Why they still vote for Sharon
By Gideon Samet, Ha'aretz 9/19/2003
Why is Ariel Sharon a terrible leader? The old, familiar explanations could fill a thick volume of conclusions by a commission of inquiry - and we've already seen one chapter of that particular book.
Why are the people whining? You may understand that quite well. But why are Sharon's voters complaining? How do they continue to do so, even when a country that has had its fair share of crises now faces one of the most dangerous ones in its history? The following are a few suggestions to explain this conundrum.
Arik came from the sea. This expression was coined by Moshe Shamir - an ardent Sharon supporter - in the book "Chapters on Alik" about his brother who was killed in the War of Independence. Those fellows with the good looks and beautiful heads of hair, of which Arik was one, did not come out of nowhere. They were a new brave strain of Israeli who was disgusted with the Diaspora and who seemed to have been washed up on the beaches of the homeland just to present it to the people on a silver platter.
Whatever his shortcomings, Sharon is still considered a chartered member of this remarkable generation. This is why he still reaps unconditional gratitude and subconscious admiration from many Israelis.
Who is the Obstacle?
By Samia Khoury, Miftah 9/20/2003
The first time the expression "an obstacle to peace" was mentioned, it was in reference to the Israeli settlements, and it was expressed by the U.S. administration.
It's amazing that there was no serious effort on the part of the U.S. administration to remove that obstacle. On the contrary, the statements of the administration got softer as Israel continued to build more settlements and to create new realities on the ground. More Palestinian land has been confiscated to make room for the expansion of settlements. Settlers have been terrorizing the Palestinian population living around the settlements and preventing them from reaching their farms and groves. Not only have Palestinians been deprived of the produce of their land, but thousands of trees have been uprooted. As if that was not enough, the separation wall has started to actually separate Palestinians from their land. This is a process that cannot be anything but an obstacle to peace.
How ironic it is that Mr. Arafat should be considered an obstacle to peace when he was the one to make so many concessions for the sake of peace. And Israel knows that they could have never struck a better deal than the one they had with Mr. Arafat as chairman of the PLO. He gave Israel legitimacy in spite of the grave injustice that was inflicted upon the Palestinians by the creation of Israel. He called a mini Palestinian National Council to amend the PLO charter in the presence of President Clinton, and accepted the offer to create a Palestinian state on only 22% of historic Palestine. All for the sake of peace.
Holes in the Road Map
By Ilan Pappe, Palestine Chronicle
The "road map" in the Middle East is leading nowhere. Even those who were still harbouring some hopes about it in recent weeks must now admit that it is dead for all intents and purposes.
This should not surprise anyone who is familiar with the history of peace-making in the Middle East. The map has all the deficiencies of the previous abortive attempts to solve the conflict, while having none of the merits included in the efforts of the past.
The previous attempts had something in common: they evaded the real issues at the heart of the matter, but at least in most cases they were born out of a genuine concern with the conflict and its victims. They were orchestrated by American and European mediators who adopted usually the Israeli and not the Palestinian point of view. According to the latter view, the conflict in Palestine began in 1967 with the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hence, peace meant an Israeli withdrawal from these areas. The Camp David accord in 1979, and then the Oslo process in 1993, tried to persuade the Palestinians that the best they can get was establishing in these areas a Bantustan with no sovereignty, territorial integrity or a capital. Additionally, the Palestinian leaders were asked to forsake the only reason for their struggle ever since 1948--fulfilling the right of return of the refugees who had been expelled by Israel in 1948--a right recognised by the UN in 1948.
A Bankrupt Policy
Miftah 9/20/2003
Who is the head of the Hamas military wing in Hebron? Last week, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced that soldiers from the undercover unit Duvdevan had liquidated Ahmed Bader, describing him as "the head of the Hamas military wing in Hebron." Seven weeks earlier, on June 22, we were informed that a force of the Border Police and the Shin Bet security service had eliminated "the head of the military wing of Hamas in Hebron." On that occasion the part was played by Abdullah Qawasmeh.
Three months before that, on March 18, it was reported that the IDF had terminated Ali Alan, who was also "the head of the military wing of Hamas in Hebron." Seven months prior to that, on August 28, 2002, it was announced that the IDF had arrested "the head of the military wing of Hamas in Hebron," Abdel Halek Natshe. Less than a year before that, in November 2001, the IDF reported that a helicopter-launched mi ssile killed Jail Jadallah - "the head of the military wing of Hamas in Hebron."
Yes, within less than two years Israel liquidated and arrested five people all of whom were described as "the head of the military wing of Hamas in Hebron." Each of these events was termed a "major operational success" and the Israeli public was assured that the liquidation or arrest would "seriously affect the ability of Hamas to perpetrate large-scale terrorist attacks."
No obvious destination
By Salim Tamari, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 September 20
A decade ago, and with the signing of the Oslo Accords, Palestinian nationalist ideology turned a corner. But to where? -- It sometimes seems that, since 1948, the Palestinian national movement has passed through periods of historical re-thinking every decade or so. Almost all of the episodes have focused on tensions inherent in the dynamics governing the relationship between those sections of Palestinian society that remained on the land (in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza) and those dispersed in other countries, primarily Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Today, though, the challenge comes also from an ideological source -- an Islamic vision of salvation that is not tied to the territorial principle.
There were three critical moments in the growth of secular Palestinian nationalism in the pre-Oslo period: the adsorption of the Palestinian movement into mainstream Arab nationalism during the late fifties and sixties (the Ba'th party, the Greater Syria Movement, and Nasserism); the rise of armed struggle after the 1967, inspired by Maoism and Guevarism; and the decline of the doctrine of liberation through guerrilla warfare after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (1982) and the dispersal of the PLO and its militias. Throughout this period the Islamic movement (mainly the Muslim Brothers) was busy distancing itself from effective politics.
The lessons to be drawn from these periods were epitomised by the PNC meeting in Algiers (November 1988) when Yasser Arafat announced the declaration of independence. The gist of that declaration was that Palestinian nationalism was now reconciled to two states in historic Palestine (Israel and Palestine) on the basis of the 1947 partition plan. The border of the two states would follow the June 1967 borders in line with the international legitimacy and consensus embodied in Security Council resolution 242.
The Silliest Show in Town
By Uri Avnery, Miftah 9/20/2003
There are few sights more pitiful than a worn-out whore whom nobody wants anymore. -- Shimon Peres is celebrating. Shimon Peres? The whole world is celebrating with him!
What has he got to celebrate?
Well, he has reached the age of 80. A respectable age. I cant begrudge him. (After all, I myself am now 80 years old, and I just had a celebration, too.)
When one gets to be 80 years old, it is customary to invite some friends round. So Peres invited a few pals, too. Such as Bill Clinton and Mikhail Gorbachev, Frederick de Klerk and Joschka Fischer, the presidents of Slovenia, Germany and Malta, not to mention the Ivory Coast, several billionaires, an assortment of ministers from various countries, some actors and singers and the holocaustist Claude Lantzman. Diplomacy, entertainment and the holocaust, a tasteful mixture.
A whole luxury hotel has been booked for the 400 exalted guests, 1200 policeman will be mobilized, streets in two cities will be closed. Excellent. Something like the triumph of a victorious Roman Imperator coming home from the wars.
And that is the weird part.
What has he got to celebrate, after all?
Sharon draped in a UN flag
By Hassan Nafaa, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 September 20
Will the US intervene militarily between the Palestinians and Israelis? Will its forces "temporarily" occupy the West Bank and Gaza until a final settlement is reached and then withdraw?
Not too long ago anyone suggesting Washington might follow such a course of action would, at best, have been written off as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, at worst as stark raving mad. Not anymore. The possibility is not just being bandied about in the media, it is being actively promoted within some of the most influential US think-tanks.
Some of those currently advocating such a step have been not only directly involved in formulating US policy on the Palestinian issue, but are closely connected to the Zionist lobby. One such, Martin Indyk, in an article appearing in Foreign Affairs of May - June 2003, proposed placing the Palestinian territories under a US trusteeship, mandated by the UN, until a final status settlement is reached.
Long one of the most active members of AIPAC, bastion of Zionist influence in the US, Indyk served as US ambassador to Israel from 1995 to 1997, when he was appointed assistant secretary of the State Department for Near Eastern Affairs. After serving another tour as ambassador to Israel from 2000 to 2001 he became director of the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, the prestigious Washington think-tank.
Hitchens Smears Edward Said: Responding to the Words of a Weasel
By Clare Brandabur, Palestine Chronicle 9/19/2003
When I first discovered Edward Said's Orientalism I was overwhelmed but also overjoyed: though I knew I lacked sufficient erudition to read the book as it deserved, I also knew that I had found a source which could challenge and direct my study and gradually allow me to fill in the blanks, especially about the Arab world. It was the most brilliant book I had ever read.
Later in a bookstore in Amman, where I found myself in a queue clutching a new copy of the book for a friend, a well-dressed professorial-looking bystander commented on my purchase. "Orientalism," he said frowning knowingly. "I find it somewhat overwritten." Unusually for me--I usually think of the proper response much too late--I managed to contain my indignation. "Oh good, then," I said deliberately. "Since you know how the book should have been written, I trust you will now write the book as it should be." Later I reflected on how sad it was that an obviously educated Arab could not just acknowledge and take pride in the fact that another Arab--or another human being for that matter--had achieved such an impressive, learned, and original piece of work.
Christopher Hitchens betrays a similar need to denigrate a book from which he has obviously learned a great deal, though his comments suggest that he has understood it imperfectly. He too knows how Said "should" have done his life work-- the title: "Where the Twain Should Have Met" [1] reeks with condescension.
