* Last hour: the boast of the occupation fire towards fishermen in Gaza. Al-Quds)

* Patriarch of the Coptic Church in Egypt Pope Shenouda passes away. The president announces the death of Pope Shenouda the great advocate of the Palestinian people and their cause and pays condolences to (Al-Quds)

* During a tour in Hebron governate to open a number of projects, Fayyad: ending the division, reunifying the institutions of the homeland and forming a government capable of working on the West Bank and the Gaza strip are requisite. (Al-Quds)

* Scores killed in blasts in Damascus. (Al-Quds)

* Two blasts in Damascus kill 27 people and protests continue in several areas. Russia urges Syria to support Anan`s effort “without a delay”.  Al-Ayyam)

* One rocket lands in west of the Negev and Egyptian assurances on the calm. (Al-Ayyam)

* Fayyad: general and municipal election should be held swiftly and pressure should be exercised on the obstructive party of the reconciliation. (Al-Ayyam)

* Damascus: three killed in a blast of a Palestinian Liberation Army`s car in al-Yarmouk camp. (Al-Ayyam)

* Nasser al-Qidweh… first Palestinian politician to assume a high ranking international diplomatic post. Al-Qidweh to “al-Ayyam”: I am fully aware of that the mission is extremely difficult and risky. (Al-Ayyam)

* Arrestment of Abdullah a-Senusi, Kaddafi`s chief of intelligence, in Mauritania. (Al-Ayyam)

* Israel warns that Iran may “use nuclear weapon”. (Al-Ayyam)

*. Fayyad: it is high time to an objective accounting to those who violate the required commitments to end the division. (Al-Hayat al-Jadida)

Al-Quds: 1) Beit Ummar- an Israeli soldier intercepting an adolescent during the weekly protest in the village against settlements and the Wall.

Al-Ayyam: 1) An Israeli soldier attacking a boy while suppressing anti-settlement protest in Beit Ummar yesterday; 2) Poe Shenouda; 3) Dr. Fayyad during laying cornerstone ceremony of al-Dhahiriyyeh stadium; 4) Nasser al-Qidweh.

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida: 1) Pope Shenouda III; 2) Fayyad during laying cornerstone ceremony of a-Dhahirriyeh stadium; 3) citizens carrying prisoner Hana` a-Shalabi`s photo during a solidarity sit-in in front of the ICRC headquarter in Jerusalem; 4) a soldier directing his gun to a child`s chest during Beit Ummar weekly march.

Jerusalem: Israeli occupation forces arrested last Saturday two Palestinian minors and one young man during violent confrontations in Silwan, occupied Jerusalem.

The West Bank: Settlers uprooted and stole over 220 olive trees from lands in Duma village, southeast of Nablus governate.

** Fatah`s Al-Ahmad: I will meet Hamas`s Abu Marzouq in two or three days; all obstacles that have emerged after Doha Declaration still unresolved**
Azzam al-Ahmad: Member of Fatah Central Committee.

Q: What are the highlights of your recent meetings with leaders of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad?

In fact, I met with deputy Hamas politburo Mousa Abu Marzouq in Cairo with the presence of the Egyptian side. The meeting was held few days ago and without the knowledge of media outlets with the purpose of removing obstacles that have emerged in the face of implementing Doha Declaration. So far, none of these obstacles have been removed. Brother Mousa Abu Marzouq promised to return to Hamas leadership to study the situation before informing us and the Egyptian side (with their stance).
I expect to meet Abu Marzouq again within the two or three coming days in Cairo.

Human rights in Palestine
By: Navi pillay* (http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article588564.ece)

My visit to Israel and Palestine a year ago left me with a profound sense of the difficult human rights situation faced by many Palestinians and Israelis. Still, the openness of representatives on all sides to engage seriously on the human rights challenges I identified was encouraging.
Taking this spirit of constructive engagement as our point of departure, I and my staff have been watching closely for progress on the issues I raised with Israeli and Palestinian authorities in Gaza, Jerusalem, Ramallah and Tel Aviv. We have also continued to press for greater respect for human rights and suggested ways to protect civilians from violence and insecurity.
Next week, I present my annual report on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory to the Human Rights Council. This provides me with an opportunity to highlight a few steps that have the potential to make it easier for both sides to live side by side in peace and security.
During my 2011 visit, I expressed my concern to Palestinian representatives about the arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of fellow Palestinians. These issues have not yet been sufficiently addressed, especially in Gaza. Palestinian leaders should clearly instruct security personnel to refrain from arresting people without a proper warrant. They must also ensure that all credible allegations of ill-treatment are investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially.
A second challenge on the Palestinian side, is the need to safeguard the freedoms of opinion, expression, association and assembly, which are fundamental human rights. These freedoms are central to the open and democratic society to which so many Palestinians have aspired for so long. Palestinian leaders should make a greater effort to secure these rights in law, policy and practice, including for human rights defenders and journalists.
The indiscriminate firing of rockets and other projectiles from Gaza into Israel is illegal and unjustifiable. Those who participate in such activities are not only terrorizing Israeli civilians, they are playing into the hands of those who wish to maintain the blockade. Next week’s report notes that, during certain sensitive periods in 2011, the rockets stopped. This suggests that Palestinian leaders have the ability to end such attacks altogether.
My visit brought me face to face with many large-scale human rights violations stemming from Israel’s occupation of Palestine. At the conclusion of my visit I stressed that transferring civilians into occupied territory is plainly and unequivocally illegal. To treat the freezing of settlement activities as a concession, or a precondition, for peace negotiations is to turn the law on its head.
There are numerous serious human rights challenges intrinsically linked to the expansion of settlements. Repeated violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians is one such challenge. The Israeli government has a clear obligation to protect Palestinians and their property from violence by Israeli settlers. One step in this direction is to rigorously investigate all such incidents and hold perpetrators accountable. Israeli authorities have spoken with me about difficulties in investigating settler violence. But the fact is Israel delivers accountability in some cases and should be able to do so consistently. Palestinians must be able to easily access Israeli police stations and register complaints if settler violence is to be dealt with effectively.
Over the past year, my office has paid particular attention to incidents of excessive use of force by Israeli security forces. In the West Bank, Israeli forces carrying out law enforcement activities and operating checkpoints have on several occasions killed unarmed Palestinian civilians. In Gaza, Israeli soldiers enforcing restrictions on access to certain areas on land and at sea have also killed unarmed Palestinian civilians. These deaths were needless. Such incidents can be avoided if Israeli forces, in accordance with international standards, stop resorting so readily to the use of live ammunition when dealing with civilians.
Last year I met many civilians whose lives have been wrecked by Israel’s blockade of Gaza. If poverty, unemployment and the deterioration of health care, education and water and sanitation facilities are its goals, then Israel’s blockade is succeeding. But Israel has the resources to handle legitimate security concerns that emanate from Gaza without punishing the civilian population en masse. Important steps that Israel can take immediately include facilitating the movement of civilians to and from Gaza, ensuring that reconstruction materials can be delivered and permitting more goods to be exported.
To protect civilians from violence and insecurity is to respect human dignity. Without this respect, “living side by side in peace and security” will remain unrealistic rhetoric for both Palestinians and Israelis. Taking these steps would not only lead to immediate improvements in the lives of civilians, it would demonstrate that Israeli and Palestinian leaders are actually interested in providing their own populations with human rights, peace and security, since neither side will enjoy all three, unless both sides do.

*The author is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


Netanyahu aims at two birds with one strike
by PV Vivekanand* (http://jordantimes.com/netanyahu-aims-at-two-birds-with-one-strike)

March is when Israel’s powerful lobby in Washington, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), holds its annual conference, where US businessmen and politicians are offered the opportunity to fall over themselves in their frenzy to renew their allegiance to Israel.
This year’s AIPAC conference was more intense than usual because Israel had already hammered home its argument that an Iran with nuclear weapon poses an existential threat to it.
Jews are facing a new threat of annihilation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the conference. Other speakers could not agree more. Most of them backed the notion that the US should wage a war for Israel against Iran.
US President Barack Obama, mindful of his political priorities and US national interests, both internal and external, pledged not to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, but indicated that he did not favour immediate military action. He told the AIPAC conference that he would not “hesitate to use force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon”.
Publicly, Netanyahu welcomed the statement but reserved for himself the right to take whatever action he deems fit to “protect” Israel from the “Iranian nuclear threat”.
Israel does have the military capability to hit at most of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but it needs US logistic support to make the attacks effective. Therefore, Israeli leaders are bluffing when they talk about unilateral action without informing the US in advance. They want the US to lead the charge and, ideally, fight the Iranians to the last American solider.
Netanyahu knows it, Obama knows it and the world knows it.
In the meantime, Obama’s resistance to the call for war on Iran has earned him another notch in Israelis’ dislike for him.
Shortly after his AIPAC address, Obama was asked about his comment that “we have Israel’s back”. The president’s answer was that “it was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any particular military action”.
That statement was immediately interpreted in Israel as backtracking on his “commitment” to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons.
Obama has many considerations against military action against Iran: Iran and its allies will retaliate against US and allied interests in the region, including the 130,000 foreign soldiers waging the war against insurgents and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; oil prices will shoot up and damage Obama’s chances of reelection in November. More than half of the Americans are opposed to their country getting involved in any war in foreign lands.
The only effective means to “neutralise” Iran’s nuclear programme — without a 1945 Japan-style “nuking” of the country — is to turn the Tehran regime US- and West-friendly. It seems like an impossibility as long as the theocrats reign supreme in Iran.
The simple equation is that any military action against Iran could not be limited to the country’s nuclear facilities. It will only trigger a broader conflict with unpredictable consequences that will be disastrous for the entire region.
Israelis are sidestepping that reality. They are also trying to counter Obama’s argument that the sweeping sanctions against Iran have started to bite and Tehran will be forced to succumb to international pressure sooner rather than later.
Critics are playing down the impact of the international sanctions adopted against Iran by the UN and separate curbs imposed by the US and its Western allies. They say that Obama sought to dilute the strength of the latest sanctions by delaying their enforcement and asking Israel to wait a few months to allow them to take effect.
Well, the US president was only trying to ward off a dramatic rise in domestic fuel prices and serious damage to the US economy by delaying the implementation of the latest sanctions against Iran.
Clearly, the Israelis are apprehensive about a second Obama term at the White House. They have seen that he has no taste for the “strategic” relations with Israel that would compel him to act against what he considers as the genuine interests of his country.
A second-term Obama could be expected to put up high resistance to Israeli pressure and could even confront Netanyahu, after having been forced to blink first in last year’s standoff over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The US president could not have forgotten the humiliation he suffered in 2010 when he tried to pressure Netanyahu by snubbing him at a White House meeting. The entire US political establishment landed on his head and pressured him into inviting Netanyahu again to the White House with the full red-carpet treatment and a little extra — a “cozy” family meeting between their wives.
Netanyahu could not have forgotten it either. He must be aware of Obama’s dislike for him — and for Israel in general, mainly because the president is forced to push US national interests to the back burner when dealing with Israel. The Israeli prime minister could not have forgiven Obama for the not-very-diplomatic comment he made about him in a private conversation (that went public) with French President Nicolas Sarkozy last year.
Netanyahu seems to be aiming at two birds with one stone: use the US to wreck Iran’s nuclear programme and get rid of Obama from the White House in the November elections.

*The writer, who served The Jordan Times for 20 years, now works for the UAE-based Gulf Today newspaper.

Palestinian Transformations
By: Elias Harfoush, al-Hayat (http://international.daralhayat.com/print/375709)

The days of Gaza and the days of “Hamas” have changed. The recent confrontation in the Gaza strip was a not only a new test for the capability of the Israeli aggression to inflict humane losses and financial damages to the Palestinians, as if we need additional Palestinian blood to realize this matter, but also a test to the Islamic movement and its brave hesitance to engage in the adventure of a costly counter.
“Hamas” has refrained from taking part in the recent escalation in the Gaza strip, although other factions considered it as retaliation to the assassination of secretary general of the “Popular Resistance Committees” Zuheir al-Qaysi and another leading “al-Quds Brigades” operative by Israel. The stance of “Hamas” has appeared in the recent confrontation as a new strategy of the movement whereby it places political actions at the very top of its concerns without giving in the principle of resistance which it has endorsed for five years after taking over the Gaza strip.
In fact, this applies with an analysis that was conducted by the Islamic Jihad movement to the stance of “Hamas”. Islamic Jihad leader Abdullah a-Shami has consdired his movement as in competition with “Hamas” over popularity, which is a competition over resistance. A-Shami has certainly reached the conclusion that “Hamas” is the biggest loser in this confrontation after it has succeeded “to place the Islamic movement in the corner”, as he said.
Member of the Islamic Jihad politburo, Nafeth Azzam, for his part, maintained that the entry of “Hamas” in the authority has affected its role in the Palestinian resistance, and its response to the recent Israeli aggression against the Gaza strip. He added that “the recent escalation did not witness any kind of coordination between the Islamic Jihad and our brothers in Hamas despite of the good relations we have”.
There is a new climate of transformations in the political reality which imposes itself on the Palestinian factions. It reflects the new alliances that are currently dictating the move of these factions and their political discourse. One of the signs of these transformations is the recent divorce between “Hamas” and the Syrian leadership, due to disputes between the movement`s leadership and Damascus over the violent method that the Syrian leadership has applied to suppress the uprising. In return, there is rapprochement between the Islamic Jihad and the “Popular Resistance Committees” in to Gaza strip on the one hand, and with the Iranian leadership on the other. It could be added to this the role Iran has been playing to widen the rift inside Hamas leaderships after the recent reconciliation agreement with Fatah and which has impacted steps pertinent to the formation of a Palestinian national unity government.
The recent confrontation in the Gaza strip represented the first test to “Hamas” movement and to its new status amidst the influence of the Syrian uprising and the Arab Spring on its recent options that have been realistic to a great extent which we have never identify before in Hamas. A short review of Hamas`s last discourse in comparison to the one heard during the war on Gaza at the end of 2008 is a sufficient indicator to this transformation. Presently, “Hamas” is playing the role of a mediator for calm through the Egyptian matchmaking between Israel and the Islamic Jihad movement. This role of “Hamas” is similar only to the one played by Abu Mazen-led PA three years ago between “Hamas” and the Israelis and through the Egyptian mediation as well in bid to halt the Israeli killing of Palestinians.
However, the most worrying matter in the recent transformations in the Palestinian arena is the possible repetition of the game in which the card of Palestine can be used by a specific Arab or regional regime for its benefits. It is no coincidence “inflaming” this confrontation in Gaza at the time the Syrian regime is undergoing this crisis and while Iran is enduring worries of a counter with the west due to its nuclear affair. This is a distraction that is worthy, in the eyes of those responsible for and have benefited from, to scarify in Gaza at least 25 Palestinian souls without even one Israeli in return.