Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Oslo Agreement’

Older Entries

Two-State Solution (Palestine/Israel) and the EU Differentiation Strategy

Posted by: on: May 23, 2018

Two-State Solution and the Differentiation Strategy

Note: I wrote many articles on this existential issue. As long as the extremist Evangelical Zionists in the USA believe firmly that the Second Coming will happens when Jerusalem is totally Jewish, reason and rational policies are irrelevant for any feasible strategy, except military re-conquest of Palestine.

Apparently, there are about 50 million of those deplorable Evangelical Zionists in the USA who don’t believe a Palestinian exist. At best temporary residents. And many European States have these kinds of extremist dogmatic religious affiliations. Evangelical Zionist foundation preceded Herzl by 50 years, and it the US supreme judge in 1915 who pressured Wilson to obtain from Britain and Balfour a declaration on a Jewish homeland before joining England in WW!

In an attempt to maintain their legitimacy through International Law compliance, the European Union has continued to support the parameters of the Oslo Agreement and a Two-State Solution.

(Oslo Agreement is the peace deal that Clinton signed with Arafat and Rabin in 1992. After Rabin assassination, the US reneged on its signature and every clause in the deal. Congress went even further and pronounced that Jerusalem is Capital of Israel in 1996)

However, by doing so, it has failed to adjust to the changing realities on the ground and half-measures designed to ensure the geopolitical readiness of the East Side of the Green Line have ultimately failed to move the Middle East Peace Process any closer to a final agreement. (East Side of the Green Line? Explain)

The reasons behind this cautious EU approach to the conflict are complex and, at its crux, revolves around a lack of unity among EU member states; a reluctance to instigate any major confrontation with Israel and their limited power if acting unilaterally without US backing.

With the purpose of understanding the role and limits of the European Union in the Israel/Palestine conflict resolution, this paper places emphasis on the EU Differentiation Strategy and its symbiotic relationship with the Two State for Two Peoples paradigm.

(Paradigm? But the Palestinians lived in Palestine for thousands of years. It is accepting the Zionist Jews, who came from everywhere, as a people that is the new paradigm)

On the basis that the EU’s Strategy aims to build the foundations of a future Palestinian State, it will be argued that the Differentiation Strategy is insufficient to achieve a Two-State Solution as it fails to understand the roots of the settlement policies and the lack of sovereignty in the Occupied Territories as the main obstacle to peace. (Wrong. the institutions knew these facts ever since Israel was recognized as a State, and the European people too)

The European Union has played an important role in the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) being both a supporter of a Two-State solution and a legitimising agent of the Palestinian State –meaning Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem[1].  I

ts role in legitimising a more pro-Arab framework of negotiations has been key to normalising issues such as the Palestinian rights back in the 70’s when only Arab states had hitherto mentioned the word Palestinians or a Palestinian Homeland.

Cognisant of the fact that a unified voice was essential to gain credibility and weight in the world’s International Affairs[2], the European Community further formalised its pro-Arab approach through the Venice Declaration in 1980 by calling for the PLO involvement in the Peace negotiations and the Palestinian right to self-determination[3].

Further to this, the already established European Union committed to the recognition of a Palestinian State in the 1999 Berlin Declaration “when appropriate”[4] and recognised Jerusalem as the capital for both states later in 2009[5].

In this spirit, it has been largely argued that the European Community had set the grounds for the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993[6] which defined the Oslo parameters making the EU the “middle ground” party in the negotiations[7].

Since 1980 it has consistently advocated for a Two-State solution, and the Green Line as the border between Israel and Palestine[8] serving as a normative example internationally[9]. Hence, being this ‘definer’ of normality confers on the EU a certain political weight in international affairs- a fact that should not be overlooked[10].

The European Union, as the largest donor to the Palestinians, has strongly committed economically to the Palestinian state-building enterprise in a belief that occupation will perish under strong institution building[11].

With the final aim of achieving Palestinian statehood, the EU has been supporting the Palestinian Authority institution and infrastructure building[12]. Again, the EU has also taken an economic lead in the Palestinian right to self-determination and demonstrated its commitment to the Two-State Solution by strengthening future Palestinian state infrastructure.

As the Secretary-General, António Guterres affirmed earlier this year[13]-“A two-State solution is the only way to achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and secure a sustainable solution to the conflict”.

The most recent example of the European Union’s legitimising role in framing the conflict’s terminology and drawing red-lines has been the 2013 Differentiation Strategy. This Strategy has further underlined the European understanding of Israeli boundaries disregarding the “Greater Israel” conceptualisation and set the grounds for Palestinian self-determination[14]. (Actually, even now, Israel refuses to have in its constitution any definite borders for the State)

Although there are precedents of EU´s differentiation between the State of Israel and the West Bank, the Differentiation Strategy has been understood as the crystallisation of these efforts in a more unified policy and a consequence of the European Parliament (EP) and activists groups’ pressure together with the European Commission frustration after the many failed attempts to end the conflict[15].

The Differentiation Strategy needs to be taken in the context of the post-Lisbon era and the increasing power of the European Parliament which has criticised the EU’s hesitant attitude to condemning Israeli unlawful action[16].

Given its less institutional character, the EP has held a more critical view and proof of this is its acknowledgement of the necessity to recognise Palestinian statehood concurrently with the Peace Talks and not as the consequence of these.[17]

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) defines the EU Differentiation Strategy as a “variety of measures taken by the EU and its member states to exclude settlement-linked entities and activities from bilateral relations with Israel” as a means to deter settlement construction[18] and a reminder of Oslo parameters.

When signing the Free Trade Agreement, Israel had to agree to exclude any products originated in settlements, thus, becoming unable to export them to Europe, as well as excluding settlement entities from the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme -which provides research grants.

These guidelines prevent settlement entities from accessing EU funds and, presently, 18 EU member states have issued advisories which aim to warn EU businesses of the legal and economic consequences of dealing with such entities[19].

As the EU’s Ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, put it: “The EU said it will accept mutually agreed changes to the pre-67 lines, or whatever the parties can agree on. However, until such an agreement is reached, it will continue to differentiate between Israel within internationally recognized borders and the settlements outside those borders”[20].

The problem emerges when the EU Differentiation Strategy is not consistently applied – as many states have preferred to comply with the guidelines through EU institutions but not bilaterally[21].

The discord among EU member states became even more apparent when in 2015 the European Commission issued an interpretative notice[22] on labeling settlement products to prevent them from having the same preferential treatment Israeli products have in the EU[23] -which provoked strong opposition from countries such as Greece, Hungary and the Czech Republic[24].

Israel responded fiercely to this policy and accused the labels of being anti-Semitic since, contrary to the 2013 strategy, the labeling involved action from the Israeli exporters and not only from Europe[25]: Netanyahu declared, “we remember history and we remember what happened when the products of Jews were labelled in Europe. The labelling of products of the Jewish state by the European Union brings back dark memories”[26].

Eventually, the product labeling was not equally applied among member states[27] and sparked strong criticism.

Whilst EU Law aimed to unify EU’s foreign policy on trading and funding issues, it has also evidenced the difficulty of getting a consensus among the 28 member states, given the disparity of their interests and their historical backgrounds –e.g. the tendency of a more pro-Israeli predilection of Eastern European countries[28].

Acting effectively given the divisions among EU member states and their own national and regional priorities as well as interests has been a daunting task thus far. The ascent of Euro-Scepticism after the economic crisis has contributed to the rise of populists and right wing leaning governments which tend to be more pro-Israeli[29].

As a result, any agreement will be based on the “lowest common denominator” [30] explaining the EU’s moderate approach and preventing any drastic measures such as the labelling to be equally implemented or realised.

This lack of unity among member states is also exemplified in the recognition of the State of Palestine. (Actually, far more States recognized Palestine than Israel was recognized in 1948)

When the Palestinian Authority presented its candidature in the United Nations in 2011 and despite a UN report which endorsed Palestinian readiness for statehood,[31] European members could not reach a consensus.

Contrary to what was expected, Sweden’s recognition of the Palestinian State in 2014 was not mirrored by others; the remaining states who today recognise Palestinian statehood did so whilst part of the Soviet Union, and some of these same states, such as the Czech Republic, are now close allies of Israel[32].

The Berlin Declaration which established that the recognition should be realised “when appropriate” is again another illustration of the EU’s overly-cautious behaviour, reluctant to take stronger measures and ´rush into´ Palestinian sovereignty.

As the Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister, Margot Wallström, upheld: “Some will state this decision comes too soon. I am afraid, rather, that it is too late.” (Nothing is too late, as long as the Palestinians are marching every Friday to Return home)

There is no unanimity among European member states on whether the EU should recognise Palestine collectively or bilaterally[33]. Yet, the problem is rather whether it will ever be appropriate: sovereignty should be a priority in the State-Building enterprise but it is undermined by the facts on the ground which are not properly condemned or addressed creating in a vicious circle.

As Lovatt argues[34], the statehood readiness that the EU considers necessary to recognise Palestine can hardly be achieved amid the limitations that the stem from territorial fragmentation in the West Bank. (Settlements in occupied lands are contrary to UN resolutions and should never be a handicap)

The European Union is a heterogeneous actor: to many member states national interests are still more powerful motivators than achieving a common EU foreign policy, making major decision-making on international relations both convoluted and treacherous.

Attempts to promote a more coherent foreign policy by, e.g. the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS), have proven to have limited scope for action or effectiveness[35].

On the top of that, instability in the European community -Brexit, the Ukraine crises and the rise of populism, among others- has increased the EU’s challenges[36] deprioritising the MEPP[37].

This heterogeneity hampers the diffusion of its normative discourse and the creation of a single identity. Normative power if not internalised within local institutions loses its full capacity to cause an impact[38].

(And why a few extremist Right wing Eastern European governments, like Hungary, Check republic, Poland..have to officially celebrate in Jerusalem with Ivanka? Is it the trend that every chauvinistic government in East Europe is supposed to lick USA ass in order to bypass EU frustrations with their racist policies?)

In this vein, major condemnation of the settlement policy would entail recognising Israel’s direct responsibility, thus, the EU’s differentiation strategy tends to understand settlements as a separate entity.(This statement is Not clear)

Even when the EU´s infrastructure has been demolished or seized by Israel due to their settlement policies in the West Bank, European foreign policy has always avoided imposing sanctions to Israel [39]which could be partially explained by the cooperative relation between the two actors.

In addition to the individual state alliances, the EU maintains strong economic and research links with Israel, being its main trading partner[40] -cooperation materialised through the “Association Agreement” in 2000[41]and further integrated Israel within the EU market via the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in 2005[42].

Not only does Israel’s trade with Europe amount to a third of its total trade but also, Israel is one of the most significant trading partners to the EU in the Mediterranean Area and has been ranked as its 24th partner globally in 2016 [43]. Institutional and economic links between Europe and Israel could have reached an “everything without membership” status in 2013 through a partnership offered by the EU if Peace Talks had not failed a year later[44].

In sum and as Freedland well puts it “if one reason for Israel to end the occupation and make peace with the Palestinians was to improve its international standing, that motive has lost its urgency”[45]. (Only sanctioning and boycotting Israel is the main pressure effort to rehabilitate the racist and apartheid policies of Israel)

It seems that maintaining trade relations with Israel is still more profitable than promoting its identity with consistency[46]by being more critical of the settlement activity. Still, the EU has continued to place emphasis on its compliance of International Law and in its “middle ground” normative role.

The Differentiation Strategy, or the “New Approach” as coined by Harpaz[47] is based on “‘[T]he respect of EU positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967’”[48] reinforcing its understanding of the conflict.

As stated previously, coherence and continuity confer actors’ legitimacy and, thus, leverage in International Affairs. “EU’s self-identity”[49] is grounded on its “consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions”[50] as well as “strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter”[51] as established in the Lisbon Treaty.

European normative power may provide external legitimacy by being consistent with International Law[52], but it does not lead to major changes on the ground. In other words, not rewarding the State of Israel for its settlement policy –referring to the Differentiation Strategy[53] does not halt the settlement policy itself.

Furthermore, if more drastic measures to condemn Israel policies vis-á-vis the occupied territories were to be taken, they would require prior US backing. The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, could not be clearer in that respect: “Nothing without the United States, nothing with the United States alone”[54].

The US is the only capable actor of exercising effective pressure on Israel and even if the EU were to make use of all its leverage on both parties, this would not necessarily result in a compromise between the PA and the Israeli government[55]. US approval, as well as support, is required to lead the MEPP[56].

The EU Differentiation Strategy has been insufficient to pressure Israel and failed to force any recognition of Israeli state responsibility as the perpetrator and driving-force of increased settlement activity, by only tackling non-governmental actors based in the settlements[57].

Yet the EU is still cognisant of the dangers this activity presents to achieving a Two-State solution and the danger of reaching a one-state reality. As recently acknowledged by António Guterres: “Negative trends on the ground have the potential to create an irreversible one-state reality that is incompatible with realizing the legitimate national, historic and democratic aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians” (This statement is a tacit encouragement for Israel to continue its settlement policies).[58]

The EU has been managing rather than resolving the conflict which proves once again the urgent need for a new “new approach”.[59]A non-confrontational attitude[60]towards Israel is certainly not a strong enough tool to force Israel to reconsider its policy vis-á-vis the occupied territories.

The EU’s relation with Israel is based on a policy of incentives which places the country in a privileged position in trade relations and turns any effort to differentiate Israel from Greater Israel almost purely normative. There is a misconception in understanding settlements as a separate entity from the State of Israel as the Differentiation Strategy does. Notwithstanding that the EU has taken the lead in establishing the red lines of the conflict, these appear to be far too unambitious to properly threaten the settlement expansion.

The European Differentiation Strategy can, thus, be taken as an example of the limits of the European role in achieving a Two-State Solution. Due to the lack of unity among member states, the strong economic and institutional ties with Israel and the difficulty of pursuing a stronger policy unilaterally at odds with the US, the European Union has chosen to take a cautious approach.

Maintaining the current bilateral and multilateral relations with Israel bears more fruit than any benefits reaped from an overt confrontation. Avoiding confrontation still allows the EU to maintain its coherency and, thus, to some extent its external legitimacy.

On the one hand, the Differentiation Strategy can be seen as an EU attempt to preserve its legitimacy internationally since the time for abandoning the Two-State Solution is not ripe after all efforts invested in it and given the unpopularity of the alternatives. On the other hand, it also proves the urgent need for a real shift in the EU’s thinking.

By tackling the consequences of settlement activity instead and disregarding its roots, the conflict has reached a stalemate which has not actively contributed to reaching the sovereignty required for Palestinian statehood and, thus, the achievement of a Two-State Solution.

Despite the fact that a halt or decrease in the settlement activity has not come to reality, the Differentiation Strategy can still be understood as an active approach towards the conflict resolution strengthening the role of the EU as the middle ground party.  Moreover, after the US confirmed its budget cuts to UNRWA, the European Union has pledged additional funds directed to the UN agency and the Palestinian institution-building enterprise[61] which, together with the Union’s rejection of the US latest decision on Jerusalem, can serve as confidence builders for the Palestinians towards the EU.

(The same process with Iran nuclear deal: EU will have to shoulder the compensation for US reneging on the deal)

Amid the difficulties and limitations previously described, the EU has recently taken a more active role in the conflict with the purpose of reactivating the Peace Talks. Its engagement on the ground is now under the scrutiny of the EU foreign ministers who are committed to reviewing the modalities applied thus far. Mogherini clarified in her declaration: “The purpose of this review, that will be conducted mainly by our colleagues in the European Commission, will be exactly to make sure that all the modalities of our engagement will be as efficient and as effective as they can be to reach the goal of the two-state solution.”[62]

At an Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) extraordinary session hosted by the EU earlier this year, the Union has committed to engage in further multilateral talks with the Quartet, Norway and the Arab partners[63].  Further to this, Abbas’s decision to hold an International Conference by mid-2018 which aims to re-address the conflict multilaterally –meaning the Middle East Quartet and the Arab League- was particularly well-received by France and Russia[64].

This new impulse to reactivate and re-address the talks could provide the EU with the space to translate its normative and financial power into significant changes on-the-ground. It remains to be seen what 2018 will bring for the MEPP but the one thing is clear: the EU continues to have a legitimising role in the negotiations despite the limitations.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Notes and tidbits posted on FB and Twitter. Part 137

Posted by: on: January 29, 2018

Notes and tidbits posted on FB and Twitter. Part 137

Note: I take notes of books I read and comment on events and edit sentences that fit my style. I pay attention to researched documentaries and serious links I receive. The page is long and growing like crazy, and the sections I post contains a month-old events that are worth refreshing your memory.

French kidnapped Rochot dreaded most to fall sick. Many captives died out of sickness because the kidnapping faction had no official links with a hospital or any kinds of health practitioner.

In the Oslo agreement, Israel had no intention on negotiating the implanted colonies, the return of East Jerusalem or even relinquishing its rights for checking the entrances and exits at the borders with Jordan and Egypt.

Every Palestinian minister, deputy, and even Arafat had to obtain a permit to exit and enter Israel.  At the first opportunity, Israel destroyed the tiny airport in Gaza and whatever infrastructures that were built by European financing.

The Gulf States and Saudi Kingdom condemn Trump’s declaration on Jerusalem as instigating the extremist factions: They mean strengthening the views of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah on how to deal with Israel occupation and the crisis in Yemen.

Since 2004, Israel built the 900 miles of the Wall of Shame dividing the so-called 1967 borders with Jordan, and Israel established also hundreds of check points all over the West Bank.

Most Israelis play the game of ignoring the presence of Palestinians living across town from them or across the wall: they are ashamed of this apartheid situation.

The danger to Israel has always came from the US Evangelical Zionists who 1) sincerely do not believe that Palestinians exist; 2) Palestinian people is an abstraction in their imagination and thus 3) encourage and feel free to exert undue pressures on the Israelis to exercise the ultimate in anti-Semitism, racism and apartheid policies on the “insignificant” and lower status indigents.

Milan Kundera said: “The struggle of man against the authority is the struggle of memory to forget (the injustices).” Palestinians will never wipe out their suffering and indignities from their collective memory.

Israel has already occupied the entire Jordan Valley which would prevent any link for any prospective Palestinian State to join directly any Arab country. Totally isolated to trade with outside world.

“tasweeb al bousalat” na7wa Falestine tatalaba 40 sanat.  “Wa kounna nourahen” kezbat ta3ni “kounna ma3zouleen wa manssiyyen”

Shou ya3ni “el3ab 3ala al mal3ab al tani?” Hal kel mal3ab moukhassass le ba3d al laa3ibeen?

 

Tags: , , , , ,

How much of a Jewish a state? Is Israel willing to defy world community all the way?

Posted by: on: December 3, 2014

How much of Jewish a state? Is Israel again willing to defy world community?

The British Balfour declaration of 1917 was amenable for a Jewish homeland in part of Palestine.

In that year, Palestine barely had a few thousands Jews, mostly indigenous Jews and a few oriental Jews from Yemen and Iran.

In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine and gave the minority Jews (40% of the population) 57% of Palestine. Even that skewered and unjust partition was not good enough for the Zionists.

By 1993, the Oslo agreement gave the Palestinians barely 20% of their lands for establishing an autonomous State. Even that agreement Israel refused to execute.

Again apartheid Israel is running headway to a wall.

How Jewish a state Israel want to be?

In a country where one in four people are not Jewish, all of Mr Netanyahu’s ministers are Jewish and only one speaks decent Arabic.

The Law of Return grants citizenship to migrants with one Jewish grandparent; Palestinians exiled in 1948 are banned from returning….

In 1949, the UN resolution 194 demanded the rights for Palestinians to return to their lands. These natural rights were denied by the Zionist State.

Human-rights groups warn that, without an express right to equality and the inclusion of international law as a source of inspiration for legislation alongside Jewish law, they will be powerless to challenge traditional interpretations that discriminate against non-Jews, women and homosexuals in the Supreme Court.

Liberal Jews fear that embedding Jewish law in legislation would speed Israel’s transformation into another Middle Eastern religious state.

What Jewish law are they talking about, asks one liberal activist: the law to love one’s neighbour as oneself or to execute homosexuals?

Nov. 29, 2014

The government wants a controversial law that would deny equality to Arabs

ONE week Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and his ministers honour a Druze policeman who died protecting Jewish worshippers being hacked to death in a Jerusalem synagogue. The next day, Israel  approved constitutional legislation that would enshrine his inferior status as Druze in relation to Jews.

Actually, Druze officers and soldiers who served in the army as any Jewish Israeli do not receive the same entitlement and rights after they retire or return to civil life.

A bill approved by the cabinet on November 23rd, and sent to the Knesset, seeks to define Israel as the “national state of the Jewish people”, enhance the role of traditional Jewish law (which gives Jews preferential rights) in Israeli legislation and limit rights for non-Jewish citizens to “individual rights according to the law” (thus denying Arabs “national” rights as a minority). (Back to religious laws, such as the shari3a in Islam)

On the face of it, the representation of Israel as a Jewish state is nothing new.

It was defined as such by the UN, at the partition of British-ruled Palestine in 1947. And the Israeli state was built by Jews, for Jews.

But the new legislation goes further. Israel’s independence declaration pledged to “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants”.

In the various drafts approved by the cabinet, with a 14-6 majority, the word “equality” was omitted and democracy placed second to Jewishness. Arabic was demoted from its status as an official language, alongside Hebrew.

The move is increasing political tensions. Two of the five coalition parties in Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet have opposed the bill and threaten to bring down the government. Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, has warned against making Palestinians feel as Jews did in exile. A spokesman for America’s State Department says: “All citizens should enjoy equal rights.”

Mr Netanyahu has yielded a bit (some think he always intended to), saying a new draft would reassert that Israel is “a Jewish and democratic state”, and leave the status of Arabic unchanged. But he insists the law is needed to deal with two issues:

One issue is the refusal of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to recognise Israel as a Jewish state in stalled peace talks. The other is the aspiration of some Israeli Palestinians for autonomy, particularly in the Galilee, where they comprise the majority.

Critics accuse Mr Netanyahu of playing politics and trying to woo hard-right members of his Likud party as he seeks re-election in primaries in January. And he is also keeping one eye on the prospect of an early election, as his coalition fractures.

Human-rights groups warn that, without an express right to equality and the inclusion of international law as a source of inspiration for legislation alongside Jewish law, they will be powerless to challenge traditional interpretations that discriminate against non-Jews, women and homosexuals in the Supreme Court.

Liberal Jews fear that embedding Jewish law in legislation would speed Israel’s transformation into another Middle Eastern religious state. What Jewish law are they talking about, asks one liberal activist: the law to love one’s neighbour as oneself or to execute homosexuals?

For their part, some orthodox Jews worry that the bill reduces religion to nationalism. The bill’s veneration of symbols like the flag and the anthem is “idol-worship”, wrote a rabbi.

Most alarmed of all are the 1.6m Palestinians (and Druze) with Israeli citizenship.

“Will I be subject to Jewish law?” asks one Muslim student. In the occupied territories, meanwhile, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Palestinians’ umbrella body, says the bill “forgets the Palestinian historic narrative and abolishes Palestinian existence.”

A posse of current and former security officials fear that the bill could spread recent violence from Gaza and East Jerusalem into Israel proper.

Prised apart by their politicians and the spate of attacks, Israel’s Jews and Arabs grow ever more frightened of each other.

“I no longer know who to trust,” says a Jewish housewife, who has stopped taking Jerusalem’s tram to avoid Arabs. Leading rabbis have issued rulings not to employ Arabs. “Customers ask me whether I’m a Jew or an Arab before they get into my cab,” says a taxi driver.

Shabtai Shavit, a former chief of the Mossad spy agency, wrote that the zeal for Jewish nationalism could yet destroy Zionism: “The nation of Israel is galloping blindly in a time tunnel to the age of Bar Kochba and his war on the Roman Empire.” The zealots’ failure, he noted, led to 2,000 years of Jewish exile.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A Palestine State? Lost in 1993 as Israel was convinced that all was swallowed up and done with

Posted by: on: October 7, 2014

A Palestine State? Lost in 1993 as Israel was convinced that all was swallowed up and done with

Robert Martin posted on FB:

By 1993 the Israel government knew for certain a Palestine State could not be established in the West Bank.

The settlements were there, billions were invested. The entire Jordan river valley was settled with villages, there were major cities (exclusively for Jews) already built in the West Bank, the entire Jerusalem was taken over by Israel.

There was no place any more for a Palestinian state to be established, and that is when Israel said OK, we will begin negotiations.

(Israel was under heavy pressure to negotiate a kind of a “peace” with the Arab world after the “Liberation of Kuwait” from the troops of Saddam Hussein. A peace conference was decided to resume, and Israel wanted to deal with the Palestinians alone as the weaker party)

They allowed Arafat to come; misleading him into thinking that they were really intending to make peace and basically forced him to sign an agreement that would complete his surrender..

Yasser Arafat was willing to give up almost 80% of his homeland and the right for the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and be compensated, all for the sake of peace, what he wouldn’t go beyond was 20% , he wouldn’t give up Gaza and the West Bank, that he couldn’t do.

They wanted him to sign a surrender agreement and he wouldn’t.

Its not the Palestinians that are not willing to make concessions, its Israel that is incapable of making concessions , because concessions on the land are impossible from a Zionist perspective, the whole name of the game is taking the land and making it ours and this exactly the process that took place.

From Miko Peled “The Generals Son” Humanity for Palestine Robert Martin Fighting for humanity Australians for Palestine Advocacy Group ‪#‎FreePalestine‬

Note: Arafat was NO fool by any stretch of the imagination and he knew how to hold on power and be connected with all Arab leaders.

By 1993, Arafat was vegetating in Tunisia. The Palestinian resistance fighters were kicked out of Lebanon in 1982 (by Sharon when he entered Beirut),  and from Jordan in 1969 (by King Hussein), and Arafat had no cards left to put any pressure on anyone.

By 1993, Arafat had lost any hope that he could rely on any Arab State to practically and strongly back the Palestinian cause.

By 1993, Arafat was cornered and ha little choice but to grab on the bait that Israel PM Rabin was dangling to him.

Arafat was no fool and he knew that Israel was no fool in asking to negotiate a “peaceful settlement” with the PLO.

For Arafat, if external actions were almost impossible to carry out, at least he could change his tactics by getting active from the inside, on any piece of land within Palestine.

Israel PM Sharon didn’t even want to negotiate with Arafat as Rabin had decided.

Sharon ignited the Second Palestinian Intifada in 2001 that Arafat didn’t want by invading the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

Sharon reacted savagely to the Oslo agreement, and publicly claimed that Rabin should be assassinated, and his wishes were satisfied as a body guard of Rabin did the job (the first political assassination in Israel) and Sharon snatched the power in Israel.

Sharon placed Arafat in de-facto house arrest in Ramallah and then assassinated him in 2005.

Sharon withdrew the Israeli settlement from Gaza, claiming that Gaza was never part of Biblical Israel, but part of Egypt.

Sharon build the Wall of Shame separating Israel from the West Bank.

Arafat took a calculated gamble, but circumstances turned not in his favor:

1. Bush Jr. was voted in as president by a ludicrous margin and

2. Sharon was steadfast in cancelling out any previous agreement with Arafat.

3. And the Arab States were cowed after the US invaded Iraq in 2003.

4. Sharon wanted to tear Iraq apart because Iraq was the main powerhouse in the Levant, in population, wealth, education… and not on the border with Israel to invade at Israel pleasure. And the US was fooled to believe that controlling oil production and distribution cannot be done without land military presence in Iraq.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Any news of Soha Tawil Arafat? Wife of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat?

Posted by: on: June 29, 2011

Any news of Soha Tawil Arafat?  Wife of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat?

This article describes the life of Soha Arafat from the day she met Yasser Arafat to the day she entered Gaza, in company of her husband Yasser.  You may read of Soha Tawil Arafat upbringing in the link attached to the note.

In 1987, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip started the first Intifada, known as the “The war of stones” against Israel occupation forces.  This summer, the entire family of Tawil are in vacation in Amman (Jordan) and pay a visit to Arafat:  Diana, the eldest sister, is the wife of the PLO representative Ibrahim Souss in Paris.

The PLO had moved from Beirut and Lebanon to Tunisia as Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and surrounded Beirut.  After the Palestinian militias vacated Beirut, Israel forces entered Beirut and committed the genocide in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Chatila for three nights and two days on unarmed civilians.

Soha meets Arafat again in Algeria in November 1988 during the National Palestinian Council (parliament), a critical assembly because Arafat has to defend his status against many opposition factions.  Arafat speech satisfies the pre-requisites of the US and European States for starting a dialogue to the establishment of a Palestinian State.

Consequently, Arafat is on official visit in Paris, in May 1989, to discuss procedures with President Mitterrand.  The PLO bureau designate Soha to be Arafat translator and host, taking care of all protocol details. Arafat falls in love with Soha, and it is reciprocated.  When Arafat opens his eyes in the morning he demands: “Where is Soha?” and wanted to meet with her immediately.

Soha is aware that her closeness with Arafat as “economic advisor” will force Israel to denies her visits to her family in Jerusalem. Soha visits to Tunisia were frequent and Arafat allocated her a small house, one among many that belonged to Arafat on Tozeur Street in El Menzah.  Arafat barely visited that house, but when he did for occasional dinners, it was a horrible security undertaking.. Soha was 24 of age and accompanied Arafat to Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, and Belgrade…

One day, Arafat was taking a second look at the preparation for an official visit when he popped up the question: “Soha, I want to marry you. My intentions are pure and honest.”  Soha, 27 of age, accepted, but Arafat warned her: “Our wedding must remain a secret for a while.”  “What about my parents?’ replied Soha.  “In due time.  With the Intifada going and the Israeli repressions, the Palestinians will not swallow a happy event.”  Thus, Soha was married in secrecy on July 17, 1990 in Tunisia in the presence of two witnesses and an Imam:  She had to keep the role and image of advisor to the outside world.

Soha, a Christian Greek Orthodox converted to Islam, but kept going to church.  Arafat was the only Arabic leader to decree Christmas an official holiday, as well as January 7, because it is Christmas for the Greek Orthodox.

The irony was that, while married, many important Arabic and African leaders and personalities would approach Arafat to demand his approval for the hand of Soha.  When the airplane of Arafat vanished from the screen as he was returning from Sudan to Tunisia, the Palestinian leaders kept Soha in the dark, with no feedback on his whereabouts.  The two pilots sacrificed their lives by deciding to dive, so that Arafat, sitting in the back of the plane with his bodyguards, might have a chance to survive.  Arafat survived with serious concussion that requited urgent surgery a month later.

It is September 1993 and Soha is readying to leave with her husband to Washington DC for the signing of the “peace treaty”.

A Palestinian minister, at the headquarters of the Palestinian Resistance Movement (PLO) in Tunisia, summons Soha to his office: Arafat insisted that Soha was to join him, but the jealous Palestinian leaders, especially Mahmoud Abbas (current Palestinian President), refused to validate their visas at the US embassy until Soha desist from joining the team.

Soha has to bow down this first time and agrees to call off her invitation to the First lady Hillary Clinton.  Reporters flocked to Tunisia to interview Soha, and she watched the ceremony on TV.

Arafat will never forgive his ministers for the slap and will take Soha everywhere he goes on State visits from then on.

It is July 1994 in Gaza.  A small building of two floors, on the coast by Gaza City, was selected in July 1994 to be Yasser Arafat’s headquarter as he is expected to return to Palestine after the Oslo Agreement.  The building was an old Israeli military post attached to the navy.

The upper level is for the private use of Arafat and his new wife Soha.  The lower floor is for receiving the stream of people for requests, recommendations, and checks signed by Arafat.  In a few hours, Arafat is to fly to Norway and receive the Nobel Award for peace, along with Rabin (Israel PM) and Peres (Foreign affairs minister).

In this July 1994, Soha is pregnant, and Arafat already has this piece of intelligence from the physician Tibi, before Soha breaks in the news.  Arafat is generally one step ahead of most Arab State leaders in receiving pieces of intelligence. The couple rides a Mercedes at 5 am heading to the airport of Al Arish in Egypt.  It is a two-hours drive in bad roads to the border post of Rafah (by Egypt, and barely a 50-kilometers from Gaza City), passing by angry Israeli colonies, and the accompanying security vehicles are moving full speed: Arafat had skipped an attempt to his life a few weeks ago.

Eleven hours later, the couple lands in Oslo and are welcomed by a committee of the Nobel Institute, along with a sworm of journalists and photographers. Arafat jokes to Soha: “You are attracting the photographers and eclipsing me.”  The Institute is composed of 9 academics, including two women. The first official dinner was served at the 12th floor of the hotel. Soha is allocated a place facing Lea Rabin, while Arafat is on the right side of Lea.

“Lea is suggesting that I give birth at Hachomer hospital in Tel Aviv.  I swore that my first priority was to create a quality clinic in Gaza for pregnant Palestinian women.”  During the official ceremony, Rabin and Peres deliver true propaganda speeches, talking of the Jewish character of Jerusalem… Arafat reads a poetic speech, written by the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwich.  Arafat speech focused on the zeal that Norway foreign minister Holst spent during the hard negotiation, and Arafat received a long ovation from the audience.

When Sharon PM of Israel prevented Arafat from getting out of his headquarter in Ramallah, Palestinian personalities started a wave of rumors that Soha is leading the great life in Paris and spending plenty of money…Do you have any news of Soha? What are her occupations and interests?

Note 1: In a previous article I wrote about Raymonda Hawa Tawil, the mother of Soha Arafat, and provided an overview of Soha’s upbringing https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/fighting-from-the-inside-who-is-raymonda-hawa-tawil-the-pasionaria-of-nablus/

Note 2: I just read in the Lebanese daily Al Nahar that Suha (this Tuesday Nov. 1) is living in the island of Malta since 2007.  The Tunisian government wants to prosecute Soha for establishing a university in Tunisia with the help of the wife of former dictator Ben Ali.  Suha replied that she had sold all her shares in 2007  to the daughter of the dictator’s wife Trabulsi.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Check-mate Israel: Last Strategic ally down in region (Egypt)

Posted by: on: January 31, 2011

Check-mate Israel: Last Strategic ally down in region (Egypt)

Israel has no longer any strategic allies in the region (on its borders), not even minor allies:  The people in the region guarantee that no State regime in the region will dare schmooze and negotiate with any Israeli leader who refuses a Palestinian State and support the resumption of building in occupied land and is not serious of transferring the Jews of colonies in occupied land back to Israel.

Not a single State around Israel is scared of Israel’s military retaliation of any kind: the people have risen from the ashes of humiliation and imposed foreign policies.

(Only this obscurantist Saudi monarchy is the last steady ally to Israel and against all Arabic States that it view as a menace to this monarchy…)

The regime of Shah of Iran has long vanished since 1979, Turkey has been alienated and Israel still refuses to apologize for the crime against the peace boat incident, Mubarak of Egypt is down.  Tunisia of Ben Ali is down; the people in Jordan are putting the squeeze on the Hashemite monarch; the people in Lebanon have fired ex-PM Saad Hariri; the Palestinian Authority is discredited with the latest WikiLeaks and Hamas of Gaza and the West Bank are is on the ascendance.

The policies of the US for establishing the so-called Greater Middle East is down the drain:  the US invasion of Iraq has been routed; the US troops in Afghanistan are readying to retreat from a war that cannot be won; the credibility in the sanity of the US Administration’s policies in the Middle East region has disintegrated; the faulty programs of the International Monetary Funds have not been revised for transparency and discussion with the concerned parties that led to the latest upheaval in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen.

Israel is no longer in a position to play coy and humiliate the US and everybody else during the negotiation of a Palestinian State, not even Saeb Erakat, one of lame and cowardly Palestinian negotiators.  The crude statement of Tzipi Livni  (Israel ex-foreign affairs minister) “To create your Palestinian State, you have got to agree with Israel in advance on everything.  Your only choice is to relinquish any choices in the future.  Those are the founding bases for negotiation” is one of Israeli posturing relegated to history bins.

The new Palestinian State demands total withdrawal of Israeli troops to the 1967 border; it demands the dismantling of all the Jewish colonies in occupied land; it refuses swapping small portions of lands to legitimizing forced settlement; it wants borders with Jordan and Egypt, it wants and an international airport and a maritime port and full autonomy.  The new Palestinian State, recognized by Russia, most of Latin American States, and Cyprus refuses to be totally dependent on Israel economy, finance, and military support.

The leaders of the Palestinian Authority, those self-appointed President, PM, and negotiators in the name of the Palestinian people (in the West Bank, in Gaza, in refugee camps all around the world…) that refused to have another democratic election for fear of Hamas winning all the way, have been under contemptible situations as leaks of their cowardly negotiations with Israel surfaced in the public domain.

A new election for the Palestinian people is necessary before the resumption of any “peace talk” with the extremist Israeli government.

The cooperation of this defunct Palestinian Authority of Abu Abbass and company with Israel in capturing and assassinating Hamas operators, under the excuse that the Oslo agreement in 1993 to safeguarding Israel’s security, is null and void.  A new generation of Palestinians demand drastic reforms and dignity; they are denying their political leaders to continue  functioning under a prison mentality.

This masquerade of offering free parcels of land to Israel, a parcel from here and a parcel from there and pretty soon there is no land to giving away, is no longer accepted.  The quarters of Har Homa, Gilo, the Armenian quarters, Ariel, and Maaleh Adumin belong to East Jerusalem, the Capital of the Palestinian State.

The oligarchic style of governance of the Palestinian Authority needs to be reformed to a democratic constitution:  currently, the Palestinians living in Jerusalem would rather apply for Israel citizenship, if given choices, and refrain from living under abject conditions and lacking basic rights under this rotten Authority.

The Palestinians living in Israel and having Israeli citizenship and passport have to be included in the negotiation as a full concerned party.  A unified negotiating team, including all the major factions, especially Hamas, is the only viable alternative to resuming a dead negotiation process.

Israel had a window of opportunity to live in peace in 1993 after the Oslo agreement, but it preferred to play the bully, its favorite game. Israel is experiencing a check-mate move:  No free oil from Egypt or Saudi Arabia; no free water from Syria or Lebanon; no free occupied land by force or negotiations; no makeshift democratic mask that the Western States can no longer sustain with the latest public Israeli policies reinforcing the apartheid and racist activities.

Down with the Wall of Shame separating people along the dividing line.

Time for Israel to deal with the UN Charters for human rights, prisoners rights, legal prosecution processes, crimes against humanity, sex market, slave market, drugs market, arms market.

Note 1:  Mubarak is denied political refugee status everywhere, even in Saudi Arabia.  Otherwise, Mubarak would have resigned a couple of days ago.  The US Administration is calling around to finding a resting location for Mubarak.  I suggest that the UN designate an Island State to be the refuge to all deposed Presidents in order to save thousands of casualties in mass upheavals.

Note 2:  You may read my post  “The next holocaust” https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/otherwise-the-next-holocaust-is-imminent/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Investigation into a massacre” by Amnon Kapeliouk

Posted by: on: June 18, 2009

“Investigation into a massacre: Sabra and Chatila” by Amnon Kapeliouk (June 17, 2009)

           

            After I published the post “The culprit: vegetative Ariel Sharon” I got hold of a frightening manuscript that kept me awake all night. Amnon Kapeliouk published in 1982 a French book “Investigation into a massacre: Sabra and Chatila”.  He gathered valuable information from a wide variety of sources both in Israel and in Lebanon.  The manuscript describes in 115 pages details of the genocide that was perpetrated in the Palestinian camps in south Beirut from Tuesday September 14 to Monday 20, 1982.

            I will end the review with the political and economic reasons for this mindless and bestial slaughter house tale.

 

Before Tuesday, September 14, 1982

 

            By summer 1981, Israel defense Minister Ariel Sharon had prepared an incursion plan into Lebanon.  Israel invaded Lebanon on June 4, 1982 with the avowed intention of limiting the incursion to 40 kilometers and cleaning up pockets of Palestinian resistance in south Lebanon.  In the Knesset on June 8, Menahem Begin PM describes the Palestinians “animals with two legs”. During a monster demonstration on July 17 in Tel Aviv Menahem Begin PM declared “By the end of this year we will have signed a peace treaty with Lebanon.”  The Israeli incursion extended to the Capital Beirut leaving 20,000 civilian dead and 30,000 severely injured. “Plan Reagan” of September 2 denied Israel the annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Israel was pressured to end this invasion and Ariel Sharon would repeatedly answer “Patience gentlemen; the fruit of this war will be obvious soon”

            Minister Yaakov Meridor sent a directive to the Israeli army related to the Palestinian refugees stating: “Force the Palestinians to flee toward East Lebanon to the borders with Syria. Do not let them return”  The Israeli army (Tsahal) did their best to totally demolish the Palestinian camps in south Lebanon, in Tyr, and Saida; it effected mass slaughter among the refugees. This directive failed because the Palestinian refugees had nowhere else to go.  It was obviously that the main objective of this war was to evacuate most of the Palestinians out of Lebanon and toward Syria.  Israel knew that Lebanon was to small, weak, and with a social and political confessional fabric that would never allow the majority Palestinian Sunnis residency status.  Since the sole objective is to practically cancel out UN resolution 194 for the “right of return” of the refugees to their homeland Palestine then the other alternative was to kill as many as they could.

 

            Ariel Sharon bombarded Beirut for three weeks and closed off all access to the Capital.  The Lebanese political leaders in Beirut urged Arafat to leave Beirut and a deal with President Reagan’s special envoy Philip Habib stipulated that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) headed by Yasser Arafat and 12,000 strong was to be evacuated to Cyprus on French navies and then head to Tunisia.  The PLO left Lebanon and the camps were not defended.  The multinationals of the USA, France, and Italy (supposed by the deal to defend the civilians) vacated their posts around the Palestinian camps by order of Israel.

            During the early years of the civil war in Lebanon there were three camps in the Christian districts such the ones in Dbayeh, Jesr al Basha, and Tell al Zaatar. The Christian militias overran these camps and forced the evacuation of the Christian Palestinians by military activities, genocide, and terror.  These camps were prime Real Estates and the developers, the deputies and ministers of the Metn district made a fortune. As Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the “Lebanese Forces” and Real Estates developers had plans for the even higher value Estates in Chatila and Sabra Palestinian camps in Beirut. They figured that they will rule Lebanon along side the Israelis.

 

Tuesday, September 14, 1982; (Iron Brain Operation):  

 

            The Israeli army is stationed on the outskirts of Beirut on all sides. Multinational forces of the USA, France, and Italy were brought in to protect the Palestinian civilians in the camps around Beirut.  Bechir Gemayel was elected President of the Lebanese Republic on August 23 under the bayonet of the Israeli army.  Bechir Gemayel (34 years old) was the closest ally to Israel since the civil war broke out in April 13, 1975.  Bechir Gemayel headed the Christian militias named “The Lebanese Forces” united the Phalange Party, the Party of Camille Chamoun, and other fringe parties by coercion and frightful infighting.  “The Lebanese Forces” had received from Israel military training, military sophisticated hardware, logistics, and military intelligence.  Israel Menahim Began PM and Ariel Sharon (Defense Minister) expected immediate peace pact to be signed by Beshir.  Beshir was reluctant to officially sign any peace treaty before he discuss with Arab leaders and consolidate his power.

            At 4:10 p.m. a charge of 50 kilos of TNT explodes at the above flat where Bechir was meeting with his supporters in Ashrafieh.  Sharon had accurate intelligence of the status of Bechir within minutes.  The Medias and radios would refrain from declaring Bechir dead until 10:30 p.m.

            By 6 p.m. Israel has established an air bridge to land tanks and soldiers in Beirut airport.  Sharon and Begin PM agree to enter the Capital Beirut without consulting with their cabinet of ministers.  An already detailed military plan for invading West Beirut in unfolded in the Defense Ministry.

 

Wednesday, September 15; (Israel occupies the first Arab Capital)

 

            General Amir Drori, commander of Northern Israel region, receive the order at 12:30 a.m. to take over the strategic points in West Beirut.  At 3:30 a.m. commanders of the Christian militias known as “Lebanese Forces” are assembled in their headquarters on the outskirt of south Beirut close to the Israeli headquarter.  The Israeli Generals Rafael Eytan (Fafoul) and Amir Drori are discussing plans with the militia officers Fadi Frem, Elie Hobeika, Emile 3id, Michel Zuwein, Deeb Anastase, Maroun Mich3alani, Joseph Edde and the liaison “Jessy”.  They are ironing out details of the invasion of the Christian milias into the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Chatila.

            The “Lebanese Forces” militia got busy painting their logos on walls and trees with directional arrows for troop’s movement from Chouweifat to Kuwait Embassy.  At 5 a.m. the Israeli forces have cordoned off both Palestinian camps.  By 9 a.m. Ariel Sharon is observing the deployment from a tall building close to the Kuwait Embassy and overlooking the camps, 200 meters away.  Sharon finds time at 1 a.m. to fly to Bikfaya and present his condolences to the Gemayel family; he is received coldly.  The Lebanese army in West Beirut refuses to cooperate with Tsahal.  By nightfall electicity power is shut off in West Beirut.  By 10 p.m. rockets for lighting the Palestinian camps are launched at the rate of two per minutes at each launching point.

 

Thursday, September 16 (Felicitations! Our friends are entering the camps)

 

            By noon, West Beirut has completely fallen and Tsahal is rounding up thousands of Lebanese at check points.  The Palestinian camps are shelled and Israeli snipers are active. At noon General Drori asks Fadi Frem if his militias are ready to enter the camps. They are ready and 1,500 Christian militias receive the green light for action.  They assemble by the airport and the Israeli General Amos Yaron exhibit to them aerial maps.  General Yaron confirms that Tsahal will deliver all the logistics and supplies for the “cleaning up of the camps”.  The Christian militias were never shy proclaiming at every occasion to the Israeli officers that they meant a thorough slaughter of babies, women, and elderly Palestinians. The Phalangists (Kataeb) used to utter their motto “A dead Palestinian is pollution. The extermination of all Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is the solution”

            A unit of 150 Christian’ militias crosses from Ouzai to the Lebanese army barrack of Henri Chehab to their headquarters at the UN building.  The Israeli check points let 25 jeeps packed of militias enter the camp of Chatila at 4 p.m.  The frightened civilian Palestinians go to the Israeli headquarter ad expressed their strong concerns. They are told to return and not be worried.  A detachment of soldiers of the splintered Lebanese army in south Lebanon and commanded by Major Saad Haddad, the stooge to Israel, arrives to the outskirts of Chatila.  Before 5 p.m. the dirty wolves were inside the chicken hen.

            Within an hour, hundreds of Palestinian civilians, babies, women, and elderly are slaughtered by machetes, knives, and hatchets.  Palestinians and Lebanese within the camps, regardless of being Christians or Moslems, are killed while having supper. The militias cut off limbs of women to grab bracelets attached in their forearms before finishing off their victims. Babies’ skulls are smashed on walls. Women are raped before being killed.  Nine Jewish women who married Palestinians long time ago were also killed.

            During the night delegations of Palestinians arrive at Israel’s headquarter to explain the situation and they are repulsed to the camps; most of the members of the delegations disappeared.  A militia demands a stretcher for a few wounded companions and explains “We have finished off more than 250 dirty Palestinians”.  By 11 p.m. a militia commander had expedited to the highest military Israeli echelons a succinct report stating “As of now 300 terrorists have been eliminated”.  The camps were brightly lighted with 81 mm rockets.  Two thousand Palestinians take refuge in nearby hospitals named Akka and Gaza.

            In Jerusalem at 7:30 p.m. the Israeli cabinet met for 4 hours; Chief of Staff Raphael Eytan quickly goes over the situation in the camps stating “The Phalangists are cleaning up a few nests of terrorists”.  The massacre resumed for the entire night.  The Israeli soldiers were witnessing the genocides and did not move.  A single Israeli soldier with a minimum of moral standing and with a minimum of guts could have entered and ordered the militias out; they would have obeyed!  Nobody moved. The Israeli soldiers just reported to their higher commanders who knew the plan.

 

Friday, September 17

            At day break and from their posts Israeli soldiers could see people lined up on walls and executed. The hospitals are invested; foreign physicians and nurses are chased out and everyone inside is killed.  An Israeli officer broadcast “It is not done to pleasure us. I forbid you to intervene in the camps.” Fresh militias, among them “soldiers” of Saad Haddad, enter the camps in jeeps and bulldozers borrowed from the Israeli army.

            At 11 a.m. the militias barge into Akka hospital and finish off the injured; they raped a nurse ten times before killing her.  Forty of the personnel are horded into a truck; they will disappear.  Bulldozers are digging ditches by the Israeli headquarter; a Norwegian diplomat observe a shoveling truck dumping cadavers into the ditches.

            By noon, fresh militias reinforcement are observed by the airport; ten “command cars”, 13 tanks, jeeps, and more bulldozers are filmed by an Israeli TV channel reporter Ron Ben Yichai heading toward the camps.  The militias carry with them plenty of alcoholic beverages and hashish.

            The Israeli Chief of Staff lands his helicopter at Beirut airport 3:30 p.m. and meet with the militia chief Fadi Frem and congratulates him on “a job well done” because they did not obey the American orders to vacate the camps.  Eytan flies back to his ranch in Tel-Adachim to celebrate Israel’s New Year with his family; he will call Sharon around 9 p.m. to tell him “the Phalengists are exaggerating”. Today, the militias are shooting bullets to expedite the “clean up” mission.  Trucks packed with Palestinians are taken out of camps; the detainees are never heard of.

            All night long, with the camps well lighted by Israeli rockets, the bulldozers are destroying the shantytown homes over their inhabitants.  Yesterday, the objective was to terrorize the Palestinians out of camps; they had no where to go since the Israeli check points forced them to return to camps.  This night, the goal is to erase the camp completely of any structure and clean up this prime Real Estate.  Ben Yichai called up Sharon to inform him of the horrible conditions in the camps and he reported “Ariel Sharon gave me the impression that he was updated thoroughly on the situation”.

            In the Israeli headquarters soldiers are eating lavishly, celebrating the New Year, and enjoying the carnage scene overlooking the Palestinian camps. A single Israeli soldier with a minimum of moral standing and with a minimum of balls could have entered and ordered the militias out: they would have obeyed!  Nobody moved.

           

Saturday, September 18, 1982:  (No prisoners taken)

            At dawn the carnage goes on. It will resume till after 10 a.m. the time that Israel had decided that the operation should end. At 6 a.m. the loudspeakers of the militias are encouraging the Palestinians to set out of their homes saying “Go out and you will be saved” (Sallimou Tislamou).  Thousands obey the order and they are horded into trucks; they will disappear. Many are executed on the way: “It is better to kill the maximum before delivering them to the Israelis”; the roads toward Ouzai are strewn with bodies.  The bulldozers and shoveling equipments are working full time.  The hospitals get invested again and the injured achieved.  The foreign physicians and nurses witness the activities helplessly.

            At exactly 10 a.m. Israeli tanks move toward the camps; it is the signal for the militias to vacate the camps. Over 4,000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in camps containing more than 20,000 will be recorded disappeared. For two weeks, the Lebanese army, Red Cross, and volunteers will not be able to “re-clean up” this human disaster. (To be continued in my posts “Reactions to the genocide”)

 

 

Note 1:  The Lebanese Shiaa in south Lebanon had strong animosity against the Palestinian fedayins since 1975 when the civil war started: Israel was constantly shelling and bombing the south “in reprisal” of the Palestinian “katiousha” and the Lebanese government and army had stopped reacting or coming to the aid of its citizens in south Lebanon.  The charismatic leaders of the Shiaa Imam Moussa Sadr managed to control their anger until he “disappeared” in 1978 while on a visit to Libya.  Probably Israel had assassinated Sadr and blamed Kadhafi for the disappearance. Israel knew that as Moussa Sadr is out of the picture then the Shiaa will welcome the Israeli invading forces with rice and joy to get rid of the Palestinian resistance forces.  That is what happened exactly; Shiaa joined the splintered Lebanese army in the south which was commanded by major Saad Haddad, a stooge to Israel.  From 1978 to 1983 the Shiaa militias of AMAL, lead by Nabih Berri, the successor to Sadr, followed the orders of the Syrian regime to enter every Palestinian camp and retrieve heavy arms; many battles with the Palestinians inside camps were routine. All that was reversed as Hezbollah was formed in 1984 by the support of Khomeini in Iran. Nabih Berry of AMAL calmed down and Israel withdrew without any preconditions from south Lebanon in May 24, 2000 as the splintered Lebanese army lacked manpower and suffered heavy casualties by the frequent well targeted Hezbollah attacks.

 

Note 2: Yasser Arafat played a central role during the Lebanese civil war that started in April 13, 1975 and ended in 1991.  He tried to maintain a balanced position in the tag of war between Hafez Assad of Syria and Sadate of Egypt at the expense of the Lebanese civilians.  The leftist Lebanese organizations relied on Arafat for logistics in arms and ammunition and he controlled them completely.  Arafat and his PLO were actually fighting Israel, Syria, and the Christian militias of the “Lebanese Forces”. Arafat once declared in Ramallah around 1998 that he was the de facto governor of Lebanon for over 20 years, even before the civil war broke out. Lebanon would have been saved 13 years of mindless civil war if Arafat had decided to relinquish Lebanon to Syria and dealt with Israel in 1977 instead of 1993 for part of Palestine as he was forced to do later during the Oslo Agreement.

 

Note 3: There are indications that ex-President Amine Gemayel, Deputy and Minister Michel Murr, and the Maronite Church are among the profiteers in the reclamation of the land of the Palestinian camps in the Christian cantons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Late Uncontested Palestinian Leader: Yasser Arafat (Abu 3Ammar)

Posted by: on: June 17, 2009

Uncontested Palestinian Leader: late Yasser Arafat (Abu 3Ammar)

Known as Yasser Arafat; code named “Abu Ammar”; full name Muhammad Abdel Raouf Arafat Al Koudwa Al Husseiny was born in Jerusalem in 1929.

Yasser studied civil engineering at Cairo University and worked in Kuwait. In the summer of 1965 he started guerilla activities inside Israel with 10 feddayins, among them the future leaders Khalil Wazeer (code named Abu Jihad; assassinated in Tunisia by an Israeli air raid), Salah Khalaf (code named Abu Ayad), and Abu Ali Ayad (died in battle fighting the onslaught of the Jordanian army in 1970).

After the defeat of the Arab armies in June 1967, Arafat decided to take matters into his own hand: the Arab States can no longer be counted on to reclaim the Palestinian rights to a homeland and the return of the refugees since 1948 (date of recognition of Israel as a State).

Arafat set out to organizing the Palestinians into a resistance force called “Hurricane” (Al 3asifat) and resumed incursions into Israel at higher rates. An acceptable resolution would be a secular State on the West Bank with East Jerusalem as Capital.  He would repeat:

“As I liberate a single square meter then I would raise the Palestinian flag.  One day, a boy or a girl will hoist the flag in Jerusalem. We may differ as Christians and Moslems on many issues but we are unified on liberating Jerusalem and consecrating it our spiritual and political Capital”

Jerusalem was the cornerstone in any negotiation of more importance to him than the “right of return” of the UN resolution 194.

In fact, during the Arab Summit in Beirut 2002 Arafat was ready to accept the Saudi proposal of “land for peace” that did not mention the right of return.  Luckily, the Lebanese President Emile Lahoud was adamant on including this cause since the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon question is “a time bomb ready to detonate anytime”.

The uncontested Arab leader Gamal Abdel Nasser recognized that the nascent Palestinian resistance activities are reactions to the failure of his leadership, and he met with Arafat.  Gamal Abdel Nasser gave Arafat’s organization political cover to preserve control of Arab politics and introduced Arafat to other Arab State leaders. Thus, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1968, which included many Palestinian factions such as the national and Marxist faction of George Habash and the splintered faction of Nayef Hawatmed.

Syria would later include another faction with a military wing called Al Sa3ikat (Thunderstorm).  Arafat was the leader of the largest faction called Fateh (Conquest) and thus was elected Chairman of the PLO; Arafat was to hold the purse or the treasury of this organization to keep all factions in line.

King Hussein of Jordan defeated militarily the PLO in 1970 and the resistance fighters had to flee to Lebanon and Syria.  The Egyptian leader forced the hand of the Lebanese government to allocate a strip of land in south Lebanon called “Al 3arkoub” from which the PLO could wage guerilla attacks on Israel.

This was a top secret deal; Deputy Raymond Eddeh would persist and insist in the parliament to divulge the details of the deal at no avail.

The mostly Shi3a Lebanese citizens in south Lebanon were caught in between the military retaliations of Israel, the exactions of the PLO and the non-existence of the weak Lebanese government in that region. South Lebanon was de facto controlled and governed by the PLO.  The Lebanese army controlled every resistance movement in the south before 1970 but relinquished its hold after that secret deal.

The PLO quickly established political and administrative headquarters in the Capital Beirut and was immersed deeply in Lebanon internal politics. The Palestinian resistance fighters occupied all the Palestinian camps and transformed them into bunkers.

Israel didn’t mind the transformation and the involvement of the PLO in Lebanon’s politics. Israel goal was to displace the Lebanese citizens from the south and then conquer it. In fact, thousands of citizens in the south moved to the southern outskirts of Beirut in Haret Hrik, Ghobeiry, and Dahieh.  These areas would become the “belt of misery” and shantytowns.

In April 1973, an Israeli commando (headed by Ehud Barak) assassinated 3 Palestinian leaders in Beirut Kamal Edwan, Kamal Youssef, and Abu Youssef Al Najjar; it failed to locate Arafat.

In May 1973, the Lebanese army was encircling the Palestinian camps and Arafat took refuge in Embassies.  Arafat had a sixth sense on personal dangers and he did sleep in Embassies when the tough got going.  His best strategy for avoiding detection and maintaining security is to be “unpredictable”; thus he frequently moved from one residence to another and never informed anyone of his displacements, even his driver or bodyguards.

Arafat highly valued Medias and used it to the hilt. He also lavished on and befriended the cheikhs of mosques so that their Friday preaches increase his positive exposure. Arafat was not that good in rhetoric, but his charisma and large smile compensated greatly on other verbal deficiencies.

Arafat was super patient, like fish hunters.  He didn’t mind waiting for years until his enemy is caught in his nets.  He fundamentally used persuasion and then extending financial bait and then blackmailing when everything failed.

Arafat could focus under extreme dangerous situations and keep his cool for the sake of his surrounding assistants. He slept a few hours on early morning and then had siesta after lunch.  He extended aid to the needy and took excellent care of the martyrs’ families.  He owned only two military suits.

Arafat read every piece of mail and replied in details.  He carried a small booklet and noted down information. He once said “if one of my small notebooks is published monarchies would disappear and Presidents fall.”  Arafat was feared by Arab leaders because of his wide connections and the vast intelligence pieces he had on each one of them; thus, the PLO coffer was replenished on demand.

Arafat visited India PM Indira Ghandi. A guru asked Arafat “How many Palestinians are there?”  Arafat replied 8 millions. The guru retorted “I have 9 million followers who worship me as their God.”  Arafat said with a large smile “The difference is that everyone of the 8 million Palestinians thinks that he is indeed God”

On November 1974, Arafat delivered a speech to the UN assembly and offered two alternatives: the olive tree or the gun.  He also talked to the UN General assembly in Geneva on December 1988 and declared his willingness to end armed struggle and the recognition of Israel; the USA decided then to recognize the PLO.

Arafat played a central role during the Lebanese civil war that started in April 13, 1975.  He tried to maintain a balanced position in the tag of war between Hafez Assad of Syria and Sadat of Egypt at the expense of the Lebanese civilians.  The leftist Lebanese organizations relied on Arafat for logistics in arms and ammunition and he controlled them completely.

Arafat once declared in Ramallah around 1998 that he was the de facto governor of Lebanon for over 20 years, even before the civil war. Lebanon would have been saved 13 years of mindless civil war if Arafat had decided to relinquish Lebanon to Syria and dealt with Israel in 1977 instead of 1993 for part of Palestine as he was forced to do later.

After the signing of the Oslo agreement with Rabin, Arafat returned to Gaza on July 1994.  He signed an agreement for the return of the West bank in September 1995.  Rabin was assassinated by one of his body guard. Netanyahu refused to go along with the agreement but finally submitted to the USA pressures and retuned Hebron (Al Khalil) after the negotiation of Wy River in 1998.

On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon entered the Masjed Akssa during the tenure of Ehud Barak PM.  The second intifada started.  Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister in February 2001 and he invaded Rammallah (headquarter of the Palestinian Authority) and encircled Arafat in his quarter. George W. Bush said to Sharon “Leave Arafat to God” and Sharon relied “I will give God a nudge”

Arafat had food delivered through Israeli check points. He suffered acute ailment and knew that he has been poisoned by small doses.  Before being hospitalized in France Arafat said to his personal physician Ashraf Kerdi “The Zionists got me…”  Mohammad Dahlan (Fateh officer) told Arafat “When you are back your authority and power will remain intact” Arafat replied “In that case you are coming with me to France”

Mahmoud Abbass replaced Arafat and refused to have an autopsy performed on the body of Arafat.

Arafat managed to hold together an organization of many factions for 40 years by centralizing the disbursement of the financial import he secured from the Arab States and from investment.  Arafat struggled hard to keep the Palestinian decisions independent of the vagaries of the multiple Arab States leaders’ interests of abusing of the “Palestinian cause.”  Probably, most of Arafat’s “peace deals” with Israel emanate from the disunity of the Arab States toward a strategic plan for checking the Zionist plans.  Arafat had to juggle Arab States priorities concerning their people interests.

Arafat sculpted an image of Palestinian resistance by wearing the special “koufieh” headdress and the military attire. He forged a logo for the Palestinian cause.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Uncontested Palestinian Leader: Late Yasser Arafat (Abu 3Ammar)

Posted by: on: June 16, 2009

Uncontested Palestinian Leader: late Yasser Arafat (Abu 3Ammar); June 15, 2009

 

            Known as Yasser Arafat; code-named “Abu Ammar”; full name Muhammad Abdel Raouf Arafat Al Koudwa Al Husseiny was born in Jerusalem in 1929.  He studied civil engineering at Cairo and worked in Kuwait. In the summer of 1965 he started guerilla activities inside Israel with ten feddayins, among them the future leaders Khalil Wazeer (code-named Abu Jihad; assassinated in Tunisia by an Israeli air raid), Salah Khalaf (code-named Abu Ayad), and Abu Ali Ayad (died in battle fighting the onslaught of the Jordanian army in 1970). 

            After the defeat of the Arab armies in June 1967 Arafat decided to take matters into his own hand: the Arab States can no longer be counted on to reclaim the Palestinians right to a homeland and the return of the refugees since 1948 (date of recognition of Israel as a State).  Arafat set out to organizing the Palestinians into a resistance force called “Hurricane” (Al 3asifat) and resumed incursions into Israel at higher rates. An acceptable resolution would be a secular State on the West Bank with East Jerusalem as Capital.  He would repeat: “As I liberate a single square meter then I would raise the Palestinian flag.  One day, a boy or a girl will hoist the flag in Jerusalem” Arafat insisted that “we may differ as Christians and Moslems on many issues but we are unified on liberating Jerusalem and consecrating it our spiritual and political Capital” Jerusalem was the cornerstone in any negotiation of more importance to him than the “right of return” of the UN resolution 194.  In fact, during the Arab Summit in Beirut 2002 Arafat was ready to accept the Saudi proposal of “land for peace” that did not mention the right of return.  Luckily, the Lebanese President Emile Lahoud was adamant on including this cause since the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon question is “a time bomb ready to detonate anytime”.

            The uncontested Arab leader Gamal Abdel Nasser recognized that the nascent Palestinian resistance activities are reactions to the failure of his leadership and he met with Arafat. Gamal Abdel Nasser gave Arafat’s organization political cover to preserve control of Arab politics and introduced Arafat to other Arab State leaders. Thus, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1968 which included many Palestinian factions such as the national and Marxist faction of George Habash and the splintered faction of Nayef Hawatmed.  Syria would later include another faction with a military wing called Al Sa3ikat (Thunderstorm).  Arafat was the leader of the largest faction called Fateh (Conquest) and thus was elected Chairman of the PLO; Arafat was to hold the purse or the treasury of this organization to keep all factions in line.

            King Hussein of Jordan defeated militarily the PLO in 1970 and the resistance fighters fled to Lebanon.  The Egyptian leader forced the hand of the Lebanese government to allocate a strip of land in south Lebanon called “Al 3arkoub” from which the PLO could wage guerilla attacks on Israel.  This was a top-secret deal; Deputy Raymond Eddeh would persist in the parliament to divulge the details of the deal at no avail.  Thus, the mostly Shi3a Lebanese citizens in south Lebanon were caught in between the military retaliations of Israel, the exactions of the PLO and the non-existence of the weak Lebanese government in that region. South Lebanon was de facto controlled and governed by the PLO.  The Lebanese army controlled every resistance movement in the south before 1970 but relinquished its hold after that secret deal.

            The PLO quickly established political and administrative headquarters in the Capital Beirut and was immersed deeply in Lebanon internal politics. The Palestinian resistance fighters occupied all the Palestinian camps and transformed them into bunkers. Israel didn’t mind the transformation and the involvement of the PLO in Lebanon’s politics. Israel goal was to displace the Lebanese citizens from the south and then conquer it. In fact, thousands of citizens in the south moved to the southern outskirts of Beirut in Haret Hrik, Ghobeiry, and Dahieh.  These areas would become the “belt of misery” and shantytowns.

            In April 1973, an Israeli commando (headed by Ehud Barak) assassinated three Palestinian leaders in Beirut Kamal Edwan, Kamal Youssef, and Abu Youssef Al Najjar; it failed to locate Arafat.  In May 1973, the Lebanese army was encircling the Palestinian camps and Arafat took refuge in Embassies.  Arafat had a sixth sense on personal dangers and he did sleep in Embassies when the tough got going.  His best strategy for avoiding detection and maintaining security is to be “unpredictable”; thus he frequently moved from one residence to another and never informed anyone of his displacements, even his driver or bodyguards.

            Arafat highly valued Medias and used it tot the hilt. He also lavished on and befriended the sheikhs of mosques so that their Friday preaches increase his positive exposure. Arafat was not that good in rhetoric but his charisma and large smile compensated greatly on other verbal deficiencies.

            Arafat was super patient, like fish hunters.  He didn’t mind waiting for years until his enemy is caught in his nets.  He fundamentally used persuasion and then extending financial bait and then blackmailing when everything failed.  Arafat could focus under extreme dangerous situations and keep his cool for the sake of his surrounding assistants. He slept a few hours on early morning and then had siesta after lunch.  He extended aid to the needy and took excellent care of the martyrs’ families.  He owned only two military suits.

            Arafat read every piece of mail and replied in details.  He carried a small booklet and noted down information; he once said “if one of my small notebooks is published monarchies would disappear and Presidents fall.”  Arafat was feared by Arab leaders because of his wide connections and the vast intelligence he had on each one of them; thus, the PLO coffer was replenished on demand.

            Arafat visited India PM Indira Gandhi. A guru asked Arafat “How many Palestinians are there?”  Arafat replied 8 millions. The guru retorted “I have 9 million followers who worship me as their God.”  Arafat said with a large smile “The difference is that every one of the 8 million Palestinians thinks that he is indeed God”

            On November 1974, Arafat delivered a speech to the UN assembly and offered two alternatives: the olive tree or the gun.  He also talked to the UN General assembly in Geneva on December 1988 and declared his willingness to end armed struggle and the recognition of Israel; the USA decided then to recognize the PLO.

            Arafat played a central role during the Lebanese civil war that started in April 13, 1975.  He tried to maintain a balanced position in the tag of war between Hafez Assad of Syria and Sadat of Egypt at the expense of the Lebanese civilians.  The leftist Lebanese organizations relied on Arafat for logistics in arms and ammunition and he controlled them completely.  Arafat once declared in Ramallah around 1998 that he was the de facto governor of Lebanon for over 20 years, even before the civil war. Lebanon would have been saved 13 years of mindless civil war if Arafat had decided to relinquish Lebanon to Syria and dealt with Israel in 1977 instead of 1993 for part of Palestine as he was forced to do later.

            After the signing of the Oslo agreement with Rabin, Arafat returned to Gaza on July 1994.  He signed an agreement for the return of the West bank in September 1995.  Rabin was assassinated by one of his body-guard. Netanyahu refused to go along with the agreement but finally submitted to the USA pressures and returned Hebron (Al Khalil) after the negotiation of Wy River in 1998.

            On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon entered the Masjed Akssa during the tenure of Ehud Barak PM.  The second intifada started.  Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister in February 2001 and he invaded Ramallah (headquarter of the Palestinian Authority, al mukata3a) and encircled Arafat in his quarter. George W. Bush said to Sharon “Leave Arafat to God” and Sharon relied “I will give God a nudge”

            Arafat had food delivered through Israeli check points. He suffered acute ailment and knew that he has been poisoned by small doses.  Before being hospitalized in France Arafat said to his personal physician Ashraf Kerdi “The Zionists got me…”  Mohammad Dahlan (Fateh officer) told Arafat “When you are back your authority and power will remain intact” Arafat replied “In that case you are coming with me to France”

            Mahmoud Abbass replaced Arafat and refused to have an autopsy performed.  Arafat managed to hold together an organization of many factions for 40 years by centralizing the disbursement of the financial import he secured from the Arab States and from investment.  Arafat struggled hard to keep the Palestinian decisions independent of the vagaries of the multiple Arab States leaders’ interests of abusing of the “Palestinian cause.”  Probably, most of Arafat’s “peace deals” with Israel emanate from the disunity of the Arab States toward a strategic plan for checking the Zionist plans.  Arafat had to juggle Arab States priorities concerning their proper interests. Arafat sculpted an image of Palestinian resistance by wearing the special “koufieh” headdress and the military attire. He forged a logo for the Palestinian cause.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Shock and Steadfastness”by Kareem Bakradouny: Biography of President Emile Lahoud of the Republic

Posted by: on: June 1, 2009

“Shock and Steadfastness” by Kareem Bakradouny (May 30, 2009)

Note:  This is the second part of my book review.  The first part was excerpts of Lahoud as Army Chief

Lahoud was elected President of the Republic by the majority of 118 out of 128 deputy votes after revising an item in the city of Taif Constitution. Item 49 in the Constitution denied candidacy to any a high ranked employee before resigning his post for a period. General Lahoud was elected President on October 15, 1998 and his first public oath in the Parliament said: “The President of the Republic is the only official to swear allegiance to the nation and to obey the law.  Thus, since I will be under the Law then I expect everyone else to emulate my subordination to the Law of the Land” President Lahoud had a program of fighting corruption and made it clear and loud in his speech that didn’t mention the ex-President Hrawi or the ex Hariri PM in any sections of the speech.

When ex-President Hrawi urged Hafiz Assad to change his choice Assad said: “The Lebanese public polls selected Emile Lahoud for President and I want him there” The Syrian President had complete confidence in the former Army Chief that he will first, resume his policy of strengthening and unifying the Lebanese army and will refrain from drawing the Lebanese army in internal infighting such as with Hezbollah and thus save the Syrian army any uncalled for problems, and second, that Lahoud will never contemplate unilateral negotiation with Israel.

Hafez Assad was not concerned with the Lahoud’s program for drastic reforms and fighting corruption.  Thus Lahoud had to deal with a rotten political system in Lebanon that constituted an insurmountable barrier to change: the Taif Constitution robbed the President of valuable powers that were transferred basically to the Prime Minister and the cabinet combined.

Hariri had proclaimed three months ago that “I will return Prime Minister whoever is elected president to the Republic” Hariri had returned from a long trip visiting important capitals and secured assent to be accepted as Prime Minister but only 83 out of 128 deputies selected him directly and the remaining deputies allowed the President to vote for them.  Cocky Hariri went publicly asking that another round of consultation takes place because he wanted as many representative votes as the President of 118 deputies.  Lahoud reacted by publicly accepting Hariri refusal and appointed Salim Hoss as prime Minister with 95 deputy votes. This tactic of Hariri backfired as he realized that Syria could easily deal with another Prime Minister.  Hariri was positioning himself for a vaster role as co-partner in the coming Middle East peace accord that he sincerely believed was almost agreed on.

It was a tradition since independence for the newly elected President of Lebanon to pay an official visit to France first of all.  Chirac was highly displeased that Lahoud did not mention France contribution to the April 1996 agreement to localize the confrontations in south Lebanon and for not consulting him on the government that excluded Rafic Hariri.  Consequently, Chirac took it personally and canceled the appointment for a formal visit to France.  Later Chirac was pressured to dissociate France interest in Lebanon from his personal animosity with Lahoud and the Francophone convention took place in Beirut in 2000.

In June 1999, assassins of the extremist Sunni movement “3osbat al Ansaar” killed four judges within Saida Court House and fled to the nearby Palestinian camp of Ain Helwi.  Lahoud understood that it was a trap to inciting the Lebanese army to start a war on the Palestinian camps and instead Lahoud focused on encircling the camp to apprehend the assassins.

As this nasty trap failed to divide the government then Israel launched destructive raids on Lebanon’s infrastructure targeting the electrical power plants and water pumps. Lahoud asked the Lebanese to contribute to a bank account in order to support the State treasury to rebuild what was demolished; (I remember that I contributed $100 while in the USA).  The Lebanese overseas contributed 50 millions dollars to that fund.

The president of the Parliament Nabih Berri told Lahoud “You are an excellent soldier but lack political acumen”.  Lahoud replied “If I managed to become Chief of the army and President of the Republic with lack of political acumen then how my path you have unfold if I was much more clever in politics?”.  In another moment Berri told the author “Lahoud plays it dumb but he is aware of all the political details and smarter in politics than most Lebanese politicians.  For example, Lahoud retains General Jamil Al Sayyed, Director of the General Security in Lebanon, in all his discussions with foreign personalities so that Al Sayyed would testify to the Syrian officials.”  Berri had no liking for the strong Shiaa man Al Sayyed.

Lahoud finally met with Rafic Hariri in the summer Palace of Beit El Dine after months of avoiding face to face encounter. Lahoud told Hariri “From the first moment I knew that you wanted as much weight among the deputies as I obtained in my election for the presidency so that you may force on me your conditions. I kept the honest and performing high officials that you appointed and will dismiss anyone that is not up to his responsibilities.  I intended you to be my first Prime Minister but I was in no mood to be subjected to any conditions.  I know that you are spending lots of money on the media to ruin the image of this government but this not the way to behave with me.”  Two days later president basher Assad paid Lahoud a quick visit to Lebanon and publicly supported the president and Hoss PM.

President Lahoud decided to spend part of summer in the Presidential Palace in Beit El Dine and for that purpose had to relocate the bust of Kamal Jumblat off the entrance and waited for Walid to ship it somewhere else at his own responsibility. Walid said “I will never forget what Lahoud did for the duration of my life!”  Walid Jumblat tried scare tactics on Lahoud by assuring him that the Syria President is terminally ill and that his son Bashar will not succeed his father Hafiz and that General Hekmat Shahaby and Abdel Haleem Khaddam will take over the regime.  Lahoud retorted “Bashar will be the next appointed President and I am trying my best to take on the responsibilities of the President and to recapture the dignity of the State under one leader”  Jumbalt said “I don’t like the military”.  Lahoud replied “I don’t like the militias”.  Once, Lahoud saw on the TV Hoss PM meeting Jumblat who was in jeans.  Lahoud sent his assistant to inform Jumblat that he will not be welcomed in the Presidential Palace if he ever arrives not wearing a tie.   President Lahoud comprehended that Walid Jumblatt’s attitude, as his father Kamal, amounted to a historical trend of blaming the Christian Maronite sect for having robbed the Druze out of the leadership of Mount Lebanon.

In November 1999, the French Foreign Affairs Hubert Vedrine had a lengthy discussion with President Lahoud.  Vedrine had toured several capitals and his impression was that a resolution of the Middle East crisis was less ripe as he expected.  Ehud Barak of Israel was sending tactical contradictory messages hoping for starting any kinds of negotiations with either Lebanon or Syria so that he won’t have to withdraw unilaterally from Lebanon and give Hezbollah the impression of defeating Israel by acts of resistance.  Barak would not pronounce on the complete withdrawal from the Golan as requested by Hafiz Assad and President Lahoud would not negotiate without Syria approval. Consequently, Barak was forced to withdraw from Lebanon without any pre-conditions because Israel was in fact paying a high price in Lebanon for insisting on keeping the Golan Heights.

Vedrine and Lahoud discussed the Palestinian problems.  Vedrine was offering the suggestion that Lebanon refrains from adamantly proclaiming that every Palestinian in the refugee camps should leave Lebanon  and just be satisfied maintaining the Constitution requirement of the Palestinian rights to return.  Lahoud stated that the Palestinians procreation is three times faster than the Lebanese and constitute now 10% of the population or 400,000 and this fact is a highly “explosive bomb” that has the potential to destabilize the Lebanese social and political fabrics. Lahoud confirmed that the Palestinians in the camps are suffering a harsh life but arms in the camps are no longer directed toward Israel since the Oslo Agreement.  It appeared that the financial compensation was already settled among the donating powers but the potential Palestinian State would be small and economically fragile to sustain the relocation of all the Palestinian refugees.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Older Entries

adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

May 2023
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,521,984 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 769 other subscribers

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: