Professor Ruth Lapidot, a former legal adviser to Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is one of — if not the – preeminent Israeli expert on international law [also known as public international law]. Her views are taken extremely seriously in official Israeli circles.

She recently [on 16 June] discussed Israel’s announced naval blockade of Gaza’s maritime space in a meeting with diplomats and journalists at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs [run by Israel's former Ambassador Dore Gold.

Some of the more interesting things she said are: Israel has declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza's coastline, in January 2009 [as we have reported here]. The area which is blockaded has to be clearly defined, and there has to be clear notification. The blockade must be applied without discrimination (though limited specific exceptions can be permitted).  Humanitarian assistance must be permitted — but not goods which may increase the war capacity of, in this case, Hamas.  If there is a suspicion that a ship is carrying arms or personnel to , in this case, Hamas, Israel may capture, visit, or search a ship that enters the blockaded zone, and can try to persuade them to leave. But, if a ship tries to run the blockade, there is a clear difference between how it is possible to treat a merchant ship (military force can be used) or a warship (only protests are allowed).

Those who oppose this blockade only say that it’s against international law, without saying why, Professor Lapidot said.

UPDATE: In a just-published interview, Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza movement said that “Israel has no right to stop us under international law UNLESS it wants to admit that it occupies Gaza. Since Israel says it no longer occupies Gaza and Gaza is free, they have no right to stop us. In addition, the blockade is collective punishment against a civilian population that is WAY out of line. International law, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross have all said the same thing. Israel’s blockade is illegal”… This is published here.

Professor Lapidot explained at the JCPA discussion that she believed Gaza is a sui generis entity, a special case. Because Gaza was never annexed by Israel, and because Israel does not control the entire territory of Gaza, she argued, it is not occupied. However, since Israel controls the air and sea space [criteria that many if not most other international law experts say are confirmation of an occupation], it has a special responsibility in case of accidents. She noted that the former Israeli Supreme Court head Justice Barak ruled that Israel also has a moral responsibility because it did previously occupy Gaza for so long.

The entire discussion was videotaped, and it is archived on the JCPA website, where it can be viewed  on the website of the JCPA  here. [Go to Institute for Contemporary Affairs, then on either sidebar click on video archive, then select this event]. Here are some excerpts:

Legal aspects of the problem of the blockade of Gaza:

“The situation between Israel + the Hamas is a situation of armed conflict – this is important because this means that the laws of war apply — which means you may control ships going to Gaza, even on the high seas — you may not do it in the territorial sea of third country… not in Cyprus, but on the high seas in time of conflict.

A blockade means that one state prohibits event the entry and exit of both neutral and enemy ships and airplanes to an area which must be defined.  You have to define very clearly what is this area – where are the borders of this area.

There are some other similar institutions in PIL [Public International Law] – there are also exclusion zones and security zones or war zones or neutral zones — on the sea, in laws of war, during time of conflict.
t
But, it was a blockade that was imposed by Israel on the shores of Gaza

What are the sources of the law on blockades?
Until this very day the rules are still customary international law (no international treaty deals with this problem)
A list of documents that mention blockades:
(1) 1856 Declaration of Paris on the Crimean war – but it has only a very short mention;
(2) 1909 London declaration on naval warfare — much more important, and detailed; there was an intention to codify this, but unfortunately the states that participated did not ratify it: so, this has remained a declaration and is not treaty.
Manuals: San Remo (prepared by an international group of expert), and those of the militaries of the UK, US, and Germany — all these manuals say this is binding customary law.

Concerning war on sea, the world still applies the general principles of laws of war (eg: there is a prohibition of starvation of civilians)

Conditions for legality or validity of a blockade
1.) Notification – it has to be declared and notified as clearly as possible to all those who might be affected (nowadays communications much easier)
2.) Effectiveness – a “paper blockade” is not valid: you have to apply and enforce, otherwise it will not be valid; this is a question of fact, there are no clear legal rules.
3.) You must ensure that you do not cut off access to the high seas of the territorial sea of a third state
4.) Equality – it has to be based on equality, applied to everybody in the same way, not just to some states — including Prime Ministers who might be on any of the ships.
5.)  You must permit the passage of humanitarian assistance. (The San Remo manual of 1994 says that you must permit humanitarian assistance, but state applying must decide where, when, and through which port the humanitarian assistance goes. There is the possibility to require that a neutral organization must control to whom the humanitarian assistance goes — eg ICRC, to see if the humanitarian assistant goes to civilians – or, in the case of Gaza, to Hamas)
6.) You may not starve the civilian population.

What can and may be done to ships trying to run the blockade?
A distinction is made between merchant ships (you have the right to capture, visit, search, and if they resist, you may even attack the ship) and warships (you may try to capture, and try to search but not attack a warship unless it is situation of self-defense)

When can you apply and in what kind of waters?  As soon as it is clear a certain ship intends to break the blockade, you can start to deal with it, even if it is on the high seas.

Precedents (modern – after World War Two):
(1) Korean war 1950-53
(2) Bangladesh – 1973, applied by India
(3) Iran-Iraq war – blockade on Shatt al-Arab
(4) There was also a blockade in the 2006 war between Israel and “the terrorists” in Lebanon (nevertheless Israel did give a safe passage between Lebanon and Cyprus for humanitarian assistance.)
[During the 2008 war between Russian and Georgia, there was some discussion - but it was not a real blockade, only a search of ships on the high seas, to look for contraband.]

Excerpts from the Question and Answer segment of the discussion at JCPA:

Q: States are reluctant, prefer to use softer term such as quarantine.  Iran-Iraq war – UNSC resolution prohibits arms therefore blockade and that naval presence in Indian ocean and Red Sea is still there but now to seek out members of al-Qaeda, or carrying weapons

A: Also 1962 quarantine of Cuba – it did not meet all qualifications of blockade

Q: Must a blockade be announced?

A: It has to be announced loudly and clearly to everybody who is involved. Even more, when a ship is trying to get though, you must make sure this specific ship has to have actual knowledge, or presumptive knowledge, of the blockade

Q:  Is Israel in full compliance?

A: Absolutely — I thought it was clear without even mentioning it — all these conditions [are met].  In January 2009, Israel made the notification to the whole world, and therefore we can say that this is a real blockade..

Q: Since the legality of this blockade rests on state of war between Israel and Hamas, doesn’t it mean requiring a full declaration of war?

A: In the past, yes, but nowadays there are wars that break out without declaration. There is no need for a declaration in order for there to be a state of war.  There was a judgment by [Israeli Supreme Court] President Aharon Barak five years ago [after Israel's "unilateral" disengagement] where he explained that the situation [between Israel and Gaza] is so bad that it is a situation of armed conflict.

Q: If it’s so clear, can you explain why do other international experts disagree”

A: This question is very interesting, because they never say why.  They only say that it’s illegal under international law, full stop. They do not say why…

Q: But the boarding was in international water?

A: In time of armed conflict you can search ships even on the high seas…

Q:  Even Israeli newspapers write this: seizing ships in international waters is a violation of international law. Other opinion writers say the laws of war do not apply to Gaza, because it is not a state.

A:  Can Gaza be considered an enemy even though it is not a state? You have things called international conflict.  Also, the laws of war apply to internal conflicts (Common Article 3 of all Geneva Convention gives the minimum that applies). With regard to the status of Gaza is the $64 million dollar question – it was under Ottoman sovereignty 1570-1917, then under Britain till 1948 (Who was sovereign? The most common position is that it was both Britain and the League of Nations0. Then Egypt never annexed, gave Gaza autonomy, but under occupation.   In [1956 and in] 1967, Gaza was occupied by Israel, but not annexed.  I would say it is an area sui generus, which means a special situation — this is the best description, because nobody knows exactly what it is, though others say it is self-governing.

Q: According to UNSC resolution 1860, Gaza is part of Palestinian territory, and that is why is is occupied, not because of “effective control”/

A:  part of other side, under occupation, under its control?  Yes, Gaza is part of Palestinian territory but so far there does not yet exist a Palestinian state, yet. It is a special area which hopefully one day will be part of a Palestinian state.

Q: Part of the notion of assigning a legal status is exactly what negotiations have been about…

A  In both 1993 and 1995 it was agreed that there would be negotiations, but so far negotiations have failed. The Road Map of 2003 specifically says Palestinian state should be established by agreement with Israel.

Q: Can you please explain again the difference in treatment accorded to a merchant ship + a war ship [attempting to break a blockade]

A:  When you see a ship is trying to go to Gaza you can stop it to see what’s going on and to persuade – but if a merchant ship continues you can attack it. If it is a warship, you can only protest…

Q: Whole notion of naval blockade is linked to this notion of sending humanitarian goods to the Gaza Strip “under seige”. What is Israel’s responsibility to this sui generus entity that has two entrances and exits – one via Israel and one via Egypt.

A: Absolutely right there are two ways  There is also the 2005 agreement to send goods through Egypt – so the idea was both Israeli and Rafah crossings should be open to the Palestinians.  There is a very interesting Supreme Court judgment on electricity [n.b. - this was handed down on 28 January 2008 in a case brought by GISHA] – that since the 2005 evacuation, Israel has no responsibility to supply, because in particular there is also Egypt — but because has been in control of Gaza for so many years, Israel has a moral responsibility to help the people of Gaza get what they need for their daily lives.

Q: Is the EU participating in the siege [on the land crossings into Gaza]?

A:  There is no siege now, because Gaza is getting a lot of goods from Israel. Now, even cement goes in (but via the port of Ashdod and with control by independent group to ensure aid goes to civilians, not Hamas). Let me remind you that even during the war of 2008, the border open every day for 1.5 hours…We shouldn’t forget the good things Israel has done.

Q: If Israel had allowed any of the ships in the Flotilla to go it, what would have happened to blockade?

