ALERT: Annapolis a Charade: Olmert Plotting Massive Aggression
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the upcoming "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8076S
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the upcoming "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8076S
The Extremists in Government signalled long ago that they don't intend Annapolis to succeed, and they've planned massive military assaults to follow.
If you want peace, Israelis will have to take action against their own Extremists, who don't want peace if it includes coexistence with the Palestinians.
Israel's demand to be recognized as Jewish state roils preparations for Annapolis
The Associated PressPublished: November 16, 2007
JERUSALEM: An Israeli demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state lies at the heart of the latest crisis to upset preparations for an upcoming Mideast peace conference.
In Israel's eyes, the demand seems obvious. Israel has always defined itself as the homeland of the Jewish people.
(In order to hide the fact that it's a state owned and controlled by Zionism, a violent racist Cult, which only seeks its own aggrandizement.)
But the Palestinians think offering that recognition would imply they are dropping one of their key demands in any peace deal — a solution for Palestinian refugees who lost their homes after Israel's 1948 creation and for their millions of descendants.
(That's an interesting way to talk about the people who were Ethnically Cleansed, they simply 'lost their homes' ...)
Israel opposes a return of refugees, for fear they would eventually outnumber the Jewish majority.
(Proving that Israel is, and always has been, an Apartheid state.)
The Palestinians see Israel's insistence that they recognize its Jewish nature now as no less than a last-minute effort to sabotage the conference, which is to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, at the end of the month.
"I know why you want to say it's purely Jewish, so there is no room for any refugees," said Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo. "Why should I do that?"
He said the Palestinians were ready to recognize Israel's right as a state with full sovereignty. "If they want to define their state with any name or title, it's up to them," Abed Rabbo said. Discussion of the refugee issue will be discussed in negotiations and not solved in a unilateral declaration, he said.
Ahead of the summit, a chorus of Israeli leaders have called on the Palestinians to accept the Israeli position, which Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected on Thursday.
"Two states will be established in the historical Palestine, Israel and Palestine," he said. "We are not in a position to define the nature of these two states."
The Israeli Cabinet is expected to debate the issue next week.
Past peace talks have foundered over the refugee issue (aka the Right Of Return), and both sides are mindful of that as they head to Annapolis to formally renew peace negotiations, which broke down in 2001 in a convulsion of violence that simmers to this day.
(See 'Alert', below)
Initially, the plan had been that the two sides would come to the gathering armed with a document laying out the principles of a future accord.
But as the meeting nears, and with gaps still wide, it appears the document will contain few details on how to resolve the decades-old conflict.
(And Olmert has already ruled out any agreement, on the insistence of the Extremists within his cabinet.)
In fact, Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who heads Israel's negotiating team, suggested Wednesday that the two sides might not be able to come up with any document at all.
"I hope that we are going to reach a joint statement, yes, but I think that the statement is less important, the most important thing is Annapolis and the day after," she said at a news conference with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Israel is not a country of broad consensus, but on the refugee issue agreement is almost wall-to-wall. Israelis believe a large-scale influx of Palestinian refugees could spell the end of Israel as a Jewish (Apartheid) state.
Livni, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have all raised the issue in recent public pronouncements.
One of Olmert's key coalition partners, hawkish Cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman, told the Haaretz newspaper that Israel should skip the Annapolis summit unless the Palestinians cave in.
"I aim to drag Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into demanding that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state as a prerequisite for the international peace summit planned at Annapolis," the Haaretz newspaper on Thursday quoted Lieberman as saying.
(Remember that Lieberman is the same man who said that Palestinian males should be rounded up and executed.)
Olmert has mentioned the necessity of Palestinian recognition of Israel's Jewish identity, perhaps in a nod to pressure from Lieberman, but has stopped short of making it a condition for the conference.
At a meeting Wednesday, Olmert told Solana the basis for negotiations with the Palestinians after the conference "will be recognition of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people," the prime minister's office said.
(But throughout the world, Jews are abandoning their support of Israel and Zionism.)
