Unicamp Hoje - Your news channel
navigation

..ADVENTURE
..CONFLICT
..TEACHING
..HISTORY
..READER
..RESEARCH
..AWARD
..HEALTH

CONFLICT


'It is not with stones that Palestinians attack Israel'


MEDAD MEDINA*

“Terrorism will put at risk the freedom and security of the entire world, of all countries, of all people”
Shimon Peres


It was with great regret that I learned of an article published in the Jornal da Unicamp, “The boys with the slings”, written by Mr. João Maurício da Rosa. In addition to misinformation, the text incites hatred against the State of Israel and its entire history. Certain that the content of the published article does not reflect the opinion of the newspaper, I would like to express my disagreement with such a lack of historical knowledge. At the beginning of his article, the author states that 852 Palestinian stone throwers have lost their lives in the last 14 months, fighting against Israeli rifles and armor.

Such a statement distorts the facts, in an attempt to show an oppressed people who cannot defend themselves. A recent example that the Palestinians do not attack Israel with stones occurred on Thursday, January 3, when the Naval Command Forces, together with the Air Force and the Navy, in a coordinated military operation, captured a boat loaded with around 50 tons of weapons. The weapons that have been seized and examined so far include short- and long-range (20 km) Katiucha rockets, mortars, anti-tank rockets, mines and sophisticated sabotage materials, sniper rifles, and large ammunition.

The captured boat was acquired by the Palestinian Authority and belongs to it. The boat's commander is a lieutenant colonel in the Palestinian navy and most of the crew also belongs to it. In the first interrogation, the commander confirmed that the destination was the Palestinian Authority. It is absolutely clear that captured weaponry is not necessary for maintaining order. There is no police in the world that uses Katiuchas, mortars and anti-tank rockets. The acquisition of this weapon testifies to the Palestinian Authority's aggressive intentions against Israeli civilians and soldiers.

With the acquisition of the boat and enormous weapons and the attempt to smuggle it in a sophisticated way, Arafat and the Palestinian Authority proved that they are not acting to thwart terror, but rather that they are interested in maintaining this option; What Arafat and the Palestinian Authority cannot obtain politically, they try to obtain through terror.

The Palestinians can no longer continue to play a double game and must decide unequivocally whether to support and use terror or fight it. The capture operation carried out by Israel is not only an act of self-defense on our part, but it joins the global commitment to combat terror and defeat it.

suicide bombers - The article also classifies the suicide bombers as “poster children for a cause, which without them would go unnoticed by the rest of the world”. Now, the whole world has already witnessed the hateful consequences of the terrorist acts of suicide bombers, who have already taken the lives of more than 80 innocent Israeli civilians. It would be incomprehensible for a democratic government, which fights for equal human rights, to see its citizens being victims of these terrorist actions and do nothing about it.

By accusing Israel of “making a fool of itself in history, wanting to produce oblivion, in an operation fundamental to the support of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes”, quoting journalist José Arbex, once again, it makes unfounded and distorted statements. It is important to go back in time and remember that, when the UN in 1947 decided to divide Palestine, which at the time was occupied by the British, into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, the State of Israel was then legitimately created.

In 1948, when David Ben Gurion proclaimed the creation of the state of Israel, and on the same day, five armies from Arab countries invaded the territory destined for the Jewish state, for extermination and prevention of its establishment, it was the first demonstration of hostility and intolerance that the State of Israel faced. In 1967, in a unilateral act by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, the Six-Day War began, Israel conquering the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip (from Egypt), the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Jordan) and the Hills of Israel. Golan (Syria), Israel once again had another demonstration of rejection by Arab countries.
On the other hand, in 1993, a time when, after a few years of the popular revolution of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Intifada), an important event occurred: Israeli leaders, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and Chancellor Shimon Peres met met with the president of the PLO, Yasser Arafat and mutually agreed on the recognition of both sides, determined that any type of disagreement should be resolved through dialogue between the parties.

At this time, the Near East went through a period of euphoria about a possible solution. The dream was envisioned that instead of spending billions of dollars on weapons and ammunition, they would invest in technology and well-being. We thought about turning the Near East into an economic unit that would improve the standard of living of its citizens for the benefit of all. This vision of the “new Near East”, idealized by Shimon Peres, sounded almost like an economic and political mantra. But the implementation of this idea required concessions: territorial and other demands and in general, abandonment of dreams.

After the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, the realization of this vision became even more distant. In July 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak made a bold attempt at progress. In fact, he tried to reach an agreement that would bring an end to the conflict. He made advanced proposals, hitherto never made by an Israeli leader. At Camp David, Israel offered to grant almost the entire Gaza Strip and the West Bank to the Palestinians, enabling Israel to maintain some settlements in the West Bank.

On the Palestinian side, Yasser Arafat refused such a proposal, claiming to want the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, in addition to guaranteeing access to Israel for Palestinian refugees, refugees who, for 53 years, have lived in refugee camps in the Arab states.

Military superiority - Arafat, on the other hand, did not accept the proposal made on the issue of Jerusalem and this summit ended in July 2000 in Washington, without there being an agreement. Much of the blame for the meeting's failure was attributed to Yasser Arafat, who at no point changed his position, still making demands and demands of Israel. In September 2000, the Palestinians, instead of making a counterproposal to the Barak plan, called for a new intifada against the people of Israel.

Since then, the situation has not shown much improvement. In the territories of the Palestinian Authority, attacks were launched against Israel, shootings in Jerusalem, ambushes on civilian cars, mortar bombs in Israeli centers outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and most terrible, attacks where suicidal Palestinians blow up their bodies in an effort to kill as many Israeli citizens as possible. Israel, for its part, reacts to the attacks by bombing the headquarters of military organizations, directly involved in the violence, trying to target those responsible for suicide bomb attacks and other violent acts. There is no vicious cycle here, but rather Palestinian action and Israeli reaction in an attempt to prevent planned acts.

Israel has, from a military point of view, superior strength and can theoretically destroy the Palestinian Authority. But there is no intention or will, due to the awareness that this is not the way to resolve problems, and because such an act goes against Jewish precepts. We believe that the conflict can only be resolved politically through dialogue. Leaving aside dreams, taking risks, an agreement must be reached with painful but necessary concessions. What must be done to reach a final solution, not only for the Palestinian problem, but also for the Israeli problem? The head of the Palestinian Authority must combat terrorist groups and make it clear that the violence must effectively come to an end. Israel, for its part, would act with a ceasefire.

Poisoned potions - Once it is clear that the violence has ended, the sides should continue their meetings, aiming to make progress in recreating mutual trust, continuing the dialogue towards a permanent solution. Some disagreements are at the heart of the conflict: such as the issue of borders between Palestinians and Israelis, the issue of Jerusalem and the problem of Palestinian refugees. The situation in the region now seems difficult and hopeless, violence dominates the scene and negotiations seem distant. The widespread danger caused by terrorist actions knows no borders and can explode anywhere and at any time. Under the pretext of being driven by human values, the atrocities it perpetrates are indiscriminate, unlimited, and degrade civilians and innocent people.

There is no room to mediate between evil actions and civilized conduct. As Chancellor Shimon Peres declared: “If this terrorism is allowed to triumph, every water well could be poisoned, and every child murdered.” It can create pandemonium on local and international flights, causing fatal damage to tourism and ruining world trade, spreading fear and insidiously undermining security.

This is the type of terrorism that Israel has faced since the creation of its state. Defending oneself is a right that democracy guarantees us and Israel has done nothing more than defend its civilian citizens from heinous attacks by terrorists. However, the message must be clear: violence is not a substitute for dialogue, cannot be an element of negotiations and should not be rewarded.

The only path towards peace is acceptance of the Oslo agreements in 1993, already established, and the formation of the necessary acts to cease the violence, thus returning to the negotiating tables. Certain that Jornal da Unicamp will preserve the paths of communication as a vehicle for disseminating truth and impartiality, I take this opportunity to reiterate the assurances of high esteem and distinct consideration.

With cordial Shalom.

---------------------------

Previous page

 

� 1994-2002 State University of Campinas
University City "Zeferino Vaz" Barão Geraldo - Campinas - SP
Email: ipress@obelix.unicamp.br