As research officer of the Xarabank team, it has always been my pleasure to cooperate with Dr Carmel Vassallo in the preparation of various programmes about the Middle East problem.
In December 2000, together with Dr Vassallo, I went to great lengths to find and persuade an Israeli citizen to speak out about his experience of living in a country which feels besieged by terrorism.
Dr Vassallo is an outspoken academic who never shied away from presenting a rational, not blindfolded pro-Israeli point of view.
Nobody can ignore the fact that many Israeli citizens are suffering due to terrorism. In fact, during the Xarabank team`s brief stay in Israel and the occupied territories we tried our best to bring this suffering back home.
One of the highlights of the programme was a series of interviews conducted in an Israeli hospital where the victims of a suicide operation were being treated.
This was followed by a direct question to the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Yasser Arafat.
In his answer, Arafat condemned attacks on Israeli civilians. News footage of the consequences of various suicide operations were shown throughout the programme.
On the other hand, Dr Vassallo seems to ignore one basic fact about the situation in which Peppi Azzopardi found himself in the occupied territories, i.e., the fact that these territories are occupied by Israel.
Occupation means that these people are subjected to the worst forms of humiliation at checkpoints and in their own homes. Dr Vassallo seems to miss the point that desperation and humiliation are always a fertile ground for the terrorism we all abhor and condemn.
The Xarabank team`s self-declared bias in favour of the Palestinian cause is not based on blind prejudice but on solid historical and political facts.
Israel is at present ignoring a number of United Nations resolutions. I fully agree with Dr Vassallo that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 approved on November 22, 1967, should be enforced. This resolution calls for:
1) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
2) Termination of all claims or state of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Dr Vassallo makes the first part of the resolution conditional on the second part. In reality, both parts of this resolution are equally valid and important.
Dr Vassallo did not mention another UN resolution dealing with Palestinian refugees. Millions of Palestinians had to abandon their own land and ended up living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, Gaza and various other parts of the world. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), approved in 1948, states that:
"The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible".
Is it fair that none of the United Nations resolutions on Palestine has never been enforced?
Dr Vassallo chooses to delve in Arafat`s past. One can do the same and delve into Sharon`s far from exemplary conduct as Israeli defence minister in 1982 when between 800-1,500 Palestinians lost their lives in the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon.
In the interview Arafat stated that he still believes in the "peace of the brave" which he had signed with Rabin.
I agree with Dr Vassallo that in the end, two states, Israel and Palestine, must co-exist side by side, but is the recent Israeli invasion of Palestinian territory helping in achieving this goal? Is not this invasion strengthening those Palestinians who cannot accept Israel`s right to exist?
Even events, which followed the programme, call for a clear stand against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. How is it possible to justify a military attack on the President of an internationally recognised and democratically elected authority who is besieged in his own headquarters in his own land?
What would have Dr Vassallo said if the same thing happened to Ariel Sharon? One cannot remain neutral in the face of people who are literally starving to death in Ramallah and Bethlehem because they cannot literally leave their own homes.
One cannot remain neutral in front of the fact that Palestinian hospitals and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society are constantly hindered and even targeted by the Israeli military.
Xarabank is a programme which was never afraid of making choices, especially in cases of blatant oppression.
The Good Friday programme showed the realities faced by people living under occupation. The programme did not depict the Palestinians as a bunch of mindless fanatics, as they are frequently depicted on various international TV networks.
Those images are also real but are just a part of a far more complex reality. The programme did show news footage of a crowd of Palestinians lynching an Israeli soldier back in December 2000 but we also showed that the Palestinian people have a name, a family and a home.
It also showed that Palestinians can feel love, pain, anger and hope. It also showed that Palestinians are not only shot at while throwing stones but also when they are in Red Crescent ambulances or even on their way to church.
For many people accustomed to the other images, the programme was a shock. Hopefully, it was also a mind opener.