"There is no such thing as partial independence or limited autonomy. You are either independent or you are not." --Edward Said.

It's Wednesday March 13, 2002. I think. Though I can't tell from reading the newspaper. The sad and disinformative cliches parroted by George Bush Jr., the unelected president of these United States, regarding Israel, the Israelis and the Palestinian people scarcely differ from those of Jr.'s predecessors.

According to the Leader (without a popular mandate) of the Free World, Israel "has the right to defend itself" from "terrorists". "She has the right to live with security." And Palestinians, whose pitiful Bantustans Israel is razing at this very moment, must "recognize Israel's right to exist."

It's Wednesday March 13, 2002.

It is nine years after the "historic handshake" on the White House lawn signified the ceding of historic Palestine to the state of Israel, and also codified Israeli military control of the remaining 22% of that land (and all of the resources therein). In return for this bewildering concession the Palestinians received the blessing of a Palestinian National Authority (with no land on which to construct that nation) to be lorded over by the singular person of Yassir Arafat. There was no reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian "right to exist," to say nothing of self-determination. Israel has paid no reparations to a single Palestinian, despite forcing nearly a million from their homes and laying waste to over 400 villages and towns.

To this very day Israel has refused to acknowledge itself as an occupying power, and is the only nation in the entire world that has never defined its borders.

It's Wednesday March 13, 2002.

The UN, through the Security Council, has once again affirmed its own resolutions, 242 and 338 which both call on Israel to withdraw from all the territories it occupied in 1967 (the Syrian Golan, South Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza), as the basis for any political settlement. This latest resolution is fairly unremarkable in actuality, but of course was splashed over front pages all over this country. The only Arab representative on the Security Council, Syria (who's land is still under Israeli occupation), abstained from the vote primarily because the resolution makes no mention of Israel's illegal military occupation, and it treats "both sides" (the Israelis and the Palestinians) as being equally responsible for this current "round of violence."

In word and fact this latest resolution represents a step back on the long road towards justice (then peace) in Palestine and Israel. The Seattle Times has reported that Israel is currently conducting its largest military operation since 1982. In that tragic year the Israeli military, led by now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, bombed and shot and stabbed and disappeared and otherwise massacred 18,000-20,000 Palestinians, including 2000 unarmed and defenseless men and women and, yes, children in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla. Israel is the 3rd or 4th most powerful military in the world, and they control nearly every aspect of Palestinian life (excepting a few unsavory municipal details, like sewage disposal).

Any notion that the scales of violence and military aggression are balanced is purely ignorant of the facts on the ground. Period. In addition, the resolution welcomes the now famous "Saudi Initiative", which politely asks Israel to withdraw its military to the 1967 borders (as per international law) in exchange for normalized relations with other Arab states. (Note that the Saudis have already recognized Israel's right to exist. Further, Israel has always sought out Arab regimes to negotiate with, notably Jordan and Egypt, so as not to deal with and recognize Palestinian rights.) What the Saudis are offering to the dominant regional power is "normalized" relations, which means, of course, unfettered access to Arab markets. In effect, the Saudi Initiative rewards Israel for its policy of creating so many illegal "facts on the ground," that any return to internationally accepted standards of conduct are seen as "concessions." Further, "withdrawal" is not the same as recognition of Palestinian rights to determine their own future on their own land. To date, Israel has the right to approve or deny any piece of legislation Palestinians might want to pass. Israel has the similar right in regards to any appointment to the PNA. "Withdrawal" does not change that. A military withdrawal is necessary, to be sure, but that has already been mandated. This initiative, then, moves nothing forward so far as Palestinians are concerned. The only thing they "get" is excluded from negotiating a political settlement to their deteriorating situation.

It's Wednesday March 13, 2002.

Right now there are over 250,000 people without jobs in Israel. Their government's policy of domination and destruction of Palestinian life is causing their own state to crumble. How can anybody talk about "security" when such a high percentage of their own people have no jobs, no way to make a living? To continue to occupy and brutalize Palestinians is simply a bankrupt and cynical approach, and the ramifications are disastrous, as we saw, intimately, on September 11.

We are standing in the middle of history, as Joanna Kadi says, and we "must raise doubts about the illusions of the status quo especially for the sake of the deprived and the oppressed," (Edward Said, in Peace and its Discontents). We must think out and speak out, and support human rights, indeed human beings, everywhere. The alternative is living with tyranny, which is no kind of life at all.

It's Wednesday March 13, 2002.

Where are we going? And how in hell are we going to get there?