Uri Avnery

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Uri Avnery

 20.1.07          ; 

                       A Freedom Ride

MAHATMA GANDHI would have loved it. Nelson Mandela would have 

saluted. Martin Luther King would have been the most excited - it would 

have reminded him of the old days.

Yesterday, a decree of the Officer Commanding the Central Sector, 

General Yair Naveh, was about to come into force. It forbade Israeli 

drivers from giving a ride to Palestinian passengers in the occupied 

territories. The knitted-Kippah-wearing General, a friend of the settlers, 

justified this as a vital security necessity. In the past, inhabitants of the 

West Bank have sometimes reached Israeli territory in Israeli cars.

Israeli peace activists decided that this nauseating order must be 

protested. Several organizations planned a protest action for the very day 

it was due to come into force. They organized a "Freedom Ride" of Israeli 

car-owners who were to enter the West Bank (a criminal offence in itself) 

and give a ride to local Palestinians, who had volunteered for the action.

An impressive event in the making. Israeli drivers and Palestinian 

passengers breaking the law openly, facing arrest and trial in a military 

court.

At the last moment, the general "froze" the order. The demonstration was 

called off.

THE ORDER that was suspended (but not officially rescinded) emitted a 

strong odor of apartheid. It joins a large number of acts of the occupation 

authorities that are reminiscent of the racist regime of South Africa, such 

as the systematic building of roads in the West Bank for Israelis only and 

on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel. Or the "temporary" law that 

forbids Palestinians in the occupied territories, who have married Israeli 

citizens, to live with their spouses in Israel. And, most importantly, the 

Wall, which is officially called "the separation obstacle". In Afrikaans, 

"apartheid" means separation.

The "vision" of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert amounts to the 

establishment of a "Palestinian state" that would be nothing more than a 

string of Palestinian islands in an Israeli sea. It is easy to detect a 

similarity between the planned enclaves and the "Bantustans" that were 

set up by the White regime in South Africa - the so-called "homelands" 

where the Blacks were supposed to enjoy "self-rule" but which really 

amounted to racist concentration camps.

Because of this, we are right when we use the term "apartheid" in our 

daily struggle against the occupation. We speak about the "apartheid wall" 

and "apartheid methods". The order of General Naveh has practically 

given official sanction to the use of this term. Even institutions that are 

far from the radical peace camp did relate it to the Apartheid system.

Therefore, the title of former President Jimmy Carter's new book is fully 

justified - "Palestine - Peace not Apartheid". The title aroused the ire of 

the "friends of Israel" even more than the content of the book itself. How 

dare he? To compare Israel to the obnoxious racist regime? To allege that 

the government of Israel is motivated by racism, when all its actions are 

driven solely by the necessity to defend its citizens against Arab 

terrorists? (By the way, on the cover of the book there is a photo of a 

demonstration against the wall that was organized by Gush Shalom and 

Ta'ayush. Carter's nose points to a poster of ours that says: "The Wall - 

Jail for Palestinians, Ghetto for Israelis".)

It seems that Carter himself was not completely happy with the use of this 

term. He has hinted that it was added at the request of the publishers, 

who thought a provocative title would stimulate publicity. If so, the ploy 

was successful. The famous Jewish lobby was fully mobilized. Carter was 

pilloried as an anti-Semite and a liar. The storm around the title displaced 

any debate about the facts cited in the book, which have not been 

seriously questioned. The book has not yet appeared in Hebrew.

BUT WHEN we use the term "Apartheid" to describe the situation, we have 

to be aware of the fact that the similarity between the Israeli occupation 

and the White regime in South Africa concerns only the methods, not the 

substance. This must be made quite clear, so as to prevent grave errors in 

the analysis of the situation and the conclusions drawn from it.

It is always dangerous to draw analogies with other countries and other 

times. No two countries and no two situations are exactly the same. Every 

conflict has its own specific historical roots. Even when the symptoms are 

the same, the disease may be quite different.

These reservations all apply to comparisons between the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict and the historical conflict between the Whites and the 

Blacks in South Africa. Suffice it to point out several basic differences:   

(a) In SA there was a conflict between Blacks and Whites, but both agreed 

that the state of South Africa must remain intact- the question was only 

who would rule it. Almost nobody proposed to partition the country 

between the Blacks and the Whites.

Our conflict is between two different nations with different national 

identities, each of which places the highest value on a national state of its 

own.

(b) In SA, the idea of "separateness" was an instrument of the White 

minority for the oppression of the Black majority, and the Black 

population rejected it unanimously. Here, the huge majority of the 

Palestinians want to be separated from Israel in order to establish a state 

of their own. The huge majority of Israelis, too, want to be separated 

from the Palestinians. Separation is the aspiration of the majority on both 

sides, and the real question is where the border between them should 

run. On the Israeli side, only the settlers and their allies demand to keep 

the whole historical area of the country united and object to separation, 

in order to rob the Palestinians of their land and enlarge the settlements. 

On the Palestinian side, the Islamic fundamentalists also believe that the 

whole country is a "waqf" (religious trust) and belongs to Allah, and 

therefore must not be partitioned.

(c) In SA, a White minority (about 10 percent) ruled over a huge majority 

of Blacks (78 percent), people of mixed race (7 percent) and Asians (3 

percent). Here, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, there are 

now 5.5 million Jewish-Israelis and an equal number of Palestinian-Arabs 

(including the 1.4 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel).

(d) The SA economy was based on Black labor and could not possibly have 

existed without it. Here, the Israeli government has succeeded in 

excluding the non-Israeli Palestinians almost completely from the Israeli 

labor market and replacing them with foreign workers.    

IT IS important to point out these fundamental differences in order to 

prevent grave mistakes in the strategy of the struggle for ending the 

occupation.

In Israel and abroad there are people who cite this analogy without paying 

due attention to the essential differences between the two conflicts. Their 

conclusion: the methods that were so successful against the South 

African regime can again be applied to the struggle against the 

occupation -  namely, mobilization of world public opinion, an 

international boycott and isolation.

