April-June, 2012

The LinkPublished by Americans forMiddle East Understanding, Inc.

Volume 45, Issue 2 Link Archives: www.ameu.org

By Jeff Halper

Let’s say it clearly and categorically: the two-state

solution is dead. If the possibility ever genuinely

existed— a subject historians are welcome to de-

bate— it is gone as a political option. We should even

stop talking about it because constant reference to an

irrelevant “solution”only confuses the discussion.

(Continued on Page 2.)

The Link Page 2

AMEU (ISSN 0024-4007)

g ran ts permiss ion to

reproduce material from The

Link in part or in whole.

AMEU must be credited and

one copy forwarded to our

office at 475 Riverside Drive,

Room 245, New York, New

York 10115-0245. Tel. 212-

870-2053; Fax 212-870-

2 0 5 0 ; E - m a i l :

AMEU@ameu.org; Website:

www.ameu.org.

AMEU Boardof Directors

Jane Adas (Vice President)

Elizabeth D. Barlow

Edward Dillon

Rod Driver

John Goelet

David Grimland

Richard Hobson (Treasurer)

Anne R. Joyce

Hon. Robert V. Keeley

Kendall Landis

Robert L. Norberg (President)

Hon. Edward L. Peck

Donald L. Snook

Rosmarie Sunderland

James M. Wall

AMEU NationalCouncil

Hugh D. Auchincloss, Jr.

William R. Chandler

Kathleen Christison

Paul Findley

Moorhead Kennedy

Ann Kerr

Nancy Lapp

George E. Mendenhall

Mary Norton

Don W. Wagner

Miriam Ward, RSM

Executive Director

John F. Mahoney

About This Issue

Jeff Halper immigrated to Israel in1973, after attending rabbinicalschool in the United States, wherehe was born. He taught anthropol-ogy at Haifa and Ben-Gurion Uni-versities and, in 1997, co-foundedthe Israeli Committee AgainstHome Demolitions (ICAHD). Its pur-pose is to challenge Israel’s policyof demolishing Palestinian homes inorder to expand its civilian popula-tion into the Occupied Territoriesthrough settlement construction andland confiscation. In 2002, he wrotehis first feature article for The Link,“A Most UnGenerous Offer”and, in2004, his second, “Beyond RoadMaps and Walls.” Both can be ac-cessed on our website atwww.ameu.org.

We should note that the topic ofDr. Halper’s current Link issue, “Isthe Two-State Solution Dead?” isone that is vigorously debated. Forthat reason we encourage readersto post their own opinions on ourwebsite. Go to our home page andunder Current Issue click ReadCurrent Issue. At the end of theshort introduction, click on Con-tinue Reading the Issue. At theend of the actual article you will findLeave Comment. We welcomeyour responses.

Due to limited shelf space, we areonce again offering, on page 14, anumber of books from our researchlibrary, many of them at substan-tially reduced prices. In our regularbook list, on page 13, we includeJeff Halper’s latest book, “An Is-raeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispos-session, Redeeming Israel,” whichelaborates on many of the points inhis article. AMEU’s video selectionsare found on page 15.

John Mahoney,

Executive Director

(Continued from Page 1. )

How do we get to such an un-equivocal pronouncement? Well, itonly takes a little digging into the posi-tions behind the official words and theability to decipher the “codes”in whichthe Israeli-Palestinian conflict iscouched to arrive at the unsurprisingand straightforward conclusion thatIsrael has no intention of allowing aviable and truly sovereign Palestinianstate to emerge even on the 22% of his-toric Palestine that is the Occupied Ter-ritory.

The Bar Ilan Speech:Understanding the Codes

To nail down Israel’s opposition toa two-state solution and the measures ithas taken “on the ground”to eliminateit, let us look at Prime Minister Benja-min Netanyahu’s June 14, 2009 speechat Bar Ilan University, a conservativereligious school in Israel. The primeminister was being pressed by the newObama Administration to actually utterthe phrase “two-state solution.”

On the surface, what Netanyahusaid seemed to meet Obama’s expecta-tions: “In my vision of peace, there aretwo free peoples living side by side inthis small land, with good neighborlyrelations and mutual respect, each withits own flag, anthem and government,with neither one threatening itsneighbor’s security and existence.”

This may sound good, but thenthere’s the fine print. Let us look care-fully at the key qualificationsNetanyahu mentions in his speech.They can be presented as eight fatalobstacles to a two-state solution:

1.”The simple truth is that the rootof the conflict has been— and re-mains— the [Palestinians’] refusal to

The Link Page 3

recognize the right of the Jewish People to its ownstate in its historical homeland.”

We’re talking here about ownership. What theprime minister of Israel is saying is that the historicland of Palestine is owned by Jews, and exclusivelyby Jews. Put another way, it means that non-Jews,even Palestinians who have lived on their land forgenerations, even Palestinians who have Israeli citi-zenship, do not own any part of historic Palestine.Indeed, the Zionist claim of exclusive ownershipover Palestine as the Land of Israel may have al-lowed for a tactical acceptance of partition in 1947,but has steadfastly, until this day, precluded the exis-tence of a Palestinian People with competing na-tional claims to the land.

This exclusivity of ownership means that Israel isnot a democracy. No one put this more bluntly thanformer Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon whonoted that it is no accident that the terms“democracy”or “democratic”are totally absent fromIsrael’s Declaration of Independence. Sharon spelledit out: “The intention of Zionism was not to bringdemocracy, needless to say. It was solely motivatedby the creation in Eretz-Israel of a Jewish state be-longing to all the Jewish people and to the Jewishpeople alone. That is why any Jew of the Diasporahas the right to immigrate to Israel and to become acitizen of Israel.” (“Democracy & the Jewish State,”Yedioth Abronoth, May 28, 1993.)

Israel began exercising its exclusive claim in 1948when, after seizing half of the partition area allocatedto the Arabs, it reduced the Palestinian populationliving within its expanded borders from 950,000 to154,000, a drop of 80%. Then, after the occupation of1967, it established “facts on the ground”to forecloseany coherent, viable and truly sovereign Palestinianstate. In fact, Israel officially denies having an occu-pation since it recognizes no other claimant, and cer-tainly not the Palestinians, who never had a state oftheir own and whose claims are therefore disquali-fied according to Israel’s unilateral “principle of themissing sovereign.”

Netanyahu’s assertion that Palestinians have re-fused to recognize the state of Israel is false. In 1988,the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.) recog-nized the state of Israel, both in its official acceptanceof U.N. Resolution 242, which acknowledges “the

sovereignty, territorial integrity and political inde-pendence of every State in the area and their right tolive in peace within secure and recognized bounda-ries free from threats or acts of force," and in the po-litical communiqué that accompanied the Palestini-ans’declaration of independence in which the na-tionalistic principles of the P.L.O. and its goals aredefined as “ending the Israeli occupation and achiev-ing the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to repa-triation, self-determination, and the establishment ofthe independent Palestinian state.”Since then it hasbeen Israel’s decision not to permit the establishmentof a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territory, i.e.,on only 22% of historic Palestine, which has consti-tuted “the root of the conflict.”

2. “Palestinians must truly recognize Israel asthe state of the Jewish people.”

Now, at Bar Ilan, Netanyahu inserted a fresh de-mand: before any negotiations could begin, the Pal-estinians had to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.This introduced an entirely new element that Israelknew the Palestinians could not accept, if only be-cause it prejudiced the status of Palestinian citizensof Israel. This is not merely an academic concern; itclears the way for “transfer,”for ethnic cleansing, if aPalestinian state were to be established. “My solutionfor maintaining a Jewish and democratic state of Is-rael is to have two distinct national entities,” saidTzipi Livni, Foreign Minister in the previous Olmertgovernment and currently head of the Kadima Party.“And among other things, I will also be able to ap-proach the Palestinian residents of Israel, thosewhom we call Israeli Arabs, and tell them: ‘Your na-tional aspirations lie elsewhere.’” (Jerusalem Post,Dec. 11, 2008.)

3. “Whenever we discuss a permanent arrange-ment, Israel needs defensible borders.”

This is another code phrase for annexation ofeven more Palestinian land.

Although Israel presents its positions as emanat-ing from legitimate security concerns, the truth isthat the two major “facts” that have eliminated thetwo-state solution have nothing to do with security:the creation of seven settlement “blocs” that im-prison the Palestinian population in small, impover-ished, resource-poor and truncated cantons (Prime

The Link Page 4

Minister Ariel Sharon’s term), and the constructionof the “Separation Barrier.”

From the start, the settlement enterprise was apro-active push to establish effective control overstrategic parts of the West Bank, not to impose secu-rity— the army could do that well enough and civil-ian settlers might actually get in the way. At thesame time it was an attempt to establish new bordersof an expanded Israel. Both the ideologically-drivensettlers of the “Greater Land of Israel” movementand Israeli government officials placed the settle-ment activity squarely within the Zionist enterprise.Just as pre-state settlements played a major role inestablishing the borders of Israel before 1967, sowould the settlements in the West Bank (or, in theZionist lexicon, Judea and Samaria) determinewhether the Greater Land of Israel would or wouldnot come into being. “Defensibility”had nothing todo with it. No one even pretended that the annexa-tion of Palestinian “East”Jerusalem had any securityjustification.

This is clearly reflected in the major documentlegitimizing Israeli control of the Occupied Territory,President George W. Bush’s April 14, 2004, letter toPrime Minister Sharon, which is at the foundation ofIsrael’s assertion that the U.S. recognizes the legiti-macy and permanency of the settlement blocs.

Like Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan speech, it starts outsounding good: “As part of a final peace settlement,Israel must have secure and recognized borders,which should emerge from negotiations between theparties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242and 338.” But then the underlying codes reassertthemselves. “In light of new realities on the ground,including already existing major Israeli populationscenters, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome offinal status negotiations will be a full and completereturn to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previousefforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reachedthe same conclusion,”writes Bush, fatally undermin-ing the “Road Map” initiative he himself had pro-claimed just a year before.

Notice the language. No “settlements” or“Occupied Territory,” only “existing major Israelipopulations centers… .”And they are not connectedin Bush’s letter to security but are rather presentedmerely as “new realities on the ground.”In one fell

swoop Bush both sanctioned and normalized Israel’smajor settlement blocs while, by declaring it“unrealistic”to expect that Israel would withdraw tothe 1949/1967 lines, he eliminated any possibilitythat a viable Palestinian state could emerge.

The role of Congress in supporting the Bush let-ter should not be overlooked, since it is the over-whelmingly “pro-Israeli” position of both partiesthat gives Israel the security of knowing that supportfor its policies, no matter how outrageous and evendetrimental to American national interests, will bepassed from administration to administration, Con-gress pro-actively reining in any president who evenappears to be unduly pressuring Israel. Thus theHouse, in an act that went almost unnoticed by themedia and the public, passed Resolution 460 endors-ing the Bush letter by the almost unanimous vote of407-9. In fact, the Congressional Resolution wenteven further than Bush, eliminating any reference toa negotiated settlement or to a “viable, contiguous,sovereign, and independent Palestinian state.” Thenext day the Senate passed a similar resolution (SR393) by a vote of 95-3. Sharon, as might be expected,called the votes one of the biggest diplomaticachievements in Israel’s history. “This is a great dayin the history of Israel,”he told a meeting at the rul-ing Likud Party headquarters in Tel Aviv. “The bi-partisan congressional support for the president’sletter and the State of Israel is without a doubt one ofthe most important diplomatic achievements for Is-rael since its creation.”

Besides giving Israel the authority to constructsettlements within East Jerusalem and the settlementblocs (despite the Road Map’s requirement that set-tlement construction be stopped), the significance ofthe Bush letter in nullifying the 1967 borders uponwhich a two-state solution rests is evident in thepolicies of the Obama Administration to this day.

In his own policy speech at the State Departmenton May 19, 2011, Obama, too, started out positively.“The borders of Israel and Palestine,” he declared,“should be based on the 1967 lines with mutuallyagreed swaps, so that secure and recognized bordersare established for both states.”Even mentioning the1967 lines, in contradistinction to the Bush letter, sentIsrael and its advocates into apoplexy.

Obama quickly backed down. On May 22, in a

The Link Page 5

speech before AIPAC, Israel’s lobby in Washington,he issued a correction that could only be picked upby those familiar with the codes, a correction of fun-damental significance to any two-state solution. “Iknow that stating these principles— on the issues ofterritory and security— generated some controversyover the past few days. I wasn’t surprised… . Sincequestions have been raised, let me repeat what I ac-tually said on Thursday— not what I was reported tohave said. I said that the United States believes thatnegotiations should result in two states, with perma-nent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, andEgypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Pales-tine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should bebased on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swapsso that secure and recognized borders are establishedfor both states. The Palestinian people must have theright to govern themselves, and reach their potential,in a sovereign and contiguous state… . Now, that iswhat I said.”

So far, so good. Then came the punch-line. “Andsince my position has been misrepresented severaltimes, let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutuallyagreed swaps’means. By definition, it means that theparties themselves— Israelis and Palestinians— willnegotiate a border that is different than the one thatexisted on June 4, 1967 [applause from the AIPACcrowd]. That’s what mutually agreed-upon swapsmeans. It is a well-known formula to all who haveworked on this issue for a generation. It allows theparties themselves to account for the changes thathave taken place over the last 44 years [more ap-plause]. It allows the parties themselves to take ac-count of those changes, including the new demo-graphic realities on the ground, and the needs ofboth sides… . If there is a controversy [over my previ-ous statement], then, it’s not based in sub-stance.”Obama virtually quoted from Bush’s letter,Netanyahu smiled — he was fresh from his secondspeech before Congress which was received with 28rounds of applause and 28 standing ovations. Andthe two-state solution was buried, yet again.

4. “Any area in Palestinian hands has to be de-militarized, with solid security measures… ”

Demilitarization doesn’t sound bad. True, mostcountries regard their armed forces as the very sym-bols of their sovereignty. And true, Israel has been

named 2012’s “most militarized nation in the world”by the Global Military Index (for the sixth year run-ning). Yet at least one country, Costa Rica, has re-nounced a military, so maybe not having an armyisn’t such a bad thing for the Palestinians.

The problem is, as with all code words,“demilitarization” means much more, especiallywhen reframed as “security-based diplomacy” byIsrael’s military strategists.

Last year the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,a right-wing think tank with close relations to “pro-Israel”think tanks in the U.S., such as the Jewish In-stitute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)— yes,there really is an organization with that name— theWashington Institute for Middle East Policy and theHeritage Foundation, convened a conference of Is-rael’s leading military thinkers to deliberate on“Israel’s Critical Security Requirements for Defensi-ble Borders: The Foundation for a Viable Peace.” Iattended, and the convocation reminded me of C.Wright Mill’s characterization of such people as“crackpot realists.” So “realistic” and hard-headedwere their assessments, so authoritative was theirsecurity-speak, that one could understand whyNetanyahu’s seemingly reasonable “security-first”approach eliminated any two-state solution.

The military “experts” concluded that there issimply no room from a security perspective for anyform of a Palestinian state. The conference, whoseconclusions were published in a volume of the samename and edited by Dan Diker (2011), sets out ex-plicitly the principles guiding Israeli militarythought:

* The Palestinians are Israel’s permanent ene-mies; the Middle East is irrevocably hostile to Israel.The assumption driving Israel’s political and militaryleadership, as well as the vast majority of its popula-tion, is that the Arabs— Palestinians and other Arabs,and by extension the entire Muslim world— are Is-rael’s permanent enemies.

One military expert at the convention, MosheYaalon, a former Israel Defense Forces (I.D.F.) chiefof staff and presently Israel’s deputy prime minister,pointed out that while the Zionist leadership has al-ways been ready to reach an historic compromisewith the Palestinians, the Palestinians have been un-

The Link Page 6

willing to forgo their commitment to armed struggleand other forms of opposition “to the right of theJewish people to live peacefully in a nation-state oftheir own in their historic home, the Land of Israel.”The lesson to be learned from this, concluded Yaa-lon, “is that the Palestinians have adhered to theirhistorical narrative of armed struggle that denies Is-rael’s right to exist as a Jewish nation-state, regard-less of signed agreements or unilateral Israeli with-drawals.”

Another military expert, Major-General AharonZe’evi Farash, former head of Military Intelligenceoffered two scenarios of what would happen were aPalestinian state established. First, it would be afailed state that would serve as a convenient base forthe development of terrorist infrastructures. Andsecondly, looking at the region as a whole, the threatto Israel would develop to the east of the Palestinianstate, and Palestinian territory would be used as abase from which to attack Israel.

A somewhat more critical military thinker,Shlomo Gazit, writes in his book ”TrappedFools”(2003; 8-9) that throughout the history of Zi-onism “Israeli leaders did not see a Palestinian peo-ple with political aspirations of their own, but ratherintransigent enemies whose only hope was the de-struction of the state of Israel.”The Palestinians, ac-cording to this line of thinking, will never accept theidea of the state of Israel in their midst— and espe-cially an exclusively Jewish state of Israel— therebylocking Israel into permanent conflict, a constantstruggle for its very existence. Since Israel will neverknow genuine peace, it must ensure a qualitativemilitary edge over its enemies, hence its obsessionwith security and the importance it gives to securitypolitics. Israeli leaders keep holding to this dogma,despite the P.L.O.’s acceptance of the two-state solu-tion in 1988, its reaffirmation in the Arab Peace Ini-tiative in 2002, 20 years of negotiations in the Osloprocess, formal peace treaties with Egypt and Jordanand, until the second Intifada at least, functional rela-tions with many of the Arab and Muslim countries.

And in a sense this is true in a kind of Catch-22way. Since Zionism, as embodied today in Israeligovernment policy, claims an exclusive right of theJewish people to the Land of Israel and since it hasnever, until this moment, acknowledged Palestinian

national rights or even the very existence of a Pales-tinian people, Israel has left the Palestinians with lit-tle choice but to be its permanent enemies until Israelagrees to a political settlement that addresses theirnational aspirations. Such an approach foreclosesany just and workable peace.

* Israel’s formal diplomatic positions on thepeace process must be derived by first establishingits security needs, rather than the reverse. This is theprinciple Diker set down in another JCPA publica-tion (2010:92) and which Yaalon confirms in the con-ference report: “Israel’s vital security requirementsand a conditional endorsement of a Palestinian statewere laid out by Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu in his first major policy speech at Bar-IlanUniversity. [The] ideas he endorsed represent a res-toration of Israel’s traditional security-based ap-proach to achieving a lasting peace.”

* Israel will maintain an active and constantmilitary presence in the Occupied Territory. Accord-ing to Moshe Yaalon, the recent decline in Palestin-ian violence is not a generous response to Israeli ges-tures. Rather, it is due largely “to the construction ofthe security barrier, ongoing IDF operations in Judeaand Samaria that keep terrorists on the run, the in-creased rivalry between Fatah and Hamas, and agrowing realization that Palestinian terror doesn’tpay.”

* No return to 1949 armistice line/1967 bor-ders. Listen again to Yaalon, and recall that he iscurrently Israel’s deputy prime minister:

[The JCPA conference] is a corrective to the widely-

held view in many international quarters and evenin limited circles in Israel about the “need” and

even the “inevitability”that peace requires Israel towithdraw to the perilous 1949 armistice lines

(erroneously called the 1967 “borders”). These bor-

ders would not achieve peace— they would weakenIsrael and invite war by denying the Jewish state

strategic depth and topographical protectionagainst Palestinian rocket and other attacks. The

1949 armistice lines enabled Israel’s enemies to de-ploy and operate in dangerously close proximity to

Israel’s main population centers to such an extent

that they constituted an existential threat to Is-rael… . If the IDF were withdrawn to the 1949 lines,

the conquest of Judea and Samaria would becomeeasier and therefore assume even greater strategic

The Link Page 7

value to Hamas and its Iranian patron… . Israel and

the Hashemite Kingdom would thus both be threat-ened by the attempt to develop a “Hamastan” in

Judea and Samaria (Yaalon 2011).

* Maintaining control over strategic parts ofthe West Bank and of a ‘greater”Jerusalem. AgainYaalon:

Israel’s security depends on its retaining defensible

borders. This means maintaining control over keyareas of Judea and Samaria and certainly over an

undivided Jerusalem. Any division of Israel’s capi-tal city will invite sniper attacks, and mortar and

rocket fire on the country’s capital from the sur-rounding high ground. In the event that the Pales-

tinians obtain full sovereignty in Judea andSamaria, those areas— as Gaza before them— may

be quickly taken over by Hamas and become stag-

ing grounds for attacks on Israel. This would pose aparticularly serious threat due to the topography of

the territory, which includes high ground fromwhich even relatively primitive rockets— and even

mortars— could easily strike Ben-Gurion Interna-tional Airport (Yaalon 2011).

* If a Palestinian state were to emerge, it willnot have territorial contiguity. This includes no terri-torial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza orwithin the West Bank. “Transportational contiguity”will be permitted only under Israeli supervision.This is an Israeli term brought up repeatedly in ne-gotiations and is meant to offset the Palestinians’lossof territorial contiguity. It would indeed allow Pales-tinians to drive from Jenin to Hebron, but wouldmaintain Israeli control— checkpoints and variouskinds of surveillance— as well as the right to arrestPalestinians as they traverse “Israeli”space.

* Israel will keep its major settlements— and thesettlement “blocs.” When Ehud Barak proposed to“jump” to final status negotiations in 1999, he con-solidated the settlements Israel sought to retain into“blocs”that expanded Israel onto 85% of historic Pal-estine (versus today’s 78%) and reduced the Pales-tinians to “cantons” on only 15% of their historichomeland. Instead of dealing with 200 settlements,Barak had only to negotiate the annexation of sevensettlement blocs: (1) the Jordan Valley Bloc that com-prises some 30% of the West Bank, the Jordan Val-ley— from which Palestinians have been almost en-tirely removed, except for the city of Jericho, and re-

placed by settlers— and which contains some of thePalestinians’ most fertile land and the source ofmuch of the West Bank’s water (the Jordan River).Without the Jordan Valley, which Israel insists is its“security border,” the Palestinians have no unmiti-gated border with Jordan, and thus no genuine sov-ereignty; (2) the Ariel Bloc that divides the WestBank east and west, creates the northern Palestinian“canton”and preserves Israeli control over the Terri-tories’largest water aquifer; (3) the Modi’in Bloc thatconnects the Ariel settlements to Jerusalem; (4-6) a“Greater Jerusalem” consisting of three settlementblocs: Givat Ze’ev to the northwest of the city, theexpansive Ma’aleh Adumim Bloc extending to thenortheast and east of Jerusalem, which effectivelycuts the West Bank in half again and creates the cen-tral and southern Palestinian “cantons,” and theEtzion Bloc to the southwest; and (7) a corridor risingfrom the settlements in the south to incorporate theJewish community of Hebron.

Israel will keep all these major blocs because, inthe words of Yaalon, “We have learned from bitterexperience that territorial withdrawals do not allevi-ate grievances; they indicate weakness and convinceIsrael’s enemies that victory is possible” (Yaalon2011).

* Israel will retain permanent control over themountains running through the center of the WestBank and over the Jordan Valley. Again, in thename of defensible borders, this has to do with thethreat from rockets that Hamas is said to possesswith a range of more than 50 kilometers. If launchedfrom the Judea-Samaria mountain ridge, argues Yaa-lon, these rockets could strike the center of Israel,where more than 70 percent of the population re-sides.

* Military thinking rules out a Palestinian state;only limited “autonomy”is possible. This, accordingto Yaalon, has always been Israel’s position. NothingIsraeli leaders have done or said, including Men-achem Begin at the 1978 Camp David Accords, andYitzhak Rabin at the 1993 Oslo Accords, constitutedintent or consent to establish a Palestinian statewithin the pre-war 1967 lines.

* A Palestinian state, should it emerge, must be

The Link Page 8

demilitarized and Israel must retain security control.This means that Israel must insist on preventing theprospective Palestinian state from acquiring anyarms or maintaining forces other than those neces-sary for internal Palestinian security and preventingterror attacks on Israel. But even a demilitarized Pal-estinian entity does not mean that Israel can afford tofully relinquish security control. Yaalon insists[There] “will have to be a permanent IDF presencecontrolling the border crossings, particularly on theeastern side of any future Palestinian state, as well asthe right of the IDF to enter the Palestinian entitywhen warranted.”

* Israel must control all the borders, plus the“external envelope” around any Palestinian state.This, according to Major-General Aharon Ze’eve Far-kash, quoted in the Diker report, includes “propersupervision and inspection by the IDF and otherthird-party monitors, not outside security forces, atthe international border crossings to prevent thesmuggling of prohibited weapons and dual-purposematerials, infiltration of terrorists, and the transfer offunds and other forms of aid to terrorist groups inthe Palestinian state.” And it includes “supervisionof the external envelope along the borders of the Pal-estinian state, including supervision of theseas.”(Farkash 2011:46)

* Israel must control Palestinian airspace and theelectro-magnetic sphere. Again, Farkash (2011:45):“Israel must control a unified airspace in order toprevent hostile military action and terrorist aerialactivity from the skies over a Palestinian state, orthrough it, aimed at the Jewish state.”But Brigadier-General Udi Dekel (2011:76-78), former head of theIDF Strategic Planning Division, raises yet anotherlittle-known restriction on Palestinian sovereignty:Israeli control of the electro-magnetic(communications) sphere. He writes (2011:76-78):

Similar to Israel’s vital security requirement to con-

trol a unified airspace if a Palestinian state is estab-lished, the topographical conditions and limited

distance between the population and communica-tion centers of the two entities do not allow for divi-

sion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Since itlargely occupies the central mountain ridge, the

Palestinian Authority enjoys a topographical ad-

vantage— with its communication systems far less

vulnerable to disruptions and jamming than thoseof largely coastal Israel. A small Palestinian trans-

mitter station on Mount Eival, near Nablus, for ex-ample, could jam virtually the entire communica-

tion system in Israeli areas broadcasting on thesame frequencies… . Israel’s position is that it must

retain overriding control of the electromagneticspectrum, and there must be an effective supervi-

sory apparatus in place to guarantee that its deci-

sions are implemented. The Palestinians, on theother hand, view this issue— as in the case of air-

space— in the context of sovereignty. They demandfull independence in managing the electromagnetic

spectrum and consider Israel’s demands to be ex-cessive and their own to be based on international

conventions.

* No reliance on “foreign forces. This is code forno international presence that would allow Israel towithdraw to the 1967 lines, a necessary condition forthe establishment of a minimal Palestinian state andthe achievement of a two-state solution.

5. “And, to ensure peace we don’t want themto bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, orcontrol of airspace, or make treaties with countrieslike Iran, or Hezbollah… ”

In his Bar Ilan speech, Netanyahu again framedthis demand around Israel’s need for security. Inessence this means that Palestinians will not be ableto make any military treaties.

6. “Jerusalem remaining the united capital ofIsrael… ”

Netanyahu also insisted in his Bar Ilan speechthat Jerusalem must remain “the united capital ofIsrael.” This demand alone, which has always beenpresented by Israeli leaders as absolute and unbend-ing, torpedoes any two-state solution. Not only doesit ignore completely the religious, cultural and politi-cal significance of Jerusalem, but the disconnectionof a “greater” Jerusalem from the rest of Palestinedestroys any economic viability a Palestinian statemay have. The World Bank estimates that 40% of thePalestinian economy revolves around Jerusalem,where tourism would be its largest potential indus-try, and excluding it from a Palestinian state cuts outthat state’s economic heart.

But, like the two-state solution itself, a Palestin-

The Link Page 9

ian capital in East Jerusalem is already a dead letter.The Israeli “closure” of the past 18 years preventsPalestinians from the West Bank and Gaza from en-tering; its own local economy has virtually died. Is-raeli settlements and highways, around andthroughout the city have destroyed the urban fabricof Palestinian East Jerusalem, fragmenting it into dis-connected ghettos (or “villages,”as Israel calls them).“Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel”isonly another confirmation that the two-state solutionis gone.

7. “The territorial issues will be discussed in apermanent agreement. Til then we have no inten-tion to build new settlements or set aside land fornew settlements.”

This statement from Netanyahu is not only de-ceiving, but indicates to what degree Israel has infact completed its incorporation of the West Bankand East Jerusalem. Even the term “settlements” ismisleading because it minimizes the size and degreeof control of settlement cities, some of them housing50,000 residents or more, spread strategicallythroughout East Jerusalem and the West Bank settle-ment blocs.

Three circles of expropriation surround each set-tlement. Besides the built-up area of the settlementsthat one actually sees, each settlement possesses anexpansive master plan that you don’t see (e.g., theurban space of Ma’aleh Adumin extends from Jeru-salem to Jericho, effectively cutting the West Bank inhalf). All this is then integrated in the even more ex-pansive seven settlement blocks that radiate out,comprising about 25% of the West Bank.

Since the U.S. recognized the settlement blocs asbeing permanently a part of Israel, all Israeli con-struction within them is considered “in-filling” ormerely “thickening” existing settlements to accountfor “natural growth.”Then there are myriad ways ofgrabbing additional Palestinian land, some legal,some not. The “Special Security Area”(SSA) frame-work surrounds twelve settlements east of the Sepa-ration Barrier with rings of land that are closed toPalestinian entry, though more than half of this ringland is under private Palestinian ownership. B'tse-lem, the Israeli Human Rights organization, esti-mates that pirating private Palestinian land by set-tlers blocks Palestinian entry to tens of thousands of

acres of farm land, thus annexing them de facto to thesettlements. Other areas have been designated as Na-ture Reserves or “closed military areas.”And on andon… .

The bottom line is that, in one way or another,Israel already controls the strategic land it needs toforeclose any viable, sovereign Palestinian state andcan indeed complete its settlement enterprise with-out expropriating additional land or building “newsettlements.”

8. “We need a clear agreement to solve the Pal-estinian refugee problem outside of the borders ofthe State of Israel … this humanitarian problem… ”

Netanyahu’s words guarantee there will be noresolution of the conflict. The question of the refu-gees is not a “humanitarian problem,”but a humanrights issue rooted in the refugees’right to return totheir homes inside Israel, as defined in United Na-tions Security Council Resolution 194.

Reading the Bar Ilan speech with a critical eyeand informed by both the “facts on the ground”andIsrael’s security thinking, we have a better insightinto the cryptic remark made by Netanyahu at hisaddress before the U.N. last September:”The Pales-tinians”said the prime minister, ”should first makepeace with Israel and then get their state.”

What is evident is that a Palestinian state is not inthe cards.

January 26, 2012: The EndOf All Illusions

We have passed many “turning points” anddeadlines in the struggle to end the Occupation. Thelatest, following Mahmoud Abbas’s approach to theU.N. last September, was laid down by the“Quartet:”the parties had until January 26, 2012, topresent their positions, particularly on borders, sothat negotiations may resume. The Palestinians, whohave maintained their position for the past 25 years,did so almost immediately. Negotiations can beginon the basis of the 1949/1967 lines and an end to Is-raeli settlement construction.

Israel delayed until the last day, then presented aposition without maps or explanations whose impli-cations, now that we have de-coded the discourse,

The Link Page 10

we can readily understand. In any permanent agree-ment between Israel and the Palestinians, said IsaacMolho, Netanyahu’s representative, most of the Is-raelis who live in the West Bank will remain in Is-raeli territory, while the Palestinians in the WestBank will be in the area allotted for a future Palestin-ian state.

The Palestinians rejected this out of hand anddeclared the negotiations ended— though at thiswriting there are hints that they may go on untilMarch due to American and European pressure. TheP.A. threatens to launch a “diplomatic offensive”toput Israel under an “international siege.”It may ap-ply to the U.N. General Assembly for non-memberobserver state status, which they would surely re-ceive. And Fatah and Hamas are again talking of aunity government and elections in May, 2012.

None of these steps would end the Occupation,though they may shift support in world public opin-ion towards the Palestinian cause.

Ironically, even as the two-state solution disap-pears irrevocably under the weight of Israeli settle-ments and U.S. obstructionism, even as negotiationsfail miserably and Israel publicly proclaims positionsthat rule out a viable Palestinian state, and even asthe two-state solution is being rejected as unjust andinadequate by growing sectors of the Palestinianpublic, the P.A. continues to cling to it.

Why it does so is not clear. As a para-government, it may be locked in by diplomatic con-straints. Or it may be seduced by the billions of dol-lars being channeled into its institutions, into Pales-tinian N.G.O.s (just look at the massive new build-ings and expensive new restaurants in Ramallah)and into the upper- and middle-classes so dear to theneoliberal Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Or maybe itis ensnared by the privileges conferred on its V.I.P.sby Israel or by a false sense of power bestowed by itsAmerican trained and equipped militia— whichmany Palestinians consider a second oppressive oc-cupation regime.

Where Is Israel Heading?Toward Warehousing

Israel and its supporters also know full well thatthe two-state solution is dead, and good riddance

because it gave too much land and sovereignty to acollection of people whose national rights Israel hasalways denied.

But it nevertheless plays a key role in perpetuat-ing Israeli control of the Occupied Territory, holdingeverything in place until the Occupation is normal-ized, the Palestinians pacified, and the world moveson to the next urgent conflict. By playing along withvariations of a two-state solution that it knows areunacceptable to the Palestinians— for example, a“two-state solution” in which the Palestinians arelocked into a non-viable, semi-sovereign Bantustan—Israel is able to avoid any genuine solution to theconflict, since any genuine solution would requireeither too large a concession of land or shared sover-eignty with the Palestinians.

But while Israel endeavors (with the U.S., Europeand, for its own reasons, the Palestinian Authority)to keep the two-state charade going on indefinitely,it has already moved on to the next stage: putting inplace an apartheid regime or— its preferable solu-tion— simply warehousing the Palestinians forever.

The term “apartheid”is an emotive one. We re-call the firestorm that greeted Jimmy Carter’s 2006book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” but sincethen it has entered into the mainstream debate. TheIsraeli newspaper Ha’aretz has run editorials warn-ing of an impending apartheid regime over the Oc-cupied Territory, and even Ehud Olmert, when hewas prime minister, warned that if the two-state so-lution dies Israel would "face a South African-stylestruggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as thathappens, the state of Israel is finished. Israel's sup-porters abroad would quickly turn against such astate.”

So far Israel has avoided that eventuality bykeeping the illusion of negotiations going. (Even as Iwrite this, Feb 2, 2012, Netanyahu has asked the vis-iting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to “prod”the Palestinians to “continue the peace talks.”“Israel,” he said, “is interested in continuous talkswith the Palestinians while preserving the securityinterests of Israeli citizens.”)

But in hindsight, given current Israeli policiesand the fact that Israel has completed its de facto an-

The Link Page 11

nexation of the West Bank, a remarkable develop-ment has emerged: apartheid is the liberal “solution”based on a concept of “two-states”pushed by Barak,Sharon and Olmert in which the Palestinians wouldget a truncated Bantustan in the nooks and cranniesof the settlements. Netanyahu’s vision of warehous-ing, embodied in his famous phrase “autonomyplus— independence minus,”is far more chilling.

Ehud Barak was the first to give an explicit nameto Israel’s policy of apartheid: hafrada, which in He-brew means “separation,” just as it does in Afri-kaans. Hafrada is Israel’s term for its policy towardsthe Palestinians, most tellingly in the official name ofthe Wall— the “Separation Barrier” (mikhshol ha-hafrada). Apartheid is neither a slogan nor a systemunique to South Africa. The term describes preciselya regime defined by two elements: one populationseparating itself from the others, then creating a per-manent and institutional regime of domination. Ex-actly the conception of Barak, Sharon and Olmert.

The Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Palestine, con-vening in Cape Town, South Africa and hearing tes-timony on separation and domination not only in theOccupied Territory but within Israel itself, issued aclear statement on why Israel’s policies constituteapartheid:

This discriminatory regime manifests in varyingintensity and forms against different categories of

Palestinians depending on their location. The Pales-tinians living under colonial military rule in the

Occupied Palestinian Territory are subject to a par-ticularly aggravated form of apartheid. Palestinian

citizens of Israel, while entitled to vote, are not part

of the Jewish nation as defined by Israeli law andare therefore excluded from the benefits of Jewish

nationality and subject to systematic discriminationacross the broad spectrum of recognized human

rights. Irrespective of such differences, the Tribunalconcludes that Israel’s rule over the Palestinian peo-

ple, wherever they reside, collectively amounts to asingle integrated regime of apartheid.

Yet apartheid at least pretends to respect the po-litical rights of the people it in fact oppresses. Theregime in South Africa promoted an “eleven-statesolution”: the creation of ten black Bantustans(actually called “homelands”) on 13% of South Afri-can land, the rest becoming a “white democracy.”Israel’s version of the two-state solution would do

the same: create a Palestinian Bantustan on 15% ofhistoric Palestine, grant it putative sovereignty yetkeep it entirely under Israeli control and domination,the rest of the country becoming a “Jewish democ-racy.”

Warehousing makes no such pretense. Just as in aprison, Palestinians would become inmates— ormore accurately, wards of the international commu-nity— to be fed, protected, but that’s all. It representsthe bleakest of realities for the Palestinians, since it isa static condition leading nowhere. Aided by theU.S., Israel merely delays and dallies for years, pro-longing “negotiations” indefinitely by perpetuallyholding out the possibility of a two-state solution, allthe time pacifying the Palestinians by military opera-tions, mass arrests, infiltrating thousands of collabo-rators, revoking residency, confining them to tinyand impoverished enclaves (the cells of the prison)surrounded by high walls— in general making lifeunbearable so as many as possible will leave alto-gether. At some point down the road, Israeli rule willbe normalized and the Palestinians quietized, anyattempt on their part to resist put down as“terrorism.”The world will move on to other issues,perhaps, as in Israel, to its own internal problemsand to the obsession with entertainment and, likeprisoners, the Palestinian will simply disappear, be-come a non-issue.

The haunting specter of warehousing lends anurgency to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—though colonization and displacement more accu-rately capture the nature of what is happening in Is-rael/Palestine than “conflict” does, given the tre-mendous disparity in power and control between thetwo “sides.”Yet in the current political paradigm ofthe two-state solution we simply cannot get therefrom here. The Israeli facts on the ground, combinedwith an American refusal to allow a genuine, if tiny,Palestinian state to emerge, have brought us to adead-end. Nor is a one-state solution, be it a democ-ratic or bi-national state, possible given the presentconstellation of American and European support forIsrael as a “Jewish”state.

If the Palestinians are to salvage any dignity as apeople, the public relations battle has to be reframed.Today, Israel stands before the world and claims thatit has to treat the Palestinians the way it does be-

The Link Page 12

cause the security of their state demands it, and forthat reason it absolutely cannot enter into a peaceprocess that might actually threaten its hold over theOccupied Territories and the congressional supportit enjoys.

That argument has to be reframed. In my book“An Israeli in Palestine,” I write that PresidentObama should take a leaf out of President RonaldReagan’s strategy of assertiveness. In 1981, whenReagan sought to sell AWAC surveillance plans toSaudi Arabia, the Israel lobby in the U.S. musteredenough opposition in Congress to potentially blockthe sale. In response, Reagan pulled rank. I am theCommander-in-Chief, he reminded Congress, and Iam telling you that this sale is in the vital interests ofthe United States. Framed like that, Congress ap-proved the sale.

By anchoring Administration policies in anAmerican reframing, i.e., what’s best for U.S. inter-ests, Obama might be able to replicate Reagan’s suc-cess. This would mean that he must state firmly andunequivocally that a complete end to Israel’s Occu-pation and the establishment of a truly sovereignand viable Palestinian state next to a secure state ofIsrael is in the vital interests of the United States.Only that will effectively counter congressional op-position to putting pressure on Israel, without whichthere is no chance of a breakthrough.

