Defensive walls of self-righteousness
By Meron Benvenisti, Ha'aretz 11/6/2003
For anyone who returned from Europe after a planned or chance human, social or business encounter, there was nothing new in the publication of the survey denouncing Israel as "the most dangerous to world peace." The harsh criticism of Israel and her actions, which deviate from universal norms, descended to the point of personal revulsion and even fundamental delegitimization as expressed in the blunt statement, written by an American intellectual, "Israel, in short, is an anachronism."
International legitimacy is an essential factor in the ethno-national conflict, which involves deep ideologies and emotions, and it is greatly troubling that this legitimacy is being undermined, and so attempts are being made to remove it through various means.
Everyone hastened to brush off the survey, to downplay its value, to question the credibility of the statistics, to express their indignation at the sloppiness of the wording of the questions and Israel's very inclusion in it. But there was no doubt that the survey reflects the mood of broad public opinion, and this time it is impossible to focus the blame on cynical leaders like the president of France, who for practical reasons makes no protest against anti-Semitic comments. This time it was the voice of the masses.
Changing the Boundaries
By Isabelle Humphries, Islam Online 11/5/2003
A growing number of people are coming to the realization that a two state solution can never bring justice. Isabelle Humphries argues that a democratic one state is the only way to reach lasting peace and equality for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East . In the last few weeks, the “Geneva Understandings” have become the latest project of the “revive the peace process” brigade. “What we have done today will determine the future,” Israeli novelist Amos Oz boasted at the launch of the accords. This latest plan, cooked up by “moderates” such as Israeli Yossi Beilin and the Palestinian Yasser Abd Rabbo, will sign away the Palestinian Right of Return. And that alone is enough to doom the plan to failure.
Despite over a decade of discussion of a variety of peace plans, on the ground life has got considerably worse. In direct contravention of “peace” agreements already signed, in this year alone Israel has given tender to 1627 new homes in the West Bank and Gaza ( London Independent, 24/10/03 ). The last month has seen another round of the usual bloodshed and suffering; massive Israeli housing demolitions, (in Rafah UNWRA estimates that up to 2000 have been made homeless); assassinations; a suicide attack in a Haifa restaurant; widespread closure preventing Palestinians from reaching the olive harvest, for many their only remaining source of income; and further developments of a wall creating a series of prisons across the West Bank.
Any hope left for Palestinian nationalism?
Daily Star 11/5/2003
Every decade or so since the 1948 war it seems that Palestinian national movement goes through periods of historical rethinking. Almost all of those episodes are focused on inherent tensions and dynamics between the remnants of Palestinian society that remained on the land (in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza) and those forces that led the movement in the dispersed communities in the Arab host countries (primarily in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon). But today the challenge comes from also from an ideological source: an Islamic vision of salvation that is not tied to the territorial principle.
We can point out three critical junctions in the growth of secular Palestinian nationalism in the period preceding the Oslo Accords: the merger of the Palestinian movement into mainstream Arab nationalism during the late 1950s and early 60s (the Baath Party, the Greater Syria Movement, and Nasserism); the rise of the armed struggle movement after 1967 as inspired by Maoism and Guevarism; and the decline of the doctrine of liberation through notions of guerrilla struggle and people’s war after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (1982) and the dispersal of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its militias. Throughout this period the Islamic movement (mainly the Muslim Brothers) was busy with moral rearmament, and distancing itself from effective politics.
The main lessons of these achievements (and defeats) were epitomized in the November 1988 Palestine National Congress (PNC) meeting in Algiers, when Yasser Arafat announced the Declaration of Independence and a peace initiative. 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 be the June 1967 borders in line with international legitimacy and consensus, underwritten by UN Security Council Resolution 242.
The essence of Ramadan lost in Nablus
By Anan Al-Nasser, Jerusalem Times 11/6/2003
The economic capital of Palestine and the largest district after Jerusalem is in the middle of a sensitive period. After being a beehive of activity and receiving thousands of merchants, investors, tourists and shoppers from inside the Green Line, Nablus is suffering in the fourth year of the Intifada as are other Palestinian cities and villages. The residents of Nablus noted that their city has been under the siege and curfews longer than any other city, and merchants and shoppers are not able to enter it. This has forced several institutions and businesses to shut down and release some or all of their employees, and with the arrival of the holy month of Ramadan, many local residents are finding it increasingly difficult to meet all their needs.
Economic regression: Merchants in the Old City in Nablus said the situation is extremely bad as a result of the closures and restrains on movement, which prevent shoppers from reaching the city. Some added that they have been unable to import goods for the upcoming Eid from abroad and stand to lose dearly if the situation does not change. One merchant, Ammar Mansour, said that conditions last year were much better because the siege was not as tight.
Fawwaz Al-Nabulsi, head of the loan department at the Housing Bank, said that commercial activity has stopped completely and that loans are now almost impossible to obtain due to the lack of guarantees. He added that the number of returned checks has increased noticeably, saying that this alone points to a regression in commercial activity.
The two intifadas: Interview with a PLO activist
By Valerie Zink and Jon Elmer, FromOccupiedPalestine.org 11/4/2003
Jenin, West Bank -- Because of the constant threat of arrest or assassination, the setting for most of our interviews with activists has been dramatic: a secluded cemetery, an abandoned office, or a house on the outskirts of the city with the requisite gunfire in the background, and the roar of tanks. This time was different. We interviewed K. in the baby supplies store that he manages; to make room for our recorder he cleared the desk of crib-assembly instructions.
At 54 years-old, K.'s history reads like the standard rap-sheet of a Palestinian Liberation Organization activist. As a teenager he was an "educator and agitator" in the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), at the time the second largest faction in the PLO. At 19 he was sentenced to 16 years in Israeli prison for his participation in the PLO; his crime: "I threw a hand grenade at an Israeli battalion occupying the city of Jenin."
He spoke of his time in prison only in passing, as most Palestinians do out of respect for their friends and allies still in prison. And on the streets of Jenin, finding a man who hasn't been in prison is easier than the reverse. What K. did say about Israeli prison was that he was interrogated "night and day for 18 consecutive days," routinely gang beaten, and tortured "physically, psychologically, and morally" as well as with the standard electrical shocks.
Interview: Amnesty on Jenin - Dr. Francis Boyle Discuss the Politics of Human Rights
By Dennis Bernstein, Miftah 11/6/2003
From preface to the interview: There has been much criticism of late about the role of Western Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) in international politics. Following the massacre in Jenin, a less-than-vigorous response from Western NGOs helped make it possible for Sharon to delay and finally derail a UN investigation. One NGO which seems to enjoy a kind of teflon immunity to criticism, particularly regarding the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, is Amnesty International, a human rights organization so big and so influential that its reports and investigations are cited everywhere, including the halls of Congress. Yet in Jenin, its lackluster investigation -- a few initial press releases, compared to a timely fifty page report by the much smaller Human Rights Watch -- only added to the suffering there. It is indeed troubling, that while respected forensic pathologist, Dr. Derrick Pounder, who works with AI, reported, after a visit to Jenin, that there was a “prima facie case for war crimes.” Amnesty didn't follow up. Without question, Amnesty does a great deal of crucial work, which is relied on by journalists and activists around the world. However, Amnesty has made huge mistakes in the Middle East and these cannot be overlooked in any fair and balanced assessment of Amnesty's role in international politics....
Dennis Bernstein: We are going to be talking about the restrictions and hesitations that seem to be coming out of Amnesty International, and I think before we get into the substance of the questions, why don't you just talk a little bit about your own background and your experience with Amnesty International over the years.
Francis Boyle: I got very actively involved in 1982. At that time I was leading the legal charge against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and I tried very hard to get Amnesty International USA to do something.
Shadow of home
By Toine van Teeffelen, Electronic Intifada 11/5/2003
Lately I met Ibrahim 'Issa, the principal of the Hope Flowers School to the south of Bethlehem. We had a relaxed talk together with friends from abroad. For years the school has been known for its peace programs conducted with Israeli partners. Ibrahim is quiet and self-assured, a man well-versed in non-violent and human rights strategies. During this Intifadah, the access to the school was for several years almost made impossible by a mound put up by the Israeli army on the road that connects the school with the Bethlehem-Hebron highway. The school is very close to an Israeli army post protecting a settlement - Ibrahim pointed out the nearby hill behind which a tank was hidden – and access to the school was considered as giving militants an opportunity to shoot from the school, although that in fact never happened. After a visit of an American delegation and the intervention of a Haaretz journalist, the mound was removed. But meanwhile many students had left the school, and up to this point the school is struggling to reach the number of students it used to have before the construction of the mound.
That was not his only problem. Two years ago, it happened that without Ibrahim's knowledge a militant had made use of the house which he owned and in which he lived. The army announced its intention to demolish the house. Because of Ibrahim's high-profile contacts abroad, his family and friends managed at the very last moment – while the bulldozers were already working to destroy the wall around the garden - to prevent the disaster happening. Meanwhile, he himself was held in custody and interrogated.
War without end: why a prisoner swap won’t deliver peace
By Nicholas Blanford, Daily Star 11/6/2003
Hizbullah secretary-general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s assertion this week that Israel seeks to “end the problem” with its Lebanese foe accurately reflects Israeli military thinking, but he appears to underestimate Israel’s intentions. Nasrallah claimed that Israel intends to carry out the prisoner swap and withdraw from the Shebaa Farms to neutralize Hizbullah’s remaining justifications for maintaining a hostile stance along Israel’s northern border.
Certainly, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says he is determined to carry out an exchange of prisoners, despite widespread criticism in Israel.
Sharon said Wednesday that he will present a final deal to the Israeli Cabinet on Sunday, signaling that a swap at last may be imminent.
Nonetheless, the swap aside, the indications coming from Israel suggest a more aggressive long-term solution to the “Hizbullah problem” a military offensive that would include Syria and would be “sufficiently strong in order to change the reality for many years,” according to an Israeli security source quoted in Israel’s Maariv daily.
