Democratic Palestine : 32 (ص 3)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 32 (ص 3)
- المحتوى
-
The PLO Peace Offensive
Skillful Tactics or Unilateral Concessions?
The intifada marks a turning point in
the history of the Palestinian and Arab
national liberation movement. For the
first time, the focal point of the Arab-
Israeli conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. This has put Israel on the
defensive, more so than the huge
stockpiles of weapons in the arsenals of
the Arab armies.
The intifada has propelled the
Palestinian question to the top of the
world agenda, and engendered world-
wide support for the Palestinian strug-
gle, as well as condemnation of the
Israeli atrocities and brutal repression.
There has been a notable change in the
position of most European countries,
as well as that of the US which finally
lifted its 13-year-old ban on dialogue
with the PLO. By doing so, the US,
much to its own dismay, is
acknowledging what the majority of the
nations of the world had already
recognized, i.e., that the PLO is the sole
legitimate representative of the
Palestinian people, although officially,
the US has not yet recognized the PLO
or the Palestinian people’s right to self-
determination.
The US is interested in a political set-
tlement now more than ever in the light
of the intifada, a phenomenon which if
left unchecked, could spill over to other
parts of the region - a scenario which
US officials would prefer not to con-
template. This is in addition to the US
intent to counter the new Soviet in-
itiative for peace in the region and,
most of all, the US desire to «save
Israel from itself.»
Nevertheless, the US decision to
speak with the PLO is a step in the right
direction and a victory for the Palesti-
nian cause. It is not that the decision in
itself is an asset, but given the role of
the US in the Middle East, these talks,
depending on their development, could
play a significant role towards the
achievement of a peaceful settlement.
The first US—PLO meeting took
place in Tunis. Robert Pelletreau, the
US ambassador in Tunis, headed the
American delegation. The PLO delega-
Democratic Palestine, March 1989
tion included Executive Committee
members, Abdullah Hourani,
Mahmoud Abbas, and Yasir Abed
Rabbo, and the Palestinian ambassador
to Tunis, Hakam Balawi. The meeting
was more symbolic than substantive.
Nevertheless, the US placed the issue of
«terrorism» at the top of its agenda,
while the PLO placed the international
peace conference at the top of its agen-
da.
The second meeting took place in late
March, after months of procrastination
by the US that continues to insist on
keeping the meetings on the am-
bassadorial level. The second meeting
did not result in any significant change in
the US position. Despite a statement by
US Secretary of State James Baker that
Israel may have to talk to the PLO in
the event of failure to find perspective,
non-PLO, negotiating partners in the
occupied territories, the US ad-
ministration remains opposed to the
establishment of a Palestinian state, as
well as to a meaningful international
conference.
The Palestinian reaction to the
dialogue was positive despite the
deliberate effort on the part of the US
government to equate armed liberation
struggle with «terrorism,» while mak-
ing no mention of Israeli state terrorism
which has been responsible for evicting
more than half the Palestinian people
from their own country, and practiced
in a variety of other forms for over four
decades.
THE ISRAELI REACTION
The Israeli reaction to the US-PLO
dialogue was one of anger and dismay,
aside from the positive response of a
small number of officials, such as
Knesset members Yossi Sarid of the
Citizens Rights Movement and Amnon
Rubenstein of Shinui. Prime Minister
Shamir described the move as
«dangerous and painful» and as having
a bad effect on US-Israeli relations.
The former Israeli representative to the
UN and deputy foreign minister, Ben-
jamin Netanyahu, warned that «the US
decision will strain US-Israeli relations,
and the complete trust Israel had shared
with the US will be shaken badly.»!
Israel was jolted once again when the
State Department’s annual Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices
for 1988 was released. This report is
prepared by a joint subcommittee of
the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee and the House of Representatives’
Foreign Affairs Committee;21 pages of
the 1,500 - page report were devoted to
Israeli human rights violations in the
occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip,
conveying a grim picture of killings,
bone-breaking, home demolitions, as
well as the psychological and physical
torture of detainees, «including forcing
prisoners to remain in one position for
prolonged periods, hooding, sleep
deprivation and cold showers.» The
methods mentioned in the report are
but a small sample of what goes on dai-
ly in Israeli torture chambers. Torture
is employed to extract false confessions
to be used in mock trials to convict and
imprison Palestinians. A number of the
detainees don’t survive to be convicted,
but die under torture during the inter-
rogation period.
Wayne Owens, the subcommittee
chairman, warned Israel that its
behavior in the occupied territories is
unacceptable and could weaken US
support in the future, although Israel
will receive its allotted share for this
year of over three billion dollars (the
largest share of US foreign aid). The
discussion of US aid to Israel in the
light of criticism of Israeli human rights
violations in the territories is un-
precedented. It is the first time such
discussions have taken place openly at
such high levels and among those who
make the decisions.
Even the formidable and staunchly
pro-Israeli American Jewish communi-
ty is becoming more and more openly
critical of Israel’s violations of human
rights in the occupied territories, and its
refusal to negotiate with the PLO.
Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun
magazine, said, «We are warning Israel >
1 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 32
- تاريخ
- مارس ١٩٨٩
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed