Tag: israel/palestine

Uri Avnery: Israel poisoned Arafat

More signs that Arafat was murdered by Israel with US collusion. I wonder if the UN will ask for an international investigation like it did over Rafiq Hariri’s assassination in Lebanon.

If Arafat were still alive
Israel should take no comfort from inter-Arab conflicts. Peace depends on Palestinian unity

Uri Avnery
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

‘If Arafat were alive…” One hears this phrase increasingly often in conversations with Palestinians, and also with Israelis and foreigners. “If Arafat were alive, what’s happening now in Gaza wouldn’t be happening…” “If Arafat were alive, we would have somebody to talk with…” “If Arafat were alive, Islamic fundamentalism would not have won among the Palestinians and would have lost some force in the neighbouring countries!”

In the meantime, the unanswered questions come up again: how did Yasser Arafat die? Was he murdered?

On the way back from Arafat’s funeral in 2004, I ran into Jamal Zahalka, a member of the Israeli Knesset. I asked him if he believed that Arafat was murdered. Zahalka, a doctor of pharmacology, answered “Yes!” without hesitation. That was my feeling too. But a hunch is not proof. It is only a product of intuition, common sense and experience.

Recently we got a kind of confirmation. Just before he died last month, Uri Dan, Ariel Sharon’s loyal mouthpiece for almost 50 years, published a book in France. It includes a report of a conversation Sharon told him about, with President Bush. Sharon asked for permission to kill Arafat and Bush gave it to him, with the proviso that it must be done undetectably. When Dan asked Sharon whether it had been carried out, Sharon answered: “It’s better not to talk about that.” Dan took this as confirmation.

The rest of the piece is about how Israelis should not be gloating over the fighting in the Occupied Territories.

South Africa moves towards Israel boycott

Great news from a country whose majority suffered greatly from Israeli support for apartheid:

JOHANNESBURG, Jan 26 (IPS) – A call from a South African trade unionist for national supermarket chains to stop importing avocado from Israel could ultimately lead to the banning of all imports from the Jewish state, if unions and human rights activists have their way.

Katishi Masemola, secretary general of the Food and Allied Workers’ Union (FAWU), told South Africa’s supermarket chains earlier this week that Israel produces avocado under “slave-type conditions”. He says the International Labour Organisation (ILO) forbids the use of child labour which, he claims, Israel is employing on avocado farms.

I don’t think the necessity of a worldwide Israeli boycott has ever been as clear as it is today, especially as the parallels with between Israel’s current apartheid regime and the white regime in South Africa become more well-known.

How the world works

How does this:

Israel May Have Violated Arms Pact, U.S. Says

By DAVID S. CLOUD and GREG MYRE
Published: January 28, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan 27 — The Bush administration will inform Congress on Monday that Israel may have violated agreements with the United States when it fired American-supplied cluster munitions into southern Lebanon during its fight with Hezbollah last summer, the State Department said Saturday.

The finding, though preliminary, has prompted a contentious debate within the administration over whether the United States should penalize Israel for its use of cluster munitions against towns and villages where Hezbollah had placed its rocket launchers.

Square with this:

Israel to purchase U.S.-made smart bomb kits for $100 million

JERUSALEM: The Israeli air force has decided to buy smart munitions kits from the Seattle-based Boeing aerospace company for an estimated $100 million (€77 million), Israeli defense officials said Monday.

Rodenbeck on Oren

Max Rodenbeck reviews Michael Oren’s “Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present,” finding it full of interesting anecdotes and well-researched but subtly biased in favor of both Israel and “America’s self-image as an innocent among Middle Eastern sharks.”

Some readers may remember that Oren, who holds Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli military, has been the subject of some controversy in US academic circles not only for being pro-Israel but also its vocal defender in the public arena. His previous book, “Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East,” was lambasted by Norman Finkelstein for its apologetics.

Israel, Syria dismiss peace talks

I’ve been looking at Israeli reactions to yesterday’s revelation that a secret negotiations between Tel Aviv and Damascus had been going on since 2004 — negotiations that yesterday Ehud Olmert rushed to dismiss, even insulting the mediators involved. This from Uzi Benzimann in Haaretz:

It is enough to observe the panicked responses in Jerusalem to the report by Akiva Eldar yesterday in Haaretz on the outlines of an agreement between Israel and Syria cobbled together in unofficial talks, to feel yet again that generations of governments of Israel, including the present one, are responsible in no small way for prolonging the Israeli-Arab conflict. Unlike the first 30 years of the state’s existence, when the Arab world refused to recognize Israel, its neighbors have gradually come to terms with the reality starting in 1977. And since then, the Arab world has also started to bear responsibility, at least partially, for fanning the embers of the conflict.

Continue reading Israel, Syria dismiss peace talks

Secret Israeli-Syrian talks revealed

Haaretz has revealed that secret talks to end the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights have been taking place since 2004. See the story, the document drafted during the talks, and how the secret talks started, first with Turkish mediation and then through a mysterious European mediator. The deal has described seems fairly favorable to Israel, especially concerning the establishment of a large “park” accessible to both Israelis and Syrians, on military arrangements, and perhaps most importantly in granting a lot of water rights to Israelis. On the other hand, of course, Syria gets back land it would probably otherwise only get back by force.

Haaretz outlines the main points:

The main points of the understandings are as follows:

An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed.

As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years.

At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval.

Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret.

The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel’s favor.

According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran.

This, combined with economic aid and political guarantees, could be enough to draw the Syrians away from the Iranian camp — which perhaps would make it worth it for Israel to face the domestic opposition to returning the Golan Heights.

Hamas leader has power to speak with punctuation

Do you think there’s a problem with the story below:

GAZA (Reuters) – Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said on Monday the Islamist militant group Hamas would never recognize Israel.

Haniyeh, a Hamas leader, said in an interview from Gaza with Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah’s al-Manar television: “Hamas will never recognize the legitimacy of the occupation (Israel).”

“Hamas will never show flexibility over the issue of recognizing the legitimacy of the occupation,” he added.

Does Ismail Haniyeh have the power to speak in parentheses? Did he do a little sign with his hands and say “Israel” after he said “never recognize the legitimacy of the occupation”?

I am quite willing to believe that Haniyeh would make contradictory statements about his position on Israel, but the above quote hardly seems to be as conclusive as the story’s headline and lead.

The Economist does its bit for Zion

The Economist, true to its (for the last few years at least) increasingly pro-Israel tilt (in the leaders, not the reporting), attempts at an analysis of Khaled Meshaal’s recent remark that Israel exists:

Why, then, the stubborn refusal to just go the extra yard and recognise Israel now, especially as the result is the crushing sanctions regime? Many members of Hamas say that they will not recognise Israel’s right to exist and may not do so even if Israel were to withdraw right back to the pre-1967 “green line”. The official ideology of Hamas is clear enough. It refuses in principle the idea of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine at all. Israel’s position, on the other hand, is that it accepts the right of the Palestinians to a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but says that the final border should be set by negotiation. (Although Israel also says it wants to keep some of the West Bank’s land for existing settlements and security purposes.) There may be another reason for Hamas’s intransigence that has nothing to do with Israel’s stance: recognising Israel could lose it the support of its biggest foreign ally, Iran.

So if Hamas recognized an Israeli state, but was not willing to settle on borders, and perhaps had in mind just Tel Aviv, would that be ok? Accepting the Israelis’ definition of what they recognize Palestine to be is ridiculous — particularly as their “negotiated” plans have been unacceptable to Palestinians, or for that matter international law. You might even argue that Meshaal’s statement is in fact a much more honest and generous one since he delineated Israel along the 1967 borders — even though the Palestinian claim to 1948 Palestine is entirely legitimate. It is completely dishonest to label Hamas, which appears to be making efforts towards a 1967 borders compromise, as the unreasonable partner here. And the throwaway comment about Iran at the end is risible if not backed with some sort of evidence that Hamas is thinking this way.

More pathetic even is the following:

In its attempts to regain control, Hamas is resorting to the same tactics of co-option and strong-arming that made Fatah despised. Even if it were to do an about-face and accept all the world’s conditions, it is doubtful that it could reassert the role it was meant to play as an elected government. The hair-splitting dispute over words is just another a depressing indication that neither side is yet ready to make a serious push for peace.

Basically, a position that benefits the status quo, and thus Israel. You’re not likely to see the Economist pressing the Israelis anytime soon, it seems.

Hamas: Israel just fine and dandy

Remember next time you hear the lie that Hamas is committed to Israel’s total destruction:

DAMASCUS (Reuters) – Hamas acknowledges the existence of Israel as a reality but formal recognition will only be considered when a Palestinian state has been created, the movement’s exiled leader Khaled Meshaal said on Wednesday.

Softening a previous refusal to accept the Jewish state’s existence, Meshaal said Israel was a “matter of fact” and a reality that will persist.

“There will remain a state called Israel,” Meshaal said in an interview in the Syrian capital, in what appeared to be clearest statement yet by the Islamist group on its attitude toward the state it previously said had no right to exist.

“The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel,” said Meshaal, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt in 1997. “The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.”

This should not be that much of a surprise since Hamas has been saying very similar stuff since it was elected, if not before — see this post at the Skeptic and the excellent paper he links to. Nice to see this coming from Khaled Meshaal, though.