The Mideast peace talks would face huge obstacles

JERUSALEM – President Barack Obama wants Israelis and Palestinians to return to the bargaining table, and he repeated the call Sunday in a speech to Israel supporters. But it seems unlikely this will happen anytime soon — and even if it did, the sides would find a formidable array of obstacles to agreement.

Obama is clearly aware of this, telling the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that "no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option."

"Even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us ... I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace," he added.

Among these challenges are huge gaps on important issues between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a right-winger for whom acquiescence to the very idea of Palestinian independence — popular around the world and now widely accepted in Israel, too — was a major ideological leap.

But even if a more compliant Israeli leadership should return to power, any negotiators would face some daunting obstacles:

___

BORDERS

Obama made waves with his declaration Thursday that a peace treaty should be "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." It differed only in nuance from previous U.S. positions — a point Obama stressed Sunday — but hearing the principle stated clearly by the U.S. president had been a major Palestinian objective, and it touched a deep nerve in Israel, too.

Netanyahu swiftly declared the 44-year-old lines "indefensible" from a military point of view. And a look at the map shows why: Israel would be about 10 miles (about 15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point; the West Bank surrounds the Israeli part of Jerusalem on three sides; and, on a clear day, the West Bank's strategic highlands are clearly visible from Tel Aviv, where about a quarter of Israelis live. If there is any chance that a future Palestine could turn hostile, these borders are a challenge.

Are they sacrosanct — or somehow enshrined in international law?

American officials are generally careful to use the word "lines" and not "borders" when referring to the demarcation that lasted from the end of the 1948-49 war after Israel declared independence until the 1967 war when it expanded its territory. That is no coincidence: these are temporary armistice lines between Israel and Jordan in the case of the West Bank, and Israel and Egypt in the case of Gaza. Those two countries captured the areas — previously part of British-ruled Palestine — in that 1948-49 war.

Might Israel keep some of its 1967 booty?

That largely depends on how hard the Palestinians press, and how much leverage they can summon up. U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 seemed to leave the door open — calling for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." It avoided use of "the territories" and left everyone to debate whether this meant Israel could keep some areas.

On Sunday, Obama predicted the sides eventually "will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967 ... to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground." That was a reference to the settlements Israel has built — and one the Palestinians will not appreciate.

Borders were supposed to be the simplest issue in peace talks, yet in a numbing two decades of talking the sides could never quite agree.

Gaza is simple enough, because Israel does not challenge the pre-1967 line and removed its relatively few settlers from the territory in 2005.

But more than a quarter million Israelis live throughout the West Bank now — in addition to a similar number living in the occupied sector of Jerusalem which is adjacent to the West Bank. Most of the settlers live close to the pre-1967 border. That makes it seemingly practical to include them in a redrawn Israel. Obama accepts this idea, but calls for land Israel receives to be swapped for unpopulated parts of Israel adjacent to the West Bank.

But must the swaps be equal in size? And how much land can they involve?

Obama did not specify — and the second question is critical, because there are at least two major settlements — Ariel and Maale Adumim — that have tens of thousands of residents and are deep enough inside to disrupt things badly for the Palestinians. Palestinians know that going around Maaleh Adumim — if it were part of Israel — would turn a 15-mile (25-kilometer) drive from Ramallah to Bethlehem, major West Bank centers, into a circuitous ordeal. Israelis have tended to assume creative cartography will finesse the issue. But if the swaps will be tiny, that probably means these two settlements would be evacuated.

The failure to agree even on borders suggests the issue is more complicated than it appears. For the Palestinians, getting even all of the West Bank and Gaza means accepting the loss of almost four-fifths of historic Palestine — and they're in no mood to give up yet more. And the Israelis — looking at the current map, and not so much at history — are basically uncomfortable with the smallness of their state.

___

JERUSALEM

Dividing Jerusalem is even tougher than negotiating the West Bank borders.

The walled Old City, an area of less than a square kilometer (mile), houses some of the world's holiest sites for Jews, Muslims and Christians. Neither Israel nor Palestine could easily give it up to the other. Before 1967, it was part of Jordan — but a 1947 U.N. partition plan for Palestine called for internationalization of a wide area around the entire city after a British departure.

During past peace talks, the sides spoke of each controlling its "own" holy sites — but were not known to have reached a detailed understanding of how two states could divide between them an ancient enclave full of warrens and alleyways, ancient ruins and underground tunnels and excavations. Would there be a border? Who would be in charge of security? At one point there was even talk of the most explosive site — known as the Temple Mount to Jews, and Haram as-Sharif to Muslims — being placed under "divine sovereignty" to sidestep the problem.

But even beyond the Old City, Jerusalem's current demographics defy a division anywhere near as clean as, for example, the wall that once divided East and West Berlin.

After 1967, Israel expanded the municipal borders into the West Bank. Over the years it has ringed the Arab-populated part of the city with Jewish neighborhoods. The Palestinians call them "settlements" no different from those in the West Bank, and indeed, some have the appearance of distinct hilltop communities. Some 200,000 Jews now live in such developments in the occupied area of the city, alongside about 300,000 Palestinians and 300,000 Jews in the western part of Jerusalem.

The sides have discussed the principle of each keeping those areas of the city where its people live — but again, without much detail. On the ground, such a division would yield an astoundingly kaleidoscopic jumble, with islands of Jews surrounded by Palestinian areas and vice versa. A light railway planned for the city could end up crossing several borders a minute.

Jerusalem's mayor, Nir Barkat, put aside arguments about national rights and religious holy sites and argued plainly, in a meeting with foreign media this month, that a division of the city was no longer a practical possibility.

Yet to the Palestinians, Jerusalem is the heart of their country, and it is difficult to see them accepting a merely face-saving formula — such as access to, or some sovereignty over, their holy sites. Peace probably requires doing what Barkat argues is impossible.

___

REFUGEES

The Palestinians have always demanded a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to their families' previous homes in Israel — even though in most cases the homes, and in some even the villages, no longer exist.

For Israelis across the political spectrum this is a non-starter. The main reason they did not annex the West Bank and Gaza — and the reason why many are willing to part with such strategic territories — can be boiled down to a desire to ensure their Jewish majority.

On occasion, Palestinian officials would hint that a formula was possible that would satisfy everyone — perhaps, for example, with the right declared in principle but implemented only for a small number. A 2002 peace initiative by the Arab League made only indirect reference to the refugees, giving some Israelis hope.

But the deep Palestinian yearning is still there, seeming to grow stronger with each generation that grows up disenfranchised in countries such as Syria and Lebanon. Youth who have never seen their ancestral land carry keys to vanished family homes. Earlier this month, thousands risked their lives trying to breach Israel's borders, and several were killed by bullets fired from rattled Israeli troops.

At the White House on Friday, Netanyahu said the Palestinians must be told clearly that a return is "not going to happen." With this statement, the often divisive Netanyahu spoke for the vast majority of Israelis. In his speech a day earlier, Obama had sidestepped the vexing issue.

___

According to the original timetable of the 1990s, a comprehensive deal ending a century of conflict was to be reached by May 1999. That never happened, and still seems far from imminent today. What, then, are the alternatives?

For one thing, the Palestinians say they will ask the United Nations for recognition of a state along the pre-1967 lines in September. Obama is trying to dissuade them.

If the Palestinians proceed, the gambit promises to be messy. Since the United States can veto any move in the Security Council, the Palestinians' bid would likely pass only in the General Assembly that has declarative but not practical powers. Still, such a recognition could spark other moves, including economic boycotts against Israel and mass public protest in the West Bank. Israel does not take it lightly.

A host of other scenarios, in the short and long term, could possibly unfold:

? An interim deal: Israel would probably jump at a plan establishing a Palestinian state on most of the West Bank and all of Gaza, leaving Jerusalem and the other issues for later, and not requiring the Palestinians to forswear all future claims. The Palestinians, fearing the temporary will become permanent, reject this out of hand — but world pressure might change this.

? A unilateral pullout: In 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would unilaterally pull out of most of the West Bank, essentially implementing the interim scenario without Palestinian agreement. The Gaza precedent now works against this in Israeli public opinion: Israel pulled out of the coastal strip, Hamas militants soon seized it, and the area has been used as a launching pad for rockets against Israel. But some variant of unilateral pullout may regain favor, especially if Israel faces mass Palestinian unrest that gets out of hand. Some speak of removing some settlers — but keeping the army in place for now.

? Outside intervention: It seems far-fetched today, but some Palestinians speak of asking the U.N. for a "trusteeship" over their areas, not unlike the British "mandate" over all of Palestine conferred by the League of Nations in 1922. Israel would find it tough to rebuff. It seems unlikely except as a very last resort, because it would probably require the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and a sort of admission that the Palestinians aren't ready for independence.

? A binational state: Few on either side say they want this today. But if Israel cannot extricate itself from the West Bank, in the long run it would face pressure to give the Palestinians the right to vote, much as South Africa did when ending white minority rule. The Palestinians are already about half the population in Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza — and barring massive Jewish immigration they will very likely become the majority through their faster birthrate. In an irony of history, Jewish nationalism — in bonding Israel to the areas it conquered in 1967 — would have helped bring down the Jewish nation-state.

China grows the talks on the Korea of the North as Kim visits

TOKYO (Reuters) - Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao defended the six-party talks proposed by Beijing as a way to defuse the divisions volatile on the Korean peninsula, even though China has allowed North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, blamed by the Japan and South Korea for fueling regional tensions.

Wen made the comments at a Summit intended to highlight the harmony between Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing in the wake a deadly earthquake and the tsunami that struck the Japan in March. But travel last leader North Korea's Kim in China, coinciding with the Summit, exposed severed disagreements on how to handle Pyongyang.

At the trilateral meeting in Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan joined Wen and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, expressing the concern of "claimed" North Korea uranium enrichment, which could give him a second way to make nuclear weapons.

Wen also defends the talks between the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and United States, at a standstill for more than two years, as the best way to defuse the confrontation with the Korea of the North in its development of nuclear weaponswhich has included two nuclear test explosions.

"The Chinese side has been constantly urging peace and negotiations and a reboot for the talks to six," Wen said at a joint press conference. "We are convinced that only dialogue and consultation are the final steps to solve the problems of the peninsula."

Comments by Wen, with surprise visit reported Kim Jong-il in China which began Friday, emphasized how the North Korea and its nuclear activities continue to divide the great powers of the North-East Asia, even while they talk about economic cooperation and the need to place greater confidence after a rocky 2010.

Washington, Tokyo and Seoul had long sought China's help in persuading the North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

China, however, sees the North Korea as a strategic bulwark against the United States and their regional allies. In recent years, Beijing has sought to strengthen relations with the North with aid and trade and visits it by its leaders.

China nor its neighbor and ally the Northern Korea confirmed that Kim is visiting. Both are usually secretive trips.

But Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Sunday, said South Korean President Lee Myung-bak Kim Jong-il travelled from China to study "economic development", Yonhap News reported, quoting a South Korean Presidential aid.

Said Wen travel Kim "would offer the opportunity to understand the development of China and to use it for the development of the Korea of the North," according to Yonhap, citing assistance of public relations, blood-pyo Hong Lee.

Yonhap also said that it appeared that Kim headed towards the picturesque city of Yangzhou, near Shanghai, quoting a local source said security was tightened around railway station. It is also possible that Kim may visit to Shanghai.

TALKS MORE?

China has called several times for renewed talks at six, and Wen reiterated this call.

But Washington, Seoul and Tokyo have been lukewarm to such negotiations, concerned that they could be seen as rewarding Pyongyang for its deadly attack on an island in Korea South, towards the end of last year.

At the post-Summit joint Tokyo press conference, Wen said nothing on the nuclear accumulation of the Korea of the North, but Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has expressed concerns about uranium enrichment program North Korea and said that three leaders agreed that some of the pulse is in Pyongyang to make the talks to occur.

"We reiterated that the three countries would work together to try to Korea North to take specific measures to resolve questions of interest," Kan said.

"We have agreed that the resumption of six-party talks, it must first be an attitude turned towards the future of the Korea of the North in dialogue between the North and the South Korea.".

Kurt Campbell, Deputy U.S. Secretary of State for Asia and Pacific Affairs, told reporters in Tokyo that he had no information on Kim's visit to China, but China have urges North to engage with the South and other countries.

"It is clear that we value the role of China in terms of engaging in the Korea of the North and we ask them to take a clear position on the North Korea encouraging to engage responsibly with the Korea of the South and the international community."He said.

The Japanese Foreign Ministry said early Kan and Wen had discussed travel of Kim Jong-il, effectively confirming his current visit to only one ally of Pyongyang.

Tension on the Korean peninsula rose to its highest level since the Korea in 1950-53 war last year, after the sinking of a ship in the South killed 46 sailors, an exchange of artillery around the South Islandrevelations of new nuclear by Northern activity and threats of war.

Wen told journalists after the Summit that three leaders were "happy to see some easing of the situation on the Korean peninsula", but which persisted many uncertainties.

Iran accepts the invitation EU for more nuclear talks

Tehran - the Iran accepted the controversial proposal of the European Union for more talks on the nuclear programme of the country.

A series of meetings in Istanbul in January collapsed after the Iran said that he would not freeze uranium enrichment.

EU foreign policy Chief, Catherine Ashton, said at the time that no new talks were planned but that world powers remained open to discussions more.

State TV the Iran top negotiator says nuclear Saeed Jalili has sent a response of Ashton suggesting talks more.

According to a report Tuesday that Jalili said Ashton talks should aim to "cooperation mutual points." He also said that they should be fair, "respect the rights of nations and avoid pressure."

The United States and their European allies suspect that the Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, a charge Iran nie.

Ten dead in clash of the Egypt, the Prime Minister calls talks

Cairo- Prime Minister the Egypt called an emergency meeting of the cabinet Sunday after 10 people have died in bloody clashes in a suburb of Cairo on the conversion of a Christian woman in Islam.

Sectarian conflict Saturday was worse for the Egypt, since the death of 13 people in violence, March 9 triggered by a church burning and throws down a new challenge for the generals ruling the country since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak.

There was a brief burst of gunfire Sunday in the district where the violence took place.

Approximately 500 Islamic conservatives known as Salafi massed outside the Church of Mina Saint in the suburbs of Cairo of Imbaba on Saturday demanding there give a woman, whom they said had converted to Islam and stood against him that Christians will be.

Salafis have been joined by other Muslims who seek access to the Church to see if it was inside. Tensions flare, shooting broke out and both sides threw stones and incendiary bombs.

Soldiers and police fired shots in the air and used tear gas to separate the two parties, but the stone-throwing skirmishes have overnight in the streets near the Church.

A power cut plunged the neighbourhood in the dark, making it more difficult for security forces quell the violence.

Another Church in the vicinity, St. Mary s, set on fire and severely damaged during the clashes on the day the day.

"My son is attending that Church." How can never feel safe? ", said Nashaat Boshra, who stood crying Saint Mary Sunday. It is the religious struggles, facilitated by the army and the police. Let's just face the truth. ?

INTERFAITH TENSIONS

Sunday morning, the army had stationed tanks in the streets around the Church and verified people walking in the area. Residents put warning passers-by to avoid the neighbourhood which was generally calm Sunday outside the brief burst of gunfire.

"I think that the army is in a State of confusion," said Gamal Eid, a prominent writer and human rights activist. "It is afraid to take serious measures against extremists to not be accused of suppression of these movements."

On Sunday, armed with the Egypt said that 190 people would be tried by military tribunals on violence between Christians and Muslims Saturday.

"The Supreme Military Council decided to send all those who have been arrested in the events of yesterday, which is 190 people, to the Supreme Court of military...," the army said on her Facebook page.

Sectarian strife of flares often Egypt over conversions, family conflicts and the construction of churches. Muslims and Christians made demonstrations of unity during the demonstrations that toppled Mubarak, but the interfaith tensions reached.

Prime Minister Essam Sharaf cancelled a visit to the Gulf States to call an emergency cabinet meeting Sunday morning to decide how to respond to violence.

More high religious authority by the Egypt, Al-Azhar, was also hold an emergency meeting to discuss the clashes. The Governor of Giza province, where the Church is located, said close to the dead and wounded would be entitled to compensation.

Some Christians said security forces had been too slow to disperse the crowd across from the Church and looked on the tension is to at the outset. Christians represent about 10% of the population of the Egypt $ 80 million.

"God knows if the history of this young girl convert is true or rumours but, still, it does not add to Islam or reduce Christianity," said Dina Mohamed, a homemaker living near Saint Mary. "Why we focus on such matters when we're in a country that can barely stand on his feet."

Police who deserted streets protests that led to the fall of Mubarak February 11 is returned to their jobs, but many Egyptians say that they feel less safe in the streets.

State media has given the new number of deaths and revised the number of injured to 186, with two in critical condition in hospital. At least five were found dead Saturday and 75 wounded.

One of the new bodies found inside the Church, official news agency MENA reported. Wounded Muslims and Christians treated at the hospital showed reporters of small holes that resemble shotgun wounds.

Call for talks on the arrest of Uganda

April 30, 2011, 15: 22 GMT update Kizza Besigye is arrived at Nairobi Hospital Friday, religious leaders in Uganda have claimed the talks between the Government and the opposition to end the violence that has escalated in recent weeks.

The Government has banned the market of labour protests against the cost high life and repeatedly arrested opposition politician Kizza Besigye.

Two people were killed when his supporters were demonstrating in the capital Kampala Friday.

Dr Besigye is treated in the Kenya, after having been sprayed pepper spray.

He has still not recovered his sight since police broke through the window of his car with the butt of a gun Thursday and sprayed at short range, the incident made front of the camera.

Political opposition was then delivered to the back of a pickup truck and driven at speed, before being released on bail for medical treatment.

Campaign of walking in the work of April, organized by several opposition parties, on the rise in fuel and food prices was marked by clashes between demonstrators and the police and the arrest of opposition politicians.

Museveni interrupted

Inter-religious Council of Uganda accused the police of using brutal force against demonstrators and the manner of the arrest of Dr Besigye condemned.

Continue reading East Africa correspondent will be Ross main history, Kampala

They perspective of a dialogue between the opposition and the Government seems very little unlikely for the time being.

The opposition has pledged to continue protests by walking to work and win political mileage by exposing the brutality of the police and the military. The Government of President Yoweri Museveni appears to many to be disconnected from the people who suffer as inflation soars.

Dr Besigye has lost three elections challenged to President Museveni. The two men spoke not from each other for ten years.

For now, the streets of Kampala are silent. President Museveni was speaking at an event in the capital Nairobi Kenya and by coincidence is exactly where Dr Besigye receives medical treatment.

The chances of meeting two to the Kenya are slim to non-existent. The more likelihood of violence in the streets of Uganda in the next few days remains high.

It calls for the Minister of the Interior and the Chief of the police to resign and for a dialogue between the opposition and the Government to immediately start.

Bishop Zac Nirigiye of the inter-religious Council said that unless there was dialogue violence increase.

President Museveni, who was also to be in Nairobi on Saturday, was interrupted by a protester while delivering a speech to a business club.

"Mr President, how can we as Kenyans sitting here and you listen to while you were Ugandan brutalising?" the man shouted, before being taken by Mr. Museveni security details.

The leader (Uganda) said that Dr Besigye could walk to work if he wanted until he informed the police "subscribe to their" where it wants to convey.

"Kampala is a very crowded city," he said. It also describes the rioters Friday as "looters".

Dr Besigye, who was shot in the hand during a similar recent demonstration, lost to Mr. Museveni in an election in February, that he said was rigged.

Before polls, Dr Besigye had called for uprisings Egypt-style fraud.

Police responded by banning public demonstrations.