My boo boo. Meant for another list, leftist_trainspotters at yahoogroups.com
My eyes are 20/400 and to get the computer monitor closer, I'd have to buy an extension cord. Why do that when I can buy another book!
Was hoping no one would notice this reply to another list!
Re: Mods vs. Rockers
To: Rawktrivia
Q" Are You a Mod or a Rocker, Ringo?
A: I'm a Mocker! M.P., last post for the day, so I'll kick out the jams this way...
According to Tuesday's WSJ, a brother of Khalil Shikaki, was a founder of Islamic Jihad. M.P. Palestinian intellectuals feeling pressured to toe the line Pollster's results on 'right of return' make him a target Matthew Kalman, Chronicle Foreign Service Friday, July 18, 2003 ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/ 2003/07/18/MN255429.DTL Ramallah, West Bank -- The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is usually a quiet place dedicated to academic analysis and learned discussion, but a riot broke out at the sleepy think tank this week. A furious mob smashed glass and furniture, trashed potted plants and pelted the center's director, Khalil Shikaki, with eggs on Sunday. His crime? Publishing the results of an opinion poll of Palestinian refugees that suggested only 10 percent of them would exercise the long- sought "right of return" to their former homes in what is now Israel if that right were granted. Shikaki was only the latest Palestinian intellectual to learn that deviating from the Palestinian Authority's political line can be dangerous. His findings seem to fly in the face of accepted Palestinian policy that the right of return for some 4 million refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip be a touchstone of any Middle East peace settlement. A leaflet distributed by the protesters accused the Columbia University- educated Shikaki of "selling himself to the U.S. dollar" and "deviating from the consensus of the Palestinian people." The leaflet also mentioned another prominent Palestinian who has dared to question the idea of the right of return -- Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem. Years ago, Nusseibeh was beaten up at Bir Zeit University for promoting dialogue with Israelis. Last year, he was dismissed as the PLO's representative in Jerusalem after he publicly questioned whether demanding the right of return was either logical or feasible. The leaflet distributed in Ramallah on Sunday recalled how Nusseibeh was denied entry to the campus of Al-Najah University in Nablus two months ago and prevented from discussing a new Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative. "We warn anyone who considers harming the national rights that their fate will be similar to that of Shikaki and Nusseibeh," said a statement by the group that organized the egg-throwing, the Committee for the Defense of Palestinian Refugees' Rights. "They will be ostracized and put on popular trial," the statement continued. "The committee salutes the masses who care about their rights and who do not allow mercenary academics to spread their poison among our people. "The committee calls on the Palestinian prime minister not to be lenient on such people and to take a clear position opposing their activities and to put them on trial for high treason." Palestinian police stood by as the Nablus-based group, which is believed to be affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction, disrupted Shikaki's press conference. Group members then sauntered over to Arafat's headquarters, where they were received warmly. Analysts say an atmosphere of intimidation stifles free debate about vital issues facing Palestinian society. They say the pressure comes not just from popular committees but also directly from the Palestinian Authority government. Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has not commented on the Shikaki incident. "People are often very cautious about expressing their political views, especially with regard to the government and sensitive issues," said Khaled Abu Toameh, an ex-PLO employee who is now an independent reporter and analyst. "Some writers and journalists have been punished by the Palestinian Authority for simply expressing their views. In one case, a group of intellectuals was imprisoned or beaten up by Palestinian Authority thugs for signing a petition calling for reforms." Abu Toameh added: "There has been a slight improvement in recent years with more people speaking out openly in favor of reforms and against corruption, but you always have the feeling that you're being watched. "It's not as bad as Syria or Saddam's Iraq, but it can be frightening. Palestinian journalists know that you don't mess around with sacred cows." Perhaps for this reason, there aren't many independent Palestinian analysts like Shikaki. While there is some freedom of expression in academic circles, the media practices widespread self-censorship. Israel maintains military censorship on security-related stories, and police will often obtain a court order gagging reporting on unfolding investigations. But there is notable freedom of political, anti- government and even anti-military comment in the Israeli media. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, pressure from above tends to dictate the content of Palestinian media -- and even of international news agencies. The most blatant example in recent years was on the night of Sept. 11, 2001, when thousands of joyful, cheering Palestinians took to the streets of Nablus and other West Bank towns to celebrate the attacks on New York and Washington. Footage of the embarrassing street party was suppressed by senior Palestinian Authority officials, who telephoned the local bureau chiefs of the international news agencies and threatened physical harm to their camera crews if the film was shown. The Associated Press and the Foreign Press Association protested the intimidation, but the footage stayed on the shelf. Several years ago, Hafez Barghouti, editor of the Palestinian Authority- owned daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, straightforwardly told a seminar of media students at Bethlehem University, "At this point in our national development, it is not always appropriate to publish everything. As editor, part of my job is to censor the material I feel does not contribute to the immediate task of building the Palestinian nation." Abu Toameh observed, "I am often criticized, even by Palestinian journalist colleagues, for exposing embarrassing truths which they feel are best kept away from public gaze. They don't attack me for publishing stories because they are untrue, because they can't." Shikaki, for his part, has taken Sunday's incident in stride. "I do believe that the word of the overwhelming majority of the refugees that we have interviewed is indeed much, much stronger than the views of a small number of rioters who attacked the center," he told National Public Radio. "I really don't give those people a great deal of weight." ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback GUSH SHALOM pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 www.gush-shalom.org We thought you should not miss Yehudit Harel's comments to a new poll by Khalil Shikaki. The subject of the poll: who would actually return. ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:35:50 +0200 From: Yehudith Harel Subject: Fw: About The Right of Return Ramat Ha Sharon, 14.7.2003 The need to recognize the Right of Return as the basis for any possible compromise ---------------------------- Yehudith Harel It is very important to have an authoritative poll on this very sensitive subject of the ROR, done by an expert with impeccable professional authority like Khalil Shikaki, the findings however are not surprising. The results presented in this recent poll, reported by James Bennet in the IHT and NYT, 'match' with my little private 'research' results based on a private visit to three refugee camps in Jordan in 1996. They match with the contents of many discussions I have had since then with other Palestinians, refugees living in the West Bank or abroad. I went to Jordan in 1996 together with a colleague from the Israeli Peace movement in order to try to create contacts with Jordanian Peace groups, and we were offered an opportunity to be taken into the refugee camps. We were accompanied by a PLO official who arranged our visit in the camps. We did not say that we were Israelis - our host told the people that we were European journalists. We had the privilege and the opportunity to visit and talk to people in three camps - Wihdat, Yarmouch and Abdoun (yes, near the millionaires' residence in Amman there's also a refugee camp with the same name. ) We talked to about 30 people in the camps and to another group of refugees who were living out of the camps in Amman and Irbid. Altogether we talked to more or less 40 - 50 people. The majority of the people said that despite of their dreams and attachment to Palestine, they do not intend to go back to Israel because of many reasons. Among the reasons listed were the fact that their houses and villages exist no more and that Israel is a racist country where they are not welcome, and that they don't wish to become second class citizens in a racist society. Some said that they realized that their return will never be permitted by Israel and they want to get their life settled with the help of the compensation. Some older people said that they want to get the compensation so that they can see their children comfortably settled in their lifetime. Nevertheless, everybody - absolutely everybody - said that they demanded a direct and straightforward recognition of their right of return and to be given the right of free choice to refuse to return... They insisted that they demand the right to refuse repatriation, and would never ever accept to be 'told' by Israel that they cannot return. Such a recognition of their right, being given the right to refuse to return, would give back their honor, would prove that they have been wronged. Only after that can they accept compensation for their wasted life, for their suffering and misery and the loss of their property. When asked about their preferred choice - where would they like to settle - only a few said that they are ready to come back and become Israeli citizens and settle wherever it would be possible for them within the green line. The majority said they would like to stay where they are - in Jordan, some said they would like to move to the Free Palestinian State or elsewhere. However, the unanimous and adamant demand of recognizing their rights came out so forcefully. It was then and there that I understood what it really meant for the Palestinians, and that without this recognition there will never ever be any resolution of the conflict. Our people here do not understand the psychological and historical importance attributed by the Palestinians to the recognition of the Right of Return. There are many meanings attached to this recognition, but the most important one is that this recognition will re- institute them as legitimate owners and equal partners in this land and it will mean that the compensation they get is their right and not a charity 'granted' to them by us because of our 'generosity and good will'. They cannot and will not accept compensation as charity on a humanitarian basis. They can and will not allow their just cause to be reduced to a 'humanitarian case' solved out of generosity by Israel and the International community. Only formal recognition of their rights can make the difference. It's also a kind of 'settling the account" with the Zionist movement and the 55 years long abuse of their 'name', the destruction of their society and herritage, the abuse of their rights, their suffering, the rewriting of history by us and dominating the International discourse in this respect. Israelis refuse to recognize the ROR exactly because they are not ready to admit that we have historically wronged the Palestinians. Our people are not ready to assume our share of historical responsibility for this tragedy. While denying and negating this RIGHT and claiming that it does not exist, Israelis are protecting the hegemonic status and the self-righteous and self-declared, moral superiority of the Zionist movement over the moral and historical rights of the indigenous people of this country. Such an approach cannot open the way for reconciliation. To put the matter in very clear terms: The recognition of the ROR by Israel is not about the actual ROR, as it has been clearly shown in the Shikaki research, but about settling a historical account between the Palestinian and Jewish National Movements... Therefore it is the key to the door of reconciliation between the two peoples. I spent the weekend in Ramallah and had the opportunity to meet another "new commer" 48' refugee family. They are first and second generation refugees from Jaffa - and PLO staff. The man was born in Jaffa and was expelled with his family when he was a little boy. She was born one year after the Nakba and grew up in Jordan until they were expelled in Black September. Then her family moved to Beirut, where she became a student and PLO activist. She got married in Beirut and had two small babies when they were expelled again with the PLO in 1982. Her new family was once again uprooted and separated. Her husband was sent to Yemen while she left to Cyprus. Later her husband was assigned to the Emirates where she joined him with her children. In 1991, after the Gulf war they were expelled from the Emirates and her husband was sent back to Tunis. In 1994 he came back with the PLO but she and the children were not on 'the list' - were not given permits so they moved to Amman...Only in 1996 did she manage to get permits for herself and her two children to reunite with her husband in Ramallah. Now they live in Ramallah - work for the PA and move around from one rented flat to another - paying high rents in USD - because the local landlords abuse the "aedin" ( the 'new' returnees) and demand the rent in USD... Despite of the fact that they have property in Jaffa they cannot afford to buy a flat in Ramallah... I have befriended several such families - and it's a typical story. Until I met such people I never really understood what it was to be a refugee and how the Lebanon war of 1982 and the Gulf war in 1991 really affected their families and lives and created a re- enactment of the painful experience of the Nakba of 48' - another uprooting, another exile and separation of families time after time. I also noticed that all of these people live in rented flats, sometimes in a newly built condo, but more often in a kind of a "semi basement" flat: The well off people of Ramallah, the lucky house owners 'close' the area below their home (underneath the typical 'columns' of the house) to make a big flat which is usually very dark - and rent it out to the 'aedin' ( the 'returnees') for a lot of money... This woman was just telling me how she disliked this flat because it was so dark... I stayed overnight with another 'returnee' family - slept in their flat which was of the same type. Indeed, this sense of depressing darkness was the first impression I got when I entered their home. No sunshine entered the big rooms under the columns. However, my hosts - the 'returnee' refugee family - cherish their home, which is the first real home they have ever had since their expulsion from Beirut....I imagine that one day someone may write a story or make a film about these flats. Apropos films: Friday night I went to see a new Palestinian film in the Ramallah cinemateq. It was the gala of a new Palestinian movie about the struggle for the land and against the settlements - "Maussem al Zeitoun" - the Season of the Olives - by Elias Hanna. The main theme was the olive trees versus the settlements, with much more to it. It was a lovely evening - people seeking a moment of normalcy and mental sanity in the midst of a cruel reality of occupation, insecurity and daily humiliation. I am going to see this movie again, here in the TA cinemateq tomorrow,Tusday at 17:30. It will be interesting to compare the atmosphere and the discussion in these two places...Ramallah versus TA. PS - recommended..:-) Yehudith
-- Michael Pugliese