From my e-mail:<\/u><\/p>\n
The views expressed here are those of the editors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jewish Voice for Peace.<\/a><\/p>\n Today’s Contents:<\/b> <\/p>\n Avnery: Irreversible Mental Damage (Direct E-Mail Submission)<\/b> Reviewing the damage done by Amos Gilad’s misrepresentation of Arafat’s position in 2000 <\/i><\/p>\n Hass: Acceptance speech at receiving Anna Lindh award (Direct E-mail submission)<\/b> Writer frustrated by lack of Israeli audience<\/i><\/p>\n [JPN COMMENTARY:<\/b> It is sad to report that the recent revelations by former head of IDF Intelligence, Amos Malka, have not caused the kind of stir they merited. In an interview with Ha’aretz last week, Malka revealed that his subordinate, Amos Gilad, contradicted the evidence amassed by IDF intelligence when he gave the Israeli government his assessment that Yasir Arafat did not wish to negotiate with Israel in 2000, but wished instead to engineer the current Palestinian uprising. <\/p>\n By now, others have joined Malka in raising this accusation. The implications are enormous. Malka makes it clear that the data amassed by IDF Intelligence indicated that Arafat would compromise greatly on the implementation of the Palestinian right of return, in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. <\/p>\n This assessment directly contradicts the mythology on which the entire Israeli military posture has been based since the end of September, 2000. Both Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon based their actions and rhetoric on the premise that there was “no partner for peace”, that Arafat was intent on destroying Israel as a Jewish state, would not compromise on the right of return and intentionally sabotaged the Camp David talks in order to launch the uprising he had been planning all along. <\/p>\n Gilad’s forgery, whether he did it due to his own political beliefs or in service to first Barak and then Sharon, has convinced most Israelis and Americans. Uri Avnery points out in his article below, the Quartet (The US, UN, EU and Russian Federation) has been convinced of it as well, based on their endorsement of Sharon’s “Gaza Withdrawal Plan. In fact, this is not as clear as Avnery claims, as the Quartet (really the US, which essentially makes the Quartet’s decisions and acts unilaterally when the Quartet will not cooperate), is trying desperately to recover from the abject failure of the Road Map and will take any withdrawal it can get at this point. This is all too typical of American thinking, sacrificing hope for the future for a nominal gain in the present. The Withdrawal Plan, which is contingent upon Israel consolidating its hold on the West Bank, is not a positive formula for moving toward a reasonable solution that can bring a just peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. <\/p>\n The myth of Barak’s “Generous Offer”, has meant that Israelis have backed, tacitly and actively, the harshest measures against Palestinians. As Malka reported, this extended to the earliest days of the intifada, when Israeli bullets were flying in virtual hailstorms, greatly escalating the violence from the Palestinian side. And all of this was based on the inaccurate reports of Amos Gilad. <\/p>\n This should have stirred enormous controversy in Israel, yet media outlets, aside from Ha’aretz have given it scant coverage. To date, there has been no report of public outcry over this and no report of it having been mentioned in the Knesset. It is crucial that this issue be raised in the Israeli and world Jewish consciousness. Because it is in this question that Malka raised that we find the hope for the future. – MP<\/b>]<\/p>\n Jewish Peace News needs your support. Your donation<\/a> to Jewish Voice for Peace<\/a> is the only way that JVP can continue its important work, including this news service. Two weeks ago, the international community made a shocking declaration. <\/p>\n Giving in to a demand by George Bush, the “Quartet” accepted the “Revised Disengagement Plan” of Ariel Sharon. This means that the United Nations, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States confirmed this document. I wonder if any one of the honorable diplomats has read the document with their own eyes. <\/p>\n In the first paragraph of the “plan”, the following words appear: “Israel has come to the conclusion that at present, there is no Palestinian partner with whom it is possible to make progress on a bilateral peace process.” <\/p>\n That is to say, the international community has confirmed that the Palestinian people has no right to take part in the determination of its own fate. Everything will be decided by the Government of Israel alone, with the backing of the United States, whose position will be automatically accepted by the other partners of the “Quartet”. <\/p>\n The European Union with its 25 member-states, the government of the Russian Federation and the organization that represents the entire world have humbly accepted the edict of Bush, the dictator of the world, who is himself a captive of Sharon. Sharon decided long ago that the elected president of the Palestinian people is “irrelevant”, together with the whole Palestinian leadership. <\/p>\n The Palestinian people have been eliminated from the list of decision-makers, thereby also abolishing in practice all the agreements signed with them, from Oslo to the Road Map. <\/p>\n This is a scandalous step, unprecedented in its dimensions, and it passed without comment. Apart from Sharon and his minions, nobody noticed the implications. The big boot of the international community trod on the Palestinian people without even noticing it, as if on an ant. <\/p>\n That is the culmination of a process that began with the return of the then Prime minister, Ehud Barak, from the 2000 Camp David summit. After the failure of that meeting, he coined the mantra that has since become the cornerstone of the policy of successive Israeli governments: “I have turned every stone on the way to peace \/ I have offered the Palestinians more generous proposals than any of my predecessors \/ The Palestinians have rejected all my offers \/ Arafat wants to throw us into the sea \/ We have no partner for peace.” <\/p>\n This mantra is based on a series of lies that have been exploded long ago. American eye-witnesses like Robert Malley, President Clinton’s advisor at Camp David, as well as some of the Israeli participants and international researchers have published detailed reports that prove that Barak himself was responsible for the failure at least as much as Arafat – in fact, far more. <\/p>\n And as if by coincidence, just when the international community absent-mindedly accepted that the Palestinian people is not a partner for peace, in Israel itself things are happening that turn everything upside down. <\/p>\n The High Priest of the “We Have No Partner” creed is General (res.) Amos Gilad, who at the crucial time was chief of the research section (and as such the No. 2) of the Army Intelligence Department. Since army intelligence is the department solely responsible for the “national security assessment”, it has a decisive influence on the formation of national policy. <\/p>\n The army intelligence man reports directly to the Prime Minister and takes part in cabinet meetings. No minister would dare to question his assessments, which are the guiding star of the entire state. The research chief of the intelligence department is supposed to submit a professional summary of the huge amount of data amassed by the intelligence community. Most ministers are forbidden to read the written report, and even the few others are allowed only to glance at it. Therefore, the oral summary presented by the chief of research to the Prime Minister and the cabinet is of paramount importance. <\/p>\n Amos Gilad went even further: he appeared almost daily in the media, commenting on almost every political and security event. He was not only the “national assessor”, but also the “national explainer”, as he was commonly called in the media. <\/p>\n Who is this man, who has had a greater influence than any other person on the policies of Israel over the last few crucial years, and whose kontseptsia (Hebrew for “conception”) is still directing the path of the state? This is the very same Amos Gilad who some days ago claimed for himself the benefits due to disabled army veterans. He was not wounded in battle, God forbid, but claimed that the stress caused by his difficult job has inflicted on him irreversible mental damage. <\/p>\n This claim involves a considerable amount of Chutzpah, if not worse. But it also raises the question: This mental damage, when did it start? When were the first symptoms observed? Was it when he started endlessly repeating that Arafat wants to throw us into the sea? Or was this declaration, perhaps, itself a symptom of his mental problem? And how can he continue to fulfill his present duties? <\/p>\n The last two weeks, Israel witnessed a stormy debate that should have shaken the very foundations of the state. <\/p>\n The former chief of Army Intelligence, General (res.) Amos Malka, who was the direct superior of Gilad, broke his silence of many years and published a thunderous accusation: that Amos Gilad arrived at his “kontseptsia” without any intelligence basis whatsoever. On the contrary, the huge amount of information collected by the intelligence department indicated the very opposite. That is to say, Gilad freely invented his intelligence reports, based on his political views and\/or on the desire to please his political bosses, Barak and Sharon. <\/p>\n This grave accusation raised a storm in professional circles. Intelligence operatives of undoubted integrity emerged from their anonymity in order to support Malka publicly. They were headed by the man who, at the relevant time, was in charge of the Army Intelligence section for Palestinian affairs, Colonel Ephraim Lavie, who was then responsible for the collection of all intelligence material about the Palestinian leadership. There is no doubt that in the professional confrontation between Amos and Amos, Amos Malka emerged as the victor. <\/p>\n This means, in simple words: there was no intelligence material at all backing the assertion that Arafat is working for the destruction of the State of Israel, that Arafat had broken off the peace process in order to start a terror campaign, that Arafat is not ready for a reasonable compromise. All these assertions, uttered by diverse Israeli politicians and generals, were based on the “assessment” of one man who, while appearing to represent the intelligence department, was actually suppressing the considered professional reports of his own department, as well as of the General Security Service (Shabak). <\/p>\n When the debate heated up, the Orientalist Matti Steinberg, a former advisor on Palestinian affairs to the chief of the Shabak, joined the fray. Steinberg not only confirmed that Gilad’s “kontseptsia” was completely false and contradicted the intelligence material assembled by his own people, but he also asserted that Gilad’s conception “fulfilled its own prophecy”. <\/p>\n Since Israel is immeasurably stronger than the Palestinians, its actions create reality. The acts guided by Gilad’s “kontseptsia” created results that suited it. Much as the “kontseptsia” of Eli Za’ira, the intelligence chief at the time of the Yom Kippur war, resulted in catastrophe, thus the “kontseptsia” of Amos Gilad caused – and is still causing – the disasters of the present intifada. <\/p>\n (The 1973 intelligence conception was that Egypt would not dare to attack Israel, causing all the glaringly obvious signs to the contrary to be ignored, thus preventing adequate preparations and resulting in the death of 3000 Israeli soldiers. Since then the Hebrew word “kontseptsia” has assumed an almost obscene connotation in Israel.) <\/p>\n As of now, Gilad’s immediate superior (Malka) and his immediate subordinate (Lavie) both accuse him of presenting his personal opinions, which were unsupported by any intelligence backing, as if they were the official assessment of the intelligence services. <\/p>\n Gilad has caused irreversible damage. His mantra was accepted by the vast majority of Israelis, as well as a large part of international public opinion. Its exposure in professional circles will not alter this fact. Indeed, the recent decision of the “Quartet” shows how deeply entrenched this lie has become throughout the world. <\/p>\n By the way, these revelations show that the secret assessment of the highest professional echelons of the Army Intelligence Department and Shabak were practically identical with the assessments published at the time by Gush Shalom, which were met with total disbelief by the media and the public, including a large part of the “peace camp”. To wit, that the Palestinian leadership, headed by Arafat, has never wavered from its readiness to make peace with Israel based on the creation of a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (which together make 22% of historic Palestine), with territorial compensation for the remaining 3% and sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Haram-al-Sharif (“Temple Mount”). The refugee problem would be solved by agreement with Israel (meaning: Israel will have a veto on any solution). <\/p>\n The experts of army intelligence and the security service, too, agree that Arafat has not wavered from this position. On this basis, peace can be achieved even now, as Arafat himself confirmed this week in a fascinating interview with the new editor of Ha’aretz, David Landau. <\/p>\n Ariel Sharon denies this, of course, because he is not ready for peace on these terms. He wants to annex at least 55% of the West Bank, hoping that the life of the Palestinians in the remaining 45% will become so impossible that they will leave the country of their own accord. Shimon Peres is eager to help him in the realization of this design.<\/p>\n For that, Sharon needs the “We Have No Partner” mantra. Amos Gilad delivered the goods. Now the “Quartet” has accepted it, bringing shame on itself and obstructing the search for peace. <\/p>\n [JPN COMMENTARY:<\/b> Amira Hass, the veteran journalist who has been providing unique insight from the West Bank for years in her Ha’aretz columns, was awarded the first Anna Lindh award for her work. Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister who was outspoken on progressive issues, was killed in a Stockholm market by an unknown assailant last December. <\/p>\n Hass’ speech, which is reprinted below, focuses on the irony she finds in receiving so much notoriety and renown due, however indirectly, to the suffering of others. But of greatest importance is her sense of frustration. As Hass points out, she is not the only reporter who writes about the realities of Israel’s occupation. Yet Israelis continue to live in a blissful ignorance about the actions of their army and the effects of their settlements. <\/p>\n That Hass’ work is better known and appreciated outside of Israel is a tragedy for all Israelis, who would do well to increase their understanding of their own government’s actions. In America, we talk about the corporate controlled media. In Israel, the problem is different. As Hass describes it, “It’s not censorship, it’s not direct official intimidation that marginalizes our facts or silences us, at times. It’s the deafening noise that the process of socialization creates.” For Israelis to have a future, they need to overcome this process, so that their democracy can push their government toward decisions that will steer them away from the suicidal course they are on. – MP<\/b>] <\/p>\n Acceptance speech at receiving Anna Lindh award <\/b><\/p>\n by Dear Mr. Bo Holmberg, Dear members of the board, dear guests and friends.<\/p>\n The composition of the first sentence of any article or a feature is for me the most difficult, sometimes even agonizing. It’s doubly difficult now for me to locate the most suitable first words in this ceremony. After all, this ceremony should have never taken place, the memorial fund never been established, as the life and career and plans of Annah Lindh should have continued normally, should have not been cut so cruelly and abruptly by a murderer.<\/p>\n How then can I express my words of thanks, for the encouragement and appreciation your award represents, while each of you wishes it never had to be announced and given?<\/p>\n So it’s almost needless to explain why I stand here with mixed feelings.<\/p>\n Moreover, there are three other reasons for the mixed feelings I have, when I stand here, accepting with gratitude your generous award.<\/p>\n The irony has not escaped my attention: Here I find myself benefiting from a bloody conflict, from the reality of an on-going ruthless Israeli occupation and an apartheid sort of domination that my state, Israel, exercises over the Palestinians, a domination which robs them of their chances of free human development, and endangers the normal future of my people, the Israelis. I benefit from the fact that I report about and from the midst of a shattered Palestinian society, which became infamous and marginalized because of the suicide bombers and the cult of death it has been producing, a society which has so many varieted, rich and wise voices but fails to make them heard and allows for two kinds mainly to dominate: that of victimhood and that of religious fanaticism. I benefit, then, from a miserable situation.<\/p>\n Another reason for my mixed feelings stems from a bitter awareness that my reports and articles are noticed, widely read and truly comprehended in the outside world much more than among the Israelis. A colleague of mine, whose views are closer to the popular and official Israeli version of the conflict, is candid and cynical. He told me just recently that the more does the “outside” readership welcome me, the more marginal and irrelevant I am considered at home. It’s not that I am concerned with popularity or lack thereof. I am troubled that my words – and the words of quite a few other Israeli reporters, social and political critics and activists are not reaching their natural address.<\/p>\n A third reason is a related sense of frustration that I experience especially in the last few weeks. Again, it’s personal frustration and a collective one, at the same time. A debate within the Israeli community of Intelligence has reached the media, esp. thanks to my Ha’aretz colleague, Akiva Eldar. It’s the debate around the truthfulness or falsehood of the Israeli explanations on the causes of the present round of bloody conflict, since September 2000.<\/p>\n The official Israeli version, propagated by the political echelons around the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak of Labor, and adopted by a great part of the Israeli Jews, ran as follows: Arafat planned, initiated and orchestrated the armed conflict from the start; Arafat did not accept the generous offers of Barak at Camp David, Camp David talks reached a deadlock because of Palestinian insistence to demand the Right of Return of all Palestinian refugees; Arafat is anyway aiming at the gradual destruction of the state of Israel from the start of the present Intifada Palestinians resorted to using arms against the Israeli soldiers; Palestinians who were killed were killed in armed clashes between the two parties.<\/p>\n Each such statement, which was actually accepted, if not presented, as a purely objective fact, has been contradicted and challenged by articles and reports published by Israeli papers. I well remember an article which the Israeli political scientist, Menahem Klein, published in Ha’aretz. By the way he is a religious Jew who teaches at Bar Ilan University, and he participated in negotiations over Jerusalem. It was a few weeks after the outbreak of the Intifada. He offered the solidly logical argument, that had Arafat really secretly plotted to eventually destroy the State of Israel, he would have accepted Barak’s offers at Camp David, and proceeded from there, gradually, to his final goal. Arafat, wrote Klein, could not accept Barak’s offer as a final deal, because he genuinely clinged to the two states solution, along the borders of June the 4th, 1967.<\/p>\n An exceptionally poignant writer is Bet Michael – another observant Jew, who has a weekly column at Yediot Aharonot, which enjoys the largest circulation in Israel. What he derives from Judaism and Jewish thought is a deeply moral logic. Sometime during the first year of the current bloodshed he commented about the military and the intelligence boasting that their assessments about Arafat and Arafat’s plan to escalate the bloodshed had proven correct. If I am not mistaken, he referred directly to the present Chief of Staff, Moshe Yaalon. He wrote the unforgettable sentence: “He (Yaalon) did not foresee the future. He created this future”. Dani Rubinshtein, also of Ha’aretz, who has been reporting about Palestinians and the occupied territories since the early seventies, added his impression, analysis and information about the spontaneous character of the uprising, about Arafat’s wish to resume negotiations and lack of control over the street. Tireless Eldar kept bringing information – from highly positioned Israeli and diplomatic sources – that refuted the official presentation, or should I say now myths.<\/p>\n Palestinian activists were interviewed by several Israeli writers. Marwan Barghouti, now in prison, was interviewed, among others, by Gideon Levi of Ha’aretz and Yigal Sarna of Yediot Aharonot. He – and others – reiterated their support of the two states solution; he insisted the Intifada started spontaneously. he reminded the Israelis that during the previous years Palestinians had warned over and over again that by failing to progress with withdrawals, by the continuous construction of settlements etc. Israel was pushing the Palestinians to a new revolt.<\/p>\n Ben Kaspit, of Maariv – maybe the most loyalist Israeli daily in Hebrew – published a year after the outbreak of the uprising a huge article, where he analyzed the military conduct. Among other issues, political and military, he studied the conduct of the army from day one. He referred to the astronomical number of bullets that the Israeli soldiers used from the start, in no proportion to the quantity and quality of arms that the Palestinian did. In other words – one could conclude that the escalation was triggered by an excessive Israeli use of power.<\/p>\n This list is long. I was part of it. I reported from the field: from the first demonstrations in Ramallah and Gaza, where hundreds or thousands of people marched to Israeli military positions: some tens of youngsters threw stones, the many stood near by – chanting slogans, chatting, discussing the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Palestinian authority. And from distant positions, the Israeli soldiers were shooting live bullets, wounding and killing. The soldiers obeyed their officers’ orders, who in their turn acted upon the clear political directive and assurance from above – at the time of the Labor rule.<\/p>\n From the third day, Palestinian and Israeli human rights health organization commented that the number of injuries in the upper parts of the body was a proof that the order was to kill. They also claimed that the army is targeting children. I published their commentary in one of my early reports. An interview I held with an Israeli sharpshooter confirmed these claims. Amnesty International had a very good and urgent study about the events: it commented that the clashes started when Palestinian civilians marched in protest towards “symbolic sites” of the Israeli occupation – military positions, mostly near the Israeli colonies. I published a summary of their report, which concluded that the army inflamed the atmosphere by using excessive use of deadly power.<\/p>\n It would take days to cite the reports from the field – by me and others – that refuted the Israeli official military presentation of events. If you check the archives, you’ll find them. True, all the papers, including Ha’aretz, and more so the radio and TV. channels, didn’t give such reports the prominence that the official versions received. But whoever wanted to get a broad picture and more facts – could have done so. <\/p>\n Yet people comment today to the debate and its content as if they were exposed now to totally new facts. My frustration could sound vain: so early on did I offer facts that now, three and two and almost four years after are taken as common knowledge, proven by important officials and commentators. Well, I AM vain. I don’t shy at saying that I published those facts very early.<\/p>\n But my frustration is about the wasted lives, the blood that might have not be shed, the destruction that followed. If only people concluded early enough that their army and politicians added tons of fuel to the flames, that they treated a tiny match-fire as fire in a forest.<\/p>\n So you understand my mixed feelings. My frustration did not start in Sept.2000. Long before then I used my advantage, as living among Palestinians, and offered facts which contradicted the common assumption that a peace process was going on and that every one was and should be happy. I referred to Israel’s policies on the ground, which were at stark contrast with concept of peace: such as settlements, such as the developing policy of closure, which is the Israeli version of the apartheid pass system. I had interviews with Palestinians intellectuals who warned that the situation was volatile, at the brinks of an explosion. I made sure to publish it. I could not guarantee that it would be read. Even less could I guarantee for the logical conclusions to be drawn. For example, that Israel was not working in order to make peace, but in order to win the Peace: that is, to use the negotiations period as an opportunity to expand the settlements and guarantee an enfeebled, unviable Palestinian State.<\/p>\n My experience and frustration allowed me to consolidate my concepts about Journalism. Journalism’s main task is to monitor Power, to locate Domination and to follow its characteristics and effects on the people, to observe the relations developing between Power and the Subjugated. Even between these two ends there is always a dialogue, an exchange of behaviors, opinions, emotions, habits, influences. Power is never a one-track, one direction action. In schools teachers and the education system as a whole are the centre of Power, but aren’t students playing with them a game of shifting places? Still, men hold the positions of Power in our societies, but aren’t they required to permanently alter their forms of domination because of women’s conscious demand or implicit aspiration for equality and permanent sense of dissatisfaction? In class relations between the employed and the employee the permanent conversation between the two unequal parties is being expressed in a thousand forms: not just strikes or negotiations, raise of salaries or cuts, but by flattery to the boss and sabotage, laziness and telling of lies or jokes, bringing psychologists to spy or offering benefits and weekend excursions.<\/p>\n Monitoring Power is a voluntarily-adopted mission of journalism, I believe, in a centuries-old development of the media and its social contract with the society in which journalists operate. It’s not the only role – but it is the most important one. I believe the mission of journalism is to scrutinize the actions of Power: not to overlook the ideological relations, and yet to question the motives of those in power and their acts: because they’d do anything possible to retain power and deepen it, because they hold the means to perpetuate the false equation between the ruler’s good and the public’s good, or portray their Power as God-sent and natural. By monitoring Power, the media is contributing to the dialogue between the sides. They are not equal, not symmetrical, and still they converse. The media reports about this conversation, but it also participates in it, by the very publication. It mediates information and by doing so it helps developing the dialogue. And the media should do the impossible: scrutinize itself as to what extend it silences or not the voice of the disadvantageous party in the dialogical relations.<\/p>\n Going back to the Israeli-Palestinian angle, Israel is the Holder of Power. No doubt about that. Which does not imply that the Palestinians have lacked or lack initiative, responsibility, share or influence on the state of affairs. <\/p>\n Here, the Israeli media is in a tricky double position: It should monitor Power, that is Israeli occupation. But as an Israeli foundation, it’s part of Power. It’s part of and represents the dominating society, which has an interest to prolong and eternalize its privileges vis a vis the Palestinians: here are some of these privileges: control over water supplies, control over land, determining demographic processes, containing the pace of development of the Other in order to secure Jewish hegemony.<\/p>\n But the Israeli media is indeed free: nobody threatens us – our lives, our jobs – if we follow the first commandment of journalism at the expense of our objective position as part of Power. It’s not that facts were not presented to the Israeli public, early enough, by various journalists. Ha’aretz esp. and for many years was carefully monitoring and scrutinizing Israeli power. But facts have melted away, evaporated within the natural process of socialization. By socialization I mean the imitation of each other, the adoption of believes and concepts which infiltrate from up down, but then circle around as the independent fruit of autonomous and individual contemplation and knowledge. By socialization I refer to the thin line between the fabrication of a consensus and the consensus created naturally between people of common ethnic origin, or religious.<\/p>\n We, Israeli journalists who cover the Power relations between Israel and the Palestinians, are caught then in the interplay between our freedom of expression and our natural identification with the society which keeps the centre of Power. It’s not censorship, it’s not direct official intimidation that marginalizes our facts or silences us, at times. It’s the deafening noise that the process of socialization creates. <\/p>\n By socialization I refer to the need to safeguard ones privileges – be they as miserable as the privileges of Israelis who live in poor, under-developed cities and neighborhoods. The common ethnic and religious origin and the natural pursuit of comfort explain why 66% of Israeli Jews say they are not affected by reports on the suffering of Palestinians whose houses were demolished. A similar rate of Israeli Jews believe that the Separation fence is inflicting a negligible damage to Palestinians. And they refer to this dreadful set of fortifications which breaks Palestinian territory and society into disconnected isolated enclaves; so many facts were published about it. Also the facts about these scandalous merciless figures were published in Ha’aretz. <\/p>\n Also ending is difficult. I thought of several endings for this presentation, and could not make up my mind about any. After all, it’s a thank you speech. And indeed, I am grateful for your generosity. It, in its turn, allows me to be generous with some friends in Gaza and Rafah. I owe them so much of my understanding of the Palestinian society and the Israeli occupation, the understanding that you defined as “courageous journalism”. <\/p>\n Jewish Peace News Editors:<\/b><\/p>\n Judith Norman Jewish Peace News needs your support. Your donation<\/a> to Jewish Voice for Peace<\/a> is the only way that JVP can continue its important work, including this news service.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From my e-mail: The views expressed here are those of the editors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jewish Voice for Peace. Today’s Contents: Avnery: Irreversible Mental Damage (Direct E-Mail Submission) Reviewing the damage done by Amos Gilad’s … Continue reading
\n
\n“Irreversible Mental Damage”<\/b>
\nby Uri Avnery
\nJune 19, 2004 <\/p>\n
\nAmira Hass
\nJune 18, 2004 <\/p>\n
\nAlistair Welchman
\nMitchell Plitnick
\nLincoln Shlensky
\nAmi Kronfeld
\nRela Mazali
\nSarah Anne Minkin
\nJohn Wilner
\nJoel Beinin <\/p>\n