Gaza explosion: Accidental or planned?
By Hani el-Masri, Jerusalem Times 10/23/2003
The explosion that targeted the American diplomatic vehicle convoy in Gaza was deemed a new development that can increase complication in the Palestinian-American relations. It shows where things will get if the Palestinian cause isn’t resolved on just bases. Before discussing the consequences to follow this explosion, we should not rule that the perpetrators of the explosion are Palestinians or it was carried out to achieve Palestinian goals or that it was prepared for. In any normal crime or military operation, the interrogators ask the question: “Who is to benefit from it?” In light of the answer, the investigation continues easily.
If we are to answer this question, we will find that Israel is to benefit from it more than any other side no matter the perpetrators are Palestinians or Israelis.
It is Israel because it is under the ruling of an extremist aggressive government that believes only in force and war and wants to abandon all kinds of external intervention, including the American intervention, from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel has interest in transforming the current bad Palestinian-American relations into an open enmity to enable the Sharon’s government to go forward in its aggressive war against the Palestinians, aiming at breaking their will and returning them humiliated to the negotiation table. Sharon’s government can use this explosion to implement its decision to get rid of President Arafat. It realized now that the American opposition to the implementation of the Israeli decision, at this stage, became weaker after the explosion, which means that the fate of Arafat is decided by the Israelis and the timing depends on the coming Palestinian bombings inside Israel.
Re-defining collateral damage
By Hala Sakr, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 23 - 29 October 2003
Children's mental well-being under occupation and in conflict remains a grave problem -- As political and social turmoil persist across the Middle East, the mental well-being of the population, particularly children, remains a major concern. Conflict, war and occupation have been the norm in countries like Palestine, Iraq and Sudan for decades.
Although figures show that over one-third of the region's population is below 15 years old, the attention paid to their mental well-being, as opposed to adults, has not been commensurate with this demographic reality.
In response, the World Mental Health Day, 10 October, has been dedicated to children's issues for the past two years.
This year's theme, focussing on the "emotional and behavioural disorders of children and adolescents", is a continuation of last year's focus on the effects of trauma and violence on the mental and emotional well-being of the young.
"There is no doubt that mental health problems exist in every society, but surely those are compounded by this excessive exposure to traumatic events," Rita Giacaman, director of Community Health Programme at Birzeit University in Ramallah, the West Bank told Al-Ahram Weekly.
But can mental well-being be separated from other health resources, such as food, clean water, housing and security, that are all compromised by war and occupation?
Who did the bombing in Gaza?
By Mostafa Avini, Al-Jazeera Info 10/24/2003
In a piece entitled “Palestinians Bomb US Convoy”, October 16, The Guardian reporters do not offer any evidence supporting their assertion in the title of the piece, and in the first paragraph. This is at best a subconscious attempt to blame Palestinian militants for this rare crime against a peace-keeping convoy and at worst a deliberate attempt at libel. In any case this is an example of poor journalism on the part of a “progressive” news source that has claims of being impartial in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not even the usual word “alleged” is used to indicate the uncertainty of the claim. Their only claim for Palestinian involvement is “…an umbrella organization, the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), which represents factions of Islamist groups and disaffected Palestinian security forces, later said it had carried out the attack.” The Guardian should have said “An anonymous phone call, allegedly from a PRC militant, claimed that PRC was responsible for the attacks.” The leader of PRC, Yasser Zanoun, later disclaimed this act by saying that it was against Palestinian interests. "We can distinguish between Americans who come to Iraq as invaders and those who come to Gaza as guests," he said. Hamas, Islamic Jahad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade also disclaimed the attack.
Palestinian authorities have been rather surprised at the turn the events are taking. "No one wants to widen the conflict and I can't believe even Hamas or Islamic Jihad would be stupid enough to do it," a source close to the Palestinian Authority said. “It’s clear that it is very serious and dangerous, not only against Americans, but against all Palestinians," Arafat said.
Who killed 3 US security guards in Gaza?
By Benjamin Counsell, Arab Media Watch 10/23/2003
How the media jumped to premature conclusions. -- On October 15, a large roadside bomb was detonated under an easily recognisable US convoy escorted by Palestinian security in the Gaza Strip. The huge explosion tore through the vehicle, leaving three of its occupants dead and one injured.
An anonymous call to Agence France Presse came from someone claiming to represent an umbrella organisation, the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), and saying they were responsible for the attack. As soon as this claim became public, the PRC leadership denied any knowledge of it and disassociated itself from the attack.
“From the very beginning we have denied responsibility for what happened today,” PRC head Yassir Zanoun told the Times. Unusually, no other group or individual has claimed responsibility, leaving a question mark over who the culprits are.
However, much of the media decided to throw caution to the wind and point the finger of blame in one direction. “Palestinians bomb US convoy” was the front page headline of The Guardian the following day. “Palestinian guerrillas blew up a US diplomatic convoy” claimed the Daily Telegraph, which also allowed itself to indulge in some of the worst misinformation available in the mainstream media: “It may well be that Hamas or Islamic Jihad employed the flag of convenience of ‘Popular Resistance Committee’…there is no doubting the common ideological well-spring from which all these groups drink. Young people in the occupied territories are indoctrinated from an early age into the Wahhabist version of Islam that so inspired Osama bin Laden.” Most were a little more sober with their wording, but clearly implied that it was only a question of which Palestinian faction.
Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent
By Antony Loewenstein, SF.IndyMedia/ZNet 10/23/2003
What infuriates the Zionist lobby is that Ashrawi has seen a succession of Israeli leaders unwilling to make peace and she's be unafraid of saying so. While the likes of Barak, Shamir and Netanyahu has come and gone, and each of them with a proud history of talking peace while expanding settlements and clamping down on the Occupied Territories, Ashrawi has outlived them all. -- It's not easy advocating Palestinian rights. Edward Said frequently commented upon the constant abuse he had received throughout his life. Upon his death, the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) in Australia (related to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America) renounced Said as 'anti-American and anti-Semitic'. Supporting Palestinian self-determination, critiquing Israeli Government policy and questioning Zionist history was seemingly enough to incur the wrath of Jewish groups around the world.
Hanan Ashrawi is currently finding herself in similar straits in Australia. The Sydney Peace Foundation, associated with the University of Sydney, recently decided to award Dr Ashrawi its annual peace prize. Previous winners have included the East Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao in 2000 and Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1999. What originally appeared to be an uncontroversial choice has developed into a full-blown battle between the Peace Foundation, elements of the Jewish lobby, the New South Wales premier, Bob Carr and the Jewish press. The issue in my opinion, however, is not simply the prize, but a more fundamental debate around Palestinian identity in Australia. I believe it is nothing less than an attempt by the Jewish community to delegitimize the Palestinian cause. This kind of behaviour is becoming a regrettably common Zionist ploy in the Western world for increasingly transparent reasons.
Commission of Inquiry reveals US-Israeli cover-up of U.S.S. Liberty attack
By Sarah Weir, Electronic Intifada 10/25/2003
22 October 2003 -- A new report released on Capitol Hill today by former officials from the highest level of the American military and government reveals that Israel "committed acts of murder against American serviceman and an act of war against the United States" when it deliberately attacked the American Navy Ship USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 and wounding 172 American crewmembers. Israel had alleged that the two-hour attack with napalm, missiles, and torpedoes was a mistake.
The release of the Independent Commission of Inquiry's findings is a major step in debunking the myth that Israel is a friend to the United States and the American people, said Alison Weir, Executive Director of If Americans Knew, an organization dedicated to providing information on issues misreported in the American media.
"The fact that this Independent Commission of Inquiry was made up of prestigious American leaders will encourage the largely misinformed American public to take a closer look at the relationship between Washington and Israel. It is likely that once they examine this 'friendship,' Americans will demand a change in their government's policies, which empower the brutal oppression of the Palestinians," Weir said.
The Aftermath
By Mohammed Q, International Solidarity Movement 10/22/2003
Gaza - Mohammed Q. - 22 Oct 03 -- In the early hours of Sunday morning, the Israeli army finally withdrew from Hay Salaam. They left Al Barazil at about 11.00 that morning.
I went there a few hours after the invasion was over, along with many other people who had gone to see what had happened. To me it looked really different in the places where the destruction was concentrated. Some of the past ISMers who know this area well wouldn’t recognize the roads around Abu Ahmed’s house. I know a few people who had been inside the invasion. One man in Al Barazil was expressing distress about being trapped there for days without water or food and being afraid and feeling as though nobody cared. He was angry with the Israeli government and the authorities.
In Al Barazil, the army had done their ‘work’ well. They managed to blow up several houses and partially demolish dozens more. This is in addition to the massive destruction of the main infrastructure of these areas. Workers from all departments of the Rafah Municipality are still working in Al Barazil up to today. Figures from the Rafah Governorate, show that in Al Barazil, six houses were completely demolished and 27 were partially demolished. Also, the Al-Noor computer maintenance centre was completely demolished, as well as a plant nursery. In Hay Salaam seven houses were completely demolished and 19 houses were partially demolished. Eight olive groves were completely leveled.
I talked to the man who was the owner of the Al-Noor computer centre. He said, “I lost $5000, look what happened to my shop. I can’t believe anymore that I once had this centre. Why is this? What is the democracy they talk about and where are the tunnels they claim exist?”
Israel’s Jerusalem policy, Sparta and apartheid
By Menachem Klein, Daily Star 10/25/2003
In July 2003, Israel began to build systems of physical and electronic separation in Jerusalem. If and when the plan is implemented, it will constitute the most dramatic change effected by Israel in East Jerusalem since it was conquered and annexed in 1967. In many places the new line extends into the West Bank beyond the 1967 annexation, but without officially annexing the area. Israel is working to include Rachel’s Tomb and the settlement Har Giloh in southern Jerusalem in the area of Israel, at the expense of areas belonging to Bethlehem and Beit Jalla.
Moreover, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wants to include several settlements on the Israeli side of the fence, principally Maaleh Adumim and Givat Zeev, which would increase the number of Palestinians on the Israeli side. The World Bank estimates that in addition to the 220,000 residents of East Jerusalem, about 60,000 Palestinians will be trapped between the border system separating them from the West Bank and the walls separating them from East and West Jerusalem. Israel does not intend to grant them residency or the status and rights possessed by East Jerusalemites. It certainly does not intend to offer them the Israeli citizenship that was rejected by almost all the residents of East Jerusalem areas it annexed in 1967.
The dream of return
By Adel Zurub, Jerusalem Times 10/23/2003
Palestinian refugees living in camps of despair and grief across Palestine still dream of returning to their original homes some 55 years after losing their loved ones as well as their land and property. The right of return is the lifeline of their perseverance, and they continue to cling to it, regardless of the obstacles in their way.
Said Sayidda Abu Jazar, originally from Beer Al-Saba, about the Nakbeh, “My family and I left our land when I was a child. I remember our land and house and the palm and olive trees. It was beautiful. They drove us out of our homes, filling us with fear. We left in groups and lived in tents.”
Continued Abu Jazar, “We lived the Nakbeh twice: once when we were forced off our land and the second time, when occupation forces destroyed our house. I have never known more difficult days. We became homeless, and they killed my son Fuad in cold blood. I have lost everything. I do not have a shelter in which to spend what remains of my life.”
Abu Jazar, who is a widow, lives in Block O in the Rafah refugee camp. She lost her husband to sickness; not long afterwards, her son, Fuad, was martyred and she lost her home and all her possessions. She now lives with relatives and neighbors after having spent some time in a tent with her 17-year-old son, Iyad, and two daughters.
....Continued Abu Jazar, “In mere seconds they destroyed my home, and all my belongings were lost under the rubble. We are living a real crisis without a home to protect us from the rain and the wind. Life is difficult without a shelter. I lost all my furniture and am forced to live with relatives and neighbors."
Let Sephardis Be the Bridge of Peace in Palestine
By Israel Shamir, Arab News 10/25/2003
JAFFA, 25 October 2003 — The reckless words of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed sent waves around the globe and caused some quite unexpected consequences. For sure, the US Congress objected to the unheard-of idea of Jewish influence, and approved a multibillion loan to Israel. JINSA rejected Dr. Mahathir’s saying the Jews promote wars, for the wars promoted by the Jews are called “democratization”, or at least, “the war to end all wars”.
Only the French President Jacques Chirac delayed his response, and found himself on the line of fire. The oh, so non-existent “Jewish influence” could cause his political demise, as it did to Charles de Gaulle after his ill-calculated weapon embargo on Israel in 1967 (the great general lasted just one year). Jacques Chirac took the first flight to Canossa and eventually sent a letter of condemnation to the old Dr. Mahathir. Like Emperor Henry IV, he preferred to submit to the power that replaced Papacy in the minds of Europeans and Americans.
Still, he was attacked by the Maariv, an Israeli tabloid. This rag did not care much for a far-away Malaysia, but had printed grotesquely distorted face of Jacques Chirac above the caption, Anti-Semitic Mug of France. Hysterical comparisons of Chirac with Marshal Petain were made by Amnon Dankner, the Maariv chief editor. His editorial and other articles, notably by Nahum Barnea (he called Chirac “the collaborator”), were aiming at the French Jews, pouring inflammatory venom in order to set them against their non-Jewish neighbors and against France. However, the Jews of France (predominantly Sephardi descendents of Maghreb immigrants) could consider the personality of Amnon Dankner, the chief editor of Maariv, before following his orders. A few years ago this fighter for the Jewish cause published a long essay called I’ve Got No Sister (Ein Li Achot) where he described the Sephardis as “baboons” and “barbarians from the periphery of the degraded French culture”.
What Crime Kids Can Commit?!
By Mohammed Ballas, Jerusalem Times 10/23/2003
The days and years cannot erase from the memory of Yusef Abu Aziz from the Gaza Strip the scene of his two martyred children: Ahmed, 6, and Jamil, 13, after shrapnel from an Israeli tank shell had torn their small bodies as they were returning home on the 21st of last June.
The Israeli military district attorney in the north had recently decided to put on trial the Israeli officer who was responsible for the Israeli military activities in Jenin that day when four Palestinians were killed, including Abu Aziz's two children.
During that day, Israeli tank shells killed six Palestinians during a lifting of the curfew after it had continued for nearly ten days. The markets were crowded with people buying their necessities.
Among the six martyrs were four children, an old man and a woman; at a time when a number of people were also wounded.That day, Abu Aziz, said he was living in the Gaza Strip till 1997 when he had to move to the Jenin district since he works as a driver for UNRWA.
"After lifting the curfew on the city," said Abu Aziz, "Ahmed asked for one shekel to buy chocolate from a supermarket nearly 50 meters away from our home. He had his two brothers, Jamil and Tariq, with him. After a few minutes, we head a loud explosion nearby".
It's Palestine, stupid
By Mohamed Hakki, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 23 - 29 October 2003
During the presidential contest between Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr, a phrase was coined that became the most-quoted rallying cry of all election campaigns since; "It's the economy, stupid." Something very similar is happening between America and the whole Arab world. Someone should be shouting out: it's Palestine, stupid. All problems that exist between the US and the Arabs, including the most recent and continuing illegal and unnecessary war against Iraq, has its roots in the Palestinian problem. It has poisoned not only relations, but modes of thinking, upset the traditional sense of fairness, sense of justice, and any useful attempt at dialogue between the two sides. It blew any faith in international law, or that Security Council resolutions have any practical value.
Now almost everyone has come to the conclusion that the peace process is finished, but few, unlike Tony Judt writing in the New York Review of Books, see clearly that it "did not die, it was killed". Unfortunately, it was not killed by Ariel Sharon alone. It was killed with the help of an accessory who ironically was the one who coined the term "roadmap" to push the peace process forward: President George W Bush. No one had any illusions about Ariel Sharon or his intentions. The man was clear about his goal every step of the way. He opposed the peace process, opposed the idea of a Palestinian state, opposed the decade-long rapprochement with the PLO that began in Oslo. He declared back in 2001 that the Palestinian Authority was "an entity that supported terror". He never wavered in his determination to continue to build and expand Israeli settlements on Palestinian land in cynical disregard of the "roadmap". But everybody is disappointed in President Bush. Bush never criticised Sharon. He continued to call Sharon a "man of peace". When Sharon called Arafat irrelevant President Bush said that the Palestinians deserve a different leadership. He allowed Sharon to imprison Arafat in Ramallah and re-occupy nearly the whole of Palestine. Finally, as Tony Judt asserts, the president of the United States has been reduced to a ventriloquist's dummy, painfully reciting the Israeli cabinet's line: "It's all Arafat's fault."
Who Speaks on Behalf of Islam?
By Amir Taheri, Arab News 10/24/2003
A few months ago during a meeting with Mahathir Mohamed in London, I asked the 77-year-old politician what he intended to do after retiring as Prime Minister of Malaysia this October. He said he had not decided, and asked whether I had any ideas. I thought he might make a good roving ambassador for Islam. “Oh, no,” he responded. “I won’t be any good. I cannot control my tongue.”
Last week Mahathir proved that his self-assessment was right. In a speech at the 10th Islamic summit in Kuala Lumpur, he began by urging Muslims to abandon violence and to embrace the modern world. But then he went on to claim that the modern world, that he had lavishly praised, had been created by the Jews who also continue to rule it.
This was typical Mahathir.
The reaction to it was also typical. The Bush administration instantly came out with outright condemnation. The British expressed dismay and regret. The European Union, persuaded by French President Jacques Chirac who did not wish to sound like the Americans, decided not to react.
That is understandable. What is not understandable is that many commentators in the West, especially in the US, have presented Mahathir as a spokesman for the Muslim world as a whole. Mahathir has no such position.
Israel's Campus Concerns
By Fadi Kiblawi, Palestine Chronicle 10/23/2003
In April 2002, in response to a burgeoning, refreshed student Palestinian movement, a Zionist student activist remarked to the New York Times, “It has become a trendy cause, and that's unfortunate. To a large degree it's because they are using this language of human rights.” Given the pervasive disregard that the “morally pure” Israeli occupation forces have for human rights, the danger that contextualizing the conflict in such terms poses to the “wherever we stand we stand with Israel” (as their mantra goes) apologists is certainly understandable.
In fact, the difficulty of defending Israel in such a climate where an adverse voice is present stretches far beyond the lexicon of the debate. An even larger threat is the simple logical presentation of the decades-old conflict in a decades-old context extending beyond last month’s suicide bombing, to which Israel’s advocates have taken extensive and disturbing measures to avoid.
How have they done this? Referring to the Jewish Agency’s incriminating March 2002 publication on promoting Israel on campus, distributed widely among Israel’s student supporters across the United States, the strategy is very simple. The Hasbara Handbook prescribes fascinating instructions on attacking the messenger and avoiding the message at all costs “in ways that engage the emotions, and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote” their cause.
|
