Zion's Zealots

Israel's false friends

U.S. presidential candidates aren't doing the Jewish state any favors by offering unconditional support.

By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
January 6, 2008

Once again, as the presidential campaign season gets underway, the leading candidates are going to enormous lengths to demonstrate their devotion to the state of Israel and their steadfast commitment to its "special relationship" with the United States.

Each of the main contenders emphatically favors giving Israel extraordinary material and diplomatic support -- continuing the more than $3 billion in foreign aid each year to a country whose per capita income is now 29th in the world. They also believe that this aid should be given unconditionally. None of them criticizes Israel's conduct, even when its actions threaten U.S. interests, are at odds with American values or even when they are harmful to Israel itself. In short, the candidates believe that the U.S. should support Israel no matter what it does.

Such pandering is hardly surprising, because contenders for high office routinely court special interest groups, and Israel's staunchest supporters -- the Israel lobby, as we have termed it -- expect it. Politicians do not want to offend Jewish Americans or "Christian Zionists," two groups that are deeply engaged in the political process. Candidates fear, with some justification, that even well-intentioned criticism of Israel's policies may lead these groups to turn against them and back their opponents instead.

If this happened, trouble would arise on many fronts. Israel's friends in the media would take aim at the candidate, and campaign contributions from pro-Israel individuals and political action committees would go elsewhere. Moreover, most Jewish voters live in states with many electoral votes, which increases their weight in close elections (remember Florida in 2000?), and a candidate seen as insufficiently committed to Israel would lose some of their support. And no Republican would want to alienate the pro-Israel subset of the Christian evangelical movement, which is a significant part of the GOP base.

Indeed, even suggesting that the U.S. adopt a more impartial stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can get a candidate into serious trouble. When Howard Dean proposed during the 2004 campaign that the United States take a more "evenhanded" role in the peace process, he was severely criticized by prominent Democrats, and a rival for the nomination, Sen. Joe Lieberman, accused him of "selling Israel down the river" and said Dean's comments were "irresponsible."

Word quickly spread in the American Jewish community that Dean was hostile to Israel, even though his campaign co-chair was a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Dean had been strongly pro-Israel throughout his career. The candidates in the 2008 election surely want to avoid Dean's fate, so they are all trying to prove that they are Israel's best friend.

These candidates, however, are no friends of Israel. They are facilitating its pursuit of self-destructive policies that no true friend would favor.

The key issue here is the future of Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel conquered in 1967 and still controls. Israel faces a stark choice regarding these territories, which are home to roughly 3.8 million Palestinians. It can opt for a two-state solution, turning over almost all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and allowing them to create a viable state on those lands in return for a comprehensive peace agreement designed to allow Israel to live securely within its pre-1967 borders (with some minor modifications). Or it can retain control of the territories it occupies or surrounds, building more settlements and bypass roads and confining the Palestinians to a handful of impoverished enclaves in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel would control the borders around those enclaves and the air above them, thus severely restricting the Palestinians' freedom of movement.

But if Israel chooses this second option, it will lead to an apartheid state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said as much when he recently proclaimed that if "the two-state solution collapses," Israel will "face a South African-style struggle." He went so far as to argue that "as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished." Similarly, Israel's deputy prime minister, Haim Ramon, said earlier this month that "the occupation is a threat to the existence of the state of Israel." Other Israelis, as well as Jimmy Carter and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have warned that continuing the occupation will turn Israel into an apartheid state. Nevertheless, Israel continues to expand its settlements on the West Bank while the plight of the Palestinians worsens.

Given this grim situation, one would expect the presidential candidates, who claim to care deeply about Israel, to be sounding the alarm and energetically championing a two-state solution. One would expect them to have encouraged President Bush to put significant pressure on both the Israelis and the Palestinians at the recent Annapolis conference and to keep the pressure on when he visits the region this week. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently observed, settling this conflict is also in America's interest, not to mention the Palestinians'.

One would certainly expect Hillary Clinton to be leading the charge here. After all, she wisely and bravely called for establishing a Palestinian state "that is on the same footing as other states" in 1998, when it was still politically incorrect to use the words "Palestinian state" openly. Moreover, her husband not only championed a two-state solution as president but he laid out the famous "Clinton parameters" in December 2000, which outline the only realistic deal for ending the conflict.

But what is Clinton saying now that she is a candidate? She said hardly anything about pushing the peace process forward at Annapolis, and remained silent when Rice criticized Israel's subsequent announcement that it planned to build more than 300 new housing units in East Jerusalem. More important, both she and GOP aspirant Rudy Giuliani recently proclaimed that Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that is at odds with the Clinton parameters and virtually guarantees that there will be no Palestinian state.

Sen. Clinton's behavior is hardly unusual among the candidates for president. Barack Obama, who expressed some sympathy for the Palestinians before he set his sights on the White House, now has little to say about their plight, and he too said little about what should have been done at Annapolis to facilitate peace. The other major contenders are ardent in their declarations of support for Israel, and none of them apparently sees a two-state solution as so urgent that they should press both sides to reach an agreement. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security advisor and now a senior advisor to Obama, noted, "The presidential candidates don't see any payoff in addressing the Israel-Palestinian issue." But they do see a significant political payoff in backing Israel to the hilt, even when it is pursuing a policy -- colonizing the West Bank -- that is morally and strategically bankrupt.

In short, the presidential candidates are no friends of Israel. They are like most U.S. politicians, who reflexively mouth pro-Israel platitudes while continuing to endorse and subsidize policies that are in fact harmful to the Jewish state. A genuine friend would tell Israel that it was acting foolishly, and would do whatever he or she could to get Israel to change its misguided behavior. And that will require challenging the special interest groups whose hard-line views have been obstacles to peace for many years.

As former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argued in 2006, the American presidents who have made the greatest contribution to peace -- Carter and George H.W. Bush -- succeeded because they were "ready to confront Israel head-on and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America." If the Democratic and Republican contenders were true friends of Israel, they would be warning it about the danger of becoming an apartheid state, just as Carter did.

Moreover, they would be calling for an end to the occupation and the creation of a viable Palestinian state. And they would be calling for the United States to act as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians so that Washington could pressure both sides to accept a solution based on the Clinton parameters. Implementing a final-status agreement will be difficult and take a number of years, but it is imperative that the two sides formally agree on the solution and then implement it in ways that protect each side.

But Israel's false friends cannot say any of these things, or even discuss the issue honestly. Why? Because they fear that speaking the truth would incur the wrath of the hard-liners who dominate the main organizations in the Israel lobby. So Israel will end up controlling Gaza and the West Bank for the foreseeable future, turning itself into an apartheid state in the process. And all of this will be done with the backing of its so-called friends, including the current presidential candidates. With friends like them, who needs enemies?

John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Stephen M. Walt is a professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. They are the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," published last year by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Published first @
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-mearsheimer6...

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

By Tony Campolo, professor of sociology, Eastern University

NUMBER 2 is Dr. Reverend Stephen Sizer's "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?"

A comprehensive survey describing how Christians have embraced a theological perspective that has encouraged justice for Jews, but has also led to the oppression of Palestinian people and extreme hostility between Christians and Muslims worldwide.

Number 5 is "The Prophets" by Abraham J Heschel

Provides rich insights from the Hebrew prophets as they empathized with the pathos that God shows upon seeing the oppression of the poor.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/january/14.61.html

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today.

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

An Open Letter to Susan Sarandon

December 26, 2007
Dear Ms. Sarandon,

We felt sorrow when we learned that you accepted Lev Leviev’s invitation to attend the opening night event for his new jewelry store in New York City on November 13 while our friends protested outside, because we respect you for your support for human rights, for your courage in speaking since 2002 against the US war on Iraq, and for your many other honorable public positions.

Lev Leviev is building Israeli settlements on Bil’in and Jayyous’ land, and is also building in the settlements of Har Homa and Maale Adumim around Jerusalem, in violation of international law. Leviev is destroying the olive groves and farms that have sustained our villages for centuries, and is profiting from human rights abuses.

We were reassured to learn from our colleagues in New York City that you expressed interest in learning more about these issues. We still hope that you will also speak in support peace and justice in Palestine. We invite you and would be very pleased to welcome you to visit Palestine, specifically Jayyous and Bil’in, in order to witness what Leviev’s settlements are doing to our communities.

Bil’in: The olive is a symbol of our land and of the Palestinian people. We are connected to the land. We were born in Bil'in like our fathers and grandfathers and their fathers. We belong here. Our mothers took us to harvest olives before we could speak. We remember playing under the olive trees which have since been uprooted by Israeli settlers who have come to live here. There is now a huge and growing settlement called Modi’in Illit where we played as children. It is hard for us to understand that our children cannot play in the same places where we played.

As a result, for the last three years in Bil'in we have engaged in a nonviolent campaign of creative protests with the support of Israeli and international activists to prevent the seizure by Israeli of 50% of our village's land for the construction of Israel’s wall and the expansion of Modi’in Illit. The Israelis want to control the Palestinians, push us off our land and seize it for themselves. In Bil'in, we have chosen a strategy which makes clear who is the victim and who is the victimizer. We know the Israeli army can choose to deal with us in two ways. If they choose violence, we make sure to get photographs for the media so that everyone sees what we were up against. And if they don’t use violence then we achieve our aim of stopping their bulldozers and delaying construction of their Wall and settlements. But even if the soldiers put down their weapons, which they have not, that would not make us equals in the field. We would always be the stronger because we have the power of justice on our side. We want all the other Palestinians to see this and understand that this is the basis of our strategy.

