Democratic Palestine : 34 (ص 11)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 34 (ص 11)
- المحتوى
-
Ibrahim Tawil as well as the elected
mayor of Nablus, Bassam Shakaa were
targeted for assassination. Although
the mayors escaped death, they suf-
fered grave physical injury, Bassam
Shakaa lost both his legs when his
booby-trapped car exploded, eventually
the elected city councils were dissolved.
THE US POSITION
On the eve of Shamir’s visit to the US
and amidst growing international con-
demnation of Israeli violence against
Palestinians in the occupied territories,
the Bush administration was anxiously
awaiting an «Israeli peace initiative» in
order to justify its continued support
to Israel, and its veto of UN Security
Council resolutions critical of Israeli
practices, and particularly after
Sheverdnadze’s visit to the region and
the declaration of the Soviet peace in-
itiative which is viewed by the US as a
threat to its longstanding monopoly on
Middle East politics.
The Bush-Shamir meeting on April 6
resulted in agreement on the following
principles: that the present situation
should not continue, the intifada must
be halted, negotiations must begin as
soon as possible, these negotiations.
could include Egypt, Jordan, Israel and
the Palestinians, and that the Palesti-
nians who will participate in these
negotiations can be either appointed or
elected from the West Bank and Gaza.
In reply to President Bush’s state-
ment in support of «Land for Peace»,
Shamir chided the idea claiming that
the territories occupied since 1967 are
essential to Israel’s security.
James Baker who according to the
International Herald Tribune has used
«the bluntest language ever used by a
senior US official» before over 1,000
members of the American Israeli Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC), called on
Israel «to lay aside once and for all the
unrealistic vision of a greater Israel.»3
Baker went on to say that Israel
should not annex the West Bank and
Gaza, stop the settlement activity, and
allow schools to reopen.
These statements and other
statements by the Secretary of State to
the effect that Israel must be prepared
to some day negotiate with the PLO in
addition to the US-PLO dialogue and
the meeting between the US am-
Democratic Palestine, August 1989
bassador in Tunis and Abu Iyad, the
second man in Fateh after Arafat, do
not indicate an intrinsic change in US
Middle East policy.
Hours before the Bush-Shamir
meeting was convened, ABC network
announced the results of a nation-wide
Survey in which eight out of ten
Americans favored the inclusion of the
PLO in the negotations for a settle-
ment.
Nevertheless the US administration
remains adamantly opposed to the par-
ticipation of the PLO in the interna-
tional peace conference, and against the
national rights of the Palestinian peo-
ple.
Despite the superficial difference
between Israel and the US administra-
tion, the bottom line is that they are
both against the recognition of the
PLO, and the establishment of a
Palestinian state.
THE PALESTINIAN
REACTION
The official Palestinian response
came from the Executive Committee of
the PLO on May 15 in a statement
which described the Shamir plan as a
«means to deceive world public opinion
and consolidate the occupation.»
The statement added that there is in-
ternational consensus that a just and
lasting peace necessitates a realistic
solution based on the recognition of the
Palestinian people’s right to self-
determination, and _ national in-
dependence within the framework of an
international peace conference, and
that any interim proposals should be
part of a comprehensive plan which
would lead to the achievement of a just
peace. The PLO’s representation of the
Palestinian people and the establish-
ment of an independent state are not
negotiable.
Subsequent statements by PLO of-
ficials did not rule out elections, but
stressed the need for withdrawal of
occupation troops, international
supervision and that elections be
part of a comprehensive plan which
would lead to the realization of
Palestinian national rights, before such
elections could be held, for there is a
contradiction in holding free elections
under occupation.
The United National Leadership of
the intifada (UNL) has also rejected the
Shamir plan, declaring in its calls that
«the Shamir plan is rejected by the
Palestinian people and their united
leadership... the plan is designed to
bypass the international peace con-
ference.»4 A statement was signed by
83 Palestinian leading personalities re-
jecting the Shamir plan, they inciude
union leaders, political leaders, clergy,
educators and elected officials.
A group of prominent Palestinians
including Dr. Sari Nusaibeh and Ziyad
Abu Ziyad were invited to meet with
Dennis Ross in Jerusalem after his
meeting with Shamir, they chose in-
stead to send a letter to the US Council
General criticizing the plan. The letter
noted that the Shamir plan is aimed at
deceiving and misguiding the Israeli
and world public opinion, it ignores the
central issue of the Middle East con-
flict: the legitimate national rights of
the Palestinian people to self-
determination, a state, and the right to
choose their representative which is the
PLO.
The Shamir plan is a vain attempt at
reincarnating the defunct Camp David
agreements which were categorically
rejected by the PLO and the Palesti-
nians inside and outside the occupied
territories, therefore the plan was dead
from the moment it was born.
Shamir is aiming through this plan to
achieve the following: to put an end to
the intifada, find an alternative to the
PLO, ignore the national rights of the
Palestinian people, bolster the position
of Shamir within Likud, counter the
Palestinian peace initiative which has
received worldwide support with the
exception of the US, silence the
criticism of Israel especially from the
European community who are pressing
Israel to accept the international peace
conference as a framework for a com-
prehensive settlement in the region,
cover up for the escalation of repres-
sion, and to revive the Jordanian op-
tion which King Hussein himself has
annulled when he severed Jordan’s
administrative and legal ties with the
West Bank.
Israel’s leaders embarked on an in-
tensive campaign to promote the plan
which took Shamir, Rabin and Arens to
the US, Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy
and other countries only to come back >
11 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 34
- تاريخ
- أغسطس ١٩٨٩
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed