talks between the highest ranks of Israeli and Palestinians
have been resumed, applauded by the Zionist Left as an ultimate
evidence that even warrior Sharon had "chosen the way
of peace." This applause is all too familiar from the
first days of Netanyahu – he too "surprised the Left"
by "going the Oslo way" – but this time it is facilitated
by Shimon Peres as Foreign Minister (who was overheard whispering
to Sharon, "I’ll repeat whatever you say"). It is
interesting to observe the terminology used for the renewal
of talks on each side.
has conveniently divided the give-and-take with the Palestinians
into a ‘give’ and a ‘take’. The ‘give’ is termed "political
negotiations" and involves further Israeli redeployments
agreed upon in previous accords but never implemented, negotiations
about future retreats, about the final status, about water,
borders etc. – in short, about ending the Occupation.
‘take’ is termed "security talks" and aims, according
to the official phrasing, at "reducing the level of violence."
But remember that "violence" (a.k.a. "terror")
in newspeak simply means "Palestinian resistance to the
occupation"; by definition, there is no Israeli violence.
Therefore, "security talks" actually mean harnessing
the Palestinian Authority to suppress resistance to the occupation.
On the ground, this means informing Israel about "wanted
terrorists," or putting them in prison, or simply killing
them, or even releasing them out of prison so that Israel
can assassinate them, and other dirty jobs of this kind. All
this is performed with the generous assistance and professional
supervision of the CIA, whose representatives participate
in each and every "security talk."
Israel has no interest at the ‘give’ and every interest at
the ‘take’. This is what Sharon is saying when he is saying
that "as long as the violence persists, Israel will hold
only security talks, no political negotiations."
Palestinian Authority has just the opposite interests. It
does not wish to expose its role in the so-called "security
talks"; or, in plain words, it does not wish to expose
its collaboration with Israel in suppressing resistance to
the occupation. The Palestinian Authority therefore tries
to present the "security talks" as if they were
"political negotiations" that could harvest the
crop of the Intifada.
version should we believe? The Israeli version of "security
talks," or the Palestinian version of "political
negotiations"? I think we can rely on the CIA. Its participation
in the talks has not been kept secret.
Palestinian people seem to see rather clearly through this
American-sponsored ideological bulwark. In a demonstration
in Gaza shown on Israeli television a couple of days ago,
Palestinian demonstrators burned an unidentified object with
the words "security coordination" written on it
in Arabic. So the Palestinians know what "security coordination"
means for them; they can tell truth from newspeak. Israelis,
as is probably clear by now, cannot. The blinding "cohesion"
embraces the entire political system and mainstream media,
and thus almost the entire population. Israelis project on
the Palestinians their own misunderstanding of what is going
on: "What logic can there be in the decision Arafat took
to launch the Al Aqsa Intifada, which looks, to this very
day, like an uprising in search of a cause?", Yoel
Marcus wonders is his above-mentioned column. Indeed,
from the ideological Israeli point of view the Intifada is
irrational: if "violence" persists, Israel will
not end the occupation because it cannot "reward aggression."
But this ideological blindness obscures the fact, known to
each and every Palestinian, that once the "violence"
does cease, Israel would have even less reason to leave the
crushed occupied territories.
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Contributions are now Tax-Deductible