A: The state that applies the blockade can make exceptions. But if all ships are allowed in, then there is no blockade.  But if the state imposing blockade gives certain ships special selected permission — or if ship is in distress — it is ok.  But it should not be the rule, exceptions should not be permanent … Israel may control any ships if there is a suspicion they carry goods which may increase the war capacity of Hamas — the suspicion they are carrying arms or personnel to help Hamas. I think other materials may not justify intervention against the ships. Not all goods justify this search — there must be a real suspicion.  And not all ships on high seas, without any reason…
…
Q: If Gaza is a sui generis territory, what does it mean if it is occupied?

A:  … Gaza’s status is, again, undecided. Some say if Israeli still in control of air space or sea, or territory, then it is occupying. Other opinions say that according to the Hague 1907 regulations – an occupier is only occupier if it controls the whole territory. And Israel does not control the whole territory of Gaza. In my opinion, Israel is not in control of Gaza, therefore we are the occupier, but in the areas it controls [air and sea of Gaza] there Israel is responsible (if there is an accident, eg) … In my opinion, the distinction is between full control of territory, or only part of it.
…
Justice Barak said there is an international conflict and not an internal conflict with Gaza, because it is not part of Israel.  Gaza has never been annexed by Israel, neither has the West Bank …
…
Q:  So, customary international law says that after a search of merchant boat, or there is attempt to capture it –  and it continues — at what point can it be attacked and sunk if it carries civilians or civilian goods?

A.  The idea is to get control of the ship and not to drown it…”

***********************

This entire discussion can be viewed on the JCPA website here. [Go to Institute for Contemporary Affairs, then on either sidebar click on video archive, then select this event.]

It had to be coaxed, and it was in response to a journalist’s question, but there it is.

Here is the full transcript of the brief exchange:

QUESTION: This was June 17th … it also happens to be the same city where a young boy was tortured to death by the Egyptian police. I’m just wondering if the State Department is joining the EU on calling on the Egyptian Government to investigate it and hold those accountable for torturing this boy to death … The boy’s name was Khaled Said. He was a 27-year-old Egyptian blogger and he was tortured to death.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Right. We have called for – and I believe there is an ongoing investigation in that case, so we support that investigation.

QUESTION: Any concerns that Egypt is boiling – could implode as far as the political upheaval that’s taking place there right now calling for constitutional and democratic reform. Are you worried that that might have something – it might make the peace process problematic given the Egyptians are the intermediaries between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

MR. TONER: We always encourage and urge for calm and an adherence to the democratic process.

QUESTION: Do you pressure the Egyptians?

MR. TONER: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Because it doesn’t – it looks like that’s been happening for years, but there’s been no pressure.

MR. TONER: I’m not aware of any contacts we’ve had in that regard”…

“Bulent Yildirim, President of IHH, said ‘If they harass the flotilla, what is left to separate the state of Israel from the pirates of Somalia?’ noting that the convoy will not even draw close by Israel’s territorial waters, in his response to the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s threats of attacking the ships, should they sail near the Gaza territory.

IHH administration said ‘We will not even pass close by the Israeli waters. If they attack us regardless, what is the difference between them and the pirates of Somalia?’, in their response to the threats by Israeli Foreign Ministry regarding the humanitarian aid ships to Palestine, saying ‘We will strike on the ships if they sail near Gaza’.

Bulent Yildirim, President of IHH (The Foundation For Human Rights And Freedoms And Humanitarian Relief) , said ‘Let them come and attack us, we have no preparation to strike back. Whether they fire down on us, bomb us with airplanes, we will not let them onto our ships. They can attack, yes, but they will not be let onboard. We are not carrying weapons to Palestine, we are carrying humanitarian aid only’.

Yildirim went on to say ‘As a requirement of international laws, 12 miles off the shores belong to the territorial waters of countries. It applies to Israel as well. Our flotilla will be sailing 80 miles off of Israeli coast. We will never enter Israeli waters. We will take a 90 degrees turn just before entering the Egyptian territorial waters. Therefore, Israel have no right to claim ‘They have entered our territorial waters.’ They have no authority there. If they decide to attack us regardless of this fact, then, there is no difference left between Israel and the pirates of Somalia’.”

This statement is posted here.

There is no mention whatsoever on the IHH website — or in any of the organization’s statements that I have been able to locate so far — of the formal declared Israeli Naval blockade [which was announced on 3 January 2009, as the Israeli Army lauched the ground phase of Operation Cast Lead], though this should have factored into the Freedom Flotilla’s strategic planning, and though in fairness and full disclosure all passengers who joined the trip should have been made aware of the implications.

It is, however, also true, as we have reported here many times, that Israel did not go out of its way to clarify its naval blockade of Gaza [until after the Israeli naval assault on the Freedom Flotilla that resulted in 9 deaths on board the Mavi Marmara, the largest passenger ship in the convoy].

Spokespersons for the IDF and for the Israeli Ministry of Defense did not answer my several inquiries about this formal naval blockade during the month of May — including my request for confirmation of whether the naval blockade was still in effect, or not…

I was only able to locate the formal publication of the declared Israeli naval blockade from a tip left by an informed but anonymous commentor on this blog. As we have reported earlier here, the required formal notice is published only on the website of the Israeli Ministry of Transport [which is, of course and obviously] controlled by Israel. It is dated 3 January 2009, but the posting date listed is 6 January 2009 [three days after it went into effect]. This formal notice was not cross-posted on the UK Hydrologic (UKHO) Office website — a standard reference — or for that matter anywhere else that I have been able to find.

This IHH statement, published on their website on 7 May, does note, however, that “Yavuz Dede, Vice President of the Foundation, noted that they sense a state of panic within Israel, [and] added ‘Despite the standard limit of 12 miles, they are now trying to impose their own limit of 40 miles. We are not combat-ships. We are not carrying weapons. We now have 8 ships. In coming days we will purchase another cargo ship. A donor who wished to remain anonymous has donated another ship. The flotilla will consist of 9 ships in total. We will be sailing off from near Cyprus in the end of May. We will be delivering 6,000 tons of cement, 2,000 tons of iron, medicines and medical equipment to Gaza no matter what’.”

This reference, to a “standard limit of 12 miles”, is only to Israel’s territorial claim of 12 miles off its own coast. This is published on the UKHO Office website — a standard reference. We have reported this earlier here.

We have also pointed out that the Israeli claim of a 12-mile territorial sea has been amended, according to the UKHO, by a footnote saying that this has been amended to “3 miles off the coast of Gaza” — an interesting and significant development, which has not yet been either refuted or explained.

[It does have one clear implication, however: that for the first time since its of trumpeted unilateral "disengagement" in 2005, Israel is now admitting that it is, indeed, occupying the Gaza Strip. However, this status would, however, undermine the legal argumentation of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the naval blockade is justified because there are "hostilities at sea". However, this striking wording may indicate that the Israeli MFA may well mean there are "hostilities at sea" not with Gaza, but perhaps with others ... and perhaps even including Iran].

The IHH official’s mention that “they [Israel] are now trying to impose their own limit of 40 miles” is unclear, though it was reported elsewhere at the end of May, just after the Freedom Flotilla was finally getting ready to sail to Gaza on 29 or 30 May.

It is not clear how far Israel is actually claiming, now, or on what basis — and indeed, no new Israeli claims are yet posted, either on the website of the Israeli Ministry of Transport, or on the website of the UKHO. I have seen undocumented mention, in the Israeli media, of new expanded Israeli claims of 60 miles, and even 80 miles.

The Mavi Marmara was intercepted by the Israeli Navy at sea at a point 73 miles straight off the coast of Netanya, according to a graphic in a new document posted today on Ali Abunimah’s website, here.

Israel could, but it has not yet, claimed 100 miles of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the Law of the Sea Convention, which Israel signed — as an observer, just like the P.L.O. — but which Israel has not yet ratified (though it was reportedly tempted to do so, and was reportedly considering, in recent years).

Gaza’s maritime space, however, is defined by the Oslo Accords, as a 20-mile zone for “fishing” and “economic activities”, and published in a map appended to the Oslo Accords in 1994 that was signed by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat [with a hand-written notation that there is a separate letter on the matter, that nobody has yet produced] and the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The map is witnessed by the then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and the then-Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, and also by an Egyptian official.

The Israeli naval blockade covers the area defined as Gaza’s maritime space.

One woman demonstrating told CNN that: “They want to tame us and they want to get us used to torture, even in the streets, and shutting up.”

Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA in Vienna, now retired and returned home where he appears to be charting a new role in domestic politics, participated in the Alexandria demonstration.

The photo of ElBaradei below, taken during Friday’s protest, is from the My Name is Khaled Said page [it is in Arabic, Ana Ismi Khaled Said -- it seems I can't reproduce the Arabic script here] on Facebook.

The same site also shows the terrible closeup of Khaled Said’s bloodied face taken shortly after he was evidently beaten to death: in the close-up post-mortem photo, only a frontal view of his head can be seen, with blood running out from the side or back of the skull; his jaw and some of his teeth are broken, and a trianglular flap of his lower face is missing, from the lower lip down to the jaw line.

ElBaradei is head of a new Egyptian group or movement, formed at the end of February, called “National Association for Change” [it is not a political party but says it is working for political reform], and has said he may run for President of his countryif the elections are truly free and independent. Ayman Nur [Nour], a former journalist turned politician — and, as the U.S. State Department once noted “runner-up in Egypt’s 2005 presidential elections”, who has said he intends to run again in the 2011 elections — also reportedly participated in the demonstration.

After the demonstration on Friday, ElBaradei told journalists that the death of Khaled Said is a “heinous crime”, and said that “It’s a clear-cut message to the regime that the Egyptian people are sick and tired of practices that are inhumane … If they don’t get the message, then there is a problem with the regime; the writing is on the wall”.

Soha Abdelaty’s article published yesterday on the Middle East Channel of Foreign Policy Magazine, Egypt’s Emergency Law strikes again, is posted here. She is the deputy director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights ["an independent Egyptian human rights organization that was established in 2002 to promote and defend the personal rights and freedoms of individuals ... established to complement the work of Egyptian human rights groups by adopting as its mandate, and focus of concern, a group of rights and freedoms that are closest to the human-being: his/her body, privacy and house"], and the organization’s English-language website can be consulted here.

Her account begins: “On June 6, a pair of police officers entered an Alexandria Internet cafe and began asking for the identification documents of everyone present. When 28-year-old Khaled Said objected to being searched without a warrant, the officers began to attack him, beating his head against a table and kicking him in the chest. They tied his hands behind his back and dragged him to a nearby building where they continued to smash his head, first against an iron door and then against the building’s marble steps. Witnesses heard Khaled begging them to stop, screaming ‘I’m going to die’, to which the officers responded: ‘You’re going to die anyway’. The officers dragged Said into their police car and drove him away, only to return several minutes later to leave his lifeless corpse in the street. The Ministry of Interior immediately attempted to blame the gruesome incident on ‘drugs’: The young man had died when he choked on a joint he was trying to hide as he was approached by the police. Any injuries sustained — his fractured skull, dislocated jaw, mangled face — were the result of his resisting arrest, they claimed … The Khaled Said case has offered a graphic demonstration of the emptiness of the pledge by the government of Egypt when it renewed the country’s decades-long period of emergency law that it would limit its application to terrorism and drug-related crimes. Khaled Said’s brutal murder is a chilling reminder of what emergency law — and Interior Ministry impunity — means for Egyptians. Frustration with that impunity is what leads protesters to take to the streets. In many ways, the case of Khaled Said is tragically symbolic of everything that is wrong with the state of emergency under which Egyptians have been living for almost three decades. In such an arbitrary and opaque system, torture and ill-treatment are a natural byproduct. And in fact, torture in police custody has been systematic and well documented since the 1990s. Khaled Said’s case is unusual only because his murder was witnessed by so many, captured on film, and distributed to thousands via Facebook”…

A photo of Khaled Said in life is also posted on Facebook:

UPDATE: There are some suggestions that the Rachel Corrie may have already been interfered with…

UPDATE TWO: The Israel Project (TIP) has just sent around a message on Thursday morning subtitled: “Vessel Exploiting Woman Killed While Working for Extremist Movement”. The TIP email says [in part, incorrectly]: “Like the ships in the flotilla, the vessel is sponsored by the Free Gaza Movement [most of the other ships in the flotilla were owned or leased and controlled by other groups on the Freedom Flotilla], and those aboard have said their mission is try to break Israel’s naval blockade [the first Free Gaza expedition was launched in August 2008, months before the naval blockade -- but years after what many have called Israel's "blockade" of Gaza's land crossings]. Two members of the Free Gaza Movement are a husband-and-wife team who helped coordinate the first flotilla, which included the Mavi Marmara, a ship filled with hundreds of Turks backed by a group with global jihadi ties”. Once the accusation of “global jihadi ties” is hurled, you know where this is heading… Further down, the TIP email states — in contradiction to its statement above that “like the ships in the flotilla, the vessel is sponsored by the Free Gaza Movement” — that “The Turkish ship was backed by the Insani Yardim Vakfi – “humanitarian relief fund”), or IHH, an Islamist Turkish group”. And, here is the rest of the TIP’s guilt-by-association email chain of accusations against the MV Rachel Corrie: “Huwaida Arraf – who was aboard the illegal flotilla from Turkey [n.b. Huwaida Arraf, an Israeli dual national, has been on board most of the Free Gaza expeditions, and is always one of the first back, or first relased...] – and her husband Adam Shapiro are members of the Free Gaza Movement and also co-founded the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM has aligned itself with extremists and has publicly acknowledged collaboration with terrorist groups. The Irish branch of the Free Gaza Movement owns the MV Rachel Corrie, a cargo ship that was originally part of flotilla but was held up for logistical reasons and so was not seized in the May 31 raid … Israeli officials have expressed concern that Islamist groups that endanger Israeli national security now have considerable influence within the Free Gaza movement, the group that organized the flotilla … Arraf and Shapiro have publicly stated that Palestinians should use violence when necessary: ‘We accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon who force and violence is being used’ [no, , sorry, this is not exactly the same as saying that Palestinians should use violence]the couple wrote in 2002 in The Palestine Chronicle. ‘The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied’. An ISM spokesman in 2003 admitted to hosting a group of 15 people at his apartment including ISM participants Asif Mohammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, British nationals who five days later carried out a suicide bombing in a popular pub next to the U.S. Embassy, killing three people and injuring 60 others. Hanif and Sharif entered Israel under the guise of ‘peace activists’. [n.b., this is the crux of the official Israeli position of hostility towards the ISM, though it takes a leap to assume that the ISM spokesperson in 2003 knew that among the 15 people who were hosted there were two potential terrorists] … Caoimhe Buttlery, an Irish citizen and coordinator of the Free Gaza movement, is also a mtheember of the ISM.”… Of course, it is very hard to have a rational discussion of policy options in this kind of atmosphere.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.) Take advantage of Egypt’s decision to open Rafah crossing — or even of the somewhat (slightly) chagrined Israeli response to the tragic outcome of its naval interdiction of six ships in the Freedom Flotilla. Find an expeditious way to get your cargo, including much badly-needed cement for reconstruction in post-Operation-Cast-Lead Gaza.

UPDATE: Maybe it’s better to try Egypt. See below…

2.) Do not get into a fight. Your ambition to “break the blockade” should mean by getting your cargo to its destination — and now is the time you just might be able to do it.

3.) It is unrealistic to think that you can now challenge or somehow outrun the Israeli naval blockade… and this would be a military strategy, not the humanitarian one you support.

4.) The world does not want to see you weaken your case.

UPDATE (continued): The Jerusalem Post has reported today that “Twenty-four hours after the last ship of the Gaza aid flotilla entered the Ashdod Port under the watchful eye of the Israeli Navy, all of the equipment on board was examined Tuesday and the majority of it was loaded onto trucks headed to the Kerem Shalom border crossing. In a statement to reporters at the port on Tuesday, Colonel Moshe Levi, commander of the IDF’s Gaza Strip Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA – this is part of COGAT), said that none of the equipment found on board the three cargo ships was in shortage in Gaza … According to Levi, the soldiers also found construction equipment, including sacks of concrete and metal rods. He said that Israel did not allow those products to enter into the Gaza strip for fear that they would be used to construct fortifications for terrorists and for weapons manufacture”. This JPost story can be read in full here.

UPDATE TWO: The Irish Times reported Tuesday that “The Rachel Corrie, which has five Irish nationals and five Malaysians aboard, is due to arrive in Gazan waters over the coming days, a spokeswoman for the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign said. It became separated from the main aid flotilla after being delayed for 48 hours in Malta due to logistical reasons, and is currently off the coast of Libya. [Irish Foreign Minister] Michael Martin, who called Israeli Ambassador Dr Zion Evrony to a meeting yesterday, said the boat should be allowed through peacefully. Mr Martin said Israel was also obliged to respect its international obligations under the Vienna Convention and ensure Irish citizens have access to full consular support. He also expressed his condolences to the Turkish government and the families of the people killed when Israeli commandos raided the Turkish registered Mavi Marmara aid ship in international waters as it travelled from Cyprus, killing nine people. Five Irish campaigners – including leading activists Dr Fintan Lane and Fiachra Ó Luain – are being held in the Be’er Sheva detention camp, from where they face deportation. Dr Lane and Mr Ó Luain were on board Free Gaza boat Challenger 1 which was boarded by Israeli forces. Two Irish people, including activist Shane Dillon, have been deported and are expected at Dublin airport late tonight. The Irish ambassador in Tel Aviv was given permission to meet Mr Dillon at Ben Gurion Airport before his departure. It is understood Mr Dillon said he was treated well. Officials have been waiting to see the other detained Irish citizens during the day. Nobel laureate Maireád Corrigan-Maguire, former UN assistant secretary general Denis Halliday, film maker Fiona Thompson and husband and wife Derek and Jenny Graham are the Irish nationals on board the Rachel Corrie. Speaking from the ship today, Mr Graham said the vessel was carrying educational materials, construction materials, medical equipment and some toys. ‘Everything aboard has been inspected in Ireland’, he said. ‘We would hope to have safe passage through’.”   This Irish Times report is posted here.

UPDATE THREE (on Thursday):  Maan News Agency is reporting today that “Speaking from the boat, Irishman Derek Graham told PSC that ‘if this aid is not delivered, then Monday’s deaths will have been in vain’.”    Yes.  

Read it <a href=”http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=289291″>here</a>.

Egypt, with significant American material and technical assistance, has been building a steel wall that extends many meters underground, to prevent smuggling from the non-stop tunnels that extend the length of the Egyptian-Gazan border.

The Rafah crossing actually functioned only briefly. Israel unilaterally “disengaged” from Gaza in September 2005. Condoleezza Rice negotiated overnight on her birthday, 15 November 2005, to get Israel’s agreement on the modalities of getting goods and people into and out of the Gaza Strip.

The deal involved (1) real-time but remote control Israeli surveillance via video hookup from Kerem Shalom of (2) European Union monitors (based in the Israeli beachy-front city of Ashkelon) supervising (3) Palestinian Authority personnel processing all persons entering and exiting the Gaza Strip via Rafah.

Then, in January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in Palestinian Legislative Council elections — and the rest is actually not history, but still on-going.

Fatah was furious, and refused to join in a coalition government. The subsequent Hamas-led government was boycotted by Israel and the Quartet and the entire donor community. Palestinian Authority personnel, including security forces, could not be paid their salaries for over a year. Then, a short-lived Saudi-negotiated reconciliation produced a “National Unity” government that took office in March 2007. It was disbanded by the Palestinian Authority’s elected President Mahmoud Abbas in mid-June 2007, after a violent and dramatic Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security forces in the Gaza strip. Since then, Hamas runs the “de facto” governing administration in Gaza, while President Abbas, based in Ramallah, presides in the West Bank.

Israel has progressively tightened its squeeze on Gaza. At the same time, there are big problems between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas that have only exacerbated the squeeze.

And, Egyptian-brokered reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas have languished (at the moment, they appear to be taking place only Fatah and West Bank members of Hamas).

The opening of the crossings in and out of Gaza — including Rafah — is the carrot and the stick of this piece of political theater.

In January 2008, after tightened Israeli sanctions restricted fuel to the point that Gaza’s only power plant was forced to shut down, leaving Gaza City and more than half a million persons completely without electricity, Gazans (with the active assistance of Hamas) pulled down an Egyptian-built above-ground wall. Popular sympathy for their plight caused the Egyptian government to open the Rafah crossing, and Gazans streamed into Egypt to go shopping for a few days, before returning to their families and homes in the Gaza Strip. Then, after considerable Israeli pressure, the Rafah crossing was closed. Since then, it is only open intermittently, on short notice, and according to no regular schedule.

Today, as part of a wave of reaction to the Israeli raid at sea of the Freedom Flotilla headed to Gaza, the Rafah crossing was declared open again.

How long will it stay open this time?

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry al-Youm today reported that the opening of Rafah crossing is only temporary: “The governor of northern Sinai, Murad Muwafi, says President Hosni Mubarak ordered the opening of the border crossing to Gaza in the town of Rafah for several days. Muwafi says the opening of the crossing — which Egypt sealed after Gaza was taken over by Hamas militants in 2007 — is an effort to ‘alleviate the suffering of our Palestinian brothers after the Israeli attack’ on the flotilla. This was posted
here.

After a reported ten hours of deliberations on Monday to Tuesday, at Turkey’s request, the UN Security Council agreed on a statement which said, among other things, that “The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families. The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel. The council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination … The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasises the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860 [n.b., both of these UN Security Council resolutions say that the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authorurity is the legitimate power in Gaza]. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza…” Turkey is currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Turkey is also a long-standing member of NATO, and at a meeting in Brussels today the 28 nations in the organization called Tuesday for a “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation”, and “Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanded the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel”. The Jerusalem Post reported this news, but noted that Turkey “did not demand that the alliance take collective action against Israel, said a diplomat who attended the talks”. The JPost report is posted here.

And, one of Israel’s most respected authors, David Grossman, wrote today “How insecure, confused and panicky a country must be, to act as Israel acted! With a combination of excessive military force, and a fatal failure to anticipate the intensity of the reaction of those aboard the ship, it killed and wounded civilians, and did so – as if it were a band of pirates – outside its territorial waters. This assessment does not imply agreement with the motives, overt or hidden, and often malicious, of some participants in the Gaza flotilla. Not all its people are peace-loving humanitarians, and the declarations of some of them regarding the destruction of the state of Israel are criminal. But these facts are simply not relevant at the moment: such opinions do not deserve the death penalty. Israel’s actions are but the natural continuation of the shameful, ongoing closure of Gaza, which in turn is the perpetuation of the heavy-handed and condescending approach of the Israeli government, which is prepared to embitter the lives of a million and a half innocent people in the Gaza Strip, in order to obtain the release of one imprisoned soldier, precious and beloved though he may be; and this closure is the all-too-natural consequence of a clumsy and calcified policy, which again and again resorts by default to the use of massive and exaggerated force, at every decisive juncture, where wisdom and sensitivity and creative thinking are called for instead … The closure of Gaza has failed. It has failed for four years now. What this means is that it is not merely immoral, but also impractical, and indeed worsens the entire situation, as we are reminded at this very hour, and also harms the vital interests of Israel. The crimes of the leaders of Hamas, who have held the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit captive for four years without once allowing the Red Cross to visit him, and who fired thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip at Israeli towns and villages, are acts that must be firmly dealt with, utilising the various legal means available to a sovereign state. The ongoing siege of a civilian population is not one of them. I would like to believe that the shock of Monday’s frantic actions will lead to a re-evaluation of the whole idea of the closure, at last freeing the Palestinians from their suffering, and cleansing Israel of its moral stain. But our experience in this tragic region teaches that the opposite will occur: the mechanisms of violent response, the cycles of vengeance and hatred, Monday began a new round, whose magnitude cannot yet be foreseen. Above all, this insane operation shows how far Israel has declined. There is no need to overstate this claim. Anyone with eyes to see understands and feels it”. This comment was posted here.

“…Israeli security officers (most who looked around 18 years old) had completed around two hours of questioning and searching me. They had pressed every sock and scarf with a security device, ripped open soap and had me strip extra layers. They asked me tons of questions–where are you going?  Who do you know?  Do you have a boyfriend?  Is he Arab, Egyptian, Palestinian?  Why do you live in Egypt?  Why not Israel?  What do you know about the ‘conflict’ here?  What do you think?  They quized [sic - it should be "quizzed"] me on Judaism,which I know nothing about.

Then they asked me to wait. Since they had asked for friends and families phone numbers I assumed they might be calling to verify my answers to questions or confirm I really had extended family in Tel Aviv.  An announcement played over the sound system, interrupting my break in the sunshine. First in Hebrew, then Arabic, then in English. It was something along the lines of, ”’do not to be alarmed by gunshots because the Israeli security needs to blow up suspicious passanger luggage’.

I went inside to check on my bag. I had left it unattended, where they instructed. It was still there so I went back outside.

Moments later a man came outside and introduced himself as the manager on duty. And then, ‘I’m sorry but we had to blow up your laptop’.

What….all my client case notes and testimony, writing, pictures, music and applications.  Years of work.  NO!!!!  What?? Are you insane??  What were you thinking?  THAT’S ALL MY WORK!?

After much yelling, crying and frantic phone dialing (don’t be alarmed if I called you repeatedly this morning), he took me outside to see the wreckage. It turned out it hadn’t been quite blown up, but rather shot through with three bullets. We were able to extract the hard drive, seemingly unscaved [sic - it should read "unscathed"... but, after all, her laptop was shot, so let's cut her some slack on the typos]. Thank goodness…

Security had never asked for my password…”

This account can be read in full here.

When she arrived in Jerusalem, Lily was relieved to discover that the hard drive was not damaged in this shooting, so she hopes to be able to recover her work.   She also is expecting to have her computer replaced by Israeli security (I am sceptical…)

Here is Lily herself — the photo taken from her blog “Izzayyik Lily” [meaning, in the Egyptian dialect of Arabic, "How are you Lily?"]  here:

On her blog, Lily describes herself this way: “A student of traveling, writing and observing, intent to understand the Middle East by living in Cairo for a span. An optimist who believes hostilities fade when people connect, communicate and learn about each other. An adventurer, happy in the midst of events with a pen, pad, camera, and always, background information”. [note: She didn't mention her laptop...]

Thanks to Angry Arab for the tip from his blog here.

[UPDATE: Two Israeli news sites -- Haaretz and YNet -- have now picked up this story. Their articles are posted (Haaretz) here and (YNet) here.]

According to a report of Abbas’ remarks published by Ma’an News Agency, when “Asked why he asked the UN Human Rights Council initially to defer the vote, Abbas said, ‘When the report was revealed in Geneva, Arab countries, African countries, the Non-Aligned Movement group, and the Islamic group submitted a proposal, but the superpowers rejected it. Then … the US submitted a very low-level resolution to be submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, and we rejected that. It was necessary to defer discussion of the report, and this decision was made by the four groups: the Arab countries, the Islamic countries, Palestine, and the Non-Aligned group.”

The Ma’an report also says that in the press conference in Egypt today, “Abbas alleged that the controversy following the delay of the vote was manufactured by his opponents. ‘It was a campaign full of lies and false accusations. When we requested submitting the report after it was deferred, 25 member countries voted for the report, and had it not been deferred, only 18 members would have voted for it’.”

This Ma’an report can be read in full here.

The Palestinian Investigative Committee appointed by Abbas nearly two weeks ago is presumably still doing its work.

Meanwhile, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu convened his security cabinet on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Goldstone report’s findings, which accuse Israel of committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during last winter’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. The Jerusalem Post reported that, according to Israel Radio, “Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz had been expected to propose setting up such a commission, but that he was set to face strong opposition from security cabinet members, particularly Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Those inside the government advocating an independent inquiry into the Gaza offensive have argued that this would be one way to remove the threat of Israel being hauled before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, since the International Criminal Court does not take up cases where credible and independent investigations are being conducted by the countries involved”. The JPost also stated that “The Prime Minister’s Office on Monday would not divulge the nature of Netanyahu’s response to a joint letter sent on Friday by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown urging the premier, among other things, to set up an independent inquiry into Operation Cast Lead”.  This JPost report can be read in full here.

In another report, the JPost said that South Africa’s Justice Richard Goldstone also said that Israel would be let off the hook if only it launched its own independent investigation into the report of his Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict:  “If the Israeli government set up an open investigation, that would really be the end of the matter, as far as Israel is concerned”, Goldstone  told American rabbis in a telephone conference call organized on Sunday night by Taanit Tzedek-Jewish Fast for Gaza.   The JPost explained that this is “a group composed of US rabbis who have been organizing monthly fasts since July to protest Israel’s closure of the Gaza crossings to all but humanitarian aid … During the call, he repeated some of the charges outlined in his report, [inccluding] that the level of civilian destruction in Gaza ‘was not by error, it was by design. It was not a mistake, the IDF does not do those things by error … It was a collective punishment. I do not believe that significant distinction was made between civilians and combatants in that respect’, Goldstone said”.     According to this JPost article, Goldstone indicated that the “report is meant to be a blue print for further judicial investigations … It was meant to be the result of a fact-finding mission.  ‘We weren’t conducting a judicial investigation. We didn’t make our findings according to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I would say it was a prima facie case, reasonable on weighing the evidence … [but] The information we’ve got would not be admissible as evidence in a criminal court’.”

And, this JPost story reports, “Goldstone rejected Israel’s assertion that the report would damage the peace process … The Israeli claims ‘are shallow and false’, Goldstone said. ‘What peace process are they talking about? There isn’t one’.”

And, the JPost said, Goldstone added: ‘I don’t believe you can have a lasting peace until these things have been put on the table’.”  This report can be read in full here.

Question (Marian Houk):  Let me start by asking you what you do here, what your business is?

Answer (Yasser Abbas):  Well, I’m a civil engineer by profession.  I manage a group of companies called, mainly, the Falcon Holding Group that represents a few companies that deal with construction management, contracting, trading, and insurance – basically, that’s it – in Palestine and outside Palestine.

Q: Do you spend most of your time here, or are you mostly outside?

A: No, I’m most of the time outside. [But] I’m based in Palestine.  My family is here.  If you want to call where’s my home – home is Palestine for me, and that’s where my main business originally originated.  That’s where my family lived.  That’s where my kids went to school, and one of them is still in school.  My wife is around always, all the time.  [In the second part of this interview, published yesterday, Yasser Abbas also said: "the second company I established in my life was in Palestine, in Ramallah, 1996, when Mahmoud Abbas was not the President, not the Prime Minister.  He was Secretary-General of the PLO.  I decided to open a company, and to go and compete like any other company in the market.  And there you go, it happened.  And from 1996 until 2000, we had those rosy years that we’ve never seen back again.  Everybody was working.  So we went and started bidding, and we started making relations with international companies coming from outside, like any other engineering office.  So, that’s the way I started, and that’s the way I do business here, in Palestine.  I can claim that all my projects that I take are competitive bidding.  Nobody has any privilege to me, personally, to come and tell me, 'I will give you this', or 'I will give you that'.  Nobody has any power to do so.  I have no power over anyone, and I mean anyone, to tell them, 'This project is mine, nobody touches it'.   Or, 'I have a concession on such-and-such sector, and nobody touches'.  I don’t have that.  I challenge, I challenge, though you, publicly, anyone – anyone – who can come to me and point his finger at me to tell me, 'I, or we, or such-and-such agency or ministry, gave you the job', or 'I have a concession on any sector of this economy'.  I challenge him. ]

Q: What did you study?

A: I studied civil engineering in Washington State University, in the state of Washington, and graduated in 1983.

Q: And you worked with Consolidated Construction Company – was that your first job out of school?

A: No, my first job was with my uncle’s company – that is, the uncle who put me through school before high school, and in university, and I worked for him in Qatar, in his contracting company for three years, and he is one of the largest contractors over there.  And then I worked for him also in Canada for six years.  [Yasser Abbas added later: My education, fully, was paid by my uncle, who was a contractor in Doha – too bad I don’t have the checks with me to prove it … I don’t have the proof with me – an uncle of mine, who has been educated in the States, he is a very big contractor, the one I told you about, that I worked for him for nine years, he’s the one who put me through school, he’s the one who put my late brother Mazen into school, and he’s the one who paid for the education of my younger brother, he is the one that we worked for, for nine years, he is the one who made us what we are, at the beginning. And I don’t owe PLO or Fatah any penny.]
And then I joined CCC, which is Consolidated Contractors, in Abu Dhabi in 1992 to 1996.

Q: Do you have any continuing relationship with them?

A: Yes, I do, they are my business colleagues, we work a lot together in Abu Dhabi, in Dubai, in Qatar and everywhere.  We don’t do anything in Palestine now.
…
Q: You said you don’t have anything – or CCC doesn’t – have anything in Palestine at the moment?

A: No, CCC I don’t think they have any construction business or any contracting business in Palestine these days.  They don’t.  Nope.

Q: But they are still involved in the Gaza gas project?

A: The Gaza gas … [no] not the gas project, the power plant, because they are … I don’t know how much ownership they have in this project, but they are partially owners, and they are the management company of the power plant, and they are the partial owners of the gas project, yes, with British Gas and the Palestinian Authority.

Q: And, when the options can be exercised, CCC has, what, ten percent, or will have ten percent?

A: Uh, I don’t know, I’m not sure of the percentages.

Q: Were you involved with CCC when these projects were being negotiated, and developed?

A: The gas project, never.  The power plant project, ah, um, my involvement is that I was one of the Palestinians that really tried to push for a power plant because we had major shut-downs, a major load that we didn’t have in Gaza.  And I was one of the persons that really tried to push, at one point in time, the late Chairman Arafat and also with my father, that really we want this power plant to take place, and to be built, you know.  I mean, we want something.  We want to have to start generating power in Palestine so that we stop relying on the little load that we get in Gaza, because we always have shut-downs, we get always electricity of four hours, five hours, sometimes they just cut it down, they just shut it down, and we really had an interest in having the project.  But, I was never, ever, thinking at that time that I will have a part in building that power plant.

Q: Why do you think the power plant was bombed in June 2006?

A: Uh, I think you have to ask our Israeli counterparts, and our American counterparts.  At that point in time I was in Washington, and I really told the American administration, you know, not even your investment in that part of the world is being protected.  That power plant had the American flag on it, and the U.S. government had an insurance policy of $50 million dollars placed on that power plant, guaranteed by OPIC [the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, an agency of the U.S. government that provides political risk insurance to encourage American direct investment in emerging markets], and at that point in time I told them, ‘well, welcome, your investment has been bombed by the Israelis’.  It was the kind of capital punishment that Israel normally does.  They never did it at that point in time, but in June, when Shalit, I think, was kidnapped, they bombed that power plant, and it was stupid attack to take place.

Q: The only public explanation that I’ve seen was given by Mark Regev, at the time the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman (now he’s the spokesman for the Prime Minister) who said that it was to make Gaza dark, so that it would be difficult to move Shalit around…

A: That’s a too-naïve excuse, I think, for anybody who has a little bit of brains, to believe.  You can move him in the total darkness – that’s not a problem here.

Q: Well, what do you think they were trying to do by that attack?

A: I don’t know, I have no idea.  I have no explanation.  At that point in time I was really thinking of the alliance between Israel and America.  You know, we were always thinking that, you know, the Presidential headquarters will be bombed, but this power plant will never be bombed because America has their flag on it.  You know what I mean?  At the end, there wasn’t any protection, on any investment.  So, I have no idea.  I wish I knew.

Q: Was the American insurance policy exercised?

A:  Well, the damage was not actually as per se, as the cost of the $50 million dollar of the insurance policy.  But the Americans, they paid it.  As far as I know, they paid a good portion of that money to rebuild.  The damage was not huge.  I think they damaged some tanks, some fuel, you know.  But they did not touch the really expensive equipment there – which is the generators, the transformers, things like that that were really costly, tens of millions of dollars those machines will cost.  But they were only reserve tanks or something.

Q: Are you sure they didn’t?  I thought they took out the transformers one by one, and the generators.

A: Maybe to repair them, and they took the time to repair them.  But I cannot quote the real damage, how much did it cost.  I can ask for that number, but I don’t know, I think it was only five or ten million dollars damage, the whole thing.

Q: This is the kind of information that’s very, very hard to find here.

A: No, no, no, no.  If you want the number, later on, I can give you the number.  I will call my friend in the Energy Authority, the PEA, and I can get exactly the number (amount) of the damage – that’s not classified information … Omar Kittani.  He’s the one who knows, the one who should know.  He should tell you.  He knows.  He’s the one who repaired it, with the Egyptians.

Q: The Egyptians?  I thought it was the donors.

A: No, the Egyptians actually did the work.  The donors paid the money, but the Egyptians are the ones who did the work, because they have the expertise to do it.  They were the closest, they were the fastest, and they did a very good job to repair the power plant in a short period of time, to start operating.  It was easy for them to come in and out.
…
Q: But if the donors were paying for the repair, and yet there was an American insurance policy, how does that work?

A: Well, I don’t know, maybe … I don’t know how the internal situation goes.  But I know two things:  OPIC had a guarantee on that power plant, and I know that power plant has been repaired.  Details about whose money, I really do not know.  But I know who did the work, because I know the company, I know them, and they are a very good company, and they did a lot of good work, fast work, and I met with the guy and I really thanked him very much.  I met him in Egypt and I told him you did a great job, in a short period of time, thank you very much.  That’s the only thing I know about the power plant.
…
Q: The situation of the power plant since the decision of the Israeli government to declare Gaza an enemy entity is terrible, and I don’t know how many times – a dozen times? – it’s shut down for lack of fuel.  It’s been slowly strangled …

A: Well, you know, the Nahal Oz checkpoint or crossing point, or entry point, to Gaza has always some problems over there.  You know, I’ve been bombed a few, many times, from Gaza.  Israelis sometimes, you know, they always like to really have punishment, you know, on the Palestinians, you know, they’re trying to push the Palestinians to erupt in the face of Hamas, but it’s not working out.  I can sense it as a capital punishment to the Palestinians, that we will let you live in darkness.  I think the Palestinians all over they got used to it, so it doesn’t have any effect.

Q: There is also a lot of confusion about what’s really happening.  For the past year, actually since the beginning of 2008, it really hasn’t been clear — who’s doing what, and why, regarding Nahal Oz transfer point and the power plant; and who’s paying for what, and who’s not paying for what; who’s taking the fuel, and who’s not taking the fuel.  Can you shed any light on the situation?

A: Well, what I know is that the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, represented actually by Prime Minister Fayad, is paying the expenses, with the instructions of President Abbas, that everything Gaza needs – because Gazans are Palestinians, one way or another, you like it or you don’t like it, they are Palestinians – we are responsible for them, that is, the Authority.  We are paying for the electricity, for the water in Gaza, the medical treatment, the education and all their expenses.  It is not their problem that Hamas took over, and you know, with a coup, by military force.  All the supplies that is needed for Gaza has been given to Gaza.  Whether Hamas is stealing the supplies of Gaza, the oil from Gaza, I really have no idea, whether they are collecting from the merchants there, or they are collecting money, eventually I will not be surprised, you know, that they would do it.  But, in the end, the major thing that has been happening is that the responsibility of the people in Gaza is the President’s responsibility, in all ways. Fifty-eight percent of the funds that come to the Palestinian Authority is spent in Gaza, simply.

Q: How much of that is for salaries?

A: Uh, I have no idea.  I don’t know, I cannot give you a ballpark figure.

Q: Of the money that comes into Ramallah, I think most of it goes for salaries.

A: Ah, yes, some of it even goes to some projects in the budget, but they have not been spent yet, because many times they really need to spend money for the salaries first, then development projects come later.
…

[In the second part of this interview, published yesterday, Yasser Abbas also said: "Gaza’s not producing, zero.  Meanwhile, they’re consuming 58 percent of the budget, in return for nothing.  Gaza should have been a production place: 1.5 million [people], they should produce taxes and VAT, as it used to be before, and it was a major contributor to the Authority, Gaza was.  But now Gaza’s not doing any work.  So, simply, there’s no merchant, no trading, between Gaza and the rest of the world.  I don’t know how much they were producing at that time, but they are non-productive now.  So, you have 58 percent of your budget, you have been spending against zero return.  Meanwhile, the rest is produced by the West Bank.  So that’s why we have a failure here – we have a deficit, eventually, on the budget every year, or every month“]

…

[Also in the second part of this interview, published yesterday, Yasser Abbas said that after the Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security Forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007, he "had the great lost [the greatest loss], money-wise, out of all the Palestinians, as an individual  … [This loss was to my] Falcon Tobacco Company – we are the importers of British-American tobacco.  We have negotiated this, and it is one company, and it is not the monopoly of the importation of cigarettes in the world.  I hope you understand this.  British-American is one company.  Philip Morris is another company.  Gauloise is another company.  And all the other importation from Israel is another company.  So. it’s a big, broad market.  BAT – British-American Tobacco – happens to be one of the largest in the world.  We are their importers since nine years.  Hamas went into my stores and robbed all my stores, and our loss was greater than any other.  Q:  They took cigarettes?  A:  Yes, and they sold them in the market.  That’s one of the things.]
…

Q: Can I ask you about the Gaza gas deal which BG, as I understand it, is negotiating.  But it can’t be negotiating in a void, without clearing its negotiating positions with the Palestinian Authority?

A: As far as I know, the deal has already been signed with the Authority, on the price, on who owns what, between the Palestinian Investment Fund (PIF) and the BG.  It’s all, all ready since a few years.  But the wells were not really used yet, because we don’t know which market it’s going to, whether it’s Israel or to Egypt or has to be exported – we have no idea about how to execute these contracts.  And, you know, it’s a loss on the BG side, definitely, because since a few years nothing has been done on these wells.   Because I don’t really know about how the deal goes through because I was not involved, and I don’t know.

Q: The people who are involved say they don’t want to talk about it because they say it’s a commercial negotiation and these details should be secret.  But, in fact, this gas is the property of the Palestinian people.

A: Yes, it’s the property of the Palestinian people.  But it’s logical that you bring an international company.  When you go to Abu Dhabi and you want to explore a well in Abu Dhabi, or you go to Mauritania and you want to explore a well in Mauritania, then the Mauritanian government will come and make a deal with company X, like BG or like Exxon, or just name it.  They go for 50-50 income, or 40-60, depending on how deep it is, depending on how difficult it is, depending on whether it’s onshore or offshore.  You know, the deals are like that, so it’s normal. It’s normal that they don’t want to give out some information on that deal when I don’t have it myself.  I don’t have that need to know what is the details of the project.  I know that the government has a share in it, and the Palestinians have a good share, and they’re happy about it.  But it has not been executed, so it’s not easy to talk about the subject now, and I don’t know when it’s going to be.  I don’t think we will ever be able to use it as long as Hamas has taken Gaza hostage, so it’s too early to discuss …

Q: Is the main problem Hamas, because they said they wanted to be part of the negotiations and to re-open the terms that I think they call “colonialist”.

A: Hamas can call anybody colonialist.  You know, I mean, I wouldn’t worry so much about their opinion.  And the only thing is that, whether Hamas like it or they don’t like it, these wells will not be operated because we don’t have the proper market for them.  We have not finalized the deal, whether it’s with Egypt or with Israel, ok?   And if we want to use those oil wells, and we want to execute the wells – also they are in the middle of the sea, so you can easily use them, start operating them, whether Hamas wills or whether it doesn’t will, you know?.  It’s not up to them to decide whether they want to do it, or not.

Q: From what’s known about the negotiations, and the structure of the deal, so far, the Israelis are very eager to continue the deal.  It’s they who have repeatedly asked British Gas to come back the two times that they stopped negotiations (right after the disengagement … and then again at the end of 2007 or beginning of 2008 … ).  The one thing everyone has been insistent on – the Palestinians, and the BG side – is that the fair market price of the gas should be paid – by contrast to the deal that Israel made with Egypt, which now is under challenge, not only from members of the Egyptian Parliament, who have actually taken it to court, arguing that the price is so below the market rate that it’s simply exploitation.  And it’s a very long term deal – 15 years + five years, at a quarter of the present market price, or maybe a third, because it’s dropped recently.

A: Yeah, well, I mean, wait until the price of oil and gas drops a little bit more, then those guys in the Parliament will really eat their hearts out because they have a good deal.  You know, the price of oil was what, at that point in time?  $60 dollars per barrel, or $50, I don’t know, a year and a half ago?  And yeah, when it went up to $150, yes, they have a right to go to the parliament, to the court, and they say, this is not a good deal, we are selling at $2 now, the price of gas is $7 or $8 per … , you know, and then, now, when it drops below $2, then they will be quiet.  So these guys, apparently, they know about economy as much as I know about Chinese language, maybe, and I’m really sorry for some parliament members, how they make fun of themselves.  They were right, because the momemtum was high, the prices were high.  So they say, how come you made that deal, and who authorized you to make that deal for 15 years?  Well, all gas deals and oil deals they are not made for six months, or three months on any deal.  This is on the Egyptian part, as far as I am concerned.  Most of those guys are short-visioned.  But as far as we are concerned, back here in Palestine, we have no deal on our gas wells until now, as far as I know.  Israelis did not ask us to come back, did not ask British gas to come back.  Israelis, they kept playing a game – ‘you don’t want us to buy your gas?  We’ll go to Egypt’.  They go to Egypt: ‘you don’t want us to buy your gas, we’ll go to the Palestinians’.  And they keep playing this kind of game that really made – I believe, I don’t know, from the information that I have: you know, we as Palestinian businessmen we like to chat, what’s happening here and there – so I know that the British Gas people they got sick of all the wheeling and dealing of Israel, and they just closed their offices [n.b., in Herzliya, while the Ramallah office is still open] and they left.  So, that’s the main reason.  If Israel is interested in buying the gas, and they are really serious, British Gas is there, our Palestinian Investment Fund is there, they are the main player, also the CCC people are they, so they know how to contact them, if they are really willing to strike a deal.  They are they, there can talk to them.

Q: Just one question about the Egyptian El-Arish to Ashkelon pipeline – it must pass through Gaza’s territorial waters?

A: Uh, yes, I heard that would be the situation, and if the situation was good and clean in Gaza, we did not have the coup in Gaza, the Authority and everything was fine, we could have had a gas connection to that pipeline, and we would have had a supply from the Egyptians, because you know that’s a different kind of gas that we really need to use.  It’s a completely different kind of gas than we have in the wells that we’re going to sell to Egyptians.  Meanwhile, the El-Arish to Ashkelon pipeline, even if it goes in the Gaza waters, what’s the problem?

Q: Well, but, it must have been negotiated or cleared with somebody in the Palestinian Authority?

A: I have no idea.  I don’t know, I don’t know.

Q: But how – they just can’t just build a pipeline though an area that was allocated to the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo Accords …

A: Yes.

Q: …without clearing it?

A: I don’t know.  Well, if it was not negotiated between us and the Egyptians, you know, they are really doing us a lot of favors by selling us a good gas price, I think it’s a low price, and one of the good donations from the Egyptian government to the Palestinians is gas, so they are supplying us with gas at a very low price, or something like that I’m not really sure about…

Q: Where are you getting this gas?  Is it coming to the West Bank?

A: Maybe it is coming to the West Bank, yes. Yep.  And maybe to Gaza also — part of the power supply to Gaza.

Q: They [Egypt] are supplying part of the electricity, to Rafah …

A: Five or ten percent – 17 MW, that represents five to ten percent of the needs of Gaza.
…

Q: But, according to the structure of the [Gaza gas] deal, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, is that the gas would be pumped out of the Gaza Marine wells. It would go to Ashkelon [in Israel].  It would then be processed, and a small part of it would come back in another pipeline, back from Ashkelon, to Gaza City.  And the original idea, I think, was that the gas offshore Gaza would be used to fuel the power plant, and maybe a desalination plant, I don’t know.

A. I don’t have any idea.  That’s a little bit way too technical for me, so I don’t know.

Q: I mean, but there are questions about if you have the gas going from …

A: What I know is that the gas we have underground, Israel can take 90 percent of it.  We are maybe in need for ten percent processed, or maybe less than that.  We have no capability to process that.  So eventually somebody has to process it and send it back to us.  And that’s going to be our neighbor, which is Israel.  So, Israel will process that percentage and send it back.  How, which way, what are the details, I really don’t know.  But this is the general information that I know.  The majority of the wells we don’t really need, as far as Palestinians are concerned.  I know Israel is in a bad need for that, so they are going to be the market for it.

Q: Yes, Benjamin Ben Eliezer has said many times that, Israel, being the country it is, and in the neighborhood that it’s in, it needs to diversify its sources of energy supply – he said it needs at least five, in case several of them are cut off, they can depend on alternatives.  So, he’s been consistent from last year, from November when BG announced the freeze, from his statements in the Jerusalem Conference in January, to statements he made at a meeting at the Jerusalem Center for Policy Affairs over the summer sometime – he wants to pursue the Gaza gas deal.  In the summer he said he hoped he could make an imminent announcement.

A: Ah, well, as I said, if they are willing to really commence this deal, we have not run away.  Our people are there to negotiate.  Our people are there to implement – let them call each other and they can meet, and they can solve it.  I know that our party, and the PEA [Palestinian Energy Agency], are in very good relations with Mr. Ben Eliezar, and I know that our Minister, Dr. Kittani, meets up with him every once in a while, and they are in very good relations.  But, where is the deal now?  I really have no idea.  I’m not really interested in knowing.  If the information comes to me, well, I just receive it, and I’m telling that to you.  But I don’t have more.

Q: The other side – moving away from the gas itself, under the sea, and the pipelines – the other side of the deal is, what happens, and what decisions are made in Ramallah? Because the Palestine Investment Fund is in charge of negotiations, though I understand that Dr. Kittani will have the final word to say, at least from technical aspects, and whether or not it’s acceptable.

A: That’s true.  He is the technical man behind all of this.  And the [Palestine] Investment Fund [PIF], represented by Dr. Mohammed Mustafa, is the CEO of the Fund, and he and Dr. Kittani, are on very, very good terms.  They always meet, they always talk.  I saw them many times meeting.  They are coordinating together, they are reporting directly to the President on all that’s happening, they have no differences whatsoever.    And eventually the decision has to be joint.  I won’t say it’s one of them – no, it has to be joint.  And they are on good terms, so they can have a joint decision easily.  That’s what I know.

Q: But, the question is about the decision-making – both in terms of the deal, which I think they’ve said what their parameters are (they want the market price, and they want guarantees there will be no cut-off in supply, but I’m sure those guarantees have been made before in the history of the Palestinian Authority and there have been several times, due to political problems between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, interruptions in very vital supplies, and now Gaza is a prime example).  But, about the decision-making itself: the PIF was set up to bring transparency to the investments that Yasser Arafat had, and that his economic adviser, Mohammed Rashid, made on his behalf – and those funds, those assets, formed the basis of the Palestine Investment Fund.  But there was also, at that time, there was also a representative of the PA, or a Minister of the PA, on the Board — and there no longer is.

A: Ahm … The Palestine Investment Fund, as far as it is concerned now, and what I am concerned about, is the current situation.  As far as I know, the PIF has published their budget, their financial statements, yearly.  I saw one printed.  Actually I was with the President when Dr. Mustafa handed it over to the President, and he started explaining it to him, and it’s on the ‘net, so that if anybody wants to see it they can get it, they have hard copies, they can see it anywhere.  I don’t know much about the history of the PIF – what kind of investments they were doing, in full details.  I know some of the people who are on the board.    I know that this Investment Fund was going to be completely isolated from the government, at one point in time.  We wanted it, really – it’s to the Palestinians’ benefit that it is completely isolated from the government (and it is now completely isolated from the government) simply because Hamas took over.  They were the government at one point in time.  And we didn’t want people in Hamas to start really digging into the national fund, the national investment of the Palestinians, you know?  We don’t, we cannot hold them, we never really trusted them, to hold them trustee on our funds.  Imagine now, you know.  So, definitely, we don’t, we wouldn’t want anybody to be of the government involved.  That’s why, the board — there wasn’t a major change in the board.  There was a change of two or three people who went out as Ministers, and that’s basically it.  The CEO has changed.  The only party that went out of the PIF board is the government, and one maybe private sector.  Because it’s led by a board that’s majority private sector, so that it’s called an investment.  Eventually, any government employee does not know about investment as much as the private sector knows.  What we want is to improve the fund.

Q: Palestine is a unique situation, and the history of the Palestinian national struggle is unique.  But I don’t know of any other situation in the world where an investment fund operates and holds some of what people would call the patrimony, the financial patrimony, the investments, for the Palestinian people.  I can’t think of any other parallel, anywhere else in the world.

A: Well, we are, you know, we are, Palestinians, all over the history, we are very successful.  The Palestinians are one of the most successful businessmen, given the situation that they were living in.  You know, I mean, we are very successful businessmen, and I can say it in a very loud voice.  Everybody knows that.  Nobody can deny that.  It’s very simple: we are really Grade A businessmen.  We are the people who built most of the Middle East.  So, we know that.  Our fingerprints are in the U.S., not only in the Gulf area.  We are the most, the highest-educated people per capita, compared to population, in the world.  So, I mean, eventually, it’s a unique situation. We have had difficulties in the past, yes,  but we are really, you know, if we really mean to make sure that this investment, this national investment to be placed in the proper places, we know how to do it, and where to do it, and how to manage it, or how keep it.  So, as long as it is well-kept and away from any government, believe you me.  You know, if any government really touches such investment, as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t, it’s not going to really keep it intact.

Q: You know, the basic question about these people is: who elected these businessmen to make decisions about the Palestinian peoples’ financial patrimony?

A: Well, who elected these people?  Uh, you know, the majority of the Palestinian business community that are represented in Palestine and internationally, I think they are represented on that board.  So nobody can deny the – maybe you don’t agree with 20 percent of the board, or a few out of the names, but in general most of the board are people who are spotless, they are very well respected business people, and I can claim they have no agenda when it comes to any decision for the investment.  So they are taking their decisions in for the benefit of the fund itself, not in any other way, as far as I can see it.

Q: The structure of the deal, as I understand it, for the Gaza gas is that the revenues, the Israelis seem to want to take taxes.  Everybody wants to take taxes.  But the Israelis say – I don’t understand this myself – that if you want to sell something to them, you have to pay them taxes.  OK, so they want to take taxes.  Will the PA also want to take taxes?  I don’t know.  But, in any case, the revenue will go to the PIF, which will then not turn it over to the coffers of the government, but which will reinvest it as their board, which are private businessmen, decide.  And this is a major, major asset of the Palestinian people.

A: Well, you know, I mean, we are really confused over how the world, they want to look at us.   As far as the government is concerned, for the past 13, 14 years, we have been stamped with corruption.  Until now, wherever we go, they talk about our corruption.  And they know, deep inside, that this cracked [broken] record, in my terminology, has been played all around these years.  But, whoever you talk about, they’re like all my visits sometimes to the U.S., they still talk about corruption.  They are still talking that four years ago.  And we keep telling them, our government has no corruption. OK.  Our government has no corruption.  We have the financial statements, printed on the internet.  Go and look at it.  If you don’t want to look at it, that’s your problem, but just stop this slogan, ok?  Now, if we went and took this investment from the corrupted government, and we put it under the umbrella of businessmen who don’t really look at this investment as their hotcake that they want to split, which is not the case at all – I mean, we put it under their umbrella, their decision, their command, and we are at the end, you know, people still don’t like it.  At the end, whose umbrella should we put it under – Israel’s umbrella?  Shall we give it to Hamas to take care of?  Shall we give it to whom?  I mean, we say, we were labored with corruption in government.  We removed the government from the board.  Now we have clean, honest businessmen, who have their millions and billions of dollars outside Palestine, the majority of it is outside Palestine.  And they are really working and they are trying inside Palestine to help, and they are finding the best investments for this fund to grow – and we still don’t like it, and we still don’t trust it?  We have no other means of protecting this. ‘Who chose those people’? — I mean, ‘Who chose those people’?  These people were really recommended from so many, and it was the sole decision of the President to choose them.  And they were the ex-board, before.  The majority of them are the ex-board, if I’m not mistaken.  Who moved out?  One or two?   One or two, and two ministers, and that’s it.  The rest of the board are the same.  Yeah, they are basically the same.

Q: Now, but if you look at who the people are, who are on the board – I’m not criticizing, I’m asking questions – if you look at them, every one of them is sitting on each other’s board of directors.  There’s some kind of … there’s some kind of … it’s somehow different from what people in other parts of the world think is normal.

A: Well, I think this other part of the world, or other people of the world, let them think about their own corruption, that brought the whole economy of the world down.  We don’t accept any kind of corruption claims to us these days, because the whole economy of the globe, the global economy, has been knocked down by corruption, either in the U.S., or in the Gulf, or in Europe, or in maybe Canada, or just name it.  So. I mean, let everybody go and clean their own garbage, before they look at us.  Luckily, luckily, everybody knows that the whole economical crisis that’s in the world now is due to corruption in each single country, even in Japan – not only in Palestine.  So, we are the least hurt, at least, with the damaged economy.  You know, I mean, by international standards, the West Bank mainly is the least hurt.  I came back here, after two months I’ve been away, and the prices of land are growing up, the prices of apartments are growing up – maybe the stock market is going down, because you know everybody looks at the stock market.  But, you go and want to buy land, this is the only county that’s going up, everybody is going down — simply because we have a limited kind of corruption. We don’t have it anymore.  It’s been limited.   Everything is mainly under control.  I cannot say we have 100 percent control on corruption that we had before – no—but I can claim it’s in the 90’s, it’s in the high 90’s, because it’s not easy for anyone to go and really start, you know, having any sort of corruption in any project that comes up.  It’s not that easy, it’s not that easy anymore.  Everybody knows that the President is holding the stick on everybody’s head, ok?  And he always threatens with that stick, so they know.  It’s not a joke.  As a result, we don’t accept the corruption slogan anymore.  After the past three months, I can’t accept it.  I personally I will attack anyone who talks about the Palestinian corruption, back, fire back at him – even, just name it, where?  I don’t want to name a country by itself, then people will say, yes, the Palestinian President’s son is attacking this country.  But, all over the world, why did the collapse happen?  Corruption.  Come on, it’s corruption.
…
Q: Before we finish, I’d just like to follow up with a question or two on something we touched on earlier – and that is, about the Palestinian Investment Fund, and what’s done with the receipts from the eventual, future receipts from the sale of Palestinian gas.  Don’t you think … there should be some public discussion.  Should the Palestinian Investment Fund be able to take the revenues that belong to the Palestinian people and have music concerts in Ramallah?  Should they be able to make these kind of decisions?  Or, shouldn’t there be some other public input into this process?

A: You mean, renegotiate the gas contracts again?

Q: No, I’m talking about the role of the PIF, and the receipts – and, yes, the gas contract is not linked to how the PIF functions, exactly, or how it makes its investment decisions.  But it’s just decided that it will make its investment decisions, and it will reinvest the proceeds in – what, I don’t know – apartment buildings, or mortgages, or music concerts in Ramallah, or mobile telephone companies, or I don’t-know-what, without any popular, without any input from the Palestinians whose …

A: Well, I don’t think – if you want to have an investment authority, a national investment authority, I don’t think you should make it to the public to decide how they should really have the PIF operates.  Because, simply, you will have 2,000 opinions, even if you go to the 2.5 million people in Ramallah or in the West Bank to really have that discussion of how to do it. I don’t want to hear, also, opinions from some people that they will tell you, yeah, I have this type of investment, and I really want you to invest in it – and at the end, when you are losing, they will tell you, “Well, I cannot be held responsible, you know I just gave you a suggestion”.  Excuse me, this is not the way.  I mean, tell me, in any country in this world, who their investment, or their national investment, or their national grant or security for the country is being put to the 250 million people in the U.S. to decide – well, where do you think we should really invest my part of the money…

Q: I think, if there were a PIF in the United States, it wouldn’t last.  It doesn’t exist.  It doesn’t exist – there’s no private entity that makes decisions about public monies that I can think of anywhere in the world.  In Switzerland, for example, they had a large gold reserve, and at one point they wanted to sell part of it off.  And then they were going to have a referendum about what to do with it…

A: Well, you have a Congress there [in the U.S.], and what did they do at the end, huh?  You tell me. The whole country went down the drain, and what happened?  You have a senate and you have a congress, and what did they do?  They put the whole world into the drain – am I correct? … Since you don’t have any sort of a PIF over there, you have somebody like the congress or the senate who decides where everybody has to go, right?  And how the economy should be structured.

Q: But we’re talking about public money.  Public money!  The revenues from Gaza gas is public money, it shouldn’t be private money.

A: I don’t know.  We are, as far as how things have been structured in the PIF, it is to the best benefit of the Palestinians, as far as I’m concerned.  The way I see it is that the PIF are investing the money in the best interests of the Palestinians.  They have, as I told you, their financial statements published.  Anybody who doesn’t like it, he can come out every single day, in the media, and say, “Well, you are running the PIF in a wrong way.  I have the magic way that will make you make billions out of millions”.  Great!  Come forward, show me, you know?  But, people are talking about dreams – and we are not willing to listen to dreamers.

Q: But this is exactly the kind of discussion that Palestinians don’t have.  I don’t know why.  I don’t know if it’s because the newspapers are linked to political parties, or because the people are afraid, or because they’re annoyed…

A: No, no, no, no – people are not afraid, excuse me.  You can say anything that you like – people are not afraid.  People have the full right to talk about anything they want in this country.

Q: But can they organize?  Can they form a group to discuss PIF?

A: Definitely they can.  Definitely they can.  You can initiate that, if you like. You want?  I will help you with that.  But, I’d like to see where are those intellectuals that they, themselves, will come out with a really good conclusion – how we do invest the PIF’s money, how we show that the Board of the PIF, Dr. Mohammed Mustafa, are really wasting this money, and it’s not being really invested very well, or managed very well.  You have something about the PIF – I don’t know what’s wrong with …

Q: There’s something about the structure…

A: Why are you asking me this – maybe you think I’m the one, the mastermind …

Q: No, because you’re willing to talk about it.

A: No, I’m not willing to talk about it.  I don’t want to talk about it … Why are you jumping to the future?  The Gaza gas is still underground!  We did not get the Gaza gas out, number one.  We did not sell it, number two.  We did not collect their money, number three, ok?  The PIF did not get their share, in order for us to really think, what is the PIF going to do with it.  So, it’s very simple.

UPDATE: According to a press release dated 14 January 2009 and posted on its website, “The Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) Board recently discussed the details of President Mahmoud Abbas’s executive decision to make official changes to the Board of Directors, in addition to appointing a public body comprised of 30 members to increase participation from the public and private sectors. When the decision was announced, the PIF Board of Directors agreed that this resolution was decisive and is in the best interest of the Fund, underpinning the positive implications of this decision to its future. The executive decision entails the appointment of Dr. Mohammed Mustafa as the new Chairman of the Board, succeeding Mr. Shukri Bishara. It also encompasses the appointment of Mr. Azam Al Shawa to the Board of Directors as a further member to the current six members. The appointments are also in addition to a new resolution calling for the formation of a public body comprised of 30 members. The selections made to the body are well-known, prominent Palestinian businesspeople from both the public and private sectors. The body encompasses many years of combined experience which will prove valuable for the PIF and its future activities … Remarking on his appointment as the new Chairman of the Board, Dr. Mustafa said: ‘I would like to express my gratitude to President Abbas for his faith and confidence in me, and hope to serve with dignity and distinction’. Dr. Mustafa added that he will work closely with the Board of Directors and the 30 member public body to continue the exceptional work of the PIF and accomplish further impressive progress and achievement which will positively impact the national economy. Commenting on the appointment of the new public body, Dr. Mustafa said: ‘President Abbas’s executive decision to form a public body of 30 members is judicious and reinforces that he is eagerly enthusiastic to oversee the continuation of work that the Fund has diligently instituted, as well as provide the guidelines for the Fund, working with utmost transparency’.” This PIF press release can be read in full here.
…

*************************

Q: Do you know the Edward Said story about the Oslo negotiations?

A: Yeah, I don’t know about it, but I don’t agree with the logic of the late Edward Said.

Q: This is a story he tells about sitting with the late Yasser Arafat, and he was arguing against Oslo, and they were talking.  Said told Arafat, “You weren’t even prepared for the negotiations” … At one point, Yasser Arafat said, Safed – where is Safed?

A: Ah, come on, this is not true.  The late Yasser Arafat knows where Safed is, very well.  We were always saying that, as a joke.  He had two people from the Central Committee of Fatah that come from Safed, one of them is Haidar Abdel Hamid, the other is Mahmoud Abbas…And he knows, and they always make a joke about it, when he was counting, and saying “From Jerusalem, from Gaza, from Nablus, from Hebron, from, from, from…” And, you know, and he left Safed for the end.  And people said, it was because Mr. Mahmoud Abbas was not there, otherwise it could have been said right after Al-Quds”… You see what I mean.  Yasser Arafat definitely knows where Safed is.  With all due respect to both of them – they are maybe both in heaven now – but as far as I am concerned, the two late, one a leader, one an intellectual, and this story is not 100 percent correct.

*************************

Q:  So, can I come to the question that (X)  wants me to ask you?

A:  No, I’m not going to answer.

Q:  Because, we were talking about it, and I didn’t know that he knew you, and he said that I was completely wrong, and had the wrong impression, and I should ask you myself.  So, I guess, that’s why I’m here.  It was actually in relation to another problem, which was RAM-FM and Sky Advertising, which is your brother’s company, and not yours.

A:  It’s not my brother’s company – he’s …

It is suggested that Fatah signed because they believe that Hamas won’t — and in this way Fatah will get all the propaganda value, without actually annoying the U.S. or Israel

Fatah leaders believe that Hamas did not want to sign the document, and was looking for an excuse, even before the nearly-catastrophic fiasco caused by the Palestinian withdrawal of support (on 1-2 October) for a resolution in the Human Rights Council in Geneva in support of the Goldstone report on last winter’s Israeli military operation in Gaza. If that were not enough, the “final straw”, according to Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal, was the confrontational speech delivered on Sunday night by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

(Abbas made another confrontational speech today in the northern West Bank town of Jenin).

Hamas has asked for a postponement of a ceremony scheduled in Cairo from 24-26 October — apparently until Fatah gets a better leadership, an interpretation formed after a close reading of remarks made by Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, and televised live just minutes after the Abbas speech on Sunday night.

However, now that Fatah has signed the document, according to reports by news agencies, Hamas has been put on the spot.

So, Hamas will have to look for a way to sign, as well. This will be interesting.

And, if Hamas does sign, they will then immediately be asked to accept the “Quartet’s” conditions which were basically laid down in stone by Israel and the U.S. That, too, will be interesting…

AP reported that “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party on Tuesday signed Egypt’s plan for separate signings of a reconciliation deal with Hamas after the Islamist group balked at attending a unity ceremony. Hamas said it still had not decided whether to agree to the proposal put forward by Egyptian mediators, and another potential obstacle to a deal emerged when Hamas accused Egypt of torturing to death [on Monday, in an Egyptian jail] the brother of a spokesman for the group [Sami Abu Zuhri]. A Fatah source said the faction had signed the Egyptian paper — although he did not say who had actually put pen to paper”… This AP report can be read in full here.