The False Hope of the Geneva Accord
By Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada 12/3/2003
The medium-term future for Israelis and Palestinians remains bleak, but in the long run peace will be created.
It has been almost two months since the last deadly attack on Israeli civilians by a Palestinian suicide bomber and there are currently intense diplomatic efforts, principally by Egypt, to turn this hiatus into a new global cease-fire by Palestinian factions.
Such efforts are in jeopardy, however, because while Israelis have seen a dramatic drop in attacks, Palestinians continue to suffer daily.
Since the last suicide attack, the Israeli army has killed more than 70 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians, among them 17 children.
This carnage prompted Israeli journalist Gideon Levy to observe in a Nov. 30 column in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that, "Quietly, far from the public eye, Israeli soldiers continue killing Palestinians. Hardly a day goes by without casualties, some innocent civilians, and the stories of their violent deaths never reach the Israeli consciousness or awareness."
Along with this violence, Israel continues to do everything possible to undermine the basis for peace, and the Bush administration, which could use its enormous influence with Israel, chooses instead to do almost nothing. With much fanfare, the U.S. announced recently that it would withhold nearly $300 million of loan guarantees from Israel as a penalty for its continued construction of a massive barrier that annexes huge tracts of Palestinian land. But while this action is designed to look tough, the Financial Times reported that the true cost to Israel is a negligible $6 million in higher interest payments on new loans.
Geneva Accord nudged aside hudna talks
By Danny Rubinstein, Ha'aretz 12/3/2003
Discussions between Palestinian groups aimed at arranging a new hudna (cease-fire) were supposed to start on Monday in Cairo, but were postponed. Delegations representing some of the various organizations arrived in Cairo, only to discover that they will have to wait. Some news agencies released reports last night predicting that the dialogue will begin tonight, or perhaps tomorrow morning. Meanwhile, one thing is clear: there are problems.
This dialogue has great import. The last discussion of this sort was held last winter in Cairo, and it produced the first hudna; that cease-fire enabled Mahmoud Abbas' government to begin its work. The agenda adopted by the new Palestinian government, headed by Ahmed Qureia, includes the attainment of a cease-fire as its first priority. The rationale is clear: without an end to the clashes and violence, there's no chance of a resumption of peace negotiations, and of the restoration of normal life on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Hence, the moment Qureia's government was formed, General Omar Suleiman (the official appointed by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to be responsible for Palestinian affairs) traveled to Ramallah, to engage in hudna talks with Palestinian politicians, top Israeli officials and American diplomats. Egypt's government plays a key role in arranging cease-fires because it is the only player that has ongoing contacts with all the sides: with Yasser Arafat, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with the Sharon government, and with American and European delegates. General Suleiman doesn't boycott anyone, and nobody boycotts him.
No, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism
By Brian Klug, The Guardian 12/3/2003
As an idea, a Jewish homeland was always controversial. As a reality, Israel still is - and it is not anti-Jewish to say so -- From the beginning, political Zionism was a controversial movement even among Jews. So strong was the opposition of German orthodox and reform rabbis to the Zionist idea in the name of Judaism that Theodor Herzl changed the venue of the First Zionist Congress in 1897 from Munich to Basle in Switzerland. Twenty years later, when the British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour (sponsor of the 1905 Aliens Act to restrict Jewish immigration to the UK), wanted the government to commit itself to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, his declaration was delayed - not by anti-semites but by leading figures in the British Jewish community. They included a Jewish member of the cabinet who called Balfour's pro-Zionism "anti-semitic in result".
The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 has not put an end to the debate, though the issue has changed. Today, the question is about Israel's future. Should it become a "post-Zionist" state, one that defines itself in terms of the sum of its citizens, rather than seeing itself as belonging to the entire Jewish people? This is a perfectly legitimate question and not anti-semitic in the least. When people suggest otherwise - as Emanuele Ottolenghi did on these pages last Saturday - they simply add to the growing confusion.
Origins of the Middle East crisis: Who caused the Palestinian Diaspora?
By George Bisharat, Electronic Intifada 12/3/2003
In early October, I meandered the shores of Lake Geneva, Switzerland with easy-laughing Mahmoud. We were bleary-eyed from international travel, and from many hours of animated discussions at our conference.
Scholars, lawyers and activists had converged to explore ways to implement the rights of Palestinians to return to and regain their homes, seized by Israel in 1948. This fate had befallen Villa Harun ar-Rashid, the Jerusalem home of my late grandfather, Hanna Ibrahim Bisharat. We had been inspired by accounts of successful campaigns for housing restitution for refugees and other dispossessed peoples in Bosnia, South Africa and Rwanda.
The sky was leaden, the wind off the slate lake bracing. But the fountain at the end of the lake lofted exuberant white plumes of water toward the heavens, and seemed to elevate with them our hopes and dreams for a more just and peaceful future.
Little did we suspect that in other conference rooms across the same city, Israelis and Palestinians had been conducting covert, informal negotiations for two years toward what are now touted as the "Geneva Accord." The agreement, while envisioning a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, studiously avoids mention of the very rights Mahmoud and I, and many others, are fighting to protect. The negotiators, prominent private citizens, include former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Information and Culture Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo.
Sharon Trapped in the Political Vacuum His Government Created
By Ghassan Andoni, International Middle East Media Center 12/3/2003
It might not be accidental that army escalated its military operations inside Palestinian areas prior and during the signing ceremony of the Geneva accords. Following news reports, one can notice a considerable escalation in most of the West Bank regions and the Gaza Strip. Ramallah and Jenin were subjected to the most sever raids that resulted in the killing of around 8 residents, in 4 homes being razed, and in around 50 people arrested. While such escalation might not have any significant impact on the Geneva accords efforts, it evidently would make it harder for Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and the Egyptian government to conclude a truce agreement.
Hamas, in a leaflet distributed Tuesday in Gaza called, for the first time since 3 weeks, on its military wing to “revenge the Ramallah attack” and “strike against the Zionists interests”, signaling a possible renewal of attempted attacks at Israeli targets.
So far no reason was given to the delay of the Cairo meeting between all the Palestinian resistance groups. The meeting was supposed to present the launching of efforts to finalize a new truce agreement.
"Geneva Accords" Endows Spurious Legitimacy To A "Bantustan" Palestine
By Iqbal Jassat, Montreal Muslim News 12/3/2003
Pretoria South Africa - December 3, 2003 - Palestinians are in no mood for 'politicking'. Neither are they in any way inclined to give serious consideration to 'charlatans' posing as sympathetic benefactors. More importantly, given their long history of betrayal by Western governments and their lackeys, the Palestinians could justifiably argue that they are deeply suspicious of overtures packaged as 'groundbreaking'.
The latest overture that has ignited vigorous debate within the camp of the Zionists and which has been swiftly dismissed by the Islamic Movement in Palestine, HAMAS, is known as 'Geneva Accords'.
It has been described as the 'best peace deal' on offer. Former US Presidents have embraced it, while other Western leaders are enthusiastically calling for wider global support. Rumor also has it that its unelected signatories are making travel arrangements to South Africa to seek Madiba's endorsement.
On the other hand HAMAS views the accords as "bondage" and a "new capitulation", citing the fact that it rescinds the right of return of millions of displaced Palestinian refugees and 'promises' a state of Palestine which is no more than an "unarmed protectorate".
Numerous other Palestinian groups have also condemned the accords. AL-AWDA, the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition, has called on its members and supporters to reject the accords outright. They claim that the agreement reached between members of the Israeli opposition and a Palestinian delegation ignores the natural and historical rights of Palestinian refugees to return. That they also ignore United Nations resolutions, makes the accords a "disastrous precedent" and is therefore "totally unacceptable".
Zionism, US Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism
By Fawzia Afzal-Khan, CounterPunch 12/1/2003
Unholy Alliances -- Since 9/11, I have written and published several essays examining the reductive discourses that sprang up, mushroom-like, in mainstream media particularly within the US, to explain that apocalyptic moment in terms of an "Us/Them" binary. Many of these limited, and in my opinion, spurious analyses (written and promoted by the likes of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes etc) need to be challenged for obvious reasons. The most important of these, as far as I am concerned, is that linking Islam to terrorism does absolutely nothing to vitiate the anger and resentment millions of Muslims around the world feel toward the West in general and the United States in particular in this unipolar world, for what are essentially political reasons: the economic lop-sidedness of a top-down, winner-take-all globalization that serves to increase the wealth and power of the richer nations at the expense of the poorer ones.
The egregious example of the state of Israel, which is supported unequivocally by the USA militarily and economically to serve as its watchdog and policeman in the Middle East whose oil resources continue to fuel (no pun intended!), the imperial interests of the USA and other western nations, underscores for the vast majority of third world peoples, of whom Muslims comprise a substantial portion, the connection between the maintenance of global hegemony and colonial usurpation of indigenous peoples ' lands and resources and their concomitant subjugation and dehumanization. The ire against Israel that is manifesting itself increasingly vocally across not just the third world but within the heartland of Europe, should thus be seen for what it is: not as evidence of a "rise in anti-semitism" as supporters of Israel wish to paint it (including, unsurprisingly, prominent cabinet members of Ariel Sharon's right-wing government that is busy erecting yet more settlements in the Occupied Territories on a daily basis), but as the legitimate frustration of the world's have-nots against the haves.....
Reverting to Old Tactics
Editorial, Miftah 12/2/2003
Sharon feels cornered and needs a quick way out. The first thought that pops in his head is proposing a unilateral peace plan that he would enforce on the Palestinians. After all, if one is able to look past the fact that his peace plan offered no peace, proposing a peace plan would show his diplomatic initiative. Disappointed to realize that everyone saw his plan as a publicity stunt without any real chance of ever being implemented, Sharon decided to revert back to his tried and successful option of re-escalating the violence. Swiftly, 60 Israeli tanks, armored vehicles and jeeps converged on Ramallah, the hub of Palestinian life, and wreaked havoc.
Four Palestinians, including a young boy, were killed by the Israeli army during the Ramallah operation on Monday and several buildings were levelled. The four Palestinians killed were Mohammed Salameh, Saleh Mohammed Talahmeh, Sayyed al-Sheikh Qassem and nine-year-old Mazen Hamadan, who was shot in the head. One of the four-story buildings leveled left 60 people homeless. Moreover, dozens of men under 40 were taken out of their homes in several neighborhoods of Ramallah and the neighboring al-Amri refugee camp. About 30 Palestinians were detained in the largest sweep by Israeli forces on Ramallah in recent months.
Israel’s unholy wall
By Tom Wallace, Palestine Media Center/Boston Globe 12/3/2003
"IN REALITY, the Holy Land doesn't need walls, but bridges," said Pope John Paul II. Kofi Annan has strongly criticized Israel's separation barrier. The UN General Assembly voted to condemn it 144-4. The Security Council would have but for a US veto.
President Bush has referred to it as "a wall snaking its way through the West Bank." He later warned Israel not to prejudice final negotiations of the road map "with the placement of walls and fences." The United States has since decided to deduct $289 million from the $9 billion in loan guarantees appropriated for Israel this year because of the wall and continued settlement construction.
Israelis refer to it as a security fence or barrier necessary to protect Israelis from suicide bombers. Palestinians refer to it as an apartheid wall stealing land and water resources and turning towns and villages into prisons. Some supporters now refer to it as a "wall of peace" while detractors call it a "weapon of mass destruction."
As the war of adjectives rages on, the wall continues to be built. In fact, in spite of opposition from Washington, construction of the wall will be accelerated. Why has so much of the world, including some of Israel's most ardent supporters, split with Israel over this issue? What is the wall? [Published by Boston Globe on Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2003]
|
