|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| It is interesting their was no Russia Chechya thread. Or China Tibet threat. No Turkey PKK thread. No violence by the Iraqi insurgents thread. No Sudan thread. No Taliban thread . Ect. Ect. |
Actually, the two big ones that are never mentioned are Sri Lanka and Mexico. If it's Jews, it is news.
Why doesn't the North American media appropriately cover Mexico?? The more I read about it the more it looks I see it as nation falling into the abyss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Why doesn't the North American media appropriately cover Mexico?? The more I read about it the more it looks I see it as nation falling into the abyss. |
I think Americans have come to believe that Mexico is just a dysfunctional southern neighbor that will somehow always muddle through.
Kind of like having a borderline-retarded couple living across the street that occasionally has huge spats, but then settles back down for a few weeks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Posted on Tue, Feb. 10, 2009
Rival says Hamas subverts peace bid
Gaza's rulers are accused of using rocket fire to try to tip today's Israeli elections to foes of a deal with Abbas.
By Ibrahim Barzak
Associated Press
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A day before Israeli elections, an official of the moderate Palestinian government in the West Bank accused the rival Islamist Hamas rulers in the Gaza Strip of actions intended to boost hawkish candidates who would not pursue a peace deal with Palestinians.
Riad Malki, foreign minister in the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said Hamas was firing rockets into Israel in hopes of influencing today's election.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20090210_Rival_says_Hamas_subverts_peace_bid.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Why doesn't the North American media appropriately cover Mexico?? The more I read about it the more it looks I see it as nation falling into the abyss. |
Mexico has been falling into the abyss since A. Iturbide, self-proclaimed emperor of the First Mexican Empire...
Recd new travel advisories just yesterday or today in fact re: avoid northern Mexico. Here are excerpts from last year's...
| Quote: |
Mexican drug cartels are engaged in an increasingly violent fight for control of narcotics trafficking routes along the U.S. - Mexico border in an apparent response to the Government of Mexico�s initiatives to crack down on narco-trafficking organizations. In order to combat violence, the government of Mexico has deployed military troops in various parts of the country. U.S. citizens should cooperate fully with official checkpoints when traveling on Mexican highways.
Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have taken on the characteristics of small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and, on occasion, grenades. Firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico but particularly in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez. The situation in northern Mexico remains fluid; the location and timing of future armed engagements cannot be predicted.
A number of areas along the border are experiencing rapid growth in the rates of many types of crime. More than 1,600 cars were reportedly stolen in Ciudad Juarez in the month of July 2008, and bank robberies there are up dramatically. Rates for robberies, homicides, petty thefts, and carjackings have all increased over the last year across Mexico generally, with notable spikes in Tijuana and northern Baja California. Cuidad Juarez, Tijuana, and Nogales are among the cities which have recently experienced public shootouts during daylight hours in shopping centers and other public venues. Criminals have followed and harassed U.S. citizens traveling in their vehicles in border areas including Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, Tijuana, and along Route 15 between Nogales and Hermosillo.
The situation in Ciudad Juarez is of special concern. Mexican authorities report that more than 1,000 people have been killed there this year. U.S. citizens should pay close attention to their surroundings while traveling in Ciudad Juarez, avoid isolated locations during late night and early morning hours, and remain alert to news reports. A recent series of muggings near the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez has targeted applicants for U.S. visas. Visa and other service seekers visiting the Consulate are encouraged to make provisions to pay for those services with something other than cash.
U.S. citizens are urged to be alert to safety and security concerns when visiting the border region. Criminals are armed with a wide array of sophisticated weapons. In some cases, assailants have worn full or partial police or military uniforms and have used vehicles that resemble police vehicles... |
State.gov |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whaaaat? You are deliberately trying to make me cross, aren't you Gopher! Begging me to smack your furry little rodent's bottom! There is a Mexico thread you know.
Not a mild movement, a violent shake-up
| Quote: |
Major R., an Air Force pilot
This article appeared in Yedioth Aharonoth a few days before the end of the war in Gaza.
Translated from the Hebrew by EK.
The great feeling of justification gets more and more flawed; not for this we were educated. Not for this kind of battle we are training. Do I take part or do I opt out. A pilot who took part in the Gaza action uncovers moments wherein he thought of refusing orders.
One morning, a few days after the start of the �cast lead� action, I left my flight squadron after spending a good part of the night in the air over Gaza. On the tarmac I meet a friend-reservist. �How was it�, he asks. �Splendid�, I answer, �we managed to do nothing wrong. You will not read about this night�s flights in the newspaper�. We both chuckle and immediately become serious. �Listen�, he says, and I know already that he is going to say what I also feel, �this is no laughing matter. There are moments that I am on the verge of refusing to perform what we are ordered to do�.
Notwithstanding the impression that was received that amongst the fighters there was an absolute consensus, I wish to tell that it is not exactly so. Questions were asked, and reservations were stated. Some of us did not feel �a mild fluttering of the wing� (as stated by the previous Chief of Staff; translators note), but a violent shake-up of the soul, because of the chasm between the will (excuse the flowery language) to be part of the defenders of the inhabitants of the south, and of course to be part of the defense of our fighting friends on the ground, and between the harsh sights we were responsible for. The incitement we heard from part of our leaders we did not encounter amongst my friends. No one rejoices at the sight of the fallen enemy, and even less at the fallen children of the enemy.
And in the meantime the train of this action is racing onwards. And there is no time to stand back and reflect how to act: to go out on a mission or to refuse? The great feeling of justification we started with on this action gets more and more cracked. Not towards this were we educated. Not for this kind of battle are we training or preparing. But the assignment and the time have been set, and there is not a moment to stop and reflect. Whether I will take part or refuse, an act where there is no turning back from.
I am crying out for counsel, and I am looking for help amongst the column writers, excluding those who have disqualified themselves by not being objective, as these also raise their voice against the exaggerated use of force since they dare not decide: is this a matter of folly, like when it is performed even though in their hearts they know it is done against their instincts, or a crime which justifies refusal of an order.
Sometime in the course of the 16th century voices of unease were heard in Spain with the way the Spanish conquerors slaughtered the Indians during the conquest of the American continent. A �juridical solution� had to be found that condoned the continuation of those acts. The artificial pretext that the Spanish contrived was as follows: before giving battle against the Indians, the priest would get up and would read out to them the most important tenets of the Christian Faith. The Indians, who for obvious reasons did not understand what was read out to them in Latin or Spanish (if they managed at all to hear what was said) did not respond with enthusiastic cries of consent, or at least a whispered agreement as befits a Christian believer. At that moment they were declared heretics and it was permissible to occupy their lands and slaughter them.
