Israel prometeu uma coisa em Annapolis e fez outra na prática
No início de janeiro de 2008, Uri Avnery fez esta análise sobre Tzipi Livni, a advogada que só aprecia a Lei se beneficiar o sionismo (segundo revelou wikipleaks) e outra great deceiver, até hoje: "Tzipi Livni, as her name indicates, is the white bird of Israeli politics (Tzipi is short for Tzipora, "bird", and Livni comes from Lavan, "white"). As against the hawk Binyamin Netanyahu, the vulture Ehud Barak and the raven Ehud Olmert, she was seen as the immaculate feathered friend. In public opinion polls, she has enjoyed a remarkable popularity. She trumps all the other politicians in the governing coalition. While the rating of the two Ehuds - Olmert and Barak - was going down, hers was on the way up.
Why? Perhaps it was a case of the wish being the father of the thought. It is generally accepted that in the present Knesset no coalition could be set up without Kadima. Therefore, if one wants to throw Olmert out while avoiding new elections, Olmert's substitute must also come from Kadima. Livni is the only creditable candidate.
Still there is something odd about Livni's popularity. Up to now, she has not been faced with a serious test. She has never borne any real executive responsibility. She has been only a mediocre Minister of Justice.
Her public image is indeed impressive. She seems to be honest, a rare attribute for a politician. She looks wise. She looks courageous.
But anyone who studies her record must regretfully come to the opposite conclusion. Tzipi Livni is far from courageous and far from wise.
That became clear a year ago, after the Second Lebanon War.
It seemed that public anger over the failed war would topple Olmert. Livni jumped at the opportunity. In a dramatic move she called for the resignation of the Prime Minister and offered herself as his successor. It was leaked that soon after the beginning of the war, she had already called for its termination (which did not prevent her from voting for all of Olmert's moves.)
A courageous act, even if not very wise. Because very soon it became clear that public anger was subsiding rapidly. The protest movement petered out. Olmert, with the skin of an elephant and the cunning of a fox, just kept his head down and survived. He shook off the interim report of the Commission of Inquiry (the Winograd Report) as a dog sheds water. The day after the attempted putsch, Livni found herself alone in a political vacuum.
What does a courageous politician do in such a situation? Resign, of course. Join the opposition, exhort, admonish, preach at the gate like the prophets of yore.
But Livni did not do any of this. She just muttered some noncommittal words, folded her arms and remained in the cabinet. Like most of our politicians, she paraphrases Descartes: "I am a minister - ergo I exist."
As a minister, she continues to bear "collective responsibility" for all the acts and defaults of a government headed by the very person she herself has described as incompetent.
So much for courage. As for wisdom: if she was not certain about her ability to unseat Olmert, why did she start this escapade in the first place? And if she was not prepared to resign, why did she play at rebellion?
Olmert could have dismissed her. But he is much too clever. Better to have her in the tent spitting out, than outside spitting in. Since then he has lavished her with praise and paid her compliments at every opportunity. What a successful Foreign Minister! What a wise diplomat!
The last few days showed just how successful a Foreign Minister and how wise a diplomat Tzipi Livni really is.
It began with her appearance in the Foreign and Security Committee of the Knesset. In the distant past, that was a closed forum. But nowadays it resembles a sieve with very large holes indeed. Every word spoken there is leaked even before the speaker has closed his mouth - mostly by the assistants of the speakers themselves.
In this forum, Livni said that the Egyptians were cheating on their commitment to stop the smuggling of arms into the Gaza Strip. She demanded they mend their ways and put an end to this traffic.
It was not just a verbal complaint. It had practical implications: in the US Congress, there is an ongoing campaign to punish Egypt by cutting the huge package of financial aid it gets from the US. True, the Israeli Foreign Office does not associate itself openly with this demand, but everybody in Washington knows that in matters like this, the US Congress is not much more than an instrument of Israeli policy. Members of the Knesset roam the corridors of the Capitol and lobby for the cut. They may belong to the right-wing opposition, but they are clearly acting as emissaries of the Foreign Office.
To reinforce this effort, the Israeli government has distributed a video cassette around Washington showing Egyptian policemen standing passively by while the smuggling goes on under their very noses.
No wonder that Cairo considered Livni's remarks as another exercise of blackmail against Egypt: if you don't comply with our demands, we shall hit you in your most sensitive spot - the pocket.
It is hard to imagine a more foolish policy. Anyone who knows anything about Egypt - and there are such people even in the Foreign Office - would be aware that this is not just about hitting the pocket, but also the heart. Not just a matter of money, but also of pride.
Every year Egypt gets more American money than any other country on earth - except Israel, of course. And not for nothing: it started when Egypt signed the peace agreement with Israel. The enemies of the Egyptian regime call it a bribe for serving Israeli interests.
No country is more sensitive about its honor than Egypt. Its leaders regularly remind everybody - and, indeed, its foreign minister reminded Tzipi Livni this week - that the Egyptian state has existed for 7000 years, and is not prepared to be lectured by Israel (which was not even there 60 years ago.)
Egypt lives in a painful contradiction: it sees itself as the cradle of human civilization and the center of the Arab world, but it is a very poor country and needs every dollar it can get. Hosni Mubarak's regime is totally dependent on the United States, but desperately craves the respect of 70 million Egyptians and hundreds of millions of other Arabs.
That demands subtlety, even finesse. The accumulated experience of thousands of years has prepared the Egyptian diplomats for such a task. They never say "no", but "Yes, quite, but the moment is not appropriate" or "good idea, we shall consider it with utmost seriousness". Those who understand, understand. No wonder that Egyptian diplomats look upon their unsophisticated Israeli counterparts with thinly veiled contempt.
Tzipi Livni entered this porcelain shop like an elephant.
Why did she do it? The political correspondents, most of whom are merely reporters of political gossip, assume that the motive was personal: she spoke on the eve of Ehud Barak's meeting with Mubarak. Her real aim was to spoil it for Barak.
Perhaps she saw it as an opportunity to polish her image. For weeks now, the security establishment has been running a public relations campaign concerning the arms in the Gaza Strip. Its agents in the media tell us every day about the quantities of arms and explosives that are flowing into the Strip from Egypt through the tunnels under the border. The Egyptians are accused of closing their eyes. Livni wanted to ride this crest.
Livni's problem is common to all of Israel: the inability and unwillingness to see the point of view of the other side, especially if the other side is Arab. (The other side has, of course, a similar problem.)
The Egyptians consider themselves the natural leaders of the Arab world. President Mubarak and his followers are very sensitive to the accusations of their enemies - especially the Muslim Brotherhood - that they are serving the Israeli occupation at a time when Israel is starving the Gaza population and killing their leaders. Mubarak has no wish to do anything against Hamas that would seem to confirm these charges.
It is quite possible that the Egyptian authorities would be unable to prevent the traffic even if they wanted to. Most of the smuggled items are unobtainable in the besieged Gaza Strip, from milk powder to cigarettes. The smugglers can do business with the Sinai Bedouins or bribe the Egyptian policemen - who most certainly do not cherish the idea of stabbing their Arab brothers in the back while they are fighting against the Israeli occupation.
The Israeli public lives in a bubble. They cannot imagine that the same people who they know as "terrorists" are the heroes of the Arab world, that the detested "murderers" are the holy martyrs of the Arabs, that the "terrorism" is seen by the Arabs (and not only by them) as a heroic resistance to a monstrous occupation, that the "smugglers" are seen by the Arabs the same way as we saw "our fine boys" of the Palmach who smuggled arms under the noses of the British and risked their lives in order to break the blockade.
In the eyes of the Egyptians - and, indeed, of all Arabs - the Palestinian people are defending themselves against a brutal oppressor. The Palestinian martyrs restore the honor of the entire Arab nation. Even the Egyptians who support Mubarak and believe that there is no choice but to cooperate with the Americans and to keep the peace with Israel are torn between conflicting emotions.
If one does not understand the psychological and political dilemma of the Egyptian people, one is liable to do foolish things. And nothing could be more foolish than the Israeli action against those returning from the Hajj last week.
The pilgrimage to Mecca is, as everybody knows, one of the five pillars of Islam. A person starting on this voyage, with all its hardships, is much respected by all Muslims.
The million and a half inhabitants of the Gaza strip are prevented from fulfilling this duty, unless they undergo a "security check" by the Israeli army, often accompanied by harassment and humiliation. On Israel's demand, the Egyptians have closed the only border station that connects the Gaza Strip with the outside world: the Rafah crossing.
Two thousand pilgrims from Gaza have broken this blockade and crossed the Rafah border. It seems that the Egyptians cooperated, either openly or by closing their eyes. Indeed, how can an Egyptian leader block the path of devout Muslims on their way to fulfill one of the holiest duties? But the chiefs of the Israeli security establishment were furious.
The problem became worse when the pilgrims were on their way back from Mecca. When their ferry reached the Sinai shore, Israel demanded that the Egyptians block the Rafah crossing and compel the pilgrims to return through Israeli territory. This would have delivered Hamas members and other "wanted" people into the hands of the Israeli Security Service.
For the Egyptians, that was an altogether intolerable demand. If they had acceded to it, they would have looked to the whole Muslim world like collaborators who had turned over to the Jews pious Muslims returning from the holy Hajj.
The end was foreseeable: the Egyptians allowed all the pilgrims to return through Rafah. The Israeli government had scored an own goal.
All this would not have happened if the Foreign Minister had persuaded her colleagues to close their eyes and shut up. She didn't. They would not have listened to her anyhow.
Something tells me that this white bird will not be flying very far". Uri Avnery; 05/01/08
O ano começou violento, como se Israel quisesse marcar com ferro e a fogo este terrível aniversário.
Por um lado, reforçava sua presença civil e militar nos territórios ocupados, e nas salas de negociação, a efetivação das decisões tomadas na Conferência de Annapolis capengava, não apresentava nenhuma evolução concreta e sim piora na qualidade de vida dos ocupados.
No terreno, já no dia 01° de janeiro, por volta das 3:40, a IDF lançou dois mísseis em Maqboula - uma ex-base palestina de segurança localizada no sudeste do campo de refugiados de Bureij no centro da Faixa de Gaza matando Yihiya Said Jaber, de 23 anos. Logo depois, lançou um terceiro míssil nos moradores que acorreram para socorrer sua vítima ferindo dois deles.
