Dorothy Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

Dear Friends,

Only 4 items this evening.  On the first, Uri Avnery on Palestinian refugees, I comment at the site.

Item 2 touches the issue of Israel’s legitimacy, and the author, Peter Beaumont, responds that the question of legitimacy has several levels, but the legitimacy of a country “does not mean it is immune from committing questionable and illegal acts.”

Item 3 reveals Israel’s battle plan against the Palestinian attempt in September to have the United Nations declare or recognize the Palestinian state.

Item 4 reports that Palestinians in the WB destroyed an illegal outpost built on their land.  Note, please, the terms that Ynet uses to depict the event, making the Palestinians seem to be evil-doers.  Would you allow someone to take your land and to build on it?  Would you not try to protect your property?  And this would especially be true if you knew that justice would not be forthcoming from the authorities.

All the best,

Dorothy

1.  Uri Avnery’s article about refugees is an excellent analysis.  I nevertheless feel a word or two needs to be said to clarify matters.

Avnery remarks below that the 1967 line refers to agreements signed upon the conclusion of the 1948 war.  More accurately, they were armistice lines signed with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.  These left the West Bank (including Jerusalem) under Jordanian rule, and Gaza under Egyptian governance. Palestinians were not part of the deal because they did  not constitute a state.  They thus ended up totally dispossessed.   Yet despite their having lived some 400 years under Ottoman rule and some 20 under British mandate, Palestinians during these periods lived normal lives as farmers on their land and in their villages, as well as in the cities.  Neither the Ottomans nor the Brits drove them off their land or out of their villages.  Neither colonized Palestine.  This does not mean that everything was perfect, particularly during the time of the British, but by and large, except for battles with Zionists, Palestinians did not suffer unduly until the Nakba, their dispersal, in 1948-9,

By contrast, Israel demolished whole villages, stole lands, and colonized, and is continuing to do so in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  Moreover, Gaza, which is an integral part of Palestine, has been cut off from the West Bank, and thus from historic Palestine.  The present situation is that Israel controls the whole (it controls Gaza by siege). Any new agreement that Israeli leaders wish to make, therefore,  will be first and foremost primarily with Palestinians.

Even should deliberations end in 2 states, this does not guarantee that most refugees will, as Uri seems to think, agree to settling only in the West Bank and Gaza (assuming that there will be a Palestinian state).  Does this mean that if Israel allows refugees to enter and resettle in Israel that it will be the end of the Jewish state?  Perhaps.  But it will not be the end of Jews living here in peace with Muslims, Christians, and others in a democratic secular state where all citizens will have equal rights.

Dorothy

======================================

Hi,
Hope this may interest you.
Shalom, Salamaat,
uri
———————————————–
Uri Avnery
June 11, 2011
A Brown-haired Young Man
MY HERO of the year (for now) is a young brown-haired
Palestinian refugee living in Syria called Hassan Hijazi.
He was one of hundreds of refugees who held the
demonstration on the Syrian side of the Golan border fence,
to commemorate the Naqba –  “Disaster” – the exodus of more
than half the Palestinian people from the territory
conquered by Israel in the war of 1948. Some of the
protesters ran down to the fence, crossing a minefield.
Luckily, none of the mines exploded – perhaps they were
just too old.
They entered the Druze village of Majdal Shams, occupied by
Israel since 1967, where they spread out. Israeli soldiers
shot, killed and wounded several of them. The rest were
caught and immediately deported back to Syria.
Except Hassan. He found a bus carrying Israeli and
international peace activists who took him with them –
perhaps they guessed where he came from, perhaps not. He
does not look obviously Arab.
They dropped him near Tel Aviv. He continued his journey by
hitchhiking and eventually reached Jaffa, the town where
his grandparents had lived .
There, without money and without knowing anyone, he tried
to locate the house of his family. He did not succeed – the
place has changed much too much.
Eventually, he succeeded in contacting an Israeli TV
correspondent, who helped him give himself up to the
police. He was arrested and deported back to Syria.
Quite a remarkable exploit.
THE BORDER crossing of the refugees near Majdal Shams
caused near panic in Israel.
First there were the usual recriminations. Why was the army
not prepared for this event? Who was to blame – Northern
Command or Army Intelligence?
Behind all the excitement was the nightmare that has
haunted Israel since 1948: that the 750,000 refugees and
their descendents, some five million by now, will one day
get up and march to the borders of Israel from North, East
and South, breach the fences and flood the country. This
nightmare is the mirror-image of the refugees’ dream.
During the first years of Israel, this was a waking
nightmare. On the day Israel was founded, it had some
650,000 Jewish inhabitants. The return of the refugees
would indeed have swamped the young Israeli state. Lately,
with more than 6 million Jewish citizens, this fear has
receded into the background – but it is always there.
Psychologists might say that it represents repressed
feelings of guilt in the national psyche.
THIS WEEK, there was a repeat performance. The Palestinians
all around Israel have declared June 5 “Naksa” Day, to
commemorate the “Setback” of 1967, when Israel
spectacularly defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria and
Jordan, reinforced by elements from the Iraqi and Saudi
armies.
This time the Israeli army was prepared. The fence was
reinforced and an anti-tank ditch dug in front of it. When
the demonstrators tried to reach the fence – again near
Majdal Shams – they were shot by sharpshooters. Some 22
were killed, many dozens were wounded. The Palestinians
report that people trying to rescue the wounded and
retrieve the dead were also shot and killed.
No doubt, this was a deliberate tactic decided upon in
advance by the army command after the Naqba day fiasco, and
approved by Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. As was said
quite openly, the Palestinians had to be taught a lesson
they would not forget, so as to drive any idea of an
unarmed mass action out of their mind.
It is frighteningly reminiscent of events 10 years ago.
After the first intifada, in which stone-throwing
youngsters and children won a moral victory that led to the
Oslo agreement, our army conducted exercises in
anticipation of a second intifada. This broke out after the
political disaster of Camp David, and the army was ready.
The new intifada started with mass demonstrations of
unarmed Palestinians. They were met by specially trained
sharpshooters. Next to each sharpshooter stood an officer
who pointed out the individuals who were to be shot because
they looked like ringleaders: “The guy in the red shirtNow
the boy with the blue trousers”
The unarmed uprising broke down and was replaced by suicide
bombers, roadside bombs and other “terrorist” acts. With
those our army was on familiar ground.
I suspect very much that we are witnessing much the same
thing once more. Again specially trained sharpshooters are
at work, directed by officers.
There is a difference, though. In 2001 we were told that
our soldiers were shooting into the air. Now we are told
that they aim at the Arabs’ legs. Then the Palestinians had
to jump high into the air to get killed, now, it seems,
they have to bend down .
THE WHOLE thing is not only murderous, but also incredibly
dumb.
For decades now, practically all talk about peace has
centered on the territories occupied in the 1967 war.
President Mahmoud Abbas, President Barack Obama and the
Israeli peace movement all talk about the “1967 borders”.
When my friends and I started (in 1949) to talk about the
two-state solution, we, too, meant these borders. (The
“1967 borders” are, in fact, simply the armistice lines
agreed upon after the 1948 war.)
Most people, even in the Israeli peace movement, ignored
the refugee problem altogether. They were laboring under
the illusion that it had gone away, or would do so after
peace had been achieved between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority. I always warned my friends that this would not
happen – five million human beings cannot be simply shut
out. It is no use to make peace with half the Palestinian
people, and just ignore the other half. It will not mean
“the end of the conflict”, whatever might be stated in a
peace agreement.
But through years of discussions, mostly behind closed
doors, a consensus has been reached. Almost all Palestinian
leaders have agreed, either explicitly or implicitly, to
the formula of “a just and agreed upon solution of the
refugee problem” – so that any solution is subject to
Israeli approval. I have spoken about this many times with
Yasser Arafat, Faisal al-Husseini and others.
In practice, this means that a symbolic number of refugees
will be allowed back into Israel (the exact number to be
fixed in negotiations), with the others to be resettled in
the State of Palestine (which must be big and viable enough
to make this possible) or receive generous compensation
that will allow them to start a new life where they are or
elsewhere.
TO MAKE this complicated and painful solution easier,
everyone agreed that it would be best to deal with this
matter near the end of the peace negotiations, after mutual
trust and a more relaxed atmosphere had been established.
And here comes our government and tries to solve the
problem with sharpshooters – not as the last resort, but as
the first. Instead of countering the protesters with
effective non-lethal means, they kill people. This will, of
course, intensify the protests, mobilize masses of refugees
and put the “refugee problem” squarely on the table, in the
center of the table, before negotiations have even started.
In other words: the conflict moves back from 1967 to 1948.
For Hassan Hijazi, the grandson of a refugee from Jaffa,
this is huge achievement.
Nothing could be more stupid than this course of action by
Netanyahu and Company.
Unless, of course, they are doing this consciously, in
order to make any peace negotiations impossible.
==========================

2.  The Guardian,

10 June 2011

Israel’s right to exist does not mean its government can act with impunity

Legitimacy in international relations relates not to a single idea but to overlapping concepts, one of which is appropriate conduct

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/10/israel-right-to-exist-legitimacy

Peter Beaumont

An Israeli flag projected on the Old City walls of Jerusalem in 2008 as part of Israel’s 60th anniversary celebrations. Photograph: Michal Fattal/EPA

Last year the Israeli Reut Institute published a report examining what it said was the agenda for eroding Israel’s legitimacy in the international arena – an aim, it argued, whose end was to turn Israel into a “pariah” state and challenge its “very legitimacy of its existence as a Jewish and democratic state”.

It was not alone. As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz remarked at the same time, “delegitimisation of Israel” has become the “new buzzword in the world of pro-Israel activism.” So much so, Haaretz noted, that prominent organisations including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee had all outlined plans how to fight it. On Friday a story in the same paper detailed Israeli officialdom’s worries that UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September would “delegitimise Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks”.

Others have gone further, contending that “delegitimisation” has become the face of the new antisemitism, manipulated, as the Reut Institute claimed, by a minority.

All of which, however, leads to a question: precisely what is meant by legitimacy in an international context?

It is unclear enough as a concept that Robert Kagan was able to argue in the New York Times in 2004 that “the struggle to define and obtain international legitimacy in this new era may prove to be among the critical contests of our time”.

One of those who has studied this field is Ian Clark, author of Legitimacy in International Society. “The core principles of legitimacy,” he writes, not only “express rudimentary social agreement about who is entitled to participate in international relations” but also – critically – “appropriate forms of their conduct”.

The reality is that the notion of legitimacy in international relations relates not to a single idea but to overlapping concepts that defy the simplistic definition being applied by those Haaretz describes as being involved in “pro-Israel activism”.

First is the notion of the sovereign integrity of countries as states recognised by the international community and enshrined in international law. It is this legitimacy that recognises Israel’s right to exist and participate in international forums.

It is the same legitimacy that Egypt or Tunisia or even Libya enjoys within its international boundaries.

A second notion of legitimacy – familiar and well-studied from Hobbes onwards – is the legitimacy a government claims through the support of its citizens, in the case of a democracy via an electoral mandate, to represent for a period of time the policies of a given state. In other words, an internal legitimacy represented on an international stage.

But simply because a government and state is “democratic”, however – or because it enjoys a large mandate – does not mean it is immune from committing questionable and illegal acts.

The third crucial notion of international legitimacy is Clark’s category of “appropriate forms of … conduct”.

It is in precisely in this area that the government, a regime or series of governments of a state can be seen to relinquish legitimacy both through its acts and how they are perceived over a period of time.

For Israel, that means specifically illegal occupation, settlement building and a disproportionate use of force that historically has claimed the lives of too many Palestinian civilians in the name of defence.

The distinctions are crucially important because in the deliberate conflation of the competing spheres of legitimacy by some of those who support Israel, they are making an essentially undemocratic argument utilising Israel’s right to exist as an argument for impunity.

========================

3.  Haaretz,

June 10, 2011

Haaretz exclusive: Secret cables show Israel’s battle plan over Palestinian UN bid

Foreign Ministry documents outline instructions to envoys to thwart international recognition of Palestinian state.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-secret-cables-show-israel-s-battle-plan-over-palestinian-un-bid-1.366852

By Barak Ravid

Israel has started mobilizing its embassies for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September, ordering its diplomats to convey that this would delegitimize Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks.

Envoys are being asked to lobby the highest possible officials in their countries of service, muster support from local Jewish communities, ply the media with articles arguing against recognition and even ask for a call or quick visit from a top Israeli official if they think it would help.

Foreign Ministry Director General Rafael Barak and the heads of various ministry departments sent out classified cables outlining the battle plan to the embassies over the past week, after earlier ordering all the country’s diplomats to cancel any vacations planned for September. The contents of the cables reached Haaretz and are reported here in full.

“The goal we have set is to have the maximum number of countries oppose the process of having the UN recognize a Palestinian state,” Barak wrote to Israel’s ambassadors in his cable, which was sent June 2. “The Palestinian effort must be referred to as a process that erodes the legitimacy of the State of Israel…

“The primary argument is that by pursuing this process in the UN, the Palestinians are trying to achieve their aims in a manner other than negotiations with Israel, and this violates the principle that the only route to resolving the conflict is through bilateral negotiations.”

Each envoy was ordered to prepared a focused plan for the country in which he or she serves and present it to the Foreign Ministry by today, June 10.

“The goal is to get the country in which you serve to vote against recognizing a Palestinian state,” Barak wrote. “Your plan must include approaching the most senior politicians, mobilizing the relevant force multipliers [such as local Jewish communities, nongovernmental organizations], using the media, influencing local public opinion, and public diplomacy aimed at all the relevant communities.”

Barak also informed the emissaries that the ministry had established a “September Forum” headed by the director of its Middle East Department, Yaakov Hadas.

“This team is analyzing possible Palestinian moves and the options open to Israel to foil the process, and is putting together a diplomatic, public diplomacy and media plan,” Barak wrote. “You are to report on your activities to the September Forum once a week.”