It appears that this idea of legal legitimization for acts that at best are problematic and in the worst case are barbaric and criminal, is not an invention of the lawyers of the IDF, but those who allotted legitimization to bomb the cadets of the police force who finished their course and stood at attention at their parade, with the excuse that even though they were civilians, that with the imminent attack of the IDF in the Gaza strip they will constitute an opposing force. The beauty of this contention is that it can be expanded to comprise high school students who will be conscripted shortly to Hamas, potential throwers of Molotov cocktails and stones. It is possible to extend this argument to Gazan pre-school children, upon whom God has no mercy, since it is only a matter of time for the argument to fit them, and to the girls who will grow up to be women, who will give birth to the terrorists of the future.
Who reads what moves the Israeli public, as expressed in the media, knows that among us there are individuals to whom this shocking, logical avenue that I have suggested here does not look like a bad joke, but as a valid argument to all intents and purposes. And not only those types who are perceived as militaristic or aggressive, of the sort that �if it depended on them, they would turn the whole of Gaza in a huge football field�. (A quote, of course, a quote).
Many of those who are thought to be leftists (and again, if you excuse the cliche: some of my best friends) , surprised me by explaining how justified this is, and the application of force is proportional and is a result of �no choice�. With what ease, even before the explanations of the learned military lawyers were received, did the civilian dialogue accept this understanding of the responsibility for those who remain inside the houses to defend with their bodies the Hamas members and their weapon depots. As if they had anywhere to flee to. As if someone had asked them if they agree.
To the commander of the front is the saying attributed of �setting back Gaza for ten years�. And what about us? On this occasion, where the wonderful time machine is set in motion, is it possible to set us back another ten years, if only from the moral aspect to a phase where we don�t even need a permit from the advisors in the military legal department, or the uncles in the U.S.A., to fight, because we knew what is right and what is moral? It was clear to all what is right and what is forbidden. And also what is permitted and not humane, and therefore we should not err there. Here is my definition of what is allowed and what is forbidden, what may be condoned and what not; a recommendation that will save many hours of secretarial and paper work: if you need to get legal advice to perform a military action � the action is improper. And fact is that there is still common sense to delineate what needs permission and what not.
The justification for our presence in this land is not only historical-territorial. It is also, and possibly mainly, historical-moral. A war like the one we conducted in the Gaza-strip may stand up in the Hague, but will totally destroy our real endurance in the long run. And by the way, if we are so proud of our legal backing and our ability to protect our soldiers in the international court of justice, why do we have to blur their faces and to worry that they should not be exposed to standing trial, and let the whole world see how right we are.
At the time of writing the battle has come to a standstill, a time for soul-searching by the warriors, the leaders and the media. From day to day more voices are heard and will be heard that will distance themselves from the way this campaign was led. I read it in the newspaper. I hear my friends in civilian life and in my reserve unit.
The black flag is not a concept that can be defined or measured in scientific terms. There are those who say that the flag is already waving over the official institutions of the state. Also he who does not think that the situation is as serious as that, knows that the gray zone where we find ourselves is getting darker. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disillusioned Arabs to snub election
Jonathan Cook
Feb 9, 2009
NAZARETH, ISRAEL // Elias Khoury, a 33-year-old architect from the village of Ibilin in Galilee, has been a lifelong supporter of the Communist Democratic Front, the only joint Arab-Jewish party represented in the Israeli parliament. No longer.
Tomorrow, when Israelis head to the polls to elect their next government, Mr Khoury � one of the country�s 1.2 million Arab citizens � will be staying home rather than casting a vote.
"I�ve given up on the talk of coexistence," he said. "Now it�s clear it is just empty rhetoric. After the attack on Gaza, I am sure there will never be two states here. It�s going to be either a Jewish state with no Arabs, or an Arab state with no Jews. Voting any Arab party into the parliament is a waste of time."
His ominous vision of the future reflects disillusionment with the Israeli political system, he said, rather than extremism. "We are living in an extreme situation imposed on us by Israel."
Mr Khoury will be joined by a substantial number of others in his boycott. According to recent surveys, slightly less than half the Arab electorate is expected to vote this week, a far cry from the 77 per cent who turned out in 1996, when the Oslo process still promised a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The principal victims of a low Arab turnout will be the Democratic Front and two exclusively Arab parties, which currently have 10 legislators between them in the 120-member parliament.
The causes of the alienation felt by most Arab citizens � who comprise one fifth of the country�s population � are not difficult to divine. They are still smarting from the rock-solid Jewish consensus behind the recent Gaza offensive as well as accusations of treason they faced as a community for opposing the military operation.
Those feelings have been compounded by the overnight transformation of Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of a party even Israeli commentators describe as fascistic, into a figure of national authority.
Mr Lieberman�s party, Yisrael Beiteinu, is expected to come third in the election, making him pivotal in deciding whether the coalition government will be led by the Kadima or Likud parties. He is also certain to garner a high-profile post in the cabinet under either party.
His popular campaign slogan � "No loyalty, no citizenship" � refers to a plan to revoke the citizenship of Arabs who fail to pledge an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state. Many of his supporters, meanwhile, prefer chants of "Death to the Arabs".
Ahmad Saadi, a political scientist at Ben Gurion University in the Negev town of Beersheva, said he expected a widespread boycott, adding that Arab turnout in elections had been steadily declining for the past decade.
"Since the end of the Oslo accord, the idea of peace, which has always been at the forefront of the Arab parties� platforms, has sounded increasingly hollow," he said. "Fewer Arab citizens believe there will ever be a Palestinian state. Disillusionment has set in."
In addition, Dr Saadi said, it has become apparent to most Arab voters that neither they nor their representatives will have any say in the important decisions facing the country.
Two Arab groups, the small nationalist Sons of the Village and the Islamic Movement, have campaigned for many years against participating in parliamentary elections. "They say voting gives legitimacy to a decision-making process from which the Arab minority is entirely excluded. That view is gaining wider currency in each election."
Dr Saadi, however, said he believes the rise of Mr Lieberman may spur some Arab voters into action. "There is a fear that the greater influence of the far right demands a response, that we need strong representation to challenge Lieberman�s ideas."
Both the Likud and Kadima leaders, Benjamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni, have echoed Mr Lieberman�s main themes in their own speeches, partly in the hope of winning his support during the coming coalition negotiations but also because they share some of his key ideas. Mr Netanyahu declared last week that Yisrael Beiteinu�s campaign against the Arab minority was "legitimate".
In the past he has been vocal in calling the minority a "demographic threat" to the Jewishness of the state.
Ms Livni, meanwhile, has demanded that all Israelis either serve in the army or perform national service, echoing Mr Lieberman�s comments that such service would be one way for the Arab minority to prove its loyalty. Recently she has said the creation of a Palestinian state would also solve the national ambitions of Arab citizens, implying that their future is not in Israel.
Mr Lieberman, however, may have inadvertently bolstered the two solely Arab parties contesting the elections, the National Democratic Assembly and the United Arab List, through his popular but ultimately unsuccessful bid to have them banned � a move that may yet rally some potential boycotters into voting.
Dr Saadi said Israeli politics was drifting noticeably rightwards, polarising Arab voters into either those resigned to permanent exclusion from the political process or those determined more than ever to make the Arab voice heard.
According to rumours in the Israeli media, Mr Lieberman began his political career in the Kach movement, outlawed in 1994 as a terrorist organisation. Kach campaigned for the expulsion of all Arabs from an expanded Greater Israel.
At least two other parties in these elections are fielding candidates who formerly belonged to Kach. One, Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union, is proposing what he calls a "humanitarian corridor" to allow Arab citizens to leave to other countries, and hopes to raise funds to provide them with "acclimatisation grants".
The other, Baruch Marzel of Eretz Yisrael Shelanu, has adopted a more confrontational approach with the Arab minority. A hardline settler from Hebron, he has been lobbying for several months to be allowed to stage a Jewish Pride march through one of Israel�s largest Arab towns, Umm al Fahm.
Last week, much to the disbelief of town residents, he revealed that he would be arriving in an official capacity as the head of the election committee appointed to oversee voting in Umm al Fahm.
- [email protected]
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m51659&hd=&size=1&l=e |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A press release by the Defence and support for President Saddam Hussien and His Comrades |
| Quote: |
Handwritten letter from President Saddam Hussein to the American people. 7 July 2006.
Saddam Hussein |
uruknet.info = pro Saddam Hussein site.
http://uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=8275&s2=21 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A press release by the Defence and support for President Saddam Hussien and His Comrades |
uruknet.info = pro Saddam Hussein site. |
FYI Saddam Hussein has been dead for some time now. Maybe it's time for somebody to think about updating a few of your memory chips Mr Joobot?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A press release by the Defence and support for President Saddam Hussien and His Comrades |
uruknet.info = pro Saddam Hussein site. |
FYI Saddam Hussein has been dead for some time now. Maybe it's time for somebody to think about updating a few of your memory chips Mr Joobot? |
A site that was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein has no credibility on human rights . Mr Chavez supporter.
But I would like to thank you for the chance to help show what the far left is really about.
Remember Garth Porter was a Khmer rouge apologist.
So we got Saddam supporters and Khmer rouge apologists lecturing us all on morality ,human rights and the "facts". Way to go.
What the far left is really about. No free pass for the far left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Amnesty accuses Hamas of eliminating opponents
Tue Feb 10, 7:20 am ET
GENEVA (AFP) � Amnesty International on Tuesday accused Hamas of waging a campaign to kill or maim scores of Palestinian opponents in the Gaza Strip since the end of December.
The human rights group said in a report that at least two dozen men have been shot dead by gunmen from the Palestinian militia that governs the Gaza Strip since December 27.
"Scores of others have been shot in the legs, knee-capped or inflicted with other injuries intended to cause severe disability, subjected to severe beatings ... or otherwise tortured or ill-treated," it added.
"Hamas forces and militias in the Gaza Strip have engaged in a campaign of abductions, deliberate and unlawful killings, torture and death threats against those they accuse of 'collaborating' with Israel, as well as opponents and critics," the report said.
The victims included members of Palestinian Authority security forces and members of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah party, Amnesty said.
The campaign began shortly after the beginning of the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip on December 27 and continued after the ceasefire on January 18, according to Amnesty.
Palestinian human rights groups and victims first made such accusations at the end of last month, saying the Hamas rulers of Gaza were persecuting members of the rival Fatah movement to quash any opposition.
Taher al Nunu, a spokesman for Hamas, denied the charges at the time, dismissing them as "lies spread by Ramallah," where Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are based.
Amnesty International said the targets included former detainees who were accused by Hamas of collaboration with Israel after escaping from Gaza's central prison when it was bombed by Israeli forces on December 28.
Some were shot dead in hospitals where they were being treated for injuries suffered during the bombing raid, sometimes in front of distraught relatives, according to the testimony gathered by the human rights group.
"The perpetrators of these attacks did not conceal their weapons or keep a low profile, but, on the contrary, behaved in a carefree and confident -- almost ostentatious -- manner," the report noted.
Amnesty said there was "no doubt" that the victims were abducted, killed, shot and tortured by Hamas security forces and armed militias, adding that the evidence was "incontrovertible."
It called on the "Hamas de facto administration" to immediately end the campaign, accept an independent and impartial investigation and guarantee that victims and witnesses would not be targeted.
Copyright � 2009 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090210/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictgazarightsngoamnesty/print |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Daniel Bar-Tal
Open Letter
January 31, 2009
Dear Friends
This is probably one of the most difficult periods in my political life as a Jew living in the State of Israel. The events of the war in Gaza hit hard my foundations of hope that a peaceful conflict resolution between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved in the near future. Moreover, my trust in humanity has been weakened seeing the ease with which human beings rally for a war, exercise blind patriotism, express desire for vengeance, delegitimize the opponent, and develop insensitivity to human life, denial of responsibility, self-righteousness and moral entitlement. This is in contrast to the great difficulty that human beings have in mobilization for peace. We see over and over again that it takes many years and many efforts to persuade people in the importance of peace, but it takes an extremely short time to convince people in the need of war. It is even more difficult to establish moral considerations.
I have been agonizing for weeks whether to write an open letter. I could not bring myself to the paper and pencil or to the keyboard, feeling despair and helplessness. But only a responsibility to voice another opinion as an alternative to the officially presented views that are supported by the great majority of the Israeli Jews brought me to write this letter. It is important that you will know that there is a minority of us, Jews in Israel, who care about moral considerations and opposed this war.
What can I say when I know that about 1300 Palestinians killed, at least half of them innocent civilians, including children, women, and old people, over 4000 were injured, thousands of homes were destroyed and dozens of thousands became homeless. Also on the Israeli side 13 Israelis were killed, including 3 civilians, hundreds were wounded, and thousands had to escape from the hundreds of rockets that were fired on Israel. I could repeat the arguments of the Israeli government that through the years many hundreds of rockets were fired on the Israeli land west of Gaza, including populated settlements; that no government would allow that their citizens will be hurt; that `after eight years of restraint, Israel has decided to act against the terror attacks coming from the Gaza Strip. Israeli restraint was misinterpreted as weakness by Hamas and members of the vertical axis of extremism led by Iran`;�that `Israel had given a mutual agreement to preserve peace its final chance when it agreed to the Egyptian brokered Period of Calm agreement in June 2008, whose terms were repeatedly transgressed by Hamas`. It is just natural that those who sent the soldiers to the war have to defend it and rationalize it. This is a human principle.
But these arguments do not tell the whole story. Even if we take the Israeli arguments without the background and complexity, they cannot account for the scope of civilian losses and the destruction on the Palestinian side. The brutality and scope of the Israeli actions testify to deeper roots that are founded in the darker side of human beings. They express the wish to erase the feeling of failure in the Second Lebanese War during the summer of 2006; they reflect a deep sense of collective victimhood because of the continuous firing of rockets on civilian settlements in the south by the Hamas military organ-- this sense of victimhood led to the urge to revenge in order to punish for the harm done and prevent further firing. In addition, they are derived from the continuous dehumanization of the Hamas organization. Finally, they are based on the conviction that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, allowing Palestinians to live their lives and they instead engage in terror.
But, the reality is much more complex than the narrative perpetuated by the Israeli political and military establishments, which successfully constructed the beliefs of the Jewish public in Israel. This is a kind of irony because one of the objectives of the war was to carve the consciousness of the Palestinians so they will recognize the harm that Hamas is causing to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian life. This objective was not achieved and instead the war strengthened the hatred and mistrust of both sides towards each other, reinforced the support of hawkish opinions on both sides, and as a result, the peaceful process is further greatly damaged. Moreover, it is hard to detect any meaningful political gains of Israel in the balance of this war. We are back to the same lines that were before the war ---with terrible losses and destruction.
The psychological analysis of the situation illustrates the selective, biasing and distorting transmission and dissemination of information by the Israeli channels of communication. It does not mean that the alternative information does not exist in Israel but very few are interested in knowing what is really happening. Thus, most of the Israeli Jews do not know what Israel perpetrated through the decades of occupying Gaza; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that originally Hamas was founded by the Israeli authorities to provide an alternative to the national movement of PLO; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that Hamas is a religious�fundamental movement that also provides welfare, health and educational services to the Palestinian people; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that Hamas was elected democratically (with the insistence of USA) to lead the government of the Palestinian authority because of Fatah corruption, and mostly because of the fruitless negotiations with Israel which did not provide any political solution of the conflict; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that the policy of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon about �No Palestinian Partner� led to unilateral disengagement from Gaza without negotiation with the Palestinian Authority. This act was done in order to delegitimize Palestinian Authority and in attempt to keep control over the West Bank. Moreover, the disengagement did not free Gaza but turned it into one big prison. Israel controls the entrances to Gaza and controls every aspect of human life in Gaza. It decided to change the support of Gazans in Hamas by carrying out a siege that allowed minimal living and brought Gaza to economic disaster. Israeli Jews know that even after disengagement, Hamas continues to fire rockets on the Israeli civil settlements but few know that during 2005� 2008, hundreds of Palestinians were killed by the Israeli forces. Few know that the tunnels were built mainly to smuggle civil goods that could not be brought to Gaza and not only weapons as the great majority believe. Few know that there is a relationship between Israeli violence and Palestinian violence, preferring to see the latter as irrational, fanatic, and immoral while the former as defensive, moral and well justified.
Few of the Israeli Jews recognize that Israel during two years had at least two alternative strategies to prevent further escalation; either to talk with Hamas which is possible and negotiate long-term cease-fire, or take decisive actions of peace (for example, to ease conditions of life of the Palestinians by removing many of the checkpoints and to remove illegal settlements as required by the Israeli promise to U.S.) vis � vis President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to show the Palestinians that process yields tangible fruits that lead to prosperity and security. Even when we shift to the period before the war, most of the Israeli Jews do not know that it was possible to negotiate continuation of the cease fire with Hamas and do not remember that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire of November 4, 2008, killing 6 Palestinians. Hamas is not my cup of tea as it is a fundamentalist religious organization that practices also terrorism, but it is a social movement with wide support in the Palestinian society because it provides an alternative to humiliated Palestinian national identity. This movement is not homogenous and it is possible to hear in it different voices including ones that support negotiation with Israel and acceptance of the two state solution.
All these omissions are not surprising in view of the fact that the involved sides in conflict have been deeply embedded in the culture of conflict. They systematically try to construct the views of society members in a direction of presenting own society as being moral, just, peace loving, or moderate and the rival as being immoral, intransigent, violent, irrational, or extreme. In addition each side views itself as the victim of this conflict. This process goes on for decades. Only during few years during Rabin time it looked as the peace process is gaining momentum. But since the year 2000, when the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided on the policy of `no partner`, the peace process is dying. It is true that Palestinians have their share in the failure of the Oslo process. But the tremendous asymmetry of power puts the responsibility for the continuation of the conflict mostly on the Israeli side. It is Israel that has almost all the cards to solve the conflict; it occupies the land, holds Eastern Jerusalem, controls the life of the Palestinians, controls the resources of the West Bank, expands constantly the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, exercises preventive and punishing violent acts according to own will and has (at least had until now) almost unconditional backing of the superpower. The contours of the potential settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more or less clear: If it will happen, it will be in accordance to Clinton proposal, Taba understandings, Geneva agreement, and Arab league proposal: Israel will have to return to 1967 borders with some swaps of land in order to hold the most populated clusters of Jewish settlements just beyond the green line of 1967, Jerusalem will be divided, most of the Jewish settlements inside the territories will be dismantled, and the refuges problem will have to be solved via common agreement with their compensation and settlement mostly in the future Palestinian state. The present Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert outlined openly these principles to the Israeli public but did not take any concrete steps to implement them. Israeli public, while recognizing the need in two state solution (because of the demographic fear), objects to the outlined principles. The majority of the Israeli Jews object to divide Jerusalem, to withdraw to 1967 borders and to dismantle most of the Jewish settlements the West Bank. In fact I must admit that I do not see any Israeli government evacuating about 60,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank. Israeli Jewish public after the destruction of the peace camp in 2000 is moving steadily towards hawkish-nationalistic views. The present war provided additional blow to the peace camp. It is almost certainly that the next Israeli government will be very hawkish after the February 10 elections.
The rest will be written in the history books. �. The war did not erupt spontaneously but was well prepared, including its scope, the type of weapons to be used, and so on. Also it was consciously decided to use a disproportional might in order to save lives of Israeli soldiers and to teach the Palestinians a lesson. The results of the war are tragic for both nations. It provided unequivocal evidence to each side that the other side is evil and immoral. Now few of us here and there can only evaluate the tragedy, explain the events and pray for a miracle from outside forces that will come and save us from the worst human instincts. Sincerely Daniel Bar-Tal
|
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=31924 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
First Published 2009-02-11
What About Six Million Palestinian Refugees?
Almost 6 million Palestinians are now scattered all over the world as refugees, and hundreds of thousands were massacred by Israel and housed under soil for resisting to abandon their homeland, notes Iqbal Tamimi.
Since the first minute the Zionists arrived in Palestine during the first half of the 1900s their policy was clear, it was to empty the land of its indigenous people and house immigrant Jews in their place. Almost 6 million Palestinians are now scattered all over the world as refugees since then, and hundreds of thousands were massacred and housed under the soil for resisting to abandon their home land.
The Telegraph published an article 5 Feb 2009 by Damien McElroy titled "Britain offers to accept Palestinians who fled Iraq" (30 widows with children!).
The article is about efforts to resettle Palestinians who have been forced into squalid desert refugee camps on the Iraqi border in the hardest conditions including facing hazards of fires and floods that have claimed many lives such as the story of Ahmed Mohammad who lost his pregnant wife when a fire engulfed his tent last month. "The fire took seconds to burn and I could only rescue my son." said Ahmad. There are more than 800,000 Palestinian refugees still living in Syria and 224,000 are registered with the UN as refugees.
