dinsdag 16 september 2014

Israël, het onwrikbare Nederlandse beleid en de weg naar vrede

Jan  Wijenberg

Jan Wijenberg 

Oud-Ambassadeur NL


16 september 2014

De oplossing voor het vredesproces ligt er al. Het hoeft alleen maar consequent worden uitgevoerd

Een rechtvaardige, dus duurzame vrede tussen Israël en Palestina lijkt een van de meest weerbarstige vraagstukken van buitenlands beleid. Toch ligt de sleutel in het dwingend internationaal recht toe te passen op Israël. Daarvoor zijn vreedzame maar pijn veroorzakende sancties noodzakelijk. Het Amerikaanse pro-Israël beleid is voor vrede nutteloos. De EU-lidstaten en Nederland dienen het internationaal recht in praktijk brengen. Dan ontstaat uitzicht op een stabiele vrede.
Zeker sinds 1948, eigent Israël zich Palestijns land toe en vernietigt systematisch de Palestijnse samenleving. Dat roept geen noemenswaardig Westers verzet op. Nationaal en internationaal bestaat overweldigende steun voor een effectief vredesbeleid. Toch blijft het Nederlandse beleid de facto pro-Israël. Waarom? In het Nederlandse wereldbeeld zijn de Verenigde Staten onontbeerlijk voor het bereiken van vrede. Bewindslieden en parlementariërs negeren bovendien het dwingend internationaal recht en hun ambtseed.
Het hoogste, expliciet gestelde zionistische doel, Eretz- of Groot-Israël, vereist de verdrijving en zo nodig "vernietiging" van alle niet-Joden en is, ongehinderd, al een eind gevorderd. Dat zal leiden tot de totale verwijdering van de bedoeïenen en de Palestijnse bevolking uit Israël en de bezette gebieden. De begrippen etnische zuivering en genocide dringen zich op. 
Minister Timmermans, en met hem een meerderheid van de Tweede Kamer, zet volledig in op de veronderstelde unipolaire macht, de VS, the dishonest broker. Echter, de wereld is na de val van de Berlijnse muur nogal veranderd met de vele Amerikaanse buitenlandse mislukkingen, de consolidatie van de EU, de opkomst van de ongeduldige BRICS en het hervonden Russische zelfvertrouwen. Het uitzicht op een rechtvaardige en dus duurzame vrede tussen Israël en Palestina bestaat nauwelijks meer. Dat is bijzonder slecht nieuws voor de Palestijnen, slecht nieuws voor ons - de naaste buren - en vooral slecht voor het meest verwende jongetje in de klas, Israël.
De Grondwet, Artikel 90, verplicht de regering de internationale rechtsorde te bevorderen. Artikel 94 stelt de rechtskracht van het internationaal recht boven het Nederlandse. Als dat politici zo politiek of electoraal uitkomt, worden deze artikelen grootschalig genegeerd, hun ambtseed op de Grondwet ten spijt. 
Het internationaal recht is van onschatbare waarde: het is gericht op vrede, helder in zijn doelstellingen, het is dwingend recht en het ligt als van hogere rechtsorde dan het Nederlandse recht vast in onze Grondwet. Het is universeel aanvaard, goedkeuring van de Veiligheidsraad is niet nodig.  De rechtvaardige en duurzame vrede is geheel afhankelijk van politiek verantwoordelijke beleidsmakers. Het toepassen van het internationaal recht is een plicht, geen politieke keuze.
De Twee Staten oplossing staat centraal. Het decennia lang demoniseren van alle niet-Joden door allerlei Israëlische instanties heeft zulke extreme vormen aangenomen, dat samenleven in één staat onmogelijk is. Bovendien ligt deze oplossing al sinds 1947 vast in tal van instrumenten van internationaal recht. Het Internationaal Gerechtshof heeft in 2004 bepaald dat Israël zich moet terugtrekken achter de Bestands- of Groene Lijn. Pas daarna vinden Finale Statusonderhandelingen plaats. De omgekeerde volgorde leidt tot niets. 
Het Hof bepaalde ook dat Israël de muur - voor zover op Palestijns gebied - moet afbreken en de getroffenen schadeloos stellen. Onder de Vierde Geneefse Conventie is het de bezettende macht verboden onderdanen van het eigen land - de kolonisten dus - te vestigen in bezet gebied. Alle kolonisten zullen dus naar Israël moeten terugkeren. Moeilijk? Ja. Onmogelijk? Nee. Israël heeft het probleem tenslotte zelf gecreëerd en zal het moeten oplossen.
Dezelfde Conventie verbiedt bewoners van bezet gebied over te brengen naar het gebied van de bezetter. Dat gebeurt op grote schaal met Palestijnse gevangenen. Deze gevangenen moeten worden overgedragen aan het bevoegde Palestijnse gezag. 
Daarnaast bestaat internationaal recht variërend van de rechten van vrouwen en kinderen tot het verbod op martelen, etnische zuivering en genocide. Het Nederlandse mensenrechtenbeleid identificeert 15 verschillende instrumenten en stelt bij herhaling dat zonder onderscheid alle landen op hun overtredingen worden aangesproken. Israël overtreedt alle 15 instrumenten dagelijks en op grote schaal. De regering dient zijn beleid gestand te doen en, ook in EU-verband, van Israël het onmiddellijk staken van die misdaden te eisen. Het Internationaal Gerechtshof heeft deze taak expliciet aan de lidstaten van de VN opgedragen. 
Het recht op terugkeer naar hun woonplaats van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen is onvervreemdbaar verankerd in het internationaal recht. Het Israëlische streven om altijd een meerderheid van Joodse Israëliërs in Eretz-Israel te garanderen, is racistisch en dus onaanvaardbaar.
Hoe krijg je Israël en de kolonisten achter de Groene Lijn, het barbaarse beleg van Gaza beëindigd, de muur afgebroken, de getroffenen schadeloos gesteld? Wanneer gaat Israël zich gedragen als een beschaafd land dat de mensenrechten en het humanitair recht respecteert en wordt de Palestijnse vluchtelingen recht gedaan? Dat kan maar op één vreedzame, voor Israël pijnlijke manier: EU-sancties. Wanneer Israël weigert deze eisen te honoreren, volgen meer en steeds zwaardere sancties. Uiteindelijk komt vrede in zicht.
http://www.joop.nl/opinies/detail/artikel/28623_israel_het_onwrikbare_nederlandse_beleid_en_de_weg_naar_vrede/

Jan J. Wijenberg (Rotterdam1938) is een Nederlands oud-diplomaat en politiek activist. Wijenberg was tot eind 2009 bestuurslid van de Stichting Stop de Bezetting die zich inzet voor een rechtvaardige en duurzame vrede in het Midden-Oosten op basis van het internationale recht en zich in dat verband tegen de Israëlische bezetting van de Palestijnse Gebieden keert.

zondag 14 september 2014

Zionists try to close down Palestine solidarity group at Philadelphia university...


9 September 2014

140908-templefest-2014.jpg

A Zionist student aggressively confronted and made racist comments to SJP members who were tabling during a large student organization information fair on 20 August. (Photo courtesy of Temple University’s Facebook page)
Members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have sought legal advice after being falsely accused of anti-Semitism.
The accusations, made by a right-wing Zionist student and Israel-aligned media, have prompted an investigation by the university’s administration that could result in punishment of the Palestine solidarity group.
Temple University announced that it sent the results of their investigation — which have not been made public — to the local district attorney’s office last week.
A Zionist student aggressively confronted and made racist comments to SJP members who were tabling during a large student organization information fair on 20 August, eyewitnesses say. A student unaffiliated with SJP then slapped him in the face.
The Zionist student, who is also a fellow of CAMERA on Campus (a project of the right-wing, anti-Palestinian media watchdog group CAMERA) claimed that the students taunted him with an anti-Semitic slur.
The CAMERA fellow had apparently just returned from an Israel advocacy conference for students in Boston organized by the group, which trained participants in using body language and tone of voice in “combatting anti-Israel programming.”
At the start of the new school year, Temple SJP, along with many other student organizations, advertised their causes to encourage new membership. Temple SJP handed out pamphlets with information on Palestinian human rights and engaged in discussions with students about the recent Israeli onslaught in Gaza.
According to eyewitness accounts, the CAMERA on Campus fellow walked up to the SJP table, made racist statements about Palestinians and, when asked to leave, launched into an argument with a friend of some of the SJP members who is not a member of the group himself.
According to students who witnessed the incident, the CAMERA on Campus fellow became aggressive and moved toward one of the female SJP members at the table, and was slapped on the cheek by the non-SJP student with whom he argued. The fellow’s sunglasses fell off.
Immediately after the incident, the right-wing blog TruthRevolt — a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a virulently anti-Palestinian media organization — alleged that the CAMERA fellow, identified as Daniel Vessal, was “punched in the face” and called a “kike” and a “baby killer” by SJP members.
Samantha Pinto, a senior studying Italian and history, is a member of SJP and one of the students who sat at the group’s table and witnessed the incident. She told The Electronic Intifada that these charges are wholly false, and that none of the students there had even heard of the anti-Semitic slur before.
“None of the Palestinians or Arabs who were there recognized the k-word,” Pinto explained. “They said, ‘how do I even pronounce this?’”

“Aggressive”

Pinto said that Vessal “was trying to instigate trouble … He was being aggressive and yelling, and calling us all idiots.” When Vessal declared that Israel wasn’t occupying Palestine, but rather that “Palestinians were occupying Gaza,” Pinto said she started to laugh. “At that point, he moved closer to the table, and closer to us,” she said.
It was at that moment when the student slapped Vessal in the face. “I immediately contacted the Student Activities [administration], letting them know that this wasn’t an SJP member who did this and the other student was harassing us,” Pinto said.
She added that one of Vessal’s two friends who accompanied him to confront the SJP table had a university-issued t-shirt on, indicating that he was employed by the university. “And he was walking around, instigating with a classmate,” Pinto said. The other friend was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the logo of the Israeli army, she added.
She said it was “very bad” that the student slapped Vessal. “Usually, we just tell Zionists, as much as they say racist things to our Arab and Palestinian members, to just go away. It’s been really shocking to all of us.”
In a 3 September statement, Temple SJP stressed that it “condemns all violence and utilizes nonviolent means to fulfill its objectives for supporting Palestine. Moreover, SJP condemns and stands against anti-Semitism in all of its insidious forms. This is in keeping with SJP’s opposition to all forms of racism, oppression and exploitation.”

“Mastering debate tactics”

Just a few weeks before the incident at Temple University, CAMERA hosted its “annual student leadership and advocacy training conference” in Boston.
According to a puff piece posted by the Israel-aligned news service JNS.org, “the varied three-day event included lectures such as ‘Less Hamas, more hummus,’ training on how to craft a personal narrative, mastering debate tactics, and gaining knowledge on some of the anti-Israel campus groups students may need to confront.”
Aviva Slomich, CAMERA’s campus department director, told JNS.org that student participants were provided with a “variety of tools ranging from social media training to combating BDS resolutions,” referring to the campaigns for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel that are expanding on college campuses.
Students were also trained in “body language,” “tone of voice” and discussion points to “combat anti-Israel programming.”
Daniel Vessal apparently attended the CAMERA conference in Boston. In a group photo of the 2014 conference attendees posted along with the JNS.org story, Daniel Vessal can be seen in a turquoise t-shirt at the very end of the back row, on the right. The Electronic Intifada matched Vessal’s watch to the one he has worn in several public Facebook profile photos.

