No more ideas, we need implementation
By Rifat Odeh Kassis, Electronic Intifada 11/25/2003
One wonders why the Geneva Accord has not created any serious debate inside the Palestinian community, despite the fact that the ink in which the Road Map was written had dried already.
I should confess that I, myself, did not read this accord and, honestly, I do not intend to read it. This is not because I am passive. It is not because I am frustrated. Nor is it because I have my prejudices about it. I am not going to read the Accord simply because I am fed up with new initiatives.
For the past three decades, tens if not hundreds of initiatives have been launched and each new one has claimed that it is better than the previous initiative. In almost every Arab summit since the early eighties, there has been a peace initiative that did not see the light of day for various and sundry reasons; the most prevalent reason has been the continuous Israeli rejection of Arab peace plans.
We don’t need more ideas. We need implementation.
What has failed in Palestine, will fail in Iraq
By Ali Abunimah, Electronic Iraq 11/26/2003
Just as many senior Israeli military officials are openly criticizing their government's tactics in the occupied Palestinian territories, the United States is repeating in Iraq many of Israel's worst mistakes. This will doom efforts to stabilize Iraq and restore its independence.
"In a tactic reminiscent of Israeli crackdowns in the West Bank and Gaza," reported the Detroit Free Press on November 18, "the U.S. military has begun destroying the homes of suspected guerrilla fighters in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, evacuating women and children, then leveling their houses with heavy weaponry...Family members at one of the houses, in the village of al Haweda, said they were given five minutes to evacuate before soldiers opened fire."
This is precisely the tactic for which human rights organizations and even the U.S. government have repeatedly condemned Israel.
Near the Iraqi town of Dhulaiya, U.S. forces reenacted another scene familiar to Palestinians. "The bulldozers worked for 10 days, methodically clearing the date palms and citrus groves as 200 soldiers sealed off the area," according to a November 5, report in Newsday. "Townspeople looked on helplessly, while jazz music blared from speakers mounted atop the soldiers' trucks," the report said, adding, "Iraqis are quick to make a comparison with Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories, where Israeli forces regularly clear fields as a security measure - and as a form of communal punishment."
The reality and legality of Israel's wall (Part 1/2)
By Paul Troop, Electronic Intifada 11/24/2003
The current Israeli government is currently building a wall in the West Bank. Its construction has raised strong and conflicting emotions within Israel, within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and among the International community. This article examines what the wall is and its legality under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Reasons for the Wall: Within Israel, the vast majority of Jewish Israelis support the building of a wall separating Israel and the Palestinians. In the July 2003 Peace Index Survey, 80% said that they were very or fairly supportive of the idea. This is not to say that Israelis are in agreement as to the way that the wall is being built. In this regard views diverge massively; parts of the Israeli left wing want the wall built along the "Green Line" that marks the boundary between Israel and land in the West Bank occupied by Israel since 1967, whereas Israeli settlers in the West Bank generally want the wall to be built as far into occupied land as possible.
No doubt the desire for a wall is as a result of 3 years of the Palestinian Intifada, the failure of the peace process and the fear generated by Palestinian militant activity against civilians by way of suicide bombings. It may also have been because of the apparent success of a similar wall built around Gaza in foiling suicide bombings in Israel.
The reality and legality of Israel's wall (Part 2/2)
By Paul Troop, Electronic Intifada 11/24/2003
Deviations from the "Green Line": The first point to note is that although the Israeli government is building the wall, not a single part of it is being built on Israeli land. The parts of the wall that have so far been constructed do not follow the Green line. In some places, the wall deviates from the Green line by as much as 6 kilometres into the West Bank. In response to the question why this is so, the Israeli Ministry of Defence states:
"The Security Fence is a defensive measure that is being built in order to eliminate terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens. As such military and operational considerations dictate its route and not political considerations."9
What the Israeli Government appears to mean by this was revealed in submissions to the High Court in proceedings relating to the wall. One element of the wall is a "trace path," designed to show footprints. The Israeli Government position was that the wall was required to be inside the Green Line in order to enable the military to track down anyone who had succeeded in crossing the wall before they were able to enter Israel. This does not explain why in some places the wall is near to the Green line but in other places it is a long distance away. Nor does it explain why Israel is apparently unconcerned by the Palestinians living in the seam area between the wall and the Green line, unless the government is intending to remove these Palestinians to other areas inside the wall. This raises questions as to whether the appropriation is justified by military necessity. Many people point out that the wall could easily have been built on Israeli soil.
When the Course Can't be Stayed
By William Raspberry, Washington Post 11/24/2003
It's hard to know which is the better analogy for our predicament in Iraq: Vietnam or Israel.
Vietnam is tempting, since it is what the word "quagmire" brings to mind -- and Iraq increasingly is looking like "a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position," which is how my Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines quagmire.
What makes me think of Israel, though, is last week's American bombing raid near the central Iraq town of Tikrit -- an attempt to wipe out the anti-occupation guerrillas thought to be ensconced there. It sounds for all the world like the retaliatory raids that follow virtually every suicide bomb attack in Israel. And the logic by which the decision to strike at largely civilian targets is the same.
The individuals who carry out the deadly terrorist attacks are most often dead at their own hands, and therefore beyond retaliation. The only retaliatory response that makes sense is to hit those who sent them. And since these cowards hide among civilian populations, the painful reality is that doing what is necessary involves civilian casualties.
What happens, of course, is that every such retaliatory strike spawns more terrorists and vastly increases the number of civilians who, forced to choose between the home-grown terrorists and the alien retaliators, take the side of the terrorists.
Backs to the Wall
By Lucy Mair and Robyn Long, Electronic Intifada 11/24/2003
Uncertainty about the future intensified for Mufida Ahmad’s family this year when a mammoth wall ripped through their land in the West Bank village of Jayyus. Ahmad and her husband had bought the quarter acre for $1,400—a hefty but hopeful investment for the family of seven. On it, they cultivated eight olive trees. To pay for the land, and pay off a $4,000 bank loan they had taken to meet the family’s basic needs, Ahmad worked nine hours a day in a sewing factory for a mere $150 a month. But the trees, land, and future for which they had sacrificed have all disappeared under the Israeli Separation Wall.
The Wall—called a "security fence" by the Israeli government and the "Apartheid Wall" by Palestinians—is actually a series of walls, razor wire, electrified fences, trenches, and watchtowers flanked by a 30- to 75-yard "buffer zone" which the Israeli military patrols. The first phase of construction was launched in June 2002 and finished just 13 months later, in July of this year. The completed section stretches for 90 miles in the northwestern West Bank districts of Jenin, Tulkarem, and Qalqiliya. At several points it cuts almost four miles into the West Bank (which spans only 35 miles at its widest section; see the map on p. 29). The Wall has already resulted in Israel’s de facto annexation of fertile Palestinian agricultural land, groundwater wells, and 10 illegal Israeli Jewish-only settlements. Although the first phase of construction was declared complete, demolitions and razing continue around it. The Israeli government has announced three more building phases and it plans to finish the structure by 2005.
In March, the Jewish settlers’ council (YESHA)—fearing that many settlements would be trapped on the Palestinian side—convinced the Israeli government to change the Wall’s trajectory so that in future phases it will cut 10 miles into the West Bank, incorporating major settlement blocs like Ariel and Immanuel. The route zigzags to annex the maximum amount of land possible for the Israeli settlements while leaving major Palestinian population centers outside Israel’s borders.
Who's afraid of international law?
By James Brooks, Online Journal 11/26/2003
November 26, 2003—Most people of good will are inclined to welcome the recent Swiss ("Geneva") Accords forged between non-official Israeli and Palestinian parties. US support has ranged from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to former president Jimmy Carter. Even Colin Powell sent a note of congratulations to the negotiators. Support in Europe is strong, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the Accords consistent with the 'road map' to peace.
Supposedly the Accords "prove there is a Palestinian partner to talk to." But that could have been accomplished by simply clipping the regional news stories of the last three years. The most common headline would be, "Arafat proposes talks, Sharon rejects."
Instead, the Accords prove that there is no authoritative Israeli partner to talk to. Although the Palestinian negotiating team was closely connected to Yasser Arafat and the heads of the Palestinian Authority, Israel's contingent was largely drawn from its peacenik left wing, sporting but a single member from Likud. Led by Yossi Beilin, a veteran leftist Knesset member, they might represent 20 percent of the Israeli electorate.
The Swiss Accords admit indirectly what the monstrous "security fence" is making brutally clear: Israeli "democracy" supported by lavish US funding is not capable of pursuing a just or peaceful solution. Only a minority faction of the domestic opposition is willing to take on the task of actual peacemaking.
Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace
By Adam Keller, Scoop/Gush Shalom 11/26/2003
The three documents here compared are of very different length, the one of Gush Shalom covering three pages, that of Ayalon-Nusseibeh a single page (being more a statement of general principles then a draft peace agreement) and the Geneva document the far longest, covering 47 pages and going into the fine technical details of implementation. This should be taken into account in reading the following comparison, and in particular the lack of reference in the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document to many points mentioned in the others should not be necessarily taken to mean a lack of concern to these points by its drafters.
BASIC PRINCIPLES: All three documents start with affirming the principle of “Two states for Two nations”. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document and the Geneva document include in this context a Palestinian obligation to recognize the Jewish character of Israel (Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "both sides will declare that Palestine is the only state of the Palestinian people, and Israel is the only state of the Jewish people"; Geneva document: "the State of Israel and Palestine Liberation organization (...) affirm that this agreement marks the recognition of the right of Jewish people to statehood and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens"). The Gush Shalom document does not include such a reference.
The Gush Shalom document mentions as a basis for the agreement UN resolutions 242, 338 and 194. The Geneva document mentions resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 (which did not yet exist when Gush Shalom drafted its proposal) as a basis for the whole agreement. 194 is not mentioned in the preamble of the Geneva document, but it is mentioned in the specific article about the refugee problem. In the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document there is no mention of UN resolutions.
Bullshit Artists, Inc.
By Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz 11/26/2003
Ariel Sharon reminds me these days of Chance the Gardener, the star of the movie "Being There," based on Jerzy Kosinski's book. Chance's world revolves around images from the world of gardening: "Seeds are sown in autumn;" "flowers blossom in spring;" "leaves turn yellow in the fall;" "when winter is over and summer comes, the trees will bear fruit."
The Washington political scene, including the president himself, is convinced that lurking behind Chance's simple words are incomparably profound political insights and multiple meanings that will solve the problems of the world. He utters a word and everyone thinks he might mean this or might mean that. Altogether, an out-and-out genius.
That's what popped into my head as I heard the news that the prime minister is planning to dismantle outposts, maybe even unilaterally, as soon as next summer. Why next summer? Heck, we just finished this one. At the moment, it's fall. Winter will be here soon, and then spring, and finally, summer. In the meantime, another year of doing nothing will go by.
Sharon thinks only of himself
By Gideon Samet, Ha'aretz 11/26/2003
The soothsayers trying to understand Ariel Sharon's new political plan and how it will be born should make note of what actually happened to send them to their crystal balls. It wasn't the casualties on both sides. Nor was it a smartened-up initiative that was kept in reserve for nearly three years until the moment was right. Nor the American pressure, which collapsed, anyway, into their presidential election season. Sharon once again tossed out his vague clauses only because his situation worsened.
Such political egoism breaks Sharon's own records. Public relations and spin are an irreproachable part of any leader's career.
But not when the fate of the state hangs in the balance. Not when its image advisers and advertising men need to whisper into the prime minister's ear that it's time to "do something." And it's not leadership, but the worst kind of deception, when Sharon drips moderate announcements because that's what the polls of recent weeks dictate him to do. Some good might have come out of that, nonetheless, if rising public pressure, bad polls and other trouble inside the Likud were making Sharon deviate from his misleading political path and head for a genuine agreement. But even the four ex-Shin Bet chiefs, with the clubbing they gave him in their joint interview, couldn't make him head that way.
