Annie's New Letters (& notes)

Friday, September 20, 2013

My comment RE 20 years of Oslo: Maybe the best thing to happen to Palestinians by Suhail Khalilieh

RE 20 years of Oslo: Maybe the best thing to happen to Palestinians by Suhail Khalilieh
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=631016

Dear Editor,

Good article! As far as negotiations go I am not so sure Palestinians are weak negotiators. Looking at the larger picture a vibrant information age frees the conversation in ways never possible before. Every artist, every thinker, every monitor, every remembrance, every Facebook page, every compassionate voice weighing in for Palestine, calmly pointing out basic truths and trends as well as historic facts- and UN Resolutions, has the capacity to help empower more respect and concern for Palestine

Sincerely,
Anne Selden Annab

NOTES

"The occupation is an emergency, not a macro- or trans-historical problem, particularly for the millions of Palestinians living under its oppressive rule. They, especially—but we too—do not have the luxury of waiting to see what the next hundred years of history will bring us, good or bad. On the contrary, we must have the courage to act now, and with urgency, within the existing realities, however difficult, to try to create a working solution to a situation that is both intolerably unjust and regionally (and to some extent even globally) destabilizing." Israel and Palestine Vs. ‘Blood and Magic’ by Hussein Ibish, Saliba Sarsar Sep 17, 2013

Farah Chamma- I Am No Palestinian

Twenty Years After Oslo, Trying it Again

CNN: World-renowned chef, best-selling author and Emmy-winning television personality Anthony Bourdain... 10 things to know before visiting Israel, the West Bank and Gaza

Anthony Bourdain, Will You Marry Me?

From handshake of peace to handcuffs of subjugation

U.S. Foreign Policy

NSA scandal: “Israel which discriminates continuously against US citizens of Arab and Muslim origins should not be rewarded with information that encourages and enhances its ability to discriminate against them leading to their deportations at Israeli airports, banning them from entry, and even jailing them,”

On Yom Kippur, Remember My Palestinian Mother: "The lesson, I think, is this: the Holy Land holds histories that, with time, can be taught to coexist. My mother’s is one of them. As she navigates her own, inner peace process, I hope that one day, in her lifetime, it leads home."

Palestine and Israel in the New Regional Context

Witnesses: Israeli forces bulldoze land south of Qalqiliya

Israelis uproot over 40 Palestinian olive trees in south Hebron hills late Sunday

The politicization of religion contributes to discrimination and persecution of religious minorities around the world.... “The politicization of religion and use of religion in politics has often added to polarization, social divides and conflicts in traditionally tolerant communities around the globe”

More Times Than I Can Remember ... a poem by Saliba Sarsar (born and raised in Jerusalem)

Palestine Festival of Literature 2013

Negotiations are a way to get our rights

point by point ...a poem

Live by the Golden Rule

Palestinian Refugees (1948-NOW) refused their right to return... and their right to live in peace free from religious bigotry and injustice.

Dear President Obama... Let Freedom Ring

194

Help Build A Golden Rule Peace for the Holy Land

Globalizing Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jordan's King Abdullah II explains that extremism has "grown fat" off of the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

*********

The Arab Peace Initiative

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

The Office of International Religious Freedom ( http://www.state.gov/j/drl/irf/) Given the U.S. commitment to religious freedom, and to the international covenants that guarantee it as the inalienable right of every human being, the United States seeks to:

Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries

"Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Thomas Jefferson

"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world." Eleanor Roosevelt

Live by the Golden Rule
Words to Honor: The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917

".... it being clearly understood that nothing
          shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious
          rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine....

"In 1949, the international community accepted Israel's UN membership upon two conditions: That they respect resolutions 181 (two states) and 194 (refugee rights). Neither has been honored. In fact, 65 years later, Israel has not even acknowledged what it did in 1948." Saeb Erekat

11 December 1948 UN Resolution 194:"Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible"

The Golden Rule... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Thursday, September 19, 2013

CSM: Bedouins slam Israel's desert development as 'Nakba in the Negev' ... An Israeli development plan for the Negev desert would evict 40,000 semi-nomadic Arab Bedouins, who compare it to the Palestinian expulsion after Israel's founding.

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

Refusing to be relocated

The Bedouin village of Al Araqib has steadfastly refused to be relocated. Since 2010, Israeli forces have razed homes and uprooted olive groves here 57 times, claiming that residents are illegal trespassers, according to long-standing land disputes. The village’s only surviving structure is a century-old Islamic cemetery.

Hakmeh Abu Medeighim lives in a shoddy wooden tent next door. She and a handful of other families have refused to leave their ancestral lands, strewn with rubble from their homes that were razed, rebuilt, and razed again. Though pine trees stand where their olive trees once were, they pledge that they will die in this harsh desert “even if mourners will have no water for the ritual prayer,” says Al Araqib’s elder, Sheikh Sayyah al-Turi.

He has been waging a losing battle in municipal courts to prove land ownership, using pre-1948 land deeds – rejected by Israel – as his only legal documents.

He didn’t always have to fight, but growing racism in the government has eroded respect for the Bedouin community, allowing things like the Prawar plan to come about...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0917/Bedouins-slam-Israel-s-desert-development-as-Nakba-in-the-Negev-video

Ground which has been prepared for the construction of new homes is seen in front of the Bedouin town of Segev Shalom, near the southern Israeli city of Beersheba, August 25. Ronen Zvulun/Reuters

By Shira Rubin, Correspondent / September 17, 2013

Al Araqib, Israel

The Bedouins of the southern Negev desert have volunteered for the Israeli military, worked as trackers along the Lebanese and Egyptian borders, and gone along with various Israeli development projects that have required them to give up their nomadic way of life and relocate.

But they feel betrayed now by the latest Israeli government project, a $5.6 billion initiative called the Begin-Prawar plan that will free up space for Israeli development of the Negev by relocating Bedouins in the area if it is approved by the Knesset after it returns from recess next month.

The Israeli government has slated for eviction 40,000 Bedouins in “unrecognized” villages throughout the southern Negev...READ MORE

Israel displaces dozens of Palestinian families for military exercises

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=630508

Published Tuesday 17/09/2013 (updated) 18/09/2013

JERICHO (Ma'an) -- Israel's army forcibly displaced dozens of Palestinian families in the northern Jordan Valley on Tuesday to make way for a military training exercise.

Aref Daraghmeh, chairman of the village council of Wadi Maleh and al-Madareb, told Ma'an that Israeli forces evacuated dozens of people from the areas of al-Burj and al-Maita in Tubas because of Israeli training drills.

Israeli forces closed the Tayasir checkpoint and prevented school children, university students and workers from using the road.

On Saturday, Israeli military forces evacuated over 100 people from their homes in the Jordan Valley to make way for military training exercises.

Over 44 percent of the Jordan Valley is classified by Israel as a closed military zone or nature reserve.

An additional 50 percent of the valley is controlled by Israeli settlements, leaving around six percent for Palestinians, according to figures from Save the Children.

Israeli forces seize tents in demolished village

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=631122

Published yesterday (updated) 18/09/2013

JENIN (Ma'an) -- Israeli forces on Wednesday seized tents used by the stranded people of Khirbet Makhool village which was destroyed by Israeli forces on Monday, a local official said.

Aref Daraghmeh, the mayor of al-Malih and al-Madarib villages, told Ma'an that Red Cross workers were still distributing tents to people when a large Israeli military force raided the site, knocked down tents and confiscated them.

Daraghmeh added that Israeli soldiers were “brutal and barbaric” in dealing with Palestinians, which led to clashes between soldiers and those who refused to abide to Israeli orders and stayed in their tents.

The Israeli army declared Khirbet Makhool a closed military zone and isolated it from nearby communities.

Daraghmeh added that evicting people was part of Israeli plans to empty the Jordan Valley and build settlements. He called on international rights organizations to intervene and stop human rights and international law violations.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Israel and Palestine Vs. ‘Blood and Magic’ by Hussein Ibish, Saliba Sarsar Sep 17, 2013

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

Jerusalem

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/17/israel-and-palestine-vs-blood-and-magic.html

Ian S. Lustick’s commentary, "Two-State Illusion,” in this weekend's New York Times dismisses not only the present round of U.S.-brokered Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, but the whole concept of a negotiated two-state Israeli-Palestinian agreement. He describes it as a fantasy that “blinds us and impedes progress,” as if Israelis and Palestinians faced a smorgasbord of interesting and attractive options for resolving the conflict.

However, as the latter part of his article makes clear, his "new ideas" are mainly an incoherent jumble of imaginary scenarios, all of which require an alternative reality to emerge at some point in the future. Nothing he suggests can be built on under present circumstances. None of it holds together as a coherent or even semi-coherent counterproposal.

Worse still, most of what he envisages requires by his own admission decades, if not centuries, to become possibilities, and further Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inevitable.

So not only would we have to wait scores of decades, if not centuries, for any of these "alternatives" to begin to emerge, they could only be the product of further wide-scale bloodshed.

Despite Prof. Lustick's passionate dismissal, the two-state solution remains the only viable option for ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. His counterfactual musings don't provide any practicable, coherent or implementable alternatives. It's an interesting thought experiment to dismiss the global consensus, stated position of all relevant parties, logical implementation of international law, and only practicable means of achieving the minimum goals of each party in favor of flights of fancy. But it has no political value whatsoever. Indeed undermining the only plausible conflict-ending scenario, while not suggesting any serious, practicable alternatives, is actually harmful.

Although realizing a two-state solution faces serious and growing obstacles, it alone allows both Palestinians and Israelis to avoid an ongoing struggle with no end in sight. Yes, “Time can do things that politicians cannot,” as Prof. Lustick writes, but the goal must be to achieve a solution in our lifetime—not in 120 years as with Irish independence, or 132 years as with Algerian independence, two of the key examples he cites.