140908-camera-conference.jpg

Daniel Vessal, at the end of the back row on the right, attended the CAMERA “student leadership and advocacy training” conference before returning to Temple University. (Photo via JNS.org)

Bogus claims encouraged

Israel-aligned organizations have a history of aggressive campaigns against Palestine solidarity groups on and off campus.
In various student trainings and documents, such organizations have encouraged Zionist students to “name and shame” Palestine activists on campus and in the community,invent claims that Jewish students are being singled out for discrimination, file legal claims alleging anti-Semitism and to exploit relationships with administrators, police and minority groups on campus in order to “co-opt” them into supporting anti-Palestinian and anti-SJP positions.
When asked whether she thought the incident on 20 August could have been a premeditated provocation by Vessal, especially in the context of his fellowship and recent training by CAMERA, Pinto said that she couldn’t definitively say what his motives were.
“But this student is a paid fellow for CAMERA, which does try to antagonize SJPs,” she added. “I spoke to former SJP members who had graduated. They said that after seeing the [TruthRevolt] article, they recognized [Vessal], saying ‘oh, I know that kid, he’s come up to me and doesn’t try to have conversations, he just says aggressive things.’ I don’t think he expected anything to escalate to something that could be used as an allegation of assault, but I think they are trying to distract us away from the work we do as SJP.”
Pinto added that “it’s really sickening, because the violence had started up again in Gaza around the same time, and we were all spending time talking about [this incident], when in Gaza, people were losing their lives.”

Threats to faculty

Since the incident on 20 August, some tenured professors at Temple University have been trying to support SJP, said Rose Daraz, Temple SJP’s president. “It’s only tenured professors, though,” she explained, because non-tenured professors are concerned they could face intimidation and threats to their employment for speaking out in support of SJP.
Intimidating, threatening and pressuring universities to outright fire professors who criticize Israeli policies is not a new tactic employed by anti-Palestinian organizations. For years, faculty and student Palestine solidarity groups have been targets of the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, StandWithUs, the Amcha Initiative and others.
The Electronic Intifada has documented the recent firing of professor Steven Salaita from the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Illinois’ Urbana-Champaign campus after his outspoken criticism of Israel’s recent onslaught in Gaza, as well as a campaign to block his hiring by outside political groups.

File sent to DA

This week, Temple University stated that it had completed an investigation into the 20 August incident, and referred its findings to the district attorney’s office, but hasn’t yet taken any action against SJP.
Temple’s communications department has published an online Q&A page about the incident. There, Temple University says that it is not releasing nor discussing details of the investigation, including whether or not it has determined if a “hate crime” was committed or if anti-Semitic language was used during the incident.
Temple University states on its Q&A webpage: “No action regarding the status of the organization [SJP] will be taken until the Office of Student Conduct is able to evaluate the findings from the investigation to determine if the group violated the Student Conduct Code.”
The Electronic Intifada contacted Temple University for comment. Inquiring about Temple’s policy of holding student groups accountable for the actions of unaffiliated individuals, spokesperson Ray Betzner responded via email on 4 September that “Organizations can be held responsible for actions of members and guests. A review of the investigation will reveal what relationship the accused student had with SJP and any potential involvement of its members.”
The Electronic Intifada asked if referring a “verbal conflict” — as Temple has defined the incident — to a district attorney’s office is standard protocol, and if the university would defend its students against potential charges brought by the DA’s office.
“This was a verbal conflict that escalated to physical confrontation,” Betzner answered. “We investigated and turned it over to the DA’s office for action … Generally, the district attorney does not bring charges against student organizations. The university does not provide attorneys for its students in criminal cases.”
When asked if Temple University will defend SJP as a legitimate student organization if calls to dismantle the group become more aggressive, Betzner responded: “SJP continues to be a recognized student organization. We treat all student organizations the same. If a student organization violates university policy, it is subject to discipline.”
Liz Jackson, attorney with the Palestine Solidarity Legal Support Initiative, emphasized SJP’s established history of nonviolent action on campus, and added that she was concerned that the group could be held responsible for the actions of visitors at their table.
“The [SJP] chapter clearly condemns violence and immediately stated its opposition to the physical confrontation that they witnessed near their their table,” she told The Electronic Intifada.
“To hold SJP responsible for the actions of visitors to their table at a public event where the entire campus community was invited, would be absurd. It would strongly suggest that the university is discriminating against their message in support of Palestinian rights.”
In a statement released immediately after the incident on 20 August, Temple University said that “university officials … reached out to leaders of the Temple Jewish and pro-Palestinian communities to discuss the incident and a best path for moving forward.”
As SJP president Daraz explained, this attempt at “reaching out” created a false dichotomy between Palestinian and Jewish communities — “[the discussions] should have been between the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel sides,” she said, adding that many Jewish students align with SJP and not the Zionist groups on campus.

“Used to harassment”

Daraz is a senior at Temple, studying journalism and political science. She told The Electronic Intifada that before the incident, SJP was “used to Zionists harassing us at our tables and at our events.” However, she said, the group came under unilateral scrutiny two years ago from the administration based on claims made by anti-Palestinian student groups that SJP was financially supporting Hamas.
“We showed [the student affairs official] that the only organization we donated to was theMiddle East Children’s Alliance,” Daraz said, referring to the Berkeley-based group that delivers medical aid and supports local projects for children in Palestine.
Recently, Daraz explained, SJP “has always had to be extra careful about following regulations and rules when preparing events, because we feel that they [anti-Palestinian groups] look for any chance to find a reason that we did something wrong. But it’s been pretty easy so far,” Daraz explained, despite what she called the “huge Zionist presence” on campus and frequent harassment.
Since the incident on 20 August, an anti-SJP Facebook group has been set up — “Demand the Removal of SJP from Temple University” — by some students. The page has garnered more than 500 “likes” and links to various right-wing articles about the incident, including one by noted anti-Palestinian Islamophobe Pamela Geller.
Jackson said that Temple SJP “has a first amendment right to speak up for Palestine on campus,” adding that this incident is just the latest in a series of actions designed to erase Palestine solidarity activism on campuses and censor criticism of Israel.
Jackson added that similar accusations of anti-Semitic slurs occurred during thedivestment debates earlier this year at the University of Michigan. “Political opponents leveled unsubstantiated allegations that SJP supporters used the k-word. There, as here [at Temple], the students did not even know what the word meant,” she explained.

Wide support

As the new school year begins, students at Temple University say that despite provocations and attempts to distract SJP from organizing for Palestinian rights, they are still motivated to continue their work.
Pinto explained that there has been wide support for SJP across the Temple student community and from human rights activism groups in Philadelphia: “We’re already talking to some of our allies in Jewish solidarity groups and Black solidarity groups, and we’re moving along with our semester and planning events that are going to emphasize that we’re not alone. There are so many parallels between the Palestinian struggle and [struggles] that are going on here in Philadelphia.”
Jewish Voice for Peace - Philadelphia issued a strong statement in support of Temple SJP a few days after the incident.

Increased membership

Organizers with Students for Justice in Palestine say they are anticipating increased membership in campus chapters as young people express outrage after Israel’s 51-day assault on the Gaza Strip, which killed 2,168 people, including 521 children, and injured nearly 11,000.
SJPs across the country are preparing for another wave of divestment campaigns, which seek to pull university investments from US companies that profit from Israel’s human rights violations.
Izzy Mustafa, an organizer with National Students for Justice in Palestine, told The Electronic Intifada that student activists are also expecting increased antagonism from anti-Palestinian groups in the coming school year as SJP becomes more popular on campuses.
“We are seeing a rise in students becoming more actively involved in Students for Justice in Palestine across the country because there are tangible campaigns that they can take part in, not only by spreading awareness but by taking concrete actions in pressuring their universities to not contribute and profit off [Israel’s] policies of occupation andapartheid,” Mustafa said.
Because of the positive impact that SJPs are making with their divestment campaigns, Mustafa said, SJP chapters are preparing to face “heightened opposition” from Israel-aligned groups organizations and the Israeli government itself. “After Israel’s massacre on Gaza this summer, it’ll be fascinating to see how much their hasbara [propaganda] tactics and their desperation intensifies,” Mustafa added.
Meanwhile, Samantha Pinto was adamant that the 20 August incident won’t deter Temple SJP’s schedule of events and political organizing on campus.
“While I think this is definitely possible that [Vessal] was trying to instigate us, it’s not going to take away from our work that we do on campus, which is really important,” Pinto said. “SJP has been on campus for over ten years, so we’re not going anywhere.”
Nora Barrows-Friedman is an associate editor of The Electronic Intifada.

woensdag 10 september 2014

A yes vote in Scotland would unleash the most dangerous thing of all - HOPE.....

The Guardian

Independence would carry the potential to galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK

Gordon Brown addresses media

"It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence." Photograph: Mike Finn-Kelcey/Reuters


Of all the bad arguments urging the Scots to vote no – and there are plenty – perhaps the worst is the demand that Scotland should remain in the Union to save England from itself. Responses to last week’s column suggest that this wretched, snivelling, apron-strings argument has some traction among people who claim to belong to the left.
Consider what it entails: it asks a nation of 5.3 million to forgo independence to exempt a nation of 53 million from having to fight its own battles. In return for this self-denial, the five million must remain yoked to the dismal politics of cowardice and triangulation which have caused the problems from which we ask them to save us.
“A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue”, the former Labour minister Brian Wilson claimed in the Guardian last week (1). We must combine against the “forces of privilege and reaction” (as he lines up with the Conservatives, UKIP, the LibDems, the banks, the corporations, almost all the rightwing columnists in Britain and every UK newspaper except the Sunday Herald) – in the cause of “solidarity”.
There’s another New Labour weasel word to add to its dreary lexicon (other examples include reform, which now means privatisation, and partnership, which means selling out to big business). Once solidarity meant making common cause with the exploited, the underpaid, the excluded. Now, to these cyborgs in suits, it means keeping faith with the banks, the corporate press, cuts, a tollbooth economy and market fundamentalism.
Here, to Wilson and his fellow flinchers, is what solidarity meant while they were in office. It meant voting for the Iraq war, for Trident, for identity cards, for 3,500 new criminal offences (2), including the criminalisation of most forms of peaceful protest (3). It meant being drafted in as political mercenaries to impose on the English policies to which the Scots were not subject, such as university top-up fees and foundation hospitals (4,5). It meant supporting every destructive and injust proposition advanced by their leaders: the brood parasites who hatched in the Labour nest then flicked its dearest principles over the edge. It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence.
So now Better Together has brought in Gordon Brown, scattering bribes in a desperate, last-ditch effort at containment. They must hope the Scots have forgotten that he boasted of setting “the lowest rate in the history of British corporation tax, the lowest rate of any major country in Europe and the lowest rate of any major industrialised country anywhere” (6). That he pledged to the City of London “in budget after budget I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers” (7). That, after 13 years of Labour government, the UK had higher levels of inequality than after 18 years of Tory government (8). That his government colluded in kidnapping and torture (9). That he helped cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands through his support for the illegal war on Iraq.
He roams through Scotland, still badged with blood, promising what he never delivered when he had the chance, this man who helped unravel the social safety net his predecessors wove; who marketised and dismembered public services; who enriched the wealthy and shafted the poor; who pledged money for Trident but failed to reverse the loss of social housing (10); whose private finance initiative planted a series of timebombs now exploding throughout the NHS and other public services (11); who greased and wheedled and slavered his way into the company of bankers and oligarchs while trampling over the working people he was elected to represent. This is the progressive Prester John who will ride to the rescue of the No campaign?
Where, in Scotland’s Labour party, are the Keir Hardies and Jimmy Reids of our time? Where is the vision, the inspiration, the hope? The shuffling, spineless little men with whom these titans have been replaced offer nothing but fear. Through fear they seek to shove Scotland back into its box, as its people rebel against the dreary, closed future mapped out for them – and the rest of us – by the three main Westminster parties.
Sure, if Scotland becomes independent, all else being equal, Labour would lose 41 seats at Westminster and Tory majorities would become more likely (12). But all else need not be equal. Scottish independence can galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the United Kingdom. We’ll watch as the Scots engage in the transformative process of writing a constitution. We’ll see that a nation of these islands can live and – I hope – flourish with a fully elected legislature (no House of Lords), with a fair electoral system (proportional representation), and with a parliament in which only representatives of that nation can vote (no cross-border mercenaries).
Already, the myth of political apathy has been scotched by the tumultuous movement north of the border. As soon as something is worth voting for, people will queue into the night to add their names to the register (13). The low turn-outs in Westminster elections reflect not an absence of interest but an absence of hope.
If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fearmongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it. That you can be hated by the Daily Mail and still have a chance of winning.
If Labour has any political nous, any remaining flicker of courage, it will understand what this moment means. Instead of suppressing the forces of hope and inspiration, it would mobilise them. It would, for example, pledge, in its manifesto, a referendum on drafting a written constitution for the rest of the United Kingdom.
It would understand that hope is the most dangerous of all political reagents. That it can transform what appears to be a fixed polity, a fixed outcome, into something entirely different. That it can summon up passion and purpose we never knew we possessed. If Scotland becomes independent, England – if only the potential were recognised – could also be transformed.
References:

zondag 7 september 2014

For Israel, the beginning of wisdom is to admit its mistakes (by Avi Shlaim)

The Guardian


Israel should embrace Palestinian unity for its own security. A further land grab will only inflame tensions
Israeli soldiers at an observation post overlooking the Gaza Strip last month
Israeli soldiers at an observation post overlooking the Gaza Strip last month. 'Israel should transfer its confrontation with Hamas from the battlefield to the conference table.' Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters
Israel has a habit of justifying its actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, however illegal and indecent, in the name of security. But denying any security to the other side only perpetuates the conflict.
Five days after reaching a ceasefire with Hamas to end the latest round of fighting in Gaza, the Israeli cabinet decided to appropriate 988 acres of land on the West Bank, near the place where three Israeli teenagers were recently abducted and murdered, to make way for another illegal Jewish city. This is the biggest land grab in three decades. As the justice minister, Tzipi Livni, pointed out: “It was a decision that weakens Israel and damages its security.” What it proves, if further proof is needed, is that Israel’s leaders are determined to prevent a two-state solution to the conflict.
Operation Protective Edge, which came to an end after 50 days of fighting, was the third and deadliest war in six years between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement that rules Gaza. Israel lost 66 soldiers and six civilians. On the Palestinian side, the war left 2,104 dead, mostly civilians, and 12,656 injured; 17,000 houses were destroyed or damaged; 520,000 people, out of a population of 1.8 million, were displaced. The damage to buildings and to the civilian infrastructure, estimated at $6bn, will take many years to repair.
What did Israel gain by unleashing the deadly firepower of the IDF against the caged population of this tiny coastal enclave? Virtually nothing. Israel had in fact provoked this crisis by its violent crackdown against Hamas activists on the West Bank following the murder of the three teenagers. Hamas rocket attacks – the ostensible reason for the war – were a response to Israel’s aggressive security measures. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, defined the operation’s objective as “calm in return for calm”. But calm prevailed before Israel initiated the cycle of violence. Hamas was left with a quarter of its pre-war rocket arsenal and many of its tunnels, dubbed “terror tunnels” by Israeli spokesmen, were destroyed. But arsenals can be replenished and tunnels can be rebuilt.
Both sides claimed victory but Netanyahu’s sounded rather hollow. Announcing the ceasefire at a news conference, he claimed a major military as well as a diplomatic achievement for the state of Israel. Hardly anyone shared this assessment. The public, the media, the opposition, hawkish members of his Likud party, and some of his coalition partners, accused him of accepting a ceasefire that failed to meet any of Israel’s objectives. One newspaper gave the score as Hamas: 1; Israel: 0. Netanyahu’s popularity plummeted from 85% at the beginning of the operation to 38%.
Hamas had more solid reasons for rejoicing, despite the horrific suffering endured by the people of Gaza. By any objective criterion, the outcome of the conflict was a draw. But for a small and poorly armed militia to stand its ground against one of the mightiest armies in the world is a remarkable achievement. Not only did its fighters stand firm, they also succeeded in imposing on the enemy what it dreaded most – a war of attrition. Despite the intense military pressure, Hamas’s spirit did not break and its popularity skyrocketed. Above all, Hamas succeeded in sending a clear message that Israel would have no peace and no security as long as it continued to occupy Palestinian territory.
So what should Israel do? The beginning of wisdom is to admit mistakes and stop adding fuel to the fire. First of all, Israel should end its relentless campaign to demonise the people of Gaza. Demonisation is the enemy of dialogue and a major cause of diplomatic deadlock. The assertion of Major General Giora Eiland that there is no such thing as “innocent civilians” in Gaza is simply absurd. Gazans are normal people and, like normal people anywhere in the world, they long to live in freedom and dignity on their land.
Second, it is time to remove from Hamas the terrorist tag. This is a powerful weapon in the propaganda war but useless in the quest for peace. Hamas is indeed guilty of terrorism but it is also a legitimate political actor, having won a fair and free election in 2006. Netanyahu claims that Hamas is indistinguishable from the murderous fanatics who make up Isis. Hamas, however, is not a messianic jihadist movement but a local organisation with a pragmatic political leadership and limited aims.
Third, Israel should transfer its confrontation with Hamas from the battlefield to the conference table. On 2 June Hamas and Fatah reached an accord and formed a national unity government which consists of technocrats without a single Hamas-affiliated member. This government accepts the Quartet’s three conditions to qualify as a negotiating partner: it recognises Israel, it respects all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel and it renounces violence. One of Netanyahu’s undeclared war aims was to disrupt this unity government so Israel could continue to divide and rule, but the government survived the baptism of fire.
Hamas vehemently denies the legitimacy of Israel but its leaders have stated repeatedly that if Fatah negotiates with Israel a two-state peace deal based on the 1967 borders, and if this outcome is approved in a national referendum, it would respect it as the choice of the Palestinian people. Israel should therefore stop thinking of Palestinian unity as a threat and embrace it instead as a potential building block of its own security.
These existential issues may or may not be addressed at a later stage. For the time being in Cairo the two delegations are negotiating, through Egyptian mediators. Israel’s main demand is the demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip. This is unrealistic because Gaza is the last outpost of resistance to the 47-year-old occupation and Hamas is not about to lay down its arms. Hamas is calling for the lifting of the illegal seven-year Israeli blockade of Gaza and the reopening of the borders. Other Hamas demands include the rebuilding of Gaza international airport, which Israel destroyed in 2001, the release of prisoners and the reopening of the “safe passage” to the West Bank. These are not new but grounded in earlier agreements that Israel violated.
Israel’s policy towards Gaza since the unilateral disengagement in 2005 has consisted of the systematic violations of international humanitarian law, duplicitous diplomacy and large doses of brute military force. With chilling cynicism, Israeli generals speak of their periodic incursions into Gaza as “mowing the lawn”. This policy has manifestly failed to procure the security that Israel’s citizens deserve. The writing is on the wall. A new and more constructive policy is desperately needed. Israeli politicians, however, are unlikely to be able to make any of the proposed moves without strong external pressure. This is where the international community comes in. It must begin to hold Israel to account in a way that it has so far shamefully failed to.