"The U.S.-Israeli Train Wreck"

May 31 2011

By Jeff Gates

President Obama hopes to head off a train wreck in September at the U.N. General Assembly. That’s when member nations plan to press for an independent Palestine. The Israel lobby is furious.

Critics doubt that the General Assembly has the authority to recognize Palestine. Yet protection of member sovereignty has been a goal of the U.N. since its founding. Thus the priority that Israel placed on U.N. recognition after President Harry Truman acknowledged Israel on May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after the Zionist enclave declared itself a state.

Truman refused to recognize this enclave as “the Jewish state.” Despite Barack Obama’s reference to the Jewish state in a recent speech on the Middle East, during the final days before granting recognition and thereby “legitimacy,” Truman was consumed with the fear that Zionist aspirations would lead to a racist or a theocratic state.

Those concerns led Zionist leader Chaim Weizzman to lobby Truman with a seven-page letter reassuring him that Jewish settlers envisioned a thoroughly secular state similar to the U.S. and Great Britain. Truman underscored that understanding when he recognized not the “Jewish state” (a description he crossed out) but the “State of Israel.”

Today’s train wreck should have been foreseen when Weizzman lied to Truman about Zionist intentions. As with every U.S. president since, Truman was deceived.

The Joint Chiefs cautioned Truman about the “fanatical concepts” of a Jewish-Zionist elite that sought recognition as a legitimate state. Even then, U.S. military leaders warned that this extremist enclave sought “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” Truman, a Christian-Zionist, chose to believe otherwise.

Albert Einstein was also worried. He and other concerned Jews described the Zionist political party that produced Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and now Benjamin Netanyahu as a “terrorist party” with “the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party.”

The Train Wreck

Truman’s worst fears have since been realized except that the effects were far worse than either he or the Joint Chiefs envisioned. To persuade other nations to endure this enclave of fanatics, the U.S. assured nearby Arab neighbors that Israel would seek no more land.

We now know that the Zionists saw nation-state recognition as only an initial foothold in the region from which to expand their territory and wield geopolitical influence—behind a U.S.-enabled facade of legitimacy.

Secretary of State George Marshall assured Truman that if he recognized these extremists as a legitimate state, Marshall would vote against him. This former WWII general anticipated the dynamics that have since devastated U.S. national security as we Americans were induced to expend our blood and treasure in support of Zionist goals.

The U.S. now appears culpable due to our alliance with a nuclear-armed theocratic enclave of extremists with an apartheid domestic policy and an expansionist foreign policy.

The U.S. diplomatic community also warned Truman against recognition, as did the intelligence community and the policy planning staff at the State Department. Clark Clifford, chairman of Truman’s 1948 presidential campaign, told Truman that if he withheld recognition, campaign funding expected from the Israel lobby would be withheld.

Ally or Agent Provocateur?

Fast-forward to 1967 and we find this same transnational network pre-staging a conflict designed to appear defensive. Since mythologized as the heroic “Six-Day War,” that agent provocateur operation set in motion geopolitical reactions still playing out today.

How far ahead of time was this provocation planned? An Israel Air Force general conceded that attack simulations began in the early 1950s. United Artists president Arthur Krim and his wife, Mathilde, began a strategic friendship with Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. By acquiring property near the LBJ Ranch, Mathilde, a former Irgun operative, could carry on an affair with Johnson while her husband chaired the finance committee for the Democrats.

On the night that the Six-Day Land Grab began, Mathilde was enjoying a sleepover in the Johnson White House. But for that Zionist aggression, would Israel have been able to live peacefully with its neighbors? Israel and its supporters staged an elaborate charade to recast this provocation as defensive. That ruse included the cover-up of an Israeli assault on the U.S.S. Liberty that killed 34 Americans and left 175 wounded.

Then as now, the fabled “Israelites” were portrayed as victims of a hostile world. Then as now, anyone chronicling the consistency of this duplicity risks portrayal as an “anti-Semite.”

This trans-generational deceit continues to undermine U.S. national security at every turn. Zionist treachery began long before George Marshall and the Pentagon cautioned Truman against what these fanatics would now deny the Palestinians: legitimacy.

By the consistency of our support over more than six decades, the U.S. now appears guilty by association. If the U.N. vote becomes a diplomatic train wreck, we have only ourselves to blame.

Jeff Gates is author Guilt By Association – How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. See www.criminalstate.com

________________________________________________________
"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.

The International Criminal Court – a help or a hindrance?

---

By Stuart Littlewood

27 May 2011


Stuart Littlewood views the built-in anomalies that allow the International Criminal Court to dispense justice but only selectively by giving impunity to non-signatories such as Israel and the US while prosecuting suspected war criminals from other non-signatories such as Sudan.

Do you fume at the International Criminal Court (ICC) when you see all those  obnoxious war criminals still walking free and still thumbing their noses at the civilized world while their gruesome crime sheet just gets longer?

There should be no hiding place. But international law never reaches into some corners because the levers that control the wheels of justice, we discover, are sometimes leaned on by the criminals themselves. 

The court and its signatories

The International Criminal Court was supposed to change all that. It is governed by the Rome Statute  and is the first permanent, treaty-based, international criminal court established "to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community".

The ICC says it is independent and not part of the United Nations system, but that is not strictly true, as we’ll see.

One hundred and fifteen states have signed up to the Rome Statute. The UK is one of them, I'm pleased to say. And so too is Afghanistan. But rogue states like the US and Israel rank alongside Saudi Arabia and Libya and skulk beyond the perimeter.

A further 34 countries, including Russia, have signed but not ratified. These states are obliged, under the law of treaties, to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the Rome Statute. Three of these states – Israel, Sudan and the United States – signed and then, presumably realizing their conduct was not up to the standards expected and wishing to undermine the statute whenever it suited them, "unsigned".

The court has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by nationals of a state party or on the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute since 1 July 2002, the date the statute came into effect.

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) lists some pretty woolly objectives which nevertheless include these two:

• To maximize the Office of the Prosecutor’s contribution to the fight against impunity and the prevention of crimes.

• To enhance cooperation with states and relevant actors, in particular for the execution of arrest warrants issued by the court.

Does any of this help Palestine? The ICC's website reports that on 22 January 2009, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) lodged a declaration with the Registrar under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute which allows States not party to the Statute to accept the court’s jurisdiction.

The OTP will examine issues related to its jurisdiction: first whether the declaration accepting the exercise of jurisdiction by the court meets statutory requirements; and second whether crimes within the court’s jurisdiction have been committed. The OTP will also consider whether there are national proceedings in relation to alleged crimes.

In October 2009 a delegation from the PNA and the Arab League presented the court with a report in support of the PNA’s ability to delegate its jurisdiction to the ICC. In January 2010, the OTP sent a letter summarizing its activities to the United Nations then, in May, published a “Summary of submissions on whether the declaration lodged by the Palestinian National Authority meets statutory requirements.”

But in 28 long months the prosecutor has made no determination on the issue.

After wading through Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute describing the numerous crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocides the ICC is supposed to deal with – the sort of horrors Palestinians have to face every day – I found that Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute refers to Article 12(2) which refers to Article 13 (a) and (c)... which is enough to make one want to lie down in a darkened room and lose the will to live.

So I was very pleased to hear from Dr David Morrison in Dublin who periodically sends me excellent briefings and carefully researched articles from his organization, Sadaka – the Ireland Palestine Alliance. One of his latest pieces looked at the hypocrisy of referring Libya to the ICC. 

US wants impunity for itself(and Israel)while prosecuting others.

Libya is not a party to the International Criminal Court and is among many states that do not accept its jurisdiction. Yet three months ago the UN Security Council voted unanimously, in Resolution 1970, to refer the situation in the Libya to the prosecutor of the ICC. Five of the states that voted for this referral – China, India, Lebanon, Russia and the US – are not parties to the ICC and don’t accept its jurisdiction. So here we see the US among those forcing Libya to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, when it refuses to do so itself.

Dr Morrison points also to the case of Sudan in 2005 when the Security Council decided to refer the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor. Sudan isn't a party to the ICC either. On that occasion the US and China abstained, but three states – Philippines, Russia and Tanzania – which don’t accept the jurisdiction of the ICC voted for Sudan to be subjected to it.

The ICC charged the president of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, with genocide and two other Sudanese nationals with lesser charges.

How were these referrals possible, asks Morrison? The answer lies in Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute, under which the ICC may exercise jurisdiction if “a situation in which one or more crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations [action to maintain peace]”.

So, the ICC is not the independent judicial body it pretends to be. Its jurisdiction can be extended or redirected on the say-so of the Security Council to apply to states that have refused its jurisdiction.

Of course, says Dr Morrison, that can’t happen to non-statute members of the Security Council who only have to wield their veto to block any attempt by UN colleagues to extend the ICC’s jurisdiction to their territory.

In his view, a court with universal jurisdiction is fair. A court whose jurisdiction you, as a state, can choose to accept or reject has some semblance of fairness. But a court like the ICC, whose jurisdiction can be targeted, at the whim of the Security Council, on certain states that have chosen not to accept it, but not on others, is grossly unfair.

Dr Morrison's analysis reveals how evil this manipulation can be. The primary duty for prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity lies with the state in which they were committed and the ICC only acquires jurisdiction to prosecute if the state fails to do so. The court can prosecute any individual responsible for these crimes regardless of civilian or military status or official position.

This means that, in theory, a national of a state that is not party to the statute, for example a US national, may be tried by the ICC for crimes committed in a state that is a party to the statute. The US is particularly opposed to this, since it has civilian and military personnel in lots of states around the world, many of which are party to the statute. It is US policy to prevent the ICC trying any US nationals.

Because of this, Resolution 1970 [the Libya referral] includes a paragraph exempting nationals from states not party to the ICC, including US nationals, from the jurisdiction of the ICC for acts committed in Libya... The hypocrisy surrounding this is staggering...

Indeed.

Dr Morrison also homes in on what are termed “Article 89 Agreements”. Under Article 89(1) of the Rome Statute, states that are party to the ICC are required to “comply with requests for arrest and surrender” by the Court. These could be for the arrest and surrender of US nationals. To prevent this, the US has taken advantage of Article 98(2), which says:

The court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending state is required to surrender a person of that state to the court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.

The US has negotiated agreements with more than a hundred states to block surrender of US nationals to the court.

To ensure obedience, if states are party to the ICC they cannot receive military aid from the US without signing such an agreement. The American Service-Members' Protection Act stipulates that “no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court”, although NATO members and certain non-NATO allies (including Israel, of course) are exempted, as are those who signed an Article 89 agreement.

"Such are the lengths that the US is prepared to go," says Morrison, "in order to exclude its own nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC, while voting in the Security Council to extend the jurisdiction of the ICC for others." 

Will the court “bottle out”over Goldstone
 

In another article, “The Goldstone Report does not need correction”, Dr Morrison wonders if the ICC will be allowed to do its job as recommended by Goldstone.

The Israeli government and others claim that Goldstone, in his recent Washington Post article, retracted completely all the findings of the  UN Fact-Finding Mission on Gaza that Israeli forces had deliberately targeted civilians.

But he did no such thing, says Morrison.

The mission came to the conclusion that in 11 incidents Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians. He made a case, based on information of uncertain reliability, that this number should be reduced to 10. The mission recommended that these matters end up at the International Criminal Court, with individuals being indicted for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, if the evidence warrants...

The ICC hasn’t got jurisdiction over these matters at the moment, since neither Israel nor Palestine are parties to the ICC. How can it acquire jurisdiction?

In theory, he says, there are two ways. First, as mentioned at the start, the PNA has made its submissions and informed the ICC that “the government of Palestine hereby recognizes the jurisdiction of the court for the purposes of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of acts committed in the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002”.

But it all depends on whether Palestine is a state within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. If the ICC were to accept jurisdiction, it would not only allow for the indictment of Israelis for offences committed during Operation Cast Lead, but also for other crimes, such as settlement building.

Article 8.2(b)(viii) makes it clear that “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.

The second possibility is for the Security Council to refer Operation Cast Lead to the ICC, just as it did the Libyan unpleasantness and Darfur, neither of those countries being party to the ICC.

If, as Dr Morrison points out, the ICC did acquire jurisdiction, its investigations would encompass not only the damning material gathered by Goldstone but a whole host of evidence from other organizations such as Human Rights Watch (Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza; Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles; White Flag Deaths: Killings of Palestinian Civilians during Operation Cast Lead; Turning a Blind Eye: Impunity for Laws-of-War Violations during the Gaza War; “I Lost Everything”: Israel's Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead), Amnesty International (Israel/Gaza: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 Days of Death and Destruction) and the Arab League Fact Finding Committee (No Safe Place).

It is nearly two-and-a-half years since the Palestinians’ declaration and the prosecutor, despite having access to the best legal brains, still hasn't made a decision to proceed. Why the foot-dragging? What's his game? Goldstone's Fact-Finding Mission recommended a decision “should be made by the prosecutor as expeditiously as possible”, another reason perhaps why the poor judge incurred such displeasure in certain quarters.

So is the ICC ‘bottling out’?

In Dr Morrison's view, it is unlikely to accept jurisdiction because of the enormous political implications. "However, one cannot but hope that the matter will be pressed in the Security Council to the point where the US is forced to wield its veto to protect Israel."

Presumably, the matter would then find its way to the General Assembly, which could urge the Security Council to take proper steps and refer the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory to the ICC, in accordance with Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute.

And what of America’s chicanery? This week in London we've had to endure President Barack Obama on a state visit lecturing us with words like:

We fight an enemy that respects no law of war, we will continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard – by living up to the values and the rule of law that we so ardently defend... We will proceed with humility... Ultimately, freedom must be won by the people themselves… But we can and must stand with those who so struggle.

Only a few days earlier he’d said: “No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state,” and he made the outrageous stipulation that if it did come into being it should be demilitarized – i.e. the Palestinians must be deprived of a basic universal right and rendered incapable of defending themselves. Not only that, they should “negotiate” with their tormentor – the brutal occupying power – and bargain for their freedom like merchants in a bazaar and be prepared to see even more of their trashed and fragmented country lost to Zionist greed.

After Obama’s address to both Houses of Parliament, which was received with rapturous applause, throngs of smitten MPs jockeyed for position to shake the fraud's hand, a spectacle that must have turned the stomach of those with any inkling of what is actually happening.

---

 

Note: My thanks to Sadaka, which supports a peaceful settlement in Israel/Palestine based on the principles of democracy and justice.

______________________________________________________________

Note from Editor:  Year after year passes by, every time I open up the email from ICC, I get disappointed. I have found them to be ignoring the Palestinian issue and evasiveness implicated complicity, the laws are clear. Yet the  International Criminal Court has not helped to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community", the crimes committed by the Zionist entity against the Palestinian people. 

 

Hiyam Noir

_______________________________________________________
"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.

Barack Obama is the wrong target

By  Alan Hart 31 May 2011 Alan Hart argues that rather than attack President Obama for his failure in the Middle East, supporters of justice for the Palestinians should “target ... America’s pork-barrel system of politics which puts what passes for democracy up for sale to the highest bidders...” thereby surrendering US policy-making to Israel’s lobbies in Congress and elsewhere. ”The many members of Congress who read from Zionism’s script and dance to its tune in order to secure election campaign funds and organized Jewish votes in tight races are not merely stooges. Because they are putting the interests of a foreign power above those of their own country, it’s time to call them what they really are: traitors. “In my view exposing them as such should be given the highest priority by all who campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians and peace for all.” (Alan Hart) When I was reflecting on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s domination and control of the Congress of the United States of America, the first headline that came into my mind for this article was “Goodbye to peace”. I’ll now explain why I think the headline above is more appropriate. Because of its flirtation with the proposition that peace between an Israeli and Palestinian state must be based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps, President Obama’s speech on Middle East policy principles did one useful thing. And it was Haaretz’s Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, who put his finger most firmly on it. We should be grateful to Obama, he wrote, because his speech “exposed the naked truth – that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu does not want peace.” Netanyahu’s peace on Zionism’s terms The gentile me almost always agrees with Gideon but on this occasion, and leaving aside the fact that it was Netanyahu’s rejection of what Obama said initially, that exposed the naked truth, I think Gideon’s  One is that the truth was exposed like never before only to those who version of it needs two clarifications.have not been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda – only a minority of Americans, for example. The other boils down to this. What Netanyahu does want, and only because of his concern about Israel’s growing isolation in the world, is peace on Zionism’s terms, which means the Palestinians giving up their struggle for an acceptable minimum of justice and accepting crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of three or four Bantustatans on about 40 per cent of the West Bank, and which they could call a state if they wished. That’s what Netanyahu meant but did not say when, at his arrogant, insufferably self-righteous and devious best, he assured both houses of the US Congress that “We’ll be generous about the size of the Palestinian state.” Put another way, what Netanyahu doesn’t want is peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims could accept – a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation and a contiguous and viable Palestinian mini-state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem an open city and the capital of two states. The only question of interest about Netanyahu is this. Does he really believe the nonsense he speaks about the alleged threats to Israel’s security or is he a smooth-talking but diabolical salesman, selling what he knows to be Zionist propaganda lies as truth? Obama’s speech also exposed (again) the weakness of his own position on policy matters for Israel/Palestine when he said: “Ultimately it is up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them – not by the United States, not by anybody else.” As things are that means Israel remains free to continue its criminal ways:   defying UN Security Council resolutions and international law; pushing ahead with more and more illegal settlements to consolidate its hold on those parts of occupied West Bank it intends to keep for ever; oppressing the occupied Palestinians in the hope that, out of complete despair, they will either give up their struggle for an acceptable minimum amount of justice and be prepared to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table or, better still from Zionism’s perspective, will abandon their homeland and seek a new life elsewhere in the Arab world and beyond; and resorting to state terrorism (attacks on neighbouring Arab countries and possibly Iran) whenever its leaders feel the need to impose their will on the region. Because of Israel’s dependence on the US in a number of ways, not the least of them being the American veto of Security Council resolutions not to Israel’s liking, Obama does have the leverage to impose a Middle East peace on terms that would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice without any risk to Israel’s security. And there’s a very compelling case for saying he ought to do so if only to best protect America’s own interests. I believe Obama knows this, so the question of real interest about him is this. Why won’t he act? Obama “trapped in an iron cage” The answer of almost all of his critics who call and campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians is that he’s a willing tool of the Zionist lobby. I don’t believe this to be the case. I think the reality of Obama’s position was best summed up by Professor John J. Mearsheimer. To Al-Jazeera recently he said this: The sad fact is that Obama has remarkably little manoeuvre room on the foreign policy front. The most important item on his agenda is settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there he knows what has to be done: push both sides toward a two-state solution, which is the best outcome for all the parties, including the United States. Indeed, he has been trying to do just that since he took office in January 2009. But the remarkably powerful Israel lobby makes it virtually impossible for him to put meaningful pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is committed to creating a Greater Israel in which the Palestinians are restricted to a handful of disconnected and impoverished enclaves. And Obama is certainly not going to buck the lobby – with the 2012 presidential election looming larger every day...  The bottom line is that the US is in deep trouble in the Middle East and needs new policies for that region. But regrettably there is little prospect of that happening anytime soon. All of this is to say that there was no way that Obama could do anything but disappoint with Thursday’s [19 May 2011] speech, because he is trapped in an iron cage. This cage is, of course, the Zionist lobby’s control through its many stooges in Congress of policy for Israel-Palestine. It’s the cage in which, post-Eisenhower, every American president has been trapped. As former ambassador Chas Freeman put it in a recent interview with Russia Today TV channel, Israeli leaders don’t have to listen to the president because they know their lobby can block him in Congress. America’s pork-barrel system of politics And that’s why, despite the fact that, like  Ilan Pappe, I am sick and tired of Obama’s rhetoric, I’ve come to the conclusion that no useful purpose is served by supporters of justice for the Palestinians attacking him. He’s the wrong target. The right target is America’s pork-barrel system of politics which puts what passes for democracy up for sale to the highest bidders. In this context I say, have always said, that I don’t blame the Zionist lobby for playing the game the way it does. It is only playing by the rules. It’s the rules that need to be changed if Obama in a second term, or any future American president, is going to be able to escape from the cage and use the leverage he has to oblige Israel to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept. Some members of Congress who applauded Netanyahu in a scene that reminded me of the enthusiasm for Hitler at Nazi rallies accused Obama of betraying Israel. There has indeed been a betrayal, but what has been betrayed is democracy in America. The many members of Congress who read from Zionism’s script and dance to its tune in order to secure election campaign funds and organized Jewish votes in tight races are not merely stooges. Because they are putting the interests of a foreign power above those of their own country, it’s time to call them what they really are: traitors. In my view exposing them as such should be given the highest priority by all who campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians and peace for all. Footnote Memo to all concerned in Congress and the White House. Israel is not a “Jewish state”. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslim? Israel is a Zionist state. It will only be a Jewish state when it has completed its ethnic cleansing programme.

source redress.cc Barack Obama is the wrong target > Americas > Redress Information & Analysis

________________________________________________________

"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the PalestineFreeVoice.

The ruined village Palestinians will never forget

 Lifta a Palestinian village

By Harriet Sherwood

Sunday May 29, 2011, 23:17 BST

The ruins of Lifta are the final remains of the Palestinian hamlets that fringed Jerusalem until 1948. Now plans to bulldoze them are causing outrage

Yacoub Odeh shows film-maker Mat Heywood around his deserted home village, now under threat from Israeli plans to build a luxury resort Link to this video .

In the soft golden light of a late spring evening, as yellow flowers are beginning to bloom on giant cacti, Yacoub Odeh climbs up through knee-high grass to the ruin that was his childhood home. For a man in his eighth decade, he is surprisingly nimble as he navigates ancient stones that litter the ground. But behind his light step is the weight of painful memories of a lost youth and a fading history.

"Here is my house," he says, sitting on the remains of a stone wall in whose crevices wild flowers and saplings cling. "Now only the corners remain. Here is the taboun [outdoor oven] where my mother used to bake bread. The smell!"

With distant eyes, he describes an idyllic childhood in a place he calls paradise, where families helped one another and children played freely amid almond and fig trees and on the rocks around the village's natural spring.

The place is  Lifta, an Arab village on the north-western fringes of Jerusalem, for centuries a prosperous, bustling community built around agriculture, traditional embroidery, trade and mutual support. But since 1948, shortly before the state of Israel was declared, it has been deserted. The population, according to the Palestinian narrative, of that momentous year, was expelled by advancing Jewish soldiers; the people abandoned their homes, say the Israeli history books.

Lifta was one of hundreds of Arab villages taken over by the embryonic Jewish state. But it is the only one not to have been subsequently covered in the concrete and tarmac of Israeli towns and roads, or planted over with trees and shrubs to create forests, parks and picnic areas, or transformed into Israeli artists' colonies. Some argue that Israel set out to erase any vestige of Palestinian roots in the new country.

Now, 63 years on, the ruins of Lifta are finally facing the threat of bulldozers and concrete mixers. A long-term proposal to sell the state-owned land for the construction of luxury housing units and a boutique hotel on the site is awaiting the authorities' final approval. It has caused a furore. Opponents of the plan include those who believe Lifta should be preserved as a monument to history; those who want to retain its charming environs as a rambling spot; and those – Odeh among them – who insist that one day they will return and reclaim their homes.

For many Palestinians, Lifta is a symbol of the Nakba, literally the "catastrophe", of 1948 in which 700,000 people were dispossessed. It embodies their longing for their land, and their bitterness at their continued refugee status. It is, wrote Palestinian author Ghada Karmi in a letter to the Los Angeles Times, "a physical memory of injustice and survival".

The development plan was approved by the Jerusalem municipality five years ago, but earlier this year the Israel Lands Administration – the state agency that took ownership of Lifta's land under the Israeli law governing property deemed to be abandoned – began marketing the plot to private developers. A legal challenge stayed the tender process, but a decision is due any day on whether to proceed. The proposal is for 212 luxury housing units, expected to be advertised to wealthy expatriate Jews, a chic hotel and shops, and a museum. It suggests that some of the ruins be restored. But Lifta as a sanctuary and de facto heritage site will be lost.

Shmuel Groag, one of the architects of the original proposal, has since reversed his position and has backed the campaign to preserve the ruined village. "I have changed my mind about conservation in general, and about Lifta in particular," he says. The site, he argues, should be "frozen". Others have appealed to Unesco to declare Lifta a world heritage site, saying that work must begin to halt further decay and the theft of valuable stones from the ruins. Alongside the ramblers, drug-users and illicit lovers frequent the ruins. Crowds of ultra-orthodox Jewish teenage boys, stripped to their underwear, swim in the spring, and light barbecues on the rocks. Graffiti scars many of the fragmented walls. For Odeh, this is distressing. "Why should they have free access to my home when I am stopped by security guards and questioned about my right to be here," he asks. "When I see these people coming here, I feel sorrow and anger."

The remains of the village are bounded by roads, along which traffic rumbles to and from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem's suburbs and settlements. On the ridge above Lifta, concrete mixers and diggers are at work on a high-speed rail link to Tel Aviv; deep in the valley below is a guarded complex, said to be the site of the Israeli government's underground nuclear bunker. Out of sight of Lifta's ruins, but built on its former farmlands are the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the supreme court, the Hadassah hospital, the Hebrew University and the city's central bus station.

In 1948, the village owned 1,200 hectares but they have long gone, along with olive, fig, apricot, almond, plum, pomegranate and citrus trees plus the fields of spinach, cauliflower, peas and beans that gave Lifta its prosperity. "Life was rich," recalls Odeh. "The spring watered the village gardens. We had more olives than we needed so we sold them and the oil in Jerusalem."

As we walk amid the ruins, Odeh points out the old landmarks. "Here was the mosque. This was the sheriff's house. Here was the olive press. There is the house where I was born, and where my father was born. Over there is the cemetery. This was the sahn [courtyard] where people shared happy occasions and sorrowful occasions. Here I breathed my first breath. The first water I drank, I drank here." It is painful, he says.

He points out what is remaining of the beautiful architecture of the houses, with arched windows, columns and graceful balconies. Over a door, a lintel is inscribed with Arabic writing. Enter in safety, it says; the owner of this house is God. "The people of the village cut the stones and built their houses themselves. They were proud of that. They helped each other build and harvest the olives. The village lived as a family, one family."

But in 1948, when Odeh was eight years old, the bucolic life of Lifta came to an end. At the gateway to Jerusalem, Lifta was strategically important to the advancing Jewish troops. A series of violent skirmishes caused fear and panic, he recalls. There was firing and attacks from both sides. And then came the day his family left.

"My mother was preparing a fire to warm the house. I was with my little brother. The gangs began to shoot in the direction of Lifta. My brother was shouting: 'Mama! Mama! They're shooting us.' My mother took us inside and put us in a corner. The people of Lifta were crying to one another."

Odeh's father, then 33, carried the youngest of the eight children, and the family crossed the valley and climbed up to the main road to Jerusalem. His mother took the key to the house but they left everything they owned. "We had nothing but the clothes we were wearing. We had everything – and in one moment we had nothing. We became beggars." As the villagers left, Jewish soldiers blew holes in the roofs of the houses to make them uninhabitable.

Odeh's father stayed in Lifta for a few more days. After boarding a truck heading away from the village, the rest of the family slept under fig trees. They spent the following two years in Ramallah before moving to Jerusalem's Old City. His father, a broken man, developed stomach problems and died at the age of 35. His mother suffered from asthma from the time she left Lifta until her death. Many of the 3,000 residents of Lifta scattered across the West Bank and beyond to Jordan, but a core still live in East Jerusalem within a few kilometres of their former homes. Odeh himself later joined the armed resistance against Israel and spent 17 years in prison.

Now, in his twilight years, he is as impassioned as ever about his home. "We will never forget nor forgive the destruction of our village. Lifta is in our memory and in our history. It is our fathers' and grandfathers' graveyard. The spring, the trees, the land – we will never forget it."

He is unshakeable in his belief in the Palestinians' right to return to their homes – something that cannot be countenanced by Israel because it would threaten the state's Jewish majority and hence its Jewish nature. "We still dream of coming back," says Odeh. "I'm sure the time will come to return to Lifta, to my home." There can be no lasting peace until the refugee issue is resolved, he adds. But he knows time may be running out. "Lifta is an eyewitness to history, to what happened in the Nakba. If we can't come back, then leave the village to this history." 

Source guardian.co.uk, 

_____________________________________________________

"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice
_____________________________________________________

Donor Bread (Money) and Congressional Circuses

Sunday, May 29, 2011,  09:26

By Lawrence Davidson
.

The Money

According to a 19 May report by the Wall Street Journal, the American Zionists are starting to turn the screws on President Obama and the Democratic Party. “Jewish donors and fund raisers are warning the Obama re-election campaign that the president is at risk of losing financial support because of concerns about his handling of Israel.” If you doubt that this tactic can work just watch the video of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress. Those 20 plus “sustained and standing ovations” did not come from mere true believers. They came from the throughly bought and bullied. The Zionists have a strikingly successful and very long standing vote buying operation and they are, of course, applying it to the president and his reelection campaigners.

Thus the Wall Street Journal article goes on to say that Obama will “court Jewish donors at a June fund-raiser.” There is every indication that the Obama campaign plans to be “extremely proactive” in letting the “Jewish community” know that the president does not want to be “too critical of Israel.” All of this is very odd. In 2008 Obama took 77% of the Jewish vote. According to reliable pollsters there is no indication that it will be much different in 2012. Most Jewish voters don’t vote primarily on Israel or foreign policy issues. Like other Americans they vote on domestic, and particularly economic issues. According to pollster John Zogby, “the lines are drawn fairly well, and I think it is hard for it [the Jewish vote] to not be a 75 to 25 % split for Obama and the Democrats.” The 25% are the hard core Zionists and capitalists amongst us. Yet, considering that in 2008 Jews accounted for about 2% of American voters, the Zionist capacity to trigger a panic attack among Democrat campaign staffs cannot, except in a few select neighborhoods, possibly be about votes. And indeed it is not.

It is about money. It is estimated by multiple mainstream sources that approximately 60% of Democratic campaign funds come from Jewish sources of all kinds. That is not just from Jewish Zionists, but also from ordinary unaffiliated Jews. Indeed, the hard core Zionists probably give more to Republicans and their handouts account for about 20% of that party’s campaign funds.

It is hard to know what percentage of the 60% of Democratic campaign funds is given or withheld due to a politician’s stance on Israel. Let’s guess high and say that it is 40% of the 60%. That means about 24% of Jewish campaign funds are given on the basis of Israel. There are some very wealthy people who use Israel as a criterion for their contributions. One is Haim Saban, the self-made billionaire who helps fund the Brooking Institute. He is one of those who says his enthusiasm for the Democratic Party has waned due to Obama’s stand on Israel. Yet Saban also notes that “President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much [additional] money through the Internet….[That] he frankly doesn’t, I believe, need any of my donations….[However] will I donate if I am solicited? I will donate.” So it may well be that, at least when it comes to the Obama presidential campaign, the Democrats exaggerate the need to hold a pro-Israeli line in order to procure funds, even from Jews.

It is different at the level of Congress and the Senate. The Democratic Party is yet to organize itself to the point where each of its federal candidates can match the financial independence of the president’s reelection campaign. That makes candidates for these offices more dependent on lobby money. At this level 24% given on the basis of support for Israel is probably a crucial number and Zionists manipulate the money very well, shifting it around during both primary and regular election campaigns to those who swear allegiance (one has to literally sign a pledge). That is what makes the U.S. politicians dance to their tune. For the sake of that money they will greet the most outrageous nonsense with roaring acclaim. And last Tuesday (24 May 2011) the Israeli Prime Minister proved it to be so.

The Circus (or Dancing for Dollars)

Here is how one Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy of Haaretz, characterized Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, “It was an address…filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions. Only rarely is a foreign head of state invited to speak before Congress. It’s unlikely that any other has attempted to sell such a pile of propaganda and prevarication, such hypocrisy and sanctimony as Bejamin Netanyahu….” If you are going to do this sort of thing, transforming Congress into a circus, you really have to know your audience.

Here are some of Levy’s comments on the speech,

1. “How can the Israeli prime minister dare to say that his country ‘fully supports the desire of the Arab peoples in our region to live freely’ (as long as they aren’t Palestinians)?” When the Arab popular protests started “he was…warning of the dangers of an extremist Islamic regime and rushing to build a fence along  our border with Egypt.”

2. “How could he rain praise on Israeli democracy when his government has done more than its predecessors to deal [a] mortal blow to that democracy, to pass completely anti-democratic laws?”

3. “How dare he speak about freedom of worship in Jerusalem at a time when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been denied that freedom for years?”

Levy observes that Netanyahu, is “the man who explicitly said he would do his level best to destroy the Oslo Accords.” And yet, “suddenly…he’s in favor of peace with the Palestinians.” That is indeed what Netanyahu asserted. The prime minister told Congress that, “I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace…” This brought the Congress to its feet for one of those “sustained ovations.” But then came the qualifiers, which no politician in the audience seemed to find unreasonable. Nonetheless, they demonstrate conclusively that the prime minister is unwilling to compromise on just about everything the Palestinians want and need.

a. No compromise on the Right of Return. “This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.”

b. No compromise on Jerusalem. “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.”

c. And here are a bunch of other non-negotiable demands: “a Palestinian state must be fully demilitarized….it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River….Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda [Hamas].”

While the Congress seemed not to notice that these qualifiers are fatal ones, another Israeli journalist did. Ben Caspit writing in Maariv, tells us that “Netanyahu knows very well that the conditions that he set [in his speech] for a peace process are complete non-starter[s]. There is no Palestinian in the world who will accept them, there is no Arab state in the world that will support them.”

Yet over twenty times our national leaders leapt to their feet and clapped their hearts out. How is one to explain this? Gideon Levy concludes that such behavior “says more about the ignorance of its [Congress’s] members than the quality of their guest’s speech.” Ignorance is certainly part of it. The bought and bullied are wilfully misinformed.

Money buys Reality

Most of Congress is ignorant about the real nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and about the real consequences of American foreign policy relative to it. That ignorance is sustained by the fact that the U.S. information environment relating to the conflict is still largely controlled by the Zionists. For instance, much of the briefing material on the issue going to Congressional members is produced by AIPAC and allied Zionist organizations, the State Department has been purged of anyone sympathetic to the Palestinians or the Arabs in general, the media remains almost uniformly biased in favor of Israel, and finally,  for the politicians, ignorance is underwritten by that 24% of their campaign contributions. It also helps enormously that this ignorance is shared by the American public at large.

The result is almost post-modernist in nature. Right and wrong becomes relative. Reality is one way for the Israelis and their boosters in Congress and another way for the Palestinians and their supporters. The stronger party, figuring that the winners ultimately write the history books are not really in a compromising mood. That is why Netanyahu’s version of compromise was such a farce. The Zionists figure that as long as they can militarily prevail, and continue to manipulate the U.S. version of reality, they will eventually be writing the definitive histories of this struggle. Essentially, ignorance makes all crimes invisible. Control of an information environment keeps them invisible.

Alas, in the long run this is really an impossible gambit. The required ignorance, though almost complete in the halls of Congress, is nowhere near so in the outside world. And so the truth must occasionally break through. It must do so even at an AIPAC staged speech by a duplicitous Israeli prime minister given within the inner sanctum of the U.S. government.

Early into Netanyahu’s speech a women rose up and shouted “stop the occupation.” It turns out that she is a Jewish Israeli peace activist and a member of the group Codepink. Her name is Rae Abileah. She was, of course, immediately attacked and silenced by the AIPAC supporters sitting near her. Netanyahu’s reaction was that of a consummate improvisation actor. He “seamlessly incorporated the moment into his overall narrative.” He told his audience, “I take it as a badge of honor that in our free societies you can have protests….This is real democracy.” As it turns out Ms Abileah was so injured by her attackers (none of whom have been charged with assault) that she ended up in the hospital where subsequently she was arrested for her protest. In Israel, not only would such a protest by someone in the galleries not be tolerated, but even Arab-Israeli members of the Knesset who protest Zionist policies are physically attacked as the address the chamber. That is the real meaning of Netanyahu’s “real democracy.”

Conclusion

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. Congress’s accepted version of reality is maintained by Zionist misinformation fortified by donor dollars to the campaigns of both parties. Without the one-sided story line and its attendant financial pillars (and the stealthy way the money is handed out or withheld), the incentive to dance the dance and see the conflict through Zionist tinted glasses would be considerably less. Yet that is not the way our system works. Within the realm of American politics it is the money that conditions the mind to an uncritical acceptance of a perverted reality. That is what allowed for the circus spectacle in Congress on 24 May–where men and women in positions of power were induced to give multiple “sustained and standing ovations” for little more than “lies and illusions.”

________________________________________________________

"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.

The Future of the Palestinian Resistance in the Light of the Arab Uprisings

By Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations
 .

Strategic Assessment 31
.

May 2011

---

.

Summary

Despite the internal and external obstacles it faced and the occasional decline in its performance, the Palestinian resistance was gradually able to pose a strategic threat to Israel. The military operations of this resistance have sometimes put the Israeli occupation before serious challenges.

It is possible for the Palestinian leadership to resume an effective role if the conditions necessary for the success of the resistance were secured. These include the agreement on a unified national program to fortify internal security, preparing fighters as per the requirements of the conflict, shedding light on the phased and strategic goals of the confrontation and gaining permanent support of the Arabs, Muslims and freedom lovers in addition to the halt of security coordination with Israel.

In light of the Arab uprisings which have reflected the people’s will, it is likely that the Palestinian resistance restores its position after Egypt reduces pressure on the Gaza Strip. There is also a possibility of the emergence of many resistance movements or supporters of the resistance in the strategic spaces surrounding Palestine. Besides, it is expected that the new Arab regimes pursue the resistance option and open the door for media and cultural activities supportive of the resistance in their countries.

Introduction

The Palestinian resistance has undergone varied stages where its performance fluctuated according to the different prevailing conditions. Thus, it waxed and waned, faced many crises and enjoyed stability at other times. Sometimes, it resorted to revolution or entered war to face, for example, the Israeli incursions into Lebanon and the war on Gaza in 2008-2009. The Palestinian resistance has bothered Israel and succeeded to pose a real challenge which urged Israel to seek strategic preparedness as in al-Aqsa Intifadah. Further, it formed a military phenomenon when the self-immolation operations emerged in the 90s of the last century and the first decade of the 21st century.

Throughout its history, the Palestinian resistance had to counter crises imposed by internal and external conditions; however, the internal factors undermining its role were always the most dangerous and influential. In this context, the Palestinian resistance suffered the lack of seriousness on the levels of training, security fortification, military planning and arming. Apparently, the different political orientations among diverse political factions had the prominent role also in weakening the resistance.

On the other hand, external forces worked always against the Palestinian resistance and people, while supporting Israel. In addition, many Arab regimes worked to weaken the resistance just as they managed to keep their peoples subject to colonialism, poverty and underdevelopment. The resistance suffered many setbacks because of the policies of some Arab governments which chose the peace process, and which soon became acceptable for most Arab regimes. Still, the internal Palestinian arena was always subject to interference from different Arab regimes tampering with the Palestinian national goals and priorities. 

Now that a wave of changes has hit the Arab world and caused the collapse of some Arab regimes, it is likely that the resistance faces new conditions which would affect it on different levels.

Forms of Resisting the Occupation

The resistance to Israeli occupation has many forms, they are:

1. Boycott: Boycott has different forms including political, cultural and social. This form of resistance is within the capacity of everyone, as every person can refrain from buying Israeli goods unless there is national decision on some goods which cannot be bought except from the enemy. So far, this form has not been achieved by the Palestinian resistance despite the lapse of tens of years since the usurping of Palestine in 1948 and the 1967 occupation.

2. Total civil disobedience: This level of resistance includes abandoning Israeli IDs (the Palestinians in the West Bank carry an ID bearing the Israeli number) in addition to not abiding by the laws related to occupation or reflecting its security interests. These steps are possible now taking into account that this form needs conscientious people who respect the general order to avoid chaos, and it requires the formation of professional popular committees willing to sacrifice in order to organize peoples’ civil affairs.

3. Uprising: This is an act of protest rather than resistance. The uprising is a spontaneous popular reaction caused by deep frustration and by the absence of resistance to occupation. When there is no genuine resistance to the occupation, people take to the streets to protest against oppression and express their suffering. Since 1920, Palestine has witnessed the outbreak of around 25 uprisings which urged the occupation (the British and then the Israeli) to reconsider its calculations due to the high price of seizing lands and controlling people. However, the occupation was able to elude the impact of the uprisings with the help of international, Arab or Palestinian sides.

4. Armed resistance: This is the most violent and advanced level and the most useful from a historic perspective. Historically, armed resistance was the most successful form of resistance to expel the occupation and colonialism and achieve the right to self-determination and national independence.

Elements Essential for the Success of the Resistance 

The basic fundamentals for the resistance of occupation or colonialism to succeed include:

1. Security fortification: Resistance must ensure high security to prevent any infiltration by corrupt or ignorant elements and spies. Security flaw is indeed very dangerous and it is even more threatening than the enemy’s espionage through technical means. Spies impose serious danger which impacts fighters and supporters of the resistance alike. In this sense, the Palestinian factions have failed to maintain security fortification and it was only in recent years that some factions have started to focus on this factor.

2. Exemplary leadership: It is very important for the resistance leadership to enjoy a very high moral standard which garners wide support. Leaders of the resistance must be virtuous, wise and always willing to sacrifice and lead the efforts against the occupation. This kind of leadership can gather people around the resistance. In fact, the Palestinian resistance has presented many exemplary leaders yet it seems that the urban-based leaderships living in luxury have always had the upper hand in final decisions.

3. Training combatants to execute guerrilla operations and martial art techniques within the context of popular war. Combatants must benefit also from technology, expertise and advanced techniques that are suitable to the Palestinian case.

4. Clarity of aims and objectives: The lack of clarity has negative impact on the fighters who become vulnerable and more likely to give up on the resistance work. Defining clear aims and objectives requires clear vision by the leadership and a national educational program in order that everyone would share the same goal. It is even better to have a consensus document on the aims and objectives of the resistance.

5. Persistent work to earn the support of the Arab countries hosting the Palestinian resistance. For this to be achieved, the Palestinians must be modest and work on the consolidation of exemplary leadership while demonstrating seriousness in facing Israel.

6. Ending security coordination with Israel which aims at revealing the secrets of the resistance, assassinating its leaders and cadres and destroying its infrastructure. In addition, it is necessary to postpone the talk about limiting weapons to the security institutions till after the removal of the occupation and restoration of national rights.

The Arab Landscape and the Palestinian Resistance 

The Arab political landscape was not suitable for a Palestinian resistance, at least since the defeat of June 1967. The Arab regimes continued to rotate within the Western orbit, thus in order to avoid external pressures, they abstained from providing any support or appropriate environment for the resistance to operate

However, in the light of the changes in the Arab world, it is possible to note the following developments:

1. The peoples in the Arab world are now leading the change and they are always keener than their leaders on their interests. Rulers are usually motivated by their personal interests and their aspiration for staying in power or passing it to their sons. The peoples, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, are now taking hold and assuming control, thus transparency in governance became fundamental.

2. Arab nations want complete independence more than their rulers do. They refuse the ongoing subjugation to the West. Consequently, after their uprising, they will fortify their capacities after achieving internal stability.

3. Arab nations feel closer to each other more than they are to their rulers. The differences between the Arab ruling regimes are a consequence of prioritizing personal interests, weakness in decision making and the submission to the West, and consequently, the Arab nation remained shattered. The Arab peoples share feelings of unity, brotherhood and common destiny which will impact Arab cooperation and the work of the Arab League.

4. The parameters of the new Arab regimes will be defined by elections and the freedom of choice. It is true that the idea of free choice might need some time to become a behavior; still, the mere start is better than staying under the tyranny and control of security apparatuses. Periodic elections are likely to correct the course should the people mistake the way.

5. The domino effect of Arab uprisings will inevitably pressure rulers in calm countries to make substantial reforms.

6. It is noticed that Israel is accused and ostracized by the revolutionary masses where in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Bahrain they launched slogans and cries against Israel and those rulers dealing with it. It is unlikely that the new regimes accept Israel or have smooth relations with it.

7. The ethical dimension in the Arab revolutions was very clear. The masses sought to defend their freedom and to stand firmly against submission, tyranny and corruption. Thus, those who cling to the values of team work, cooperation and freedom would not give in and abandon their different causes. This will eventually be reflected in the work for the Palestine cause.

The Palestinian Interaction with the New Arab Situation

Does the Palestinian resistance have the elements necessary to cope with the above mentioned features? As the Arab arenas turn into areas of freedom and change, would the Palestinian resistance develop new concepts of work and pursue different methods and approaches? Would this resistance be able to have a new address to the Arab masses that will mobilize their support?

Therefore, those who want to benefit from the changes have to adopt the following steps:

1. Liberating the Palestinian cause from the cocoon of “Palestinization,” i.e., from restricting the cause to the Palestinians. Palestinization has indeed marred the resistance, marginalized the masses and made the impression that the Arab regimes are the key for regaining the Palestinian national rights.

2. Focusing on resistance inside Palestine where the Gaza Strip must have a leading role. In the West Bank, it is necessary to stop negotiations and embrace the idea of resistance again. The Arab masses would not support a Palestinian side which maintains security coordination with Israel.

3. Developing programs which aim at making the Palestinian resistance an integral part of the work towards liberating the Arab land and expelling Western colonialism from the Arab region.

4. Acting as a role model and abandoning improvisation, intolerance and extortion. This requires adjusting the ethics governing bearing arms and the security fortification and ethics that consider the geographic location of the resistance.

5. Achieving Palestinian national unity on the basis of resistance rather than bargain in addition to unifying the Palestinian resistance under one military leadership with a unified military doctrine.

Expectations 

The expectations in the short and long terms are as follows:

First: In the short term, the Egyptian masses will pressure to phase out Camp David Accord related to Sinai and to cancel the natural gas agreement signed with Israel. This approach is clear through the bombing of the gas pipelines which transport Egyptian gas to Israel. The Egyptian interim regime is already easing the pressure on the Gaza Strip where it intends to open the Rafah border crossing on a daily basis. Indeed, we have started to see change and the Arab resistance in Sinai and Palestine seems to enjoy better conditions now.

Second: In the long run, the Palestinian resistance will enjoy freedom in media and educational work in different Arab arenas and it will be able to interact with the masses with more ease. This will provide the resistance with wide support on the public, moral and financial levels. The new regimes will face pressures from the West to restrict public resistance in the Arab countries; however, the will of the people would prove to be stronger. This will eventually be reflected on the different Arab institutions such as the Arab League which might reconsider its policies and tend to align itself with the resistance rather than the peace settlement bloc. Consequently, resistance will enjoy Arab legitimacy.

Recommendations

1. Putting the Palestinian house in order and setting national priorities in a way that the resistance regains its status and role.

2. Networking with the new Arab regimes and any other official Arab institutions in addition to opening up to the elites and the active forces present in the Arab arena in a way that supports the Palestinian national choices.

3. Developing new strategies which take into account the different aspects of resistance: boycott in all its forms, total civil disobedience, popular uprising and military resistance.

4. Pressuring countries to stop normalizing with Israel and providing it with moral and physical support.

5. Making the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of the usurped rights a daily program on the agenda of Arabs, Muslims and freedom lovers of the world.

---

Al-Zaytouna Centre thanks Dr. ‘Abdul Sattar Kassem for authoring the original text on which this Strategic Assessment was based. 

---

The Arabic version of this Assessment was published on 19/05/2011

---

Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, Beirut 27/5/2011

_______________________________________________________
"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.

Welcome Hamas's conciliation with Fatah

 

By  Musa Abu Marzuq

Without Hamas, there is no legitimate Palestinian representation. Obama mustn't short change us.

      The birth of the Cairo reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas was slow and painful. But Palestinians welcomed its arrival. The tragic division which occurred in our national movement constituted a chapter we hope will never happen again. It never occurred to us that a time would come when we would turn against fellow Palestinians.

      Today, the reconciliation exposes the Israeli occupation as the real spoiler of peace. The Israelis have reneged on every agreement signed with the Palestinian Authority. Now we have forged this historic agreement and buried the hatchet, they are threatening our people with dire consequences.

      While we were ensconced in Cairo trying to finalise the agreement, Israel embarked on a diplomatic offensive to persuade European governments to withdraw economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

      As western governments have, individually and collectively, welcomed the democratic changes taking place in the Middle East, they should support a similar transformation in Palestine. Any attempt to short change my people would have no legitimacy. The events marking the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba have shown that no amount of victimisation, wars and blockade will deter us from the path of freedom. The world must remember the core issue of our cause is the right of every refugee to return to their home – a right enshrined in international law. As others were allowed to exercise this right, we demand the same for our people.

      After all the changes unfolding in our region, Europeans can ill-afford to delay a change of policy. Neither should Europe jeopardise its vital interests in the new Middle East by blindly aligning itself with US policies patently at odds with Palestinian aspirations.

      In his address on US policy in the Middle East, President Obama called for democracy for the entire region except Palestine. Instead of welcoming our reconciliation agreement with Fatah, he pronounced America's deep reservations and anxiety; in total disregard for the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Someone should remind him that Hamas gained the majority in the last fair democratic elections in Palestine. There can be no legitimate Palestinian representation without Hamas.

      Obama dismissively referred to the core issues of Jerusalem and the refugees as "emotional" issues that can be delayed indefinitely. And in the same breath in which he insisted that "Israel must be able to defend itself", he asserts that the Palestinians must have a "non-militarised state" – one can only surmise to be at the mercy of our tormentors.

      Obama's call for a phased withdrawal of the Israeli military from our occupied land is a mantra we have heard since the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993. He insists Hamas should recognise Israel as a precondition, but does not dare demand Israel recognise Palestinian statehood on the lands occupied in 1967 or the right of return as preconditions. Just minutes after Obama's speech, Binyamin Netanyahu rejected publicly any withdrawal to 1967 borders and even repeated that in Obama's presence a day later. Yet he derides the Palestinian efforts to bring their case before the UN general assembly in September. It is ironic that the same body which created Israel by a general assembly resolution in 1947 should, according to Obama, no longer have the mandate to do the same for a Palestinian state.

      If President Obama's speech on Middle East policy was bad, his address to the AIPAC conference three days later was appalling. He declared his peace plan meant to "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967". Those were beguiled to believe that the "divide and rule" policy of the Bush era was over were reminded by Obama that this policy is iron clad. He demonstrated this with a claim that the agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses "an enormous obstacle to peace", as if it is the norm to have the Palestinians divided.

      Not for the first time, an American president has demonstrated his utter contempt for international law. Not only did Obama pour scorn on the Goldstone report, giving the impression that Israel is above the law. The same administration that resorts to international law to prosecute Arab and African leaders makes every excuse to protect Israeli war crime suspects.

      There is no equivalence between Obama and George W Bush. He knows what he is saying. His observation about the situation in the Arab world is absolutely correct. That a "new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region" and "a just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders". The problem with Obama however is that for every word of truth uttered there are two fallacies and contradictions. Yes it is true America won its freedom "against overwhelming odds". What he did not say is that the US resorted to armed struggle to gain its independence from what they saw as British domination. However, he continues to deny my people the right to resist Israeli occupation.

      The winds of historic peaceful change sweeping the Middle East will, sooner or later, reach the shores of the west. Its governments can no longer marginalise, disparage or ignore the democratic popular Islamic movements in the region; and that includes Hamas.

---

Source: The Guardian, 24/5/2011
 _________________________________________________________________________

Short note from the PalestineFreeVoice editor;

Musa Abu Marzuq, thank you for this great piece - 

As a journalist - activist I have for more than 10 years covered the events in the Palestinian territories, attended and engaged my self in the political landscape in numerous parts of elaborations. I have never unwavering in my own struggle in the many various ways supporting the Palestinian ethos.

I want everyone to understand and be sure to never forget, Hamas will not disappear, Hamas have a broad democratic support within Arab polities, and Hamas have the right to oppose the creation of Israel, think just a little bit,what would you do your self if in the same situation ? Wouldn't you your self resist the invasion of aliens in to your land/country? Hamas is not voiceless in the Arab world and demonizing Hamas won't make Hamas to disappear.

.

And not remote in time, and joined by the best of humanity, the Palestinian people will celebrate the creation of the Palestinian independent state according to 1967 borders, and the Palestinian people will do everything to obtain the rights stolen from them, including the right of confrontation with the enemy. 

Hiyam Noir 

 

________________________________________________________

"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine Free Voice.