One-state awakening
By Peter Hirschberg, Ha'aretz 12/17/2003
For almost his entire thinking life, Daniel Gavron has been a Zionist. The first inkling that he did not belong in the country of his birth, England, came at age 11, at a middle-class boarding school. "Lots of the kids there were the sons of farmers," he recalls. "They had this very strong link with the land that I felt I lacked. Once I heard about Zionism, it all seemed to fit. That England was not my land and that my land was in another place - this country in the Middle East."
Gavron's bar mitzvah coincided with the creation of the state in 1948, magnifying a nascent sense that his destiny somehow meshed with that of the Jewish state. His father asked the guests to donate money to the fledgling state rather than bring presents.
....But these chapters contain only a few vague hints of the heretical conclusion - for a life-long, traditional Zionist, that is - that Gavron has reached and which he presents to his unsuspecting readers in the book's eighth and final chapter: After 55 years of Jewish sovereignty, the time has come to dissolve the Jewish state and establish, in its place, a single Israeli-Palestinian state.
"Having reached the conclusion that the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River must be shared, but cannot be sensibly partitioned," he writes in his book, "we are left with only one alternative: Israeli-Palestinian coexistence in one nation."
On Hamas’ 16th Anniversary
By Anne Gwynne, Palestine Chronicle 12/16/2003
Nablus, West Bank -- Whenever I light a cigarette I think of B and the many companionable cigarettes and cups of strong, sweet coffee we took together in Nablus. I smoked my last one in the beautiful, moonlit city with him, very late, on the night before I left for the USA for a summer visit. To meet was a huge risk for him but he wanted to say “until we meet again”. I hadn’t made it to an earlier rendez-vous, and was sad that I had missed him – he knew, so he came back at a very dangerous time when the soldiers were in the city! To my profound sorrow some four months later he has finally been trapped and captured in Raffidiya during an Israeli occupation army undercover operation in which his brother was also dragged in shackles from his bed.
It is difficult to face the images of the brutal cruelty they are now suffering at the hands of the Israeli torturers in a continuous merging of day into night - a seamless agony of cold and thirst, unbearable noise, filth, electric shocks, snapping bones and screaming tendons in windowless, stinking, blood-drenched rooms where the brilliant lights burn retinas behind taped-open, sleep-deprived eyelids 24-hours a day. Oh, there are dozens more cruel and inhuman tortures then this, all well-documented by the victims, with names, dates, and details. But no one is listening to the appeals of prisoners near to death from torture – B and his brother will join the 190, unsung outside Palestine, who have already died of Israeli brutality.
If the usual experience of other prisoners is anything to go by, we will meet again only in the Paradise. Unless there is a sea-change of attitude by the Governments of the world, no one outside the prison is likely to see him again, for no visits have been allowed since 1997. It is hard to comprehend not seeing ever again a human being who is still on this earth. It is hard enough when someone dies.
Read it before you criticize it
By Ron Pundak, Ha'aretz 12/17/2003
The Geneva Accord is regarded by its framers as an initiative that would in effect fulfill the true Zionist vision. -- The Geneva Accord, as expected, was met with harsh criticism at home. The unbridled attacks and mendacious claims made by the Israeli right were to be expected. The attacks from associates of former prime minister Ehud Barak, or based on the blindness of his distorted doctrine, were also not surprising. What was most worrisome, however, was the criticism by those who are meant to join the initiative, without any unnecessary envy or sniffing, and to help explain the advantages the initiative presents to the state of Israel and its Zionist outlook.
Among the latter there are two types that can be identified. One, which for the sake of its criticism, twists the facts, and the other, which deals directly with the accord but sees the shadows of mountains as the mountains themselves. Prof. Shlomo Avineri, for example, claimed in Yedioth Ahronoth that "the Jewish people is not mentioned in the document" and raised the possibility that "among the Palestinian signatories are those who think there's no such thing as a Jewish nation." Avineri, one of Israel's leading academicians, is wrong and misleading.
....Moreover, according to the Geneva Accord, after fulfillment of that article, the Palestinians will no longer be able to present any demands. The key here is the finality of the conflict, a finality of demands and closing the sorry case that was opened 55 years ago. UN Resolution 194 is a basis for a solution only according to the implementation that appears in the document itself and there, the implementation is hermetic, and it is absolutely clear from it that there is no right of return.
The Khaled Mishaal Interview (2 of 7)
By Ghassan Charbel, Al-Hayat 12/17/2003
In 1996, Khaled Mishaal was elected chairman of the Hamas political bureau. - Where did Hamas come from? What led to declare its establishment in 1987? Who were the first people to think about it? -- Hamas was declared a political and jihad faction strongly participating in the first Intifada. Its first Intifada action was on December 8, 1987. The first official statement of the movement was issued on December 14, 1987. Practically, the movement started its jihad activity ever since the first day of the first Intifada. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was present in several Arab countries, was also present in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood movement started in the 1940s. Its first sections (center or organizational unit) were founded in 1945 in Haifa, Yafa, Gaza, Jerusalem and Hebron. When the 1948 war erupted, the number of Muslim Brotherhood sections exceeded 20. Later, geography imposed a new reality for the Muslim Brotherhood. Members who were in Gaza became closer to Egypt and those who were in the West Bank became closer to Jordan. This movement participated in the 1948 war and the battles that took place between 1953 and 1955 in Gaza. This jihad (holy war) atmosphere paved the way for the establishment of Fatah. Khalil Al Wazir belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood and he participated in jihad in Gaza.