That is reminiscent of a classical fallacy, which used to be taught in logic 

classes: an Eskimo knows ice. Ice is transparent. Ice can be chewed. When 

given a glass of water, which is also transparent, he thinks he can chew it.

There is no doubt that it is essential to arouse international public 

opinion against the criminal treatment by the occupation authorities of 

the Palestinian people. We do this every day, just as Jimmy Carter is doing 

now. However, it must be clear that this is immeasurably more difficult 

than the campaign that led to the overthrow of the South African regime. 

One of the reasons: during World War II, the people who later became the 

rulers of South Africa tried to sabotage the anti-Nazi effort and were 

imprisoned, and therefore aroused world-wide loathing. Israel is accepted 

by the world as the "State of the Holocaust Survivors", and therefore 

arouses overwhelming sympathy.

It is a serious error to think that international public opinion will put an 

end to the occupation. This will come about when the Israeli public itself 

is convinced of the need to do so.

There is another important difference between the two conflicts, and this 

may be more dangerous than any other: in South Africa, no White would 

have dreamt of ethnic cleansing. Even the racists understood that the 

country could not exist without the Black population. But in Israel, this 

goal is under serious consideration, both openly and in secret. One of its 

main advocates, Avigdor Lieberman, is a member of the government and 

last week Condoleezza Rice met with him officially. Apartheid is not the 

worst danger hovering over the heads of the Palestinians. They are 

menaced by something infinitely worse: "Transfer", which means total 

expulsion.

SOME PEOPLE in Israel and around the world follow the Apartheid analogy 

to its logical conclusion: the solution here will be the same as the one in 

South Africa. There, the Whites surrendered and the Black majority 

assumed power. The country remained united. Thanks to wise leaders, 

headed by Nelson Mandela and Frederick Willem de Klerk, this happened 

without bloodshed.

In Israel, that is a beautiful dream for the end of days. Because of the 

people involved and their anxieties, it would inevitably turn into a 

nightmare. In this country there are two peoples with a very strong 

national consciousness. After 125 years of conflict, there is not the 

slightest chance that they would live together in one state, share the 

same government, serve in the same army and pay the same taxes. 

Economically, technologically and educationally, the gap between the two 

populations is immense. In such a situation, power relations similar to 

those in Apartheid South Africa would indeed arise.

In Israel, the demographic demon is lurking. There is an existential angst 

among the Jews that the demographic balance will change even within the 

Green Line. Every morning the babies are counted - how many Jewish 

babies were born during the night, and how many Arab. In a joint state, 

the discrimination would grow a hundredfold. The drive to dispossess 

and expel would know no bounds, rampant Jewish settlement activity 

would flourish, together with the effort to put the Arabs at a disadvantage 

by all possible means. In short: Hell.

IT MAY be hoped that this situation will change in 50 years. I have no 

doubt that in the end, a federation between the two states, perhaps 

including Jordan too, will come about. Yasser Arafat spoke with me about 

this several times. But neither the Palestinians not the Israelis can afford 

50 more years of bloodshed, occupation and creeping ethnic cleansing.  

The end of the occupation will come in the framework of peace between 

the two peoples, who will live in two free neighboring states - Israel and 

Palestine - with the border between them based on the Green Line. I hope 

that this will be an open border.

Then - inshallah - Palestinians will freely ride in Israeli cars, and Israelis 

will ride freely in Palestinian cars. When that time comes, nobody will 

remember General Yair Naveh, or even his boss, General Dan Halutz. 

Amen. 

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Daniel Dworsky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777	Post Options Post Reply Quote Daniel Dworsky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 21 January 2007 at 1:21pm
	Uri Avnery 20.1.07 ; A Freedom Ride MAHATMA GANDHI would have loved it. Nelson Mandela would have saluted. Martin Luther King would have been the most excited - it would have reminded him of the old days. Yesterday, a decree of the Officer Commanding the Central Sector, General Yair Naveh, was about to come into force. It forbade Israeli drivers from giving a ride to Palestinian passengers in the occupied territories. The knitted-Kippah-wearing General, a friend of the settlers, justified this as a vital security necessity. In the past, inhabitants of the West Bank have sometimes reached Israeli territory in Israeli cars. Israeli peace activists decided that this nauseating order must be protested. Several organizations planned a protest action for the very day it was due to come into force. They organized a "Freedom Ride" of Israeli car-owners who were to enter the West Bank (a criminal offence in itself) and give a ride to local Palestinians, who had volunteered for the action. An impressive event in the making. Israeli drivers and Palestinian passengers breaking the law openly, facing arrest and trial in a military court. At the last moment, the general "froze" the order. The demonstration was called off. THE ORDER that was suspended (but not officially rescinded) emitted a strong odor of apartheid. It joins a large number of acts of the occupation authorities that are reminiscent of the racist regime of South Africa, such as the systematic building of roads in the West Bank for Israelis only and on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel. Or the "temporary" law that forbids Palestinians in the occupied territories, who have married Israeli citizens, to live with their spouses in Israel. And, most importantly, the Wall, which is officially called "the separation obstacle". In Afrikaans, "apartheid" means separation. The "vision" of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert amounts to the establishment of a "Palestinian state" that would be nothing more than a string of Palestinian islands in an Israeli sea. It is easy to detect a similarity between the planned enclaves and the "Bantustans" that were set up by the White regime in South Africa - the so-called "homelands" where the Blacks were supposed to enjoy "self-rule" but which really amounted to racist concentration camps. Because of this, we are right when we use the term "apartheid" in our daily struggle against the occupation. We speak about the "apartheid wall" and "apartheid methods". The order of General Naveh has practically given official sanction to the use of this term. Even institutions that are far from the radical peace camp did relate it to the Apartheid system. Therefore, the title of former President Jimmy Carter's new book is fully justified - "Palestine - Peace not Apartheid". The title aroused the ire of the "friends of Israel" even more than the content of the book itself. How dare he? To compare Israel to the obnoxious racist regime? To allege that the government of Israel is motivated by racism, when all its actions are driven solely by the necessity to defend its citizens against Arab terrorists? (By the way, on the cover of the book there is a photo of a demonstration against the wall that was organized by Gush Shalom and Ta'ayush. Carter's nose points to a poster of ours that says: "The Wall - Jail for Palestinians, Ghetto for Israelis".) It seems that Carter himself was not completely happy with the use of this term. He has hinted that it was added at the request of the publishers, who thought a provocative title would stimulate publicity. If so, the ploy was successful. The famous Jewish lobby was fully mobilized. Carter was pilloried as an anti-Semite and a liar. The storm around the title displaced any debate about the facts cited in the book, which have not been seriously questioned. The book has not yet appeared in Hebrew. BUT WHEN we use the term "Apartheid" to describe the situation, we have to be aware of the fact that the similarity between the Israeli occupation and the White regime in South Africa concerns only the methods, not the substance. This must be made quite clear, so as to prevent grave errors in the analysis of the situation and the conclusions drawn from it. It is always dangerous to draw analogies with other countries and other times. No two countries and no two situations are exactly the same. Every conflict has its own specific historical roots. Even when the symptoms are the same, the disease may be quite different. These reservations all apply to comparisons between the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the historical conflict between the Whites and the Blacks in South Africa. Suffice it to point out several basic differences: (a) In SA there was a conflict between Blacks and Whites, but both agreed that the state of South Africa must remain intact- the question was only who would rule it. Almost nobody proposed to partition the country between the Blacks and the Whites. Our conflict is between two different nations with different national identities, each of which places the highest value on a national state of its own. (b) In SA, the idea of "separateness" was an instrument of the White minority for the oppression of the Black majority, and the Black population rejected it unanimously. Here, the huge majority of the Palestinians want to be separated from Israel in order to establish a state of their own. The huge majority of Israelis, too, want to be separated from the Palestinians. Separation