December 18, 2008

Gaza militants launch more retaliatory strikes on Israel

Gaza fighters on Wednesday continued their retaliation for the killing of a member of a Palestinian resistance group on Monday, firing rockets into the Zionist state.

Two people received shrapnel wounds and three cars were damaged as one of 15 rockets fired at southern Israel struck outside a supermarket in the city of Sderot, the army said.

Israeli forces immediately launched an air strike in northern Gaza, hitting a rocket launcher that was about to fire, a military spokeswoman said.

Islamic Jihad said its armed wing, the Al-Quds Brigades, fired rockets in retaliation for Monday's killing by Israeli forces of one of its members in the Occupied West Bank.

The movement had claimed similar attacks on Monday, which were followed by two Israeli air strikes in Gaza.

The attacks came just ahead of the conclusion of the six-month cease-fire that went into effect on June 19.

Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules Gaza, has spoken out against extending the truce, but it indicated it has yet to take a final decision.

"Friday, December 19 is the last day of the calm," said Ismail Radwan, a Hamas leader in Gaza, adding that the movement "will respond to any aggression by the occupying forces against our people."

The Egyptian-mediated deal that went into effect in June had brought months of calm in and around the Gaza Strip. But on November 4, Israel shattered the deal by invading the coastal territory in an attack in which seven Hamas members were killed. The invasion prompted Palestinian fighters to resume rocket attacks against Israel.

Despite breaking the deal, Israeli officials have said they want to continue the truce but warned they would not hesitate to use military force should Gaza militants fail to halt their rocket and mortar attacks.

Since the November 4 invasion and the attacks it prompted, Israel has completely sealed off Gaza except for a few humanitarian aid deliveries.

The impoverished territory, where roughly half of its 1.5 million inhabitants rely on handouts from the international community for survival, has been under a crushing Israeli siege since Hamas won legislative elections in 2006.Israel controls all access in and out of Gaza - with the exception of one land crossing with Egypt - including the territory's sea and airspace.

Following the 2007 ouster of Fatah from the territory in what many have described as a pre-empting of an impending US-backed offensive by Fatah to oust the Islamists from Gaza, Israel further tightened its grip.

Humanitarian agencies and human-rights groups have urged Israel to lift the blockade, saying the population of Gaza should not be punished for the actions of the resistance.

In an opinion sent to Attorney General Menahem Mazuz, Israel's legal watchdog group Gisha warned that the restrictions on the passage of people and goods amounted to "a closure imposed for the illegal purpose of collective punishment against innocent civilians."

Collective punishment of a civilian population is illegal under international law and is defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention as a war crime.

Last week, Richard Falk, a UN human-rights observer to Palestine who has since been bared from undertaking his mandate by Israel, described the policies of the Zionist state a "crime against humanity."

Several Israeli ministers, though, have called for a tougher line against retaliations from Gaza fighters, and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who hopes to become premier after the February 10 elections, has said Israel "cannot allow Gaza to remain in the hands of Hamas."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who headed to Washington Wednesday, plans to discuss the situation in Gaza during his talks on Friday with US President George W. Bush.

Abbas "will warn against an Israeli offensive in Gaza and will call for the lifting of the Israeli blockade," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat.

Abbas also called for a continuation of the truce, although he has had no influence in Gaza since his forces were driven out when Hamas seized power.

The situation in Gaza, and the divisions between Hamas and Fatah have further complicated Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that have produced no tangible results since they were revived under US auspices in November 2007.

The peace process has also been marred by Israel's shattering of the Gaza truce and continued Israeli settlement construction - despite pledging to halt the practice, which is illegal under international law.

Obama and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Writing recently in The Washington Post ("Middle East Priorities," Nov. 21), Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, two former US National Security Advisors, a Republican and a Democrat, declared: "We believe that the Arab-Israeli peace process is one issue that requires priority attention [from the incoming Obama Administration]."