The Jewish World / `Israel is bad for the Jews'
Ha'aretz 11/6/2003
While Israeli ministers and Jewish activists continue to describe every criticism of Israel - such as a problematic public opinion poll showing that Europeans see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the greatest threat to world peace - liberal Jewish circles in the West are facing a different political threat.
Recently, several articles appearing in the West (most of them written by Jewish commentators) questioned whether it was a mistake to establish the State of Israel along ethnic lines - as a Jewish state. The settlements, it has been written, have ended any possibility of geographic separation between Jews and Palestinians, and therefore the remaining solution, in practice, is to establish a binational state.
A specific reference to this idea appears in the October issue of the influential New York Review of Books in an article by (Jewish) commentator Tony Judt. At the end of a detailed analysis of the status of the conflict, he writes: "The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews... but the depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews ...to convert Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one would cause far less disruption to most Jews and Arabs than its religious and nationalist foes will claim ... a binational state in the Middle East would require a brave and relentlessly engaged American leadership. The security of Jews and Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force ... but the alternatives are far, far worse."
Israel’s Democracy Dilemma
By Doug Bandow, The American Conservative 11/3/2003
West Bank settlements force an existential question -- Despite its continued backing of Israel, the Bush administration’s patience is apparently not endless. Should Ariel Sharon’s government continue to construct a security fence effectively annexing Palestinian areas to Israel, Washington has threatened to withhold some of the $9 billion in planned loan guarantees.
Israelis are not pleased. “It’s none of their business,” complained Zitrin Eliezer, an Israeli settler in the West Bank. “Let them give California and Texas back to the Mexicans and then they can come and tell us what to do.”
In fact, Eliezer is correct: Israel’s policies aren’t America’s business. At least they wouldn’t be if Washington were not backing Israel against all comers, providing billions in aid annually, arming its distant ally, and offering diplomatic cover for Israel. The price of dependence on America is meddling by Washington.
The U.S. has no choice but to demand, pressure, and whine. As Sept. 11 dramatically demonstrated, America pays a price for being identified with Israel’s policies in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Obviously, terrorism against the U.S. reflects complex causes and circumstances, and the slaughter of innocents, whether Americans or Israelis, can never be justified.
All Roads Lead to Feith
By Jim Lobe, Antiwar.com 11/6/2003
"What's gonna happen with Feith?”
That, in a nutshell, is the question of the month for the Washington cognoscenti trying to figure out whether a major shift in the Bush administration's unilateralist and ultra-hawkish foreign policy is or is not underway.
The reference is to Douglas Feith, the administration's rather obscure but nonetheless strategically placed undersecretary of defense for policy, who reports directly to deputy secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.
If the administration is looking for a scapegoat for the situation it faces in Iraq, Feith is the most likely candidate both because of his relative obscurity compared to other administration hawks and the fact that, of virtually all of them, his ideas – particularly on the Middle East – might be the most radical.
A protégé of Richard Perle, the former chairman of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB) who stands at the center of the neo-conservative foreign-policy network in Washington, Feith has long opposed territorial compromise by Israel.
He was an outspoken foe of the Oslo process and even the Camp David peace agreement mediated by former President Jimmy Carter between Egypt and Israel. His former law partner, L. Marc Zell, is a spokesman for the Jewish settlers' movement on the occupied West Bank.
Resistance and Iraqi Independence
By Tariq Ali, CounterPunch 11/4/2003
The Initial Stages of a Guerrilla War -- Some weeks ago, Pentagon inmates were invited to a special in-house showing of an old movie. It was the Battle of Algiers, Gillo Pontecorvo's anti-colonial classic, initially banned in France. One assumes the purpose of the screening was purely educative. The French won that battle, but lost the war.
At least the Pentagon understands that the resistance in Iraq is following a familiar anti-colonial pattern. In the movie, they would have seen acts carried out by the Algerian maquis almost half a century ago, which could have been filmed in Fallujah or Baghdad last week. Then, as now, the occupying power described all such activities as "terrorist". Then, as now, prisoners were taken and tortured, houses that harboured them or their relatives were destroyed, and repression was multiplied. In the end, the French had to withdraw.
As American "postwar" casualties now exceed those sustained during the invasion (which cost the Iraqis at least 15,000 lives), a debate of sorts has begun in the US. Few can deny that Iraq under US occupation is in a much worse state than it was under Saddam Hussein. There is no reconstruction. There is mass unemployment. Daily life is a misery, and the occupiers and their puppets cannot provide even the basic amenities of life. The US doesn't even trust the Iraqis to clean their barracks, and so south Asian and Filipino migrants are being used. This is colonialism in the epoch of neo-liberal capitalism, and so US and "friendly" companies are given precedence. Even under the best circumstances, an occupied Iraq would become an oligarchy of crony capitalism, the new cosmopolitanism of Bechtel and Halliburton.
|
