The new legislative initiative which would ban human rights organizations from employing national service volunteers ignores their democratic mission.
13 June 2011, Haaretz הארץ Editoral (Israel)
Kadima MK Israel Hasson's new initiative under which human rights organizations would be denied the right to employ national service volunteers is pure political persecution.
The proposal is based almost entirely on the claim that these organizations "besmirched the Israel Defense Forces, its officers and its soldiers."
According to Hasson, certain organizations - first and foremost, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the local chapters of Physicians for Human Rights and Amnesty, and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel - sought to persuade Judge Richard Goldstone to investigate whether Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in early 2009, and even urged the UN inquiry committee he headed "to accuse Israel of anti-humanitarian activity and of grave violations of human rights."
Hasson is ignoring the nature of the mission that human rights organizations have taken upon themselves - namely, a constant battle to uphold the ethical, humanist values without which a democratic society cannot exist, or, at the very least, could not maintain its democratic image.
Demanding an investigation of the army is neither treason nor slander, as Hasson and his supporters are trying to paint it. Indeed, given that both the army and the political decision-makers shunned a courageous and thorough probe of what happened during Cast Lead - an operation in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed - their application to Goldstone was essential.
Moreover, it's clear that their involvement with the Goldstone Report is nothing but a transparent excuse on which Hasson sought to hang his desire to embitter the lives of these organizations and intensify the delegitimization campaign against them. And he is not alone. He is supported by more than just a handful of Knesset members, most of them from the extreme right.
But Hasson, the bill's sponsor, is not a delusional extremist; he belongs to a party that defines itself as Israel's main centrist party. Yet so far, Kadima chairwoman and opposition leader Tzipi Livni has not responded to Hasson's proposal. Her silence is particularly worrying because she has until now been viewed as a rock standing firm against the recent wave of anti-democratic legislation.
If Livni truly sees herself and her party as an alternative to the present government, she can no longer remain silent in the face of this campaign of silencing and intimidation.
Mostrando postagens com marcador UN. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador UN. Mostrar todas as postagens
segunda-feira, 13 de junho de 2011
Israel's right to exist does not mean its government can act with impunity
10 June 2011, The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk (UK)
Legitimacy in international relations relates not to a single idea but to overlapping concepts, one of which is appropriate conduct
Peter Beaumont
Last year the Israeli Reut Institute published a report examining what it said was the agenda for eroding Israel's legitimacy in the international arena – an aim, it argued, whose end was to turn Israel into a "pariah" state and challenge its "very legitimacy of its existence as a Jewish and democratic state".
It was not alone. As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz remarked at the same time, "delegitimisation of Israel" has become the "new buzzword in the world of pro-Israel activism." So much so, Haaretz noted, that prominent organisations including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee had all outlined plans how to fight it. On Friday a story in the same paper detailed Israeli officialdom's worries that UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September would "delegitimise Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks".
Others have gone further, contending that "delegitimisation" has become the face of the new antisemitism, manipulated, as the Reut Institute claimed, by a minority.
All of which, however, leads to a question: precisely what is meant by legitimacy in an international context?
It is unclear enough as a concept that Robert Kagan was able to argue in the New York Times in 2004 that "the struggle to define and obtain international legitimacy in this new era may prove to be among the critical contests of our time".
One of those who has studied this field is Ian Clark, author of Legitimacy in International Society. "The core principles of legitimacy," he writes, not only "express rudimentary social agreement about who is entitled to participate in international relations" but also – critically – "appropriate forms of their conduct".
The reality is that the notion of legitimacy in international relations relates not to a single idea but to overlapping concepts that defy the simplistic definition being applied by those Haaretz describes as being involved in "pro-Israel activism".
First is the notion of the sovereign integrity of countries as states recognised by the international community and enshrined in international law. It is this legitimacy that recognises Israel's right to exist and participate in international forums.
It is the same legitimacy that Egypt or Tunisia or even Libya enjoys within its international boundaries.
A second notion of legitimacy – familiar and well-studied from Hobbes onwards – is the legitimacy a government claims through the support of its citizens, in the case of a democracy via an electoral mandate, to represent for a period of time the policies of a given state. In other words, an internal legitimacy represented on an international stage.
