It is against Islam to target civilians. It is against Islam to desecrate a place of worship. It is no surprise that a state is shocked with grief. It goes without saying that using firearms in a synagogue on the holiest day of the week has no Islamic justification.
It is Friday 26th January 2023. It began as a normal, peaceful evening but ended in tragedy for the Mizrahi family. At about 8pm, a lone Palestinian gunman opened fire on people outside a synagogue, killing seven and wounding nine.
Eli and Natali Mizrahi, a newly married couple from the Neve Yaakov settlement, in occupied East Jerusalem, were eating with their family when they heard gunshots and screaming on the street.
They both rushed outside to help, then paid with their lives.
Shimon Israel, father of Eli Mizrahi, told reporters “We were in the middle of our meal, and there were several shots and my son jumped up. It seems he was speaking with the terrorist, who pulled out a gun. [Eli] and his wife were murdered. [The terrorist] was standing by his car and he shot them, then got into the car and fled.”1
The attack in Jerusalem sent shockwaves around the world. However, for once, the news coverage pointed out that this incident did not come unprovoked. It came the day after nine Palestinians were killed in Jenin.
Jenin
It is written in the Qu’ran that ‘Oppression is worse than death’ (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:217)
The prophet Muhammed (SAW) said “Whomsoever harms a Muslim unjustly, it is as if he has destroyed the Ka’bah.” (Tabarani)
It is no surprise that a state is shocked with grief.
Daybreak on Thursday 25th January, and units of IDF soldiers arrived at several entrances of the Jenin refugee camp. Witnessing the event was Sakir Khader, a Palestinian-Dutch film maker.
He noticed that as an armoured vehicle, disguised as a commercial van, approached the camp, a single shot was fired at it. The IDF immediately returned fire and a fierce four-hour gun battle then ensued.
Khader said “I was stuck in the middle of the firefight for hours. It was crazy. There were snipers and drones, and they used a bulldozer to block off a street. It destroyed lots of cars and a public meeting spot2.
“At the hospital there are mothers looking for their sons … Everything is still very tense. I have been coming to Palestine all my life and I have never seen something like this.”
Several of the camp’s residents said the violence was the worst they had witnessed since the Second Intifada. The death toll from the military raid is the highest ever recorded by the United Nations since records began in 20053.
Amongst the Palestinians killed was a sixty-one-year-old woman. Twenty more Palestinian refugees were seriously injured. Two more were killed in clashes in Ramallah and East Jerusalem later the same day.
By the afternoon, whilst the residents of Jenin were burying their dead, protests began all across the West Bank. At a demonstration by the Beit El checkpoint near Ramallah, the 22-year-old student, Nour said:
“It is the same story again and again. The occupation does not stop killing us, so we will not stop resisting.”3
The Occupation Does Not Stop Killing
Three days of escalating carnage have not come out of nowhere. Tensions have risen since last spring, when a surge in Palestinian knife and gun attacks led to the Zionist State4 launching the huge military campaign called ‘Operation Breakwater’.
Breakwater, which is mainly targeting Palestinian factions in Jenin and Nablus, contributed to the highest death toll across Palestine since the Second Intifada ended in 2005, with about 150 Palestinians killed in 2022. Another 32 Palestinians, fighters and civilians, have been killed so far this year.
Despite the appearance that the Zionists are reacting to provocation from the Palestinians, Operation Breakwater should be understood in its wider context.
The Oslo Peace Accords
Stood in the grounds of the White House, President Bill Clinton was smiling during what was arguably, the greatest moment of his political career. The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements was signed by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), on 13th September 1993. The famous picture taken that day captured the historical handshake of peace. After forty-six years of misery, Palestinians and Zionists were both committing themselves to what became known as the Oslo Accords5 that aimed to bring an end to all hostilities.
What seemed impossible, stunned the world. In 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin “for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East“.6
One of the millions of people overjoyed was long time peace campaigner Mattityahu Peled. Publicly he praised Rabin, declaring that he had “crossed the Rubicon.” Full of anticipation he decided to scrutinize the details of the Oslo Accords. He would be one of the few people in the world that actually read it all!
Peled was a dedicated Zionist, undertaking a crucial role within the IDF during the Six-Day War. When the Major General retired in 1969, he became a leading peace activist and the first proponent of dialogue with the PLO, insisting on the full withdrawal (soldiers and civilians) from the Occupied Territories.
A year later he published his findings in an article entitled ‘Rabin does not want peace’. The publication coincided as Rabin was receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, in 1994. Peled pointed out that far from being a document that was designed to bring peace to the Middle East, it was a plan intended to strengthen the Zionist’s grip over the whole of Palestine. The Government had treated Arafat and the Palestinians with contempt. The Government had already disregarded all their agreed commitments. And it was clear the Government would continue that precedent.
Despite the rhetoric, the Oslo Accords were not going to lead to peace.
His last essay entitled “Requiem to Oslo“, was written a few weeks before his death7. It was published in the newsletter The Other Israel8, in 1995. Peled repeated his disappointment with the Oslo Accords and predicted it would only lead to an explosion of violence. The Second Intifada broke out in the year 2000.
Understanding the Oslo Accords
The declared main objectives of the Oslo Accords were “to broaden Palestinian self-government in the West Bank by means of an elected self-governing authority [to] allow the Palestinians to conduct their own internal affairs, reduce points of friction between Israelis and Palestinians, and open a new era of cooperation and coexistence based on common interest, dignity, and mutual respect. At the same time, it protects Israel’s vital interests, and in particular its security interests, both with regard to external security as well as the personal security of its citizens in the West Bank.″
The Accords also meant that the PLO recognised the Zionist State; the Zionist State recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people; and both sides agreed to resolve their issues through diplomacy.
Under the agreement, control of the West Bank would be co-ordinated between each side. The PLO would reorganise and establish a Palestinian Authority to manage public affairs. Thereafter, administration of the West Bank would fall under three categories.
Area A would be completely controlled by the Palestinian Authority. This included both political and security matters, including policing. Area A contained the major cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarem, Qalqilya, Jericho and the majority of Hebron. No illegal settlements would be permitted within Area A, apart from Hebron.
Area B would be politically controlled by the Palestinian Authority, with the Zionist State maintaining complete military control over this area, with limited cooperation from Palestinian Police. This area covered most of the Palestinian agricultural land and included approximately 440 Palestinian villages.
Area C would be politically and militarily controlled by the Zionist State.
Most of the West Bank’s natural resources are found within Area C. Despite that, more than 70% of Palestinian villages in this area remain unconnected to the water grid. Meanwhile, all the illegal settlements are supplied with every amenity.
In 1972, there were around 1,000 Zionist settlers living in Area C. By 2017 the settler population increased to at least 360,000 people living in 125 settlements. Settlers receive lower tax rates and generous grants from the Zionist Government; a deliberate policy to encourage even more settlers to move there. Especially into the old city of Hebron. That part of the city falls within Area C.
Area A 18% of the West Bank
Area B 22% of the West Bank
Area C 60% of the West Bank
These details begin to explain Peled’s conclusions. And yet, Arafat still signed the agreement!
The Collapse of Oslo
Yigal Amir, an ultranationalist, radically opposed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.
Amir attended the Peace Rally organised for 4th November 1995. He heard Rabin address the crowd of 100,000 attendees with a message to overcome their fears, let go of the past, and forge an accord with their Palestinian neighbours.
Late in the evening Rabin left the rally and walked towards his waiting limousine. Out of the shadows stepped Amir and calmly shot the prime minister twice in quick succession. Within half an hour Rabin was pronounced dead.
Months later the Government collapsed and predictably the Oslo peace initiative dissolved. The Zionists claimed Palestinian violence was responsible for its failure, while the Palestinians blamed the expansion of illegal settlements and repressive military presence in the West Bank.
However, if the peace agreement was sabotaged by the Palestinians, why have the Zionists held on to the main elements of the Oslo Accords? Namely, continuing to recognise the Palestinian Authority and the administration of Areas A, B and C?
Clearly because it continued to suit the other agenda.
Current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his objections to the Oslo Accords clear. In 2001, following his first term as prime minister (1996-1999), he claimed on a leaked video “I de facto put an end to the Oslo Accords.” This did not stop him from continuing to attend meetings intended to secure an independent Palestinian state. He dragged out the negotiations, to allow for the policy to increase illegal settlement building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In this manner the Zionist can always claim that their initiatives for peace are always cast aside by the violent Palestinian responses.
The reality is, that there is as much rhetoric for peace as there is as much rhetoric for the collapse of peace. As Peled (and many other Jewish writers) pointed out, it was never about peace, it has always been about the Zionist State consolidating its hold on Palestinian territory.
Land for Peace
The refugee camp in Jenin is under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. Area A includes the city of Jenin; therefore, the refugee camp is under the protection of the UN, within the area under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority.
Therefore, the recent events should be yet another acknowledgement that the Zionist State never shows any consideration to either international protocols, or even principles of their own making, whenever pursuing their own interests.
Since 2002, armed security forces have conducted regular raids, often at night, into Area A.
Having given away 82% of the land in exchange for peace, the Palestinians are now left with nothing to negotiate with. In exchange of 82% of the territory the Palestinians have received further restrictions to their movement (permits and check points), the building of the Security Wall, 29 years of the expansion of illegal settlements, 29 years of Palestinian homes being demolished, 29 years of seeing children being arrested and prosecuted, and then after all that, still have not gained any rights acknowledging their existence9.
Status Quo
Throughout 1947, David Ben-Gurion, repeated the mantra “80% of the territory, and 80% of the population” whenever giving an address at Zionist public meetings.
Although the Zionist welcomed the British and the United Nations commitment with the establishment of a separate Jewish state in Palestine, they had a problem over the details of what the UN were proposing.
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was seeking to ensure that the Zionists and Arabs would live in an environment of co-existence. This would be achieved by the majority of the areas within the Jewish state retaining an Arab population of 49%. Even the most favourable allocation only allowed for a concentration of Jews at 60%. And this was inside a land mass that was set at 56% of Palestine.
This was unacceptable for the future Prime Minister Ben-Gurion.
So, with the means of military might by the end of 1948, well over 700,000 Palestinians had become refugees after 7 of the major cities (for example Tiberius and Haifa) were emptied of their population and 530 villages were destroyed. By the end of 1948 the Zionist had expanded the territory to include 80% of Palestine and within that territory only 20% of the population were of Palestinian origin.
The current situation is part and parcel of that same policy. Which is to maintain that 80-20% ratio. The word ‘Peace’ is always used in that context by the Zionists.
Through peace negotiations the Zionists secured territory from the West Bank in 1949 from Transjordan.
Whatever moral justification can be utilised to maintain the harsh status quo against Palestinians, the Zionists will use it. Security measures, traffic controls, travel permits, rights of ownership, planning regulations, Emergency Laws, and of course, military reprisals.
Sadly, occupation brought grief to those attending the local synagogue and a family simply having an evening meal together.
Abdul Aziz, January 2023
References
4 Amongst its many meanings, the word Israel signifies the close bond between mortals and The Divine. Therefore, linguistically to criticise Israel is indeed anti-Semitic. The phrase ‘the Government of Israel’ however is an oxymoron because there is absolutely nothing divine in the policies and actions of the government. To avoid desecrating the beautiful name of Israel, I will refer to the Government and its supporters as either ‘the Zionist State’, ‘the Knesset’ or ‘the Zionists’.
5 The Oslo Accords was a pair of agreements between the Zionist State and the PLO: the Oslo I Accord, signed in Washington, D.C., in 1993; and the Oslo II Accord, signed in Taba, Egypt, in 1995.
6 https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1994/summary/
7 The obituary written in the Independent for Mattityahu is very good. As well as providing the URL address, a copy can also be found below. He was known as Matti Peled.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-general-matti-peled-1611418.html
8 The Other Israel is a publication by The Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (ICIPP).
9 Palestinians living in the West Bank are not recognised with any status to citizenship or nationality. Meanwhile all Jews living in the West Bank are not only citizens of the State, but they also have the right to vote.
Obituary: General Matti Peled by Joseph Finklestone, Thursday 16 March 1995
Matti Peled was not the first Israeli public figure to seek peace with the Arabs, in particular the Palestinians, but he was the first army general with a fine combat record to devote his life to the vision of peace and to be ready to be the object of virulent attacks for doing so.
Peled’s critics could not deny his achievements on the field of battle, and so persisted in denigrating him as an oddity. Yet informed Israelis never ceased to admire his courage and to appreciate his analytical mind. He was a welcome contributor not only to the liberal Haaretz newspaper but to Maariv, the mass-circulation hard-line nationalistic evening tabloid. President Ezer Weizmann, who himself went through a painful transformation from a hawk into a dove, described Peled as “one of the most outstanding and interesting figures of the 1948 generation. He was intelligent, wise and a good friend. Matti knew how to pound on the table when it was time to go to war, like the eve of the Six-Day War, and he strongly voiced the need to make peace when he thought it was possible.” Peled should be remembered, Weizmann stress-ed, as a fighter, academician, and peacemaker.
Peled’s attitude followed Winston Churchill’s dictum: staunch in war, magnanimous in peace. But even his closest admirers – and many remained silent – were surprised at his persistent call to make peace with the PLO when it was still involved in terrorist acts. His political enemies in the right-wing Likud, led by Menachem Begin and later Yitzak Shamir, saw him as a traitor whom they would have been glad to put on trial had they obtained sufficient evidence against him. He held meetings with PLO figures at a time when it was still illegal to do so.
Peled’s career in the Israeli army began with the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 when he fought on the Jerusalem front. Ten years earlier he had been accepted into the Palmach, the elite group of the Haganah defence organisation. He displayed initiative and logical thinking similar to that which marked his contemporary Yitzak Rabin. This was particularly vital when Peled commanded relief convoys to besieged Israeli settlements. Sent to the south to face the advancing Egyptians in the Negev desert, he was twice wounded when his company was surrounded.
Acknowledged as a highly promising officer, Peled was later sent on a staff officers’ course in England and was among the founders of the Israeli Defence Forces Staff and Command College which was to play a vital role in the development of the powerful army and air force.
So conspicuous was Peled’s contribution to the Sinai campaign of 1956, led by Moshe Dayan, that he was appointed military governor of the captured Gaza Strip. In 1964 he was promoted major-general and put in charge of the Logistics Branch which brought about significant changes in the forces.
With the threat of an Egyptian invasion of Israel in June 1967, Peled was insistent on an immediate pre-emptive strike, as the Egyptians had broken their agreements and Israel could not for long retain mobilisation. The resulting devastating Israeli victory, leading to the capture of east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, vindicated Peled’s military judgement. But he felt that the victory gave Israel, for the first time, a chance to make peace with the Arabs by offering them land for peace. At first the Israeli government of Levi Eshkol took a similar view, apparently offering large-scale withdrawals; but when Arab leaders remained negative the offer died.
Peled felt that Israel must take the peace offensive even if the Arabs appeared reluctant to respond. He had first been struck by the intensity of Arab nationalist feelings when he served as governor of Gaza. He became convinced that the only way forward was not by dominating the Palestinians but by living alongside them.
Leaving the Israeli army in 1969, embittered by the failure of his peace advocacy, Peled began a unique academic and political career. Fascinated by Arab language and literature, he obtained a PhD at the University of California Los Angeles. He was given a senior post at Tel Aviv University and lectured there until 1990, an example of an Israeli institution taking a liberal attitude to a rebel opposed to the main Knesset parties.
Passionately entering politics, Peled became a close friend of Issam Sartawi, one of the many PLO officials he met despite legal objections. Sartawi was to pay with his life for his advocacy of peace with Israel. Refusing to be intimidated, Peled helped to establish the Israel Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. Peled was also involved with two small left-wing Israeli parties, Ya’ad and Sheli, but for him the most significant move was the formation on the eve of the 1984 general election of the Progressive List for Peace which won two seats in the Knesset. Peled served as a member until the 1988 elections, always eloquent and frequently the target of abuse.
Even when weakened by cancer, Peled continued to wage his campaign for peace. He formed the Gush Shalom organisation and tried to mitigate the plight of soldiers jailed for refusing to serve on the West Bank.
At first Peled strongly supported Rabin’s peace deal with the PLO chairman Yasser Arafat in Oslo, in 1993, but Peled became critical of Rabin, accusing him of not doing enough to make a real peace with the Palestinians. Yet Peled could now feel that his concept of peace with the Arabs, which had for so many years made him an outsider, had been accepted by a large section of the Israeli people and that he could justly join the late President Anwar Sadat as one of the prophets of Arab-Israeli understanding.
Matityahu Peled, soldier; born Haifa 20 July 1923; married (two sons, two daughters); died Jerusalem 10 March 1995.
Abdul’s World 