Can Israel escape a binational state?
By Ali Abunimah, Daily Star 12/20/2003
On Thursday, the low-key headline on the website of Israel’s Haaretz newspaper noted: “Herzliya conference sees verbal attacks on Israeli Arabs.” What this concealed was that Israel’s top military, political and business leaders, gathered for an annual get-together in the town of Herzliya under the auspices of the Israeli Institute for Policy and Strategy, were hearing implicit calls for genocide from some colleagues.
According to Haaretz, Yitzhak Ravid, a senior researcher at the Israeli government’s Armaments Development Authority, called for Israel to “implement a stringent policy of family planning in relation to its Muslim population.” In case his meaning wasn’t clear, Ravid added: “(T)he delivery rooms in Soroka Hospital in (Beersheba) have turned into a factory for the production of a backward population.”
Ravid’s comments almost certainly violated the 1951 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, whose definition of genocide includes “imposing measures intended to prevent births” within a specific “national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” Not only is committing such acts considered genocide under international law, so too is “direct and public incitement to commit genocide.”
King Lears of the Arab world
By Tamim al-Barghouti, Daily Star 12/20/2003
The danger of believing in colonialism -- When there is colonial encounter, there are natives who believe in the colonial promise; this is an attempt to remind every contemporary King Lear with his predecessors.
In the first statement of the Arab Revolt of 1917 against the Ottomans, Sharif Hussein, the ruler of the Ottoman province of Hijaz and leader of the Revolt, did not dispute the right of the Ottoman Caliphs to rule over Muslims, nor did he portray the Ottoman presence in the Arab world as some form Turkish occupation. To the contrary, he asserted his devotion to the authority of the caliph. However, he argued that the Caliphate had come under the control of the relatively secular Committee of Unity and Progress (CUP), which neglected the teachings of Islam, and whose policies, on the eve of World War One would have resulted in the collapse of the Caliphate, the occupation of Mecca and Medina and thus the end of Islam; Hussein expected a total defeat of the Ottoman Empire, and if it did not fall, he was almost sure that the southern provinces would undoubtedly fall under British occupation....Since defending the present Caliphate was useless in his view (which was militarily correct), he had to find a way to create an alternative that would become a state for the Muslims in the world.
His idea was to reach a deal with the British, before they won the war, since nothing would motivate them to grant him what he wanted after they won....Yet, the interests of the Sharif and the British were not reconcilable after all; the creation of a united Arab kingdom in the Middle East was strategically too dangerous to any colonial power in the world, regardless of how friendly the leadership of such a kingdom was.
....This logic of gaining independence by reconciling national and colonial interests was common among most liberation movements in the Arab world between the two world wars, and it is just as common today under the new wave of American colonialism.
How Israel Manipulated Western Intelligence Agencies
By Richard H. Curtiss, Palestine Chronicle 12/19/2003
WASHINGTON - It’s no secret that much of the news reported in Israel’s Hebrew-language media never reaches the mainstream American press, for the simple reason that items unfavorable to Israel generally are not translated. And, because very few Israelis break this self-imposed censorship, items from the Hebrew press that do appear may be much more newsworthy than their anemic English translations indicate.
It was a bit stunning, therefore, to read an article in Strategic Assessment, the quarterly bulletin issued by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. The report, titled “The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?” was written by Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general in the Israeli Army reserves, and said what no one seems to have dared publish since President George W. Bush decided to wage war on Iraq. Shockingly, it told the full truth about the American and British intelligence “sources” making the case for war.
In fact, according to Brom, these sources were utterly compromised by Israeli intelligence, which made the case for starting the war and kept it going as long as necessary. The retired general described Israel as a “full partner” in US and British intelligence failures that exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs in the lead up to the US-led invasion.
Her final journey
By Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz Friday Magazine 12/19/2003
The life and death of student Kamala Sawalha, mother of two, who was shot to death by soldiers at a checkpoint. This is life in the land of the checkpoints: A student leaves her house every night, leaving her two young children at home, spends the next several hours traveling by taxi and on foot to get to the university in the neighboring town - just 15 minutes away, if there were no checkpoints - on time in the morning. And this is death in the land of the checkpoints: A hail of bullets fired by soldiers last Saturday at a taxicab full of sleepy passengers, at 3:30 in the morning, killing education student Kamala Sawalha, 21, mother of two, who was on her way to visit her husband, who was also far from home because of the checkpoint.
Asira al-Shamaliya is located north of Nablus, which is the center of life for the town's residents. For over three years now, it has been difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get from Asira to Nablus. Asira consists of leaning houses, a new asphalt road that is sometimes blocked by large dirt barriers, and sometimes not, when "restrictions are eased." This is where Kamala Sawalha was born and raised and not far from here, on the highway to the west, she was killed. It happened between Saturday night and Sunday morning, several hours before dawn.
It's not what he says, it's what he does
By Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz 12/19/2003
One can understand looking forward to a music festival, or even an international dentistry convention that gets dentists flying in from all over the world, to hear others and be heard. But the annual spectacle known as the "Herzliya Conference," with all the excitement and anticipation it stirs up, has got to be the strangest show on earth. As you watch the parade of ministers and government officials getting up on the podium, one after another, you'd think they were prospective grooms on the "Take Me Sharon" television dating show.
....At the Herzliya Conference we saw a government that is befuddled and confused: a minister calling upon Abu Ala to negotiate; a minister calling for unilateral action; a minister against unilateral action; a minister against the road map, but committed to it; a minister who supports dismantling outposts; a minister who supports withdrawal from isolated settlements; and a minister who says they should stay.
What hasn't been articulated at this conference is that the U.S. administration, the media and American public opinion are showing signs of fatigue. They are getting tired of Sharon, of his double talk, of the fact that he is not helping President Bush by making gestures to the Palestinians.
As a person who promised peace and security, but hasn't brought it, as a person who promised painful concessions, but hasn't made any, as a person who shoved us down the hill, but won't accept responsibility for it - it doesn't matter what Sharon said last night and how nicely he said it. It's his actions that will talk.
Sharon's Limited Vision
Editorial, New York Times 12/19/2003
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel did little to advance the cause of Middle East peace yesterday when he warned the Palestinians that if they did not move to uphold their end of an agreement soon, Israel would act unilaterally. He is right that the Palestinian Authority is required, under the American-sponsored peace plan known as the road map, to dismantle terrorist networks, and has failed to do so. But he is wrong that the plan views that step as a precondition to Israel taking its own painful steps, namely the freezing of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and an end to confiscation and demolition of Palestinian homes and property. The sides are to act simultaneously.
Mr. Sharon did make a bit of history in the speech, which comes at a time of soul-searching within his party due to growing public impatience with violence and hard economic times. He said that any unilateral moves by Israel would include moving some settlements "to reduce as much as possible the number of Israelis located in the heart of the Palestinian population." This is the first time that the leader of the conservative Likud Party has promised to remove Jewish settlements in occupied lands. But no details were offered, and it seems likely that Mr. Sharon hopes only to move some isolated settlements alongside others still within occupied areas, rapidly complete a physical barrier and, in effect, tell the Palestinians that he has nothing further to say to them.
Israel 's “Security” Wall: Bad Fences Make Bad Neighbors
By PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, Arabic Media Internet Network 12/18/2003
“[The] formula for the parameters of unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem .” – Ehud Olmert, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister
Frequently Asked Questions: 1. What's wrong with Israel 's “security” wall?
The wall is not being built on Israel 's border but rather well within Occupied Palestinian Territory , thereby de facto annexing Palestinian land and ensuring that Israel 's colonies remain. It is estimated that approximately 43% of the Occupied West Bank (containing approximately 94% of the illegal Israeli settlers) will be de facto annexed by Israel .
In addition, the wall is being built in such a way as to divide Palestinian population centers from their adjacent agricultural land and water resources. The strategy is to annex as much Palestinian land as possible while militarily encaging as many Palestinians as possible, all in an attempt to continue Israel 's colonization and occupation of Palestinian land. At the same time, Israel will effectively isolate Palestinian population centers from one another, and restrict not only freedom of movement of individuals but also of goods and services, thereby worsening an already crippled Palestinian economy.
It is estimated that when the wall is complete, approximately 380,000 Palestinians will be trapped between the wall and Israel 's 1967 pre-occupation border (the “Green Line”), 160,000 of whom will be trapped in “double-walled” ghettos or enclaves.
For a map of Israel 's “security” wall as of December 2003, see www.nad-plo.org/images/maps/pdf/lgdecem.pdf....
Sharon seeks to impose solution
By Martin Sieff, Washington Times 12/18/2003
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 (UPI) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, hounded by failing health, political enemies and corruption probes spelled out Thursday his determination to create a "fortress Israel" that would enrage most Palestinians and hard-liners in his own Likud Party alike.
The 75-year-old Israeli leader, speaking at the Herzliya Security Conference in the prosperous resort town north of Tel Aviv described his plan to impose a unilateral re-partitioning of the land if the Palestinians did not agree to negotiate one with him following the guidelines of President George W. Bush's road map.
"If in a few months the Palestinians still continue to disregard their part in implementing the road map, then Israel will initiate the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians," Sharon said. "... We will not wait for them indefinitely."
The security fence to wall off the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank from Israel is being thrown up at breakneck speed. It includes key areas of pre-1967 Israel where the largest, government approved settlements, several of them large-sized towns have been built. Indeed, it would leave the Palestinians holding on to less land than if the borders of pre-June 4th, 1967 were respected.
Arafat: Peace and Freedom
By Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj, Palestine Chronicle 12/13/2003
Like every morning, I was walking along the Gaza beach-- thinking, dreaming, breathing fresh air away from the fuel gas and dust and trying to maintain my emotional balance, which Israeli bombers strive to destroy.
It seemed that I had gone too far without realizing, I noticed a soldier coming down to the beach towards me. I was not sure if I was the intended target, until he waved his hand for me to stop. When I was close to him, I asked about the reason for stopping me from walking along the beach. He said that this small strip of the beach ran alongside President Arafat's office, and for security reasons, walking was not permitted.
Naively I responded, "But the President is in Ramallah". The soldier replied with what shifted the conversation to a totally different level, "But his spirit is here". Sincerely, I stumbled because I was not expecting such a high emotional charge in the early morning hours. I said, retreating, "I hope the President comes back soon". Then, I said, "May I ask that this area be cleaned in preparation for his arrival". The soldier said with determination and sincere emotions; "When the President comes, we will convert it into paradise; when President Arafat arrives, we will convert the salty see water into honey". I smiled as the soldier's eyes glowed with emotions and tears.
The moment was strange and overwhelming…this simple soldier was expressing his warm emotions like a poet armed with sincerity. I asked myself if there was something common between us. I am one of those who do not refrain from criticizing the Palestinian Authority, the President, and the Cabinet. But, we all have something in common, the soldier, myself, and everyone…we all have love for this homeland, its people, trees, sand, sea, sky and life…the prayers of the mosques, the screaming neighbors, the noisy cars, the graveyards, the olive trees and the graffiti that cover the walls along the streets-which are full of holes and bumps.
A rickety bridge?
By Amira Howeidy, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 December 200
Egyptian and international anti-war activists concluded the Second Cairo Conference this week. Amira Howeidy tries to see beyond the spectacular chaos -- Almost a thousand Egyptian, Arab and international activists representing the anti-war movement ended a two-day conference on Sunday as news of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's capture was announced. Over two days, dozens of passionate Arab and international speakers took to the Egyptian Press Syndicate podium to express solidarity with the Iraqi and Palestinian people, and denounce US imperialism, globalisation and aggressive capitalism. The impressive array of speakers included veteran British politician Tony Benn, former US attorney- general Ramsey Clark, former Humanitarian Coordinator with the United Nations in Iraq Dennis Halliday and British MP George Galloway. Hundreds of activists representing the UK-based Stop the War Coalition, International A.N.S.W.E.R and the anti-war movements in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Turkey, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and the occupied Palestinian territories, also took part. Egyptian figures -- who more or less monopolised the podium -- represented Nasserist, Islamist, secular, communist and socialist currents, thereby completing the veritable global unity of activists.
As such, the Second Cairo Conference -- which was organised by the International Campaign Against Zionist and US Occupation -- had all the ingredients of a successful anti-war event.
But it wasn't. Until the very last minute, organisers failed to produce a detailed programme of events. And with the exception of prominent speakers who needed no introduction, no one seemed to know exactly who the other "foreign activists who came all the way to Egypt to attend this conference" were....
Shin Bet sees ‘strategic threat’ from Jewish fanatics
By Ed Blanche, Daily Star 12/20/2003
BEIRUT: Israel’s 1967 conquest of the West Bank, which religious Jews consider the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria that Jehovah gave to their ancestors, and the occupation that followed spawned the suicide bombers who are now terrorizing the Jewish state. But it also gave birth to a right-wing Jewish underground, an explosive mix of messianism and ultra-nationalism, that periodically rises up to attack Palestinians.
Deeply rooted among the ultra-orthodox movement and the religious Jews who spearheaded the colonization of the West Bank, the extremists are back again, two decades after their last murderous manifestation. And there are fears that amid talk of abandoning West Bank settlements they may resort to acts of violence that could touch off a bloodbath.
On Tuesday, in a rare public appearance, Avi Dichter, head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, delivered a warning about the Jewish zealots who see themselves as the descendants of the Jewish rebels who fought the Romans in the 1st century AD. These were the same fanatics who flung themselves off the cliffs of Masada when Roman legionnaires stormed the ancient mountaintop fortress in the Judean Desert, near present-day Hebron, rather than endure captivity. The 960 men, women and children who killed themselves were followers of the Sicarii, a Jewish sect which murdered Romans and “Hellenist” Jews who collaborated with the occupiers an ironic twist considering today’s situation. The fanaticism of the Sicarii and their leader, Eliazar ben Jair, led to the end of the Jewish state for 2,000 years.
Close encounter with a US diplomat
Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 18 - 24 December 200
US Ambassador in Egypt, David Welch, is a diplomat who does not mince his words. But then, neither do Al-Ahram Weekly journalists -- which made for a lively encounter at Al-Ahram's offices on Monday. Below are extracts from a two-hour round table discussion between Welch and a number of Weekly staff members -- ....Nevine Khalil: And what if there is democracy in the region and the people decide to elect governments that are not friendly to the US? What would you do about that?
Welch: You mean like France? This is a good opening. Forgive me because I am not a very good diplomat and I tend to say what's on my mind and I say it straight. It may at times bother you a little bit, but I don't mean any offense. I just believe in honesty. So I am going to be very honest.
So you are telling me that if there were peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and a withdrawal to the 1967 borders tomorrow, we'd have thriving democracies throughout this part of the world?
....Welch: UN Resolution 242, the basis of a just solution to the Arab-Israeli problem, was passed in 1967. It took until 1978 for one Arab country to recognise it and implement it. It took another 10 years for the remainder of the Arab countries to catch up to that fact.
Shukrallah: That is a very special reading of the history of the region. I think it took Israel a very long time to accept it. It needed a war, the October war, for Israel to accept it.
Sharon Phrased His Current Policy as a New Plan
By Ghassan Andoni, International Middle East Media Center 12/20/2003
Finally, Sharon spelled his, long waited for plan, in a threatening language mostly directed towards Palestinians. In reality, he managed to disappoint almost everyone who believed that only a right wing prime minister is capable of implementing "painful" concessions.
Labor party old man and opposition leader Shimon Peres, who believed that Sharon's disengagement plan would pave the way for a "national unity" government, was the first to criticize Sharon plan as an attempt to delay making the decisions needed to achieve peace.
Peres criticized the plan as "giving no timeline nor specifying which settlements would be evacuated" Peres told the foreign ambassadors in Israel that he didn't believe that the prime minister would implement the plan.
The U.S. administration first reaction was critical of Sharon's speech and warned Israel against implementing unilateral steps. Yet, the day after, the same White House spokesman praised Sharon's public commitment to the road map, which Sharon signed few months ago, saying "We were very pleased with the overall speech."
|