Their assessment is correct, of course. Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent priority. It is a conflict with global ramifications in a part of the world crucial to Western, and especially American, political and economic interests. The Israeli Occupation fuels anger and alienation among Muslims – as well as among peoples beyond the Muslim world, including in Europe – towards the US and its European allies. And the Palestinians are the gatekeepers that cannot be by-passed. No matter what peace plan is devised or how much pressure is exerted on the Palestinian leadership to accept it, until the Palestinian people everywhere, including the refugee camps, say that the conflict is in fact over, it's not over. This is their ultimate clout. Only when a just solution is reached that genuinely addresses their grievances and needs will they signal to the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds that the time has come to normalize relations with Israel and its American and Western patrons. This reality is obliquely acknowledged by Scowcroft and Brzezinski when they write: "Not everyone in the Middle East views the Palestinian issue as the greatest regional challenge, but the deep sense of injustice it stimulates is genuine and pervasive."

Yet every peace initiative since 1967 has been stymied – let's be honest – by Israel's determination to make permanent its control of the land "between the river and the sea." Why compromise if you can have it all? Israelis today enjoy a high degree of security (Gaza being little more than a nuisance), the settlement project proceeds unhindered, the economy (based on diamonds, arms and security) is sound and their country's international status only rises. The status quo, far better, more predictable and more manageable than any "peace" might be, can be maintained indefinitely, especially given US support which, because of the bipartisan support Israel enjoys in Congress, does not seem threatened by the incoming Obama Administration. The problem is framing. However much Israel undermines what would otherwise be a straightforward negotiating process, it cannot be publicly criticized lest one appears to be "anti-Israel" – or worse. And non-critical engagement with Israel has never succeeded in eliciting a single meaningful concession.

How, then, when the pressing need to resolve the conflict runs head-on into Israel's uncanny ability to derail, delay or defeat initiatives towards peace, can the Israeli veto be neutralized and genuine negotiations leading to a genuine resolution proceed? What is needed is a "package" beginning with an American framing and then proceeding to principles and finally to the specific elements of a solution. The current approach, as exemplified by Scowcroft and Brzezinski's list of technical "elements" that must be addressed, illustrates the backward approach which has led nowhere – though towards the end of their piece they recognize the need for framing.

Just to show how self-defeating the elements-first approach is, let us begin with the four "well known" elements which Scowcroft and Brzezinski suggest as essential for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

(1) Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications. This is indeed a central element in any two-state solution, but it conceals the dangers inherent in all negotiations between a strong Occupying Power and a powerless people under its control: the likelihood that "minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon" will be defined by the strong side and imposed on the weaker one, to its detriment. Merely the annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem to Israel, only a "minor" adjustment of just over 1% to the 1967 borders, will rob a Palestinian state of its political, cultural and religious center, not to mention its economic heart. Israel's annexation of its West Bank "settlement blocs," containing fully 80% of its settlers, would involve a "minor" adjustment of only 7-10% of the 1967 borders, but it, too, eliminates a viable Palestinian state.

Reciprocal? Is the exchange of 10% of West Bank land containing East Jerusalem, the settlement blocs, some of Palestine's richest agricultural lands and its water resources for an equivalent amount of land in the Negev desert truly "reciprocal"? Does the notion of reciprocal land exchange include such considerations as the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state, freedom of movement or, in the end, genuine sovereignty? If, for example, Israel was to annex or "lease" the Jordan Valley, which it has always insisted must be done, it could easily "compensate" the Palestinians with another few percentages of land within Israel, but how could that "reciprocal" exchange compensate for the loss of a border with an Arab country, something that would turn a Palestinian "state" into a mere Bantustan?

And "agreed upon," as we have seen in previous negotiations, means little if there is no parity of power between the sides. Only a peace process based on international law, human rights conventions and UN resolutions – all studiously eliminated from negotiations by the US and Israel – will level the playing field. So while Scowcroft and Brzezinski's "element" is indeed fundamental to a just peace, it must be embedded in three other principles that make up the underlying approach and prevent abuse: negotiations based on international law, human rights and UN resolutions; the principle of return to the '67 borders agreed upon before modifications begin, in conformity to UN resolution 242 (and not to Israel's self-serving interpretation of it); and commitment to a viable Palestinian state possessing territorial contiguity, control of borders, airspace, resources and movement of people and goods. Only then will negotiations be able to avoid the pitfalls of power differentials.