No dia 02, por volta das 3:30, veículos armados invadiram a Faixa na calada da madrugada apoiados por drones e helicópteros de combate. Penetraram em Shujaiya, bairro oriental da cidade de Gaza, atirando indiscriminadamente enquanto os helicópteros lançavam três mísseis que mataram seis moradores e feriram quatro, inclusive duas mulheres. Foi uma operação relâmpago. A IDF retirou-se às 6:30. Já fizera a que viera e sabe que quanto mais rápido é o ataque, mais chance tem deste ficar fora da grande mídia e ser esquecido rapidinho por quem tiver notícia.
A ofensiva continuaria de maneira intermitente, uma provocação atrás da outra para que os grupos de resistência retaliassem e "justificassemé, aos olhares estrangeiros, investida mais drástica visível.
Dito e feito.
O Hamas e os demais grupos palestinos jogaram seus foguetes onde conseuiram. Ou seja, nas cidades israelenses vizinhas - Ashkelon e Sderot, causando mais pânico do que dano, como sempre, mas interessando a grade mídia. Já a IDF martelava com eficiência por terra e por ar a Faixa sem que os jornais denunciassem em nem uma linha. Em vez de conceder ao Hamas a trégua solicitada, dos dias 27 de dezembro ao dia 02 de janeiro israel feriu gravemente 17 gazauís e matou 15.
No dia 03 de janeiro a IDF continuou a socar a Faixa com bombas e incursões rápidas em Khan Younis. Bombardeou a casa da família Fayad matando a mãe, três filhos, um parente, e enquanto isso, seus caterpillars armados demoliam várias lavoura e casas deixando mais três famílias desabrigadas. Em Gaza e em Rafah procederam do mesmo jeito. Felizmente as três casas estavam vazias na hora do ataque. Entre as residências atingidas estavam as de Muhammad Morshed Abu Abdullah e Kareem al-Dahdouh, assassinados previamente. Era uma "recaída" na política de demolição punitiva. O intuito da IDF era o de sempre - desabrigar a família do resistente que executa com o propósito, em teoria, de a punição ser coletiva e "servir de exemplo".
Acontece que, de fato, a punição coletiva não dissuade ninguém e sim reforça a resistência e exarceba rancores latentes. Apesar disso, continua sendo uma prática recorrente da IDF nos territórios palestinos ocupados.
O ponto alto político do mês de janeiro foi a visita do presidente dos Estados Unidos George W. Bush a Israel e à Palestina. Ou melhor, a Tel Aviv e a Ramallah, pois a Faixa de Gaza foi excluída da viagem.
Nessa semana, antecipando a visita de George W. Bush à região, um colega palestino prestou o seguinte depoimento sobre a realidade em que vivia. Extratos: "I cringed as I walked into al-Shifa hospital for the first time. Gaza City’s largest hospital, al-Shifa provides treatment for critical cases from all over Gaza, in addition to being the primary hospital for non-critical cases. That day the hospital was overflowing with the ailing, the wounded and the dying. We were lead to just one of over 1,500 patients who were denied permission to leave Gaza despite suffering conditions that threatened to be terminal or at best, permanently debilitating. A doctor explained that a 19-year-old young man with a drawn face propped up on a pillow, was at risk of having both legs amputated unless he was able to have a complicated medical procedure performed within the next few days, a procedure that is not available in Gaza. Upon further inquiry, we were informed by the young man’s mother that her son had been shot several times by Israeli soldiers.
A short walk to the dialysis unit revealed ten machines gathering dust in the corridor. We were informed that the lack of spare parts, disposable items such as needles, and medicines for dialysis patients prevented them from being able to operate the life-saving machines. Furthermore, both hospitals and pharmacies in Gaza have run out of 92 out of about 400 types of essential medicines used to treat other illnesses.
At the Children’s Hospital in the Nasser area of Gaza City, the doctor lead us straight to the infant care unit where several incubators were occupied and others lay unused in a corner. We peered at the unnaturally small newborns struggling for each breath. The food crisis in Gaza has lead struggling undernourished mothers to give birth to unhealthy babies. It dawned on me that despite the gravity of the medical crisis, the inadequacy or shortage of medical equipment bore no comparison to the lack of the most important human need of all: food...
We made our way to a tile and brick factory that had been shut down due to the lack of cement and machine parts essential for it to function.
Entering the industrial zone en route to our third and final destination, I was struck by the brazen contrast between my distant recollection of the area — a once noisy, hectic bustle of trucks and machinery is presently an abandoned padlocked stretch of warehouses.
When the Israeli high court previously agreed to ban the transfer to Gaza of fuel to supply the main power plant, there were power cuts for at least eight hours a day.
Power and fuel cuts mean that hospitals, factories and other essential services suffer as a result. Such Israeli court decisions ignore the humanitarian impact on Gaza....
The power cuts that Gazans were experiencing before the last electricity cut was even then too much to bear and now the necessities of daily life are even harder to come by.
What drives me and other Gazans crazy is that the international community can see all of the human rights violations being committed in Gaza and yet they choose not to take any action and instead remain silent. In the past I remember hearing the international community condemn such Israeli violations, but now, nothing.
One must conclude they are in favor of the Gaza siege because they support Israel’s declaration that Gaza is an “enemy entity” since Hamas took over the Strip, ignoring that there are civilians living in Gaza that cannot be blamed for anything other than residing in Gaza.
My family and I are suffering like many others in Gaza. We are all waiting for an improvement in the situation in Gaza, hoping that things will get better. Most Gazans have nothing to do but hope for a better life for our children, families and ourselves.
I wish I could tell George W. Bush that if he is coming to Palestine to complicate the lives of Palestinians while showing sympathy with Israel then you are not welcome. We want solutions in easing our lives, the opening the borders and the breaking of the siege.
I am not optimistic about Bush’s visit as it’s nothing but more talks. I am expecting a huge Israeli military attack against Gaza with the approval of the US. And as always, occupied Palestinians will receive nothing but the blame.
I am sorry Gorge W. Bush, you are not welcome."
Mohammed Ali works for an international relief agency in Gaza and also as a freelance journalist.
No dia 02, por volta das 3:30, veículos armados invadiram a Faixa na calada da madrugada apoiados por drones e helicópteros de combate. Penetraram em Shujaiya, bairro oriental da cidade de Gaza, atirando indiscriminadamente enquanto os helicópteros lançavam três mísseis que mataram seis moradores e feriram quatro, inclusive duas mulheres. Foi uma operação relâmpago. A IDF retirou-se às 6:30. Já fizera a que viera e sabe que quanto mais rápido é o ataque, mais chance tem deste ficar fora da grande mídia e ser esquecido rapidinho por quem tiver notícia.
A ofensiva continuaria de maneira intermitente, uma provocação atrás da outra para que os grupos de resistência retaliassem e "justificassemé, aos olhares estrangeiros, investida mais drástica visível.
Dito e feito.
O Hamas e os demais grupos palestinos jogaram seus foguetes onde conseuiram. Ou seja, nas cidades israelenses vizinhas - Ashkelon e Sderot, causando mais pânico do que dano, como sempre, mas interessando a grade mídia. Já a IDF martelava com eficiência por terra e por ar a Faixa sem que os jornais denunciassem em nem uma linha. Em vez de conceder ao Hamas a trégua solicitada, dos dias 27 de dezembro ao dia 02 de janeiro israel feriu gravemente 17 gazauís e matou 15.
No dia 03 de janeiro a IDF continuou a socar a Faixa com bombas e incursões rápidas em Khan Younis. Bombardeou a casa da família Fayad matando a mãe, três filhos, um parente, e enquanto isso, seus caterpillars armados demoliam várias lavoura e casas deixando mais três famílias desabrigadas. Em Gaza e em Rafah procederam do mesmo jeito. Felizmente as três casas estavam vazias na hora do ataque. Entre as residências atingidas estavam as de Muhammad Morshed Abu Abdullah e Kareem al-Dahdouh, assassinados previamente. Era uma "recaída" na política de demolição punitiva. O intuito da IDF era o de sempre - desabrigar a família do resistente que executa com o propósito, em teoria, de a punição ser coletiva e "servir de exemplo".
Acontece que, de fato, a punição coletiva não dissuade ninguém e sim reforça a resistência e exarceba rancores latentes. Apesar disso, continua sendo uma prática recorrente da IDF nos territórios palestinos ocupados.
Nessa semana, antecipando a visita de George W. Bush à região, um colega palestino prestou o seguinte depoimento sobre a realidade em que vivia. Extratos: "I cringed as I walked into al-Shifa hospital for the first time. Gaza City’s largest hospital, al-Shifa provides treatment for critical cases from all over Gaza, in addition to being the primary hospital for non-critical cases. That day the hospital was overflowing with the ailing, the wounded and the dying. We were lead to just one of over 1,500 patients who were denied permission to leave Gaza despite suffering conditions that threatened to be terminal or at best, permanently debilitating. A doctor explained that a 19-year-old young man with a drawn face propped up on a pillow, was at risk of having both legs amputated unless he was able to have a complicated medical procedure performed within the next few days, a procedure that is not available in Gaza. Upon further inquiry, we were informed by the young man’s mother that her son had been shot several times by Israeli soldiers.
A short walk to the dialysis unit revealed ten machines gathering dust in the corridor. We were informed that the lack of spare parts, disposable items such as needles, and medicines for dialysis patients prevented them from being able to operate the life-saving machines. Furthermore, both hospitals and pharmacies in Gaza have run out of 92 out of about 400 types of essential medicines used to treat other illnesses.
At the Children’s Hospital in the Nasser area of Gaza City, the doctor lead us straight to the infant care unit where several incubators were occupied and others lay unused in a corner. We peered at the unnaturally small newborns struggling for each breath. The food crisis in Gaza has lead struggling undernourished mothers to give birth to unhealthy babies. It dawned on me that despite the gravity of the medical crisis, the inadequacy or shortage of medical equipment bore no comparison to the lack of the most important human need of all: food...
We made our way to a tile and brick factory that had been shut down due to the lack of cement and machine parts essential for it to function.
Entering the industrial zone en route to our third and final destination, I was struck by the brazen contrast between my distant recollection of the area — a once noisy, hectic bustle of trucks and machinery is presently an abandoned padlocked stretch of warehouses.
When the Israeli high court previously agreed to ban the transfer to Gaza of fuel to supply the main power plant, there were power cuts for at least eight hours a day.
Power and fuel cuts mean that hospitals, factories and other essential services suffer as a result. Such Israeli court decisions ignore the humanitarian impact on Gaza....
The power cuts that Gazans were experiencing before the last electricity cut was even then too much to bear and now the necessities of daily life are even harder to come by.
What drives me and other Gazans crazy is that the international community can see all of the human rights violations being committed in Gaza and yet they choose not to take any action and instead remain silent. In the past I remember hearing the international community condemn such Israeli violations, but now, nothing.
One must conclude they are in favor of the Gaza siege because they support Israel’s declaration that Gaza is an “enemy entity” since Hamas took over the Strip, ignoring that there are civilians living in Gaza that cannot be blamed for anything other than residing in Gaza.
My family and I are suffering like many others in Gaza. We are all waiting for an improvement in the situation in Gaza, hoping that things will get better. Most Gazans have nothing to do but hope for a better life for our children, families and ourselves.
I wish I could tell George W. Bush that if he is coming to Palestine to complicate the lives of Palestinians while showing sympathy with Israel then you are not welcome. We want solutions in easing our lives, the opening the borders and the breaking of the siege.
I am not optimistic about Bush’s visit as it’s nothing but more talks. I am expecting a huge Israeli military attack against Gaza with the approval of the US. And as always, occupied Palestinians will receive nothing but the blame.
I am sorry Gorge W. Bush, you are not welcome."
Mohammed Ali works for an international relief agency in Gaza and also as a freelance journalist.
"This week US President George W. Bush embarks on a tour of some of the US’ Middle East allies, including his first visit while in office to Israel. The trip has been presaged by a lot of media guesswork about what exactly Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will discuss, and one of the likely topics will apparently be the so-called “illegal outposts.”
The New York Times last Saturday reported remarks made by Bush in an interview with Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot about the need for Israel to dismantle these outposts and the apparent “awkward” nature of the issue for both US and Israeli governments. However, the issue of outposts — framed as Bush forcing a reticent Israeli administration to compromise for the sake of peace — risks clouding far more crucial issues that go to the heart of the conflict.
“Settler outposts” refer to sites scattered around the West Bank where Zionist Jews have established often as little as a tent or a caravan, as part of the wider effort to colonize “Judea and Samaria.” They are “illegal” in the sense that they have been established without the official authorization of the Israeli state (although it has been alleged sometimes with the collusion of individual officials).
The language of illegality with regards to the outposts serves as a deliberate distraction from the main colony blocs, many of which began life as mere “outposts.” The contrast in scale with these large-scale settlements, illegal under international law, is something that even The New York Times, in the aforementioned article, alludes to:“… the population of the outposts Israel considers illegal is tiny compared with the 65,000 or so Israelis living in the settlements beyond the barrier, let alone the 465,000 Israelis living beyond the country’s 1967 boundaries in settlements and in East Jerusalem.”
Bush, however, takes a very different approach to the main settlement blocs, as he makes clear in the Yediot Aharonot interview: “But the unauthorized settlements, which is different from authorized settlements, is an issue we’ve been very clear on. But I’ve also made statements on the settlements, as well. As I said, realities on the ground will help define the border — the eventual border of what the Palestinian state will look like.”
This is not a new development; it was in April 2004 when President Bush wrote to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saying:“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
Despite the public theatre of wrist-slapping and re-commitment to promises never meant to be kept, Olmert is well aware that Bush is “on side” when it comes to Israeli plans for the Palestinian “state.” In an interview with The Jerusalem Post last week and quoted by Agence France-Presse, Olmert described the extent of the White House’s support for Israeli unilateral annexation in the occupied territories:“ ‘I don’t recall another president who systematically and consistently showed the same level of commitment to Israel as George W. Bush,’ adding that ‘with him, I know for certain that he backs our red lines’… He reiterated that Israel had no intention of giving up some of the large settlement blocks in the occupied Palestinian territory, notably the Maale Adumim settlement east of Jerusalem — one of West Bank’s largest. ‘Maale Adumim is an indivisible part of Jerusalem and the State of Israel. I don’t think when they’re talking about settlements they are talking about Maale Adumim.’”
Settlers are often portrayed in the Western media as extremists within Israeli society, and the outpost “pioneers” — those who heeded Ariel Sharon’s call a decade ago to “move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can” — an even more maverick fringe. Yet core ideological characteristics of the settlers are also central to the identity and policies of the Israeli state itself; the settlers of city and caravan are a natural expression of Zionism, rather than an aberration.
While the ultra-religious settlers are more frequently spotlighted as ascribing to slogans such as “Only the Bible is the roadmap of the Jewish people,” Israel’s very own Declaration of Independence itself celebrates “the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country” and affirms “the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel.”
Closely connected to the idea of the Bible as land deeds is a second characteristic of both settlers and the Israeli state: a disregard for and denial of applicability of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and a refusal to accept the Palestinians’ recognized right to self-determination. Again, typically settlers are presented as the kind of extremists who reject any kind of concession to either the “Other” or to the demands of international law. In a recent piece in The Los Angeles Times, the mayor of the Gush Etzion bloc, Shaul Goldstein, looks down at the land owned by a Palestinian family from Bethlehem and assures the reporter: “ ‘If the state wants to give it to me, for my settlement, they will give it to me. All the land belongs to Israel. We can build wherever we want’ ”. Interestingly, while Goldstein rejects the idea of an illegal Israeli occupation — since the land is Israel — he also tolerates the limited presence of Palestinian “neighbors,” and “says they must be accommodated in what he calls the land of Israel.”
This same kind of rejectionism and denial of Palestine’s right to exist is not the exclusive preserve of the settlers; it is echoed at the heart of the Israeli political establishment. Speaking to the UN in September 2005, Ariel Sharon made similar remarks to those of Goldstein: “The right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel does not mean disregarding the rights of others in the land. The Palestinians will always be our neighbors. We respect them, and have no aspirations to rule over them. They are also entitled to freedom and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own.”
Thus, “according to Sharon … the Jewish people have a ‘right … to the Land of Israel;’ in other words, theirs is the right of ownership and possession — in practice and in principle. All others, or more exactly, the Palestinians, have ‘rights in the land’… [They] do not, it appears, have any right to the land of Palestine itself.”
In case even Sharon’s views are dismissed as those of an unrepentant right-winger, there is also the example of current Defense Minister Ehud Barak, ex-Prime Minister of a Labor-led government and apparent “hawkish dove.” In 1999, a year before the second intifada and well before construction commenced on the separation wall, Barak spoke at length about his vision for the OPT: “ ‘Only physical separation from the Palestinians will give us both personal and national security, but in no way will we withdraw to the 1967 border,’ he explained. ‘Bet El and Ofra will be ours forever … There is no meaning to our identity and to all that we are here without the connection to Shilo and to Tekoa, to Bet El and to Efrat …’”
Moreover, his opposition to outposts was not “because we do not have such a right.” In fact, Israelis “have a complete right to settle there. We didn’t steal anything from anyone. We have deep ties with these places.” Interestingly, in February of the same year, Barak specified some of Israel’s “red lines:” “Alfe Menache, the Etzion Bloc, Ariel, Nirit, the corridor, the Jordan Valley settlements, and many more places are part of the State of Israel, now and in the permanent agreement.”
As part of its ruling against the wall in July 2004, the International Court of Justice made a point of putting on record what international law says about the OPT, concluding: “All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.”
Finally, interwoven with the idea of a Jewish “return” and a denial of relevant international law is a deep anti-Arab racism. This year is the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the Hebron settlement Kiryat Arba, a religious colony that is notorious for graffiti like “Death to the Arabs” or “Arabs to the gas chambers.” Then there are the likes of Moshe Feiglin, a prominent settler activist who gained 23 percent in the Likud leadership primary last August and lives in a West Bank settlement. In a piece in The New Yorker, Feiglin gave his own perspective on the chances for peace: “ ‘You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.’”
Extremist religious settlers may be less refined in expressing their views, but anti-Palestinian racism has been common amongst the Zionist political and military establishment, from the first pre-state leadership to sitting Knesset members today. MKEffi Eitam is a decorated war hero and sits on the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committees. In an interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz he described expelling all the Palestinians of the occupied territories and those living inside Israel as a “politically enticing” solution. “Israeli Arabs,” according to Eitam, are an “elusive threat” like that of a “cancer.” Eitam can find common cause with Avigdor Lieberman, Minister of Strategic Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, who said in May 2004 of the Palestinians inside Israel that “they have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost.”
Outspoken remarks like these are often hypocritically condemned by the same politicians and generals who will openly worry about the “demographic threat.” Reports like the one compiled by Professor Arnon Soffer into the dangers posed by the rising Palestinian population are discussed at length at the very highest level, despite the fact that the underlying presumption is that Palestinians are a “threat” for simply being Palestinian.
Interviewed in Haaretz in 2003, leftist activist and journalist Haim Hanegbi recalled the moment he realized that for all the rhetoric, Israeli settlements were constantly growing: “I realized that Israel can’t abandon its expansionist character; it is shackled, by arms and legs, to its institutionalized ideology, structure, actions and theft.
With Bush’s visit to Israel, and the controversy over the outposts, we are set for more posturing politics and veiling of apartheid. It is vital to make the link between the outposts, the settlement blocs, and the identity of Israel itself, in order that proposed solutions to the conflict go to its very core, rather than play around on the edges".
Ben White is a freelance journalist specializing in Palestine/Israel. His website is atwww.benwhite.org.uk and he can be contacted directly at ben@benwhite.org.uk.
.jpg)
"US President George W. Bush landed in Israel yesterday on his first presidential trip to the country. He participated in a press conference in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, what both men termed a “historic” and “monumental” occasion. After listening to both so-called leaders make their opening comments and fielding questions from journalists, the only groundbreaking revelation I could register was that Bush’s naivete, either real or feigned, only served the agenda of one party in the region — Hamas. The radical Islamists at Hamas could not find a better recruiter for their movement if they tried.
My opinion may be extreme, but then again, I live in extreme limbo under Israeli military occupation, shaped by a policy both men continuously refuse to call by its true name — state terror.
My opinion is certainly subjective but I started my day by reading a communique from the real world: a report by the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs that the background of the issue: on 28 June 2006 the Israeli Air Force bombed the power plant in the Gaza Strip, destroying all six transformers and cutting 43 percent of Gaza’s total power capacity. The report states, “households in the Gaza Strip are now experiencing regular power cuts” and notes that “the irregular [electricity] supply causes additional problems. Running water in Gaza is only available in most households for around eight hours per day. If there is no power when water is available, it cannot be pumped above ground level, reducing the availability of running water to between four and six hours per day.” The result of this single punitive measure, as stated in this report, is that if Gaza’s Coastal Municipalities Water Utility “cannot provide its own emergency power supply because of its own fuel shortages, it has to pump raw sewage into the sea which damages the coastline in Gaza, southern Israel and Egypt.”
In another report, released the same day, the World Food Programme spokesperson Kirstie Campbell finds that 70 percent of the population of Gaza has to choose between putting food on the table or a roof over their heads.
Bush and Olmert do not seem to worry there will be any fallout from the disturbing information in these reports, released one day before Bush’s arrival. As a matter of fact, the reality that Israel has successfully placed 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, over 50 percent of them children, in the dark and under the most draconian siege in recent history did not even make it to the margins of either leader’s speeches.
Much more important issues were on Bush’s agenda. The need to realize and work on a “vision” for the future was in the forefront of Bush’s mind. “The parties” should now sit down and “negotiate a vision” — the parties being Israel, the fourth strongest military might in the world and a forty-year-long occupier, and the Palestinians, a stateless people who have been dispossessed by Israel for sixty years and under brutal military occupation by their colonizers for over four decades.
Both Bush and Olmert did send one united message to the world: the two-state solution was still the aim of the negotiations. Reading between the lines, we can infer that to them, the specter of a single democratic state, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, is the most frightening vision of all. To ensure that a one-state solution of Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) and Israelis (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) living side by side with equal national and civil rights in historic Palestine does not materialize, the US and Israel talk about a two-state solution, but in the meantime, the US bankrolls Israel as it continues to create facts on the ground that make any viable Palestinian state impossible.Olmert was clear beyond a doubt: President Bush has been very, very good for Israel. Olmert was nearly jumping for joy as he praised Bush for increasing the comprehensive USaid package to Israel to a whopping $30 billion.
Journalists constantly raised the issue of Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territory. Again, Olmert said Jerusalem is different, and no one should expect settlements to stop there. As for the other settlements, he said it was complicated and began elucidating the lexicon of “outposts,” “population centers,” etc. Bush, for his part, was only able to remind us all that Israel has been promising for over four years to stop settlements but has yet to do so. Even that came with a chuckle amongst journalists, as if the human tragedy these settlements are causing was a side show. Rarely has Bush given so persuasive an impression of being detached not just from the facts but from any sort of empathy for the victims of this appalling situation.
But mainly, it looks like Bush came to Israel to speak about Iran. Bush seemed very enthused about threatening Iran from Israel. His glaring inability to articulate a basic understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli issue left seasoned Israeli journalists chuckling in disbelief at the president’s replies. The local press corps noted every opportunity seized by Olmert to hitch a ride on each one of Bush’s superficial comments, lauding the importance of the Bush visit, the Bush commitment to peace, and Bush’s courage in confronting the region’s difficulties.
Today Bush arrives in my Israeli-occupied city of al-Bireh/Ramallah. He plans to land two blocks away from my home, in a sports field that I happen to be developing as a commercial project for the nearby Friends (Quaker) School. We were notified today that our street will be one of the many that will be under 100 percent lockdown. We were advised we would be risking our lives if we went to our rooftop to watch the charade unfold. Public notices from the Palestinian police chief warned that absolutely no protests would be tolerated. In short, we were told to stay indoors. Even our local newspaper, Al-Quds, refused to publish as an advertisement a cartoon satirizing Bush’s visit submitted by a civil society campaign I work with. So much for running a business, economic development, and freedom of the press. So much for Palestinian democracy too.
As an American and a Palestinian, if I could advise Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on how to greet his American peer today, I would ask him to declare the end of the Palestinian Authority, which Israel has purposefully and systematically destroyed. I would ask him to announce that the Palestinians will not accept Rambo-style diplomacy and will revert to international law as the only reference point for resolving the conflict. I would ask Abbas to request America’s support for nonviolent resistance against sixty years of dispossession and forty years of military occupation by calling for a strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it joins the community of law-abiding nations.
But that’s not all. If I were Abbas I would tell the world that the Palestinian people will remain committed to the two-state solution until the end of 2008, and after that, if the international community fails yet again to end this nightmare of occupation, the Palestinian people will return to their original strategy of calling for one democratic secular state, where Palestinians and Israelis of all religions can live in dignity and mutual respect as equals — one person, one vote, with appropriate arrangements for cultural autonomy for all."
Sam Bahour is a business consultant and may be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.
Leaders from the Palestinian party Hamas that won the elections in Gaza two years back have inevitably not been invited to meet Bush. The US considers Hamas a terrorist organization.
Hamas took control of Gaza by force from the Fatah party headed by Abbas in June last year, about a year and a half after it swept the polls in January 2006.
As Hamas leaders and supporters see it, Bush’s talks with Abbas can count for little if they are kept out. And so with Abbas’s talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert just ahead of Bush’s visit.
The visit is “no more than an attempt by Bush to boost his image before he leaves office,” Dr. Salah al-Bardawil, spokesman and member of the Hamas-affiliated Change and Reform parliamentary bloc in the Palestinian Legislative Council told IPS.
In an interview with Israeli Television on Sunday, Bush said that before the end of his political career he wants to urge Israel and the Palestinians to reach a final agreement on establishing an independent Palestinian state.
Hamas is not convinced. “Bush can’t sincerely be speaking about a Palestinian state, since Israel has always refused to define distinct and clear-cut borders for, and thus recognize, a viable Palestinian state,” Bardawil said.
“One must ask what kind of country Bush is talking about when Israel insists on — and the Bush administration tolerates — expanding and building illegal Jewish settlements, building an internationally illegal apartheid wall, and depriving a country of its water and economy.”
While the red carpet was being laid for Bush in Ramallah for the meeting with Abbas, Israeli siege of Gaza, less than two hoursdrive from Ramallah, continues. Bush’s visit has again highlighted the divisions between Hamas and Fatah - and between the two big Palestinian areas, the Gaza Strip ruled by Hamas and the West Bank ruled by Fatah. “Bush is not welcomed by Hamas, nor by the majority of Palestinians,” Bardawil said.
On the other side, West Bank based Fatah leader Saeb Erekat said Fatah, represented by Abbas and Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, will ask Bush to pressure Israel to stop its expansion of illegal settlements and its military operations in the West Bank and the whole of the Gaza Strip.
PA and Israeli negotiating teams held two rounds of talks immediately after talks in Annapolis in the US in December, but failed to produce any tangible progress, mainly due to expansion of Israeli settlements.
The settlements on Palestinian land captured in the 1967 War are one of the most controversial issues in the decades-old occupation and conflict.
“While we are not optimistic about the intentions of President Bush’s visit, we do hope that he will work to end Israeli military practices and attacks, the building of the segregation wall, and to end the building and expanding of the hundreds of illegal Israeli settlements and outposts,” Zakaria al-Agha, one of the few senior Fatah leaders left in Gaza told IPS.
“The illegal Israeli practices contradict President Bush’s professed vision for peace,” he said. But while some of the Fatah and Hamas language is similar, it is Bush and Abbas who are talking to one another. In the eyes of many Palestinians, Hamas has gained legitimacy through this exclusion, while Fatah has lost its own in talking to Bush.
Bardawil said “this visit aims to empower Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] against Hamas and its government in Gaza.” But, he added, that “while trying to put pressure on Hamas, Bush really knows that no solution exists without Hamas.”
Suspicions abound over Bush’s visit. Bardawil said Bush “aims to empower what he calls the ‘moderate trend’ in order to use the people for his plans to attack Iran in the future.”
Both Hamas and Fatah members are watching closely to see what emerges on the ground from the visit. “President Bush wants to show that he is working for two states, Palestine and Israel,” said Agha. “But we want to see action, not just pretty words.”
A measure of action will be what Israel does on the issue of the settlements, the status of disputed Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees, and the borders of a future Palestinian state".
Mohammed Omer - Inter Press Service (2008).
Olmert is taller. He talked endlessly, while Bush listened patiently. While Olmert anointed Bush with flattery that would have made a Byzantine emperor blush, it was quite clear that it is Olmert who decides policy, while Bush humbly accepts the Israeli diktat. And Bush's flattery of Olmert exceeded even Olmert's flattery of Bush.
Both, we learned, are "courageous". Both are "determined". Both have a "vision". The word "vision", once reserved for prophets, starred in every second sentence. (Bush could not know that in Israel, "vision" has long become a jocular appellation for highfaluting speeches, usually in combination with the word "Zionism".)
The President and the Prime Minister have something else in common: not a word of what they said at the press conference had any connection with the truth...
One of the most moving dramas in the Bible tells about our old blind forefather, Isaac, who wanted to bless his eldest son, Esau, a reddish and hairy hunter. But the second son, the homebody (or rather tent-body) Jacob, exploited the absence of his brother and went to his father in order to steal the blessing. He wore Esau's clothes and covered his arms with hairy goat skins. The ruse nearly failed, when the father felt the arms of Jacob and his suspicion was aroused.
That's when he uttered the famous words: "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau." (Genesis, 27: 22).
Yet Jacob, the impostor, did receive the blessing and became the father of the nation which was named after him (he was also called Israel). It seems that Ehud Olmert is a true successor: there is no connection between his voice and his hands.
Anyone who listens to him - not just at the press conference, but also on every other occasion - hears words of peace and reason: The Palestinians must have a state of their own. The "vision" must be realized while Bush is president, because Israel has never had and never will have a truer friend. The settlement outposts must be removed, as promised by us again and again. The settlements must be frozen. Etc. etc.
That is the voice of Jacob. But the hands, well, they are the hands of Esau.
Before Annapolis, during Annapolis and after Annapolis, nothing at all was done to promote the Two-State Solution. The negotiations were about to begin - any moment now - a year ago, and now they are again about to begin - any moment now. Yes, the "core issues" - borders, Jerusalem, refugees - will be addressed. Sure. Any moment now.
But in the meantime, the hands of Esau are working feverishly. All over the occupied territories, the settlements are being enlarged. The existing outposts remain untouched, new ones spring up from time to time. Around them, a well choreographed dance has evolved, a kind of formal ballet executed by the settlers and the army. The settlers set up a new outpost, the army removes it, the settlers return and set it up again, the army dismantles, and so forth.
In the meantime the outpost gets bigger and bigger. The government connects it to the electricity and water systems and builds a road. And the army, of course, protects it day and night. We cannot leave good Jews at the mercy of the evil Palestinian terrorists, can we?
Bush knows all this and still continues to blabber that "the illegal outposts must be removed". And so it continues: the voice is Jacob's voice, the hands are the hands of Esau.
But one cannot fool all of the people all of the time, to quote another American President who was slightly more intelligent than the present incumbent.
And so, after Olmert and Bush repeated the mantra about removing the outposts and freezing the settlements, one of the journalists popped an innocent question: How does this fit together with the announcement about the building of a huge new housing project at Har Homa?
If anyone thought that this would embarrass Olmert, he was sadly mistaken. Olmert just cannot be embarrassed. He simply answered that this promise does not apply to Jerusalem, nor to the "Jewish population centers" beyond the Green Line.
"Jerusalem" - since the time of Levy Eshkol - is not only the Old City and the Holy Basin. It is the huge tract of land annexed to Israel after the Six-Day War, from the approaches to Bethlehem to the outskirts of Ramallah. This area includes the hill that was once forested and called Jebel Abu-Ghneim, now the site of the big and ugly Har Homa settlement. And the "population centers" are the big settlement blocs in the occupied Palestinian territories, which President Bush so generously presented to Ariel Sharon.
This means that almost all the extensive building activities that are now going on beyond the Green Line are not covered by the Israeli undertaking to freeze the settlements. And while Olmert publicly announced this, President Bush was standing at his side, smiling foolishly and painting on another layer of compliments.
The following day, Bush visited Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and told the shocked Palestinians that the innumerable Israeli roadblocks in the West Bank, which turn the life of the Palestinians into hell, are necessary for the protection of Israel and must remain where they are - until after the establishment of the hoped-for democratic Palestinian state.
Condoleezza Rice was quick to remind him in private that this was not very wise, since he was about to visit half a dozen Arab countries. So Bush hastened to call another press conference in Jerusalem, talking about the "core issues": there would be a "contiguous" Palestinian state, but the 1949 borders (the Green Line) would not be restored. He would not speak about Jerusalem. Also, the refugee problem would be settled by an international fund - meaning that none at all would be allowed to return.
Altogether, much less than Bill Clinton's 2000 "parameters", and less than most Israelis are already prepared to accept. It amounts to 110% support for the official Israeli government line.
After that, Bush had dinner with Israeli cabinet ministers. He cordially shook the hand of Minister Rafael Eitan, the former spymaster who controlled the Israeli spy in Washington, Jonathan Pollard, whom Bush refuses to pardon. (Eitan would be arrested the moment he set foot on American soil.) He spoke cordially with the ultra-rightist Minister Avigdor Liberman, urging him to support Olmert. Throughout the dinner, he talked and talked, until Condi sent him a discreet note suggesting that he shut up. Bush, in high spirits, read the note out loud.
I have mentioned more than once the British World War II poster which was pasted up on the walls in Palestine: "Is this trip really necessary?"
That is again the question now: Is this trip of Bush's really necessary?
The answer is: Of course. Necessary for Bush. Necessary for Olmert. Necessary for Abbas, too.
For Bush, because he is a lame duck, in the last year of his term, and therefore almost paralyzed. In the United States he is rapidly becoming irrelevant. His touted Middle East tour has been drowned out by the primary elections mayhem, which produces a new drama almost every day. While Hillary wrestles with Obama and the glib Bill competes with an impressive black grandma, who cares where the worst president in American history is traipsing around?
Olmert is well aware of the situation. When he declares that the last year of the term of his noble friend must be used, what he really means to say is: he cannot exert any pressure on us, he cannot even "nudge" us, as he promises. There is no need to remove even one single outpost for him. So let us squeeze the last drop of juice out of his presidency, before he is thrown onto the trash pile of history.
But Olmert needs the presence of Bush at his side, because his position is not much more secure than Bush's. Bush is bankrupt in a big way, after starting one of the most pointless and unsuccessful wars in US history. That is true for Olmert in a small way. He is bankrupt too, and he also started a pointless, failed war.
In two weeks time, the Winograd Commission will publish its final report on Lebanon War II, and everyone expects it to come down on Olmert like a 16 ton weight. He may survive, if only because there is now no credible substitute. But he needs all the help he can get - and what better help than the "Leader of the Free World" gazing at him with liquid eyes?
It's the old story about the lame and the blind.
This was not Bush's last presidential visit to Israel. He has already promised to return on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state, which falls this year (in accordance with the Hebrew calendar) on May 8. What else can a president do in his last months in office, except star in ceremonies with kings, presidents and prime ministers?
Perhaps he had intended to finish with a big bang, a historic climax that would overshadow even his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, such as a grand attack on Iran. But it seems that the US intelligence community, in a patriotic act that makes up for some of its earlier sins, has prevented this by publishing its sensational report.
True, this week something happened that put on a warning light. Some small Iranian boats were reported to have made a provocative gesture against the powerful American warships in the Strait of Hormuz.
That takes us right back to 1964 and to what has become known as the "Gulf of Tonkin incident". President Lyndon Johnson announced that Vietnamese vessels had attacked American warships. That was a lie, but it was enough for Congress to empower the president to widen the war that killed millions of people (and buried Johnson's career).
But this time the red light went out quickly. The US Congress is not what it was, it seems that the Americans have no stomach for another war, the historical parallel was too obvious. Bush has been left without an option for war. He has been left with nothing. Apart from Olmert's flattery, of course." Uri Avnery, 12/01/2008
Trocando em miúdos, a passagem de W. Bush por Tel Aviv foi marcada por tapinhas nas costas e bate-papos que só serviram para Ehud Olmert sentir-se respaldado por seu companheiro de equipe.Enquanto que sua passagem por Ramallah no dia 10 de janeiro foi pontuada por pingos nos iis intimidativos e mesmo assim Mahmoud Abbas não entendeu direito que vendera a alma para o diabo.
Se tivesse entendido, não teria sido a própria polícia palestina a ser usada para reprimir as passeatas dos manifestantes que discordavam deste passo em falso que seus governantes do Fatah haviam dado.
E a polícia usou força excessiva condenada por todas as organizações de Direitos Humanos e vários partidos palestinos como o Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), o Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, o People’s Party, e a National Palestinian Initiative que organizaram demonstrações pacíficas contra a visita do Presidente dos Estados Unidos à Muqata'a, das quais participaram inclusive membros do Conselho Legistativo palestino (PLC) que também foram reprimidos.
Ao chegarem na Praça Manara no centro de Ramallah, os manifestantes foram recebidos por dezenas de policiais compatriotas com gás lacrimogênio e Bashir al-Kheiri, um dos líderes do PFLP foi ferido junto com vários manifestantes. A repressão ocorreu apesar das passeatas terem sido autorizadas.
O Comitê Palestino de Direitos Humanos - PCHR fez então a seguinte declaração: PCHR Strongly condemns the ban on peaceful demonstrations and rallies in the West Bank, and the use of force in dispersing demonstrators, including beatings with batons and other forms of violence and inhumane treatment. Affirms the full and legitimate right of civilians to hold peaceful general assemblies, demonstrations, and rallies as forms of expression and protest, protected by Basic Law and international human rights instruments.Calls upon the Palestinian Authority government in Ramallah to immediately investigate these attacks, prosecute their perpetrators, and to take effective measures to prevent their recurrence.
Nesse ínterim, na Faixa de Gaza, o Hamas queria que sua ausência contasse. Na visão do Hamas, o diáologo entre Bush e Abbas era um diálogo de surdos sem nenhuma serventia ao povo palestino.
Um porta-voz do partido, Salah al-Bardawil, ressaltou que a visita de Bush era “no more than an attempt by Bush to boost his image before he leaves office,”. De fato, em entrevista, George W. Bush só disse que desejava instar israelenses e palestinos a chegar a um Acordo para o estabelecimento de um Estado Palestino antes do fim de seu mandato na Casa Branca. Mandato que estava expirando.
O Hamas desconfiava até do ar que Bush respirava: “Bush is not welcomed by Hamas, nor by the majority of Palestinians. The illegal Israeli practices contradict President Bush’s professed vision for peace. Bush can’t sincerely be speaking about a Palestinian state, since Israel has always refused to define distinct and clear-cut borders for, and thus recognize, a viable Palestinian state,” disse Bardawil. “One must ask what kind of country Bush is talking about when Israel insists on — and the Bush administration tolerates — expanding and building illegal Jewish settlements, building an internationally illegal apartheid wall, and depriving a country of its water and economy.”
De fato, Bush não fez nenhuma pressão sobre o ocupante e não apresentou ao ocupado nenhuma solução ou a menor esperança, apesar da demanda do primeiro ministro palestino Salam Fayyad que o Presidente dos EUA fizesse algo para que a expansão das colônias judias na Cisjordânia parasse.
A visita de Bush a Ramallah, na visão de outra colega local foi bastante crítica: "So US President Geroge W. Bush came to Ramallah, and of course the city was turned upside down. The Palestinian Authority (PA) wanted to show that they were up to the task of handliing the secutiry.I managed to get a press pass and I was cynical but curious to see how the big show would go down. All the photographers and journalists were told to come at 6am at a certain location so that they could be taken all together to the Muqata’a, the PA’s headquarters.
I did not want to play this game. I wanted to document the “behind the scenes” of the visit and to feel the atmosphere of the streets. I wanted to show the absurdity of it all, the big circus that the PA agreed to host. I was also told that there would be some demonstrations and I did not want to miss them.
Early that morning I was woken up by the din of the helicopters and the sirens. Was Ramallah attacked? Then I remembered that we were under siege because the visit of George W. Bush. As I moved around the city, I discovered that the streets were empty and the impression of a ghost town was reinforced by the presence of a heavy fog.
From al-Manara, the center of the city, two streets were closed. Some Palestinian policemen were standing with their brand new uniforms, preventing people from going further. I argued with them that I had a press card and that I was on the list of the American Consulate, and so I should be allowed to go inside the Muquata’a. However, they told me that it was not possible and that the whole area was now closed. I tried to go through the back streets, and soon faced some soldiers with very impressive army gear. For one moment I asked myself if I was confronted by Palestinian, American or Israeli soldiers. But they were Palestinians. Again they told me to go. I tried another road, in vain. I asked the Palestinian soldiers at what time they came and they answered me at 3:00am. Then I decided to go to a Palestinian friend’s house to watch Al-Jazeera live. I asked my friend what she would tell Bush if she could talk to him and she answered: “Why do you come here, killer?”
Then we watched Bush at the press conference. My friend was not listening too much. As a sign said at the demonstration in Jerusalem the night before, “No more Bushit.” There was an ironic juxtaposition on the television as the headlines scrolled at the bottom of the screen. Bush was saying “Peace is possible” while at the same time the headline read, “Two civilians killed in Gaza by Israeli air stike.” Then he made an arrogant joke about passing through the checkpoint, and how he did not have to wait. I remembered the previous day when I went to Jerusalem and how we were stuck inside and had to wait in the freezing cold before the soldiers finally decided to let us go. I also remembered the line of workers at Bethlehem checkpoint who queue up as early as 4am. How dare he joke about this? Let him put on a kuffiyeh (traditional Palestinian scarf) and try to travel from Ramallah to Bethlehem like a Palestinian. He would not bear one trip.
Then I had enough of the press conference and I moved to al-Manara as there was supposed to be a demonstration there and indeed people were peacefully carrying banners with slogans such as “Our freedom is not for sale,” “Remove all settlements,” “It is the occupation stupid,” and “Gaza on our mind.” Soon the Palestinian police came and began to shout at people not to stand on the road. Then they began to push and attempted to prevent photographers from doing their work. A Palestinian photographer was arrested. I could not believe it. I was also shout at but I continued to move around to take pictures.
Soon we heard about a demonstration next to the Orthodox Club so we went there, only to find more police and even special Palestinian security forces.
The police were blocking the street to prevent people to join the demonstrators. I argued that I was doing my job and that they had to let me pass but they would not. So with a few friends we had to climb some fences and run towards the demonstration, only to find again more Palestinian forces ready to crush the demonstration.
The demonstrators included Palestinians from different factions and movements, and many women in the front row. Suddenly the Palestinian forces attacked the demonstrators with gas and sticks; the beaten up demonstrators included the numerous women present. Photographers and journalists were also attacked. I found myself taking the same type of pictures that I take at demonstrations against the Wall, only this time it was Palestinians oppressing Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority used the same tactics as the Israeli soldiers. The pushing, crushing, the gas. They even had some special forces in civilian dress to identify the most active demonstrators.
All expression of dissent had to be crushed so that the circus could go ahead.
As with Israeli soldiers, it was quite clear that some Palestinian officers were not at ease with beating up demonstrators. Some other were on the contrary very aggressive. Suddenly one policeman attacked one young Palestinian with a stick and broke his nose. Some policemen also angrily confiscated some signs against the occupation and tore them into pieces. The crowd continued to shout “Bush and CIA out!” The Palestinian filmmaker Mohammed Alatar was also arrested and a camera was confiscated from a Palestinian photographer.
All along I was thinking, “What a sad day for Palestine.” After almost two hours of confrontation, the demonstration finished. We all went away a little shocked. But I think we should face this and not pretend that it did not happen. The PA is acting more and more as a proxy to benefit the Israelis, with methods comparable to the occupier. They learned well but we have also to learn from this episode. We internationals working in Palestine, what are we fighting for? Which Palestine? If we are talking about a pseudo Palestinian state run by the methods used by the PA today, and for the service of Israeli and US interests and the Palestinian elite, then this is not a worthy fight. The Palestinian Authority must go. A revolution has to start in support of Palestinians that rejects the master plan designed by Bush and Olmert and implemented by the PA. There are some alternatives, and strong voices on both sides which are more and more frequently advocating the vision for a one-state solution. We internationals involved in the struggle should clearly position ourselves.
I would like to thank Mr. Bush for opening my eyes on the true face of the PA. Now it is clear that the struggle has different fronts. If we ignore one of them we will lose it all".
Anne Paq is a freelance photographer and member of the collective Activestills (activestills.org).
Apesar do Hamas ter razão quanto à inação dos EUA, muitos palestinos ciriticavam ambos partidos: "Nor is Hamas blameless in this crisis. It has been almost two years since its stunning election victory, and the movement has yet to decide whether it wants to be a resistance movement or a government — it cannot be both. If it is solely a resistance movement then it must begin to elucidate a clear political and military strategic vision for its followers, other political factions and the Palestinian people as a whole that demonstrates how it will achieve its goals. If it is an elected representative government, then it must begin to compromise and accommodate alternate points of view, even those it disagrees with. In addition, the movement cannot continue to behave like the opposition party when it has assumed the role of governing authority in Gaza. Although Israel bears ultimate responsibility as the occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas wanted and took control of Gaza, and is at least partially responsible for the actions that occur within the territory and the consequences for the population. While this does not excuse Israel’s brutality or the criminality of its actions, the Palestinian people are owed an explanation from Fatah, Hamas and the other factions for the political and military strategies they pursue and their implications. The failure of these groups to reconcile and their continued adoption of tactics that have proven to be detrimental to the national movement demonstrate their selfish myopia and expose their negligence and incompetence.As the region is gripped by the coldest winter in memory, the sword dancing will continue. Gaza will remain under siege with Israel allowing the minimal amount of food and fuel supplies into the territory, attempting to slowly punish the Palestinians living there. The US, the EU, the UN, the Arab League, and even other Palestinians will sit back and allow it to happen in a conspiracy of silence and complicity. One can only hope that the people of Gaza will forgive the world’s silence and inaction. But they have no reason to, nor should they".
Osamah Khalil is a Palestinian-American doctoral candidate in US and Middle East History at the University of California at Berkeley, focusing on US foreign policy in the Middle East. He can be reached at okhalil@berkeley.edu.
George W. Bush ficou pouco tempo por lá. Foi-se na terça-feira dia 15 de janeiro. No mesmo dia, por volta das 8 horas, a IDF invadiu os bairros de Shujaeya e al-Zaytoun no setor oeste de Gaza com tanques e veículos armados. Na investida à Praça Malaqa, que fica entre os bairros de Shujaiya e Zaytoun, os soldados começaram a atirar indiscriminadamente nos passantes. Mataram 17 palestinos, inclusive cinco civis, feriram cerca de trinta - cinco gravemente. Alguns membros da resistência acorreram e abriram fogo. Cinco morreram: Rami Talal Farahat, 30; Aahed Sa’dallah ‘Ashour, 27; Mahmoud ‘Ata Abu Laban, 21; Hussam Mahmoud al-Zahhar, 22; Saleem ‘Abdul Haq al-Mdallal, 20.A IDF continuou sua incursão em lavouras e matou três camponeses: As’ad ‘Eissa Radwan Tafesh, 65; Marwan Sameer ‘Ouda, 22; Sa’id Mustafa al-Sammouni, 50. Depois mataram Ayman Fadel Malaka, 35, que se encontrava em sua concessionária e o universitário ‘Abdul Salam ‘Atiya Abu Laban, de 19 anos.
Quando as ambulâncias chegaram, encontraram mais sete corpos: Mohammed Majdi Hejji, 20; Sakher Saleem Zwayed, 27; Mustafa Yahia Selmi, 20; Mos’ab Saleem Selmi, 21; ‘Abdullah Taleb Salem, 23; Mohammed Sabri Hana, 20 e Khamis Abu Sawawin, 25.
As escaramuças corriam soltas nas ruas e enqaunto isso os gazauís passavam janeiro na penúria.
Apesar de no início do mês o governo israelense ter "autorizado" que Gaza importasse diesel industrial para aquecer pelo menos escolas e casas, em relação aos número de habitantes da Faixa, a quantidade era aquém, muito aquém do necessário.
Os cortes de eletricidade também eram frequentes no inverno gelado: “We went four days without having electricity during the daytime,” disse uma senhora de um campo de refugiados do norte da Faixa. “We had power only from midnight until 6am. During the day, we try to sit in the sun to keep warm. It’s very cold now at night. We wrap up to keep warm. Each of us has two blankets, but it is still cold.”
Histórias omo esta eram correntes desde que Israel decidiu em setembro de 2007 declarar a Faixa de Gaza "hostile entity" por causa do Hamas.
Embora Israel tivesse "autorizado" a entrada de uma turbina extra na usina elétrica em dezembro - a fim de aumentar a capacidade de 65 MW a 85, o mesmo nível da produção anterior aos bombardeios da usina no verão de 2006 - não deixou que os palestinos importassem combustível para acionar a turbina. Portanto a usina teve de cortar a produção a 55MW e alguns dias caía até para 45.A falta de energia elétrica significava que os gazauís ficavam também horas e dias sem água corrente, pois sem eletricidade não havia como os canais de saneamento funcionarem.
Uma habitante de Gaza, Rania Kharma, contou que economizava o gás que tinha para usá-lo na cozinha em vez de aquecimento.“We are going back to the old days of using wood and coal to warm ourselves. It feels so weird that in the 21st century. We are going backwards and have to buy candles for light.” Outra pessoa foi mais longe: “I want to run away from this madness. And I know many others who want to leave as well.” Escapar, mas como, estando a prisão Gaza hermeticamente fechada por terra, ar e mar?
Histórias deste tipo eram correntes desde que Israel decidiu em setembro de 2007 declarar a Faixa de Gaza "hostile entity" por causa do Hamas.Enquanto isso, Gaza sofria, estrangulada. E em Tel Aviv os arquitetos da ocupação continuavam ativos. No dia 17 a IDF prosseguiu sua campanha de assassinatos na Faixa de Gaza. Ambos em Beit Lahia.
O primeiro atentado do dia ocorreu às 13:20. Uma bomba matou instantaneamente Ra'ad Shehda Abu Fuol, das Brigadas al-Quds e sua vizinha de 35 anos Fatheya Yusef al-Hassoumi.
O segundo foi às 19h25. A IDF lançou um míssil na rotatória Sheikh Zayed onde transitava um carro de burro com vários passageiros, dos quais morreram Mohammad Saleh al-Rahel, de 22 anos e sua mãe Mariam Ahmad al-Rahel de 52 anos - o irmão de 17 anos, Mansour, escapou com ferimentos graves, assim como outros cinco passantes, inclusive duas crianças. A bomba, em princípio, visava um grupo de resistentes que estavam em outro veículo.
No dia 18 de janeiro os crimes da IDF prosseguiram no mesmo ritmo.
Primeiro a IDF lançou uma bomba em um grupo de resistentes às 7:30 em Jabaliya, no norte da Faixa de Gaza. Dois outros ativistas, Mahmoud Ramadan al-Borsh de 18 anos e Ilmail Mohammad Redwan de 21, morreram na hora. Três passantes foram feridos.
Depois, por volta das 15:40 dessa sexta-feira, bombardeou um prédio de cinco andares perto do complexo administrativo palestino em Tal al-Hawa, bairro densamente populado de Gaza. O míssil destruiu o edifício e os fragmentos de shrapnel mataram Hanya Hussein Abd al-Jawwad, mulher de 52 anos que estava a caminho do casamento do sobrinho. Mais 46 civis, inclusive 19 mulheres e crianças que estavam na cerimônia de casamento foram feridos pela explosão e os danos colaterais materiais também foram grandes. A sorte é que o prédio que era alvo do ataque estava abandonado.
No sábado a campanha de assassinatos começou por volta da 1:15 da madrugada quando um míssil atingiu um grupo de jovens no leste de Jabaliya matando o ativista Ehab Ali al-Banna de 27 anos e ferindo dois civis que se encontravam nas paragens.
Duas horas mais tarde o avião da IDF voltou a lançar um míssil em um grupo de ativistas, matando Ali Jum'a Ahmad Jum'a de 26 anos e ferindo três outros rapazes. Estes crimes coincidiram com o fechamento de todos os postos de fronteira da Faixa a fim de exacerbar a crise humanitária.ONGs de Direitos Humanos reclamaram de ambos atos, tanto do assassinato de civis pelos jatos quanto pela morte lenta de privação de produtos básicos. Em vão. No dia 20, em pleno domingo quando os gazauís cristãos saíam para a missa, a usina elétrica parou de funcionar por falta de carburante deixando os 1.5 milhões de habitantes sem energia assim como os hospitais que já haviam perdido 45 pacientes por esta mesma deficiência, inclusive 30 recém-nascidos prematuros cujas incubadoras se desligavam e quando entrava o motor já era tarde.
Nessa época, a Faixa precisava de 250 MW de eletricidade para operar em plena capacidade e de 230 para operar "na marra". E antes de estar completamente incapacitada, estava funcionando com apenas 65 MW. A população carecia de tudo, já que além do bloqueio, até o trigo que entrava pelos túneis não podia ser transformado em pão nas padarias sem energia. A carência de petróleo, diesel e gás doméstico era uma verdadeira punição coletiva à população civil. Uma catástrofe humanitária era previsível no presídio a céu aberto. Isto apesar das leis internacionais protegerem, em teoria, qualquer população civil de punição coletiva. Tanto a Lei internacional de Direitos Humanos, quanto leis internacionais humanitárias, sobretudo a Quarta convenção de Genebra.
E o problema da água se agravava de maneira catastrófica. O roubo e o abuso de consumo dos colonos judeus fizeram com que a água da Faixa de Gaza se tornasse a água mais poluída do mundo. A garantia "água potável" é apenas nominal, a não ser que chegue engarrafada com marcas ocidentais. A água que chega às moradias e aos hospitais é poluída. O saneamento básico já estava sendo sistematicamente bombardeado e a água que a Mekorot - companhia israelense que ousa surrupiar a água palestina na Cisjordânia e vendê-la "semi"-tratada aos gazauís em tanques - até hoje é mantida no limite do suportável ao organismo humano.
As pessoas mais vulneráveis, sobretudo as crianças e doentes, já sucumbiam das bactérias que a água continha. Pois a política de Israel sempre foi fornecer água para a população não morrer em massa (o que chamaria a atenção da chamada comunidade internacional), entretanto, água poluída o suficiente para fragilizar a população globalmente de maneira que sua saúde decaísse/decaia, que sofresse/sofra enfermidades crônicas causadas pela água e que chegasse/chegue a morrer paulatina e discretamente.Os Estados Unidos inventaram a guerra fria com a União Soviética e Israel inventou a guerra das bactérias para envenenar um povo inteiro de maneira aparentemente anódina e levar a cabo uma limpeza étnica silenciosa.
Além do problema da água, em janeiro de 2008, as poucas fábricas que ainda estavam funcionando tiveram de parar suas máquinas por falta de energia e o número de desempregados bateu o recorde.
As escolas e univesidades tiveram de fechar as portas ou funcionar sem claridade e a vida de todos os civis foi totalmente prejudicada a curto e médio prazo, quando não, em certos casos, simplesmente tiradas.
Por causa do Hamas como dizia Ehud Olmert? Não, o Hamas era o bode expiatório. O objetivo era e continuaria sendo o projeto sionista do grande Israel do Mar Mediterrâneo ao rio Jordão.
O professor de Princeton University Richard Falk, consultor da ONU que conhecia bem o que estava acontecendo na Faixa, antes do corte de energia definiu o bloqueio como “prelude to genocide”.
Sem energia, poder-se-ia definir o projeto israelense como tal, considerando o Artigo II da UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide de 1948 que define o seguinte “[Any of] the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; …”
Sem dúvida alguma, o bloqueio hermético de Gaza tinha o intuito de crime, de causar dano físico e mental, infligindo deliberadamente condições de vida calculadas para causar destruição física/mental parcial e gradual.
O bloqueio da Faixa se enquadrava perfeitamente nesses parágrafos. Entretanto, a União Europeia permaneceu calada. Os Estados Unidos nem se fala, pois só lembram da Convenção de Genebra quando esta os livra de algo.
Tudo levava a crer que George W. Bush, em vez de repreender, dera carta branca a Ehud Olmert para que agisse como lhe apetecesse. A Europa, idem.Na época, Omar Barghouti, fundador do Movimento de boicote BDS, botou o dedo na ferida: "If Europe thinks it can thus repent for its Holocaust against its own Jewish population, it is in fact shamefully and consciously facilitating the committal of fresh acts of genocide against the people of Palestine. But Palestinians, it appears, do not count for much, as we are viewed not only by Israel, but also by its good old “white” sponsors and allies as lesser, or relative, humans. The continent that invented modern genocide and was responsible for massacring in the last two centuries more human beings, mostly “relative humans,” than all other continents put together is covering up crimes that are reminiscent in quality, though certainly not in quantity, of its own heinous crimes against humanity.
In no other international affair, perhaps, can the European establishment be accused of being as detached from and indifferent to its own public opinion. While calls for boycotting Israel as an apartheid state are slowly but consistently spreading among European civil society organizations and trade unions, drawing disturbing parallels to the boycott of South African apartheid, European governments are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves from the overtly complicit US position vis-a-vis Israel. Even European clichés of condemnation and “expressing deep concern” have become rarer than ever nowadays. Moreover, Israel’s relentless and defiant violation of Europe’s own human rights laws and conditions are ignored whenever anyone questions whether Israel should continue to benefit from its magnanimous association agreement with the EU despite its military occupation, colonization and horrific record of human rights abuse against its Palestinian victims. If this is not complicity, what is?
Morality aside, sinking Gaza into a sea of darkness, poverty, death and despair cannot bode well for Europe. By actively propping up an environment conducive to the rise of fanaticism and desperate violence near its borders, Europe is foolishly inviting havoc to its doorstep. Instead of heeding — or at least seriously considering — calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions against apartheid Israel, adopted by virtually the entire spectrum of Palestinian civil society, it may soon have to reckon with uncontainable forces of irrational and indiscriminate violence and its resulting chaos.
It seems European elites are currently determined never to oppose Israel, no matter what crimes it commits. It is as if the bellowing — and increasingly hypocritical — slogan upheld by Jewish survivors of European genocide, “Never Again!”, is now espoused by European elites with one difference: the two letter, ‘s’ and ‘t’, are added at the end."
O mês de janeiro continuaria duro e para paliar a dureza, na manhã do dia 23 resistentes explodiram seções do muro entre a Faixa de Gaza e o Egito e milhares de gazauís cruzaram a fronteira pela primeira vez em meses. Para fazer compras, alguns para aproveitar e visitar familiares, e todos, para saborear alguns minutos e horas de liberdade.“I’m going to al-Arish to see my married daughter. I have not seen her in four years. I hope I can see her,” disse então Um Muhammed se preparando para atravessar um buraco no muro.
Outra que puxava pela mão cinco filhos pequenos a seguiu com amigos carregando sua bagagem. Esta não era de lá, estava fazendo uma visita quando as fronteiras foram lacradas e ficou bloqueada na prisão Gaza longe do marido.
A maioria absoluta invadiu as lojas das cidades egípcias fronteiriças esvaziando as prateleiras de padarias, mercearias, frutarias, super-mercados, açougues, em um dia.Um motorista, Hathem Abu Touame contou: “I went to Egypt to buy diesel.They refused to sell it to me, so I bought lots of soap and I hope to sell it in Gaza.” Pois até sabão e sabonete faziam parte da lista de produtos "perigosos" proibidos, junto com outro produto perigosíssimo, papel higiênico.
Fawzi Barhoum, um porta-voz do Hamas, garantiu que nada fora planejado. "This was a normal response to the pressure that has been put on the Palestinian people in Gaza. It is an explosion of the people locked inside,” e concluiu pedindo o fim do sítio.Enquanto isso, em Tel Aviv o governo exprimia "great concern", "a first class security threat" que militantes levassem armas para a Faixa. Mas desta maneira improvisada, o povo só pensava em reabastecer suas prateleiras vazias dos gêneros alimentícios e outros de necessidade básica que careciam.
Correu o boato que 'testemunhas' viram "masked men smuggling goods into Gaza" mas tais 'testemunhas' anônimas não precisaram de quais gêneros se tratava. Quem estava por lá só viu carregamentos lícitos sendo carregados por pessoas desmascaradas.
De fato, os buracos feitos no muro foram um alívio para a Faixa. Pois até os que foram ao Egito fazer compras para fazer negócio, ajudaram, pois quando os supermercados estão vazios, ter o que comprar já ajuda mais do que quem nunca viveu esta situação consegue imaginar.
Mas durou pouco tempo. Os dois países que mantinham os palestinos prisioneiros na Faixa logo consertariam os buracos e tudo voltaria ao anormal.
"It looked like the fall of the Berlin wall. And not only did it look like it. For a moment, the Rafah crossing was the Brandenburg Gate.
It is impossible not to feel exhilaration when masses of oppressed and hungry people break down the wall that is shutting them in, their eyes radiant, embracing everybody they meet - to feel so even when it is your own government that erected the wall in the first place.
The Gaza Strip is the largest prison on earth. The breaking of the Rafah wall was an act of liberation. It proves that an inhuman policy is always a stupid policy: no power can stand up against a mass of people that has crossed the border of despair.
That is the lesson of Gaza, January, 2008.
One might repeat the famous saying of the French statesman Boulay de la Meurthe, slightly amended: It is worse than a war crime, it is a blunder!
Months ago, the two Ehuds - Barak and Olmert - imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip, and boasted about it. Lately they have tightened the deadly noose even more, so that hardly anything at all could be brought into the Strip. Last week they made the blockade absolute - no food, no medicines. Things reached a climax when they stopped the fuel, too. Large areas of Gaza remained without electricity - incubators for premature babies, dialysis machines, pumps for water and sewage. Hundreds of thousands remained without heating in the severe cold, unable to cook, running out of food.
Again and again, Aljazeera broadcast the pictures into millions of homes in the Arab world. TV stations all over the world showed them, too. From Casablanca to Amman angry mass protest broke out and frightened the authoritarian Arab regimes. Hosny Mubarak called Ehud Barak in panic. That evening Barak was compelled to cancel, at least temporarily, the fuel-blockade he had imposed in the morning. Apart from that, the blockade remained total.
It is hard to imagine a more stupid act.
The reason given for the starving and freezing of one and a half million human beings, crowded into a territory of 365 square kilometers, is the continued shooting at the town of Sderot and the adjoining villages.
That is a well-chosen reason. It unites the primitive and poor parts of the Israeli public. It blunts the criticism of the UN and the governments throughout the world, who might otherwise have spoken out against a collective punishment that is, undoubtedly, a war crime under international law.
A clear picture is presented to the world: the Hamas terror regime in Gaza launches missiles at innocent Israeli civilians. No government in the world can tolerate the bombardment of its citizens from across the border. The Israeli military has not found a military answer to the Qassam missiles. Therefore there is no other way than to exert such strong pressure on the Gaza population as to make them rise up against Hamas and compel them to stop the missiles.
The day the Gaza electricity works stopped operating, our military correspondents were overjoyed: only two Qassams were launched from the Strip. So it works! Ehud Barak is a genius!
But the day after, 17 Qassams landed, and the joy evaporated. Politicians and generals were (literally) out of their minds: one politician proposed to "act crazier than them", another proposed to "shell Gaza's urban area indiscriminately for every Qassam launched", a famous professor (who is a little bit deranged) proposed the exercise of "ultimate evil".
The government scenario was a repeat of Lebanon War II (the report about which is due to be published in a few days). Then: Hizbullah captured two soldiers on the Israeli side of the border, now: Hamas fired on towns and villages on the Israeli side of the border. Then: the government decide in haste to start a war, now: the government decided in haste to impose a total blockade. Then: the government ordered the massive bombing of the civilian population in order to get them to pressure Hizbullah, now: the government decided to cause massive suffering of the civilian population in order to get them to pressure Hamas.
The results were the same in both cases: the Lebanese population did not rise up against Hizbullah, but on the contrary, people of all religious communities united behind the Shiite organization. Hassan Nasrallah became the hero of the entire Arab world. And now: the population unites behind Hamas and accuses Mahmoud Abbas of cooperation with the enemy. A mother who has no food for her children does not curse Ismail Haniyeh, she curses Olmert, Abbas and Mubarak...
Several months ago Hamas proposed a cease-fire. It repeated the offer this week.
A cease-fire means, in the view of Hamas: the Palestinians will stop shooting Qassams and mortar shells, the Israelis will stop the incursions into Gaza, the "targeted" assassinations and the blockade.
Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal?
Simple: in order to make such a deal, we must speak with Hamas, directly or indirectly. And this is precisely what the government refuses to do.
Why? Simple again: Sderot is only a pretext - much like the two captured soldiers were a pretext for something else altogether. The real purpose of the whole exercise is to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza and to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank.
In simple and blunt words: the government sacrifices the fate of the Sderot population on the altar of a hopeless principle. It is more important for the government to boycott Hamas - because it is now the spearhead of Palestinian resistance - than to put an end to the suffering of Sderot. All the media cooperate with this pretence.
It has been said before that it is dangerous to write satire in our country - too often the satire becomes reality. Some readers may recall a satirical article I wrote months ago. In it I described the situation in Gaza as a scientific experiment designed to find out how far one can go, in starving a civilian population and turning their lives into hell, before they raise their hands in surrender.
This week, the satire has become official policy. Respected commentators declared explicitly that Ehud Barak and the army chiefs are working on the principle of "trial and error" and change their methods daily according to results. They stop the fuel to Gaza, observe how this works and backtrack when the international reaction is too negative. They stop the delivery of medicines, see how it works, etc. The scientific aim justifies the means.
The man in charge of the experiment is Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a man of many ideas and few scruples, a man whose whole turn of mind is basically inhuman. He is now, perhaps, the most dangerous person in Israel, more dangerous than Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Netanyahu, dangerous to the very existence of Israel in the long run.
The man in charge of execution is the Chief of Staff. This week we had the chance of hearing speeches by two of his predecessors, generals Moshe Ya'alon and Shaul Mofaz, in a forum with inflated intellectual pretensions. Both were discovered to have views that place them somewhere between the extreme Right and the ultra-Right. Both have a frighteningly primitive mind. There is no need to waste a word about the moral and intellectual qualities of their immediate successor, Dan Halutz. If these are the voices of the three last Chiefs of Staff, what about the incumbent, who cannot speak out as openly as they? Has this apple fallen further from the tree?
Until three days ago, the generals could entertain the opinion that the experiment was succeeding. The misery in the Gaza Strip had reached its climax. Hundreds of thousands were threatened by actual hunger. The chief of UNRWA warned of an impending human catastrophe. Only the rich could still drive a car, heat their homes and eat their fill. The world stood by and wagged its collective tongue. The leaders of the Arab states voiced empty phrases of sympathy without raising a finger.
Barak, who has mathematical abilities, could calculate when the population would finally collapse.
And then something happened that none of them foresaw, in spite of the fact that it was the most foreseeable event on earth.
When one puts a million and a half people in a pressure cooker and keeps turning up the heat, it will explode. That is what happened at the Gaza-Egypt border.
At first there was a small explosion. A crowd stormed the gate, Egyptian policemen opened live fire, dozens were wounded. That was a warning.
The next day came the big attack. Palestinian fighters blew up the wall in many places. Hundreds of thousands broke out into Egyptian territory and took a deep breath. The blockade was broken.
Even before that, Mubarak was in an impossible situation. Hundreds of millions of Arabs, a billion Muslims, saw how the Israeli army had closed the Gaza strip off on three sides: the North, the East and the sea. The fourth side of the blockade was provided by the Egyptian army.
The Egyptian president, who claims the leadership of the entire Arab world, was seen as a collaborator with an inhuman operation conducted by a cruel enemy in order to gain the favor (and the money) of the Americans. His internal enemies, the Muslim Brothers, exploited the situation to debase him in the eyes of his own people.
It is doubtful if Mubarak could have persisted in this position. But the Palestinian masses relieved him of the need to make a decision. They decided for him. They broke out like a tsunami wave. Now he has to decide whether to succumb to the Israeli demand to re-impose the blockade on his Arab brothers.
And what about Barak's experiment? What's the next step? The options are few:
1. To re-occupy Gaza. The army does not like the idea. It understands that this would expose thousands of soldiers to a cruel guerilla war, which would be unlike any intifada before.
2. To tighten the blockade again and exert extreme pressure on Mubarak, including the use of Israeli influence on the US Congess to deprive him of the billions he gets every year for his services.
3. To turn the curse into a blessing, by handing the Strip over to Mubarak, pretending that this was Barak's hidden aim all along. Egypt would have to safeguard Israel's security, prevent the launching of Qassams and expose its own soldiers to a Palestinian guerilla war - when it thought it was rid of the burden of this poor and barren area, and after the infrastructure there has been destroyed by the Israeli occupation. Probably Mubarak will say: Very kind of you, but no thanks.
The brutal blockade was a war crime. And worse: it was a stupid blunder."
Uri Avnery, 26/01/08.
No mesmo dia 23 em que milhares de gazauís escaparam por poucas horas do suplício, houve uma reunião do Conselho de Segurança na qual os Estados membros condenaram quase unanimamente o bloqueio que violava as leis internacionais humanitárias.Porém, a reunião terminou sem nenhuma decisão concreta porque os Estados Unidos rejeitaram o texto proposto pelo Conselho que exigia que Israel “ensure unhindered access for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people and to open the border crossings to facilitate the passage of exports and imports to the Gaza Strip.”
O Conselho marcou outra reunião que deu no mesmo. “We were hoping … but unfortunately we have not agreed,” balbuciou o embaixador da África do Sul Dumisani Kumalo, acrescentando que “everybody [in the Council] said they wanted the Security Council to speak out.” Exceto os EUA. E o Conselho de Segurança exige o consenso de seus 15 membros. Um único voto contrário faz qualquer resolução capotar. Um diplomata europeu reclamou, anonimamente, que esta capotou, uma vez mais, por causa da objeção do embaixador dos EUA Zalmay Khalilzad que declarou que Washington também estava preocupado com a situação humanitária, porém, “We believe the current situation is a direct result of Hamas’s policies and actions. The United States condemns in the strongest terms the ongoing firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel by terror groups.”
O diplomata israelense Gilad Cohen foi mais longe ainda na absurdidade dizendo que a situação - sítio e bloqueio israelense - era a “consequence of many choices, repeatedly the wrong choices, made by the Palestinians, to adopt terrorism and violence over peace and negotiations with Israel.”
Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz, embaixador de Cuba, foi quem retrucou a favor dos palestinos: “The violent military escalation by Israel constitutes a grave breach of international law, including humanitarian and human rights law.”
Uma verdade que não contava.
O milhão e meio de gazauís estavam condenados a uma punição coletiva e a viver na dependência de ajuda internacional. A World Health Organisation (WHO) declarou que apenas 50 por cento dos produtos básicos chegavam aos palestinos na Faixa. E em Genebra, uma alta funcionária do Comitê de Direitos Humanos da ONU, Louise Arbour, instou a comunidade internacional a agir para proteger os civis, “in particular where and when the authorities concerned are unable or unwilling to do so. The people of Gaza look legitimately to the international community to respond with urgency and with appropriate measures to their desperate and still worsening situation.”
Louise também falou no vazio. Os Estados Unidos já haviam vetado mais de 40 decisões da ONU que condenavam Israel, vetou mais esta e continuaria vetando sem vergonha.
Enquanto isso, as crianças palestinas sofriam os efeitos do bloqueio na Faixa de Gaza.
Documentário: Children of Conflict
Na Cisjordânia a situação também era grave, apesar da falsa ideia de liberdade.
O mês de janeiro de 2008 começou e terminou mal para os palestinos em todos os sentidos. Um deles foi a morte no dia 26 de George Habash, o fundador do PFLP (Frente Popular para a Libertação da Palestina). Ele merece um artigo. No próximo capítulo. Enquanto isso, eis um Inside Story sobre o corte de energia na Faixa de Gaza.Documentário: Children of Conflict
Witness: Rageh Omaar mostra os efeitos da ocupaçãos nas crianças em Nablus, na Cisjordânia.
Foi neste contexto quotidiano que Mahmoud Abbas recebeu George W. Bush sob crítica generalizada.
Reservista da IDF, forças israelenses de ocupação,
Shovrim Shtika - Breaking the Silence - Daniel I
E os colonos judeus continuavam a tentar manipular a História com estórias fabricadas. Veja abaixo.
Documentário Journeyman: Digging for Trouble
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário