"Jewish Peace News provides a broad scope, an excellent selectivity on Israel, the occupied territories, and related topics. Each item is preceded by a lucid and often witty precis. Even before 9/11, JPN was invaluable in critiquing and countering the official US line; since then it feels indispensable."
- Adrienne Rich
[JPN Commentary: Developments since yesterday’s bombing at a Tel Aviv nightclub have clarified much of what we can expect to see in coming days.
Islamic Jihad has now unequivocally claimed the responsibility for the attack. But the steps toward that claim have been of interest. Some members of the Palestinian Authority had floated the idea of Hizbullah's involvement in the bombing. Hizbullah categorically denied involvement, and there is no evidence linking them to it. But linking Hizbullah to Palestinian militant activity has been a goal of both the US and Israel in recent months and the quick reaction in that direction by some members of the PA is indicative of how eager they are to win the good graces of both the Sharon and Bush governments. Such eagerness, however, is unlikely to play well for the Palestinian public and it will surely undermine support for the PA in the Occupied Territories.
The bomber himself made it clear that this attack was directed at the process that the PA is engaged in with the US and Israel. Meanwhile, Islamic Jihad leaders are saying that they are done with a cease-fire because Israel did not abide by it. This all once again points up the short-sightedness of agreements like the one at Sharm al Sheikh earlier this month. As much as one must always welcome any declaration of a cessation of violence, and we certainly do, agreements have to be built on a foundation of resolving the issues that cause the violence in the first place.
The Sharm agreement echoed the mistakes of the Oslo Accords. Technically, the Palestinians agreed to end their attacks on Israelis. For their part, Israel agreed to cease its military operations against Palestinians. The difference between the two commitments is striking. Israel does not agree to a halt to violence, while the PA does. The PA has much less power to hold up such a commitment, as they are not a full-fledged government, having neither sovereignty over their territory nor full control of either the economy or, more to the point, of military groups. Nor do they have sufficient power or support to simply "lay down the law" toward militant groups. Meanwhile, Israel makes no commitment to a full end of violence. Hence, in the weeks since Sharm, at least half a dozen Palestinians were killed and numerous injured by soldiers and settlers, and this is not, technically, a violation of Israel's agreement at Sharm. While the PA destroyed arms smuggling tunnels in Gaza, they were selling this as a mutual cessation of violence, which it never was. When reality plays out to the contrary on the ground, when in the interim Israel consolidates its hold on major settlement blocs, and when the daily machinations of occupation—home demolitions, arrests and checkpoints, among other things—continue unabated, the agreement cannot and will not bring freedom from violence for anyone.
Meanwhile, the US and Israel push hard on Mahmoud Abbas to provide security for Israeli citizens. It is fair and reasonable to expect a Palestinian leader to be responsible to work to ensure that Israelis are not killed, but only if Israel is similarly willing to ensure that settlers cannot beat and kill Palestinians wantonly and that soldiers do not shoot first and ask later. Above all, no cease-fire can hold unless it is a genuine step toward ending the occupation. Israeli unilateral actions such as building its wall around Ma'ale Adumim, as reported here last week, send a message to the Palestinians that the occupation is not going to end. It is hard to envision what more Abbas, with his limited resources and shaky support can do to please Israel and the US. Significant movement toward ending, not perpetuating or consolidating, the occupation is the only thing that can help Abbas control such actions.
Instead, Israel is freezing its handover of West Bank towns to the Palestinians. While this may be viewed as a "moderate" response, it only further undermines any hope of progress toward ending Israeli military rule over Palestinians. Further, the Israeli statements that they are "evaluating" Abbas' commitment to stopping such attacks flies in the face of a report just this past week by Israeli military intelligence that Abbas was acting in just such a manner. Israel is also said to be preparing military actions against Islamic Jihad, although as of now they are saying that that is not the option they are going to purse. That can, of course, change at any moment. And it is precisely what enemies of peace on both sides desire. The United States is essentially echoing the rhetoric of Israel, holding Abbas to a test rather than giving him their support as they been in the weeks since Sharm.
