Palestinian in Exile

"Just let me do the talking"
One of things that Israelis love to say is,-- 'Just let me do the talking.' Well, Israeli males certainly like to say it. It means something like, if you just let me speak, I will convince you that I am right or reasonable or something to that effect. Ehud Barak was completely convinced that he would succeed as a negotiator -- all he had to do was to put his suggestions on the table at Camp David, and the Palestinians would either be convinced, or would show that they are not serious about peace. It is like your brother-in-law who tries to convince you that he can sell your car at a better price than you can -- just let him do the talking. When one brother-in-law fails, another pops up, or maybe it is a cousin or a neighbor.
The latest "brother-in-law" is Ehud Olmert. He says that the Palestnians are partners -- well one or two of them are, and that they will go with his deal. That deal is not as good as the one that they accepted (with reservations) when offered by Pres. Clinton. But no matter...they lost the intifada, they are suffering mightily, Hamas has taken over Gaza -- trust me, I can convince them.
Of course, conventional wisdom would say that under those circumstances they will be less likely to cut a deal. After all, it took an initial victory in the October 1973 war to give Egypt the security and national honor it needed to cut a deal with Israel. Why would a battered Palestinian authority agree to terms that it couldn't agree to when it was politically stronger?
Ehud Olmert has made a big deal of Muhammed Abbas's reasonableness as a partner. What will he say when Abbas hangs tough on demanding that Israel recognizes its responsibilty for the Arab refugee problem, or rejects Israel's demand for recognizing it as a Jewish state? I suppose he will "pull a Barak" -- he will go around the world saying, "What do you want? I tried. The buyer wasn't serious."
Let's hope that he doesn't react that way. Who is ready for another intifada?

TO A WORLD WITHOUT HATE

The following is an updated version of a post I did a year ago...
Seventeen years ago tonight on the Hebrew calendar, the world was finally rid of one of the evilest creatures to walk this earth since hitler himself.
Meyer kahana died as he lived, preaching hatred. Supposedly a rabbi by profession, a man taught in the ways of the Holy Torah... a Book that teaches love, compassion, PEACE.
Instead he twisted it around to preach hatred, intolerance and war.May his name and memory be erased from history.... but let us learn one thing from this...'hatred leads to hatred'...
Below are two photographs... the first is of kahana youth 'saluting'..the second is of hitler youth 'saluting'..Notice the similarity in the 'salutes'? That was not all that was similar.

Myth: Israel offered the Palestinians a contiguous state in 97% of the territory of the West Bank plus Gaza.

Fact: (from the non-paper of the Taba talks);"For the first time both sides presented their own maps over the West Bank. The maps served as a basis for the discussion on territory and settlements. The Israeli side presented two maps, and the Palestinian side engaged on this basis. The Palestinian side presented some illustrative maps detailing its understanding of Israeli interests in the West Bank."The negotiations tackled the various aspects of territory, which could include some of the settlements and how the needs of each party could be accommodated.

The Clinton parameters served as a loose basis for the discussion, but differences of interpretations regarding the scope and meaning of the parameters emerged. The Palestinian side stated that it had accepted the Clinton proposals but with reservations."The Israeli side stated that the Clinton proposals provide for annexation of settlement blocs. The Palestinian side did not agree that the parameters included blocs, and did not accept proposals to annex blocs.

The Palestinian side stated that blocs would cause significant harm to the Palestinian interests and rights, particularly to the Palestinians residing in areas Israel seeks to annex."The Israeli side maintained that it is entitled to contiguity between and among their settlements. The Palestinian side stated that Palestinian needs take priority over settlements. The Israeli maps included plans for future development of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinian side did not agree to the principle of allowing further development of settlements in the West Bank. Any growth must occur inside Israel."The Palestinian side maintained that since Israel has needs in Palestinian territory, it is responsible for proposing the necessary border modifications.

The Palestinian side reiterated that such proposals must not adversely affect the Palestinian needs and interests."The Israeli side stated that it did not need to maintain settlements in the Jordan Valley for security purposes, and its proposed maps reflected this position."The Israeli maps were principally based on a demographic concept of settlements blocs that would incorporate approximately 80 percent on the settlers. The Israeli side sketched a map presenting a 6 percent annexation, the outer limit of the Clinton proposal. The Palestinian illustrative map presented 3.1 percent in the context of a land swap.Both sides accepted the principle of land swap but the proportionality of the swap remained under discussion. Both sides agreed that Israeli and Palestinian sovereign areas will have respective sovereign contiguity.

The Israeli side wished to count "assets" such as Israelis "safe passage/corridor" proposal as being part of the land swap, even though the proposal would not give Palestine sovereignty over these "assets". The Israeli side adhered to a maximum 3 percent land swap as per Clinton proposal.The Palestinian maps had a similar conceptual point of reference stressing the importance of a non-annexation of any Palestinian villages and the contiguity of the West Bank and Jerusalem. They were predicated on the principle of a land swap that would be equitable in size and value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine, and in the same vicinity as the annexed by Israel.

The Palestinian side further maintained that land not under Palestinian sovereignty such as the Israeli proposal regarding a "safe passage/corridor" as well as economic interests are not included in the calculation of the swap.The Palestinian side maintained that the "No-Man's-Land" (Latrun area) is part of the West Bank. The Israelis did not agree.The Israeli side requested and additional 2 percent of land under a lease arrangement to which the Palestinians responded that the subject of lease can only be discussed after the establishment of a Palestinian state and the transfer of land to Palestinian sovereignty.

2. Myth: The Palestinians rejected the Israeli offer on Jerusalem.Fact: "Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods.

The Palestinian side affirmed that it was ready to discuss Israeli request to have sovereignty over those Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967, but not Jebal Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud. The Palestinian side rejected Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area, namely of Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev.The Palestinian side understood that Israel was ready to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including part of Jerusalem's Old City. The Israeli side understood that the Palestinians were ready to accept Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and part of the American Quarter.The Palestinian side understood that the Israeli side accepted to discuss Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.

Truth: Chief US Negotiator Dennis Ross blames the Palestinians for the breakdown of the talks.

Fact: Chief US Negotator Dennis Ross is a liberal Zionist who was biased in favor of Israel from the start, sometimes getting upset with Israel for being overly generous. I lay a good deal of responsibility for the failure of Oslo at Ross's feet. He is a good man, who should have been involved in the peace process at the level of, and as the counterpart of,Rob Malley. He should not have been the architect. Who needs an Israel Lobby when a liberal Zionist is running the show?

Truth: US President Clinton believes that Arafat made a "colossal historical blunder" in rejecting Israeli terms.

Truth: Clinton broke his pledge to the Palestinians that he would not blame them if the negotiations fell through. He basically accepted Ross's positions with a little modification. I think it is fair to call him (and his wife) a liberal Zionist, also.

Truth: Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan said, "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime."Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, aside from representing a repressive regime that is an embarrasment to humanity, has no standing whatsoever in the dispute. Let him fix his own country before commenting on others.

I know of no Palestinian who feels that Arafat was mistaken in turning down the too little, too late "harta barta" ("horsedung") at Taba.

Myth: Palestinian spokespersons and supporters deliberately distorted the offer that was made and claimed that "all what was circulated that Israel proffered to the Palestinian side great concessions is incorrect," and fabricated maps to look like the offer was "Bantustans"Offered when? At Camp David? There were no maps? At Taba? Who said Bantustans? The difficulty was that even at Taba there was no fundamental agreement over what constituted the West Bank. There is no agreement about what continguity is -- for Israel, it could be a road, if it is for Palestinians, or not a road, if it is for Israeli settlers.

Myth: All those children's lives would have been saved if it were not for Arafat.Fact: There is no guarantee that they would have been saved even if a peace treaty had been concluded. And anyway, that is irrelevant and a non sequitur. One might as well conclude that not a single Israeli would have been killed by an Arab had there not been a State of Israel.It takes two to tango -- Israel's offer at Camp David was humiliating; and Taba, it was slightly better, but still inadequate. Had it been accepted, I would have considered the Palestinians traitors to their people.

The "Forgotten Refugees" -- Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands
The NY Times reported on Nov 2 on the efforts of a group, "Justice for Jews from Arab Countries," to get recognition for what they call the "forgotten refugees," those Jews who left Arab lands as a result of discrimination, persecution, etc., and whose property was expropriated, etc. The focus of the group will not be demands for compensation, but rather recognition, especially in the United Nations, where the Palestinian refugee problem is often on the agenda, and the origins of the problem commemorated.

In so far as this group wishes to address the violated rights of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, I applaud its efforts, and I urge all supporters of the Palestinian national movement to join. In fact, I think the demands of the group should not just stop at recognition, but should include compensation and the right to return to Arab countries. Although it is wrong to equate the exodus of Palestinians with those of the Jews for several reasons -- primarily, because the Jewish exodus was encouraged by the Zionists as part of the "ingathering of the Exiles" -- that does not reduce the responsibility of the Arab countries for the forced emigration and expropriation, nor does it eliminate the pain of leaving one's ancestral home, losing property, etc.

The Canadian former minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, a noted Zionist and international expert in human rights, who will be speaking at the group's conference, was quoted as saying:
“I know this may sound Pollyannaish, but I believe that if we allow people to understand the truth of what occurred, then they will be able to recognize the other,” he said. “Right now the other is being demonized.”

I agree with Mr. Cotler. From the Palestinian standpoint, any discussion of the rights of refugees to recognition, compensation, and repatriation, can only help raise the awareness of people, including Israelis, that there is no statute of limitations with respect to fundamental injustices. By embracing the cause of the Jewish refugees, the friends of the Palestinians should emphasize the similarities but also the differences between the two exoduses: one group was expelled from its home; another group was expelled to its home, at least according to Zionist and traditional Jewish ideology, and in many cases, into the physical homes of the expelled Palestinian refugees.

The most significant difference between the two exoduses is that the Palestinian refugee problem was caused by the Zionist refusal to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes, but the Palestinians were not at all responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries; on the contrary, they also suffered from it. The idea that future compensation to be paid to the Palestinian refugees should be reduced by the compensation for the Jewish refugees, an idea apparently accepted by the PA negotiators, is horrendous. The Arab states should pay, not the Palestinians.

It is the significant differences that caused me to raise my eyebrows when I read that, according to the Times,
Another objective is to push for early passage of resolutions introduced in the United States Senate and House that say that any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees in any official document must be matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees.
Inasmuch as this forced and artificial balance serves a rightwing and anti-Palestinian agenda, it is offensive to both groups.

The Zionists have always accused the Arab countries of using the Palestinian refugees as pawns in propaganda warfare; supporters of Israel should not be doing the same with the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Injustices on both sides should be redressed by the appropriate parties and not forgotten. But one group should not suffer at the expense of the other.

Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions

The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.
The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.
A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat.
In the time before the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior advisers sounded many alarms about Baghdad’s reconstituting its nuclear program. But they have never publicly discussed what many analysts say appears to have been a long-running nuclear effort next door.
Yesterday independent analysts, examining the latest satellite image, suggested that work on the site might have begun around 2001, and the senior intelligence official agreed with that analysis. That early date is potentially significant in terms of North Korea’s suspected aid to Syria, suggesting that North Korea could have begun its assistance in the late 1990s.
A dispute has broken out between conservatives and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the administration’s pursuit of diplomacy with North Korea in the face of intelligence that North Korea might have helped Syria design a nuclear reactor.
The new image may give ammunition to those in the administration, including Ms. Rice, who call for diplomacy. If North Korea started its Syrian aid long ago, the officials could argue that the assistance was historical, not current, and that diplomacy should move ahead.
The progress of the site in late 2003 also raises new questions about a disagreement at the time between intelligence analysts and John R. Bolton, then the State Department’s top arms control official.
In the summer of 2003, Mr. Bolton’s testimony on Capitol Hill was delayed after a dispute erupted in part over whether Syria was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Some intelligence officials said Mr. Bolton overstated the Syrian threat.
“There was disagreement about what Syria was interested in and how much we should be monitoring it,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview yesterday. “There was activity in Syria that I felt was evidence that they were trying to develop a nuclear program.”
Mr. Bolton declined to say whether he had knowledge at the time about the site that the Israelis struck in September.
Spokesmen for the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council declined to comment.
The new image of the desolate Syrian site was released yesterday by GeoEye, in Dulles, Va. Mark Brender, the company’s vice president for communications and marketing, said the picture was taken on Sept. 16, 2003. He added that the image had been collected as part of the company’s agenda of building a large archive of global images.
Earlier this week, federal and private analysts identified the precise location of the Syrian site, and since then rival companies have raced to release images. The site is on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, 90 miles north of the Iraqi border.
Images taken in August, before the Israeli raid, show a tall building about 150 feet wide on each side that analysts suspect might have sheltered a half-built nuclear reactor. Also visible is a pumping station on the Euphrates, which may be significant because reactors need water for cooling.
John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a private group in Alexandria, Va., that analyzes satellite images, said the 2003 picture showed the tall building in the midst of early construction, surrounded by churned earth. He put the groundbreaking in 2001.
“It’s uncommon to see such activity in the middle of nowhere,” he said, adding that it was sufficiently unusual to have worried American intelligence officials. “I’d have put it on my suspect site list and kept watching,” he said.
The senior intelligence official said that American spy satellites and analysts had, in fact, watched the site for years.
“It was noticed, without knowing what it was,” the official said. “You revisit every so often, but it was not a high priority. You see things that raise the flag and you know you have to keep looking. It was a case of watching it evolve.”
Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the New America Foundation in Washington, said it was surprising from the photos how little progress had been made at the site between 2003 and 2007.
But Mr. Lewis said it was ironic that Syria might have been trying to build a nuclear program just as the United States was invading Iraq in the fear that Iraq was developing nuclear arms.