Our Wednesday News Analysis | Why Palestinian children throw stones

Source: Arab News
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2178716#.Y0RxfKme_ko.twitter

By RAMZY BAROUD
Published October 10, 2022

"Their action of protesting against the Israeli military is not compelled by politics, but by something else entirely: Their fear of monsters."

Ramzy Baroud

Children in my Gaza refugee camp were rarely afraid of monsters. Instead, they were afraid of Israeli soldiers. That was all that we talked about before going to bed. Unlike imaginary monsters in the closet or under the bed, Israeli soldiers were real and they could show up any minute — at the door, on the roof or, as was often the case, right in the middle of the house.

Last month’s tragic death of seven-year-old Rayan Suliman, a Palestinian boy from the West Bank village of Tuqu, near Bethlehem, stirred up so many memories. The little boy with olive skin, innocent face and bright eyes fell on the ground while being chased by Israeli soldiers, who accused him and his peers of throwing stones. He fell unconscious, blood poured out of his mouth and, despite efforts to revive him, he ceased breathing.

This was the abrupt and tragic end of Rayan’s life. All the things that could have been, all the experiences that he could have lived, and all the love that he could have imparted or received, all ended suddenly, with the boy lying face down on the pavement of a dusty road, in a poor village, without ever experiencing a single moment of being truly free, or even safe.

Adults often project their understanding of the world onto children. We want to believe that Palestinian children are warriors against oppression, injustice and military occupation. Though Palestinian children develop political consciousness at a very young age, quite often their action of protesting against the Israeli military, chanting against invading soldiers or even throwing stones are not compelled by politics, but by something else entirely: Their fear of monsters.

This connection came to mind when I read the details of the harrowing experiences that Rayan and many of the village’s children endure daily. Tuqu is a Palestinian village that, once upon a time, existed in an uncontested landscape. However, in 1957, the illegal settlement of Tekoa was established on stolen Palestinian land. The nightmare had begun...

Read more: Why Palestinian children throw stones

OPINION | TWO STATES: A RECKONING

Source: Haaretz
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2022-10-06/ty-article-opinion/.premium/two-states-a-reckoning/00000183-a9fb-d5eb-a3af-f9ff170a0000

By Nehemia Shtrasler
Published October 6, 2022

"I would listen to the words of the prophet Yeshayahu Leibowitz,
who said immediately after the Six-Day War
that holding on to the territories would bring destruction down upon us."

Ever since I became politically aware, I have supported the two-state solution. It was always clear to me that it was the correct and moral solution for both sides. After all, there is no chance that 2.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank will relinquish their dream of an independent state, and if we don’t want to condemn ourselves to endless war, the results of which are liable to be catastrophic, it is incumbent on us to divide the territory between the Jordan and the sea between Israel and Palestine.

That is what I thought when I was a high school student, I would listen to the words of the prophet Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who said immediately after the Six-Day War that holding on to the territories would bring destruction down upon us. I even remember the arguments in the neighborhood, with the majority not wanting to give up Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem or the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. But to me it was clear the two-state solution is the realization of the Zionist vision of a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace with its neighbors and thereby achieving true security.

Since then, the years have gone by (55, to be exact), the reality has changed, and there is no better time for a reckoning of conscience and an examination of past beliefs than these days between Rosh Hashanah and the eve of Yom Kippur.

I asked myself a simple question: Suppose they made me the decision-maker, and I had to sign an agreement that gave the Palestinians a state. Would I sign it? There were years when I would not have hesitated for a moment. After all, immediately after the Six-Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol declared that we were holding the territories only as a deposit, until there is peace, and the public believed that Israel would relinquish the territories and a Palestinian state would arise. But quite rapidly the national mood changed, and we fell in love with the territories. We started day-tripping between Jerusalem and Nablus and the temporary deposit became a “patrimony,” which has been ours since biblical times...

Read more: Opinion | Two States: A Reckoning

RECOGNISING PALESTINE IS THE FIRST STEP TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Source: The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/04/recognising-palestine-is-the-first-step-to-peace-in-the-middle-east?fbclid=IwAR3JbMPNQn1pVnmxddUxiKOXbaJUzg78_XeE_XNknfCKaM4dG9zCW-0EFxo

Dr Tony Klug responds to an editorial on Liz Truss saying that she was considering moving the British embassy to Jerusalem
Published October 4, 2022

"First, though, Britain would have to join

the 139 states that have already recognised Palestine.”

Your editorial (The Guardian view on moving the British embassy to Jerusalem: don’t do it, 27 September) argues that moving the British embassy to Jerusalem would tear up the commitment to any meaningful two-state solution. But it could have the opposite effect if such a move were preceded by the simultaneous recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of the prospective Palestinian state. First, though, Britain would have to join the 139 states that have already recognised Palestine.

The primary reason bilateral negotiations have repeatedly collapsed is the hopelessly lopsided power relationship between a solidly established independent state and a very dependent non-state entity. In recognition of this gross disparity, early proponents of the two-state idea after the 1967 war, myself included, envisaged two states to be as much about a vital negotiating framework as eventual outcome.

Any government that claims to support a two-state solution and a final resolution of the conflict, but continues the decades-old pattern of refusing to take the first essential step, is guilty of not just gross hypocrisy but also logical deficiency.

Dr Tony Klug
London

Read more: Recognising Palestine is the first step to peace in the Middle East