We need justice for the people of Palestine
In a world of changing times, many assertions made about the Gaza conflict are contradicted by information available now, reaffirming the idea that people have to stay informed.
In the recent Martlet article, “Hamas to blame in Gaza conflict” the most glaring example of outdated (or inaccurate) info was the description of how Hamas seized power in an “illegal coup d'etat,” forcing Israel to institute the crippling blockade on Gaza. In the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, David Rose wrote that it was Fatah who was plotting to seize power in the Gaza Strip.
In the piece, Rose exposes the “Action Plan” the Bush Administration signed with Fatah in 2007. The Americans pledged $1.27 billion over five years to fund the training of 4,700 new soldiers, and promised to provide equipment upgrades for 15,000 other Fatah gunmen. Evidence of this action plan leaked to the Jordanian Newspaper, Al-Majd, who published a report on April 30, 2007.
This report was quickly substantiated by the arrival of 500 freshly-trained Fatah fighters from Egypt, equipped with new vehicles and weapons. On June 7, the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported that Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas had requested the biggest shipment of Egyptian arms be allowed across the border into Gaza. This was a sign of the support for Fatah that Israel had adopted at the behest of the Americans.
That the Americans and Israelis were now collaborating against Hamas with its long time rival was undeniable. Shortly thereafter Hamas engaged in a preventative war against Fatah, by which it established its current control of the territory. Next, it is incorrectly asserted that Hamas broke the most recent cease-fire agreement. The truth is that the initial parameters of the cease-fire were never met. The cease-fires' key element for the Palestinians was that the number of trucks delivering aid into Gaza must have returned to the pre-2005 level of 700 per day. Former American President Jimmy Carter stated, in an article for the Washington Post published on Jan. 9, 2009, that the flow of supplies only reached 20 per cent of the agreed amount.
Later in that same article, Carter unequivocally states that Israel broke the truce first on Nov. 4, when it destroyed what was characterized as “defensive tunnels” within Gaza. Later, the renegotiation of any further truce fell apart when Israel would commit to no more than a 15 per cent increase in truck crossings. As an aside, Carter explicitly took note of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which, due to the blockade, had grown so acute that malnutrition was on a scale similar to that of the poorest nations in the southern Sahara. The author went on to lament that Hamas refuses to accept the “tiny request” of complete surrender. This would mean laying down their weapons and recognizing their occupiers, in exchange for easing restrictions on Gaza. Both demands were followed by Fatah years ago, but had brought the Palestinian people no closer to a state of their own. The unwillingness of Hamas to lay down their arms, however, does not signify an unwillingness to strive for some sort of peace.
On April 22, 2008, Khaled Meshaal, the exiled leader of Hamas, stated that his organization was willing to take part in a 10-year truce with Israel, provided it returns to the 1967 borders. While short of recognition, this acceptance of Israel's 1967 borders brings Hamas into line with the international community, joining them with the likes of Fatah, all 22 members of the Arab League and numerous UN resolutions supported by a near total majority of the General Assembly.
Meshaal also said Hamas would abide by any peace agreement Mahmoud Abbas could negotiate with Israel, provided it passed in a referendum voted on by all Palestinian people. This position has been rejected by both the U.S. and Israel. Still, on Jan. 29, Hamas spokesmen reiterated their desire for a long-term truce with Israel in return for an end to the blockade of Gaza.
For years, Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu has drawn the comparison between his experiences under apartheid in South Africa, and the hardship the Palestinian people endure today. In 2006, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) of Ontario gave its official endorsement for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) for Israel campaign, joining in solidarity with 170 Palestinian organizations. At the onset of the latest violence in Gaza, Canadian author Naomi Klein published an article lending her voice to the BDS movement.
I urge all concerned students and citizens to participate in the BDS Campaign, and become a part of the global movement to see justice for the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, stay informed.
8 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
James Hovland Feb. 13, 2009, 1:22 a.m.
The issue needs to be put into perspective. I'll use California as an example, because that's where I am. Adapt this perspective to your audience's area... What if Britain had agreed to give half of California to the Zionists so they could establish a
Jewish Statethere? Would Californians have agreed to the UN partitioning their land? What if they didn't and the Zionists took it by force anyway? What if when you resisted you were bombed by an advanced military, and then labeled asterroristsfor fighting back? What if the world sat back and just let it happen? The high mountain desert where I am would be our West Bank, and LA would be our Gaza strip. How do you explain sanctions and occupation to your kids? What if a nation like America funded and supported it? What about the displace people from San Fransisco, Sacramento, etc, do they ever get to go home? Who would your kids blame for all of the undue hardships in their lives? I wish for the best for the Jewish people, but not at the expense of someone else. It's time for the world to stand up for Palestine, for peace, and for the 'Right of Return'. It's time to set things straight, and make sure the whole situation is put into perspective. It's time for peace in Palestine, and we're not backing down.James Hovland Feb. 13, 2009, 1:22 a.m.
The issue needs to be put into perspective. I'll use California as an example, because that's where I am. Adapt this perspective to your audience's area... What if Britain had agreed to give half of California to the Zionists so they could establish a
Jewish Statethere? Would Californians have agreed to the UN partitioning their land? What if they didn't and the Zionists took it by force anyway? What if when you resisted you were bombed by an advanced military, and then labeled asterroristsfor fighting back? What if the world sat back and just let it happen? The high mountain desert where I am would be our West Bank, and LA would be our Gaza strip. How do you explain sanctions and occupation to your kids? What if a nation like America funded and supported it? What about the displace people from San Fransisco, Sacramento, etc, do they ever get to go home? Who would your kids blame for all of the undue hardships in their lives? I wish for the best for the Jewish people, but not at the expense of someone else. It's time for the world to stand up for Palestine, for peace, and for the 'Right of Return'. It's time to set things straight, and make sure the whole situation is put into perspective. It's time for peace in Palestine, and we're not backing down.David Feb. 15, 2009, 9:46 p.m.
It is imperative that the world community do what is necessary (short of military action) to force Israel to comply with international law, i.e., the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention and UNSC Resolution 242, and withdraw from every square inch of Palestinian and other Arab lands it invaded in June 1967 and has occupied since. This is the basis of the unanimously agreed to 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, long since agreed to by the Palestinian leadership. The initiative also calls for Israel to agree to the pursuit a
justsolution to the Palestinian refugee problem as per UNGA Res. 194, i.e. not the return of all refugees to what is now Israel, but an emphasis on financial compensation - all this can be worked out. Just prior to and during the 2000 Camp David Summit, despite attempts by PM Ehud Barak, President Clinton, Dennis Ross et al. to force him to sign a bad deal, Arafat agreed to give Israel sovereignty over its holy sites in now occupied East Jerusalem and to have the city serve as a joint capital. If Israel complies, it will be recognized as a sovereign state by the Arab League and the Palestinians with exchange of ambassadors etc. Bearing in mind the horrors that zionism has brought to the region and the dispossession and immense suffering endured by the native Palestinian/Canannite inhabitants of Palestine, this is a most generous offer to Israel. The Palestinians are willing to accept a state in a mere 22% of their homeland. If Israel continues to reject this offer and carries on with its illegal settlements and butchery (e.g., the recent slaughter in the Gaza Strip), the world must isolate Israel and institute a financial and trade embargo - not only for the good of the world, but Jews everywhere as well.David Feb. 15, 2009, 9:46 p.m.
It is imperative that the world community do what is necessary (short of military action) to force Israel to comply with international law, i.e., the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention and UNSC Resolution 242, and withdraw from every square inch of Palestinian and other Arab lands it invaded in June 1967 and has occupied since. This is the basis of the unanimously agreed to 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, long since agreed to by the Palestinian leadership. The initiative also calls for Israel to agree to the pursuit a
justsolution to the Palestinian refugee problem as per UNGA Res. 194, i.e. not the return of all refugees to what is now Israel, but an emphasis on financial compensation - all this can be worked out. Just prior to and during the 2000 Camp David Summit, despite attempts by PM Ehud Barak, President Clinton, Dennis Ross et al. to force him to sign a bad deal, Arafat agreed to give Israel sovereignty over its holy sites in now occupied East Jerusalem and to have the city serve as a joint capital. If Israel complies, it will be recognized as a sovereign state by the Arab League and the Palestinians with exchange of ambassadors etc. Bearing in mind the horrors that zionism has brought to the region and the dispossession and immense suffering endured by the native Palestinian/Canannite inhabitants of Palestine, this is a most generous offer to Israel. The Palestinians are willing to accept a state in a mere 22% of their homeland. If Israel continues to reject this offer and carries on with its illegal settlements and butchery (e.g., the recent slaughter in the Gaza Strip), the world must isolate Israel and institute a financial and trade embargo - not only for the good of the world, but Jews everywhere as well.Joe Ben Avraham Feb. 17, 2009, 7:55 a.m.
Funny how the first to comments totally ignore much factual evidence. 1) Hovland ignores the fact that most Palestinian Jews were expelled from Palestine 2000 years ago. Is there a statute of limitations on returning to your homeland? Obviously not, otherwise modern day Jews would simply wait for the limitations to expire and then thumb their noses at the Palestinians. Then, of course, the problem is compounded by the racist ethnic cleansing by Arab countries that took place in the 1950s when they illegaly kicked their Jewish citizens out and seized their assets. No, you can't compare California to the Holy Land. It doesn't work. The situation is simply much too complex for such a simplistic comparison.
2) David simply restates a lot of Palestinian propaganda in his diatribe, neglecting the Palestinian side of the equation. No, the Palestinians do not have immunity from obeying international laws and yes, they are in hot water for their sins too. Big sins. So much so that this is what Amnesty International has to say about them:
The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law. They may also constitute war crimeshttp://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/003/2002Bleat all you want,
occupationdoes not justify war crimes by the Palestinians, and yes, they most certainly do have other avenues open to them. Negotiation, for one - however, David also forgets that the Palestinians elected Hamas, whose official policy is to not negotiate and tonevermake peace with Israel.So, jump and scream and cry for
boycottsall you want, the reality is that the situation is complex from both sides and unless the Palestinians are also pressured to make peace, it simply ain't gonna happen. We rank and file Israelis have spoken many times: the opinion polls show we support a 2-state solution. The opinion polls also show we will no longer tolerate war crimes by Palestinians and the recent war in Gaza is a direct result of Palestinian war crimes.Joe Ben Avraham Feb. 17, 2009, 7:55 a.m.
Funny how the first to comments totally ignore much factual evidence. 1) Hovland ignores the fact that most Palestinian Jews were expelled from Palestine 2000 years ago. Is there a statute of limitations on returning to your homeland? Obviously not, otherwise modern day Jews would simply wait for the limitations to expire and then thumb their noses at the Palestinians. Then, of course, the problem is compounded by the racist ethnic cleansing by Arab countries that took place in the 1950s when they illegaly kicked their Jewish citizens out and seized their assets. No, you can't compare California to the Holy Land. It doesn't work. The situation is simply much too complex for such a simplistic comparison.
2) David simply restates a lot of Palestinian propaganda in his diatribe, neglecting the Palestinian side of the equation. No, the Palestinians do not have immunity from obeying international laws and yes, they are in hot water for their sins too. Big sins. So much so that this is what Amnesty International has to say about them:
The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law. They may also constitute war crimeshttp://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/003/2002Bleat all you want,
occupationdoes not justify war crimes by the Palestinians, and yes, they most certainly do have other avenues open to them. Negotiation, for one - however, David also forgets that the Palestinians elected Hamas, whose official policy is to not negotiate and tonevermake peace with Israel.So, jump and scream and cry for
boycottsall you want, the reality is that the situation is complex from both sides and unless the Palestinians are also pressured to make peace, it simply ain't gonna happen. We rank and file Israelis have spoken many times: the opinion polls show we support a 2-state solution. The opinion polls also show we will no longer tolerate war crimes by Palestinians and the recent war in Gaza is a direct result of Palestinian war crimes.S Feb. 21, 2009, 5:02 p.m.
Funny how the first to comments totally ignore much factual evidence. 1) Hovland ignores the fact that most Palestinian Jews were expelled from Palestine 2000 years ago. Is there a statute of limitations on returning to your homeland? Obviously not, otherwise modern day Jews would simply wait for the limitations to expire and then thumb their noses at the Palestinians. Then, of course, the problem is compounded by the racist ethnic cleansing by Arab countries that took place in the 1950s when they illegaly kicked their Jewish citizens out and seized their assets. No, you can't compare California to the Holy Land. It doesn't work. The situation is simply much too complex for such a simplistic comparison.Care to provide a reference for these
facts?S Feb. 21, 2009, 5:02 p.m.
Funny how the first to comments totally ignore much factual evidence. 1) Hovland ignores the fact that most Palestinian Jews were expelled from Palestine 2000 years ago. Is there a statute of limitations on returning to your homeland? Obviously not, otherwise modern day Jews would simply wait for the limitations to expire and then thumb their noses at the Palestinians. Then, of course, the problem is compounded by the racist ethnic cleansing by Arab countries that took place in the 1950s when they illegaly kicked their Jewish citizens out and seized their assets. No, you can't compare California to the Holy Land. It doesn't work. The situation is simply much too complex for such a simplistic comparison.Care to provide a reference for these
facts?