Still, that said, I believe the conflict is ultimatelyunsustainable. This is not merely a localized conflictbetween two peoples but is a global one fundamen-tally disruptive to the international system and achallenge to the rule of international law and humanrights that cannot be allowed to prevail. We mustkeep the pressure on— through BDS (Boycott, Divest-ment, Sanctions) and our flotillas to Gaza and resis-tance actions inside the Occupied Territory, lobbyinggovernments and mobilizing public opinion. But wemust also seek the collapse of the “peace process”ofthe past 20 years and the agency that allows it to con-tinue, the Palestinian Authority.

This may seem like a cruel thing to say, but inmy view only when the Occupation is thrown backsquarely into Israel’s lap will it become unsustain-able. Only then will the international community,pushed by an inflamed Muslim world and a galva-

nized global civil society, be forced to act. When thatmoment arrives, we must be primed to ensure thatthe new political possibilities that arise from out ofthe chaos lead to genuine justice and a lasting peace.

Part of the process of “clearing the table”will beto abandon, once and for all, the illusion of a two-state “solution.”■

Link author Jeff Halper.

Jeff Halper has been arrested countless times—he literally is not sure of the number — for standingin front of bulldozers and Israeli soldiers sent tocarry out Israel’s demolition orders.

In 2006, he was nominated for the NobelPeace Prize for his work in liberating both the Pal-estinian and the Israeli people “from the yoke ofstructural violence,” and for building equality be-tween these two people “by recognizing and cele-brating their common humanity.”

In May 2009, he received the prestigious KantFoundation World Citizen Award in Freiburg, Ger-many, in recognition of his “courageous commit-ment to human rights and the human dignity of po-litically and socially marginalized populationgroups.”

Dr. Halper is the author of the forthcoming book,“Globalizing Palestine: Israel and the World’s Armsand Security Industries,”which is based, in part, onhis present Link article. He can be reached atJeff@ICAHD.org.

The Link Page 13A

ME

U’s

Bo

ok

Sele

ctio

ns

To

ord

er,

putch

eck

inle

ftcolu

mn.U

se

ord

er

form

on

page

16.

See

pag

e1

5F

or

AM

EU

’svi

deo

se

lections.

All

AM

EU

Pri

ces

Inclu

de

Po

sta

ge

&H

an

dlin

g

Au

tho

rsP

ub

lic

ati

on

Ye

ar

Pg

sL

ist

AM

EU

Su

mm

ary

AM

EU

Bu

rnin

gIs

sue

spaper

2007

439

$16.9

5$5.0

0S

ele

cte

dLin

kis

sues

from

the

past

40

years

.

Arm

str

ong,

K.

Je

rusa

lem

:O

ne

Cit

y,

Th

ree

Fa

ith

spaper

1999

474

$17.5

0$15.5

0C

ritically

accla

imed

his

tory

ofH

oly

City.

Ate

ek,

N.

AP

ale

st.-

Ch

rist

ian

Cry

for

Re

co

ncil

iati

on

paper

2008

224

$24.0

0$17.5

0S

abeelfo

under's

pro

gra

mofnon-v

iole

nce.

Aziz

,B

.S

wim

min

gu

pth

eT

igri

sclo

th2007

314

$24.9

5$19.9

5R

eallif

eencounte

rsw

ith

Iraqis

.

Bennis

,P

.U

nd

ers

tan

din

gth

eP

al.

-Isr

.C

on

flic

tpaper

2007

196

$10.0

0$9.0

0A

nexcelle

nt

prim

er.

Cart

er,

J.P

ea

ce

No

tA

pa

rth

eid

clo

th2006

265

$27.0

0$12.5

0C

riticalanaly

sis

ofIs

rael's

occupation.

Chacour,

E.

Blo

od

Bro

the

rspaper

2003

240

$12.9

5$10.9

5U

pdate

ded.

with

intr

oduction

by

Jam

es

Baker

III.

Cook,

J.B

loo

da

nd

Re

lig

ion

paper

2006

222

$18.0

0$16.5

0C

an

Isra

elbe

both

aJe

wis

hand

adem

ocra

tic

sta

te?.

Cook,

J.D

isa

pp

ea

rin

gP

ale

stin

epaper

2008

294

$27.9

5$16.7

5Is

rael's

experim

ents

inhum

an

despair.

Eld

ar,

A.

&Zert

al

Lo

rds

of

the

La

nd

clo

th2007

531

$29.9

5$15.5

0In

sid

eaccount

ofIs

rael's

sett

lem

ent

polic

y.

Fayez,

J.ed.

Th

eC

olo

niz

ati

on

of

Pa

lest

ine

paper

2007

56

$9.9

5$3.0

0U

pdate

dlis

ting

of452

destr

oyed

citie

s,

tow

ns,

villa

ges.

Fin

kels

tein

,N

.B

eyo

nd

Ch

utz

pa

hclo

th2005

332

$22.5

0$15.5

0The

mis

use

ofth

echarg

eofanti-S

em

itis

m.

Fis

hbach,

M.

Re

co

rds

of

Dis

po

sse

ssio

nclo

th2003

467

$39.5

0$15.5

0N

ew

figure

son

the

land

"sw

ap"

of1947-4

8.

Gubser,

P.

Sa

lad

in:

Em

pir

ea

nd

Ho

lyW

ar

paper

2010

453

$38.0

0$9.5

0A

fresh

look

at

the

12th

centu

ryM

uslim

leader.

Halp

er,

JA

nIs

rae

liin

Pa

lest

ine

paper

2008

317

$27.9

5$23.5

0B

ya

longtim

eopponent

ofth

eoccupation.

Jayyusi,

S.

An

tho

log

ypaper

1996

754

$22.0

0$16.0

0C

olle

ction

ofm

odern

Pale

stinia

nlit

era

ture

.

Karm

i,G

.M

arr

ied

toA

no

the

rM

an

paper

2007

350

$29.9

5$22.5

0Is

rael's

dile

mm

ain

Pale

stine.

Khalid

i,R

.R

esu

rre

cti

ng

Em

pir

eclo

th2004

223

$23.0

0$17.9

5A

naly

sis

ofU

Sro

lein

Mid

dle

East.

Khalid

i,R

.T

he

Iro

nC

ag

eclo

th2006

281

$24.9

5$19.9

5W

hy

Pale

stinia

ns

don't

have

asta

te.

Kove

l,J.

Ove

rco

min

gZio

nis

mpaper

2007

299

$26.9

5$18.9

5H

ow

Isra

elcan

healits

"sta

te-s

ponsore

dra

cis

m."

Makdis

i,S

.P

ale

stin

eIn

sid

eO

ut

clo

th2008

365

$24.9

5$18.9

5W

hy

Ara

fat

had

tow

alk

aw

ay

from

Cam

pD

avi

d.

Masalh

a,

N.

