By Sarah Ozacky-Lazar and - -
GIVAT HAVIVA, Jun 1 2003 (IPS)

These are startling days for Israeli domestic politics. For the first time in history, the leader of the nationalistic right wing is talking in public about \’\’the need to put an end to the occupation\’\’, stating \’\’the time has come to divide the land between us and the Palestinians\’\’, writes Sarah Ozacky-Lazar, a Middle East historian and co-director of the Jewish-Arab Centre for Peace at Givat Haviva, Israel. In this article for IPS, the author writes that while most Israeli leftists doubt Sharon is serious about peace and interpret his sudden change as merely a tactic to avoid open crisis with the Bush administration, they have to support Sharon\’s moves to prevent the ultra-right from blocking the renewed peace process. The Israeli left and what remains of the peace camp now find themselves in a contradictory situation: their major rival, Sharon, is in the process of implementing their own ideas. They doubt his sincerity but cannot oppose him because he is doing exactly what they have been preaching for ages. They strongly oppose the harsh security measures taken by the Israeli army but cannot protest because the suicide bombings continue. The irony is that if and when any peace agreement is achieved, it will be credited to the right wing that has opposed it for years, while the left wing will be left out of both the history books and political power, despite its long stubborn struggle for mutual recognition and the right of the Palestinians to freedom and statehood.

These are startling days for Israeli domestic politics. For the first time in history, the leader of the nationalistic right wing is talking in public about ”the need to put an end to the occupation”. More remarkable yet, he claims that ”the time has come to divide the land between us and the Palestinians”.

These declarations come not from a minor leader but from a war-hardened general, Ariel Sharon, a founding father of the settlement movement twice elected prime minister to preserve the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and the idea of ”Greater Israel”.

For the weary peace camp in Israel this has been a victorious moment. Finally their tenacious, uninterupted struggle has borne fruit, and their ideology, considered a non-patriotic betrayal by many in the past, has finally entered the political mainstream.

But this dramatic change in the right finds the left shattered. After being severely defeated in the national elections of January 2003, both Labour and Meretz, a social democratic party, were thrown into war, blaming their own leaders and each other for the bitter failure. Their leaders, Amram Mitzna and Yossi Sarid, resigned and internal rivalries have prevented the election of successors.

Extra-parliamentary peace movements and non-for-profit organisations are in severe financial crisis because of a near- total halt in funding from European and American donors, who are frustrated by the political situation and the prospects for peace in the region.

Successive suicide bombings by Palestinian militants dealt yet another blow to the peace camp in Israel. Whenever there is cause for hope, or some sign of a resumption in negotiations, the Hamas and Jihad terrorist groups strike and spread more terror and fear in the Israeli street. The peace camp is mute in face of these actions: there are no logical explanations that can be provided to the Israeli public, who continue to believe that there is no Palestinian partner for peace.

Weekly peace demonstrations in front of the prime minister’s house in Jerusalem attract fewer and fewer people, and dialogue and encounters between israelis and palestinians, which in the past drew thousands of students, teachers, and participants from all walks of life, are scarce now. Physical obstacles and harsh restrictions on Palestinian movement and the lack of funding could be cited as the explanation for this, but the hidden truth is that only a few still believe that such meetings can help change political stances, and even fewer are ready to talk to the other side and take the risk of meeting Palestinians at all.

Another blow to the Israeli peace camp came from the de-legitimisation of Yasser Arafat, their long-time ally to whom they have paid tribute for three decades, continuously protecting his name and good will throughout the recent intifada. Having to switch loyalties and defend the imposed nomination of Mahmoud Abbas as prime minister, they found themselves trapped between their deep belief that the Palestinian people are entitled to elect their own leadership without external interference and the reality dictated by Bush and Sharon and unopposed by most of the Palestinian mainstream. They had to accept the changes silently and sometimes apologetically.

The recent initiative by the so-called Quartet of the US, UN, EU, and Russia sparked vivid discussion in both the Israeli and Palestinian peace camps. Despite many reservations and low expectations, most people in the Israeli left have accepted this ”road map for peace” as the only game in town. And since the Palestinian Authority has fully endorsed the plan, they could only turn to Sharon and its government and demand that they do the same.

While most Israeli leftists do not believe that Sharon is serious about peace and interpret his sudden change as merely tactical, a result of American pressure and a way to avoid open crisis with the Bush administration, they have to support Sharon’s moves to prevent the ultra-right from blocking the renewed peace process.

The bottom line is that the Israeli left and what remains of the peace camp now find themselves in a contradictory situation: their major rival, Prime Minister Sharon, is in the process of implementing their own ideas. They doubt his sincerity but cannot oppose him because he is doing exactly what they have been preaching for ages. They strongly oppose the harsh security measures taken by the Israeli army but cannot protest because the suicide bombings continue. For this they are bitterly criticised by their Palestinian allies and need to apologise constantly. They want to deepen the political process with people-to-people projects and education for peace on both sides but lack the funds and the constituency to do it. Their political parties desperately want to participate in the peace-building efforts but are marginalised by the government.

The irony of this situation is that if and when any peace agreement is achieved, it will be credited to the right wing that has opposed it for years, while the left wing will be left out of both the history books and political power, despite its long and stubborn struggle for mutual recognition and the right of the Palestinians to freedom and statehood. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Sarah Ozacky-Lazar and - -
OAKLAND, Apr 1 2003 (IPS)

Media around the world have shown the pictures of peaceful American protesters in Oakland, California, fired on by the local police with wooden dowels, bean bags, and concussion and \’\’sting grenades\’\’ — more evidence of the hypocrisy of America\’s claim to be a democracy, champion of human rights, and a nation of civil liberties, writes Anuradha Mittal, Co-Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, California. In this analysis for IPS, the author writes that dissent is growing to new levels as national leaders abdicate their responsibility as elected officials and turn into warmongers. Tens of thousands of American citizens have turned in petitions calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John Ashcroft for committing war crimes and failing to uphold the American Constitution. The global movement for peace will keep growing until there is an end to this illegitimate war, until Bush, Blair, and Howard are tried for crimes against humanity. It will make the US a true member of the global community that abides by human rights conventions, disarmament agreements, International Criminal Court rules, and the Kyoto protocol.

Media around the world have shown the pictures of young Americans protesting peacefully in Oakland, California, fired on by the local police with wooden dowels, bean bags, concussion grenades, and ”sting grenades” — rubber pellets accompanied by tear gas. They provide yet more evidence of the hypocrisy of America’s claim to be a democracy, a champion of human rights, and a nation of civil liberties.

But the dissent is growing to new levels as national leaders abdicate their responsibility as elected officials and turn into warmongers.

The morning of Monday, April 7, around 400-500 anti-war protestors took their place in front of the American President Lines terminal at the Oakland port while a smaller contingent of other picketers marched in front of the entrance to Stevedoring Services of America, chanting, ”APL and SSA how many kids have you killed today?” Both companies are contracted to ship war cargo. As demonstrators marched slowly, police formed a line and moved forward, warning the protestors to move. Before most had time to do so, they were fired on indiscriminately. Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown’s response: ”Police acted appropriately in dealing with protestors who wanted to occupy and take over the port and shut it down. The city was not going to let it happen.”

At the same time, at the Concord Naval Weapons station, a dozen brave activists were arrested after they crossed yellow police tape and knelt peacefully in front of a line of police officers. In San Francisco, California Highway Patrol arrested protestors who stopped morning commuter traffic and were distributing juice and pastries to motorists, along with flyers apologising for the inconvenience. They were charged with conspiring to block traffic.

Others were cited for trespassing when they tried to meet with their senator, Diane Feinstein. In the United States of America it is now an offence to try to meet your elected officials when they fail to represent you.

Notwithstanding what official democracy looks like in the US today, the democratic impulse is fully intact: tens of thousands of American citizens have turned in petitions calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John Ashcroft for committing war crimes and failing to uphold the American Constitution. These actions form the basis of a new American Revolution against a new King George: a struggle to take back the nation from war profiteers and the ‘oilagarchy’ in Washington.

US newspapers did not report that while anti-war demonstrators were being fired at in Oakland, another action was taking place in the Sydney harbour in Australia. It is doubtful whether the global media will have the courage to share the stories of brave activists who fight the war on Iraq and the war on the poor around the world.

An African proverb says, ”Until the lions can tell their stories, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter.”

Three weeks to the day after protestors scaled the Sydney Opera House to paint ”No War” on its sails, Australia experienced a second citizen action. On Tuesday April 8, after being waved off by Prime Minister Howard, HMAS Sydney headed out of port towards Iraq with a crew of 230 and enough weaponry to repel air, surface, and submarine attacks. Greenpeace activists in inflatables and jet boats then sped out of adjacent coves. Pulling close to the bow of the 138-metre-long Sydney, peace activists hoisted themselves up to attach a ”No War” banner which remained on its bow for an hour.

Then the Greenpeace radioed HMAS Sydney to advise the crew that two divers were directly in the frigate’s path. One was ex-army, and other ex-Australian Defense Force personnel.

Howard urged media to show support for the troops by downplaying and condemning the Greenpeace action in their coverage.

The San Francisco Chronicle released a field poll under the headline, ”63 Percent in the Bay Area Support War to Remove Dictator.” It was based on a poll of 1,006 California residents, of which only 204 responded. The elected officials need the media machinery to support their immoral and unjust war.

But it takes more than media spin and official lies to curb the global movement for peace. This movement will keep growing until there is an end to this illegitimate war. It will not rest until Bush, Blair, and Howard are tried for crimes against humanity. It will make the United States a true member of the global community that abides by all human rights conventions, disarmament agreements, International Criminal Court rules, and the Kyoto protocol.

In the meanwhile, thank you Greenpeace, Act Against War, Answer, Code Pink, and the hundreds of thousands of groups and individuals around the world who continue to show the true face of democracy.

Yes, the dissent is growing. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: