PIPISTRO

Big news on Haaretz, ironically speaking of course. One marvels at the fact that the following daily feature deserved first page: “The municipality of Jerusalem on Monday approved the construction of 600 new homes in Pisgat Zeev, east of the Green Line.” [...] “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised the spiritual leader of the Shas Party, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, that he would authorize construction on “Jerusalem envelope” lands which have been thus far frozen, sources from the ultra-Orthodox Party said.” [...] “Meanwhile, the Yesha Council of Settlements said Monday it would continue to build in West Bank settlements, even without the necessary government authorizations.” [...] “Peace Now accused the government of stepping up Jewish construction in East Jerusalem at an unprecedented rate, in a report released Monday.”

Just a step back to fifteen years ago, to the so called Declaration of Principles of 1993, then to the Interim Agreement(s) of 1995, with its seven “annexes”, plus maps, plus atomized deals (Gaza and Jericho, Hebron), etc. Nothing could really lead the world to optimism in the light of Yitzhak Rabin’s speech at the ceremony for the signing of the Declaration of principles, first act of the Oslo accords on September 13, 1993. “We have come from Jerusalem, the ancient and eternal capital of the Jewish people.” [Editor's Note: period.]

According to Shlomo Ben-Ami’s confession (debating Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now!) Israel got moving without delay against the spirit of Oslo – I’d say also the letter (e.g. art. I of the Declaration: “It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.” Art. IV: “The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period.” Art. XXXI n. 7 of the Interim Agreement: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”)

What make us feel that the Annapolis show & Road Map enclosed (denied since its birth in 14 points by Israel), fifteen years after the Oslo Accords that were officially repudiated by Ariel Sharon and, practically, by everybody, should have a better chance?

“Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, holds hand to the ANP President Abu Mazen. According to the Israeli daily ‘Haaretz’, Olmert offered Abu Mazen an ‘Agreement of Principles’ on the establishment of a future Palestinian State…” Such are the outcomings of Corriere della Sera (Agr) on the eve of July 25, 2007. Those words “holds hand” leave behind a coat of metaphoric grease which no solvent of pragmatism would as well metaphorically succeed in cushioning. Nevertheless, let’s see the merit of such held a hand.
It is unmistakable that the time stopped for PM Olmert on the eve of Summer 2000, and with remarkable nerve he now tries to lead Mahmoud Abbas, the would-be Palestinian Rais, as of today widely delegitimated, toward the path of a complete failure run by the (by many people late lamented anyway) father and master Yasser Arafat.
After having read the general lines of the proposal on a July 25, 2007 report by Haaretz, any Palestinian hypothetical negotiator would stand up, greet and – whereas appropriate – ask who is the maker of this clowning, half way from deja vu to the worst nightmare.
After the calamity of Oslo, the agreements on principles, their inference, Barak’s tricky unwritten proposals, whose “generosity” Palestinian and Israeli people (the normal ones, those who try and live or survive and feed their children) are paying still now, as of today we see that the “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is offering to hold negotiations toward an “Agreement of Principles” for the establishment of a Palestinian state on most of the territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” In practice a newly made a priori agreement on the principles, due to the fact that – I quote – “it will be very difficult to reach agreement on final status issues, such as borders, Jerusalem and the refugees” (let alone the settlements).
Ther rest should follow, maybe, on the path and the issues which made also Arafat not to panhandle anymore.
In the pleasantness of the proposal (two examples follow below), Olmert put forward the same old escamotage grown out of the Yossi Beilin-Abu Mazen draft of 1995 on every issue afterward questioned in Camp David, and – with minor exceptions – in Taba. So it is for Jerusalem (it’s not a joke! “The Palestinians will be able to declare Jerusalem their capital. In the past Olmert has hinted that he would be willing to withdraw from the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem “on the edge,” which have never been considered part of the historical city”) whereas they try again to relegate a mock up of the Palestinian Capital into the peripheral village of Abu Dis. And so it is for the settlements that should remain – along with the whole surrounding of the Israeli army – in the earth of the West Bank (“large settlement blocs that will remain under Israeli control in the West Bank”), with the mirage of very unlikely minor land swaps that cannot amend the atomization of the Territories into sort of Bantustans. The rest of the speech goes along these lines and it has the usual meaning: Israeli Government do not plan to follow any peace path, moreover it has a further aim, running in extremis toward a two state solution while it’s turning into a corpse, in order to counter the demographic problem.
We hope, maybe in vain, most naive European (and US nationals) or the ones in worst faith, will not follow and spread through the media with the usual chorus to appreciate or deal the last unseemly light comedy as it were a sign of opening and good will. In fact the proposal is a wall so high and massive that even Mahmoud Abbas would not have the nerve and dare not to propose this iterate attempt of pax Romana to the Palestinians, not even to the small part of them who hold quisling collaborationism as a matter of survival and are willing to cooperate in the administration of their own open-work prison, rather than starve, be humiliated and submit to the brutality of an apartheid regime for fifty years more.

«The Anti-Defamation League on Thursday blasted the United Nations Human Rights Council for appointing Desmond Tutu as head of its fact-finding mission to the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanun. The mission is charged with investigating a botched Israel Defense Forces shelling in Beit Hanun which killed 19 Palestinian civilians. “The appointment of Desmond Tutu as head of the fact-finding mission to Beit Hanun is an extension of the anti-Israel kangaroo court tactics used by the UN Human Rights Council,” said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman [...] Tutu, the former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, has spoken out against Israel in the past and publicly denounced the Beit Hanun operation. “It is an outrage that cries out to heaven and we must condemn it unequivocally as we do the atrocities committed by suicide bombers against Israeli civilians,” Tutu said…». (Ha’aretz) Maybe Mr Foxman liked better John Bolton for the Job. Unfortunately, one can`t choose his prosecutor, and everyone must rely on the second`s morality and skillfulness. Maybe Abraham Foxman could choose professor Dershowitz to write down another “Case for Israel” in order to justify Tzahal’s attacks and killings in Beit Hanoun, but I doubt he would find out any other comfortable Joan Peters’ quotes of Mark Twain that fit to the issue. Mr Foxman’s remarks about Tutu’s past speaking against Israel (and I quote, “It is an outrage that cries out to heaven…”) seem pretty ridiculous. By the way the man indeed – I mean Tutu – has to deal with an issue that really cries out to heaven, the alleged “mistakenly slaughtering” of some 20 civilians.

The three Palestinian militant groups responsible for abducting of Corporal Gilat Shalit addressed – as “Military Communique 3″ – Israel an ultimatum, giving until Tuesday 6 a.m. to release Palestinian prisoners or “pay the consequences”. The groups have underlined that as by that time they did not hear from Israel any news they would consider the abduction of Gilad Shalit a “closed case”. Israeli establishment had considered till this morning a deal by releasing Palestinian prisoners who have not been directly involved in “terrorist” activities. With regard to this, IDF said they would never release prisoners “with blood on their hands” and, on the contrary, it was possible to think they were willing, among a wider deal, to free those captured under the “Prevention of terrorism ordinance” (such as Hamas ministers and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, just held in jail, as well as other security prisoners for minor offenses such as belonging to terrorist organizations). In the issue, in order to make a draft of the deal, were involved the defense minister Amir Peretz and IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz. The latest news is a full stop, Israeli rejected the ultimatum. Nonetheless in the draft they had made provision for a so called “sleep balance” between Sderot and Gaza saying that “if the children of Sderot can’t sleep due to fear of Qassam rockets, Israel will disrupt the sleep of Gaza children”. That’s it. On the subject we must emphasize that the standard of the dispute (forget any other historical, practical, humanitarian, strategic, overwhelming problem) and the level of the choices made or anyway spread by the parties, are – or at least appear – extremely rough. (Source of the news, Ha’aretz)

While we're making plans, signing deals, drawing maps and walking paths, studying "peacekidding" operations, they will get on dying and someone telling lies to whom in that land would carry on his living in peace. And the whole of us waiting for time to put an end to all this. It had a bitter taste hearing about the blast of April 17 in Tel Aviv, and feeling that the words I just wrote some days ago fit very well with the situation. Last night, while someone in Palestine was badly focusing his suffering, aimed at increasing hatred and death in order to catch some more supposed goodness from a fake god, I happened to read jailed Mr Barghouti's interview of April 15 for the palestinian paper al-Ayyam in Yedioth Ahronoth. And I read it once more today.
«Barghouti unimpressed with Israel: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's so-called "convergence plan" for further West Bank withdrawals is "not a peace plan, but rather, an attempt to circumvent the aspiration for Palestinian independence and an attempt to salvage the occupation," Jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti says. In an interview published Saturday in Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam, Barhghouti issues a scathing attack on Olmert's convergence plan despite his earlier support for the Gaza and northern West Bank pullout. "The withdrawal from Gaza was almost full with regards to the removal of occupation forces, evacuation of all the settlers, and razing of the settlements," Barghouti explains. "However, the situation in the West Bank and in Jerusalem is different, and that's where the danger inherent in this plan stems from. This plan attempts to eliminate the intention to establish an independent Palestinian state." "In the West Bank, the withdrawal is the exception, with the essence being the continuation and deepening of the occupation," the jailed Fatah figure and convicted terrorist says. "I'm clearly saying that every agreement or plan, whatever its origin, won't end the occupation and the settlement in the 1967 borders fully, including in Jerusalem, and would push the Palestinians to continue their resistance." 'Israel assassinated Arafat' – During the interview, Barghouti noted the absence of trust between Israelis and Palestinians, but said trust is not a must in order to strike a peace deal. "Trust between the two peoples isn't a pre-condition for a deal, because the relationship between them is that between an occupier and a people being occupied," he says. "Therefore, it is impossible to achieve trust before the occupation ends and we establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, the refugees will return, all prisoners will be released, and our people will enjoy freedom and independence." Barghouti warns that the attempt to reach a phased peace deal utterly failed and must not be repeated "under any circumstances."  "Our people, despite all the suffering, is still determined to continue on the path of struggle and resistance," he added. "I’m certain that the occupation is gradually disappearing earlier than what many think, and that the dawn of liberty is close to rising."  Slamming Israel, Barghouti says the Jewish state is "an occupating country that carries out the worst kind of torture and terrorism."  "The question now is whether there's a genuine partner for real peace? Sadly I'm saying that Israeli society did not give rise to a true peace partner," he says. Finally, Barghouti says the unwillingness to talk with Hamas is a false excuse, "because negotiations have been paralyzed for six years at least, and Israel even assassinated President Yasser Arafat, even though he complied with all the international conditions for peace."» link
It was stunning, maintained the historical, politic, human complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, to watch at Barghouti's short-sighted populism and at the same time it was astounding the cheap talkback filled with hatred and resentment we could read below that view. We do not have to bother the beginning of last century's issues, to state that Oslo, Camp David, Taba talks, Sharon's path (despite Sharon himself), 2nd Intifada, did not teach anything to anyone. Maybe it is correct that time and only time can recover that land's dramatic situation. For if living that tragedy originates the cheap statements we could read in Barghouti's speech and the miserable talking made in order to dispute it, man is not able to do anything but carrying in that land some more violence, humiliation, suffering, death.