Rejectionism

In a cyclical mode, almost as constant as the movement of the heavenly bodies, members of the Israeli left, frustrated with the knowledge that the battle for Israeli-Palestinian peace is a difficult and complex matter, rack their brains for an alternative strategy. This phenomenon The parliamentary defeat of MERETZ in the last elections and the continued weakness of HADASH in the Jewish sector are two recent factors that encourage despair over the possibilities of a settlement. Of course, the dominant factor over the recent period has been the intensive U.S.>in the apparent retreat mthe

The practical possibilities for a solution in the foreseeable future are linked, of course, to the two state solution. No less an expert than Ariel Sharon (in an interview with Yedioth Ahronot, April 5, 2004) pointed out that there are any number of versions of this proposal: The European plan, the Saudi Plan, the Arab League Plan, the Geneva Accords, the National Registration. Sharon revealed that there was even a Yoske Fisher plan in the works. Sharon explained that precisely to prevent a political vacuum that would encourage the prospects of any of these plans, he unveiled his Gaza disengagement plan.

There are many sincere and peace-loving Palestinians who reject, apriori, this kind of compromise. If the Palestinian case were to be considered at the bar of historical justice and equity, the rejectionist tendency would be able to file a most impressive brief. The essence of the brief would stress that the given circumstances are a product of one sided international decisions and, even more important, reflect a basic inequality in the relation of forces between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Even so, the mainstream of the Palestinian movement of national liberation, basing itself on the resurgence of the struggle of the Palestinians under occupation, especially, the first intifada, opted for a historical compromise based on the bare minimum of the historical requirements for the establishment of a Palestinian state. This difficult choice was based on historical realism and deep insight into the limitations on the struggle for Palestinian rights.

Naturally enough, there was opposition. The main theoretical bulwark of the rejectionists as they were called was that given the existence of revolutionary currents in the region and the balance of forces in the world – the Soviet presence in the area and the Soviet veto in international diplomacy, the Palestinian liberation movement could look forward to better days and the ability to negotiate on the basis of a semblance of equality of forces. In order to answer the pressing questions on the rights of the Jews in Palestine, the rejectionists, inspired by the Marxist rhetoric of the Popular and the Democratic front suggested the establishment of a single unitarian and secular state in Palestine. However, the demise of the Soviet Union and the crushing defeat (or the abject degeneration) of the progressive and anti-imperialist Arab regimes negated the chances for a radical change in the relation of forces and any strategy based on it.

For any number of reasons, all of them anchored in cruel international realities, the secular negation of the two state strategy of historical compromise became more and more peripheral in Palestinian politics. Sadly enough, the continued presence of maximalist Palestinian political figures who insisted on muttering slogans about Arafat’s betrayal, was part of the old game of Arab politics. In this game Palestinian dignitaries pushed to the margins of the PLO link up with different Arab countries and use the support of rather conservative Arab regimes (Syria, for example) to mount ultra-militant challenges to the mainstream leadership of the PLO.

In addition to their marginlization, something, even more unpleasant happened to those who wanted to hold high the flag of rejectionism. The rising Islamic political forces inscribed the rejection to any form of compromise in Palestine on their banner and they alone constitute today, the main challenge to Arafat and the Palestinian mainstream.

Israeli Obstructionism

As a matter of fact, the Palestinians extended an olive branch to Israel as early as the meeting of the Palestinian National Council in 1988. And indeed, from then on we witnessed a long series of diplomatic and political steps to convert the Palestinian readiness to compromise into a viable peace agreement with Israel. Over the years Israel insisted on gradualism, on guarantees, on security arrangements, while constantly undermining the chances for peace by one settlement drive after another. The Israeli establishment maneuvered between two goals: the obstruction of an overall agreement by demands for unreasonable concessions on the ground and the active pursuit of territorial gains – lnad grabs and settlement that would restrict the scope of a Palestinian state if Israel were forced to agree to its establishment.

New Strategy or Antiquated Sectarianism for the Left?

On the left, opponents of the two state solution on the left tended to direct their anger at the current frameworks for negotiations: Madrid we learn failed, Oslo was a catastrophe, Camp David a farce, Taba a etc. The real story of all these negotiations is not the fault of the principle on which they were based but the ability of Israel to rely on superior military force and its international connections with the United States to prevent any agreement on the ground.

