Fighters' Talk
by Ran HaCohen

I went to an evening organised by the Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the occupied territories. It was called "Fighters’ Talk", referring to the title of a well- known book from just after the 1967 war, which exposed the first ideological cracks – hesitations, questions, criticism – of soldiers who had occupied the territories in the six days of that war. The speakers as well as the audience were varied: refusers, serving soldiers, supporters and opponents, hesitators.

One of the participants in the old Fighters’ Talk was on the stage too. Comparing the two occasions, he said things were much simpler in the old days. "We were fighting against regular armies – of Jordan, Egypt, Syria – and not against civilians. The Palestinians were there, the war was in their territories, but they were not fighters, not terrorists, not the enemy. Whether we believed holding the territories was desirable or not, none of us thought we should settle them." Compare this to the present reality, where a quarter of a million Israeli settlers live on Palestinian soil, taking Palestinian land, water, freedom. Where an army is fighting a civilian population with no state, no defence, no rights, no dignity.

A refuser described the mission that made him refuse. Last year, he said, we were ordered to destroy a Palestinian house in the territories because of a balcony added to it without a permit. It was a clear Israeli provocation: it had been expected to develop into a battle, and it did. He described dragging crying children out of bed, wondering how long it would take before they become suicide-bombers. He described how, after a cease-fire order was given, fire went on. Another army unit that happened to be in the area kept shooting, ignoring the order. No one ever bothered to check who they were, nor did he believe it was an exception. The battle ended with six Palestinians wounded and one soldier shot in his leg. The next day he heard it all on the radio: "During a military operation, our soldiers were attacked and returned fire."[read more]

----------

A Witness from the Past
From Josephus to Sharon
by Uri Avnery

That may be a hint of what's to come. Sharon plans a full-fledged attack on Gush Shalom and all the serious peace camp, in order to silence all criticism and frighten other opponents into silence. His words are not only designed to pressure the state prosecution into putting the Gush activists on trial, but are also a simple incitement to murder, very much like his speeches on the eve of Rabin's assassination.

What frightens Sharon so much? It seems that the Gush Shalom activity causes many soldiers to think, for the first time, about the possibility that certain actions are not only immoral and sabotage all chances for peace, but also violate Israeli and international law and might constitute war crimes. After all, the great majority of the soldiers are reasonable persons. Sharon hears the echo. In order to silence the message, he chooses to silence the messenger. I believe that even Josephus Flavius will not help him to achieve that. [read more]

----------

While this might not be as newsworthy as the latest suicide attack or Israeli bombing, Palestinian democracy is stirring. They seem to be calling Bush and Sharon's bluff.

An Arab parliament that speaks its mind

Between the burdens of the occupation, the poverty, the gang and organization wars, the curfew, the closures, the liquidations, the home demolitions and the relocations, someone latched onto a thin golden thread that came out of the frayed and tattered Provisional Palestinian Constitution - and fomented a revolution. (...)

But this democratic development was not executed for the benefit of either Israel or the United States. There is no doubt that it was accelerated by the pressure of the occupation, because in conditions like these, even small mistakes are unforgivable, and the corruption of the few becomes more blatant against the background of the general shortage. But we should not be under any illusions: the basic demands of the Palestinians will not change just because they decided to clean their stables, while, in any case, the government in Israel will not agree to pick up the gauntlet if the Palestinian regime is changed. Both to introduce democracy for the Palestinians and to give up territories for them? [read more]