None of this justifies the murderous attack in Tel Aviv, or even gives it purpose. The attack will only raise the level of violence for all. The unreported deaths of Palestinian children in Hebron and near Ramallah two weeks ago, as well as other violent incidents in the Occupied Territories during that period are just as immoral and criminal as the deaths in Tel Aviv yesterday, and all contribute to an entrenchment of the conflict. They are all acts of murder and must be unequivocally opposed. It is high time that Americans realized that military responses, on either side, only bring more violence for all. There is a way out of this, and it is the ending of the occupation. The alarming statements from Condoleeza Rice, which completely ignore this reality as well as the provocative Israeli actions of the past month make it ever more imperative that Americans speak out and force our leaders to act for peace and veer from their course of perpetuating the conflict.
By starting the process of ending the occupation, we undermine the "justification" for attacks like yesterday's bombing. And if they continue anyway, we will have a Palestinian leadership that has real support for acting against them. But until the occupation ends, any reasonable Palestinian will wonder, even while opposing attacks on Israeli civilians, why their leaders should put the security and welfare of Israelis ahead of the security and welfare of their own people. – MP]
Suicide bomber: My target was the PA
By Amos Harel and Arnon Regular, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service, and News Agencies
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/545147.html
[JPN Commentary: Once again, the horrifying image of a suicide bombing has ripped through Israel. Latest reports (more recent than the article below) indicate four people having been killed and as many as 38 wounded.
Just who the perpetrators of the attack were is unclear. Initial reports had Islamic Jihad taking responsibility, but their spokesperson later denied the group had broken the cease-fire. Another report laid responsibility on the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade. In any case, the attack is clearly a signal to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas as well as to Israel and the United States that at least some of the Palestinian militant groups will be making their own decisions about whether to follow a cease-fire and negotiating process.
This attack is the first of what is likely to be a series of tests of the resolve of Israel and the United States to allow Abbas to act to bring militant groups under control. He has been working in recent weeks to bring Hamas, Islamic Jihad and similar groups inside the Palestinian security apparatus while also arresting many of those groups' activists. Israeli military intelligence reports have praised Abbas' efforts. It is also a test of Abbas' ability to respond to attacks the PA cannot prevent. Initial reports would seem to indicate that Israel and the US are going to allow Abbas to act, and that the PA will be acting. Israel is clearly pushing for the PA to crack down hard on the militant groups, something that Abbas is unlikely to do. The US seems a bit more patient, but only time will tell hwo this plays out.
Meanwhile, leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have stated that they are only temporarily abiding by the cease-fire agreement. They have demanded a larger release of Palestinian prisoners and an Israeli pullback from all major areas of Palestinian population. They have also clearly stated all along that they had little hope of Israel complying with those demands. But this attack, coming as it does in Tel Aviv and being the first attack inside Israel proper since November 1, 2004, is clearly a much stronger statement, and is directed very much at a negotiating process more broadly. Hence the quick condemnation by Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who recognizes that this is as much an attack on the Palestinian leadership as it is on Israelis.
It seems unlikely that the timing of this attack is coincidental. Last weekend Israel decided to revise the route of its wall, bringing it closer to the Green Line in many places. But it will now also enclose Jerusalem and the territory eastward all the way to the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, which means territory on the "Israeli side" of the wall will now stretch through the West Bank nearly to the Jordan River. This bisection of the West Bank along with a barrier between most Palestinians and Jerusalem was provocative, and its being couched inside a decision that is otherwise positive—moving the wall closer to the Green Line—raised concerns among many that the new "peace process" was similar to the old one. Then just yesterday, the Israeli daily Yediot Akhoronot reported that nearly 6,400 new houses were planned for construction in the West Bank settlements. It may be that whatever group set this off was reacting to that.
Whatever the excuse, the act of murder advances no one's cause and cannot be justified by oppression. At the same time, all the parties must do all they can to diminish and eventually stop the violence. It cannot be all on the shoulders of Mahmoud Abbas. Israel needs to stop trying to create facts on the ground, such as walling off Jerusalem and attempting to entrench and expand existing settlements, let alone create new ones. Acts which raise Palestinian anger only make it harder to prevent such attacks. But the path of violence fuels the power of those who want to perpetuate the occupation. The Palestinian Authority must find a way, using carrot, stick or both, to control the groups launching these reprehensible attacks. Only with the two sides working together to bring about a better future for both peoples can violence be kept at bay. – MP]
Blast hits clubbers in Tel Aviv
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4299609.stm
[JPN Commentary: Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has called a halt to the policy of punitive home demolitions of the homes of Palestinian suicide bombers and their families. It is another positive development in recent days.
The particular policy of punitive demolitions has been controversial since its implementation. There is an obvious injustice in having the entire family of any criminal, terrorist or otherwise, pay for the crimes of one individual. The obvious moral question has always been, "How would you feel if you were made homeless because of the crime of your son or your brother or your sister?" Would any of us consider deterrence an acceptable excuse for such a practice, even in time of war? It seems unimaginable that anyone would if we were the subjects of such a policy. Yet somehow, many people seemed able to live with it when it was applied to the Palestinians. That an Israeli military investigation determined that the practice was not even an effective deterrent makes the suffering of 270 Palestinian families affected by the policy in the past two years all the more tragic.
It should be noted that the failure of this policy to deter acts of violence against Israelis is the sole stated reason for the discontinuation of the policy. There is no recognition that making innocent people suffer for the crimes of a family member is simply wrong by any reasonable ethical standard. The closest anyone comes is the former chief of the central Command, Gen. Yitzhak Eitan, who said that the policy actually motivated more violence out of vengeance.
Perhaps of greatest importance, however, is that home demolitions are not usually carried out for punitive reasons. In 2004, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, 184 houses were demolished for punitive reasons, while 1609 were demolished either for permit violations or for "military purposes", which generally means to clear space for settlements, bypass roads or army outposts. The announced change applies only to punitive demolitions.
This does not minimize the fact that any Palestinian home saved from demolition is a welcome development. But there is a very long way to go. The program of home demolitions is central to maintaining the occupation and a major cause of hatred and resentment toward Israelis for Palestinians. It needs to stop entirely. You can help. Jewish Voice for Peace is a key actor in the campaign to get the Caterpillar Corporation to stop selling its bulldozers to the Israeli army for the purpose of home demolition. Join us at www.catdestroyshomes.org. – MP]
Mofaz halts demolition of homes belonging to terrorists
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/541788.html
[JPN Editor note: Two of our editors, Lincoln Shlensky and Rela Mazali, had somewhat different reactions to the article by Gideon Levy below. In a slight departure from our usual format, there are two editor's comments before the article. – MP]
[JPN Commentary: In this scathing essay from Sunday's "Haaretz" (below), journalist Gideon Levy castigates the Zionist Israeli left for four years during which it has remained shockingly silent. The Israeli liberal left failed, he opines, to oppose Israeli military brutality towards the Palestinians even when the evidence of large-scale misconduct was plainly obvious to the rest of the world (with the exception of most American leaders, apparently). What's worse, in tepid statements that have begun to emanate from the liberal Israeli left, the question of responsibility for the last four years of violence remains a tender topic. As checkpoints became the face of Israeli occupation, as olive trees were uprooted, homes bulldozed, an apartheid wall and Jewish-only roads built, as overwhelming lethal force was used in open confrontations and extra-judicial assassinations carried out routinely, Levy wonders how the Zionist left can hold up its head and meekly exclaim that it's time for both sides "to change consciousness and feelings."
The demand for "balance" has long been the bogeyman of peace-making efforts. In my view, it is absolutely necessary to condemn violent and illegal actions carried out by both sides: neither the rampant deaths of civilians in military actions ("collateral damage") nor in suicide bombings can be excused, much less justified. Both Palestinians and Israelis have a collective accounting -- in Hebrew, "heshbon nefesh" -- to do in the wake of such acts, and both parties have grave responsibilities to undertake in settling the conflict. At the same time, Levy points out a salient feature of this conflict that cannot be brushed aside, as much as Israeli and American leaders feel it convenient to do so: there has never been anything like a parity of power in this conflict. One side has always had tremendously superior force at its disposal, and has continued to oppress the other side in the most profound and egregious ways. Palestinians have not been living anything approaching "normal lives" during these last four years. They have been under intense, unremitting and devastating economic, psychological and military pressure. The depth of their suffering is unimaginable to most Israelis, who have continued to lead nearly normal lives, or to anyone else, for that matter. Many Palestinian children and adults will likely suffer post-traumatic disorders for years to come. As their land has been expropriated, their humiliations increased, their access to medical care, schools, and even basic necessities sharply constricted, and their lives made unbearable in thousands of ways large and small, the outside world, like the Israeli liberal left, has simply thrown up its hands.
There has never been any "balance" in the way that this conflict has afflicted the two sides. There is no "balance" in responsibility for the misery: those with the most power always have the greatest latitude to alter the material reality. Nor is there any "balance" in what must be done to relieve the suffering and achieve a just resolution. The occupation must end. It is that simple. And it is this simple but obvious idea that all too often gets shunted aside while the next round of high-profile diplomacy receives the obsequious attentions of the press and politicians. To extend Levy's commentary: when we (Israelis, Americans, Europeans, Arabs, Jews, and citizens of the world) all take our power and responsibilities seriously, we begin to glimpse the still-distant outlines of justice and peace. –LS]
[JPN Commentary: Gideon Levy's work is widely recognized as outstanding in its systematic depiction of the detailed, concrete reality of Palestinian life under Israel's violent occupation. He is one of very few Israeli journalists who consistently expose the crimes and human rights violations committed by Israel, denying the public in Israel and abroad the potential excuse that, "We didn't know". This is not, however, the case regarding the active, anti-occupation movement in Israel. By no means huge, this movement nevertheless comprises many thousands in Israel and has been active in protesting atrocities and demonstrating against various developments throughout and indeed since before the Intifada. However, its actions, almost consistently, go unreported or are seriously underreported. To cite a few random examples from my own first-hand experience: Just weeks into the Intifada, while a good deal of what Levy calls "the Zionist left" was reportedly confused and paralyzed by the narrative of "Barak's generous offer" to which the Palestinians supposedly responded with violence, New Profile and the nascent Coalition of Women for Peace organized a line of 500 women, declaring "We refuse to be enemies," along the Wadi Ara road where, a few weeks earlier, Palestinian citizens of Israel had been shot dead by police. The Hebrew media, including journalists like Levy, did not report the event. Perhaps because it didn't sit well with the theory of the "disoriented left". Later the same year, on the December anniversary of the first Intifada, and again on the June anniversary of the '67 war that began the occupation, thousands marched with the Coalition of Women for Peace in the streets of Jerusalem. Again, the press was silent. Even the arrests of over 20 demonstrators practicing civil disobedience opposite the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv in protest against the closures, was not reported by the press.
Last summer, Levy declared in an op-ed that the refusers' movement, resisting military service, had run its course and was, in practical terms, defunct. I phoned him personally to take issue but failed to change his preconceived idea of what counts as refusal. The definition of refusal presupposed by his piece was limited to openly declared refusal, explicitly protesting the occupation. This form of refusal, though extremely significant, was and is only one of the varied and complex self-definitions of refusal adhered to and practiced by young refusers. Many of these avoid enlisting through various routes, without going to prison or openly confronting the military, only to state their views later through political activism. In any case, though, the broad-based movement of so-called "grey refusal" stretches far beyond these activists, as a significant unfolding social phenomenon which Israeli media dismissively marginalizes and pathologizes under the label of "shirkers". It has and is already affecting military planning in Israel and is gradually changing the face of Israeli society.
Journalists' recurring dismissal, or at best minimization, of the struggling anti-occupation left actively disseminate the public perception that "there is no left", and that "protest makes no difference anyway, there's nothing I can do". It is a distinct case of journalism at least partly forming reality rather than "simply reporting" it, and in fact contributing to both the perception and reality that Levy more or less writes off as "a few small brave organizations". As such, it is, itself, part of the process of erasure and silencing that Levy criticizes in this piece. Granted, the size of the active, radical left in Israel is modest. But the resistance and anti-occupation work throughout the Intifada have been considerably more substantial, present and persistent than their dismissive media reflections. In my view, the media, Levy included, is part of the reason why this resistance has failed to achieve greater numbers and visibility and a broader resonance. – RM]
Good morning to the Israeli left
By Gideon Levy
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/539390.html