Blaming the process or exposing the real content.

Motivated by a burning desire to renounce Palestinian readiness for compromise, critics on the left vented all their vehemence on the inadequacies of the framework of the negotiations. Thus Oslo, and its inherent weakness, were to blame for the failure of negotiations. Israel’s refusal to negotiate in good faith and the refusal of international forces to insert serious pressure were either ignored or considered quite natural. It is a fact that more and more sincere people on the left are increasingly alienated from the peace process, which drags on unendingly, and provides a sort of camouflage for settlement drives and creeping transfer. In fact, the dominant source of despair is the political and military role of the United States. which has decided recast.

Lawyers will hold conventions

Lawyers will hold conventions and Eilat, before the summer heat arrives in full force is a lovely location. Of course, you cannot have a convention if you do not have invited speakers and what could be more appropriate than to have the newly appointed Attorney General Meni Mazuz, among the distinguished guests.

Mazuz, is still a relatively new face in the media, but his speech became front page news. When speaking at a discussion on “The Limits of Obedience to the Law” he evoked an enormous public response, when he declared, “I have a lot of understanding and sympathy for each conscientious refusenik – in every respect. It is a positive thing that people follow the dictates of their conscience. This could be a positive phenomenon representing social involvement and concern.” Mazuz added that “Freeedom of conscience can be seen as one of the attributes of human dignity.” Mazuz, in the context of an analysis of the relevant court decisions regarding refusal to serve, was cautious enough to qualify his statement with comments to the effect that the balance between freedom of conscience and refusal (”sarbanut”) must be reached in accordance with the circumstances of time and place.

According to Ma’ariv (May 11, 2004), Advocate Shlomo Cohen, head of the Israeli Bar Association, stated that the punishment against the refuseniks was totally unacceptable since the legal basis for the blanket deferment of religious yeshiva students was still vague.

The IDF Chief Judge Advocate, General Menakhem Finklestein was on hand to vigorously disagree: “Violation of the law in a democratic society is immoral, in and of itself. If we accept that morals permit non-compliance with the law – this would entail enormous jeopardy …what we have experienced recently is not a question of individual conscience but a matter of civil revolt.” (Ha’aretz, May 11, 2004).

Mazuz’s comments and the response by the military reflect differences of opinion among high ranking government legal circles over the IDF policy. The IDF has initiated a get tough campaign resulting in the victimization of five leading refuseniks currently in prison, Haggai Matar, Noam Bahat, Shimri Tsameret, Adam Maor and Matan Kaminer - in order to fight the growing influence of the draft resistance movement. It appears that there is an intense, ongoing discussion in government circles regarding the legality and the wisdom of the draconic sentences against the five, now serving their second year in prison. We will have occasion to return to the Mazuz statements and other aspects of this issue. However, at this point, we can state conclusively that the IDF initiated a change of policy in the spring of 2003 designed to deter draft resisters by putting them on trial – and prosecuting them – in practice if not formally - for ‘fomenting a civil revolt.’ The formal charge of ‘refusing to obey an order’ was no more than a ruse to get an easy conviction.

The Lack of Proportionality

Many liberal circles in the country are concerned over the punishment being inflicted on the five (and their families). The very same day that the Mazuz story was front page news in the country, thirty professors and teachers of law at Israeli universities issued a statement directed to the Attorney General, Mazuz, Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya’alon,the Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz and the Minister of Justice, Yosef Lapid declaring that “we the undersigned, who have different opinions regarding the various types of ‘refusal’ (”sarbanut”) hereby express our opposition to the sentence issued by the IDF Military Court against Haggai Matar, Matan Kaminer, Shimri Tsameret, Adam Maor and Noam Bahat. The signers noted that the court did not question the sincerity of the five and characterized the sentence as unduly harsh, and particularly unfair considering the expressed readiness of the five to do various forms of community service and concluded with the call for the immediate release of the five. Among the signatories: Professors Gad Barzalai, Miri Gur Aryeh, Haim Ganz, Alon Harel, Meir Teichman, Uriel Procaccia, Francis Radai, David Enoch and others. The ad was published in Ha’aretz, May 11, 2004.