Empty coffers: Palestinians plead for more international aid despite donor fatigue and fears over misuse of funds
By Sharmila Devi and Harvey Morris, Financial Times 11/25/2003
Salam Fayyad,finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, enjoys great trust among international donors who have poured more than $6bn into support for the Palestinians in the past decade. He will soon need to draw on all of their respect.
Next month the former International Monetary Fund official will urge donors to make another huge commitment of aid - $1.2bn (£700m, €1bn) - for 2004. But with the Palestinian uprising into its fourth year and amid only tentative signs of a revival of the peace process, donors warn that one of the most intensive and politicised projects in the history of international aid is in trouble.
A combination of donor fatigue, concern over allegations that aid is being diverted to terrorist groups or into the pockets of officials, and the demands of other conflicts - principally Iraq - means that the well of cash for the Palestinians is drying up. At stake is not only the welfare of 3.2m Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but also the survival of the PA as a cornerstone of an eventual two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.
This year the level of budget support has fallen far short of PA requests, signalling a potential crisis next year. When Mr Fayyad outlines his spending plans to a donor conference in mid-December, he will warn that he faces an unfunded budget gap of as much as $700m in 2004.
A Palestinian Eid
By Mike Odetalla, Philadelphia Inquirer 11/25/2003
Eid al-Fitr is here, and with it the end of the holy month of Ramadan and its fasting. I am reminded of the holidays and celebrations of my childhood in Palestine; of how eagerly we awaited the Eid, its festivities and rituals.
The nights of Ramadan leading up to the Eid were spent at the mosque in prayer and reading from the Koran. Our small village of Beit Hanina, a suburb of Jerusalem, was still without electricity, and people carried lanterns to light their way in the darkness as they went first to the mosque and from there to visit friends and family: a special part of Ramadan.
Beit Hanina had a drummer, charged with the predawn task of awakening the village to sahoor, the light meal whose end marked the beginning of each day's fast. Closing my eyes and thinking hard still brings back the sound of the drummer banging away, and the delightful memories of joining the other children, carrying our decorated fanoosia lanterns with candles inside, as we ran along behind the drummer, singing, laughing and shouting to help awaken the adults. How I admired the drummer; how I wanted his job.
Consensus Grows That Israel as Surrogate Religion for American Jews a Failed Strategy
By Allan C. Brownfeld, Jerusalemites 11/22/2003
As a strategy of ensuring Jewish "continuity," making Israel "central" to Jewish life has been a dramatic failure. -- In recent years, American Jews have been told repeatedly that the state of Israel is "central" to their identity. Even the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which represents Reform Judaism, recently adopted "Ten Principles For Reform Judaism" which included the declaration, "We encourage Reform Jews to make aliyah, immigration to Israel."
In fact, the notion that Israel, rather than God, is central to Judaism and Jewish identity is a rather recent idea, and was adopted by Jewish organizational leaders as a strategy to keep American Jews within the fold.
In a thoughtful book, Divided We Stand: American Jews, Israel, And The Peace Process (Praeger, 2002), Professor Ofira Seliktar of Gratz College reports that, after the l967 war, "Making Israel the focus of Jewish identity was a logical choice for a community in search of new self-definition. The spontaneous, emotional and almost universal response of American Jews left no doubt that the ethnic-tribal sentiments written off in the fifties were very much alive. Scholars have noted that, in recalling the war effort, individual Jews and Jewish publications would often use the term ‘we' as in ‘how splendidly "we" have fought' or 'how many Arabs did "we" kill?' A rabbi described his congregation overtaken by vicarious heroism: ‘I, the shoe salesman, killed an Arab. I, the heart specialist, captured the tank.' As Kurt Levin, a leading social psychologist, postulated, such a proprietary use of the term ‘we' denoted interdependence of fate, a key ingredient in ethnic identity."
|
