117 Palestinians killed, hundreds injured during media's "relative calm"
By Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada 12/26/2003
On December 25, an Israeli assassination squad killed five Palestinians in Gaza, and injured fifteen. Three of the dead were civilians. A short time later, a Palestinian blew himself up at a bus stop in the Tel Aviv suburb of Petah Tikva, killing four Israelis, three of whom were confirmed by Ha'aretz to be soldiers.
Many leading media organizations were quick to declare that these two incidents marked the end of a period of "relative calm" or "lull" in Israeli-Palestinian violence, that had supposedly lasted since the last Palestinian suicide attack in Haifa on 4 October.
In fact, the period since 4 October has been one of intense Israeli violence, in which 117 Palestinians were killed, including 23 children. At the same time, Israel destroyed almost five hundred Palestinian homes throughout the Occupied Territories.
Mass amnesia again strikes Middle East correspondents: A front-page Los Angeles Times headline declared "12-Week lull in Mideast Ends," and misreported that the "back to back spasms of violence" on 25 December, "shattered more than two months of relative quiet and dealt a fresh setback to peace efforts" (26 December 2003).
"Mideast quiet shattered: Suicide bombing kills four Israelis shortly after assassination in Gaza," declared The Montreal Gazette on Page 1 (26 December 2003).
Reducing the Palestinians
By Joseph Massad, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 25 - 31 December 200
The Palestinian people cannot be legislated out of existence -- One of the most important changes that the Oslo process brought about was the de facto transformation, indeed the ultimate corruption, of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, from a liberation movement representing the entire Palestinian people, into a vassal regime called the Palestinian Authority (PA), representing only one third of the Palestinian people. What is quite insidious in this process is how the PA, conscious of this transformation, continues to speak of the "Palestinian people", which had been reduced through the Oslo Accords to those West Bank and Gaza Palestinians it now represents. Diaspora Palestinians are simply referred to, in accordance with US and Israeli parlance, as "refugees", and Israeli Palestinians are referred to by Israeli diktat as "Israeli Arabs". In doing so, not only has the scope of the Palestinian leadership and its representative status of the whole Palestinian people (achieved in international fora in 1974 after a strenuous struggle) been substantially reduced, but the Palestinian people themselves were diminished demographically by the PA's appropriation of the designation "Palestinian people" to refer to a mere third of Palestinians.
This has had an immensely deleterious effect on those Palestinians who have been excluded from the designation "the Palestinian people", as, according to the Geneva Document, all their grievances are null and void after Mr Abed Rabbo signed the agreement on behalf of the PLO (not the PA), claiming to represent the entire Palestinian people.
The Geneva Document is explicit on this issue: "No further claims related to events prior to this Agreement may be raised by either Party." This demographic diminution of the Palestinian people was carried out with an important twist: while the PA will no longer fight for the rights of diaspora Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians, it can, in reclaiming its former status as the PLO temporarily, compromise and surrender all their rights to gain some rights for the portion of the Palestinians it now claims is "the Palestinian people". Thus, in order to obtain a measure of independence from Israeli occupation for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, the PA recognises Israel's right to be a Jewish racist state -- that has the right to discriminate against Israeli Palestinians -- and surrenders the internationally recognised rights of diaspora Palestinians to return and compensation. This has been the logic of Oslo, and it also governs the Geneva Document. It is thus essential to point out that the Geneva Document was signed by Palestinians who were not even elected by West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, much less the entire Palestinian people, whose rights they surrendered.
Chutzpah: an avoidance strategy
By Azmi Bishara, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 25 - 31 December 200
From the soap opera trial of O J Simpson to Herzliya: Azmi Bishara traces the death of the liberal Jew -- When a liberal Harvard University law professor defended Orenthal James Simpson, commonly known as "OJ", on the grounds of "reasonable doubt," it must have reminded many of the line from Shakespeare's Henry VI (Part 2, IV, ii): "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
This liberal law professor built his reputation on defending citizens against all forms of discrimination, for upholding the freedoms of the individual, for safeguarding a defendant's right to "reasonable doubt" when on trial for murder. He is the intellectual who strives to be unpredictable by going against the consensus of his social milieu, which condemns the simultaneously celebrated and hated wealthy star, the professor who defends the person who people like to hate, as sometimes happens with celebrities. He is the lawyer who likes to play the enfant terrible, bent on provoking his peers in a battle that appears to revolve around the defendant who is innocent until proven guilty and whom he proves cannot be found guilty even if he cannot prove his innocence, thereby infuriating his peers even more while at the same time increasing their admiration of his courtroom finesse. And, from the real blood of the victim with a well-known name, family and friends who became the authors of memoirs and talk show guests, and from the human flesh beneath the victim's fingernails, liberals and conservatives -- whether they loved or hated the defendant -- squeezed a cheap melodrama on the antics of the rich, on their ethics of betrayal and the bloodiness of their ethics, and on a culture the values of which are as volatile as deodorant spray.
....And what a pleasure it was to read, several years after that courtroom farce, the star lawyer's advice to Israel on how to circumvent international law and its weakness for human rights.
The year of the fall
By Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz 12/26/2003
Twenty-seven years after the first swing of the government to the right, it is not impossible that in 2004 the second power turnaround in the history of the country will begin. Even though the next elections are set for 2007, it is doubtful that the present coalition will last beyond next year. At a time of the total collapse of all the government systems and of values, when grandfathers and fathers are continuing to bury sons and grandsons, and terror is being called "the routine of terror attacks," 2004 is ripe for a turnaround. The year of the fall. Why now and not a year ago? Because our history teaches that the public's political digestive system is very slow. Its loyalty is greater than its urge to punish a failed government right away. Like they do in Brtain, for example. The Alignment (or Ma'arach, the precursor of the Labor Party) was reelected three months after the terrible blunder of the Yom Kippur War. It took 29 years, eight election campaigns, an accumulation of failures, thousands of dead in the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War, corruption in the top echelons of government and a public revolt for the voter to be ripe to punish the Alignment. Israel could not believe its ears when at one minute past 10 P.M., television newscaster Haim Yavin declared: "Gentlemen, an upheaval!" A late, but fatal punishment.
Democracy on the retreat
Editorial, Ha'aretz 12/26/2003
Preliminary results from the "Democracy Index - 2003 Report" published in yesterday's Haaretz, reflect troubling erosion in the public's perception of democracy and of the necessity for it to exist. The study, sponsored by the Israel Democracy Institute and the Guttman Center, is based on surveys carried out during the past year, and on comparisons between these findings and ones compiled in previous years in Israel and in other countries. Its authors conclude that while a clear majority of Israelis favor democracy, the support for the democratic system in 2003 has plunged to the lowest level recorded during the past 20 years.
Currently, just 77 percent of Jews in the country agree that democracy is the best system, as compared to a figure of some 90 percent that remained constant up to five years ago. The comparison to figures from around the world is still more worrisome. In public opinion surveys relating to support for democracy that were conducted in 32 countries between 1999 and 2001, Israel ranks in the lowest tier - with Poland, Chile, South Korea, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Taiwan, Argentina and South Africa.
The finding that a majority of Israelis support "strong leaders" - 56 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that "strong leaders can do more for the state than debates and laws" - and also that fact that 50 percent of respondents concur that if there is a conflict between security interests and the preservation of the rule of law, the former should take precedence, are similarly worrisome. No less troubling are the findings that 23 percent of the Jewish public believes that a soldier can refuse orders, and just 57 percent of respondents definitely agree with the statement that violence should never be used to attain political objectives.
What Can We Do? Nothing
By Abdulwahab Badrakhan, Al-Hayat 12/26/2003
Ariel Sharon is proceeding with his plan to carve up the Palestinian territories and turn them into besieged and isolated plots, while the Arabs aren't giving any signs that they're aware of the danger in what's happening. Uri Avnery's analysis of the 'mysteries' of Sharon's speech are enough to realize how arrogant the occupation has become. The issue becomes even clearer since the speech gained the American president's blessing, through his National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. George Bush used to repeat that he disagreed with the Israelis about the separation wall, and that he considered it a dangerous measure, but he nevertheless ended up fully approving it, with all its repercussions.
For Bush, Sharon was able to eliminate something called the "Palestinian cause," and this is an accomplishment that settles the American diplomacy, which was worried about achieving peace in the Middle East, since any peace would require Israeli concessions, and therefore American pressure on Israel. The fact is that any American president wouldn't dare exert this pressure, because of the risk this involves to his position and party. As a result, Sharon laid out the plan to expand and maintain the occupation, and increase the level of brutality regarding the Palestinian people, whereby he only left a limited solution and a small geographic area, which he had always suggested, but which is today fenced in and has closed horizons. So the Palestinians can either accept it under American, European and Arab pressure, or the unbalanced war goes on forever.
O Little Town of Bethlehem!
By Francis Boyle, CounterPunch 12/24/2003
It was December of 1991 and I was serving as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations in Washington DC. The Israelis were stalling, not even negotiating in bad faith, and the Americans were doing nothing to get the negotiations underway. This had been going on for three weeks and Christmas was fast approaching.
Those of us on the Palestinian Team who were Christian were wondering if we were going to be able to get home for Christmas--many Palestinians are Christian, the original Christians, going back to Jesus Christ and the Apostles themselves.
I would periodically check in with my wife and two sons at the time--little boys. My poor, sweet wife had to do all the Christmas preparations by herself without me. So the weekend before Christmas I called her up to say I still did not know if or when I would be coming home. My oldest son who had just turned 5 talked to me on the phone: Daddy why aren't you home for Christmas? Well son, I'm trying to help the Palestinians. Daddy, why are you doing that?
Hard to explain the entire Middle East conflict to a five-year old, so I put it into terms he could understand: Son, you know that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem don't you? Yes Daddy. Well I am here with the Mayor of Bethlehem and some other Palestinian leaders. They are my friends and I am their lawyer. I am working with the Mayor of Bethlehem to help all the Palestinian Children have a merry Christmas. Ok Daddy.
Letter Home from a Palestinian Nurse
By Linda Jaraiseh, Miftah 12/26/2003
2003 saw the continued building by Israel of the controversial barrier in the West Bank. This is the letter from Linda Jaraiseh, a Palestinian nurse working in Bait Sahour, near Bethlehem: "Like many others, this year I found that the wall being built by the Israeli Government is going to change my life forever - and not in a good way.
The wall. It's only a word when you say it, but it's a disaster when you think about it - because it means making a big prison to contain us as Palestinians living on the land.
We as a Palestinian family dreamed about having our own house and we got it - but unfortunately they wanted to steal it by putting it inside that prison.
That affects all of us, children, adults and old people. It will stop childhood, make the adults depressed, as well as making life hopeless in the old people's opinion.
My children have been through hard times since they lost their father in a tragic accident, and just as they were trying to come to terms with the events and live in peace, a nightmare appeared in our life which they can't deal with. They can't move freely, they need permission.
Basil is my youngest son. He's nine-years-old in age but about 50 in mind. He realises what big troubles he will face if the wall becomes a reality.
Bethlehem Celebrates Christmas, Rafah Counts the Dead
By Kristen Ess, CounterPunch 12/24/2003
Christmas Eve Day, 2003 Rafah to Bethlehem, Occupied Palestine -- Israeli occupation forces left the center of Rafah, although as is normal the Israelis remain at the border they have created. The Wall the Israelis are building with armoured machines is overshadowed only by its many sniper posts. Israeli soldiers remain daily to shoot and shell into the homes at whatever is the latest point in the "border." The line changes as the Israelis demolish more houses, turning what once was the center of the city into the border.
The Israelis killed ten Palestinians in Rafah yesterday. Forty Palestinians are in the hospital. The number of demolished homes is yet to be determined as Israeli tanks and bulldozers have just left the Yibna Camp where they attacked heavily yesterday. Palestinian medical and search crews are beginning to dig through the rubble looking for bodies, as several people report fears that there is a family still inside one of the demolished houses.
Israeli occupation forces not only destroyed more people's homes, but demolished the UNWRA (United Nations Relief Works Agency) Clinic as well. The Israelis continue to target the United Nations unchallenged.
The UNRWA says they need 20 hours to count the demolished houses because the number is large. Israeli soldiers are shooting at people who are trying to get their furniture from their demolished homes.
65 manned roadblocks, 58 trenches, 95 concrete barriers, 464 mounds of earth
By Akiva Eldar, Palestine Media Center/Ha'aretz 12/24/2003
Measures aimed at "easing restriction on movement of persons and goods" are mentioned in the first stage of the road map, a stage that was originally slated to end by May 2003. But the road map is one thing, and the roadblock map is another.
On August 4, at the height of the hudna (cease-fire), Labor Party Secretary-General MK Ophir Pines-Paz asked Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz how many roadblocks and other obstacles are scattered throughout the West Bank, how many the Israel Defense Forces had removed since the start of the hudna and how many they intended to remove?
In a question to the minister, Pines-Paz noted that roadblocks make life very difficult for West Bank residents, and that despite Israel's promise to make thing easier for them as one of its gestures under the road map, it was not clear that there had been any significant change on the ground.
The answer arrived about four weeks later, from the office of Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim. "The roadblocks are changed from time to time in accordance with the situation assessment," Boim wrote, explaining that therefore, "there is no possibility of keeping track and informing [you] of how many roadblocks have been taken down since the hudna [began] and how many are slated to come down." The deputy minister added that "the opening up of roadblocks and other abatements are considered once a week in the situation assessment."
Sharon must be stopped
By Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, Arabic Media Internet Network 12/25/2003
Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that if the Palestinians did not soon take significant steps to curb "violence", he would begin a unilateral "separation plan" to disengage entirely from any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
This ultimatum represents the summation of the Israeli government's skillful media strategy throughout 2003. Sharon is now testing the water, daring to say out loud what he has been working towards throughout his time in office: the consolidation of Israel's illegal seizure of 58 per cent of land across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and with it, the total subjugation of the Palestinian people.
Sharon's success in edging closer to this goal in 2003 is profoundly worrying. On the ground, Israeli troops have been steadily putting his plan into action, imposing a military occupation whose every act is calculated to degrade, humiliate and imprison the Palestinian population. The closure has been executed with the use of brutal and indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians and has cost thousands of lives. Today alone, 10 Palestinians were killed during Israeli attacks in Gaza, and the last week has seen daily invasions of the Belata refugee camp in Nablus, supported with tanks.
Yet the Palestinians find themselves in a situation unique in modern politics: as an occupied people held responsible for the security of their occupiers. The Palestinians' legal right to oppose Israeli hegemony has been turned against them by Sharon's presentation of the conflict as one between equally- matched military forces, and by the almost unconditional support he receives from many powers, in particular the United States.
|