The occupation is an emergency, not a macro- or trans-historical problem, particularly for the millions of Palestinians living under its oppressive rule. They, especially—but we too—do not have the luxury of waiting to see what the next hundred years of history will bring us, good or bad. On the contrary, we must have the courage to act now, and with urgency, within the existing realities, however difficult, to try to create a working solution to a situation that is both intolerably unjust and regionally (and to some extent even globally) destabilizing.

Other than a two-state solution, other scenarios may have constituencies but they cannot end the conflict. There are three main extant "alternative" visions.

First is the continuation of the status quo of Israeli occupation and unilateralism. Israel rules millions of Palestinians who, uniquely in the world, are not citizens of Israel or any other state. Israel also controls large amounts of Palestinian territory beyond its internationally recognized boundaries. This situation is completely untenable, and, over time, can only lead to further confrontations. It is a relationship of dominance and subordination that makes further conflict inevitable.

Moreover, it can only defer a resolution of the essential issues between the two peoples and deepen and entrench divisions, thus further raising the stakes and making a conflict-ending agreement more difficult at every stage. Israeli exclusivity in Jerusalem is a recipe for continued conflict with the Palestinians, since a Palestinian state without a sovereign role in occupied East Jerusalem would not be viable. More dangerous still, exclusive Israeli control of Jerusalem creates the circumstances through which the conflict could easily morph from being a difficult but resolvable political struggle between two ethno-national communities over land and power, into a far more intractable, and possibly irreconcilable, religious confrontation between Israel and the Muslim world in general over holy places and the will of God.

Second, among both Israelis and Palestinians, minority discourses are demanding complete Israeli/Jewish (as expressed by the Jewish Israeli settler and annexation movements) or Palestinian/Muslim (as reflected in the positions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad) rule over the whole of historical Palestine. These maximalist visions offer nothing but ongoing and, in all likelihood, catastrophic conflict without apparent resolution, since neither side can seriously hope for any sort of comprehensive military solution. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians, both of whom exist in roughly equivalent numbers between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, are going to vanish from the land. And neither people shows the least interest in either accepting subjugation at the hands of the other or abandoning its own national identity.

Third, especially in the Palestinian diaspora and in Western universities, a utopian vision of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians both set aside their national identities in favor of an as-yet-undefined umbrella identity in some sort of joint or bi-national state may be appealing in theory, but does not constitute a practical path to ending the conflict. No political movement of any significance among either Palestinians or Israelis has adopted it as a policy goal, because both sides are still clinging to their national projects and self-determination. Moreover, no version of this has yet explained what could make it attractive to Jewish Israelis who would have to be convinced to abandon their national project. Indeed, this idea remains entirely mired in sloganeering aimed at Palestinian and pro-Palestinian sentiments and, thus far, hasn't even attempted to address the basic interests of Jewish Israelis and their national sentiments or narratives.

All of these "alternatives" represent unworkable fantasies and, in practice, the demand for them abandons the goal of resolving the conflict and ending the occupation in favor of an open-ended struggle in pursuit of impossible goals. In short, these "solutions" represent neither principles nor pragmatism, and instead reflect dangerous phantasms and fanaticism.

Prof. Lustick has provided a very good illustration of how far fantasies about alternative scenarios can be taken when they proliferate on the page in what appears to be an unstructured stream of consciousness.

By contrast, one of the most compelling aspects of the two-state solution is that a solid majority of both Palestinians and Israelis alike have shown, in virtually every poll taken in the past twenty years and more, that they are in favor of peace based on two states. Moreover, the international community, the U.N. Security Council, and the international legal framework are all very clear in their support for a Palestinian state that would live alongside Israel in peace and security.

Nevertheless, radical minorities on both sides and in the U.S. have thus far been allowed to thwart the mutual wishes of the large majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. Moreover, they have been allowed to impede the realization of a crucial American national security interest.

Prof. Lustick looks forward to future transformations beyond a two-state framework based on a combination of "blood and magic," which he argues are the key to avoiding "truly catastrophic change." In our view, it's hard to imagine a political perspective that more certainly invites "truly catastrophic change" than a reliance on "blood and magic." We prefer to rely on the national interests, political common sense, and the basic humanity of all the parties to recognize that, under current circumstances, only a two-state solution offers a conflict-ending scenario.

Moreover, we strongly feel that we do not have the luxury of centuries to let "blood and magic" do their work, assuming that Prof. Lustick is right that these are indeed the factors that avoid catastrophe. Prof. Lustick says that in the early 1980s, when working for the U.S. government, he was asked outright if he was "willing to destroy the only available chance for peace between Israelis and Palestinians?” He says he responded in the affirmative.

We are no less aware of the challenges facing the realization of a two-state solution, and there's nothing in Prof. Lustick's commentary with which either of us was unfamiliar. The big difference is that we are not willing to destroy the only available chance for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, or to dismiss or denigrate it. Instead, we strongly advocate that all people of goodwill join together to find a way to make it work because Prof. Lustick's alternative—centuries of conflict and a reliance on "blood and magic" as a solution—appears to us to be inexcusably reckless.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine. His most recent book is What’s Wrong with the One-State Agenda? Why Ending the Occupation and Peace with Israel is Still the Palestinian National Goal. He has a PhD in comparative literature from The University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Dr. Saliba Sarsar, Professor of Political Science at Monmouth University, is a member of ATFP’s Board of Directors.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

My letter to the NYTimes RE Letters- A Two-State Critic, and His Critics

Palestinian Refugees (1948-NOW) refused their right to return... and their right to live in peace free from religious bigotry and injustice

RE: Letters- A Two-State Critic, and His Critics
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/opinion/a-two-state-critic-and-his-critics.html?ref=global&_r=0

Dear Editor,

Israel's supposed Jewishness is (and has been) a dangerous and increasingly cruel delusion shared by both crazed extremists and some very reasonable, likable (albeit naive and/or myopic) thinkers and writers and peace makers who firmly believe that their favored religion should be empowered with tax payers' money and international support.

Israel's supposed Jewishness depends on refusing to respect universal basic human rights, including but not limited to the Palestinian refugees inalienable, legal, moral and natural right to return to original homes and lands.

Israel's supposed Jewishness has been motivating a multitude of Jewish Israelis to systemically oppress, persecute, impoverish, and displace the native non-Jewish population of the Holy Land... and Israel's supposed Jewishness impels Israel's supporters and propagandists worldwide to actively harass, distract, demoralize, silence and destroy anyone who dares object to such blatant injustice and bigotry.

This is not a healthy situation.... nor is it fair.

One state or two religion should be a personal private choice, not a state funded project.

Sincerely,
Anne Selden Annab

NOTES
Farah Chamma- I Am No Palestinian

Twenty Years After Oslo, Trying it Again

CNN: World-renowned chef, best-selling author and Emmy-winning television personality Anthony Bourdain... 10 things to know before visiting Israel, the West Bank and Gaza

Anthony Bourdain, Will You Marry Me?

From handshake of peace to handcuffs of subjugation

U.S. Foreign Policy

NSA scandal: “Israel which discriminates continuously against US citizens of Arab and Muslim origins should not be rewarded with information that encourages and enhances its ability to discriminate against them leading to their deportations at Israeli airports, banning them from entry, and even jailing them,”

On Yom Kippur, Remember My Palestinian Mother: "The lesson, I think, is this: the Holy Land holds histories that, with time, can be taught to coexist. My mother’s is one of them. As she navigates her own, inner peace process, I hope that one day, in her lifetime, it leads home."

Jordan's King Abdullah II explains that extremism has "grown fat" off of the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

*********

The Arab Peace Initiative

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries

"Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Thomas Jefferson

Live by the Golden Rule
Words to Honor: The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917

".... it being clearly understood that nothing
          shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious
          rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine....

The Golden Rule... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Farah Chamma- I Am No Palestinian

You can also watch her video of the poem “How Must I believe” here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVodbIi798w

19yr old Farah Chamma gets political with power of spoken word and kicks off the season debut of the new poetry show, Word Play! Poem entitled: How must I Believe. Word Play airs every 2nd Monday! (Arabic Poem w/Subtitles) - Translated by: Laith Aqel

***

Farah Chamma evolving through poetry arab news interview

Twenty Years After Oslo, Trying it Again

The White House South Lawn on September 13, 1993 as a crowd of 3,000 gathers for the signing of the Oslo accords.

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/twenty-years-after-oslo-trying-it-again/

Monday September 16, 2013

by Dr. James Zogby of AAI

Twenty years have passed since Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords in Washington, DC on September 13th, 1993.

On the White House lawn, where the signing took place, there was a sense of euphoria. When Arafat and Rabin shook hands, Arab Americans and American Jews, who had long been combatants in the public sphere, turned to each other to embrace and celebrate the moment. Two days later, in an effort to build on this positive sentiment, President Bill Clinton invited 150 leaders of both communities to the White House urging them to work together as a "constituency for peace."

In Israel and the Occupied Territories there were also celebrations with leaders on both sides expressing optimism about the way forward. Appearing on my live call-in TV show just days after the signing, Nabil Sha'ath the chief Palestinian negotiator was questioned about whether the fledgling Palestinian government would be able to restrain perpetrators of acts of violence against Israelis. He responded, “if the agreement works, and I believe that it will, two years from now our farmers will be cultivating the land that has been liberated, our young men will be working at jobs that have been created, and we will be building the infrastructure of our new state. If, in the midst of all of this, someone were to commit an act of violence, the people would turn to us and say, ‘stop them, because they are threatening everything we've won.’”

There were also Israelis who looked confidently to the future. Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin said, “Israel is another Israel, we are ready to change many of our ideas from the past to adapt ourselves to a new reality. The PLO is no longer the same PLO. Things can be done in the Middle East.”

But not everyone was pleased. Israeli critics accused Rabin of surrendering to and giving legitimacy to Palestinian terrorists, while Palestinian critics charged that the Oslo documents had too many loopholes and would only prolong the Israeli occupation.

By any measure, the Accords were incomplete. They were full of ambiguities, areas where the parties fudged over differences because they could not find agreement. And resolution of the most critical issues of Jerusalem, borders, settlements, refugees, and security arrangements were put off until after a five-year transitional period. One observer, at the time, described the Accords, more like "a cry for help" than a peace agreement. It was as if Israelis and Palestinians were saying "this is a start—as far as we can go. We need help to get to the finish line".

But even with the flaws and the ambiguities, what was undeniable was that Israel and the PLO had taken unprecedented steps, breaking taboos and shattering myths.

In the first place, Israelis and Palestinians formally recognized each other as national communities. While Palestinians had committed themselves to a two-state solution in 1988, signing an agreement with the Israelis that recognized the legitimacy of an independent Israeli state represented a dramatic breakthrough. Israel also had an issue with recognition. Until Oslo they had refused to acknowledge the existence of a Palestinian people. And they refused not only to talk to the PLO but had insisted that others shun the group, as well. In 1985, speaking at a Washington event, Rabin was quoted as saying "whoever agrees to talk to the PLO means he accepts in principle the creation of an independent Palestinian state" and this he said, was "unacceptable". In acknowledging the PLO, Israel not only opened the door to the inevitability of a Palestinian state, it also shattered the anti-PLO taboo (that it had established). For years, the heavy-handed political clout of American supporters of Israel had tormented Arab Americans and others, punishing them for "contact" with the "forbidden" group.

The Oslo Accords also shattered the myth that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was insoluble, the result of an "age-old" conflict that was "in the genes" of both communities. Oslo did not provide a solution, but it demonstrated a willingness of both sides to finding one.

There were other breakthroughs resulting from Oslo. While no Palestinian state came into being, the locus of Palestinian authority and decision-making would move for the first time to the Palestinian territories. And while the occupation remained an oppressive fact of life for most Palestinians, even the limited pullback of Israeli forces from most West Bank cities and towns, gave Palestinians welcome respite.

The Oslo Accords provided for an initial Israeli limited deployment that would lead to a five-year transitional phase, during which negotiations would continue. It was at the end of this five year period that the parties would begin work in earnest to resolve the so-called "final status" issues. The operative assumption behind this approach was that with five years of peaceful relations sufficient trust would have developed giving the negotiators the space to tackle the thorniest issues.
For the process to play out, as it was envisioned, several things had to occur:

The role of the US had to shift from being an observer, with an inclination to support one side, to a fully engaged balanced participant. As the Accord made clear, Israelis and Palestinians could go no further on their own. They needed someone to heed their cry for help and shepherd them through to the end;
The parties had to move quickly. In drawing up their timetables, the architects of Oslo did not factor in the ability of a suicide bomber, settlers on a rampage, or excessive force by Israeli occupation forces to unravel the process. Violence from Palestinians and Israeli settlers who opposed Oslo eroded public confidence in the peace process, making it politically difficult for the negotiators to complete their work; and
Provisions had to be made to bring the benefits of peace to both sides in order to sustain their confidence in a five year process. The problem was that while Israel's economy grew quite quickly after Oslo, the Palestinian economy contracted. Because of unrestrained Israeli behaviors, in the first two years after Oslo: settlements grew at an unprecedented rate; and because of restrictive Israeli policies, Palestinian unemployment doubled, income fell, and businesses closed because they could not freely import or export.

In the end, the flaws of Oslo proved fatal. Today, the number of Israeli settlers has tripled; the Palestinian economy remains dependent on Israeli good-will and international largess; and thousands have died, victims of acts of terror, disproportionate military assaults, and settler violence. As a result, confidence and trust is at a low point.

After a long hiatus, the parties have once again reopened negotiations. One can only hope they have learned lessons from the Oslo experience:

An interim, phased approach won't work. The opponents of peace will take advantage of an interim period to attempt to sabotage any agreement;
The US can't be an observer. The Palestinians are too weak and have no leverage. Pressure must be applied on the Israelis to help level the playing field; and
There must be immediate signs of improvement in the daily life of both peoples. Israelis must feel more secure, and Palestinians must feel more free and they must see clear signs that their future will be prosperous and just.

On the White House lawn, where the signing took place, there was a sense of euphoria. When Arafat and Rabin shook hands, Arab Americans and American Jews, who had long been combatants in the public sphere, turned to each other to embrace and celebrate the moment. Two days later, in an effort to build on this positive sentiment, President Bill Clinton invited 150 leaders of both communities to the White House urging them to work together as a "constituency for peace."

In Israel and the Occupied Territories there were also celebrations with leaders on both sides expressing optimism about the way forward. Appearing on my live call-in TV show just days after the signing, Nabil Sha'ath the chief Palestinian negotiator was questioned about whether the fledgling Palestinian government would be able to restrain perpetrators of acts of violence against Israelis. He responded, “if the agreement works, and I believe that it will, two years from now our farmers will be cultivating the land that has been liberated, our young men will be working at jobs that have been created, and we will be building the infrastructure of our new state. If, in the midst of all of this, someone were to commit an act of violence, the people would turn to us and say, ‘stop them, because they are threatening everything we've won.’”

There were also Israelis who looked confidently to the future. Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin said, “Israel is another Israel, we are ready to change many of our ideas from the past to adapt ourselves to a new reality. The PLO is no longer the same PLO. Things can be done in the Middle East.”

But not everyone was pleased. Israeli critics accused Rabin of surrendering to and giving legitimacy to Palestinian terrorists, while Palestinian critics charged that the Oslo documents had too many loopholes and would only prolong the Israeli occupation.

By any measure, the Accords were incomplete. They were full of ambiguities, areas where the parties fudged over differences because they could not find agreement. And resolution of the most critical issues of Jerusalem, borders, settlements, refugees, and security arrangements were put off until after a five-year transitional period. One observer, at the time, described the Accords, more like "a cry for help" than a peace agreement. It was as if Israelis and Palestinians were saying "this is a start—as far as we can go. We need help to get to the finish line".

But even with the flaws and the ambiguities, what was undeniable was that Israel and the PLO had taken unprecedented steps, breaking taboos and shattering myths.

In the first place, Israelis and Palestinians formally recognized each other as national communities. While Palestinians had committed themselves to a two-state solution in 1988, signing an agreement with the Israelis that recognized the legitimacy of an independent Israeli state represented a dramatic breakthrough. Israel also had an issue with recognition. Until Oslo they had refused to acknowledge the existence of a Palestinian people. And they refused not only to talk to the PLO but had insisted that others shun the group, as well. In 1985, speaking at a Washington event, Rabin was quoted as saying "whoever agrees to talk to the PLO means he accepts in principle the creation of an independent Palestinian state" and this he said, was "unacceptable". In acknowledging the PLO, Israel not only opened the door to the inevitability of a Palestinian state, it also shattered the anti-PLO taboo (that it had established). For years, the heavy-handed political clout of American supporters of Israel had tormented Arab Americans and others, punishing them for "contact" with the "forbidden" group.

The Oslo Accords also shattered the myth that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was insoluble, the result of an "age-old" conflict that was "in the genes" of both communities. Oslo did not provide a solution, but it demonstrated a willingness of both sides to finding one.

There were other breakthroughs resulting from Oslo. While no Palestinian state came into being, the locus of Palestinian authority and decision-making would move for the first time to the Palestinian territories. And while the occupation remained an oppressive fact of life for most Palestinians, even the limited pullback of Israeli forces from most West Bank cities and towns, gave Palestinians welcome respite.

The Oslo Accords provided for an initial Israeli limited deployment that would lead to a five-year transitional phase, during which negotiations would continue. It was at the end of this five year period that the parties would begin work in earnest to resolve the so-called "final status" issues. The operative assumption behind this approach was that with five years of peaceful relations sufficient trust would have developed giving the negotiators the space to tackle the thorniest issues.

For the process to play out, as it was envisioned, several things had to occur:

· The role of the US had to shift from being an observer, with an inclination to support one side, to a fully engaged balanced participant. As the Accord made clear, Israelis and Palestinians could go no further on their own. They needed someone to heed their cry for help and shepherd them through to the end;

· The parties had to move quickly. In drawing up their timetables, the architects of Oslo did not factor in the ability of a suicide bomber, settlers on a rampage, or excessive force by Israeli occupation forces to unravel the process. Violence from Palestinians and Israeli settlers who opposed Oslo eroded public confidence in the peace process, making it politically difficult for the negotiators to complete their work; and

· Provisions had to be made to bring the benefits of peace to both sides in order to sustain their confidence in a five year process. The problem was that while Israel's economy grew quite quickly after Oslo, the Palestinian economy contracted. Because of unrestrained Israeli behaviors, in the first two years after Oslo: settlements grew at an unprecedented rate; and because of restrictive Israeli policies, Palestinian unemployment doubled, income fell, and businesses closed because they could not freely import or export.

After a long hiatus, the parties have once again reopened negotiations. One can only hope they have learned lessons from the Oslo experience:

· An interim, phased approach won't work. The opponents of peace will take advantage of an interim period to attempt to sabotage any agreement;

· The US can't be an observer. The Palestinians are too weak and have no leverage. Pressure must be applied on the Israelis to help level the playing field; and

· There must be immediate signs of improvement in the daily life of both peoples. Israelis must feel more secure, and Palestinians must feel more free and they must see clear signs that their future will be prosperous and just.

Washington Watch Archives »

CNN: World-renowned chef, best-selling author and Emmy-winning television personality Anthony Bourdain... 10 things to know before visiting Israel, the West Bank and Gaza

Mount of Olives

World-renowned chef, best-selling author and Emmy-winning television personality Anthony Bourdain returns for the second season of CNN's showcase for coverage of food and travel. "Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown" is shot entirely on location and premieres Sept 15 @ 9pm ET/PT. Follow the show on Twitter and Facebook. Bourdain's first stop: Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

(CNN) -- The Holy Land makes for inspiring, fascinating, confusing travel.

To some, the chunk of territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is all Israel.

To others, it's all Palestine.

For most -- as is true so often in this region of shifting truths and manipulated historical narratives -- it's a bit of both.

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/travel/travel-to-israel-bourdain-10-things/index.html

A child walks through a gap in the concrete blocks of a security wall in the West Bank village of Eizariya, east of Jerusalem, in a 2003 file photo. Take a walking tour of East Jerusalem, or a pilgrimage to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem and you'll run into Israel's infamous security barrier. CNN

More on CNN: Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown Season 2

Season 2, Episode 1

Jerusalem »

Even food origins are contentious

Israel exists as an intersection of three major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, creating a complex blend of cuisines.

Anthony Bourdain in Jerusalem

By Katia Hetter, CNN

12:53pm EDT, Thu Sep 12, 2013

"It's easily the most contentious piece of real estate in the world, and there's no hope -- none -- of ever talking about it without pissing somebody, if not everybody, off."

Ibex are just one attraction of the Negev Desert. CNN

Anthony Bourdain, Will You Marry Me?

By Amer Zahr

Posted on September 16, 2013

http://www.civilarab.com/anthony-bourdain-will-you-marry-me/

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

[Season 2, Episode 1 Jerusalem

Airdate: Sunday September 15, 2013

In the season premiere of "Anthony Bourdain Parts Unknown," the host and crew make their first trip to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. While the political situation is often tense between the people living in these areas, Bourdain concentrates on their rich history, food and culture, and spends time with local chefs, home cooks, writers and amateur foodies.]

Something amazing happened on CNN last night. Palestinians were portrayed as human beings.
In his show “Parts Unknown,” Anthony Bourdain travels to exotic and controversial locales to examine the intersection of food, politics, and everyday life. Last night, he visited Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.

He was immediately mesmerized by Palestine, which is a common phenomenon. It is an amazing place, where the gravity of the history and spirituality is heavy in the air. It feels majestic. But something is a little off. Bourdain felt the splendor, but, as he said, “Then you see the young draftees (teenage Israeli soldiers holding machine guns) in the streets, and you start to get the idea.”

He began his journey with an Israeli chef and author, Yotam. They started by tasting some falafel in Jerusalem’s Old City. Yotam told the audience, in a stunning admission, “Israelis made falafel their own, and everybody in the world thinks falafel is Israeli, but in actual fact, it is as much Palestinian, even more so, because it’s been done for generations here… The question of food appropriation is massive here.”

Now if they could only say the same thing about the land, the houses, and the air, we might be able to get somewhere.

Bourdain then made his way into the West Bank. And on his way to visit a settlement, he said something that Americans never hear on TV:

In 2003, Israel began construction on a wall along the green line representing the Israeli-Palestinian border. The wall now stretches 450 miles. When completed, it will span 700 miles, 85% of it in Palestinian territory… Since 1967, 500,000 Israeli settlers have moved into the West Bank, all in contravention of international law, many in contravention of Israeli law, though in effect it seems to make little difference, they’re here and in ever larger numbers.

Anthony, you will be hearing from certain individuals and organizations in the coming days. They will be upset. They’ve been trying to keep this stuff a secret.

Before he got to the settlement, he noticed some Hebrew graffiti on a Palestinian house in a neighboring village. His driver translated it for him: “Death to Arabs.”

Anthony, you will be hearing from certain individuals and organizations in the coming days. They will be upset. They’ve been trying to keep this stuff a secret.

Bourdain finally made it to the settlement of Eli. Eli is located north of Ramallah and in the heart of the West Bank. It is nowhere near the 1967 borders. He asked its chief executive, Amiad, what Palestinians might think of its existence. He told Bourdain, “Actually they are happy we are here. We gave them prosperity for the past 45 years.” I was worried the show might go in a bad direction, but then Bourdain said, “I’m guessing a lot of people would disagree with that statement.” Wow, I think he’s getting it. Then Bourdain said, “So, from the high ground, you can see anyone walking at night, you can see pretty far out.” Wow, he is getting it!

Anthony, you will be hearing from certain individuals and organizations in the coming days. They will be upset. They’ve been trying to keep this stuff a secret.

As Bourdain prepared to leave Eli, he brought up the disturbing graffiti he saw with Amiad. “Why not paint it over?” he asked innocently. The response? “Good question. Maybe we should. You’re right.” I’m sure Anthony knows he’s not the first person to suggest such a thing. Now, Anthony, I am a bit more experienced with Israeli talk than you are, so let me translate that. “Good question. Maybe we should. You’re right,” really means, “Silly question, we definitely won’t, get out of my face.”

Bourdain then made a quick visit with a now famous group of Palestinian female drivers called “The Speed Sisters.” Now this visit had nothing to do with food, but he was able to be in a car alone with Betty Saadeh, a hot Palestinian woman. And you don’t turn down an opportunity like that. He even looked like he caught a little case of Palestinian fever. I can relate.

After visiting Jerusalem, Bourdain took the short but interesting drive into Bethlehem, through a checkpoint, and past the infamous wall:

It’s right there for all to see. And it feels like something out of a science fiction film. This is the wall. From the other side, from inside this place, it doesn't feel like anything other than what it is. A prison.
Anthony, you will be hearing from certain individuals and organizations in the coming days. They will be upset. They’ve been trying to keep this stuff a secret.

Bourdain visited Aida refugee camp, just north of Bethlehem. There he met Abdelfattah Abusrour, my friend, and the founder of Ruwwad, a group that uses theatre for young people to express their desires and feelings. Abusrour sees Ruwwad as nonviolent resistance, a way for young people to express themselves, creating what he calls “a peace from within.”

The honest portrayal of the residents of the camp, from their squalor to their own struggle to find productive channels of resistance, was something I had never seen on American TV. Bourdain noted that these Palestinian children do not have the luxury of idolizing pop stars and athletes. They turn to politics early, sometimes idolizing martyrs and politicians. And he’s right, there’s something wrong with that. We Palestinians are normal in so many ways. And we’re so not normal in so many others.
Then Bourdain went to Gaza:

Getting in and out of Gaza from Israel is truly one of the most surreal travel experiences you could have on Earth. Over 1.5 million people live in Gaza, most of them considered refugees, meaning they are not from the place they are compelled to live now. In most cases, they are either prohibited from or unable to leave. Israel decides who comes and goes, what gets in and what stays out.

Anthony, you will be hearing from certain individuals and organizations in the coming days. They will be upset. They’ve been trying to keep this stuff a secret.

In Gaza, he met Laila Haddad, a well-known Palestinian author and activist who has written books about Gaza life and cuisine. As she explained that Gaza’s cuisine should include a lot of seafood, she noted that fishermen can rarely get prize catches as the Israeli military limits how far out they can sail. If they go too far, the Israeli navy shoots at their boats and cuts their nets.

Bourdain and Haddad then visited the Sultan family, where they were served a Palestinian staple, maqloobeh. That dish happens to be one of my specialties (Yes, ladies, I can cook.) As they were eating, the man of the house was worried about being rude. Why? The cameramen were not eating. His wife asked Bourdain to open a restaurant for her. We Palestinians are always looking for a hook-up. We need it. Her husband continued to yell, but Leila assured Anthony. “This is a normal tone of voice. He's not upset, by the way. This is how we talk. We yell.” I can relate.

Before Bourdain left Gaza, he met and dined with one more group of men. These men, like 75% of Gaza’s population, were refugees. As he sat, laughing and eating, he told us:

Many of these guys are not too sympathetic to my country, or my ethnicity I’m guessing. But, there’s that hospitality thing. Anywhere you go in the Muslim world, it seems, no matter what, you feed your guests, you do your best to make them feel at home.

It’s true. We Palestinians are overly hospitable when people visit our homeland. Sometimes too much.
The episode ended with Natan, the owner of a restaurant right outside of Gaza in Israel. Natan’s daughter was killed by a mortar bomb in the constant struggle between groups in Gaza and Israel. Since 2008, over 1,600 Palestinians in Gaza have also been killed in this conflict.

Natan spoke of the senseless deaths on both sides. He clearly disliked settlements, and he believed it was possible for like-minded people from both sides to get together and make peace. I would agree, if just more people like Natan existed. But the people who are pointing the guns at me aren’t named Natan… They’re named Netanyahu.

By the end, Bourdain did not seem too optimistic about the prospects of peace. “One doesn’t even have to speak metaphorically because there is an actual wall... or a fence, depending on who you’re talking to.” Natan told him, “No. It is a big wall. It is ugly. It is really ugly. You can see it, it’s not far away from here.” Unfortunately, it’s not far away from anywhere.

Anthony, you will be hearing from certain individuals and organizations in the coming days. They will be upset. They’ve been trying to keep this stuff a secret.

Part of being Palestinian in America is getting really excited whenever someone tells the truth about us on American TV. Kind of depressing, right?

Anthony, in the beginning of this episode, you gave the following announcement:

By the end of this hour, I'll be seen by many as a terrorist sympathizer, a Zionist tool, a self-hating Jew, an apologist for American imperialism, an Orientalist, socialist, a fascist, CIA agent, and worse.

I didn’t see any of that. I just saw what happens to anyone who actually interacts with Palestinians. You fell in love with us, and we fell in love with you.

Labels

Friday, September 20, 2013

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Refusing to be relocated

Tuesday, September 17, 2013