|
Pulse of the Twin Cities Login |
|
If you do not have an account yet
Create One.
|
|
|
Twin Town High (vol. 8) |
|
|
|
|
RE: Curfews in Tulkarem 8.28.02
Wednesday 18 September @ 09:44:19 |
 Our coverage of Palestine has, as always, caused a flurry of responses. Here are two respones to Stanley Berg’s Response to Kristin Razowsky’s piece on curfews in Tulkarem, both of which appeared in the 8.28.02 issue of Pulse
To the Editor:
In arguing that Kristin Razowsky’s “article is purely a piece of one-sided anti-Israeli propaganda,” Stanley Berg takes issue with Ms. Razowsky’s apparent insistence that, in his words, “the Palestinians want peace and are willing to make compromises.” [“Israel has no Alternative, but to Defend Herself,” Pulse of the Twin Cities, August 28, 2002, p. 4] She “offers up no proof of this whatsoever,” he maintains, as “[t]he facts and history clearly show that this has not been the case.” Tellingly, Mr. Berg then fails to cite the “facts and history” that allegedly support his contention. He does, however, shamefully assert that “[t]he Palestinians are not innocent victims of an oppressive occupation. They have brought about their own suffering by rejecting peace overtures from Israel and responding only with violence. It is sad, but true.”
Mr. Berg does not cite any credible supporting “facts and history” for a very simple reason: such nonsense is belied by an historical literature demonstrating precisely the opposite of his claims, much of it authored by Israelis and American Jews. To be sure, it is true, as Mr. Berg notes, that “many Palestinians” reject Israel’s right to exist. But these individuals have for decades resided largely on the margins of the Palestinian national movement, their position at times tragically strengthened by Israel’s repeated rejections of a negotiated settlement consistent with international human rights principles and numerous United Nations resolutions. If one wishes to assess the “facts and history” of the Israel-Palestine conflict, one would be better served by discussing the movement’s mainstream, which has consistently enjoyed the support of most Palestinians.
Contrary to Mr. Berg’s contentions, there is a clear historical record of attempted accommodation with Israel by the P.L.O. that stretches back well over twenty years. For example, in January 1976 the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution supported by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and others that called for a two-state settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict; Chaim Herzog, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations at the time, wrote that the P.L.O. not only backed the proposal but in fact “prepared” it.
In 1977, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, according to the New York Times, “informed the United States that they would sign peace treaties with Israel as part of an overall Middle East settlement”; indeed, on March 20 of that year the P.L.O. authorized the attendance of Palestinian delegates at a proposed Arab-Israeli peace conference. The Israeli response was unambiguous: Yitzhak Rabin, then the Israeli prime minister, asserted “that the only place the Israelis could meet the Palestinian guerrillas was on the field of battle.”
In November 1978, Yasir Arafat issued a statement indicating that “[t]he P.L.O. will accept an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, with connecting corridor, and in that circumstance will renounce any and all violent means to enlarge the territory of that state.” In the same decree he promised that “[w]e will give de facto recognition to the state of Israel.” The announcement fell on deaf ears.
In April 1981, the P.L.O. National Council unanimously passed a resolution endorsing a proposal that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state while noting that “[i]t is essential to ensure the security and sovereignty of all states of the region including those of Israel.” Following this endorsement, Issam Sartawi of the P.L.O. National Council announced at a Paris press conference on July 14, 1982, that “[f]rom this it follows that the P.L.O. has formally conceded to Israel, in the most unequivocal manner, the right to exist on a reciprocal basis.” The move was rejected by Israel, which that same year also rejected a peace proposal from Saudi Arabia; Chaim Herzog claimed that the P.L.O. was the “real author” of the Saudi plan. Instructively, as part of an effort to fend off the P.L.O. “peace offensive” Israel proceeded to invade Lebanon.
The list goes on, and continues to the present, including the unanimous resolution passed at the Arab League summit in March 2002 affirming the Arab states’ desire to “enter into a peace agreement with Israel and provide security for all the states of the region” following Israel’s acceptance of the basic international consensus—a two-state settlement with secure, recognized borders—for resolving the conflict.
There are numerous grounds on which to criticize the Palestinian national movement, but “rejecting peace overtures from Israel and responding only with violence” is not one of them. At least since the mid-1970s, the P.L.O. has, unlike successive Labor and Likud governments in Israel, endorsed the principle of a two-state settlement and repeatedly embraced negotiations to that effect. To claim, as Mr. Berg has, that “[t]he facts and history clearly show” otherwise is, quite frankly, to utterly falsify the historical record.
Scott Laderman
To the Editor:
In a recent counterpoint article Stanley Berg stated that “there is still an unwillingness on the part of many Palestinians to recognize the State of Israel’s right to exist. This unyielding hatred and rejectionism is at the heart of the problem in the Middle East.” While Israel demands this recognition from the Palestinians, it not only does not recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist but occupies Palestinian land which international treaties have ceded Palestinians.
Israel’s Jewish population is approximately 5.2 million. Approximately 1.3 million non-Jews, overwhelmingly Palestinians, also live within Israel’s border and face legalized discrimination. Another 2 million Palestinians live in the territories conquered by Israel in the l967 war—the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. In l967, less than 10,000 Jews lived in these occupied territories, but now close to 400,000 Jews have seized close to 10 percent of the land.* Significant and growing evidence indicates Israeli leaders will not return illegally occupied land to Palestinian control.
In addition, of course, there are the years of oppression under which the Palestinians have lived—their water supply rationed as Israelis maintained watered lawns—their schools denied funds available schools for Israeli children—their health care inadequate and inferior to that available Israelis —their housing abysmal —and diminishing opportunities for work. But according to Uri Avnery, former member of the Israeli Knesset and founder of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, “The first and worst violence is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.” Nowhere in the counterpoint article is this even hinted at.
* Source: “Palestine’s Population During the Ottoman and the British Mandate Periods” by Justin McCarthy and Norman G. Finkelstein.
Polly Mann
|
|
 |
|
|
