Palestine Think Tank |
- Ramzy Baroud – Gaza and Lebanon: Beware the Iron Wall, the Coming War
- Russell Tribunal on Palestine coming soon
- Statement of Support for Mohammad Bakri, Director of "Jenin Jenin"
- Antoine Raffoul – Why must Palestinians accept post-1967 land theft?
Ramzy Baroud – Gaza and Lebanon: Beware the Iron Wall, the Coming War Posted: 04 Feb 2010 06:01 AM PST  Yossi Peled The Israeli military may be much less effective in winning wars than it was in the past, thanks to the stiffness of Arab resistance. But its military strategists are as shrewd and unpredictable as ever. The recent rhetoric that has escalated from Israel suggests that a future war in Lebanon will most likely target Syria as well. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that Israel actually intends on targeting either of these countries in the near future, it is certainly the type or language that often precedes Israeli military maneuvers. Deciphering the available clues regarding the nature of Israel’s immediate military objectives is not always easy, but it is possible. One indicator that could serve as a foundation for any serious prediction of Israel’s actions is Israel’s historical tendency to seek a perpetual state of war. Peace, real peace, has never been a long-term policy. "Unlike many others, I consider that peace is not a goal in itself but only a means to guarantee our existence," claimed Yossi Peled, a former army general and current Cabinet Minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government. Israeli official policy – military or otherwise – is governed by the same Zionist diktats that long preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. If anything has changed since early Zionists outlined their vision, it was the interpretation of those directives. The substance has remained intact. For example, Zionist visionary, Vladimir Jabotinsky stated in 1923 that Zionist “colonization can…continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.” He was not then referring to an actual wall. While his vision took on various manifestations throughout the years, in 2002 it was translated into a real wall aimed at prejudicing any just solution with the Palestinians. Now, most unfortunately, Egypt has also started building its own steel wall along its border with the war-devastated and impoverished Gaza Strip. One thing we all know by now is that Israel is a highly militarized country. Its definition of ‘existence’ can only be ensured by its uncontested military dominance at all fronts, thus the devastating link between Palestine and Lebanon. This link makes any analysis of Israel’s military intents in Gaza, that excludes Lebanon – and in fact, Syria – seriously lacking. Consider, for example, the unprecedented Israeli crackdown on the Second Palestinian Uprising which started in September 2000. How is that linked to Lebanon? Israel had been freshly defeated by the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah, and was forced to end its occupation of most of South Lebanon in May 2000. Israel wanted to send an unmistakable message to Palestinians that this defeat was in fact not a defeat at all, and that any attempt at duplicating the Lebanese resistance model in Palestine would be ruthlessly suppressed. Israel’s exaggeration in the use of its highly sophisticated military to stifle a largely popular revolution was extremely costly to Palestinians in terms of human toll. Israel’s 34-day war on Lebanon in July 2006 was an Israeli attempt at destroying Arab resistance, and restoring its metaphorical iron wall. It backfired, resulting in a real – not figurative – Israeli defeat. Israel, then, did what it does best. It used its superior air force, destroyed much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The resistance, with humble means, killed more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers during combat. Not only did Hizbullah penetrate the Israeli iron wall, it had also filled it with holes. It challenged, like never before, the Israeli army’s notion of invincibility and illusion of security. Something went horribly wrong in Lebanon. Since then, the Israeli army, intelligence, propagandists and politicians have been in constant preparation for another showdown. But before such pending battle, the nation needed to renew its faith in its army and government intelligence; thus the war in Gaza late December 2008. As appalling as it was for Israeli families to gather en masse near the Israeli Gaza border, and watch giddily as Gaza and Gazans were blown to smithereens, the act was most rational. The victims of the war may have been Palestinians in Gaza, but the target audience was Israelis. The brutal and largely one-sided war united Israelis, including their self-proclaimed leftist parties in one rare moment of solidarity. Here was proof that the IDF still had enough strength to report military achievements. Of course, Israel’s military strategists knew well that their war crimes in Gaza were a clumsy attempt at regaining national confidence. The tightly lipped politicians and army generals wanted to give the impression that all was working according to plan. But the total media blackout, and the orchestrated footage of Israeli soldiers flashing military signs and waving flags on their way back to Israel were clear indications of an attempt to improve a problematic image. Thus Yossi Peled’s calculated comments on January 23: "In my estimation, understanding and knowledge it is almost clear to me that it is a matter of time before there is a military clash in the north." Further, he