The Next Step: the Battle for Parole

It is customary for prisoners held by the IDF to be considered for parole after one half or two thirds of the sentence. Last January, the IDF had the five transferred to two separate civilian prisons because keeping them in a military prison would ‘constitute a security threat.’ However, the IDF is still in charge of the five. It will be rather difficult for the authorities to deny the fact that the five are model prisoners who deserve parole for the simple reason that the five have all devoted, on a voluntary basis, a lot of time and effort to act as teachers and educators for other prisoners. This has included teaching Hebrew to illiterates, teaching music and a class in guitar, and responsibility for extending assistance to young prisoners with difficult personal problems. However, it is to be feared that the IDF will try and continue its campaign of vilification and defamation and insist on denying parole to the five because of the ‘terrible nature of the crime’ they have committed – the fact that they said no to the occupation and refused to be a part of it.!!

It is, of course, particularly important to intensify the campaign for the release of the five towards the meeting of the parole committee on June 15, 2004. The refusal to extend parole to the five would be justly considered as an additional act of flagrant discrimination and judicial persecution.

It is our duty to inform our readers that parole, if and when achieved does not end the struggle. The IDF prosecution has publicly announced that it will insist on the remobilization of the five after they serve out their sentence. It has become a major aim of the Israeli military bureaucracy to break the spirit of these young men and it is the responsibility of defenders of human rights, partisans of peace and genuine friends of a different and better Israel to make every effort to prevent this from happening. The five, the Parents’ Forum and its allies in Israel and around the world are determined to do everything in their power to free the five!

Fatuous Credulity in DC

A cold chill goes down our spine when we are forced, in the absence of any other rational explanation, to realize that George Bush and most of his advisors actually and really believe their own anti-terrorist rhetoric. There can be no other explanation for Bush’s blatant political stupidity in complying with Sharon’s request for a major shift in United States official policy in exchange for the Gaza evacuation plan.

Faced with a major crisis of U.S. policy in Iraq and all over the Arab world, growingly isolated among the very strata and sectors of the Arab world that he presumably is trying to win over, George Bush has crudely affronted the sensitivities of any who care in the least about the suffering of the Palestinian people and about the chances for peace in the region. Anyone with a minimum of knowledge of the area could have told him that this is about the worst possible thing that he could have done at this time. Have all the advisors finally and irrevocably learned the lesson that the boss must be told only things that he wants to hear? Bush allows himself to be so ill-advised, because the issues are so clear and simple to him. It is after all a simple question of who are the terrorists, who is really fighting them and who isn’t really doing the job. It is just one more example of the Bushites in power believing what they want to believe.

Let’s try and look into their head. The terrorists are Palestinians. Sharon is very experienced in the fight against terror. Sharon is our point man because we are fighting terror and need all the help we can get. Arafat may not be exactly a terrorist, but he doesn’t really help us against terror. Sharon has requested this from him again and again and he simply doesn’t deliver. Sharon must be rewarded for his courage in fighting terror and this will cause others to emulate him. Clear?

As a rule, one should be able to take comfort when our Bushite opponents act like total imbeciles. Sooner than later, people who make policy without any basis in reality are going to suffer reverses and get into big trouble. This has and is happening to the United States under the leadership of George Bush.

So why is this all so scary? Because the United States enjoys an unchallenged monopoly of brute force in international relations and it will tend to compensate itself for inevitable reverses by the use of more and more disproportional force. By its policy of repeating its diktat to all parties to either join its anti-terrorist coalition or suffer the consequences, the United States achieves the exact opposite. Bush’s policies swell the ranks of the real terrorists, augment their prestige and improve their standing in their own communities. It might be a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that this is the intended result of Bush’s policy. However, one thing is sure: Bush and his administration will continue to point to increased terrorist activity and influence, which stem from their very own policies, as conclusive proof of the correctness of their policy, in the first place.

Not only Sharon is hard at work. Israel’s Chief-of-Staff sent along this bit of wisdom last week. “The Chief-in-Command, MosheYa’alon, still thinks that it will be a surprise if weapons of mass destruction will not be found in Iraq. – Ha’aretz, April 11, 2004 p.3). Does he know something that we don’t? We, on our part, think that it will be a surprise if the increased reports of Israeli presence in Iraq will not be found absolutely reliable.