Inside 1948 Palestine
By Isabelle Humphries, Islam Online, July 16, 2002
Israeli helicopters circled overhead as soldiers surrounded the village below. Residents watched helplessly as the bulldozer tore apart 14 Arab homes, shelter to over 125 people. The following week, in the north, Israeli agents raided and confiscated property from three offices of an Islamic Movement welfare organization. Make no mistake: These examples are not taken from the brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but from the other side of the border, in the land that was declared as Israel in 1948. The international community dismisses the concerns of Palestinians inside Israel as an Israeli “domestic issue.” Branded as “Israeli Arabs,” the one million Palestinians who represent 20% of the Israeli population are excluded from the international agenda. Even among the Arab community worldwide, both Muslim and Christian, there is little understanding of the 1948 Palestinian community. Some are unaware that there are Muslims and Christians inside what Israel insists is a Jewish state while others believe that any Palestinian living inside the borders of internationally recognized Israel must be a traitor who has abrogated Palestinian and Arab identity. Wrong. The one million Palestinians living inside Israel are those Palestinians, and their descendants, who managed to remain inside the borders of the land that was declared as a Jewish state in 1948. Overnight this community found themselves transformed from a majority to a minority in a racially defined state. After forcing more than 700, 000 Palestinians out, Israel believed that the minority that remained could be excluded from the system through legal means or literally through gradual transfer. From 1948 to 1966 the community was kept under military law, something akin to the curfew strangling the West Bank and Gaza today. No one was permitted to leave their towns without permission from the military authorities. Fear of massacres such as in Kufr Qassem 1956, when 50 villagers who unknowingly broke a curfew were shot dead, enabled Israel to subordinate the Palestinian population.

Road Map To Peace Goes Nowhere
By Charley Reese, Charley Reese-King Features, May 16, 2003
In order for President Bush's allegedly non-negotiable road map to peace to work, he will have to put tremendous pressure on the Israeli government to comply with it. He won't do that. Therefore, it will fail. While the Palestinians have accepted it, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has 15 objections to it. Even before it was published, the Israeli lobby persuaded a majority of the captive Senate and House to sign a letter to Bush complaining that the road map was unjust. Practically every Jewish organization in America has objected to it, and this prompted 14 individual Jewish philanthropists to sign a public letter supporting it. You would never know it from watching television, which gives airtime to Israeli shills, but the Jewish community in America is not monolithic. There are plenty of American Jews who support peace efforts, and they catch hell from the "Israel Right or Wrong but Israel Always" crowd. For this peace process to work, the Israelis and the Palestinians must take action in parallel, and that, of course, is precisely what Sharon objects to. His tactic of avoiding peace negotiations altogether has been to claim that Israel will do nothing until the Palestinians completely and totally stop all acts of violence directed against Israel. With the Palestinian Authority decimated by Israeli attacks, this, of course, is an impossibility. It makes the entire peace process hostage to even a handful of individuals among 2 million Palestinians. Actually, I misspoke when I said Sharon's position was that Israel would do nothing. In fact, Sharon's plan is that Israel will continue to shoot Palestinian children, peace activists and journalists, assassinate Palestinian leaders, demolish Palestinian homes, make mass arrests and keep the Palestinians under curfew and unable to function economically. In other words, to provoke Palestinians to violence.

Foreign Editor's Briefing: Victory at the UN may yet spell trouble for US
By Bronwen Maddox, The Times, May 16, 2003
WHAT a difference victory makes. The United States now looks set to get almost all of what it wants from the new United Nations resolution on rebuilding Iraq. For Colin Powell, notoriously wary of leaving Washington for fear of what will be planned in his absence, his breathless circuit of the Middle East, Russia and Europe has paid off. The Secretary of State, in Moscow yesterday, has established that neither Russia nor France has the support to block a resolution crafted pretty much as Washington wants, so keen are members of the Security Council now to repair ties. But the American success may backfire. It has given itself so much control over Iraq’s everyday business that the question of who wins new contracts, economically unimportant but hugely symbolic, may inflame opposition to its plans. Powell said yesterday that the US could probably put up with a suspension of UN sanctions against Iraq, rather than the cut-and-dried lifting of sanctions it wanted. It is a concession that Washington will find annoying, but it is not important. The significance of it is only that suspension of sanctions preserves a possible role for UN arms inspectors at some later stage. That concession does not affect the most important provision of the resolution — the big surprise when the draft was revealed — which is that the US and Britain intend to keep much more control over the way Iraq spends its oil money than many expected, apart from their most sceptical critics. The US and Britain, referred to as “the Occupying Power” in the draft resolution, will “consult” with the new interim Iraqi authority, yet to be set up, but its views will not ultimately determine which contracts are signed. So the interim Iraqi authority will have less power than its Afghan equivalent; it is no coincidence that there is more money in Iraq, and more strategically at stake. The other main contentious question in the resolution is what role the US will allow the UN. On this point, the answer is slightly more than American critics have charged. In fact, the US sounds positively anxious to have the UN involved. It just does not want to surrender control over the make-up of the interim authority, enabling Russia or some other country with ties to the previous regime to fill the new government with old Baathists. Can the US get UN backing for a resolution that serves its own interests so well? Probably. France and Russia are the two Security Council members that dislike it most, but they object to different bits and are susceptible to different diplomatic offers.

Corridors of Power / Separation anxiety
By Uzi Benziman, Haaretz, May 16, 2003
1. Sharon gives the green light  -- ....On Monday night a small group of government ministers and officials met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and made the decision to arrest 15 heads of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement, among them the charismatic leader Sheikh Ra'ad Salah. Again and again Sharon asked whether the evidence in the hands of the prosecutor's office was firm enough to stand up in court. The answers he received were affirmative, even unequivocal, and the various bodies that dealt with the issue - the Shin Bet security service, the police, the Israel Defense Forces, the prosecution and the Mossad - were of one mind: The time had come to teach the Islamic Movement a lesson. Sharon gave the green light...  2. A new limit of tolerance -- ...The decision-makers in Jerusalem are convinced they have evidence to prove that the money raised by the Islamic Movement is directed, in part, to strengthening the infrastructure on which acts of terror against Israel grow and that this cash flow has been instigated by Sheikh Salah. They believe that they will succeed in refuting the suspects' claims that the donations were directed to humanitarian efforts only. The secret investigation of these suspicions began more than two years ago and has ripened only lately. The transition to an open investigation was postponed from time to time because of demands by the State Prosecutor's Office to provide it with additional evidence. ....  3. Bush does not want a confrontation -- ....Powell's visit reinforced the impression among Israelis who met with him that the administration of President George W. Bush is not heading for a confrontation with Israel over the implementation of the road map. At the prime minister's residence, the guest met with a group of ministers and heard from some of them (Housing and Construction Minister Effi Eitam, Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman and also Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) definitive words about the place of the Jewish settlements in the territories in the Israeli vision....He was told that there is already a second and third generation of people living in the Jewish settlements, and nobody seriously considers removing them from there....  4. The month of May is passing -- ....In the defense establishment they are pointing out that in recent days Hamas has begun to fire Qassam rockets on its own initiative and not necessarily in response to IDF actions. They are also saying that if, heaven forbid, these rockets should cause many casualties, Israel will have to react sternly, and thus the violent conflict is likely to escalate to dimensions that will put a definitive end to the implementation of the road map. This is not Israel's intention, declare the defense people, but circumstances could lead to this result. They believe that this is exactly Arafat's aim....   5. A receding vision -- ....Not only journalists but also senior government ministers are wondering what Sharon is up to. Within the space of a month Sharon has performed an impressive acrobatic loop-the-loop: from a declaration of readiness to withdraw from Bethlehem, Beit El and Shiloh in return for a peace that will last generations he arrived at the declaration (to The Jerusalem Post) that he cannot imagine that Jews will not be living in those places under Israeli sovereignty. The prime minister asked Powell whether the United States expects them to perform abortions in the Jewish settlements in the territories in order to avoid population growth....

Undermining Abu Mazen
By Khaled Amayreh, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 15 -21 May 2003
Colin Powell's apparent failure to convince Israel to accept the US-backed roadmap peace plan may have vindicated Hamas's resistance. -- US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent visit to the region may have weakened the reformist Palestinian government of Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and undermined its ability to confront Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups, as Israel and the United States demand. Israel and the US have repeatedly stated that disarming Hamas is imperative for the new Palestinian government. In light of Powell's visit, Hamas officials, hard-liners as well as moderates, are now urging Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, to think carefully before yielding to Israeli-American dictates. "I don't think that the present Palestinian government would have the effrontery to ask the resistance groups to drop their arms and end the resistance," said Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza. He added defiantly, "We shall not hand over a single firearm. We shall not commit suicide. We shall not be sitting ducks for Israel's death squads." Like other Palestinian resistance leaders, Al-Zahar urged the Palestinian premier to be responsible first and foremost to the Palestinian people. This is the message the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian resistance groups will communicate to Abu Mazen when they meet in Gaza. The meeting is likely to take place next week following the prime minister's scheduled talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. However, since it is unlikely that Abu Mazen will make any more progress with Sharon than did Powell, the Palestinian leader may again find himself in a weak bargaining position vis-à-vis resistance leaders. This does not mean, however, that Israel and the United States will reduce their pressure on him to crack down on "terror" groups.

The edge of reason
By Laurie King-Irani, The Electronic Intifada, May 16, 2003
So it all comes down to this: a jagged fence, an armored jeep, and a sniper tower; a lone, bullet-scarred house barely sheltering a terrified family at the edge of Rafah, at the edge of Palestine, at the very edge of human decency and endurance. A swirling wind whips dust, sand, and garbage along a short, rutted street to the border. Tatters of old newspapers can get across, sailing away past the fence and out of this hell, yet the people living here cannot go anywhere. Staying is not much of an option, either. Mere existence in occupied and besieged Rafah demands unimaginable strength and continuous courage. The only way anyone leaves Gaza is by leaving life itself. An extended military closure makes dying the only exit option. All the pipes and drums of political rallies and remembrance day parades; all the ink of history books, policy papers, executive summaries, and polemical tracts; all the solemn newsbytes, sturm und drang and spin of media coverage are pointless here at the edge of Gaza. Talk or yell, scream or rationalize, pontificate or analyze all you want, but it all boils down to this: A husband, a wife, and their three small children clinging to the vain hope of home and normalcy in a shattered neighborhood of demolished houses. A family without guns, passports, money or connections constantly watched and menaced by roving tanks, enormous bulldozers, buzzing drones, and lethal helicopters. This is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the "Question of Palestine," the "Middle East Crisis." This is how far diplomacy, aid packages, political inducements, international conferences, declarations of principles, and dialogue groups have taken us: right here, to this jagged fence and ruined building under a dust-darkened sky. This is it: a 24/7, non-stop freak show of human rights violations and grave infractions of International Law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Genocide on the installment plan.

Now, it's your turn
By Aviva Lori, Haaretz, May 17, 2003
CAPETOWN, South Africa - On the day after Amram Mitzna resigned from the leadership of the Labor Party, the position was offered to Frederik de Klerk. On a spacious porch overlooking a beautifully kept golf course and the deep blue waters of a small bay, Israelis and Palestinians ringed de Klerk and asked him how to go about making peace. De Klerk of course didn't take seriously the idea of replacing Mitzna, which was proposed - with an equal lack of seriousness - by two Knesset members, Yuli Tamir (Labor) and Eti Livni (Shinui), but he did take very seriously the question about making peace. Taking a deep puff on a cigarette, he smiled and said: "Peace is made very simply. You sit down and talk. That's what my friends and I did after the famous Parliament speech on February 2, 1990." The meeting of Israelis and Palestinians with de Klerk took place last week in South Africa, in a charming resort town not far from Capetown, in the form of a seminar on methods of achieving peace in conflicted societies. The gathering was organized by the South African Human Sciences Research Council headed by Prof. Wilmot James, a sociologist, author and fighter against apartheid. Funding was by the Ford Foundation. It was not a political meeting, or one of the hundreds of encounters between Israelis and Palestinians who travel abroad for a weekend to let off steam. Nor was it what the journalist and confidant of Ariel Sharon disparagingly called it on Israel Radio, "a few people who went to compare the situation in the territories with apartheid." It was above all a forum for listening. The list of invitees to the seminar included key figures in South Africa - cabinet ministers, members of parliament, businessmen, journalists, clerics and other public personalities - headed by de Klerk, who was president of South Africa from 1989 to 1994 and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (jointly with Nelson Mandela in 1993). The participants from South Africa, although unabashedly proud of their political achievements, did not come to preach or to draw comparisons between their situation and the Israeli situation or to suggest instant solutions. They talked about the crisis of the 1980s, the international isolation, the sanctions, the shame of identifying oneself as a South African, the violence, the bloodshed, the political power struggles, the arrests, the pain and the despair - but also about the light at the end of the tunnel: the transition from apartheid to democracy. De Klerk, the man who led South Africa to democracy, has been invited to come to Israel next month, to attend a summit meeting of former leaders who will talk about peace. Ehud Barak will be there, he says, as well as Mikhail Gorbachev, and de Klerk, who is a member of the International Board of the Peres Center for Peace, will try to find time in his very busy schedule to attend. (De Klerk heads an international foundation that assists conflicted societies.)

Olive drab
By Ilana Hammerman, Haaretz, May 17, 2003
Less than half-an-hour's drive from Jerusalem, you will find yourselves in a country governed by different rules, where a few thousand people control the destiny of hundreds of thousands, to the point where this larger group has almost been erased from the face of the earth  --  "Geografia Shel Kibush" ("Geography of Occupation") by Elisha Efrat, Current Affairs series, Carmel, 235 pages -- Friday morning, October 18, 2002. They stood on the road at the foot of the slopes planted with olives trees - clusters of men, women and children clutching plastic pails, long sticks, rolls of plastic sheeting, and baskets and sacks in assorted shapes and sizes. There were maybe 200 of them, standing there waiting for us. As we approached, a ripple of restlessness ran through the crowd. A few men broke away from the group and came toward us. We climbed out of the yellow vans, still a bit dazed from the trip and finding ourselves in an unfamiliar village between Ramallah and Nablus, greeted by such a large throng. We had been invited to A-Sawiyeh in the hope that in our presence, the villagers would finally be able to harvest their olives. The settlers of Eli kept chasing them away, and their appeals to the army had done no good. Now all their hopes were pinned on our little group - not exactly a band of fearless fighters. I looked up and saw them: about a dozen yellowish caravans set in a rocky field, and a row of people standing beside them, immobile, a series of small dark shadows silhouetted against the horizon. Inexplicably, it is they who continue to rule these hills, sowing such fear in the heart of the villagers that they dare not approach their trees. In desperation, they asked us, a handful of private individuals, to come to their assistance as unarmed guards. On the other side of the road were two Jeeps full of Israel Defense Forces soldiers. We went over and asked them to watch out for us. They said it was none of their business, that it was not a matter of security but a "neighborly spat," and referred us to the police. But the police didn't come. The soldiers continued to stand idly by as the settlers eyed us from above, and the villagers begged us to accompany them, concerned that time was passing and another day of harvesting was going to waste. We hesitated, afraid, finding the whole situation hard to believe. In the end, we got a grip on ourselves and headed for the olive trees on the hillside. A long chain of men, women and children formed in front of us and behind us, some riding donkeys. Together we climbed, huffing and puffing, glancing up from time to time at the shadows near the caravans, that were growing more distinct and assuming the form of armed settlers. I looked at the motley crew around me - the little children straggling after the adults, the young man next to me carrying an infant in his arms, the old women stopping at the side to rest, who smiled at us and waved hello - and tried to calm down. I was worried that someone might fire into the air, setting off a mad scramble and sights that I could not bear to see. But there were no shots, and our hike up the slope continued.

Are Palestinians Too Radical for Wanting to Return Home?
By Sherri Muzher, Palestine Chronicle, May 15, 2003
"Is this reasonable after several decades? Well, Israel's Law of Return, passed by the Knesset in 1950, guarantees the right of all Jews to 'return' after 2,000 years .." -- 'We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return!' wrote Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, in his diary on July 18, 1948, according to Michael Bar-Zohar's book, Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet (1967). Opposition to the Palestinian right of return clearly has a history. And while many Palestinians are not a fan of the latest 'road map' to MidEast Peace, Palestinians have formally accepted President Bush's plan in the hopes that the bloodshed will end. For Israel, however, the refusal of Palestinians to give up their right of return makes the plan a no-starter. The rights of Palestinians to return to their homes and/or land are clearly entrenched in international law. U.N. Resolution 194 says 'that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property . . .’ The resolution was adopted by the General Assembly on Dec. 11, 1948, and has been endorsed annually since then. Is this reasonable after several decades? Well, Israel's Law of Return, passed by the Knesset in 1950, guarantees the right of all Jews to 'return' after 2,000 years. Some say that if Palestinians return, it will mark the end of Israel and its Jewish character. Those Palestinians who opt to return will undoubtedly change the landscape, but righting the wrongs of the past ought to supercede visions of grandiose nations built to cater to one particular religion. And contrary to popular Israeli propaganda that Israel affords equal opportunity to all, close friends and family members note a system of discrimination toward Christians and Muslims.