In public transportation in Israel (primarily buses) there are “special compartments in the rear seats.” Only women can sit there. In Israel, there are cities where women are required to walk only on certain sides of the street, and there are places where women are not allowed to be. Sections are allocated for women in post offices and banks, in parks, and at entertainment attractions… Segregation on buses, allocating special walkways for women, and especially the ban on performances by female artists in army units is increasingly becoming the norm in Israel. Gender segregation is increasingly spreading to other areas of life, where there was nothing like this previously. One and a half years ago in Israel there already were more than 150 bus routes, where the segregation policy was in effect. Public transport in the most populated areas of the Jewish state is forced to comply with the laws of the Sabbath, that is, it does not operate on Saturdays. There was a time when this sort of segregation mainly occurred in the synagogues, but today it is increasingly spreading to other areas of life, in the public sphere, in the army, and even in private homes. In houses that pay particular attention to religious precepts of Judaism today there are separate places allocated just for women. Women are only allowed to eat in the kitchen, separately from men.

However, ultra-Orthodox women often support this approach. A parishioner of one of Jerusalem’s synagogues admitted: “Women are raped in the universities, in the Israeli army. And all because the women there are not segregated from men, and it creates many temptations. This is a much worse violence against women than putting them in the back of the bus.” “Sexual harassment of women, unfortunately, occurs quite often in our lives,” accepts Elana Sztokman. “However, this is not a reason to enclose all women in separate sections. There is the issue of sexual violence, but the way to solve it is to educate men, and not to put women behind a fence.”

Elana Sztokman in meeting with readers recalled the legendary Rosa Parks. Rosa’s refusal to sit behind the segregated “whites only” and “blacks only” bus sections once kindled the flame of civil disobedience and was an important step in the struggle for civil rights in the United States. Sztokman said that for her, as an American religious Jew, to be in the back of a bus in Jerusalem was totally unacceptable. But in Israel, this situation has not yet caused mass protests. Sztokman remarked: “The War on Women in Israel” is not an invention of its own religious orthodoxy. Over the past forty years almost all American ideas and values have taken root in Israel: political, economic and social, religious and secular, right and left, conservative and liberal. Jewish fundamentalism, both ultra-Orthodox and right religious nationalism was also largely imported to Israel from the United States. Until now, this has largely been instigated by graduates of religious schools in Brooklyn – the “yeshivahs”.

Like so much else in Israel, the policy of segregation takes a semi-official character. On paper the law is the same for everyone and does not recognise such a thing as an ultra-Orthodox sector or an ultra-Orthodox community. However, in reality, the authorities are constantly breaking the law. Even worse is the implementation of laws on labour and vacation. Here the power of the law is flipped like a switch, sometimes focusing on secular circles of society. In other cases, laws are bent in favour of religious policy. Like so much else in Israel, the policy of segregation takes place under the “telephone justice”.

Israel declares itself to be a secular state, but the process of religious revival in Israel is identical to the processes occurring in the Middle East. Like most of its neighbouring Arab and Islamic Republics, Israel’s religion is not separated from the state, acts of civil status come within the purview of religious courts.

One of the most sensitive spots and hot spots of the struggle for women’s rights – and this is the holiest site of Judaism – is the Western Wall. In her book Sztokman describes the history of the women’s struggle for the right to pray there beyond the special sector. The “Women of the Wall” movement was created in the 1980s within a much broader movement for the admission of women to the prayer halls of Orthodox synagogues. From the outset, the feminists in response to their demands were met with violence at the Western Wall. The author of article you are reading was fortunate enough to observe the first appearance of “Women of the Wall”, when the indignant crowd of religious Jews, headed by Shmuel Rabinovitch, Rabbi of the synagogue of the Wailing Wall, attacked the worshipping women. Chairs, rocks and even bags of filth were thrown at the women. The case of admitting women into the male area at the Western Wall has come before the courts. In 2011, a new stage arose. The Israeli police did not shy from taking sides and began to arrest the “Women of the Wall”. The courts also toughened their stance, and the fenced part of the area recognised as an “orthodox synagogue”, even though the place was built as a result of statements after the victory of the Six Day War that “The Wall is ours!” and will be the property of the Israeli nation, and not of a specific religious community.

Sztokman herself is from Brooklyn. She grew up in a religious Jewish quarter and now lives in Israel. She does not consider herself an outsider to the religious life any more than she sees herself as a stranger coming to teach people how they should live. “The war against women,” she says, “is the product of ultra-Orthodox communities, as regards the whole of Israeli society and is offensive to the rights of all women. Sztokman knows what it is like to be and feel part of the “women’s section”. “In no way do I want to impose anything on anyone,” says Sztokman. “At the same time I do not want religious orthodoxy to impose something on others. In society, we must leave room for other lifestyles, for other points of view on life. I’m glad if someone is happy when living a religious life, but if someone is unhappy, it must be possible for them to live in their own way.”

In the ultra-Orthodox community there are many unfortunate women. There are hotlines for victims of violence. The organization Bat Melech established two shelters for women from Orthodox communities. And the resistance of religious circles is great. Last year, it was reported that the Chief Rabbinate demanded cell-phone companies to block the phones of the emergency organisation Bat Melech and other psychological assistance services.

Preparedness to use violence is increasingly embraced by Orthodox Judaism, which is often supported by government structures.

Israeli society experienced ultra-Orthodox protest for the first time in 1986 in Jerusalem when almost all the bus stops were burned because advertisements for fashion and cosmetics were displayed there. It was then that the Jerusalemites waiting for buses in the heat, deprived of their usual shade suddenly felt anxiety about their future.

Authorities in “free” Israel are unlikely to side with Elana Sztokman. By their nature, they are focused on segregation, not only of the Palestinians, but as in this case, of women.

Alexander Efimov, PhD of Historical Sciences, an expert on Middle East problems, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Source: Timesofisrael

Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which have been going on for several months, are at an impasse. In order to unlock the current situation, Martin Indyk, U.S. representative at the talks, said that the United States is going to solve the most difficult problems by pouring large sums of money on them. According to him, Secretary of State John Kerry has already notified Congress of this. In particular, it is planned to spend American money for the construction of new barriers on the border with Jordan, which will be protected by sophisticated electronic surveillance systems and UAVs. Americans are going to pay significant cash indemnities to Palestinian refugees, as well as to Jews, who at one time were forced to leave the Arab countries.

Although, it is clear that no progress can be expected in the near future in the talks, they have been extended until the end of 2014. In addition, at the international security conference in Munich, Kerry warned Tel Aviv: “Israel looks prosperous. However, this is an illusion. If the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations end in failure, it will be shattered.” In this case, the Secretary of State said: “…It will be impossible to resist a boycott of Israel. It seems to Israel that it is not in danger. However, if the talks are wrecked, the process of Israel’s de-legitimization as a Jewish and democratic state will start.” Kerry continued: “There is no alternative to negotiations. The consequences of failure are so undesirable that any alternative will be better than the consequences, no matter what concessions each of the parties would have to make.”

In his turn, Martin Indyk launched a new initiative on behalf of the United States. Washington offers a plan to reserve for Israel about 75–80% of the settlements behind the so-called “Green Line”, in other words, in the occupied territories, while 20–25% of Jewish settlements on the West Bank will come under Palestinian control. Residents of these settlements, he said, will be invited to become citizens of the Palestinian state. According to the American representative, the president of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas has already agreed to this plan. However, according to media reports, Saeb Erekat, a senior PLO representative, head of the Palestinian delegation at the talks, said that all Jewish settlers, regardless of their nationality, would have to leave the Palestinian territories.

The Arab League welcomed the beginning of a new stage in the Palestinian-Israeli talks and promised their full political support to the Palestinians. The Arab League has attempted but not very successfully, to participate in the settlement process. Deputy Secretary General of the League Muhammad Sabiah has recently criticized Israel for its refusal to accept the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. In accordance with this initiative, the Arab countries will have to recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with it, if the negotiations turn out to be successful. For the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf this is, probably, an acceptable step. Formal recognition will not prevent the Arab regimes from secretly funding the Islamist movements. Simultaneously, the alliance with Israel will improve their relationship with the United States and will strengthen their position in the confrontation with Iran.

Jordan is most interested in the settlement of the conflict. It does not want to take responsibility for the population of the autonomous region, as was suggested in one of the projects for the solution of the conflict. Peace on the boarders is no less important for Amman; it hopes to get rid of at least some of the Palestinians currently living in the country, upon solving the issue of refugees.

Egypt, the former chief regional mediator, has too many problems itself. The ousted President Mohamed Morsi has not managed to reconcile Fatah and Hamas. Thus, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is actually representing in the talks only the West Bank. Hamas leaders have condemned the negotiations between Israel and “a bunch of compromisers” and announced that they reject any and all arrangements in advance. According to them, Abbas wants to deal with his rivals using Israel and the new Egyptian regime, while negotiations are a path to the final Palestinian separation and to another Israeli war in the Gaza. This has been recently announced by one of the activists of the Islamic Resistance Movement Osama Hamdan.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were greeted without enthusiasm in the West Bank, Fatah’s fiefdom, either. Many residents of the West Bank are indignant at Abbas’s refusal to accept the preconditions – the moratorium on the construction behind the “green line” and the boarders of 1967.

It is assumed that the Palestinian Authority, as well as Israel, will hold a referendum on the agreement with the Jewish state. Most Palestinians do not believe in the productive outcome of the dialogue. Many regard negotiations as a way to promote Palestinian demands. Indeed, the terms, which long before had been presented by European diplomacy as “unacceptable conditions” presented to Israel by the Palestinian side, and namely, the division of Jerusalem, the return of refugees, stopping of settlement activity, today, due to constant discussion, are recognized as valid and legitimate.

However, the Palestinian side has a unanimous opinion on this issue. This applies to the release of prisoners, serving sentences in Israeli prisons. Various groups have long maintained an unspoken competition for the number of bargained Palestinian prisoners from Israel. No matter which way this goal is achieved, be it by seizure of hostages or by setting conditions for starting negotiations. That is why Abbas became a hero both on the West Bank and in Gaza. Israel has always fulfilled this requirement, even though it falls under the category of preconditions, which Israel said it did not agree to.

Iran (though not an Arab country, but an important regional player, whose opinions cannot be ignored), naturally condemns the new round of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. Perhaps, Syria would have joined it, if President Bashar al-Assad were not involved in a war of survival now. The Iranian regime does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, and declares itself a defender of the rights of Palestinians. Tehran has its own recipe for the solution of the conflict: release of all the “occupied” territories, return of refugees and proclamation of Palestine’s independence with its capital in Jerusalem. In contrast to the Arab initiative, Iran does not offer anything in return for Israel, which should disappear as the Jewish national center, instead a Palestinian state, where Jews and Christians become religious minorities, would appear.

In reality, the ayatollah regime is not interested in putting an end to the confrontation; they would rather preserve it as long as possible. Anti-Zionist rhetoric and support for extremist groups fighting against Israel is a powerful factor in Iranian influence. In addition, the Islamic Republic is afraid of the implementation of the final paragraph of the Arab initiative – alliance of oil monarchies with Israel. Then, Iran’s position would be much worse. However, not only Tehran, but also the entire region does not believe in such a possibility.

Let us return to the Americans. Kerry praised Tzipi Livni, the head of the Israeli side in the negotiations. Kerry spoke with enthusiasm about this. However, it is unlikely that the Palestinian side shares the same opinion. The following verbal duel occurred during the talks between Tzipi Livni and Saeb Erekat. “It makes no sense to argue about historical rightness,” Livni said. “We have to think about how to build the future. I am not looking for a romantic settlement. Israel wants peace, because it is in our interests.” In response, Saeb Erekat said: “You always think that someone is following you, someone threatens Israel’s security.”

According to Kerry, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently taken ​​a series of “bold steps”, for which he thanked him. According to the American Secretary of State, there have occurred major shifts in the Israeli position. However, Kerry did not say what shifts.

