The Bitter Harvest Of Palestine
By John Ross, Coastal Post December 2003
AWWARTA VALLEY: I dig my thumbnail into the newly-picked olive and the rich oil spurts into my palm of my hand. I am picking "zitoon" (in Spanish, "aceituna") in the harvest of the Awwarta valley of Nablus, Palestine, a millennium-old tradition that finds voice in the Old Testament-only now it is not the Pharoahs or the Romans that seek to crush the farmers and seize the fruit of their labor but the Israeli settlers and the brutal army and police that protect them.
In this in the most ancient of lands, where even the children seem old, the struggle to stay on the land remains fundamental to the survival of villages like Awwarta, a hillside cluster of 5,000 Palestinian farmers and their families (another 5,000 live in the diaspora, mostly in Jordan, Europe and the US).
At night the settlement of Itamar, where 300 security troops vigorously protect 150 Israeli settler families, scowls down on Awwarta from heights that ride the ridge like an unidentified flying object-sometimes almost at whim the settlers will cut off the juice, leaving the villagers in darkness just to remind them who controls the power in this biblical valley.
In season, the Israelis will steal the olives and burn and strip the trees. Two years ago Mohammod, (not his real name), could still harvest 2,000 kilos east of the settlement fence, but this year his bounty has been reduced to 400. Saleem arrived in his grove of 10 trees this season to find them already prepicked by the settlers. Now in the villages, crazy settlers like a bushy-bearded gentleman named Victor curse and poison the wells and fire off their Uzis to scatter the Palestinian pickers....
One democratic state might be the solution (Part 1 of 2)
By Rifat Odeh Kassis, Electronic Intifada 12/8/2003
The Palestinian struggle for self-determination has taken many routes and each, with its own twists and turns has taken the struggle forward in its own way. Subsequent to the Oslo process, one stage of this struggle, the era of exiled leadership and the armed struggle from outside Palestine, concluded.
Oslo and its preceding related processes substituted dialogue for armed struggle and this was welcomed by the international community and a large sector of the Palestinian population, including those who had once thrown their sympathies and support behind the armed struggle. Dialogue finally seemed far more viable and likely to end the bitter years of conflict. It promised a just and lasting peace and a strategy to pave the way for Palestinian aspirations to be achieved. Equally, it promised Israel peace through recognition of its right to exist as a State within defined boundaries and with security.
Tragically, the promises and prospects of Oslo evaporated into thin air with the failure to bring to fruition their intent. It resulted in deep frustration among the Palestinian populations and those in the international community who had dreamed along with their Palestinian compatriots that a just peace was possible, even imminent. In the aftermath of Oslo, it became apparent that Israel was quite unwilling to countenance even some objective essentials and fundamentals in the route to peace. The thorny question of settlements was one of these. Equally crucial was the failure to find common but just grounds on the wider questions on the status of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and borders. Quite clearly the Israeli view was not veering towards an end to occupation.
The State that Cried 'anti-Semitism'
By Dalia Hatuqa, Palestine Chronicle 12/7/2003
Following the recent deplorable attacks against Jewish targets in Turkey and France Israel is yet again crying out two words so dear to its heart: “anti-Semitism.”
The Jewish state, which 36 years on remains the power that occupies, kills and threatens with exodus the entire Palestinian nation, has used and abused the term so many times, it has almost rendered it devoid of substance, and with that losing its credibility, even among Israelis themselves.
In less than two weeks, Jewish “symbols” have come under ferocious attacks, some even deadly.
Around mid-November, twin bombings ripped through a pair of Istanbul’s synagogues, rendering 25 people dead and some 300 others injured.
Not long before that, an arson attack devastated a Jewish school, just outside the French capital, Paris.
Immediately, both attacks were condemned, not only by the countries plagued by the onslaughts but also by the world, including Arab and Muslim states.
Yet looking at these events, one cannot help but ponder over the reason behind these repeated strikes.
Is anti-Semitism once more diffusing across the globe and are Jews yet again being targeted solely because they are Jews?
Israel would have us think so.
The Geneva Storm Hits Washington
By James J. Zogby, Miftah 12/9/2003
The Geneva crowd hit Washington like a storm last week. After publicly launching their peace initiative in Switzerland, the group of 10 Israeli and Palestinian activists and leaders came to Washington and New York to promote their effort.
For four days, they occupied centre stage. They appeared at a dozen public events generating a remarkable 5,000 news stories nationwide. They were featured on every major television network, met with policy makers, opinion leaders and audiences of influential Arab Americans and American Jews.
The efforts of this Geneva group not only dramatically transformed America's reporting of Middle East news, they ignited a peace conversation that filled the editorial pages of major newspapers and even spawned a number of congressional resolutions in support of their peace-making venture.
Rightists and hardliners on both sides of the conflict's divide may have condemned this Geneva group, but the impact they have made in the US can't be so easily dismissed. Their contribution will be felt on many levels and will grow in the months to come.
The Arabs must help boost the moderates in Israel
By Hassan A. Barari, Daily Star 12/9/2003
By all yardsticks, the Arab Peace Initiative adopted by the March 2002 Beirut Arab League summit is the boldest move yet undertaken by the Arabs. The initiative, which proposed full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders as a quid pro quo for peace, normalization and security guarantees to Israel, is the recipe for lasting peace in our region. Unfortunately, the gallant initiative failed to gain momentum.
Reviving the Arab initiative requires full appreciation of the dynamics of peace in the Middle East. Hence, one needs to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions for peacemaking. The former refers to external factors that create a political atmosphere conducive to the success of a peace process. Had the Arab Peace Initiative been managed properly and wisely, it could have helped contribute to creating such a condition. The sad fact, however, is that the Arabs failed to launch an effective diplomatic offensive in order to win the approval of key players in the Middle East particularly the Bush administration. Notwithstanding US President George W. Bush’s lukewarm praise for the plan, he failed to embrace it as a blueprint for a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
....However, this necessary condition for creating an atmosphere conducive to peacemaking was by no means sufficient. The Arabs need to urgently address Israeli society and make subtle efforts to help bring moderate forces to power. We have to acknowledge that in Israel any peace that entails territorial compromise will be a burning topic and lead to internal divisions. Therefore, waiting for a national consensus to emerge there is a waste of time. We can only put hope in an Israeli majority that would back the principle of land for peace and normalization, as stated in the Arab initiative....
Israelis better at manipulating media
By Dr Toine Van Teeffele, Al-Jazeera 12/8/2003
As a guide and consultant living in Bethlehem, Palestine, I have regularly coordinated visits for groups of Westerners coming to see Palestinian reality with their own eyes.
Almost always those visitors felt afterwards that what they saw did not correspond with the image of Palestine they had before. Somehow the impact and scope of occupation were never really understood except after experiencing it first hand.
Why? Lots of causes are at play here, but perhaps none is so important as the influence of the media. I think three main factors have to be considered to understand the impact of the western media on the popular image of occupied Palestine (the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip):
The work situation and cultural background of Western journalists working in Palestine and Israel
The presentation of the news about the region, and
The boundaries of the debate within the media.
A journalist's job: It is a journalist's job to collect facts and interpretations. In the case of the occupied West Bank and Gaza, it is regrettable to note that from the first days of the occupation in 1967 few western journalists had the will or opportunity to live for a prolonged time in a Palestinian town such as Ram Allah or Gaza.
If you mean it, then prove it
By Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz 12/9/2003
Everyone is talking about it. Does he mean it or not? Is he serious or not? If he is, is it doable? When Ehud Olmert discovered America with his 53-year old quotes from Ben-Gurion about preferring a Jewish state over coveting the whole pie, some people thought the earth had moved. Some were impressed and others were shocked by his proposal for a unilateral withdrawal from the territories.
However, the rule about the gun that appears in the first act being fired in the last does not apply to doves. They can appear in the first act and fly away by the second. A prime ministerial confidante describes the Olmert bombshell as a trial balloon coordinated with Sharon, or at least launched with his knowledge.
The prime minister's policy has not changed, from his pledge to bring "peace and security" to his willingness to make "painful concessions." But this rhetoric does not jibe with what the Palestinians expect from Israel.
So what we have seen is a lot of talk but little in the way of action that will bring Israel closer to an accord acceptable to the Palestinians and capable of ending the conflict. Basically, Sharon has not budged from his belief that an agreement can only be achieved in stages, or from his bear hug of Bush's road map.
Sharon beat Olmert to it by stating publicly that "we cannot continue holding 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation," and by warning the Palestinians that unless they sat down with him on the road map - which demands that they dismantle the terror infrastructure and carry out reforms in the Palestinian Authority - "Israel will take unilateral action that will leave them with less than they might get with a negotiated settlement."
Saving the Village
Editorial, New York Times 12/9/2003
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," an American battalion commander in Iraq said recently. He was speaking from a village that had been virtually wrapped in razor wire after a series of attacks on U.S. troops. "This fence is here for your protection. Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot," a sign reads.
Unwelcome as Vietnam analogies are right now, it's hard to ignore the resemblance to that infamous military comment about having to destroy a village in order to save it. There are also more current, but equally chilling, comparisons. As Dexter Filkins reported in The Times on Sunday, American tactics in Iraq are coming to resemble those used by Israel on Palestinians. That is the opposite of where we were supposed to be heading. The intractable Israeli-Palestinian relationship poisons the entire political dialogue in the Middle East. The Iraq invasion was supposed to be its antidote.
|
