Click on map to enlarge. Courtesy of Ir Amim.

Worldfocus spoke with Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine, a non-profit dedicated to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Originally from Beirut, Ibish is the former Washington D.C. correspondent for Lebanon’s Daily Star and current author of IbishBlog.

Worldfocus: How would you characterize the current situation in Jerusalem?

Hussein Ibish: Jerusalem is the most divided city in the world. Israelis in West Jerusalem and the Jewish quarter feel like normal citizens of the Israeli state living under Israeli law. For them, life is very normal.

But East Jerusalem is more than 80 percent Arab. The situation is similar to that in the rest of the occupied territory, but it’s starker in Jerusalem because they’re living in such proximity. Insofar as an analogy to “apartheid” applies, this is more stark in Jerusalem than anywhere else, where separate and unequal is almost universal.

Most Jerusalem Arabs are not in effect subjects of Israeli law but practically live under martial law. In many cases, they’re technically residents of Israel — but not citizens. They can’t vote in national elections. And they generally don’t vote in municipal elections. Jerusalem is the flash point for the conflict.

Worldfocus: Why can’t the leaders on both sides reach a rational agreement about sharing the city?

Hussein Ibish: The cultural, religious and political importance of the holy places means that Jerusalem is central to both populations. Both sides are becoming increasingly influenced by right-wing religious rhetoric. The conflict is transforming from an ethnic struggle over land and power in a small area — into a religious struggle between bearded fanatics on both sides about the will of God and holy places.

The Old City of Jerusalem requires a creative solution and the unique formula like the Vatican City. It can’t be the exclusive preserve of any of the religious or ethnic groups. A unique formula has to be found. But it’s not beyond the wit of man to come up with a solution for this, because the national interests of all parties require it.

Worldfocus: Are there certain deal-breakers on the issue of Jerusalem?

Hussein Ibish: For the Israeli side, the “right of return” (for Palestinian refugees) is a deal-breaker just like the claim that Jerusalem is the undivided and eternal Israeli capital is for the Palestinians. This kind of rhetoric acts as a political narcotic: it makes people feel good, but it’s extremely damaging.

But when you get into the final status agreement, these are all issues that can be negotiated successfully. Both parties have a stake in making it work. That could keep Jerusalem united and parts of the city jointly administered — although with separate sovereignty. All it takes is political will and some creativity. I’ve thought about it a lot, and I’m a skeptical person, but it seems possible to me. It’ll be an unusual arrangement reflecting the unique character of the place.

There are reciprocal bitter pills on the right of return and Jerusalem both sides must swallow in their own existential national interests.

The only serious player really resistant to this idea [to create two capitals in Jerusalem] is the Israeli government, which is trying to prevent Jerusalem from being a topic of discussion in any the final status talks. But Obama made it very clear that the terms of reference need to be clear and precise — and involve security for both parties, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The U.S. position on Jerusalem is closer to the Palestinian view than to the Israeli one. There is implicit understanding in the U.S. that most of East Jerusalem needs to be the Palestinian capital.

There will also clearly have to be a land swaps. The Palestinian people accept that, and the leadership accepts it. Not every settlement in and around Jerusalem must be evacuate. I don’t mean that the Palestinians will be unwilling to have Israelis [in Palestinian-controlled East Jerusalem] or elsewhere in the Palestinian state. But the Israel government would probably not want to face the crisis of some incident involving Israeli citizens living in newly sovereign Palestinian state, and I think it will be they who push for
evacuation in the event of an agreement.

Both sides should be creative and flexible and Israel should be willing to evacuate settlements that make Palestinian statehood impossible. It’s politically problematic but not impossible. These are painful concessions for both but they are obviously necessary. It’s all about a series of complicated quid pro quos. This is not a menu where you can go through and choose what you want based on your tastes, its a delicate pattern of concessions. It’s also a kaleidoscope. Every time you move the image a little, the whole pattern shifts.

Worldfocus: Do you envision that Jewish Israelis will be able to stay on in the areas that become Palestine in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

Hussein Ibish: Palestinian citizenship or dual citizenship for them is possible, but I don’t think the Israeli government will allow it in the West Bank, though they might find a way to make it work in East Jerusalem.

An agreement is in the core existential national interest of both parties. Settlements will be evacuated according to a variety of formulae. At least 75,000 [Jewish settlers] will need to be removed. That means perhaps up to 200,000- 300,000 will be staying where they are in the small parts of West Bank such as Ma’ale Adumim that will become part of Israel.

The bottom line is that the Palestinians cannot be denied 22% of Mandatory Palestine — the equivalent of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. I think they need and deserve that.

Worldfocus: What role will Palestinian Gaza play if it continues to be a separate entity from the Palestinian West Bank?

Hussein Ibish: Gaza has no independent future from the rest of Palestine. The idea of a political status that is separate is completely wrong. Very few people in the Gaza Strip want that. Israel is strategically trying to emphasize these divisions, but it’s not something that will take.

I don’t think we’re looking at a scenario yet where Hamas can really succeed in replacing the PLO. They’re quite far away from that. All they hope to do so is for negotiations to break down. Hamas are weak and isolated — only able to maintain control in Gaza through brute force and oppression. Hamas thrives on chaos, stalemate [in talks] and a rhetoric of confrontation and violence. Their core constituency — at most 13-15 percent of the Palestinian population — believes in the Muslim Brotherhood model. But that’s not really a major political force unless there is no hope for peace.

Worldfocus: How about fresh alternatives to the Fatah-Hamas split?

Hussein Ibish: Salam Fayyad a very serious actor on the scene, yet he’s not a politician. Fatah is a dysfunctional political party but commands major support. The PA could use Fatah’s political authority to facilitate Fayyad’s state-building agenda and technocratic prowess. This is crucial because Fayyad’s plan provides another avenue for progress, change and momentum towards ending both the occupation and the conflict. If 1/20 of Fayyad’s plan could be implemented, there would be a serious transformation of the strategic environment, greatly enhancing Palestinian interests and the prospects for peace.

I think his plan could serve as a crucial augmentation of diplomacy and a parallel track that is constructive, serious and transformational. The biggest threat to it at the moment is the idea of dissolving the PA and going back functioning strictly through the PLO as a diplomatic but not a governing entity. With international financial support and political protection, it would be very difficult for Israel to block this institution-building plan. In short order, this could really change the Palestinian political scene and the strategic environment for the better.

- Ben Piven

Listen to Worldfocus Radio: Martin Savidge hosts “Jerusalem United or Divided?” with Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative and Gershon Baskin of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.

But Egypt’s future is murky. Mubarak is now 81 years old and, by some accounts, is in failing health — and no successor has been named.

Salameh Nematt, a columnist at The Daily Beast, joins Martin Savidge to discuss U.S.-Egyptian relations and issues that are likely to be on the agenda when Mubarak meets with U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday.

The Zakariyya mosque. Photo: Jen Marlowe

Jen Marlowe is a filmmaker, writer and human rights activist currently traveling throughout Israel and Palestine.

She describes exploring the destroyed village of Zakariyya with Sami Al Jundi, a Palestinian acquaintance whose mother fled the village during the 1948 war. A Jewish community now resides in the town, whose name was changed to Zekharya.

The mosque was surrounded with a chain link fence, with barbed wire on top and signs in Hebrew attached: “Zekharya Village. Dangerous building. Entrance is forbidden!”

Despite the signs, the fence did not completely encircle the mosque and Sami, our friend Marcy and I entered the grounds easily. We picked our way through the rubble, pushing aside the undergrowth blocking the door. The structure was crumbling; it had not been maintained for over sixty years. Sami stood in silence looking at the mosque, taking in the eroding interior along with the piles of trash and scrap metal on the floor. The mosque is among the few remains of the Palestinian village Zakariyya — Sami’s mother’s village.

Sami examines the remains of the mosque. Photo: Jen Marlowe

I’m writing a book with Sami, to be published by Nation Books next year. The book details his life experiences, shedding light both on the Palestinian narrative — sorely missing from the U.S. media — and Sami’s own unique outlook on life.

Sami and I interviewed his mother two years ago about her memories of Zakariyya, including her flight as a small girl in 1948, during what Israelis consider their war of independence and Palestinians consider the “Nakba” (the Catastrophe), marking the beginning of the dispossession that has been central to the Palestinian experience since then. Zakariyya is one of approximately 400 villages (numbers vary according to the source) that were destroyed in 1948. Like many of the others, there is now an Israeli town built on and around Zakariyya’s ruins. Its new name is a Hebrewized version of the original; Zakariyya became Zekharya.

Sami’s mother passed away four months after we interviewed her, before we could ask her follow-up questions. So we decided to venture to Zakariyya ourselves. Sami began getting nervous as we lingered in and around the mosque. “We may not be welcome here,” he said repeatedly. “Someone might shoot us.” There was no real danger of being shot. Sami was tapping into a deeper fear, connected to the violence his mother witnessed in 1948.

The Arabic name of the village is scratched out. Photo: Jen Marlowe.

The Zakariyya school is still standing near the village’s entrance. It was converted into a small convenience store. As we approached it on our way out, I asked Marcy to pull over so I could photograph it. I investigated the entrance’s road sign. The name of the village is written in Hebrew, English and Arabic. Or it was until recently; the Arabic was almost entirely scratched out.

“It wasn’t like that when I was here last time,” Marcy said.

Marcy was in Zakariyya a week ago. This vandalism was fresh.

Less than an hour later, we were sitting in Deheisheh Refugee Camp, talking with Sami’s uncle Mustafa, two years younger than Sami’s mother. We asked Mustafa to fill in the missing gaps of his sister’s story, and he was more than happy to oblige. Sami and I learned the details of how his grandfather died fighting the British in 1939 and the attacks that pushed out the residents of Zakariyya.

Zakariyya holds a prominent place in Mustafa’s house in Deheisheh and in his heart. A 1921 photograph of the old school (now convenience store) with students sitting cross legged outside is framed on a shelf. A map of Zakariyya is on the wall, with the former houses indicated and a code to decipher which areas were inhabited by which families.

An image of the old school.

Mustafa spoke not only about his memories of losing Zakariyya. He spoke about a more recent pain as well. His older sister, Sami’s mother, had been struck two times with brain tumors. The first was in 1977 when Sami was fifteen years old. She received a life-saving surgery. Mustafa came to the hospital in Jerusalem every day. He fed her daily, tenderly. She would eat only from his hands. The second tumor took root in her brain in 2007. But this time, Mustafa could not feed his sister as she lay on her death bed in Jerusalem. The Israeli military would not issue him a permit to visit her.

Mustafa and Sami sat in silence as I digested this information. The evening call to prayer sounded from a nearby mosque in the camp. It was time to wrap up the interview. I had one final question. “Did you realize in 1948 that you were leaving Zakariyya for good?”

Jen Marlowe and Sami outside of the mosque. Photo: Marcy Newman

Uncle Mustafa’s eyes glistened slightly, both from the memory of his beloved home and the fresh loss of his sister.

“Until now I don’t accept that I left for good. As long as I am alive, I have hope that I will someday return.”

Those who were forced to leave their homes will always be filled with longing to return to them. Acknowledgment and empathy are natural responses. But Mustafa’s yearning seems to be met with something other than empathy by the current residents of Zakariyya. With fear, perhaps? Dismissal? Contempt? Whatever it is, it permits the ancient mosque of the historic village to dilapidate to the point of ruin. It permits the Arabic word “Zakariyya” to be scratched out on the entrance’s sign. As if by scratching out the name, somehow the existence of Zakariyya and its people will themselves be erased.

Mustafa’s very presence, however, is a form of resistance to this deletion. Sami’s uncle sits surrounded by memories and remembrances of his home, waiting in quiet dignity for his longing and his claim to be acknowledged rather than erased.

- Jen Marlowe

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Georgia announced on Wednesday that it will pull out of the contest after refusing to choose a different song or change the lyrics of its entry, the disco-funk song “We don’t wanna put in.”

Considered a swipe at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin over the five-day war between Russia and Georgia last August, the tune ran into trouble because of rules against political lyrics and was disqualified.

Watch a video of the song from YouTube user EurovisionPL:

Blogger “Anna Ershova,” a Russian student at Yale University, weighs in on Georgia’s pop protest:

I can see why the Georgians are so tongue-in-cheek regarding their behemoth neighbor, but that’s a petty way to deliver a protest, isn’t it? Georgia, if you are still mad over Abkhazia and Ossetia, go to a court of law, not the performance stage.

Russia’s own entrant to the contest has created a separate debate. Ukrainian singer Anastasia Prikhodko was selected on Tuesday to represent Russia after she had been disqualified from Ukraine’s contest.

Andy Young blogs at “Siberian Light” about her song, “Mamo,” and the uproar it is causing:

The controversy?  Well, Prikhodko is Ukrainian, and Mamo is sung partly in Russian and partly in - gasp - Ukrainian. Oh yes, and Prikhodko only entered the Russian qualification contest after she’d been kicked out of the Ukrainian qualification contest.The biggest complaints about Prikhodko’s victory came, not too surprisingly, from Yusif Prigozhin the husband of the singer who finished second. “It’s a disgrace… A song performed in Ukrainian can’t have anything to do with Russia.”

Finally, singer Mira Awad will be the first Arab to represent Israel in the song contest. She is slated to perform a duet in Arabic, Hebrew and English with Israeli Jewish singer Achinoam Nini.

The news has been criticized by Arab artists in the wake of the Gaza conflict, and the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel has called on Awad to refuse to participate in the contest:

To represent Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest will serve to polish the international image of an aggressive occupying state that has long been engaged in ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It will communicate to the rest of the world that Israel’s war crimes and violations of international law are acceptable to us as Palestinians! [...] You may feel that it is important for you to represent Israel to demonstrate the full spectrum of Israeli society, which includes Palestinians living in Israel. This is utterly misguided. Until Palestinians living within Israel have full rights and do not suffer systemic discrimination and violation of their human and political rights, Israel has no right to portray itself as a healthy, multicultural society.

Worldfocus special correspondent Michael Greenspan and producers Yuval Lion and Ara Ayer report from Israel.

Iraqi officials say 29-year-old Muntadhar al-Zaidi, a reporter for a Cairo-based television station, is now in judicial custody.

On the streets of Baghdad, protestors called for the reporter’s release and some journalists urged the government to set al-Zaidi free.

Raghida Dergham, the senior diplomatic correspondent and columnist for Al Hayat, joins Martin Savidge from the United Nations to discuss Iraqi and Middle Eastern reactions to the shoe incident, reasons for persisting anger in Iraq and the fate of Muntadhar al-Zaidi.

About 10 percent of France’s population has African or Arab roots. Many speak of racism and discrimination — including derogatory name-calling from President Nicolas Sarkozy himself.

Today, the divide persists, as evidenced by further clashes between youth and police earlier this year.

Worldfocus correspondent Martin Seemungal travels to the town of Epinay, the site of violent riots three years ago, where tensions between the Arab and French populations still remain.

Below, bloggers from France and elsewhere discuss the riots and their roots.

In 2005, blogger Doug Ireland explored the historical and social roots of the riots.

Three years later, the “Johhny Come Latelies” blog writes that nothing has changed and the government’s promises are empty.

“Lauren’s Blog” says that the French media has virtually ignored the causes of the riots, comparing the lack of minorities in French news coverage to U.S. coverage of Hurricane Katrina.

The “BondyBlog” (in French) writes about social issues in the poor French suburb of Bondy, a site of past riots. See Google’s English translation, including a post about the identity crisis of French suburbs on the anniversary of the riots.

The blog’s founder, Frenchman Mohamed Hamidi, has been highly critical of Nicolas Sarkozy.

This year, the U.S. State Department began recruiting international visitors from poor French suburbs in an attempt to quell anti-American sentiment abroad.