Domisticated Palestinians and Collaspsed arabs المتأنسنون الفلسطينيون… والمنهارون العرب

From the Balfour to the Abbas Declaration

المتأنسنون الفلسطينيون… والمنهارون العرب

راسم عبيدات ـ القدس المحتلة

لا غرابة ولا عجب في ظلّ استدخال ثقافة الهزيمة و«الاستنعاج» واستدامة عقدة «الارتعاش» السياسي عند العرب والفلسطينيين، أن تصل الأمور إلى حدّ إدانة عملية تل أبيب وتحميل الضحية الطرف الفلسطيني مسؤوليتها واعتبارها مضرّة بالمصالح العليا للشعب الفلسطيني، في الوقت الذي حمل فيه كتّاب وصحافيون وحتى أحزاب إسرائيلية، مسؤولية ما حدث إلى نتنياهو وحكومته التي أغلقت كلّ نوافذ الحلّ السياسي.

قلتُ لا غرابة في إدانة عملية تل ابيب عندما تصل حالة الانهيار والتخاذل والتواطؤ العربي حدّ أن تصوّت دول عربية لصالح تولي المتطرف الإسرائيلي داني دنون سفير «إسرائيل» في الأمم المتحدة للجنة القانونية في الأمم المتحدة، تلك اللجنة المناط بها محاربة ومكافحة الإرهاب، دولة تمارس كلّ أشكال الإرهاب بحق الشعب الفلسطيني وتخالف ولا تلتزم بأيّ إتفاقية دولية ولا تطبق أيّ من قرارات الشرعية، ستكون مسؤولة عن سنّ القوانين والتشريعات المتعلقة بممارسة الإرهاب وسبل مواجهته ومكافحته…؟ هذا هو «العهر» والنفاق الدولي في أوضح تجلياته وصوره.

في زمن «التعهير» والنفاق الدولي، يصبح كلّ شيء مشروعاً، ويصبح الجلاد ضحية والضحية جلاداً، ولكن الأشدّ إيلاما الطعنات الغادرة من أبناء جلدتنا فلسطينيين وعرب.

نحن تربينا وتعلّمنا بأنّ السياسة جبراً لا حساباً، وهي حصيلة موازين قوى وعلاقات وعوامل قوة، تأخذ الطابعين الشمولي والتراكمي، ولا تقوم على المشاعر والعواطف و«الفهلوة» وقوة الإنشاء والمنطق و«فذلكات» التفاوض وغيرها. وعند قراءتي لردود الفعل عند العديد من الكتاب والصحافيين والمثقفين الفلسطينيين والعرب، والتي حاول فيها البعض أن يكون ملكياً أكثر من الملك نفسه، أو أكثر أخلاقاً من المسيح ومواعظه «إن ضربك أحدهم على خدك الأيمن فأدر له خدك الأيسر»، وليس هذا وحسب، بل ذهب البعض إلى ما هو أبعد من ذلك بكثير، حتى يبدو عقلانياً وواقعياً وأخلاقياً، تلك الأسطوانة المشروخة التي أدخلها الغرب الاستعماري إلى قواميسنا ومصطلحاتنا، في ذروة هجوم «إسرائيل» علينا، ورفضها الاستجابة لأيّ من مقرّرات الشرعية الدولية أو المبادرات السياسية لحلّ أو تجميد الصراع، نطالب نحن بأن نقدّم التنازلات ونكون عقلانيين وواقعيين حتى تقبل أو توافق «إسرائيل» على الجلوس معنا ومفاوضتنا، حتى أصبحت عقلانيتنا وواقعيتنا، رديفاً للهزيمة والإستسلام، بحيث نقف عراة حتى من ورقة التوت.

وفي هذا السياق وجدنا البعض يقول بأنّ عملية «تل أبيب» هي عمل «لا أخلاقي… ووحشي» والذرائع والتبريرات هي الحفاظ على «طهارة وأخلاقية» المقاومة الفلسطينية، والبعض الآخر برّر منطقه بالخوف من ردّ الفعل الإسرائيلية وبطشها بالشعب الفلسطيني.

في حين وجدنا بعض من يمتهنون الكتابة من العربان، قد ذهبوا إلى وصف العملية بالإرهابية وتعزية «اسرائيل» بـ«شهدائها»! فقد هاجم الإعلامي والكاتب السعودي دحام بن طريف العنزي، عضو هيئة الصحافيين السعوديين والحوار الوطني، الفلسطينيين معتبراً عملية «تل أبيب» التي أدّت إلى مقتل 4 إسرائيليين وإصابة عدد أخر بـ«الإرهابية والهمجية».

وقدّم الاعلامي السعودي تعازيه لمن سمّاه «الشعب الإسرائيلي» عبر حسابه على «تويتر». وكذلك فعل حمد المزروعي الكاتب الإماراتي المقرّب من ولي عهد أبو ظبي محمّد بن زايد، حيث وصف الفلسطينيين منفّذي عمليّة قتل وجرح «إسرائيليين» في «تل أبيب» بأنهما فاقدا الرجولة.

وبدأ المزروعي تدويناته بالقول «هجوم إرهابي في تل أبيب واعتقال منفذ الهجوم بعد إصابته فعلاً تبرير الإرهاب إرهاب».

منذ ثمانية وستين عاماً أو أكثر، بل مع بداية الغزوة الصهيونية الأولى لفلسطين، وشعبنا الفلسطيني يخوض صراعاً طاحناً مع الإحتلال الصهيوني، صراع عنوانه السيطرة على الأرض الفلسطينية وطرد شعبنا منها وإحلال المستوطنين محلهم، استخدم فيه الإحتلال كل آلات بطشه وقمعه بحق شعبنا الفلسطيني، قتل وجرح واعتقل ودمّر وأحرق ونسف وحاصر وطرد وأبعد، وبنى استراتيجيته على أساس ذلك، ولم تكن في يوم من الأيام ردود فعله قائمة على ردّ فعل لحظي، ونذكر هنا بأنّ المحتل طارد الكثير من قادة الشعب الفلسطيني ومناضليه ليغتالهم بعد عشرات سنين، وديع حداد، أبا حسن سلامه، أبا جهاد، أبا علي مصطفى، سمير القنطار وعشرات القادة الميدانيين من مختلف الفصائل.

هنا يكمن جوهر وجذر المشكلة، وليس في ردود فعل شباب فلسطيني غاضب، واجه أقسى وأعتى احتلال في التاريخ، لم يترك له المحتلّ أيّ خيار، بل يدفعه إلى حالة من الجنون، واللوم هنا لا يقع على من جنّ، بل على من دفعه إلى حالة الجنون تلك.

هذه الأنسنة المتعقلنة، والتي دفعنا ثمنها أنهاراً من الدماء، عليها أن تبدأ من هنا، الاحتلال هو سبب المشاكل وجذر كلّ أنواع وأشكال العنف في المنطقة، تماماً كما هي الجماعات الإرهابية، التي وجدت لها حواضن ودفيئات تفقس كلّ يوم مزيداً من الإرهاب والتطرف على طول ساحات العالم العربي، فاجتثاث الحواضن وتدمير البيئة الحاضنة يفتح الطريق لوضع حدّ للإرهاب والقتل والتطرف. لذلك سواء كانت عملية «تل أبيب» أو لم تكن، فالإحتلال ماض في مشاريعه ومخططاته، فلا حصار عن قطاع غزة رفع ولا إعمار تحقق ولا حواجز عسكرية رفعت أو جدران فصل عنصري هدمت في الضفة الغربية، ولا أسرى اطلق سراحهم.

خطورة مثل هذا التفكير المسموم المغلف بـ«العقلانية» و«الإنسانوية» والذي غدا نهجاً في الساحتين العربية والفلسطينية، من بعد اتفاقيات «كامب ديفيد»، وما أحدثته من خلل كبير في موازين الصراع والقوى، إحالته للمعضلة علينا نحن العرب والفلسطينيين، نحن العرب والفلسطينيين الذين نقدم التنازل تلوّ التنازل حتى غدونا بلا ورقة توت ساترة لعوراتنا، سبب المشكلة! وأصبحنا لا أخلاقيين ومتوحشين! ونتنياهو وليبرمان وبينت وشاكيد وغليك إنسانيين وأخلاقيين!

شعب مشرّد منذ سبعين عاماً، استيطان «متوحش» و«متغوّل» ضمّ متدرّج للقدس، اعتقال أكثر من 7000 أسير فلسطيني، محاولات جادة لتقسيم المسجد الأقصى.. إلخ، كلها أعمال أخلاقية! في وجه شباب فلسطيني غاضب لا أخلاقي! غضبه بسبب سياسات الإحتلال وإجراءاته وممارساته.

منذ مدريد وعندما زادت أخلاقيتنا وإنسانيتنا عن حدّها، ونحن نفاوض سراً وعلناً، وبشكل مباشر وغير مباشر، وعن بعد وعن قرب، بقينا كما يقول المأثور الشعبي مثل «حمير المعصرة» ندور في نفس المكان والفراغ، مفاوضات لم تجلب لنا سوى المزيد من شرعنة المشروع الصهيوني وإبتلاع الأرض، والإحتلال بطشه وقمعه يزداد.

وختاماً أقول: الفلسطينيون ليسوا من الدواعش ولا طلاب قتل، واختم بما قاله الكاتب نصار ابراهيم: «أنا لست مع قتل أيّ إنسان بشكل عام، كما لست مع قتل أيّ إنسان في فلسطين من حيث المبدأ، مهما كان دينه أو لونه، ولكن حتى يحصل ذلك وحتى تصبح هذه الرغبة والنزعة الأخلاقية والإنسانية ذات جدوى وحقيقية ومقنعة ولها معنى، إذن يجب إنهاء سبب القتل في فلسطين، الذي هو في المقام الأول والعاشر يتمثل بالاحتلال، وعدا ذلك هي تبريرات أو هروب لا أكثر ولا أقلّ وتحميل الضحية بصورة مباشرة أو غير مباشرة السبب في ما يجري».

Quds.45 gmail.com

Related videos

 

Advertisements

Confronting the Obvious Truth : Palestinian Authority vs. the People

 

By Ramzy Baroud

Saeb Erekat is an enigmatic character. Despite minimal popularity among Palestinians, he is omnipresent, appears regularly on television and speaks with the moral authority of an accomplished leader whose legacy is rife with accolades and an astute, unwavering vision.

When Palestinians were polled by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC) in August, just prior to the current Intifada, only 3 percent approved of his leadership – compared with the still meagre approval rating of 16 percent of his boss, Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas. Even those who are often cast as alternative leaders – Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, and former Gaza-based Hamas Government Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh – were nowhere near popular, achieving 10.5 and 9.8 percent of the vote respectively.

It was as if Palestinians were telling us and their traditional leaderships, in particular, that they are fed up with the old rhetoric, the constant let-downs, the unabashed corruption and the very culture of defeat that has permeated the Palestinian political elite for an entire generation.

Abbas has operated his political office on the assumption that, so long as Palestinians received their monthly salaries and are content with his empty promises and occasional threats – of resigning, resisting against Israel, lobbing bombshell speeches at the UN, etc. – then no one is likely to challenge his reign in Areas A and B – tiny cantons within the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Jerusalem.

Erekat has been the primary enabler of that PA charade, for he is the ‘chief negotiator’, whose protracted term in that precarious post has negotiated nothing of value for the Palestinians.

In 2002, I followed the Israeli invasion of the supposedly self-autonomous PA areas in the West Bank, when Erekat made an appeal on Al-Jazeera Arabic television to the Israeli Government to exercise sanity and common sense. The entire display of the PA leadership was beyond tragic, proof that it had no real authority of its own and no control over the events on the ground as Palestinian fighters battled the re-invading Israeli army. He appealed to Israel as if he felt genuinely betrayed by its military onslaught.

When Al Jazeera released thousands of secret documents in January 2011, revealing discussions behind closed doors between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, Erekat held the lion’s share of blame. With a clear mandate from his superiors, he appeared uninterested in many Palestinian political aspirations, including Palestinian sovereignty in occupied East Jerusalem – the spark behind the current and previous Intifadas. He offered Israel the “biggest Yerushalaim in Jewish history, symbolic number of refugees return, demilitarised state… what more can I give?” he was quoted in the Palestine Papers.

What is particularly interesting about Erekat, and equally applicable to most PA leaders and officials, is that, no matter how devastating their roles – which they continue to play out, whether through political incompetence or outright corruption – they do not seem to go away. They may change position, hover around the same circle of failed leadership, but they tend to resurface and repeatedly regurgitate the same old language, clichés, empty threats and promises.

After retreating for a few weeks as Intifada youth took to the streets to protest the Israeli occupation, PA spokespersons, including Erekat, are now back on the scene, speaking of squandered opportunities for peace, two states and the entire inept discourse, as if peace was ever, indeed, at hand, and if the so-called ‘two state solution’ was ever a solution.

In a recent interview with Al-Jazeera’s ‘UpFront’, Erekat warned that the PA was on the verge of shutting down, as if the very existence of the PA was a virtue in itself. Established in 1994 as a transitional political body that would guide the process of Palestinian independence, the PA morphed to become a security arm that served as a first line of defense for the Israeli army, in addition to guarding its own interests. Billions of dollars later, and after intensive military training provided by the US, the UK, Italy, and other western and ‘moderate’ Arab countries, the PA security forces have done a splendid job of cracking down on any dissent among Palestinians.

So why is Erekat warning of the PA collapse as if the sorry leadership in Ramallah is the center of everything that Palestinians have ever aspired for? “Soon enough Netanyahu will find himself the only [one] responsible between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean because he is destroying the Palestinian Authority,” Erekat said. So what? According to the Geneva Conventions which designate Israel as the Occupying Power, Netanyahu is, indeed, responsible for the welfare, security and well-being of the occupied Palestinians, until a just political solution is assured and enforced by the international community.

Using the same tactic which, along with Abbas and other PA officials, was utilized repeatedly in the past, he vowed that “soon, very soon, you’re going to hear some decisions” about disbanding the PA.

It matters little what Erekat and his Ramallah circle determine as the proper course of action. Not only has his language become obsolete and his references irrelevant, but the entire Oslo ‘peace process’ travesty – which delivered nothing but more illegal settlements and military torment – was dead a long time ago. In fact, it was the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000 that killed Oslo and the ten years between the end of that uprising and the advent of a new one were filled with mere haggling and desperate attempts at breathing life into a ‘process’ that made some corrupt Palestinians a whole lot richer.

The hope is that the current Intifada will cleanse the residue of that dead process, and surpass the PA altogether, not through acts of violence and vengeance, but rather through the establishment of a new leadership manned by good women and men who are born in the heart of Palestinian Resistance, in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. The new leadership cannot be imposed from above, or achieved after deliberation with ‘moderate’ Arabs, but selected through an organic, grassroots process that is blind to factional allegiances, religion, gender and family lineage.

Palestinian Intifadas do not liberate land but liberate people who assume their role in the struggle for national liberation. The 1936 Intifada liberated the fellahin peasants from the confines of the dominant clans and their allegiances to Arab regimes so that they could face up to the British and the Zionists; the 1987 Stone Intifada liberated the people from the grip of Tunisia-based factions, thus the establishment of the Unified National Leadership of the Intifada along with Hamas; the 2000 Intifada was a thwarted attempt at escaping the sins of Oslo and its empowered elite. For the current Intifada to achieve a degree of initial success, it must find a way to entirely dismiss those who took it upon themselves to negotiate Palestinian rights and to enrich themselves at the expense of the impoverished and oppressed Palestinian people.

If the Intifada is to be true to itself, it must seek to break not just the hegemony over the Palestinian political discourse which is unfairly championed by Erekat and his peers, but to break political boundaries as well, uniting all Palestinians around a whole new political agenda.

There are many opportunists who are ready to pounce upon the current mobilization in Palestine, to use the people’s sacrifices as they see fit and, ultimately, return to the status quo as if no blood has been shed and no oppression still in place.

After reiterating his support for the two-state solution which is now but a fading mirage, Erekat told Al-Jazeera, “We are fully supporting our people and their cry for freedom.”

I think not, Mr. Erekat. Twenty years is long enough to show that those who have taken part in their people’s oppression, cannot possibly be the advocates of their people’s freedom.


The War in Syria, Palestinian Alignment, and the NATO-Russia Battle for Influence

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Hamas arrested Gaza rocket launchers, and Israel president wouldn’t rule out Hamas talks

Hamas: We arrested Gaza rocket launchers


Ynet 27 May by Elior Levy —

Hamas source tells Ynet rocket fire is ‘against the interests of the Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip,’ noting there are mediation efforts underway in attempt to calm situation — Hamas arrested the militants behind the rocket launched Tuesday night at southern Israel, a Hamas source told Ynet on Wednesday.  A rocket fired from the Gaza Strip hit an open area in southern Israel on Tuesday night. No damage was caused, but one teenager was treated for shock. The IAF retaliated against the rocket fire, striking Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Popular Resistance Committees targets near the Gaza airport in the southern part of the Strip, as well as Hamas targets in Beit Lahiya in the northern part of the Strip, Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported. The Palestinians reported no injuries in the attacks. “What happened yesterday (the rocket fire) goes against the interests of the Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip and against our national interests,” the Hamas source said. “We consider the rocket fire to be a dangerous thing.” “Right after the rocket fire, our security forces were deployed to different places across the Strip and hunted for the shooters until they were found and arrested,” the source continued. He noted there were mediation efforts underway between Israel and Hamas in an attempt to de-escalate the situation as soon as possible. While refusing to elaborate on who the mediators were, he said Egypt was not involved.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4661772,00.html

 

Israel president wouldn’t rule out Hamas talks


JERUSALEM (AFP) 27 May — Israeli President Reuven Rivlin appeared to challenge a longstanding taboo on talks with the militant Islamic Hamas on Wednesday, saying he favoured dialogue with everybody. The role of president is largely ceremonial, but during a tour of northern Israel a reporter asked Rivlin his opinion on talks with Hamas, the de facto power in the Gaza Strip. “It is really not important to me with whom I speak, but rather about what we are speaking,” he replied in remarks broadcast on television and radio. “I have no aversion to holding negotiations with anyone who is prepared to negotiate with me,” he said. “The question is what they want to negotiate about. If they want to negotiate my very existence, then I would not negotiate with them.” Israel, along with much of the international community, maintains a ban on overt, direct contacts with Hamas, although it held indirect truce talks through Egyptian mediators after last year’s war in Gaza.
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-president-wouldnt-rule-hamas-talks-191531274.html

 

Mogherini calls for resuming Palestinian-Israeli peace process


BRUSSELS (AFP) 27 May — EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini called Wednesday on Israel and the Palestinians to resume peace negotiations, saying the situation on the ground was “not sustainable.” Mogherini issued the remarks after eyewitnesses said the Israeli air force carried out four strikes on militant targets in the Gaza Strip early Wednesday, hours after a cross-border rocket attack on the Jewish state. “We see the situation on the ground as not sustainable and (it is) an illusion to think the status quo is an option,” Mogherini said at the opening of an annual meeting in Brussels of the donor coordination group for the Palestinians. “As we have seen (in the) last hours on Gaza there is no status quo at all. If we don’t have positive steps, we will have negative steps,” said Mogherini, who last week traveled to the region to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leaders.
http://news.yahoo.com/mogherini-calls-resuming-palestinian-israeli-peace-process-184425583.html

 

Palestinians drop bid to have FIFA suspend Israel


ZURICH (AFP) 29 May by Ryland James — Palestinian football chief Jibril Rajoub withdrew his association’s bid to have FIFA suspend Israel from international football on Friday before shaking hands with his Israeli counterpart. “I have decided to drop the resolution for the suspension,” Rajoub told the FIFA congress in Zurich before shaking the hand of Israeli FA president Ofer Eini. “A lot of colleagues, whom I respect and whose commitment to the ethics and values of the game I appreciate, told me how painful it is to hear of the issue of suspension. “But I want to protect the Palestinian footballers, to let them enjoy the privilege of the game as others do.” But Rajoub demanded that FIFA help tackle racism and problems of movement facing Palestinian players in the occupied West Bank before waving a red card at delegates to emphasise his point. “I think it’s time to raise the red card against racism and humiliation in Palestine and everywhere. It is time,” he fumed. Palestine, which has been a FIFA member since 1998, had wanted the governing body to expel Israel over its restrictions on the movement of Palestinian players. It had also opposed the participation in the Israeli championships of five clubs located in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. In an equally passionate address, Israeli football chief Eini said it is now up to the two associations to find a common ground to promote football and help each other in the troubled region. “Football must serve as a bridge to peace,” said Eini … A FIFA committee, which will include figures from both the Israeli and Palestinian governing bodies, will be set up to resolve issues facing those in football on the West Bank after the congress voted for the initiative.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/palestinians-withdraw-bid-fifa-suspend-israel-135951086–sow.html

Palestinians withdraw call to suspend Israel from Fifa


The Guardian 29 May by Peter Beaumont in Jerusalem — Sepp Blatter overrules attempt to refer status of Israeli clubs to UN, prompting Palestinian Football Association to drop suspension motion — The Palestinian Football Association has withdrawn its call to have Israel suspended from Fifa in a chaotic last minute climbdown at the congress of football’s governing body in Zurich. Following days of negotiations, and the mediation of Fifa president Sepp Blatter, the Palestinian moves at the scandal-ridden congress appeared comprehensively outmanoeuvred by feverish Israeli lobbying and the opposition of senior Fifa officials, including Blatter. As details of an impending deal emerged, the Palestinian delegation came out of the last round of talks expecting the congress to vote on an amendment to refer the main sticking point, the status of five Israeli clubs based in illegal settlements on the West Bank, to the United Nations. But the Palestinian move was overruled by Blatter, to the clear dismay of the Palestinian delegation, whose lawyer tried to appeal from the floor. Instead, the issue will be referred to a new Fifa committee. Palestinian delegation members complained after the vote that the amendment voted on was not the one it had drawn up, which called explicitly for UN referral. The announcement came at the end of a long day in which Palestinian delegation members had insisted they would not back down on the suspension vote … Following the withdrawal of the request to suspend Israel over claims of its racist and discriminatory policies towards Palestinian football, 90% of delegates voted to set up a new monitoring inspections committee to oversee a mechanism to ensure movement of players and equipment. The size of the vote in favour of the motion – 165-18 – is likely to be the only consolation for the Palestinian side, which has been pushing a long-term campaign over what it says are Israeli abuses of Palestinian football. The outcome seemed certain to be a cause for celebration for Israel.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/29/palestinians-withdraw-call-to-suspend-israel-from-fifa-west-bank

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

EU: Court decision to remove Hamas from terror list “legal” not “political”

Palestinian militants of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas's armed wing, take part in a parade marking the 27th anniversary of the resistance movement's creation on December 14, 2014 in Gaza City. AFP / Mahmoud Hams

Published Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Updated at 3:24 pm (GMT +2): Palestinian resistance group Hamas must be removed from the EU’s terrorism blacklist, but its assets will stay frozen, a European court ruled on Wednesday, hours before the European Parliament overwhelmingly backed the recognition of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders “in principle.”

The original listing of Hamas in 2001 was based not on sound legal judgements but on conclusions derived from the media and the Internet, the General Court of the European Union said in a statement.

But it stressed that Wednesday’s decision to remove Hamas was based on technical grounds and does “not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group.”

The freeze on Hamas’s funds will also temporarily remain in place for three months pending any appeal by the EU, the Luxembourg-based court said.

Hamas, which has been in power in the Gaza Strip since 2007, had appealed against its inclusion on the blacklist on several grounds.

Hamas’s military wing was added to the European Union’s first-ever terrorism blacklist drawn up in December 2001 in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

The EU blacklisted the political wing of Hamas in 2003 after the group claimed responsibility for a spate of attacks on Israeli targets during the Second Intifada, a popular uprising that erupted in 2000 against Israel’s decades-long occupation.

Hamas was founded in 1987 shortly after the start of the first Palestinian Intifada.

Reactions

The European Union said Hamas is still on its terror list despite Wednesday’s ruling.

“The EU continues to consider Hamas a terrorist organization,” European Commission spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic confirmed, saying the EU General Court’s decision “is a legal ruling, and not a political decision taken by EU governments.”

Hamas, meanwhile, hailed the decision, describing the move as a “victory for justice.”

“We thank the European Court for its decision. This is a victory for all advocates of liberation from all forms of occupation,” senior Hamas member Moussa Abu Marzouq said.

A lawyer for Hamas, Liliane Glock, told AFP she was “satisfied with the decision.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded the EU immediately restore Hamas to its terrorism blacklist.

“We are not satisfied with the European explanation by which Hamas has been withdrawn from this list. We expect the Europeans to puts Hamas back on the list immediately,” Netanyahu said in a statement.

Palestinian state “in principle”

Meanwhile, the European Parliament overwhelmingly backed the recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders “in principle” on Wednesday, following a series of votes on the issue in EU nations which have enraged Israel.

Lawmakers approved the non-binding motion by 498 votes to 88 with 111 abstentions, although it was a watered down version of an original motion which had urged EU member states to recognize a Palestinian state unconditionally.

The motion said the parliament “supports in principle recognition of Palestinian statehood and the two state solution, and believes these should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks, which should be advanced.”

The socialist, greens and radical left groups in the European Parliament had wanted an outright call for the recognition of Palestinian statehood.

But the center-right European People’s Party of European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, the leading group in parliament, forced them into a compromise motion linking it to peace talks.

“There is no immediate unconditional recognition (of statehood),” EPP chief Manfred Weber said.

But his socialist counterpart Gianni Pittella insisted it was a “historic decision” and a “victory for the whole parliament.”

European politicians have become more active in pushing for a sovereign Palestine since the collapse of US-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in April, and ensuing conflict in Gaza, where more than 2,000 Palestinians, at least 70 percent of them civilians, and on the Israeli side, 66 soldiers and six civilians were killed this summer.

EU’s vote follows Sweden’s decision in October to recognize Palestine and non-binding votes since then by parliaments in Britain, France, Ireland, and Spain in favor of recognition demonstrated growing European impatience with the stalled peace process.

The roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict date back to 1917, when the British government, in the now-infamous “Balfour Declaration,” called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank during the 1967 Middle East War. It later annexed the holy city in 1980, claiming it as the capital of the self-proclaimed Zionist state – a move never recognized by the international community.

In 1988, Palestinian leaders led by Yasser Arafat declared the existence of a state of Palestine inside the 1967 borders and the state’s belief “in the settlement of international and regional disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the charter and resolutions of the United Nations.”

Heralded as a “historic compromise,” the move implied that Palestinians would agree to accept only 22 percent of historic Palestine in exchange for peace with Israel. It is now believed that only 17 percent of historic Palestine is under Palestinian control following the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) this year set November 2016 as the deadline for ending the Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967 and establishing a two-state solution.

It is worth noting that numerous Palestinian factions, including Hamas, as well as pro-Palestine advocates support a one-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians would be treated equally, arguing that the creation of a Palestinian state beside Israel would not be sustainable and that it would mean recognizing a state of Israel on territories seized forcefully by Zionists before 1967.

They also believe that the two-state solution, which is the only option considered by international actors, won’t solve existing discrimination, nor erase economic and military tensions.

(AFP, Al-Akhbar, Anadolu)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

“Our Palestinian resistance is 100 years old:” Interview with Khaled Barakat

Posted on November 17, 2014 by Alexandra Valiente

20141031_211959The following interview with Palestinian writer and activist Khaled Barakat was published (in the Greek language) in the Greek newspaper,Efimerida ton Syntakton:

What is the current situation concerning the Israeli-Palestinian relations since the last assault on Gaza? Do you support the notion that this war was won by the Palestinian Resistance?

This war was won by the Palestinian resistance, because the Israeli enemy did not achieve its goals. In fact, Israel committed war crimes, killing over 2000 Palestinians, and destroying tens of thousands of homes, targeting health workers, and many other crimes. This is what colonizers and occupiers do to the indigenous, native population, and to oppressed communities – exert massive state violence on a whole population. But if we are discussing real, military battles, confrontation on the battlefield, the Zionists and their backers have lost miserably. Just read what Israel’s top generals have had to say about this war. No military expert – or even someone with basic military knowledge – would disagree with this, after seeing the results. The resistance managed to capture Israeli soldiers from the battlefield, managed to hold their ground, and rebuffed the ground invasion. Every time the Israeli forces lost on the battlefield in the ground invasion, their response was to massively bomb civilians. Lastly, the armed resistance is growing by the day.

What has changed in Gaza during the last few years? Can the armed resistance forces successfully confront the strongest army in the Middle East?

Yes, the resistance of the Palestinian people can successfully confront – and defeat – the military power of the Israeli state. Always, armed revolutionary forces are fighting an army of a superpower, or an army that possesses qualitative advantage in terms of funding, weaponry, arms and support from major powers. But what is important is that we are fighting for a just cause. It is an armed resistance, yes, but it is a people’s resistance. We do not evaluate the results of the war to liberate Palestine from one battle – whether we have achievements or losses. This Palestinian armed resistance is 100 years old. When we fought the British, we were fighting the strongest army in the world – not the fourth-strongest. When the Resistance in Greece was fighting the Nazis, they were fighting what was seen as the strongest army in the world. It is a long war but we will emerge victorious. This is inevitable.

