Egypt’s Role in the Gaza Disengagement Plan
The head of Egyptian Intelligence, Omar Suleiman, is perhaps a man of some privilege, for he is the only foreign official to have met with both Arafat and Sharon (and their attendant retinue of advisers and ministers), in one visit, in one day (the meetings were, of course, held separately, in Ramallah and Tel Aviv yesterday). While Egypt’s potential role in Sharon’s unilateral “Gaza Disengagement Plan” is nearly as controversial as the plan itself, it has become harder for all parties to deny Egypt’s increasing relevance not only to the plan but also to the future resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This, perhaps, is a quiet triumph for Egypt, which has long been considered by both parties as an unsuitable and, worse, self-interested mediator. However, the path ahead for Egyptian diplomacy, yesterday’s high-level meetings notwithstanding, continues to be fraught with contention.
Ten Palestinian groups (including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular and Democratic Fronts for the Liberation of Palestine; Fatah, notably, disassociated itself from this group) issued a strongly-worded statement prior to the meeting between Arafat and Suleiman rejecting any “security role” for Egypt or any other Arab party in the Gaza and the West Bank, on the grounds that “our people expect the Arab nation to act according to the logic of supporting the Palestinians and not the logic of ‘security.’” Any references to ‘security,’ according to the statement, are tantamount to accepting that the problem “is the Palestinian people and not the occupation.” Another charge leveled by these groups against the Egyptian proposal (that seeks, among other things, to introduce approximately 200 Egyptian security “advisers” into Gaza pending a full withdrawal of the Israeli military forces from the region), is that such a move would amount to a “guardianship that will turn the Palestinians into apprentices,” and that would eventually serve only to “further sinister Israeli goals in the West Bank and Gaza.”
Egypt’s intentions are particularly under scrutiny given the stern conditions and timeline imposed by Suleiman yesterday on Arafat: two months to “institute reforms” in all Palestinian security organizations, and two months to appoint senior officials to assume security responsibility for Gaza. The lack of precisely such reforms in the Palestinian security establishment has repeatedly been used by both Israel and the US as a justification to discredit Arafat and to thereby discontinue talks with him. Arafat, for his part, has openly praised what he calls “Egypt’s support for the Palestinians”, and responded to concerns about an “Egyptian security role” in Gaza by saying “we asked our Egyptian brothers to help us stop this destruction of our country by the Israeli occupation.” Despite these warm words, Palestinian sources said yesterday that the meeting was tense and confrontational, and it is unclear to what extent and by which time Arafat will instate the reforms demanded of him by Egypt. It is also clear that Arafat will continue to view Egypt not as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but rather as a party who is “on our side,” a role to which Egypt, it would seem, no longer wishes to limit itself.
Arafat’s dismissal of Egypt’s role as a mediator might, unsurprisingly enough, be the sole point of agreement between him and Sharon. For while Sharon has openly welcomed the Egyptian initiative, and while Israeli government sources have deemed it both “serious and ambitious,” Sharon himself has made clear that “while we attach vast importance to Egyptian activity in the Gaza Strip and along the border, I don’t intend to allow Egypt to become a mediator between Israelis and Palestinians.” He also said, after his meeting with Suleiman yesterday, that Israel would not allow Egypt to raise the issue of Israeli-Palestinian talks in Gaza, or of comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The disengagement plan, he confirmed, would remain unilateral. According to Sharon, “renewing negotiations with the Palestinians via Egyptian mediation would thwart the disengagement plan and endanger the internationally backed road map to peace.” (He did not, unfortunately, explain why this should be so). As is clear from these statements, Sharon, not unlike Arafat, sees Egypt’s role in Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza as being far more limited than that envisioned by Egypt itself.
Just as the meeting between Arafat and Suleiman was criticized by several Palestinian factions for having sinister intentions and potentially damaging consequences, the meeting between Sharon and Suleiman was similarly criticized by several Israeli notables, chief among them Benjamin Netanyahu, who questioned the wisdom of allowing Egypt to play any role at all in Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza. “I don’t think that any of us can promise that the Gaza Strip won’t be filled with rockets and other weapons that will threaten all the cities of Israel,” Netanyahu said, “I think that leaning on Egypt is very problematic, very questionable.”
While Sharon dismissed such criticism by announcing, on Israel Radio yesterday, that the Egyptians “aren’t speaking Palestinian anymore,” it remains unclear to what extent Israel will ultimately accept any Egyptian role in the proceedings, and if Sharon will accept any of the conditions placed on Israel by Egypt, i.e., that of a complete withdrawal of all Israeli military forces from the Gaza prior to the introduction of “Egyptian security advisers,” and the establishment of an international force (including Egyptian and Palestinian soldiers but excluding all Israeli soldiers) to control Gaza’s seaport and airport.
Another point of contention between Egypt and Israel that is unlikely to be resolved soon is Egypt’s opposition to the Israeli-planned construction of a ditch along the Philadelphi route. As far as Egypt is concerned, “If this is full withdrawal,” as Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Maher said yesterday, “then it is not logical to speak of a ditch or any other arrangements that are opposed to the principle of full withdrawal… After their withdrawal, what happens on the border will not be Israel’s business.” Israel, on the other hand, continues to maintain that such a ditch is essential to its security, and, as a senior diplomat in Jerusalem said yesterday, “we will not agree to any such conditions… if terrorism continues in the Gaza Strip, we will continue operating there and will not tie our hands.”
Despite this week’s determined shuttle diplomacy, thus, it is doubtful whether Egypt achieved much. While Suleiman was warmly welcomed by both Arafat and Sharon, he received no concrete assurances on his plans and conditions from either side, and the future of Gaza, and that of its suffering population, remains, at best, uncertain. Can Egyptian diplomacy ensure in Gaza a complete Israeli withdrawal (including the strategic Philadelphi route), a comprehensive reformation of the Palestinian security forces (which would include Arafat’s relinquishing of control), the introduction of 200 Egyptian “security advisors,” and the establishment of an international Egyptian and Palestinian dominated security force in full control of Gaza’s air and sea ports? Leaving alone for the strict timelines insisted upon by the Egyptians, will Israel and Palestine even accept these as legitimate goals? And will Egypt emerge, over the next few weeks, as the guarantor of a just and legitimate peace? Or has this week witnessed yet another fruitless attempt at creating timelines, plans and conditions that are not quite worth the paper they’re written on?
Only time will tell if Egypt can be accepted by both sides as the just mediator it seems to want to be, or if it will continue to be perceived by all concerned as a self-interested meddler who contributes nothing to a just peace. And time, it is hoped, will side with justice.
Believing in Jerusalem
Date posted: May 27, 2013
By Joharah Baker for MIFTAH
Last week, Israel barred a UNESCO fact-finding mission from entering the country, charging that the Palestinians had ‘politicized’ the mission before it had even arrived. The mission was tasked with looking into conditions of historical sites in the Old City of Jerusalem, something Israel apparently found to be very threatening.
Looking at the state of Jerusalem’s eastern sector today, it is understandable why Israel would not want UNESCO or anyone else walking around the Old City, especially the Palestinian-populated parts of it. Because anyone who does, will see the devastation that Israel and its settlers have wreaked on one of the oldest and most beautiful cities in the world.
Excavation works are being conducted in and around the Aqsa Mosque to make way for more Jewish construction at the place where Waqf authorities say Ottoman and Abbasid artifacts have long been tucked away. A Muslim graveyard is being dug up just outside the Old City’s Jaffa Gate, to build – ironically – a museum of tolerance. Today, two stores were forcefully taken over by Jewish settlers in Al Hakari, one of the neighborhoods in the Muslim quarter and every day, it seems that more and more homes are either being demolished by Israeli municipality authorities or being taken over by Jewish settlers.
The “Judiazation” of Jerusalem is a term many Palestinians and Arabs use for what Israel is doing in the city. In a nutshell, it is the long-term plan Israel is gradually carrying out to change the Arab Palestinian character of Jerusalem. This means demolishing old and historical structures, displacing Palestinians, handing over their homes to settlers and trying to erase the Palestinian or Arab history of the city.
The sad truth is that, on the surface, Israel has succeeded in this to a large extent. Pockets of Jewish settlers now live in the heart of Muslim quarters and aim to take over more and more. Sheikh Jarrah, one of the more affluent Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem, is now pierced with Jewish flags waving from homes that have been wrestled from their Palestinian owners, and Israel’s light rail train cuts right down through Palestinian neighborhoods outside of the city center. The train, of course, is not meant to service the Palestinian population but rather to connect Jewish neighborhoods and settlements in the city, but the area confiscated from Shufat and Beit Hanina for its construction simply fell into the plan.
What the UNESCO mission would not have seen even if they made it into the Old City is the overall humiliation that the Palestinian population of Jerusalem must endure on a daily basis because of Israel’s military occupation. Trips to the Israeli ministry of interior must be made just to prove that one lives in the city for fear that their residency rights may be revoked; young Palestinian men are stopped randomly by Israeli soldiers to check their ID cards or just to harass them, and settlers are always given the luxury of maximum security whenever they walk the streets. If settlers want to march through the city, the Palestinians are told to close their shops, are barred for hours from reaching their homes if they run along the path of the march and are always the ones blamed if any kind of confrontation between the two sides breaks out.
Jerusalem is being squeezed by these measures more and more each day. But there is always that glimmer of hope, that strength that shines through proving that all is not lost. On Shavuot, Israeli settlers and extremists poured into the Old City, singing loudly, banging on the shop doors and waving huge Israeli flags. The sight was disconcerting to say the least. However, the afternoon of that same day, at Damascus Gate, passersby were met with a completely different scene. Palestinian flags waved in determined Palestinian hands under the threatening eye of heavily armed Israeli police and soldiers. The youths were fearless, demanding freedom, with strong, unrelenting voices.
The sight of the Palestinian flag waving at the entrance to Damascus Gate was a breath of fresh air. All is not lost and never will be because hope is eternal and determination and strength come from a never-ending spring.
That day at Damascus Gate is what all Palestinians must keep in their minds’ eye in spite of the daily oppression of the occupation. No matter how many missions Israel bars from entering or how many houses it takes over, there will always be those brave souls who, despite the risks, will always raise Palestine’s flag.
Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.
Let Mohammed rest in peace
Date posted: May 20, 2013
By Joharah Baker for MIFTAH
There is no point falling into the pit of countering the claims being made about the death of Mohammed Al Durra, the 12-year old boy from Gaza whose videotaped killing was seen around the world. The boy, crouching in fear behind is equally afraid father as bullets whizzed around them, was killed admittedly by the Israeli army. Later, the army recanted after investigating the tape, saying Durra was killed by Palestinian fire instead. Well now, Israel is changing its story altogether, saying he was not killed at all. In fact, he was probably not even wounded and the French channel that broadcast the footage and brought some pretty bad rap to Israel, had most likely filmed a charade.
The reason why I will not waste my time countering this claim is that even with the great lengths the Israeli government went to to prove that the boy was never killed, it could not provide any irrefutable proof that Mohammed Al Durra – who would be 25 now – is still alive. No pictures, no testimonies, no hospital or morgue officials giving statements to refute his death, have been provided. Only sketchy information about ‘poor quality footage’ and the fact that it seems as though the boy moved his arm after he had slumped over his father following the explosion.
My point is this: indeed, Mohammed Durra’s death was at least one of the catalysts that fueled the second Intifada, and thus, was an important event in the history of the Palestinians. However, more importantly – most importantly to me –is the fact that this is about a boy who died in sheer terror, with his distraught father futilely trying to shelter him from the barrage of bullets coming their way.
Mohammed Al Durra was a boy, with a life, a family and friends. He died a horrible death and now he is being made to die a second one. I did not know Mohammed or his family, but I can only imagine how awful it must be for them to read these claims now and feel the pain of losing their child all over again. If nothing else, this is disrespect for human life of the worst kind.
Some may postulate that the rehashing of the Durra case is a personal jab at the French cameraman who shot the footage, Charles Enderlin. Perhaps. But as a Palestinian who has seen the pain endured by numerous families who receive the horrible news that their sons or daughters have been killed by the Israeli army, my concern is for his family and for his memory. He should be left to rest in peace. If Israel has axes to grind with French journalists or with the international community for holding it accountable for its actions, then so be it. Israel is not lacking in the public relations department.
That being said, there is just one decent thing left to do. Leave Mohammed Al Durra and his memory alone.
Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.
Recognition and justice is our demand
Date posted: May 13, 2013
By Joharah Baker for MIFTAH
This week Palestinians will commemorate Al Nakba, the catastrophe that befell the Palestinian people when Israel was founded. Every year, Palestinians hang placards pointing to the right of return, they carry keys symbolizing the homes they were forced to leave and could not return to and remember the Palestine that was lost to them 65 years ago.
This year will be no different. Every May 15, Palestinian recall their catastrophe and demand justice. They demand that they are granted the right of return for those who were made refugees virtually overnight and were then relegate to a life they did not choose. But more than anything, they demand recognition of the tragedy that befell them rather than a denial that it ever happened, or worse, that it was of their own making.
It has been 65 years since Israel was established in 1948, which means those who were cast into exile are either very old or have long passed. Those who experienced the Nakba are now few and far between, clinging to those few precious memories of a small garden in front of their house in Jaffa or of the salty smell of the sea in their neighborhood in Haifa. The rest of us are either descendants of these refugees or ordinary Palestinians who feel their cause is our cause because we are one people.
But the Palestinians have made one thing clear. The refugee issue will not die with the last refugee. It is felt nationwide, the loss, the injustice and the fact that those who were forced from their homes have mostly passed, longing for their beloved homes.
We cannot turn back time. What was lost has been altered, destroyed, changed or taken over by Israel’s newcomers. What we can do is hold on to the right to be recognized, for the injustice to be rectified in word and deed and for Palestine to never be lost in our minds or hearts.
Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.