Over three years of protests in Bil'in more than 800 activists were injured in more than 200 demonstrations in Bil'in. An Israeli attorney and a Bil'in resident both suffered permanent brain damage from rubber-coated steel bullets shot by Israeli soldiers from close range. Another Palestinian lost sight in one eye. 49 Bil’in residents, including some protest leaders, were arrested. Some spent months in prison.

As a result of our protests and in response to our legal petition, in September, 2007, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that Israel's wall must be rerouted to return half of our land that was being seized, but the Supreme Court also legalized the settlement that Leviev is building on the remaining 25% of our land, though the wall is being built in violation of even Israeli law.

In response, we vowed to continue our nonviolent struggle to save the olive groves that our families have cultivated for centuries, and we have put our experience at the service of other communities struggling against the wall and settlements.

Jayyous: In October, 1988 the Israeli military governor of our district, Qalqilya, gave Jayyous’ mayor a military declaration saying that nearly 500 acres of Jayyous’ agricultural land was “state land.” The declaration granted us 45 days to prepare our landownership documents and maps to appeal that decision to an Israeli military court. 79 farmers from Jayyous appealed. The Israeli government has used British mandate laws, Ottoman laws, and the absentee landlord law to confiscate Palestinians’ land. If this is not enough the Israeli army confiscates our land for “security reasons.” Jayyous’ farmland includes some of the most fertile and water-rich land in the West Bank.

In May, 1996, the Israeli court decided on our 1988 appeal. 18 farmers from Jayyous lost all their land, some lost part of their land, while others kept their land. In 1993 LIDAR - a real state enterprise owned by the businessman Lev Leviev - established a quarry on some of Jayyous’ land that we were appealing to keep, three years before the Israeli court decision which took that land away.

During this period it became clear that LIDAR was an enemy of the people of Jayyous. LIDAR used bulldozers to prepare our land for houses for Israeli settlers, and TNT to detonate more than 16 acres for a quarry. They uprooted all the olive trees on that land. As a direct result of the quarry work, all the neighboring vegetables and fruit around have been covered with dust. LIDAR also uprooted the olive trees on two other plots. Many olive trees died because sewage from Zufim ran for many years through other plots. Other plots were annexed to Zufim.

LIDAR then announced that it would build 1500 new homes in a large area located 1.2 miles north of Zufim for “North Zufim.” Finally, in 2002 the Israel government began building its wall in Jayyous, up to 3.5 miles from the border with Israel, so as to annex 75% of Jayyous’ land (1700 acres) and six underground wells for Zufim. The land to be cut off was used to grow fruits and vegetables which sustain our village’s economy. According to the respected Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem’s 2005 report “Under the Guise of Security”, “the primary consideration in determining the route of the barrier around Zufin was to leave areas planned for the settlement’s expansion and for a nearby industrial zone on the ‘Israeli’ side of the barrier”, thus increasing “the number of Palestinians who are separated from their farmland, infringing their right to freedom of movement, their right to work and gain a livelihood, and their right of property.”

Despite more than 60 nonviolent protests organized by Jayyous’ people, and supported by Israeli and international activists, the wall has been built here, destroying 130 acres of Jayyous’ land, uprooting 4,000 trees and cutting off 75% of our land. 419 residents from Jayyous have been denied permits to pass through the gate in the Wall to reach their farmland. More than 70% of Jayyous’ farmers are now denied access to their land, many to the area where Leviev plans to expand Zufim. Hundreds of Israeli activists helped us to harvest our olives this fall because so many people from Jayyous could not reach their land.

* * *

We are engaged in a struggle for justice, for our freedom – indeed, for our very lives. We call on you, Ms. Sarandon, to end your relationship with Lev Leviev and stand with us in our struggle to save our land and our communities. We want you to see the facts here, and see what Leviev’s companies LIDAR and Danya Cebus are doing to our land. We would also be pleased to arrange meetings for you with Israeli and international peace activists who participate in our peaceful activities against the construction of settlements and the wall on our land.

As one option, we invite you to join us for Bil'in's 3rd annual International Conference on Popular Struggle from April 30th- May 2, 2008. In 2007, our conference was attended by participants from around the world, including Irish Nobel Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, activists from South Africa, and Israeli participants like Nobel prize nominee Jeff Halper, the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD).

But whenever you choose to come - as a supporter of human rights for all peoples, regardless of ethnicity, religion, class or gender - you will be most welcome in Bil'in and Jayyous.

We hope that you will accept our invitation. Awaiting your kind reply we remain,

Mohammed Khatib for Bil’in’s Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements

Sharif Omar for Jayyous’ Land Defense Committee

For background on Susan Sarandon and Lev Leviev:

-November 17 news report on Sarandon attendance at LEVIEV New York opening event

http://www.nypost. com/seven/ 11172007/ gossip/pagesix/ her_best_ friends_643816. htm

-November 20 letter to Sarandon from Adalah-NY
http://www.mideastj ustice.org/ index.php? option=com_ content&task= view&id=98& Itemid=61

-December 13 letter to Sarandon from US group Jewish Voice for Peace

http://www.jewishvo iceforpeace. org/publish/ article_928. shtml

More on Mohammed Khatib and Bil’in:
-One Village Struggles Against Israel’s Ever-expanding Settlements, Mohammed Khatib, Sept. 26, 2007,
http://www.alternet .org/story/ 63640/

-Help Us Stop Israel’s Wall Peacefully, Mohammed Khatib, July 12, 2005:

http://www.iht. com/articles/ 2005/07/11/ opinion/edkhatib .php-http://www.bilin- village.org/

More on Sharif Omar and Jayyous:
-Israel’s Wall Hems in Livelihoods and Dreams, Sharif Omar, August 17, 2003

http://www.usatoday .com/news/ opinion/editoria ls/2003-08- 17-omar_x. htm

-Farmers Denied Access to Their Land, Amnesty International, Oct. 15, 2007

http://www.amnesty. ca/take_action/ actions/israel_ ot_palestine_ farmers.php

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

"People from abroad come here and give us sermons on nonviolence and I appreciate it, but why don't they preach nonviolence to Israel and America?"

[Bethlehem, West Bank] On July 25, 2007, Reverend Dr. Mitri Raheb, captivated over forty international youth who attended Sabeel's Second International Conference:

40 Years in the Wilderness…40 Years of Occupation…

Born in Bethlehem, Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, has been the Pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas church in Bethlehem since 1988. He is the General Director of the International Center of Bethlehem/ICB, which provides the people of occupied territory training in arts, crafts, training and degrees in media and communications and health and wellness programs for youth and the elderly.

Raheb spoke with passion, "People need to see the potential of Palestine and Palestinians come to this center to create facts on the ground; creative and cultural facts on the ground while Israel creates destructive facts on the ground.

"We are not spectators, we have a role to play…we are nonviolent but I have problems with nonviolence; people from abroad come here and give us sermons on nonviolence and I appreciate it, but why don't they preach nonviolence to Israel and America?

"It's a miracle that the Palestinians are so nonviolent in spite of the abuse we live with on a daily basis. If you lived here every day you would get fed up too. The world assumes it is the Palestinians who are the violent ones, but nonviolence is who we are. If you operate in a system of violence you will also be violent when you go home.

"Palestinians who throw stones; and many think that is ok, but I say why do that? One day you will throw stones at Palestinians too and that is exactly what happened in Gaza, but the reason is the occupation! Where do you think Hamas learned to torture? In Israeli prisons from their captors!

"There is no way to end the violence without first ending the occupation. Our Palestinian government was boycotted for a year and a half by America and the EU: this is violence! As long as the violence is exercised against us that is OK with the world. When the Presbyterians talked divestment the Zionist rose up and said 'you can't do that!'

"I started interfaith dialogue in 1985 because Christians should not be islands and you don't dialogue just with yourself, you must dialogue with the other and the biggest temptation for the church is to stay within their walls and only be dedicated to their own members; which leads to a dead church. We are called to go out, and we do not just preach with words, people here are fed up with words; they hear one thing and see another with their eyes.

"They hear peace, peace, peace and for 85 years the politicians have been working for peace and the situation gets worse. Blair, and all the politicians are into PR for themselves; they do nothing for our situation. Blair got himself a good job marketing himself and he will come and go and Israel will continue building the wall, settlements and carving the West Bank into Swiss cheese; Israel gets the cheese and we Palestinians fall into the holes!

"Fifty million American dollars went to build the checkpoints to 'make our lives easier' we were told, but these checkpoints and terminals are not for people, they are for cattle!

"We have too much religion and it suffocates us! If God would speak today he would say, 'I am fed up with your religion!' The more religion there is; the less spirituality.

"During the Israeli invasion in 2002 when the Church of Nativity was occupied by the IDF and Palestinians were sheltered within, as an eyewitness I wrote 18 short stories that will keep you awake at night, in my book Bethlehem Besieged."

Immediately after Rev. Raheb spoke, I and my friend Daniel-who was born and lives in downtown Bethlehem-walked about a mile from the International Center to the nearly 60 year old Aida refugee camp, home to Palestinian Muslims who fled from their homes in 1948.

Just before entering the winding narrow alleys of the camp an old woman eating ice cream under the covered porch of a small grocery story caught my eye, as she only had one good one.

I asked Daniel to ask her if she knew any mothers with sons who would speak to me about their life in occupied territory. Immediately the diminutive lady dressed in traditional Palestinian Muslim attire, jumped up from her chair and beckoned me to sit down. Her grandson then appeared from inside the store and offered me and Daniel an ice cream bar. Within three minutes, his parents also arrived and I learned –via Daniel who acted as translator- that the 23 year old grandson in our midst is the only one of six brothers, who has not yet been imprisoned. The family is from Abu Gush, where a settlement now stands upon their homeland.

Mahmoud has been incarcerated for the last two years without charges and his first day in court was scheduled for July 26, 2007.

Mustafa has been imprisoned for eight years. He worked for the Palestinian police and was picked up for carrying a gun. I was told that a few years back, Ariel Sharon released him and for ten months he walked as free as one can, in occupied territory. One day the Israeli soldiers returned and picked him back up, claiming, "his release had been a mistake." The family believes a camp spy turned Mustafa in for being 'active' against the occupation.

I asked if he were Hamas or Fatah and was told; neither, that he is just like many others who resist the occupation but who are not political.

Sadaam in now 16 and has spent the last two years behind bars. His mother travels to one of the two main prisons for children –constructed with the assistance of USA tax dollars-under the age of 17 in Haifa, every few weeks and has been refused visits many times. She did see him two weeks ago and although healthy and clean, he is thin, depressed and angry. Sadaam was charged with having a knife, but his family denies the charge.

Daniel tells me it is common practice for the IDF to claim rocks were thrown at them and they were attacked with knives.

After I am offered beverages, the father of the clan stays at the store while grandma takes my hand and her daughter and grandson lead us to their home tucked within the narrow alleys of Aida camp.

Upon the living room wall is a landscape mural with a bullet hole delivered by the IDF. Pieces of exquisite art work were brought to me, all made in prison by the three sons. Their mother brings them pieces of silk, ribbons, fabric, buttons, gold and white beads, cardboard boxes, paints and the 'terrorists' who are in actuality artisans created a replica of the Al Aqsa Mosque, a sail boat, plaques and finger sized icons inscribed with hearts and names of family and friends. I am offered one constructed out of the top cover of a mattress; it is barely an inch wide and two inches long, stuffed a quarter of an inch think and sown by hand. In Arabic it say's "Sadaam and Khalid" who is a friend recently released from prison.

On one of the plaques which the grandmother held on her lap during my two hour visit, is inscribed: "To my loved ones, I left my life in the shadows, the life without you is too painful to even mention. See you later. -Mahmoud and Sadaam."

The young sister of the brothers, mother to two small boys tells Daniel, "I left Gaza on March 20, 2007. My husband has been there ever since he was sent there in 2002, after Bethlehem was besieged.

"It began on an ordinary day, helicopters and airplanes circled above and tanks came up the street. The soldiers were on the roof and breaking in doors and through walls. The resistance fighters and many young people ran to Manger Square. The soldiers stole money and jewelry. The Franciscan father Abraham Feltus sheltered my husband in the Church of the Nativity. After it was all over, I went and prayed and lit candles there."

Reported by the National Catholic Reporter on 4/26/2002, "the standoff between the Israeli Defense Force and the 250 Palestinians holed up inside the church along with 45 monks, nuns and priests…is taking a toll on both those inside the church and without. Bethlehem residents living near Manger Square, where the church is located, continue to live under curfew. The Israeli army has said it will continue its siege, which began April 3, until it captures about 30 men inside the church whom the army says are wanted as terrorists.

"Reached by telephone April 16, Franciscan Fr. Amjad Sabbara, parish priest at St. Catherine's Church, the Latin church that adjoins the 1,400-year, old Orthodox basilica enshrining Christ's birthplace, said the most serious problem for all those at the Church of the Nativity is water. The Nativity complex, which includes Catholic, Orthodox and Armenian monasteries in addition to the basilica, has one well. With some 250 more people now living there, water is running low. So far, the Israelis have permitted the delivery of a crate with 20 bottles of water, but no food. Sabbara reported that those inside the church are living on one meal a day.

"A youth who escaped from the Church of the Nativity April 15 provided a fuller picture of the squalid conditions inside the church. In an article printed in The New York Times April 17, 16-year-old Jihad Abdul Rahman said cold and the stench from rotting bodies and gangrenous wounds drove him from the church. There was no water for washing and only one toilet for the 250 Palestinians taking shelter inside the church, Rahman said.

"Dwindling supplies of food and water are not the only problems those inside the church are contending with. The Israeli army is exerting psychological pressure by blasting loud music and shrieking cries at night as well as intermittent demands to those inside the church to give themselves up.

"It's the Noriega technique," said Bethlehem resident Br. Kenneth Cardwell, referring to the tactics the U.S. government adopted in its efforts to dislodge former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega from the Vatican embassy in Panama City where he sought refuge in 1989. "They play really repulsive music very loudly."

"They broadcast loud commands to surrender in the middle of night. They explode huge explosive charges and then lesser flash-bangs I call them. We're a half-mile away and we wake up five, six times a night with this racket. There are blimps with a cable below. There's been a drone flying overhead all day today.

Yesterday colored gasses wafted across the square," Cardwell said. He added that a box dangling from a large crane the Israeli army has brought into or close by Manger Square "gave a laser light show the other night and that was pretty exciting."

"…all the computers of the Palestinian Authority in Bethlehem have been destroyed in what he called a deliberate attempt by the Israeli government to destroy the Palestinian economy and the Palestinian Authority.

Cardwell said, "We watch on TV the great support Israel is receiving from the Jewish people in the United States. If they only knew what this government is doing to the Palestinian people, they would repent in dust and ashes. American Jewry has a very high sense of moral responsibility for the widow, the stranger and the orphan, and they just are blind to what the Israeli government is doing." http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-86047196.html

LEARN MORE:

http://sabeel.org

Bethlehem Beseiged: Stories of Hope in Times of Trouble
by Mitri Raheb

http://www.annadwa.org/

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

World renowned theologian and expert on Christian Zionism, Dr. Reverend Stephen Sizer's 2007 CHRISTmas Sermon follows:

O Little Town of Bethlehem

Imprisoned you now lie.

Above thy deep and silent grief,

Surveillance drones now fly.

And through thy old streets standeth,

A huge illegal Wall.

The hopes and dreams that peace will come

Are dashed in this year’s Fall.

O morning stars together,

Look down upon this crime.

The people sing to God the King

But justice, who can find?

Yes, Christ was born of Mary,

God’s love remains supreme.

But mortals sleep as children weep,

Their pain is never seen.

How silently, how silently,

The world and Church protests.

As checkpoints grow and towns confined,

As settlers steal and rest.

No ear may hear the outcry,

As Israel’s Wall is built.

While meek souls muse, Apartheid rules -

We speak or share in guilt.

O Holy Child of Bethlehem,

Give strength to us, we pray.

Cast out our fears and open eyes.

O give us voice today!

We stand against injustice,

The Occupation must end.

May justice rule our Lord’s birthplace,

May now Christ’s peace descend.

Did you find that adaptation of “O Little Town” by Stephen Leah unsettling or even shocking? Then it is probably because of the way Christmas was sentimentalized in the 19th Century. Many of our popular carols were written then. If people in the 19th Century sentimentalized Christmas, people in the 20th Century trivialised Christmas. Naïve romanticism led to cynical commercialism. What will happen to Christmas in the 21st Century is really up to you and me. This evening I want us to explore “The Dark Side of Christmas”. I want us to discover the raw, authentic, genuine, real, true Christmas - in Bethlehem then, Bethlehem now and Bethlehem here.

Christmas in Bethlehem: Then

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it… 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. (John 1:5, 9-11) The Christmas story begins in darkness. Pitch darkness. Darkness comes in various forms.

There was first of all the darkness of occupation

The Roman occupation of Palestine was ruthless and unforgiving. The Israelites were terrorized into submission. They were a defeated nation. Palestine was occupied territory. Travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, even on the orders of the occupying power would be a long and dangerous journey, especially for a young pregnant woman. The roads were littered with the corpses of those who had resisted the occupation, hung from crosses for mile after mile as a warning to others. There would be roadblocks, checkpoints, spies, rebels, bandits. Mary and Joseph would have travelled with others for safety. The darkness of occupation.

There was also the darkness of exploitation

The Roman occupation was maintained by ruthless discipline and overwhelming force. The Romans were not prompted by altruism. The conquest led to the exploitation of the conquered. The developments which they fostered in agriculture, in mining, their grand irrigation schemes, their impressive new cities and seaports, aqueducts, roads and fortresses - were prompted by one single, all consuming goal. To maximize the revenue sucked from their empire. Heavy taxes were laid upon the Israelites. Huge levies on agricultural produce - to feed Rome’s appetite - and forced conscription of men to serve as slaves, seaman and soldiers - were ruthlessly enforced, impoverishing the people. The people paid dearly for their own colonisation. Indeed it was the despised Roman taxation system which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem on that first Christmas night. The census declared by Caesar Augustus was intended to identify the value of his assets in Palestine and increase the revenue for his empire.
The darkness of occupation led to the darkness of exploitation.

There was also the darkness of disillusionment

That is why there was an ever-increasing number who felt that violence, not faith, was the most effective path of resistance. Where was the coming Messiah long promised by the prophets? Hence the rise of the zealots, the resistance movement of freedom fighters. There were the Sicarii (or dagger men), who were bent on liberating Palestine from occupation by violence. They assassinated fellow Jews who collaborated with Rome. On that first Christmas night, the mood in Bethlehem was one of despair, violence and resignation. There was darkness. The darkness of occupation, exploitation and disillusionment. Christmas in Bethlehem: Then

Christmas in Bethlehem: Now

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it…” (John 1:5)

Let me introduce you to three Christian friends, relatives of Jesus living and working in Bethlehem. They are an endangered minority threatened with extinction. I’m going to let them speak to you about the meaning of Christmas.

First, my friend Wisam. Wisam Salsaa is a Tour Guide from Beit Sahour. Beit Sahour is literally the Shepherds Fields to the East of Bethlehem.

“We live in a hunting zone - The last 7-8 months have been the worst months in our lives. Before the new government took over, people were able to struggle and to eat; now everyone is tired, and some cannot find food to eat. People are so desperate... we are feeling our weakness, and the weakness of what they call justice in this world. Look at the new maps and the settlements - over five hundred thousand settlers are living in the West Bank so far – The wall is going around us, … a stranger may think it is a zoo or a national reserve – but it is not. Zoos or national reserves are protected. But we are not! The Israeli army attacks Bethlehem often to arrest or to kill! We live in a hunting Zone. Bethlehem is completely surrounded with settlements… The Israelis understand that very well, and now after completing the wall, they are able to manage the conflict for many years with very little effect on their own people, until they reach their goal. With all of what is happening in the world, talking about a real comprehensive peace in our region could seem like a dream… we are too far from this dream at the moment. But I have a dream to make peace with ourselves, with our neighbours and friends, to make Palestine a liveable place for Christians and Muslims despite all of the challenges. This is possible.”

Zoughbi is also a good friend. – Zoughbi is the Director of Wi’am Conflict Resolution Centre, Bethlehem.

He said this recently, "Bethlehem is going down, so we need compassionate listening because in hearing there is healing. We need prayers and exchange visits as the Palestinians are being collectively punished for their democratic choice. Our hope is in you - we see God in your faces, in your prayers, in your words. I shiver with hope when you come. In Bethlehem, we are hostages to fear and paranoia. Less than 0.05 per cent get permits for travel; consequently there is no freedom of movement and therefore no freedom of religion. Displacement of anger is increasing domestic violence and 80 per cent of children are showing signs of trauma. There are many psychological problems and not enough psychiatrists. Over 500 families have left Bethlehem in the last 5 years (i.e. 3,000 people) and Israeli fundamentalists are creating more and more settlements. We live in a pressure cooker, which is a recipe for transfer, i.e. conditions to make you leave if you can. In the long run the Israelis want the land without the people.

There were over eighty shops nearby most of which have now closed. The wall is squeezing everywhere and land is being taken. Banks are refusing to channel money and now we can only get money through Jordanian banks. We don’t get post in Bethlehem, or if we do it is severely interfered with. For instance, we had some Disney videos sent from the States for the children – they didn’t arrive for months; when they did arrive, only the boxes came and the videos were taken out. When we asked the reason, they said it was 'for security’. Israel worships the new Golden Cow of security, meanwhile the ethnic cleansing of a people is going on, and so in Bethlehem we will end up a museum. We call for the world, especially the Christian world to recognise its collective responsibility for Bethlehem and what is happening to the West Bank and Gaza. “Despite the difficulties in our lives, we will rejoice at the birth of Christ at Christmas. Taking our inspiration from the story in the Bible of Herod's massacre and the flight to Egypt of the Holy Family. The inspiration comes from knowing that despite being born into those dark days, amid the harsh Roman occupation, and despite the fear that must have gone with the family as they escaped to another country, Jesus did return and was able to spread his ministry of peace and love. We are living in a similar situation 2000 years later, behind the Apartheid Wall and under the harsh occupation, many Palestinians are escaping to other countries. But we are persevering and will celebrate Christmas with the message of hope and deliverance that Christ has planted in our hearts. We pray that through the miraculous birth of Christ we will see the Wall go and change into a bridge of understanding between the two peoples living here. Our prayer is that through mutuality, inclusivity, and reciprocity, the road to reconciliation will conquer all kinds of fears, paranoia, and injustices and the Holy Land will once again be the source of hope and light.” Zougbhi Zougbhi (Director of the Wi’am Conflict Resolution Centre, Bethlehem)

Finally, let me introduce you to my friend Naim. Naim Ateek is a Canon at St George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem. It is unlikely he will be in Bethlehem tonight. Born and raised in Jerusalem, like many other Christians in Palestine, he is nevertheless forbidden to travel the six miles to Bethlehem. He cannot celebrate the birth of Jesus at the Church of the Nativity because his country is under occupation. The road to Bethlehem is blocked by checkpoints, armed soldiers and the Separation Wall. Naim wrote this reflection last week, comparing the similarities between Bethlehem then and Bethlehem now.

“During this Christmas season as we reflect on the message of the angels, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace...” we can only understand it against the peace which Caesar gives. God’s formula for peace is juxtaposed with Pax Romana. For Caesar, peace is imposed by the might of empire. This is evident when occupied people are forced to give homage to Caesar, when they are coerced to pay taxes to Rome, and when they accept Rome’s sovereignty and unquestioned domination. It is against this kind of peace that the radical message of Christmas comes to us, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace...” Peace comes when the sovereignty of God is acknowledged rather than Caesar’s. For people living under occupation or oppression, Caesar has become a symbol of the evil that crushes and enslaves. The message of the angels stands for God’s kingdom. In the kingdom of God, glory and sovereignty belong to God and not to Caesar. God’s peace is not achieved by crushing and eliminating others but by embracing them. Caesar’s empire is built on violence and military might, God’s empire is built on justice and mercy. Caesar’s peace enslaves and humiliates, God’s peace liberates and restores dignity to the oppressed. Caesar builds walls to separate people, God tears down the walls of separation to join, unify, and reconcile them one with the other. Caesar’s peace is exclusive for a chosen few, God’s peace is inclusive for all regardless of their race or ethnicity. Ultimately, peace will come not from the Caesars and all those who trust in their military might and in the arrogance of their power but from the meek that put their trust in God.

It is the meek who will inherit the earth. Peace will come from the labour, toil, and hard work of all those who do not glory in their riches, or in their power, but glory in their love and service of God, and in their love and acceptance of others. God’s message of peace still rings true, not from Annapolis that represents empire, but from the small town of Bethlehem, Palestine that still suffers under occupation. The peace that the Caesars of the world give is largely false and deceptive, and it cannot last. Only the peace that God gives, the peace that is based on justice and truth will survive and prosper. May the New Year bring us closer to the peace we hope for; and let us continue the struggle together for the achievement of God’s peace for all the people of Palestine-Israel.”

Christmas in Bethlehem then. Christmas in Bethlehem now.

What about Christmas in Bethlehem: Here?

How are we to celebrate Christmas here? Now? Tonight? How, in the darkness that is just as pervasive today as it was that first Christmas? We may not suffer the darkness of occupation or exploitation. But there is around us the darkness of spiritual ignorance. There is the darkness of moral blindness. There is the darkness of malevolent evil. The darkness is real. But because of Christmas, it will never get so dark that we can't see the light. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it…” (John 1:5)

Into the darkness, God sent an eternal light. As you walk home this evening, notice that the darkness does not intrude upon the light. No, it is the light that intrudes scattering the darkness. Light is always stronger than darkness.

And the forces of light are stronger than the forces of darkness. Tonight we have faced “The Dark Side of Christmas” in Bethlehem then and Bethlehem now. I said I wanted us to discover the raw, authentic, genuine, real, true message of Christmas. That’s what we find in John 1:11-14.

“He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:11-14)

The coming of the light of Christ divides people, as it cuts into the darkness.

We learn that some will Reject the Light of Christ – and they face the judgment of God
“He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.” (John 1:11) Does this verse burden you? The presence of evil, of oppression and injustice in our world, won’t end tonight, however much we pray for peace on earth. Why? Because, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19)

Until Christ returns, our calling is to bring light into those parts of our world consumed with darkness. Our message to those who reject Jesus, and cause darkness, in love, must therefore be one of warning. Repent because judgment awaits them.“Whoever believes in him is not condemned. Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:18). Some will reject the light – and face the judgment of God.

Some will Receive the Living Christ – and become children of God

“Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (John 1:12-13)

Does this verse assure you? Do you know that you are a child of God? If not, then become one tonight. The Son of God was born this night so that you might be born a child of God tonight. Repent of your sin, and receive him as your Lord and Saviour and have the assurance that you are a child of God. If you are not sure what that means, then join our Christianity Explored course starting Thursday 17th January. Some will reject the Light of Christ and face the judgment of God. Some will receive the Living Christ and become children of God.

Some will Rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ – and proclaim the glory of God

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:11-14)

Does this verse excite you? If you are a Christ follower, it will. This night of all nights we will sing of the glory of God.

No, we will not be discouraged by the darkness any more than our brothers and sisters in Bethlehem tonight. In Jesus Christ, we have found a life that overcomes death, a love that conquers hate, the truth that prevails over falsehood, and light, light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never, ever, overcome it.

Whether in Bethlehem then, Bethlehem now, or Bethlehem here. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it…” (John 1:5)

Lets pray.

Stephen Sizer
Christ Church Vicarage
Callow Hill, Virginia Water, GU25 4LD

www.sizers.org

http://www.cc-vw.org/sermons/john1christmas.htm

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

Scott has written my heart and I think George Washington's too:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils."-George Washington's Farewell Address - 1796

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18906.htm

Perhaps It Is Time For The U.S. To Reconsider Its Partnership With Israel

By Scott Ritter

12/17/07 " Antiwar" -- --- I have for some time now publicly articulated my sympathy and support for the state of Israel, even while criticizing those cases that I believed constituted poor judgment and bad policy. My stance was based upon my past experiences with Israel, which began indirectly in 1990-1991 when I was involved in counter-SCUD activities during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and continued in a much more direct fashion as a weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with disarming Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

As a weapons inspector I made numerous visits to Israel for the purpose of coordinating with the Israeli intelligence community on matters pertaining to Iraqi WMD. I was greatly impressed not only with the professionalism of the Israeli intelligence services, but also with the Israeli people and society. During my time in Israel, I was witness to numerous horrific events, including several terrorist bombings and the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The resilience of the people of Israel in absorbing these blows yet continuing to live life to its fullest was remarkable, and worthy of admiration.

As a firsthand witness to the remarkable vigor of the Israeli state and its people, and as someone who considers himself to be their friend, it saddens me to see just how poorly the current Israeli government returns this friendship, not to me personally, but to my country, the United States of America. The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has embarked on policies that are questionable at best when one examines them from a purely Israeli standpoint; they are nothing less than a betrayal of the United States when examined from a broader perspective.

The insidious manner in which the current Israeli government has manipulated the domestic political machinery of the United States to produce support for its policies constitutes nothing less than direct interference in the governance of a sovereign state. The degree to which the current Israeli government has succeeded in this regard can be tracked not only by the words and actions of the administration of President George W. Bush and the American Congress, but also by the extent to which a pro-Israel lexicon has taken hold within the mainstream media of the United States. Witness the pro-Israel bias displayed when discussing the situation in southern Lebanon, the air strike in Syria, or the Iranian situation, and the retarding of any effort toward a responsible discussion of anything dealing with Israel becomes apparent.

One would expect such efforts to shape the domestic public opinion of a state deemed hostile, but when the target of these Israeli actions is its ostensible best friend, one must begin to question whether or not the friendship is a one-way street. And if this is indeed the case, then perhaps it is time for the United States to reconsider its decades-old policy of strategic partnership with Israel.

It must be understood that the government of Ehud Olmert is acting in a post-9/11 environment, with considerable facilitators in the administration of President Bush, including the vice president. These two factors combine to create a cycle of enablement that allows a purely Israeli point of view to dominate American policy. If the Israeli point of view were built on logic, compassion, and the rule of law, then this tilt would not constitute a problem. But the Israeli point of view is increasingly constructed on a foundation of intolerance and irresponsible unilateralism that divorces the country from global norms. In this day and age of nuclear nonproliferation, the undeclared nuclear arsenal of Israel stands as perhaps the most egregious example of how an Israel-only standard destabilizes the Middle East. It is the Israeli nuclear weapons program, including its strategic delivery systems, that is the core of instability for this very volatile region.

The statements by Israeli officials concerning the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and its nuclear program are perhaps the best manifestation of this reality. Avi Dichter, Israel's public security minister, has condemned the NIE as a flawed document, and in terms that link the American analysis to a cause-and-effect cycle that could lead the Middle East down the path of regional war. Like many Israelis, including the prime minister, Dichter disagrees with the American NIE on Iran, in particular the finding that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Israelis hold that this program is still active, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reached a conclusion similar to the NIE's based upon its own exhaustive inspection activities inside Iran over the past five years.

In threatening the world with war because America opted for once to embrace fact instead of fiction, Israel, sadly, has become like a cornered beast, lashing out at any and all it perceives to threaten its security interests. The current Israeli definition of what constitutes its security interests is so broad as to preclude any difference of opinion. Israel's shameless invocations of the Holocaust to defend its actions not only shames the memory of those murdered over 60 years ago, but ironically dilutes the impact of that memory by linking it with current policies that are cruel and intolerant. The message of Holocaust remembrance should be "never again," not just in terms of the persecution of Jews, but in terms of man's inhumanity to man. The birth of the Israeli state, as imperfect and controversial as it was, served as a foundation for the pursuit of tolerance. However, Israel's current policies, rooted in ethnic and religious hatred, are the antithesis of tolerance.

Israel at present can have no friends, because Israel does not know how to be a friend. Driven by xenophobic paranoia and historical grievances, Israel is embarked on a path that can only lead to death and destruction. This is a path the United States should not tread. I have always taken the position that Israel is a friend of the United States, and that friends should always stand up for one another, even in difficult times. I have also noted that, to quote a phrase well known in America, friends don't let friends drive drunk, and that for some time now Israel has been drunk on arrogance and power. As a friend, I have believed the best course of action for the United States to take would be that which helped remove the keys from the ignition of the policy vehicle Israel is steering toward the edge of the abyss. Now it seems our old friend is holding a pistol to our head, demanding that we stop interfering with the vehicle's operation and preventing us from getting out of the car. This is not the action of a friend, and it can no longer be tolerated.

It is time for what those who are familiar with dependency issues would term an intervention. Like a child too long spoiled by an inattentive parent, Israel has grown accustomed to American largess, to the point that it is addicted to an American aid package that is largely responsible for keeping the Israeli economy afloat. This aid must be reconsidered in its entirety. The day of the free ride must come to an end. The United States must redefine its national security priorities in the Middle East and position Israel accordingly. At the very least, American aid must be linked to Israeli behavior modification. The standards America applies to other nations around the world when it comes to receiving aid must likewise apply to Israel.

Let there be no doubt: Israel and its considerable lobby of supporters here in America will scream bloody murder if their aid is trimmed in any fashion. But in the greater interest of what will best benefit the security interests of the United States, and indeed the Middle East and the entire world, the grip Israel has on American policymaking must come to an end. It is up to the American people to make this change, first and foremost by recognizing that a real problem exists in American-Israeli relations, then by electing officials to Congress who will deal responsibly with these problems based not on the behind-the-scenes lobbying of Israel and its proxies, but rather the legitimate interests of the United States.

If Israel decides it wants to be our friend, then it will change its behavior accordingly. Absent this, America has no choice but to declare its independence from a relationship that has destroyed our credibility around the world and drags us dangerously down the path toward another irresponsible military misadventure in the Middle East. If, in the future, Israel desires to reestablish a relationship with the United States built upon the principles of mutual trust and benefit, then so be it. Such a relationship is something I could embrace without hesitation. But one thing is certain: no such friendship can truly exist under the conditions and terms that are in place today, and for that reason the entirety of the American-Israeli relationship must be reexamined.

Scott Ritter is a former UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq and the author of Target Iran: The Truth Behind the White House's Plans for Regime Change (Nation Books, 2006).

Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

A while back on X-Left I had the chutzpah to post an article that compared the Palestinians to what African Americans had suffered in the USA before civil rights.

I took a lot of flack for daring to claim that the Palestinians had become the 'n's' of the world.

I maintain that position.

This quote from Rev. King expresses much of my frustration:

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice;

"Who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’;

"Who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’

"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

"Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”-M L King, Jr letter from a Birmingham jail

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

Israeli tanks and bulldozers pushed into the southern Gaza Strip on Dec. 11, killing five and trapping hundreds of people in their homes.

Israel continues demolishing Palestinian homes in east Jerusalem in order to continue the construction of the Har Homa colony.

One should wonder exactly what was the true aim of Annapolis.

Ramzy Baroud, in a Special to PalestineChronicle.com
offers the best reply I have read thus far:

The US-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland was neither a success nor failure, if one accepts that its so-called objective was indeed ‘peacemaking’.

From a US perspective, the meeting was, at best, a diplomatic manoeuvre on the part of the Bush administration, a last chance for becoming relevant to a region that is quickly escaping its grip. At worst, the conference was a desperate public relations charade aimed at convincing the American public that the administration’s plans for democracy and peace in the Middle East are unfolding smoothly. In both scenarios, the conference was a necessary but fleeting distraction from the prevailing criticism that the Iraq war is a ‘nightmare’ without end.

Bush’s words at Annapolis suggested he was playing exactly the part Israel expected of him. His emphasis on the Jewish identity of Israel, itself a crude violation of the principles of secularism, seems more than a mere gesture to appease the concerns of Israel and its backers in the US; it was actually a subtle acceptance of the ethnic cleansing that continues to define Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. After all, millions of Palestinians have for decades been expelled from their land for no other reason than not being Jewish, while millions of Jews around the world are welcomed ‘back’ to Israel – a land that they never lived in or had prior ties to. Could Bush not have known about this when he emphasised the need for a Jewish state? I doubt it.

So what kind of peace process are we talking about? By any reasonable definition, peacemaking usually occurs to bridge the gap and resolve disagreements between antagonists; friends don’t need to ‘negotiate’ through the use of ‘initiatives’ and ‘painful compromises’ to find a ‘common ground’. While both Israelis and Palestinians are in urgent need for peace to replace the hostility caused by Israel’s illegal military occupation, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could hardly qualify as ‘enemies’ caught in a state of ‘hostilities’ from which they require escape. Indeed, both men are individually beleaguered in many ways and engaged in a war of their own – but not against one another. If anything, both Abbas and Olmert are in a state of political symbiosis, a mutual dependency that borders, strangely enough, on solidarity.

Annapolis was the perfect platform for both leaders to alleviate their individual woes.

Abbas needed the international validation after his non-constitutional response to the clash with Hamas in Gaza. Being unpopular among Palestinians, the survival of his regime is solely dependent on his ability to sustain the patronage system of his authority in the West Bank. Without international funds, US validation, and Israeli permission, Abbas cannot run his nepotistic empire, itself under Israeli military occupation. Therefore he needs to keep up the balancing act, and cannot be expected to infuriate Israel by pushing for serious demands at the negotiating table, scheduled to begin December 12.

Olmert, overseeing a shaky coalition, is gripped by two daunting realities: one, he has no mandate to make any ‘compromises’, painful or otherwise, and two, the fact that a two-state solution is close to becoming obsolete. In a rare frankness, he expressed these fears in an interview with the daily Haaretz right after returning from Annapolis. “The day will come when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights...As soon as that happens, the state of Israel (as an exclusively Jewish state) is finished.”

In retrospect, this helps to explain Bush’s insistence on the Jewish identity of Israel.

What’s ironic is that the same parties that once considered the recognition of the word ‘Palestine’ as blasphemous and anti-Semitic are now advocating a Palestinian state. David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee told the Los Angeles Times, November 30, that even the two-state solution has to be qualified. “No. no. Two-space-nation-space-states. Not just two states, two nation states. A Jewish state called Israel, and a Palestinian Arab state called Palestine. This is the language that Prime Minister Olmert has been using, that Foreign Minister Livni has been using, that President Bush has embraced, and (was also used by) President Sarkozy (of France).”

Olmert, like many Israeli and Jewish Zionist leaders (as opposed to non-Zionist Jews who refuse to subscribe to this archaic mindset) increasingly realizes that Israel’s colonial euphoria is backfiring; the failure to define Israel’s borders – left open with the hope of further territorial expansion – is making it impossible for Israel to achieve total dominance of Jews over Arabs, while still calling itself a democracy. There is hardly a doubt that the bad choices made by Israel in the past are now irrevocable, and that indeed the future struggle will be that of equality within one state.

Rather than being a right, or wrong, step toward peace between two conflicting parties, Annapolis has provided a stage for much sweet talk, hyped expectations and soundbytes for leaders with pressing motivations. Reporters may have been told that Annapolis offered “hope...cautious hope, but hope” by Olmert’s spokesperson, but neither hope, nor breaking the seven year of ‘deadlock’ - as prophesized by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat – are relevant here. The meeting and the year of ‘negotiations’ expected to follow it are part of Israel’s last attempt at ‘preserving’ its Jewish identity, and creating a South Africa-style Palestinian Bantustans. Palestinians will be granted the freedom to call such disconnected islands whatever they wish, and to hoist their flag within the caged entities, if they must, but nothing more.

Although both Bush and Abbas are willing collaborators in this undemocratic endeavour, Israelis must wake up to the fact that their country is knee-deep in Apartheid, and nothing is significant enough to salvage their racially-selective democracy, except true democracy.

It’s time for people like Harris to stop talking of ‘two-space-nation-space-states’ and other such nonsense, but instead to invest sincere efforts in finding a formula that guarantees peace, justice and security for both Palestinians and Israelis, without overlooking the historic responsibility of Israel over the plight and dispossession of the Palestinians.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People\'s Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

Published first in THE NATION:

Carter Speaks His Mind by John Nichols in the Nation

Since the publication of his 2006 book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter has courted the sort of controversy that most ex-Presidents, and all would-be Presidents, avoid. Jonathan Demme's exceptional new documentary, Jimmy Carter Man From Plains, highlights that controversy, providing an intimate portrait of a man on a mission. The Nation's John Nichols spoke with Carter about the book, the film and the 2008 presidential campaign.

Q: There is an intensity to this documentary that is not usually associated with someone a quarter-century out of the White House.

A: This was my twenty-fourth book, and I've been on book tours on just about all of them. This is the first time that there has been that degree of intensity and drama and unpredictability--almost an urgency. I wanted to meet as many critics as I could and...it turned out to be quite a remarkable journey.

Q: Early in the documentary, you refer to US media coverage of the Middle East as "abominable" and entirely lacking in objectivity. Did you see yourself as doing battle with the media on the book tour?

A: I was presenting a point of view that the American media rarely have a chance to cover. It would be almost inconceivable for any member of the House or Senate, Republican or Democrat, or any person campaigning for President, Republican or Democrat, to make the statements that I've made concerning the plight of the Palestinians or Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders with modifications, or things of that kind. So this was a new opportunity for them to cover the Mideast issue from a completely--I'd say almost unprecedented--perspective.

Q: Do you think you moved the political debate forward?

A: Oh, no. It would be amazing for me to hear any candidate for President even mention it--even begin to address these issues in a serious way.

Q: It is accepted today that a former President may, if he is willing to take some hits, say bold things about the Middle East but that candidates for President can't. Isn't that our crisis?

A: That was one of the reasons I wrote the book--and it is the reason I continue to talk about these issues. I saw a complete dearth of any sort of substantive debate. For six years, now seven years, there hasn't been a single day of substantive negotiations between Israel and either Syria or the Palestinians. I wanted to precipitate some movement on the peace process and also bring the issue to the forefront. In other countries, by the way--I've been to Ireland and England and other countries in Europe lately--there is a pretty intense debate. But over here, zero.

Q: Obviously, this is a continuing project for you, initially with the book and now the documentary. As we come into the 2008 presidential election, is there any way that this issue can be made a part of the discussion?

A: I don't think it's possible for candidates to talk about it. But it may be that some of the facts and some of the issues will sink into the consciousness of whoever is going to be in the White House beginning in 2009, and that they will see some responsibility and some way, some path toward a peace process. As you know, it is not generally expected that they will do this in the first year or two of their administration. President Clinton did not do it until his last year in office, and President Bush now is saying that he is going to try and do something. I'm not bragging about myself, but I started in the first two months of my administration. We finished it the second year I was in office. It is possible to achieve progress, if you start early enough and make it clear that peace is a priority of the administration.

Q: You entered the national political consciousness as "the man from Plains," the peanut farmer with few ties to Washington mounting an outsider campaign. Could you--same background, same scenario--run successfully for President today?


A: No. It wouldn't be possible. In the first place, in 1975 and '76, I didn't have any money. We ran a campaign with my family, basically. We had seven of us every day campaigning in different places. We didn't even have enough money to stay in a hotel or motel. Then, President Ford and I both in the general election just ran on the $1-per-person checkoff. We didn't receive any contributions for the general election. That technique, that situation, is completely passé now.

Q: Did winning the presidency as an outsider free you to try new approaches in the Middle East?

A: Definitely. There were two things: I didn't owe anybody anything when I got in office, so I could speak freely. I could act freely. The other part was that I didn't worry so much about the question, What do you do when you get in office to be re-elected? And I have to say that I neglected that part of my political career.

Q: You didn't calculate carefully enough.

A: No. I really thought the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt would be enough to solidify my political support. But there are so many nuances of that issue that it didn't work out that way. Israel and Egypt remain at peace, however. There is consolation in that and I hope a good message to the next President. It is possible for an American President to advance the peace process, to achieve meaningful progress. It is also necessary--more necessary now than it has ever been.

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

On my Blog November 25, 2007, I raised some concerns regarding:

Apartheid in Israel Palestine!

Viability in Annapolis?

Will Annapolis end with more than handshakes and photo ops? Is a viable Palestinian state even possible?

Will the fruit of Annapolis reap justice which is the way to security and peace in the Holy Land or will we see what American Israeli peace activist and Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, Jeff Halper, Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions predicts?

"In the end, the Palestinians may get 80-90% of the West Bank, but they do not get a viable state. They will have sterile swatches of territory whereas Israel retains control of the borders, movement of people and goods both within the Palestinian state and between it and the countries around, much of the country's arable land, almost all its water, the Palestinians' airspace and even control of their communications. The Palestinian state is deprived of a viable economy. Given that 60% of Palestinians are under the age of 18 and that mini-state must absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees, its prospects for being a viable, stable and truly independent state are nil given the unspoken parameters outlined in the Bush letter. [1]

"There will be a Palestinian state. Israel has an urgent demographic need to get the almost four million Palestinians of the occupied territories off its hands. It might even attempt to "swap" a couple hundred thousand Israeli Arab citizens of the Galilee Triangle under the pretense of giving the Palestinians more land. The crucial question is: will it be a viable state? If it's true that Olmert intends that Israel permanently retain the settlement blocs, an Israeli "greater" Jerusalem and effective control of the entire country to the Jordan River, then we will merely be substituting a sophisticated form of apartheid for occupation. The devil is in the details.' [IBID]

In Issue 46 of Naim Ateek's, CORNERSTONE, a quarterly publication of Sabeel Ecumenical liberation Theology Center, Ateek wrote, "Israel has effectively made Gaza a big prison [one and a half million people in] a Bantustan, in which it is systematically assassinating its leaders and reducing its people to abject misery and poverty. The firing of qassam rockets provides Israel with an excuse to keep oppressing the Palestinians in Gaza.

"In the West Bank, Israel still has two major objectives: The first is the confiscation of more Palestinian land and the completion of its Separation [Hebrew: Hafrada, in Afrikaan: Apartheid] Wall. Israel seeks not only separation but the dispossession [Hebrew: nishool] of Palestinians. These two Hebrew words are essential in describing Israel's goal of apartheid." [Page 2]

"The truth which is known to all; through its army, the government of Israel practices a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp."- Israeli Minister of Education, Shulamit Aloni quoted in the popular Israeli newspaper, Yediot Acharonot on December 20, 2006,

"An apartheid society is much more than just a ‘settler colony’. It involves specific forms of oppression that actively strip the original inhabitants of any rights at all, whereas civilian members of the invader caste are given all kinds of sumptuous privileges." [2]

Apartheid can also be summed up as a structured process of gross human rights violations perpetrated against a conquered ethnic majority by a state and society mainly controlled by an invading ethnic minority and its descendants, mainly immigrants that have been deemed part of the ethnic elite.

The following nine categories make up the necessary, sufficient, and defining characteristics of apartheid regimes:

1. Violence: Apartheid is a state of war initiated by a de facto invading ethnic minority, which at least in the short term originates from a non-neighboring locality. In all main instances of apartheid most if not all members of the invading group originate from a different continent. The invading ethnic minority and its self-defined descendants then continue to dominate the indigenous majority by means of their military superiority and by their continuous threats and uses of violence.

2. Repopulation: Apartheid is also a continuation of depopulation and population transfer. One example is seen in the obliteration of the indigenous Bedouins that Israel denies free movement to graze their herds and are silently transferring the Bedouins to new locales, such as atop of garbage dumps.

3. Citizenship: The indigenous people are often denied citizenship in their own country by the apartheid state authorities, which are ironically and irrationally, run and staffed by the recent arrivals to the country.

4. Land: Apartheid entails land confiscation, land redistribution and forced removals, almost without exception to the benefit of the invading ethnic minority. Usually, members of the ethnic majority are forced on to barren and unfertile soils, where they must also try to survive under impoverished and overcrowded conditions.

5. Work: Apartheid displays systematic exploitation of the indigenous class in the production process and different pay or taxation for the same work.

6. Access: There is ethnically differentiated access to employment, food, water, health care, emergency services, clean air, and other needs, including the need for leisure activities, in each case ensuring superior access for the favored ethnic community.

7. Education: There are also different kinds of education offered and forced upon the different ethnic groups.

8. Language: A basic apartheid characteristic is the fact that only very few of the invaders and their descendants ever learn the language(s) of the indigenous victims.

9. Thought: Finally, apartheid contains ideologies or 'necessary illusions' in order to convince the privileged minorities that they are inherently superior and the indigenous majorities that they are inherently inferior. Much of apartheid thought is shaped by typical war propaganda. The enemy is dehumanized by both sides' ideologies, words and other symbols are used to incite or provoke people to violence, but mostly so by the invaders and their descendants. [IBID]

Americans for Middle East Understanding, Inc. constructed an extensive historical timeline of events that occurred simultaneously in South Africa and Israel, from which I excerpt:

On July 5, 1950, Israel enacted the Law of Return by which Jews anywhere in the world, have a “right” to immigrate to Israel on the grounds that they are returning to their own state, even if they have never been there before. On July 14, 1952: The enactment of the Citizenship/Jewish Nationality Law, results in Israel becoming the only state in the world to grant a particular national-religious group—the Jews—the right to settle in it and gain automatic citizenship. [3]

In 1953, South Africa’s Prime Minister Daniel Malan becomes the first foreign head of government to visit Israel and returns home with the message that Israel can be a source of inspiration for white South Africans. [IBID]

In 1962, South African Prime Minister Verwoerd declares that Jews “took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In that I agree with them, Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” [IBID]

On August 1, 1967, Israel enacted the Agricultural Settlement Law, which bans Israeli citizens of non-Jewish nationality- Palestinian Arabs- from working on Jewish National Fund lands, well over 80% of the land in Israel. Knesset member Uri Avnery stated: “This law is going to expel Arab cultivators from the land that was formerly theirs and was handed over to the Jews.” [IBID]

On April 4, 1969, General Moshe Dayan is quoted in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz telling students at Israel’s Technion Institute that “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You don’t even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don’t blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either… There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”[IBID]

On April 28, 1971: C. L. Sulzberger, writing in The New York Times, quoted South African Prime Minister John Vorster as saying that Israel is faced with an apartheid problem, namely how to handle its Arab inhabitants. Sulzberger wrote: “Both South Africa and Israel are in a sense intruder states. They were built by pioneers originating abroad and settling in partially inhabited areas." [IBID]

On September 13, 1978, in Washington, D.C. The Camp David Accords are signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and witnessed by President Jimmy Carter. The Accords reaffirm U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, which prohibit acquisition of land by force, call for Israel’s withdrawal of military and civilian forces from the West Bank and Gaza, and prescribe “full autonomy” for the inhabitants of the territories. Begin orally promises Carter to freeze all settlement activity during the subsequent peace talks. Once back in Israel, however, the Israeli prime minister continues to confiscate, settle, and fortify the occupied territories. [IBID]

On September 13, 1985, Rep. George Crockett (D-MI), after visiting the Israeli-occupied West Bank, compares the living conditions there with those of South African blacks and concludes that the West Bank is an instance of apartheid that no one in the U.S. is talking about. [IBID]

In July 2000, President Bill Clinton convenes the Camp David II Peace Summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. Clinton—not Barak—offers Arafat the withdrawal of some 40,000 Jewish settlers, leaving more than 180,000 in 209 settlements, all of which are interconnected by roads that cover approximately 10% of the occupied land. Effectively, this divides the West Bank into at least two non-contiguous areas and multiple fragments. Palestinians would have no control over the borders around them, the air space above them, or the water reserves under them. Barak calls it a generous offer. Arafat refuses to sign. [IBID]

August 31, 2001: Durban, South Africa. Up to 50,000 South Africans march in support of the Palestinian people. In their “Declaration by South Africans on Apartheid and the Struggle for Palestine” they proclaim: “We, South Africans who lived for decades under rulers with a colonial mentality, see Israeli occupation as a strange survival of colonialism in the 21st century. Only in Israel do we hear of ‘settlements’ and ‘settlers.’ Only in Israel do soldiers and armed civilian groups take over hilltops, demolish homes, uproot trees and destroy crops, shell schools, churches and mosques, plunder water reserves, and block access to an indigenous population’s freedom of movement and right to earn a living. These human rights violations were unacceptable in apartheid South Africa and are an affront to us in apartheid Israel." [IBID]

October 23, 2001: Ronnie Kasrils, a Jew and a minister in the South African government, co-authors a petition "Not in My Name," signed by some 200 members of South Africa's Jewish community, reads: "It becomes difficult, from a South African perspective, not to draw parallels with the oppression expressed by Palestinians under the hand of Israel and the oppression experienced in South Africa under apartheid rule." [IBID]

Three years later, Kasrils will go to the Occupied Territories and conclude: "This is much worse than apartheid. Israeli measures, the brutality, make apartheid look like a picnic. We never had jets attacking our townships. We never had sieges that lasted month after month. We never had tanks destroying houses. We had armored vehicles and police using small arms to shoot people but not on this scale." [IBID]

April 29, 2002: Boston, MA. South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu says he is “very deeply distressed” by what he observed in his recent visit to the Holy Land, adding, “It reminded me so much of what happened in South Africa.” The Nobel peace laureate said he saw “the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about. Referring to Americans, he adds, “People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists.” [IBID]

On October 27, 2007, in Boston, sponsored by FOSNA/Friends of Sabeel North America, Jeff Halper, Naim Ateek, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and scores of other justice and peace seeking citizens addressed the Apartheid Paradigm in Israel Palestine to a SRO crowd.

In his Keynote address Tutu remarked, "Between the root of human solidarity and the fruit of human wholeness, there is the hard work of telling the truth. From my experience in South Africa I know that truth-telling is hard. It has grave consequences for one's life and reputation. It stretches one's faith, tests one's capacity to love, and pushes hope to the limit. No one takes up this work on a do-gooder's whim. It is not a choice. One feels compelled into it… An acute awareness of fallibility is a constant companion in this task, but because nothing is more important in the current situation than to speak as truthfully as one can, there can be no shrinking from testifying to what one sees and hears.

"What do I see and hear in the Holy Land? ...I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the yoke of oppression that was once our burden in South Africa…I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the bitter days of uprooting and despoiling in my own country…I have to tell the truth: I am reminded of the explosive anger that inflamed South Africa, too.

"Some people are enraged by comparisons between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what happened in South Africa. There are differences between the two situations, but a comparison need not be exact in every feature to yield clarity about what is going on. Moreover, for those of us who lived through the dehumanizing horrors of the apartheid era, the comparison seems not only apt, it is also necessary. It is necessary if we are to persevere in our hope that things can change...I have seen it and heard it, and so to this truth, too, I am compelled to testify - if it can happen in South Africa, it can happen with the Israelis and Palestinians. There is not much reason to be optimistic, but there is every reason to hope." [4]

"HOPE has two children. The first is ANGER at the way things are. The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine

[1] http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&article=413

[2] Apartheid Ancient, Past, and Present Systematic and Gross Human Rights Violations in Graeco-Roman Egypt, South Africa, and Israel/Palestine, By Anthony Löwstedt. Page 77.

[3] The Link, "About That Word Apartheid", April-May 2007, Published by Americans for Middle East Understanding, Inc.

[4] © Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

"free speech, the right to dissent and to disagree with the government [is] the very basis of democracy."

The San Francisco Chronicle ran the following op-ed by Michel Shehadeh who has been subjected to 20 years of legal battles for advocating Palestinian rights. If you too would like to write the Chronicle too, send it to letters@sfchronicle.com

Charges dropped against last of 'Los Angeles Eight'
Michel Shehadeh

Thursday, November 15, 2007

For the last 20 years, the U.S. government has accused me of being a terrorist. Along with six other Palestinians and a Kenyan, we were dubbed the "Los Angeles Eight" by the media. Our case even made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Oct. 30 - 20 grueling years after the early morning raid in which armed federal agents barged into my apartment, brutally arrested me before my 3-year-old son's eyes, incarcerated me in maximum security cells in San Pedro State Prison for 23 days without bond, and attempted to deport me - the government dropped all charges fabricated against me. The charges involved accusations of aiding a member group of the Palestine Liberation Organization that the government alleged aided terrorism. But Los Angeles immigration Judge Bruce J. Einhorn had ordered an end to the deportation proceedings against us last January because the government failed to comply with his order to disclose evidence that supported our innocence. He called their behavior "an embarrassment to the rule of law."

Why did the U.S. government spend 20 years trying to ban us from this country? Because we tried to educate Americans about the situation facing millions of Palestinians living in apartheid-like conditions under Israeli military occupation. Because we organized fundraisers to provide Palestinians with humanitarian support. And because we attended demonstrations to urge a shift in U.S. policy away from unconditional financial and diplomatic support of Israel.

The government robbed us and our families of the best and most productive years of our lives. For more than 20 years, they vilified us in public without recourse. We'll never be able to entirely erase the negative words and images they manufactured about us. Our case is a stark example, and is different only in degree, from what routinely befalls those who call for equal rights for Palestinians and press for a fair Middle East U.S. policy consistent with international law. In February of this year, two others who advocated equal rights for Palestinians - Mohammed Salah and Abdelhaleem Ashqar - were found not guilty of terrorism charges based in part on evidence provided by Israel and obtained through the use of torture.

President Carter, university professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt and Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu face charges of anti-Semitism and shoddy scholarship meant to intimidate, discredit and silence them.

And it may be surprising, but I don't hold a grudge. Throughout this 20-year plus ordeal, we never lost faith that we would win against this political and legal oppression. Not only because of our innocence, but because of the tremendous, unfaltering support that we enjoyed all these years across religious, ethnic and civic communities, and a legal team that did not waver once in its commitment to justice. This incredible support has taught us more about America than we could have learned in two lifetimes; the support of such people who are a living example and a role model for immigrants - to positively engage with the issues facing the country on a daily basis.
Struggling to make the place a bit better than when we arrived is what made America home to us. We made that choice, and we're the better for it.

My two American-born sons learned through this experience the meaning of establishing a strong grassroots connection and of getting involved with their community. The words justice, freedom, equality and civil liberties are not words they learned in school that will become empty clichés as they grow older. They are concepts that have real meaning to them, that affect their family and community. They know that they must be vigilantly protected, especially when the issues they advocate are not
popular, or at times of war, and conflict, when the first causalities are our basic freedoms - free speech, the right to dissent and to disagree with the government - the very basis of democracy.

From the beginning, we said that our case was a political one and that the government made us victims of a political witch-hunt. We persevered all these years and defeated the attempt to uproot us from our communities, break our families apart, and deport us, because we were innocent. Free at last, we are finally exonerated and it tastes sweet. We will savor the sweetness. And we will use it to fuel our determination to defend the same issues that our supporters defended through us: justice, civil liberties, freedom and immigrant rights. We believe that this is the America for which we continually aspire, the America that is just, here at home and in
faraway places - with policies based on fairness, equality, and a shared humanity.

Michel Shehadeh is a research associate in the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative in the College of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State University.

This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? file=/c/a/ 2007/11/15/ ED23TC1DE. DTL

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"

In the afternoon of the eighth day of my first of two Reality Tour's through the West Bank shepherded by members of Sabeel, I was one of sixty international ecumenical Christians that were introduced to Sabeel’s Contemporary Way of Cross.

The Sabeel Way, transforms the traditional Christian tradition of meditating upon the journey that Christ took after his condemnation as he carried his cross to where he was crucified with an updated meditation on empire and occupation.

In Jerusalem there are fourteen plaques along The Via Delarosa hanging on the walls of buildings depicting where Christ may have fallen three times, meets his mother, is stripped, nailed and dies.

The Contemporary Way suggests fourteen reflections beginning with 1948, The Nabka: The Catastrophe which followed the failure of the UN partition plan of ‘47 when the Irgun and Stern Gang [Zionist terrorist groups] depopulated 400 villages and forced 726,000 Palestinians to flee to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Station Two reflects on those refugees and the 460,000 more that fled during the War of 1967. Currently there are 675,670 registered refugees in the West Bank, 938,531 in Gaza and over two million in Arab countries who have never received compensation and have been denied the right to return as guaranteed in Articles 13 and 15 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in UN Resolution 194.

I was astounded to learn that in Anata, the nearly sixty year old Jerusalem refugee camp has The Wall butted up to the boy’s high school. The ‘playground’ where 780 adolescents gather is in reality a slab of cement ground about the square footage of a basket ball court. There is no view as it is walled in on all four sides by the high school, The Concrete Wall and two smaller cement walls.

A refugee informed our group that on a daily basis, “The Israeli Occupation Forces show up when the children gather in the morning or after classes. They throw percussion bombs or gas bombs into the school nearly every day! The world is sleeping; the world is hibernating and is allowing this misery to continue.”

I wandered around taking photos and was warmly greeted by a teenage boy who asked my name and where I was from. I cringed when I said America, for I am ashamed that over one billion USA dollars since 1948 has supported the occupation, promoted violence and that over 1.24 million USA TAX DOLLARS are spent to build the APARTHEID Wall.

Afrikaans say APARTHEID, the Hebrew word is HAFRADA, they both translate to SEPARATION in English!

A few miles from the refugee camp, one enters into an Orwellian Disney Land of lush green grounds in the illegal colony of the Pizgatzeev settlement.

I was sick at heart and in my gut when we drove less than a mile into the illegal colony for I counted three playgrounds and a swimming pool. I still wonder how many USA tax dollars helped to build them, and why the same was not done for the indigenous people of that land who are labeled refugees.

As our group was praying a gunshot issued from the Anata refugee camp, then another and another in rapid succession. I was told that the IDF was showering the refugees with gun fire and terror, and that it was just a normal daily occurrence.

I lost it completely then, and sobbed uncontrollably. I felt like the Magdalena when she could not find her Lord, but then I thought of Jesus, and how he cried buckets of tears over Jerusalem.

2,000 years ago roving bands of politically radical and religious Jews rose up and openly resisted Roman Military Occupation in Palestine.

They were called Zealots, and I imagine if I had lived back then, I would have joined them. But, being a non-violent 21st century Christian of the Beatitudes, I ardently, fervently, zealously curse the empire that condones the violent terrorizing of innocent people just because they are Palestinian.

I also wonder when will the American Body of Christ and the Israelis WAKE UP and see they that the Military Occupation dehumanizes BOTH the occupied and occupiers.

I pray the Jewish state would indeed be a true democracy, where ALL its citizens are treated as fully equal.

I pray the Jewish state would listen to their prophets:

“What does the Lord require? Do justice, be merciful and walk humbly with your God.” -Micah 6:8

When Israel became a state in 1948, it was contingent upon upholding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13 states: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Any secular Jew from Brooklyn can move to Israel and receive full Israeli citizenship and many financial perks, but the state of Israel denies the indigenous people knowns as refugees, the right to return home.

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"