Despair, lack of a proper vision, and revenge
are Stumbling Blocks on the road to victory

No day is passing without bringing still more evidence of the barbarity
of the Israeli occupation. We learn that more Palestinians of all age
are killed. More obstructions are imposed on the normal productive
activities of the Palestinian population More and more do the settlers
act like the Hitler-youth. More and more do the Israelis inflict
humiliating measures on the Palestinian young and adult population.

The claim for the blood of the killer is a primeval need that most
parents of a murdered child would feel with an unbearable intensity. Few
are the saints on earth who can ignore that gut's demand. Patients
suffering unbearable pains are given morphine to alleviate their
sufferings. Nobody dares criticize a person who has lost most of his
skin in a fire when he asks for the strongest pain killers. Likewise,
nobody should dare criticise parents asking for revenge. This is the
only aspiration whose realisation could somewhat calm the unbearable.

This demand for revenge must be treated with respect. And since the
personal revenge is impossible, since in most cases one cannot get the
name of the individual killer, since the killer can be as anonymous as
the pilot of an apachi helicopter, the revenge is requested from
anonymous entities. It is the whole Israeli people who is perceived as
THE murderer, and must be made to pay for the crime.

The Palestinian psyche is injured and is in need to have its dignity
restored. The easiest way is to take revenge and inflict heavy
casualties on the Israelis. It results in a short-term benefit, antidote
to the humiliating feeling of powerlessness. It is a pale antidote to
the loss of a child, at a time when no other antidote is available.

Those parents asking for revenge are carrying the martyrdom of their
children. Is it fair to ask from martyrs to accept a second martyrhood
in the form of renouncing their justified claim for revenge?

It is with these consideration that, respectfully and empathisingly, I
am requesting a renunciation of the tit for that revenge, of the blood
for blood revenge. I am suggesting instead a revenge that can only be
accepted within a vision, the vision of victory, the victory of the
Palestinian people. There is no sweeter revenge then victory.

The difficulty is in the absence of that vision. The Palestinian people
needs a vision of victory which is not utopic, but carries within its
folds the promise of materialization, the promise of success.

It is that vision which I would suggest in my next posting as a better
substitute for revenge.

                    Stumbling blocs (2)

It is often debated as to what is preferable, the one state solution or
the two states solution? As if we had a menu to chose from it the
solution most to our taste. However, if a radically new leadership in
Israel decides to unilaterally evacuate the territory  over the green
line and dismantle the Jewish settlements, we would reach a de facto two
states situation. Those who, like me, prefer a single state, would go on
fighting to move to that much better solution. Still, the situation
might demand a two step solution, first a two-state solution, followed
by a one state solution, if a correct strategy is adopted.

The fact is that the Palestinians have no state at all. Furthermore,
neither a single state nor two states is either offered to them,
or appears to be reacheable right now. Maybe it is the wrong starting

I think we should start by considering the consequence of the following
Fundamental Statements:

First Fundamental Statement

              No serious progress can be made in the satisfaction of the
              Palestinian aspirations, as long as Israel will be ruled by
              the kind of leaders it had since its creation, leaders
              motivated by expansionist objectives.

The hope that the Palestinian aspirations can be realised in spite of
the existence of such rotten Israeli leadership, and entertaining such
hope on the basis of a wedge to be put between the Israeli leaderhsip
and the US, has proven to be delusive.

The few who would challenge The First Fundamental Statement, are
important. I will deal with their arguments at the end.

Second fundamental statement:

             The only force available in the political and military field.
             capable of bringing down the Israeli leadership, and replace it
             by one of a radically new kind, is the Israeli people.

Once more, there are a few that would disagree. I will deal with this

Third fundamental statement:

            Since a people who supports its govenment -- together with the
            whole establishment which is behind it -- is unlikely to try to
            bring it down, there is an absolute need to introduce a powerful
            wedge between the Israeli people and the Israelic establishment

Fourth fundamental statement

            The possibility of introducing such a wedge presuppoeses
that the
            average Israeli is decent, unlike the criminal Israeli

Fifth fundamental statement:

            It must be a main strategical consideration for the Palestinian
            leadership, to help the Israeli people introduce the powerful

Sixth fundamental statement:

            That strategical task, that lays on the shoulder of the
            Palestinian leadership, cannot be executeded without the
            support of the Palestinian people.

Seventh fundamental statement:

            Whereas the Israeli people is in need of the Palestinian people
            for the introduction of the wedge, the Palestinian people is in
            of demonstrations of good will from the Israeli people, so that
            the Palestinian people can believe in the credibility of the
            strategy. Such demonstrations havwe been given by the
hundreds of
            refuseniks, by the Jewu\ish human shields to protect the
            gathering their olive crop etc.. etc

This interdependanxce of the two people, is not just a matter of
convenience.. The two people do share the common aim of peace, the
common aim of security, and the common aim of prosperity. Were it not
for the absence of the wedge between leadership and Israeli people, the
two people could have come to terms with a peace acceptable to both
sides, and to future generations.

Thus, introducing a wedge, is equivalent to establishing an alliance of
the two people against their common enemy: the Israeli leadership and
the establishment that supports it.

How to introduce that wedge, is the object of "stumbling blocks 3"

As to the long term objectives of the strategy, it will be the object
of "stumbling blocks 4". Just for the record, the long term objectives
of the strategy, include a single state for the two people preceded by a
period of friendly cooperation between a Palestinian state and an
Israeli state having a radically new kind of leadershup. The details are
to come in part 4

It is clear that we are faced with two global tasks. One is to present
a strategy that credibily can do the work. It has to be introduced not
as the brain child of one individual, but as the result of a collexctive
axction by a wise organisation. Though that organisation could be
MIFTAH, it might be better it be an ad hoc organisation for that purpose
that whould have to be made of subcommittes, each designing one of the
the manifold of ways to introduce the edge, The ways aere numerous and
full of promise, For reasons that would become evident, I suggest the
organisation be international and be called "the pushpul organisatio",
It is to come out with a detailled strategy designed to succeed.

Now we need the organisation which would adopt the strategt and then try
to sell it to the Palestinian peope. A parallele work will be made by
the friends of poshpull to sell the strategy to the Jewish section of
the population. It can be done . Ir should have started a long time ago,
It is still urgent to develop a correct strategy and make the people
adopt it.

So, ahead to part 3
One can think of two ways to establish the two-state solution.

1) Increasing the suicide-bombings. Inflicting so many casuelties on the
Israelis, that they will no longer find solace in the fact that they are
inflicting many more casuelties on the Palestinians. Somehow, at some
time, the Israeli establishment will give up and, either negotiate a
true evacuation and a return to the pre-1967 boundaries, or proceeds
with a unilateral evacuation of the territories (West Bank and Gaza
strip) taking away with them all the settlers (no mean feat).

2) introducing a wedge between the Israeli population and its Israeli
leadership, aiming at replacing that leadership with a radically
new one, led by people like Jeff Halper and Ilan Pappe. With such a
leadership, negotiations become meaningful.

Let us just suppose that the two ways are possible, and would both
result in a two-states solution. Then, which of the two solutions is to
be preferred?

One could argue that a given solution would take a longer time than the
other. Another argument is the cost in terms of the number of victims
involved. A third is, which solution is more compatible with the dignity
of the Palestinian people.

But there is a consideration that is compelling.

The first way will result in two states lacking trust in each other,
unfriendly to each other, in need of security measures which
poison the relation between the two countries. The peace between them
would be precarious. In addition, there is the risk that, instead of
going the two-states way, the Israeli's leadership would try to
"displace" the whole Palestinian population.

However, the second way, that of introducing a wedge which will topple
the actual kind of leadership, not only would it result in a more stable
peace relation, but it will make it possible that the two states would
cooperate and develop friendly relations. AFter a peiord of cooperation
between an Israeli state headed by the new kind of leadership and a
Palestinian state developping according to an appropriate strategy, this
might open the road to a voluntary fusion of the two states.

Till now, all this can be considered as just words, and it would remain
just words, were it not for the fact that there exists a credible
strategy that indeed leads to a two-state as a precursor to the
one-state solution.

It is this strategy that will now be presented. In short there are two
strategies, both leading to a two-state solution. One of the strategies
freezes at this level for an indefinite time without hope for
a chnage to the better, while the other strategy, as will be shown,
allows to look forward to moving from the two-state solution to
a one-state solution.

As we will see, it is not just the problem of going from A to B. The
problem is to chose the road that brings us to B in the best shape.

                          Introducing a wedge

Introducing a wedge is not a cunning trick or device to bring confusion
and division in the rank of the enemy, It is a transformative process
which has to bring fundamental changes in both, the Palestinian and the
Israeli people. It has therefore to be acted upon by forces in the two
regions. It is a choice corresponding to a very credible vision.

In this vision the two people are to become allies in a battle against
their common enemy, the Israeli expansionist leadership and its
supportive establishment

As said earlier, this strategy presuposes that the average Israeli is
decent. In order not to interrupt the argumentation, I will go on
assuming that the average Israeli is descent, as descent as the average
Palestinian. I mean by descency that if only that average Israeli knew
the truth, if only he knew that HAMAS is not representative of all
Palestinians, that once the barbaric occupation and oppression is
stopped most Palestinians would wish to live in peace with the
Israelis., if only he knew how much he had been brainwashed with lies
and with induced fears by the sharonites and their likes, he would be
prepared to topple down the Israeli leadership. The validity of this
assumption is to be found in an appendix at the end of this very message.

So we continue on the basis that the average Israeli has been led to
believe that

a) most Palestinians would not be content with the end of the
          occupation and the dismantling of the Jewish settlements in the
          Bank and the Gaza strip
b) that the evacuation of the West Bank and The Gaza strip, with the
          dismantling of the Jewish settlements will not result in the
          of the suicide bombings against the Israeli civil population
          Israel proper.

As will be shown in the appendix, it is not difficult for the Sharonites
to maintain the Israeli people in that state of fear. It is not enough
for the Palestinian authority to issue statement after statement
asserting the will of the Palestinians to live in peace with Israel,
each people enjoying freedom and sovereignty within its own sate.

Much more can be done. And I will list what it is that can be done.
However, there is a stumbling block preventing the "much more" to
be done, and thus preventing the results which are bound to ensue from
the new strategy. Why should it be the Palestinian who must prove their
good intentions to the the Israelis, when it is the Palestinians who are
entitled to doubt the good intentions of the Israelis? Is it fair to
ask the victim to prove its innocence, while the guilty party is left
free of suspicion, free of obligation?

The situation is such that each side doubts the intentions of the other.
The fact that the Palestinian side has more reasons to doubt does not
prevent the Israeli to think in an opposite way.

However, the reality is different. The reality is that the Palestinians
and the Israelis have a common enemy which is the Israeli leadership
and the Israeli establishment. However, while the Palestinians have no
doubt that the Israeli leadership and establishment are the enemy, the
Israeli do not know that they are their enemy too. It is that
ignorance of the reality that gives its strength to the sharonites.

Therefore we msut consider every success in opening the eyes of
the Israelis, as a blow directed against the Sharonites. Besides,
steps taken according to a credible strategy of success cannot be
considered demeaning to the the Palestinian dignity. The dignity is
in victory, not in defeat.

Still, one cannot minimise the difficulty of convincing the Palestinians
of the necessity of the propsoed startegy. It is why a strategy of
push-pull, involving a corresponding effort from the Israeli side,
is also necessary. We now have to present two parallel ways of action

1) The introduction of the wedge between the Israeli leadership and
the Israeli people.

2) The development of the policy of pushpull. This message has become
too long. I therefore call it "3a", to be followed by "3b" and "3c".
and then the normal continuation into 4 and 5.

                           Appendix (the average Israeli)

What is the average Israeli like?

Are the soldiers who refuse to serve in an army of occupation, are they
representing the "average Israeli"? Or is that bestial driver of the
bulldozer, enjoying the destruction of homes a representative of the
"average Israeli? Or are they the soldiers who shoot and kill
Palestinian children and teen-agers, the real  average Israelis?

When it comes to a strategy, it is absolutely essential that it be drawn
on the knowledge of what the real Israeli is. We therefore have to stop
demonising, to control our rage and indignation, and to conduct our
study in a quasi-scientific way.

So, the refuseniks are a minority. Still there were no such refuseniks
in Nazi Germany. There might have been, had the punishments encurred as
light as they are in Israel, had the media in Germany accepted
full-page adds stating the refusenik's point of views. We can already
there sense a difference.

The fact is that the majority of the soldiers are not refuseniks. What
conclusions can we draw from that? We are lucky to know facts helping
us to draw conclusions about that majority of non-refuseniks. Recently,
the commander of an Israeli unit was indicted for thugish behaviour
against the Palestinian population. In spite of the indictment, he
remained commanding the unit. Now, the whole unit stated that as long
as that officer will remain in command, the soldiers in the unit will
refuse to serve. Though they were all non-refuseniks, though they
wrongly believed that the occupation was needed for the security of
Israel, they were not prepared to accept being commanded by a thug.

Therefore, opposition to serve under the command of a thug, is not
the monopole of the refusenik. A whole unit opposed being thugish.
Therefore, this becomes indicative of the attitude of the average Israeli.

But there is more.

We know how false and how much is violated the concept of
"purity of arms". But the very existence of the concept, whether it
is respected or not, is very significant. In short, purity of arms
means that arms are to be used only for defensive purposes, with
the strictest minimum of violence, and the greatest efforts at not
hurting innocents. We know that this concept is violated all the time.

But such a concept did not exist in Nazi Germany. Why? Because the
average German was indoctrinated into believing in violence. He was
prepared to serve without the need to believe in "the purity of arms".

This concept exist in the Israeli society, because the average Israeli
is not prepared to serve in an army which does not articulate such
a principle. Brainwashed soldiers, may be lead to believe that the
amount of violence used by the Israeli army is minimal. They hear it
said that, was it not for that principle, Israel's army could have used
"blanket bombing". Those soldiers who understand that the concept is
daily violated, become refuseniks. Others who see their commanding
officer acting thugishly, think that the problem is with "that officer"
They hope that, by removing him, the purity of arms could be
re-established. The introduction of the concept is dictated by the
need to fool the average Israeli who is essentially quite a decent guy.

And here is the crux of strategic thinking. If the only force that can
destroy Sharon is the Israeli people, and if the average Israeli is
decent, we must look into what makes a decent average Israeli vote
for Sharon.

The following may help solve "the mystery". When the news of the
massacres of Sabra and Shatila broke out, and when it became obvious
that Israel had at least condoned the massacres, about half a million
people went demonstrating against the Israeli government. "Half a million"
means that it was representative of the average Israeli.

Would there now be once more half a million protesting newer Sabra and
Shatila? I doubt it. In the meanwhile, a change has occured. At the time,
there was no suicide-bombers. Today there are. The Sharonites are
provoking their occurence because it helps them brainwashing the
Israeli people into believing that occupation is necessary, and may be
that ethnic cleansing is also necessary.

The Sharonites use the suicide-bombings to remind the Israelis that,
for long years, the PLO refused to recognise Israel, was advocating for
long years the expulsion of all post-1948 Jewish immigrants from
Historic Palestine. The Sharonites argue that the suicide-bombings prove
that the Palestinians are still bent on expulsing the Jewish population.
Ending the occupation would be for the Palestinians a first step towards
the final expulsion of the Jews. And the decent average Israeli
believes it and vote for Sharon.

A new startegy must derive from those three facts:

1) In the political and military landscape, no other force than the
          Israeli people exists, that can bring down Sharon.

2) The average Israeli is as decent as the average Palestinian

3) The average Israeli votes for Sharon

I better be correct about 1) and 2), otherwise the situation is hopeless.

Here is Sharon's recipe for success:

a) Take a decent, sincere, idealist average Israeli

b) Prove to him that HAMAS aims at a single Palestinian state from which
would be expelled all post-1948 Jewish immigrants.

c) Remind him that when a suicide-bomber kills innocent civilians, he thus
delivers a message of hate not only to the occupation, but to all

d) Add a few lies such as "Barak had offered 95% of the Palestinian
and you get as a result, a decent, sincere, idealist average Israeli
Please, use fixed width fonts
Please, use fixed width fonts

                            Stumbling blocks (3b)

A wedge is not a peaxce agreement. It could be a speech, a statement, a
slogan, a constitution strategically worded etc.. We will later examine
the possibilities.

Let us look at the following diagram:

halperites A<------------------------------------------->G sharonites
                     ^      ^       ^          ^         ^
                     ^      ^       ^          ^         ^
                     |      |       |          |         |
                     |      |       |          |         |
                     B      C       D          E         F

The Israeli population is symbolically distributed along the line from
A to G. In G are the Sharonites and their likes. in A is Jeff Halper and
Ilan Pappe and their likes. A, B, C, D, E, F AND G represent political
positions from close to the halperites to close to the sharonites.

In G no one is brainwashed. They are criminally minded people who
would stop at nothing to expand the territory inhabited by Jews at the
expense of the Palestinian population. In G are a majority of settlers,
together with Barak and Shimon Perez, and all past Israeli leaders

In A are Israelis who are completely de-brainwashed. Jeff Helper
and Ilan Pappe, and many more, reside there.

Now going from right to left, are Jewish Israelis who are less and less
brainwashed. In F, the brainwashing is total. in B it is minimal
In E may be the Israelis who support the unilateral evacuation of
the post-1967 occupied territories, who support the formation of a
Palestinian state ruling over the evacuated territories, but who do not
approve the right of return of the refugees etc... Some of the
refuseniks are there, while others are quite more to the left. We cannot
be successful without considering the "map" of population distribution
according to their different political stands.

The very lazy way, is to consider two kinds of Israeli people, those who
are against the one state, the return of all the Palestinian refuges,
(and for some the expulsion of the post-1948 Jewish immigrants and
descendants), and those who do not accept the totality of the program.
Of course we are left without strategy except for violence, and remain
totally isolated from the Israeli people and from the international
public opinion. This is a classical skeletic strategy, a recipe for
failure ansd disaster. I will call those who take such a position "the
dogmatics" and will write a posting dedicated to them, a posting aiming
at removing the wedge berween the dogmatics, who are indeed so well
intentioned, and whose potential to help is so enormous, and those who
like me know that victory needs less simplification of the political mesh.

Just now, the majority of the Israeli population seem situated between
F and G

To introduce succesfully the wedge at a given position, we must have
formulated it so that it would allow the transfer of the greatest
possible number of Israelis from right of the wedge to left of it.

Were do we introduce the wedge? Right of the wedge would be those who
would not be detached from the criminal Israeli leadership. To the left
of the wedge would be the people detachable from the Sharonites.

The more the wedge is close to G the greater the number who can be
detached from the Israeli leadership. The more the wedge is close to A,
the lesser number of people who can be detached from the Israeli

Now the choice of the best point where the wedge is to be drawn is
ruled by three considerations.

1) we want to detach as many Israelis from supporting the Sharonites

2) we do not want to compromise our principles for the sake of
          putting the wedge as close as possible to G

3) and that is crucial, the wedge can be introduced many times,
          each time at a different location, and more to the left
          than previously.

To apply 1) the wedge must be introduced close enough to G. WHich
means that some but not all the aspirations of the Palestinian are now

To apply 2) means for a Palestinian leadership, not to commit itself, in
whatsoever way, to a renunciation of the remaining aspirations.

To apply 3) means that the wedge can be introduced in a place X close to
G and then, after the largest part of the population from X to G will
have moved away from Sharon, the wedge can be introduced in a place Y a
bit closer to A than before. For instance, by aiming to and
concentrating on just an end of the occupation, without renouncing our
ultimate objectives, we obviously can detach more people than by aiming
at once at realising all our objectives.

Then, when in the process, the wedge is introduced in F, almost the
whole population will have come in the section between F and G,
ready to topple the Sharonites  and replace them with the Halperites.
It will then be possible to have two very friendly states, but still,
the return of the refugees will not have the support of the majority of
the Israeli population. Which may be as well since the return should be
made in an atmosphere where the returned refugees will feel secure and
not killed by Israelis opposed to their return. It needs some more time
to a radically new kind of Israeli leadership to accomplish a SAFE
return of the refugees.

However, less than a decade of the rule under Halperites would create a
"miracle" in the attitude of the two people. The Halperites will
implement a non discriminating democracy, will empty the jails from
their Palestinian prisoners, will cooperate with the new Palestinian
state in view of a fair distribution of the water ressources, will
support international efforts at reconstructing the Palestinian economy,
and will participate in that reconstruction. All such aims would be
impossible to achieve without the toppling of the govenment with the
help of an Israeli majority who accepts our temporary partial aims. It
would take too much space to describe all that an Halperite could do
till the wedge is displaced to a more to the left position, allowing the
Halperite to do much more.

As soon as the first Halperite government would be established in
Israel, is to suspend the law of return concerning the Jews all over the
        world. The suspension would be a necessary step prior to issuing new
laws for entrance in Israel and for obtaining its citizenship. Those
laws will not give any privilege to Jews with respect to other ethnic
groups or with respect to other religions.

The halperite government will have to act fast, but with extreme
caution. It has to avoid a civil war inside Israel. This need should not
be used to justify a frozing of the status quo. The Israeli state has to
advance firmly in the direction of secularisation of the state.

At the same time, if the strategy suggested is implemented by the
Palestinian side, the new state will adopt a secular constitution
which friendly "speaks" to all Palestinian neighbours, Israel included,
as will be explained later. Between Palestinian supporters of the
strategy, and Israeli Halperites, the cooperation would increase
smoothly, while the constituency of the leaders of suicide bombings,
will decrease rapidly in the measure in which the hopes of the
Palestinians for a decent and prosperous life will increase.

Remains to see how to formulate a strategy that specifies the different
places where the wedge would be introduced at different times.

As you can see, the Palestinian leaders must consider themselves as
sitting in the room of the "general staff" receiving the news from the
battlefield on the progressive debrainwashing of the Israeli people, and
considering when the moment is appropriate to move the wedge more to the
left, and what measures will do that with the desired amount of

Such leaders will not be politicians interested in their political
survival. They have to be knowledgeable, wise, creative in suggesting
proper moves. Only such a leadership following a correct strategy can
bring results.

Just proclaiming a preference for one state rather than two, just an
attempt to aim directl;y to the ultimate objectives at once, will not
do. We have to deal with a clever enemy who wants, and has succeeded, to
isolate us from the Israeli population. Doing the reverse, separating
the Jewish population from the Israeli leadership, demands more than
just nice speeches condemning the Israelis (which of course must be
done) and not just supporting only those who agree with our ultimate aims.

Victory demands statemanship. It is easy, very very easy to condemn
everyone else who differ from us, however slightly. It is very easy to
condemn the average Israeli without putting one's self in his shoes,
of course not that he is right, but to find out the best way to
de-brainwash him.

Generals, at he head of the army, have to study military strategy.
Politicians at the head of the Palestinian people, or who would like to
lead the Palestinian people to victory, must also learn scientific
political strategy.

"3c" will be concerned with putting ourselves in Israeli shoes. Then,
and only then, will we be able to know exactly what is the average Israeli.

towards 3c, next
                               Stumbling blocs (3c.a)
                       In the shoes of the average Israeli

The average Israeli is the product of a great number of factors. Accurate
knowledge about his make-up, is essential to determine the measure in which
he can be detached from the expansionists Israeli leaderships he has
supported since the creation of Israel, and whether he is amenable to become
a supporter of a radically new kind of Israeli leadership genuinely
interested in a just peace between the Palestinian and the Israeli people.

In view of my experience, in view of what I witnessed, I can give a clear
answer to the question. However, in view of the complexity of the matter,
my presentation has to be long. It may be at odds with many preconceived

Please consider the crucial importance of the matter, and do bear with me
and consider the evidence which leads me to conclusions which can play a
decisive role in the drawing of a correct strategy of success.

I will walk in the shoes of the average Israeli, not to judge him with
or without compassion, but to understand why he votes for Sharon, to find
out what can be done, so that he votes for a decent leadership, and there
had not been a single decent Israeli leadership since the creation of the
Israeli state.

One can reach deductive conclusions from the  fact that the use of Internet
has spread all over the world, so that anyone can now have access to the
truth. Nobody therefore can say "I did not know".

Such a deductive conclusion is at most interesting. Say the internet is
available to everyone. But the internet is as full of truths as it is of
lies. The normal tendency is to pick up from the internet the information
that reinforces your own opinions, your own prejudices, and there is
plenty of it.

Here, my testimony as a better-than-average Israeli, has a documentary
value. Better because of my life-long anti-zionism stand, and my greater
immunization against the zionism propaganda, immunization that proved to
be very inadequate.

I was born in Egypt. Since my teen age, particularly after
the end of the war in 1945, Zionists approached me to recruit me. Most
of them were full of idealism, determined to establish in Israel a just
society for the Jews. The arabs could establish a just society for
themselves. There was no racist anti-arab feelings among most of them.
But their concern was uniquely for the Jews.

They believed that only when the Jews would be grouped together in a
single country, would they be protected from "universal" anti-Semitism

Later, after ww2, the slogan "Never again" was implanted in their minds
as demanding a large and powerful Jewish population in Israel. Only thus
would the jews be immune to virulent anti-Semitism. This argument that
convinced so many of my friends, did not convince me.

Their idealism was part of a pre-zionist culture. Traditionally, jews had
adopted liberal causes and supported social justice. The zionist who
wanted to recruit me where not different. They dreamed to establish a
system of kibbutzim, all ruled by socialist ideals, and would transform
Palestine into a socialist society for the good of the immigrating Jews
and the local Palestinian population. But I knew that the Kibbutzim were
to be purely Jewish. The arabs could create their own kibbutzim. Those
young zionists were naive.

My father and grandfather were born in Palestine under the turks. This
makes me a Jewish Palestinian.  I lived in Israel from 1959 to 1969 as an
anti-zionist activist, defender of the right cause of the Palestinians.
I was going from door to door discussing with Israelis and trying to
improve their vision.

My efforts were impaired by my own lack of vision.

Here is what formed the basis of my anti-zionism

1) There was a local population in Palestine which, were it not for foreign
intervention, would have evolved their own regime. The poor Palestinian
peasants, working on land belonging to absentee landlords, would have had
the possibility to revolt and proceed to a land reform. The selling of
land by the absentees was the selling of the peasants' rights to
redistribute the land among them.

2) Zionism is racially divisive. It divides the world into Jews and
non-Jews. I did not like it.

3) I suspected, but was by no way certain, that the local Palestinians with
Israeli citizenship, where subject to what I believed to be minor

4) I did not like the idea of implanting a people on the land belonging to
another, even if it is done peacefully, with all appearances of legality.

5) I thought that a Jew born in any country, had to feel some allegiance,
sympathy and love for the country of birth, particularly if he is not
persecuted in that country. I strongly opposed the idea that Jews from
Europe, and from Arab countries, should transfer their loyalty to the
Zionist movement, and then to Israel

6) I was outraged that Israel seized more territory than was assigned to
her by the UN partition.

7) later, by the end of my stay, in 1967, I did know the truth on the war
of conquest in 1967.

8) I believed that arab broadcasts told the Palestinians to leave the
country till the arab armies would throw the Jews to the sea. Still, I
thought that it does not justify  preventing the Palestinians to return
to their properties. I believed in the right of return of the refugees.

My strong opposition to zionism was not based on more than that.

What I did not know was:

1) that Israel had recourse to a deliberate ethnic cleansing.

2) deliberately, Israeli created the myth that broadcasts from arab
countries told the Palestinian population in Israel to leave their
country and take refuge in arab countries till the arab armies would
throw the Jews to the sea. I know today that it is a shameful lie.

3) that the Arab citizen in Israel were strongly discriminated against.

4) that the Israeli governments were totally opposed to make peace with
Gamal-Abd-Al-Nasser. The later was the most respected arab leader in the
middle east. He extended a peaceful hand to Israel. How Israel rejected
this hand is a revealing story I might tell in another message.

5) I had no knowledge of massacres committed by Israelis. I did not know
that Israelis had killed Egyptian prisoners, or practically condemning
them to death by forcing them on a way of return through the desert. No
prisoner could make it.

I soon realized that there were two kind of Zionism, the one applied in
practice and was criminal, barbaric and racist, and an idealist form of
Zionism which had no reality and was destined to be implanted in the
minds of the Jewish people as a means of brainwashing.

Let us quote here a refusenik

          -- First Lieutenant (reserves) David Zonshein

It takes courage to become a refusenik. All refuseniks have to expect to be
repeatedly condemned to 3 months of prisons. As long as the Israelis remain
in the dark concerning the criminal nature of their leaders' policies, the
refuseniks are outcasts. They are also blacklisted when it comes to obtain
jobs. They may face difficulties with their families.

A refusenik is a soldier or an officer who would not participate in the
repression of a people. Such is David Zonshein.

Obviously, would he have known that the essence of zionism is the
oppression of a people, had he known that zionism was responsible for
operations of ethnic cleansing, which resulted in the expulsion of
700,000 Palestinians from their country, their properties and their
lands, David Zonshein would not remain a Zionist. He has proven his
decency by putting his future on the line rather than be an accomplice
to the crimes of occupation. He did it because he believes in zionism,
because, as incredible it appears to us, he believes in the morality of
zionism. When his idealist unreal zionism clashes with zionism as
practiced in reality, he solves the contradiction by proclaiming
the ideal zionism to be true, and the one implemented in reality, to be
false, a betrayal of zionism. His ideal zionism is humane and
compassionate. He loved zionism for that, for what he believed to be its
humanist perspective. It is for him such a beautiful ideal that he cannot
abandon it. He therefore condemns the implementation of zionism,
not realizing that this implementation was aimed at by the Zionist
leaders, from the very beginning. He just was deliberately fooled when
taught the ideal aspect of Zionism.

The whole establishment encouraged the humanistic belief of the young
Zionists. "He would not walk" if not fooled into believing in that
aspect. The whole educational system reinforced that belief.

The media, Israeli and international, reinforced the idealistic
beliefs. When at the beginning of the second intefadah, two Israeli were
captured in Ramallah by an angry mob and then killed in a barbaric way,
the event was broadcasted on all TV stations. When the Israeli state
commits worse crimes, they do not appear on TV. The one that did appear,
in which a father was calling for the stop of shooting, while protecting
the body of his son,. was indeed seen in the world. However, a controversy
was launched by the Israelis, pretending having proofs that the bullets
which killed the son and the father, were Palestinian bullets.

Of course, a majority of Israelis chose to believe that version because
"Jews do not do that".

And if an over-average decent Israeli like David could be so ignorant of
the crimes of Zionism, we can expect the average Israelis to be still more
ignorant. We may remember that most of today's Israeli population either
were too young in 1948, or immigrated in Israel much after that

The Zionist establishment, who devised the criminal deprivation of the
Palestinian from their land, could not do it without the support of a
large Jewish population, preferably very young jews. Therefore, their
first task was to attract as many young Jews as possible, to what would
become Israel.

This policy of early encouragement to immigration would have been a
total failure unless a policy of brainwashing was cleverly developed,
brainwashing of the Jewish young mind.

The criminal lie stating "Palestine is a land without people, waiting to
harbor a people without land" was totally contradicted by reality.
Whom was it destined to fool? The world public opinion?

Certainly not. It was a time of colonialism. At the time, colonizing was
considered the duty of white people who would thus bring knowledge,
progress and civilization to backwards people. There was at the time no
need to concoct such a lie for the world public opinion.

However, Hertzl had conscientiously planned the ethnic cleansing of
Palestine. This would be totally unacceptable for the young Jews all
over the world, most of whom were idealist. These were the people
needed to be fooled. They were made to believe that Hertzl' ethnic
cleansing was not in the program of their zionist organization. And they
believe it. Their local leaders, in the countries from which they would
emigrate, were often naive and believed indeed that Palestine would be
transformed into an island of justice for all, including of course
whatever small local population existed.

I personally talked to those local leaders in Egypt. Their enthusiasm
and idealism was contagious. I was not astonished that so many of the
young Jews were convinced and recruited. They were all admirable people.

I was an exception among the young Jews. I totally believed in their
sincerity and their idealism. But I was against a policy which practically
divided the world into jews and non-jews. Imbued with French culture, I
found the slogan of the French revolution "liberty, equality and
fraternity" to be more universal than zionism. Not all Jewish youth were
so imbued with French culture.

The Israeli establishment knew that they had constantly to fool the young
immigrants. It is thus that, later, they invented the concept of
purity of arms. According to it, the Israeli army is to operate
defensively only. And, if it has to use force, it should be the minimum
necessary to ensure security. But at the same time, the soldiers were
taught the importance of discipline and obedience to orders. The
high command of the IDF, knew exactly how to implement military policies
compatible with the purity of arms. The soldiers themselves did not have
the whole picture and could not understand sometimes why an act which
apparently was aggressive and excessive, was indeed, in the larger picture,
defensive and measured. We know how false is that description of the IDF
officers who draw its policies.

Let us now wear the shoes of an average Israeli. We will call him Abner.

Abner believes that, because of the persecution the Jews had been subjected
to for so many centuries, the Jews, more than any other human group, have
developed a profound sense of empathy and of social justice. His parents
are secular in thinking . Abner believes that Jews do not do immoral
things, and a zionist government does not act immorally.

He mentions that the Palestinians had refused the partition as decided
by the UN. Had they accepted, they would have had more than what they
are now dreaming to have.

I had many discussions with such "good zionists" who refused to hear
mild accusations I made to the zionist establishment. I had to be mad, they
thought, to believe in what I was saying. Simply put "Jews do not do that".

It is later, much later, after I left Israel, that I discovered the
whole truth.
The partial  truth I knew, made me a life-time anti-zionist, The much more
complete picture, induced in me the will to dedicate my life ( what can
of it to a 79 years old man) to advance the cause of the Palestinian people,
my people too.

the remaining of this message will come in  (3c,b)

                      Stumbling blocks (3c.b)
                In the shoes of an average Israeli (2)

In 1967, I lived in Israel. I witnessed how the crisis developed which
ultimately erupted in a surprise attack by the Israeli forces against
Egypt. For those who have been fed false information by the media, I
will just say that Gamal-Abd-Al-Nassar did not want that war, and did
not start it. Israel who started the military action says now that the
first shot was the Egyptian decision to close the straight of Tiran to
the Israeli vessels.

If first non-military shots are to be considered, history shows that the
first shots were the Israeli arrogant declarations, by such authorities
as the President of Israel, the Prime Minister of Israel and the minister
of defence of Israel, declaring that they did not like the new government
of Syria and were decided to enter in Syria and change that government.

The fact is that "war was in the air" in 1967, and the Israeli population
was afraid, very afraid.

Ten years earlier, Egypt had been militarily beaten by the triple
alliance of Britain, France and Israel. The victory had not been decisive.
On the one hand, Gamal Abd el Nasser had ordered his army to retreat up to
western side of the Canal. So, the egyptian army was safe, and not yet

Then two ultimatums were issued one after the other. The first ultimatum
was Issued by Britian to Israel and Egypt, to evacuate their troups and keep
a minimal given distance from both sides of the canal.

The second ultimatum was issued by The Soviet Union to Britain, France and
Israel telling that if, by  two days and at a given hour,  the hostilities
were not stopped, The Soviet Union would take the measures to
stop it. In the same ultimatum the Soviet Union mentioned balistic
capabilities allowing her to drop bombs on the two western capitals.

At that time, the US made public its opposition to the anglo-British-Israeli
aggression, and asked the hostilities to cease. Britain and France ceased
their hostilities pretending to bow to the US pressure. However, they did
so in time to avert the punishing measures hinted to by the Soviet Union.

The importance of those events was that Egypt seemed to be more powerful
than in 1948. It also had a powerful ally. In the meantime, 10 years had
passed. The Soviet Union, it was well-known, had modernised the Egyptian
army. The military superiority of Israel was not obvious to the Israeli

The fear was encouraged by the Israeli government who did not stop
underlining the lie that Israel was threatened with annihilation.

It was known at the time that the PLO was refusing to recognise the
existence of Israel. Gamal Abd el Nasser was misrepresented as an
Aggressive Arab leader bent on destroying Israel.

The wish of the Israeli population was that war was to be avoided. The
Israeli leaders, they thought, should not gamble with the existence of
the state of Israel.

And then, in a matter of a day, the mood changed completely. It was due to
broadcasts in Hebrew by the Egyptian radio station "Sout Al Arab".

In these broadcasts, the station was telling in Hebrew to the Israelis,
that the time for the Palestinian revenge had come. The whole Israeli
population would be thrown to the sea, their daughters and wifes would be
raped and their  children killed. Dayan who had already lost an eye,
would this time lose his second eye.

The Israeli population was so outraged by these broadcasts, that they all
wanted "to teach a lesson to those egyptians".

In 1969, from Canada, I used a trustful channel to inform Gamal that he
had been betrayed. The head of the Hebrew section in Sout Al Arab was
either stupid and ignorant, or he was a spy working for Israel. I
received a message of thanks From Gamal who disolved the station, just
after having received my report.

Once more, I was in Israel at the time and heard those broadcasts. I
witnessed their effect in uniting all the people around its government.

The average Israeli of today has not listened to these broadcasts. He
either was not yet born or was then too young. However, a child inherits
from his parents a mood, an atmosphere, the fears and the hates. They
then believe that the "Arabs" are uncivilised and are not trustfull. And
many of them remember the time when the PLO was against the recognition
of the state of Israel

Finally, the policy of suicide-bombings inside Israel proper, goes
in the psyche of the average Israeli to add its weight to what he has
inherited from his parents.

This average Israeli is ignorant and brainwashed. But when the news of
Sabra and Shatila reached Israel, they were half a million of those
average Israeli who went to protest against Sharon. Today they vote for
him. We know why No intelligent and creative Palestinian policy has been
designed to de-brainwash him.

We saw, how much an official attitude by an arab country can
influence the vulnerability of the Isareli people to be brainwashed
by false news, by disinformation well designed by the
Israeli establishment. But it also indicates that, as they are vulnerable
to Zionist braimwashing, they could be vulnerable to a Palestinian
strategy designed to debrainwash them.

To give up on the average Israeli, is to give up on the only force that
can replace the criminal kind of Israeli government, by one which really
longs for a just and peaceful solution of the conflict.

Some Israeli just do not know what to do faced with a Palestinian
population they wrongly believed to be bent on  refusing anyhtibng less
then throwing the Israelis to the sea, and also faced with the fact that
can no longer be ignored, that the Israelis have no consideration for the
purity of the arms, and are committing atrocities in the occupied
territories. Some want to hope that these atrocities, while undeniable,
are rather the exception than the rule.

All the forces interested in peace and justice, should each do their
part. However, since debrainwashing the average Israeli is so important,
we can recognise that gestures from the Palestinians are the more
effective. What should be these gestures will be given in 4a and 4b.
Those two have been posted long ago, but have their natural place in this

A message I wish Arafat would direct to the Jewish Israelis.

                       Message to the Jewish Israelis
                        from Yassir Arafat

To my Israeli Jewish neighbours,

Most of the Israeli population are too young to remember the time
when Jews and Arabs were living in "Palestine" in friendly and even
brotherly neighbourhood. Many of the older Israelis and Palestinians
do remember it quite well.

This does not surprise anyone versed in the History of the relations
between Jews and Arabs in the Arab countries. There has not been pogroms
against the Jews in Arab countries. The Jews could feel safe, build
their Synagogues, live according to their Jewish character, whatever it
had then been. Their possessions were safe, their families were safe,
the freedom to have their own schools was respected. The Jewish
communities, all around the Arab countries, prospered and developed a
culture of their own illustrated by names such a Maimonide, for
instance, whose writings in Egypt were done some in Hebrew and some in

While Jews endured various degrees of persecution in Europe, and even
in the US, they did find a friendly refuge in Arab countries. It is the
Muslim conquest that brought peace to the Spanish Jews and allowed them
to occupy prominent positions as statesmen, physicians and scholars.

The hospitality the Jews enjoyed in the arab countries lasted for
centuries. If today there are less Jews in the Arab countries than fifty
years ago, it is not because the Jews were persecuted in the Arab
countries. They were not coerced by Arab authorities into leaving the
Arab countries.

So, why did a relation, a friendly relation between our two people, that
was so outstanding compared to the antisemitism Jews endured elsewhere
in the world, why did such a relation suddenly became sour. Why is it
that now Isaeli soldiers occupy Palestinian territories where they are
unwelcomed? Why is it that Israeli soldiers shoot at our people, destroy
their houses and uproot their olive trees, divide their territories into
a number of islands which are perceived as prisons by the Palestinian
population? Why is it that misguided Palestinian go on suicidal missions
to kill Israelis on Israeli territory?

I can understand that an average Israeli, facing the reality of suicide
bombers-attack on Israeli territory, is outraged. He may come to hate
Palestinians. He may come to be blind to the righteousness of the
Palestinians aspirations. Such an Israeli may say that his leaders must
take whatever measures necessary to eliminate those Palestinian
terrorists, even if they have to be chased into the Palestinian
territory, even if it requires "collateral damage" to the Paslestinian
population in terms of the humiliation related to the checkpoints, and
in terms of destruction of Palestinian houses.

I do not approve the suicide-bombing attacks. But it is obvious that
they are not the root of the problem. Occupation, destruction of
Palestinian houses, increasing the number of Jewish settlements, and so
many other forms of persecution of the Palestinian people, were going on
before the wave of suicide-bombing attacks. THey were perceived as acts
of state terrorism committed by the state of Israel.

I too would like to stop those suicide-bombings. This cannot be done
just by arresting some members of organisations like HAMAS. HAMAS is a
popular organisation which has a large constituency. However many we
arrest of them, the constituency will provide an almost infinite source
of new volunteers to become suicide bombers.

Suicide bombings can be stopped only if HAMAS either loses its
constituency, or is forced by its constituency to direct its efforts and
energy in other of its fields of action. other than suicide-bombings.

As long as the Palestinian people will not be allowed to see the light
at the end of the tunnel, as long as the Palestinian people will be
deprived of the hope for freedom, security and prosperity, HAMAS will
always have a strong Palestinian constituency supporting its policies of
suicide-bombings in the Israeli territories proper.

Yes, an essential step towards a rapprochment between the two
populations is the cessation of the suicide bomb-attacks, of any other
form of attack against innocent Israeli civilians. But this cannot be
accomplished unless credible reasons for hope are given to the
Palestiniasn people.

Was it not for the occupation, the suicide-bombers would have grown into
becoming valuable citizen of a free Palestine country.

In this respect, I mourn all the victims of the Israeli occupation, I
mourn the Palestinians killed by the Israeli army, I mourn the Israeli
victims of the suicide-bombers, and I mourn the death of the
suicide-bombers, themselves victim of the Israeli occupation. There was
no suicide-bombings before 1967.

Give hope to the Palestinian people and I can promise that the following
will occur. The Palestinian constituency supporting HAMAS
suicide-bombings will evaporate.

Now, if hope and dignity are restored to the Palestinian people, and if
against the will of the Palestinian people, and in the absence of a
strong constituency, some HAMAS members want to go on with their
suicide-bonmbings attacks against the Israeli civil population on the
Israeli territory, I would then implement the most stringent measures
against those involved in such attacks. However, your government, headed
by Sharon, by removing all credible hope from the Palestinians, is tying
up my hands, and makes it impossible for me to implement such measures.
Would I try, and I would rightly be considered as a puppet in the hand
of a pityless conqueror bent on more and more depriving the Palestinians
of what remains to them of land property, liberty and dignity.

If you want me to successfully fight the suicide bombings and stop it,
you must give me the tools which are the restoration of the dignity and
hope to the Palestinian people.

How would you feel if your territory was occupied by a foreign army, if
it was divided into Islands which can communicate only through
checkpoints conmtroled by the occupier? How would you feel if your
villages had been destroyed, if your land had been confiscated in the
name of security, and then given to foreigners to settle on it? How
would you feel if your right to resist ocuupation was confronted by a
severe repression inflicting ten times more victims on Israelis than on
the occupier of your Israeli land? How would you feel if the occupier
had ordered the bones of your children to be broken if they throw stones
at the occupier?

This is only a very little bit of what the Palestinians are feeling.
Other feelings they have are based on historic facts you are denying,
but the validity of which can easily be proven. The historic record can
prove that the problem of the refugee was the result of a deliberate
Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing. I will not insist on it. The reality
of life under occupatiopn is grim enough to explain the pains, hurt and
even hate which can fill the hearts of Palestinians.

It is useless to demand from the whole Palestinian people to suffer
without resisting, to suffer without retaliation. No Palestinian leader
can be heard and followed if he asks his people to endure occupation in

All I can do is to say to my people that the fight for liberation is not
directed against the Israeli people. It is directed against the
occupation of our territory as delimited by the pre-1967 boundaries.
Give back hope and dignity to the Palestinian people, and I will order
all Palestinians to absolutely refrain from any violent action on
Israeli territories. Resisting the occupier should be directed against
the occupier on occupied territory.

Any Palestinian who would then resort to violence on the Israeli
territory would be acting against the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian
authority would deal with him as with a criminal. I also think that in a
situation in which hope and dignity is restored to the Palestinians,
HAMAS too will oppose the policy of suicide-bombings and would condemn
those who resort to it, against the will of the Palestinian population.

Once more, I reiterate the sacred right of the oppressed to resist
oppression, of the occupied to resist occupation. This can and is to be
done only on the Palestine occupied territory, the territory being that
of the pre-1967 boundaries. Extending act of resistence to the Israeli
territory as defined by the pre-1967 boundaries, is considered by my
authority as a ctiminal act, but which can be prevented only
by restoring hope and decency to the Palestinian people.

Still, in order to encourage a start of either an unilateral Israeli
withdrawal from the occupied territories, or a negotiated one, we hereby
proclaim a unilateral cessation of hostilities for three months. To make
it more clear, hostilities on the Israeli territories are hereby
declared as being directed against the Palestinian people and therefore
forbidden for ever. The hostilities on the occupied territories, against
the occupier are suspended for threee months, a peiord that can either
be extended, or even be followed by a permanent cesasation of
hostilities, depending on the reaction of the Israeli govenment and its
willingness to prove that it is considering the evacuation of the

I would like to make it clear that once the territories are evacuated,
and the Palestinian state is proclaimed with East Jerusalem as its
Capital, it will be our aim to realise the dream of the two states
living side by side as good neighbours and even friendly neighbours.
This is only possible if each of the two states treats the other as an
equal. We will never accept that the boundaries of our state be under
Israeli control, that our sky and out harbours be under Israeli control.
We cannot accept what the Israeli would not have accepted for
themselves. What we can solemnly prove is that our policies will be so
designed as to make the Israeli people feel more and more secure, more
and more friendly towards us.

This is necessary if we want to realise our second step.

This step consist in a voluntary union between our two states. The
stress is on VOLUNTARY. Absolutely no coercion should at any time be
exerted in this respect.

Such a step can be made in the following circumstances:

1) The Palestinian state adopts a constitution which should be the most
democratic, the most tolerant, the most humane in the world. It should
be like a shining beacon announcing a new era of inter-ethnical
relations, of respect of human rights, of transparency in the works of
the government

2) The Palestians adopt a secular constitution. No ethnicity should feel
favoured by the state. In particular, the Christians who form a sizeable
minority should not feel like second class citizens. As to the Jews,
they could become citizen of the Palestinian state, like any other
foreigner who is already on the Palestinian territory or whose request
for immigtation has been granted. A jew, whether a Palestinian citizen
or a visitor on business or tourism, should feel himself welcomed,
secure and, so to say, at home. The traditional Palestinian hospitality
should be extended to him, as long as he is on our territory with
friendly intentions.

3) The question of the Palestinian refugees should be tackled as soon as
posisble. No Palestinian should be asked to relinquish his right of
return. However, the whole world, by doing nothing to enforce the UN
decisions concerning the Palestinian refugiees, having thus been the
accomplices of Israel in allowing this blatant injustice to last for so
long, have the duty to offer a program of generous compensations for
those refugies willing to settle outside Israel.

The remaining refugees will have their problem solved when, through our
policies, it will become clear to the Isareli Jewish population that,
within the Union between Palestine and Israel, the Jewish population,
even more than in the US, will be able to practice their religion and
their traditions, be they secular or religious. In short the Israeli
Jewish population, prior to unification, must know that they will feel
at home in the unified state

4) The Palestinians must adopt a system of education that underlines the
historic closeness between Arabs and Jews. It must mention the
tremendous contributions made by the two people to civilisation, art,
and science. It must embed the notion that in view of that closeness,
and in view of their common interests, the most friendly relations
should exist between the two states, and between the two people. The
Israeli could reciprocate.

Unfortunately, just now, it is the guns that are speaking. It is time to
stop it. It is time to give back to the Palestinian authority the means
of extirpating terrorism for good This requires to

a) stop attacks on the PA police forces, stop the policy of repression

b) either unilaterally evacuate the territories, or negotiate it seriously.

c) start to think of our relations as being between equals.

In return, the mere fact of the evacuation will reduce to a large degree
the amount of violence against Israeli. I do not deny that some residual
violence could remain, implemented by irresponsible elements which we
will treat as criminals. But a PA strengthemed by the evacuation, will
be able to mobilise the whole Palestinian population against all the
violent elements. It is only when the Palestinian population will
abbandon its support for the violent individyuals, that the PA will be
able to succeed in its fight against terrorism.

In short the program I am proposing to the People of Israel is as follows:

1) Israeli evacuate the territories

2) The Palestinians succed in their fight against terrorism and develop
amost democratic, secular and humane society with a bent towards
friendship between the two people

3) starting from now, and particularly after the success of step 2,
the problem of the refugees will be totally solved, in an atmosphere
devoid of fear, based on the developed friendship between the two people.

4) Once the friendship of the two people will be a fact of life, the
voluntary unification of the two states can be envisaged.

I consider myself accountable to history in solemnly declaring that
these four points represent the totality of our agenda.

In particular, transforming the pre-1948 Jewish immigrants into
wandering refugees, as Hamas is suggesting, is totally outside and
against our agenda.

As to organisations such as Hamas, we will give them two choices:

a) they submit to the will of the Palestinian people and stop all acts
of violence. This presupposes that Israel would already have evacuated
the territories. They can pursue a religious task of charities. They can
be active in demanding that the secular constitution should embed the
moral values of Islam. It will be our aim that the constitution would
embed the moral values of all religions, since they are so close to each
other in this respect.

b) if they do not, they will be exterminated as an organisation, pursued
and arrested as individuals, and judged as criminalss. Without popular
support they will not last long.

Israeli neighbours! We will do our part in letting you realise that we
could be friends, that we bear no hostile feelings against the Israeli
people. Our hostility is against the occupation. Cease the occupation,
and your security is increased by leaps and bounds. In fact the security
on your northern borders has greatly increased after the evacuation of

A last point, that of the settlers on our territories. The settlements
are contraveining the Geneva conventions and the UN decisions. There is
no possibility of a status of equality between a Palestinian State and
Israel, if Israel arrogates to itself the right of protecting them. The
ideal solution would be to dismantle the settlements. I am afraid it is
the only practical solution.

Suppose for instance we would have accepted that the settlers stay in
Palestine as Palestiinian citizen. They would have to conform to
the Palestinian laws that would certainly demand the disarming of all
the population, the settlers included. What if the settlers refused to
be disarmed? What if it leads to incidents. WOuld not this be a cause of
friction between the two states? Will it not hinder the develpment of
friendly relations between the two people? What if some settler builds
a new house besides his, without getting a permit? Will we not be
entitled to take the measures provided by the law and which could
include the destruction of the illegal house?

We know too well from our own experience how much such actions can
poison our relations. Therefore, for the sake of a future friendship
between our two people, for the sake of a long term security for each of
the two people, it is necessary that the settlements be dismantled.

For a long time, the French and German people hated each other. Today
they have friendly relations, there are no troops guarding their borders
and citizen of both countries can cross the border without going through
customs and without showing their passports.

I do not want to minimise the difficulties, but in reality, they are as
great or as small as we make them to be.

I know that the Israeli people, like the Palestinian people, yearns for
peace, security and prosperity. In fact, and though Israel is quite
secure on the short term, no country, not even Israel, can enjoy
long-term security while surrounded by hostile countries. Obviously
Israel's long term security lies in peaceful and friendly relation with
its neighbours and, most importantaly, with the Palestinian people.

Now, those Israeli aspirations are similar to the Palestinian
aspirations. The Palestinians too want to live in peace, security and
prosperity. Like the Israeli, they want to have their independent state,
like the Israeli they refuse to accept that their country be occupied by
a foreign army.

It is therefore natural that the Palestinians do not want to be less
free in their land than the Israeli are in theirs.

We believe that there is no gene in the Israeli people that predispose
them to persecute the Palestinian people. We do remember that from
the Jewish people sprang inspirational and humanist personalities that
had, and still have a momentous influence on our civilisation or on our
artistic life such as Karl Marx, Henri Bergson. Martin Buber, Sigmund
Freud, Amadeo Modigliani, Marc Chagall, Albert Einstein, Mendelsohn, and
Shalom Aleikhem, whose contributions are now the heritage of all
humanity, Arabs included. All those creative people had nothing to do
with a spirit of oppression.

The actual oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli state, is
therefore not willed as such by the Israeli people. It is just wrongly
perceived as a necessity dictated by the security of Israel.

Still, in the measure in which they influence the opinion and the stands
of people, perceptions that do not correspond to reality, are still part
of reality We cannot therefore ignore them. It is enough that they do
exist, and therefore have to be taken into account.

It is also true that wrong perceptions about the Israelis do exist among
the Palestine people. However wrong, these perceptions are part of the
reality. A "rapprochment" between our two peoples therefore requires
that efforts be made on two fronts.

Can't we be as wise as the French and the German people? It takes men of
vision to realise such a dream, that of a rapprochement. I have here
considered practical steps that could result in such a rapprochement.

With this speech, I am not only offering peace and security to the
Israeli people, I am also offering friendship between our two people. I
know it is not just a question of words, it is a question of
demonstrating an honest determination.

And let us remember that long term security cannot be based on an
imposed peace which could be challenged by next generations. It must be
a peace which imbeds enough elements of Justice to never be challenged

My dream is peace, security and friendship between our two people. At
first between our two neighbouring states, and then, by nmutual
acceptance, within a single state.

I know that pointing to that single state can led Israeli extremists to
raise the fear of a coercive union between the two states. Nothing of
the kind will ever be considered. A coercive union would be a criminal
act which is bound to have catastrophic results. It is not the way for
peace and security. It does not lead to friendship.

With my best wishes for a fraternal relation between the state of Israel
and the state of Palestine
               Stumbling blocks (5)
           The Barbarians are at the Gates

Yes the barbarians are at the gates. The US ia about
to invade Iraq. Their intentions are clear. Only
the US people could stop them.

The more the international opinion is against the war,
 the more the american people will doubt the wisdom
of invading Iraq. All possible efforts must be made
to help the american people becoming more and more
conscious of the necessity to stop their leadership
form launching the war. Letters to the newspapers,
local meetings in all cities, demonstration whenever
possible, are some of the means.

We could remind the US people of the numerous
criminal policies followed in the past by their
government. Is it wrong to spread knowledge? But it
might not be the proper moment. Some US citizen may
be prepared to listen to the miseries caused to the
Iraqis by the sanctions and by the first Gulf war.
We may gain them to oppose the war towards which Bush
is pushing. The same citizens may not be prepared to
listen to the list of past crimes committed by their
leadership. So, should we abandon spreading the truth?

No! But the barbarians are at the gates, and there is
one truth that is today more important than all the
other, the necessity to gain as many people as
possible to join the struggle for peace. We must
atune the amount of truth and the part of which that
can most efficiently mobilise the US people against
the war.

As an instance, and though it is true that the
white immigrants did commit genocide against the
native indian population, the time today is not
for that. The time is for stopping the possible
war against Iraq. The barbarians are at the gates.

The SHaronite barbarians are also at the gates.
The Sharonites are preparing to exploit the occasion,
together with prefabricated incidents, to implement
a newer and deadlier version of the 1948-Nekba.
Only the Israeli people can stop them. We must find
a way to speak to the Israeli people.

Now is not the time for a onestate-twostates
discussiion. Now is not the time for one person,
one vote, one country. Now is the time to stop the
barbarian at the gates, the sharonites and associates.
Unless we find a way to speak to the Israeli people,
the only force that can topple the Sharonites,
nothing will be able to stop them.

The way to speak to the Israeli people, the way to
which the Israeli people is today ready to listen,
is not by raising his level of guilt feeling,
but raising his awareness of how much the Sharonites
are indeed noxious, toxic and harmful to the isterests
of the Israeli people. And this can be done by
actions that speak volumes and demystify the lies of
the Israeli establsihment. In short the strategy, must
be one that shakes the Israeli public opinion in their
belief that their security depends on militarily
combatiing the Palestinian "terrorism", convincing
them that it is possible for Isralis and Palestinians
to live in peace.

>From this point of view, it must be understood that
EVERYTHING has a strategic value that could be positive
or negative. Therefore EVERTHING must be judged by that
criterium: does it serve the progress of the strategy?

Let us take for instance a project of Palestinian
constitution. To mention in it that it is the
constitutino of all historic Palestine with one vote
for one person, is enough to terrorise the Israelis.
In advancing such a constitution, you may utter nice
principles but you leave the gates opwen to the
barbarians. And they are at the gates.

The day will certainly come for "one person one vote
one country". It will come after the toppling of the
Israeli establishment by a demystified Israeli
population, that no longer believes in his past false
fears. We should therefore give priority to what
establishes to the Istraeli people the baselessness
of his fears. if he knows that "one person one vote
one country" is scheduled for a seccond stage, that of
a voluntary fusion of the two states, he will not be
afraid and will be ready to topple the sharonites. This,
of course, is not that simple. You can have more
details in the whole series of the stumbling blocks.

A constitution that asserts that Islam is the official
religion of the country, does not increase the security
feeling of the Israelis, and is therefore strategically
wrong, besides being wrong for other reasons.

Of course I can hear people saying that it is the
security of the Palestinians which is in danger. That
this is the problem we should address.

That would be true, were it not that it is the Israelis,
and only them, who can topple the sharonites, and stop
the barbarians at the gates, and they will do it we can
prove to them that their fears are false, induced by a
most efficient propaganda machine which must be
counteracted by a wise startegy.

We could tell the Israeli people about Nekba-1948. Of
course this has to be said, even now, but now it is not
what can shake up the Israeli people. That is not what
will make them revolt and topple the Israeli criminal
establsihment. So while spreading that truth we must
concentrate on the need for the Israelis to get rid of
the Sharonites.

A Palestinian constitution for the West Bank and Ghaza,
that would mention the need for tolerance and equality
between all ethnicities, in the part that Palestinians
will rule during the phase of two-states, is one of the
ways to start addressing the fears of the Israelis, and
detach them from the sharonites. Though the one-state
is the ideal, the final objective, the two-state is
right now the only solution acceptable to the Israeli
people. And unless the Israeli people accept it, no
one-state can be obtained short-circuiting the two-staes.

Any speech, any political stand by Palestinian leaders
and personalities, should be designed to shake the
Israelis away from their false beliefs. The imaginary
speech that I wrote in a preceding "stumbling block",
is an example of how to act strategically, and therefore
influence the Israeli people and detach them from the
Sharonites. Of course, the time will come to speak of
the voluntary fusion of the two states.

The time will come to ask for the return of the
Palestinian refugees. Their return will be the faster,
the faster we detach the Israeli people from the
sharonites.The time is not for expressing the disgust
with tikunists. If they are willing to stop the
barbarians, we should welcome them at this stage.

The barbarians are at the gates!
The barbarians are at the gates!


While Bysance was about to fall in the hands of the
barbarians who were atits gates, some of the wise
men were discussing what could be the number of
angels that could dance on the head of a pin.

Many of the today's discussions, though quite
important and serious, but when the barbarian are at
the gates, are as relevant to the terrible situatrion,
as the discussions that were going on in Bysance.

In Bysance they discussed without acknowledging the
overwhelming fact that the barbarians were at the
gates,. Should we do the same?

Let us concentrate on what can shake away the Israeli
people from the Sharonites. It can be done by adopting
the strategy developed in STumbling blocks. That
strategy is still imperfect and incomplete. Work is
being done on it.