A Wall of Separation Through the Heart
By Joanne Mariner, CounterPunch 8/13/2003
Imagine having to decide between your country or your spouse. With the passage of Israel's new law on marriage and citizenship, thousands of Israeli Arabs now face this painful and unjust choice.The law, passed on July 31, bars Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming citizens or residents of Israel. It formalizes a policy that has been effect since September 2000, when the current violence in Israel began.Israelis of Palestinian origin have long complained that they feel like second-class citizens. This new law could be a defining step toward making their second-class status official.Differential Treatment: Israeli law already extends an absolute preference to Jews over members of all other ethnic or religious groups in obtaining Israeli citizenship. The Law of Return, together with the country's Citizenship Law, grants automatic citizenship to Jewish immigrants to Israel. Not only do the country's legal rules benefit Jews over other potential immigrants, they give Jews priority over Palestinians who fled or were driven from the country during the 1948 and 1967 wars.The law that was just passed, however, goes an important step beyond the previously existing rules. Rather than granting a preference to Jews over all other groups, it specifically singles out Palestinians for adverse treatment.
Who never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity?
By Akiva Eldar, Miftah 8/13/2003
In a meeting with Israeli and Palestinian peace activists last week on the east side of the Dead Sea, Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher proposed paying attention to how, despite the deterioration in the territories, even Muammer Gaddafi hasn't rescinded his signature of support for last year's Arab League peace plan. The league in Beirut accepted the principles of a peace agreement between Israel and the Arab states, based on the Saudi initiative - two states for two peoples, Arab security guarantees to Israel, and an agreed solution of the refugee problem. Entirely by coincidence, that same week in Athens, Saif el Islam Gaddafi appeared before a small group of visitors from the Middle East, including some Israelis. The speaker, whose name means Sword of Islam, is a London School of Economics doctoral candidate and considered the successful son and the leading candidate to inherit his father's seat as ruler of Libya. Among academics, diplomats and politicians invited by the Greeks to two lectures was Ephraim Sneh, MK (Labor), who until recently a senior member of the Israeli government. Sneh yesterday said that due to the layers of secrecy imposed on the participants, he is not at liberty to provide details about young Gaddafi's speech.
Screaming “Bloody Murder”
Editorial, Miftah 8/13/2003
The headlines are screaming today. CNN bellows: “Bombs Shatter Mideast Calm.” The BBC shouts: “Bombings Rattle Mid-East Truce.” The New York Times hollers: “2 Israelis Killed in Suicide Attacks by Arab Bombers.” It is clear what the mainstream media in the West wants you to know today. It wants you to know that two Israelis were killed, that they were killed by Arabs, and that the act has destroyed the peace. In contrast, it is abundantly clear that mainstream Western media does not want you to know that the attacks were preceded by some of the worst Israeli violence and human rights violations in the last six weeks. They do not want you to know that while Palestinian violence has dropped drastically, the Israeli army just carried its most violent military operation since the unilateral Palestinian ceasefire began.
The sets for the prisoner release show
Ha'aretz 8/13/2003
It comes as no surprise that Israel released the Palestinian prisoners and detainees that it did: people convicted of minor security offenses whose terms were up soon in any case; administrative detainees who are being held without trial, and without the right to present a defense, by order of army or Shin Bet security service commanders; car thieves and laborers convicted of being in Israel illegally. It is also no surprise that Israel is presenting this as a far-reaching gesture. What is surprising is that senior Palestinian officials were shocked, or at least said that they were, and that from their shock, one could conclude that they had expected more - that they, through their demand for prisoner releases, once again led their public into a whirlpool of vain hopes. The Palestinians view every security prisoner as a prisoner of war. Indirectly, they accept the symmetry implied in Israel's use of the word "war" to describe the events of the last three years. In their view, an armed Palestinian is a soldier just like an Israeli soldier: Each has his own weapons, derived from the balance of power and the different technological and operational capabilities; each has the cruelty inherent in his role. The one, unfortunate, difference is that Palestinian soldiers can be captured and arrested as a result of Israel's military superiority, which stems from the fact that the 1967 occupation made Israel's army the sovereign power in the territories, and it therefore considers itself authorized to try those who violate the occupation's rules.
Danger: The return of the concept
Ha'aretz 8/13/2003
Yesterday's terror attacks, the recent shelling in the North and the unrest in the territories could all be considered yet more signs that there is nothing to be done: The sea is the same sea, the Arabs are the same Arabs. Yet, the Israelis are the same Israelis, too - not in the street, where on both sides of the separation fence (a problem no less than a solution), there is still a majority in favor of calm. The irresponsible war is being conducted from on high. What is Israel's part in the climate of despair and bloodshed that is rearing its head anew? Far greater than it is willing to admit. The early appearance of the Yom Kippur stories remind us again of the manner in which the army's generals, together with a blind regime, led the country into a disaster. One of the generals, Shmuel Gonen, appears ever more clearly as a borderline and dangerous personality in a very sensitive position. The road to that war was one of the most serious instances of the erosion of wisdom in the history of Israeli military command. As is the case with every historical comparison, the war then cannot serve as a fair parable for today. But anyone who wishes to pinpoint Israel's part in ratcheting up the tension with the Palestinians must also take into the complex account the defective thinking in managing the most important affairs of state today. There is no government; there is only Sharon. And he has used all his power to restrict moves that could have alleviated the intertwined distress of Israelis and Palestinians. A stingy prisoner release does not reduce the number of terror attacks; rather, it increases them because of an atmosphere of distrust that overwhelms the delicate effort to consolidate a relative calm. The hard-handed approach at the roadblocks remains a daily reminder of Sharon's flawed perception of a settlement. And if the Palestinian prime minister fails to hold on to his position for any length of time beyond the days of the hudna (which reached its halfway mark yesterday), it won't be only because of the deviousness of its - or his - enemies from within. The responsibility will fall to a large extent on an Israeli prime minister who successfully, but without a credible political purpose, caused Arafat to be exiled to the Muqata lock-up.
Back to barbed wire and separation walls mentality
By Hasan Abu-Nimah, Electronic Intifada 8/13/2003
Recently, we have been witnessing a raging debate about the separation wall which Israel has been building around itself, to prevent further Palestinian "suicide attacks." But the wall will also include the settlements and the bypass roads built during the interim period under the Oslo accords, to link them with Israel -- the interim period which was ostensibly intended to build confidence, not additional annexation facts on the ground -- and the land which Israel claims is necessary for security, therefore slicing huge chunks of Arab Palestinian lands to add to Israel in a purely illegal unilateral measure. Apart from the obvious reality that the wall will fail to achieve its alleged purpose, the prevention of further violence, whether in the form of suicide bombings or otherwise; it creates a countless number of complications which render any talk, let alone hope, of progress to peace totally utterly pointless. If the wall is intended to completely separate Arabs from Jews, then it will either require the cleansing of 1.25 million Arab Israeli living in Israel to realise the solely Jewish nature of the state, most lately endorsed by the American president in Aqaba; or the admission that the wall has many more sinister and hidden long-term objectives than what has unconvincingly been claimed.
The Frederick-Al-Kamil compromise of 1229
By David Abulafia, Daily Star 8/13/2003
The view is often expressed that one should learn from the lessons of history. The Middle East, where historic claims and counter-claims stretching back to Abraham are so closely interwoven with present-day politics, may be the best place in which to apply the lessons of the past in order to secure a safer future. Of all cities in the region, Jerusalem is the most contested, and there is a temptation to see its history as a succession of conquests by Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, Romans under Titus, Muslims under Omar, Crusaders under Godfrey de Bouillon, to go no further than 1100. Setting aside the period from 1948, when the city was divided between Israel and Jordan, has Jerusalem ever been peacefully shared between those who competed for its rule? The answer is that in 1229 an extraordinary and highly suggestive compromise was achieved between a crusading army, led by the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1194-1250), and the Ayyubid masters of Egypt and Syria, led by Sultan al-Kamil. The political circumstances were strangely familiar, with politicians on both sides anxious to win public approval, and under enormous pressure to reach a speedy solution. Frederick had promised to deliver Jerusalem from the heirs of Saladin when, as a young man, he was crowned German ruler, an impetuous promise that led the pope to threaten him with excommunication, exclusion from all the rites of the Catholic Church, the longer he delayed his great crusade.
A Case for Hizbollah?
By Ran HaCohen, Antiwar.com 8/13/2003
So here we go again, it seems. Blood-thirsty Arabs – Lebanese fundamentalists of the Hizbollah, "the Party of God" – bombed the Israeli town of Shlomi (10.8), killing a 15-year-old boy and injuring several others. Terrorist attack on civilians, three years after Israel has withdrawn its very last soldier from Lebanese soil. Isn't it the ultimate proof for the inherent terrorism of the Arabs, the decisive evidence that no peace can be made with Muslims? If you follow the media, it probably is. If you take a closer look at the facts – well, not quite.Who's Afraid of Hizbollah: Despite its name, the Hizbollah are definitely no saints. Mother Teresa would not have been able to drive the Israeli army out of Lebanon after almost 20 years of ruthless occupation. The Hizbollah has its own agenda and interests, political and otherwise, and a limited fighting with Israel may well be among them. (But, as analysts usually forget, Israel and its army have their interests too, and peace might not be their top priority either.) An independent militia is indeed something that no sovereign state can tolerate; Israel is right in pointing that out. This, however, is not Israel's, but Lebanon's problem – a small, weak country, torn between conflicting religious and ethnic groups (including 300.000 Palestinian refugees), and regularly invaded and terrorised by its stronger neighbours Israel and Syria. When Israel expresses concern for Lebanon's sovereignty, one doesn't know whether to weep or laugh. The existence of Hizbollah is none of Israel's business: It becomes Israel's business only if it violates the rules of good neighbourliness.Precisely this is the aim of Israeli propaganda: to portray the Hizbollah as a terrorist group that violates the rules of the game. The facts, however, are that the Hizbollah pretty much follows the rules of good neighbourliness; it is Israel that breaches them. Since Israel's withdrawal from South Lebanon, Hizbollah has been concentrating on two kinds of actions: anti-aircraft fire, and a limited fighting against Israel confined to the Shaba Farms. Let's see what it's all about.
State Terrorism
By Jihad Al Khazen, Al-Hayat 8/13/2003
A series of news: * Ali Hussein Saleh, member of Hezbollah, was killed in a car explosion on August 2, and Israeli Hafif Dadun was killed and five others were injured in cross-border fire on the 10th. * The Israelis invaded a military camp near Nablus, killing four civilians; one of them is married to a 17-year-old pregnant wife, with two daughters. * Chief of the Israeli army Staff, Moshe Yaalon, declared that Israel would not start implementing the Roadmap unless the Palestinians fulfill their commitments in dismantling the infrastructure of "terrorism."Israel is molded in terrorism, the most dangerous form of it might I add, meaning state terrorism, as it kills to push its protagonist to a conflict. I shall write today and tomorrow to inform the resistance and all the Arab countries. But I shall start with an introduction.I fell upon an old book, the most relevant one I have ever read regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict today, and I ask all the Arab leaders to insist that George W. Bush read this book whenever they meet with him, and that before they start any negotiations.The book is written by Livia Rokach, daughter of Israel Rokach, the Minister of Interior in Moshe Sharett's government in the 1950s. She emigrated to Italy where she became known as an "Italian author of Palestinian origin," and issued her book called The Sacred Israeli Terrorism: A Study Based On Moshe Sharett's Personal Notebook and Other Documents. The Foreign Ministry threatened of suing the author and the publishers, but the book was translated into English and the Association of Arab-American University Graduates published it.I remembered the book because of a study about it that The Link published along with other books in its current July/August edition. I think that writer Ronald Pleyer, a Jewish-American who supports the peace movement, addressed the book in all its aspects, and since The Link allows others to use its material, I shall write what Rokach and Pleyer mentioned, asking the reader to remember that they are both Jewish; hence, if he is mad at Israel, he should not implicate all the Israelis, because some of them wash their hands clean of its practices. I will be writing a brief review regarding the many topics of the book, and then focus on the author's subject, which is the fact that Israel leads the Palestinians and Arabs on to respond to it as to implement a policy it had already planned for before it was even created, and it is a policy it is still adopting today, to expand its territories by "provoking and avenging."Israel rose at the expense of 750,000 Palestinians who left their territories in 1947-1948, destroyed 400 Palestinian villages and perpetrated more than 30 massacres, namely that of Deir Yassin. In 1967, 350,000 additional Palestinians were deported, as well as 147,000 Syrians from the Golan. The Israeli policy refuses to accept the right of return and all UN international resolutions.
World-Famous Philosopher Honderich Hit with "Anti-Semite" Slur in Germany
By Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch 8/13/2003
Habermas and Suhrkamp Cut and Run -- The distinguished British philosopher Ted Honderich, is threatening to sue the head of the Holocaust museum in Frankfort for calling him an anti-Semite. The director, Micha Brumlik , levelled the charge last week after Honderich's book "After The Terror" was published in Germany in July.Suhrkamp, the jelly-kneed publisher, has said it is taking the book off the market, though in practice this appears to mean Surhkamp won't order a reprinting when the first printing of 3,000 is sold out.Germany's most eminent philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, has said he was the one who recommended the book to Suhrkamp, can find nothing anti-Semitic in it, though, in a kindred display of pusillanimity, simultaneously says he regrets having been involved in anything that may have caused offense.Honderich is a resolute supporter of the Palestinian struggle for nationhood. But, as he emphasizes, he is in no way an anti-Semite, has a Jewish wife and step children and has always refused to lecture in Germany because of the Holocaust.The book was published in a German translation as Nach dem Terror: Ein Traktat, in July 2003, by Suhrkamp in Frankfurt on Main, as one of their 40th anniversary books. Micha Brumlik is director of a centre for the history and effects of the Holocaust in Frankfurt, and a professor of science-education, at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt on Main.
FAQ-Unilateral separation bad fences make bad neighbors
By PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, Miftah 8/12/2003
(NAD) -- Israel has recently announced that it will "isolate" Palestinians from Israelis (both inside Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories) by erecting "walls" and "buffer zones" in a plan styled "unilateral separation." 1. What's wrong with Israel's unilateral separation and the construction of a wall?The wall will not be built on Israel's border. Israel has already announced that it will build the wall to the east of Israel's border in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian land. The strategy is to annex as much Palestinian land as possible while militarily caging in as many Palestinians as possible, all in an attempt to continue Israel's colonization and occupation of Palestinian land. At the same time, Israel will effectively isolate Palestinian population centers from one another, and restrict not only freedom of movement of individuals but also of goods and services, thereby worsening an already crippled Palestinian economy. 2. Where is Israel planning to build the wall? Israel will build the wall east of Israel's 1967 border in Occupied Palestinian Territory, thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian land, in particular with respect to Occupied East Jerusalem. Not only will Israel build a wall, Israel has also begun erecting militarily-enforced electrified fences around Palestinian controlled "Areas A" (consisting of approximately 17.2% of the West Bank divided into 13 separate non-contiguous ghettos). The wall, the fences and the new movement restrictions for Palestinians effectively cage Palestinians into Israeli-created ghettos or Bantustans. Israel is not building the wall on the 1967 border. Israeli governments led by both Labor and Likud have repeatedly stated that Israel will not return to the pre-1967 border. 3. Isn't the wall necessary for Israel's security? No. The wall is not protecting Israeli citizens inside Israel, it is instead protecting Israel's occupation, illegal colonies and ongoing colonization of Palestinian land.....
|
