The Janus-Like Punditry of Nat Hentoff
Friday, November 29 2002 @ 08:39 PM GMT
"The article was a rant, a smear attack, which sounded like it was penned by some shill for Ariel Sharon. It was captioned, 'Israel at Stake on U.S. Campuses,' .."
By William Hughes
In Roman mythology, the God Janus was worshipped as a patron of beginnings and endings. They even named the month of January after him. He had two faces; one in the front, and one in the back of the head.
Recently, the punditry of Nat Hentoff brought Janus to my mind. He wrote two pieces last week which, politically speaking, were diametrically opposed to each other. It was hard for me to believe they were written by the same man, three days apart. How could he, I thought, hold these two views in his head at the same time? The first article was liberal, justice seeking and optimistic; the second, narrow, close minded, indifferent to human suffering and extremely cynical.
His commentary appearing in the Village Voice, (11/22/02), had a very strong progressive bent to it. It was entitled, “Resistance Rising! True Patriots Networking,” and it centered on the growing opposition around the country to the USA Patriot Act. In fact, it was forwarded to me by a long- time peace and justice activist. I wondered, however, if that same activist had seen Hentoff’s second piece, if he would have been so keen to have circulated that first commentary on his email list. I doubt it.
The “Resistance Rising” piece was mostly solid journalism. It praised activists for resisting the new federal criminal law by taking the initiative at the local level to protest it. Hentoff even cited historical American parallels as a precedent. His targets were the Justice Department, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the Defense Department. He omitted, however, citing Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), for laying the infrastructure for the USA Patriot Act in the mid-90s.
The second article, however, was a rant, a smear attack, which sounded like it was penned by some shill for Ariel Sharon. It was captioned, “Israel at Stake on U.S. Campuses,” and it was published by the right wing Washington Times, (11/25/02), a house organ for the syndicated ravings of A. M. Rosenthal and other Israeli Firsters. Its main purpose was to marginalize the growing grass roots movement on college campuses that is advocating for divestment from the apartheid state of Israel.
Francis A. Boyle, a distinguished law professor, human rights activist, and recognized expert on international law, gave birth to the Israeli divestment campaign, on Nov. 30, 2000. The U. of California, at Berkeley, was the first to join up. Since then, more than 50 campuses have come onboard. Boyle predicted that this campaign “can produce an historical reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians- -just as it successfully did between whites and blacks in South Africa.”
Hentoff objected that Israel was being compared with the “formerly apartheid South Africa” in this new campaign. He didn’t try, however, to show, why that would be factually or morally inapplicable. Instead, he primarily made the specious legal argument that Israel was a “selective” target. This is kind of like a mouthpiece for NYC’s late gangster John Gotti complaining about the Feds picking on him, rather then some Chicago mobster. It doesn’t hold up under careful analysis. Hentoff didn’t label the “divestment crusaders” as anti-Semites, but he did charge that some of them are “Jew-haters,” who just wanted to demonize Israel. (Really Nat, I expected better from you.)
Some historical background is in order. In addition to the anti-Apartheid campaign against South Africa, and the ongoing divestment action against Israel, there was another gallant movement in this country that attempted to end human rights violations on foreign shores. This was the MacBride Principles campaign. It was directed at Northern Ireland and led in America by Father Sean McManus, an Irish born priest. It urged that U.S. corporate and governmental investments, in the British-controlled state, be based on a non-discriminatory policy between the Catholic and Protestant communities. I think it’s fair to say, that the MacBride Principles, a federal law since 1998, contributed significantly to the ongoing “Peace Process” in Northern Ireland.
Incidentally, the former South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Palestine, have two major things in common: First, they are all settler colonies; and secondly, the indigenous people in each were viciously persecuted by their colonizers. Alas, it still continues in occupied Palestine.
Hentoff was right to denounce the “suicide bombers,” but he failed miserably to address the massive evils of the Zionist occupation, dating back over 35 years. He made no mention of Israel stealing the land of the Palestinians; bulldozing their homes and orchards; torturing detainees; holding prisoners without trial; operating death squads; or its draconian collective punishment of innocent civilians, itself a war crime.
Hentoff’s apology for Israeli wrongdoing echoed the theme of the Harvard U. president, the overly pious Lawrence H. Summers, on Sept. 17, 2002. Then, Summers used his office as a bully pulpit to do some special pleadings for the Zionist cause. He said that he was a Jew, but he failed to disclose his Zionist identity. I wonder why?
Hentoff was right to call those opposing the USA Patriot Act, the “true “patriots” in America. I think if he had a chance to reconsider his harsh comments about those crusading in this country for justice in an apartheid Israel, he might have also come to the same conclusion about them. They, too, despite the unfair name-calling, are true patriots, who champion the values of our Republic for an oppressed people.
William Hughes 2002. William Hughes is the author of “Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order” (Authors Choice Press) and “Baltimore Iconoclast” (Writer’s Showcase), which are available online. He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com.
-Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).
Back to top
dangerousdna
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 13274
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:48 pm Post subject: Al-Durra Comes Back to Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20021202194055681
Al-Durra Comes Back to Life
Monday, December 02 2002 @ 07:40 PM GMT
"Speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP), his father Jamal Al Durra said: “My son Mohammad did not die. He’s back again .."
GAZA STRIP - Mohammad Al Durra, the little boy who was killed by the Israeli occupation gunfire at the beginning of the Palestinian Intifada, has been resurrected by name.
Mohamed al-Durra screaming
for help, a few moments before
Israeli troops shot him dead
His mother, Amal gave birth to a little boy on Friday, November 29 to a baby boy whom she named Mohammad Al Durra.
Speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP), his father Jamal Al Durra said: “My son Mohammad did not die. He’s back again despite the crimes of the Israeli occupation.”
He added that his son came back on the last Friday in the month of Ramadan and on the International Quds Day. “The Intifada will continue,” said Al Durra.
Jamal now has 7 children, five boys and two girls, the eldest is Eyad, aged 16 and the youngest is the new born Mohammad.
Just moments after France 2 Talal Abu Rahma pictured Al-Durrah September 30, 2000, the 12-year-old boy was shot dead by Israeli occupation soldiers, to become a new martyr for the Palestinian cause.
For 45 minutes, Muhammad's father tried in vain to shield him from Israeli gunfire as they crouched against a concrete wall near Netzarim in the Gaza Strip, BBC’s online news service reported after the tragic event.
The whole scene was caught on camera by France 2 cameraman Abu Rahma, and was played repeatedly on world televisions.
The footage shows the boy's father Jamal al-Durrah waving desperately to Israeli forces, shouting: "Don't shoot". But the terrified boy is hit by four bullets, and collapses in his father's arms and finally slumps across his wounded father's lap.
An ambulance driver who tried to rescue the boy and his father was also killed, and a second ambulance driver was wounded.
The Israeli occupation army admitted, after Abu Rahma’s video footage triggered world indignation, that the shots which killed Muhammad had been fired by its troops, and apologized for his murder.
Abu Rahma’s video footage showed that not only were the boy and his father completely unarmed, but that they were not even part of the rioting, BBC said.
The disturbing footage, which shocked the entire world, was played throughout the Middle East, and on all major U.S. television networks.
A photo still from the video ran on the front page of The New York Times.
The British daily newspaper, The Independent, described it as "an image that will haunt the world as painfully and powerfully" as any of those from the Palestinian Intifada.
-Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).
Back to top
dangerousdna
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 13274
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:45 pm Post subject: A Philosopher in the Trenches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=2002120418345889
A Philosopher in the Trenches: Interview with Ted Honderich
Wednesday, December 04 2002 @ 06:34 PM GMT
“Honderich is the author of the most-translated living philosopher's book on determinism and freedom, ‘How Free Are You?’ .. and the editor of the most-used one-volume reference work of its kind, ‘The Oxford Companion to Philosophy‘ ..”
By Paul de Rooij
LONDON (PalestineChronicle.com) - It is unusual to find philosophers getting into the debate on current events; most of them are safely ensconced in their ivory towers pondering questions of higher importance. It is therefore gratifying to find some philosophers in the trenches tackling questions pertinent to all of us -- trying to understand current events and to untangle the meaning of propaganda-frayed language. Paul de Rooij recently had the opportunity to ask Prof. Ted Honderich some questions pertaining his latest book and the furor surrounding it.
About Ted Honderich: he is a distinguished British philosopher, has been Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University College London, and also taught at Yale and CUNY. He is the author of the most-translated living philosopher's book on determinism and freedom, “How Free Are You?” He is the proponent of an alternative view of the nature of perceptual consciousness, and the editor of the most-used one-volume reference work of its kind, “The Oxford Companion to Philosophy”. His new book “After the Terror” addresses questions raised by September 11. The British branch of Oxfam International recently declined to accept a donation of 5,000 in royalties from the book after a Canadian newspaper raised the issue of a statement made in the book as to the rights of the Palestinians.
Isn’t the issue of the justification of political violence old hat? The UN recognizes the right for an oppressed people to resist. There is an enormous body of work in this area. So, why was it necessary to traverse this ground again? Why did you write “After the Terror”?
I know the UN has recognized the right of peoples to self-determination and to freedom from foreign occupation, and indeed recognized the legitimacy of struggles by national liberation movements. But I have been under the impression that the UN also condemns terrorism. Certainly, its Secretary-General has done so, no doubt on the basis of UN resolutions or the like. So surely the fact of the matter is that the UN doesn't recognize the right of a people to engage in what is now the most common form of resistance and liberation-struggle.
Claiming that the Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism, which I do, can hardly be old hat given the reaction to the claim. If some people readily accept it, some of them out of anti-Semitism, many are shocked or disturbed by it. The moral feelings of people at Oxfam GB were shocked by it, as their public statements clearly show.
As for my reason for writing “After the Terror”, I was like so many of us in being overwhelmed and then thrown into reflection by September 11. In my own case, September 11 also came as a kind of charge against or question about things written by me in the past, notably the book "Violence for Equality: Inquiries in Political Philosophy".
The new book is an account of what you can call the moral state of the world. It is only about Palestine in passing. Only a few pages are on Palestine. The most important thing you come on, in thinking about us and our world, is our omissions rather than our commissions. One large thing we omit to do, most notably in connection with Africa, is to help people with short and even brief lives -- half-lives and quarter-lives. In one sample there is a loss of 20 million years of living time.
This is yet more terrible than what we positively do -- say aid the Zionists, by whom I mean overt and covert supporters of and participants in Israel's ongoing aggression against the Palestinians, the violation and occupation of their homeland.
So what is your definition of terrorism? Isn’t terrorism generally understood to be illegitimate violence? Resistance on the other hand is legitimate, and may employ terrorism as a tactic. So how do you define these terms?
Terrorism has a number of features, but fundamentally it is a kind of violence, which is to say physical force that injures, damages, violates or destroys people or things. It is this: violence with a political and social end, whether or not intended to put people in general in fear, and necessarily raising a question of its moral justification because it is violence -- either such violence as is against the law within a society or else violence between states or societies, against what there is of international law and smaller-scale than war. It is illegitimate in terms of law, but not necessarily in terms of morality.
Terrorism understood in this uncontentious way evidently includes suicide bombings. As evidently, it also includes state-terrorism and cat's paw terrorism.
You say resistance as ordinarily understood is "legitimate". Do you mean it's ordinarily taken to be lawful? Then it itself can’t include terrorism, and I guess it can't employ terrorism. If saying resistance is legitimate means it is morally defensible, which is certainly different, then it can't employ any old terrorism whatsoever, because not all terrorism is morally defensible. But it is obviously possible that some morally justified resistance can employ some morally justified terrorism.
What terrorism do you justify, and how do you arrive at those conclusions?
In the book what I say is morally permissible is the terrorism of the Palestinians in the present situation. It seems to me very similar to the terrorism of the African National Congress against the South Africa of apartheid.
I also say that the only general kind of terrorism that is likely to be justified, in the world as it is, is what you can call liberation-terrorism: the violent struggle of a people to come to freedom and power in their own homeland. The likely justification depends importantly on the fact that the suffering that is caused does have a probability of success. What is wrong with other terrorism is that it is the causing of suffering for no probable gain, with no reasonable hope.
You will notice that what I have said does not amount to a complete answer to the question of what violence is justified. I don’t have one worked-out. What does seem to me clear is that the Palestinians have a moral right to their struggle. It seems to be a fact about morality that one can be sure of a particular moral proposition, a particular case, without having a complete answer to the large and general question in the neighborhood.
How do I arrive at the conclusion about the Palestinians? Well, I have a lot of reasons. The book gives various premises for the conclusion. One is my fundamental moral principle, which is the Principle of Humanity, about taking rational steps to getting people out of bad lives. Another is that the Israelis certainly claim a moral right to their state-terrorism and perhaps war. In consistency, which is necessary to actually saying anything, the Palestinians can claim the same, and they can do it truthfully.
Another reason for their moral right is that 50 years of history have proved that the Palestinians have no alternative whatever to terrorism in trying to secure freedom and power in their homeland. What they were offered in the Clinton negotiations at Camp David was not a state, but, if anything, a dog's breakfast of a state. That is proved, incidentally, by the fact that everybody now speaks of their need for a viable state.
But still more has to be said in support of the moral right, and can be. There is no simple proof of the claim about their moral right. That is because there are no simple proofs in morality.
What do you think elicited the criticism of your book? How has your book been received in academic circles?
The book has been seriously and respectfully received in meetings in nine universities here and in America, including Oxford and Columbia. There has been a little Zionist fuss, but not much. That has to be kept in mind when thinking about the Oxfam business. As for newspaper reviews, for starters, The Guardian lauded it, The Times said it was the best reflective book on 9/11, and The Sunday Telegraph, owned by the man who also owns The Jerusalem Post, said it was the worst book ever written. All of those three reviews, to my mind, given the newspapers in question, proved I must have written something decent.
Your arguments are ahistorical. Isn’t the historical context crucial to understanding violence?
I don't quite understand what you mean by saying that my arguments are ahistorical. The way the argument goes forward is pretty typical for a moral philosopher. It is a kind of logical sequence, but most certainly it does not ignore history. Another principal premise for my conclusion about the moral right of the Palestinians is that they have indeed been treated horrifically in their homeland for 50 years. Population figures I give in the book for Arabs and Jews at various stages overwhelm the familiar stuff about who did what in what year in terms of massacres, negotiations and the like. The Palestinians are right to say they are the Jews of the Jews.
My reflections are an attempt to try to give a good argument for a moral conclusion about what is right and what we ought to be doing. To do so is not just to engage in historical explanation, of course, but historical explanation must enter into the thing.
In the context of the Middle East violence is usually referred to as “terrorism”. This word has become very politically charged, and its meaning has changed from its dictionary definition. Has terrorism become the violence of the “other”, actions that don’t require explanation? How do philosophers cope with words whose meaning keeps changing - aren’t you dealing with a moving target?
Of course the word has been kidnapped by the Israelis above all, and used just for the violence of the Palestinians. "Democracy" is used as mindlessly -- you might add as viciously. "Terrorism" is also used in such a way as to suggest wholly irrational evil and whatever else. That is pretty obvious. It is also one of the facts that affected me in the writing of my book. I was outraged by the endless parade of Israeli government spokesmen on television going on about the unspeakable terrorism of the Palestinians and the murdered children of the Israeli democrats. It turned my stomach, as it did many other stomachs.
But that is not to say that changes in uses of a word, and a word’s being kidnapped, stand in the way of using it correctly. To my mind, I do that. This is more or less necessary to actual thinking. It is also necessary to strong argument. You just weaken your argument, on whatever side you are, by self-serving definitions. It is plain that pretending that terrorism can exist only on the other side is usually lying in the aid of killing, maybe killing in the aid of taking more of another people's land.
You mean that Israel is not a democracy?
I don't meant that. It is a hierarchic democracy, like the hierarchic democracies of the United States and Britain. But that you are a democracy, even a better one, most certainly doesn't legitimate you in anything like the sense of making all your actions and policies right, or even your main actions and policies. No chance whatever of that. Did anybody even say it who was actually thinking about the matter rather than engaged in doing something else?
After the recent Palestinian attack in Hebron, the Israelis engaged in a wave of “retaliation”, and people living in Gaza, totally unrelated to the original attack, were targeted. One Israeli soldier was quoted as saying that “none of them are innocent.” On the other hand, when a terrorist attack occurs in the West the condemnations always refer to “innocent” civilians. What do you make of this, and are there any innocent civilians? Does the civilian’s responsibility for actions of their state diminish their innocence?
I think that lying is a part of such conflicts as the Palestinian one. It enables people to do unspeakable things. They should say and let themselves know what they are doing. This comment applies to both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israelis and the Palestinians should not engage in awful stuff about young children not being “innocent”. Of course and unquestionably, these children and some other people who have been killed are innocent in an ordinary sense.
These truths cannot possibly be overlooked, and nor can they be taken by themselves to decide the main questions. To take but one example, we British did not take it that our terror-bombing of Germany in World War 2, which in fact was called just that, was wrong because it killed innocents and civilians and children. Remember Hiroshima too.
Israelis often justify their violent actions as a deterrent. Pulling out of Lebanon without gaining anything was seen as weakness, thus encouraging the Lebanese resistance. The other side of this story is that any Palestinian action must be met 100X as a deterrent. So, is there any merit to the deterrence argument?
I don't quite see what this comes to. You can engage in deterrence, so-called, in a good cause, and you can engage in it in a bad cause. To the extent that the Israelis are engaging in deterrence, they are engaged in wholly wrongful deterrence. What they are trying to do is to destroy the desire and will of a people to be free in the place to which they have a moral right.
In the media, the Israelis are always portrayed as “responding” or “retaliating,” thus justified in their actions. Palestinian actions are never described this way. Can there be a “cycle of violence” with only one party “responding”? Furthermore, Israeli violence is usually unrelated to original Palestinian action, and it is usually called “collective punishment.” So, do the Israelis have any justification for their violence in this case?
There is all this use of language to a particular purpose, a wrongful purpose. The main one, of course, as already mentioned, is the use of the term “democracy” in such way as to suggest that what a democracy does must be right, and the use of the word “terrorism” in such a way as to suggest or declare that this terrorism is always wrong or barbarous. It is just self-serving commandeering of language.
What is most important about it is that it does not amount to serious moral argument. Nor will it in the end be decisive. It seems to me that just about everybody in the world, including all supporters of Israel, do in fact see through this vile stuff. Vile stuff with a vicious purpose.
As for whether Israel does in fact have an argument for its own existence, it seems to me very clear that it does. It also has an argument for defending itself, where that actually means what the word “defending” does mean. It does not mean attacking somebody else in order to seize more land. What Israel does not have an argument for, whatever wretched terminology and talk it goes in for, is the taking of more and more land beyond its justified borders, these to my mind being its borders before 1967.
Amnesty International in their latest report [1] recently stated: “Israel has the right and responsibility to take measures to prevent unlawful violence [referring to Palestinian violence]. The Israeli government equally has an obligation to ensure that the measures it takes to protect Israelis are carried out in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law.” What do you think of the first sentence, and isn’t it in contradiction with the second sentence?
I think this stuff from Amnesty as it stands is typical unreflective moralizing, avoiding the issue. What Israel ought to do is give up, withdraw from the homeland of another people. That is the main thing.
How they do this, how they go about protecting Israeli lives and what they do to Palestinians in the process, is a secondary matter. It is a large matter, but a secondary matter. Needless to say, they should cause the least possible suffering and death, to the Palestinians and themselves.
Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have proscribed any violence against civilians, settlers, and even off duty soldiers. Violence in Israel is proscribed completely. It seems that Palestinians are only allowed to fight one of the most powerful armies in the world within the occupied territories. What do you make of this?
Probably I disagree with it. I guess I disagree with it. My view of the Palestinians’ moral right to their terrorism is most confident with respect to the occupied territories, but I also extend it to Israel itself.
Amnesty equates the nature of the violence perpetrated against Israelis and Palestinians. That is, it will condemn to the same degree when an Israeli is killed, and when a Palestinian is killed. It also calls on “both parties to respect human rights, and to make human rights central to their agenda.” Is AI’s stance valid?
Everyone should object to the terrible “even-handedness” of such statements as the Amnesty one. Everyone should choke on such attempts at “balance”. In an ordinary sense of the words, there is no place at all for even-handedness and balance in actually dealing with the rapist engaged in the rape of the woman with a knife at her throat. The rapist has no rights that bear significantly on the question of whether he should stop or be stopped. The analogy with Israel is not a wild one, but exact.
If Amnesty were taking the view that any killing is as bad as any other killing, it would be taking a view that is denied by all of history. If it is saying that you can settle any question of killing by making a declaration of a right to life, that is nonsense. It has the upshot, to mention but one, that it would have been wrong to kill a single German guard in order to save a thousand Jews from death in gas chambers in a concentration camp.
A few months ago Cherie Blair, the wife of the current British Prime Minister, stated: “As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress.” This seemingly bland statement elicited a barrage of criticism, and a statement from the Prime minister’s office announced that she retracted the statement, and apologized for it. So, why do you think her bland statement elicited this response?
It elicited this response as a result of Israeli and Zionist activity. There is no puzzle about that. Cherie Blair's statement did not elicit the response because people in general thought the comment was terrible. In fact, probably, most people thought the opposite.
I understand that you recently arranged to donate 5,000 ($8,000) to Oxfam GB, and that this was then rejected on account of the statement in your book about the moral right of the Palestinians. Why did Oxfam refuse your donation?
Well, there was a Zionist threat. But I think Oxfam could pretty easily have accepted the 5,000 without thereby losing a larger amount of money as a result of Zionists or others not making donations. Oxfam could have done this by declaring that it would not dream of endorsing or agreeing with my view, which it hated, but that regretfully Oxfam was obliged legally and morally to save 2,000 lives, the lives of 2,000 dying children, by taking the money. This is just obvious. Those who suggest otherwise are trying to avoid a clear truth, for whatever reason.
So what happened has some other explanation in place of or in addition to the Zionist threat. You get to it by reading Oxfam’s own statements. What it comes to is that some people -- certainly not all -- in the Oxfam GB office in Oxford were disturbed or outraged by my view. They were upset, as I said in answer to an earlier question.
That is all right by me. Philosophers are used to disagreement. What isn’t all right is allowing more people to die for certain of your conventional moral feelings. That is neither a legal nor a moral possibility for Oxfam. Its objects, which are defined in the foundation document lodged with the Charity Commission, do not include refuting moral philosophers it thinks are mistaken. In particular it can't do this if it reduces their income to serve their real objects of saving lives and preventing suffering.
Mr. John Whitaker, the Deputy Director of Oxfam GB, who has taken responsibility for the decision to turn away the 5,000, should resign. If he does not, he should be relieved of his duties by the Trustees of Oxfam, who have authority over the charity.
There is also the fact that Oxfam’s acting on the moral feelings of some of its officers raises a bigger question not about their raising of money but their use of it. In particular, it raises a question about their policy with respect to Palestine. For a start, this is a matter of their political activity, which is one of their stated policies, and their literature. Why aren't they putting out a lot of forceful and effective literature against the violation of Palestine? Why is this missing from the stuff we all get in our mailboxes?
Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com. He will forward legitimate emails to Prof. Honderich.
Notes:
1. Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus, Nov. 4, 02
2. There is an extensive account of the Oxfam dispute by Ted Honderich at www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/ATTOxfam1.html
-Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).
Back to top
dangerousdna
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 13274
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:53 pm Post subject: Israel Plans Increased Settlement Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20021204194538493
Israel Plans Increased Settlement Activity
Wednesday, December 04 2002 @ 07:45 PM GMT
"A spokeswoman for Housing Minister Nathan Sharansk said that a tender for the construction of 150 new houses in the large settlements .."
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM - The Israeli housing ministry and the illegal so-called Settlers Council in the occupied Palestinian Territory have drawn up a plan for increased settlement activity in the West Bank over the next three months, the Israeli daily Ma’ariv reported on Tuesday.
The plan provides for dozens of new houses to be built in 14 different settlements, creating facts on the ground in isolated settlements, which Israel’s Labor party says it wants to dismantle if it wins the January 28 legislative elections.
The plan was drawn up during a meeting between Settlers Council chairman Bentzi Lieberman and Avi Moz, the director general of the housing ministry, Ma’ariv said.
A spokeswoman for Housing Minister Nathan Sharansk said that a tender for the construction of 150 new houses in the large settlements of Ariel and Efrat, northeast of Tel Aviv and south of Jerusalem respectively, had been issued two months ago.
However she denied that such a plan had been agreed. "The ministry does not plan any stepped up development ahead of the elections," she told AFP.
According to Ma’ariv, the housing ministry initiated the construction of a record 1,894 new housing units in the West Bank, more than twice the 2001 figure.
Some 210,000 Jewish settlers live in 160 settlements across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while another 200,000 live in the 12 settlements in occupied and annexed east Jerusalem.
Coinciding with Ma’ariv’s report, Israel's military chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon said Tuesday he opposes any dismantlement of any Jewish settlements.
"If we dismantle a settlement while under fire, hoping to spare military forces, we will achieve the opposite (of security)," he said, speaking at the annual Herzliya conference on “The Balance of Israel's National Security”.
"We will have to deploy much larger forces because a dismantling will galvanize the Palestinian struggle," he added.
His comments were a clear response to opposition Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna's proposal for the dismantling of all settlements in the Gaza Strip and some isolated settlements in the West Bank.
A ‘roadmap’ for peace in the Middle East being drawn up by the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia demands a freeze of settlement activity and the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005.
Illegal Jewish settlement of Palestinian territory under the protection of the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) since 1967 has been the hardcore of Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Since Palestinians and Israelis signed the Declaration of Principles in Washington in 1993 the number of illegal Jewish settlements and settlers almost doubled in occupied Palestinian territories.
US Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer on Tuesday reiterated US opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Settlement activity has "severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope. It pre-empts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations and in doing so cripples chances for real peace and security," Kurtzer told a conference on national security near Tel Aviv.
-Palestine Media Center (http://www.palestine-pmc.com/). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).
Back to top
dangerousdna
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 13274
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:55 pm Post subject: Eid is Thursday in Palestine: Mufti
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20021204181103992
Eid is Thursday in Palestine: Mufti
Wednesday, December 04 2002 @ 06:11 PM GMT
"The announcement was made during a news conference in Jerusalem this evening .."
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM - The Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, announced on Wednesday that Thursday will be the first day of Eidul Fitr which marks the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.
The announcement was made during a news conference in Jerusalem this evening.
Sabri said that the new moon of the lunar month of Shawwal was cited in Palestine and several other Muslim lands, thus marking the end of Ramadan.
Neighboring Jordan and Saudi Arabia and a number of other Middle Eastern countries have also announced that occurrence of Eidul Fitr will be tomorrow.
Back to top
dangerousdna
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 13274
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:02 pm Post subject: Intrntl UN Workers been verbally abused,stripped,beaten
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20021204171525491
Statement From International UN Workers Operating In Occupied Palestinian Territories
Wednesday, December 04 2002 @ 05:15 PM GMT
"'UN staff - international and Palestinian alike - have been verbally abused, stripped, beaten, shot at and killed by Israeli soldiers ..'"
December 3,2002
To whom it may concern,
We, the undersigned, are staff members of the United Nations, but we write in our personal capacities. All of us work in the West Bank and Gaza Strip bringing badly needed humanitarian relief to a population in distress. In the course of our duties we have witnessed much tragedy on both sides of the conflict. We have come from all over the world to work, without bias or favour, to try to alleviate some of the pain and suffering that has for too long afflicted this land.
Now we find that, once again, tragedy has touched us. For us, expressions of sadness and grief are not enough. The diplomatic language of the bureaucrat will not suffice. We write to express our absolute condemnation at the senseless killing of Iain Hook in Jenin on November 22. Based on publicly available information, we condemn the Israeli army in the strongest possible terms for this wanton act against an unarmed man - a man shot in the back by a military sniper while negotiating with the Israeli army to evacuate the women, children and UN staff who were in the UN compound at the time.
Our condemnation is reinforced by the knowledge that the soldiers refused to allow an ambulance called to evacuate Iain to travel the last few yards needed to reach him. Instead, UN staff here forced to seek an alternative route to rescue him. This caused a delay and made sure that the work done by a bullet was completed by the Israeli army's refusal to respect the most elementary standards of humanity.
The shock of that day's events does not come in isolation. For two years, United Nations staff have been subject to escalating harassment and violence by Israel's military, so that the protection supposed to be afforded by the blue letters of the UN is being steadily eroded.
UN staff - international and Palestinian alike - have been verbally abused, stripped, beaten, shot at and killed by Israeli soldiers. There has been armed interference with UN employees and vehicles, including attacks on UN ambulances and medical personnel. UNRWA schools, health clinics and offices have been hit by bombs, rockets, tank shells and gunfire even during daytime, thereby endangering the lives of staff and, in the case of schools, the lives of refugee children. Buildings occupied by UN staff have been repeatedly damaged during Israeli airforce bombing.
Tragically Iain Hook was not the first person working with the UN to die at the hands of the IDF this year. In March, Kamal Hamdan was shot and killed while travelling in a clearly marked UNRWA ambulance in the West Bank.. In April, Husni Amer died in Israeli military custody in Jenin after, according to witnesses, receiving a brutal beating by the soldiers at the time of his arrest. From its silence, we presume the Israeli authorities have ignored UN requests for an investigation and report of these two incidents, and have not seen fit to take any disciplinary action against the soldiers involved. To us, this seems to confirm a pattern of utter contempt on the part of the Israeli army for the lost lives of these men, the safety of UN staff or the minimum standards imposed by international law which should protect UN staff and other humanitarian workers.
The official military spokesperson's statement on the initial investigation into Iain's killing asserts that shots were fired from UNRWA's compound in the Jenin refugee camp towards Israel's forces. This contradicts eyewitness accounts of our colleagues in Jenin and the information relayed to UNRWA's Field Office by Iain just prior to his death. The most charitable characterization one can make of this statement is that it lacks any credibility. To us, it has all the makings of propaganda designed to tarnish the reputation of the UN, excuse the killing of an unarmed man and perpetuate the false charge that UNRWA shelters terrorists, in the public mind. We strongly request that any investigation carried out by the Israeli government will be independent, transparent and impartial. We strongly request that the Israeli government will bring those responsible for Iain's killing promptly to justice. Only the most lawless societies allow gunmen in uniform the impunity to kill aid workers without fear of punishment.. We are confident Israel does not wish to see its troops painted in the same colours as the militiamen who have stalked some of the world's other conflicts.
As UN staff, we expect the protection of the Israeli government to enable us to undertake our humanitarian responsibilities wherever they are needed. This is not a matter of courtesy or favour, but rather an implementation of Israel's own obligations under international law and its express commitment to UNRWA to facilitate the Agency's operations in the occupied territories.
Israel's often stated regret at the loss of civilian lives is not an impervious shield that can deflect all criticism. It is a shield that is, in our view, tarnished by the attempts of Israeli spokespersons to link Iain's death to wider political issues or to claim that the UN was somehow culpable for his killing. In these tragic circumstances, rather than easily uttered regrets, we expect the Israeli Government take the necessary steps to stop the harassment, beating and killing of UN staff. We expect respect and protection as United Nations employees. As international staff members, we hope and expect to return alive to our own countries and families after our work here is done. We hope and expect no less for our Palestinian colleagues so they can live and work in safety until the parties to the conflict eventually find the road to peace.
Sally Airs, Australia; Naomi Ando, Japan; Ignacio Artaza Zuriarrain, Spain, Alan Barnie, Australia Peter Bartu, Australia Pamela Bell, USA Susan Brannon, USA Marlise Brenner, Australia Deidre Connolly, USA Marisa Consolate Kemper, Canada Joanna Corbin, UK B. Scott Custer Jr., USA Omar Dajani, USA Calvin Dasilvio, USA Isabelle dela Cruz, Germany Marc De la Motte, Italy-France Mark Dennis, USA Ray Dolphin, Ireland Juliet Dryden, UK Teresa Fallarme, Philippine Jean-Marie Frentz, Luxembourg Christopher Gabelle, UK Jagannathan Gopalan, India Philippe Grandet, France Pentti Hakonen, Finland Roger Hearn, Australia Grigor Hovmannisyan, Armenia Thierry Kaiser, France Sima Kanaan, Jordan Elizabeth Kawambwa, Tanzania.
Jan Kolaas, Norway Antje Kunst, Germany Marc Lassouaoui, France Brett Lodge, Australia Ali Mahmuda, Canada Henrik Mathiesen, Norway Carlos Mazuera, Columbia Paul McCann, UK Amanda Melville, Australia Severine Meyer, France Zeina Mogarbel, Spain Merethe Nedrebo, Norway Gustav Nordstrom, Finland Patrick O'neil, Ireland Melissa Parke, Australia Joachim Paul, German Alex Pollock, UK Gerhard Pulfer, Austria Timothy Rothermel, USA Sam Rose, UK Ehab Shanti, Canada Shahwan Huda, Jordan Jean-Luc Siblot, France Guy Siri, France Elna Sondergaard, Denmark Juerg Staudenmann, Switzerland Angelo Stefanini, Italy Gretta Van Bleek, Netherlands Arjan Van Houwelingen, Netherlands Andrew Whitley, UK Hanna Wintsch, Switzerland Cecilia Wreh-McGill, USA Ros Young, UK Kirsten Zaat, Australia
-Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).
Back to top
dangerousdna
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 13274
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:12 pm Post subject: Celebrate but Don’t Forget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20021204193326496
Celebrate but Don’t Forget
Wednesday, December 04 2002 @ 07:33 PM GMT
"Meandering through a shopping mall last week I saw mothers happily buying dresses for their daughters. Unbidden, my mind was filled with images of Palestinian children dressed in rags .."
By Khaled Al-Maeena
Today is Eid Al-Fitr, an occasion to feel joy and be glad. But this year I approach the holiday like a sleepwalker, stumbling through a never-ending nightmare. The city of Jeddah is filled with bright lights and merrymakers, but I have no festive spirit within me.
As a journalist, year after year I have been forced to bear witness to man’s inhumanity to mankind. When I first began, it was a job, a challenge to report the better story, to get there first and dig deepest. Details of destruction were nothing more than words on a page, may Allah forgive my ignorance and youth.
Now my consciousness is overwhelmed with the litany of daily horrors. The sad stories that appear in Arab News are but a drop in the bucket of global misery. Four Palestinian children are killed in one day. We print the photo of one. An Afghani child loses his legs to a mine. We don’t report it. There’s no space on our pages. He’s just another victim, one of many. Chechens are dying by the dozens. International news agencies no longer choose to hear their screams, see their tears or even remember that they exist.
Not only is the agony flashing across monitors in the newsroom, people from near and far reach out directly for assistance. The Internet has changed the way we communicate. Every hour, pleas for aid arrive through e-mail. “Find a way to educate my son,” writes one mother. “My baby needs surgery or she will die,” writes another. “My son has been detained by the Israelis. He is our only support,” explains a third. I try to help them all, but I cannot work miracles, and the need is tremendous.
So I go out and walk to give my mind a rest. Meandering through a shopping mall last week I saw mothers happily buying dresses for their daughters. Unbidden, my mind was filled with images of Palestinian children dressed in rags. I passed a confectionery filled with cakes and sweets of every kind. In a trick of light, the dirty, desperate faces of Muslim refugees appeared as shadows on the shop’s windows. Teens loitered on corners, laughing and telling tales. I thought of the young Palestinians, whose only crime was breathing, detained in concentration camps by the Israelis.
“Be happy!” my friends tell me. “It’s Eid.” Instead, my soul mourns. I am surrounded by a society on a constant quest to shop and spend. People here never seem to have enough, no matter how much they have. In the final days of Ramadan the souks were packed till 3 a.m. What happened to the concept of praying on Ramadan nights for forgiveness? Where was the time for soul searching and quiet contemplation? When I opened my mouth to object to all the materialism in our midst, people told me to lighten up, that I was taking life far too seriously. “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” they advised.
Bullets and bombs are definitely small. The minds of many politicians are often even smaller. A baby starved to death becomes really tiny. Explosives can blow homes and people to little bits. Foreign policy in some nations has been reduced to sound bites. In our world, hope has shriveled and peace has been dwarfed by war. But don’t worry about the small stuff! It’s the big picture that’s really depressing.
This morning, while many of us were dressed in fine raiment, touching our foreheads to soft rugs and returning to lavish breakfasts and warm beds, around the world millions of people were caught up in inescapable suffering. Just closing our eyes to their misery will not make it disappear. Sadly, we do not even have to look far to find those in need. Families in our own land live in poverty, clinging to the scraps of their dignity in a nation of abundance.
Our world is a troubled place, filled with loss and pain and tears. Is this all the future holds for us? Eid Al-Fitr is about sharing our goodness with others. Let this day be a new beginning in your life. Take a vow to reach out to all with kindness, tolerance and compassion. Remember the joy of giving. Nurture your spirituality. Perhaps you’ll find that caring for others brings more pleasure and rewards than caring about yourself ever did. Sounds too sentimental and idealistic? Does a world filled with violence and fear sound better? Eid Mubarak.
The author is the editor-in-chief of Arab News
Back to top
Pinnochio
Joined: 29 Sep 2002
Posts: 505
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2002 1:54 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Jewish Renewal Understanding of the State of Israel
By Rabbi Michael Lerner
Jews did not return to Palestine in order to be oppressors or representatives of Western colonialism or cultural imperialism. Although it is true that some early Zionist leaders sought to portray their movement as a way to serve the interests of various Western states, and although many Jews who came brought with them a Western arrogance that made it possible for them to see Palestine as "a land without a people for a people without a land," and hence to virtually ignore the Palestinian people and its own cultural and historical rights, the vast majority of thsoe who came were seeking refuge from the murderous ravages of Western anti-Semitism or from the oppressive discrimination that they experienced in Arab countries. The Ashkenazic Jews who shaped Israel in its early years were jumping from the burning buildings of Europe--and when they landed on the backs of Palestinians, unintentionally causing a great deal of pain to the people who already lived there, they were so transfixed with their own (much greater and more actue) pain that they couldn't be bothered to notice that they were displacing and hurting others in the process of creating their own state.
Their insensitivity to the pain that they caused, and their subsequent denial of the fact that in creating Israel they had simultaneously helped create a Palestinian people most of whom were forced to live as refugees (and now, their many descendents still living as exiles and dreaming of "return" just as we Jews did for some 1800 plus years), was aided by the arrogance, stupidity and anti-Semitism of Palestinian leaders and their Arab allies in neighboring states who dreamt of ridding the area of its Jews and who, much like the Herut "revisionists" who eventually came to run Israel in the past twenty years, consistently resorted to violence and intimidation to pursue their maximalist fantasies.
cont/d....
http://www.tikkun.org/renewal/index.cfm/action/israel.html