But simply because a government and state is "democratic", however – or because it enjoys a large mandate – does not mean it is immune from committing questionable and illegal acts.
The third crucial notion of international legitimacy is Clark's category of "appropriate forms of ... conduct".
It is in precisely in this area that the government, a regime or series of governments of a state can be seen to relinquish legitimacy both through its acts and how they are perceived over a period of time.
For Israel, that means specifically illegal occupation, settlement building and a disproportionate use of force that historically has claimed the lives of too many Palestinian civilians in the name of defence.
The distinctions are crucially important because in the deliberate conflation of the competing spheres of legitimacy by some of those who support Israel, they are making an essentially undemocratic argument utilising Israel's right to exist as an argument for impunity.
Legitimacy in international relations relates not to a single idea but to overlapping concepts, one of which is appropriate conduct
Peter Beaumont
Last year the Israeli Reut Institute published a report examining what it said was the agenda for eroding Israel's legitimacy in the international arena – an aim, it argued, whose end was to turn Israel into a "pariah" state and challenge its "very legitimacy of its existence as a Jewish and democratic state".
It was not alone. As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz remarked at the same time, "delegitimisation of Israel" has become the "new buzzword in the world of pro-Israel activism." So much so, Haaretz noted, that prominent organisations including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee had all outlined plans how to fight it. On Friday a story in the same paper detailed Israeli officialdom's worries that UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September would "delegitimise Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks".
Others have gone further, contending that "delegitimisation" has become the face of the new antisemitism, manipulated, as the Reut Institute claimed, by a minority.
All of which, however, leads to a question: precisely what is meant by legitimacy in an international context?
It is unclear enough as a concept that Robert Kagan was able to argue in the New York Times in 2004 that "the struggle to define and obtain international legitimacy in this new era may prove to be among the critical contests of our time".
One of those who has studied this field is Ian Clark, author of Legitimacy in International Society. "The core principles of legitimacy," he writes, not only "express rudimentary social agreement about who is entitled to participate in international relations" but also – critically – "appropriate forms of their conduct".
The reality is that the notion of legitimacy in international relations relates not to a single idea but to overlapping concepts that defy the simplistic definition being applied by those Haaretz describes as being involved in "pro-Israel activism".
First is the notion of the sovereign integrity of countries as states recognised by the international community and enshrined in international law. It is this legitimacy that recognises Israel's right to exist and participate in international forums.
It is the same legitimacy that Egypt or Tunisia or even Libya enjoys within its international boundaries.
A second notion of legitimacy – familiar and well-studied from Hobbes onwards – is the legitimacy a government claims through the support of its citizens, in the case of a democracy via an electoral mandate, to represent for a period of time the policies of a given state. In other words, an internal legitimacy represented on an international stage.
But simply because a government and state is "democratic", however – or because it enjoys a large mandate – does not mean it is immune from committing questionable and illegal acts.
The third crucial notion of international legitimacy is Clark's category of "appropriate forms of ... conduct".
It is in precisely in this area that the government, a regime or series of governments of a state can be seen to relinquish legitimacy both through its acts and how they are perceived over a period of time.
For Israel, that means specifically illegal occupation, settlement building and a disproportionate use of force that historically has claimed the lives of too many Palestinian civilians in the name of defence.
The distinctions are crucially important because in the deliberate conflation of the competing spheres of legitimacy by some of those who support Israel, they are making an essentially undemocratic argument utilising Israel's right to exist as an argument for impunity.
sexta-feira, 10 de junho de 2011
Haaretz exclusive: Secret cables show Israel's battle plan over Palestinian UN bid
Foreign Ministry documents outline instructions to envoys to thwart international recognition of Palestinian state.
10 June 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
By Barak Ravid
Israel has started mobilizing its embassies for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September, ordering its diplomats to convey that this would delegitimize Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks.
Envoys are being asked to lobby the highest possible officials in their countries of service, muster support from local Jewish communities, ply the media with articles arguing against recognition and even ask for a call or quick visit from a top Israeli official if they think it would help.
Foreign Ministry Director General Rafael Barak and the heads of various ministry departments sent out classified cables outlining the battle plan to the embassies over the past week, after earlier ordering all the country's diplomats to cancel any vacations planned for September. The contents of the cables reached Haaretz and are reported here in full.
"The goal we have set is to have the maximum number of countries oppose the process of having the UN recognize a Palestinian state," Barak wrote to Israel's ambassadors in his cable, which was sent June 2. "The Palestinian effort must be referred to as a process that erodes the legitimacy of the State of Israel...
"The primary argument is that by pursuing this process in the UN, the Palestinians are trying to achieve their aims in a manner other than negotiations with Israel, and this violates the principle that the only route to resolving the conflict is through bilateral negotiations."
Each envoy was ordered to prepared a focused plan for the country in which he or she serves and present it to the Foreign Ministry by today, June 10.
"The goal is to get the country in which you serve to vote against recognizing a Palestinian state," Barak wrote. "Your plan must include approaching the most senior politicians, mobilizing the relevant force multipliers [such as local Jewish communities, nongovernmental organizations], using the media, influencing local public opinion, and public diplomacy aimed at all the relevant communities."
Barak also informed the emissaries that the ministry had established a "September Forum" headed by the director of its Middle East Department, Yaakov Hadas.
"This team is analyzing possible Palestinian moves and the options open to Israel to foil the process, and is putting together a diplomatic, public diplomacy and media plan," Barak wrote. "You are to report on your activities to the September Forum once a week."
"The mission that has been assigned to us is not an easy one," the cable concluded. "But I'm sure that by joining forces, we will do the best we can to achieve the goal we've set for ourselves."
A Foreign Ministry source said the directive issued to ambassadors by both Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the ministry director general is not to give up on any country in advance, and to work to obtain a hearing with the highest possible officials in each country.
This past Sunday, June 5, the head of the ministry's Western Europe department, Naor Gilon, sent a follow-up cable to embassies in all European Union countries. A similar cable was sent by the head of the Eurasia Department, Pinhas Avivi, to representatives in the EU countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
In his cable, Gilon asked the ambassadors to prepare plans "that will lead the country in which you serve to oppose or abstain during a UN vote." It divided the EU countries into three groups:
* Countries that have already voiced objections to unilateral Palestinian action. A Foreign Ministry source put Germany and Italy in this category.
* Countries whose stance is unclear, particularly members of the former Eastern Bloc that had recognized a Palestinian state back in 1988. These include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In two weeks, Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are planning to make separate trips to these countries in an effort to persuade them to vote against a Palestinian state.
* Countries that tend to automatically side with the Palestinians and are expected to support a Palestinian state, among them Sweden, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal.
Gilon wrote that the Foreign Ministry believes the 27 EU members "will have difficulty reaching a consensus decision on recognizing a Palestinian state, as happened with regard to [recognizing] Kosovo. Even so, it's clear that the EU bureaucracy in Brussels will try to enter into a dialogue with the Palestinians in an effort to moderate the [UN] resolution so that EU members could support it.
"Everyone knows where the country he serves in stands," Gilon wrote. "Our goal is to create momentum against recognition of a Palestinian state in September by creating a significant bloc of EU states that voice their opposition as early as possible to unilateral Palestinian action." Another goal is to try to persuade those countries which have already said they will vote in favor of the Palestinian move to refrain from publicly stating their position.
Gilon tasked the ambassadors with trying to spur as many politicians and opinion-makers as possible to either make public declarations or issue statements opposing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. He also instructed them to generate negative media reports and op-eds objecting to the Palestinian moves.
The ambassadors were asked to inform the September Forum of any requests they receive from their respective countries' leaders to speak by phone with President Shimon Peres, Netanyahu or Lieberman, and to indicate whether a diplomatic visit by senior Israeli officials before September might be helpful in persuading top officials in the countries where they serve.
But one senior Foreign Ministry official said that regardless of what efforts are made, only a few countries will vote against recognizing a Palestinian state in a General Assembly vote, including the United States, Canada and a few European countries. The ministry's assessment is that most Asian, African and South American countries will vote in favor.
More on this topic
•Moussa: Committed to Palestinian-Israeli peace, but not at any price
•Obama: Palestinians should avoid seeking UN recognition for statehood
•UN agency report shows West Bank economy not flourishing
10 June 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
By Barak Ravid
Israel has started mobilizing its embassies for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September, ordering its diplomats to convey that this would delegitimize Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks.
Envoys are being asked to lobby the highest possible officials in their countries of service, muster support from local Jewish communities, ply the media with articles arguing against recognition and even ask for a call or quick visit from a top Israeli official if they think it would help.
Foreign Ministry Director General Rafael Barak and the heads of various ministry departments sent out classified cables outlining the battle plan to the embassies over the past week, after earlier ordering all the country's diplomats to cancel any vacations planned for September. The contents of the cables reached Haaretz and are reported here in full.
"The goal we have set is to have the maximum number of countries oppose the process of having the UN recognize a Palestinian state," Barak wrote to Israel's ambassadors in his cable, which was sent June 2. "The Palestinian effort must be referred to as a process that erodes the legitimacy of the State of Israel...
"The primary argument is that by pursuing this process in the UN, the Palestinians are trying to achieve their aims in a manner other than negotiations with Israel, and this violates the principle that the only route to resolving the conflict is through bilateral negotiations."
Each envoy was ordered to prepared a focused plan for the country in which he or she serves and present it to the Foreign Ministry by today, June 10.
"The goal is to get the country in which you serve to vote against recognizing a Palestinian state," Barak wrote. "Your plan must include approaching the most senior politicians, mobilizing the relevant force multipliers [such as local Jewish communities, nongovernmental organizations], using the media, influencing local public opinion, and public diplomacy aimed at all the relevant communities."
Barak also informed the emissaries that the ministry had established a "September Forum" headed by the director of its Middle East Department, Yaakov Hadas.
"This team is analyzing possible Palestinian moves and the options open to Israel to foil the process, and is putting together a diplomatic, public diplomacy and media plan," Barak wrote. "You are to report on your activities to the September Forum once a week."
"The mission that has been assigned to us is not an easy one," the cable concluded. "But I'm sure that by joining forces, we will do the best we can to achieve the goal we've set for ourselves."
A Foreign Ministry source said the directive issued to ambassadors by both Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the ministry director general is not to give up on any country in advance, and to work to obtain a hearing with the highest possible officials in each country.
This past Sunday, June 5, the head of the ministry's Western Europe department, Naor Gilon, sent a follow-up cable to embassies in all European Union countries. A similar cable was sent by the head of the Eurasia Department, Pinhas Avivi, to representatives in the EU countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
In his cable, Gilon asked the ambassadors to prepare plans "that will lead the country in which you serve to oppose or abstain during a UN vote." It divided the EU countries into three groups:
* Countries that have already voiced objections to unilateral Palestinian action. A Foreign Ministry source put Germany and Italy in this category.
* Countries whose stance is unclear, particularly members of the former Eastern Bloc that had recognized a Palestinian state back in 1988. These include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In two weeks, Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are planning to make separate trips to these countries in an effort to persuade them to vote against a Palestinian state.
* Countries that tend to automatically side with the Palestinians and are expected to support a Palestinian state, among them Sweden, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal.
Gilon wrote that the Foreign Ministry believes the 27 EU members "will have difficulty reaching a consensus decision on recognizing a Palestinian state, as happened with regard to [recognizing] Kosovo. Even so, it's clear that the EU bureaucracy in Brussels will try to enter into a dialogue with the Palestinians in an effort to moderate the [UN] resolution so that EU members could support it.
"Everyone knows where the country he serves in stands," Gilon wrote. "Our goal is to create momentum against recognition of a Palestinian state in September by creating a significant bloc of EU states that voice their opposition as early as possible to unilateral Palestinian action." Another goal is to try to persuade those countries which have already said they will vote in favor of the Palestinian move to refrain from publicly stating their position.
Gilon tasked the ambassadors with trying to spur as many politicians and opinion-makers as possible to either make public declarations or issue statements opposing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. He also instructed them to generate negative media reports and op-eds objecting to the Palestinian moves.
The ambassadors were asked to inform the September Forum of any requests they receive from their respective countries' leaders to speak by phone with President Shimon Peres, Netanyahu or Lieberman, and to indicate whether a diplomatic visit by senior Israeli officials before September might be helpful in persuading top officials in the countries where they serve.
But one senior Foreign Ministry official said that regardless of what efforts are made, only a few countries will vote against recognizing a Palestinian state in a General Assembly vote, including the United States, Canada and a few European countries. The ministry's assessment is that most Asian, African and South American countries will vote in favor.
•Moussa: Committed to Palestinian-Israeli peace, but not at any price
•Obama: Palestinians should avoid seeking UN recognition for statehood
•UN agency report shows West Bank economy not flourishing
terça-feira, 7 de junho de 2011
Abbas secures two thirds of UN votes on 'state recognition'
6 Jun 2011, Al Ahram online (Egypt)
Saleh Naami
Palestinian officials reveal that President Mahmoud Abbas has received assurances from 140 nations that they will vote in favour of recognising the state of Palestine at September's UN General Assembly meeting
Palestinian media reports have revealed that President Mahmoud Abbas has secured promises from two thirds of UN General Assembly members to officially recognise the state of Palestine at its meeting in September.
Official sources in the Palestinian Authority told Quds net news website that at least 140 countries have said they will vote in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution to recognise Palestine.
However, membership of the United Nations requires approval by the Security Council following the assembly's recognition by two thirds of its 192 members.
Sources added that President Abbas' acceptance to attend Paris peace talks with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not affect the Palestinian Authority's plans to go to the UN for state recognition.
Abbas agreed to the French president's peace talks initiative despite its call on him to give up the “state recognition option” to continue peace talks.
At the same time, the initiative urges Israel to freeze illegal settlement building in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
“The Palestinian acceptance of France's invitation would guarantee the French president sympathy with the state recognition concept, especially after Israel's rejection of his peace initiative,” a senior Palestinian official said.
Saleh Naami
Palestinian officials reveal that President Mahmoud Abbas has received assurances from 140 nations that they will vote in favour of recognising the state of Palestine at September's UN General Assembly meeting
Palestinian media reports have revealed that President Mahmoud Abbas has secured promises from two thirds of UN General Assembly members to officially recognise the state of Palestine at its meeting in September.
Official sources in the Palestinian Authority told Quds net news website that at least 140 countries have said they will vote in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution to recognise Palestine.
However, membership of the United Nations requires approval by the Security Council following the assembly's recognition by two thirds of its 192 members.
Sources added that President Abbas' acceptance to attend Paris peace talks with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not affect the Palestinian Authority's plans to go to the UN for state recognition.
Abbas agreed to the French president's peace talks initiative despite its call on him to give up the “state recognition option” to continue peace talks.
At the same time, the initiative urges Israel to freeze illegal settlement building in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
“The Palestinian acceptance of France's invitation would guarantee the French president sympathy with the state recognition concept, especially after Israel's rejection of his peace initiative,” a senior Palestinian official said.
sexta-feira, 29 de abril de 2011
ONE WORD - BRAVO!
By Uri Avnery*
29 April, 2011, Countercurrents.org
IN ONE word: Bravo!
The news about the reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas is good for peace. If the final difficulties are ironed out and a full agreement is signed by the two leaders, it will be a huge step forward for the Palestinians – and for us.
There is no sense in making peace with half a people. Making peace with the entire Palestinian people may be more difficult, but will be infinitely more fruitful.
Therefore: Bravo!
Binyamin Netanyahu also says Bravo. Since the government of Israel has declared Hamas a terrorist organization with whom there will be no dealings whatsoever, Netanyahu can now put an end to any talk about peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. What, peace with a Palestinian government that includes terrorists? Never! End of discussion.
Two bravos, but such a difference.
THE ISRAELI debate about Arab unity goes back a long way. It already started in the early fifties, when the idea of pan-Arab unity raised its head. Gamal Abd-al-Nasser hoisted this banner in Egypt, and the pan-Arab Baath movement became a force in several countries (long before it degenerated into local Mafias in Iraq and Syria).
Nahum Goldman, President of the World Zionist Organization, argued that pan-Arab unity was good for Israel. He believed that peace was necessary for the existence of Israel, and that it would take all the Arab countries together to have the courage to make it.
David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s Prime Minister, thought that peace was bad for Israel, at least until Zionism had achieved all its (publicly undefined) goals. In a state of war, unity among Arabs was a danger that had to be prevented at all costs.
Goldman, the most brilliant coward I ever knew, did not have the courage of his convictions. Ben-Gurion was far less brilliant, but much more determined.
He won.
NOW WE have the same problem all over again.
Netanyahu and his band of peace saboteurs want to prevent Palestinian unity at all costs. They do not want peace, because peace would prevent Israel from achieving the Zionist goals, as they conceive them: a Jewish state in all of historical Palestine, from the sea to the Jordan River (at least). The conflict is going to last for a long, long time to come, and the more divided the enemy, the better.
As a matter of fact, the very emergence of Hamas was influenced by this calculation. The Israeli occupation authorities deliberately encouraged the Islamic movement, which later became Hamas, as a counterweight to the secular nationalist Fatah, which was then conceived as the main enemy.
Later, the Israeli government deliberately fostered the division between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by violating the Oslo agreement and refusing to open the four “safe passages” between the two territories provided for in the agreement. Not one was open for a single day. The geographical separation brought about the political one.
When Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian elections, surprising everybody including itself, the Israeli government declared that it would have no dealings with any Palestinian government in which Hamas was represented. It ordered – there is no other word - the US and EU governments to follow suit. Thus the Palestinian Unity Government was brought down.
The next step was an Israeli-American effort to install a strongman of their choosing as dictator of the Gaza Strip, the bulwark of Hamas. The chosen hero was Muhammad Dahlan, a local chieftain. It was not a very good choice – the Israeli security chief recently disclosed that Dahlan had collapsed sobbing into his arms. After a short battle, Hamas took direct control of the Gaza Strip.
A FRATRICIDAL split in a liberation movement is not an exception. It is almost the rule.
The Irish revolutionary movement was an outstanding example. In this country we had the fight between the Hagana and the Irgun, which at times became violent and very ugly. It was Menachem Begin, then the Irgun commander, who prevented a full-fledged civil war.
The Palestinian people, with all the odds against them, can hardly afford such a disaster. The split has generated intense mutual hatred between comrades who spent time in Israeli prison together. Hamas accused the Palestinian Authority – with some justification – of cooperating with the Israeli government against them, urging the Israelis and the Egyptians to tighten the brutal blockade against the Gaza Strip, even preventing a deal for the release of the Israeli prisoner-of-war, Gilad Shalit, in order to block the release of Hamas activists and their return to the West Bank. Many Hamas activists suffer in Palestinian prisons, and the lot of Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip is no more joyous.
Yet both Fatah and Hamas are minorities in Palestine. The great mass of the Palestinian people desperately want unity and a joint struggle to end the occupation. If the final reconciliation agreement is signed by Mahmoud Abbas and Khalid Meshaal, Palestinians everywhere will be jubilant.
BINYAMIN NETANYAHU is jubilant already. The ink was not yet dry on the preliminary agreement initialed in Cairo, when Netanyahu made a solemn speech on TV, something like an address to the nation after an historic event.
“You have to choose between us and Hamas,” he told the Palestinian Authority. That would not be too difficult – one the one side a brutal occupation regime, on the other Palestinian brothers with a different ideology.
But this stupid threat was not the main point of the statement. What Netanyahu told us was that there would be no dealings with a Palestinian Authority connected in any way with the “terrorist Hamas”.
The whole thing is a huge relief for Netanyahu. He has been invited by the new Republican masters to address the US Congress next month and had nothing to say. Nor had he anything to offer the UN, which is about to recognize the State of Palestine this coming September. Now he has: peace is impossible, all Palestinians are terrorists who want to throw us into the sea. Ergo: no peace, no negotiations, no nothing.
IF ONE really wants peace, the message should of course be quite different.
Hamas is a part of Palestinian reality. Sure, it is extremist, but as the British have taught us many times, it is better to make peace with extremists than with moderates. Make peace with the moderates, and you must still deal with the extremists. Make peace with the extremists, and the business is finished.
Actually, Hamas is not quite as extreme as it likes to present itself. It has declared many times that it will accept a peace agreement based on the 1967 lines and signed by Mahmoud Abbas if it is ratified by the people in a referendum or a vote in parliament. Accepting the Palestinian Authority means accepting the Oslo agreement, on which the PA is based – including the mutual recognition of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. In Islam, as in all other religions, God’s word is definitely final, but it can be “interpreted” any way needed. Don’t we Jews know.
What made both sides more flexible? Both have lost their patrons – Fatah its Egyptian protector, Hosny Mubarak, and Hamas its Syrian protector, Bashar al-Assad, who cannot be relied upon anymore. That has brought both sides to face reality: Palestinians stand alone, so they had better unite.
For peace-oriented Israelis, it will be a great relief to deal with a united Palestinian people and with a united Palestinian territory. Israel can do a lot to help this along: open at long last an exterritorial free passage between the West Bank and Gaza, put an end to the stupid and cruel blockade of the Gaza Strip (which has become even more idiotic with the elimination of the Egyptian collaborator), let the Gazans open their port, airport and borders. Israel must accept the fact that religious elements are now a part of the political scene all over the Arab world. They will become institutionalized and, probably, far more “moderate”. That is part of the new reality in the Arab world.
The emergence of Palestinian unity should be welcomed by Israel, as well as by the European nations and the United States. They should get ready to recognize the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders. They should encourage the holding of free and democratic Palestinian elections and accept their results, whatever they may be.
The wind of the Arab Spring is blowing in Palestine too. Bravo!
*Uri Avnery is a former Knesset member and a co-founder of Israeli peace block Gush Shalom
29 April, 2011, Countercurrents.org
IN ONE word: Bravo!
The news about the reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas is good for peace. If the final difficulties are ironed out and a full agreement is signed by the two leaders, it will be a huge step forward for the Palestinians – and for us.
There is no sense in making peace with half a people. Making peace with the entire Palestinian people may be more difficult, but will be infinitely more fruitful.
Therefore: Bravo!
Binyamin Netanyahu also says Bravo. Since the government of Israel has declared Hamas a terrorist organization with whom there will be no dealings whatsoever, Netanyahu can now put an end to any talk about peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. What, peace with a Palestinian government that includes terrorists? Never! End of discussion.
Two bravos, but such a difference.
THE ISRAELI debate about Arab unity goes back a long way. It already started in the early fifties, when the idea of pan-Arab unity raised its head. Gamal Abd-al-Nasser hoisted this banner in Egypt, and the pan-Arab Baath movement became a force in several countries (long before it degenerated into local Mafias in Iraq and Syria).
Nahum Goldman, President of the World Zionist Organization, argued that pan-Arab unity was good for Israel. He believed that peace was necessary for the existence of Israel, and that it would take all the Arab countries together to have the courage to make it.
David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s Prime Minister, thought that peace was bad for Israel, at least until Zionism had achieved all its (publicly undefined) goals. In a state of war, unity among Arabs was a danger that had to be prevented at all costs.
Goldman, the most brilliant coward I ever knew, did not have the courage of his convictions. Ben-Gurion was far less brilliant, but much more determined.
He won.
NOW WE have the same problem all over again.
Netanyahu and his band of peace saboteurs want to prevent Palestinian unity at all costs. They do not want peace, because peace would prevent Israel from achieving the Zionist goals, as they conceive them: a Jewish state in all of historical Palestine, from the sea to the Jordan River (at least). The conflict is going to last for a long, long time to come, and the more divided the enemy, the better.
As a matter of fact, the very emergence of Hamas was influenced by this calculation. The Israeli occupation authorities deliberately encouraged the Islamic movement, which later became Hamas, as a counterweight to the secular nationalist Fatah, which was then conceived as the main enemy.
Later, the Israeli government deliberately fostered the division between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by violating the Oslo agreement and refusing to open the four “safe passages” between the two territories provided for in the agreement. Not one was open for a single day. The geographical separation brought about the political one.
When Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian elections, surprising everybody including itself, the Israeli government declared that it would have no dealings with any Palestinian government in which Hamas was represented. It ordered – there is no other word - the US and EU governments to follow suit. Thus the Palestinian Unity Government was brought down.
The next step was an Israeli-American effort to install a strongman of their choosing as dictator of the Gaza Strip, the bulwark of Hamas. The chosen hero was Muhammad Dahlan, a local chieftain. It was not a very good choice – the Israeli security chief recently disclosed that Dahlan had collapsed sobbing into his arms. After a short battle, Hamas took direct control of the Gaza Strip.
A FRATRICIDAL split in a liberation movement is not an exception. It is almost the rule.
The Irish revolutionary movement was an outstanding example. In this country we had the fight between the Hagana and the Irgun, which at times became violent and very ugly. It was Menachem Begin, then the Irgun commander, who prevented a full-fledged civil war.
The Palestinian people, with all the odds against them, can hardly afford such a disaster. The split has generated intense mutual hatred between comrades who spent time in Israeli prison together. Hamas accused the Palestinian Authority – with some justification – of cooperating with the Israeli government against them, urging the Israelis and the Egyptians to tighten the brutal blockade against the Gaza Strip, even preventing a deal for the release of the Israeli prisoner-of-war, Gilad Shalit, in order to block the release of Hamas activists and their return to the West Bank. Many Hamas activists suffer in Palestinian prisons, and the lot of Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip is no more joyous.
Yet both Fatah and Hamas are minorities in Palestine. The great mass of the Palestinian people desperately want unity and a joint struggle to end the occupation. If the final reconciliation agreement is signed by Mahmoud Abbas and Khalid Meshaal, Palestinians everywhere will be jubilant.
BINYAMIN NETANYAHU is jubilant already. The ink was not yet dry on the preliminary agreement initialed in Cairo, when Netanyahu made a solemn speech on TV, something like an address to the nation after an historic event.
“You have to choose between us and Hamas,” he told the Palestinian Authority. That would not be too difficult – one the one side a brutal occupation regime, on the other Palestinian brothers with a different ideology.
But this stupid threat was not the main point of the statement. What Netanyahu told us was that there would be no dealings with a Palestinian Authority connected in any way with the “terrorist Hamas”.
The whole thing is a huge relief for Netanyahu. He has been invited by the new Republican masters to address the US Congress next month and had nothing to say. Nor had he anything to offer the UN, which is about to recognize the State of Palestine this coming September. Now he has: peace is impossible, all Palestinians are terrorists who want to throw us into the sea. Ergo: no peace, no negotiations, no nothing.
IF ONE really wants peace, the message should of course be quite different.
Hamas is a part of Palestinian reality. Sure, it is extremist, but as the British have taught us many times, it is better to make peace with extremists than with moderates. Make peace with the moderates, and you must still deal with the extremists. Make peace with the extremists, and the business is finished.
Actually, Hamas is not quite as extreme as it likes to present itself. It has declared many times that it will accept a peace agreement based on the 1967 lines and signed by Mahmoud Abbas if it is ratified by the people in a referendum or a vote in parliament. Accepting the Palestinian Authority means accepting the Oslo agreement, on which the PA is based – including the mutual recognition of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. In Islam, as in all other religions, God’s word is definitely final, but it can be “interpreted” any way needed. Don’t we Jews know.
What made both sides more flexible? Both have lost their patrons – Fatah its Egyptian protector, Hosny Mubarak, and Hamas its Syrian protector, Bashar al-Assad, who cannot be relied upon anymore. That has brought both sides to face reality: Palestinians stand alone, so they had better unite.
For peace-oriented Israelis, it will be a great relief to deal with a united Palestinian people and with a united Palestinian territory. Israel can do a lot to help this along: open at long last an exterritorial free passage between the West Bank and Gaza, put an end to the stupid and cruel blockade of the Gaza Strip (which has become even more idiotic with the elimination of the Egyptian collaborator), let the Gazans open their port, airport and borders. Israel must accept the fact that religious elements are now a part of the political scene all over the Arab world. They will become institutionalized and, probably, far more “moderate”. That is part of the new reality in the Arab world.
The emergence of Palestinian unity should be welcomed by Israel, as well as by the European nations and the United States. They should get ready to recognize the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders. They should encourage the holding of free and democratic Palestinian elections and accept their results, whatever they may be.
The wind of the Arab Spring is blowing in Palestine too. Bravo!
*Uri Avnery is a former Knesset member and a co-founder of Israeli peace block Gush Shalom
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)