"The prime minister made it clear that from Israel's point of view, this issue is not subject to either negotiations or discussion," the statement said.
Israel, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, has brought up the issue now because "it is the core of the conflict."
(And because they know that by creating untenable demands, they can pretend that it is the Palestinians, as opposed to themselves, who wish to skuttle the talks.)
"Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people," Regev said. "That has never been accepted by the Palestinians, and we think any peace agreement has to include that."
(It hasn't been accepted by many Jews, either.)
www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians.php
A "Jewish State": I Can't Define It, But You Have To Recognize It.
November 16, 2007
At one time, everyone knew that peace would break out all over the Middle East if the Palestinians would just recognize Israel. But then the PLO went and spoiled things by recognizing Israel, so there had to be a new excuse for not ending the Occupation. The new demand was that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's "right to exist". And now, to ward off any danger that peace might raise its ugly head at Annapolis, here's a timely new one: the Palestinians have to recognize that Israel exists; that it has a right to exist; and that it has the right to exist as a "Jewish state".
The implications of Israel's demanding recognition as a state of the Jewish people rather than a state of all its citizens are complex, and I'm going to work on a separate post about that. But one really basic issue came to mind today when I read (via Desertpeace) this Ha'aretz editorial on the subject. To sum up the article: Ha'aretz thinks it's absurd for the Israeli government to demand that the PLO recognize Israel as a "Jewish state", when it is the settlement policies of successive Israeli governments in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that have been, and continue to be, the greatest danger to Israel's Jewishness. But what struck me most when I read the article wasn't the strength or otherwise of Ha'aretz's argument: it was the realisation that Israelis don't seem to have a common understanding of what they mean by a "Jewish state"; yet they insist the Palestinians must recognize nonetheless that Israel is one.
When Olmert and Livni talk about Israel as a "Jewish state", they mean essentially that it is a state that is for Jewish people, even if they don't reside or have citizenship there. It would be very handy for them if they could force the Palestinians to accept this definition, because then they could go into final status talks with some of the more intractable issues - like how to resolve the Right of Return - pre-emptively swept off the table. After all, how can Palestinians have a right to return to their homes in a "Jewish state" when they're not even Jewish, and non-Jews shouldn't expect to be allowed to live in a "Jewish state" in the first place...
Various Israeli commentators have been up in arms this week because the PLO has made it clear it will never give Israel this kind of recognition. The PLO says that Palestinians, like everyone else, give diplomatic recognition to countries, not to demographic balances, religious leanings or political affiliations. In recognizing Iran, for example, they give formal acceptance to Iran's sovereignty, its people and its borders, but not to its religious orientation. If Iran wants to call itself "The Islamic Republic of...", that is purely an internal Iranian affair. It's "Iran" that international diplomacy recognizes, not the Islamic-ness or Republic-ness of its political system. Similarly, if Israel wishes to call itself "The Jewish State of...", that is an internal Israeli affair, which does not need and cannot demand recognition from the PLO or anyone else in the world community.
So what does the PLO recognize in regard to Israel? The PLO recognizes the state of Israel in its 1967 borders - an area which happens to have an overwhelmingly Jewish population - and is offering through its acceptance of the Saudi peace initiative a Right of Return that is implemented in agreement with Israel, i.e. a nominal one that won't change the demographic balance there. So they offer recognition to a state that is de facto Jewish, and recognize the right of that state to peace and security within its recognized borders.
The one thing they won't say is that Israel is formally a "Jewish state", i.e. a state for Jews. Just as a Jewish American might recognize that the USA is a Christian country in terms of its dominant population and cultural traditions, but would never accept that it should be formally designated a "Christian state", because that immediately defines Jews and other non-Christians as lesser citizens. For some outrageous no-doubt Islamofascist Jew-hating reason, the Palestinians similarly refuse to declare that Israel is constitutionally a state where Israelis of Palestinian descent are inferior citizens.
Now, in this Ha'aretz editorial, Ha'aretz also talks about the "Jewish state", and says that the Israeli government is preventing it coming about because of the settlements, which make it impossible to separate the two peoples. So Ha'aretz is talking about a "Jewish State" in terms of an Israel that emerges from a final peace settlement as a country with a large Jewish majority.
But what Ha'aretz calls a Jewish state, i.e. a Jewish-majority state, is not what Olmert and Livni mean by the term, i.e a state that constitutionally favors people of one religion over another. Ha'aretz is saying that Israel will be a Jewish state because it will be a country that is made up overwhelmingly OF Jews - which the PLO could accept. Olmert and Livni say it is a Jewish state because it is a country not OF Jews, but FOR Jews - which Palestinians do not accept.
It seems absurd that Israelis will have hysterical fits when the PLO says it doesn't recognize Israel as a "Jewish state", when Israelis themselves don't agree in first place what exactly they mean by a "Jewish state".
Israelis need to decide what it is they mean by a "Jewish state", before they accuse the Palestinians of being unreasonable in rejecting it. Right now, I suspect that some of them are happy to conflate the two different understandings of what a "Jewish state" is; perhaps so that when the PLO rejects Olmert's demand for a "state for Jews", they can pretend the PLO is rejecting too the idea of Israel as a "state of Jews". I suppose if you understand that the price of a universally-recognized Jewish-majority state in the 1967 borders is finally getting out of the Occupied Territories, and you really don't want to do that, it's a lot easier to derail peace talks by whipping up fears of being driven into the sea than to simply acknowledge you're not willing to pay the price. It's a bit like having the President of Iran say that the Occupation regime over Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of time, and then pretending that he really said he would "wipe Israel off the map"; because it's always easier to invoke the Hitler bogeyman than to answer Ahmadinejad's questions about why exactly Muslim-majority Palestine should be dismantled to make way for a sectarian Zionist state....
Maybe Israelis could take a short break from insisting on what the Palestinians must give them, and make up their minds what exactly it is they want. Then perhaps if they could actually listen to what they're being offered, they might even be pleasantly surprised to find it's something they could live with after all.
www.uruknet.info/?p=m38304&hd=&size=1&l=e
ALERT: Annapolis a Charade: Olmert Plotting Massive Aggression
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the upcoming "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8076S
Mazuz OKs cuts to Gaza's electricity
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127517226&pagename=JPost/JPArtic
If you want peace, Israelis will have to take action against their own Extremists, who don't want peace if it includes coexistence with the Palestinians.
Israel's demand to be recognized as Jewish state roils preparations for Annapolis
The Associated PressPublished: November 16, 2007
JERUSALEM: An Israeli demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state lies at the heart of the latest crisis to upset preparations for an upcoming Mideast peace conference.
In Israel's eyes, the demand seems obvious. Israel has always defined itself as the homeland of the Jewish people.
(In order to hide the fact that it's a state owned and controlled by Zionism, a violent racist Cult, which only seeks its own aggrandizement.)
But the Palestinians think offering that recognition would imply they are dropping one of their key demands in any peace deal — a solution for Palestinian refugees who lost their homes after Israel's 1948 creation and for their millions of descendants.
(That's an interesting way to talk about the people who were Ethnically Cleansed, they simply 'lost their homes' ...)
Israel opposes a return of refugees, for fear they would eventually outnumber the Jewish majority.
(Proving that Israel is, and always has been, an Apartheid state.)
The Palestinians see Israel's insistence that they recognize its Jewish nature now as no less than a last-minute effort to sabotage the conference, which is to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, at the end of the month.
"I know why you want to say it's purely Jewish, so there is no room for any refugees," said Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo. "Why should I do that?"
He said the Palestinians were ready to recognize Israel's right as a state with full sovereignty. "If they want to define their state with any name or title, it's up to them," Abed Rabbo said. Discussion of the refugee issue will be discussed in negotiations and not solved in a unilateral declaration, he said.
Ahead of the summit, a chorus of Israeli leaders have called on the Palestinians to accept the Israeli position, which Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected on Thursday.
"Two states will be established in the historical Palestine, Israel and Palestine," he said. "We are not in a position to define the nature of these two states."
The Israeli Cabinet is expected to debate the issue next week.
Past peace talks have foundered over the refugee issue (aka the Right Of Return), and both sides are mindful of that as they head to Annapolis to formally renew peace negotiations, which broke down in 2001 in a convulsion of violence that simmers to this day.
(See 'Alert', below)
Initially, the plan had been that the two sides would come to the gathering armed with a document laying out the principles of a future accord.
But as the meeting nears, and with gaps still wide, it appears the document will contain few details on how to resolve the decades-old conflict.
(And Olmert has already ruled out any agreement, on the insistence of the Extremists within his cabinet.)
In fact, Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who heads Israel's negotiating team, suggested Wednesday that the two sides might not be able to come up with any document at all.
"I hope that we are going to reach a joint statement, yes, but I think that the statement is less important, the most important thing is Annapolis and the day after," she said at a news conference with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Israel is not a country of broad consensus, but on the refugee issue agreement is almost wall-to-wall. Israelis believe a large-scale influx of Palestinian refugees could spell the end of Israel as a Jewish (Apartheid) state.
Livni, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have all raised the issue in recent public pronouncements.
One of Olmert's key coalition partners, hawkish Cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman, told the Haaretz newspaper that Israel should skip the Annapolis summit unless the Palestinians cave in.
"I aim to drag Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into demanding that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state as a prerequisite for the international peace summit planned at Annapolis," the Haaretz newspaper on Thursday quoted Lieberman as saying.
(Remember that Lieberman is the same man who said that Palestinian males should be rounded up and executed.)
Olmert has mentioned the necessity of Palestinian recognition of Israel's Jewish identity, perhaps in a nod to pressure from Lieberman, but has stopped short of making it a condition for the conference.
At a meeting Wednesday, Olmert told Solana the basis for negotiations with the Palestinians after the conference "will be recognition of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people," the prime minister's office said.
(But throughout the world, Jews are abandoning their support of Israel and Zionism.)
"The prime minister made it clear that from Israel's point of view, this issue is not subject to either negotiations or discussion," the statement said.
Israel, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, has brought up the issue now because "it is the core of the conflict."
(And because they know that by creating untenable demands, they can pretend that it is the Palestinians, as opposed to themselves, who wish to skuttle the talks.)
"Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people," Regev said. "That has never been accepted by the Palestinians, and we think any peace agreement has to include that."
(It hasn't been accepted by many Jews, either.)
www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians.php
A "Jewish State": I Can't Define It, But You Have To Recognize It.
November 16, 2007
At one time, everyone knew that peace would break out all over the Middle East if the Palestinians would just recognize Israel. But then the PLO went and spoiled things by recognizing Israel, so there had to be a new excuse for not ending the Occupation. The new demand was that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's "right to exist". And now, to ward off any danger that peace might raise its ugly head at Annapolis, here's a timely new one: the Palestinians have to recognize that Israel exists; that it has a right to exist; and that it has the right to exist as a "Jewish state".
The implications of Israel's demanding recognition as a state of the Jewish people rather than a state of all its citizens are complex, and I'm going to work on a separate post about that. But one really basic issue came to mind today when I read (via Desertpeace) this Ha'aretz editorial on the subject. To sum up the article: Ha'aretz thinks it's absurd for the Israeli government to demand that the PLO recognize Israel as a "Jewish state", when it is the settlement policies of successive Israeli governments in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that have been, and continue to be, the greatest danger to Israel's Jewishness. But what struck me most when I read the article wasn't the strength or otherwise of Ha'aretz's argument: it was the realisation that Israelis don't seem to have a common understanding of what they mean by a "Jewish state"; yet they insist the Palestinians must recognize nonetheless that Israel is one.
When Olmert and Livni talk about Israel as a "Jewish state", they mean essentially that it is a state that is for Jewish people, even if they don't reside or have citizenship there. It would be very handy for them if they could force the Palestinians to accept this definition, because then they could go into final status talks with some of the more intractable issues - like how to resolve the Right of Return - pre-emptively swept off the table. After all, how can Palestinians have a right to return to their homes in a "Jewish state" when they're not even Jewish, and non-Jews shouldn't expect to be allowed to live in a "Jewish state" in the first place...
Various Israeli commentators have been up in arms this week because the PLO has made it clear it will never give Israel this kind of recognition. The PLO says that Palestinians, like everyone else, give diplomatic recognition to countries, not to demographic balances, religious leanings or political affiliations. In recognizing Iran, for example, they give formal acceptance to Iran's sovereignty, its people and its borders, but not to its religious orientation. If Iran wants to call itself "The Islamic Republic of...", that is purely an internal Iranian affair. It's "Iran" that international diplomacy recognizes, not the Islamic-ness or Republic-ness of its political system. Similarly, if Israel wishes to call itself "The Jewish State of...", that is an internal Israeli affair, which does not need and cannot demand recognition from the PLO or anyone else in the world community.
So what does the PLO recognize in regard to Israel? The PLO recognizes the state of Israel in its 1967 borders - an area which happens to have an overwhelmingly Jewish population - and is offering through its acceptance of the Saudi peace initiative a Right of Return that is implemented in agreement with Israel, i.e. a nominal one that won't change the demographic balance there. So they offer recognition to a state that is de facto Jewish, and recognize the right of that state to peace and security within its recognized borders.
The one thing they won't say is that Israel is formally a "Jewish state", i.e. a state for Jews. Just as a Jewish American might recognize that the USA is a Christian country in terms of its dominant population and cultural traditions, but would never accept that it should be formally designated a "Christian state", because that immediately defines Jews and other non-Christians as lesser citizens. For some outrageous no-doubt Islamofascist Jew-hating reason, the Palestinians similarly refuse to declare that Israel is constitutionally a state where Israelis of Palestinian descent are inferior citizens.
Now, in this Ha'aretz editorial, Ha'aretz also talks about the "Jewish state", and says that the Israeli government is preventing it coming about because of the settlements, which make it impossible to separate the two peoples. So Ha'aretz is talking about a "Jewish State" in terms of an Israel that emerges from a final peace settlement as a country with a large Jewish majority.
But what Ha'aretz calls a Jewish state, i.e. a Jewish-majority state, is not what Olmert and Livni mean by the term, i.e a state that constitutionally favors people of one religion over another. Ha'aretz is saying that Israel will be a Jewish state because it will be a country that is made up overwhelmingly OF Jews - which the PLO could accept. Olmert and Livni say it is a Jewish state because it is a country not OF Jews, but FOR Jews - which Palestinians do not accept.
It seems absurd that Israelis will have hysterical fits when the PLO says it doesn't recognize Israel as a "Jewish state", when Israelis themselves don't agree in first place what exactly they mean by a "Jewish state".
Israelis need to decide what it is they mean by a "Jewish state", before they accuse the Palestinians of being unreasonable in rejecting it. Right now, I suspect that some of them are happy to conflate the two different understandings of what a "Jewish state" is; perhaps so that when the PLO rejects Olmert's demand for a "state for Jews", they can pretend the PLO is rejecting too the idea of Israel as a "state of Jews". I suppose if you understand that the price of a universally-recognized Jewish-majority state in the 1967 borders is finally getting out of the Occupied Territories, and you really don't want to do that, it's a lot easier to derail peace talks by whipping up fears of being driven into the sea than to simply acknowledge you're not willing to pay the price. It's a bit like having the President of Iran say that the Occupation regime over Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of time, and then pretending that he really said he would "wipe Israel off the map"; because it's always easier to invoke the Hitler bogeyman than to answer Ahmadinejad's questions about why exactly Muslim-majority Palestine should be dismantled to make way for a sectarian Zionist state....
Maybe Israelis could take a short break from insisting on what the Palestinians must give them, and make up their minds what exactly it is they want. Then perhaps if they could actually listen to what they're being offered, they might even be pleasantly surprised to find it's something they could live with after all.
www.uruknet.info/?p=m38304&hd=&size=1&l=e
ALERT: Annapolis a Charade: Olmert Plotting Massive Aggression
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the upcoming "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8076S Mazuz OKs cuts to Gaza's electricity
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127517226&pagename=JPost/JPArtic
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
a word on lieberman
18.11.2007 17:00
- The Yisrael Beiteinu party, which Lieberman heads, advocates transferring Arab areas of Israel, along with Israeli-Arab citizens, to a future Palestinian state in exchange for areas and settlement blocs in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law because they are built on occupied territory.
- Yisrael Beitenu encourages settlement activity as a fulfilment of Zionism.
- In March 2002, Lieberman pulled his party out of government in protest at then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon easing restrictions on then-Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who was confined to his Ramallah compound by Israeli forces.
- Lieberman rejoined Sharon's government in 2003 as transport minister, but in 2004, Sharon sacked him and Tourism Minister Benny Alon to ensure that the plan for "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip would pass the Cabinet vote.
- In 2004, Lieberman published his book "My Truth", a call to draw Israel's borders to exclude Arab citizens and include illegal Israeli West Bank settlements.
- In May 2005, Lieberman called for the execution of Arab Members of the Knesset (Israel's Parliament) who had contact with Hamas or did not celebrate Independence Day, insisting that those who had come into contact with Hamas "are cooperating with the enemy" and therefore should be tried: "The Second World War ended with the Nuremberg trials and the execution of the Nazi leadership…Not only them, but also those who collaborated with them. I hope that will also be the fate of the collaborators in this house [the Knesset]."
- In the aftermath of the attack on Israeli soldiers by Palestinian militants in which Corporal Shalit was captured, Lieberman called on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to fire Defence Minister Amir Peretz, who he described as "spineless," and called for the kidnapping of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh: "We need to tell Haniyeh and the Hamas leaders that after a Kassam rocket attack on Sederot, we will turn their homes into soccer fields."
- Lieberman attacked the UN-brokered ceasefire with Hezbollah in August 2006, claiming that the UN failed to eliminate the threat posed by the Lebanese group, that it had "legitimised" Hezbollah, and that the group would take over the Lebanese army in a couple of years: "We are not talking about a ceasefire, but a cessation in the fighting for a limited time period."
- In 1998, Lieberman called for the bombing of Egypt's Aswan Dam for Cairo's support of Arafat.
- In October 2006, Olmert approached Lieberman to join the government as a deputy prime minister and minister of strategic threats (primarily dealing with Iran's nuclear threat). Lieberman set five preconditions to joining the government, including:
1. Protecting from destruction the outpost settlements in the West Bank that are unauthorised by the Israeli government.
2. Changing the current structure of the Knesset so that a party will need at least 10% of the electoral vote to enter. This would mean that none of the Arab parties would be eligible.
3. Establishing an official enquiry into the mismanagement of the recent war in Lebanon.
4. Officially ending Olmert's unilateral plan to withdraw from parts of the West Bank.
- MKs have denounced the prospect of Lieberman in Olmert's government, and Culture and Sports Minister Ophir Pines-Paz resigned hours after Lieberman's inclusion in Israel's Cabinet, announcing his intention to "contend the [Labour] party leadership in May 2007 and to lead it back to the right track" after it agreed to Lieberman being in government.
- "He wants a Jewish state without Arabs," said Raleb Majadele, one of nine Labour MKs - including Pines-Paz - opposed to Lieberman's inclusion, and party secretary for the Arab sector. "In my worst nightmares I never believed that the Labor Party would reach a day like this, with Lieberman and us as coalition partners," Majadele told Israel Radio on 27 October 2006. Lieberman "denies the right of Israel's Arab citizens to exist," he said, adding that his inclusion in government would mark a "black day for the Knesset of Israel, a black day for democracy."
- Hebrew University professor Zeev Sternhell, Israel's leading academic specialist on fascism and totalitarianism, has described Lieberman as "perhaps the most dangerous politician in the history of the state of Israel."
- Israeli political analyst Yossi Alpher said: "Lieberman has racist overtones when he addresses Arab issues. He's not subtle, he's blustery, and he's not a strategic thinker. He readily advocates force to resolve complex issues. In Israel he tends to be scorned by most Israelis but he's a skilful demagogue who has built a strong following."
- Reacting to Lieberman's appointment, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said: "The choice of the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job constitutes a strategic threat in its own right. Lieberman's lack of restraint and his unbridled tongue, comparable only to those of Iran's president, are liable to bring disaster down upon the entire region."
- Haaretz columnist Akiva Eldar reacted thus: "The prevalent comparison between Avigdor Lieberman and Joerg Haider does an injustice to the Austrian nationalist whose party joined the government in the winter of 2000. Haider is far from being a righteous man, but even in his most fascist days, he never called on Austria to rid itself of citizens who'd been living in the country for generations. Also, Haider never suggested standing up legislators representing these citizens in front of a firing squad… Lieberman has stuck to his obscene views…There is also no comparison between the response of the Austrian people to the inclusion of the Freedom Party in the coalition, and the tranquility with which the majority of the Israeli public has received Lieberman's appointment as deputy prime minister in charge of the most sensitive strategic issue. It is important to note that Haider himself stayed out of the government. In Israel, 'peacemakers' like Amir Peretz, Ephraim Sneh, Eitan Cabel and Yitzhak Herzog went out of their way in their efforts to convince members of their party's central committee to allow them to bring into their home an extreme nationalist…The silence of the leadership of mainstream Jewry in the world, in view of the legitimization of a person such as Lieberman, undermines the moral high ground they hold in the struggle against Israel-haters throughout the world. If a Jewish politician who aspires to transfer an Arab minority across the border can sit in an Israeli cabinet, why should an anti-Semite not sit in an Austrian government? Let's hear it for the Haiders."
- Just two days after becoming a deputy prime minister of Israel, local media quoted Lieberman as telling the security cabinet that the country should operate in the Gaza Strip "like Russia operates in Chechnya." Russia has fought two wars in the southern republic of Chechnya in the post-Soviet period, in which tens of thousands of civilians are estimated to have been killed. Chechnya's capital Grozny was bombed extensively during the campaigns, prompting comparisons with Germany's Dresden after World War II, and Russian troops have been accused of massive human rights abuses in the Caucasus republic.
- Days after that, Lieberman called for the separation of Jews and Arabs (including Arab citizens of Israel) along the Cyprus model, telling Israeli Army Radio that "anywhere in the world where there are two peoples and two religions...there is conflict."
- On 9 November 2006, Lieberman was appointed to the parliamentary commission overseeing the removal of outposts in the occupied West Bank that Israel's government deems illegal (under international law, all Israeli settlements are illegal). This despite his staunch pro-settlement stance, and the fact that he lives in one in the West Bank. Lieberman will replace Ophir Pines-Paz of the Labour party, who resigned from the government on October 30 at the hardliner's inclusion in the cabinet.
t-rex
Israel: We Won't Negotiate At Annapolis
18.11.2007 22:23
Israel: We won't negotiate at Annapolis
By HERB KEINON
While no invitations have been set, a joint declaration has not yet been finalized and it is not clear which countries will in the end send representatives, the Prime Minister's Office is gearing up for the long-discussed meeting in Annapolis a week from Tuesday.
According to still very tentative plans, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will meet in Annapolis on the morning of November 27 with US President George W. Bush, followed by the "main event" in the afternoon during which the statement that Israel and the PA have been working on for months will be read.
Another event in Annapolis is planned the night before, with the participation of all the countries sending representatives to the gathering.
Senior government officials said Saturday night that negotiations themselves would not take place at Annapolis, but rather that the negotiating process would begin "immediately" afterward. No date or venue was given for these negotiations, although they are expected to be carried out by the same teams which have been negotiating the statement to be unveiled at Annapolis.
(I guess this explains Israel's plans for attacks on Gaza, the W. Bank, and possibly Lebanon, immediately following the event.)
In the run-up to the meeting, and as a way of winning support for it among the Palestinians, the cabinet is expected on Monday to approve the release of some 450 Palestinian 'security' prisoners.
However, Israel told the US on Saturday that it would not comply with the Palestinians' demand to release 2000 prisoners ahead of the conference.
The cabinet is also expected to discuss Israel's obligations under the road map to freeze all settlement construction and dismantle settlement outposts set up after 2001. Olmert is expected to announce at the meeting in Annapolis that Israel will freeze settlement construction and dismantle the outposts.
(Won't hold my breath ...)
In addition, the cabinet - which is meeting Monday rather than Sunday because Olmert will be attending the state memorial ceremony at Sde Boker for David and Paula Ben-Gurion - is also expected to discuss and approve the lifting of some of the roadblocks in the West Bank to make Palestinian movement easier.
Senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office declined to respond to various Palestinian reports that "failure" at Annapolis would lead to Abbas's resignation or could possibly spark another round of terrorist violence.
"The meeting at Annapolis is the beginning of a process," one official said. "It is the first time in seven years that the sides are openly having a dialogue that we hope will lead to a final settlement of some sort. Annapolis is the stepping-off point, and in that sense it is an important landmark, although the event itself is essentially a show of international support for the bilateral track."
The official indicated that the joint statement to be delivered there, which is still being discussed, would likely touch on the "core issues" without preferring any solutions. These include Jerusalem, refugees (the Right of Return), the (illegal) settlements and borders.
Although no timeline is expected to be laid out, Olmert said last week that he would like to see an agreement in place by the time Bush leaves office. Bush's term expires in January 2009.
At the same time, the officials reiterated Israel's position that implementation of the agreement would not take place until achievement of the first stage of the road map, which calls on the Palestinians to "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."
(Another motive for Israel's recent moves to provoke violence, and the assaults they're planning.)
The road map also calls for a "rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus" to begin "sustained, targeted and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption."
Israeli officials said that the international community, led by the US, would be the referee deciding when this stage of the road map had been implemented.
(Kinda like entrusting the henhouse to the fox. Behind closed doors, US officials have told Zionist Organizations that Israel would not be pressured to do anything.)
Over the weekend Olmert invited Defense Minister Ehud Barak to the Annapolis conference. It is expected that Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni will attend along with the prime minister.
In a related development, Meretz MK Yossi Beilin called for a cancellation of the conference, saying at a Shabbat cultural event in Holon that the meeting was doomed to fail, something that would "weaken the Palestinian camp, strengthen Hamas and cause violence."
(Actually, that's exactly what Israeli defense officials said would be the likely result of the measures of illegal Collective Punishment recently imposed on Gaza. It seems Israel will attempt to blame this result on Annapolis.)
According to Beilin, it would be better not to hold the meeting at all. "Intensive negotiations can continue on core issues without an empty summit that will only attract Arab ambassadors and not decision-makers alongside an Israeli leadership that prefers [Israel Beiteinu head Avigdor] Lieberman and [Shas head Eli] Yishai over a breakthrough to peace."
(In other words, Extremists who support the destruction of the Palestinians altogether.)
The State Department, meanwhile, began logistically preparing for the conference, sending out media accreditation guidelines on Friday, even though the date of the meeting has not yet been set.
(After all, this is all about PR ...)
"Although the dates and times of the meeting will be announced subsequently, the Department of State's Bureau of Public Affairs will begin the accreditation process now to accommodate the large number of press expected to attend," read the rather unusual announcement. "Further information on the distribution of media credentials and date, location and other details on the meeting will be provided after arrangements are confirmed."
Gil Hoffman contributed to this report.
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127527605&pagename=JPost/JPArtic
Israel's Demands Threaten Annapolis
israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7928/index.php
ALERT: Annapolis a Charade: Olmert Plotting Massive Aggression
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the upcoming "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace. How many of your loved ones are you prepared to sacrifice to the Madness of the Extremists in the Knesset?
www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7889/index.php
Annapolis a Charade