What is the situation in Gaza today and which priorities are set? Do you have any expectations from the proximity talks in Cairo, which are mediated by Egypt? I mostly refer to the prospect of lifting the Gaza siege.

As for the needs of Gaza, what is the most important thing today is the physical and mental health of our people, particularly children. Humans come first – then buildings, roads and electricity. We know the heavy cost that Israel inflicted upon our people on all levels. We recognize that Israel bombed hospitals, schools, playgrounds – including bombing children playing on the beach.

The second priority is to maintain our functioning Palestinian society, and circle of life – rebuilding the infrastructure that was specifically targeted by Israeli bombers. Remember that we have over 100,000 displaced people in Gaza – among a population that was already over 85% refugees. Entire neighborhoods were destroyed, in places like Beit Hanoun and Khuza’a. Sewer systems were destroyed, as were water systems – already facing a deep crisis before the assault. Schools have become shelters and were targeted for bombing. Our people in Gaza have shown tremendous steadfastness and resilience, during and after the war.

As to the second part of the question, we do not rely on illusions. We know that Israel is defeated, and therefore, they must comply with the demands of the resistance – the demands of the Palestinian people. But the problem is that Israel wants to transform this into a permanent status of negotiations – we are aware of this. As far as the position of the PFLP is concerned, we will never trust the Zionist enemy and Arab reactionary regimes and their false promises.

How do you receive the prospect of the recommencement of the Israeli-Palestinian talks and on what grounds could this happen?

These negotiations are nothing but a cruel joke and a big lie. It is a futile path. Negotiations and the so-called “peace process” is an industry that some feed on. On the one hand, Israel is using negotiations in order to cover its crimes that it commits on a daily basis, particularly the theft of land and the building of colonies, imposing and deepening apartheid and occupation on a daily basis while it attempts to project an image for international public opinion that “peace” is in the making. On the other hand, it benefits the Palestinian despicable, rotten capitalists, who are hiding behind a big, false slogan called “the Palestinian state” while occupation intensifies. These negotiations are futile for the Palestinian people. For over 20 years, they have achieved nothing for the people – but they are a moneymaker for Zionists and for a few Palestinian capitalists in the West Bank and Gaza.

So, in short, whether these negotiations resume in public or not, we know that they continue on a daily basis in the shadows of closed rooms. These negotiations do not stop and they will not stop unless the Palestinian Authority is forced to truly end their participation in this farce through popular resistance.

These negotiations are guarded by the “big boss” – the United States. These negotiations are dear to the U.S. and Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies are puppets following orders.

 Do you see any grounds for the recognition of Palestine as an independent state and a member of the UN?

This is a bit of a messy question for the PFLP. On the one hand, we want to end the path of negotiations and take back the political struggle in international institutions, including the United Nations. We see that the international arena, despite all of our reservations on it, and the misuse of these bodies by imperialist powers, remains a space for an open political battle against the Zionists and the United States. This is a million times better than negotiations. We want to be able to make a breakthrough in terms of bringing Zionist leaders to trial before the International Criminal Court, and we believe this is a very important battle because if it will not happen tomorrow, or in 10 years, or even in our generation – other Palestinian generations will continue the fight until this happens. Zionists must be put on trial.  So it is a tactical position as far as the PFLP is concerned. When the Palestinian state was recognized as a non-member observer state at the United Nations, we issued a statement calling on the Palestinian Authority president not to use this as a tactic for another cycle of illusions and negotiations. What we know for sure is that the Zionists are infuriated because they do not want this to be a gateway to other Palestinian steps or international pressure.

What would be your message to the Greek people?

Our message to the Greek people is that Palestinians know the support and solidarity they have in Greece. The relationship between our two peoples is very long and deep in history.  In every Intifada, we always find Greek fighters, revolutionary political parties, in the forefront of solidarity with Palestine. We know also that you are going through harsh times, fighting economic hegemony, plundering the resources of the Greek people, threatening your water, land and air. We stand in solidarity with the Greek people’s fight to reclaim their country and liberate Greece from these forces. This is a message of love, respect and the commitment to struggle for Palestinians, Greeks and all people of the world who seek freedom, justice and liberation, and a truly just world for humanity.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Clintons, Monica, Adultery and “strange Jewish laws”

Rehmat

On October 14, 2014 Professor Susannah Haschel (Jewish Studies, Dartmouth College) again defended Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex affair based on Jewish law at The Jewish Week.

One of 10,000 documents released from the Clinton Presidential Library on Friday last week, one belongs to Haschel, then senior aide to Sen. HillaryClinton who submitted to the White House: a Talmudic interpretation proving president Bill Clinton was not guilty of adultery.

From the perspective of Jewish history, we have to ask how can Jews condemn President Clinton’s behavior as immoral, when we exalt King David? King David had Batsheva’s husband, Uriah, murdered. While David was condemned and punished, he was never thrown off the throne of Israel. On the contrary, he is exalted in our Jewish memory as the unifier of Israel,” Haschel wrote in 1999.

According to classical Jewish law, President Clinton did not commit adultery; adultery is defined as a married man having intercourse with a married woman, and Monica Lewinsky is single. At worst, President Clinton is guilty of the common sin of onanism (masturbation), a sin that probably afflicts the consciences of most Jewish men at one time or another,” said the Jan. 27, 1999, e­mail that ended up with White House adviser and political fixer Sidney Blumenthal (father of the ‘self-hating’ US journalist Max Blumenthal).

Haschel’s interpretation of Jewish law, later helped several American lawmakers, such as, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada who confessed to an extramarital affair with a female campaign staffer married to one of his top Senate staffers.

Haschel also advised Clintons’ critics that instead of character assassination of Hillary Clinton who in August told a Jewish gathering that “if I were prime minister of Israel, my policy against Hamas, Iran and Syria wouldn’t be different than Netanyahu” – but concentrate on the bloodshed going on in the Middle East and Ukraine. Why? ” Because Clintons’ just had a grandson, who happened to be Jewish from father’s side.

Last week Rabbi David Wolpe accused King David of committing genocide of Palestinians in order to whitewash Israel’s recent genocide in Gaza.

In 2010, Israeli Rabbi Ari Schvat blessed Mossad female agents having sex (Honey-pot) with foreign agents. He supported his fatwa by claiming that Queen Esther had sex with Persian King Ahasuerus in 500 BC in order to save the Persian Jewish community. I suppose, French Jewish president Hollande must be incarnation of Esther as the “First Lady” of France is not married to Hollande. She is just “sex partner” with two kids from her previous marriage.

The White House “Honey-pot” Monica Lewinsky was used by Israeli Mossad to blackmail then president Bill Clinton to stop FBI investigation of Israeli espionage network MEGA lead by Danny Yatom, Mossad inspector-general, according to Gordon Thomas’ book: ‘Gideon’s Spies – The Secret History of Mossad’.

Lewinsky testified under oath that after a session of heavy patting and oral sex in the White House, Clinton told her that a foreign embassy was tapping the two phone lines in her Washington DC apartment. Read more on this story here.

If someone think that’s the end of the adultery in Jewish religion, he needs to look at Adam Kirsch’s article at the Jewish Tablet magazine (October 14, 2014).

Following are some of the kosher things I learned.

1. A Jew can marry daughter of his own brother, his niece. But, if he dies, his brother (father-in-law) is not allowed to have “obligatory marriage” the widow, his own daughter. Islamic traditions allow a Muslim to marry daughter of his cousin.

2. A Jew is forbidden to have sex with his brother’s wife – but if she became widow without bearing a child, the surviving brother is “obligated” to have sex with his sister-in-law in order to provide his deceased brother with a posthumous heir. Kirsch says the practice is commanded in Deuteronomy 25:5. This totally forbidden under Islamic Shari’ah.

Under such ‘modern goodies’, who can blame British Jew -Zionist peer, Lord Greville Ewan Janner, 86, for sexually abusing kids from care homes?

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton in her memoir just published, has acknowledged that ISIS was given birth by the US government and the French Zionist Jew “philosopher” and Muslim hater Bernard-Henri Levy, a French-Israel dual citizen, was the “mastermind” behind the ISIS military success.

————————–

 Modern “Queen Esther”

 

Wahabi Sex Jihad

Mossad agent Dalia Shimon 25 years

Egyptian security forces arrested Hossam El Din Malas and seized at his home military allowances and other important documents and some photos, including this picture And those who do not know the girl sitting next to him Is Dalia Shimon 25 years Mossad agent and a female soldier in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from the Tel Aviv area.

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Could Hamas enter into direct negotiations with Israel?

 

West Bank city of Ramallah about the latest developments on the peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, on October 1, 2014. (Photo: Abbas Momani)
Published Thursday, October 2, 2014
If Hamas ever decides to enter into negotiations with Israel, it would not be the first Palestinian faction to have fought against and then held talks with the occupation. It was therefore not surprising when Hamas leaders hinted something to this effect, albeit Hamas officially denied it. In Palestinian history, there was a similar experience with the Fatah movement, but what is odd for the Palestinian and Arab Street is that this time, Hamas’ desire to engage in or its non-objection to negotiations follows a “war of liberation.”
Gaza – A long time ago, the Palestinian national liberation movement Fatah was locked in fierce fighting across several capitals, and spared no efforts in its battle. The Israelis knew that it was imperative to draw the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its main component Fatah into an endless political spiral, following the maxim “if you want to thwart a revolution, drown it in money and power.”
Direct negotiations between the PLO and the occupation began through secret channels, preceded by the launch of “test balloons,” so to speak, in the media. In parallel, on the Israeli side, officials paved the way for negotiations in statements explaining Israel had dealt with “stubborn minds” who refused to “work without a gun.”

The overt signs of the launch of the peace process back then began with a Palestinian delegation taking part in the Madrid peace conference in 1991, chaired by Haidar Abdel-Shafi with encouragement from Jordan. This was followed by secret meetings culminating with the Oslo Accord in 1993, with the PLO and Fatah leaving resistance in return for a cardboard state.

[I]slamist movement, represented by factions like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, saw Oslo and its repercussions as a major crime and sin against history and the people.”

 

Since then, the Islamist movement, represented by factions like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, saw Oslo and its repercussions as a major crime and sin against history and the people, and the two groups repudiated the peace process and direct negotiations categorically. Despite this, Hamas in particular did not hide the fact that it was open to some political proposals, such as establishing a state along pre-1967 borders “without ceding the rest of the occupied territories,” and agreed to the principle of a 10-to-30-year long truce to “create a liberation army.” But Hamas has insisted on rejecting direct negotiations and shaking hands with Israelis.
While Islamic Jihad’s stated position remains unchanged today, it seems that Hamas became more “flexible” compared to when it issued an Islamic law (Sharia) opinion prohibiting negotiations “for forfeiting core issues for the Muslims, including 78 percent of historical Palestine.” The turning point was in 2006 when Hamas decided to take part in the legislative elections. As a result, Hamas now had MPs in the Legislative Council, which is an integral part of the Palestinian Authority regime produced by the Oslo process. Hamas and Islamic Jihad had earlier contended in the municipal elections, but Islamic Jihad made a distinction between municipalities, which are not directly part of the Palestinian Authority, and the Legislative Council.

Shedding further light on that turning point, the Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad revealed a few days ago that Hamas had agreed to take part in the legislative elections at the request of his father Hamad, based on an “American desire.” After Hamas ruled Gaza for eight years in a row, during which it fought three wars with Israel, it stepped aside in favor of the consensus government it had jointly formed with Fatah prior to the recent war. Now, its leaders have publicly spoken about the possibility of direct negotiations, especially since they had taken part in several rounds of indirect negotiations with Israel in Cairo to end the war.

Direct vs. indirect negotiations
Recently, the deputy head of Hamas’s political bureau Musa Abu Marzouk settled the Sharia-side debate regarding the issue by saying that “there are no qualms regarding direct negotiations.” He then advanced the political and circumstantial argument for direct negotiations by pointing out that Hamas was stuck in a crisis of mediators, whose seriousness in brokering a solution that fulfills Hamas’ demands is questionable, as he said, and whom Hamas was forced to deal with because of the “curse of geography” that made the mediator the only outlet for Gaza – in reference to Egypt.
Yet it appears that this circumstantial situation is not enough for others to justify the kind of dramatic shift proposed by Abu Marzouk. Other leaders in Hamas, such as Mahmoud al-Zahar, stress that the relationship with Cairo, though it has underwent difficult stages, is essential and pivotal, and can be built upon.
But it is hard to escape the fact that Hamas had resorted to direct negotiations with individuals close to Israeli decision-making circles, most notably during the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit.

Leaders in Hamas had indicated that there were contacts between Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad and Israeli writer Gershon Baskin, a close associate of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, between 2010 and 2012. In the end, however, the prisoner swap deal was brokered by Egypt, and so was the ceasefire in 2012.

Based on the above, the “mediator problem” cannot be the main reason for the shift in Hamas’ attitude, although sources in Hamas told Al-Akhbar that the Egyptian mediator often “added conditions to Israeli ones, and delayed delivering messages.” “Egypt even tried to get Shalit released in return for a few prisoners rather than hundreds,” the sources added.

But it is hard to escape the fact that Hamas had resorted to direct negotiations with individuals close to Israeli decision-making circles, most notably during the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit.

 

“At that moment,” the sources continued, “retired Mossad officer David Meidan passed on a proposal for direct negotiations with the martyr Jabari, but the latter refused.”
Baskin also brought a message from Meidan saying “the mediator (Cairo) was at some stages of the negotiations not enthusiastic for the deal to succeed.”
A “test detonation” is the term that best describes the statements of the Hamas leader regarding negotiations, then bearing in mind that until this moment, the media has not carried the full interview from which the excerpt in question had come. Then in a direct interview with Abu Marzouk, he did not offer any direct answers regarding the issue of direct negotiations, while Mahmoud Zahar categorically refuted the possibility of direct talks. Nevertheless, both men agreed that direct negotiations with the occupation does not violate Sharia, but contradicts the political point of view adopted by the movement at the moment.
While Abu Marzouk said that parties mediating between his group and the occupation “were a burden on the Palestinians,” Zahar just said that the alternative is to look for other mediators, in case the existing ones do not fulfill their role, while he continued to deny the possibility of direct negotiations. Both men denied what newspapers affiliated to Qatar and Egypt had published, quoting anonymous sources close to Hamas, who purported that Hamas was carrying out Sharia-based revisions in order to negotiate with Israel. Zahar said that revisions as such were needed within Hamas, but that any revisions regarding the relationship with Israel are out of the question.
Perhaps these hints followed by denials, according to observers, are meant to pave the way for making the issue a viable topic for discussion within the public opinion, with a view to attenuate any decision Hamas could make in the future. Observers also see this as a clear message of warning addressed to Fatah, in the event reconciliation and other issues are obstructed.
About the revisions
Hamas leader and former adviser to the prime minister Ahmed Yousef confirmed that revisions were being made to some strategies at the leadership level in Hamas, “with the aim of crystallizing positions on what could happen at the level of the Palestinian issue, particularly the nature of internal and external relations.”
But Yousef told Al-Akhbar that direct negotiations with Israel were not on Hamas’ agenda at the time, because Hamas as he said does not sense it is in an intractable crisis, while the Palestinian Authority is already handling negotiations.
However, he added,
“When Hamas joins the PLO, the PLO will be the one negotiating on behalf of all parties and not Hamas.”
Yousef re-emphasized that there is a review underway of the nature of internal national relations, “and the relationship between the Resistance and the consensus government, in addition to Hamas’ position on presidential elections and whether it would participate or put forward independent candidates, all issues that go far beyond the issue of direct negotiations.”
Regarding the position of the parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, regarding all this clamoring, the chairman of the Shura Council in the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, Hamza Mansour, said that direct negotiations with Israel violates Hamas’ principles and charter, adding that it would represent direct recognition of the occupation and its claim to the lands it occupies. Mansour told Al-Akhbar, “Hamas, which is known for its honesty, would not make such a move despite the risks it faces from its Arab and Islamic depth.”

“Hamas, which is known for its honesty, would not make such a move despite the risks it faces from its Arab and Islamic depth.” – Hamza Mansour, Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood

 

Concerning consultation with the group, he stressed that Hamas would not make any such move “except after consulting all relevant Sharia entities,” and added, “It will not negotiate directly, because its credibility is associated with its jihad, and slipping into negotiations would cause it to lose too much.”
From the perspective of Fatah, which negotiates with Israel directly, “talk about direct negotiations between Hamas and Israel is premature, not because Hamas objects to the principle of negotiations, but because it must be part of the PLO, which would then negotiate on behalf of all parties,” according to Fatah leader Yahya Rabah. Rabah added, “Negotiations now would raise questions and suspicions regarding the concessions Hamas could make,” stressing that Hamas must not negotiate at a time when the Palestinian Authority is confronting Israel’s lies about it.
While the other side, that is Israel, has kept mum over this issue, its position is open to the possibility of agreeing conditionally or rejecting talks in order to get more concessions, if Hamas decides at some point to do what is still a taboo. However, all those close to Hamas see that this path is still far off, and say that talk about it is nothing more than an attempt to put pressure internally and in the direction of Arab regimes.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

RELATED

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
%d bloggers like this: