Sharon's hopeless vision
By Michael Brown, Electronic Intifada 12/19/2003
As feared, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's speech on Thursday, December 18 at the Herzliya Conference provided very little hope for 2004. Sharon acknowledged there will be a Palestinian state, thereby recognizing Israel cannot control all the land between the river and the sea, but said nothing about the size of the Palestinian state. He offered no tangible vision for the Palestinians to latch on to which suggested that after decades this man is now addressing Palestinian concerns seriously.
The Israeli prime minister moved because he is rapidly being cast as intransigent and because even the Likud is beginning to recognize that at some point in the very near future it will have to decide between democracy and apartheid. Pushed back on his heels, Sharon tried to gain the upper hand by speaking the language Washington has come to know well in the last year -- that of unilateral action.
Rather than speak hard truths about Israel's responsibilities, Sharon aggressively set forth one misrepresentation after another. For instance, he claimed, "Seven months ago, my Government approved the 'Roadmap' to peace, based on President George Bush's June 2002 speech." He failed to note he accepted the Roadmap only with the insertion of 14 caveats.
Searching for a cease-fire
By Khaled Amayreh, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 December 200
The Egyptian-mediated inter-Palestinian cease-fire talks resumed in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday amid fresh indications that Hamas and Islamic Jihad might soften their conditions for a new truce with Israel -- The resumption of cease-fire talks coincided with the arrival in Gaza of two high-ranking Egyptian security officials who had played pivotal roles in initiating and overseeing the last round of talks that ended indecisively in Cairo on 7 December. The two officials, Mustafa El-Beheiri and Mohamed Ibrahim, held talks with Palestinian Authority security officials and later with the leaders of the main resistance factions, including Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.
Earlier, Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders called for the resumption of the talks "at any time", indicating that the two groups might relax their conditions for a cease-fire. "We are willing and ready to make utmost efforts in order to make the national dialogue talks successful," said Islamic Jihad official Nafez Azzam. He denied that the previous Cairo talks failed, saying that the talks achieved a number of "valuable understandings". Hamas and Fatah officials made similar remarks stressing the continuity of the "national unity talks" and expressing hope that the Palestinian Authority and resistance factions would eventually reach a common concordance on how to deal with the present predicament with Israel.
Palestinian sources intimated that the Egyptian delegation will present the resistance groups with "certain American guarantees" that Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman obtained during his recent visit to the US. These guarantees reportedly include a tacit commitment that Israel would put an end to its "assassination policy" and stop all repressive measures against Palestinian population centres, such as the destruction of homes, private farms, orchards and public infrastructure. Hamas has also demanded that in return for an extended cease-fire, the Sharon government would have to stop building the separation wall in the West Bank and release thousands of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails and detention camps.
Sharon's Speech: Tissue of Lies and Half-Truths His “Plan” – Recipe for War and Annexation
By Gush Shalom, Arabic Media Internet Network 12/19/2003
“Ariel Sharon’s speech of today is a masterpiece of misrepresentation, half-truths and outright lies,” Gush Shalom declared immediately afterwards. “The polished formulations are hiding the clear intent of annexing more than half the West Bank, while giving up a few far-away and isolated settlements that are the army consider as a burden.”
As examples of blatant untruths, Gush Shalom cites:
1. Sharon: The Road Map demands that the Palestinians eliminate terrorism, and that only afterwards Israel is requested to fulfil its obligations. The truth: The Road Map demands that Israel starts to fulfil its obligations at once, simultaneous with and independent of the steps to be taken by the Palestinians.
2. The Road Map demands from Israel to remove “unlicensed outposts”. The truth: The Road Map demand from Israel to remove ALL settlements set up after January 2001.
3. Sharon: The Road Map allows Israel to build inside the “built-up area” of the settlements. The truth: The Road Map forbids any building activity in the settlements. The “built up areas” of the settlements have been planned in advance in such a way that tens of thousands of new houses can be built there.
4. Sharon: Lately we have made life much easier for the Palestinians. The truth: While life was intolerable even before, it has become much worse lately. Almost no checkpoint has been removed, free movement is impossible, and, worst of all, the “separation fence” has cut off hundred thousands of Palestinians from their sources of livelihood as well as from their schools, hospitals, universities and even cemeteries....
Racism thrives at Israel's Herzliya conference
By Arjan El Fassed, Electronic Intifada 12/19/2003
Speaking at the third annual Herzliya conference, Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his audience: "It is not the Palestinians who pose a demographic threat, since one day they will benefit from self-determination, but the Israeli-Arab population. The most important thing is maintaining the Jewish majority in the country and improving the economy to encourage more Jews from the Diaspora to immigrate." If the Palestinians in Israel "reach 35 to 40 percent of the Israeli population, Israel will become a state with two nationalities," he said. Palestinians currently represent more than 20 percent of the total population in Israel.
The Herzliya conference on "the balance of national strength and security of Israel", brings together Israel's decision-making leadership to examine and evaluate the different components that make up Israel's overall strength. The Hebrew name of the conference refers to hosen leumi, a term loosely translated as national strength, but which refers to something much more specific: "national immunity."
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), an Israeli civil rights organisation, protested Netanyahu's remarks. ACRI Director, Rachel Benziman, sent a letter to the minister, in which she strongly protested his reference to a fifth of Israel's citizens as no more than a "demographic problem". ACRI demanded that Palestinian citizens in Israel be recognized as human beings that are entitled to all the rights due to any citizen of the state.....
CNN: Two stories, one news agency
By Michael Brown, Electronic Intifada 12/18/2003
Casualties in Tel Aviv. Casualties in Rafah. Where does CNN go? Tel Aviv. And it was absolutely right to go to Tel Aviv. It's failure came in an inexcusable unwillingness to send a second crew to Rafah.
A review of the CNN.com website for Thursday, December 11 shows an unmistakable emphasis on Tel Aviv. A prominent free-standing story was quickly posted about the violence in Tel Aviv which turned out to be an internal criminal attack: "Tel Aviv blast kills 3".
But CNN only posted a story about Rafah following a complaint from Partners for Peace and then it was only added as an afterthought at the very end of a piece about Ahmed Qureia's criticism of Israel's Segregation Barrier: "Qorei: Palestinians won't accept Israeli barrier"
Perhaps CNN has a quota limiting the number of stories in a day airing Palestinian grievances. (CNN already does have a policy mandating that if Islamic Jihad or Hamas is mentioned that language is included noting that the State Department regards them as terrorist organizations. Fair enough. Each is guilty of heinous crimes. But you simply will not see similar language from CNN noting the IDF's human rights track record despite the fact that the State Department documents such abuses year in and year out.)
International solidarity against occupation
By Stefan Christoff, Jordan Times 12/18/2003
I TRAVELLED to Jordan from Montreal, Canada, at the end of November with plans to cross the Israeli controlled border into Palestine to work with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). I was refused entry into Israel after being held for more than five hours, and deemed a “security threat”, according to information provided to border officials by the ministry of the interior. I had planned to work in Palestine with the ISM, a Palestinian-led movement which brings together Palestinians and internationals from all over the world to work on the ground in the occupied territories and stage campaigns of nonviolent direct action against the Israeli occupation.
The ISM has brought hundreds of internationals to work in Palestine to confront the daily workings of the Israeli occupation. During the summer of 2003, the ISM organised the Freedom Summer Campaign, which focused on confronting the current construction of the Israeli apartheid wall. Palestinian and international activists working with the ISM took part in non-violent direct action to tear down sections of the internationally condemned wall. The wall, deemed a “security measure” by the Israeli state, is clearly an effort to steal more Palestinian land. The Palestinian Environmental NGO Network has estimated that upwards of 50 per cent of the West Bank land will be plundered by the completion of the wall, which is not being built on or near the 1967 Green Line and at points reaches 16km deep into the heart of the West Bank.
Thus, the ISM, through direct confrontation with the colonial realities of the Israeli occupation has become an important facet of resistance to the occupation. The fact that the ISM operates outside of the confines and regulations of international institutions, such as the United Nations, is one of the reasons why the organisation has been effective on the ground in Palestine and throughout the world in bringing to light the terrible realities of life, and death, under occupation.
Film star helping make the world a better place to live in
By Daoud Kuttab, Jerusalemites 12/19/2003
FIRST met Richard Gere about six months ago. I was scheduled to take him on a tour of Ramallah, when that same morning, the Israeli army unexpectedly declared curfew on the Palestinian city. To his credit and despite strong objection from his handlers and bodyguards, the American movie star insisted on going ahead with his plans to visit Ramallah.
Although he drove through a deserted city, he was quickly made to feel, when he got to the Grand Park Hotel and Hanan Ashrawi's home, the love and appreciation Palestinians have for him, especially because he dared to challenge the Israeli-imposed restrictions. His visit, as expressed by the then minister of culture Ziad Abu Amer, gave the depressed Palestinians a sense of hope and the realisation that there are many around the world who cared.
For many of the Palestinians who also challenged curfew that day, the mere presence of a Hollywood icon was a once-in-a-lifetime occasion. While genuinely appreciating it, most Palestinians thought then that this would be Gere's first and last visit. After all, many other celebrities had made similar visits (although no one during a curfew) to never be heard of again.
It was in this spirit that Gere's second visit early this December pleasantly surprised many. But despite the positive media coverage this second visit to Palestine had, at least one journalist mistakenly interpreted Gere's decision not to speak as a sign of fear of being reprimanded by the powerful pro-Israel lobby in America. Of course this was not the case. Gere had taken the decision, during both his visits, to avoid saying anything to the press simply because he didn't feel qualified. He had clearly stated to all he met that he was there to listen and that he was committed to being involved in this conflict for a long time.
Tony Benn: Labour of love
By Gamal Nkrumah, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 December 200
Abandoning the House of Commons to "devote more time to politics" -- My knowledge of Tony Benn has been gleaned from either the British media or from a few friends and acquaintances who have had the opportunity to work with him. The former has, over the decades, been largely unsympathetic to both the man and the causes he has championed while the latter heap lavish praise on Benn, stressing in particular his honesty, sincerity, warmth and strength of character. I also knew that in 1964 Benn introduced a private members bill in the House of Commons to boycott South African goods, a gesture that endeared him to Africans and supporters of the anti-apartheid and African liberation struggles.
Yet before our meeting I find myself expecting a studious, intensely dogmatic socialist. He is, after all, a veteran establishment politician, albeit one who embodies the best traditions of the British left.
But the man who greets me in his hotel room is humorous and down-to-earth. He dashes to the refrigerator to fetch me a drink. "Fruit juice or a beer?"
....As the minister responsible for energy Benn pushed through a policy of refusing to supply oil to Israel, much to the chagrin of Israeli politicians. Today he is one of the staunchest supporters of Palestinian rights, believing the genocide of the Palestinians perpetrated by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can only be ended by a concerted international effort.
"Britain should offer its support for this strategy by stopping all arms sales to Israel, introducing trade sanctions and a ban on all investment there, together with a boycott of Israeli goods," Benn argues.
A Wall Through Arab Families
By Michal Schwartz, Challenge November - December
On July 31, the Knesset amended the Citizenship Law (1952), denying citizenship to applicants who are spouses of Israelis if these spouses come from the West Bank or Gaza. The amendment will stand for at least one year and then come up for renewal. It will immediately affect more than 20,000 families, while limiting the marital prospects of many more. -- NO ISRAELI LAW prevents Arab citizens from marrying Palestinians of the Occupied Territories. A new amendment to the Citizenship Law, however, makes such marriages impossible unless the Arab citizen leaves Israel. It freezes all naturalization procedures aimed toward family unification, where these concern Palestinians who have already married Arabs in Israel. It even forbids their continuing to reside in Israel as non-citizens. It does not help if the spouse has long been living here, has children here, and was well underway toward family unification.
The new amendment places such "mixed" couples before difficult choices: Either the Palestinian living in Israel must become illegal and go underground, or the family must split, or – and this would appear to be the law's hidden intent – the entire family must pull up stakes and move to the Occupied Territories.
Laundering the words: The heart of the new amendment may be found in Article 2: "During the period that this law remains in effect… the Minister of the Interior will not grant a resident of the region citizenship according to the Citizenship Law, nor will he give him a license to reside in Israel according to the Law Concerning Entrance Into Israel, and the [military] commander of the region will not give said resident a permit to overnight in Israel according to security regulations in the region."
Myth laid bare
By Hani Shukrallah, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 December 200
Why is it that absurd choices are consistently presented as the only ones available? Why are local tyrants manufactured into the only alternative to global tyranny? What if some of us think there is absolutely nothing to choose between imperial hegemony and national humiliation and oppression on the one hand and nationalist/Islamist despotism on the other? Why is it that supporting Hamas and Jihad's morally abhorrent and politically ruinous suicide bombings is posited as an inescapable expression of our solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for emancipation from the daily horrors of a heartless and brutal Israeli occupation? And why, for that matter, shouldn't I join millions of Iraqis in celebrating the capture of the murderous thug called Saddam Hussein?
"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgets to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."
The celebrated quotation from Marx's "Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" has been lingering at the back of my mind ever since Saddam Hussein embarked on his geographically muddled venture to liberate Palestine via Kuwait. Let me explain why.
The Arab people's experience with Nasserism has been tragic in every sense of the word. Nasser, it can be argued, is the very archetype of the tragic hero.
And it does not take too great a leap of the imagination to see in Saddam Hussein's 1990-91 invasion and occupation of Kuwait a caricature -- a farcical repetition, even -- of the crisis that culminated in the June War of 1967. Simply replace American/Israeli baiting and provocation with American/ Israeli/Kuwaiti baiting and provocation. View Saddam's posturing as a caricature of Nasser's attempts to use the crisis to enhance his bargaining position vis-à-vis his adversaries on the one hand, and his hegemonic stature at home and within the Arab world on the other. The absence of any genuine preparedness for battle -- as evidenced by the swift collapse of both armies -- is an obvious point of overlap.....
Hardly alone
By Azmi Bishara, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 December 200
It was not a cheerful sight, and it did little to brighten an essentially sad situation. The dictator fell in April and no one has ever suggested that his remaining alive was essential to the future of Iraq. So what has changed?
No one, surely, is arguing that entire communities were simply holding their breath, waiting for news of the former Iraqi president before making up their minds on the future of their country? Saddam was politically finished well before his capture. His regime was not a real threat, not even at the time it fell. How, in his spider-hole, could he constitute a danger? Certainly no one has ever questioned spokesmen for the Bush administration about the state of Saddam's dental hygiene, though the Americans now appear to be in a position to answer such questions.
Saddam's appearance immediately after his arrest was remarkably similar to that of many homeless people on the streets of US cities. He did not look like a worthy foe, and his image totally contradicted that portrayed by the US media. The video we have been shown must have been carefully edited for maximum effect, to show him at his most vulnerable, mouth open, nurse inspecting. The whole world has been offered a glimpse of Saddam's mouth and its curiosity is now, presumably, satisfied.
|
