Israel vs Palestina: História de um conflito LX (02-2007)

Na continuação das desavenças entre o Fatah e o Hamas - fomentadas por Israel e pelo Quarteto para o Oriente Médio (EUA, UE, ONU e Rússia) - no dia primeiro de fevereiro, várias personalidades do Hamas foram embuscadas em um tiroteio e suas brigadas militares atacaram uma base do Fatah ferindo dez pessoas.

Mais tarde um grupo do Hamas interceptou quatro caminhões que diziam transportar armas para Mahmmad Dahlan. Seis pessoas morreram no confronto, dentre elas um passante. Cerca de setenta pessoas, inclusive duas crianças, foram feridas.
Um porta-voz do Fatah negou que a carga fosse militar e descreveu o incidente como "um perigo para a manutenção da paz".
No dia seguinte, combatentes do Hamas atacaram tropas de segurança de Dahlan com um morteiro matando três guardas, dois membros do serviço estratégico do Fatah, ferindo mais de 40 soldados e dois civis. E na Cisjordânia, até a Universidade Al-Quds virou alvo.
Uma nova trégua foi negociada, mas durou pouco e não foi unânime.
No dia 03, doze pessoas foram feridas durante os afrontamentos e o Hamas usou as mesmas barragens que a IDF usava para interceptar 40 membros desarmados do Fatah. Mais tarde, mataram um guarda e capturaram outro.
(É interessante como as táticas dos agressores é assimilada pelas vítimas que depois as usam para vitimizar outrem. O exemplo contemporâneo mais flagrante é o da ocupação da Palestina, onde Israel usa exatamente as mesmas táticas dos nazistas e com o mesmo objetivo.)

Na sequência de 2007, no dia 04 de fevereiro o Hamas atacou instalações de segurança da presidência da Autoridade Nacional Palestina com morteiros em Gaza. Ninguém foi ferido, mas dois guardas do Fatah sucumbiram a ferimentos anteriores, nesse dia.
No dia 06, um grupo armado atirou em um carro em Gaza matando um comandante e ferindo três militantes do Hamas.
As pressões do Quarteto ((ONU, UE, EUA e Rússia) sobre Mahmoud Abbas aumentaram e ele desenvolveu um plano para substituir o governo do Hamas por um governo de União Nacional. Que o Quarteto queria que fosse um governo de tecnocratas para preparar eleições executivas e legislativas cujos resultados, desta vez, prometiam acatar.
Caso este governo de emergência formado pelo Presidente da ANP não funcionasse, ou seja, se não correspondesse às expectativas de Israel e dos Estados Unidos, as condições de apoio oferecidas pelo Quarteto seriam revogadas.

Portanto, no dia 08 de fevereiro, Mahmoud Abbas e Khaled Meshaal se encontraram em Makkah al-Mukarramah, cidade da Arábia Saudita que abriga a Meca para conversar. No final do encontro, os líderes do Fatah e do Hamas concordaram em formar um governo de união nacional dirigido pelo primeiro ministro em atividade, Ismail Haniyeh, do Hamas. Os dois partidos obtiveram ministérios equitáveis e estabeleceram um programa político comum que incluía os acordos isarelo-palestinos já assinados e excluía o reconhecimento de Israel.

No mesmo dia o novo governo foi convocado para implementar os objetivos do Conselho Nacional Palestino, as cláusulas da Constituição, o documento nacional de reconciliação (o Prisoners' Document) e as decisões tomadas na reunião de cúpula.
Na data da reunião da Câmara Legislativa da Palestina, 41 dos 132 se encontravam presos em Israel após terem sido sequestrados  na rua ou em casa. Quase um terço do Parlamento.
Os deputados que sobraram aprovaram o novo governo por maioria absoluta. Só três votos contra.
No dia 15, Ismail Haniyeh se demitiu para ser reintegrado no novo governo.

Nesse ínterim, na Cisjordânia, a IDF continuava pegando pesado em Belém, Hebron e Nablus. O governo palestino de união nacional contrariava o projeto israelense de dividir para reinar e como sempre, Tel Aviv optou por sua estratégia favorita da punição coletiva. Nablus, já sob ocupação opressiva desde a Segunda Intifada, enfim, desde sempre, estava prestes a sofrer mais perdas com uma nova operação militar: Operation Hot Winter - Inverno Quente.
É o que veremos pela frente. O vídeo abaixo dá uma ideia do clima repressivo que já reinava sobre esta bela cidade palestina. E para agir  vontade sem tapinhas na mão da "comunidade internacional", usou o mesmo argumento batido de sempre: demolir o Hamas.
Graças à sua infalível hasbara ('propaganda' em hebraico) aprendida com os nazistas junto com outras noções de repressão e limpeza étnica, Israel sairia do Hot Winter isento de culpa. Aliás, para esta, nem precisaria se dar ao trabalho de pôr Mark Regev, o maior enganador vivo, para inventar mentiras planetárias; só para os jornalistas que se dariam ao trabalho de questioná-lo. A grande mídia ignoraria a Operação Hot Winter e as imagens televisivas seriam escassas, pois, afinal de contas, era um "incidente" a mais e o valor de vida e bens palestinos é muito baixo.
Nós vamos documentar no próximo capítulo a Hot Winter em Nablus para lembrar as arbitrariedades e maudades constantes da IDF e dos colonos judeus na Cisjordânia. Em Nablus os isrelenses visam também o patrimônio histórico. Com uma simples bomba, reduzem a escombros centenas de anos de história.

"Must a Native-american recognize the right of the United States of America to exist? But nobody raises the question. The United States does not give a damn if anybody recognizes its right to exist or not. It does not demand this from the countries with which it maintains relations.

Must a Native-american recognize the right of the United States of america to exist?

Interesting question. The USA was established by Europeans who invaded a continent that did not belong to them, eradicated most of the indigenous population (the "Red Indians") in a prolonged campaign of genocide, and exploited the labor of millions of slaves who had been brutally torn from their lives in Africa. Not to mention what is going on today. Must a Native-American - or indeed anybody at all - recognize the right of such a state to exist?

Why? Because this is a ridiculous demand to start with.

OK, the United States is older than the State of Israel, as well as bigger and more powerful. But countries that are not super-powers do not demand this either. India, for example, is not expected to recognize Pakistan's "right to exist", in spite of the fact that Pakistan was established at the same time as Israel, and - like Israel - on an ethnic/religious basis.

So why is Hamas required to "recognize Israel's right to exist"?

When a state "recognizes" another state, it is a formal recognition, the acknowledgement of an existing fact. It does not imply approval. The Soviet Union was not required to recognize the existence of the USA as a capitalist state. On the contrary, Nikita Khrushchev promised in 1956 to "bury" it. The US certainly did not dream of recognizing at any time the right of the Soviet Union to exist as a communist state.

So why is this weird demand addressed to the Palestinians? Why must they recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State?

I am an Israeli patriot, and I do not feel that I need anybody's recognition of the right of my state to exist. If somebody is ready to make peace with me, within borders and on conditions agreed upon in negotiations, that is quite enough for me. I am prepared to leave the history, ideology and theology of the matter to the theologians, ideologues and historians.

Perhaps after 60 years of the existence of Israel, and after we have become a regional power, we are still so unsure of ourselves that we crave for constant assurance of our right to exist - and of all people, from those that we have been oppressing for the last 40 years. Perhaps it is the mentality of the Ghetto that is still so deeply ingrained in us.

But the demand addressed now to the Palestinian Unity Government is far from sincere. It has an ulterior political aim, indeed two: (a) to convince the international community not to recognize the Palestinian government that is about to be set up, and (b) to justify the refusal of the Israeli government to enter into peace negotiations with it.

The British call this a "red herring" - a smelly fish that a fugitive drags across the path in order to put the pursuing dogs off the trail.

When I was young, Jewish people in Palestine used to talk about our secret weapon: the Arab refusal. Every time somebody proposed some peace plan, we relied on the Arab side to say "no". True, the Zionist leadership was against any compromise that would have frozen the existing situation and halted the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of expansion and settlement. But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and "we extend our hand for peace" - and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the proposal.

That was successful for a hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the rules, recognized Israel and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that the negotiations for the final borders between Israel and Palestine must be concluded not later than 1999. To this very day, those negotiations have not even started. Successive Israeli governments have prevented it because they were not ready under any circumstances to fix final borders. (The 2000 Camp David meeting was not a real negotiation - Ehud Barak convened it without any preparation, dictated his terms to the Palestinians and broke the dialogue off when they were refused.)

After the death of Arafat, the refusal became more and more difficult. Arafat was always described as a terrorist, cheat and liar. But Mahmoud Abbas was accepted by everybody as an honest person, who truly wanted to achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon succeeded in avoiding any negotiations with him. The "Unilateral Separation" served this end. President Bush supported him with both hands.

Well, Sharon suffered his stroke, and Ehud Olmert took his place. And then something happened that caused great joy in Jerusalem: the Palestinians elected Hamas.

How wonderful! After all, both the US and Europe have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization! Hamas is a part of the Shiite Axis of Evil! (They are not Shiites, but who cares!) Hamas does not recognize Israel! Hamas is trying to eliminate Mahmoud Abbas, the noble man of peace! It is clear that with such a gang there is no need, nor would it make any sense, to conduct negotiations about peace and borders.

And indeed, the US and their European satellites are boycotting the Palestinian government and starving the Palestinian population. They have set three conditions for lifting the blockade: (a) that the Palestinian government and Hamas must recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist, (b) they must stop "terrorism", and (c) they must undertake to fulfill the agreements signed by the PLO.

On the face of it, that makes sense. In reality, none at all. Because all these conditions are completely one-sided:

1. The Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist (without defining its borders, of course), but the Israeli government is not required to recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist at all.

2. The Palestinians must put an end to "terrorism", but the Israeli government is not required to stop its military operations in the Palestinian territories and stop the building of settlements. The "roadmap" does indeed say so, but that has been completely ignored by everybody, including the Americans.

3. The Palestinians must undertake to fulfill the agreements, but no such undertaking is required from the Israeli government, which has broken almost all provision of the Oslo agreement. Among others: the opening of the "safe passages" between Gaza and the West Bank, the carrying out of the third "redeployment" (withdrawal from Palestinian territories), the treatment of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one single territory, etc etc.

Since Hamas came to power, its leaders have understood the need to become more flexible. They are very sensitive to the mood of their people. The Palestinian population is longing for an end to the occupation and for a life of peace. Therefore, step by step, Hamas has come nearer to recognition of Israel. Their religious doctrine does not allow them to declare this publicly (Jewish fundamentalists too cling to the word of God "To your seed I have given this land") but it has been doing so indirectly. Little steps, but a big revolution.

Hamas has announced its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state bounded by the June 1967 borders - meaning: next to Israel and not in place of Israel. (This week, ex-minister Kadura Fares repeated that Hamas leader Khaled Mashal has confirmed this.) Hamas has given Mahmoud Abbas a power of attorney to conduct the negotiations with Israel and has undertaken in advance to accept any agreement ratified in a referendum. Abbas, of course, clearly advocates the setting up of a Palestinian state next to Israel, across the Green Line. There is no doubt whatsoever that if such an agreement is achieved, the huge majority of the Palestinian population will vote for it.

In Jerusalem, worry has set in. If this goes on, the world might even get the impression that Hamas has changed, and then - God forbid - lift the economic blockade on the Palestinian people.

Now the King of Saudi Arabia comes and disturbs Olmert's plans even more.

In an impressive event, facing the holiest site of Islam, the king put an end to the bloody strife between the Palestinian security organs and prepared the ground for a Palestinian government of national unity. Hamas undertook to respect the agreements signed by the PLO, including the Oslo agreement, which is based on the mutual recognition of the State of Israel and the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people.

The king has extracted the Palestinian issue from the embrace of Iran, to which Hamas had turned because it had no alternative, and has returned Hamas to the lap of the Sunni family. Since Saudi Arabia is the main ally of the US in the Arab world, the king has put the Palestinian issue firmly on the table of the Oval Room.

In Jerusalem, near panic broke out. This is the scariest of nightmares: the fear that the unconditional support of the US and Europe for Israeli policy will be reconsidered.

The panic had immediate results: "political circles" in Jerusalem announced that they rejected the Mecca agreement out of hand. Then second thoughts set in. Shimon Peres, long established master of the "yes-but-no" method, convinced Olmert that the brazen "no" must be replaced with a more subtle "no". For this purpose, the red herring was again taken out of the freezer.

It is not enough that Hamas recognize Israel in practice. Israel insists that its "right to exist" must also be recognized. Political recognition does not suffice, ideological recognition is required. By this logic, one could also demand that Khaled Mashal join the Zionist organization.

If one thinks that peace is more important for Israel than expansion and settlements, one must welcome the change in the position of Hamas - as expressed in the Mecca agreement - and encourage it to continue along this road. The king of Saudi Arabia, who has already convinced the leaders of all Arab countries to recognize Israel in exchange for the establishment of the state of Palestine across the Green Line, should be warmly congratulated.

But if one opposes peace because it would fix the final borders of Israel and allow for no more expansion, one will do everything to convince the Americans and Europeans to continue with the boycott on the Palestinian government and the blockade of the Palestinian people.

The day after tomorrow, Condoleezza Rice will convene a meeting of Olmert and Abbas in Jerusalem.

The Americans now have a problem. On one side, they need the Saudi king. Not only does he sit on huge oil reservoirs, but he is also the center-piece of the "moderate Sunni bloc". If the king tells Bush that the solution of the Palestinian problem is needed in order to dam the spread of Iranian influence across the Middle East, his words will carry a lot of weight. If Bush is planning a military attack on Iran, as it seems he is, it is important for him to have the united support of the Sunnis.

On the other side, the pro-Israel lobby - both Jewish and Christian [Evangelics, not Catholics] - is very important for Bush. It is vital for him to be able to count on the "Christian base" of the Republican Party, which is composed of fundamentalists who support the extreme Right in Israel, come what may.

So what is to be done? Nothing. For this nothing, Condi found an apt diplomatic slogan, taken from up-to-date American slang: "New Political Horizons".

Clearly, she did not ponder on the meaning of these words. Because the horizon is the symbol of a goal that will never be reached: the more you approach it, the more it recedes".

Uri Avnery, 17/02/2007

Documentário B'Tselem: Lethal Ambiguity

 

Reservistas da IDF, forças israelenses de ocupação,

Shovrim Shtika - Breaking the Silence 

I say the worst, the most problematic are the routine actions that provoke more hatred than all the other kinds. I mean, entering a house unjustifiably. In Gaza, for example, the decision about which house to demolish is flippant, you won't believe to what extent. It is taken at very low echelons. I mean by a lieutenant.
A lieutenant is a guy who could be two and a half years into his army service?
Yes, come on, you are designated an area. The guy in charge of army D-9 bulldozers comes along, and tells you, "Come on, come on now, what about those houses over there?" He looks at your map, points to, "1203, 1204, what about these? What about these? Well, do I take them down? Take them down?"
Why take them down?
You consider your mission and want to have maximum visibility. So you say, "Yes, take them down."
What's "your mission"?
Making sure that… really, draw two lines, a kind of strip. Now in this strip, no one moves. Armed, unarmed – no one moves. No one. I guess we're trying to put a stop to Qassam launchings, clean out an area. Now there are houses there that get in your line of vision, so you take them down.
Someone comes to you and says, "Wait, take down this house and that house?" So you answer him, "Yes, take down this one and that one". So he says, "What about that one? No? That one… Okay, I'll take down that one for you, too." Now, this is the home of a family. When I talk about houses, I mean they're homes. We're not talking about greenhouses here. I mean, greenhouses are a source of livelihood for the people who… windowed greenhouse. I don't know if there are farmers here, who will probably be alarmed to hear, but with greenhouses the D-9s are not even specifically instructed to take down, they simply take them down.
Extend authority?
Yes, dozens of dunams of greenhouses. This is long-term damage. Someone paid for these greenhouses. Someone makes a living out of them, tries to live. Now, how do you take down a house? You see shocking things. More than that, how do you enter a house? How do you enter a house in Gaza? You're not just going to enter a house, let's face it, you're afraid. So first a D-9 comes along and…
Talk me through this: How do you do a "straw widow"?
Nowadays, we're afraid to enter a house. It's not like in the West Bank, any force can be targeted, and because of this fear, a D-9 is brought along, it's bullet-proof, and it digs a ditch all around, 360 degrees. It's like an anti-tank ditch. It breaks a hole in the house wall with its shovel… Sounds like it's breaking a door in, but actually it's breaking the whole wall. This break takes place while the people are still inside.
What do you mean? I can be sitting at home and… you're talking about the home of a terrorist? A wanted man?
No, not a wanted man, a house. That you need to take over because you've decided it's strategically situated.
Just moment, I'm sitting at home. Suddenly you see the shovel of a bulldozer and you've got a hole in your house wall.
I'm talking proportion to you, you see families coming out with these white rags, with their children, and a white rag, waving it so that they won't be shot by the army because they've been chased out of their home. You see them there like a row of ducks. So families come out holding these rags in order not to be shot by the soldiers because they're walking where they're not supposed to be seen walking, because the area is… under curfew, one must not be seen walking around in it. So they walk with a white flag because they have been driven out of their homes. I suppose this happens following large terrorist attacks. I mean, it happens very rarely, that one suddenly digs a ditch around a home and… Whenever the army decides to clean up a strip.
Once every two months? I mean, very seldom, to very specific houses, I take it?
No, not that seldom... It happens when the army decides to go in. That's what it does in Gaza.
Why is this not done?
When we asked – after all "straw widow" is supposed to be covert – we said, "Wait, but the whole house will be seen anyway. People will realize we've entered this house." So we were told, yes, we do this to another 3-4 houses which will not be entered. That makes a lot of sense, to show that… So people will not know where exactly the army is, so another four houses are demolished for nothing. A ditch is dug around them… Same procedure. Dig, demolish… Take the shovel in broad daylight… Take out the families.
The families must not enter the house for how long?
Ever.
What do you mean, "ever"? How does it work? I'm a family. My home is broken up with a shovel, I realize I must evacuate, I go out holding a white rag, I come back tomorrow? When do I return?
Do I ever return?
You return if you want to see the… Yes, I think you return to see what your house looks like after all of this, but you… you're not told when. You are simply sent away. Go, go. Go to your cousins. Go to your family. Just go. It's horrible.
So when I hear on the radio that "The IDF has razed so and so square kilometers…" what am I supposed to understand?
This is what you understand. You understand it has demolished buildings in order to open up a field of vision. You understand that it did so to another 3-4 buildings for nothing, and that is just one unit. Think about controlling such an area, covering the whole region. You need at least eight units. Make a simple calculation how many houses are being demolished. Eight times four. Something like that...
...None of these people are terrorists... Think everyone should think of their own home. Here, my home has been demolished...First of all, it's terrible that Qassams are being launched, but the IDF… I witnessed uncontrolled action. If at least we would exert control, do it as sterile as possible, they would at least understand that it's sterile...But here there's no minimum consideration, if a lieutenant decides that this and this goes, then the tractor driver says, "Okay I'll down this one and that one for you, and that one too."
Who's the driver of that tractor?
Some sergeant.
A 19-year old kid?
Yes. He tells his commander, himself a first sergeant, "Listen, I'll take down for you this and that and that one, looks like they're in the way." ... What happens now is that the way we do it plays much more into the hands of evil, and the results are opposite the ones we want. I mean, they create a lot more hatred and a lot more anger."