Arafat's comeback
By Khaled Amayreh, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 September 20
Israel's decision to "remove" Yasser Arafat enrages the Palestinians in ways unseen since the start of the Intifada. -- Calling Arafat an obstacle to peace, the Israeli security cabinet agreed by an overwhelming majority "to remove" him "in a manner that will be determined separately". The vague wording left open options that include confining, deporting, or killing the Palestinian leader. "Killing [him] is definitely one of the options," boasted Ehud Olmert, Israel's deputy prime minister and minister of industry. Displaying still more insolence, Olmert said another option would be to treat Arafat like "a prisoner in a dungeon".
"He would receive his food ration twice a day but would not be able to meet with anyone, convene news conferences, give interviews or speak on a cell phone or telephone."
These and similar words sent shock waves into Palestinian society, prompting thousands to take to the streets this week to voice their anger and indignation. In Ramallah, tens of thousands of Palestinians converged on the Muqata'a, the battered headquarters of the Palestinian leader, to show solidarity with Arafat and to shield him with their own bodies if necessary.
Hopeless Case
By Jihad Al Khazen, Al-Hayat 9/20/2003
The Arab cat has seven lives, the English one nine, whereas Arafat has 90 lives or more, because we have often buried him but then he would rise again and the tomb would vanish.
He is now living a special Intifada, knowing that Americans attacked him and Israelis threatened him with murder. Hence, Palestinians rebelled to defend him and we all saw what happened over the past few days.
Still, despite Arafat's regained, or new, popularity, the Palestinian situation is extremely bad and Qureih is facing nothing but failure no matter how hard he tries; he has failed forming a government, but he probably will form one that the Legislative Council would give the trust vote, only to fail in its mission.
I don't see how Qureih will succeed where Abbas has failed, because the truth of the matter is that Ariel Sharon's government does not want peace and has hindered the Roadmap. As for the Bush administration, it settles with speeches about how interested it is in working towards finding a solution, while its interest turns gradually towards the upcoming American presidential elections.
....Mohamad Dahlan believes that the timing of the resignation was accurate and right, because it was meant to prevent the explosion of the Palestinian situation, and to clear the government from taking responsibility for it. He adds: "We threw them the fireball and we shall see how they'll handle it."
Moreover, Qureih's government has no program to end the crisis, he said, and it needs Palestinian, Israeli and American support to succeed, none of which is available.
Digging in the sand
By Hugo, Electronic Intifada 9/19/2003
13 Sept 2003 -- Digging in the sand, late Wednesday night, outside Balata Camp. Four of us, crouched down near the mosque, next to the taxi rank. But there are no taxis - the streets are empty and silent. Everybody is inside, with the door locked - more soldiers are expected tonight. Two small piles of light brown sand lie at the entrance to the camp. We kneel around one of them, as Mustapha slowly sifts through the sand, turning over clumps and examining the underside of stones. 'Move the light here. Now here. What's this?' asks Mustapha.
I try to ignore distant rumbles of military vehicles and concentrate on aiming the torch at his quickly roving fingers. Each clump or lump is examined with care. Some are discarded, others placed in a see- through plastic bag, with the top folded over to keep it open. A rat rustling in a nearby bin makes us jump. Shadi and Kelly stand up to watch for approaching military. Mustapha's white surgical gloves are brown with sand. Some lumps are big, others small, some stuck to the bottom of stones. Some are slithery and difficult to pick up by finger - Shadi takes a pair of tweezers out of Mustapha's UPMRC medical pack.
'Quiet, sshhh!' The rumble of a tank approaching from Askar Camp. First distant and quiet, slowly getting louder. We can hear the treads grinding, leaving their white marks on the road, busting the pavement when the driver veers off.
Waiting on America
By Graham Usher, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 September 20
Israel's decision to remove Yasser Arafat was almost unanimously condemned. But few Palestinians believe the danger has passed -- One week after it became official Israeli policy to "remove" him as the freely chosen leader of his people, Yasser Arafat radiates relevance. His all but destroyed headquarters in Ramallah has become a shrine to his status, whether in the form of mass festivals by Palestinians, visits by diplomats or pilgrimages from the remnants of the Israeli peace camp. He also witnessed the supreme irony of the world -- virtually to a country -- denouncing Israel's decision.
"The US does not support either the elimination or exile of Mr Arafat. It's not our position; hasn't been. The Israeli government knows it," said Secretary of State Colin Powell, through clenched teeth, on Sunday.
But the Palestinian leader also knows such statements are the most transient of political commodities. Portents of a darker future came on Tuesday when the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Israel "desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety to the elected president of the Palestinian Authority".
America's UN ambassador said the resolution was "insufficiently balanced" because it did not denounce Hamas and Al-Aqsa Brigades by name. He said Washington still believes leaving Arafat in diplomatic isolation is the "best course" for Israel to take.
Moves like this confirm Palestinian fears that the American opposition is anything but permanent. They also know the Israeli debate over whether it is more advantageous to expel Arafat or simply kill him is academic. Expulsion means death. "He prefers martyrdom," says an aide who was with Arafat during earlier banishments from Jordan and Lebanon. "He won't be exiled from his homeland again."
|