claimed that "We are heading toward a new confrontation, but I don't know when it will happen, just as we did not know when the second Lebanon war would erupt." Peled is of course right. There will be a new confrontation. New strategies will be employed. Israel will raise the stakes, and will try to draw Syria in, and push for a regional war. A Lebanon that defines itself based on the terms of resistance – following the failure to politically co-opt Hizbullah – is utterly unacceptable from the Israeli viewpoint. That said, Peled might be creating a measured distraction from efforts aimed at igniting yet another war – against the besieged resistance in Gaza, or something entirely different. (Hamas’ recent announcement that its senior military leader Mahmoud al- Mabhouh was killed late January in Dubai at the hands of Israeli intelligence is also an indication of the involved efforts of Israel that goes much further than specific boundaries.) Will it be Gaza or Lebanon first? Israel is sending mixed messages, and deliberately so. Hamas, Hizbullah and their supporters understand well the Israeli tactic and must be preparing for the various possibilities. They know Israel cannot live without its iron walls, and are determined to prevent any more from being built at their expense. Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.         |
Russell Tribunal on Palestine coming soon Posted: 04 Feb 2010 05:38 AM PST
It is important to mobilize the international public opinion so that the United Nations and Member States adopt the necessary measures to end the impunity of the Israeli State, and to reach a just and durable solution to this conflict. Following an appeal from Ken Coates, Nurit Peled, and Leila Shahid, and with the support of over a hundred well-known international personalities, it has been decided to organise a Russell Tribunal on Palestine. Based on the Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued on the 9th of July 2004 and on the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Organisation, this Russell Tribunal on Palestine is a civic initiative promoting international law as the core element of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Further than Israel’s responsibility, it aims to demonstrate the complicity of Third States and International Organisations which, through their passivity or active support, allow Israel to violate the rights of the Palestinian People, and let this situation be continued and aggravated. The next step will then be to establish how this complicity results in international responsibilities. Through a decentralised functioning, the organisation of public sessions and other public events, the organisation of a Russell Tribunal on Palestine is designed as a large communication event, with widespread media coverage over the tribunal and its outcomes. Indeed, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine having no official mandate, its impact rests on its ability to mobilise public opinion, so that the latter puts pressure on governments to obtain that they change their policies in the ways that are necessary to reach a just and lasting peace in the Middle East First International Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, Barcelona, 1,2,3 March 2010Russell Tribunal on Palestine will be held in Barcelona on 1, 2 and 3 March 2010. The mandate of the Tribunal constituted in Barcelona will be to consider the extent to which the European Union and its member states are complicit in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory and in Israel’s violations of the rights of the Palestinian people. After hearing an account of the breaches of international law committed by the State of Israel, a jury composed of eminent personalities will examine the policy and practice of the European Union and its member states in their relations with Israel, the occupying power, and assess the extent to which the result is compatible with their obligations under international law. On the 3rd of March 2010, the jury will render its conclusions in an international press conference. Six main questions, set out by experts and witnesses, will be submitted to the Tribunal jury. The questions are as follows: 1. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to promote and ensure respect for the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that right? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that right 2. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law vis-à-vis the Palestinian people in the case of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the “Cast Lead” military operation conducted by Israel from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law? 3. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty over their natural resources in the context of Israel’s building of settlements and pillage of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law and right in question? 4. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force and the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination in the case of the annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law, principle and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law, principle and right in question. 5. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law in connection with the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law? 6. In the light of the foregoing, have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law and European law in the context of the agreements signed between the European Union and the State of Israel?
The Heads of States and Ministers of foreign affairs of EU member States, the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the High representative of the EU for Foreign affairs and security Policy Catherine Ashton have also been informed on the holding of the Session of the Tribunal. They have been invited to present, if they wish, arguments for the defence. Source: http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.net/ (thanks Carlos!)  |
Statement of Support for Mohammad Bakri, Director of "Jenin Jenin" Posted: 04 Feb 2010 05:08 AM PST
BACKGROUND: THE DOCUMENTARY: THE COURT CASE: In February 2005, five IDF soldiers who took part in Operation Defensive Shield filed a suit for defamation of character against Bakri. These five soldiers were neither mentioned nor shown in the film. The Judge in the Petah Tikva District Court dismissed the soldiers' case stating that although the film did slander the IDF generally, the five soldiers were not personally slandered. The soldiers' attorney said later that he would consider appealing to the High Court of Justice. In January 2010, Haaretz reported that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who is After a meeting with the fibve soldiers and their families, Mazuz acknowledged that IN DEFENSE OF BAKRI: Mohammad Bakri will be awarded the Free Speech Bear Award at this year's The Mohammad Bakri Defense Committee insists that "the importance of this case Choosing to show the Jenin residents' story is not grounds for censorship. The Committee further adds that "for his artistic integrity and his focus on the Against the backdrop of an illegal occupation of 4.5 million Palestinians in The West In a rare tribute to this personal conviction, it was decided to honour Mohammad Bakri with the Free Speech Award at the Berlinale 2010 through Panorama which showcases new films by established directors. Panorama was established by the well known German Film Director Wieland Speck in 1992. It is in his revolutionary spirit that the award will be presented to Mohammad Bakri. The jury include: Hiam Abbas (The Lemon Tree), Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine), (editor's note: Bakri's site is down, but you can send donations to his defense expenses here: Al-Jisser Group    |
Antoine Raffoul – Why must Palestinians accept post-1967 land theft? Posted: 04 Feb 2010 04:19 AM PST  Mahmoud al-Ramahi, PLC member, Hamas member Dear Sirs, We write to comment on your article in Electronic Intifada 1 February 2010 by Mel Frykberg (below). Many in the academic and political arenas frequently state that somehow the 1967 borders are the 'internationally recognised' borders for the state of Israel. This is presumably because that is what everybody had accepted post the Nakba days when Israel launched its miserable attack and took over the rest of historic Palestine in June 1967. The 1967 borders were no more than Armistice Lines agreed to ensure a cessation of fire at those specific villages, terrains, water wells, farms, hedges, etc. These Armistice Lines have never been recognised as official borders for Israel. The Arab states at the time of Partition did not even accept the Partition of Palestine. The Armistice Lines map shows signatures of individual military negotiators. They were the result of military aggression as were the 1967 borders. Assuming that we have to live with that illegal partition of the country (UNRES 181), why is it that we have to accept that the aggression the zionists launched in 1947-1948 post Partition (which swallowed my birthplace Nazareth) will be rewarded with a de-facto recognition. Why is it that the Palestinians have to compromise for Israel and accept that what was conquered and stolen in 1947-1948 is OK, but insist that the post 1967 aggression is not. Are we simply recognising one rape and neglecting another? The Partition of Palestine was an illegal act imposed on our weak and defenseless people by the force of zionist lobbying and American bribery of nations whose votes were necessary to create a Zionist entity in our midst. If that Partition is a reality by virtue of a UN vote, why should our people accept what the rest of the world takes for granted: 1967. Hamas leaders or Palestinian Authority leaders cannot bestow legality on an act which has never been ratified by the Palestinian people. Individuals do not speak for the masses without a vote. Sincerely, PALESTINE : DEVELOPMENT: HAMAS PARLIAMENTARIAN: "WE ACCEPT EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL WITHIN 1967 BORDERS" By Mel Frykberg, The Electronic Intifada, 1 February 2010 RAMALLAH, occupied West Bank (IPS) – Palestinian politics are at an impasse. The four-year term of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) ended on 25 January with no new elections planned. Presidential elections, meant to be held last year, were also postponed indefinitely. IPS spoke with Dr. Mahmoud Ramahi, a neurosurgeon and secretary-general of the PLC, on the political deadlock.    |
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten