Showing posts with label Al-Tahrir party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al-Tahrir party. Show all posts

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Hizb ut-Tahrir in Syria: The Regime Will Cede to the Islamic Caliphate

A rebel, member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), waits at one of their bases in the town of Sarmada, in northwestern Syria, on 16 April 2012. (Photo: AFP - STR)

Published Thursday, May 3, 2012

In Hizb ut-Tahrir’s (Party of Liberation) opinion, the Syrian regime is certainly going to fall and the opposition is an agent of the West, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. They assert that an Islamic state should be established in Syria while foreign military intervention only serves the enemies of Islam.

“The Islamic Caliphate state can not be conceived of without [Greater] Syria. It has what no other spot
on earth has in terms of honor, esteem, and status after Mecca and Medina.” This is the Syria of the Hizb ut-Tahrir.

“Its revolution is distinctly Islamic. It is the cornerstone and the center of gravity in every equation,” said Hisham al-Baba, a member of the Central Media Committee in Hizb ut-Tahrir, in his Damascene accent in Tripoli.

Baba came to give a speech at the conference organized by the party Tuesday entitled “The Ummah’s Revolution: the Project to Abort it and the Inevitability of the Islamic Project.”

“The Ummah [the Islamic nation] has been utterly mistreated and the Syrian people are no exception,” says Baba.

Syria (Greater Syria), according to Hizb ut-Tahrir, includes modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Cyprus, and the Sinai.

Baba tells Al-Akhbar how Hizb ut-Tahrir has been pursued in Syria since the mid-20th century and subjected to attempts to disband it. The Baath Party and the Syrian state tried to strike down even the idea of the party existing.
 

Hizb ut-Tahrir does not recognize regimes that govern Muslims outside the rule of Shariah. Baba does not accept the regimes that claim to be Islamic but combine Islam with Western ideas.

“Islam can not be fulfilled except in strict compliance. It can not be mixed with other ideas because it stops being Islam. There is no solution except the Islamic Caliphate state, which will bring about justice,” says Baba.

Their story with the Syrian regime is an old one. In the 1980s when the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the state was at its height, the role of Hizb ut-Tahrir was not insignificant. They too participated in the movement and were pursued by the state and arrested.

Baba, a calm man in his 40s, explains how “the people were deceived when the Syrian uprising broke out in Houran.” One year after the uprising, he believes that “people are convinced that the struggle is ideological and that they are waging a war on the revolution because it raises the banner of Islam.”
According to Baba, Hizb ut-Tahrir has “a strong presence in the revolution and that is evident in the Islamic banners, slogans, and chants. And our youth are present with their ideas, their activities, and their patience in all the Syrian provinces.”

Baba criticizes the Arab and Western media for ignoring the presence of Hizb ut-Tahrir and hiding its role. Just as “the revolution’s coordinating committees in the beginning of the events tried to exclude members of the party.” We were patient and persisted, “but we did not give up.”

The party is convinced that the people’s choice is Islam. “Time has proven that secularists, communists, and other adherents of secular thought have no popularity in Syrian public opinion. The beat of the street is Islamist,” he says.

Baba criticizes all the parties within the Syrian opposition. “The people are sick of the whole opposition, they have no one but God.”
The latest announcement by the MB stated that they would accept a civil state. This came as a huge disappointment to the leadership of Hizb ut-Tahrir and its supporters. “This position aims to appease and reassure the West that there will not be an Islamic state. It is as if they are providing credentials to the infidels.”
 

It is not a secret that flirtation between the MB and the West, specifically Britain, is old. “We thought the brotherhood changed.”

What is perhaps stranger from Hizb ut-Tahrir’s point of view is the position of Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, the former leader of the MB in Syria, who reassured “the monstrous entity, the Jews’ entity, that the change of regime will not constitute a danger to them.”

Baba is not worried however because “the youth of the MB side with Hizb ut-Tahrir’s point of view and they will not follow their leaders for long because they began to give concessions early on, even before the battle began.”

The relationship with the Syrian National Council (SNC) is one of “exposing and disclosing lies.” In Hizb ut-Tahrir’s opinion, the SNC is subordinate to Western powers and gets instructions from “[Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s Turkey. How do we build a relationship with them and they do not represent anything in the street and are under the authority of infidels?” There are those in the SNC who say secretly that “they might have to engage in a dialogue with the regime [at some point] in the future. They want to engage in a dialogue with killers!”

Qatar and Saudi Arabia do not escape the party’s antagonism. Baba says that “both regimes, the Saudi and the Qatari, are not different from the Syrian regime, they compete with it in terms of killing. The two countries are tools of the Western colonialist project and respond to US, English, and French orders.”
What comes after the Syrian regime then? The leadership of Hizb ut-Tahrir seems certain that the regime will fall and an Islamic Caliphate state will emerge. Baba believes that the regime has lost its power. “Its extreme violence and the use of military power are nothing but an announcement of the end.” The party was not surprised by the degree of violence, “but by the high spirits of the people and the mujahedeen.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir “is not a religious party but a political party and the caliphate system is a political system,” Baba adds. “This system has restrictions that can not be violated whereas the democratic system has no restrictions.” Here, there is “hala and haram,” what is religiously permitted and what is religiously banned and that’s it.

Baba believes that the solution to the sectarian and confessional conflicts in Syria is the caliphate system, where there is no difference between Muslims – Sunni and Shias.

“It is good for Muslims and non-Muslims,” he says. Non-Muslims “like Christians, Alawites, and Druze are the people of dhimma (non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim state) except for the Alawites who converted to Islam. And who says the people of dhimma are going to be treated differently from Muslims?”

The party distinguishes between Shias and their political leadership. Baba views Hezbollah from the Syrian prism. The question of resistance does not change his mind. “Hezbollah supports the oppressor against the oppressed.”
 

Baba stresses that the party is opposed to foreign military intervention because it serves the enemies of Islam and “puts in place a regime worse than the current one.”

The party is also opposed to drowning Syria in weapons “except for self-defense and defending the people,” Baba said declaring his party’s support for “the Free Syrian Army.”

When asked about the international observers Baba says they are the regime’s lifeline and “we should not rely on the idea.”

There, on a large screen at the conference was the imam of al-Omary Mosque in Daraa, Sheikh Ahmad al-Sayasneh, giving his message to the conference attendees and attacking Shias, Hezbollah, and Iran.
Baba remains silent for a second before he says, “This is his opinion and position.”

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Sunday, 19 February 2012

"The affinity of interests between al-Qaeda & the West extends far beyond Syria!"

"Via FLC


"...Think about it. Ten years ago, in the wake of the destruction of the Twin Towers, we invaded Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda. Now the world’s most notorious terror organisation wants to join a new “coalition of the willing” in Syria (not just al-Qaeda: yesterday the Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir staged a march through west London in support of their Syrian brothers and the establishment of the Khilafah state).
 
This may be the most profound turnaround in global politics since the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 converted Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany from bitter enemies into allies – and it is important to understand that the affinity of interests between al-Qaeda and the West extends far beyond Syria. Britain, the United States and al-Qaeda also have a deep, structural hostility to President Assad’s biggest sponsor, Iran....
This deeply reactionary Saudi monarchy remains Britain and America’s closest ally in the Middle East. As the Arab Spring has unfolded, we have encouraged the Saudis to develop a makeshift alliance that embraces Qatar, Jordan, the Israelis, al-Qaeda and, it would seem, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have very strong historical reasons for wishing to dislodge the Assad regime,...
 
All members of this alliance would agree that they want the Shiite-Allawi regime in Syria to be replaced by some form of majority Sunni rule. Britain and America hope this would be democratic; doubtless al-Qaeda and its Saudi allies have something else in mind....
 
The situation could hardly be more dangerous or more complex. Yet, in recent public pronouncements David Cameron has repeatedly spoken of the conflict in Syria as a struggle between an illegal and autocratic regime at war with what he likes to call “the people”. Either he is poorly briefed, or he is coming dangerously close to a calculated deception of the British public. For the situation is far more complicated than he has admitted. It is far from obvious, for example, even that a majority of Syrians are opposed to the Assad regime. Russia calculates that perhaps two thirds of Syrians are still broadly supportive, and it is worth recalling that Russia was a more accurate source of information in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq than either Britain or the US.
 
Foreign policy is perhaps the area where David Cameron’s Government has copied New Labour most closely. Mr Cameron shares much of Tony Blair’s slavish adherence to American foreign policy aims, especially in the Middle East. Like Mr Blair, he wilfully simplifies intractable foreign policy decisions and has shown a fondness for overseas adventures. In Syria, British rhetoric may raise expectations among the opposition which we can never satisfy.
 
Meanwhile, in Libya there are menacing signs that last year’s Anglo-French intervention is starting to go wrong. The toppling of the Gaddafi regime has not brought an end to the killing. If anything, the fighting appears to be getting worse, ..."
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

Pro and Anti-Assad Demos in North Lebanon Banned

Lebanese authorities on Wednesday banned rallies for or against Syria's ruling regime.

"We have decided not to approve any requests for demonstrations as they fail to meet legal conditions," the north Lebanon branch of the national security council, grouping security bodies and local governors, said in a statement.

The council urged all parties to keep Syria-linked rallies off the streets and limited to "unlocked halls or arenas in coordination with security forces and military in order to preserve the civil peace in Tripoli and the north."

Pan-Islamic group Hezb Ut-Tahrir has called for a rally after Friday prayers in Tripoli to protest against President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Sixteen members of the party were arrested earlier this week for posting leaflets calling for protests. "The local branch of the security council has informed us that our gathering this Friday should take place inside an assembly hall and not in the street," Hezb Ut-Tahrir's Lebanon spokesman Ahmad Kasas told AFP on Wednesday.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Saturday, 5 February 2011

As Tahrir Square Goes, So Goes the Middle East?

As Tahrir Square Goes, So Goes the Middle East?
04/02/2011 Franklin Lamb
It is difficult to overstate the potential for Egyptian citizens advancing universal aspirations for freedom, dignity and basic human rights now spreading from the determination of those who for more than a week have risked their lives while inspiring much of the World at Cairo’s Tahrir (“Liberation”) Square. Tahrir public plaza near central Cairo has been the traditional site for numerous major protests and demonstrations over the years, including during the 1977 Egyptian Bread Riots and the March 2003 protests against the American war in Iraq.

Washington DC and Tel Aviv are reportedly shocked by the rapidly unfolding and unpredictable revolution.

One can quickly recall a long list of geographic place names that are indelibly etched in the annals of humanity’s quest for freedom and whose very geographical place name connotes resistance to aggression, oppression, occupation and tyranny. Names like Le Place de la Resistance, Tiananmen Square, the Gdansk Shipyards, Bunker Hill, Iran’s Azadi Square, Bogside, Martyr’s Square, Karbala, Aita Shaab, among scores of others. Tahrir Square has become a name symbolizing every people’s willingness, indeed insistence, to make personal, potentially life taking sacrifices to achieve freedom from an illegitimate, corrupt, brutal, treasonous dictatorship or from occupiers or aggressors.

Less than one week after few outside Egypt had heard of, or much less could locate on a blank map of Cairo, “Tahrir Square” the World now realizes it as the epicenter of the Middle East’s unfolding and unpredictable earthquake event.

The Tahrir Square uprising has led to one Arab diplomat, currently posted to Beirut, observing yesterday: “If there were to be an Arab League meeting this week attended by all the Arab Heads to State, an honest participate might tell the assembled potentates to look to their right and then look to their left and realize that in perhaps 24 months close one third may not be attending subsequent Arab League summits.

The Tahrir uprising may, following a cursory examination, appear unconnected with much outside the Egyptian public's urgent longings to escape poverty, unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, caused by decades of regime economic mismanagement, police brutality and government torture chambers, and pervasive corruption that has seeped into nearly every aspect of Egyptian life. But increasingly it appears that other forces are influencing recent events, noted below.

The eyes, hope and solidarity of much of the Middle East are on Tahrir Square and the bloodied but unbowed Egyptian people, who, old and young, religious and secular, illiterates and lettered, paupers and moneyed all of whom today, following upon the glow of a spontaneous intifada in the cradle of civilization stand to win or lose so much for the region.

As the Mubarak regime plots a path for the beleaguered President to stay in power it is employing the well tested bromide of most despots including citing the need for stability, orderly transition, prevention of religious fanatics and extremists from taking over and the need for fighting “terrorism.” The pro-Mubarak Egyptian daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabah is claiming that Hamas is behind much of the instigation to violence in Tahriri Square and other areas of the country.

Not buying all of these scare tactics, the Obama Administration’s is reviving up its “now means three days ago and counting” demands. Mr. Mubarak told CNN on 2/3/11 that he’s fed up and would like nothing better than to step down, but chaos and the Muslim Brotherhood would surely follow. His closest political confident and just appointed Vice-President Omar Suleiman also predicted chaos if Mr. Mubarak resigned, saying it would leave a body without a head.

The White House is still leaning toward Omar Suleiman but believes that Suleiman was aware of the campaign in recent days to intimidate the opposition, and are staffers are wondering whether he is still an acceptable choice.
Late word from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the Obama Administration may support Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who has joined anti-Mubarak protests in Tahrir Square, and is hinting he may run for president in the upcoming election. Israel would support him over Mohammad al Baradei who many view as pro-Iranian.

Still, the Mubarak regime is not without supporters. Former Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer has defended Egyptian President Hosni Mubrak, saying his collapse will be a “tremendous loss” for Israel. The former army general praised Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for supporting Israel for thirty years, Israel's Arutz Sheva newspaper reported. “When I watched his speech in which he said he would step down, it pained me to see his collapse," Ben-Eliezer said on 2/2/11 about Mubarak.

Both Washington and Tel Aviv were reported shocked by the speed of the Egyptian revolt and their intelligences agencies admit not seeing it coming. Much of the American reaction is being scripted by AIPAC and other Israel lobby agents who regularly contribute campaign cash to 90 percent of the US Congress, including 390 of the 435 Members of the House of Representative (89.7%) who voted to support Israel after it committed repeatedly condemned serial murders of innocent civilians and myriad crimes against humanity in Gaza. These Israeli pushed “American” initiatives will likely range from possibly terminating aid to Lebanon (some Obama Administration friends of Israel claim there is a link between the South Beirut Hezbollah neighborhood of Dahiyeh and Cairo’s Tahir Square events) and cutting off Egypt nearly 30 years of annual multi-billion dollar cash grants as well as massive military hardware.

The US-Israel imperative appears designed to immediately regain control and co-opt the Tahrir uprising and quickly channel the uprising into a political cul de sac until Egypt can be returned to “normal”, meaning US-Israel shared hegemony.

What will ultimately determine in which ways the Middle East moves following Tahrir Square events is not the armed might of the regional super power or the weapons of the global superpower. Both Israel and the US can have a short term impact but the former is shaking while the latter, equally impotent to subdue 83 million Egyptians and perhaps soon millions of Palestinians, Jordanians, Yemenis and others, are trying to stall any major regime change in favor of cosmetic adjustments to the current government.

Even the Obama Administrations current public choice, Omar Sulieman is meeting with increasing resistance in Washington as details of his CV emerged including being a torture specialist and possibly a Mossad agent.

What both Israel and the US fear most is a determined and successful grass roots movement than will liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation.

The Obama administration can be expected to continue to temporize events as best it can while calculating how to insert its choice of a compliant President in Mubarak’s palace. As one Congressional commented by email: “The last thing the White House or Israel want is an Egyptian Chavez, or even someone like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Completely unacceptable would be anyone with even the hint of pro-Iranian or Hezbollah leanings. The State Department favors another strong man, with an essentially rubber stamp Parliament after “free elections” (as long as there are no troublesome Algerian, Gaza, or Lebanon style election results. The US-Israel bottom line is that Egypt’s next government must be one that will guarantee that the 1979 Camp David Accords and Egypt’s willingness to continue accepting a total of more than three billions in US taxpayer dollars annually as bribe money to collaborate with Israel against Palestine.)

