About this site

  • : le blog beingskeptical par : Frank
  • beingskeptical
  • : Politique
  • : Leave all your biases home and try to look at current events with an objective eye, not through the disinformation given to you by corporate media and politicians. If you manage to do that, you're welcome to come and talk. Israel/Palestine being the main
  • Recommander ce blog
  • Retour à la page d'accueil
  • Contact

Calendar

Novembre 2009
L M M J V S D
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
<< < > >>

Search

Palestine

Vendredi 8 décembre 2006

"Mais nous souffrons d'un mal incurable qui s'appelle l'espoir. Espoir de libération et d'indépendance. Espoir d'une vie normale où nous ne serons ni héros, ni victimes. Espoir de voir nos enfants aller sans danger à l'école. Espoir pour une femme enceinte de donner naissance à un bébé vivant, dans un hôpital, et pas à un enfant mort devant un poste de contrôle militaire. Espoir que nos poètes verront la beauté de la couleur rouge dans les roses plutôt que dans le sang. Espoir que cette terre retrouvera son nom original : terre d'amour et de paix. Merci pour porter avec nous le fardeau de cet espoir."

"Celui qui m'a changé en exilé m'a changé en bombe... Palestine est devenue mille corps mouvants sillonant les rues du monde, chantant le chant de la mort, car le nouveau Christ, descendu de sa croix, porta bâton et sortit de Palestine."

Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Vendredi 8 décembre 2006
Mahmoud Darwish

Interview par Geraldina Colotti pour Il Manifesto - (version intégrale).
le 22 octobre 2006


Traduit de l’italien par Marie-Ange Patrizio (Palestine13)

- - - - - - - -

Vous aviez sept ans quand votre village a été attaqué par les israéliens. Vous avez du fuir au Liban, où vous avez vécu en exilé. Et vous avez chanté les périples de Beyrouth dans un poème splendide qui se trouve dans l’anthologie palestinienne publiée par Manifestolibri (maison d’éditions de il manifesto, NDT). Pourtant, cet été, quand notre journal vous a joint par téléphone, vous n’avez pas voulu vous exprimer sur la nouvelle agonie de Beyrouth agressé par Israël. Pourquoi ?

J’étais assailli par les medias, qui attendaient du poète des réponses que seuls les politiques pouvaient faire. Je sais que ce n’était pas l’intention de il manifesto, je vous présente des excuses tardives, mais j’ai voulu me soustraire au bazar. Aujourd’hui je voudrais adresser une question à ceux qui m’appelaient d’Europe, en se disant « désorientés » par la nouvelle guerre d’agression : où est l’intelligence d’Israël si, pour empêcher la résistance libanaise ou palestinienne, il détermine les conditions qui la produisent ? Pensez-vous que les Fermes de Sheeba aient des possessions minières ? Elles ne valent rien, et si Israël se retirait, le Hezbollah n’aurait plus besoin d’armes. Si Israël ne veut pas de résistance palestinienne, il doit se retirer à l’intérieur des frontières de 67. S’il veut la paix avec les arabes, il doit se retirer du Golan. Que fait-il encore à Ramallah et à Gaza ? Les Palestiniens ne demandent que 22% du territoire national historique, tous les problèmes du Moyen-Orient pourraient se terminer s’ils nous reconnaissaient au moins cela. Les Israéliens sont comme les blancs d’Afrique du Sud, et nous comme les noirs. Nous avons accepté d’être les noirs, mais ça ne suffit pas : pour eux nous ne pouvons être ni blancs ni noirs : que veulent-ils ? Ma seule conclusion est la suivante : les Israéliens ne sont pas mûrs pour cette paix, ils ont peur de la paix.


Détruire l’état d’Israël, cependant, a été un slogan longtemps utilisé...

Les Israéliens ont une obsession sécuritaire due à deux sortes de peur : une, légitime et compréhensible, due à ce qu’ils ont subi de la part des européens. Mais, de cela, ils ont été en partie indemnisés aux dépens de la Palestine, et, prenant appui sur le sentiment de culpabilité de l’Europe, ils vivent d’un crédit infini sur le plan moral, économique et militaire. Au point qu’aujourd’hui, critiquer la politique israélienne équivaut à de l’anti-sémitisme. Mais il y a un autre type de peur que nous ne pouvons pas résoudre même si un nouveau Freud se présentait : c’est la peur de ce qu’ils ont commis contre nous. Mais nous nous sommes prêts à oublier et à pardonner s’ils nous restituent certains droits. La haine et la rancœur ne sont pas éternelles, si la victime obtient une indemnisation. Ce n’est qu’à Israël de décider.


Un an après les tragiques événements de 48, votre père est rentré en Palestine et a trouvé sa maison occupée par des colons. Il s’est alors installé dans le village de Deir el-Asad, en vivant comme « réfugié dans sa patrie », et en vous transmettant ce sens du dépaysement qui détermine les sommets de votre poésie. En tant que dirigeant de l’OLP, vous avez été opposé aux accords d’Oslo, qui échouèrent surtout sur la question du droit au retour. Pensez-vous qu’aujourd’hui ce soit encore le principal obstacle aux tractations ?

La question des réfugiés n’est pas le grand obstacle au problème de la paix, comme le voudrait Israël. Il peut se résoudre bien plus facilement que le problème des colonies. Personne ne demande plus de faire rentrer tous les réfugiés, ni les réfugiés ne veulent rentrer en masse en Palestine. Ce temps est passé. Il s’agit de réaffirmer un principe. Pourquoi les réfugiés juifs qui sont partis il y a deux mille ans peuvent-ils rentrer et les Palestiniens qui ont été chassés en 48 ne peuvent-ils pas le faire ? Si Israël est un état si fort, il pourrait présenter ses excuses au faible, et accepter le retour de quelques milliers de réfugiés. Le droit au retour pourrait rester comme un texte juridique. Pourquoi ne le font-ils pas et continuent-ils à favoriser les colons venus de l’extérieur ? Veulent-ils un état juif pur ? Ils pourraient le faire en se retirant des territoires où habitent les arabes. Pourquoi oppriment-ils 2 millions de Palestiniens en Cisjordanie ? S’ils se retirent, ils auront un état juif pur où il n’y aura pas d’arabes. La vérité c’est que, depuis le début, Israël n’a jamais été pur parce qu’il existait aussi l’autre communauté, celle qui est arabe. Ils parlent d’un danger démographique. Un problème qui peut se résoudre de deux façons : ou en restituant leurs droits aux Palestiniens, en arrivant à une conciliation et en vivant comme de bons voisins, ou bien en détruisant avec une bombe atomique tout un continent d’arabes dans lequel, depuis le début, vit quelque un million et demi de juifs.


Pendant ces dernières années, même en Italie - où le soutien à la cause palestinienne a toujours guidé les choix de politique extérieure, même dans les gouvernements anti-populaires- la perception symbolique des Palestiniens a changé, transformés de victimes en dangereux barbares terroristes. Comment l’expliquez-vous ?

Les Israéliens essaient de monopoliser le rôle de la victime tout le long du cours de l’histoire et ils ne supportent pas d’autres prétendants. Même Bush se dit victime du terrorisme. Mais comment fait une victime pour occuper l’Irak et l’Afghanistan, terroriser le monde entier et avoir même l’hégémonie politique en Europe - une Europe qui n’est plus indépendante comme avant ? Je ne tiens pas au rôle de victime. Entre le bourreau et la victime il y a une troisième voie : être un homme normal. Les israéliens ne veulent pas être un état normal parce qu’ils pourraient perdre leur trait distinctif et leur unité interne. La vie normale pourrait soulever des questions sur la nature de la société israélienne.


Beaucoup ont interprété la guerre au Liban comme les premiers signes d’un projet d’agression plus ample au « croissant chiite » dans la cadre du Grand Moyen-Orient imaginé par Bush.

Je me demande si les Américains eux même ont une définition précise de ce Grand Moyen-Orient. Il y a deux ans ils parlaient de Nouveau Moyen-Orient, terme partagé par Shimon Pérès. Nous voulons tous un Moyen-Orient nouveau, un monde arabe nouveau, un Moyen-Orient sans occupation, sans dictature, sans pauvreté, analphabétisme, où il n’y ait ni tension ni guerre : voilà ce que nous voudrions nous, mais je ne comprends pas ce que veut Bush. Je ne peux pas comprendre la signification de ses paroles, mais je comprends celle de ses actions. Je me rends compte qu’il a détruit l’Irak qui, à l’ombre de l’ex-dictature, était encore, au moins, un pays unifié : les irakiens étaient à l’abri, il n’y avait pas de conflit entre sunnites et chiites, ni entre kurdes et arabes, par contre maintenant il y a un projet d’état à chaque coin de rue. Si le Nouveau Moyen-Orient suit le modèle irakien - soit un état complètement désagrégé et démembré- il ne serait pas nouveau mais très vieux : le Moyen-Orient du temps des cavernes, avant la naissance du concept même de citoyenneté et des droits de l’homme, un Moyen-Orient barbare. Nous sommes face à un régime américain nouveau, un régime fondamentaliste, fortement idéologique, qui met en acte une politique d’extrême-droite et croit en l’idée de l’empire américain. Un régime féroce envers ses propres citoyens. Bush est en train de conduire le monde à l’abîme, mais il y a une chose qu’il est arrivé à faire de façon parfaite : renforcer les extrémismes au Moyen-Orient, et il est responsable de cette guerre des extrémismes qui pourrait nous conduire au « choc des civilisations ».
Pour ce qui concerne la guerre, je pense que ce n’est pas le cas de trop en emphatiser la signification, au-delà de l’épisode spécifique : le Hezbollah a enlevé deux soldats israéliens pour arriver à un échange de prisonniers libanais, il s’est agi d’un simple incident de frontière, dépourvu de grands desseins stratégiques. Le Hezbollah n’a probablement pas calculé l’éventuelle réaction israélienne et Israël a mal évalué la réaction du Hezbollah. Et après, comme il arrive souvent, les guerres créent leurs propres dynamiques et ne sont plus contrôlables.


En mars, Epochè publiera un livre d’entrevues dans lequel vous parlez de guerre asymétrique et du concept de crime.

Je suis vraiment dégoûté si un civil est tué en Irak. Mais pourquoi est-ce que je ne vois pas le même dégoût quand un pilote extermine des milliers de personnes, ou comme dans le massacre de Cana ? Le pilote a appuyé sur un bouton et dix minutes après il était chez lui, peut-être en train de jouer avec ses enfants, et il n’a pas vu qu’il a tué ceux des autres. Si un crime est commis ave l’utilisation d’instruments sophistiqués, il n’existe pas ? Enlever un journaliste américain est un crime, mais enlever une patrie dans sa totalité ne l’est pas ? Je ne veux pas créer d’équivoques, je ne défends pas l’enlèvement des journalistes en Irak, mais il faut définir le concept de crime : plus le crime est grand plus il est propre. Les nouvelles sur les meurtres de Palestiniens ressemblent au bulletin météo, il y a en moyenne 5 martyrs chaque jour, on meurt aux postes de contrôle et au pied du Mur, mais quand le meurtre devient routine, personne ne s’indigne, la souffrance devient ennuyeuse et la solidarité aussi. Le monde a célébré la chute du mur de Berlin, qui pourtant était un petit mur, comment ce même monde peut-il accepter le mur de 600 kilomètres qu’Israël a construit autour des Palestiniens ? Le monde entier a célébré la chute du régime d’apartheid en Afrique du Sud, que dit-il maintenant qu’Israël applique le même régime aux Palestiniens ? Nous, nous ne vivons pas seulement sous occupation, mais dans les cellules, dans les prisons sous occupation. Savez-vous combien de personnes sont mortes aux postes de contrôle parce qu’ils ne pouvaient pas aller jusqu’à l’hôpital, combien de femmes ont du accoucher leurs enfants devant les check-points ? Tout cela renforce la rancœur et la haine, transforme les personnes en monstres. Malgré cela, nous sommes prêts, nous, à vivre avec les israéliens, ils doivent seulement payer un prix minime : la reconnaissance d’un état palestinien à Gaza et en Cisjordanie.


Vous avez plusieurs fois, vous, été prisonnier des israéliens et ces jours ici vous avez apporté votre poésie dans la prison de L’Aquila. Que pensez-vous du document que des prisonniers palestiniens comme Marwan Barghouti ont proposé à l’extérieur ?

Ce document, signé par des militants de grande expérience qui représentaient des tendances politiques différentes, avait pour intention d’exercer une pression sur les responsables palestiniens. Ces détenus de grand poids et crédibilité, étaient arrivés, en prison, à dialoguer entre eux bien mieux que ce qu’il était arrivé à l’extérieur. Et tous, comme principe, ont déclaré être d’accord avec ce document, mais rien ne s’est traduit en pratique. Dehors, chaque groupe a essayé d’interpréter à sa façon le document, qui à la fin a été vidé de son contenu. Certains responsables ont montré que gouverner n’était pas une occasion de servir leur société, mais une occasion de servir leur envie de pouvoir.


Quelle issue prévoyez-vous pour les conflits internes aux Palestiniens ?

En tant que citoyen palestinien, je ne comprends pas comment certaines personnes peuvent rester au pouvoir s’ils n’arrivent pas à résoudre cette crise. Si j’étais à leur place, je reconnaîtrais l’échec et je passerais dans l’opposition. Il semble que le pouvoir suive toujours la même logique : quand quelqu’un y arrive il change de mentalité. Mais en attendant, avec l’embargo, la société palestinienne a faim et a déplacé son attention des questions nationales à celles de tous les jours. Ce qui est en train d’arriver est une catastrophe politique, sociale et morale, et je ne sais pas comment la sagesse palestinienne arrivera à la résoudre.


Quels sont les thèmes qui influencent votre poétique aujourd’hui ?

Tout influence mon monde poétique, mais la poésie ne peut pas tout soutenir. Souvent, on demande au poète ce qu’il pourrait faire en temps de guerre. A mon avis les poètes ne devraient pas utiliser la langue de la guerre pour refuser la guerre. Un poème, si fort soit-il, ne peut jamais faire tomber un avion, mais il peut influencer la mentalité du pilote, donc le poète devrait chercher les aspects humains, les éléments universels dans les événements. Il devrait entrer dans l’univers intime de la victime de la guerre. La poésie devrait être un hymne à la gloire de la vie, lutter contre les choses laides avec la beauté, et contre la guerre à travers la paix. Le plus grand cadeau que la littérature palestinienne pourrait faire à l’occupation israélienne serait celui de rester prisonnière des arguments de la guerre, et de ce qu’inflige l’occupation. De cette façon, le monde intérieur du palestinien demeurerait entièrement voilé et les personnes deviendraient des copies, des masques. Nous avons beaucoup écrit contre l’occupation, l’humiliation, l’injustice, mais maintenant le palestinien a le droit, le devoir même, d’écrire un poème d’amour.
Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Samedi 9 décembre 2006
I posted a video a few days ago on Jimmy Carter's view on the palestinian struggle. As expected, it hasn't taken long for the media to react, strongly opposing President Carter. The Israeli lobby has proved once more that it is as strong as ever.
Below is an article from www.counterpunch.org by Norman Finkelstein.

Words Even an Ex-President Can't Say in America

The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter

By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

It seems Israel's "supporters" have conscripted me in their lynching of Jimmy Carter. Count me out. True, the historical part of Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, contains errors in that it repeats standard Israeli propaganda. However, Carter's analysis of the impasse in the "peace process" as well as his description of Israeli policy in the West Bank is accurate - and, frankly, that's all that matters.

A wag once said that there is no Pravda (Truth) in Izvestia (News) and no Izvestia in Pravda. The same can be said of our Pravda (The New York Times) and Izvestia (The Washington Post). Today both party organs ran feature stories trashing Carter using Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter Center as the hook. (I was sitting in the airport when this earth-shattering story came on CNN.) But like John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who (the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. When Joan Peters's hoax From Time Immemorial was published, I asked his opinion of it. He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Later Stein wrote a sick essay the main thesis of which was, "the Palestinian Arab community had been significantly prone to dispossession and dislocation before the mass exodus from Palestine began" - so the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 was really no big deal ("One Hundred Years of Social Change: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Probem," in Laurence Silberstein (ed.), New Perspectives on Israeli History, 1991).

The Pravda ( NYT) story was written by two reporters who seem to have made a beeline for the newsroom from their bat mitzvahs. They quote Stein to the effect that Carter's book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments". I doubt there's much to this. Most of the background material is Carter's reminiscences. Maybe he copied from Rosalyn's diary (she was his note taker). Then Pravda reports that "a growing chorus of academics...have taken issue with the book". Who do they name? Alan Dershowitz and David Makovsky. Makovsky is resident hack at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Israel Lobby's "think"-tank.

Pravda saw no irony in citing Dershowitz's expertise for a story on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism regarding a book on the Israel-Palestine conflict. As always, one can only be awed by the party discipline at our Pravda. It makes one positively wistful for the days when commissars quoted Stalin on linguistics.

Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Mardi 12 décembre 2006
Article de La Tribune. http://www.latribune.fr/info/Ehud-Olmert-reconnait-implicitement-qu-Israel-a-l-arme-nucleaire-~-ID09F7712DF45EE577C1257242002D0DC3-$Db=Tribune/Articles.nsf

Proche-Orient

Ehud Olmert reconnaît implicitement qu'Israël a l'arme nucléaire

En incluant son pays dans la liste des puissances nucléaires, le Premier ministre israélien lève un secret de polichinelle. Une déclaration qui met fin à des décennies de "politique d'ambiguïté".

Est-ce une véritable gaffe ou une petite phrase minutieusement préparée? La reconnaissance implicite, par le Premier ministre israélien, de la possession de l'arme nucléaire par l'Etat hébreu met fin de facto à la "politique d'ambiguïté" qu'Israël entretenait depuis longtemps. En réponse à une question d'une télévision allemande, Ehud Olmert a en effet inclus, lundi, son pays dans une liste d'Etats, dont entre autres la France, les Etats-Unis et la Russie, disposant d'armes nucléaires.

Même si son porte-parole a essayé de démentir, peu après, cette reconnaissance, affirmant que "la position d'Israël est inchangée sur ce point (le nucléaire)", les propos du Premier ministre ont déclenché une polémique dans l'Etat hébreu, plusieurs députés d'opposition, de droite comme de gauche, appelant même à la démission du Premier ministre pour ses propos "stupéfiants". Le ministre des Infrastructures a même recommandé, "au nom de la sécurité d'Israël", de se taire sur ce dossier sensible, tout en se réaffirmant pour la politique d'ambiguïté jusqu'ici menée. Il s'est attaché en outre à minimiser la portée des propos d'Olmert.

Cette "gaffe" vient en tout cas confirmer ce que tous les experts savaient sur la réalité nucléaire israélienne. Selon certaines estimations, Israël possèderait jusqu'à 200 ogives nucléaires pouvant équiper des missiles à longue portée. En 2001, Shimon Peres, actuel vice-Premier ministre, avait révélé dans un documentaire télévisé comment la France avait aidé l'Etat hébreu, à la fin des années 50, à se doter d'une capacité nucléaire. Et, la semaine dernière, Robert Gates, patron désigné du Pentagone, avait cité Israël parmi les puissances nucléaires de la région.

Outre Israël, le "club nucléaire", dont les autorités internationales craignent qu'il ne s'élargisse trop rapidement avec les projets nord-coréens et iraniens, compte aujourd'hui les cinq pays membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU: Chine, Russie, France, Etats-Unis, Grande-Bretagne, ainsi que le Pakistan et l'Inde. Ces deux derniers pays sont d'ailleurs regardés avec circonspection par les experts qui voient en eux une source majeure d'instabilité.
Alain Baron
Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Mercredi 13 décembre 2006

Elbow to Elbow, Like Cattle

The Cruel Line into Gaza

By GIDEON LEVY

Laila El-Haddad spent the last three weeks in a dismal apartment she was forced to rent in El Arish, Egypt, together with her son Yusuf, who is two years and nine months old. Every few days the two tried to travel to the Rafah border crossing, about 50 kilometers away, attempting to return to their home in Gaza. These were distressful efforts: Together with another 5,000 or so residents of Gaza, who have also been waiting in recent weeks to return to their homes, she was crammed with her toddler for hours in an endless line at the crossing. "Elbow to elbow, like cattle," is how she describes this in her blog, until being pushed back in shame once again.

El-Haddad, a young journalist who splits her time between Gaza and the U.S., can afford to pay $9 per night. But most of the unfortunate people around her, including cancer patients, infants, the elderly and students, the injured and disabled, cannot allow themselves such luxuries. Some of them rent a tent for 1.5 Egyptian pounds per night. The rest simply sleep out in the open, in the chill of night, or crowd together in local mosques.

These people want to return home. Israel does not even allow them this. They are human beings with families, plans and commitments, longings and dignity, but who cares. In recent weeks, even the Palestinian Minister of the Environment, Yusuf Abu Safiya, was stuck there. El-Haddad tells of how the minister could be seen one evening collecting twigs on the beach of El Arish to light a bonfire. During the summer, at least seven people died of heat and dehydration while waiting at the border. For many of those who are ill, the wait is a nightmare that threatens their lives. For students, it means losing an academic year. There is almost no mention of this cruel abuse in the newspapers: After all, the occupation in Gaza has ended.

Without anyone paying attention, the Gaza Strip has become the most closed-off strip of land in the world--after North Korea. But while North Korea is globally known to be a closed and isolated country, how many people know that the same description applies to a place just an hour away from hedonist Tel Aviv?

 

For the full article click on http://www.counterpunch.org/levy12112006.html

Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Vendredi 15 décembre 2006

"Those Who Call Me an Anti-Semite are a Small Fringe of Radical People in My Country"

An Inteview with Jimmy Carter

By RIZ KHAN

Transcript of December 12 interview on Al Jazeera.

RIZ KHAN:President Carter I wanted to have a chance to ask you a question about your book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.. Obviously.I'll start with a quote actually. The first one on my list, it says "A system of apartheid with two people occupying the same land but completely separated from each other with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." Now a word like apartheid is very powerful message coming from you. How much did you have to think about using that one particular word?

FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Well obviously the word applies to what's happening in Palestine and not what's happening in Israel itself. Because Israel is obviously recognized as a democracy and within Israel itself, within the nation there are equal rights for both Arab Israelis and also Jewish Israelis.

So the book applies to the Palestines. Secondly I use that word deliberately and it's an accurate description of the circumstances there because I wanted to provoke an almost non-existent debate and discussion in my own country.

Where rarely is any sort of presentation of the conflicting points of view that I see everyday when I'm is Israel, in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or when I'm in an Arab country obviously or Europe. So I wanted this book to be somewhat provocative and that's why I used a deliberately provocative word.

RIZ: Well Sir you've faced a lot of backlash in the media, especially the American media for using this word and also for your description of what you feel is wrong with this situation. What is your view on the American media's backlash with you? What's your view on the way the American media stands on this nowadays?

CARTER: Well I feel quite as ease and think the media has been very fair to me. Certainly the electronic media, radio, television, I've probably been on 60 or 70 broadcasting stations since I began promoting my book just about a week ago. And they've permitted me to answer their questions and to present my views and explain my book without any intimidation or editing. I can't say the same thing for all of the written media. But even there when I have submitted an editorial versus I'm in Los Angeles right now, I've submitted an editorial to the Los Angeles time at their request and last week they published it in their newspaper. But my reference to the general discussions before my book was published and my hope is the publication of the book itself, which is quite an accurate text by the way, will open up fir the first time and maintain open for the first time in many many years equal in it equal discussions of the issues that relate to Palestine.

RIZ: So I want to get to another quote in the book. This one, the second one I have in my list here, referring to obstacles to peace in the Middle East. You write "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestine land have been a primary obstacle to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." Now you've accused to being anti-Semitic for the comments you made in the book and those sorts of comments. How do you respond to that claim?

CARTER: Well you didn't quote that whole thing because I went on to say on the other hand the Israelis feel intimidated and quite often afraid, I know many Israelis and they are seeing horrible acts of terrorism of violence against innocent Israeli citizens, both inside Israel where there weren't any combatants and also in occupied territories. So there's equal blame on both sides and obviously as long as there are acts of violence against innocent Israelis, the Israelis are gonna react in a very strong way to protect themselves and they use these terrorist attacks or acts of violence, if you prefer to call it that, as an excuse for maintaining their control over occupied territories and also for building the wall which penetrates deep within Palestine.

Israelis used the building of an enormous wall around Gaza. The excuse was this would inhibit terrorists' attacks, to use that phrase, against Israeli citizens.

So there are troubling circumstances on both sides and every Israeli knows the threatening comments that are coming for instance from Iran from Tehran vowing that Israel as a nation would be destroyed and they read some radical voices among the Palestinians saying that they would never accept the right of Israel to exist and to live in peace. So the blame for the problem that has prevented peace is obviously from both sides.

RIZ: Well Sir, we've had a large number of emails, I'm going to read two of them one after the other because they refer to similar subjects and get your response to them once I've read them. The first one's from Lina Barakat who writes from Palestine, who says " If you had this clear stand of the Arab-Israel conflict while you were still in office, would it have changed history? How can we break through this vicious cycle of "silence while in the office and talk later"? Please convey my gratitude and admiration for Mr. Carter" The second one from Riaz Gaudir, which we got from our feedback forum on Al Jazeera says "President Carter was at the heart"

CARTER: I would rather take it one at a time because I may not remember them both. Let me say that when I was in office I spent 4 years to the best of my ability using all the influence of my personal life and the influence I had as President of the United States to bring peace to Israel and her neighbors. I met with every leader in the entire Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, as well as multiple factions in Israel and I tried to find some leaders who would negotiates and I finally got Begin and Sadaat. Prime Minister Begin of Israel and Sadaat from Egypt to negotiate, others refused. The major threat to Israel militarily and otherwise at the time was obviously Egypt. I knew that before I became president there had been 4 years in just 25 years. We were successful in negotiating a peace agreement at Camp David between Begin and Sadaat. It was signed in September 1978 and it guaranteed withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories and specifically honoring UN 242 and also Prime Minister Begin agreed specifically to withdraw Israelis military and political forces from Palestine. This was presented to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, and they approved this agreement by 85%. Later 6 years later..6 months later in April of 79 I finally negotiated a detailed peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and this was also ratified by both governments and not a word of that peace agreement between Israel and Egypt has been broken. Now since 1979, almost 27 years, so I did the best I could when I was president and if all of those commitments had been honored then we'd have peace in the Middle East.

 

For the full interview go to http://www.counterpunch.org/khan12142006.html

Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Vendredi 15 décembre 2006

Why Hamas May Be Right

The Recognition Trap

By JONATHAN COOK

in Nazareth.

The problem facing the Palestinian leadership, as they strive to bring the millions living in the occupied territories some small relief from their collective suffering, reduces to a matter of a few words. Like a naughty child who has only to say "sorry" to be released from his room, the Hamas government need only say "We recognise Israel" and supposedly aid and international goodwill will wash over the West Bank and Gaza.

That, at least, was the gist of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's recent speech during a visit to the Negev, when he suggested that his country's hand was stretched out across the sands towards the starving masses of Gaza -- if only Hamas would repent. "Recognise us and we are ready to talk about peace" was the implication.

Certainly the Palestinian people have been viciously punished for making their democratic choice early this year to elect a Hamas government that Israel and the Western powers disapprove of:

* an economic blockade has been imposed, starving the Palestinian Authority of income to pay for services and remunerate its large workforce;

* millions of dollars in tax monies owed to the Palestinians have been illegally withheld by Israel, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis;

* a physical blockade of Gaza enforced by Israel has prevented the Palestinians from exporting their produce, mostly perishable crops, and from importing essentials like food and medicine;

* Israeli military strikes have damaged Gaza's vital infrastructure, including the supply of electricity and water, as well as randomly killing its inhabitants;

* and thousands of families are being torn apart as Israel uses the pretext of its row with Hamas to stop renewing the visas of Palestinian foreign passport holders.

The magic words "We recognise you" could end all this suffering. So why did their prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, vow last week never to utter them. Is Hamas so filled with hatred and loathing for Israel as a Jewish state that it cannot make such a simple statement of good intent?

It is easy to forget that, though conditions have dramatically deteriorated of late, the Palestinians' problems did not start with the election of Hamas. Israel's occupation is four decades old, and no Palestinian leader has ever been able to extract from Israel a promise of real statehood in all of the occupied territories: not the mukhtars, the largely compliant local leaders, who for decades were the only representatives allowed to speak on behalf of the Palestinians after the national leadership was expelled; not the Palestinian Authority under the secular leadership of Yasser Arafat, who returned to the occupied territories in the mid-1990s after the PLO had recognised Israel; not the leadership of his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" who first called for an end to the armed intifada; and now not the leaders of Hamas, even though they have repeatedly called for a long-term truce (hudna) as the first step in building confidence.

Similarly, few Palestinians doubt that Israel will continue to entrench the occupation -- just as it did during the supposed peace- making years of Oslo, when the number of Jewish settlers doubled in the occupied territories -- even if Hamas is ousted and a government of national unity, of technocrats or even of Fatah takes its place.

There is far more at stake for Israel in winning this little concession from Hamas than most observers appreciate. A statement saying that Hamas recognised Israel would do much more than meet Israel's precondition for talks; it would mean that Hamas had walked into the same trap that was set earlier for Arafat and Fatah. That trap is designed to ensure that any peaceful solution to the conflict is impossible.

It achieves this end in two ways.

First, as has already been understood, at least by those paying attention, Hamas' recognition of Israel's "right to exist" would effectively signify that the Palestinian government was publicly abandoning its own goal of struggling to create a viable Palestinian state.

That is because Israel refuses to demarcate its own future borders, leaving it an open question what it considers to be the extent of "its existence" it is demanding Hamas recognise. We do know that no one in the Israeli leadership is talking about a return to Israel's borders that existed before the 1967 war, or probably anything close to it.

Without a return to those pre-1967 borders (plus a substantial injection of goodwill from Israel in ensuring unhindered passage between Gaza and the West Bank) no possibility exists of a viable Palestinian state ever emerging.

And no goodwill, of course, will be forthcoming. Every Israeli leader has refused to recognise the Palestinians, first as a people and now as a nation. And in the West's typically hypocritical fashion when dealing with the Palestinians, no one has ever suggested that Israel commit to such recognition.

In fact, Israeli governments have glorified in their refusal to extend the same recognition to the Palestinians that they demand from them. Famously Golda Meir, a Labor prime minister, said that the Palestinians did not exist, adding in 1971 that Israel's "borders are determined by where Jews live, not where there is a line on a map." At the same time she ordered that the Green Line, Israel's border until the 1967 war, be erased from all official maps.

That legacy hit the headlines last week when the dovish education minister, Yuli Tamir, caused a storm by issuing a directive that the Green Line should be reintroduced in Israeli schoolbooks. There were widespread protests against her "extreme leftist ideology" from politicians and rabbis.

 

For the full article go to http://www.counterpunch.org/cook12142006.html

Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Vendredi 15 décembre 2006

Palestinians are being denied the right to non-violent resistance

Human Rights Watch has lost its moral bearings

by Jonathan Cook
.November 30, 2006
 
If one thing offers a terrifying glimpse of where the experiment in human despair that is Gaza under Israeli siege is leading, it is the news that a Palestinian woman in her sixties -- a grandmother -- chose last week to strap on a suicide belt and explode herself next to a group of Israeli soldiers invading her refugee camp.
 
Despite the “Man bites dog” news value of the story, most of the Israeli media played down the incident. Not surprisingly: it is difficult to portray Fatma al-Najar as a crazed fanatic bent only the destruction of Israel.
 
It is equally difficult not to pause and wonder at the reasons for her suicide mission: according to her family, one of her grandsons was killed by the Israeli army, another is in a wheelchair after his leg had to be amputated, and her house had been demolished.
 
Or not to think of the years of trauma she and her family have suffered living in a open-air prison under brutal occupation, and now, since the “disengagement”, the agonising months of grinding poverty, slow starvation, repeated aerial bombardments, and the loss of essentials like water and electricity.
 
Or not to ponder at what it must have been like for her to spend every day under a cloud of fear, to be powerless against a largely unseen and malign force, and to never know when death and mutilation might strike her or her loved ones.
 
Or not to imagine that she had been longing for the moment when the soldiers who have been destroying her family’s lives might show themselves briefly, coming close enough that she could see and touch them, and wreak her revenge.
 
Yet Western observers, and the organisations that should represent the very best of their Enlightenment values, seem incapable of understanding what might drive a grandmother to become a suicide bomber. Their empathy fails them, and so does their humanity.
 
Just at the moment Fatma was choosing death and resistance over powerlessness and victimhood -- and at a time when Gaza is struggling through one of the most oppressive and ugly periods of Israeli occupation in nearly four decades -- Human Rights Watch published its lastest statement on the conflict. It is document that shames the organisation, complacent Western societies and Fatma’s memory.
 
In its press release “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”, which was widely reported by the international media, HRW lambasts armed Palestinian groups for calling on civilians to surround homes that have been targeted for air strikes by the Israeli military.
 
Noting almost as an afterthought that more than 1,500 Palestinians have been made homeless from house demolitions in the past few months, and that 105 houses have been destroyed from the air, the press release denounces Palestinian attempts at non-violent and collective action to halt the Israel attacks. HRW refers in particular to three incidents.
 
On November 3, Hamas appealed to women to surround a mosque in Beit Hanoun where Palestinian men had sought shelter from the Israeli army. Israeli soldiers opened fire on the women, killing two and injuring at least 10.
 
And last week on two separate occasions, crowds of supporters gathered around the houses of men accused of being militants by Israel who had received phone messages from the Israeli security forces warning that their families’ homes were about to be bombed.
 
In language that would have made George Orwell shudder, one of the world’s leading organisations for the protection of human rights ignored the continuing violation of the Palestinians’ right to security and a roof over their heads and argued instead: “There is no excuse for calling [Palestinian] civilians to the scene of a planned [Israeli] attack. Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful.”
 
There is good reason to believe that this reading of international law is wrong, if not Kafkaesque. Popular and peaceful resistance to the oppressive policies of occupying powers and autocratic rulers, in India and South Africa for example, has always been, by its very nature, a risky venture in which civilians are liable to be killed or injured. Responsibility for those deaths must fall on those doing the oppressing, not those resisting, particularly when they are employing non-violent means. On HRW’s interpretation, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela would be war criminals.
 
HRW also applies a series of terrible double standards in this press release.
 
It refuses Palestinians the right to protect homes from attack, labelling these civilians “human shields”, even while admitting that most of the homes are not legitimate military targets, and yet it has not said a word about the common practice in Israel of building weapons factories and army bases inside or next to communities, thereby forcing Israeli civilians to become human shields for the army.
 
For full article go to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=11526
Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Jeudi 15 mars 2007
If we needed any more proof that the U.S.A and Israel do NOT WANT PEACE, it appeared today, even more blatantly than before.
Fatah and Hamas have finally reached an agreement on a new government where the more important portfolio (Interior minister, foreign minister.....) haven been given to "neutral" people (not from Fatah or Hamas). The new government list will be submitted to parliament, which will surely approve it.
The palestinians are now waiting for the International community's answer. They have been stripped of any financial help since Hamas got  "democraticly" (one word they do love to use) elected, and badly need some money back. Palestine is a third world country, living next to a super rich one...Israel.
Ismail Haniya shakes hands with Mahmoud Abbas
What has been the response of Israel (and the U.S.A as those two always agree). NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Not even that actually, they said that this new government was a bad thing, not good news. WHY? Cos' they still do not recognize the right of Israel to exist!!!!! For fuck sake, how long are they going to fuck us with this over used sentence? And if you turn things around, who is not recognizing who? Israel exist, is a rich country, super armed, with a bully of a best friend. Palestine doesn't exist, doesn't have friends (even the arab world is now listenning more and more to the U.S.A) and is disapearing even before its going to be created!!

Also, what no one ever mention is the fact that Israel want Hamas and co to recognize Israel as "a democratic and Jewish state".....don't you see the problem here? How can you be democratic...and Jewish at the same time??? Democratic means "the people" in their whole, therefore if democracy exist only for jews...it is NOT democracy. Arabs, christians....also leave in Israel (even if a lot of their rights are denied), they too have the right to democracy (like buying land, marry freely......).
The day Israel will ask Hamas to recognize Israel as a "State of all its citizens", I am sure that they will duly oblige.

But once more, the media are absent, do not ask the right questions, and will never do. Once more, its us the people guarants of  democracy who have to fight, and help others around the world.

Go to www.palestinecampaign.org and give them a hand.

THANKS.
Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Vendredi 15 juin 2007

A Sordid Game

Bush Doctrine Routed in Gaza

By ALI ABUMINAH

The dramatic rout of the US and Israeli-backed Palestinian militias in Gaza by forces loyal to Hamas represents a major setback to the Bush doctrine in Palestine.

Ever since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in the occupied territories in January 2006, elements of the leadership of the long-dominant Fatah movement, including Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his advisors have conspired with Israel, the United States and the intelligence services of several Arab states to overthrow and weaken Hamas. This support has included funneling weapons and tens of millions of dollars to unaccountable militias, particularly the "Preventive Security Force" headed by Gaza warlord Mohammad Dahlan, a close ally of Israel and the United States and the Abbas-affiliated "Presidential Guard." US Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams -- who helped divert money to the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal -- has spearheaded the effort to set up these Palestinian Contras. Abrams is also notorious for helping to cover up massacres and atrocities committed against civilians in El Salvador by US-backed militias and death squads.

Two recent revelations underscore the extent of the conspiracy: on 7 June, Ha'aretz reported that "senior Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip have asked Israel to allow them to receive large shipments of arms and ammunition from Arab countries, including Egypt." According to the Israeli newspaper, Fatah asked Israel for "armored cars, hundreds of armor-piercing RPG rockets, thousands of hand grenades and millions of rounds of ammunition for small caliber weapons," all to be used against Hamas.

From the moment of its election victory, Hamas acted pragmatically and with the intent to integrate itself into the existing political structure. It had observed for over a year a unilateral ceasefire with Israel and had halted the suicide attacks on Israeli civilians that had made it notorious. In a leaked confidential memo written in May and published by The Guardian this week senior UN envoy Alvaro de Soto confirmed that it was under pressure from the United States that Abbas refused Hamas' initial invitation to form a "national unity government." De Soto details that Abbas advisers actively aided and abetted the Israeli-US-European Union aid cutoff and siege of the Palestinians under occupation, which led to massively increased poverty for millions of people. These advisors engaged with the United States in a "plot" to "bring about the untimely demise of the [Palestinian Authority] government led by Hamas," de Soto wrote.

Despite a bloody attempted coup against Hamas by the Dahlan-led forces in December and January, Hamas still agreed to join a "National Unity Government" with Fatah brokered by Saudi Arabia at the Mecca summit. Dahlan and Abbas' advisers were determined to sabotage this, continuing to amass weapons, and refusing to place their militias under the control of a neutral interior minister who eventually resigned in frustration.

A setback for United States and Israel

The core of US strategy in the Southwest and Central Asia, particularly Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon is to establish puppet regimes that will fight America's enemies on its behalf. This strategy seems to be failing everywhere. The Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan. Despite its "surge" the US is no closer to putting down the resistance in Iraq and cannot even trust the Iraqi army it helped set up. The Lebanese army, which the US hopes to bolster as a counterweight to Hizballah, has performed poorly against a few hundred foreign fighters holed up in Nahr al-Bared refugee camp (although it has caused death and devastation to many innocent Palestinian refugees).

Now in Gaza, the latest blow.

Israel's policy is a local version of the US strategy -- and it has also been tried and failed. For over two decades Israel relied on a proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army, to help it enforce the occupation of southern Lebanon. In 2000, as Israeli forces hastily withdrew, this militia collapsed just as quickly as Dahlan's forces and many of its members fled to Israel. Hamas is now referring to the rout of Dahlan's forces as a "second liberation of Gaza."

A consistent element of Israeli strategy has been to attempt to circumvent Palestinian resistance by trying to create quisling leaderships. Into the 1970s, Israel still saw the PLO as representing true resistance. So it set up the collaborationist "village leagues" in the West Bank as an alternative. In 1976, it allowed municipal elections in the West Bank in an effort to give this alternative leadership some legitimacy. When PLO-affiliated candidates swept the board, Israel began to assassinate the PLO mayors with car bombs or force them into exile. Once some exiled PLO leaders, most notably Yasser Arafat, became willing subcontractors of the occupation (an arrangement formalized by the Oslo Accords), a new resistance force emerged in the form of Hamas. Israeli efforts to back Dahlan and Abbas, Arafat's successor, as quisling alternatives have now backfired spectacularly.

In the wake of the Fatah collapse in Gaza, Ha'aretz reported that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert will advise President Bush that Gaza must be isolated from the West Bank. This can be seen as an attempt to shore up Abbas whose survival Israel sees as essential to maintaining the fiction that it does not directly rule millions of disenfranchised Palestinians. A total collapse of the Palestinian Authority would expose Israel's legal obligation, as the occupying power, to provide for the welfare of the Palestinians it rules.

What now for the Palestinian under occupation?

Abbas has declared a "state of emergency" and dismissed Ismail Haniyeh the Hamas prime minister as well as the "national unity government." The "state of emergency" is merely rhetorical. Whatever control he had in Gaza is gone and Israel is in complete control of the West Bank anyway.
Haniyeh in a speech this evening carried live on Al-Jazeera rejected Abbas' "hasty" moves and alleged that they were the result of pressure from abroad. He issued 16 points, among them that the "unity government" represented the will of 96 percent of Palestinians under occupation freely expressed at the ballot box. He reaffirmed his movement's commitment to democracy and the existing political system and that Hamas would not impose changes on people's way of life. Haniyeh said the government would continue to function, would restore law and order and reaffirm Hamas' commitment to national unity and the Mecca agreement. He called on all Hamas members to observe a general amnesty assuring any captured fighters of their safety (this followed media reports of a handful of summary executions of Fatah fighters). He also emphasized that Hamas' fight was not with Fatah as a whole, but only with those elements who had been actively collaborating -- a clear allusion to Dahlan and other Abbas advisors. He portrayed Hamas' takeover as a last resort in the wake of escalating lawlessness and coup attempts by collaborators, listing many alleged crimes that had finally caused Hamas' patience to snap. Haniyeh emphasized the unity of Gaza and the West Bank as "inseparable parts of the Palestinian nation," and he repeated a call for the captors of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston to free him immediately.

The contrast between Abbas' action and the Hamas response is striking. Abbas, perhaps pushed by the same coterie of advisors, seems to be escalating the confrontation and doing so when there is no reason to believe he can prevail. Hamas, while standing firm and from a position of strength, spoke in a language of conciliation, emphasizing time and again that Hamas has a problem with only a small group within Fatah, not its rank and file. Abbas, Dahlan and their backers must be surveying a sobering scene -- they may be tempted to try to take on Hamas in the West Bank, but the scale of their defeat in Gaza would have to give them pause.

Both leaderships are hemmed in. Abbas appears to be entirely dependent on foreign and Israeli support and unable to take decisions independent of a corrupt, self-serving clique. Hamas, whatever intentions it has is likely to find itself under an even tighter siege in Gaza.

Abbas, backed by Israel and the US, has called for a multinational force in Gaza. Hamas has rejected this, saying it would be viewed as an "occupying force." Indeed, they have reason to be suspicious: for decades Israel and the US blocked calls for an international protection force for Palestinians. The multinational force, Hamas fears, would not be there to protect Palestinians from their Israeli occupiers, but to perform the proxy role of protecting Israel's interests that Dahlan's forces are longer able to carry out and to counter the resistance -- just as the multinational force was supposed to do in Lebanon after the July 2006 war.

Wise leaders in Israel and the United States would recognize that Hamas is not a passing phenomenon, and that they can never create puppet leaders who will be able to compete against a popular resistance movement. But there are no signs of wisdom: the US has now asked Israel to "loosen its grip" in the West Bank to try to give Abbas a boost. Although the Bush doctrine has suffered a blow, the Palestinian people have not won any great victory. The sordid game at their expense continues.

Ali Abunimah is cofounder of the online publication The Electronic Intifada, where this article originally appeared. He is the author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

Par Duffer2222
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Créer un blog sur over-blog.com - Contact - C.G.U. - Rémunération en droits d'auteur - Signaler un abus