is the aspiration of the majority on both sides, and the real question is where the border between them should run. On the Israeli side, only the settlers and their allies demand to keep the whole historical area of the country united and object to separation, in order to rob the Palestinians of their land and enlarge the settlements. On the Palestinian side, the Islamic fundamentalists also believe that the whole country is a "waqf" (religious trust) and belongs to Allah, and therefore must not be partitioned. (c) In SA, a White minority (about 10 percent) ruled over a huge majority of Blacks (78 percent), people of mixed race (7 percent) and Asians (3 percent). Here, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, there are now 5.5 million Jewish-Israelis and an equal number of Palestinian-Arabs (including the 1.4 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel). (d) The SA economy was based on Black labor and could not possibly have existed without it. Here, the Israeli government has succeeded in excluding the non-Israeli Palestinians almost completely from the Israeli labor market and replacing them with foreign workers. IT IS important to point out these fundamental differences in order to prevent grave mistakes in the strategy of the struggle for ending the occupation. In Israel and abroad there are people who cite this analogy without paying due attention to the essential differences between the two conflicts. Their conclusion: the methods that were so successful against the South African regime can again be applied to the struggle against the occupation - namely, mobilization of world public opinion, an international boycott and isolation. That is reminiscent of a classical fallacy, which used to be taught in logic classes: an Eskimo knows ice. Ice is transparent. Ice can be chewed. When given a glass of water, which is also transparent, he thinks he can chew it. There is no doubt that it is essential to arouse international public opinion against the criminal treatment by the occupation authorities of the Palestinian people. We do this every day, just as Jimmy Carter is doing now. However, it must be clear that this is immeasurably more difficult than the campaign that led to the overthrow of the South African regime. One of the reasons: during World War II, the people who later became the rulers of South Africa tried to sabotage the anti-Nazi effort and were imprisoned, and therefore aroused world-wide loathing. Israel is accepted by the world as the "State of the Holocaust Survivors", and therefore arouses overwhelming sympathy. It is a serious error to think that international public opinion will put an end to the occupation. This will come about when the Israeli public itself is convinced of the need to do so. There is another important difference between the two conflicts, and this may be more dangerous than any other: in South Africa, no White would have dreamt of ethnic cleansing. Even the racists understood that the country could not exist without the Black population. But in Israel, this goal is under serious consideration, both openly and in secret. One of its main advocates, Avigdor Lieberman, is a member of the government and last week Condoleezza Rice met with him officially. Apartheid is not the worst danger hovering over the heads of the Palestinians. They are menaced by something infinitely worse: "Transfer", which means total expulsion. SOME PEOPLE in Israel and around the world follow the Apartheid analogy to its logical conclusion: the solution here will be the same as the one in South Africa. There, the Whites surrendered and the Black majority assumed power. The country remained united. Thanks to wise leaders, headed by Nelson Mandela and Frederick Willem de Klerk, this happened without bloodshed. In Israel, that is a beautiful dream for the end of days. Because of the people involved and their anxieties, it would inevitably turn into a nightmare. In this country there are two peoples with a very strong national consciousness. After 125 years of conflict, there is not the slightest chance that they would live together in one state, share the same government, serve in the same army and pay the same taxes. Economically, technologically and educationally, the gap between the two populations is immense. In such a situation, power relations similar to those in Apartheid South Africa would indeed arise. In Israel, the demographic demon is lurking. There is an existential angst among the Jews that the demographic balance will change even within the Green Line. Every morning the babies are counted - how many Jewish babies were born during the night, and how many Arab. In a joint state, the discrimination would grow a hundredfold. The drive to dispossess and expel would know no bounds, rampant Jewish settlement activity would flourish, together with the effort to put the Arabs at a disadvantage by all possible means. In short: Hell. IT MAY be hoped that this situation will change in 50 years. I have no doubt that in the end, a federation between the two states, perhaps including Jordan too, will come about. Yasser Arafat spoke with me about this several times. But neither the Palestinians not the Israelis can afford 50 more years of bloodshed, occupation and creeping ethnic cleansing. The end of the occupation will come in the framework of peace between the two peoples, who will live in two free neighboring states - Israel and Palestine - with the border between them based on the Green Line. I hope that this will be an open border. Then - inshallah - Palestinians will freely ride in Israeli cars, and Israelis will ride freely in Palestinian cars. When that time comes, nobody will remember General Yair Naveh, or even his boss, General Dan Halutz. Amen.

Daniel Dworsky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777	Post Options Post Reply Quote Daniel Dworsky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 January 2007 at 2:02pm
	Uri Avnery 13.1.07 Manara Square, Ramallah IT WAS murder in broad daylight. Undercover soldiers disguised as Arabs, accompanied by armored vehicles and bulldozers and supported by helicopter gunships, invaded the center of Ramallah. Their aim was to kill or capture a Fatah militant, Rabee' Hamid. The man was wounded but managed to escape. As always, the place was teeming with people. Manara Square is the heart of Ramallah, full of life, both walking and driving. When people realized what was going on, they started to throw stones at the soldiers. These responded by shooting wildly in all directions. Four bystanders were killed, more than 30 wounded. The routinely mendacious army press release announced that the four had been armed. Indeed? One of them was a street vendor named Khalil al-Bairouti, who used to sell hot beverages from a small cart at this place. Another was Jamal Jweelis from Shuafat near Jerusalem, who had come to Ramallah to buy new clothes and sweets for the engagement party of his brother, which was scheduled for the next day. Hearing that approaching bulldozers were crushing vehicles in the street, Jamal ran out of the shop to remove his car. That happened nine days ago. A "routine" action, like so many others that take place in the occupied Palestinian territories almost daily. But this time it created an international uproar, because on that very day Ehud Olmert was due to meet the President of Egypt, Husni Mubarak in Sharm el Sheikh. The host was deeply offended. Do the Israelis despise him so much, that they so lightly put him to shame in the eyes of his people and the Arab world? At the end of the meeting, he gave vent to his anger in no uncertain terms, in the presence of Olmert, who muttered some weak words of apology. In Israel, the usual game of passing the buck, known as "covering one's ass", began. Who was responsible? As usual, someone low down in the hierarchy. The Prime Ministers's people first suspected that the Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz, had done it to trip up Olmert. Peretz denied any prior knowledge of the action, and passed the buck on to the Chief-of- Staff, who, he implied, wanted to bring about the downfall of both Olmert and Peretz. The C-o-S transferred the responsibility to the Commander of the Central Front, Ya'ir Naveh, a Kippa-wearing general known as especially brutal, with extreme right-wing views. In the end it was decided that some officer lower down had approved the action, and that all the responsibility was his. Even if you believe all these denials - and I most certainly do not - the image is no less disturbing: a chaotic army, out of control, where every officer can do as he sees fit (or unfit). TWO DAYS later, my wife Rachel and I visited the place. It was early evening. Under an intermittent drizzle, Manara ("lighthouse") Square was again teeming with people. Traffic jams blocked all the six streets leading to the square Zacharia, the Palestinian friend who was accompanying us, was clearly worried. He tried to persuade us not to go there so soon after the incident. But nothing happened. Posters of Arafat were hanging on the column in the center of the square and on some walls. In a mini-market there were photos of Saddam Hussein. One of the walls carried angry graffiti: "We Don't Need Your Aid!" (You the Americans? The Europeans? The aid agencies?) The four lions surrounding the column in the square looked to me forlorn and helpless. One of them is wearing a watch on his leg. The designer had added the watch as a joke and the Chinese who were contracted to produce the lions according to the plan did precisely that. In the end we entered a coffee shop. While we were sitting and enjoying the coffee, all the lights went out. Before we could start to worry, people around us used their cigarette lighters and cellular phones. After some minutes, the lights went on again. On the way home to the hotel in a side street, we took a taxi. The driver, who did not know that we were Israelis, talked all the way with his brother in Arabic on his phone. He ended the conversation with three words: "Yallah. Lehitraot. Bye." Yallah (something like OK) in Arabic. Lehitraot ("see you again") in Hebrew. Bye in English. WHEN WE told our friends in Tel-Aviv that we were off to a conference in Ramallah, they thought that we had taken leave of our senses. "To Ramallah? And now of all times, after what has just happened there?" The organizers of the conference - Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, an international group of academics - also hesitated. True, the conference was arranged several weeks ago, but perhaps it would be best to postpone it for a week or two? Was it wise to bring to Ramallah dozens of Israelis, less than 24 hours after the killing? In the end, it was decided, quite rightly, that this was exactly the right time and place to convene the conference. The representatives of 23 Palestinian, 22 Israeli and 15 international organizations were lodged for three days in a Ramallah hotel, met, ate together and discussed the one subject that was on everybody's mind: how to act together to put an end to the occupation which produces daily horrors like the Manara Square killing spree? It was important to hold the conference precisely at this place for another reason: Since the murder of Yasser Arafat, the connections between the Israeli and Palestinian peace forces at the higher level had become tenuous. Unlike Arafat [incidentally, Uri Dan, Sharon's confidant, recently put to rest any doubt that the late Palestinian President was indeed murdered], Mahmoud Abbas obviously does not think that they are important. That is one of the reasons - one of many - for the pessimism that has infected parts of the peace camp. Therefore, the very fact that such a conference was taking place was important. Israelis, Palestinians and international activists mingled and sat together, proposed actions, stressed the common aim. On the second day, the conference broke up into smaller workshops, where participants from Tel-Aviv and Hebron, Nablus and New York, Barcelona and Kfar- Sava put forward ideas for joint actions. There were also some stormy debates, though not between Israelis and Palestinians, but about differences of opinion that did not follow national lines. The most important one: Should the main effort be devoted to action in the country or abroad? The representative of an Israeli group argued with much feeling that there was nothing to be done inside the country, that all the efforts should be focused on winning over international public opinion, on the lines of the world-wide boycott that had been so successful against South Africa. In response, a Palestinian activist argued that the only important thing was to influence public opinion in Israel, which was, after all, the occupier. I also argued that the main effort should be directed towards Israel, even if actions abroad can be useful, too. I vigorously opposed the idea of a general boycott against Israel, because - among other things - it would push the public into the arms of the Right. (However, I do support the idea of a boycott against specific targets that are clearly identified with the occupation, such as the settlements, suppliers of certain military equipment, universities with branches in the occupied territories etc.) SOME DAYS later a comparable meeting took place in the capital of Spain. But there was a difference between the two conferences - much like the difference between Sun Square in Madrid and Manara Square in Ramallah. Madrid saw a congregation of respectable personalities, Members of the Knesset (including supporters of the government that is responsible for the bloodshed in Ramallah, one of them a representative of a neo-Fascist party) together with some notables from the Palestinian authority and their colleagues from Arab and other countries. In Ramallah there came together the veterans of the fight for peace, people who had stood fast dozens of times in a cloud of tear gas and against rubber-coated bullets. One group of Palestinians and Israelis, who arrived together late on the first day, came straight from a demonstration in Bil'in, where the army had used a water cannon, tear gas and also rubber bullets. The guests in Madrid had come by plane. The guests in Ramallah had a much tougher time getting there. The Israelis had to squirm through checkpoints on their way in, and even more on the way back. Israelis (except settlers) break the law when they travel to the occupied territories. But for the Palestinians, it was ten times harder to get to Ramallah. A guest from Nablus told us that he had left home at 2 AM in order to reach the conference at 11 AM. The guest from Tubas, near Nablus, spent eight hours on the road and at the checkpoints - much more than the time needed to get from Tel-Aviv to Madrid. The Madrid conference was covered extensively in the Israeli media, day after day. The Ramallah conference was not mentioned with one single word in any Israeli newspaper, TV or radio station, except for a single line in the gossip column in Maariv, which said: "Uri Avnery has temporarily gone to live in Ramallah". THE MADRID conference was relevant mainly as proof that Israeli and Palestinian politicians can sit together, even after all that has happened. What was the importance of the meeting in Ramallah? In the past, I have taken part in many similar conferences that have borne no fruit. This time, too, the obstacles are enormous. But more than ever, it is clear that action must be taken against the occupation, and that the action must be joint, consistent and well planned. In five months, the occupation will be 40 years old - perhaps the longest- lasting military occupation regime the world has ever seen. At the conference, there was general agreement that all forces must be concentrated in a great public campaign to mark this shameful date and draw attention to the injustices of the occupation, the harm it does not only to the Palestinians but also to the Israelis, to bring the Green Line back into the public consciousness, to act against the roadblocks and the Annexation Wall, and for the release of the prisoners of both sides. For this purpose, the conference decided to set up "an Israeli-Palestinian- International Coalition to End the Occupation". The continuation will depend on the willpower, courage and devotion of all peace forces, and their ability to cooperate beyond the roadblocks, walls and fences - one of whose aims is precisely to obstruct such cooperation. Time is pressing. Perhaps that is why one of the lions in Manara Square has a watch.

Daniel Dworsky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777	Post Options Post Reply Quote Daniel Dworsky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 January 2007 at 1:58am
	Uri Avnery 6.1.2007 Kiss of Death SINCE JUDAS ISCARIOT embraced Jesus, Jerusalem has not seen such a kiss. After being boycotted by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert for years, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) was invited to the official residence of the Prime Minister of Israel two weeks ago. There, in front of the cameras, Olmert embraced him and kissed him warmly on both cheeks. Abbas looked stunned, and froze. Somehow the scene was reminiscent of another incident of politically- inspired physical contact: the embarassing occurrence at the Camp David meeting, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak pushed Yasser Arafat forcefully into the room where Bill Clinton stood waiting. In both instances it was a gesture that was intended to look like paying respect to the Palestinian leader, but both were actually acts of violence that - seemingly - testified to ignorance of the customs of the other people and of their delicate situation. Actually, the aim was quite different. ACCORDING TO the New Testament, Judas Iscariot kissed Jesus in order to point him out to those who had come to arrest him. In appearance - an act of love and friendship. In effect - a death sentence. On the face of it, Olmert was out to do Abbas a favor. He paid him respect, introduced him to his wife and honored him with the title "Mr. President". That should not be underestimated. At Oslo, titanic battles were fought over this title. The Palestinians insisted that the head of the future Palestinian Authority should be called "President". The Israelis rejected this out of hand, because this title could indicate something like a state. In the end, it was agreed that the (binding) English version would carry the Arabic title "Ra'is", since that language uses the same word for both President and Chairman. Abbas, who signed the document for the Palestinian side, probably did not envisage that he himself would be the first to be addressed by an Israeli Prime Minister as "President". But enough trivia. More important is the outcome of this event. After the imposed kiss, Abbas needed a big Israeli gesture to justify the meeting in the eyes of his people. And indeed, why shouldn't Olmert do something resounding? For example, to release on the spot a thousand prisoners, remove all the hundreds of checkpoints scattered across the West Bank, open the passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? Nothing of the sort happened. Olmert did not release a single prisoner - no woman, no child, no old man, no sick person. He did indeed announce (for the umpteenth time) that the roadblocks would be "eased", but the Palestinians report that they have not felt any change. Perhaps, here and there, the endless queue at some of the roadblocks has become a little shorter. Also, Olmert gave back a fifth of the Palestinian tax money withheld (or embezzled) by the Israeli government. To the Palestinians, this looked like another shameful failure for their President: he went to Canossa and received meaningless promises that were not kept. WHY DID Olmert go through all these motions? The na�ve explanation is political. President Bush wanted some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would look like an American achievement. Condoleezza Rice transmitted the order to Olmert. Olmert agreed to meet Abbas at long last. There was a meeting. A kiss was effected. Promises were made and immediately forgotten. Americans, as is well known, have short memories. Even shorter (if that is possible) than ours. But there is also a more cynical explanation. If one humiliates Abbas, one strengthens Hamas. Palestinian support for Abbas depends on one single factor: his ability to get from the US and Israel things Hamas cannot. The Americans and the Israelis love him, so - the argument goes - they will give him what is needed: the mass release of prisoners, an end to the targeted killings, the removal of the monstrous roadblocks, the opening of the passage between the West Bank and Gaza, the start of serious negotiations for peace. But if Abbas cannot deliver any of these - what remains but the methods of Hamas? The business of the prisoners provides a good example. Nothing troubles the Palestinians more than this: almost every Palestinian clan has people in prison. Every family is affected: a father, a brother, a son, sometimes a daughter. Every night, the Israeli army "arrests" another dozen or so. How to get them free? Hamas has a proven remedy: to capture Israelis (in the Israeli and international media, Israelis are "kidnapped" while Palestinians are "arrested"). For the return of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Olmert will release many prisoners. Israelis, according to Palestinian experience, understand only the language of force. Some of Olmert's advisors had a brilliant idea: to give Abbas hundreds of prisoners as a gift, just for nothing. That would reinforce the position of the Palestinian president and prove to the Palestinians that they can get more from us this way than by violence. It would deal a sharp blow to the Hamas government, whose overthrow is a prime aim of the governments both of Israel and the USA. Out of the question, cried another group of Olmert's spin doctors. How will the Israeli media react if prisoners are released before Shalit comes home? The trouble is that Shalit is held by Hamas and its allies, and not by Abbas. If it is forbidden to release prisoners before the return of Shalit, then all the cards are in the hands of Hamas. In that case, perhaps it makes sense to speak with Hamas? Unthinkable! The result: no strengthening of Abbas, no dialogue with Hamas, no nothing. THAT IS an old Israeli tradition: when there are two alternatives, we choose the third: not to do anything. For me, the classic example is the Jericho affair. In the middle 70s, King Hussein made an offer to Henry Kissinger: Israel should withdraw from Jericho and turn the town over to the king. The Jordanian army would hoist the Jordanian flag there, announcing symbolically that Jordan is the decisive Arab presence in the West Bank. Kissinger liked the idea and called Yigal Allon, the Israeli foreign minister. Allon informed the Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin. All the top political echelon - Rabin, Allon, the Defense Minister Shimon Peres - were already enthusiastic supporters of the "Jordanian Option", as were their predecessors, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan and Abba Eban. My friends and I, who, on the contrary, advocated the "Palestinian Option", were a marginal minority. But Rabin rejected the offer categorically. Golda had publicly promised to hold a referendum or elections before giving back even one square inch of occupied territory. "I will not call an election because of Jericho!" Rabin declared. No Jordanian Option. No Palestinian Option. No nothing. NOW THE same is happening vis-�-vis Syria. Again there are two alternatives. The first: to start negotiations with Bashar al-Assad, who is making public overtures. That means being ready to give back the Golan Heights and allow the 60 thousand Syrian refugees to return home. In return, Sunni Syria could well cut itself loose from Iran and Hizbullah and join the front of Sunni states. Since Syria is both Sunni and secular-nationalist, that may also have a positive effect on the Palestinians. Olmert has demanded that Assad cut himself off from Iran and stop helping Hizbullah before any negotiations. That is a ridiculous demand, obviously intended to serve as an alibi for refusing to start talking. After all, Assad uses Hizbullah in order to put pressure on Israel to return the Golan. His alliance with Iran also serves the same purpose. How can he give up in advance the few cards he holds and still hope to achieve anything in the negotiations? The opposite alternative suggested by some senior army commanders: to invade Syria and do the same there as the Americans have done in Iraq. That would create anarchy throughout the Arab world, a situation that would be good for Israel. That would also renovate the image of the Israeli army that was damaged in Lebanon and restore its "deterrence power". So what will Olmert do? Give the Golan back? God forbid! Does he need trouble with the 16 thousand vociferous settlers there? What then, will he start a war with Syria? No! Hasn't he had enough military setbacks? So he will go for the third alternative: to do nothing. Bashar Assad has at least one consolation: He does not run the risk of being kissed by Olmert.

Daniel Dworsky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777	Post Options Post Reply Quote Daniel Dworsky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 December 2006 at 1:40am
	Uri Avnery 23.12.06 Sorry, Wrong Continent A FEW weeks ago, the 15th Asian games, the "Asiad", was held in Qatar. The Israeli media treated the event with a mixture of derision and pity. Some kind of picturesque Asian circus. Our television showed an exotic horseman with a keffiyeh at the opening ceremony, riding his noble Arab steed up a steep staircase to light the Olympic flame. And that was that. One question was not asked at all in any of the media: why are we not there? Does Israel not lie in Asia? That was not even considered. We? In Asia? How come? WHEN I followed the event on Aljazeera television, I suddenly remembered a private anniversary that had slipped my memory. Exactly 60 years ago a small number of young people founded a group that called itself in Hebrew "Young Eretz-Israel" and in Arabic "Young Palestine". With money out of our own pockets (at the time we were all quite poor) we published occasional issues of a periodical we called Bamaavak ("In the struggle"). Bamaavak stirred up a lot of stormy waves, because it voiced infuriatingly heretical opinions. Contrary to the dominant Zionist narrative, it asserted that we, the young generation growing up in the country, constituted a new nation, the Hebrew nation. Unlike the somewhat similar group of "Canaanites", that preceded us, we proclaimed that (a) the new nation is a part of the Jewish people, much as Australia is a part of the Anglo-Saxon people, and (b) that we are a sister-nation to the resurgent Arab nation in the country and throughout the region. And, no less important: that since the new Hebrew nation was born in the country, and the country belongs to Asia, we are an Asian nation, a natural ally to all the Asian and African nations that strive for liberation from colonialism. On Wednesday, March 19, 1947, a few months after the first edition of Bamaavak had appeared, the Hebrew daily Haboker reported: "On the occasion of the opening of the Pan-Asian Conference (in New Delhi), the group Young Eretz Israel has sent a cable to Jawaharlal Nehru reading: 'Please receive the congratulations of the Eretz-Israeli youth for your historic initiative. May the aspirations for freedom of the peoples of New Asia, inspired by your heroic example, become united. Long live the united and arising Young Asia, the vanguard of fraternity and progress'." A similar news story appeared on the same day on the front page of the Palestine Post (the predecessor of the Jerusalem Post), with the names of the signatories: Uri Avnery, Amos Elon and Ben-Ami Gur. Bamaavak appeared from time to time, whenever we had enough money, up to the outbreak of the 1948 war. In the Hebrew press, more than a hundred reactions were published, almost all of them negative, many of them vituperative. The famous writer Moshe Shamir, then a left-winger, made a neat play on words, calling us Bamat-Avak ("stage of dust"). When the war broke out, this whole chapter was overshadowed and forgotten. But almost all we said 60 years ago remains relevant today. And the most relevant question is: To what continent does the State of Israel actually belong? I BELIEVE that one of the most profound causes for the historic conflict between us and the Arab world in general, and the Palestinian people in particular, is the fact that the Zionist movement declared, from its very first day, that it did not belong to the region in which we live. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the fact that even after four generations, this wound has not healed. In his book "The Jewish State", the founding document of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl famously wrote: "For Europe we shall be (in Palestine) a part of the wall against Asia�the vanguard of culture against barbarism�" This attitude is typical for the whole history of Zionism and the State of Israel up to the present day. Indeed, a few weeks ago the Israeli ambassador to Australia declared that "Asia belongs to the yellow race, while we are Whites and have no slit eyes. " One can perhaps forgive Herzl, a quintessential European, who lived in an era when imperialism dominated European thought. But today, four generations later, those forming public opinion in Israel, people born in the country, continue along the same path. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak declared that Israel is "a villa in the middle of the jungle" (the Arab jungle, of course), and this attitude is shared by practically all our politicians. Tsipi Livni likes to talk about the "dangerous neighborhood" in which we are living, and the chief advisor of Ariel Sharon once said that there will be no peace until "the Palestinians turn into Finns." Our soccer and basketball teams play in the European leagues, the Eurovision song contest is a national event in Israel, 95% of our political activity is focused on Europe and North America. But the phenomenon extends far beyond the political arena - this is a "world view" in the literal sense. In our world, Israel is a part of Europe. In the 50s, when I was the editor of the news magazine Haolam Hazeh, I once published a cartoon that I am still proud of: it showed the map of the Eastern Mediterranean, with an arm projecting from Greece and holding scissors that cut Israel off from Asia. It is a pity that I did not add a second drawing, showing Israel being attached to the shore of France or, preferably, Miami. These days it would be hard to find anybody who would assert that Asia - India, China - is barbarian. But it is easy to find people in Israel, and throughout the West, who believe that the Arab world, and indeed the entire Muslim world, is a "jungle". With such an attitude, one cannot make peace. After all, one does not make peace with poisonous snakes and ravenous leopards. In the Bamaavak days, we coined the slogan "Integration in the Semitic Region". But how can one integrate oneself in a region that is seen as a jungle? A WORLD VIEW is not an academic matter. It has a huge impact on actual life. It influences people when it is conscious, and even more so when it is unconscious. It shapes the practical decisions, without the decision- makers being aware of it. Politicians, too, are only human beings (if that), and their actions are directed by their hidden beliefs. In Israel we are used to consider unquestioned "conceptsias" as the mother of all our mistakes and defeats. But is such an assumption any different from the expression of an unconscious world-view? The world-view influences many aspects of the state. It is the core of the education system, which forms the mind of the next generation. We have perhaps the only education system in the world that does not teach the history of its homeland. In our schools, very little is taught about the past of the country. Instead, what is taught is the history of "the Jewish people". This starts with the ancient Israelite kingdoms before the sixth century BC ("the First Temple"), then the Jewish community in the country before the beginning of the Christian era and for some years after ("the Second Temple"). Then it leaves the country and dwells on the Jewish Diaspora for some thousands of years, until the beginning of the Zionist settlement. For almost 2000 years, the annals of the country disappear from the school. I once talked about this in a speech in the Knesset. I said that an Israeli child born in the country, whether Jewish or Arab, should study the history of the country, including all its periods and peoples: Canaanites, Israelites, Hellenists, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Mamelukes, Turks, British, Palestinians, Israelis and more. In addition they could be taught the story of the Jews in the diaspora, too. The Minister of Education responded humorously and insisted on calling me, from then on, "the Mameluke". LATELY IT has become fashionable for politicians and commentators in Israel to speak about the danger of annihilation that hovers, or so they claim, over Israel. It is hardly believable: the State of Israel is a regional superpower, its economy is robust and developing, its technological level is one of the most advanced in the world, its army is stronger than all the Arab armies combined, it has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. Even if the Iranians were to obtain a bomb of their own, they would be mad to use it, for fear of Israeli retaliation. So where does this fear of annihilation come from in the 59th year of the state? A part of it surely emanates from the memory of the Holocaust, which is deeply imprinted in the national mentality. But another part comes from the feeling of not belonging, of temporariness, of the lack of roots. That has, of course, domestic implications, too. Consciousness also affects practical interests. The assertion that we are a European people automatically reinforces the position of our ruling class, which is still overwhelmingly Ashkenazi-European, over and against the majority of the citizens of Israel, who are of Asian-African Jewish and Palestinian-Arab descent. The profound disdain for their culture, which has accompanied the state from its first day, facilitates discrimination against them in many fields. A CHANGE affecting the consciousness of a community is not a short- term proposition. It cannot be achieved by decree. This is a slow and gradual process. But at some stage we shall have to start it, and first of all in the education system. I started my booklet "War or Peace in the Semitic Region", which was published in October 1947, just a few weeks before the outbreak of the 1948 war, with the words: "When our Zionist fathers decided to set up a 'safe home' in Eretz Israel, they had the choice between two roads: they could appear in West Asia as a European conqueror, who sees himself as a beachhead of the 'white' race and a master of the 'natives'�(or) see themselves as an Asian nation returning to its homeland." When I wrote these words, the rise of Asia was still a dream. World War II had ended just two years before, and the United States looked like an omnipotent superpower. But now a quiet revolution of huge proportions is taking place. The nations of Asia, with China and India in the lead, are becoming economic and political powers. Should we not gradually move toward this camp? That brochure, 60 years ago, ended with the words of a Hebrew song: "We stand and face the rising sun / To the East our homeward path�" Edited by Daniel Dworsky

Daniel Dworsky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777	Post Options Post Reply Quote Daniel Dworsky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 December 2006 at 1:34am
	Israfil, In Israel. The police departments are sort of like protected workshops for the mentally challenged. We have improved here on the buddy system. We have three policeman in each car. It used to be two like in the states so that one could need only read and the other write. Now with all the decent and human rights talk we need a third to keep an eye on these two budding intellectuals... That was a Joke... I think. Edited by Daniel Dworsky

Daniel Dworsky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777	Post Options Post Reply Quote Daniel Dworsky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 18 December 2006 at 12:21am
	I'd like to say that we've been holding the Caterpillars at bay since then but the army doesn't always do "when" very well it's all about what, where and how. We have our guys letting us know from the inside about the "whens" Our information is that the Army Engineers are ready to take it down in the next few days. Once the deed is done it's done. I've been at demolitions, Nassalat Issa, where the army took down an entire shopping center in Palestine. We had a stay of demolition from the superior court (Israeli Superior Court) In our hands and when we interfered we were beaten up by border guard. I personally am putting at least once dental surgeon's child through college. this all depends on wether I decide on implants or leaving the back teeth out. My wife says it looks like the place you put a bit for a horse. I digress. The point is that we need legal help outside of Israeli law. Here the law isn't so much an ass as it is a little bunny rabbit. Really bad people are running things here especially in the Israeli army right now. Those two disasters to hit the US (Bush and 9/11) have coincided with or caused a total disrespect for justice and even the law. Lately it has gone as far as in the case of extra judicial executions, to pervert the law it's self. Capital punishment is a disgrace any where. To put it in the hands of the government as a legal tool is banana republic stuff. When they say some one is going "Bananas" this is what they mean. This isn't about st**id policeman who are about this far from being criminals themselves or bored soldiers who fire a round into a Palestinian water heater from half a mile away after 8 hours of guard duty. No. These are politicians and civil servants popping off people from behind a desk. Dispatching people like they were Judy Dent and Pierce Brosnen. This is how they see themselves. Romantically. I would say that animals behave like this but the insult is too brutaI to the animals of course. Edited by Daniel Dworsky

herjihad Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 26 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2473	Post Options Post Reply Quote herjihad Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 17 December 2006 at 3:12pm
	Salaams and Bismillah, Brother Daniel, This says: However, the Hope Flowers School received a demolition order for the school cafeteria from the Israeli army (Case 107/02) on 5th November, 2003. So it is now three years after this order was issued. What's going on? Please elucidate. Thanks.
	Al-Hamdulillah (From a Married Muslimah) La Howla Wa La Quwata Illa BiLLah - There is no Effort or Power except with Allah's Will.

Daniel Dworsky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777	Post Options Post Reply Quote Daniel Dworsky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 17 December 2006 at 10:10am
	Write a letter to keep The Hope Flowers School accessible 17/12/06 I am kindly asking you and the Civil Administration NOT to continue with your plans to demolish the cafeteria building of the first, and only, school for peace and coexistence in the Palestinian Territories. We are also concerned that the wall/fence that the Israelis authorities started to build near the school will prevent Israelis from reaching the school. We are asking you to create a Gate or Entrance in that wall near the school to allow Israelis to reach the Hope Flowers School. Attention: C/O: Subject: The Hope Flowers School in Al Khader, Case Number related to demolition: 107/02 Date Dear Sir, We kindly request your attention to the following matter. For several years we have supported a Palestinian school on the West Bank in Al Khader village near Bethlehem. The name of the school is Al Amal, The Hope Flowers School. We support this school because of its approach to peace and democracy education. The Hope Flowers School was established in 1984 when the late founder of the school, Mr. Hussein Issa (may he rest in peace), was confident that the Palestinian and Israeli conflict could not be solved by violence. He believed that the only way to solve the conflict was to create a new generation of Palestinians and Israelis that believed in peace, coexistence and respecting the rights of each other. Mr. Issa thought that by bringing Palestinian and Israeli children together and teaching them to look beyond the fear that years of conflict and stereotyping has created, then these children would grow and bond in friendship. He also hoped that they would then create a peaceful solution to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. Therefore, the school has many contacts and partnerships with Israeli schools, teachers and students. Israeli volunteers and teachers worked in the school before the Palestinian uprising started in 2000. 1. However, the Hope Flowers School received a demolition order for the school cafeteria from the Israeli army (Case 107/02) on 5th November, 2003. We are very concerned about this recent threat to demolish the cafeteria building. I am kindly asking you and the Civil Administration NOT to continue with your plans to demolish the cafeteria building of the first, and only, school for peace and coexistence in the Palestinian Territories. 2. We are also concerned that the wall/fence that the Israelis authorities started to build near the school will prevent Israelis from reaching the school. We are asking you to create a Gate or Entrance in that wall near the school to allow Israelis to reach the Hope Flowers School. This will keep dialogue alive and will allow hope to flower for the next Palestinian and Israeli generation. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely Yours, Name. Address. [Send it to:] a) Commander Israeli Civil Administration (Sub Committee for Supervision of Building Activity in Beth El), Fax: (Israel) 2 997 7326. b) Mr. Ehud Olmert, Israeli Prime Minister: E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (Israel) 2 566 4838 or (Israel) 2 267 5475, Tel: (Israel) 2 670 5555. 3. The Israeli Embassy / Consulate in your home country. System Message: INFO/1 (<string>, line 36) Enumerated list start value not ordinal-1: "c" (ordinal 3) System Message: INFO/1 (<string>, line 39) Possible title underline, too short for the title. Treating it as ordinary text because it's so short. d) Dr Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State, address: U.S Department of State, 2210 C Street N.W, Washington D.C 20520, USA. tel: (USA) 202 647 5291(Dr. Rice s office) / 202 647 4000 (State Dept. main number) Email: http://contact-us.state.gov .