Palestinian in Exile

The Wall mentality
IN 1923 Vladimir Jabotinsky, who came to be one of the enthusiasts of the Zionists right, wrote an essay titled "The Iron Wall". In this article Jabotinsky, advocates that Zionists' policy towards the Arabs of Palestine and the region should be an Iron Wall policy, a policy based on total isolation from the Arabs of the region which would inevitably force the Arabs to negotiate concessions with the Zionists.Whether metaphorical or physical, walls are the most disgusting expression of separation from others. They are abrupt to the natural flow of things, and in essence they contradict with equality and justice. In that article Jabotinsky claims that his attitude to the Arabs is "polite indifference." But this exactly is when people lose their humanity. Because when you are indifferent to a whole people and you happen to rule them, then you are bound to also be indifferent to their needs, concerns and discrimination against them.Well, after the Great Apartheid Wall of Israel, Israelis seem to have got a kick out of the idea. Residents of Moshav Nir Zvi began the construction of a wall that will separate the Moshav land from the Arab neighbourhoods of Lod. The Wall was approved by the government in 2002, and construction began but it has now stopped pending a court order.If this mentality rules Israel now, then what can you expect to see in 20 years?

Fundamentalism brings no benefits to Syria

The “blame Syria” game is in full swing again as the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr Al Bared succumbs slowly and painfully to a battle begun a couple of months ago. Under shelling by an increasingly desperate Lebanese army, overwhelmed by the loss of over 100 soldiers as it tries to defeat the obscure militant group of Fatah Al Islam, taking untold Palestinian civilian casualties in the process, the crumbling camp continues to harbor militants of various nationalities as different theories about their origins, and their sponsors, have been offered. Pan-Arab, Saudi and Lebanese media backing the government of Fouad Siniora have been adamant about the Syrian connection, reporting the alleged confessions of captured militants who spilled the beans about their close ties to the highest echelons of the Syrian regime, in astonishingly detailed accounts reminiscent of the first Mehlis report. In order to destabilize Lebanon even further, according to sources unbothered with the burden of proof, the Syrians have planned and executed the entire succession of events in Tripoli, after having financed and armed the group. Syria, already implicated in the financial, logistical and political support of a rather wide range of actors in the region, ranging from all the constituents of the so-called Shia crescent (including Hezbollah) to the strictest Sunni radicals (including Hamas) – all of which denounced Fatah Al Islam – is thus supposedly directly behind every anti-Siniora/Hariri/Saudi/American incident (in Lebanon, in Iraq, and elsewhere). In fact, the attempted “Syrianization” of all regional trouble-making elements is experiencing such a surge of its own that known journalists, writing in Saudi media, are now even trying to re-brand international enemy number one, Osama Bin Laden, as “not really Saudi since his mother is Syrian.” Even though some would argue that Lebanon was unstable enough for Syria’s taste as it is, unverified hypotheses implicating Syria in the Nahr Al Bared standoff are by no means impossible. After all, there is no reason why the Syrian regime can’t be as miscalculating, and as unwise, as the British (initial sponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood as a counterforce to undesirable Arabism), the Israelis (crucial backers of the creation of Hamas, which was supposed to counterbalance inconveniently popular secular Palestinian militants) or the Americans (trainers, cheer leaders and chief financiers of the Mujahideen, of future Al Qaeda fame, fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan). Indeed, promoters of religious fundamentalism as a tool against the villain of the day have acted at their own peril, subsequently paying the price for such selfish folly; the various supporters of Siniora are no exception, especially as the pillars on which the Lebanese government leans (especially Saudi Arabia) have been directly involved in such gambles. Some observers have presented theories conflicting with the anti-Syrian narrative; whether to gather support during election time, or to challenge Shia groups, the Hariri movement – with the blessing of Saudi Arabia and the US - has allegedly courted Sunni Islamists in northern Lebanon and directly financed groups in Tripoli and Akkar. If true, it is not clear why the whole scheme backfired, but financing problems have been mentioned as issues of contention, in addition to the unforeseen radicalization of the groups. Competing speculations notwithstanding, the Lebanese state, and the Lebanese army, have proven themselves to be impotent in the face of adversity resulting from foreign meddling and assault, or from internal disturbance and insurgence. From a strategic point of view, regardless of its own involvement or lack thereof, this initially favors the Syrian regime as it attempts to re-impose its weight on the Lebanese arena. Seen from Damascus, the freeze in the political process (a freeze to which Syria was a major contributor) and the incapacity of the Lebanese state to defend itself during successive confrontations (first with Israel in 2006, and now with Al-Qaeda inspired groups) have reinforced the official Syrian argument for a strong affiliation between the two countries. However, a weak Lebanese state, without Syria’s “protection,” is counter-productive for Damascus and creates risky challenges. While any incident weakening the hand of Hariri’s movement can only be good news for the Syrians at the moment, there are clear dangers to the trend of fundamentalist groups starting to take matters into their own hands. This is an issue that the Syrian regime should find worrying, especially as religion-based extremist ideologies are spreading on either side of the Syrian borders. Syria has so far been spared such unrest and the often resulting carnage, but there is no guarantee that the borders, even closed, will protect it from a flood of eager fundamentalists for whom the Syrian regime is ultimately an ideological foe. Whether or not they are involved (and a number of credible sources say they are not), the Syrians would be foolish to take comfort in the unfolding events, lest similar attempts spread on home turf. True, the Syrian army and the state’s infrastructure are much better prepared to deal with potential turmoil, but reaching such a state of affairs would undoubtedly shake the country, especially after one and a half million Iraqis have taken refuge in Syria, creating tensions that could eventually transcend the economic and social realm and enter the even more dangerous whirlwind of sectarianism and communalism.

Israel to take measures to strengthen Abbas against Hamas

The Israeli apartheid regime will take a set of “far-reaching” measures to strengthen Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas against the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, the Israeli media reported Friday.

Hamas-backed militiamen last week defeated American-armed and financed P.A forces in the Gaza Strip, taking control of their security headquarters and confiscating large amounts of arms and military equipment.

Israeli newspapers reported that Israel would transfer to Abbas’s office in Ramallah hundreds of millions of dollars of frozen Palestinian tax revenue returns withheld by Israel ever since Hamas’s election victory in 2006.

The Haaretz newspaper reported that the measures would be announced during a four-way summit meeting to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh under the auspices of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, with the participation of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Abbas, King Abdullah of Jordan .

Jordan King Abdullah II, Egyptian President Husni Mubarak Abbas are closely associated with the American policy in the Middle East .

According to Ha’aretz, the proposed “Package of gestures” will include releasing frozen Palestinian money, removing some secondary checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank as well as the possible suspension of extra-judicial assassinations targeting Fatah fighters in the West Bank .

Israel might also release some Fatah prisoners in order to increase Abbas’s popularity among Palestinians.

This week, several Israeli officials, including two former cabinet ministers, publicly called for the release of imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan el-Barghouthi, now spending a five life-term sentence in an Israeli jail for resisting the Israeli oppression of Palestinians and occupation their homeland.

However, the Shin Beth has voiced opposition to the idea of releasing Bartghouthi on the ground that his release might undermine the status of Dahlan within Fatah. Barghouthi advocates cooperation with Hamas and is firmly opposed to compromising Palestinian national constants, including full Israeli withdrawal from 100% of the occupied territories and resolving the refugee problem pursuant UN resolution 194.

Other “concessions” to Abbas reportedly include encouraging investors, primarily from the Arab to build industrial plants in the West Bank and giving the American government a green light to supply Abbas with more advanced arms.

Other Hebrew sources also indicated that Israel might be willing to pressure the Bush Administration to ask Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Arab countries such as Qatar , and the United Arab Emirates to increase their financial aid to the PA and stop financial assistance to the elected Hamas-led government.

The Ha’aretz newspaper also quoted an unnamed “defense official” as saying on Thursday that the army “is leaning toward maintaining the current quality of arms in the West Bank ” which means allowing Abbas’s regime to replace decommissioned weapons only.

The United States and Israel have openly embraced the “emergency government” of Salam Fayyad, a favorite of the West, formed earlier this week to replace the Gaza-based National Unity government headed by Ismael Haniya.

The US, which imposed a draconian blockade on the West Bank and Gaza Strip following Hamas’s election victory last year, has been trying to undo the outcome of Palestinian elections by arming and giving large amounts of money to Muhammed Dahlan for the express purpose of undermining Hamas rule.

On 8 February, Hamas and Fatah reached a power-sharing agreement in Mecca which paved the way for the formation of a national unity government.

However, the Bush administration silently rejected the agreement on the ground that it left Hamas in a predominant position at the Palestinian political arena.

Subsequently, Elliot Abrams, the American Jewish official in charge of the “Palestinian file,” reportedly connived with Dahlan and his allies within Fatah to carry out a coup against Hamas in the Gaza Strip for the purpose of eliminating Hamas and the National Unity government once and for all.

According to documents seized by Hamas at the P.A intelligence headquarters at Tel el Hawa (henceforth Tel al Islam), Dahlan was to carry out the coup on 13 July.

Abrams, who is reportedly answerable to AIPAC, the powerful American Jewish lobby, wanted to achieve two main goals, apart from undoing the Mecca Agreement and ending the unity government: These include, first, igniting a large-scale Palestinian civil war in both in Gaza and the West Bank in order to enable Israel to tell the world that “how can we make peace with Palestinians while they are killing each other?!!.”

The civil war, especially an extended one, would also enable the Jewish state to build more Jewish-only settlements and complete the Judadization of Jerusalem, including the possible demolition of the Aqsa Mosque.

And second, Elliot Abrams, probably in concert with right and far-right circles in Israel, hoped that by having a “moderate Palestinian leadership”, e.g. Dahlan, Abbas, et al, and by eliminating any opposition to Dahlan within Fatah, the US and Israel would be able to impose a “lasting solution” on the Palestinians.

According to confidential information obtained from reliable sources within P.A (Fatah), such a solution would include the following components: First, the creation of a quasi-Palestinian state on 60 % of the West Bank made up of three enclaves or Bantustans in the northern, central and southern parts of the West Bank; Annexation to Israel of the vast bulk of Jewish settlements, including Ma’ali Adomim, Ariel and Gush Itzion; renting other settlements such as Kiryat Arba for 99 years; East Jerusalem would remain under the Israeli occupation; and no Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to their homes and towns in what is now Israel.

The outlines of the solution Israel and the US are contemplating also include giving the “moderate” Palestinian government, e.g. Abbas and Dahlan, billions of dollars for economic recovery, ostensibly to silence expected opposition to the sell-out.

Fatah and PA officials have vehemently denied that they will ever accept such a deal.

One officials who asked that his name not be mentioned said: “Yes, we receive money and arms from America , but that doesn’t mean that we are going to accept everything the Americans are demanding..”