What the Arab States meeting in summit in Amman on Tuesday should do is not a mystery: First they should insist on a U.N. Security Council resolution that has teeth; and if the U.S. vetos so be it. The only country which may join the U.S. is Britain. And if such a veto occurs at this stage in history the whole world will be aligned against the Israelis, and the Anglo-American veto will stand naked for all to see. Next they should institute a full and complete regional boycott of Israel -- all trade, all travel. The Americans have used boycotts and other economic and symbolic policies repeatedly in many instances for many years; and in fact still treat Cuba that way. The Arab States have a right, indeed they have an obligation, to now act in this way.

Having taken these steps, they should then call for the General Assembly of the United Nations to suspend Israeli participation until Israel's military occupation of the Palestinian people is ended and a dignified contiguous Palestinian State is created.

Such steps were taken against South Africa when it pursued the policy of Apartheid.

Such steps are now needeed against Israel which has brought a neo-apartheid situation to the Middle East.

War is not the answer to Israel's despicable policies, though the Israelis are preparing to bring it about and to use it to twist the region to its will once again. Rather such bold and potent political and ideological steps are what today's situation cries out for; and if taken such steps could help propel new forces in Israel and in world political affairs to come forward in stronger and more decisive ways.

Tragically, this is not what the Arab States meeting in summit in Amman on Tuesday are going to do. Once again they will "act" with indecision and irresolution reflecting their "client" status...all caused by their bondage to the USA, their fear of Israel, and ultimately their own corruption, weakness, and ineptitude.

UNITED NATIONS (AP- 25 March) - The United States faced a diplomatic dilemma Sunday: how to say ``no'' to sending U.N. observers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip without worsening the violence or enraging the Arab world.

The Palestinians want the U.N. Security Council to back the deployment of observers to help stop six months of bloodshed, and say they have mustered the nine council votes needed to pass such a resolution.

Standing in the way during negotiations Sunday was the United States, Israel's strongest ally in the United Nations. Israel opposes sending observers and wants direct talks with the Palestinians instead.

The United States could use its veto to block the resolution. But Washington fears a veto could trigger more violence and anger oil-rich Arab countries whose support it needs to strengthen sanctions against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Security Council met Saturday and again Sunday afternoon in search of a compromise. The talks were expected to continue Monday.

European nations in the council fielded a watered-down resolution that postponed any decision on an observer force but criticized the Israelis for expanding settlements and imposing blockades on Palestinian towns. It also noted that most of the more than 400 people who have died in the violence since late September have been Palestinians.

Negotiators want to find a compromise before a summit of Arab leaders Tuesday in Amman, Jordan. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrived in Amman on Sunday, and the council wants to arm him with a resolution that will satisfy Arab leaders increasingly concerned about the violence.

``We believe that through this resolution we'll be able to give a fresh momentum to the resumption of (Israeli-Palestinian) talks,'' said Bangladeshi Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, who heads the block of developing nations on the council that support the Palestinians.

``And we believe the secretary-general ... should know what this organization, the Security Council, is telling him to do,'' Chowdhury said.

Acting U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham would not comment on the closed-door talks in the Security Council on Sunday.

Only the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - can issue vetoes. They try to be sparing with them, in part because vetoes anger less powerful members who are resentful that five countries can essentially dictate U.N. policy.

The United States has only vetoed five resolutions since 1990 - four of them dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The last U.S. veto, in 1997, quashed a resolution demanding that Israel stop construction of a settlement in east Jerusalem.

March 24, 2001
Ramallah

Dear Friends,

I don't have much time tonight, so this report will be brief. I attended a demonstration today, protesting Israeli closure on the territories. Approximately 300 people, including a large number of foreigners working in Palestine, walked peacefully to an Israeli military checkpoint at A-Ram, located on the northern border of Jerusalem on the way to Ramallah. Behind the marchers followed several ambulance vehicles, many of which had bullet holes all over. "They won't shoot when this many of us foreigners are in the crowd," to my remark my friend replied. "Well, THEORETICALLY, no."

As we were marching towards the checkpoint with our chants and signs Israeli military jeeps came our way, soldiers yelling and blocking the road. We walk passed between jeeps and proceeded to the checkpoint.

At the checkpoint, a group of people started the sit-in, while others were standing and continueing their chants. Israeli soldiers were apparently unhappy with the peaceful demonstration, and tried intimidating us by yelling, forcing people to stand up. Nobody was throwing rocks or anything, and it was a complete non-violent demonstration.

Then all of the suddent we heard large explosions, and started running away from the checkpoint. Israelis started to throw sound bombs directly into the crowd. Medics quickly got up from their stand-by position and carried two women into the ambulance. Sound bombs do make a small explosion, and one could get hurt by pins that fly out of it. Assults by tear gas followed, and we were dispursed to all directions in the white smoke that stung our eyes and thoats, but kept trying to be near the checkpoint to show our message.

I was with my South African friend Mandy, a long-time anti-aparthied activist. She remarked stunningly: "I can't believe this. Even in the worst days of Apartheid, the South African army wasn't this vicious."

Some young girls walked by us, with a backpack and in school uniform. They had an extreme terrified look and walked by quickly. In a store nearby, a shopkeeper was tending children who inhaled tear gas: "Hide here until it finishes."

In the meantime, soldiers started to beat-up some sit-in demonstrators and grabbing them into the military jeep. Sound bombs and tear gas assults continued. People kept on falling, and were taken onto a strecher and ferried to the ambulance. I also saw one of the medics rushed to the ambulance on the strecher.

Then, I heard this sharp 'pan-pan-pan' noise in the air, as everyone started to run for life. Israelis started to shoot live ammunitions to demonstrators. It was too dangerous to be there anymore. As we left the scene, several ambulances passed us rushing towards the checkpoint.

I have been to the scenes of clashes before, but today's experience was shocking - the fact that a non-violent demonstration was encountered by such violent attacks. CNN news footage tonight showed an Israeli soldiers lying on the ground (did he shoot himself??), and not a single demonstrators who were hurt.

Shirabe