open Democracy News Analysis - Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid, - Comments

eric_5 on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

eric_5 — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:29:21 +0100

According to B'Tselem, 217 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli armed forces in the Occupied Territories this year. The number of Israelis killed in Israel by Kassam rocket attacks, in the same period, is two.

Candace on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

Candace — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:09:04 +0100

I think this declaring of Gaza as a hostile entity business illustrates rather well how a two state solution wont work. for text that disappears or becomes mangled, as the post I just made is appearing to do in parts, highlight it and it reappears.

Candace on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

Candace — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:13:44 +0100

AFP

Quote:

The decision by Israel's powerful security cabinet cleared the way for the government to shut off supplies of electricity and fuel to the impoverished territory -- home to 1.5 million Palestinians -- in response to frequent rocket attacks from Gaza. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Israel needed to answer what she termed daily "terror attacks" on its soil from the Gaza Strip, as she explained the decision at a news conference with Rice. "We made this decision according to our legal advisor, so it is according to international law," she claimed. "It is not going to affect the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip." "The meaning is that even though, when it comes to the humanitarian needs we have our own responsibility, on the other hand all the needs that are more than humanitarian needs will not be supplied by Israel to the Gaza Strip." An Israeli official said the cabinet did not take any immediate decisions to turn off the taps to the crowded territory but that the move "clears the way for the government to do so."

Quote:

We will not abandon the innocent Palestinians in Gaza and indeed will make every effort to deal with their humanitarian needs," Rice said. "Hamas is indeed a hostile entity. It is a hostile entity to the United States as well

alalam news :

Quote:

Putting more than a million Palestinian people under hard pressure, especially in the fasting month of Ramadan, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's office claimed his regime did not intend to provoke a humanitarian crisis. "Additional restrictions will be imposed on the Hamas, limiting the transfer of goods to the Gaza Strip, cutting back fuel and electricity, and restricting the movement of people to and from the strip,'' a statement from Olmert's office said.

Quote:

"It is collective punishment against the people of Gaza, and discourages serious political discussion," said Ashraf Ajrami, a minister in Abbas' government. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, said his group would "confront the new aggression and escalation with all possible means.'' A cutoff of resources, he said, would doom the Washington conference. "If the occupation government considers half of the Palestinian population and land as its enemies, how can we expect any results regarding fundamental issues?'' he asked. The statement claimed the sanctions would be enacted "following a legal review'' and would be designed to avoid "a humanitarian crisis." The decision which is a clear violation of human rights needs no further approval by any authority in the Zionist regime

eric_5 on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

eric_5 — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:04:56 +0100

Richard, This demonstrates, if demonstration is needed, that Israel is (almost) entirely responsible for ending the Occupation. They withdrew settlers from Gaza so that the could pile more settlers, soldiers and militias into the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It was not a step towards peace but to increasing aggression. In addition, the blockade by land sea and air is intensified. I'm sorry to say I have to accuse you of culpable disregard for history, the facts on the ground and the nature of politics. The Roadmap puts first things last. The ending of the criminal occupation of Palestinian territory goes at the end and is very unlikely to take place since, if Israel intended to do it, it could do it immediately. You will note that top priority goes to the ending of 'violence'. It's not the five Israeli deaths that is the problem, regrettable though it may be. It is not the 189 Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands that is the problem. It is the threat of violence, very limited on the Palestinian side and without limits on the Israeli side, which is the problem. The settlements, the Jews-only roads, the checkpoints which cantonize Palestinian Territory are the problem.

Candace on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

Candace — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:46:10 +0100

abdulksaida, Did you? Or, are you talking about my response to your question? First of all I really dont know what is supposed to be negotiated that could actualy be negotiated, it escapes me. I wasnt trying to be persnickety, just very curious. If we are talking about a negotiated just peace (whatever that is) I think the USA and Israel needs to establish trust with certain neighbors of Israels and Iraq that we arent a threat to them, (to help palestinians is to help Israel, and to help Iraqis is to help the US) which I know is impossible with the way things have been going. It would also be helpful to show some respect for international law, then said countries might not need to take matters into their own hands to create stumbling blocks (government sponsored terrorism) for regimes changes and peaceful existance in countries with "puppet" leaders, because there would be some kind of organization that would stop us-that we respected-if we went too far. Possibly? Maybe? Until that is resolved I think all negotiated agreements will be sabotaged. I know I am rambling here, and probably am making little sense, most likely repeating myself, yada yada. talk to you later..

Richard Lawson on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

Richard Lawson — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:00:10 +0100

Eric Thanks for the link. Here is a copy of he Roadmap , 2003. PHASE I: Ending Terror and Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions · Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate end to all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. · Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security with Israel, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians anywhere. · Palestinian institution-building includes drafting a constitution for Palestinian statehood and conducting free elections. · Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied since September 2000, as security progresses, freezes all settlement activity, and dismantles outposts. It takes measures to improve the Palestinian humanitarian situation. PHASE II: Transition · An independent Palestinian state is created with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty. The Palestinian leadership continues to act decisively against terror and to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty. · An international conference will be convened by the Quartet after the Palestinian elections to support Palestinian economic recovery. Multilateral Middle East issues also will be addressed, including water, environment, economic development, refugees, and arms control issues. PHASE III: Permanent Status Agreement and End of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict · Palestinian reform is consolidated and its institutions stabilized while effective security performance is sustained. Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aim at a permanent status agreement in 2005. · A second international conference convened by the Quartet leads to a final, permanent status resolution on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements. It also supports a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria, as soon as possible. This seems a useful point at which to start, conceptually. Are there other points which we would like to see added? What is lacking is the political will to get both sides' leaders moving meaningfully. Democracy assumes that people will start to demand that pressure. My feeling is that popular movements from peace-loving (or even, war-hating) Palestinians and Israelis should get onto the streets and demand an end to violence and a beginning of meaningful action. This should be complemented by demonstrations in our countries to press the US/Israel axis to give way, because of the fear that they are slowly racheting their way, peace agreement by peace agreement, to posessing the whole Land. On the other hand, Israel will say "Well we pulled our settlers out of the Gaza strip and still the raids continued." (OK Ok I know there was a reason for the raids to continue. There always is) My thoughts on nuclear weapons are in the (ill)Logic of Nuclear Deterrence thread. Same thing really: Paranoia distrust and negative emotion drive the nuclear arms race. Logic shows this is unsafe. Reason demands that the money is spent on protecting and healing our life support systems. There is a practical plan available to rid the world of nuclear weapons. . Again the missing ingredient is public protest. People may say, "Well, millions protested against the Iraq invasion, and they went ahead anyway." The reason was, we all went home at 5 o'clock. Demonstrations have to go on for days and weeks to be really effective. PS I use Blogger to make a live link.

eric_5 on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

eric_5 — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:41:53 +0100

Richard, Here is a summary, from the US State Department, of the Roadmap. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/22520.htm Haven't figures out how to make the link live.

eric_5 on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

eric_5 — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:24:33 +0100

Richard, Of course, there is a conceptual destination but there is no way of getting there in current reality. The one-state solution may occur 'in the fullness of time' (or not) but there is no way to get there within the framework of present reality. Altenatively, a withdrawal from Occupied Territory is entirely within Israel's power, but it is actually moving in the opposite direction. The Roadmap is leading towards the legitimization of the settlements and their incorporation into Israel. This will produce an unjust, temporary settlement. This will not hold. I don't say that in the belief that injustice cannot prevail. Of course, it can. But, in this instance, I see no long-term future for a Jewish colony in the Middle East. For one thing, nuclear proliferation will, most likely, lead to conflagration in the Middle East or further afield, with consequences for Israel and American suppoirt for Israel. What are your own thoughts about the likelihood of nuclear conflict?

Richard Lawson on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

Richard Lawson — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:47:46 +0100

eric_5 wrote:

In the longer term, disaster, in the form of a nuclear incident, looms over the region.

Eric This should motivate us, all of us, the whole world at every level from diplomats to women in the street, to work out a solution for the problem. Although individuals have infinitesimal influence on the situation in the short term, in the long term, if there is not peaceful plan available, war will continue, and could go nuclear, as you have said several times. What concerns me is that you seem to have no conceptual route map to peace, just this "nuclear incident" scenario. I take it you mean the Israelis using their weapons - or are you hoping that Iran will come to the "rescue" with theirs? Richard

abdulksaida on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

abdulksaida — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:48:09 +0100

iron mike iam in cyber of not my contry and intent not to post; but reqlly iam amazed to whqt u said: palestiniqns have only rocks as weqpons; and that is avqilable in mountqins so no need to built a wqll for security: sorry i cant proceed now as the country iam in hqs different keyboqrd and it is difficult for me to type: i will post later: note thqt a wqs written as q: candace; u only know:

eric_5 on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

eric_5 — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:39:43 +0100

BigC, That's the title of a book by Jimmy Carter. There's no 'Carter Report' that I'm aware of. For drawing attention to the obvious Apartheid connection, Carter has been thoroughly slandered by the pro-Israel slander machine, being called 'senile', 'anti-Semitic' and god knows what else. The book isn't going to change American policy on Israel.

BigC on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

BigC — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:39:21 +0100

Candace, Salinas's position is that we mustn't offend the sensibilities of the Israeli left by drawing the inescapable parallel with South Africa. Why? What exactly will be achieved by them in the unlikely event of the left prevailing in Israel? The fact is they have already blown what was already a slim chance of a 2 state solution in which their state could exist on its own. Only someone with Arafat's status amongst the Palestinians could have sold them the pig's ear of a settlement which was achieved at Oslo. That window has gone and there is no way that Palestinians will ever accept the Banustan solution which is the best they can hope for if they rely on the "good cop" Israelis. The fact is that Israel is not a stand alone entity which has control of its own fate. It depends entirely on support from the United States and Europe and it is only the opinion in these countries which matters. Jimmy Carter's report is the beginning of the end for US support for Israel. When that happens the only Israelis who matter will be the ones who have the sense to realise that their only hope of a future in Palestine is to negotiate a just peace with the other inhabitants of historic Palestine.

Candace on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

Candace — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:49:20 +0100

Eric, I thought I might not be the only one who was curious about what else Salinas had to say, so I posted that link.

eric_5 on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

eric_5 — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:34:56 +0100

Candace, What Salinas is saying is that even 'progressive' Zionists won't look the truth in the face. The analogy with Apartheid is perfectly legitimate. In fact, it's untrue to say that Israelis don't recognize that.

eric_5 on "Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid"

eric_5 — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:35:55 +0100

Richard, Not pointless I would suggest. Five Israeli deaths is, surely, not too heavy a price to pay for an advance towards grand Zionist strategic aims of taking over the Land of Israel. We have to ask ourselves what the colonizing power wants. The Quartet Road Map seems likely to offer legitimization of Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territory. If not, nothing is lost. Israel continues to hold them illegitimately but unassailably, with US sponsorship. And it gains yet more delay, after decades of procrastination, in which Palestinian society continues to crumble, politically and economically. In reality, an independent, sovereign Palestinian state is inconceivable. In the short term, this leads to a continuation of a one-state Palestine, in which Israel rules over Palestinian bantustans, whatever cosmetic formula is applied to the situation.. In the longer term, disaster, in the form of a nuclear incident, looms over the region.

Palestine: Occupation not Apartheid,

msalinasphd — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:17:04 +0100

Equating the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories to South African Apartheid is a disservice both to the Palestinian Cause and to the Progressive Movement. By Moises F. Salinas, Ph.D.* *Moises Salinas is author of the new book