“The mission that has been assigned to us is not an easy one,” the cable concluded. “But I’m sure that by joining forces, we will do the best we can to achieve the goal we’ve set for ourselves.”

A Foreign Ministry source said the directive issued to ambassadors by both Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the ministry director general is not to give up on any country in advance, and to work to obtain a hearing with the highest possible officials in each country.

This past Sunday, June 5, the head of the ministry’s Western Europe department, Naor Gilon, sent a follow-up cable to embassies in all European Union countries. A similar cable was sent by the head of the Eurasia Department, Pinhas Avivi, to representatives in the EU countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

In his cable, Gilon asked the ambassadors to prepare plans “that will lead the country in which you serve to oppose or abstain during a UN vote.” It divided the EU countries into three groups:

* Countries that have already voiced objections to unilateral Palestinian action. A Foreign Ministry source put Germany and Italy in this category.

* Countries whose stance is unclear, particularly members of the former Eastern Bloc that had recognized a Palestinian state back in 1988. These include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In two weeks, Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are planning to make separate trips to these countries in an effort to persuade them to vote against a Palestinian state.

* Countries that tend to automatically side with the Palestinians and are expected to support a Palestinian state, among them Sweden, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal.

Gilon wrote that the Foreign Ministry believes the 27 EU members “will have difficulty reaching a consensus decision on recognizing a Palestinian state, as happened with regard to [recognizing] Kosovo. Even so, it’s clear that the EU bureaucracy in Brussels will try to enter into a dialogue with the Palestinians in an effort to moderate the [UN] resolution so that EU members could support it.

“Everyone knows where the country he serves in stands,” Gilon wrote. “Our goal is to create momentum against recognition of a Palestinian state in September by creating a significant bloc of EU states that voice their opposition as early as possible to unilateral Palestinian action.” Another goal is to try to persuade those countries which have already said they will vote in favor of the Palestinian move to refrain from publicly stating their position.

Gilon tasked the ambassadors with trying to spur as many politicians and opinion-makers as possible to either make public declarations or issue statements opposing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. He also instructed them to generate negative media reports and op-eds objecting to the Palestinian moves.

The ambassadors were asked to inform the September Forum of any requests they receive from their respective countries’ leaders to speak by phone with President Shimon Peres, Netanyahu or Lieberman, and to indicate whether a diplomatic visit by senior Israeli officials before September might be helpful in persuading top officials in the countries where they serve.

But one senior Foreign Ministry official said that regardless of what efforts are made, only a few countries will vote against recognizing a Palestinian state in a General Assembly vote, including the United States, Canada and a few European countries. The ministry’s assessment is that most Asian, African and South American countries will vote in favor.

===========================

4.  Ynet,

June 10, 2011

Arab Violence

Outpost burned (Archive) Photo: AFP

West Bank: Arabs burn Jewish holy books

Some 200 Palestinians armed with bats, iron chains raid illegal West Bank outpost, burn hut and tent including prayer corner. Arab municipal head: We decided to remove settlers from site

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4080406,00.html

Yair Altman

Some 200 Palestinians armed with bats and iron chains raided the illegal West Bank outpost of Gaon HaYarden Friday and burned Jewish holy books at the site, the settlers said.

The Arab attackers clashed with Jewish youths at the outposts before torching a hut and a tent that included a prayer corner and holy books. Security forces rushed to the scene and broke up the violence.

The Palestinians arrived at the outpost in dozens of vehicles and razed it. A leading member of the Jewish Hilltop Youth movement vowed to rebuild the outpost after the Shabbat.

“There were a few youths at the site when some 150 to 200 Palestinians carrying PLO flags and armed with bats and iron chains raided it,” an outpost resident told Ynet. “We managed to escape unharmed.”

A short while later, clashes broke out between the settlers and the Palestinians, with both sides hurling stones and burning tires at each other. IDF troops at the site dispersed the crowds while sustaining stoning attacks. The area was declared a closed military zone and two settlers who defied the order were held for questioning and later released.

Arab leader: It’s our land

Majed Fahim, the head of the Kfar Malek municipality told Ynet that the outpost in question was set up illegally on Arab land.

“Today we decided to come out after Friday prayers and reach our land, where this outpost was established, in order to remove the settlers from the site,” he said.

Some 200 Palestinians arrived in the area and clashed with settlers at the outpost, Fahim said, adding that one Palestinian was wounded. At one point, the settlers fled the site, he said.

“I know that we managed to make them run away this time, but they will likely return again as they did in the past,” he said.

Fahim admitted that after the settlers left the area, a group of Palestinians burned their tent.

Elior Levy, Ynet’s Palestinian affairs correspondent, contributed to the story