Many Palestinians were never granted citizenship in the countries they fled to, they and their offspring are scattered now all over the world from Europe to Chile. Governments like that of the UK have a moral obligation towards those Palestinian refugees for two reasons: the first is due to the British government�s role and policies since the Balfour Declaration which was a direct contributor to the Palestinians� misery, and the second is its role in the Iraqi war that ended up with forcing the refugee Palestinians of Iraq to become refugees again. But still a solution like accepting 30 widows is not going to be the perfect solution. These Palestinian widows from the Tanf refugee camp in the desert must be grateful for this kind gesture, but this action solves the problem of 30 widows only, thus discriminating against male refugees who are as much victims as women. Men like 81-year-old Mahmoud Abdul who fled Haifa in 1948 from Palestine to Baghdad, then Amman, Damascus and now again he is with many other Palestinian refugees are in the no-man�s land holding tight to one dream only, they want to be citizens where they can set up homes and feel no one can take that home away from them. Saving the lives of 30 widows is a drop in the ocean regarding solving the problem of 6 million refugees. And we should not brag about accepting to rescue 30 widows after causing 6 million people become exiled and refugees.
Solving the problem of 30 widows or �spearheading� this attempt as the Telegraph has called it, is not good enough, year after year Israel has been forcing more Palestinians to become refugees by enforcing different methods of pressure and expulsion. Even though Palestinians are grateful for such generous gestures they would rather be home in their own properties, taking care of their lands and feeling dignified instead of feeling like a heavy guest.
The new effort to resettle Palestinian refugees outside Palestine is another attempt to patch another hole Israel punctured while being sure that other countries should find a way to mend. Since 1948 Israel has been expelling Palestinians from their country, thus entering the circle of displacement over and over again. The only suggestion Israel keeps coming with is why don�t other Arab countries accommodate them? This is the most ridiculous statement made to escape the blame and dumb problems created by its policies of expanding occupation on other people�s steps. Israel�s continuous suggestion that the Palestinians should be absorbed by other Arab speaking countries is the most ridiculous statement ever, sharing a language does not in any way give a valid reason to accept such responsibility.
The Telegraph was fishing in muddy waters when it said in its report "After turning a blind eye for years, Syria feels it has done enough. There has to be a resettlement solution that allows these people to resettle in a third country." Why should Syria or any other Arab country solve a problem created by Israel with the blessing of USA and UK? Syria itself is suffering the Israeli aggression and occupation of its Golan Heights and the stealing of its water resources by Israel.
Israel is still refusing to declare its borders, and was and still is expanding illegally on Palestinian land, Israel is still turning a blind eye to the international community and a long list of UN resolutions demanding its withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories and to stop building more settlements on Palestinian land, Israel is still stealing the resources and lands and properties in the Occupied Territories and still gets away with it. The media shows every day Israel being defended by the USA and UK governments, and shows the friendly visits of top politicians visiting Israel on the Palestinian occupied land, yet emphasising Israel�s RIGHTS to live in peace, what a load of ridiculous heap of pathetic policies, they are visiting an occupied territory and yet demanding safety of the occupier not the victims. But one knows well that such visits are not returned because most Israeli politicians are wanted for war crimes, and the people in the USA and UK have a different stand from that of their governments and sympathise with the oppressed Palestinians. Should any Israeli official visit the UK, I am sure he will be met with hales of shoes by the citizens who have great support and sympathy towards people of Gaza living in misery.
Iqbal Tamimi is a Palestinian journalist and poet from Hebron. She is the creator of the vibrant activists' network Palestinian Mothers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gaza 2009: Culture of resistance vs. defeat
Dr. Haidar Eid, The Electronic Intifada, 11 February 2009
Can the brutal 22-day Israeli war on the Gaza Strip be considered a victory for the Palestinian people? (Matthew Cassel)
The ongoing bloodletting in the Gaza Strip and the ability of the Palestinian people to creatively resist the might of the world's fourth strongest army is being hotly debated by Palestinian political forces. The latest genocidal war which lasted 22 days, and in which apartheid Israel used F-16s, Apache helicopters, Merkava tanks and conventional and non-conventional weapons against the population, have raised many serious questions about the concept of resistance and whether the outcome of the war can, or cannot, be considered a victory for the Palestinian people. The same kind of questions were raised in 2006 when apartheid Israel launched its war against the Lebanese people and brutally killed more than 1,200 Lebanese.
At the beginning of the Gaza war, we were told by certain sectors of the Palestinian political leadership that "the two sides are to blame: Hamas and Israel" and that "Hamas must stop the launching of the rockets from Gaza." Resistance in all its forms, violent and otherwise, was considered, by these same people, "futile." Now that there are fewer bombs raining down on Gaza, the conflict focuses on whether the outcome of the war was one of victory or defeat. For the Israeli ruling class the answer is clear -- in spite of the fact that none of the objectives announced at the beginning of the war have been achieved. It is clear because they, like the defeatist Palestinian camp, simply use the numbers of martyrs, disabled and homeless to determine victory and defeat.
This approach fails to acknowledge that none of the so-called "objectives" of the war have been achieved: Hamas is still in power; rockets are still being launched; no pro-Oslo forces have been reinstated in the Gaza Strip. The question now being raised by some Palestinian intellectuals and political forces, after the (un)expected brutality of the Israeli occupation forces, is "was it worth it?" The "it" here remains ambiguous depending on the reaction of the listener/reader. What is of interest here is the radical change that some national forces, especially the left and their intellectuals, have gone through in their mechanical, as opposed to dialectical, interpretation of history and their role, thereafter, in its making.
The war on Gaza has emerged as a political tsunami that has not only put an end to the fiction of the two-state solution and brought liberation rather than independence back to the agenda, but it has also created a new Palestinian political map given the intellectual debate vis-a-vis the outcome of the war. This new classification of the Palestinian intelligentsia and ruling classes has led to many ex-leftists joining the right-wing anthem of Oslo and its culture of defeatism. Not unlike the Oslo intelligentsia, the new pragmatic left is characterized by demagogy, opportunism and short-sightedness. The conduct of these NGOized intellectuals (those emerging from western-funded "nongovernmental organizations" -- NGOs) does not show any commitment to their national and historical responsibility.
Michel Foucault's famous formulation, "where there is power, there is resistance," helps us to theorize the political and, hence, the cultural resistance, represented in some of the (post)war discourse. Within the context of resistance, it is worth quoting Frantz Fanon's definitions of the role of the "native intellectual" during the "fighting phase": "[T]he native, after having tried to lose himself in the people and with the people, will ... shake the people ... [H]e turns himself into an awakener of the people; hence comes a fighting literature, and a national literature."
On the other hand, there are intellectuals who, according to Fanon's theorization, "give proof that [they] [have] assimilated the culture of the occupying power. [Their] writings correspond point by point with those of [their] opposite numbers in the mother country. [Their] inspiration is European [i.e. Western] ..." Hence the adoption of the Israeli narrative by some intellectual sections, including NGOized leftists, whereby Israel was exonerated of its crimes: "we are to blame for what happened;" "we were not consulted when Hamas started the war!" and "the people are paying the price, not the resistance movement;" "Hamas should have renewed the truce;" "we cannot afford to lose so many lives; Hamas should have understood this;" "there was no resistance at all on the streets of Gaza; resistance men ran away as soon as they saw the first tank."
By the same token, one would also condemn the Algerian, South African, French, Vietnamese, Lebanese and Egyptian resistance to occupation. The same logic was used by the Bantustan chiefs of South Africa against the anti-apartheid movement, by the Vichy government of France, the South Vietnamese government, the reactionary Egyptian Forces against the progressive regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956, and even by the Siniora-Jumblatt-Geagea-Hariri March 14 coalition in Lebanon in 2006.
Obviously, these intellectuals' assimilation of the Western mentality, through a process of NGOization, and hence Osloization, makes them look down upon the culture of resistance as useless, futile and hopeless. Resistance, broadly speaking, is not only the ability to fight back against a militarily more powerful enemy, but also an ability to creatively resist the occupation of one's land. The Oslo defeatists and the neo-left camp fail to use people power creatively or even to see that it exists. They are defeated because they want to fight the battle on Israel's terms -- through the adoption of an Israel-Hamas dichotomy, rather than apartheid Israel vs. the Palestinian people -- instead of looking at their strengths: that they are the natives of the land, they have international law supporting their claims, they have the moral high ground, the support of international civil society, etc.
One good lesson from the South African struggle is the way it tried to define resistance and its adoption of what it referred to as "the four pillars of the struggle" to achieve victory over the apartheid regime: armed struggle, internal mass mobilization, international solidarity, and the political underground. Alas, none of these pillars seem to fit within the paradigm of the Palestinian neo-left.
The principled critical legacy of the likes of Ghassan Kanafani, Edward Said and Frantz Fanon is no longer the guiding torch of the NGOized left -- the secular democratic left which is supposed to be, as Said would argue, "someone who cannot easily be co-opted by governments or corporations [or donors], and whose raison d'etre is to represent all those people and issues that are routinely forgotten or swept under the rug." A fascinating, and timely, remark by Hungarian philosopher George Lukacs points the way that the NGOized left should be talking right now: "When the intellectual's society reaches a historical crossroads in its fight for a clear definition of its identity, the intellectual should be involved in the whole sociopolitical process and leave his ivory tower."
Decolonizing cultural resistance insists on the right to view Palestinian history as a holistic entity, both coherent and integral. It also reflects a national and historical consciousness that Palestinians are able to be agents of change in their present and future regardless of the agendas of western donors, the Quartet and other official "international" bodies. Yet we see that the neo-democrats of Palestine are unable to acknowledge Palestinian agency because they refuse to respect the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. This position is meant to synergize with that of their donors and international bodies who have worked hard over the last two years to delegitimize Palestinian agency.
This lack of political consciousness and the search for individual solutions -- the major characteristics of defeatist ideology -- contradict the collective national reality of the colonized Palestinians. Political consciousness must begin with a rejection of the conditions imposed by the Israeli occupation and the Quartet (Russia, the United States, the United Nations and the European Union) on the majority of Palestinians and even more crucially, a rejection of the crumbs that are offered as a reward for good behavior to a select minority of Palestinians. Indeed, class consciousness is dialectically related to the struggle for national liberation. It is the interests of some NGOized groups, ex-leftists, and neo-liberals, whose defeatist perspective on the outcome of Gaza 2009 is being disseminated with the help of some unpopular media outlets, which is at stake here -- not the interests of the Palestinian people who have gained even more legitimacy through their steadfast resistance to the Israeli bombardment.
Osloized and NGOized classes argue that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict is the establishment of two states which basically means the creation of an independent Palestine on 22 percent of Mandate Palestine. They maintain that the only way to reach independence is through negotiations, though more than ten years of negotiations have not moved the Israeli position at all. The establishment of a Palestinian state is not mentioned in any of the clauses of the Oslo agreement, thus leaving the matter to be determined by the balance of power in the region. This balance tilts in favor of Israel, which rejects the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, in spite of its recognition of the Palestinian people and its national movement the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). No Israeli party, neither Labor, Likud nor Kadima is ready to accept a Palestinian state as the expression of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The impasse negotiations have reached has proven the oppositional camp correct.
Hence the "shocking" results of the 2006 elections, in which Hamas won the majority of the seats of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Both liberals and leftists were "surprised" and even felt "betrayed!" Accusations of the "immaturity" and even "backwardness" of the Palestinian people have been thrown around since then. Nothing was mentioned about the failure of "the peace process;" nor the end of the two-state solution, and thereafter, the necessity and need for a new national program that can mobilize the masses; a program that is necessarily democratic in its nature; one that respects resistance in its different forms and, ultimately, guarantees peace with justice.
It is this lack of a political vision and a clear-cut ideological program that allows for the contortions of the Osloized classes. It is this lack that makes it prepared to recognize a "Jewish state" alongside a Palestinian state, including the legitimization of discriminatory practices applied by Israel against its non-Jewish, i.e. mainly Palestinian citizens and residents since 1948, and the end of the right of return of more than six million of refugees. What we are constantly told, is either accept Israeli occupation in its ugliest form -- i.e. the ongoing presence of the apartheid wall, colonies, checkpoints, zigzag roads, color-coded number plates, house demolitions and security coordination supervised by a retired American general -- or have a hermetic medieval siege imposed on us, but still die with dignity. The first option seems to be the favorite of some NGOized "activists."
The new, much-needed program, however, must make the necessary link between all Palestinian struggles: the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel's ethnically-based discrimination and rights violations of more than one million Palestinian citizens, and the 1948 externally displaced refugees. Gaza 2009 was not a defeat but a victory, because in Gaza the Israelis shot the two-state solution in the head; it is a victory achieved with the blood of those children, men and women who sacrificed their lives so that we could live and continue to resist, not surrender. Those Palestinians that are mourning the demise of the two-prison solution are out of step with new facts on the ground: there can be no going back to fake solutions and negotiations; it is time for a final push to real freedom and statehood. They can join other Palestinians, and internationals, in their demand for a secular, democratic state in Mandate Palestine with equality for all or they can walk into the dustbin of history.
Haidar Eid is an independent political commentator and activist residing in Gaza. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Israel PM's family link to Hamas peace bid
| Quote: |
Olmert rejected Palestinian attempts to set up talks through go-between before Gaza invasion
Hamas, the militant Palestinian organisation, attempted to conduct secret talks with the Israeli leadership in the protracted run-up to the recent war in Gaza - with messages being passed from the group at one stage through a member of prime minister Ehud Olmert's family.
Confirmation of attempts to establish a direct line of communication between Hamas and Israel - and the willingness of senior figures in Hamas to contemplate direct negotiations - fundamentally alters the narrative of the build-up to the war in Gaza which claimed more than 1,300 Palestinian lives and led to about a dozen Israeli deaths.
Most remarkable is the story of the involvement of a member of the prime minister's family in the passing of messages to Olmert about the case of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Although the Observer is aware of the identity of the family member and full details of the role played, it has agreed to protect anonymity. Gershon Baskin, a veteran Israel peace activist, was at the centre of attempts to open negotiations. Baskin was in touch with senior members of Hamas, Israeli officials and Olmert, via the member of his family.
Over two years, from the kidnap of Shalit, which triggered Israel's economic blockade of the Gaza Strip and its 1.5 million residents right up to the days before Israel launched its three-week long assault, Hamas officials expressed a willingness to talk to Israel directly about the kidnap, conditions for a new ceasefire and the ending of the blockade.
The motivation - from Hamas's side - stemmed from a growing frustration with the role of Egypt as an intermediary over key issues between the two sides, especially in relation to ceasefires.
Baskin, who has a long background in encouraging Israeli-Palestinian contacts, believes that the failure to pursue the overtures was a lost opportunity that contributed to the outbreak of conflict.
"Three times since Shalit's kidnapping [in June 2006 during a cross border raid out of Gaza] there has been the suggestion of opening a back channel through me. The first time that Hamas suggested to me opening a secret back channel was not long after Shalit's kidnapping."
According to Baskin, that offer was immediately rejected by the office of Olmert who said Israel did not negotiate with terrorists. His contacts, said Baskin, were two-fold. On the Hamas side, his contact was a senior figure whom he met in Europe, who was close to the organisation's leaderships both in the Syrian capital Damascus and the local leadership in Gaza. His liaison with the Hamas official focused on two issues: opening secret and direct contacts, and linking the prisoner exchange for Shalit's release to the renewal of the ceasefire and the ending of the economic siege on Gaza.
Baskin's "messenger" to Olmert on the Israeli side was the family member. "I was getting messages to Olmert through [this person]. And what I was getting back from Olmert through the same route was: 'We don't negotiate with terrorists'."
As part of this communication, which went on sporadically for months, Hamas offered a video proving Shalit was still alive, which would be supplied, the organisation said, in exchange for the release of some women and other minor prisoners from Israeli jails. Olmert's response - said Baskin - was that they did not need the video as Israel had already established that the soldier was alive. While that was rejected, the contact did, however, lead to a letter from Shalit to his father.
It was a channel of communication that was abruptly closed, allegedly when Israel's domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet intercepted members of Hamas discussing the identity of the Olmert family member involved in passing on the messages, infuriating Olmert.
A year after the first contacts, Baskin told the Observer, he had been given approval to pursue an informal effort to open secret direct contacts, co-ordinating with Ofer Dekel, the official appointed by Olmert as his "special representative" to head efforts for Shalit's return.
This time, however, it was Hamas's turn to block the opening of the secret negotiations - rejecting the linking of the prisoner exchange with the cease-fire and the end of the siege.
Baskin persisted with his dealings with Hamas, communicating with his contact through scores of emails, some passed on to the leadership in Syria and Gaza. While some hardliners, he readily admits, were not willing to initiate contacts - including Said Siam, the interior minister killed during Operation Cast Lead, and Mahmoud Zahar, who served as foreign minister - Baskin was able to reach other Hamas figures by email and text message - among them Hamas moderate and sometime spokesman Ghazi Hamad.
By now, Baskin admitted, his efforts to mediate between the two sides were largely his own initiative as he found himself increasingly shut out of the Israeli efforts to negotiate Shalit's release. He attempted too to use the Olmert "family member".
Two years after his first contacts through the Olmert family - and with war looming - Baskin said he tried to use his contact again. "I only involved [the person] one more time. I was desperate to get a message to Olmert." This time, however, he was told bluntly that he would "need to find another messenger". He told the Observer: "At this point war had already been decided on."
With the conflict only two weeks away Baskin arranged a meeting with his key Hamas contact in Europe, which resulted in another offer to link Shalit to the lifting of the ceasefire. Nobody on the Israeli side replied to the final offer.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
03/18/2009
Our South Africa Moment Has Arrived
By Omar Barghouti
Introduction
As Israel shifts steadily to the fanatic, racist right, as the latest parliamentary election results have shown, Palestinians under its control are increasingly being brutalized by its escalating colonial and apartheid policies, designed to push them out of their homeland to make a self-fulfilling prophecy out of the old Zionist canard of �a land without a people.� In parallel, international civil society, according to numerous indicators, is reaching a turning point in its view of Israel as a pariah state acting above the law of nations and in its effective action, accordingly, to penalize and ostracize it as it did to apartheid South Africa.
Palestinian communities in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Hebron, the Jordan Valley and the Naqab (Negev), among others, have been recently subjected to some of the worst, ongoing Israeli campaigns of gradual ethnic cleansing intended to �Judaize� their space. Qalqilya is suffocated by the colonial apartheid Wall that surrounds it from all sides, while Nablus is under constant siege. A few months ago, the Palestinian community in Acre was brutally attacked by Jewish-Israeli fundamentalists and xenophobes in one of the worst pogroms witnessed by Palestinians inside Israel. Still, Gaza today stands out as the test of our common humanity and our indispensable morality. A thorough analysis of the role played by Western and some Arab governments in regards to Israel�s criminal war of aggression against Gaza will demonstrate a resounding failure on both accounts. Throughout the atrocious assault, the official West, along with the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority and the UN leadership,[1] were willing accomplices in Israel�s grave violations of international law and basic human rights.
In words that can quite accurately be used to describe Israel, Robert Kagan, a leading neo-conservative ideologue, justifies hegemonic tendencies as a prerogative of the mightiest [2]:
| Quote: |
| "The United States remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might." |
True to this paradigm, Israel has for decades maintained a regime of occupation, colonization and apartheid over the indigenous people of Palestine through the �possession and use of military might,� in addition to the indispensable collusion of Western powers, whose unconditional largesse has for six decades enabled Israel to maintain and develop its multi-faceted system of colonial oppression against the Palestinian people.
By contributing to Israel�s illegal blockade of Gaza and its criminal war against it, the EU and other Western states have reached a qualitatively different stage of complicity, becoming, more blatantly than ever, full partners in the US-Israeli policy of undermining the rule of law and espousing in its stead the law of the jungle, thereby promoting the Bush-Bin Laden self-fulfilling prophecy of a dichotomous world divided surgically into good and evil, with each side regarding the other as evil.
In response to this fatal alliance of savage capitalism in the West with Israeli racism, exclusion and colonial subjugation, the global movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions, BDS, against Israel presents not only a progressive, anti racist [3], sophisticated, sustainable, moral and effective form of civil, non-violent resistance, but a real chance of becoming the political catalyst and moral anchor for a strengthened, reinvigorated international social movement capable of reaffirming the rights of all humans to freedom, equality and dignity and the right of nations to self determination.
Gaza: the West�s Complicity in War Crimes
As early as 2007, Richard Falk, a prominent international law expert at Princeton University and the current UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT), called the Western-supported Israeli siege of Gaza �a prelude to genocide�[4] and, later, �a Holocaust in the making.�[5] Falk, who happens to be Jewish, argued that the siege is especially disturbing because it vividly expresses �a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty.�[6]
Using more diplomatic language, Sara Roy [7], a Harvard University expert on development in the OPT, accuses the EU, along with the US, of complicity in a deliberate Israeli policy of �de-development� of the OPT, killing any possibility of creating an independent and sovereign Palestinian state. By providing the Palestinians with �tangible benefits such as higher income and improved infrastructure,� Roy argues, the EU was hoping to buy Palestinian support for substantial concessions in the so-called �peace negotiations.� She concludes, �The logic of international law was abandoned in the interest of maintaining a failed political process.�
An examination of the Israeli siege of Gaza, most of whose population are refugees forcibly displaced [8] by Zionists -- and later Israel -- during the 1948 Nakba, can elucidate this �de-development� policy which amounts to collective punishment, as most legal experts agree. During this ongoing -- now 21-month-old -- siege, more than 80% of the 1.5 million Palestinians caged into the world�s �largest open-air prison� have been pushed into poverty and dependency on international humanitarian assistance; the entire economic infrastructure has been systematically decimated, with more than 95% of the factories forced to shut down, driving poverty and unemployment below sub-Saharan African standards; educational institutions have been unable to function properly due to lack of fuel and electricity for prolonged periods; the health care system is on the verge of collapse, and hundreds of patients in need of critical health care, particularly cancer and kidney patients, have died after being denied access to medical facilities outside Gaza.
The longer term effects of the siege are even more daunting.[9] According to the World Health Organization chronic malnutrition and dietary-related diseases have alarmingly increased, resulting in rampant low birth weights; anemia in more than two thirds of all children age one year and younger; and stunted growth in close to 13.2% of children under age five. Moreover, preventable diseases, caused by polluted water and inadequate sewage processing, started spreading wildly. Thousands, mainly children, have suffered serious hearing problems due to Israel�s once concentrated use of sonic booms for weeks on end. A whole generation of Palestinian children in Gaza will suffer severe developmental and psychological disorders for many years to come, health studies have shown. There is also a significant increase already in the rate of incidence of cancer and other deadly diseases directly related to Israeli-inflicted pollution and health care denial.
Reacting to the devastating impact of Israel�s siege, Karen Abu Zayd, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, warned [10]:
| Quote: |
| �Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution with the knowledge, acquiescence and � some would say � encouragement of the international community. �Humanitarian and human development work was never meant to function in an environment devoid of constructive efforts to resolve conflict or to address its underlying causes. Indeed, humanitarian work is profoundly undermined in a context where there is implicit or active complicity in creating conditions of mass suffering.� |
It is this aspect of the siege, the processes leading to the slow death of masses of people and to inhibiting the development of a generation of Palestinian children that prompted Falk�s eye-opening description of Israel�s siege as constituting acts of genocide.
Former Israeli education minister and leftist leader, Shulamit Aloni, adopted years ago this designation of Israel�s policies towards the Palestinians under its occupation. As early as 2003, she condemned an Israeli atrocity that pales in comparison with the Israeli massacres just committed in Gaza saying [11]:
�So it's not yet genocide of the terrible and unique style of which we were past victims. And as one of the smart [Israeli] Generals told me, we do not have crematoria and gas chambers. Is anything less than that consistent with Jewish ethics? Did he ever hear how an entire people said that it did not know what was done in its name?�
And that was before Israel�s rolling massacre in Gaza.
According to respected human rights organizations active in the field, Israel�s 23-day military offensive, which started on December 27, 2008, led to the death of more than 1,400 Palestinians, approximately 83% of whom are civilians [12], and to the complete or partial destruction of thousands of homes; the leading university; 45 mosques; several ministries, including those of education and justice; scores of schools[13]; a Red Crescent Hospital and tens of ambulances [14] and clinics; as well as thousands of factories and small businesses. Several massacres were committed and well documented. The ICRC [15] accused Israel, in an unusually sharp tone, of failing to provide medical care to the injured and impeding medical relief from reaching them, thereby causing their bleeding to death, both severe violations of international humanitarian law. More than 400 Palestinian children were killed by the three-week long Israeli bombing, many due to burns caused by Israel�s illegal use of phosphorous bombs.
On the opening day of its assault on Gaza, the Israeli military caused massive destruction of civilian infrastructure and massacred close to 200 Palestinian civilians, many of whom were non-combatant police trainees, while no Israeli civilians were reportedly killed. Nevertheless, Western leaders were quick to issue statements expressing concern about the loss of life and suffering on �both sides,� blaming the Palestinian resistance for provoking the atrocities, and absolving Israel of any responsibility under the pretext of its �right to defend itself.�
Leading international jurists [16], however, categorically rejected Israel�s self-defense argument, accusing it of committing war crimes. The UN Human Rights Council and the UN Secretary General have called for impartial, independent war crimes investigations. Amnesty International [17], Human Rights Watch [18], the main Israeli human rights organization, B�Tselem [19], the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network[20], among many others, have similarly accused Israel of committing war crimes, completely refuting its self-defense claim, particularly since it was Israel that first violated the June 2008 ceasefire with Hamas on November 4th, when it attacked and killed 6 resistance fighters without any provocation.
Gerald Kaufman, a senior Jewish Labor Party member of the British Parliament compared some Israeli actions to those of Nazis. [21] So did Noam Chomsky [22] and Holocaust survivor and senior academic, Hajo Meyer [23], of A Different Jewish Voice in the Netherlands. Echoing Kaufman, Chomsky and Meyer, prominent Jewish British intellectuals and academics compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto in a letter to the Guardian [24], as did the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network on this year�s Holocaust Remembrance Day. [25]
Israel�s Other Colonial and Apartheid Policies
Gaza aside, Palestinian civil society and a growing number of influential human rights advocates recognize that Israel�s regime over the indigenous people of Palestine constitutes occupation, colonization and apartheid. Specifically, Israel�s decades-old oppression takes three basic forms which were at the core of the Palestinian BDS Call [26]:
(1) The prolonged occupation and colonization of Gaza and the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and other Arab territories;
(2) The system of racial discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel; and
(3) The persistent denial of the UN-sanctioned rights of the Palestinian refugees, paramount among which is their right to reparations and to return to their homes of origin, in accordance with UNGA Res. 194.
Ending these three forms of oppression is the minimal requirement to achieve a just peace in our region.
The most important of all three injustices is without doubt Israel�s denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return.
article continues with extensive references at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
