[IMC-Mexico] Traducción de la entrevista sobre Israel / Palestina

[Andrew Kennis]

Una traducción de esto sería agradable.  Apesadumbrado con todo otra
vez, para el español mierda.

http://www.topica.com/lists/btlqa/read/message.html?mid=1706982947&sort=d&start=30

BETWEEN THE LINES Q&A
from the nationally syndicated radio newsmagazine
"Between The Lines"
http://www.btlonline.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints
on national and international issues
under-reported in major media
For release June 4, 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


No End in Sight for Mideast Violence as Israel Rejects Freeze on 
Settlements

*Recent bombing of Tel Aviv nightclub,
which killed 20, prompts Yasir Arafat 
to call for an unconditional cease-fire

In the wake of the June1st suicide bomb attack that killed 20 teenagers 
at a Tel Aviv nightclub, Yasir Arafat called for an immediate and 
unconditional cease-fire. The Palestinian leader also condemned the 
attack for which the militant Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas claimed 
responsibility. 

Eight months of escalating violence has resulted in the deaths of more 
than 500 mostly Palestinian civilians. Before the Tel Aviv bombing, 
Israelis and Palestinians had taken tentative steps to resume security 
talks. This came after the Bush administration gave up its low-profile 
approach and directed U.S. envoy William Burns to engage in shuttle 
diplomacy between the two sides. 

But the outlook for any breakthroughs is uncertain after continued car 
bombings and military attacks, despite a limited unilateral Israeli 
cease-fire. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strategy of 
pre-emptive strikes -- which has included targeting Palestinian leaders 
for assassination -- has failed to quell the Al Aksa Intifada or 
uprising. 

Hope for a resumption of negotiations further dimmed as Israel flatly 
rejected a freeze on Jewish settlements in the occupied territories -- a 
key recommendation from an international commission led by former U.S. 
Senator George Mitchell. Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with 
Hussein Ibish, communications director with the American-Arab 
Anti-Discrimination Committee, who assesses provisions of the Mitchell 
plan and the prospects for a cease-fire and renewed negotiations. 

Hussein Ibish: I think the Mitchell commission placed a great deal of 
emphasis on the need to end the violence and that's fine. That certainly 
was what Secretary of State Colin Powell, President Bush, and most of 
the other American officials who comment on the matter also emphasized: 
the need to end the violence. The problem is, they have a rather 
restrictive definition of violence which seems, in their minds, to only 
refer to physical attacks by one person on another person. I would argue 
very strongly that not only are those violent acts -- but home 
demolitions are violent. Ripping up of orchard groves is violent -- in 
other words, making people impoverished and homeless is violent. Taking 
land from one group of people because of their ethnicity and giving it 
to another group of people because of their ethnicity (is violent). In 
this case, it's taking land from Palestinians and giving it to 
Jewish-Israeli settlers -- that is also violent. And I would go further 
and say that the occupation itself is a psychological, economic, 
political and ultimately physically violent reality. So, in the end, if 
you want to genuinely stop the violence, you have to end the occupation. 
But particularly, you cannot have a return to normalcy, a tranquil 
situation pertaining to both Israelis and Palestinians when the Israeli 
occupation can just go ahead in peace and quiet. I think Palestinians 
are just not prepared to accept that. Particularly, it's important with 
regard to the settlements.

The Mitchell commission did suggest that a total freeze on all 
settlement activity needs to go ahead in order to achieve some kind of 
end to the violence. I think this is the insight which they had which is 
the most useful. But this is the one point which Secretary Powell 
downplayed very greatly when he presented the report to the press, but 
it's there. It's very clearly in the report that all settlement 
activity, including what the Israelis call 'natural growth' must cease. 

Now the Israeli government won't discuss ending the settlements. It 
would be completely anathema, not only for a Sharon-Likud government, 
but also a Barak-Labor government, and even (the government of the 
assassinated former Labor prime minister) Rabin to have considered it. 
All governments in Israel, since 1993 have engaged in massive settlement 
activity. In fact, none more vigorously than that of Ehud Barak, the 
supposed dove. 

So really this is the key for any kind of plan to be effective. But as 
things stand, there is no real diplomatic effort in spite of the shuttle 
diplomacy because it's the official position -- and the actual position 
-- of the Sharon government that they will not talk to the Palestinians 
as long as there is any kind of revolt in progress. Until the Israelis 
can go back to occupying the land and building settlements in 
tranquility, they will not even consider sitting down at the negotiating 
table, and that's their position.

So obviously, the Israeli intention is to effect a military solution, 
and they're going about trying to do that. Of course it will fail. 

Between The Lines: The Israeli government, as you said, may think they 
can reach a military solution here through the barrel of a gun, using 
force to change the Palestinian rejection of a peace plan that 
surrenders their right to statehood in a very fundamental way. But it 
seems that the Israeli government can only pursue a military solution if 
they have backing from Washington to do so. What do you see as the Bush 
administration's position in this situation, given that the U.S. is the 
only effective force with leverage over the Israeli government?

Hussein Ibish: Right now, the Israelis asked for and received carte 
blanche from the Bush administration to go ahead and do what they want. 
I think that both Israel and Washington face the long term prospect of 
becoming exhausted in this campaign. What they're trying to do in 
effecting a military solution is beat people into submission: kill 
enough Palestinians, destroy their economy sufficiently, and simply make 
it too tough for them to continue a rebellion so that they will come 
back to the negotiating table and, as you implied, accept Israel's 
terms, which involve the kinds of things Ehud Barak was proposing at 
Camp David in July -- which is not Palestinian independence, but some 
sort of Palestinian entity, a "state."

This conflict is going to deteriorate, it's going to get more vicious. 
Both sides are going to get more vicious and the whole thing is just 
going to get worse. People talk about it getting out of control. Believe 
me, it's completely out of control already. It is utterly and totally 
out of control. That is going to confront everybody in the world, 
particularly in Israel and the United States, with the question: are 
they willing to support this?

Don't forget, the U.S. supplies everything to the Israelis. We give them 
$5.5 billion of aid per year. They are wholly dependent on the United 
States, particularly militarily. The only way our country could be more 
heavily involved in this hideous conflict is if we had our own young men 
and women fighting alongside the Israelis shooting down Palestinians in 
the streets.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/