Why I Won’t Forget What Happened to the Refugees of Sabra and Shatila
By Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle 9/18/2003
Dear Beloved in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon:
"I wrote to the United Nations, to the White House, to “my representatives”, to the Belgian government, to human rights groups, to everyone that I thought for a second would help your cause. I am yet to receive an answer. So, this time I decided to write to you..."
Like you, I was born and raised in a refugee camp. I grew up with few toys, but too many anniversaries of massacres to commemorate. Along with my peers, I commemorated, I chanted the names of your loved ones, and loved ones from near and far, who passed away during our rightful struggle to live in freedom.
I was only ten years old when the Imam of our mosque conveyed the news of a massacre in a shaking voice through the mosque’s loudspeakers. I was only ten, but I still feel that anguish that I felt that day. My father wept like a child. My mother held tight on me and my brothers and sat silently. Our neighbors gathered around the news, some crying, even those who used to argue that “real men don’t cry.”
I grew up carrying that memory close to my heart. I knew that Sabra and Shatila was not the first of such crimes to be carried out against my people. The passing of time also taught me that it was not the last. But Sabra and Shatila was the symbol of the inhumanity of our tormenters and a symbol of our defiance, resistance and insistence that we will never vanish.
The 'Right of Return' Debate Revisited
By Max Abrahms, Middle East Intelligence Bulletin September 2003
Not since Israeli historian Benny Morris' controversial 1989 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, has a single study impacted the public discourse over the "right of return" like the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research's (PSR) July 2003 poll.[1] According to Dr. Khalil Shikaki, the well-known director of this Ramallah-based institute, the survey reveals that while most Palestinian refugees demand the "right of return" to land captured by Israel in 1948, the overwhelming majority do not wish to actually exercise this right by relocating to Israel.[2]
Scattered throughout the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, the survivors and descendents of the roughly 700,000 Palestinians who fled their homes during Israel's War of Independence are believed to number up to 4.5 million. Previous polls have shown that the vast majority of them are deeply committed to the "right of return."[3] Since a mass influx of Palestinians would threaten the Jewish character of the state, the Israeli government and public have consistently opposed making this concession.
Shikaki is quick to claim, however, that because his poll shows that Palestinians do not in fact want to move to Israel, granting the "right of return" would in no "way, shape, or form affect the demographic balance in Israel"[4] and "talk about the destruction of Israel through the right of return is nonsense."[5]
Why separate education?
By Amnon Rubinstein, Ha'aretz 9/18/2003
If you compare the number of students in the Arab educational system today to the number in the early 1990s - the years of the great revolution in Arab education - the differences are dramatic. The available data for the previous academic year exemplifies this change: Some 204,000 pupils studied in the elementary schools (compared to 572,000 in the Jewish state educational system) - an increase of 40 percent compared to the 1994-95 school year. Another 53,000 studied in the middle schools, an increase of 34 percent. In the public kindergartens and nursery schools, there were 68,000 children (30,000 of them aged three and four) - an increase of 100 percent. And the high schools had 56,000 students, an increase of 32 percent. This growth reflects both natural population growth and an increase in the percentage of children who attend school. By way of comparison, there were 37,200 Arab students in secondary schools in 1980; in 2003, there were 112,700. One might say that there is an inverse relationship between the size of the Arab education system and the amount of public discussion devoted to it.
But the above statistics do not reveal another important phenomenon: There are Arab students who choose to study in Hebrew schools. The term Hebrew, rather than Jewish, is used advisedly: These are schools where the language of instruction is Hebrew and the content is Hebrew-Jewish.
Peculiarity Of So- Called 'Decision-Making Process'
By Azmi Bishara, Al-Hayat 9/18/2003
Sharon has a public opinion that supports the ongoing escalation of repressing and the assassinations policy, even though it ascertains that it might have advantages or disadvantages on the short run, but only disadvantages in the long run. Still, it supports ceasing these operations temporarily but not on the long run! This opinion, called public, is really intriguing, as it supported giving the Roadmap a chance, but didn't believe that Abbas' government would fight terror, even though it thought that Arafat was running it. This public opinion supports Sharon, although it does not trust him and is not satisfied with him. It also backs Arafat's expulsion, even though it is aware that such measure will not help stop the terror. The following is a sample of polls that were conducted over the past four months, ever since the new Palestinian government was formed and until its resignation.
In Ma'ariv, on May 2, 2003: 53% are satisfied with the Prime Minister's work. This percentage recently dropped to 50%. Moreover, 46% support Abbas' appointment as Palestinian Prime Minister, while only 26% believe he will fight terrorism, and 71% consider that Arafat (opposed to 7% who opted for Abbas) is running things in the Palestinian Authority.
....The Israeli public opinion is not confused because its government's policy is, but because its government's policy is confusing it. This opinion only supports what the government suggests in terms of fighting terror, in a clear retaliation of vengeance. On the other hand, this public has orientations supporting a political solution that the government refuses. This is what causes the confusion.
Everything else is tactics
By Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz 9/18/2003
The Sharon government does not exactly excel at formulating its decisions, which sometimes are ridiculous. First Yasser Arafat's irrelevant and then he's the main obstacle. The government is committed to his removal in last week's cabinet decision, but it promises not to intervene in the selection of the Palestinian prime minister. Israel wants the political process to bring an end to the conflict (Comment 7 on the road map) but is quick to make clear there won't be any dealing with issues "concerning with the final agreement" (Comment 9).
But despite the internal contradictions, confusion and general impotence in the face of Palestinian terrorism, one must not think the Sharon government lacks strategy and direction. The arguments about Sharon not having a plan are nonsense. Sharon certainly does have a plan: to protect Eretz Yisrael, avoid returning any territories and make sure the settlements stay where they are. Everything else is tactics.
Sharon did not invent this policy. His predecessors did the same, under the cover of "surrendering to a handful of settlers." What surrender? It would be better to speak of devotion, or a loving embrace. Only the system has changed. Shamir simply said "no." Rabin made Arafat "make order in Gaza" but refused to evacuate settlements, building them bypass roads. Peres postponed until after the elections, Netanyahu squabbled with Washington. Barak dispersed virtual proposals meant to "expose the true face" of the Arabs and present them as rejectionists, while the construction was accelerated in the settlements. The trick worked on the Syrian front, and the Golan was dropped from the agenda, but Arafat rebelled and went to war against Israel.
The crusade against 'terrorism'
By Eric Margolis, Toronto Sun 9/14/2003
Bush and his handlers are not protecting Americans by pursuing the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, they are protecting their own political skins -- NEW YORK -- "If at first you don't succeed, lie and lie again" seems to be the watchword of the floundering Bush administration.
First, it was the ultimate evils, bin Laden and Mullah Omar. When they couldn't be found, evil forces "that hate our freedoms." Then Saddam's nuclear weapons, anthrax, mustard, and nerve gas, "drones of death," mobile germ labs, and links to al-Qaida, etc.
Now, in the latest change of sales pitch, the president insists his war on terrorism equals Iraq.
According to Bushthink, any Iraqi opposing U.S. occupying forces is a "terrorist." Ergo, growing Iraqi nationalist resistance will inevitably mean Bush's signature "war on terrorism" will be a growth industry.
Like the gigantic Enron swindle, it's a huge bubble, inflated by false claims and calculated deception.
Straining credulity even farther, the president claimed that waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan would spare America from another 9/11 that might otherwise happen at any moment - though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
It was the duty of the world community, Bush proclaimed, to "share the burden of occupation" of Iraq and Afghanistan - which the White House finally admitted will total at least $166 billion US for this year and next, an astronomical sum that could buy 39 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. By the end of 2004, Bush's wars could amount to 30% of the total cost of the equally misbegotten 17-year Vietnam War.
All Palestinians now support Arafat
By Danny Rubinstein, Ha'aretz 9/18/2003
The Palestinian media played down Jibril Rajoub's initiative for resuming the cease-fire with Israel. One report about it appeared yesterday in the widely circulated newspaper Al-Quds. The other newspapers ignored it.
Rajoub, Yasser Arafat's new national security advisor, conditioned the cease-fire on Israel stopping all military activity in the West Bank and Gaza, first and foremost the targeted assassinations; halting construction in the settlements; removing closures and ceasing the construction of the separation fence.
In the present circumstances, this is not a serious proposal. Many Israelis would perhaps accept those terms, but there is no chance that this government will.
Rajoub's initiative stems from the difficult problems burdening Palestinian politics. The main - perhaps only - subject occupying the Palestinian leadership and probably many in the West Bank and Gaza, is the fate of Yasser Arafat. This is not only concern for the man who has symbolized Palestinian nationality for decades, but worry for the very existence of the semi-independent rule that the Palestinian national movement achieved in the Oslo agreement. Many believe that without Arafat, there is no Palestinian rule.
Palestinians' 'life is precarious these days'
By Michael Jansen, Jordan Times 9/18/2003
GAZA — On Sept. 14, 1993, the day after the Oslo accord was signed on the White House lawn, I drove with a friend to Jericho and Gaza. The journey to Jericho, the first West Bank town scheduled for Israeli evacuation under Oslo, took half an hour. There were no checkpoints on the road and we simply sailed into Jericho, the world's most ancient city. It was packed with Palestinians celebrating what they thought was the end of the Israeli occupation and the beginning of real liberation on the ground. After all, under Oslo, Jericho and Gaza were supposed to be the first Palestinian areas to be freed from Israeli army control.
Today, Jericho is a Palestinian island in a sea of Israeli settlements. The little town is surrounded by a trench and sealed off by Israeli troops. At the checkpoint at the entrance to the town near the defunct Oasis Casino, two Israeli soldiers in soft hats with broad brims control all movement into and out of town. I asked the driver of the service car I picked up on the other side of the checkpoint to take me to the municipality, but he dropped me at the office of Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator. The driver assured me he is in town. All foreigners go to see Dr Erekat. When I arrived, two security men from the US consulate in East Jerusalem were looking round the office in preparation for a visit of the Bush administration's envoy, John Wolf.
Sitting at his desk before a photo of himself with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Erekat laid the blame for the Palestinians' failure to reach statehood squarely on Israel. “I don't think there was anything wrong with Oslo... Israel's noncompliance with its obligations and its settlement fait accompli” doomed the accord. “We recognised Israel in 78 per cent of the territory of Palestine in exchange for our own state on 22 per cent, but Israel began negotiating over the 22 per cent.”
Building the Beit Arabia peace center
By Kathy and Bill Christison, Electronic Intifada 9/18/2003
We spent three weeks in Jerusalem and the West Bank in August, working on a project to rebuild a Palestinian house demolished by Israeli bulldozers. What we were actually building -- under the sponsorship of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) led by Jeff Halper -- was a memorial and museum dedicated to the entire house-demolition/house-rebuilding phenomenon in Palestine-Israel. Although this building was not intended as a family home, it was constructed on the site of a home that the Israelis have demolished four times in the last five years, most recently in April 2003.
The project was deliberately intended as an act of defiance against the Israeli occupation -- a kind of finger in the eye of the occupation -- in which Israelis, Palestinians, and large numbers of internationals worked together hauling cement blocks, carrying buckets of sand and plaster, raising roof beams, planting, and painting. (Palestinians did the skilled labor; the rest of us did the brainless bucket-brigade work.) The internationals came from France, Germany, the UK, and Japan, in addition to the United States, and we were joined by rotating delegations from various Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli peace groups and from church organizations. We also received a lot of help, and much friendship and laughter, from a large contingent of neighborhood children, many of them residents of the Jahalin Bedouin encampment that hosted us and provided protection.
|