Muslim Brotherhood members were carrying out operations against the Zionist enemy in the border regions adjacent to Gaza. This struggle experience ended with the Tripartite Invasion. It is known that a part of Fatah movement was prepared and developed within the Muslim Brotherhood. Just like Abu Iyad, Abu Jihad, Abdulfattah Hammoud, Kamal Adwan and Youssef Omeira. Yasser Arafat had relations with the Muslim Brotherhood. Later, this part attracted Baathists and Nationalists in addition to other trends. In 1968, Muslim Brotherhood members showed up once again in "Shouyoukh" camps where they were all gathered from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan and the Gulf countries. This group agreed with Arafat and worked under Fatah's umbrella in organizing training camps for the Muslim Youth. The camps remained in Jordan until Black September in 1970.
There is No Alternative to Peace in the Middle East
By Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim, Miftah 12/17/2003
A few weeks have passed since the thirtieth anniversary of the October War (Yom Kippur), and a quarter of a century since the signing of the Camp David peace treaty between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, under the auspices of the American President Jimmy Carter.
This double October anniversary profoundly symbolizes the Middle East problem-- the elements of the conflict, as well as the elements of the solution. It is a war between the Arabs and Israel, the only way out being an American-brokered peace. This has been the solution since the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948.
Certainly, Arabs and Israelis alone are capable of initiating any war, but, to date, at least six wars later, they are incapable of putting an end to the war and initiating peace by themselves. The two parties need to achieve this under international auspices-- American, to be precise.
It is also clear that if either of the two parties proposed an initiative for peace, such a move would not be complete without the involvement of other foreign parties, one of which would have to be the United States. This applied to the armistice of 1948, halting the tripartite aggression (1956), the ceasefire in the Six-Day War and Resolution 242 (1967), the ceasefire in the October War and Resolution 338 (1973), the Camp David Agreement (1978), the peace conference in Madrid (1991), the Oslo accord (1993), the second Camp David negotiations and the Taba talks (2000), and, finally, U.S. President George Bush's initiative, known as the "Road Map" (2003).
The Israelification of Occupation in Iraq
By Ira Chernus, Palestine Media Center/CommonDreams 12/17/2003
"Recent U.S. methods in Iraq increasingly mimic those Israel uses in the West Bank and Gaza: setting up impromptu checkpoints, keeping militants on the defensive with frequent arrest raids and, in at least one case, encircling a village and distributing travel permits," the Guardian reports.
Pretty dumb, don't you think? Martin Van Creveld, a conservative Israeli military expert, thinks so too. He told the Guardian that Israel has been unsuccessful, and the United States will fail too. ``They are already doing things that we have been doing for years to no avail. The Americans are coming here to try to mimic all kinds of techniques, but it's not going to do them any good,'' Van Creveld said flatly.
You know what's even more dumb? The U.S. is imitating Israel not only in the way it makes war, but in the way it fails to make peace.
The Israeli model is simple. When the other sides signals that they are ready for a compromise peace, ignore them and ratchet up the military force. The result is predictable. The other side ratchets up their force too. Eventually, both sides realize that no one can win through force. Then it's time to negotiate.
But the compromise that once looked like a good deal to the other side will no longer work. Having shed so much blood, they demand a better settlement in return. Having suffered so much humiliation, they fear another humiliating defeat. The killing that makes it imperative to break the cycle of violence also makes it much harder to break that cycle.
People power & resisting the wall
By Islah Jad, Media Monitors Network 12/16/2003
We may differ among us over the repercussions or the morality of suicide bombings. But what we do agree on unanimously is that when an individual insists on deploying his or her own body, a power is released that might be called a part of the “flesh against iron” strategy.
The problem with the strategy of “flesh against iron” in this case is that it is based on actions of an individual and hence, remains inaccessible to the public and the nation as a whole. Indeed, the nation is forced to stand back and watch this solitary occurrence.
Observe the events of recent weeks in the world (which were not covered by the Arabic press, including al Jazeera satellite channel), in particular those in Bolivia where citizens of an entire nation bared their chests and thus forced their government to relinquish power and authority and flee the country. The same happened in Georgia, where continuing demonstrations resulted in the overthrow of the government and parliament, and obligated Edward Shevardnadze to resign in the wake of charges that he rigged the elections.
These examples are offered here merely to demonstrate that nations possess power, a power manifested in bodies tightly pressed together and directed at a singular goal. After close examination, it appears that we Palestinians are in dire need of this power. Some will say that there are already organizations that call demonstrations to resist and denounce the building of the Israeli wall and there are international solidarity groups that coordinate with local Palestinian movements and organize popular activities to confront the building of this racial separation wall. This is all well and good, I would argue, but it does not achieve the formula of “flesh against iron.”
Stand Up to Sharon
By Pat Buchanan, American Conservative 12/15/2003
Israel is a “thunderously failed reality” that “rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice.” Were these words spoken by an American leader, he would be denounced as an anti-Semite. But these are the words of a former speaker of the Israeli Knesset who cries for his country. “The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun,” writes Avraham Burg, “the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep.”
“Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism.” Burg implores “Diaspora Jews” to “speak out.” To little avail.
Why? Why, when a Knesset member is unintimidated, are we so silent? Why, when Ariel Sharon is dragging America’s good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah and Jenin, are we so tongue-tied? Did not Burke instruct us, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men”?
Israelis are speaking truth to power. Army Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon has told Israel’s press it was Sharon who undermined Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Twenty-seven Israeli Air Force pilots have refused to obey “immoral orders” for air strikes on “populated civilian centers.”
|