If everything is so wonderful, then Washington’s warning and its pessimistic predictions about the possible failure of the negotiations and the process of de-legitimization of Israel, expected in case of failure, sound puzzling.

According to Indyk, Jerusalem is mentioned only generally in the American plan and the talks about its status will be carried out later. However, the parties are unlikely to move over to the “problem of Jerusalem”, because the positions of the parties on all the other issues in the negotiations, despite the new proposals of the U.S., remain unchanged. One could assume that the Americans are still creating illusions, and, in spite of their new initiative and the “bold steps” of the Israeli prime minister, “things haven’t budged an inch”. Such a situation leads only to the danger of a new and broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which can involve Iran, as well. The United States, as a “strategic ally” of Israel will not be able to stay away, and no doubt would find itself in an extremely difficult and unprecedented situation.

Alexander Efimov, PhD in History, Middle East expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

International analysts have started paying increasingly more attention to the role of modern Russia in the Middle East in recent years. The title of this article brings to mind the words of Prince Alexander Gorchakov (1798-1883), an outstanding Russian diplomat, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Alexander II, who said shortly after Russia’s disastrous Crimean War (1853-1856): “La Russie ne boude pas – elle se recueille” – “Russia is concentrating”. He made it clear that Russia was not surrendering its right to have a voice in international affairs, but was just gathering its strength for the future. Indeed, at that time, Russian diplomacy rejected the articles of the Treaty of Paris on the neutralization of the Black Sea, which were derogatory to Russia’s dignity, and despite the protests of Britain, the great powers had to recognize Russia’s right to have its navy in the Black Sea.

The current situation in the Middle East involuntarily brings to mind those years. The fall of the USSR could not but affect the foreign policy of modern Russia, including in such an essential region of the world as the Middle East. Russia’s influence weakened considerably there in the 1990s. Fyodor Lukyanov, the Chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, said at a discussion entitled “U.S.A., Russia and the Middle East” at the Johns Hopkins University in Washington that the restoration of Russian influence in the Middle East is not a goal of the future, but the process that has been rapidly going on in the recent past, “thanks to Russia’s consistent policy in the region, that is motivated not by the strategic interests of Russia, but by the key principles based on the efforts to prevent the transformation of intervention into the common means of addressing problems in the region.” 

Russia is still interested in the predominance of secular regimes in the region, and the prevention of the export/import of religious extremism is the most important challenge of current Russian diplomacy. Russia has consistently opposed the forcible change of regimes in the Middle East and the external interference in the internal affairs of these countries in general. This Russian political expert said that: “Unlike the U.S.A., in its Middle East policy, Russia is guided not by the ideas of bad and good sides, with the subsequent overthrow of the bad guys, or by its own interests, but by the principle of what should not and what should be done”. Moreover, this really is the reason for the success of Russia: Syria was a “turning point in the global mission of Russia”. The U.S. strategy in the Middle East bewilders Russia, because Russian diplomacy cannot understand what are the aims pursued by America. According to Lukyanov, Libya was a “perfect shame”.

Fiona Hill, director of the Center for U.S.A. and Europe in the Brookings Institute, who participated in the discussion, could not but admit the strengthening of Russia’s position: “The U.S. continues to treat Russia as an important participant of the negotiations in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Iran”. Hill pointed out that the tactics of Russian diplomacy allowed the country to take advantage of mistakes made by other players to promote its own interests. According to the expert, a positive trend in the development of Russian-Israeli relations, which, in her opinion, is the result of the “Russian roots” of the political elite in Israel, plays a great role in strengthening Russia’s position.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most famous American political experts, who took part in the discussion, said that “Russia has never left the Middle East – it is close with its soft underbelly in the south”. According to his conclusions, Russia is interested in the restoration of its influence in the Middle East at the level of the Soviet period and would like to minimize the U.S. presence in the region. However, Russia is not ready for “dramatic” efforts to force out America from the Middle East. According to Brzezinski, no country is now able to dominate in the Middle East: “The Middle East is at the beginning of a new era, and no power has any advantages in this transition period, the possibility of losses is equal for everyone, although we still have, even if marginal, interests in the region.” The U.S. presence is decreasing slowly but steadily in the region, and anti-American sentiments are growing stronger. China has already become a new player in the Middle East, and is increasing its presence there quietly but steadily, returning to the Middle East for the first time after nine centuries of absence. Moreover, China’s presence is not limited to the economy. China is building a foundation of its political participation in the region, which, in particular, may have a negative effect on Russia’s influence, according to Western experts.

According to the participants of the discussion, the balance of the dominant powers in the Middle East will be “absolutely different from that observed in the 20th century” in the longer term. The experts pointed out that the common interests of the U.S. and Russia included the efforts to prevent the spread of terrorism and radical elements. Well, be that as it may, all participants of the discussion, despite their different and sometimes opposing points of view, could not but agree that Russia’s influence in the Middle East was growing primarily due to its skillful diplomacy.

Alexander Efimov, PhD of Historical Sciences, Middle East expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The closing date set for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is steadily moving toward completion: the end of March is not far off. According to its American organizers, this round of mutual contacts should have led to some peace agreements, to historic agreements that would put an end to century-old hostilities. There is a model agreement, approved by the international community – “Two states for two peoples”. However, the reality is much more complicated.

One can distinctly see the complete failure, rather than the light at the end of the tunnel. As predicted by many observers, the negotiations will reach an impasse and end in a failure. Undoubtedly, the Israeli party is playing for time and expects such a “result”. They continue to “beat the air” tediously and hopelessly. The Israelis insist that the Palestinians recognize the “Jewish Character” of the state and at the same time, continue to build Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank of Jordan, changing the demographic character of East Jerusalem.

In addition, a number of critical issues such as the problem of Palestinian refugees, the recognition of the borders for the future states of Jewish and Palestinian peoples continue to be bones of contention. In an environment filled with uncertainty and pessimism, the public reply of the Israeli Defense Minister Moshe ‘Bogie’ Ya’alon played the role of a fuse. According to the Minister, the plan of the Secretary of State John Kerry “is not worth even the paper on which it was written, and provides neither peace nor security”. Moreover, Ya’alon mockingly said: “We will feel safe only when John Kerry wins the Nobel Peace Prize and leaves us alone”.

It is not without reason that Washington perceived this remark of the Israeli general as an insult. However, it is unlikely that this was Ya’alon’s personal opinion. Most likely, these words reflect the attitudes of the senior political leaders in Israel. The statement, made by the Israeli minister only aggravated the situation in these sluggish negotiations. It only reinforced the existing hostile relations between Obama and Netanyahu. Americans did not keep this fact secret, on the contrary, they demanded an apology from the Israeli side, which remains an ally and strategic partner of the U.S.A., and the apology came immediately. Nowadays, personal relationships and mutual friendliness of the political leaders play an important role in relationships at the state level. So, this disagreeable incident will not be soon forgotten.

   The again, what proposals were made by the Israelis in these negotiations? The U.S. administration paid attention to the long cherished idea of the Israeli Foreign Minister, who returned to active political activity, to exchange populated areas with the Palestinian Authority. B. Netanyahu had a surprising proposal to increase the number of enclaves that Israel desired to obtain from the PA from three to four, that is, to purchase Beit El together with the adjoining settlements from them. These occupied territories are inhabited by religious settlers. Grounds for such a proposal can, of course, sound quite reasonable, since it is said in the Old Testament that in this very Beit El, the Israeli forefather Jacob fell asleep, and in his dream, he saw a staircase leading into the sky, on which angels were climbing.

However, for some reasons, Mahmoud Abbas did not support such a proposal. Yes, it was clear from the very beginning that there are no chances for such a deal, and in fact, it was intended to wreck the talks, and looks like a provocation.

 Moscow, Washington and Brussels continue to closely monitor these negotiations. New ideas and approaches are required to set the negotiations in motion. The Israelis do not have any, (unless you consider the purchase of Beit El at a reasonable price). However, we should also note that Ramallah has no new proposals either. It is quite possible that under these circumstances, some Israeli politicians regard a military solution to the problem as the most appropriate course in this situation.

The final breakdown in the negotiations is unlikely to end with the preservation of the former status quo. Wreckage or failure of the negotiations could lead to a third intifada, which may well escalate the conflict. These developments may even reduce the influence of the United States in this region. If this happens, the Israeli political establishment, with an even greater sense of responsibility will heed the position and role of Russia in the Middle East, which has returned to this region and whose influence is now growing. The only hope is in John Kerry, who may suddenly come up with a new unexpected proposal. However, the time of miracles has long sunk into oblivion.             

Alexander Efimov, PhD of Historical Sciences, Middle East expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Since the signing of the Iranian nuclear programme agreement by the US, Russia, China, France, Germany and Great Britain a new political situation has undeniably taken shape in the Middle East region. It is merely part of more extensive global changes evoked by the warming of the US’s relations with Iran and its distancing from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Cairo has answered with concentrated efforts to improve relations with Moscow. Visits to Egypt by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence, as well as discussions on the first purchases of Russian weapons in 40 years (amounting to 2 billion USD), attest to these efforts. It is very likely that Saudi Arabia, counting on improving its own relations with Russia, could become the sponsor of such a deal.

The recent visit of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Moscow may be explained sooner by his desire to keep abreast of changes taking place in the region than by the continued hope of changing the Russian president’s mind on the issue of Iran’s atomic programme.

The change of course in Barack Obama’s Middle East policy has resulted in the strengthening of Russian influence and the weakening of US regional opportunities. Moscow maintains its support of the Assad regime while, at the same time, developing new ties in the zone of current American influence.

Israel is, in reality, not an essential problem for any government of the Middle East region: Iran opposes Saudi Arabia in the centuries-old battle of the Shiites and Sunnis for hegemony and the possession of Islamic shrines. Saudi Arabia is struggling with Turkey in an ideological war of political Islam – the Muslim Brotherhood vs. the Wahhabis. Turkey and Iran fiercely compete for regional leadership among the Muslim countries. Since its coup, Egypt is currently following in the footsteps of Saudi Arabia and recently announced that it will seek “legal means” to be allowed to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization in the near future.

In turn, Turkey’s attempts to defend the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood have led to a rupture with Egypt, including the recall of ambassadors. The region between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria – the area of the failed Kurdish state – could very well become yet another point of tension in the Middle East. The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has publicly supported the Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani, effectively turning Northern Iraq into an independent state. Erdogan, for his part, is counting on receiving the support of Turkish Kurds in future elections while at the same time weakening the leaders of Syrian Kurdish parties who pose a threat to Turkish unity. It is unclear whether such a policy will succeed in winning Erdogan the expected support. But it will, in any case, guarantee him the hatred of the Kemalists, as well as the great irritation of Iran, Iraq and the Assad regime – of which the Kurdish separatists in Northern Syria and Southern Turkey are actually allies.

Israel is not a part of this Arab-Muslim field. Neither Saudi Arabia, Turkey, nor even Iran – despite its militant rhetoric – is interested in risking their future in a war of annihilation on the Jewish state, nor are any of the remaining Middle Eastern countries. Even the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, who, as evidenced by sociological polls, are seeking any means necessary to relocate into Israel prefer to live under the “Zionist occupation” rather than the corrupt regime of Abu Mazen and Hamas, bent on imposing their religious fundamentalism. Fatah leaders, headed by Abu Mazen, think still less about the annihilation of Israel – the sole guarantor of their current position in the region. Israel is a necessity for all local players, first and foremost as an accumulation point for hatred. With this express purpose in mind these players form unions for battling the “Zionist enemy” and mobilize them en masse, planning, however, to use them in the future against real opponents. In actuality, virtually none of those fighting with Israel are really interested in its disappearance. If this were to happen the consolidated mass hatred would also disappear. Conflict between former partners would quickly arise.

The only true opponent in this existential confrontation with Israel is Hamas, which dreams of building an Islamic state in place of the current Jewish one. This Islamic state would be part of the future caliphate, which would also include the Muslim Russian Caucasus. The Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, is willing to bide its time, knowing well that the geopolitical situation is clearly not in its favour. Those wishing, therefore, to destroy Israel are jihadist organizations lacking their own states, the full strength of their zeal being directed solely to ideological struggles.

If Israel continues without exception to be a dominating force over all regional parties, especially in the military sense, then it is hardly likely that any of the Muslim countries, much less militant political groups, will try to earn points by attacking the Jewish state. Taking this into consideration, it would be extremely unlikely to find any institution in the region, whether government or military in structure, willing to attack Israel, despite the relentless fear mongering of the Israeli propaganda machine to the contrary.

At the same time Israel can develop advantageous trade and economic relations with countries in the region interested in Israeli innovations. Israel will not, of course, share its military developments at the current time; in the extensive fields of medicine, biotechnology, water desalination and agriculture, however, Israel is quite capable of developing relationships and of reducing anti-Israeli sentiment in the pragmatic elites of Turkey, the Gulf countries (including Saudi Arabia), Egypt, and, in the future, possibly even Iran.

Alexander Efimov, Ph.D., expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the New Eastern Outlook online magazine.

At the end of November of this year, Iran and the E3+3 international mediators reached an agreement regarding the nuclear programme of Iran, which resulted in easing the economic sanctions against Tehran. Although the agreement was signed for a six-month period, the parties emphasise that it is the “first step”.

The six countries which signed this document recognise the right of Iran to a nuclear programme and uranium enrichment in the future on condition that this programme is monitored by the IAEA.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the interim agreement with Iran and expressed the hope that it “could turn out to be the beginnings of a historic agreement for the peoples and nations of the Middle East region and beyond”. The UN Secretary General urged the governments concerned to “do everything possible to build on this encouraging start, creating mutual confidence and allowing continued negotiations to extend the scope of this initial agreement”.

The easing of economic sanctions will affect the right of Iran to the trade in oil, gas and gold and will allow it to earn about 6 billion dollars during half a year.The talk is of potential revenues worth 1.5 billion dollars from the trade in gold and other precious metals, as well as, according to reports from the United States Department of State, due to the lifting of some of the sanctions concerning the automotive industry and other exports.

The Reuters agency, in turn, reports that, thanks to the easing of sanctions, Iran will be able to earn 4.2 billion dollars on the sale of oil and gas. However, some of the sanctions will remain in place: with regard to the Central Bank of Iran and another 20 major banks of the country. If Tehran accurately complies with the conditions of the signed agreement over the next 6 months, no new sanctions will be imposed against Iran.

In his TV statement, US President Barak Obama announced that over the next 6 months work will be done to “negotiate a comprehensive solution” regarding Iran. “We approach these negotiations with a basic understanding: Iran, like any nation, should be able to access peaceful nuclear energy. But because of its record of violating its obligations, Iran must accept strict limitations on its nuclear programme that make it impossible to develop a nuclear weapon.”

The statements made by the US President and Secretary of State voiced the idea that the agreement takes into account the interests of all allies of America, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. These countries have expressed particular concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. The President of the United States noted that, for the first time in a decade, the progress of the Iranian nuclear programme has been halted, and the imposed limitations will help prevent Tehran from getting closer to building a nuclear weapon during the next 6 months.

However, Israel’s reaction to this agreement has been negative. The assessments given by the official Tel Aviv were different from the position of the powers which signed the agreement. In his interview to the local radio station Reshet Bet, Israeli Minister of Intelligence, Strategic Planning and International Relations Yuval Steinitz expressed his dissatisfaction with the signing of this agreement and pointed out that it allows Iran to continue its progress towards obtaining a nuclear weapon. In an interview to the same radio station, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel Avigdor Lieberman described the signing of this agreement as “the greatest diplomatic victory of Iran”. According to him, this agreement poses difficult challenges for Israel. Economy Minister of Israel Naftali Bennett stated: “We awoke this morning to a new reality. A reality in which a bad deal was signed with Iran. A very bad deal. This bad deal gives Iran exactly what it wanted: a significant easing of the sanctions while retaining the most significant parts of its nuclear programme…It is important that the world knows: Israel will not be committed to a deal that endangers it’s very existence.”

In contrast to the strictly negative assessments given by Israeli politicians to the agreement between the E3+3 international mediators and Iran, Israel’s President Shimon Peres stated: “This is a temporary agreement, not a permanent one. The success or failure of the deal will be judged by the results, not words.”

Nevertheless, in spite of these statements, it is unlikely that after the signing of the agreement Israel will dare deliver a preventive strike on Iran which Israeli politicians have been constantly talking about in recent years.

Speaking at a press conference following the negotiations, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif stated that the international community has approved the right of Tehran to enrich uranium to a certain level, but Secretary of State John Kerry has refuted these words. However, according to AFP, the right of Iran to carry out uranium enrichment to a level of five percent is mentioned in the statement by the White House. Zarif clarified that Iran will be able to begin enriching uranium only at the last stage of the implementation of the agreement with the E3+3, reported Reuters with reference to the Iranian website Press TV.

A senior official of the US Administration has stated to Reuters that, in the near future, President Barak Obama is going to discuss some points of the agreement on the easing of sanctions against Iran with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. In this regard, it was stressed that Israel has been and remains the closest ally of the USA in the Middle East.

The USA’s complex political combinations may have far-reaching and not always predictable consequences. The international community could not ignore the statement by former head of the CIA Michael Hayden. In his recently published interview with Fox News, he stressed that “Iran’s going to be a nuclear threshold state”. He said that it is necessary to start right now the negotiations on a complete closure by Iran of its nuclear programme. According to Michael Hayden, in this situation, Israel, which, as has been noted, has become politically isolated as a result of the agreement of the “six” on Iran, could undertake actions that are extremely dangerous for the whole region and even the world.

In the meantime, the situation is exacerbating near the northern borders of Israel, which is concerned about the activities of Hezbollah Shiite militants. According to reports from the Israeli army circles referred to by JP, on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border the Israel Defence Forces and Hezbollah are intensively preparing for a new military confrontation, which is expected to exceed the previous wars in terms of firepower.

Alexander Efimov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

As reported by the leader of the leftist party Meretz, Zahava Gal-On to the influential Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in January next year, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama would present its own plan for the “final” settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This will be done if the current Israeli-Palestinian talks break down into a deadlock. However, as we have already mentioned, such an outcome of negotiations is more than probable.

This news was picked up by the Palestinian media, in particular the PNN and Maan agencies. Thus, according to sources of Gal-On, this topic was discussed behind closed doors during a recent meeting of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Rome. Radical leftist Israeli politician also said that in January 2014, the Obama Administration intended to achieve a “real diplomatic breakthrough”: the Americans want to move from policy of coordination between the two parties to the phase of active intervention.

It was reported that the administration of the U.S. President intended to present a new diplomatic plan, in which the solutions of major problems together would be proposed on the basis of 1967 borders and territorial exchange. The plan is also going to include a timetable for its implementation. The plan is going to deal with the problem of regional peace and the Arab Peace Initiative. It will also include the economic programme providing large investments into the Palestinian economy.

The existence of the U.S. Administration’s plan was reported by the Israeli radio station Galei Tzahal, citing its own sources. It was noted that Washington would begin implementation of this plan, if before January, a peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis cannot be achieved and clearly formulated.

According to Haaretz and Galei Tzahal, the Americans made the basis of their plan the “Saudi peace initiative” and “Clinton’s parameters” formulated by U.S. President Bill Clinton back in December 2000, during negotiations with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Taba. These “parameters” include return of Israel to its 1967 borders, the division of Jerusalem and the introduction of a special status in the Old Town, the evacuation of all Jewish settlements on the West Bank of Jordan (or, as these occupied territories are called in the Israeli political discourse, “Judea and Samaria”), as well as the transfer of part of the border with Jordan under the control of the Palestinian Authorities. The “Saudi Initiative” made provisions for the gradual settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the case of implementation of the plan as a whole.

At the sessions of the Israeli government, Netanyahu repeatedly voiced quite a vague formula of the peace agreement. He stated: “In order for the peace to be achieved between us and our neighbours, the Palestinians, they must recognize the right of Jews to having a state in our country. This means that they must recognize a permanent agreement, while withdrawing all claims on a national basis, against the State of Israel. The second is the principle of security – a principle that will keep the peace and protect the State of Israel if a peace agreement is violated. Security arrangements are fundamental to us, and we insist on them. These agreements will contain many components, but the main point for us is that Israel’s security border will be established along the Jordan River.”

However, Netanyahu has repeatedly stressed that he and U.S. Secretary of State also rejected the idea of retreat to the 1967 borders, and the division of Jerusalem, which, as was known, was proclaimed by the Israeli authorities as the “eternal and undivided capital of the Jewish state”. In November of this year, meetings were held between the U.S. Secretary of State with Netanyahu and Chairman of the National Palestinian Autonomous Territories Mahmoud Abbas, where all these questions were actively discussed. And the Executive Office of Netanyahu has not made any comments on the rumours about the presence of an “American plan” for settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict yet.

Obama’s January plan (if the U.S. really puts it on the negotiating table) looks attractive, but only on paper. As soon as it comes into contact with the political realities, this plan is unlikely to be achievable, at least until the Israeli government fundamentally changes its position on the main points of peace with the Palestinians. And this will happen ad calendas graeces (when hell freezes over).

Alexander Efimov, PhD of Historical Sciences, an expert on Middle East problems, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” .

Over centuries of history, the treatment of Jews – a people with its own religion (Judaism) and customs; “outsiders” living in exile for two thousand years – has become a specific criterion of respect for human rights in a society where tolerance is one of the main symbols of democracy and the rule of law.The tragedy of the Holocaust, as a result of which at least six million Jews were killed by German Nazis and their collaborators in Germany itself andin the occupied European countries, including the Soviet territory temporarily seized by Nazi troops, has become one of the most terrible symbols of the 20thcentury. And to this day, the Jewish population in the world, at just over 13 million people, has never reached the pre-war number of Jews in the world – 16 million.

Nowadays, politicians, and occasionally some of the general public in European countries, especially the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden and several othershave launched a propaganda war against the new Russia, reminding us sometimes of the dark days of the “cold war”. The Russian authorities have been accused of violating human rights, persecuting dissidents andother “actions”.However, the issue of discrimination against Jews all of a suddenvolens nolensdropped out of the propaganda arsenal of modern Russophobes. In the new Russia, there is no national anti-Semitism. And here,a moment from the “Golden Calf” comes to mind, written by two great Soviet satirists, Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov. When American correspondent Hiram Burman is interested in the “Jewish Question”in Russia, the response he receives is, “We don’t have such a question.”But after all, “his whole life he wrote articles for his newspaper on the Jewish Question, and it would be painful for him to part with this question. – But aren’t there Jews in Russia?- he saidcarefully. There are… – Soisn’t there a question too? No. There are Jews,but there is no question.”

Meanwhile, the threatening level of anti-Semitism in modern Europe reminds us of that very period in Europe in the early 1930s, when the “Golden Calf” was written. And you don’t need to look far to find examples and statistics of this in reality. 

At the meeting of the Jewish Agency for Israel held in Jerusalem, reports on the situation of Jews in various countries, including Europe, were presented to members of the commission on the fight against anti-Semitism. Of particular interest were the findings of the latest survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The survey was conducted in 13 of the 28 EU countries. Taking part in the survey were 5,900 Jews over 16 years of age, from countries including the UK, Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Sweden. This study, according to the FRA, was the first informal attempt to assess the situation of the Jews in EU countries. According to the survey, 75% of participants believe that in the last five years there has been a steady increase in anti-Semitism in their countries of residence, 82% of respondents said that over the past year, they felt discriminated against as Jews, 25% had faced verbal or physical anti-Semitic actions, and 10% emphasized that anti-Semitic incidents had threatened their lives.More thanhalf of those surveyed(55%) indicated that they anticipate dealing with manifestations of anti-Semitism in the next year as well. JacobHagoel, head of the department for combating anti-Semitism at the World Zionist Organization, noted when announcing thesurvey data that today in three European countries (Hungary, Ukraine and Greece) there are anti-Semitic parties in parliament, which give legitimacy to the anti-Semites of those countries. “I do not sleep well at night, because anti-Semitic acts, like the terrorist act in Toulouse(the March 2012 attack on a Jewish school in Toulouse that killed three children and one adult) could happen at any time,” said Hagoel.

Of course, the data from the survey mentioned previously is by no means the only evidence of the increase in anti-Semitism in the EU. In her weekly video address broadcast on the Internet, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that anti-Semitism and racial discrimination continue to pose a serious threat to democracy in Europe as a whole and in Germany in particular, despite the fact that nearly 70 years have passed since the end of the Second World War.

Nor has Denmark avoided these dangerous trends either. As a result, over the past fifteen years, the Jewish community in Denmark has diminished by more than a quarter, largely due to the constant growth of anti-Semitism on a domestic and national levels.The Jewish community in this country numbered 1,899 members in 2012, compared to 2,639 in 1997.

In an interview with a national newspaper, the president of the Jewish community, Finn Schwartz, noted that politicians’ and legislators’ attack on Jewish laws and traditions promotes the growth of anti-Semitism on an individual level. By putting the question of the legality of the ancient Jewish ritual brit milah (circumcision) to the whole society, he said, public officials, hiding behind slogans about violated children’s rights, create an anti-Semitic atmosphere in the country that forces young Jews to leave their homes. In 2012, 40 major anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in Denmark, twice as much as in 2009.

Of course, there have also been cases of anti-Semitic incidents in modern Russia. However,the report on the problems of Russian anti-Semitism by the Panel on Jewish Community in Russia notes that “the situation with anti-Semitism in Russia has remained unchanged over the years. With a small number of anti-Semitic attacks and incidents of vandalism, a latent anti-Semitism prevails. It has now been forced outto the periphery…”Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words at a meeting with Israeli President ShimonPerez in November 2012 were very revealing: “We will never forget the sacrifices made by the Jewish people in the struggle against Nazism. We will never forget the Holocaust.”

Criticism of Russia by Western “well-wishers” compels us to turn to the Gospel of Matthew: “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?”

Alexander Efimov, Candidate of Historical Sciences and expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Source: Flash 90

In the variety of articles, diplomatic negotiations, resolutions and fears about chemical weapons in the Middle East, with which the Assad regime “threatens” one and all, the issue of chemical weapons in Israel has remained in the shadows.

This topic was the subject of an examination by the influential Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The start of the process to eradicate chemical weapons in Syria opens the door to a review of the Israeli government’s own position regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Israel signed this convention back in 1993.However, since then it has refused to ratify and comply with the rules dictating the transfer of information, international control and destruction of substances intended for the production of chemical weapons.Jerusalem’s official position states that as long as there are hostile states possessing such weapons, Israel will not ratify the convention. According to”Haaretz”, this is a rather short-sighted approach, with questionable benefit.

In this type of “containment strategy”,Israel receives no benefit from the concealment of information relating to the possession of chemical weapons. It is hard to envision a scenario in which the Tzahal (Israeli Defence Forces) would use sarin gas in order to contain an enemy ground invasion on its own territory or to strike the rear of the opposing party. After all, Israel has other means of intimidation that can be effective without the threat of chemical weapons. The stockpiles of nerve gas, which Syria was thought to have possessed, were always considered by Israel to be a threat to its home front. The Israeli authorities have invested huge sums in the purchase and maintenance of chemical protection for its civilian population. At the beginning of the “Arab Spring”, civil war broke out in neighbouring Syria, threatening the central government in Damascus.This intensified Israel’s fears that Assad could send chemical weapons to Hezbollah, or non-conventional weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic radicals fighting in Syria, fears which seem to have unexpectedly pleased Western countries.

But now control over the Syrian chemical arsenal has been established and their removal from Syrian territory and elimination have begun (which must be fully completed by the middle of next year). It seems like this should have had a clear impact on the position of the Israeli ruling circles. But things are right back where they started. No one mentions the ratification of the international convention, whereas Syria’s elimination of chemical weapons removes the threat from Israel and visibly reduces the danger of these weapons spreading to the hands of Shiite group in Lebanon.It is impossible to destroy reservoirs of gas from the air, which is why a diplomatic agreement seems to be the most effective way to eliminate chemical weapons in the whole region.

The major world powers, including the United States and Russia, have already implemented the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention and have abandoned their stockpiles of nerve gas. And Israel can do the same. In the course of the signing in 1993, then Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said that “there are no weapons to fight non-conventional weapons, there are only certain policies that can prevent their use and production.” This statement by Peres, who is now the president of Israel, rings true to this day.

Ratifying the Convention will save Israel the considerable funds needed for the production and storage of chemical weapons. It will also be beneficial in strengthening the state’s reputation and prevent a situation in which Jerusalem is forced to do so under international pressure. After all, the agreement made by the United States and Russia concerning the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons is significant for Israel as well.

 Alexander Efimov, Candidate of Historical Sciences and expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Official statements about the cause of Arafat’s death did not ensue, which gave rise to many rumors, including a possible poisoning. Last year the Qatari TV channel, Al Jazeera, took to investigating the death of Yasser Arafat, who received a Nobel Peace Prize for his participation in peace negotiations with Israel. Journalists received many of Arafat’s personal belongings (including clothes and a toothbrush), and tissue samples from his family members, which were then sent to Switzerland to the Institute of Radio Physics and University Center for forensic examination. After this, the French prosecutor’s office upon request of Arafat’s relatives initiated a formal investigation on his possible poisoning. Arafat’s widow, Suha gave her approval to exhume his body, which was done last fall.

French forensic experts asked their colleagues from Switzerland and Russia to help. Their main task was to confirm or refute the claim of Arafat being poisoned with polonium-210, and then if this was confirmed, then try to determine where the chemical agent was produced. The group’s results are being held in strict confidence. The Russian newspaper Kommersant making reference to its own inside sources reported that an official investigation into the death of the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was completed and it concluded that the Palestinian leader was poisoned with polonium.

The story of Yasser Arafat’s sickness and the death was really full of conflicting reports, testimony of anonymous sources, innuendo and rumors. Everyone was working on creating an air of mystery: the “rais” himself, the head of the autonomy stubbornly not appearing in public, his inner circle insisting that he’s all right despite his obvious illness, the doctors hiding behind a wall of physician to patient privilege (and sometimes military secrets), and journalists who regaled their readers with unchecked data from anonymous sources.

In these circumstances, at the end of his days, Arafat was diagnosed with having food poisoning, the stomach flu, liver cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, hepatitis, cancer, AIDS, and much more. According to some sources, in the last week of his life, the patient did not lose consciousness and he kept wits, according to others he was in a delirium. While some claim that he was sick all the time or that he did not come out of a coma. In general, you can choose the version you like best, since the selection is wide. The following has been confirmed: in the middle of October 2004 Arafat felt a sharp discomfort. Doctors from neighboring Arab countries convened but they could neither diagnose nor help the patient. On October 29 with Israel’s content the head of the autonomy was taken to Percy, a hospital in Paris, where he got worse. During the next two weeks, the media repeatedly reported that he was “in a coma ” and then “died “, but rumors of his death were confirmed only on November 11^th when it was officially declared.

It should be noted that the French doctors flatly refused to inform the public that their patient died. Due to a lack of official information, conspiracy theories began to spawn. The following theory emerged as the leading one: Arafat was poisoned by the Israelis, Americans and their agents in the inner circle of the popularly revered leader. When the story on the sickness finally went public, those supporting murder as the cause of death got a new trump card: it turned out that French doctors couldn’t seem to understand for what their patient was treated. In their opinion it was said: “the combination of symptoms that led to the death of the patient remains hard to define.” In particular, Arafat had intestinal inflammation, impaired liver and circulatory system functioning, which could be due to “various reasons.” The immediate cause of Arafat’s death was a massive brain hemorrhage.

Thus the French doctors could not completely rule out that Arafat died from an unknown poison.

Arafat immediately was hailed as a martyr, and since then the majority of Palestinians (and Arabs) have little doubt that he was killed. This case, of course, has been accompanied by sinister details: according to one version, one of the traitors in Arafat’s inner circle injected the poison into his ear. For the Palestinians, this story sounds plausible since in 1997 Mossad agents wiped out Khaled Mashaal who worked in the top echelons of Hamas.

However, the Palestinians couldn’t find out for sure whether Arafat’s ears, Israeli secret agents and poisons were involved in their leader’s death. Back in 2005 a relevant commission already admitted that it was unable to add anything to the conclusions made by French doctors. After this the case was pretty much closed, although from time to time some interest was still occasionally shown.

Gradually, t he story of Arafat’s death has turned into a propaganda myth of the “martyrdom of a relentless fighter against Zionism, who fell at the hand of a vile enemy intelligence agent.” Arafat has been forgiven for all his sins and he has been blindly attributed the image of a near holy man. It has become almost inappropriate to figure out the true cause of death of the “hero”: what if by chance it turns out that he died of old age, or (even worse) from something like syphilis? For martyr it is much more appropriate to be vilely poisoned by an enemy.

However, some people are still concerned about the cause of death of the legendary “rais”. Seven years later Al Jazeera got in touch with the widow of the deceased Arafat and asked her to give permission for a new investigation. She did not mind this and even supplied journalists with her spouse’s personal belongings, including things as intimate as his famous keffiyeh, toothbrush and even underwear.

With all these goods reporters went to Lausanne, Switzerland to the respected worldwide Institute of Radio Physics. Local scientists managed to scrape off biological materials from the possessions belonging to Arafat: particles of saliva, natural secretions, blood, and so on. Upon analyzing the samples, radiologists found that the body of the “rais” contained a suspicious lot of radioactive polonium – 210 – ten times more than the norm. Since polonium is a very dangerous metal that one cannot get hold of it so easily, at once it was suspected that Arafat came into close contact with the substance against his will.

It should be noted that polonium-210 has a half-life of 138 days. That is, every 138 days the number of active isotopes in the middle of this substance is halved. According to the laws of quantum physics, the second half, breaking up and emitting radiation is converted into lead (not a very useful element either, but much safer for one’s health than polonium whose radiation causes severe damage to living tissue).

If the Palestinian leader was somehow slipped polonium now only about a fifteen hundred thousandth of the initial volume remains. That is, someone must had heavily drugged Arafat with this dangerous metal in 2004 so that eight years later traces could be detected by Swiss physics. Some experts believe that the “rais” must have swallowed a whole bar full. And taking into account the suspiciousness of Arafat, one must admit that this is highly unlikely.
Since Swiss experts are people too they could have made a mistake in their calculations. One needs to go one step further to find out the truth: open up the grave of the former head of Palestine and carry out an analysis of his remains. If traces of polonium-210 are found there too, then we can say with certainty that Arafat was poisoned after all, and start looking for the killers.

However, the consent of Arafat’s relatives was needed to exhume the body, and it was not long in coming: Suha Arafat addressed the current government autonomy asking to open the grave and conduct another examination. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, didn’t need to be convinced: on the day of the request he ordered the exhumation of the body and the creation of a special commission for examination.

Consequently, Swiss scientists unveiled details of their many months of research indicating that Arafat was probably poisoned with polonium.

No matter how Yasser Arafat passed, whether he was sent to his death by the Israeli secret service, enemies in his own inner circle or he died a natural death, one thing is certain: Arafat’s death and now rampant conclusions about his possible poisoning clearly plays into Israel’s hands. Such an atmosphere of hostility, mistrust and hostility creates additional problems in Israeli- Palestinian negotiations. During negotiations (which Israel’s ruling elite were forced to hold) they were merely interested in preserving the status quo.

Alexander Efimov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.