CEASEFIRE IS NOT THE END...

 

Ceasefire is Not The End

by Jonathan Kuttab

It looks as if there will finally be a ceasefire and hostage deal, set to begin this Sunday.

Every decent person in the world, I am sure, is breathing a sigh of relief at the cessation—at least temporarily—of the horrible nightmare in Gaza.

This nightmare has been torturing us daily with news of 50-100 new victims every single day and our incapacity to do anything to truly stop it, in addition to the suffering of the captives on both sides, and of the entire Gazan population living under siege and bombardment. 

Apparently, the agreement is to be achieved in three stages. In the first stage, Hamas will release 33 hostages (both alive and dead) and Israel will release some prisoners and suspend bombing for 42 days, while arrangements are made for the next two phases. The population of Northern Gaza will be permitted to return to their destroyed homes and humanitarian aid allowed to enter.

Yet, despite any momentary relief we may be feeling, it is crucial to highlight a number of important realities:

It is now clear that the basic terms of the deal are almost identical to the terms provided in the deal proposed last May. No significant changes have been made, so the momentous suffering and loss since that time seem especially unnecessary and tragic.

It is also clear that the primary obstacles to a ceasefire have not resulted from the intransigence of Hamas, but from the deliberate undermining of the deal by Israeli leadership. Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smootrich are openly taking credit for repeatedly sabotaging the deal in the past and continue to threaten to withdraw from the Netanyahu government if it goes forward. 

In Israel, contrary to the false protestations and lies of Secretary of State Blinken, it is well-known and acknowledged that resistance from the Israeli right wing and the desire of Netanyahu to maintain his government has always been the key obstacle to the signing of a deal.

It is indeed worrying that the first “stage” of the deal may very well be the last and that movement to the next stages and towards a true, permanent ceasefire is not assured. Those elements in Israel who sabotaged this deal in the past may be still actively seeking opportunities to prolonge the killing, bombing campains, forced starvation, and genocide, after securing the release of some or all of the hostages.

While we do not know the extent to which Trump’s threats of US pressure had to do with the “breakthrough,” or how much is just political theatre, the consensus among most Israeli analysts I hear indicates that Israel changed its mind and agreed to this deal directly as a result of US pressure. 

Haaretz even carried a story that Trump’s representative, Steve Witcoff, wanted to meet with Netanyahu regarding the ceasefire/hostage deal. When informed that Natanyahu could not meet him because of the Shabbat, Witcoff retorted that “the Shabbat was of no interest to him.” The meeting did indeed take place, and, after a “tense interaction” with Netanyahu, an agreement was reached. Past claims by the Biden administration that it could not pressure Israel or force its decisions seem to be false.

Additional realities to highlight include the following:

There seems to be no clear linkage between the first and remaining stages in the deal, which leaves it possible that “fighting” will resume after the 42-day pause and the genocide will continue. As with the Oslo Agreement, there are no enforcement mechanisms or consequences for the Israelis if they fail to live up to the agreements.

The entire deal, even if all stages are agreed upon and implemented faithfully, still leaves a number of important questions unanswered: the mechanism for ruling the Gaza Strip after the deal, access to and the distribution of food, water, and other humanitarian assistance, the extent of Israeli withdrawal, and whether any forces other than Hamas will be able to govern the civilian affairs of Gaza. Lifting the siege and allowing free movement in and out of Gaza may not even be on the table.

In all cases, the underlying problem continues to be unaddressed. So long as the basic requirements of peace, equality and justice are not even addressed, such temporary security arrangements will always be inadequate, and the temptation to resort to power and violence remains. This is why it is important for us to continue working for a just peace, to insist on respecting moral and legal principles, regardless of whether a deal is reached or breached. 

Meanwhile, we still have to address the following questions:

Will the siege be lifted so that Gazans can begin the process of rebuilding their hospitals, schools, universities, homes and lives?

Who will supply the food, water, medicines, electricity, and building materials needed to meet the immediate needs of the population for subsistence and shelter, as well as the monumental task of rebuilding what was destroyed? Who will provide and maintain basic public services, not to mention law and order, in the immediate future?

Will international journalists be allowed into Gaza to describe in their “authoritative” (read: Western) reporting what actually has been taking place in the last year or so? 

Will the criminals responsible for genocide and war crimes be brought to justice?

Finally, what about the West Bank? Should the ceasefire take effect in Gaza, we must continue to keep our eyes on the West Bank, on the settlements and the settlers, on the occupying army and the apartheid regime, on the prisoners, and on Palestinian leadership. 

Failing to address these issues will only increase the violence.

In all cases, our work for peace and justice must go on. We continue to proclaim violence is not the answer. It will never provide Palestinians with the desired liberation nor Israelis their vaunted security. Violence not only includes guns and bombs but also bulldozers, walls, checkpoints, and all of the oppressive structures that make up Israeli apartheid, such as occupation, siege, and the denial of freedom.

We also reiterate that should violence erupt anyway, civilians must be spared as much as possible from the ravages of war. Measures which target civilians are never legitimate. That is why the taking of civilian (as opposed to military) hostages was never legitimate—and roundly condemned—yet neither are restrictions on access to food, water, medicine and fuel. Similarly, the targeting of hospitals, schools, bakeries, and other civilian structures is never legitimate.

Universal human rights and international law must always be respected. Every effort should be made to seek peaceful methods for resolving disputes and nonviolent means for resisting oppression. Promoting such universal values and respect for international institutions and principles is an important value for all of us, not only those caught up in conflict. The news of this ceasefire/hostage deal may indeed be very welcome, but it is hardly the end of the road.

A good analysis of the situation while a cease fire is being discussed and possibly accepted, at least by the Israeli side, of course it could all be a staged affair, and the article caution of that possibility, but only days ahead will tell, meanwhile let's hope for better days ahead.

As usual, my best wishes and many thanks to my good readers and friends.  

THOUGHT-PROVOKING WORDS.....

Cocaine is legal in Oregon, but straws aren’t.  That must be frustrating. 

Still trying to get my head around the fact that ‘Take Out’ can mean food, dating, or murder. 

The older I get, the more I understand why roosters scream to start their day.

Being popular on Facebook is like sitting at the ‘cool table’ in the cafeteria of a mental hospital.

I too was once a male trapped in a female body…but then my mother gave birth.

We live in a time where intelligent people are silenced so that stupid people won’t be offended. 

The biggest joke on mankind is that computers have begun asking humans to prove they aren’t robots. 

It’s weird being the same age as old people. 

We celebrated last night with a couple of adult beverages …… Metamucil and Ensure.

You know you are getting old when friends with benefits means knowing someone who can drive at night. 

Weight loss goal: To be able to clip my toenails and breathe at the same time.

For those of you that don’t want Alexa or Siri listening in on your conversation, they are making a male version; it doesn’t listen to anything. 

I just got a present labeled, ‘From Mom and Dad,’ and I know darn well that Dad has no idea what’s inside. 

Someone said, “Nothing rhymes with orange.” I said, “No, it doesn’t.”

The pessimist complains about the wind.   The optimist expects it to change.  The realist adjusts his sails. 

I have many hidden talents. I just wish I could remember where I hid them. 

Some funny and thought provoking words.....   All my thanks to all my good readers and friends.  

The Debate on Israel/Palestine Is Changing, But We’re Not There Yet

 

Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American Institute

December 30 2024

This afternoon, I went for a walk and noticed that a homeowner had recently placed a sign on their front lawn. It simply read “I stand with Israel.” If this had been 400 or so days ago, I would have thought nothing of it. Back then, supporters of Israel were still reeling from the shock of the October 7th attack and felt a need to express themselves.

  
But it’s not December 2023. It’s 14 months into this nightmare. The decision to now place this sign on their front lawn, raises a troubling question—exactly what, in the current context, does “stand with Israel” mean? 

In just the past week, US media have featured a number of well-researched reports on Israel’s efforts to secure their hold on Gaza through: the mass demolitions of homes, hospitals, schools, and infrastructure; the forced transfer of the remaining Palestinians in the north of Gaza; the fact that Israeli snipers have made a “sport” of killing Palestinians who are fleeing and keeping score of their “hits”; and the construction of military occupation bases in the far north of Gaza and the Nezarim corridor, including a “resort-like” facility to provide war-weary troops with rest and relaxation. There have also been stories on the continuing lack of medical services, food, water, sanitation, and shelter for the two million Palestinians crammed into Gaza’s south.  

Added to this are developments in Israel. After a long hiatus, protests against Netanyahu’s government have continued. Some are objecting to his callous disregard for and manipulation of the fate of the remaining Israeli hostages held in Gaza. Others are protesting his ongoing effort to escape prosecution for the multiple charges of corruption for which he is currently on trial.

  
And then there are courageous Israeli journalists and commentators who are challenging their fellow citizens to see what they have ignored for more than a year: namely, that genocide is being committed in their name just across the border.  

One of these is by the brilliant commentator B. Michael. Writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz, he walks his readers through the legal definition of the term “genocide.” Michael notes that the convention against this crime lists five actions, any one of which is sufficient to consider a state or people perpetrators of genocide. Michael goes on to demonstrate that Israel can be shown guilty of four of the five. He concludes, “Feigning innocence isn't admissible as a defense.” Nor will claiming that it was done “in good faith, or purely for reasons of self-defense.” 

And so, at this point, what exactly does “stand with Israel” mean? 

That said, those who recently posted this sign in front of their home have the right to express their views, however insensitive or repugnant others might feel them to be. Defacing their sign or inciting violence against them in response is clearly wrong. If we truly believe in democracy and the need for civil discourse, then insults, threats, or vandalism must be rejected.  

But this raises another question: What reaction would result from a neighbor placing a “I stand with Palestine” sign on their lawn? 

There can be no doubt that public opinion on Israel/Palestine has dramatically shifted in recent years. There is, today, greater sympathy for Palestinians than ever before and even among those who continue to support Israel, the policies of that state are increasingly being rejected. Recognizing this sea-change in opinion, pro-Israel groups and their allies in government and parts of the media have gone on the offensive in an effort to silence pro-Palestinian sentiment and even ban legitimate expressions of support for Palestinians and opposition to Israeli policies that are in violation of international and US laws. As things stand, these efforts to stifle pro-Palestinian speech still appear to have the upper hand.

 
A review of the reactions to recent events on campuses and the debates in Congress and state legislatures makes clear that a sign as simple as “I stand with Palestine” could be denounced as inflammatory, insensitive, and even antisemitic.

  
It must be acknowledged that speech on both sides has in some instances veered in unacceptable directions. Pro-Israel demonstrators have taunted Palestinians with “We will rape you,” or pro-Palestinians have chanted “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” These must be condemned. 

 
But what is worrisome are the all-too-frequent reports that relatively benign expressions of support for Palestinian rights are censored because they have made supporters of Israel “uncomfortable.” This kind of dangerous overreach is precisely what is happening.  
The bottom line is that if someone wants to declare that they “stand with Israel” they should be free to do so, and accept that, given what is unfolding in Palestine, it will cause some to ask: “What exactly do you mean by that?” And their neighbors should be able to declare that they “stand with Palestine,” to answer questions they may be asked, and to do so without fear of retribution.  
Sadly, we’re not there yet. 

A very good analysis by Dr. Zogby, I've copied it, trying to explain to my readers the reigning psych of many Americans, mostly the younger educated generation, I thank Dr. Zogby for borrowing some of his articles.    As well my many thanks to all my good readers.   

Jimmy Carter... A Story of Success and a Story of Failure.....

 

An article by Khairallah Khairallah. 

 

Jimmy Carter succeeded in Egypt and the Middle East and failed in Iran. He did not realize at any moment the depth of the change that Iran would witness in 1979, which would alter the regional balance in the direction of more unrest, the basis of which was the promotion by the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, after overthrowing the Shah’s regime, of “exporting the revolution”… starting with Iraq, 

 Which Jimmy Carter will history remember, the Carter whose name is associated with peace between Egypt and Israel? Or the Carter of the American retreat in the face of the "Islamic Republic" in Iran, which during his reign recorded the first of a series of victories over the United States?

 

There is a Carter success story and there is a failure story of an American president who knew how to devote himself to peace in this world throughout the 44 years after leaving the White House.
President Jimmy Carter, who served one term of four years (1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980) in the White House, achieved a lot in the Middle East. He played a pivotal role in reaching the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the first peace treaty between an Arab country and the Hebrew state. It was not about any Arab country, but about Egypt, the largest Arab country that offered the largest number of victims for Palestine and spent the cheap and the expensive for it.

 

The role of Carter, who died at the age of 100, in achieving this breakthrough, whose true hero was Anwar Sadat, cannot be ignored. Sadat knew how to exploit the October War, or the October War of 1973, in a political project that served Egypt’s interests instead of continuing to exploit the Palestinian cause as Hafez al-Assad, his partner in that war, did. Moreover, Sadat sought to help the Palestinians without any notable results after Yasser Arafat preferred to remain in Hafez al-Assad’s captivity due to his insistence on remaining militarily in Lebanon and in the alleys and corridors of Beirut.

 

Carter had protected Anwar Sadat since he decided to go to the Israeli Knesset and deliver a speech calling for peace, “the peace of the brave, not the peace of the defeated.” That was in November 1977. Between the late Egyptian president’s speech in the Knesset and the signing of the peace treaty in March 1979, the American president had rescued the fragile peace process that the Egyptian president had initiated, a process that Israel was looking for an excuse to exit and avoid withdrawing from Sinai.

 

It cannot be ignored that Israel was living under a right-wing government headed by Menachem Begin, who was not enthusiastic about peace with Egypt or making any concessions in the West Bank for the benefit of the Palestinians. The Arab position, and the Palestinian position in particular, towards Anwar Sadat helped to put the West Bank issue aside and free Egypt from its obligations towards the Palestinians.

 

Israel embarrassed Egypt in the period following Sadat's visit to Jerusalem. But Carter was able to save the peace process at the Camp David Conference held in September 1978. At Camp David, he negotiated with the American president on behalf of Egypt after Sadat informed him that he would accept whatever he would accept. Carter was fair. He knew that Egypt could not sign a peace treaty without regaining its lands occupied in the 1967 war. He was helped in this by the presence of ministers Moshe Dayan and Ezer Weizman alongside Begin. Dayan and Weizman knew the historical dimension of signing an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and its regional significance. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed six months after the Camp David Conference, which ended with two agreements signed by Sadat and Begin under Carter's auspices. The first related to relations between Egypt and Israel, and was actually implemented, and the other related to Palestinian self-rule, which remained ink on paper.

 

Jimmy Carter succeeded in Egypt and the Middle East and failed in Iran. He did not realize at any moment the depth of the change that Iran would witness in 1979, which would alter the regional balance in the direction of more unrest, the basis of which was the promotion by the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, after overthrowing the Shah’s regime, of “exporting the revolution”… starting with Iraq, which had a Shiite majority, of course.

 

The Carter administration failed to comprehend what was happening in Iran and the significance of declaring the establishment of the "Islamic Republic" according to a constitution tailored to Khomeini and his ideology based on the theory of "the Guardian Jurist". He did not realize that raising the slogan of hostility to America and Israel was a requirement of the regime and its toolkit. The first test that Carter failed came when the "revolutionary students" held hostage the diplomats and employees of the American embassy in Tehran for flimsy reasons. This lasted for 444 days. Throughout that period, signs of weakness appeared within the Carter administration, which failed to rescue the hostages by military means at first and then by political means later. The American president at the time suffered from the Vietnam War complex on the one hand and from the conflicts within his administration on the other. Within the administration was National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who called for dealing firmly with Iran, while there were those who refused to resort to any threats for fear of the lives of the hostages.

 

Jimmy Carter failed to win a second presidential term because of his ignorance of Iran, which he visited a year before the fall of the Shah and said from Tehran that it was an "oasis of stability" in the region. He fell to Ronald Reagan, whose team negotiated secretly with the Iranians in Paris, as it later turned out, in order not to release the embassy hostages before the US presidential elections. The "Islamic Republic" played its cards well with all US administrations since it succeeded in subduing Carter... until the day it clashed with Donald Trump, who surprised it by assassinating Qassem Soleimani, its man in managing the region's wars.

 

Carter paid the price for his ignorance of Iran and the change that took place there in 1979. Iran is now paying the price for its ignorance of the change that took place in America, including the change that took place in Israel since the “Al-Aqsa Flood” on October 7, 2023...

Few days ago Jimmy Carter passed away, considered by many as a success presidency with many progressive domestic and international policies, that eventually led to a Nobel peace price, still many think of him as a failure and weak, even the Israeli political leadership criticized him later for his pro Palestinian rights and a country of their own, Mr. Khairallah describes it all well with sound descriptions, I'm copying his article from the Lebanese Annahar leading paper.... 

My many thanks to all my good readers.