Democratic Palestine : 39 (ص 8)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 39 (ص 8)
- المحتوى
-
issued amemorandum chronicling Israeli
human rights violations. They reiterated
the validity of the PLO peace initiative
and reaffirmed the demand of the
intifada «for the occupied territories to
be placed under neutral international
supervision to prevent any change in its
demographic and geographic status» and
«for an end to the extreme suffering of
the unarmed Palestinian civilians» until a
comprehensive solution is achieved.
Five days later, hours after the
Rishon Letzion massacre, Al Haq
urgently demanded: «the immediate
withdrawal of the Israeli military forces
from all major population centers, espe-
cially from the Gaza Strip...» and
«prompt action by the international com-
munity, in line with its duties under inter-
national law, to provide effective, on-
the-ground protection for the Palestinian
civilian population.»
Also on May 20th, a group of promi-
nent Palestinians began a hungerstrike at
the ICRC office in Jerusalem, protesting
the massacre, demanding the convening
of the Security Council and an indepen-
dent investigation into the massacre and
Israeli practices in the occupied ter-
ritories. The number of hunger strikers
grew to 50 and they received many
expressions of solidarity. The most
meaningful was perhaps the decision of
Archbishop Capucci, once imprisoned in
Israel for his support to the Palestinians,
to join in the hunger strike from Rome
where he has lived since being expelled
from occupied Palestine.
In Baghdad, the Arab summit
backed up the call for an emergency Sec-
urity Council meeting, and the PLO
stressed the need for a peacekeeping
force to be sent to the territories. Thus
began the battle at the UN. The PLO
achieved a new diplomatic victory when
the Security Council convened at the UN
headquarters in Geneva on May 25th, for
the first time in 18 years, specifically so
there would be no problems for PLO
Chairman Yasir Arafat to address the
session - also a first for the council. Arafat
emphasized the importance of dispatch-
ing a UN emergency force and deciding
sanctions against Israel for its murderous
policies. The overwhelming sentiment at
the council session was condemnation of
Israeli human rights violations but, due
to the US position, the PLO was unable
to obtain concrete protection for the
8
HH
Palestinian masses. The other 14 mem-
bers of the Security Council favored at
the minimum to send an investigative
team to the occupied territories. How-
ever, the US, after a series of contradic-
tory statements, settled down to its his-
torical position of only backing what is
acceptable to Israel. This prevented the
will of the majority from producing any
concrete results.
The Israeli position was clearly
articulated from the start: No to any Sec-
urity Council team or UN presence which
was branded as interference in internal
Israeli affairs. This clearly expresses the
Shamir government’s position that the
1967 occupied territories are Israel’s
whether officially annexed or not. This is
what the US administration de facto sup-
ports, despite its officially formulated
policy that the West Bank and Gaza Strip
are occupied territories, subject to
negotiations.
How to deal with the US, in view of
its crucial role in the Middle East conflict,
has long been a subject of debate in the
PLO and the Arab arena generally.
While the United National Leadership
has consistently upheld a lucid view of the
US’ role and responsibility for the occu-
pation, some Palestinian figures have
been willing to gamble on the possibility
of the US exerting pressure on Israel.
However, with this new evidence of the
US position, there is littke room for
debate on the subject. Palestinians of all
tendencies closed ranks in the face of this
new US attack on Palestinians’ most min-
imal rights - to life and safety.
On June Ist, the Jerusalem hunger
strike ended after a number of the strik-
ers had been hospitalized. Fifty Palesti-
nian leaders in Jerusalem called for sanc-
tions against the US as well as Israel,
including use of the Arab oil weapon;
they declared that they would boycott all
contacts with US officials.
Two days previously, the Palestinian
revolution had staged its biggest attack in
several years against Israel. Naval units
of the Palestine Liberation Front
besieged the Israeli coast from Ashqe-
lon, south of Tel Aviv, to Herzliyya,
north of the city. A ranged battle ensued
with the Zionist state employing ships,
aircraft and ground forces before over-
coming the commandos. The operation
intended to attack Israeli military instal-
lations in the area. The Israeli disinfor-
mation now being spread about the intent
to kill civilians is belied by the simple fact
that the commandos, who did manage to
land on the beach, fired not one shot at
the many sun-bathers there.
The US, which thwarted even a mild
attempt to check Israeli violence against
the masses under occupation, announced
thatits dialogue with the PLO hung in the
balance due to the operation. The US
ambassador in Tunis called the PLO
delegation to four meetings in a week,
trying to illicit condemnation of the PLF
attack or expulsion of its leader, Abu
Abbas, from the PLO. After a year of the
US dragging its feet about this dialogue,
this confirms the impression that the
Bush Administration only talks to the
PLO in hopes that it will put a lid on the
liberation struggle.
Meeting in Baghdad, the PLO
Executive Committee on June 6th,
termed the US threats to end the dialogue
«blackmail,» and a number of PLO
spokesman confirmed the Palestinians’
right to continue all forms of struggle
until obtaining their rights.
Israeli officials responded to the
attack by trying to persuade the US tocut
the dialogue with the PLO. But the more
significant part of the Israeli response
was the stress put on Libyan responsibil-
ity for supporting the operation. A
former head of Israeli military intelli-
gence, Yehoshua Saguy, proposed out-
right that Libya be attacked. Such aggres-
sion cannot be ruled out, especially in
view of the Israeli crisis caused by the
intifada. Such attacks have been used
before to close Israeli ranks and try to
scare the Arabs from rendering support
to the Palestinian revolution. The stress
on Libya, moreover, fits into the Israeli
efforts to refocus on the «Arab threat» in
an attempt to divert from the intifada and
the roots of the whole conflict, i.e., the
justice of the Palestinian cause.
The greatest obstacle to this new
Israeli attempt at diversion is seen in the
continuation of the intifada - undaunted
by the tightening repression and mas-
sacres. The spontaneous, united reaction
by Palestinians in all places to the May
20th massacre is another evidence that
the intifada has wrought irreversible
changes, cementing determination and
militancy that will eventually enforce jus-
tice in the Middle East anda new, democ-
raticlife forthe people ofPalestine. ©@ - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 39
- تاريخ
- يونيو ١٩٩٠
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed