[WCUSP] Fw: Peacegroups Annapolis discussion Wedn. Tel-Aviv/ The missing sentence (Gush ad) / Avnery: How to get Out?

Sun Nov 18 21:36:13 CST 2007

Libby

I really like Uri Avnery and the way he writes, he knows his subject inside out
he is a passoionate peace activist! his wife too, she does all the pictures!

I think it is good if for a little while we have some press on Israel and
Palestine, and if many peace groups write letters. It will confirm our position
it may be a good time to call a press conference and let people know that we
have other views on the topic.A joke could turned into a good opportunity as
the silence is now pretty strong.

Odile Hugonot Haber

On 11/18/07, Libby or Mort Frank <lmfrank1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Another look at the Annapolis conference -- from an Israeli leading peace
> activist.  (Scroll down past the Hebrew.)
>
> Libby
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gush Shalom
> To: intl at mailman.gush-shalom.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 6:25 AM
> Subject: Peacegroups Annapolis discussion Wedn. Tel-Aviv/ The missing
> sentence (Gush ad) / Avnery: How to get Out?
>
>
>
>
> www.gush-shalom.org
>
>
>
> האם אנאפוליס רלוונטית? פורום גוש שלום 21.11
>
>
>
> הקליקו לפרטים מלאים - זה ביום רביעי בתל-אביב
>
> http://gush-shalom.org.toibillboard.info/annapolis.Nov.21.htm
>
>  click for full details, it's on Wednesday in Tel-Aviv
>
> Forum Gush Shalom 21.11 Is Annapolis Relevant?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Uri Avnery: How to Get Out?
>
>
>
> Full text English in the end
>
>
>
> Collected articles
>
> http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> אורי אבנרי:  ???אז איך יוצאים מזה?
>
>
>
>  אוסף מאמרים:
>
>
>
>  http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gush Shalom ad in Haaretz,  16,11 2007   המשפט המהותי
>
> The crucial sentence
>
> (נמצא גם באתר (ההודעה בהארץ16.11
>
> http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/weekly_ad/1195209975/
>
>
> A week to Annapolis -
> And no sign of
> The solemn document
> To be presented there.
>
> What is missing?
> One simple sentence:
>
> "I. Ehud Olmert,
> Commit myself to
> Ending the occupation,
> In practice - and not in words,
> In all the territories - and
> Not in some of them,
> Now - and not
> When the Messiah comes.
>
> That's the whole story in a nutshell.
>
>
>
>
> 03-5221732.
>
>
>
>
>
> Uri Avnery
> 17.11.07
>
>                  How to Get Out?
>
>
>
> THE ANNAPOLIS conference is a joke. Though not in the least funny.
>
> Like quite a lot of political initiatives, this one too, according to all
> the indications, started more or less by accident. George Bush was due to
> make a speech. He was looking for a theme that would give it some substance.
> Something that would divert attention away from his fiascos in Iraq and
> Afghanistan. Something simple, optimistic, easy to swallow.
>
> Somehow, the idea of a "meeting" of leaders to promote the
> Israeli-Palestinian "process" came up. An international meeting is always
> nice - it looks good on television, it provides plenty of
> photo-opportunities, it radiates optimism. We meet, ergo we exist.
>
> So Bush voiced the idea: a "meeting" for the promotion of peace between
> Israel and the Palestinians.
>
> Without any preceding strategic planning, any careful preparations, anything
> much at all.
>
> That's why Bush did not go into any details: no clear aim, no agenda, no
> location, no date, no list of invitees. Just an ethereal meeting. This fact
> by itself testifies to the lack of seriousness of the entire enterprise.
>
> This may shock people who have never seen close up how politics are actually
> conducted. It is hard to accept the intolerable lightness with which
> decisions are often made, the irresponsibility of leaders and the arbitrary
> way important processes are set in motion.
>
>
> FROM THE MOMENT this idea was launched, it could not be called back. The
> President has spoken, the initiative starts on its way. As the saying goes:
> One fool throws a stone into the water, a dozen wise men cannot retrieve it.
>
> Once the "meeting" had been announced, it became an important enterprise.
> The experts of all parties started to work frantically on the undefined
> event, each trying to steer it in the direction which would benefit them the
> most.
>
> - Bush and Condoleezza Rice want an impressive event, to prove that the
> United States is vigorously promoting peace and democracy, and that they can
> succeed where the great Henry Kissinger failed. Jimmy Carter failed to turn
> the Israeli-Egyptian peace into an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Bill Clinton
> failed at Camp David. If Bush succeeds where all his illustrious
> predecessors have failed, won't that show who is the greatest of them all?
>
> -  Ehud Olmert urgently needs a resounding political achievement in order to
> blur the memory of his dismal failure in the Second Lebanon War and to
> extricate himself from the dozen or so criminal investigations for
> corruption that are pursuing him. His ambition knows no bounds: he wants to
> be photographed shaking the hand of the King of Saudi Arabia. A feat no
> Israeli prime minister before him has achieved.
>
> -  Mahmoud Abbas wants to show Hamas and the rebellious factions in his own
> Fatah movement that he can succeed where the great Yasser Arafat failed - to
> be accepted among the world's leaders as an equal partner.
>
> This could, therefore, become a great, almost historic conference, if …
>
>
> IF ALL these hopes were something more than pipedreams. None of them has any
> substance. For one simple reason: no one of the three partners has any
> capital at his disposal.
>
> -  Bush is bankrupt. In order to succeed at Annapolis, he would have to
> exert intense pressure on Israel, to compel it to take the necessary steps:
> agree to the establishment of a real Palestinian state, give up East
> Jerusalem, restore the Green Line border (with some small swaps of
> territory), find an agreed-upon compromise formula for the refugee issue.
>
> But Bush is quite unable to exert the slightest pressure on Israel, even if
> he wanted to. In the US, the election season has already begun, and  the two
> big parties are bulwarks standing in the way of any pressure on Israel. The
> Jewish and Evangelistic lobbies, together with the neo-cons, will not allow
> one critical word about Israel to be uttered unpunished.
>
> -  Olmert is in an even weaker position. His coalition still survives only
> because there is no alternative in the present Knesset. It includes elements
> that in any other country would be called fascist (For historical reasons,
> Israelis don't like to use this term). He is prevented by his partners from
> making any compromise, however tiny - even if he wanted to reach an
> agreement.
>
> This week, the Knesset adopted a bill that requires a two-thirds majority
> for any change of the borders of Greater Jerusalem. This means that Olmert
> cannot even give up one of the outlying Palestinian villages that were
> annexed to Jerusalem in 1967. He is also prevented from even approaching the
> 'core issues" of the conflict.
>
> -  Mahmoud Abbas cannot move away from the conditions laid down by Yasser
> Arafat (the 3rd anniversary of whose death was commemorated this week). If
> he strays from the straight and narrow, he will fall. He has already lost
> the Gaza Strip, and can lose the West Bank, too. On the other side, if he
> threatens violence, he will lose all he has got: the favor of Bush and the
> cooperation of the Israeli security forces.
>
> The three poker players are going to sit down together, pretending to start
> the game, while none of them has a cent to put on the table.
>
>
> THE MAJESTIC mountain seems to be getting smaller and smaller by the minute.
> It's against the laws of nature: the closer we get to it, the smaller it
> seems. What looked to many like a veritable Mt. Everest first  turned into
> an ordinary mountain, then into a hill, and now it hardly looks like an
> anthill. And even that is shrinking, too.
>
> First the participants were to deal with the "core issues". Then it was
> announced that a weighty declaration of intentions was to be adopted. Then a
> mere collection of empty phrases was proposed. Now even that is in doubt.
>
> Not one of the three leaders is still dreaming of an achievement. All they
> hope for now is to minimize the damage - but how to get out of a situation
> like this?
>
> As usual, our side is the most creative at this task. After all, we are
> experts in building roadblocks, walls and fences. This week, an obstacle
> larger then the Great Wall of China appeared.
>
> Ehud Olmert demanded that, before any negotiations, the Palestinians
> "recognize Israel as a Jewish state". He was followed by his coalition
> partner, the ultra-right Avigdor Liberman, who proposed staying away from
> Annapolis altogether if the Palestinians do not fulfill this demand in
> advance.
>
> Let's examine this condition for a moment:
>
> The Palestinians are not required to recognize the state of Israel. After
> all, they have already done so in the Oslo agreement - in spite of the fact
> that Israel has yet to recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state of
> their own based on the Green Line borders.
>
>  No, the government of Israel demands much more: the Palestinians must now
> recognize Israel as a "Jewish state".
>
> Does the USA demand to be recognized as a "Christian" or "Anglo-Saxon
> state"? Did Stalin demand that the US recognize the Soviet Union as a
> "Communist state"? Does Poland demand to be recognized as a "Catholic
> state", or Pakistan as an "Islamic state"? Is there any precedent at all for
> a state to demand the recognition of its domestic regime?
>
> The demand is ridiculous per se. But this can easily be shown by analysis ad
> absurdum.
>
> What is a "Jewish state"? That has never been spelled out. Is it a state
> with a majority of Jewish citizens? Is it "the state of the Jewish people" -
> meaning the Jews from Brooklyn, Paris and Moscow? Is it "a state belonging
> to the Jewish religion" - and if so, does it belong to secular Jews as well?
> Or perhaps it belongs only to Jews under the Law of Return  - i.e. those
> with a Jewish mother who have not converted to another religion?
>
> These questions have not been decided. Are the Palestinians required to
> recognize something that is the subject of debate in Israel itself?
>
> According to the official doctrine, Israel is a "Jewish and democratic
> state". What should the Palestinians do if, according to democratic
> principles, some day my opinion prevails and Israel becomes an "Israeli
> state" that belongs to all its citizens - and to them alone? (After all, the
> US belongs to all its citizens, including Hispanic-Americans,
> African-Americans, not to mention "Native-Americans".)
>
> The sting is, of course, that this formula is quite unacceptable to
> Palestinians because it would hurt the million and a half Palestinians who
> are Israeli citizens. The definition "Jewish state" turns them automatically
> into - at best - second class citizens. If Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues
> were to accede to this demand, they would be sticking a knife in the backs
> of their own relatives.
>
> Olmert & Co. know this, of course. They are not posing this demand in order
> to get it accepted. They pose it in order that it not be accepted. By this
> ploy they hope to avoid any obligation to start meaningful negotiations.
>
> Moreover, according to the deceased Road Map, which all parties pretend to
> accept, Israel must dismantle all settlements set up after March, 2000, and
> freeze all the others. Olmert is quite unable to do that. At the same time,
> Mahmoud Abbas must destroy the "terror infrastructure". Abbas can't do that
> either - as long as there is no independent Palestinian state with an
> elected government.
>
> I imagine Bush tossing and turning in his bed at night, cursing the
> speechwriter who put this miserable sentence into his mouth. On their way to
> heaven, his curses must be mingling with those of Olmert and Abbas.
>
>
> WHEN THE leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine were about to sign the
> Declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, the document was not ready.
> Sitting in front of the cameras and history, they had to sign on an empty
> page. I am afraid that something like that will happen in Annapolis.
>
> And then all of them will head back to their respective homes, heaving a
> heartfelt sigh of relief.
>
>
>
> permlink:
> http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1195337091/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> www.gush-shalom.org
>
> With donations you can help us make our actions more visible
>
> Please, send checks in your own currency – for confirmation of receipt
> include email address.
>
>  In several countries, tax-exemption can be obtained by donating through
> local charities - email us for details
>
> Wherever you are, you can take part in protests by writing protest letters
>
>
> GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033
> info at gush-shalom.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send mail to
>
> intl-request at mailman.gush-shalom.org
>
> and write the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
> In some programs it is enough to use the following link:
>
> mailto:intl-request at mailman.gush-shalom.org?subject=unsubscribe
> --NB: IN CASE THE AUTOMATIC UNSUBSCRIBE FUNCTION FAILS:
> send it again but now to info at gush-shalom.org and we will do it manually
>
> If you got this forwarded and you want to subscribe, send mail to
>
> intl-request at mailman.gush-shalom.org
>
> and write the word subscribe in the subject line.
> ...or use the link
>
> mailto:intl-request at mailman.gush-shalom.org?subject=subscribe
> --
>
> For assistance: info at gush-shalom.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wcusp mailing list
> Wcusp at wilpf.org
> http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/wcusp_wilpf.org
> To post a message to all the list members, send email to Wcusp at wilpf.org.
> To unsubscribe send a message to Wcusp-leave at wilpf.org
>