-Caveat Lector- @ http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/516/op3.htm }}>Begin Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 11 - 17 January 2001 Issue No.516 Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 Current issue | Previous issue | Site map Samson and the temple By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed An increasingly beleaguered Barak seems to be haunted by the story of Samson, the Herculean hero of Jewish lore, who was betrayed to the Philistines by his mistress, Delilah. Shorn of the long hair in which lay the secret of his strength, he was blinded by his captors and taken to their temple, there to be dis played for the amusement of the populace. But the fallen hero avenged himself by bringing the temple crashing down on the heads of his tormentors -- and on his own head. This cautionary tale about the perils of mixing with gentiles is seen in Zionist writings as a forerunner of another parabolic legend, the siege of the Masada fortress, in which 1,000 Jewish defenders committed mass suicide rather than surrender to the Romans. A contemporary version of these legends is Israel's xenophobic obsession with its racial purity that it is ready to defend at any cost, even, if need be, with a nuclear cataclysm that will destroy both its enemies and itself. In his desperation to extricate himself from the ever deeper political morass in which he is sinking, Barak might be tempted to resort to a Samsonian solution to his problem. The Israeli prime minister had high hopes that Clinton, driven by his all-consuming passion to be remembered as the peacemaker who managed to solve one of the most implacable conflicts in recent history, would bring his considerable powers of persuasion into play at the Camp David summit held last July to ensure that the parties signed some sort of agreement that would pave the way to a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. His hopes did not materialise and the summit ended in failure, with the parties unable to agree on some of the most important -- and intractable -- aspects of the problem, namely, Jerusalem, the refugees and the settlements. It was precisely because these issues were the most difficult to solve that they had been deferred to the final stage of the negotiations. And, despite the fact that the two parties made what they considered the maximum concessions possible at the time, these highly volatile issues remained as resistant to solution as ever. Although Barak went home empty-handed, the mere fact that he had dared discuss such hitherto taboo subjects as Jerusalem earned him the ire of the Israeli right and allowed them to challenge his very legitimacy. The anti-Barak campaign was spearheaded by the current leader of the Likud party, Ariel Sharon, and its former leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, who is back in the political arena following his acquittal of the charges brought against him after the downfall of his government. As he became embroiled in an increasingly bitter feud on the home front, and with the end of Clinton's presidency fast approaching, Barak realised that no agreement could be reached within the short time-frame left. He then tried to form a coalition government with the right, hoping that this would give him a new lease of life. Sharon tested Barak's intentions by proposing the Haram Al-Sharif visit and Barak accommodated the Likud leader by providing him with a force of over a thousand soldiers to protect him during the visit. It can thus be said that Barak, whose active collusion emboldened Sharon to proceed with the provocative visit that sparked off the Intifada, must assume a major share of responsibility for placing the entire Middle East on the brink of war. The popular uprising of the Palestinian people exposed the bankruptcy of the peace process and the failure of the tripartite formula (American/Israeli/Palestinian) to respond to their national aspirations. The Intifada was a rebellion against that formula, a message to all concerned that an alternative mechanism had to be devised. The message was not lost on Barak, who chose to deal with the crisis by resigning as prime minister to preempt the Knesset's initiative to disband in order to depose him and force the resignation of his entire government. He hoped in this way to limit the competition to present Knesset members, i.e. Sharon, and disqualify Netanyahu from entering the race. The former prime minister, whose popularity rating is even higher than Sharon's, was forced to resign from parliament at the time of his resignation. The message was not lost on Clinton either, who realised that the Intifada was an expression of the failure of the tripartite formula and of his responsibility for that failure. And so he hurriedly came forward with an alternative formula, a personal initiative in the form of concrete proposals that he euphemistically called "ideas," which were intended to serve as a basis for a final agreement between the two sides. The proposals come as a package deal, a trade-off in which Israel would give up its sovereignty over Al-Haram Al-Sharif in exchange for which the Palestinians would give up their right to return to what is now Israel. On the settlements issue, the proposal is for Israel to annex five per cent of the West Bank, where there is the greatest concentration of settlements, in exchange for which it would give up territory in Israel proper to the Palestinian state. Barak initially accepted Clinton's ideas in principle, provided Arafat accepted them as a basis for resuming negotiations along the previous tripartite pattern, in the hope that an agreement could be signed in Washington before 20 January. But actually the ideas put forward by Clinton were not really accepted either by the Israeli or the Arab side. Unwilling to commit himself one way or another, Arafat chose to "accept conditionally," while raising "reservations" which included the following: -The "right of return" implies that there is a "right," i.e., a "choice." It does not necessary mean that the choice of all refugees will be to return to their initial homes. But their right to exercise this choice, consecrated by a UN resolution, must not be taken away; -On the issue of land, maps have made it clear that Clinton's ideas imply a division of the future Palestinian state into three "cantons," more precisely, a series of non-continguous Bantustans separated by roads, some of which will be accessible only to Israelis for reasons of security; -The same applies to East Jerusalem. The parts of the city which are to become the capital of the Palestinian state are disconnected "islands" where the majority of the population is still Arab despite Israel's systematic efforts over the years to Judaise the entire city. More generally, Clinton's project lacks precise maps defining which parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem will be annexed to Israel, which settlements are to remain where they are and which are to be relocated elsewhere. Moreover, the question of sovereignty over what lies beneath Al-Haram Al-Sharif is shrouded in ambiguity; Barak is insisting on not ceding sovereignty over the Temple Mount under pretext that it might still contain remnants of Solomon's Temple, though no evidence has ever been produced to support the claim. Is it possible to introduce changes to Clinton's "ideas" that would make them acceptable to the two protagonists? It is clear from his "conditional acceptance" of these ideas that Arafat, who enjoys the support of the Arab League's Follow-Up Committee, is keen not to close the door on a resumption of negotiations. He has used the "reservations" he expressed to come forward with constructive proposals for possible alternatives, such as: that contiguity of land be guaranteed for the entire Palestinian state; that it be open to the international borders of historic Palestine; that the territory from Israel to be transferred to the Palestinian state in compensation for the five per cent of the West Bank annexed to accommodate the Israeli settlements be equal in size and in value; that new ideas be developed which would guarantee the integrity of Resolution 194 on the "right of return" without affecting the Jewish character of the state of Israel. In any case, Arafat has accepted free Israeli access to the Wailing Wall and sovereignty over the Jewish quarter of the Old City. Not one of these ideas stands as an insurmountable obstacle in the way of an understanding. On the other hand, Barak, who is trailing far behind Sharon in the polls, is trying to improve his chances for reelection by hardening his position and narrowing the gap separating him from the right-wing front runner. He now insists that no Palestinian refugees will be allowed to return to Israel proper and that Israel will not relinquish its sovereignty over the Temple Mount -- thereby effectively recanting his earlier acceptance of Clinton's ideas. He is calling for a complete physical separation between Israelis and Palestinians, a divorce he concedes will be "painful." His argument is that while the Palestinians are free to refuse peace, they cannot force Israel to assume the consequences of their refusal. The clear implication behind Barak's talk of a painful divorce is that he will not hesitate to use unrestricted force to bring it about. For Barak, this is obviously preferable to handing power over to Sharon, the man he now openly accuses of responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. But even as he condemns Sharon's violence against the Palestinians, Barak is contemplating the use of similar methods against them, even at the risk of threatening Israel's peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. In other words, he is ready to bring the temple crashing down on everybody's head to assert his hold on power, a reaction that is eerily reminiscent of Samson's in the temple of the Philistines. Related stories: Redrawing the norm Making sense of insanity Yes, no, but... Talking peace, readying for war 4 - 10 January 2001 See Intifada in focus © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved [EMAIL PROTECTED] End<{{ A<>E<>R Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the "democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse of objective necessity. He strives to show that the existence of taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded subjects. [[For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard, Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
