Im sure most of you girls think Hitler was a cute guy.
--- Stephen Bean <sbean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jim,
> Apologies for the long e-mail, but I thought you
> might be interested in Noam
> Chomskys recent article.
> Stephen
>
>
> >US-Israel-Palestine
> >by Noam Chomsky
> >Red Pepper, May 2002
> >April 11, 2002
> >
> >ZNet Top
> >
> >MIDEAST WATCH
> >
> >
> >A year ago, Hebrew University sociologist Baruch
> Kimmerling observed
> >that "What we feared has come true." Jews and
> Palestinians are
> >"regressing to superstitious tribalism... War
> appears an unavoidable
> >fate," an "evil colonial" war. After Israel's
> invasion of the refugee
> >camps this year his colleague Ze'ev Sternhell wrote
> that "In colonial
> >Israel...human life is cheap." The leadership is
> "no longer ashamed to
> >speak of war when what they are really engaged in
> is colonial policing,
> >which recalls the takeover by the white police of
> the poor neighborhoods
> >of the blacks in South Africa during the apartheid
> era." Both stress the
> >obvious: there is no symmetry between the
> "ethno-national groups"
> >regressing to tribalism. The conflict is centered
> in territories that
> >have been under harsh military occupation for 35
> years. The conqueror is
> >a major military power, acting with massive
> military, economic and
> >diplomatic support from the global superpower. Its
> subjects are alone
> >and defenseless, many barely surviving in miserable
> camps, currently
> >suffering even more brutal terror of a kind
> familiar in "evil colonial
> >wars" and now carrying out terrible atrocities of
> their own in revenge.
> >
> >
> >The Oslo "peace process" changed the modalities of
> the occupation, but
> >not the basic concept. Shortly before joining the
> Ehud Barak government,
> >historian Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote that "the Oslo
> agreements were founded on
> >a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of
> one on the other
> >forever." He soon became an architect of the US-
> Israel proposals at
> >Camp David in Summer 2000, which kept to this
> condition. These were
> >highly praised in US commentary. The Palestinians
> and their evil leader
> >were blamed for their failure and the subsequent
> violence. But that is
> >outright "fraud," as Kimmerling reported, along
> with all other serious
> >commentators.
> >
> >
> >True, Clinton-Barak advanced a few steps towards a
> Bantustan-style
> >settlement. Just prior to Camp David, West Bank
> Palestinians were
> >confined to over 200 scattered areas, and
> Clinton-Barak did propose an
> >improvement: consolidation to three cantons, under
> Israeli control,
> >virtually separated from one another and from the
> fourth enclave, a
> >small area of East Jerusalem, the center of
> Palestinian life and of
> >communications in the region. In the fifth canton,
> Gaza, the outcome was
> >left unclear except that the population were also
> to remain virtually
> >imprisoned. It is understandable that maps are not
> to be found in the US
> >mainstream, or any of the details of the proposals.
> >
> >
> >No one can seriously doubt that the US role will
> continue to be
> >decisive. It is therefore of crucial importance to
> understand what that
> >role has been, and how it is internally perceived.
> The version of the
> >doves is presented by the editors of the NY Times
> (7 April), praising
> >the President's "path-breaking speech" and the
> "emerging vision" he
> >articulated. Its first element is "ending
> Palestinian terrorism,"
> >immediately. Some time later comes "freezing, then
> rolling back, Jewish
> >settlements and negotiating new borders" to end the
> occupation and allow
> >the establishment of a Palestinian state. If
> Palestinian terror ends,
> >Israelis will be encouraged to "take the Arab
> League's historic offer of
> >full peace and recognition in exchange for an
> Israeli withdrawal more
> >seriously." But first Palestinian leaders must
> demonstrate that they are
> >"legitimate diplomatic partners."
> >
> >
> >The real world has little resemblance to this
> self-serving portrayal -
> >- virtually copied from the 1980s, when the US and
> Israel were
> >desperately seeking to evade PLO offers of
> negotiation and political
> >settlement while keeping to the demand that there
> will be no
> >negotiations with the PLO, no "additional
> Palestinian state..." (Jordan
> >already being a Palestinian state), and "no change
> in the status of
> >Judea, Samaria and Gaza other than in accordance
> with the basic
> >guidelines of the [Israeli] Government" (the May
> 1989 Peres- Shamir
> >coalition plan, endorsed by Bush I in the Baker
> plan of Dec. 1989). All
> >of this remained unpublished in the US mainstream,
> as regularly before,
> >while commentary denounced the Palestinians for
> their single-minded
> >commitment to terror, undermining the humanistic
> endeavors of the US and
> >its allies.
> >
> >
> >In the real world, the primary barrier to the
> "emerging vision" has
> >been, and remains, unilateral US rejectionism.
> There is little new in
> >the "Arab League's historic offer." It repeats the
> basic terms of a
> >Security Council Resolution of January 1976 backed
> by virtually the
> >entire world, including the leading Arab states,
> the PLO, Europe, the
> >Soviet bloc -- in fact, everyone who mattered. It
> was opposed by Israel
> >and vetoed by the US, thereby vetoing it from
> history. The Resolution
> >called for a political settlement on the
> internationally- recognized
> >borders "with appropriate arrangements...to
> guarantee...the sovereignty,
> >territorial integrity, and political independence
> of all states in the
> >area and their right to live in peace within secure
> and recognized
> >borders" -- in effect, a modification of UN 242 (as
> officially
> >interpreted by the US as well), amplified to
> include a Palestinian
> >state. Similar initiatives from the Arab states,
> the PLO, and Europe
> >have since been blocked by the US and mostly
> suppressed or denied in
> >public commentary.
> >
> >
> >US rejectionism goes back 5 years earlier, to
> February 1971, when
> >President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full
> peace treaty in return
> >for Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory,
> with no mention of
> >Palestinian national rights or the fate of the
> other occupied
> >territories. Israel's Labor government recognized
> this to be a genuine
> >peace offer, but rejected it, intending to extend
> its settlements to
> >northeastern Sinai; that it soon did, with extreme
> brutality, the
> >immediate cause for the 1973 war. Israel and the US
> understood that
> >peace was possible in accord with official US
> policy. But as Labor Party
> >leader Ezer Weizmann (later President) explained,
> that
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--- Stephen Bean <sbean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jim,
> Apologies for the long e-mail, but I thought you
> might be interested in Noam
> Chomskys recent article.
> Stephen
>
>
> >US-Israel-Palestine
> >by Noam Chomsky
> >Red Pepper, May 2002
> >April 11, 2002
> >
> >ZNet Top
> >
> >MIDEAST WATCH
> >
> >
> >A year ago, Hebrew University sociologist Baruch
> Kimmerling observed
> >that "What we feared has come true." Jews and
> Palestinians are
> >"regressing to superstitious tribalism... War
> appears an unavoidable
> >fate," an "evil colonial" war. After Israel's
> invasion of the refugee
> >camps this year his colleague Ze'ev Sternhell wrote
> that "In colonial
> >Israel...human life is cheap." The leadership is
> "no longer ashamed to
> >speak of war when what they are really engaged in
> is colonial policing,
> >which recalls the takeover by the white police of
> the poor neighborhoods
> >of the blacks in South Africa during the apartheid
> era." Both stress the
> >obvious: there is no symmetry between the
> "ethno-national groups"
> >regressing to tribalism. The conflict is centered
> in territories that
> >have been under harsh military occupation for 35
> years. The conqueror is
> >a major military power, acting with massive
> military, economic and
> >diplomatic support from the global superpower. Its
> subjects are alone
> >and defenseless, many barely surviving in miserable
> camps, currently
> >suffering even more brutal terror of a kind
> familiar in "evil colonial
> >wars" and now carrying out terrible atrocities of
> their own in revenge.
> >
> >
> >The Oslo "peace process" changed the modalities of
> the occupation, but
> >not the basic concept. Shortly before joining the
> Ehud Barak government,
> >historian Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote that "the Oslo
> agreements were founded on
> >a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of
> one on the other
> >forever." He soon became an architect of the US-
> Israel proposals at
> >Camp David in Summer 2000, which kept to this
> condition. These were
> >highly praised in US commentary. The Palestinians
> and their evil leader
> >were blamed for their failure and the subsequent
> violence. But that is
> >outright "fraud," as Kimmerling reported, along
> with all other serious
> >commentators.
> >
> >
> >True, Clinton-Barak advanced a few steps towards a
> Bantustan-style
> >settlement. Just prior to Camp David, West Bank
> Palestinians were
> >confined to over 200 scattered areas, and
> Clinton-Barak did propose an
> >improvement: consolidation to three cantons, under
> Israeli control,
> >virtually separated from one another and from the
> fourth enclave, a
> >small area of East Jerusalem, the center of
> Palestinian life and of
> >communications in the region. In the fifth canton,
> Gaza, the outcome was
> >left unclear except that the population were also
> to remain virtually
> >imprisoned. It is understandable that maps are not
> to be found in the US
> >mainstream, or any of the details of the proposals.
> >
> >
> >No one can seriously doubt that the US role will
> continue to be
> >decisive. It is therefore of crucial importance to
> understand what that
> >role has been, and how it is internally perceived.
> The version of the
> >doves is presented by the editors of the NY Times
> (7 April), praising
> >the President's "path-breaking speech" and the
> "emerging vision" he
> >articulated. Its first element is "ending
> Palestinian terrorism,"
> >immediately. Some time later comes "freezing, then
> rolling back, Jewish
> >settlements and negotiating new borders" to end the
> occupation and allow
> >the establishment of a Palestinian state. If
> Palestinian terror ends,
> >Israelis will be encouraged to "take the Arab
> League's historic offer of
> >full peace and recognition in exchange for an
> Israeli withdrawal more
> >seriously." But first Palestinian leaders must
> demonstrate that they are
> >"legitimate diplomatic partners."
> >
> >
> >The real world has little resemblance to this
> self-serving portrayal -
> >- virtually copied from the 1980s, when the US and
> Israel were
> >desperately seeking to evade PLO offers of
> negotiation and political
> >settlement while keeping to the demand that there
> will be no
> >negotiations with the PLO, no "additional
> Palestinian state..." (Jordan
> >already being a Palestinian state), and "no change
> in the status of
> >Judea, Samaria and Gaza other than in accordance
> with the basic
> >guidelines of the [Israeli] Government" (the May
> 1989 Peres- Shamir
> >coalition plan, endorsed by Bush I in the Baker
> plan of Dec. 1989). All
> >of this remained unpublished in the US mainstream,
> as regularly before,
> >while commentary denounced the Palestinians for
> their single-minded
> >commitment to terror, undermining the humanistic
> endeavors of the US and
> >its allies.
> >
> >
> >In the real world, the primary barrier to the
> "emerging vision" has
> >been, and remains, unilateral US rejectionism.
> There is little new in
> >the "Arab League's historic offer." It repeats the
> basic terms of a
> >Security Council Resolution of January 1976 backed
> by virtually the
> >entire world, including the leading Arab states,
> the PLO, Europe, the
> >Soviet bloc -- in fact, everyone who mattered. It
> was opposed by Israel
> >and vetoed by the US, thereby vetoing it from
> history. The Resolution
> >called for a political settlement on the
> internationally- recognized
> >borders "with appropriate arrangements...to
> guarantee...the sovereignty,
> >territorial integrity, and political independence
> of all states in the
> >area and their right to live in peace within secure
> and recognized
> >borders" -- in effect, a modification of UN 242 (as
> officially
> >interpreted by the US as well), amplified to
> include a Palestinian
> >state. Similar initiatives from the Arab states,
> the PLO, and Europe
> >have since been blocked by the US and mostly
> suppressed or denied in
> >public commentary.
> >
> >
> >US rejectionism goes back 5 years earlier, to
> February 1971, when
> >President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full
> peace treaty in return
> >for Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory,
> with no mention of
> >Palestinian national rights or the fate of the
> other occupied
> >territories. Israel's Labor government recognized
> this to be a genuine
> >peace offer, but rejected it, intending to extend
> its settlements to
> >northeastern Sinai; that it soon did, with extreme
> brutality, the
> >immediate cause for the 1973 war. Israel and the US
> understood that
> >peace was possible in accord with official US
> policy. But as Labor Party
> >leader Ezer Weizmann (later President) explained,
> that
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/