print This | Share This

Iraq made a big deal of retaking the city of Baiji a little over a month ago, but lost the city back to ISIS without putting up much resistance, as they ordered troops to flee the city and reinforce at the nearby Baiji Refinery.

An Iraqi Army major quoted by Reuters said the military had decided to give the refinery priority over the city, believing that a fight for the city would allow ISIS to drag them into another war of attrition.

ISIS had been pushing into Baiji for awhile, and had the troops pinned down in the courthouse in the center of the city. It is likely that ISIS will push into the refinery area again soon.

Baiji Refinery is the largest oil refinery in Iraq, but has been shut down more or less since summer, with ISIS and the military both holding portions of it most of the time.

Iraqi officials had presented the retaking of Baiji as proof that they had shifted momentum against ISIS. The loss of the city suggests that the momentum shift was nowhere near as significant as advertised.

US Feels the Heat on Palestine Vote at UN

By Jonathan Cook – Nazareth

The floodgates have begun to open across Europe on recognition of Palestinian statehood. On Friday the Portuguese parliament became the latest European legislature to call on its government to back statehood, joining Sweden, Britain, Ireland, France and Spain.

In coming days similar moves are expected in Denmark and from the European Parliament. The Swiss government will join the fray too this week, inviting states that have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention to an extraordinary meeting to discuss human rights violations in the occupied territories. Israel has threatened retaliation.

But while Europe is tentatively finding a voice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, silence reigns across the Atlantic. The White House appears paralysed, afraid to appear out of sync with world opinion but more afraid still of upsetting Israel and its powerful allies in the US Congress.

Now there is an additional complicating factor. The Israeli public, due to elect a new Israeli government in three months’ time, increasingly regards the US role as toxic. A poll this month found that 52 per cent viewed President Barack Obama’s diplomatic policy as “bad”, and 37 per cent thought he had a negative attitude towards their country – more than double the figure two years ago.

US Secretary of State John Kerry alluded to the White House’s difficulties this month when he addressed the Saban Forum, an annual gathering of US policy elites to discuss the Middle East. He promised that Washington would not interfere in Israel’s elections.

According to the Israeli media, he was responding to pressure from Tzipi Livni, sacked this month from Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, triggering the forthcoming election, and opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog, of the centre-left Labor party.

The pair recently made a pact in an effort to oust Netanyahu. Their electoral success – improbable at the moment – offers the White House its best hope of an Israeli government that will at least pay lip service to a renewal of peace negotiations, which collapsed last April. They have warned, however, that any sign of backing from the Obama administration would be the kiss of death at the polls.

US officials would like to see Netanyahu gone, not least because he has been the biggest obstacle to reviving a peace process that for two decades successfully allayed international pressure to create a Palestinian state. But any visible strategy against Netanyahu is almost certain to backfire.

Washington’s difficulties are only underscored by the Palestinians’ threat to bring a draft resolution before the UN Security Council as soon as this week, demanding Israel’s withdrawal by late 2016 to the 1967 lines.

Given the current climate, the Palestinians are hopeful of winning the backing of European states, especially the three key ones in the Security Council – Britain, France and Germany – and thereby isolating the US. Arab foreign ministers met Kerry on Tuesday in an effort to persuade Washington not to exercise its veto.

The US, meanwhile, is desperately trying to postpone a vote, fearful that casting its veto might further discredit it in the eyes of the world while also suggesting to Israeli voters that Netanyahu has the White House in his pocket.

But indulging the Israeli right also has risks, bolstering it by default. That danger was driven home during another session of the Saban Forum, addressed by settler leader Naftali Bennett. He is currently riding high in the polls and will likely be the backbone of the next coalition government.

Bennett says clearly what Netanyahu only implies: that most of the West Bank should be annexed, with the Palestinians given demilitarised islands of territory that lack sovereignty. The model, called “autonomy”, is of the Palestinians ruling over a series of local councils.

The Washington audience was further shocked by Bennett’s disrespectful treatment of his interviewer, Martin Indyk, who served as Obama’s representative at the last round of peace talks. He accused Indyk of not living in the real world, dismissively calling him part of the “peace industry”.

Bennett’s goal, according to analysts, was to prove to Israeli voters that he is not afraid to stand up to the Americans.

Given its weakening hand – faced with an ever-more rightwing Israeli public and a more assertive European one – Washington is looking towards an unlikely saviour. The hawkish foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman used to be its bete noire, but he has been carefully recalibrating his image.

Unlike other candidates, he has been aggressively promoting a “peace plan”. The US has barely bothered examining its contents, which are only a little more generous than Bennett’s annexation option, and involve forcibly stripping hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Israel of their citizenship.

Lieberman, however, has usefully created the impression that he is a willing partner to a peace process. At the weekend he even suggested he might join a centre coalition with Livni and Herzog.

Lieberman is cleverly trying to occupy a middle ground with Israeli voters, demonstrating that he can placate the Americans, while offering a plan so unfair to the Palestinians that there is no danger voters will consider him part of the “peace industry”.

That may fit the electoral mood: a recent poll showed 63 per cent of Israelis favour peace negotiations, but 70 per cent think they are doomed to fail. The Israeli public, like Lieberman, understands that the Palestinians will never agree to the kind of subjugation they are being offered.

The Israeli election’s one certain outcome is that, whoever wins, the next coalition will, actively or passively, allow more of the same: a slow, creeping annexation of what is left of a possible Palestinian state, as the US and Europe bicker.

- Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit: www.jonathan-cook.net. (A version of this article first appeared in The National, Abu Dhabi.)