Don’t hold your breath, the upcoming conference in Annapolis has little to do with curbing and/or putting an end to Israeli domination and apartheid. But then again we knew this. It has little to do with the universally recognized international human rights, which the Palestinians are being systematically denied. But then again, sadly, we knew this.

So what exactly will be the outcome of this US-hosted Middle East peace conference?

War, according to a more realistic reading of US intentions by Ramzy Baroud in his piece titled, "Peace Conference: New Case for War" special to the PalestineChronicle.com

Thus the peace conference will likely conclude with the propagation of the following assumptions: that both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas are genuine in their intentions to achieve a lasting peace and bring one of the world’s most entangled conflicts to an end; that both leaders will agree to a vague set of terms according to which the ‘final status’ of negotiations is determined. Abbas needs enough promises from Israel to convince Palestinians that the light at the end of the tunnel (which they have been promised for many years) is within reach, and Olmert needs enough ambiguity in the conference’s final statement to prove to his shaky coalition that Israel is under no obligation to change its course and ongoing colonial projects in the West Bank.

Most Palestinians, other than the self-representative elites of Abbas and his dependents, are likely to reject any offer that falls short of fulfilling the minimum of their internationally recognized rights. There would be a visible dissatisfaction in the predictably indecisive outcome of conference, manifesting in widespread protests, especially in the Hamas-controlled Gaza. The violence into which Palestinians are provoked will, naturally, be blamed on the ‘enemies of peace’, those same enemies who were also chastised, imprisoned and tortured in the post-Oslo years.

Iran and Syria, who are likely to support the Palestinian opposition to the conference and its immediate outcomes – if any – will also be grouped into the enemies’ list. Any violent Palestinian response, regardless of the circumstances that lead to it, will be understood as Syrian and Iranian encouraged. With Israel already digging a hole for Syria – the September 6 bombing of Syrian territories and the justification offered by ‘anonymous’ top US officials that Israel has bombed a North Korean nuclear installation in Syria - a cause for war is already in the making.

However, like any other war fought in the Middle East and in which the US was involved, the lines need to be drawn more definitively: Israel, the US and the moderate Arabs to face up to Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas.

The peace conference is, in fact, the delineation of all of this and more. It will provide the media with the opportunity to bombard public opinion with half-truths and twisted facts regarding those standing for peace and those considered an obstacle to peace, obstacles that can seemingly be removed through violence, thus forming a new case for a new war.    

Full text available here

 

 -c

Check this bitch out:

 In a country full of colorful political characters, he may be the most colorful. Gaydamak is wanted in France for illegal arms dealing. He is alleged to have ties, through his former arms-dealing partner, to Halliburton and to corporations that donated to President George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign. He has Russian, Israeli, French and Canadian citizenship, as well as a diplomatic passport from Angola, on which he reportedly travels in order to avoid arrest. He owns a Jerusalem soccer team with a notoriously racist, anti-Arab fan base. And he is said to be planning a run for mayor of Jerusalem.

check the rest on Znet:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=14071

 

"Politics of fear"
Osamah Khalil
The Electronic Intifada, Oct 8, 2007

The Palestinians are some of the most talented, best educated, and hardest working people in the Middle East. - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Keynote Speech at The American Task Force on Palestine’s Inaugural Gala, 11 October 2006. [1]

The Palestinians, frankly, are a ragtag people, many who barely speak English. And whatever they say is often offensive and then used against them. - Dr. Ziad Asali, President and founder of the American Task Force on Palestine, 1 August 2007. [2]

During the Cold War, the conservative Arab governments used the threat of "international communism" to squelch internal dissent and secure their unpopular regimes while cultivating closer ties to Washington. In the "post-9/11" era, "communism" has been replaced by the specter of "terrorism." Deeply unpopular at home and unable to rely on any notion of nationalism or Pan-Arab unity, Arab leaders have instead resorted to the politics of fear to bolster their rule by appealing to the basest elements of sectarian and ethnic bigotry: fear of a Shiite revival, or of Persian hegemony, or the chaos in Iraq. These tactics have emerged in Palestine since Hamas’ election victory, and have become more pronounced since the organization took over Gaza in June. Attempting to generate support for his attenuating rule, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas has sought to paint criticism of him, the PA and Fatah, as emanating not only from Hamas’ supporters but directly from Tehran. Borrowing from George W. Bush’s Manichean philosophy, Abbas and his lackeys are offering Palestinians a simple and false choice: either you are with "us" (i.e., the PA and Fatah) or you are with the "terrorists" (i.e., Hamas and Iran). In the United States, Abbas has been aided in this effort by the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), a fledgling organization that professes to represent Palestinian-American interests. The implications of these tactics on Palestinian advocacy and aspirations in the existing political climate bear merit further scrutiny, as do the organizations and individuals which employ them.

Read the rest. -f 

From The Economist:

THEY came for Omar Maswadeh at half-past midnight. They broke furniture at his home in the West Bank town of Hebron, blindfolded him, shoved him in a car. They kept him in solitary, hooded and with his hands tied, in the painful seated shabah position that Israeli courts have outlawed. Two days later they came for his brother Alaa and his cousin Yusri. After holding the young men for two to three weeks each, they charged them with membership in Hamas’s “executive force”, a militia that the Islamist party created in Gaza but never actually managed to form in the West Bank. Then they let them go.

AP

But the captors were Palestinian, not Israeli. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been locking up suspected Hamas members and sympathisers all over the West Bank since June, when Hamas routed the secular Fatah’s forces in Gaza after months of factional strife. Yusri Maswadeh says he was suspended by his wrists, tied behind him, from window bars for hours—“worse than with the Israelis”. Fayyad Aghbar, a former head of the Awqaf (the Muslim authorities) in Nablus, the West Bank’s biggest town, was not tortured but describes a fellow prisoner who was forced to kneel with his hands tied and was hit if he sat back on his haunches. Again, it was “worse than the Israelis”.

Read the rest here. Also, why did The Economist have to water down their review of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book? There seems to be an unusual amount of ink spilled in reviews to dabble in the question of anti-Semitism, all for the sake of saying "well, we know they’re not, but since we’re getting so many letters to editorial from the Anti-Defamation League, we ought to spell it out slowly in the review." Curious. Though it’s hard to complain about this last line doozy:

At one point the authors complain that Israel and its supporters in America are now rewriting history “to absolve Israel of any responsibility for the Iraq disaster”. But it was not Israel that invaded Iraq. Their own book feels like an attempt to absolve America of responsibility for a decision it took by, and for, itself.

 -f

Opinion/Editorial
A crack in the wall
Miko Peled, The Electronic Intifada, Oct 1, 2007

---

"Getting inside the official Israeli mind is a worthwhile, if lurid, experience," the late Edward Said wrote in his article "Dignity, Solidarity and the Penal Colony." This is what it feels like when one is trying to understand the Middle East peace process that never seems to lead to anything. Observing this never ending saga, one can hardly help reaching the realization that peace is not a priority for Israel, and indeed Israeli governments have made no secret of the fact that a peace that precludes Israel’s complete control over historic Palestine is of no interest to them.

There is not a shred of evidence that can support Israeli claims of wanting to achieve peace based on the division of historic Israel/Palestine into two independent states. Israel has skillfully used the last 40 years to strengthen its hold on the areas occupied in 1967 and create a de facto apartheid state in all of Israel/Palestine. Consecutive Israeli governments bluntly use the so-called peace process to cover up expansion into the West Bank and execution of what has been called the slow genocide of the Palestinian people.

The decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to move the separation barrier and return land back to the people of Bil’in brought a sense that justice was carried out. Indeed this decision may constitute the first crack in the separation wall, and even to an extent a crack in the armor of the almighty Israeli "defense" forces. The leaders of the struggle held fast and did not compromise their objectives or their integrity and they have much of which they can proud. However, it is unlikely that the barrier will be moved or the land returned.

For the last 60 years Israel has been intent on "The obliteration of an entire people by slow systematic methods of suffocation, outright murder and the stifling of everyday life" to use the words Edward Said. No branch of the Israeli government will admit to the illegitimacy of the occupation of Palestine; they will never admit to crimes they committed like the theft of land or the murder of innocent civilians and consequently, the "Defense" Department will not be bound by a Supreme Court’s decision that goes against its intent.

At the same time it is important to note that this behemoth of a system called the Israeli "Defense" Forces is showing signs of crumbling. The Israeli military of today is not unlike the Red Army during the final years of the Soviet Union, where all that was left was the appearance of a superpower. The Israeli military is plagued by a severe lack of motivation among young recruits and increased numbers of young people avoiding the otherwise mandatory draft; according to recent stories in the Israeli press drug abuse is rampant everywhere in the army and particularly among Israel’s combat "elite" units. While the drug problem is not new (drugs were rampant in the IDF even 20 years ago) its use among combat units involved in daily operations is reported to have dramatically increased. This is hardly surprising if we consider the fact that "combat" is another word for abuse, murder and displacement of unarmed civilians.

To compound this, the IDF was severely defeated last summer during its assault on Lebanon. It was a military as well as a moral defeat, and Israel’s commanders were totally humiliated by Hizballah. In Gaza the military has also proven to be inept. Even with massive use of force the IDF cannot stop the rockets launched from Gaza into Israel. Only recently several dozen new army recruits were injured by a rocket that fell in a large army base near Zikkim, just north of Gaza. And finally, with all of their intelligence the IDF is incapable of finding the soldier Gilad Shalit who is being held captive in Gaza. In light of all this, can there be any wonder that Israeli officers find diversion in drugs?

Edward Said refers to the Israeli military as "brigades of willing executioners," and frankly, one cannot blame him. In a recent story in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot a young tank commander describes a "battle" against three suspected "gunmen" near the wall that imprisons Gaza: "the first one was caught in the chains of my tank (and crushed to death), the second we nailed and the others escaped." The young lieutenant is congratulated by his commanding officer for courage and resourcefulness but warned that a tank should shoot from 1.5 km and not at close range. "This was practically hand-to-hand combat," says the commander.

One has to wonder, if these "gunmen" were only suspects why they were executed. If indeed they were armed, how was it that the tank managed to get so close? But the larger question answered in this particular report is this: Why are Israeli tanks still in Gaza? According this report, Israel claims 300 meters inside Gaza as a security zone (on the Gaza side of the wall) and will not permit anyone to come near.

As we engage in this lurid experience of trying to understand Israel we cannot escape the conclusion that Israel has no intention to end the occupation. There is no plan to release Palestinians from their bondage or allow the emergence of a democracy that includes Palestinian freedom. The joint, nonviolent struggle must therefore continue until full equal rights for both people are achieved in all of Israel/Palestine. It will be an uphill battle. Just they did in Bil’in, the savage beast that is the Israeli military will react to nonviolence with as much violence as it possibly can.

Miko Peled is an Israeli peace activist and writer living in the US. He is co-founder of the Elbanna Peled Foundation in memory of Smadar Elhanan and Abir Aramin. Peled is the son of the late Israeli General Matti Peled.

September 23, 2007 

One of the best responses to Ahmadinejad’s invitation to speak, from the Dilbert Blog.

I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel’s
government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering. What an ass-muncher!

Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and act accordingly. It’s not as if the world created a whole new country
because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it does. That’s Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me. 

Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn’t happen. Fuck him for saying that! He also says he won’t dispute the historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of
saying the holocaust didn’t happen, which I assume is his way of confusing me. God-damned fucker. 

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language except for using the English word "myth"? Aren’t there any Iranian words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He’s just being an asshole.

Full text available at: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/a-feeling-im-be.html

 

September 25, 2007

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s, the president of Iran, speech at Columbia on September 24, 2007 rustled more than a few feathers in the United States.  Nevertheless, he was allowed to speak and we all must celebrate that fact as a testimate to free speech in the United States and a beacon of hope for those without the same right elsewhere in the world.

The following is an excerpt from a New York Times article the following day.  It highlights many of the questions asked during the Q&A following his speech.  The question comes from Columbia Dean John H. Coatsworth, the moderator for the event.

“Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel?” Mr. Coatsworth asked.

“We love all people,” Mr. Ahmadinejad dodged. “We are friends of the Jews. There are many Jews living peacefully in Iran.” He went on to say that the Palestinian “nation” should be allowed a referendum to decide its own future.

Mr. Coatsworth persisted: “I think you can answer that question with a simple yes or no.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad was having none of it. “You ask the question and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it,” he shot back. “I ask you, is the Palestinian issue not a question of international importance? Please tell me yes or no.”

 Yes or No?

 -c

Monk, Daniel Bertrand. An Aesthetic Occupation: The Immediacy of Architecture and the Palestine Conflict

     -Someone read this and tell me what the hell the arguement is. -p

Shafir, Gershon. Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882-1914

    -Supposed to be good-Freddy don’t you own this one? 

Kimmerling, Baruch. Zionism and Territory: The Socio-Territorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics

Weizman, Eyal. Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation

Zertal, Idith and Eldar, Akiva. Lords of the Land: The War for Israel’s Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-2007

 

October 2, 2007 

A journalist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Amira Hass’ piece "Democracy is more than going to the polls" seems to be good advice for every and any citizen of a modern democracy–especially those currently waging unjust and illegal occupations.

(My condolences to all our American readers out there who thought they were off the hook–remember Iraq? Remember the 30 billion dollar military aid package we gave Israel last July to aid and abet the Israeli occupation?)

But I digress, Hass’ piece represents another strong stance from the Israeli left against the occupation empowering her follow citizens to recognize their own agency as prescribed by the "democratic" rule of law within the civil branch of the Israeli apartheid government.

Potentially, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis could have taken part in activities against the multi-faceted Israeli oppression - the apartheid laws and orders, military attacks, hidden information, economic siege, land expropriation, expanding settlements, and more. Not a hair on their head would be touched. These are people who say they support peace, with a Palestinian state beside Israel. But apparently their interpretation of participation in democracy is going to the polls once every few years, and faint protest in their living room.

However, democracy also is displaying civic responsibility, by constantly supervising the political decisions and acts between elections, thus ensuring that democracy’s essence has not been eroded. Those who say they support a two-state solution are ignoring the other facet of the democracy-for-Jews - the military regime that it imposes on the Palestinians.

While disagreements abound with her assertion that "a full withdrawal with slight changes to the June 4, 1967 lines and [the establishment of] a Palestinian state" consitute a "solution" to the conflict and one can also see a bit of a paradox between the use of "full" and "slight changes" in the same breathe (don’t you think so Amira?) her words of wisdom as well as her call to action, nevertheless, represent sound and long overdue advice.

 -c

Full article available here.

September 28, 2007 

Gideon Levy, a journalist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, rings in the Jewish New Year 5768 with a look at the last.

It was a pretty quiet year, relatively speaking. Only 457 Palestinians and 10 Israelis were killed, according to the B’Tselem human rights organization, including the victims of Qassam rockets. Fewer casualties than in many previous years. However, it was still a terrible year: 92 Palestinian children were killed (fortunately, not a single Israeli child was killed by Palestinians, despite the Qassams). One-fifth of the Palestinians killed were children and teens - a disproportionate, almost unprecedented number. The Jewish year of 5767. Almost 100 children, who were alive and playing last New Year, didn’t survive to see this one.

One year…This is how we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the occupation. No one can argue anymore that it’s only a temporary, passing phenomenon. Israel is the occupation. The occupation is Israel.

We believe Levy’s has hit on something by drawing attention to this appalling practice of the Israeli Occupation Force, maybe it is time for a new New Year’s resolution for Israel: thou shall not kill innocent children.

Full article here.  

L’ Shana Tovah (Happy New Year) -c

John V. Whitbeck, "Palestine: democracy not Zionism"
A decent two-state solution to the ‘Palestinian problem’ has become impossible.
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

From The Christian Science Monitor 

No, not in the New York Times, but are your surprised? Also, when is Harper’s going to do a couth piece on a one-state Israel/Palestine that really shows off their production staff, ala the "impeach Bush" article from a fews years back? Of course I think Lewis Lapham cares more about waxing against Bush than for Palestinians, even if there was a great spread in Harper’s two years ago on Ma’ale Adumim and "the making of Israel’s suburban occupation." The article, "Subdivide and Conquer," is subscriber only. Bummer.

From Whitbeck’s article:

"The solution for the land which, until it was literally wiped off the map in 1948, was called Palestine is the same. It can only be democracy.

The ever-receding "political horizon" for a decent two-state solution, which, on the ground, becomes less practical with each passing year of expanding settlements, bypass roads, and walls, is weighed down by a multitude of excruciatingly difficult "final status" issues. Israeli governments have consistently refused to discuss these final-status issues seriously, preferring to postpone them to the end of a road which is never reached – and which, almost certainly, is intended never to be reached."

-f

Bichler, Shimshon and Nitzan, Jonathan. The Political Economy of Israel.

    -Someone please read this.  You can download it as a full PDF, along with everything else they have published, at http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/ 

Tilley, Virginia. The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock

    -Mostly hypothetical, with some brief comparisions to the situations in South Africa, Ireland(?), and possibly another.  Most of a focus on SA.  This book is overly optimistic (to the extreme), although there are a few chapters worth reading, most importantly an early chapter on the settlement grid. -p

 Reinhart, Tanya. The Roadmap to Nowhere

    -Deals with the comings and goings on the political level in Israel and Palestine beginning in 2003.  Very straightforward, essentially a summary of Israeli media.  There was one point that I have never heard where Reinhart aruges that Sharon had no intention of pulling out of Gaza and that said pullout was due to American pressure. -p

Ross, Dennis. The Missing Peace

    -I read this a few years ago.  The self importance of this man really shines through in the lack of editing (I think the book is like 700 pages), where he recounts not only the drudgery of diplomacy but also his prowess on the basketball court.  Blames Arafat for the collapse, entirely missing the point.  Only read this if you have to work with modern politics or are considering joining up with some of arm of the US governement. -p

 Swisher, Clayton. The Truth About Camp David

    -Same topic as Ross’ book, but blames Ross for the collapse of Camp David (I am only half-joking here).  It is shorter and more entertaining than The Missing Peace, but also misses the point.  As I recall Swisher publishes come letter from Arafat that "proves" he wanted to continue negotiations, although this is the only book where I have even heard mention of said letter. -p

Younis, Mona. Liberation and Democratization: The South African and Palestinian National Movements

    -This is a really solid compartive sociological study.  And apparently I have to reread it, because at the moment I cannot recall the arguement.  yay. -p

Whitelam, Keith. The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History

    -Deals with the mixing of Biblical scholarship, the modern nation-state and how it affects historical interpretation, etc.  I only got through the intro in Egypt…someone read it please. -p

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History

     -Not about Palestine, but a really kickass book that is very pertinent. -p

Fischbach, Michael. Records of Dispossession

    -All about property.  A lot of raw data on the net worth as well as the specifics of Palestinian property taken by the Israeli state.  I think you can get it quite cheap used off Amazon.com, and it would be imperative for doing any research on the historical, economic and legal dimensions of the refugee problem. -p

Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

    -In this rather short book Pappe argues that ethnic cleansing was carried out by Jewish forces in ‘48.  Orders for this campaign come from Ben-Gurion explicity at first and then, as Pappe argues, continue to be carried out without direct orders, but rather with the tacit approval of the new state (similar to claims made by Vietnam Vets in Winter Soldiers, see the rabbit scene).  Pappe’s arguement is as much moral as historical, as he uses modern definitions of ethnic cleansing to damn the past actions of the Israeli State.  Unfourtunately, much of what Pappe argues has already been published, often times with a much more detailed analysis (Tilley, older Pappe, Whitelam, Khalidi).  As such, the first half of the book, which contains more of an original arguement, is the part worth reading. -p

Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestine Struggle for Statehood.

    -Runs from Mandate Period to modern, focus on Palestinian agency.  Much about the failure of the Palestinian leadership. -p

Massad, Joseph. The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians.

    -Takes a similar theoretical approach to Said to the issues.  Most of these essays can be take off JSTOR. -p

Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001.

    -700 page disaster with an obsession on the specifics of each battle (down to the number of tanks used in the 1967 war) and a lack of continuity.  This focus structures his arguement, which basically sees the cycle of violence as natural and inevitable (and thus blame cannot be assigned).  The updated addition is humerous in this regard; Morris, presumably after Camp David, adds an updated final chapter blaming Arafat for the failures of the peace process and retroactively assigning "Palestine violence" responsiblity for all Israeli-Arab wars. -p