(2) Sharing Jerusalem as a capital of two states. This is actually an important step forward, but it's certainly not "well known," since the "Clinton Parameters" which guided discussion over Jerusalem, envisioned a divided city. This is, indeed, the way to approach the issue of Jerusalem. But here, too, the devil is in the details. Who defines "Jerusalem"? The Israeli definition incorporates the eastern side of the city, annexed to Israel already in 1967, but plans are almost completed for the further annexation – de facto if not de jure -- of what Israel calls "Greater Jerusalem." Not only will an additional 150,000 Jews be added to the Jerusalem population, but the Palestinians in the city will be isolated from the West Bank, thereby depriving a Palestinian state of its main source of income, tourism, as well as other crucial economic and political resources. Indeed, Israel has defined, for planning purposes, a "metropolitan" Jerusalem that includes Ramallah and Bethlehem, effectively turning those Palestinian cities into economic satellites of an Israeli Jerusalem. Palestinians, on the other hand, while agreeing with Scowcroft and Brzezinski's "element" of a shared Jerusalem, consider it an integral part of their country. This element, then, must also be anchored in a principled approach: Jerusalem should not only be shared but it must be wholly integrated into the political, economic, social and cultural fabric of the Palestinian state, not simply accessible from a few bus routes.

(3) No right of return into Israel, but compensation and agreements with Arab states for the granting of citizenship. Again, a technical "solution" to a problem that will simply not work because it ignores the principle of justice. It is true that, technically, a resolution of the refugee issue may not be difficult. Studies indicate that only 10% of the refugees have a desire to return to what is today Israel, and those are mainly the elderly. Others will return either to a Palestinian state, stay where they are in an Arab country or expect resettlement and compensation in another country. Israel could also allow a limited return: Ehud Barak, when he was Prime Minister, once spoke of 150,000.

But, as Jews well know, victims of an injustice on the scale of the Nakba require more than merely compensation, especially if they are expected to give up their right to return to their country – and they do have an absolute right to return that cannot be taken from them. Two preconditions, symbolic but indispensable, must precede any negotiations. First, Israel will have to acknowledge the right of the refugees' return. Palestinians will not allow their 60-plus year nightmare of suffering and injustice to be dismissed as merely a "humanitarian" problem. By the same token, Israel will have to admit and acknowledge its role in creating the refugee issue in 1948. Victims need the injustice they suffered to be acknowledged if the wounds are to heal and reconciliation take place. (We may even need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.) Getting Israel to do these two things is the most difficult part of the refugee problem; Israel will resist doing so. But unless this principled approach is adopted, the refugee issue – which is central in the Palestinians' view of the conflict – will never be truly resolved and the conflict never really ended.

(4) A demilitarized Palestinian state, perhaps with NATO and other foreign troops to protect Israel (!) and the Palestinians. This element of Scowcroft and Brzezinski's approach exposes the bias and naiveté of the traditional US position. Why in the world does Israel, a nuclear power with an army that rivals any in Europe, need foreign troops to protect it?! And what of the Palestinians? Even if they also receive some foreign protection, why should they be the world's only demilitarized state and, given Israel's military aggressiveness, will a foreign contingent really protect them against Israel? Once again, principle must precede technical "elements" of a peace agreement. The Palestinians should be guaranteed what every other country has, actual sovereignty, including unmediated borders with its Egyptian and Jordanian neighbors, the essential corollary of national self-determination. Once genuine sovereignty and viability are defined to the Palestinians' satisfaction, and in line with international norms, negotiating the details specified by Scowcroft and Brzezinski can proceed.

Scowcroft and Brzezinski then add one other element to the mix:

(5) The president speaking out clearly and forcefully about the fundamental principles of the peace process [and pressing] the case with steady determination. This, however, is more than an "element." It represents precisely what I have been advocating: the realization that without a declared and principled approach underlying a peace process, we have nothing more than the failed Oslo process, open-ended negotiations towards no clearly defined goal, which, in the end, only permit Israel to entrench its control. And its absence is not simply an oversight; nor is it as easy to articulate as Scowcroft and Brzezinski indicate. The problem has to do with framing.

And here is where a president hits up against Israel's fundamental refusal to enter into a peace process that might actually threaten its hold over the Occupied Territories. A framing based on the principles I enumerated or the elements of a genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace as outlined by Scowcroft and Brzezinski will simply not be accepted by either Israel, its allies in Congress or sectors of the American public Israel is capable of mobilizing. For both the principles and the elements are already framed as "anti-Israel" because they lead precisely to what Israel has avoided these past 40-odd years: a complete dismantling of its Occupation and the rise of a genuine Palestinian state. Any presidential statement, especially if it is forceful, that does not place Israel's Occupation at the forefront is simply not acceptable. And yet, without it, there can be no fruitful negotiations or an end to the conflict.

If framing is the problem, it may also be the solution. If the elements listed by Scowcroft and Brzezinski must be anchored in a set of principles which direct the negotiations, then those principles themselves must be anchored in an American reframing. Obama could by-pass the Israeli framing by taking a lesson from Reagan, who faced a similar problem in 1981 when he sought to sell AWAC surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. When it became clear that AIPAC might actually muster enough opposition in Congress to block the sale, Reagan pulled rank – which is just what Scowcroft and Brzezinski seem to be suggesting that Obama do. Reagan told Congress: I am the Commander-in-Chief, and I am telling you that this sale is in the vital interests of the United States. Framed like that, Congress could hardly reject the deal. In order for President Obama to "speak out clearly and forcefully about the fundamental principles of the peace process," as he will have to if he wants to enter into meaningful negotiations, he must anchor those principles in American interests. A complete end to Israel's Occupation and the establishment of a truly sovereign and viable Palestinian state next to a secure state of Israel, he must state, is in the vital interests of the United States.

Only that package – identifying the essential elements of a peace agreement, anchoring them in an approach based on overarching principles of justice acceptable to the Palestinians, and then framing it all in terms of American interests in seeing this conflict resolved – will enable a president to finally break through the obfuscation created by the Israeli framing, the major obstacle standing in the way of a just and sustainable resolution of the conflict. But in reversed order: first the framing, which will present the president's case in a coherent and compelling fashion to the public, followed by the principles and then the specific elements. Tiny points in a global conflict, but then again, if Israel has taught us anything these past four decades of fending off attempts to end its Occupation, it is that the devil is in the details.

Will Bibi or Livni be any better?

Unlike the just-concluded American election, where everyone is eagerly awaiting the change that has been promised, the ongoing election campaign in Israel which ends one month after President-elect Barack Obama settles in the White House, is noted for the absence of any similar commitments. If anything, the positions of the competing Israeli frontrunners have not been encouraging and even very alarming.

In the first weeks of the election campaign, there has been widespread disappointment over the news that the former Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a notorious hawk, was seen as the frontrunner. But during the primary election of his Likud Party, the extremists within his midst, led by Moshe Feiglin, a far right-winger, surprisingly managed to score unexpected successes, assuring themselves several of the top seats within Bibi's cabinet should the Likud win the elections on February 20. However, the triumph was short-lived since the Likud Party has come up with a tactical manoeuvre that downgraded their early "success," making it unlikely that Feiglin or his supporters may end up holding cabinet posts.

Thereafter, Netanyahu, or Bibi, as he is popularly known, began to focus on improving his international image. First, he depicted himself as a "moderate" when compared to the rightist Feiglin whose Jewish Leadership group rejects all territorial compromises with the Palestinians. He then introduced a new idea, an "economic peace" plan that will reportedly focus on raising the Palestinians' living standards, improving their economy, building government institutions and strengthening their defense capabilities.

But few are taking him or his plan very seriously. A source close to his Israeli competitor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, was reported saying that "the world remembers very well who Netanyahu is and needs no reminders of it from us." Even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not buy into his scheme.

Shocking remarks

But neither Livni nor Rice have fared any better. The Israeli foreign minister, now chairperson of the ruling Kadima Party, has made some unbelievably shocking remarks last week when speaking before Israeli highschool students. She echoed a view that is the mantra of many Israelis, namely the transfer of Palestinian Arabs in Israel, now numbering around 1.4 million or a fifth of the Israeli population, to the projected Palestinian state in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Her view was couched in diplomatic parlance:

"Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, and say to them, 'you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere'," adding, "My solution for maintaining a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is to have two nation-states with certain concessions and with clear red lines."

Livni's remarks touched off a public uproar, especially among the Palestinian Arabs in the 1948 areas and their Knesset members. Although her view is now being explained by some Israeli politicians as a bid to project a hardline image in order attract voters from the right-wing Likud Party, her clarification on the following day was not all-assuring. "There is no question of carrying out a transfer or forcing them [Israeli Arabs] to leave," she told the Israeli public radio. "I am willing to give up a part of the country over which I believe we have rights so that Israel will remain a Jewish and democratic state in which citizens have equal rights, whatever their religion."

All said there does not seem to be much difference between a future Israeli government whether run by a Netanyaho or a Livni, who has been negotiating without much success for more than a year with the Palestinian National Authority's top negotiator Ahmad Qorei.

Israeli intolerance has once again been manifested by an unprecedented brief detention and expulsion of a visiting United Nations human rights envoy, Richard Falk, an American Jew and a former professor emeritus at Princeton University, at Tel Aviv airport because of his past criticism of Israeli policies, particularly in the Gaza Strip which is under Israeli siege.

The unprecedented Israeli measure was criticised by UN General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockman and coincided with the visit of Secretary Rice to the UN Security Council in an attempt to gloss over her failure to bring about any evidence of success in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations despite the promises voiced at Annapolis last year.

Is the peace process irreversible?

Lame-duck Palestinian, Israeli and US leaders are making serious effort these days to ensure that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process enters an irreversible track before they leave office.

This irreversible train left the station in September shortly after Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, resigned from his office due to police investigation. Olmert, who has continued as caretaker prime minister, surprised the Israeli public by stating publicly that the ultimate solution of this conflict will require a return to the 1967 borders and will have to include Israel giving up parts of Jerusalem.

The US president, George W. Bush, who failed to accomplish his declared goal of reaching an agreement on an independent state before the end of his term, has decided instead to institutionalise his position in the UN. After five years of refusing to allow the UN Security Council in the conflict, the US has cosponsored with the Russians a resolution documenting the position of the international community. The resolution, supporting the Annapolis process, was approved with 14 votes, with Libya abstaining, even though it failed to speak about illegal Jewish settlements.

The Palestinian president, whose regular term runs out on January 9, also wanted to be sure that the public record include points already agreed upon in the negotiations. Ahmad Qureia, the lead Palestinian negotiator held a press conference last week to indicate where the talks reached. He told the press that his Israeli interlocutors insist on annexing 6.8 per cent of the land of the West Bank and that they offered land swap instead. He was indirectly saying was that Israel had in fact agreed to quit at least 93.2 per cent of the lands of the West Bank.

Qureia also indicated an Israeli willingness to allow 5,000 Palestinians the right of return. While, again, the number falls way short of Palestinian aspirations, by publicly making that declaration, the Israelis are on the record as having approved the concept of the right of return. Ironically, following this Palestinian press conference, an Israeli official made a short statement, saying that Qureia’s public declarations are not “accurate”. By not entirely denying the statement, the Israeli official confirmed its content. However, by stating that it is not totally accurate, it left future negotiators a way out of these commitments.

The efforts of the Americans, Israelis and Palestinians come to ensure that whatever government is elected by the Israelis in February 2009, it will not attempt to reverse the “accomplishments” already made.

The speakers at the UN Security Council repeatedly used the word irreversible as a way of insisting that the process has the international seal of approval and that future governments (whether in the US, Israel or Palestine) will not be able to abscond themselves from these commitments and the overall process.

For Palestinians, and to a lesser degree for the Israelis, the UN Security Council resolution was not very reassuring. These important statements by Qureia, and even by Olmert, did little to give hope and optimism to people who are fed up with words and public declarations. The situation of the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, is a much higher source of concern than any public statement. The absence of commitment by the international community to come up with mechanisms to stop Jewish settlement activity is yet another source of pessimism.

Whether the activities of the Israeli, Palestinian and US leaders will ensure that the peace process is irreversible is hard to tell. As polls indicate that hardline Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to win the upcoming elections in Israel, most Palestinians are clutching at the straws of America’s president elect. To most Palestinians, the irreversibility of the peace process is now left to whether Barack Obama will be able to provide them with the hope and change that brought him the recent victory. Until proven otherwise, these are very fragile straws.

A Comprehensive Approach to the Middle East Peace Process

Next year needs to be an important year for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unless we make real progress, the prospect of a two-state solution will slowly - or perhaps fast - slip away. The situation on the ground leaves too many people insecure, in poverty and despair, and is rapidly undermining the political process. While both sides are tiring of the conflict, they are also tiring, faster, of efforts to resolve it.

The basics of an agreement to the Israel-Palestine conflict now command an unparalleled level of consensus. There is no viable alternative to a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders: a democratic and viable state of Palestine must live peacefully alongside an Israel secure from attack and recognised by its neighbours. Jerusalem must be the capital for both, with a just settlement for refugees.
This is not just what the Palestinian President wants; it is also what the Israeli Prime Minister aspires to. It is the position of the both the outgoing and the incoming US administrations, of Europe and the Arab world. Yet our efforts to realise this vision are not succeeding. For many ordinary Palestinians and ordinary Israelis, the endless rounds of negotiations and talks are not delivering improvements on the ground. Israelis continue to feel threatened and under siege. They tried withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon, but were rewarded only with rocket fire.
Palestinians feel cheated and abused. Their daily experience is of checkpoints, road blocks and harassment. And despite promises made at Annapolis twelve months ago, settlement expansion has increased in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Whilst their leaders talk with Israel, ordinary Palestinians worry they are being robbed of what they are supposed to be talking about.
In Gaza it is even worse: restrictions on access for supplies through the border crossings have left its citizens short of food and medicine. Meanwhile rocket attacks tell Israelis that they cannot gain when they vacate land.
My recent visits to the region have convinced me that only a comprehensive peace can be lasting: a peace with an independent Palestinian state at its core, underpinned by a broader peace between Israel and the whole Arab world. In other words, a 23 state solution: 22 members of the Arab League plus Israel.
For almost seven years the peace process was frozen, but now serious negotiations are underway between Israel and Palestine's leaders. Syria has agreed to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon. The Turkish government have sponsored negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv, and Egypt has been trying to broker Palestinian reconciliation.
That is why I welcome the renewed focus on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which promises Israel full normalisation of relations with its Arab neighbours in exchange for withdrawal from occupied land. It was then, and still is today, our best hope for peace. It gives the Palestinian Authority the strong regional support it will need to do a deal, and it offers the Israelis what they really crave - stability and security in the region. That is why I welcomed the Arab League's recent letter to US President-elect Obama, reaffirming the Arab States' commitment to the Arab Peace Initiative. It is also why the UK pushed for wider European endorsement of the Arab League's position, with last week's European Council giving its firm backing to a comprehensive regional solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
If we are to realise a two-state solution, Israel must honour its Roadmap commitment on illegal settlements: the recent evacuation of a building in Hebron was a welcome start, but Israel must evacuate all such outposts. The UK is sending a clear message that settlements are a major obstacle to peace: we are currently working to ensure that goods produced in them do not illegally benefit from preferential customs agreements designed to help the Palestinians.
For their part, the Palestinians must refrain from violence and find a way to reunite around negotiations Hamas' continued attacks on civilians and refusal to accept existing PLO commitments, including recognising Israel, divides Palestinian ranks and leads to more suffering for the people of Gaza.
However, a comprehensive peace needs action from more than just the Israelis and Palestinians: it demands active engagement by all Arab League countries. All states in the region must support Palestinian reconciliation as a necessary precursor to a two-state solution; Egypt's role here has been particularly commendable. The Lebanese Government must build a state that can deliver peace and security for its own people, and for its neighbours. Damascus too must play its part in the Arab coalition, working to normalise relations with Israel. That means restraining the militants and curbing the flow of weapons to Hizbollah. The prize for Syria would be significant- gains well beyond Syrian interest in settlement of the Golan Heights.

Throughout 2009 Britain will work with its European allies and the US to push for a comprehensive solution. Over the last few months I've visited not just Israel and the Occupied Territories but also Syria, Lebanon and the UAE with this message. I've had talks in London with the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Our support is, and will remain, practical as well as political. We are providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza - over $30 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and others to provide urgently needed food, water and medical assistance.
We are working to strengthen the institutions which will form the backbone of an independent Palestinian state. In 2007 we pledged to give around half a billion dollars in assistance over three years, so that the Palestinian Authority can pay for essential public services. We are also providing training and equipment for the Palestinian civil police, to help them better protect the people of the Palestinian Territories.
In addition, we are helping to develop the Palestinian economy and create jobs. This week's London Business Forum on Trade and Investment in Palestine brought together Palestinian and British business people and will, we hope, increase British commercial investment in the Occupied Territories.
No-one can underestimate the scale of challenge. We are all acutely aware that a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict has eluded us for decades. But next year must see substantial progress if we are to keep alive the prospect of peace. Failure does not bear thinking about. We can make history in 2009, but only if we all have the creativity and vision to make a comprehensive peace a reality.