Posted on November 18, 2014 by uprootedpalestinians
18-11-2014
In the wake of the killing of an Arab bus driver Sunday night.
The Palestinian bus driver from east Jerusalem was found hanged by Jewish terrorists Sunday night.
Two Palestinians armed with a gun and axes held a heroic operation Tuesday morning against an “Israeli” synagogue in Occupied al-Quds.
According to “Israeli” sources, 5 Zionist settlers were killed and nine others were injured in the operation.
“There are four dead and six injured, among them two policemen,” police spokeswoman Luba Samri said in a statement, adding that the operation targeted “a synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood in the southwest of Occupied al-Quds.
Later, “Israeli” sources listed that 8 settlers were reported wounded, including four in serious condition, two in moderate condition and two who sustained light wounds.
Two police officers were among the wounded.
In fear of other Palestinian operations, “Israeli” police ordered settlers to remain far of al-Quds operation area.
In addition, “Israeli” war minister Moshe Yalon canceled a scheduled visit for the Holy city. He also held an urgent in his ministry in an attempt to study the situation.
Meanwhile, “Israeli” channel 2 reported that the two Palestinians who carried the operation appeared to be from east al-Quds. Palestinian sources said the two martyrs are the two cousins, named Saeed and Uday Abu Jamal.
Hamas officials, as well as other Palestinian Resistance groups, hailed the operation, describing it as a “revenge for the martyrdom of Palestinian bus driver in al-Quds.”
The operation comes a day after tensions in al-Quds once again ramped up in the wake of the killing of an Arab bus driver Sunday night.
——–
———-
According to Almanar, four Zionist settlers were killed and several others injured in a shooting attack in a synagogue in the occupied western Al-Quds neighborhood of Har Nof, according to initial reports.
The shooting, which was executed by two people, occurred on Shimon Agassi St. on Tuesday morning. The two attackers were reportedly martyred at the scene by police, with a third possibly in the area.
Several other settlers are reported injured, two in serious condition, according to Haaretz.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad hailed the attack, saying it was in reaction to the killing of a Palestinian bus driver. In a statement, Hamas movement said it was “a response to the murder of the martyr Yusuf Ramuni.”
A Palestinian bus driver from east Al-Quds was found hanged inside his vehicle late on Sunday after being beaten.
Updated at 7:12 pm (GMT +2): An Israeli was killed and three others were wounded, including a soldier, in two separate attacks on Monday, police said.
In the first incident, a Palestinian stabbed and critically injured a 20-year-old Israeli soldier outside the HaHagana train station in southern Tel Aviv in Occupied Palestine.
Israeli police said the suspect, who was arrested, was a Palestinian from the town of Nablus in the occupied West Bank.
The suspect was identified by family members as 17-year-old Noureddine Abu Hashiyeh from Askar refugee camp east of Nablus. His father Khaled told AFP that his son, a painter and decorator by trade, had left for Tel Aviv on Sunday.
A police spokesman said that hours later, a Palestinian stormed out of a car to stab three Israeli settlers outside the Israeli settlement of Alon Shvut in the West Bank, killing a woman.
The attacker was shot and wounded by an Israeli guard.
The two incidents follow the killing of a 22-year-old Palestinian with Israeli citizenship in the Galilee region by Israeli forces Saturday, which led to two days of protests and clashes with Israeli forces.
Since July, police have arrested some 900 Palestinians for public order offenses in east Jerusalem and indicted around a third of them.
Tensions have been running high in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, where in recent weeks Israeli forces have shot and killed four Palestinians suspected of being involved in attacks against Israelis.
Israeli authorities have also allowed Zionist settlers to take over homes in Palestinian neighborhoods, have announced plans to build thousands of settlements strictly for Israeli settlers in the city while ignoring Palestinian residents, and have generally looked the other way at rising violence by Zionist settlers against Palestinians across the city.
The anger has been further provoked by the Israeli authorities’ decision to hold a vote on splitting the al-Aqsa compound, Islam’s third holiest site, despite the existence of a Jewish prayer area at the Western Wall immediately next door.
Settlers storm al-Aqsa
On Monday, dozens of Zionist settlers under Israeli special forces protection forced their way into the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem, as Israeli forces banned Palestinian women from entering the holy site.
“At least 49 settlers protected by ten Israeli special forces troops stormed the compound early this morning,” the guard told Anadolu Agency on condition of anonymity.
According to the guard, the settlers forced their way into the compound through the al-Magharbeh Gate and toured the complex for 15 minutes before departing through the al-Silisleh Gate.
Israeli forces, meanwhile, denied all Palestinian women access to al-Aqsa mosque, while men were allowed in on condition that they leave their identity cards at inspection stations manned by Israeli troops and police officers.
“For three hours, I tried to enter the holy compound from several gates. Each time, I was denied access by the Israeli police,” one woman barred from entering the complex told Anadolu Agency.
Israeli forces have long restricted Palestinians’ access to the al-Aqsa compound based on age and gender, but have further prevented Muslim worshipers from entering the mosque while facilitating the entrance for Zionist extremists.
“They are trying to keep us out of the place so as to facilitate the [Jewish] settlers’ intrusion,” the woman, requesting anonymity, added. “But it won’t work – every day, we thwart their plots.”
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered more police onto the streets, vowing that anyone breaking the law would be “punished severely.”
“We will not tolerate disturbances and riots. We will take determined action against those who throw stones, firebombs and fireworks, and block roads, and against demonstrations that call for our destruction,” he said on Sunday.
Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East War. It later annexed the city in 1980, claiming it as the capital of the Zionist state – a move never recognized by the international community.
In September 2000, a visit to the site by controversial Israeli politician Ariel Sharon sparked what later became known as the “Second Intifada,” a popular uprising against the Israeli occupation in which thousands of Palestinians were killed.
This post is not about the so-called Holy Wailing Wall aka Temple Mount, which several historian have claimed to be foundation of an old Roman fortress. It’s also not about the Zionist entity’s plan todemolish Al-AqsaMosque built on top the fortress nearly 1200 years ago. The Israeli plan is supported by the inventor of the ‘Six Million Died’ myth, Elie Wiesel through his illegal Jew settlers’ group Elad.
This post is about Qatar-based Hamas’ political Guru Khaled Meshaal, who spoke to Adam Ciralsky (Zionist Jew), former CIA employee turned journalist. The interview was published by Vanity Fair on October 21, 2014.
I never understood why some anti-Zionist Muslim leader would be so naïve to agree giving an interview to a pro-Israel Zionist journalist. It would be far better if this leader visits East Jerusalem and talk to the Holy Wailing Wall, as I did in 1995. Don’t such leaders realize that in their bid to capture wider audience, they always end up victims of Zionists’ distorted version of the message? I never approved Ahmadinejad, Rouhani, Nasrallah, Dr. Morsi or Chavez awarding interview to professional Zionist liars.
Having said that, let me review Meshaal-Cirasky lengthy interview in which Cirasky tried his best to confuse Meshaal and cornered him to spill some ‘antisemtic beans. For example, Cirasky grilled Meshaal to admit that Hamas fighters kidnapped and killed three Jew settlers without mentioning that it was Meshaal who was almost killed as result of Israeli Mossad assassination attempt on his life in Amman (Jordan) in 1997 on direct orders from Netanyahu.
American Jewish investigative journalist Max Blumenthal reported in July that bodies of three Jew settlers were found by Israeli internal security force even before Netanyahu blamed Hamas of kidnapping them. This means, it was a hoax created by the Zionist regime to counter its internal political tug-of-war, which enabled it to wage a 50-day brutal war against 1.7 million non-Jews in Gaza.
Cirasky accused Hamas for digging tunnels under Israeli towns in order to kill Jews. In response Meshaal asked him if that was true then how come Hamas fighters never used these tunnels to attack Israeli civilians before or during the recent war.
“I spent some of the most important years of my life in Syria. A big part of Hamas’s course was shaped there, and I am pained by what the country is going through today. Much of what’s happening does not serve the interests of regional countries and their people.”
Cirasky asked Meshaal that after huge human and infrastructure losses, does he believe that Hamas won against Israel? Meshaal responded:
“The steadfastness showcased by Gaza is a victory. It sent a message to the world that there is something called the Palestinian cause that the occupation must be brought to an end, that the settlements’ expansions must stop, and that the blockade on Gaza must be lifted.”
In response to Cirasky curiosity how Meshaal views Netanyahu as a person, Meshaal replied:
“I don’t have a message for Netanyahu, because he is a criminal, and he is responsible for the war on Gaza. He and the Israeli leadership committed war crimes against our people in Gaza. But I have two messages, one to the world’s great powers, and especially the United States: that its global dominance puts political and moral responsibilities on its shoulders. On top of these responsibilities is the need to put an end to the longest, or let me say, the last occupation in the world, and that is the Israeli occupation. This is a moral responsibility.”
“The second message is to the Israeli people. Your leadership is lying to you, and is leading you to failed adventures. War crimes are being perpetrated against the Palestinian people in your name. This will not provide you with any security, peace, or stability. It will not secure any future for you,” Meshaal added.
I believe Israeli professor Neve Gordon, here, and American writer and radio talk-show host Mark Glenn, here, described Netanyahu far better than Khaled Meshaal.
“The resistance and steadfastness in Gaza has been crowned with victory after 51 days of war, in which the resistance fought heroically and made great sacrifices in defense of the land and people…and all Palestinians salute this victory achieved by the resistance,” said Comrade Khalida Jarrar from the tent of solidarity where she has remained since the occupation military courts ordered her expelled to Jericho.
“The celebrations on the occasion of victory and the joy of the people throughout the West Bank and Gaza are a testament to the people rallying around the option of resistance, for the Liberation of Palestine,” said Jarrar.
Jarrar spoke at a forum organized by the youth committee of the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees in the solidarity tent featuring Jarrar and Sahar Francis, the Executive Director of Addameer, as well as a musical performance.
Jarrar noted that in relation to her own case, it is not primarily a legal issue but a political issue. She noted “several issues and reasons for the decision of the occupation,” noting a progressive escalation of repression by the occupation in al-Khalil, Jerusalem, and the attacks after the heinous murder of the child martyr Mohammed Abu Khdeir, the massive and barbaric aggression on Gaza, the escalation of settlement-building, the attacks on Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque, the mass arrests and exorbitant fines in Jerusalem, and the mass arrests in occupied Palestine ’48, the escalation of administrative detention, the arrests of a number of PLC members and released prisoners, and this expulsion order.
“This escalation reflects the state of crisis which hit the leaders of the enemy as a result of the growing mass rejection of their criminal policies in all areas of Palestine, which foreshadowed the transformation of this rejection into a new intifada,” Jarrar said. “They are trying to impose a new policy against Palestinians and Palestinian leaders, based on arbitrary orders, including this expulsion order. They possibly believed that they would be able to implement this policy easily, but we refuse to sign and refuse to implement and will resist the occupation and all of its orders, and we will remain until we remove the occupation from our entire land of Palestine.”
She noted that the policy of expelling people from so-called “Area A” to “Area A,” which are supposed to be under Palestinian sovereignty, clearly indicates the intention of the occupation in relation to their agreements with the Palestinian Authority. She also noted that the occupation seeks to annex the so-called “Area C,” where they are escalating the confiscation of land, constructing roads and settlements, and demolishing Palestinian homes.
“Following the victory in Gaza, it is now important to build on the massive popular support for the resistance among the people and political forces in the West Bank and Occupied Palestine ’48 to build the popular rejection to the occupier, working closely with the reconstruction of Gaza and supporting the resistance,” said Jarrar.
“The development of the popular struggle toward Intifada is a first priority, which we should work for very seriously,” said Jarrar. “The occupation’s continuing and escalating policies of brutality only accelerate the growing popular rejection….It is true that the objective factors are mature, but the subjective factor is not yet so. At the same time, the popular rejection of the occupation’s attacks provides the best environment to advance the subjective factor, through, first, the exercise of our rights as an occupied people to struggle in all forms, including armed struggle. We must adhere strongly to resistance as a way of life, just as we escalate mass struggle, for example, the boycott campaign, which is very important not only from the angle of the losses incurred by the enemy at all levels, but also from the angle of boycott as a popular choice and a way of life. Secondly, through the consolidation of national unity as a program. We can disagree with one another, but no people has triumphed without a broad national front based on a broad resistance program that unites all the forces and people under the banner of resistance until victory and the defeat of the occupation. The battle of the resistance in Gaza embodies this fact, and we must emulate and develop upon that. We must also develop a deeper understanding of national unity, which must begin at a popular, mass level, up to the formation of a unified national leadership…that can reorganize the framework of the PLO and rectify its policies and positions on the basis of a unified national resistance program,” Jarrar said.
“We must also link interim programs to our strategic objectives, first by strongly adhering to and organizing around the right of return. In this context, we can mobilize Palestinians inside occupied Palestine ’48, particularly in the face of growing and open Zionist racism. The mass popular movement there is the foundation for something much bigger. The youth initiatives, such as the initiative to return to the villages from which people were displaced, must also not be underestimated,” said Jarrar. Speaking to the youth organizers, she said, “you are propelling the future of our people’s movement. Take the initiative, and take leadership – do not wait for me or anyone to give you this right. You are the future of the people.”
News of the Palestinian left’s objection to Fatah and Hamas sharing power in the government passed quickly and without much attention. But the new public rift between Mahmoud Abbas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) makes significant revelations about what politicians are up to.
Does Abbas think that cutting money allocated to the families of martyrs, political prisoners and activists inside the PFLP – which are their inherent right – is going to dissuade it from its principled and historical positions?
Al-Akhbar learned from informed Palestinian sources that the situation has secretly reached a boiling point and a level of unprecedented tension between the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has decided to end his relationship once and for all with the PFLP.
He also halted the transfer of the money allocated to the PFLP and financial dues issued by the Palestinian National Fund, and prevented the organization from receiving invitations to attend any official meetings including the session of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Executive Committee.
The sources reported that “the PFLP’s anger unleashed against Abbas” by leaders in and outside Palestine expresses their rejection of “the political direction adopted by the powerful leadership in the PLO and came after the PFLP’s demands to stop the corruption and unilateral approach adopted by Abbas.” Therefore, these unannounced decisions, in the sources’ opinion, are aimed at punishing the PFLP for its positions “but have no legitimacy and no value, rather they are illegal and strictly punitive in nature.”
The same sources told Al-Akhbar that Abbas’ reaction was not just the result of the PFLP’s rejection of negotiations. “What prompted him was the campaign that was recently launched by the front regarding political and financial corruption in the PLO’s institutions, the way Abbas monopolizes Palestinian decision-making and the limiting of consultations about government formation to Fatah and Hamas.”
Al-Akhbar also learned that a series of secret meetings were held in Ramallah between Abbas and the PFLP’s temporary representative at the the Executive Committee, Abdel Rahim Mallouh, in the presence of the committee’s secretary, Yasser Abed Rabbo, and Palestinian intelligence chief Major General Majed Faraj. Similar meetings were held in the Jordanian capital between the Palestinian National Council chairperson Salim al-Zaanoun and his deputy Taysir Qubaa from the PFLP.
In the last meeting, the front’s leadership was informed of Abbas’ decision to “stop dealing once and for all with the organization and consider it outside the PLO’s institutions because of its withdrawal from a Central Council meeting, statements it has issued, and for describing the Oslo Agreement as a betrayal of the Palestinian people.”
The sources said the PFLP informed Abbas, Zaanoun and other Palestinian leaders of its categorical rejection of Abbas’ decisions describing them as a “cheap attempt to blackmail the organization in order to provide support for the futile negotiations with Israel and to carry on with this unilateral approach in dealing with the PLO’s institutions.” It also affirmed that the front’s positions are steadfast in this context and will not change.
A PFLP leader, who preferred to remain anonymous, denounced the decisions saying at one of the meetings: “Would Abbas have taken such a step had the PFLP abandoned its position on negotiations for example or provided support inside the PLO or recognized Israel?” He wondered: “Does Abbas think that cutting money allocated to the families of martyrs, political prisoners and activists inside the PFLP – which are their inherent right – is going to dissuade it from its principled and historical positions? Does one person, regardless of his political status, have the right to expel a founding faction of the PLO without dialogue and an institutional decision?” He went on to say: “The PFLP is the second organization in the PLO and one of its main and founding factions… Abbas’ decision reflects exactly this unilateral, exclusionist approach that he represents and adopts inside the Palestinian Authority and Fatah.”
Does one person, regardless of his political status, have the right to expel a founding faction of the PLO without dialogue and an institutional decision?
Regarding the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, official Palestinian sources revealed that Abbas has put together the final vision for a government of technocrats agreed to by Fatah and Hamas. These sources said that they will likely choose an interior minister from the Gaza Strip so he would be able to reach an understanding with Hamas and other factions freely while the finance minister will be from the West Bank so he could stay close to the president.
Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council and member of Hamas’ Change and Reform bloc, Ahmed Baher, said that the sacked government which has been led by his organization since 2007 is preparing to hand over its ministries to the national reconciliation government that will declared in the coming few days. Baher added in a speech at the launching of a novel in Gaza yesterday that “the government urges our brothers to hand over their ministries to their brothers in the unity government.”
Despite this progress in forming the government, Fatah’s spokesperson in Gaza Fayez Abu Aita denied that the Fatah official in charge of the reconciliation effort, Azzam al-Ahmed, is going to visit Gaza today. He explained in a press statement that Ahmed’s visit is still in the works “but it will take place after Abbas finishes studying the results of the previous consultations that Ahmed carried out with the Hamas leadership last week.” Ahmed had announced that the unity government was going to be formed probably in a week, confirming that contacts have been made with several countries to guarantee support for this government. “In addition, the United States and the international quartet will work to ensure that it will be recognized,” he added
Mohammed Dahlan, the Fatah MP who was dismissed from his organization, announced yesterday that he has decided to participate in the next parliamentary and presidential elections despite the two-year prison sentence issued by the magistrate’s court in Ramallah against him on charges of libel and slander. He said on his Facebook page that this latest decision issued against him is meant to impede his participation in the upcoming Fatah conference.
Hamas leader and former advisor to the sacked government’s prime minister, Ahmed Youssef, said the names of the candidates for the next government are now with Abbas. He said in a statement that the PA president is putting his final touches, choosing a name out of three candidates for every ministry. “The government,” he added “is going to be small, consisting of 15 to 16 ministers.”
(Al-Akhbar)
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
A Palestinian demonstrator wearing a Guy Fawkes mask gestures during clashes near the border with Israel, east of Gaza City on May 15, 2014, to mark Nakba Day. (Photo: AFP-Mohammed Abed)
The Palestinian Nakba happened 66 years ago and the number of refugees around the world is still growing. It is rare to find a country without a Palestinian community, who look at Palestine’s recently acquired status of “member state” at the UN with sadness, since it did not prescribe their return. This is in the midst of the desperate Arab situation, which displaced them and turned them into fugitives once again.
Paris: The Palestinian Nakba – the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland by Zionist forces between 1947-48 – was not merely a foreign invasion of a land and its usurpation from its rightful owners. Israelis arrived to Palestine and left behind all roots binding them to the rest of the world. They came with a full awareness that land on its own will not be enough for their survival and continuity.
The Palestinians were late to understand the equation imposed by the Zionist movement, which went beyond controlling land to build a state in every sense of the world. The history of the Palestinian cause, especially in the 1920s and 1930, indicates a lack of awareness of what was being prepared, with the exception of a few national figures who provided an early warning of the repercussions of the dangerous [Zionist] project.
After the Nakba, things went in a different direction. After the loss of their land, Palestinians became aware of the threat to their identity. They became motivated to stay alive in order to keep their identity. At the same time, an elevated, romanticized view transformed Palestine into a “lost paradise” in the consciousness of Palestinians themselves. A positive romanticism extended to all Palestinian matters, from dress to song to food. The relationship with these things was emotional. Palestinians adopted these symbols to emphasize the presence of the absent and confirm their relationship and ownership of what was lost. Refugees began giving their children the names of occupied towns and these type of actions are reflected in post-Nakba literature, poetry, and art.
In other words, the Palestinians transformed their struggle from one over land occupied by migrant Jews to a struggle over a nation, its memory, and history. This contributed to the emergence of a well-defined Palestinian national identity. It is not an exaggeration to say that the biggest achievement by Palestinians prior to the establishment of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was to consolidate their identity. It would have been impossible to create such a movement without succeeding in protecting a common identity from being lost.
There were some attempts of armed resistance immediately after the Nakba. They were hasty reactions but any resistance would have been crushed without rebuilding the elements of national identity. The liberation movement helped to strengthen [Palestinian] identity and a national pride that will never die. The refugee camps did symbolize defeat, but the fedayeen [freedom fighters] made them into symbols of resilience. The act of resistance gave the tents and the keys of lost homes a positive meaning and they became one with Palestinian identity.
In the Palestinian case, speaking of identity is not merely a question of nostalgia; it is a central issue. Without a common identity, it would have been impossible to maintain a people dispersed around the world and whose generations intermixed with various cultures and languages. The Zionist movement, just as it was surprised by the ease in which it controlled the land, was also surprised by the Palestinians’ ability to safeguard their identity and collective memory. Zionists took control of land even though they had no real identity, while Palestinians safeguarded their history and identity even without their land.
This equation later formed the core of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle. New generations of Palestinians were able to inherit a national identity, along with the positive symbols of their struggle related to resistance, while Israelis remain fearful of not being able to maintain their control over the land.
On May 15, Palestinians all over the world commemorate the 66 anniversary of the Nakba. After two-thirds of a century and successive generations, and in light of all that changed, the questions remain: Does the nation still have the same meaning it had right after the Nakba? Is the nation still being inherited in its original image? Do the symbols invoked on this occasion still have the same impression on their bearers?
The answer to those question seems to lie in the analysis of the fundamental changes brought about by the Oslo Agreement and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The transformation struck at the heart of national institutions representing the Palestinians, as well as their economic classes and social life. This was reflected automatically in Palestinian culture.
On the institutional level, the PNA was expected to be in place for only five years, in which an agreement on the final solution would be reached, with the creation of “a state within the 1967 borders.” However, this institution kept growing and expanding at the expense of the PLO, which was turned into an empty vessel. The transformation in the roles of institutions impacted the representation and cohesion of the people. While the PLO represented its people everywhere, the PNA, officially, could only represent those who live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. With the weight of the cause shifting from the diaspora to the 1967 territories, the refugee issue was relegated to a question of negotiations, no more.
Refugees themselves started to realize the weakness of this representation in practice, not to mention the rearrangement of the links with Palestinians inside their country. Their common identity, which had been psychologically strengthened and represented by institutions after the Nakba seems to be on the decline. On the economic level, which is the main requisite to understand the social transformation, the PNA imposed a new economic order in the past two decades. It had an effect on social life for the whole population.
The middle class grew smaller to the benefit of a parasitic wealthy class made up of high-ranking PNA officials, senior managers in NGOs, which started spreading like a disease, and private company owners. On the other side, a new class was formed, oscillating between the middle and the poor and made up of an army of small employees, living off salaries paid by the international community.
The danger of this economic transformation becomes clear when knowing that a local productive base had already existed before Oslo. It provided the basic needs for a resilient people living under occupation, in addition to agriculture, which kept its role and social value. However, the post-Oslo economic system imposed a free market model in compliance with the Paris agreement. Over time, the old production base was eroded and jobs in the PNA replaced agricultural and artisanal work, which lost its value in the new consumerist society.
The PNA, especially during Salam Fayad’s term, consciously promoted the culture of bank loans. More than half of the population of the West Bank and Gaza became hostage to local banks. Curiously, resorting to loans was in order to keep up with the new social values imposed by that parasitic class. The rest were left to toil night and day to secure a living and keep pace with the imposed social values, at the expense of national concerns.
In relation to the trajectory of the PNA’s political power, these transformations are beginning to devastate Palestinians, as humans, after taking away their country. The PNA’s political conduct shattered the post-Nakba equation. The struggle today is no longer for a homeland, in every sense of the word, but for a piece of land that could be measured by square kilometers. The armed struggle to safeguard identity and common memory faded into negotiations on a state.
Discussing the question of a state, rather than speaking of a homeland, means that concessions will be pursued diplomatically and are subject to the balance of power within negotiations. The state is a political entity, prone to transformation, but the homeland is sacred and constant.
Based on the above analysis, this year’s anniversary should be welcome with extreme apprehension. It would be naive to be reassured by the known slogans about the right of return, while witnessing all this destruction against the Palestinian people. It would be politically foolish to keep asking refugees to remain resilient after more than half of a century, while they remain at the bottom of national interests.
We should not be too optimistic. Those who carry the keys to their grandfather’s house in Yafa and roam the streets of the West Bank and Gaza are also dreaming of immigration to Europe. We need to be afraid for a generation who are learning from geography books that erase half of their nation’s map. Today, we should care for the symbol bearers, not the symbols.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
ذكرى النكبة _ انور رجا ، عباس زكي ، المطران عطا الله حنا / الفضائية 15 05 2014
Palestinians shouts slogans nd wave their national flag during a demonstration supporting a new attempt to reconcile the militant Islamist movement Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Gaza City on May 14, 2014. (Photo: AFP-Mahmoud Hams)
Gaza: Palestinian rival factions, Fatah and Hamas, recently announced a landmark political pact. With two weeks left to form a new government, Azzam al-Ahmed, a Fatah central committee member in charge of the reconciliation file, is visiting Gaza for further deliberations. Though the pact lacked new incentives, Hamas was compelled to accept it due to prevailing circumstances. While Hamas continues to deny the existence of such circumstances, internal and regional political developments obviously confirm it.
Despite the recent agreement, security forces in Ramallah are still acting as the reconciliation never happened and continue to arrest and summon Hamas and Islamic Jihad members
Hamas seems eager to implement the reconciliation agreement with Fatah as soon as possible. Though Moussa Abu Marzouk, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, denied that the group’s financial troubles forced it to approve the agreement, statements by Gaza-based leader, Salah al-Bardawil, who called to speed up the government formation, suggested otherwise.
In this time of political and security instability in the Arab world, Hamas arrived to the negotiations table burdened by internal and external struggles, and exhausted due to political and financial hardships with former allies and geographic neighbors.
The other side, Fatah, was not doing much better either. President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas chose reconciliation following a deadlock in the negotiations with the Israelis, and internal disputes within Fatah.
Today, Hamas seems keen to put the reconciliation agreement forward. The Gaza government has been taking many measures concerning freedoms and political arrests, while the West Bank’s authorities appear to be delaying or totally ignoring dealing with such issues.
A few months before the reconciliation, Hamas took the initiative to free a number of Fatah prisoners, however the latter did not respond with a similar step. Despite the recent agreement, security forces in Ramallah are still acting as the reconciliation never happened and continue to arrest and summon Hamas and Islamic Jihad members.
Also, Hamas took the initiative and lifted the seven years ban on West Bank newspapers. A few days later, Fatah allowed Gaza’s papers to be distributed in the West Bank.
According to observers, the main challenge concerns the establishment of a technocrat government led by Abbas and holding the presidential and legislative elections within six months. Meanwhile, other thorny issues such as restructuring the security forces and repairing the Palestinian Liberation Organization shall be postponed until after the elections.
Azzam al-Ahmed, a Fatah central committee member in charge of the reconciliation file, is expected to launch a new round of negotiations with Hamas in Gaza today.
“During my two day visit, I will meet with Hamas leaders to discuss the formation of the new government,” Ahmed said, expecting to announce the unity government within two weeks.
Other Palestinian factions that weren’t involved in political strife, as well as common citizens, fear that the reconciliation process will be impeded, mainly because only 14 days are left to form the new government. They are also particularly worried about American and Israeli intervention.
Fatah official, Yehya Rabah, stressed that the reconciliation is an integral agreement, “its first pillar is the formation of a technocrat government, then holding the elections to renew the Palestinian legitimacy and put forward a new Palestinian political system.”
“After the government formation, all other issues will be addressed. The president and ministers appointed after the elections will deal with the security forces and other unresolved issues based on the Cairo and Doha accords,” Rabah further explained.
Meanwhile, Mustafa al-Bargouthy, a member of the PLO delegation who is also involved in the reconciliation process, had a different position. “How can we go to elections without resolving these issues, mainly political arrests?” Barghouthi asked, revealing that there are 40 political prisoners in the West Bank and that the authorities are still summoning others.
In an interview with Al-Akhbar, Barghouthi called to settle the issue of security bodies before the elections. “It is important to gradually integrate security forces starting with the civil defense and the police, then the preventive security forces, national security and intelligence services,” Barghouthi said.
How can we go to elections without resolving these issues, mainly political arrests?
Despite careful optimism expressed by officials and observers, Hamas’ main challenge is about reaching a common political agenda with the Palestinian Authority, which deems the peace process as the best option to resolve the conflict with Israel and to end the occupation.
Israeli media quoted deputy foreign minister in the Hamas government, Gazi Ahmed, as saying that his group’s approval of a state within 1967 borders is temporary “but it is the main pillar for reformulating a Palestinian national agenda and it is an important common issue with Fatah.”
Meanwhile, Rabah didn’t see substantial differences between Hamas and Fatah. He quoted Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, who said in 2011, that they would accept a Palestinian state within 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital. Rabah also quoted him as saying that Hamas “is ready to give a chance for negotiations if held under Abbas’ terms.”
Political analyst Hani Habib agreed. He said that the differences are not political, but rather concern the division of shares. “Hamas hailed Abbas’ recent speech in front of the central council when he said that the agenda of the unity government will be in the framework of his own negotiations program,” Habib elaborated.
“Hamas is getting ready to break the political embargo and is willing to approve any agreement that brings it back to the political arena,” Habib said in an interview with Al-Akhbar, adding “the reconciliation doesn’t involve influencing the armed opposition because it has been transformed into a truce in Gaza and a security coordination, which is still going on in the West Bank.”
Both parties insist that the future government doesn’t have any political agenda, even though it is to be headed by Abbas, the pioneer of the settlement project. They stress that the government’s role will be restricted to managing administrative issues in the West Bank and Gaza, while the political agenda will remain in the hands of the PLO.
Moustafa al-Barghouthi distinguished between three main missions that the future government is expected to accomplish: managing people’s everyday life, preparing for the coming elections, and dealing with the repercussions of the internal conflict that prevailed in the past few years.
According to Barghouthi, the issue of recognizing the state of Israel by the new government is not being discussed. “the Palestinian Authority’s institutions (PLO) is the only body required to recognize Israel, but no Palestinian faction or government has to recognize the occupation,” he said.
Meanwhile, observers warned that the unity government may be subjected to conditions set by the international quartet, which include recognizing Israel, rejecting violence and committing to previous agreements, a statement recently reiterated by Suzanne Rice, US national security adviser, in her meeting with Abbas in Ramallah.
In the meantime, Palestinians still remember the international boycott of the Palestinian government headed by Ismail Haniyeh in 2006 because it didn’t abide by those conditions. The government was unable to pay salaries, leading to a major crisis that eventually caused national divisions.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
If reaching a national reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas was so easy that it could be done in less than 24 hours, which is what happened this week, why have these two parties failed to do so for the past seven years?
Paris: Why did the numerous meetings, discussions, and Arab mediation efforts over the past few years fail to bridge the divide between Fatah and Hamas, while a fleeting visit by a delegation representing the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sent by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas to the Gaza Strip, was able to do so without any mediation?
Why did the 2011 Cairo Agreement and the 2012 Doha Declaration fail at a time when the proclaimed reconciliation is being accomplished today based on the terms of the two previous agreements?
Why did both sides encumber the Palestinian people with the burden of their dispute all this time if they were able to put an end to it? The more important and vital question is, if the dispute between Fatah and Hamas was a result of their clashing national programs and political visions, as they claim, does that mean that they finally managed to formulate a common national program?
The national reconciliation agreement that was announced clearly postulates the formation of a technocratic government made up of qualified figures in five weeks, having legislative and presidential elections after six months and renewing PLO institutions to pave the way for Hamas to join the organization.
This raises an obvious question about the common national program that will be presented to the Palestinians first and the international community second.
Have the fundamental differences between a party that sees peace as the only path to reach a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and another that believes in resistance in all its forms as a path to liberate historic Palestine been resolved? Or did one side succumb to the other’s strategy?
Modern Palestine Flaq
The statements issued by both sides indicate that the reconciliation agreement recognizes the Oslo Accords as the framework of the PA, which will renew its institutions through elections. Fatah leader, Azzam al-Ahmed stated very clearly: “We as Palestinians unanimously accept an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, solving the problem of the refugees, full sovereignty over all our territory, and no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.” Saeb Erekat preceded Ahmed stressing that “reconciliation is necessary to achieve peace.” Abbas himself did not miss the chance to assert that “there is no contradiction between reconciliation and negotiations.”
Hamas leaders on the other hand spoke in general terms. Member of the Hamas political bureau, Moussa Abu Marzouk, said: “The Palestinian people are the main supporters and sponsors of ending the division,” emphasizing that “the occupation is the sole beneficiary of Palestinian fragmentation.” He did not deny that implementing this agreement will face a lot of difficulties but he insisted on the necessity to “shake the dust and turn a new page by uniting and going forward towards reconciliation.”
But Abu Marzouk needs to tell us how is it possible to go forward if his political party does not answer the questions that were posed in 2006? What if the international community imposed its previous conditions on Hamas? What is his response to what Ahmed said about Palestinian unanimity regarding the two-state solution? Does he agree with Erekat that reconciliation is the way to peace?
The clarity with which Fatah leaders confirmed their traditional positions while Hamas leaders were evasive in responding to them clearly indicates that Hamas is the weakest link in this reconciliation.
Even though Abbas resorted to the reconciliation as a maneuver after failing to procure the bare minimum of his demands from Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, Hamas was forced into it after losing the Muslim Brotherhood – its primary source of support – and losing Syria and Iran as allies without gaining Qatar.
This means that both sides resorted to the so-called national reconciliation to improve their political positions and not because it is going to serve the Palestinian cause as they made it out to be. It is absolutely impossible to serve this cause in the absence of a clear and specific agreement on the nature of core national principles and how they can be achieved, whether through resistance, negotiations or a compromise between the two. The interest of the Palestinian cause can not be achieved given that one of the parties has been mired in futile negotiations for 20 years and another party fluctuates in its position depending on the regional and international circumstances whereby it calls for resistance but hesitates to practice it since 2006.
The reconciliation that they are touting confirms once again that the PA as an institution with the Oslo Accords as its frame of reference has become a point of consensus between all the parties. They disagree on their share but they do not disagree about it, otherwise, what is the point of Hamas returning to this authority through new elections after trying this path before, which has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that maneuvering from within this institution is an impossible task? If it justified its participation in the 2006 elections by the death of the Oslo Accords during the second Intifada, what is their justification this time?
How can Abbas threaten to hand over the keys of this authority at a time when he will call on the Palestinian people tomorrow to renew its legitimacy?
Had Abbas been serious about his threat, he would have used the national reconciliation agreement as an opportunity to call on all the Palestinian parties to embark on an open national workshop aimed at formulating scenarios and alternatives for the post-PA era.
If Hamas still adheres to the idea of historic Palestine, it would have refused to go through reconciliation on the basis of elections governed by the Oslo Accords.
But having all these questions lingering without answers, especially from Hamas, indicates that what happened in the Gaza Strip yesterday is nothing but a show, a form of political adolescence and hypocrisy practiced by the leaders of both sides against the Palestinian people. It is also a matter of divvying up interests and not ending the split. But even if we agree that this reconciliation truly ends the division, then it is doubtlessly at the expense of the Palestinian cause and its core principles.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
We all remember the schoolyard bully, the girl or boy who set the rules and forced the rest of us to play by those rules, enforced by threats of the loss of backpacks and lunch money.
In the past few years I have found it impossible to look at the current Israeli government as anything other than that bully on the Middle East playground.The latest example arrived this week when the Jewish Telegraph Agency reported:
“The Fatah party, led by P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas, on Wednesday signed an agreement with Hamas that would lead to a unity government within five weeks.”
Actually, that news lead was in the fifth paragraph of the JTA story. Setting the tone for all international mainstream media coverage, JTA’s solemn report began:
“Israel formally suspended peace talks with the Palestinian Authority over the P.A.’s national unity accord signed with the Hamas authority in the Gaza Strip.
“‘The Cabinet today unanimously decided that Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by Hamas, a terrorist organization that calls for Israel’s destruction,’ said a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released Thursday afternoon.”
Oh, the irony: Israel “formally suspended peace talks” they were determined to destroy from the outset.
This is Jon Stewart humor territory. He knows how to make fun of news reports in which the bully is the focus of the story, who stands in the playground corner and shouts, “Hamas is a terrorist organization that calls for Israel’s destruction.”
Pity the poor new kid in town who shouts in response, “so’s your old man; takes one to know one.” In an instant, that will be a kid without a backpack or lunch money.
The JTA has more to report from from the playground: “In addition, Israel will respond to unilateral Palestinian action with a series of measures.”
And what, pray tell, would those responses be?
JTA wants to be helpful, suggesting the obvious, “In the past, responses have included accelerated settlement building and suspending tax transfers to the Palestinian Authority.”
More Israeli settlement building and no Palestinian tax transfers? Nothing new there.
The Elders, an international group of veteran leaders, which includes former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, weighed in on the story in more measured tones:
“The Elders welcome the reconciliation agreement signed in Gaza on 23 April by Hamas and Fatah representatives. Since 2007, the Fatah-Hamas division has been the source of a rift between the West Bank and Gaza, making a viable peace between Israelis and Palestinians more challenging.”
Shorn of schoolyard language, the Elders described the agreement:
“The parties have agreed to form within five weeks an interim, technocratic Palestinian National Authority government and six months thereafter prepare for presidential and legislative elections in Palestine.”
The Elders issued a comment from Jimmy Carter, which in the context of schoolyard bullying banter, reads like a calming word of reassurance from a school grown-up:
“I commend the Palestinians for having secured this agreement, and I urge all parties to implement it swiftly, and in good faith. Any remaining differences must be resolved peacefully. When the Palestinians elect a new leadership — provided the elections are conducted in accordance with international standards — I strongly urge the international community to respect the democratic choices of the Palestinian people.”
These words are not welcome in the ruling circles in Israel nor the U.S. government, as was made obvious when, on cue from their Zionist handlers, congressional leaders rushed onto the playground to retaliate with their “instant call.”
“Wednesday’s announcement of a reconciliation between the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah triggered an instant call for retaliation on Capitol Hill.
“Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the author of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, called for an immediate suspension of US aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA).
“The 2006 law, passed after Hamas won that year’s legislative elections, prohibits support for a ‘Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority.’
“The Administration must halt aid to the Palestinian Authority and condition any future assistance as leverage to force Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] to abandon this reconciliation with Hamas and to implement real reforms within the PA.”
You want your school lunch money? You want your backpack? Then play by our rules, kid, or go home.
In conclusion, take three minutes to consider the scene below from Hebron, where the Israeli Defense Forces control the civilian population, from the old to the young.
James Wall is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. Many sources have influenced Jim’s writings over (more…)
Every year on November 29, approximately three quarters of a million Palestinian refugees whose families were forced into Syria and Lebanon, during the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe) and the 1967 Naksa (setback) along with their countrymen in more than 130 countries where they have sought refuge following their ethnic cleansing from their land, commemorate the infamous United Nations Resolution 181. Between Nov. 29, 1947, and Jan. 1, 1949, Zionist terrorists depopulated and destroyed more than 530 Palestinian villages and towns, killing more than 13,000 Palestinians and expelling more than 750,000, approximately half the population.
UN General Assembly resolution 181, adopted on November 29, 1947, purported to divide Palestine between the indigenous inhabitants and European colonists who arrived seeking to occupy and exploit Palestine and create an exclusive Jewish homeland. Under the UN plan, European Jews were granted more than fifty six per cent of historical Palestine while the native Palestinians, who owned ninety three per cent of the territory, were offered less than forty four percent of their own land. The partition vote was based on a UN Special Committee (UNSCOP) recommendation to divide the country into three parts: a Palestinian state with a population of 735,000, of which 725,000 were Palestinians and 10,000 Jews; a new Jewish state comprised of 499,000 Jews and 407,000 Palestinians, creating a new state with roughly less than sixty per cent Jewish majority.
Zionist leaders have never concealed their intentions especially when holding political gatherings. In addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut (the Eretz Israel Workers Party) days after the UN vote to partition Palestine, David Ben-Gurion expressed apprehension and told the party leadership:
“…the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40 per cent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority… There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 per cent.”
Ben Gurion, told Zionist leaders in December of 1947, “I don’t care if half the Jews in Europe have to die so the other half come to Palestine,” and ” Chaim Weizmann would later say: ‘With regard to the Arab question – the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.’”
To ensure an absolute Jewish majority, the Zionists’ “Transfer [Expulsion] Committee” waged a terror campaign to cleanse their part of the non-Jewish population. The “War [Expulsion] Committee” under the leadership of Ben Gurion, assigned ethnic cleansing language to its military operations, from Hebrew names such as Matateh (broom), Tihur (cleansing), Biur (a Passover quasi-religious expression meaning “to cleanse the leaven”) and Niku (cleaning up). Following Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1948, it accelerated the land grab strategy to secure an absolute Jewish majority. The Zionists assailed, depopulated, and occupied an additional thirty per cent of the land which had been designated for the future Palestinian state under the UN plan.
Today, 66 years after UNGA Resolution 181, virtually every political party and every religious authority in Lebanon boldly and regularly pays insincere lip service to the “sacred cause of Palestine”, as “the bloodstream issue for every Arab and every Muslim.” Each avers that in Lebanon “our brothers must live in dignity until they are able to return to Palestine” and that “for us Lebanese, as their hosts, to refuse them fewer human rights than even their Zionist oppressors allow them violates our religious duty for which certainly Allah (Christians typically insert “Jesus” or “God Almighty”) will justly condemn us to Hell on judgment day.” These politicians constitute part of the problem by even refusing to grant the fundamental civil rights to work or to own a home for Palestinian refugees trapped in Lebanon. Their words are hollow.
Some claimed supporters of Justice for Palestine actually follow the Zionist line by proclaiming that “The Palestinians have never been weaker politically and that regionally, they have no allies, and internally they have neither leadership nor popular resistance.” Others argue that there is “no political basis for any other solution to the conflict that two states without full right of return because no other solution has significant political support in the world.” Some claim that “It cannot be doubted that Israel’s political existence for the foreseeable future is secure. It is thriving economically and faces no significant military threats.”
None of these assertions is accurate in this observers view. On the contrary, recent Resistance achievements augur well for international support for a one state solution based on one person-one vote, no ‘chosen people’ or special religious status for some but not for the indigenous inhabitants.
For example, the United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly adopted five draft resolutions on the Question of Palestine. This year’s number of countries to vote in favor of draft resolutions on the Question of Palestine has increased compared to last year. The draft resolutions are:
A peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine: A majority of 165 countries have voted in favor of the draft resolution while six countries voted against it namely Israel, the United States, The Marshall Islands, Canada, Palau and Micronesia. Six states abstained from voting, namely: Cameroon, Australia, Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and South Sudan.
Jerusalem: A majority of 162 countries voted in favor of the draft resolution while six countries voted against it namely Israel, the United States, The Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Canada and Palau. The Special Information Program on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat: A majority of 163 countries voted in favor of the draft resolution while seven countries opposed it namely Israel, the United States, Australia, Canada, The Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.
Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People: A majority of 110 countries voted in favor of the draft resolution while seven countries opposed it namely Israel, the United States, Australia, Canada, The Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. 56 countries abstained. Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat: A majority of 108 countries voted in favor of the draft resolution while seven countries opposed it namely Israel, the United States, Australia, Canada, The Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.
International support for ending the Occupation of Palestine and ensuring Full Return is growing. So must Palestinian Resistance also expand utilizing the hundreds of forms of Resistance to the Zionist occupation until Palestine is liberated.
This region and the global community is entering deeper into the era and the culture of Resistance with respect to Palestine. Those who wring their hands, sometimes in feigned despair, while lamenting the asserted impossibility of gaining justice for Palestine and who instead counsel in favor of the trimming of sails and seeking safe harbor, enable both the continuing Zionist occupation and the delay of justice.
Franklin Lamb is a visiting Professor of International Law at the Faculty of Law, Damascus University for the 2013-2014 academic year. Lamb volunteers with the Sabra-Shatila Scholarship Program (sssp-lb.com) and is reachable clo fplamb@gmail.com
Source: Al-Manar Website
30-11-2013 – 09:44 Last updated 30-11-2013 – 09:44
“anti-Israelism could be transformed into rampant and rabid anti-Semitism”.
“the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism.
Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.
He is not sure and “wondering if honest future historians will conclude that one of the greatest ironies in all of human history, perhaps even the greatest, is in the fact that Zionism wanted and needed anti-Semitismin order to justify its criminal policies and actions to Jews everywhere and misinformed and therefore gullible gentiles in America and Europe.”
According to Alan, Zionism’s in-Israel’s leaders could tell an American president and the whole of the non-Jewish world to go to hell, they would not be stupid enough to say the same to the Jews of the world, Jewish Americans and Europeans especially.”
Allan can’t see that the zionist leaders, who can’t tell the jews of the world to go to hell, has send the Arab Jews of Iraq and other Arab countries to hell. They did the same to RABIN, the Israeli Dove of Peace (According Gilad Atzmon, the Hebrow speeaking Palestinian, “Shalom” = Peace and security for Jews only).
This video and the follwing pictures demontrate how Zionists deall with the ony real anti-zionist’s Jews, the “Paletinian Jews”.
PHOTOS
Finally Alan, never tire of dreaming about the great prize he worked for as Arafat (Father Palestine) and Perez since late 70’s. The prize is still“available to the Jews of the world and Israeli Jews especially if they did allow justice-driven reason to prevail. Generally speaking, they are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership, in one state with equal rights and security for all, they could change the region for the better and by so doing give new hope and inspiration to the whole world. Put another way, Jews and Palestinians in peace and partnership could become the light unto nations.”
The Real enemy of the Jews is not only the Zionism, its Jewishness. Get it Alan, and don’t be fooled by the so-called anti-zionists controlling the PSC. The are in fact anti-zionist-zionists. Here is a sample.
I was inspired (perhaps I should say provoked) to write this piece by something US Vice-President Joe Biden said in his speech to the recent J Street national conference in Washington DC. He recalled visiting Golda Meir when she was Israel’s prime minister and he was a junior senator. Her parting words to him were, he said, these: “We Jews have a secret weapon in our conflict with the Arabs. We have no place else to go.”Taken a face value what Golda said was obviously not true because there were then, as there still are, many countries to which Israeli Jews can go to start a new life if they wish. For the one million who have taken their leave of the Zionist (not Jewish) state for a better life elsewhere, America was and remains the first choice, but today Germany is also becoming popular. So what, really, was Golda’s message to Biden by implication?
Zionism’s raison d’être
In very low key “Mother Israel” was giving voice to Zionism’s raison d’etre (reason for being). The logic of it can be summarized as follows.
The world always has been anti-Semitic (meaning anti-Jew because Arabs are Semites, too) and always will be. So, Zionism takes it as a given that holocaust II – shorthand for another great turning against Jews – is inevitable. Israel therefore exists to be a safe haven, a refuge of last resort, an insurance policy for all the Jews of the world when that day comes. That’s why Israel has an unsatisfied hunger for more Palestinian land, an unquenchable thirst for more Palestinian water and a lust for the oil that has very recently been discovered in Palestine that became Israel.
And that in turn is why Zionism’s in-Israel leaders, assisted by their lobby and its associates and allies in America, will stop at nothing to advance their cause; a cause which requires, among other things, consolidating Zionism’s hold on the occupied West Bank and not ruling out a final ethnic cleansing of it, and the creation of a pretext to go to war with Lebanon again to take for keeps the south of that country up to the River Litani. (In a recent article Franklin Lamb made reference to an Israeli document which contains the text of a speech made in 1941 by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister. One particular sentence is circled by hand. “We have to remember that for the Jewish state’s ability to survive it must have within its borders the waters of the [rivers] Jordan and Litani.”)
In passing I have to say that one of the greatest promoters of the Jewish fear of a new upsurge of anti-Semitism is Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America. (A more appropriate name for his organization would be DIC – Defame Israel’s Critics.) A decade ago, in his address to the ADL’s 90th annual meeting in New York, he said: “We currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s – if not a greater one.”
In addition to its elected traitor agents in Congress, the Zionist lobby’s associates and allies include the non-Jewish neo-cons in various departments of state and the security services, a host of think tanks and the mainstream media, and the leaders of the tens of millions of deluded, mad, Christian fundamentalists. (This fundamentalism is historically anti-Semitic but supports Israel right or wrong because it sees the Zionist state as the instrument for bringing about Armageddon. For their part, Israel’s right wing leaders and their lobby courted and welcomed Christian fundamentalism because the alliance with it gave them maximum influence in Washington DC.)
The Jewish paradox
As I note in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the answer to the question of what Zionism would do in the event of mission failure was given to me by Golda Meir in one of my interviews with her for the BBC’s flagship “Panorama” programme. She said that in the event of a doomsday situation, Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it.”
Israel was created by Zionism to guarantee the wellbeing and existence of the Jews, but that wellbeing and perhaps even existence is most seriously threatened by Zionism’s policies and actions
The Jewish paradox comes down to this. Israel was created by Zionism to guarantee the wellbeing and existence of the Jews, but that wellbeing and perhaps even existence is most seriously threatened by Zionism’s policies and actions.
How can that possibly be true?
What we are witnessing today is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism. It is not a manifestation of anti-Semitism, meaning that it’s not being driven by prejudice against or loathing and even hatred of Jews just because they are Jews. Anti-Israelism is being provoked by Israel’s arrogance of power, its sickening self-righteousness and its contempt for international law in general and the rights of the Palestinians in particular.
The danger for Jews everywhere is that anti-Israelism could be transformed into rampant and rabid anti-Semitism. The most explicit warning that this could happen was given voice by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving director of military intelligence. In his book, Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in English in 1988, he wrote this (my emphasis added):
Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.
Harkabi also noted that Israel’s biggest enemy was its own self-righteousness. If he was alive today I would suggest to him for comment that if “enemy” can be defined as a force with the ability and real intention to destroy Israel by military means, self-righteousness is the only enemy of the Zionist state.
The real enemy of the Jews
Harkabi was not the first Jew to warn of the danger of Israel becoming a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism, and he was in very good Jewish company. Prior to the Nazi holocaust most Jews everywhere were opposed to Zionism’s colonial-like enterprise. They believed it was morally wrong (which, of course, it was) and would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.
As I write I find myself wondering if honest future historians will conclude that one of the greatest ironies in all of human history, perhaps even the greatest, is in the fact that Zionism wanted and needed anti-Semitismin order to justify its criminal policies and actions to Jews everywhere and misinformed and therefore gullible gentiles in America and Europe.
At school I was given what I still believe to be the best definition of a paradox – “The truth standing on its head to attract attention.” One such truth is this. There is no such thing as a “Palestine problem”. There is only a Jewish problem in and over Palestine that became Israel.
The headline over an article by Bradley Burston in Ha’aretz on the first day of this year was “Will 2013 be the year American Jews secede from Israel?”One of his concluding paragraphs was this: “American Jews want to know what is being done in their name. In the name of Judaism. And if they think that it is self-destructive, oppressive, blockheaded and wrong, it stands to reason they would want it to stop.“
The gentile me has a problem with that expression of hope.
If reason prevailed…
The evidence is that while a growing but still smallish number of American Jews are publicly critical of Israel’s policies and actions, very many, still the majority, are remaining silent and don’t want to know what Zionism is doing in their name; and while that remains the case there is no prospect of reason prevailing in enough Jewish minds to change the course of history.
…while it is perfectly possible that Zionism’s in-Israel’s leaders could tell an American president and the whole of the non-Jewish world to go to hell, they would not be stupid enough to say the same to the Jews of the world, Jewish Americans and Europeans especially. How it could be changed if reason was assisted to prevail can be simply stated. If a majority of American and European Jews were prepared to openly acknowledge the wrong done to the Palestinians in Zionism’s name, and then insist that the wrong be righted on terms acceptable to the Palestinians, any Israeli government would have to change course and be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept.
What I really mean is that while it is perfectly possible that Zionism’s in-Israel’s leaders could tell an American president and the whole of the non-Jewish world to go to hell, they would not be stupid enough to say the same to the Jews of the world, Jewish Americans and Europeans especially. That stands to reason – doesn’t it?
On public speaking platforms (as in my book) I never tire of giving voice to my thoughts about the great prize available to the Jews of the world and Israeli Jews especially if they did allow justice-driven reason to prevail. Generally speaking, they are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership, in one state with equal rights and security for all, they could change the region for the better and by so doing give new hope and inspiration to the whole world. Put another way, Jews and Palestinians in peace and partnership could become the light unto nations. Dream on, Alan.
Note
An indication that Netanyahu is alarmed by the possibility of a majority of Jewish Americans demanding or even requesting that Israel be serious about making peace on terms the Palestinians could accept is in the following.
The Israeli American Council recently commissioned the distribution of leaflets to thousands of Jewish Americans asking them where their allegiance would lie in the event of a real crisis between the US and Israel. The leaflet was originally endorsed by representatives of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. When Netanyahu learned of this endorsement he directed the ministry to disassociate itself from the questionnaire.
I think it’s reasonable to assume he was worried by the prospect of the survey indicating that in the event of a showdown between himself and President Obama, a majority of Jewish Americans would be Americans first and not Israel firsters.
وضع الرئيس بشار الأسد، في حديثه لقناة «الميادين»، النقاط على الحروف في ما يتصل بالموقف من «حماس»؛ فأولاً، على «حماس» أن تحدّد خيارها الاستراتيجي: أهي تنتمي إلى المقاومة أم إلى الإخوان المسلمين؟ وثانياً، على «حماس» أن تكف عن البحث بين العواصم عن مكان ودور؛ فمكانها في وطنها، ودورها ــــ إن أرادت ــــ هو المقاومة.
هكذا، أخرج الرئيس النقاش حول المصالحة التي يُروّج لها بين محور الممانعة والمقاومة وبين حركة «حماس»، من تفاصيل اليوميات إلى مستوى الفكرة الاستراتيجية؛ فالمقاومة ليست بندقية. المقاومة نهج شامل. وقد خرجت «حماس» عن هذا النهج. طعنته في أصعب الأوقات، وانزاحت عنه إلى المشروع الاخونجي القطري ــــ التركي المرعيّ أميركياً، والمتواطئ اسرائيلياً. وهي لم تراجع انزياحها هذا في صحوة ضمير، بل تحت الضغوط الناجمة عن سقوط حكم الإخوان المسلمين في مصر، وانكفائه عربياً، على خلفية الصمود السوري. وهذه المراجعة هي، إذاً، كما قال الأسد، محض انتهازية. والانتهازية سلوك سياسي متجذر لدى الاخوان المسلمين منذ تأسيسها. والسذّج، فقط، هم الذين يثقون بالإخونجي القادر دائماً على طعن محتضنيه في ظهورهم، حالما يستشعر شيئاً من القوة، ثم يعود للركوع حالما ينتابه الضعف.
لقد حرّض مؤسس «الإخوان»، في لحظة قوّة موهومة، تنظيمه الخاص على شن عمليات إرهابية في نهاية العصر الملكي في مصر، ثم، حين وقع التنظيم في الأسر، تخلى عنه، وأصدر بيانه الشهير: «ليسوا اخواناً وليسوا مسلمين». ولكن هؤلاء المنكَرين أنفسهم هم الذين حاولوا اغتيال القائد القومي جمال عبدالناصر، وهم الذين تصدّوا لمشروعه الوطني التنموي باعتباره كفراً، بل وأثّموا الصلاة في الأرض التي انتزعتها الناصرية من الاقطاعيين، ومنحتها للفلاحين الفقراء.
لا يمكن أن يكون تنظيمٌ ما، كائناً ما كانت شعاراته، إخونجياً ومقاوماً في آن واحد؛ فالأخونة خط سياسي منسول من الاستعمار والرجعية، طائفي، انتهازي، معاد للوطنية وللعروبة والتحرر الوطني والتقدم الاجتماعي.
والمقاومة، في المقابل، ليست بندقية وصاروخاً؛ إنها خط سياسي استراتيجي شامل، أهم عناصره الوطنية.
والوطنية هي انتماء إلى وطن محدد متشكّل من أرض وحدود وبشر وثقافة ومجتمع، له قضية ومصالح، هي، بالنسبة للوطني، فوق كل قضية ومصلحة.
وهذا، كما هو معروف، خارج حسابات «الإخوان» المنتمين إلى تنظيم هو فوق وطني، ومصالحه تعلو على أي مصلحة وطنية. وأقرب الشواهد، «حماس» نفسها التي وضعت مصالح التنظيم الاخواني العالمي في مصر وتركيا وتحالفاته الغربية والخليجية، فوق المصالح العيانية والاستراتيجية لقضية الوطن الفلسطيني المحتل، فأدارت ظهرها للدول والقوى التي تدعمها لأنها فلسطينية، لصالح الدول والقوى التي تريدها كورقة رابحة ــــ باسم فلسطين ــــ للمشروع الإخواني.
والوطنية، في معناها الاجتماعي الثقافي، هي إحلال وحدة المكوّنات الوطنية ــــ بغض النظر عن العرق والدين والمذهب والثقافة الفرعية وأنماط السلوك الحياتي، فوق كل انقسام أو انشقاق إلا ذلك المرتبط بالتحرير بالنسبة للأوطان المحتلة ــــ كما هي حال فلسطين ــــ وإلا على أساس طبقي بالنسبة للأوطان التي تريد استكمال استقلالها بالتنمية الوطنية الاجتماعية. ولم تعط حماس أي دليل على وطنيتها في هذا المجال أيضا؛ فهي تنظيم طائفي ومذهبي ويسعى، كما هو حاصل في غزة، إلى قمع التيارات الفكرية والتنظيمات السياسية والثقافات المجتمعية التي لا تتطابق مع الموديل الحمساوي.
تبحث «حماس» اليوم عن ملاذ. «حماس» لديها ملاذها الوطني في غزة على أرض فلسطين، ووجودها خارج الوطن لا معنى له سوى البحث عن دور إقليمي لا تحتاجه فلسطين. يمكن أن تكون لحركات التحرر الوطني مكاتب تمثيلية واعلامية بسيطة خارج أرضها، ولكن اصرارها على حضور سياسي قيادي كامل في المنفى لم يعد مفهوماً، خصوصاً بعدما أصبحت غزة خارج الاحتلال. هناك، بالطبع، مصاعب جمّة يعيشها الغزيون؛ فلتعشها قيادات وكادرات «حماس» أيضا، وتلتحم بشعبها وناسها، وتتيح للفصائل والقيادات الفلسطينية الأخرى، حرية الوجود والحركة في الأرض المحررة،
أما حياة المنافي والمداخلات السياسية في الشؤون الإقليمية، فلا مكسب منها للقضية الفلسطينية، وإنما للقيادات وارتباطاتها السياسية وغير السياسية.
مكان الفصائل الفلسطينية هو في فلسطين، للفعالية والبناء والمقاومة، وكذلك لتقديم المثال لمئات الآلاف من الفلسطينيين ممن يستطيعون العيش في فلسطين، ويهجرونها مختارين، أما أولئك الذين لا يستطيعون العودة فعلاً، فعلى الرحب والسعة، وفي سياق مهمة مركزية هي النضال الجدي المثابر من أجل العودة؛ فقضية فلسطين، في النهاية، هي قضية حرية وسيادة الفلسطيني على أرضه.
أعلنها رئيس المقاومة بوضوح: صيغة مقاومة المنافي أصبحت من الماضي.
Promoting “one state” after the failure of the “two states” means in plain language:
1) Inviting the Zionist entity to ANNEX and OCCUPY what is left of Palestine.
2) Blessing the invaders with the “right” to keep their LOOT of whatever they have captured through wars of conquest and aggression.
3) Enabling the invaders to ENLARGE and EXPAND their entity, a small step towards a “greater israel”.
4) Embracing the finalization of the Zionist project.
5) Campaigning to upgrade the Palestinians’ status from “occupied” to “slaves”, living under the boot of Jewish supremacists who see Palestinians and other goyim as animals created only to serve Jews.
Are we so naive to engage promoting such insanity?
No alternative to the Algerian model of FULL LIBERATION
Map of “greater Israel” engraved on 10 agorot coin
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on Friday that the demise of Israel is a national interest, stressing that the “Shiite” Hezbollah will continue to bear its responsibilities towards the Palestinian cause and Al-Quds.
In a live speech before crowds marking the International Al-Quds Day in Dahiyeh, Sayyed Nasrallah paid tribute to late Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who designated the last Friday in the holy month of Ramadan as Al-Quds Day, and said that people are in critical need to commemorate this day.
“On the seventh of August 1979, meaning few months from the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Imam Khomeini issued a statement calling on all vulnerable peoples in the world to consider as Al-Quds Day the last Friday of the month of Ramadan, and this call was confirmed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “The goal of this call was to remind Muslims and the world of the Palestinian cause and benefit from this occasion to mobilize energies in order to save Al-Quds and Palestine from the hands of the Zionists and to highlight what Palestine and its people are suffering from starvation, Judaization and siege,” He continued.
On the second of August 2013, we desperately need to commemorate the occasion, Sayyed Nasrallah said, pointing out that “Palestine which we are talking about is the whole of Palestine from the sea to the river, which should return fully to its people no one of the world’s Sheikh or Sayyed or Prince nor King or President or a government to give up or abandon one grain of sand from the soil of Palestine, or a drop of its water, oil, or a piece of its land and does not have a mandate to do so.”
Demise of Israel a National Interest
“Imam Khomeini had described Israel accurately when he called it a cancerous tumor, and it is really a tumor that kills, the only solution is to eradicate it without giving it any opportunity or surrender and eradicate,” He said, emphasizing that “Israel represents a constant and enormous threat not only on Palestine and the Palestinians, this is an illusion and misinformation and ignorance. Israel is a threat to all peoples and countries of the region, with its security and sovereignty and he who deny this is an arrogant.”
“Some might think that the demise of Israel is a Palestinian interest, it’s rather a national interest of each country of the region, and it is a threat to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, thus the disappearance of Israel is a national Jordanian, Syrian, Egyptian and Lebanese interest,” He said.
The S.G. indicated that anyone who faces and resists the Zionist project anywhere in our region and the world is not only defending Palestine but also defending his homeland, his people and his own dignity and the future of his grandchildren and children, pointing out that the responsibility is comprehensive for every Palestinian and every Arab, Muslim, and Christian in the world because it’s a rightful cause, and the size of the liability may vary from people to another and from country to country, but it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people in the first hand.”
“Defending Al-Quds is the responsibility of everybody, the least responsibility we all bear and which we will be asked for in the Day of Judgment is to not recognize the Zionist entity and Israel’s legitimacy,” he said.
New Enemies Invented to Forget the Real Enemy
Unfortunately, Sayyed Nasrallah continued, some in the Arab world who are backed by the states and governments of the West are blocking and preventing this priority and are pushing peoples to endorse other priorities and are inventing new wars. “First they spoke of the communist expansion and Palestine was forgotten and they spent billions for that purpose. Then they invented the Iranian or Persian expansion and a war that cost billions was waged against Iran, all their military capabilities were mobilized against this ‘enemy’. Had they spent only one tenth on Palestine, it would have been liberated.” Conflicts Political, Not Sectarian
They then invented an enemy calling it the “Shiite expansion” and said the priority is confronting the Shiite threat because it poses a greater threat to the nation than the Zionist scheme, Sayyed Nasrallah said, warning that the sectarian strife weapon is the most destructive weapon in the region.
His Eminence said that what’s worse is that they gave some local conflicts a sectarian nature. Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that all people who sponsor the Takfiri trend across the Islamic world and push them to the battlefields and to committing murders bear the primary responsibility of destruction and serve the Zionist entity. “Is not it time for peoples to recognize that there is who aims at demolishing the region with its peoples and armies and split it to Christians, Sunnites, Shiites, Druze, Ismaeli, Persians and Kurds?” His eminence wondered. “Unfortunately, we have no decision to point at the states that sponsor this destructive project which is the most dangerous project in the region.”
Sayyed Nasrallah considered that the conflict in Egypt is political, not sectarian, noting that in Libya and Yemen, there is an enormous political conflict. But in the countries of diversity, the political conflict become sectarian; this is what is being done.
Sayyed Nasrallah called on resolving the conflicts in each country via political dialogue and halting the bleeding starting from Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and ending in Libya, because wherever these Takfiri groups exist, there will be calamities. “Hezbollah has always called on looking for the common things and postponing or organizing the discords, and we are in need of this methodology because some discords shake the economy and security, yet nowadays the discords have become destructive,” Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out. “There are some from the other trend who opened fire on all the so-called Islamic trend,” he said, wondering, “Whom does this serve? Where will this enormous anarchy lead? Efforts must be united to defeat this ripping, sabotage project for the sake of the entire nation.”
“We are committed to our constants and priorities that make our enemies antagonize us and sometimes our friends admonish, yet understand us.”
We, the Shiites, Won’t Abandon Palestine
“Hezbollah will keep beside Palestine and the Palestinians, and we are after strong relations with all the Palestinian factions despite our differences regarding some Palestinian and Syrian issues. Al-Quds must unite us regardless of any jurisprudential, political, national, religious or ideological dispute,” the S.G. said.
The Hezbollah leader thanked Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic for all what they provided for Palestine, al-Quds, and the resistance factions in Palestine and Syria.
“Hezbollah will keep the vigilant and alert resistance to protect Lebanon and its people and to confront the enemy’s greediness alongside with the Lebanese National army that we greet its leadership, officers, soldiers, and martyrs. We also have to mention Sayyed Moussa Sader who guided us to this right path, asking the new Libyan authorities to tackle this serious issue, with a sense of responsibility.”
“Nowadays, the sectarian incitement is being broadcast through media outlets, satellite channels, websites and social networks against the Shiites, and those who are backing and funding this trend are themselves backing some Shiites to carry out the same missions so that we witness the massacres and car bombs, especially in Iraq. This language was activated after the Syrian crisis so that the Shiites forget Palestine and start to hate Palestine and the Palestinians. Some forces want the Shiites to get out of the Arab-Israeli conflict, meaning that Iran has to get out of this conflict. They want us to reach this conclusion.”
Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the U.S., Zionist Entity, UK and all their tools, saying: On al-Quds Day, which is the last Friday of Holy Ramadan, we the twelver Shiites will not abandon Palestine, the Palestinian people and sanctities.”
“Hezbollah, the Islamic Shiite party, will not abandon Palestine, al-Quds, and the holy sites of the nation. We were born and arisen on bearing the responsibility of defending Palestine and Al-Quds. We – the Shiites- won’t abandon this cause never ever. Describe us as rejectionists, describe us as terrorists, describe us as criminals, say whatever you want and keep killing us at every front, at the door of every mosque, we the Shiites of Ali bin Abi Taleb will not abandon Palestine,” Sayyed Nasrallah ended up saying.
Source: Al-Manar Website
02-08-2013 – 19:28 Last updated 02-08-2013 – 22:28
The U.S. Secretary of State cannot meet with a delegation from the 22-member Arab League in Petra, Jordan. as Kerry did on July 17, and expect his strategy to retain confidential.
Abbas and Kerry by WAFA. It appeared in The Palestine Chronicle.
(CHICAGO) – Nicola Nasser, a blogger from Bir Zeit, Palestine, has delivered a stinging rebuke to John Kerry on the eve of the meetings with the U.S., Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.
When preparations for the talks began, Kerry asked Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas not to comment on the conversations they had with Kerry prior to the Washington meeting.
Sorry, Mr. Secretary, but If the Edward Snowden/NSA fiasco has taught us anything, it is this: There are no secrets in the internet age.
The U.S. Secretary of State cannot meet with a delegation from the 22-member Arab League in Petra, Jordan. as Kerry did on July 17, and expect his strategy to retain confidential.
Certainly not with bloggers like Nasser writing under this blunt headline, ”Kerry Uses Arabs to Bully Palestinians”,
This is how Nasser began his posting:
A new tactic by US Secretary of State John Kerry is causing a split within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) ranks regarding further talks with Israel. Kerry is apparently using the Arab League’s Follow-Up Committee on the Arab Peace Initiative (FCAPI) to bully the Palestinians into accepting new ground rules for the talks to which they had objected in the past.
In his sixth tour of the region as secretary of state, Kerry did something unusual. Instead of visiting Israel, as he always does, he left it out of his itinerary, deciding instead to hold most of the talks in the Jordanian capital Amman. While there, he conferred with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as well as members of the FCAPI.
As the talks progressed, it became clear that Kerry was no longer focusing on Israel, the country that has torpedoed all previous attempts at peace, but on the PLO. His aim is to get the latter to offer more concessions than any they have accepted in the past. . . . .
The tactic is not totally new, for it resonates with the manner in which US diplomats have used the Arab League to justify foreign intervention for the sake of regime change in countries such as Iraq and Libya in the past.
The Petra meeting was hosted by Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs Nasser Judeh. When the Jordan News Agency reported on the meeting. It remained faithful to the western narrative:
The Petra meeting was hosted by Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs Nasser Judeh. When the Jordan News Agency reported on the meeting. It remained faithful to the western narrative:
The delegation, which included Arab foreign ministers and permanent representatives at the Arab League of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Palestine, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Secretary General of the Arab League, praised the efforts made by US President Barak Obama and Secretary Kerry, and their commitment to achieve peace.
The FCAPI delegates also remained in western mode:
Speaking after a meeting with Kerry in Amman, FCAPI diplomats voiced their “great support” for Kerry’s efforts to revive the talks. Their remarks were seen as a “victory” for Kerry, said the Associated Press. It was a “success” for his diplomacy, added
The New York Times
.
Meanwhile, Nasser’s posting from Bir Zeit swept through the Middle East.
When Kerry initially asked participants for confidentiality, he appeared to be dropping a hint that he was working for a surprise ending. This lured some of us into hoping Kerry might revert to the fairness approach of the first President George Bush and his Secretary of State, James Baker. The choice by Kerry of Martin Indyk, former AIPAC staffer. as his point person pretty much scuttled that dream.
Of course, long gone are, dare we say it, the halcyon days of President Jimmy Carter, when a U.S. President really was an honest broker.
The only successful U.S. mediation between Israelis and Arabs was conducted by President Jimmy Carter
(right)
at Camp David in 1978. Carter managed to bridge the gaps that had led Israel and Egypt to go to war three times previously by being the ultimate honest broker.
In his book about Camp David, Gen. Moshe Dayan, who was then Israel’s foreign minister, described how Carter would keep the pressure on both sides equally, telling President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin, in turn, that if the talks failed, he would publicly name who was responsible.
All during the long arduous process that produced a peace treaty that has survived 34 years, Carter refused to act as either side’s advocate. His only client was peace and that is how he achieved an agreement.
For a time, it appeared that when he brought new leaders back to Camp David, Bill Clinton would keep his promises to Israel and the PLO. Alas, political expediency appears to have led Bill Clinton astray. Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery recalls what happened:
In the past, the US has broken such promises without blushing. For example, before the Camp David meeting, President Bill Clinton gave Yasser Arafat a solid promise that he would blame neither side for a failure. (Since the meeting was convened without the slightest preparation, failure was predictable.)
After the conference, Clinton put the blame squarely – and wrongly – on Arafat, a vile act of political opportunism, designed to help his wife get elected in New York.
As it turns out, Clinton’s wife did get elected to that Senate seat from New York, from which she moved on to serve as Secretary of State. She was succeeded by John Kerry, who is a victim of a changing, and increasingly dark, political landscape in which the Israel Lobby and the U.S. Congress leave him and President Obama little room to maneuver.As it turns out, Clinton’s wife did get elected to that Senate seat from New York, from which she moved on to serve as Secretary of State. She was succeeded by John Kerry, who is a victim of a changing, and increasingly dark, political landscape in which the Israel Lobby and the U.S. Congress leave him and President Obama little room to maneuver.
In his posting, Nicola Nasser referred to “concessions” Kerry asked of Abbas. This strongly suggests that Kerry had already gained what few “concessions” he could pry out of Netanyahu.
For his part, President Abbas has, no doubt, given John Kerry his wish list for any future peace accord. The easiest wish Netanyahu could grant is a grudging release of Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu will play with the prisoners like they are poker chips. He will hold them until he decides to release some “in stages” throughout the negotiations.
John Kerry should be able to deliver his promises of Palestinian economic development, which is certainly needed. But what sort of economy can be developed under the restraints of an internationally illegal military occupation? What about the rebuilding of the Palestinian airport in Gaza? An airport is always helpful for a nation’s trade purposes. Don’t count on it.
A major Palestinian demand for reaching some sort of peace agreement is the end of all illegal Israeli settlement growth. Not a chance. Israel plays the peace process game not to give away ill-gotten gains, but to protect them.
So where can this peace gathering go? It remains an outside possibility that strong voices within the Palestinian leadership will refuse to let Abbas give in to the U.S. bullying tactic. But thus far, limited prisoner release and additional economic development are strong incentives to send Mahmoud Abbas on yet another hat-in-hand journey to pick up what benefits are promised him.
On the day before the Washington talks were set to begin Monday, some of the strong voices voiced their disapproval of the talks. The Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported on demonstrations in Ramallah.<!–
Hundreds of Palestinians marched in Ramallah on Sunday to protest a return to negotiations with Israel. Demonstrators marched from the city center towards President Abbas’ headquarters in the Muqata, chanting slogans condemning the Palestinian Authority’s decision to return to talks.
Four Palestinian Authority police officers and three protesters were injured when both sides clashed during the march, which was organized by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
دفاعاً عن المقاومة .. لا عن حماس …..بقلم سامي كليب
حركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس متهمة بالتورط في أحداث مصر دفاعاً عن «جماعة الإخوان المسلمين» ومتهمة بالقتال في سوريا، ومتهمة بتخفيض سقف المواجهة مع إسرائيل. قد يكون كل ذلك صحيحاً وقد لا يكون، لكن في منطق خصومها لا بد للحركة من العودة إلى مكانها الطبيعي في غزة.
لماذا وصلت حماس إلى هذا الوضع؟
عاشت الحركة نشوة كبيرة بعد وصول «الإخوان» إلى عدد من المواقع في دول «الربيع العربي». صار رئيس المكتب السياسي في الخارج خالد مشعل يُستقبل كرؤساء الدول من مصر إلى قطر إلى تونس وصولا إلى تركيا.
اختفت أصوات كانت تجاهر بشكر إيران وسوريا. علا صوت مادحي قطر وأنقرة ومصر محمد مرسي، برغم أن من طالهم المديح لم يوصلوا في تاريخهم صاروخاً إلى المقاومين، وإنما أبقوا على علاقات علنية مع إسرائيل في عز قتلها لأطفال وأمهات ومقاومي فلسطين.
غالباً ما تدفع النشوة إلى أخطاء في القراءة. بعض الأخطاء قد يكون قاتلاً أو يكاد.لم تكن حركة حماس بحاجة مثلا لتخفيض منسوب الخطاب المقاوم والحديث عن حدود العام 1967 والاتفاق مع الرئيس محمود عباس على وقف الأعمال المسلحة (وفق ما يروي عباس نفسه، واستناداً إلى بعض خطابات خالد مشعل).
يروي الكاتب المصري محمد حسنين هيكل أن «حماس تعهدت، عبر الوساطة التي قام بها محمد مرسي مؤخراً، بعدم إطلاق أي صواريخ على إسرائيل، وهو ما مكن خالد مشعل من زيارة غزة والتحرك فيها بحرية»، برغم أن الناطق باسم حماس سامي أبو زهري نفى ذلك في حواره مع قناة «الميادين» قبل يومين.
لم تكن حماس مضطرة أيضاً إلى قطع كل الجسور مع سوريا وإيران و«حزب الله» قبل أن تستعيد العبور على بعض هذه الجسور كي لا تفقد الدعم المادي والعسكري…
لكن هل بدأت مشكلة المحور الإيراني- السوري و«حزب الله» مع حماس في مطلع «الربيع العربي» أم أن لها جذوراً أبعد وأعمق كرستها انعطافة حماس مع رياح «الإخوان المسلمين»؟
تدور بعض الحكايات حول حرب غزة الأولى أواخر العام 2008 ومطلع العام 2009. لم تكن طهران آنذاك مرتاحة لغياب أي شكر في كلام خالد مشعل لها بعد الحرب. شكر الجميع تقريباً إلا هي.
تكرر الأمر برغم أن البعض نصحه بأن يفعل، خصوصاً أن إيران كانت تقدم المال والسلاح للحركة. كان مقربون من القيادي الحمساوي الأكثر نشاطاً في الخارج يقولون إن مثل هذه الالتفاتة إلى إيران قد تؤثر على العلاقة مع عدد من الدول الأخرى، وبينها مصر والخليج.
تكرر ذلك بعد حرب غزة الثانية. شكر مشعل الجميع وغيّب عمداً إيران وسوريا. جاءه النصح نفسه، لكنه تجنب ذلك، فتولى الأمر رمضان عبدالله شلح من على رئاسة الجهاد وبعض قادة حماس وبينهم محمود الزهار.
وصل الأمر بمشعل وبعض قادة حماس إلى رفع علم مايسمى “الثورة” في سورية ضد الدولة السورية الذي دعمت طويلا حماس.
اشترط مشعل قبل مغادرته سوريا أنه إذا التقى الرئيس بشار الأسد فلا بد أن يغيب الإعلام.
سارع الرئيس السوري إلى طي الصفحة معه برغم أنه أعطى تعليمات بعدم التعرض لمكاتب الحركة.
سارت الرياح بما لا يشتهي احد. تعددت التقارير الأمنية السورية حول تورط بعض رجال حماس في الحرب. انقطعت العلاقة نهائياً. غادرت حماس إحدى ابرز ساحات دعمها وتحركها. وصل الأمر بالحركة إلى حد مطالبة «حزب الله» بالانسحاب من سوريا. يبتسم احد المقربين من الحزب. يقول «ماذا لو أقدم حزب الله اليوم على مطالبة حماس بالانسحاب من مصر؟».
لعل خطأ الحركة مع «الربيع العربي» أنها وضعت كل أوراقها في أمكنة أخرى، تعرف مسبقاً أنها لن تقف إلى جانبها ضد إسرائيل في أحوال الحرب، وإنما قد تدفعها دفعاً صوب التسويات. ولم تكن حماس مضطرة لأن تجاري تيار «الإخوان المسلمين» في كل سياستهم، لأن تلك السياسات محكومة بقوانين الدول والاتفاقيات الدولية، بينما حماس ليست دولة. ولم تكن حماس أخيراً مضطرة للإيحاء للشريك الفلسطيني بأنها صارت بغنى عنه. لعل الحياد مع دول الأزمات العربية كان أفضل لإبقاء الحركة دائرة في هامش أوسع.
ربما لدى حماس ما يبرر كل هذا. لها الحق مثلا في أن تفكر في لحظة النشوة بأنها انتظرت عقوداً طويلة قبل أن تجد السجاد الأحمر مفروشاً لها. ولها الحق في أن تقرر في لحظة الثورات أن الوقت حان لكي تعود «درة تاج الإخوان» وتستفيد من هذا الموقع لتحسين شروطها ضد إسرائيل، ولها الحق ربما في أن تقرر في لحظة فورة انعدام الرؤيا العربية والإسلامية، أنها لا تستطيع إلا أن تدافع عن أهل” السنة” ضد نظام سوري صورته أنظمة «الإخوان» وبعض الأنظمة الأخرى على أنه يقاتل أهل” السنة”. ساءت العلاقة ثم انقطعت مع سوريا، ولكل طرف أسبابه التي شرحها بالتفصيل، لكن دمشق راحت تنعت حماس بصفات تصل إلى مستوى «الخيانة»، وانقطع بالتالي كل دعم سوري أو إيراني لأكثر من عامين.
ومع ذلك، فإن ما يحدث اليوم هو اخطر من هذا وذاك. هو أبعد من كل القراءات الآنية عند هذا الطرف أو ذاك. فبعد أن نجح أعداء المقاومة والعروبة والسيادة في تفكيك عدد من الدول العربية الكبيرة التي دعمت فلسطين وقضايا الأمة، يشعر هؤلاء بأن الفرصة مؤاتية الآن للقضاء على المقاومة العربية. وما لم ينجح بالفتنة المذهبية ضد «حزب الله» قد ينجح بتأليب حماس ومصر على بعضهما البعض فتضيع القضية في خلافات الأشقاء.
لا شك أن حماس مطالبة بإعادة قراءة إستراتيجيتها، وأنها بحاجة للعودة إلى المربع الذي هو مجالها الأفضل والأرحب، أي مقاومة المحتل الإسرائيلي الغاصب والغاشم. ولن يضيرها مطلقاً الاعتراف بأنها أخطأت في بعض الإستراتيجيات، ولكن لا شك أيضاً أن الآخرين بحاجة إلى قراءة صحيحة لما يجري في حماس وحولها، لنفهم أن رأسها مطلوب وأن الخطط المقبلة تريد القضاء على كل شيء اسمه مقاومة في الشرق الأوسط.
ربما وقعت حماس في فخ النشوة وفي أفخاخ من زين لها أن الطريق معبدة لخيارات أخرى، وهي بصدد دفع أثمان غالية عنها وربما عن مجمل تيار «الإخوان المسلمين»، لكن هل ثمة أكثر من إسرائيل فرحاً بما يجري لحماس اليوم؟
في مرحلة العض على الجروح، تبدو اللقاءات التي استؤنفت بين حماس وإيران و«حزب الله» مهمة للطرفين في الوقت الحالي، أولاً للتخفيف من الشحن المذهبي، وثانياً لإعادة تجميع محور يراد له أن يضعف في زمن تسويات تبادل الأراضي وغيرها، والتي يتم تمريرها تحت جنح الظلام. أما علاقة حماس بالنظام السوري فهذه قصة أخرى وجرح غائر من الصعب تصور بلسمته في وقت قريب، وقد لا يبلسمه شيء في المدى المنظور. الحركة قررت أن النظام آيل للسقوط، والنظام قال إنها خانته. لا شيء يوحي بأن احدهما قد يغير رأيه برغم تقارب حماس مجدداً مع إيران والحزب.
والسؤال الأهم اليوم، بعد أن اشتدت هجمة الخليج على «الإخوان»، وسلمت قطر مقاليد القيادة مجددا للسعودية، وصار عند رئيس الحكومة التركية رجب طيب اردوغان ما يكفي من المشاكل، وساءت علاقة الغرب مع «الإخوان»،
هل ثمة مخرج لحماس اليوم؟ وماذا لو جرى في وقت إضعافها تمرير لعملية سلام مجحفة؟ ماذا لو أقدمت إسرائيل على حرب جديدة ضد غزة. من سيقف في وجهها؟ أي نظام عربي؟
.أسئلة لا شك مقلقة. ومن غير المستبعد مطلقاً قراءة جديدة لحماس، وتغييرات في الإستراتيجيا والقيادة. حينها يصبح من الضروري العودة إلى استيعاب الحركة، لأن المقاومة تبقى الأساس.
اعتقدت قيادة “حماس” أن العصر الذهبي للحركة قد بدأ مع استلام “الإخوان” للحكم في مصر وتونس، وتقدّمهم في سورية وليبيا، فسارعت إلى إعلان انفصالها عن المحور الثلاثي للمقاومة (سورية وإيران وحزب الله)، وغادرت دمشق للإقامة في قطر، بجوار قاعدة “العيديد” الأميركية والسفارة “الإسرائيلية” في الدوحة!
تصرّفت “حماس” بتسرّع وانفعالية بناءً على حسابات خاطئة ومعلومات نقلتها قيادة “الإخوان” عن اتفاق أميركي – إخواني بضمانة قطرية – تركية، يوحي بأن العصر السياسي للعالم العربي هو عصر “الإخوان” والعداء لإيران وسقوط سورية وحصار حزب الله في لبنان، وعصر معاهدات السلام والعرب والمتحالفين مع “إسرائيل”..
غرقت “حماس” في سكرة الأحلام والأمنيات، وتركت خنادقها وتوجهت نحو فنادقها.. خلعت بدلاتها المرقطة وارتدت بدلاتها الرسمية، وأخذت تتصرف كدولة “عظمى” بإصدار البيانات والمواقف من النظام السوري وحزب الله وإيران، وحتى من روسيا، فارتكبت خطيئة استعجال النتائج والخطط الأميركية، بانية مواقفها على هذا الأساس، مُحرقة كل مراكبها، ومتنكّرة لمن حضنها ودرّبها وموّلها وهرّب إليها السلاح!
بعد سقوط “الإخوان” في مصر وتداعياته على الساحات العربية الأخرى، بما ينذر بسقوط المشروع السياسي لـ”الإخوان”، مترافقاً مع عرقلة المشروع الأميركي وفشله، باتت “حماس” تعيش لحظة مفصلية مأزومة، ومأزقاً سياسياً كبيراً ينذر بعواقب سيئة على مستقبل الحركة والقضية الفلسطينية، خصوصاً أن “الحركة” خسرت من أصدقائها وأكثرت من أعدائها وخصومها، ومن ربحتهم تم عزلهم وسقطوا مع المشروع الأميركي والعربي على أعتاب محور المقاومة،
تصرّفت “حماس” بتسرّع وانفعالية بناءً على حسابات خاطئة ومعلومات نقلتها قيادة “الإخوان” عن اتفاق أميركي – إخواني بضمانة قطرية – تركية، يوحي بأن العصر السياسي للعالم العربي هو عصر “الإخوان” والعداء لإيران وسقوط سورية وحصار حزب الله في لبنان، وعصر معاهدات السلام والعرب “إسرائيل”..
غرقت “حماس” في سكرة الأحلام والأمنيات، وتركت خنادقها وتوجهت نحو فنادقها..
خلعت بدلاتها المرقطة وارتدت بدلاتها الرسمية، وأخذت تتصرف كدولة “عظمى” بإصدار البيانات والمواقف من النظام السوري وحزب الله وإيران، وحتى من روسيا، فارتكبت خطيئة استعجال النتائج والخطط الأميركية، بانية مواقفها على هذا الأساس، مُحرقة كل مراكبها، ومتنكّرة لمن حضنها ودرّبها وموّلها وهرّب إليها السلاح!
بعد سقوط “الإخوان” في مصر وتداعياته على الساحات العربية الأخرى، بما ينذر بسقوط المشروع السياسي لـ”الإخوان”، مترافقاً مع عرقلة المشروع الأميركي وفشله، باتت “حماس” تعيش لحظة مفصلية مأزومة، ومأزقاً سياسياً كبيراً ينذر بعواقب سيئة على مستقبل الحركة والقضية الفلسطينية، خصوصاً أن “الحركة” خسرت من أصدقائها وأكثرت من أعدائها وخصومها، ومن ربحتهم تم عزلهم وسقطوا مع المشروع الأميركي والعربي على أعتاب محور المقاومة، ومن ذلك:
– لم تربح “حماس” الراعي الذهبي لها الممثَّل بالثنائي القطري حمد بن خليفة وحمد بن جاسم، اللذين تم عزلهما بشكل سريع وغير لائق.
– خسرت الشعب المصري بأطيافه المعارضة لانحيازها إلى “الإخوان”، وخسرت الجيش المصري والشرطة، وبادلتهم بـ”الإخوان” والشيخ القرضاوي، الذي لم يهنأ بزيارة غزة، بل ربما كان فأل شؤم عليه عندما قلّم أظافره الرئيس إسماعيل هنية، فتم تقليم أظافره سياسياً ودينياً، بعد أن أُخرج من قطر، فحاصره الأزهر الشريف والشعب المصري.
– لم ينفع “حماس” الثنائي التركي أردوغان – أوغلو، اللذان يهيمان على وجهيهما في ساحات “تقسيم” والساحات التركية الأخرى بحجة قطع شجرتين {ولا تقربا هذه الشجرة..}، وانكشفت سوءاتهما وخداعهما حول الديمقراطية المزيفة، وتراجعا خلف الأسوار التركية، علهما ينجوان من السقوط، وازدادا رعباً بعد سقوط حليفهما الرئيس مرسي.
–خسرت “حماس” حلفاءها الصادقين والميدانيين في سورية ولبنان وإيران وروسيا، وتنازلت عن مستودع السلاح، الذي “ليست بحاجة إليه بعد الآن في فلسطين”، وفق ما صرح به أحد قيادييها عبد العزيز الدويك، الذي قال إن “أولوية إسقاط الرئيس الأسد تتجاوز قضية الجهاد في فلسطين”، ما يعبّر عن إعاقة سياسية وضلال جهادي لم يسبقه إليه أحد،
ومع الأسف لم تستنكر قيادة “حماس”.. فهل هذا يعبّر عن نهج حمساوي جديد؟
نداؤنا إلى الإخوة في “حماس”، الذين لم تسرقهم الفضائيات، والذين يعيشون تحت الحصار والجوع.. نناشدكم أن تعودوا إلى أحضان بنادقكم وتفرّوا من أحضان قطر وتركيا، وأحضان الأحزاب والحركات التي تلتزم باتفاقية كامب ديفيد، والتي تعتبر شيمون بيريز صديقها العزيز والعظيم، ففلسطين لا تحررها الأنظمة المتحالفة مع أميركا، ولا مفكّر مزيّف ومخادع تخرّج من الكنيست “الإسرائيلي”، ولا شيخ موظف عند الأمير، ولا تركي يتحالف “استراتيجياً” مع “إسرائيل”.
حركة “حماس” أمام مفترق تاريخي وفق الخيارات الآتية :
– أن تمعن قياداتها بقراراتها الخاطئة وتنحاز إلى محور الاستسلام العربي لإنهاء القضية الفلسطينية على أعتاب سلطة حكم ذاتي فارغة المضمون والدور.
– العودة إلى خنادقها وحلفائها في محور المقاومة لإكمال المسيرة حتى تحرير فلسطين.
– الانقسام والتشظّي تنظيمياً عبر الانشقاقات بين “حماس” المغتربة في الخارج و”حماس” الجهادية في الداخل والخارج.
مصلحة “حماس” والفلسطينيين الانسحاب من الساحات العربية، وعدم تكرار تجربة تأييد العراق لغزو الكويت، والتي دفع الفلسطينيون ثمنها، وكذلك في لبنان والأردن، والآن تكرر “حماس” تجربة دعم “الإخوان” في مواجهة الشعب المصري، وتواجه السعودية ودول الخليج، التي ستمنع العمالة الفلسطينية بعد تورطهم في سورية ومصر، وخوف الخليجيين من الدور الفلسطيني مستقبلاً.
ماذا لو أمر الأميركيون القيادة القطرية الجديدة بوقف الدعم المالي عن “حماس”؟
ماذا لو ثبت تورّط “حماس” في مصر على المستوى الأمني، خصوصاً في سيناء، وضد الجيش المصري، بعدما تحوّل الرأي العام المصري إلى حاقد وخصم مع “حماس”، وبالتالي مع غزة؟
ماذا لو هُدمت الأنفاق وتشدد المصريون على معبر رفح وعلى إقامة الفلسطينيين في مصر؟ فماذا ستفعل “حماس”؟
حركة “حماس” على أبواب “نكسة” جديدة، فإما أن تضحي بقيادتها التي أخطأت، أو تضيع دماء الشهداء والقضية الفلسطينية، فالأشخاص ليسوا أكبر من القضية، بل في خدمتها، فلتسارع قيادة “حماس” في الخارج للاستقالة أو الاعتزال قبل طردها ومحاكمتها من المقاومين في خنادق غزة.
ويبقى السؤال: أي بلد سيستضيف “حماس” بعد الآن؟ ومن سيأمّن للتحالف مع أي فصيل فلسطيني؟
Palestinian fans hold the sign “Freedom for prisoners” during the opening match of the “Palestine Championship” between the local national team and Vietnam in the West Bank town of Al-Ram, between Ramallah and Jerusalem, on 14 May 2012 (photo: AFP – AHMAD GHARABLI)
During the latest wave of hunger strikes, many Palestinian movements occurred in support of the strikers’ struggle. It is clear that there is persistent action on the ground, but it is still limited to the active circles connected to the families of the prisoners. At the peak of the strike, when it was crucial to have massive support, many voiced frustration with continued Palestinian apathy, especially when in Scotland and Spain, for instance, thousands marched for the prisoners. Meanwhile, in Ramallah and Nablus, only hundreds bothered to demonstrate.
Despite the long history of Palestinian resistance, current popular action remains limited to small-scale participation. One has to ask, what went wrong?
Before discussing the major factor influencing every single aspect of Palestinians’ lives – the Israeli occupation, one needs to look at the process Palestinians went through since the Oslo Accord of 1993 and the subsequent creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) that contributed in many ways to Palestinian apathy. Although those who signed Oslo thought they were heading in a positive direction, it is clear today that what they received was a lie. In lieu of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state, Oslo has given the PA glorified local governance over disconnected city centers. In hindsight, Oslo has been a disaster for the Palestinian cause. The agreement gave much to the Israelis – the colonizers – with minimum concessions, while giving little to the Palestinians – the colonized – while extracting maximum concessions. One cannot examine the absence of a massive movement on the ground without also taking into consideration the context of separation and division. At present, Palestinians are a separated and divided people. Half of the Palestinian population live in the diaspora and exile, the vast majority in squalid refugee camps in neighboring countries, denied their right of return to their homes and villages. Gaza, ruled by Hamas, and the West Bank, ruled by Fatah, are separated by the occupation. Within the occupied West Bank, divisions also exist. Jerusalem is isolated from the surrounding Palestinian population due to Israeli settlement expansion and occupation. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship were also ignored by Oslo and live in continued isolation from their brethren while suffering daily discrimination in the Jewish “democracy.” Accomplishing the physical unity of Palestinians as a nation to fight apartheid is, thus, difficult. And it’s difficult not only as a result of Israeli policies, and internal division, but also due to Arab countries that host Palestinian refugees, but do not allow them to resist from their borders.
Oslo’s implications pertain not only to geography, demography and land. There were also implications for Palestinian civil society in the occupied territories. Civil society began to be transformed from being part of the liberation movement to “development.” The phenomenon of “NGOzation” has infiltrated Palestinian society. International funders too often dictate to Palestinians their agendas and priorities, killing the spirit of the freedom fighters and resistance in the process.
The Oslo agenda was designed in a way that those trapped in it would have little or no interest in challenging it. Oslo has created the illusion of a “state,” a state for people with no rights and no sovereignty over their borders, resources or fate.
Any decision to dissolve the PA or change its mandate, especially to put an end to the security coordination with Israel, should be made outside the framework of the Palestinian leaders who have vested interests and are terrified at the prospect of losing them. The sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people as a whole, the PLO, is the body to make such decisions. The PNC (Palestinian National Council), the legislative body of the PLO, had its last meeting in 1996, where its members were appointed, not elected as they should have been according to the PLO constitution. Since Oslo, the PLO has lost its mandate and rebellious identity to the “quasi-state” of the PA. We should not expect that the same heads of the PLO, who also run the PA, would want to voluntarily surrender their power. The PLO is occupied by the same faces who have sat there for decades, stifling all sense of change, snuffing out the resistance element of the Palestinian cause. We should not expect such an ossified institution to bring a new vision.
Apathy, therefore, became a natural result of the frustration at the unchanged leadership. This leadership lacks any strategy or comprehensive vision, except the ultimate soap opera of “negotiations.” Furthermore, the security coordination with Israel is designed to ensure Israelis’ “security” not Palestinians’. In many cases, it also impedes the people from challenging the occupation with its security forces that sometimes block protesters from reaching checkpoints and have no tolerance toward anyone who dares to criticize Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas). It creates confusion; where do we start our fight? Against the PA leaders who failed the people but still hold on to power? Or the Israeli occupation forces that have trapped the PA in such a role and still control Palestinian lives? In order to fight, you need to set your target with clear eyes.
That is relevant to the West Bank under the PA and Fatah, however, Palestinians under Hamas in Gaza face similar challenges, and a regime even more oppressive toward critical voices that might challenge its rule.
Some also have concerns based on their experiences of the second intifada, where an unorganized armed resistance led to armed militias and security chaos. Many Palestinians are afraid an uprising will spiral out of control, and the same chaos will return.
Yet, the main reason for the Palestinian apathy and fatigue remains the occupation and colonization that has not relented since the creation of the PA in Oslo.
Israel attempts to crush peaceful resistance with no regard for Palestinian lives. And that, naturally, deters people from participation. When people go to participate in a protest against the occupation, they take the risk of getting shot, beaten, or arrested. Two-hundred and seventy-five Palestinian martyrs have been killed by the Israeli army since 2000 in popular resistance rallies. (Information taken from the Popular Resistance Coordination Committee).
Arrest means a verdict in a military court. Imprisonment is a near certainty and is far more of a persecution than prosecution. The system is heavily stacked against a fair day in court for Palestinians. According to Haaretz, in 2010, 99.74 percent of the trials of Palestinians in Israeli military courts ended in convictions. Arrest and then charges means a “security file” will accompany any attempt to travel, whether for leisure or studies. It kills the already near-impossible chance of getting a permit, either for work in Israel or to visit family or friends. Arrest means one becomes a target – and in many cases one’s family does as well.
Palestinians have sacrificed much for their steadfastness and resistance, with tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands jailed, arrested or tortured, and many others losing their homes or lands or source of income. Their sacrifice is met with non-stop Israeli colonization, their resistance is met with brutal Israeli repression, and their screams met with international silence. Combined, it has made Palestinians question the worth of their sacrifice. Israel has “architectured” the Oslo agreement to make the occupation more efficient. To Palestinians in city centers, the occupation has become slightly less direct. There, you will hardly feel the occupation, unless you have to go through checkpoints every day or you see the Israeli army raiding your neighborhood at night to arrest your neighbor. Many people abandoned the option of filing for a permit to enter “Israel” to visit friends or family or simply Palestine. Many people gave up the idea of traveling abroad because they would need permission from Israel and they would need to cross Israeli “border” points. Most Palestinians have a “security file” in Israel and, if not them, a family member surely does. People just continue to live their lives, adapting to the reality, with the Israeli occupation sapping their will to resist. They fear losing the little they have left if they challenge the status quo.
Understanding this complexity under which Palestinians live post-Oslo explains the current situation where the will to resist has been drained from the people of resistance. In order to break down Palestinian apathy and fatigue, one will have to break down the many reasons that led to it, starting with Oslo.
Abir Kopty is a Palestinian blogger. Follow her on Twitter @abirkopty
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Ever since Hamas emerged victorious in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, myriad public opinion polls revealed that its popularity in the Occupied Territories was on a steady decline. However, there are actually fewindications that Hamas as a popular movement will be departing the Palestinian political landscape anytime soon.
Ongoing talks in Cairo between Hamas and Fatah officials, sometimes involving the Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself, indicate that Hamas’ imprint is likely to be felt in political institutions like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the near future.
In the few weeks following the latest round of unity talks between Abbas and Hamas’ leader, Khalid Mesha’al, in Cairo, Hamas has outdone itself in commemorating its anniversary. The Gaza rally on December 14 was a stage for Hamas leaders to recount the achievements of their movement over the course of 24 years, including the number of rockets fired at Israel since 2000 (the year the Second Uprising began) in retaliation for the numerous Israeli attacks and incursions. Such recounting was meant to assert that the armed wing of Hamas — a small force armed with homemade rockets and smuggled light weapons — was a strong contender to the Israeli army.
But what Hamas truly represented to the estimated 350,000 Gazans at the rally was not any illusion that the movement could single-handedly defeat the Israeli army. What Hamas has offered since its inception in December 1987 is the idea that resistance is actually still an option.
“We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the sea to the river,” said Esmail Haniyeh, Hamas’ Prime Minister. “God willing, Hamas will lead the people … to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine.” Haniyeh also asserted that Hamas “will not recognize Israel” (AP, December 14).
The mere listing of these objectives is meant to delineate that the movement’s program remains true to the original goals it declared 24 years ago. Since then, Hamas has morphed in both popularity and political import. It has proven itself to be resourceful and resilient against all sorts of pressures, including the Israeli assassinations of several top tiers of its founders and political and military leaders.
The recent prisoner swap, which saw the freedom of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for one Israeli soldier, is a testimony to Hamas’ ability to claim hard-earned achievements in the most difficult of circumstances.
However, the movement, which managed to survive successive Israeli wars and an economic siege, is facing one of its greatest challenges yet: unity talks with Fatah, which has always dominated the PLO. It is a great challenge because the Fatah leadership has yet to truly depart from an old political mindset keen on repeating political mistakes predicated on political exclusivity and domination over other PLO factions, favoritism, and the ability to co-exist with the Israeli occupation.
Hamas is, of course, guilty of some of Fatah’s mistakes. However, it also managed to successfully present itself as the bulwark of mouqawama (resistance) in the imagination of a large segment of the Palestinian population.
Since 2006, Hamas has also been attempting to learn the tricks of international politics, while maintaining its emphasis of armed resistance. Hamas’ political outreach has been neither a resounding success, nor a total failure.
Meanwhile, Israel’s attempt to destroy Hamas in its Cast Lead war of 2008-09 was an astounding military disaster. Military power obviously has its limits, and eradicating popular movements using illegal white phosphorous against civilians is just a bad idea (not to mention a war crime by any serious reading of international law).
Israel is unlikely to learn from its grievous military adventures, but Hamas continues to learn from adversity. It is finding ways to circumvent the Israeli siege, and to channel money from various Arab countries to rebuild Gaza. But how long can Hamas remain committed to armed resistance, maintain an unofficial ceasefire with Israel, respond to Israeli incursions and airstrikes, carry on with unity talks and reconciliation with Fatah, rebuild Gaza under siege and break out from its political seclusion, while also remaining committed to its old charter?
There are ample readings of Hamas’ position in the currently changing political landscape of the Middle East. Some commentators argue that the movement is suffering a political crisis due to the uprising and civil war under way in Syria. Others have predicted Hamas’ regional ascendency based on the current political reshuffling in Egypt and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Either way, Hamas will most likely find ways to adjust and survive — if not thrive — under any possible scenario. The challenge, however, is maintaining a balance that would allow Hamas’ incorporation into the PLO – which could facilitate the end of its political isolation and permit its leaders to appeal to millions of Palestinians as the vanguard of Palestinian resistance.
The difficulties in maintaining both positions are already becoming clear. Mesha’al told AFP recently that “every people has the right to fight against occupation in every way, with weapons or otherwise. But at the moment, we want to cooperate with the popular resistance … We believe in armed resistance but popular resistance is a program which is common to all the factions” (Time online, November 27). This logic alone is a considerable shift from Hamas’ old resistance manual, and is not exactly consistent with Haniyeh’s recent speech in Gaza.
Will Hamas manage to keep one foot in the Abbas camp, and another in its old resistance-based political program? Even for a robust and resourceful movement like Hamas, such a conundrum may prove too difficult to solve.
In addition, “Israeli” war minister Moshe Yalon canceled a scheduled visit for the Holy city. He also held an urgent in his ministry in an attempt to study the situation.
Uprooted Palestinian 
He also halted the transfer of the money allocated to the PFLP and financial dues issued by the Palestinian National Fund, and prevented the organization from receiving invitations to attend any official meetings including the session of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Executive Committee.
UN General Assembly resolution 181, adopted on November 29, 1947, purported to divide Palestine between the indigenous inhabitants and European colonists who arrived seeking to occupy and exploit Palestine and create an exclusive Jewish homeland. Under the UN plan, European Jews were granted more than fifty six per cent of historical Palestine while the native Palestinians, who owned ninety three per cent of the territory, were offered less than forty four percent of their own land. The partition vote was based on a UN Special Committee (UNSCOP) recommendation to divide the country into three parts: a Palestinian state with a population of 735,000, of which 725,000 were Palestinians and 10,000 Jews; a new Jewish state comprised of 499,000 Jews and 407,000 Palestinians, creating a new state with roughly less than sixty per cent Jewish majority.
Unfortunately, Sayyed Nasrallah continued, some in the Arab world who are backed by the states and governments of the West are blocking and preventing this priority and are pushing peoples to endorse other priorities and are inventing new wars. “First they spoke of the communist expansion and Palestine was forgotten and they spent billions for that purpose. Then they invented the Iranian or Persian expansion and a war that cost billions was waged against Iran, all their military capabilities were mobilized against this ‘enemy’. Had they spent only one tenth on Palestine, it would have been liberated.”
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that all people who sponsor the Takfiri trend across the Islamic world and push them to the battlefields and to committing murders bear the primary responsibility of destruction and serve the Zionist entity. “Is not it time for peoples to recognize that there is who aims at demolishing the region with its peoples and armies and split it to Christians, Sunnites, Shiites, Druze, Ismaeli, Persians and Kurds?” His eminence wondered. “Unfortunately, we have no decision to point at the states that sponsor this destructive project which is the most dangerous project in the region.”
The Hezbollah leader thanked Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic for all what they provided for Palestine, al-Quds, and the resistance factions in Palestine and Syria.
The mere listing of these objectives is meant to delineate that the movement’s program remains true to the original goals it declared 24 years ago. Since then, Hamas has morphed in both popularity and political import. It has proven itself to be resourceful and resilient against all sorts of pressures, including the Israeli assassinations of several top tiers of its founders and political and military leaders. 
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 
August 30, 2014