History is filled with ironies. One of them is the coincidence that two of the fundamental causes of the unfolding Egyptian revolution happened within months of each other both 30 years ago— soon to be followed by the beginning of the current Mubarak dictatorship---the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the US sponsored Camp David Accords. The Camp David giveaway and cave-in to colonialist Israel was never accepted by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic Republic, or by any but a small percentage of the people of the Middle East.

The hegemonic objectives of the 1979 Camp David have rolled across the region for three decades, being rejected and increasingly confronted by a growing culture of Resistance set in motion with the 1979 Imam Khomeini led revolution. Both 1979 events fueled myriad other more immediate causes including those noted above and significantly inspired the current Egyptian eruptions, some of the paths of which are predictable while the results are unknown.

There are many other Tahrir Squares in the Middle East.

One of which is Al Aksa square in Jerusalem, the eternal and indivisible capital of Palestine. It remains to be seen when or if Palestinians will revive Jerusalem as a modern day resistance place name and whether like Tahrir Square, Egypt, Jerusalem will rise up in support of increasing cries for Palestinian liberation as the inspiration and revolution of their neighbors in Tahrir Square spreads.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Sunday, 22 August 2010

Mazin Qumsiyeh: Viva, Viva Negotiations!‏

Every Palestinian must read

Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD

A Bedouin in Cyberspace, a villager at home
http://www.qumsiyeh.org/
Professor, Bethlehem and Birzeit Universities
Chairman of the Board, Palestinian Center for Rapprochement Between People,
http://www.pcr.ps/

Al-Walaja 20 August 2010



Returning from the Friday demonstration in Al-Walaja in unbearable heat we note that the talks about the talks about the peace talks are to resume in Washington September 2nd.

The Obama administration decided not to spend any political capital challenging the Israeli lobby. In fact the US politicians want to blunt Republican criticism ahead of midterm elections by chalking out a diplomatic “success” in form if not in substance.

Direct talks will lead to more erosion of Palestinian rights especially when conducted in Israeli-occupied Washington between Abbas whose mandate as president of the Palestinian bantustan in the West Bank expired last January and Mr. Netanyahu, a known terrorist and war criminal leading the most extreme right-wing government inthe history of the apartheid state of Israel.

I believe most Palestinians (Abbas included) are neither optimistic nor pleased about this development. But few of us believe it was necessary for Abbas to yield yet again. Most (including large segments of Fatah) believe it is a huge mistake that just set back the real cause for peace.

I challenge those who think otherwise to public debates on the issues.

An executive committee of the PLO representing various factions (who get paid through the same system) stamped its approval by a majority to the decision to go back to direct negotiations (and thus yield to the US pressure).

I would be curious to read any deliberations and hear from any dissenting voices who voted no (and not just say no to their cadre members).The fig leaf that is used to save face for the officials going to fruitless negotiations is this statement from the Quartet:"
The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements,including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct,bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should " lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security withIsrael and its other neighbors."

Israel already rejected the notion of ending the occupation but are thrilled with the notion of direct negotiations without interference or“preconditions” between the occupier and the occupied. After all, it takes two to agree and Israel holds all the power and all the cards and it candictate what it wants in “direct, bilateral negotiations”.
The simple question is how TO GET A MODICUM OF Palestinian rights since the quartet even backed down on the simple demand of “suspending settlement activities”while negotiations go on (itself a retreat from the road map which requiresdismantling all that was built illegally since 2002)?

If you can’t get the rapist to even suspend the rape for a time, why would your demand only direct negotiations with his rape victim in a closed room?

If we accept the notion that Netanyahu is restricted by his political coalition from even this small gesture of a suspension of illegal colonial activities (see Geneva conventions), then why would we expect that he will be able to offer anything bigger (like dismantling settlements or sharing Jerusalem, orallowing refugees to reclaim their land)?

If we believe the US and its quartet are now more serious, then how come nothing was achieved from the indirect negotiations under their tutelage?

The Zionist movement stole 78% of Palestine and does not believe there is anoccupation of the remaining 22%. They already annexed 10% of the West Bankand also annexed the Golan heights. They already put 500,000 colonialsettlers in the best and richest lands in the West Bank. They already steal 80% of the water from the West Bank. They make billions off of the occupation and billions more from direct US aid tax-deductible donationsfrom Zionists around the world.

What is the incentive to Israel to bilaterally negotiate an “end to the occupation that began in 1967” let alone deal with the more relevant and more significant issue of the ethnic cleansing committed in 1948 and still continuing in places like the Galilee and the Negev?

Initially we heard that Abbas will never go to the negotiations unless Israel stops building in its colonial settlements in the 22% of Palestinethat some are still dreaming will become a “state”.

In an interview with CNN after the US announcement of resumption of negotiations with no preconditions, Saeb Erekat said that he “hoped” that with the direct negotiations beginning, that Netanyahu will extend the “moratorium onbuilding” in the settlements in the West Bank (supposedly set to expire in September).

Today there are nearly 500,000 colonial settlers living in theWest Bank and there was no moratorium worth the hasbara/propaganda createdab out it. So I would like to ask why is he now begging for renewal of a“moratorium” that was no moratorium?

This is the same Erekat who told us repeatedly that the partial moratorium is a ruse. Colonial settlement construction continued and still moves with speed as we speak. I would love the opportunity to take Mr. Erekat or anyone who has eyes to see around Palestinian villages and show them what is actually happening on the ground.

In my area in Har Gilo and Har Homa, colonial settlement building activitydid not even take a breather. Actually, there was an acceleration last month in buildings in Har Gilo (on top of Beit Jala) and in building the wall that will make Al-Walaja a concentration camp pending finally ethnically cleansing what remains of this village population.

Yes, I know all the arguments for going back to negotiations. They go along these lines:

we tried different forms of resistance, the balance of power istipped completely to the Israeli side which is supported by the US (thanks to the Israel lobby), the European governments are not showing backbone, blah blah blah. One high ranking Fatah official said we have nothing left but negotiations.

I am sorry, but if the leaders in Vietnam or Algeria or South Africa made similar defeatist statements, these countries would never have achieved their freedoms. If our leaders have lost faith in their cause, they should step aside and let those who have a positive message lead. If we are going to achieve an emasculated statelet by endless negotiations with such leaders reaping the rotten fruits falling down from the tree after 130 years of struggle, then we do not want such statelet. Leaders should first of all accept responsibility for their mistakes and level with their own people.

The biggest mistake in the past 20 years has been this road of Oslo which ended the search for justice and reclamation of Palestinian rights to replace it with a road of “security for Israel” (the occupying power), positions and autonomy and an endless negotiations and “process”.

The process could/would somehow (if all Israeli conditions are met) lead to state that will be less than the state of Zululand.

I could be too harsh in my statements. But should we not expect expert opinion on issues that are existential? Should we not at least expect consistency on the part of our supposed leaders who are really not experts in any area of international law or diplomacy?

For example, they told us repeatedly that the reason for asking for settlement freeze is because as we negotiate, Israel has made a Palestinian state impossible with continued eating away what is left of Palestine.

Now Palestinians have access to 8.3% of the land of Historic Palestine and this is shrinking (the Bantustans in the Galilee, Negev, Gaza and WB). Since Israel continued to build everywhere even after they announced a “partial settlement building moratorium”, why do you agree to go back to negotiations?

If Netanyahu and all his ministers say there is never going to be a compromise on Jerusalem (illegally annexed by Israel according to International law), how will you force his government to change its mind?

And how will you deal with the fact that Israeli politicians of all stripes say Palestinian refugees can’t return to their homes and lands and must instead be settled elsewhere (including the already over-crowded West Bank and Gaza of which half the population is refugees and displaced persons)?

Is compromise now defined as you can bring any issues to the table of bilateral negotiations to which the occupiers already said they will just say no?

Our “leaders” knows that not only they had to cave in to go back to the negotiations but that further concessions are required to continue to fund their Bantustan economy (and VIP status) from Western donors and Arab countries beholden to the West.

So why do they try to give out the notion that bilateral negotiations can succeed under such circumstances?

If you can be threatened with a cut-off of aid to go back to fruitless negotiations,why do we believe that you can resist pressure to cut off aid unless you give up on Jerusalem or the refugees?

Palestinian negotiators already are not allowed to raise the issue of treatment of Palestinians inside the state of Israel where Israel is demolishing whole villages.

So many further concessions are needed to maintain the privileges of running the autonomy areas with money from the West and compliant Arab states?

I believe at this stage, three more concessions were needed:

a) to return to endless directand public negotiations that prop-up the Israeli government (and could breakthe increasing isolation of this pariah state) ,

b) to retract the very mild measure of boycotting settlement products and refrain from supporting International investigations into Israeli war crimes or legal proceedings to hold it accountable, and

c) to continue to suppress local resistance in all its forms.


Some might dispute this and claim that the PA supports popular resistance (and suppresses armed resistance). But unfortunately the facts of the last year tell a different story.

Could they please come to places like Beit Sahour, Beit Jala, and Jayyus and explain to the people what had happened to end the popular resistance in those and dozens of other places?

Could theyexplain why popular resistance in many places that used to be costly to the occupation is now ritualized media stunts.

Could they meet with people who engage in real popular resistance regularly and are volunteers and not paidemployees of the PA and ask them what are the challenges they face?

The answers would be scandalous.

I am making three challenges here to all those who will be negotiating with Israeli politicians.

1) I challenge you to come and tie yourself to an Israeli bulldozer (or sit in front of one) in an act of civil disobedience, and


2) I challenge you to convene panels of independent experts (not those profiting) in every major Palestinian population center to discuss the direction of Oslo accords and what has transpired in the last 20 years, and


3) based on 1 and 2, speak truth to the people. Much more sacrifices will be needed and are coming from our people with or without honest leadership.

Would it not be more dignified and more likely to give us freedom if we have to do without the foreign aid for one or two years?

And sorry, past good deeds 20 years ago do not give ANYONE the right to give up on Palestinian rights.

In international law, even duly elected leaders of occupied people cannot give away their people’s rights.

Our lives are nothing compared to 5,000 years of our people’s history in this land. And even the struggle against Zionism has already lasted 130 year including lifetimes of many who “negotiated”. Who now remembers Hassan Dajani who tried to accommodate with the British occupation because of a balance of power.

History will not be kind to those who give-up on their own people.

We the common people, must take matters into our own hands.
ولا يغير الله ما بقوم حتى يغيروا ما بأنفسهم
Confucius addedTo know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.”
==================
Other relevant articles on this subject


And as always, come visit us in occupied Palestine…

Wednesday, 14 April 2010

How they shall respond to the New Transfer?


كيف سيردون على «الترانسفير» الجديد؟!

هو أمر عسكري صدر قبل ستة شهور ، وتعلم به السلطة الفلسطينية ، كما تعلم بموعد البدء بتنفيذه ، لكنها مشغولة كما يعلم الجميع ببناء المؤسسات وزيادة الاستثمارات ، وليس لديها الوقت الكافي لمتابعة مثل هذا الأمر الهامشي ما دام بوسع الدولة التي ستقوم صيف العام المقبل أن تستوعب اللاجئين ، بمن فيهم المرحلون الجدد.

سيذهب كثيرون إلى مطالبة المستهدفين بالقرار بضرورة التشبث بأرضهم ورفض قرارات الترحيل ، وهم في واقع الحال يفعلون ذلك دون نصيحة من أحد ، وليتذكر الجميع أن هؤلاء هم بالفعل متسللون وفق المصطلح الإسرائيلي ، لأنهم عادوا إلى مدنهم وقراهم عبر تصاريح زيارة ثم ظلوا هناك ، بل عاد بعضهم إلى غير مدينته وقريته لأن بعضهم من لاجئي ,48

نعم ، هناك كثير منهم لا يكاد يغادر القرية أو المدينة ، بل الجزء من المدينة الذي سكن فيه حتى لا تلتقطه الحواجز الإسرائيلية وتبادر إلى اعتقاله تمهيدا لترحيله ، وهو يفعل ذلك من أجل البقاء في أرضه ووطنه.

ولكن كيف سيواجهون الإجراء الجديد الذي ينص على اعتقالهم لمدة تصل إلى سبع سنوات إذا ألقي القبض عليهم ، اللهم إلا إذا كانوا من المتسللين الجدد الذين سيصار إلى ترحيلهم من المكان الذي جاءوا منه ، وأكثرهم إما جاءوا من قطاع غزة أو من الأردن؟، ولنتذكر أن هؤلاء لن يكونوا بمنأى عن الاعتقال ، لا سيما أن أجهزة دايتون لا تحرك ساكنا عندما يقرر الجيش الإسرائيلي اجتياح هذه المنطقة أو تلك من مناطق الضفة الغربية.

يقول بعضهم إن الإجراء الجديد هو نوع من الضغط على السلطة كي تعود إلى طاولة المفاوضات ، فهل يعني ذلك أن المفاوضات هي ضد المصلحة الفلسطينية؟ وإذا قيل إن المقصود هو العودة للمفاوضات دون تجميد الاستيطان ، فما هو الموقف ممن فاوضوا زمنا طويلا ، بما في ذلك سنوات أولمرت الثلاث دون تجميد الاستيطان؟، إنهم يعجزون عن مواجهة الأسئلة المنطقية التي ترد على ألسنة الناس حيال هذه القضية ، وتراهم يعودون إلى الحديث التقليدي عن فشل المقاومة وعدم قدرة الشعب على احتمالها ، مع أننا لا نتذكر أن الجماهير قد خرجت يوما إلى الشوارع تطالبهم بإنقاذها من عبء المقاومة ومساعدتها على العيش بسلام.

لا يعني ذلك أن الإجراء الجديد غير قابل للإلغاء ، أو أنه ليس نوعا من الضغط السياسي ، لكن ذلك لا يغير في حقيقة عدوانيته ، بل ربما تمهيده لخطوات أسوأ ، كما أن مواجهته بالتنازل مصيبة ، فيما تمريره مصيبة أكبر ، فما هو الحل؟ لنتذكر أن الإجراء الذي يتحدثون عنه هو جزء لا يتجزأ من مسلسل العدوان على الشعب الفلسطيني الذي يشمل الاجتياحات والاعتقالات والاستيطان والتهويد ، ولا يمكن الرد عليه وحيدا دون الإجراءات الأخرى ، فهل يملك أصحابنا حلا آخر غير الانتفاضة والمقاومة المدعومة من جماهير الأمة العربية والإسلامية ، والتي تفرض نفسها على العالم أجمع؟.

سيعود بعضهم إلى الكلام الفارغ حول حماس والانقسام الذي يشجع الإسرائيليين على المزيد من العدوان ، مع أن العدوان لم يكن متوقفا أيام الوحدة ، فضلا عن أن الوحدة التي يريدونها هي الوحدة على ذات البرنامج العقيم الذي أعلنوا عنه بعد التخلص من ياسر عرفات. ولا تسأل عن عجزهم عن الرد ، ولو بوقف التنسيق الأمني مع العدو.

التوحد على برنامج المقاومة هو الرد ، ليس على مشروع "الترانسفير" الجديد فحسب ، بل على مشروع الاحتلال برمته ، والكيان الصهيوني الذي خرج ذليلا من لبنان ، ثم مني بهزيمة أمام حزب الله ، فيما عجز عن تركيع قطاع غزة ، ليس شيئا آخر هنا ، بل هو قابل للهزيمة والتراجع لو توفرت الإرادة.

إن مواجهة "الترانسفير" والتوطين والوطن البديل والاستيطان والتهويد لا تكون إلا بدعم خيار المقاومة ، أما تبني التسوية فلن يكون إلا على حساب فلسطين والأردن ، بل الأمة بأسرها.

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian