[GushShalom] Worse than occupation
Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)
info at gush-shalom.org
Thu Apr 8 18:59:17 IDT 2004
GUSH SHALOM - pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 - www.gush-shalom.org/
[] Worse than occupation
Gush statement about Gaza turned into no-food prison
[] Meron Benvenisti: Nothing new in "disengagement" from Gaza
[] Reuven Kaminer on Sharon and the trap for "weak-willed doves"
(()) (()) (())
[] Worse than occupation
Gush statement about Gaza turned into no-food prison
Gush Shalom ad in tomorrow's Ha'aretz
òáøéú òì ôé á÷ùä/á÷øåá áàúø
WORSE THAN OCCUPATION
The United Nations Agency (UNWRA) that provides basic foods to the
Palestinian refugees has announced that it is compelled to stop the
assistance because the Israeli authorities block the passage.
This will condemn hundreds of thousands of human beings in the Gaza Strip
to starvation, while Ariel Sharon babbles about "unilateral separation" -
next year.
This week, Sharon disclosed his intentions: the Gaza Strip will not be
allowed to have a harbor or airport, neither will it have a border with
neighboring Egypt. Whole areas of the Rafah refugee camp will be razed,
in order to create a wide Israeli buffer zone between Gaza and Egypt.
"Liberated" Gaza will be a huge prison, cut off from the world,
completely at the mercy of Sharon's prison guards.
That is worse than occupation. It will blow up in our face.
GUSH SHALOM
April 9, 2004
Help us speak out with donations to
Gush Shalom, P.O.Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033
www.gush-shalom.org
Open Gates to Allow Food into Gaza petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Aid2Gaza/
[] Meron Benvenisti: Nothing new in "disengagement" from Gaza
Back to 'no Palestinian people'
By Meron Benvenisti
Thu., April 08, 2004
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/413415.html>
Hebrew/òáøéú:
<http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=413482>
Anyone seeking proof that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is conducted on
an endless loop can find it in Ariel Sharon's one-sided unilateral
disengagement plan. The noisy ruckus and bitter debate about the
supposedly new plan suppresses the fact that similar plans have come up
and fallen several times over the past 20 year. There's not even something
new in the fact a political hawk came up with the idea - Moshe Arens
proposed it to Yitzhak Shamir at the end of the 1980s.
Whenever an Israeli government, with no difference between Likud and
Labor, faces a political dead-end and is forced to initiate a move meant
to prevent other plans regarded as dangerous, the disengagement from Gaza
plan comes up as a cheap, magical remedy. Who exactly is interested in
that huge mass of poverty, hatred and despair.
That's what it was like at the end of the 1980s and the middle of the
1990s, and the fact the disengagement plan has never actually been
implemented is unimportant. The mere fact it was raised and discussed is
perceived as more important than its implementation and good reasons can
always be found not to go through with it.
The debate about it was also circular. Evacuating Gaza is perceived as a
"leftist conspiracy," so the left supported it, taking pride in "the right
conducting left wing ideology" - and the "sober" right regards the plan as
"a lethal blow to the Palestinians and the eradication of the danger of a
Palestinian state."
Sharon is not innovating anything when he sells "an end to the occupation
and evacuation of settlements," even though he presents his position as
being the result of "changing circumstances," so he, the father of the
sett lements, is taking upon himself to evacuate them.
Discussion of the disengagement naturally focuses on the dramatic element
of settlement evacuation and does not take much notice of the real meaning
of "unilateral," perhaps because the government - with the generous help
of Ehud Barak - has managed to sell the idea that "there is nobody to
talk to." Hence any deed, from separation fence to disengagement, must be
done without any negotiations or coordination with the Palestinians.
In effect, the unilateralism is an attempt to wipe out the last remnants
of the Oslo agreement, and re-adopt the policies of the mid-1980s when it
was illegal to talk to the PLO. The Oslo process, the singing of the Decla
ration of Principles, and mutual recognition turned the PLO and the
Palestinian national movement into a legitimate entity. It was no longer
an object of the manipulation and control of others, but an independent
subject representing a collective that is allowed to demand control over
its future.
For many years, Israel managed to deny that status to the Palestinians,
until December 1988 when Yasser Arafat, in Geneva, publicly recited a
declaration dictated to him by the Americans and thus won recognition by
the Re agan Administration, to the dismay of the Israeli government.
Five years later, and after failed attempts to postpone it for as long as
possible, Israel recognized the PLO as an independent and legitimate body,
and that recognition is the basis of the relations between the two
nations.
Now Sharon is seeking to go back a generation and to dictate to the
Palestinians their future, without taking into account their wishes and
aspirations. He does not hide his circular thinking: "My plan is difficult
for the Palestinians," he says, "a fatal blow. There's no Palestinian
state in a unilateral move."
Those who are not a legitimate collective don't have the right to demand
the right to represent themselves and certainly don't have the right to
self-determination. They can be handled unilaterally, in negotiations with
a third party - America or Egypt. The problem is that the Americans accept
those arguments and thus go back to the position on the Palestinians which
they held before 1988.
Those who are considering their position on the disengagement plan should
set aside the territorial element and consider the concept of
"unilateralism" as the real test of the initiative. If they support a more
sophisticated variation of Golda Meir's declaration that "there is no
Palestinian people," they should support Sharon's plan.
[] Reuven Kaminer on Sharon and the " weak-willed doves"
From: "Reuven Kaminer" <mssourk at pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
Date sent: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:14:29 +0200
Sharon Disengages
Reuven Kaminer
April 5, 2004 - Jerusalem
The tensions and the conflicts in Israeli politics are approaching the dimensions
of a serious crisis. Sharon has announced that Israelis to pull out of the Gaza
strip and disband the 20 settlements in that area, populated by 7,500 settlers. He
is still working out the details of his plan with the United States government and
the finished project is to emerge from Sharon's meeting with Bush on April 14,
2004. The 'new reality' will, it appears, be consecrated in an exchange of letters
between the two leaders.
Sharon's intentions are both simple and clear. Israel must shorten its lines and
solidify U.S.support for a new status quo which will include tacit, if not explicit
U.S.approval for permanent Israeli control of most of the West Bank. . Inaction,
according to Sharon, is dangerous in that it invites new diplomatic initiatives
that would center on plans similar to the Road Map and the Geneva Accords.
Sharon has a slight problem. He, his own party and large segments of his coalition
have been telling the people all along that any pull-back is tantamount to a
retreat in the face of terror, or 'a prize for terror'. It is, therefore, not a
surprise that more than half of his coalition, as well as the majority of his own
Likud Knesset faction, are against the pull-back. His opponents on the right can
simply quote a slew of his own recent statements and slogans against leaving the
Gaza region.
Sharon was forced to agree to a poll of the Likud membership on the pull-out, as
the only way he might show that he was speaking for the majority of his
constituency. It is a very tight time table. Sharon meets with Bush on April 14,
2004and 200,000 Likud members go to the polls two-three weeks later to decide the
fate of the initiative. Spearheaded by the entire settler movement, the religious
fundamentalists and their secular allies are mounting a do or die campaign against
the planned evacuation of the Gush Katif settlements in the Gaza region. The
intense media coverage of the battles in the right convey a sense that we all have
ring side seats for the greatest fight since Gog and Magog.
The media, and many naïve souls are being lured into seeing this as a battle
between a legally constituted government and its elected prime-minister, enjoying
majority support in public opinion, on one hand, and the forces of the messianic
fundamentalist right, on the other hand. In the looming battle, the settlers
intend to exploit every conceivable legal and illegal option to thwart the pull-
out. Could this be the great fissure in Israeli society? Are we approaching a new
stage wherein hegemony passes from the annexationist right to a centrist government
ready for a compromise with the Palestinians. Is Arik Sharon the De Gaulle, for
whom many have hoped and dreamed?
Naturally enough, the main story in the media for the last two weeks has been
Sharon and Co. versus the settler-based coalition. Tension is high between the
factions. The settler right has even joined the "rule of law" lobby in Israel,
which is calling for Sharon's indictment on graft and bribery charges. The settlers
would like very much to see the pull-out initiative dead and buried at Sharon's
political funeral since the Prime Minister, it is assumed, would have to resign if
Israel' s Attorney General, Mazoz decides to issue an indictment, in line with the
current consensus in the Prosecutor's Office. Any way you look at the present
situation, crisis is writ large over the face of the Israeli political system. Even
without the corruption cloud hanging over his head - he might be forced to resign
over the scandals, at any time over the next several months - it is far from
certain that Sharon, or anyone else on the right for that matter, would deign to
violate the sanctity of the settlement project. Media coverage to the contrary, it
is still unclear whether Sharon, himself, is really willing to take on the
settlers, or whether he can survive their determination to push the country to the
edge of rebellion and even, civil war.
It is assumed that Sharon and his challengers will hold this 'democratic' contest
for the hearts of the Likud voters, after Sharon returns from his meeting with
Bush. However, it is very far from certain that this 200,000 party member vote
will ever take place. The full-scale party referendum, for which there are no
procedural guidelines, is a product of a last-minute face saving maneuver to hide
Sharon's weakness. Thus, both sides, locked in battle, will have ample
opportunities to challenge the legality of the procedures involved.
Notwithstanding the possible complications, the battle for the votes of the Likud
membership has begun and it is a dirty affair indeed. The settler-based faction is
accusing Sharon of succumbing to threats of terror. In 'reply', Sharon's campaign
strategy is already being fueled with the blood of Palestinian leaders and
activists and with threats for bigger and more atrocious acts against the
Palestinians. As we write, his latest threat to assassinate Arafat and Hizballah
leader, Nasrallah, is headline news.
Sharon's strategy is guided by his fear and hatred of the Palestinians and his goal
of avoiding any meaningful negotiations. As much as he will chafe over his
inability to maneuver the country as he sees fit, as much as he takes pride in his
own political wisdom as distinct from the political blindness of the settler-based
coalition of fundamentalists, it is questionable that he can meet their challenge
head on and demonstrate real control of the country. As long as Sharon continues
to spew anti-Palestinian hatred into the country's body politic, he strengthens the
credibility of his opponents on the right. If there is, according to Sharon, no
chance of an agreement with the Palestinians for the peaceful resolution of the
conflict, why let Bush and his advisors contemplate any restrictions, looking
forward or backward, on the settlement project. The settlers are probably right in
arguing that Sharon's scheme will not and cannot alter the basic contours of the
conflict and the positions of the major international players.
The Labor Party and Peres hope for a showdown between Sharon and the settlers that
would catapult them into the coalition. With this goal in mind, it is not enough
for Labor to promise parliamentary support to Sharon for the pull-back. Indeed,
given the possibility of a straightforward Knesset vote on a pull-back- without
annexationist riders - all the center and even the left (including Yahad, Hadash
and the Arab parties), would probably raise their hands to prevent Sharon from
losing the vote on the specific issue of the Gaza pull-out.
Unfortunately, there are political forces associated with the Labor Party and some
influential people in the Yahad Party (formerly MERETZ) who feel the need to give
either open or tacit support to Sharon's overall policy by backing a unilateral
retreat as the main solution to the current confrontation with the Palestinians.
Backing for some sort (or any sort) of a unilateral pull-back, has become the
escape route out of the peace movement ever since Ehud Barak's ignominious impact
on the mainstream doves. Barak, it will be recalled, summed up the lesson of the
Camp David fiasco by claiming that he had saved Israel by proving that there is
'no partner' for negotiations. For weak-willed and opportunistic doves, it is not
really important whether this is true. While Sharon is against negotiations with
the Palestinians in principle, the weaker links in the center and the left follow
his unilateral withdrawal scheme because they find it difficult to tell the truth
to the public that there is a partner for peace and that any attempt to bypass the
Palestinians is doomed to fail.
For a while, immediately after the launching of the Geneva Accords, it had become
rather difficult for Israel's mainstream doves to tail after Sharon and his
schemes. The Geneva success went a long way in overcoming the official mantra about
Israel not having anyone with whom to negotiate. However, if there is 'no partner'
(or, if it is unpopular to insist that there really is such a partner), then
support for unilateral withdrawal seems more acceptable than tolerating the status
quo, especially, if one is tempted, despite all historical experience, into
accepting Sharon's credibility. Thus, we witness the unsavory spectacle of some
'leaders' in the Zionist center-left who find it convenient to turn their backs on
the Geneva initiative.
It is especially unpleasant to see those in control of Peace Now, slip and slide
into the unilateral retreat trap. Peace Now, still traumatized by Barak's line of
'making peace without the Palestinians', has been in a long-standing political and
organizational identity crisis. It gave lip service to the Geneva Accords at the
height of their popularity, but started a quick retreat when it turned out that
Peres and the Labor Party are not interested in Geneva. Peres prefers, for the
time being, to exploit Sharon's troubles in order to pave Labor's road back into
the government. Peace Now announced just this week, on the backdrop of Sharon's
disengagement plan, a new campaign aimed 'against settlements'
dropping its opposition to 'the settlements', and abandoning its previous more
radical demand to leave all the territories. The absence of any mention of Geneva
or an agreement with the Palestinians in the new campaign, was correctly
interpreted in the media and political circles as thinly disguised support for
unilateral withdrawal, and even for Sharon. It was clear to all concerned that the
traditional leadership, to the dismay of many of Peace Now's central activists, had
lurched to the right and turned its back on their own comrades in the Geneva
formation.
Admittedly, it is rather convenient, for the moment, here in Israel, to turn one's
back on peace and the Palestinians, and to ignore international realities. It is
simpler to line up with the momentary consensus in the broad public for Sharon
against the settler-based fanatics. But, since there is really, after all is said
and done, a Palestinian partner for meaningful negotiations and peace, Sharon's
unilateral withdrawal ploy is a phony alternative, sabotaging the real
possibilities for moving forward towards a settlement.
--
Ongoing struggle
#Against the Wall (contact addresses)
#Refusniks (prisoner addresses & links to constantly updated sites)
#Vanunu to be released April 21
[ links to the latest re the Donate Now "Instead of Flowers"
campaign / worldwide vigils etc. especially important for
those who don't have the Paypal option ]
New: Contact re activities in Israel <legalese at netvision.net.il >
#Against the Wall
ðåëçåú éåîéåîéú áëôøéí îàéîéí ò"é äçåîä ìúàí òí
àééáé 064-604172 isichel at netvision.net.il
àøé÷ 050-607034 info at rhr.israel.net
Day to day presence at villages threatened by route of wall.
Contact: Ivy Sichel 064-604172 isichel at netvision.net.il who set's up a
list for people who can come at short notice, or: Arik Asherman 050-
607034 info at rhr.israel.net
#Refusniks
Constantly-updated list of all presently jailed refusniks:
English - http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english/prison/
Hebrew / òáøéú - http://www.yesh-gvul.org/prison/
For the latest news about the five:
http://www.refuz.org.il/News.html
NB:
Letters of support to
Noam Bahat / Haggai Mattar / Matan Kaminer
AGAF BET
Ma’asiyaho Prison
P.O.B 13
Ramla
Israel
Adam Maor / Shimri Tzameret:
Hermon Prison
P.O.B 4011
KFAR M’RAR
Israel
#Vanunu to be released April 21
Instead of sending flowers
Wordlwide campaign WELCOME VANUNU by donating a few dollars
(N.B.: online but ALSO otherwise) as a welcome gesture:
<http://www.vanunu.org/>
List of international vigils on day of Vanunu release (April 21):
http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/
http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/
Online petition for the unconditional release of Vanunu
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/freemordechaivanunu/
For details about Free Vanunu vigils and activities in Israel,
Call: 02-6254530 or 051-368236
or email: legalese at netvision.net.il
--
http://www.gush-shalom.org/ (òáøéú/Hebrew)
http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html (English)
http://www.gush-shalom.org/arabic/index.html (selected articles in Arabic)
with
\\photos of recent actions
\\the weekly Gush Shalom ad
\\the columns of Uri Avnery
\\Gush Shalom's history & action chronicle
\\position papers & analysis (in "documents")
\\and a lot more
N.B.:
On the Gush Shalom website links for
Articles and documents in German, French and Spanish
In order to receive Gush Shalom's Hebrew-language
press releases mail to:
gush-shalom-heb-request at mailman.gush-shalom.org
+ NB: write the word "subscribe" in the subject line.
If you want to support Gush Shalom's activities you can
send a cheque or cash, wrapped well in an extra piece
of paper to:
Gush Shalom
pob 3322
Tel-Aviv 61033
Israel
or ask us for charities in your country which receive
donations on behalf of Gush Shalom
Please, add your email address where to send our
confirmation of receipt. More official receipts at
request only.
More information about the gush-shalom-intl
mailing list