Ex

pu

lsio

no

fth

eP

ale

stin

ian

spaper

1993

235

$11.9

5$9.5

0E

xam

ines

Zio

nis

tstr

ate

gy

oftr

ansfe

r:1882-1

946.

Munayyer,

H.

Tra

dit

ion

al

Pa

lest

inia

nC

ost

um

es

clo

th2011

554

$200.0

0$180.0

014

1/4

"x

10

1/4

"w

ith

more

than

500

colo

rpic

ture

s.

Nath

an,

S.

Th

eO

the

rS

ide

of

Isra

el

clo

th2005

310

$25.0

0$17.5

0H

ow

non-J

ew

sare

treate

din

the

Jew

ish

sta

te.

Neff,

D.

Wa

rrio

rsA

ga

inst

Isra

el

clo

th1988

372

$19.9

5$9.5

0H

ow

Isra

elbecam

eA

merica's

ally

in1973.

Ra'a

d,

B.

Hid

de

nH

isto

rie

spaper

2010

272

$32.0

0$22.5

0Tra

ces

Pale

stinia

nculture

back

toC

anaanite

civ

ilization.

Ram

adan,

T.

Inth

eF

oo

tste

ps

of

the

Pro

ph

et

clo

th2007

242

$23.0

0$17.9

5"B

y1

of100

top

innova

tors

ofth

ecentu

ry".

--T

ime

Rein

hart

,T.

Th

eR

oa

dM

ap

toN

ow

he

repaper

2006

248

$18.0

0$16.5

0H

ow

Road

Map

isused

toseiz

em

ore

occupie

dla

nd.

Sgre

na,

G.

Fri

en

dly

Fir

eclo

th2007

216

$20.0

0$15.9

5Jo

urn

alis

t'sin

sid

esto

ryofIraqioccupation.

Shulm

an,

D.

Da

rkH

op

eclo

th2007

226

$22.0

0$14.9

5M

em

ories

ofan

Isra

eli

peace

activi

st.

Thom

as,

A.

Th

eZo

oin

the

Ro

ad

toN

ab

lus

clo

th2008

293

$24.9

5$17.5

0E

xtr

aord

inary

sto

ryofsurv

ival.

Win

slo

w,

P.

Vic

tory

for

us

isto

see

yo

usu

ffe

rclo

th2007

224

$24.9

5$18.9

5P

ers

onalaccount

ofIs

rael's

dis

astr

ous

occupation.

The Link Page 14F

rom

Ou

rR

ese

arc

hL

ibra

ryT

oord

er,

putch

eck

inle

ftcolu

mn.U

se

ord

er

form

on

page

16.

Reta

ilP

rices

On

This

Pag

eB

ased

on

Am

azo

n.c

om

All

AM

EU

Pri

ces

Inclu

de

Po

sta

ge

&H

an

dlin

g

The Link Page 15

AMEU’s Video Selections: Use Order Form on Page 16

All AMEU Prices Include Postage & Handling

AJPME, Beyond the Mirage: The Face of the Occupation (2002, DVD, 47 minutes). Israeli andPalestinian human rights advocates challenge misconceptions about the Occupation and Palestin-ian resistance to it. AMEU: $25.00.

AJPME, Israel: Myths & Propaganda (2008, DVD, 58 minutes). Israeli historian Ilan Pappe chal-lenges the official Israeli version of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in Part 1, and responds to his critics inPart 2. AMEU: $25.00.

Baltzer, Anna, Life in Occupied Palestine (2006, DVD, 61 minutes). By the American grand-daughter of a Holocaust refugee. This is her powerful account of the occupation. AMEU: $20.00.

DMZ, People and the Land (2007, DVD, updated version of 1997 film, 57 minutes). This is thecontroversial documentary by Tom Hayes that appeared on over 40 PBS stations. AMEU: $25.00.

FMEP, Searching for Peace in the Middle East (2006, DVD, 30 minutes). A film by LandrumBolling. AMEU: $10.00.

Munayyer, F. & H., Palestinian Costumes and Embroidery: A Precious Legacy (2008, DVD, 38minutes). Rare collection of Palestinian dresses modeled against background of Palestinian music,with commentary tracing the designs back to Canaanite times. List: $50.00. AMEU: $25.00.

NEF, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land (2004, DVD, 80 minutes). Excellent analysis ofhow the U.S. media slants its coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. AMEU: $25.00.

Trip’ol’ii Productions. Occupation 101 (2007, DVD, 90 minutes). Powerful documentary on the rootcauses of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and US involvement. AMEU: $10.00.

Please send a gift subscription* of The Link in my name to:

_________________________ _________________________________ ___________________ ____ ___________Name Address City ST Zip

_________________________ _________________________________ ___________________ ____ ___________Name Address City ST Zip

_________________________ _________________________________ ___________________ ____ ___________Name Address City ST Zip

Mail with $20 for each gift subscription to:AMEU, 475 Riverside Drive, Room 245,New York, New York 10115-0245.

*One yr. sub. + free copy of “Burning Issues,”AMEU’s 440-page anthology of best Links.

Donated by:

Name________________________

Address ______________________

City ______________

State ______ Zip _________

The Link Page 16A

mericans

for

Mid

dle

East

Unders

tandin

g,

Inc.

Room

245,4

75

Riv

ers

ide

Drive

Ne

wY

ork

,N

Y10

115-0

245

Non-P

rofit

U.S

.P

osta

ge

PA

IDP

erm

it#155

Deep

Riv

er,

CT

To Support The Link

A $ 4 0 v o l u n t a r y a n n u a lsubscription is requested to defraycost of publishing and distributingThe Link and AMEU’s Public AffairsSeries.

Contribution to AMEU (tax deductible)

Please Send Recent Link Issues

A check or money order for $________ isenclosed, payable to AMEU.

Name ________________________________

Address ______________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

Zip+4 _________________

4/12

A Legacy Suggestion

The work of Americans for Middle EastUnderstanding has grown over the past45 years because supporters have remem-

bered us in their wills.

A bequest of a fixed sum or a percentageof an estate ensures that our voice will

remain strong.

AMEU is a tax-deductible, educationalorganization.

For further information, contact JohnMahoney at 212-870-2053.

RUSH ORDER FORM

Books: Please send ___ books (checked on pg. 14) at a total

AMEU price of $_________. (Price includes postage.)

Video Orders: Please send ___ videos (checked on pg. 15) with a

total AMEU price of $_________. (Price includes postage.)

Total Amount Enclosed: $_____________

Make Checks Payable to “AMEU”

Name_______________________________________

Address______________________________________

City ______________ State _____ Zip _____________

MAIL ORDER WITH CHECK TO:

AMEU, Room 245, 475 Riverside Drive,

New York, NY 10115-0245

Telephone 212-870-2053, Fax 212-870-2050, or

E-Mail AMEU@aol.com

AMEU’s Complete Book/Video Catalog

Available on website: www.ameu.org