Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

PA to renew Israeli talks without settlement freeze

Press TV – September 13, 2010

Despite Israel’s refusal to extend its settlement freeze, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will still resume the second round of direct talks with Tel Aviv. The upcoming meeting will be held at Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Tuesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and acting PA Chief Mahmoud Abbas held the first round of negotiations in Washington on September 2.

Following the first meeting, Abbas warned that he would leave the negotiations should Israel resume its illegal settlement activities.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell will also travel to Egypt to attend the meeting. The four officials will then move to al-Quds (Jerusalem) for a second day of talks on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama will meet with Abbas and Netanyahu in New York next week during the UN General Assembly meeting.

The second round of Israeli-PA talks comes after Israel on Monday approved the construction of more than 13,000 new settler units in the occupied West Bank.

In November, the Israeli premier announced a 10-month freeze on illegal settlement expansion projects in the occupied West Bank. But Tel Aviv has repeatedly violated the freeze, which expires on September 26, by continuing to construct more settlement units.

September 13, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Poll: Kashmiris want independence

Press TV – September 12, 2010

About two thirds of the people in Indian-controlled Kashmir seek independence, while six percent want their region to join Pakistan, a recent survey shows.

According to a poll conducted by the Sunday edition of the Hindustan Times, 66 percent of the respondents in Kashmir wanted “complete freedom (for the entirety of Jammu and Kashmir) as a new country.”

Only six percent of those polled wanted a “complete merger of the entire Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan.”

Kashmir has recently been rocked by violent pro-independence protests. The demonstrations started after security forces killed a teenage protester in June.

Some 70 Kashmiris, including children, have lost their lives during three months of unrest. Thousands have been killed in volatile Indian-administered Kashmir since 1989.

The new poll shows that most Kashmiris blame the Indian government for the current wave of unrest in the region.

On Sunday, Indian security forces enforced a strict curfew in much of Kashmir, a day after a massive rally was held in protest of Indian rule.

September 12, 2010 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Iftar with the army: a Hebron story

11 September 2010 | ISM Media

At about 17.00 on the 9th September 2010, right before Atta Jaber and his family were about to sit down to break the fast on the last day of Ramadan, eight soldiers appeared on the doorstep.

One of them said that they wanted to come into the house, in the Baqa’a Valley, east of Hebron, to “have a look”. Atta Jaber opened the door, and did not ask for further explanation, as over the years he has become accustomed to soldiers turning up in this way. His four kids, aged 10 to 17 have all grown up with daily harassment by soldiers and settlers. Still, they seemed anxious and stressed as eight armed soldiers made their way through the hallway and into the living room, most armed with M-16s, one with a machine gun. A couple of soldiers asked for Atta’s son’s name, and shook the 13 year old boy’s hand, before searching the house. The boy replied to the greetings politely.

The soldiers walked through the house, looked around all the rooms, opening closets. One soldier remarked, while looking out from the window over to the neighbor’s house – which has been occupied by the army for one week – that they just want to see what the Jaber family can see from their house. He then told the international that was asking him questions about their presence that the soldiers wanted to maintain the army base for an unknown amount of time, since the junction leading to Harsina settlement is a vulnerable place for the settlers. He said that they aim to protect the settlers from further attacks. The family then had to hand over their IDs, and the soldiers wrote down their information.

The Jaber family gathered in the living room to break the fast with the post-sunset meal known as Iftar. After fasting the whole day, they had to eat and drink in the presence of the army. It was a quiet meal. Normally the family would talk, laugh and share stories while eating, but this time everybody was looking down at the table, eating slowly. Some family members didn’t eat at all. While some of the soldiers were walking around the house, locking themselves into the rooms and taking notes, one soldier was standing next to the table, staring at the family with his machinegun in his arms. As one of the internationals looked back at him, the soldier told her to “back off!” in an aggressive manner. The same soldier also ordered Jaber and two of his children, who were sitting close to the window, to move closer to where he himself was standing. The family was not allowed to move freely around their own home, and they were not even told why the soldiers were there.  The soldiers walked around the house, with their fingers resting on their gun triggers, speaking in Hebrew and laughing to each other.

After going through all the rooms in the house several times, writing down ID-information for the family members and the two internationals, one soldier gave Atta Jaber a piece of paper with English and Hebrew writing on it. He then read out loud that Jaber will have to meet with the Israeli intelligence, Shebak, on Thursday next week. The reason given was that his daughter had been filming the Israeli soldiers when they were taking over parts of their neighbor’s house on September 4th. The camera in question belongs to the human rights group B’tselem, and is lent to the Jaber family so that they can document human rights violations committed by soldiers and settlers – and there is never a shortage of incidents to document. Now Jaber has been summoned for interrogation because his family has tried to document the illegal activities of the Israeli army. It’s important to note that the Harsina settlement is illegal, and that this is what the army wants to protect by converting the neighbouring Palestinian house into a military base. The soldiers left the Jabers’ house after nearly two hours.

Atta Jabr and his family have lived in the area for more than three generations. Their house has been demolished twice. They have been attacked and harassed numerous times in the past, by both settlers and soldiers. Just over a week ago the family were trapped in their house when over 100 settlers started constructing a new outpost and soldiers took over the roof of the family’s house for several hours. Just two weeks before that Atta and his pre-teen daughter were attacked by six settlers.

September 11, 2010 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Kabul protest demands foreign troops withdrawal

Morningstar | 06 September 2010

Around 500 citizens have rallied in central Kabul to demand the withdrawal of foreign troops from their country, chanting: “Long live Islam” and “Death to America.” The crowd outside the capital’s Milad ul-Nabi mosque listened to fiery speeches from members of parliament, provincial council deputies and Islamic clerics. Some threw rocks when a US military convoy passed.

Protesters also condemned the decision of the Florida-based Dove World Outreach church to burn copies of the Koran on church grounds to mark the ninth anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the US. They raised placards and flags emblazoned with slogans calling for the death of US President Barack Obama and held up a cardboard effigy of Dove World Outreach’s pastor Terry Jones, who made US headlines last year after distributing T-shirts that said “Islam is of the Devil.”

The US embassy in Kabul said the “United States government in no way condones such acts of disrespect against the religion of Islam and is deeply concerned about deliberate attempts to offend members of religious or ethnic groups.

“Americans from all religious and ethnic backgrounds reject this offensive initiative by this small group in Florida. A great number of American voices are protesting the hurtful statements made by this organisation,” it said in a statement.

Muslims consider the Koran to be the word of God and demand that it, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the prophet Mohammed, be treated with the utmost respect. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Koran is considered deeply offensive.

In 2005, 15 people died and scores were wounded in riots in Afghanistan sparked by a story in Newsweek magazine alleging that interrogators at the US concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay flushed a copy of the book down the toilet to get inmates to talk. Newsweek later retracted the story.

Meanwhile, a US soldier was killed in fighting in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, Nato has revealed. No other details were given.

The death takes the US toll to five so far this month, following the deaths of more than 220 US troops over the past three months.

September 7, 2010 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Islamophobia | Leave a comment

Taliban: Withdrawal of oocupation forces must precede shura

Paktribune | September 6, 2010

PESHAWAR: Rejecting the formation of high council for peace by the Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban Sunday said due to occupation of the country by the foreign forces such councils could not bring any fruit.

Taliban spokesman Qari Muhammad Yousaf told the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) about 150,000 foreign soldiers had occupied Afghanistan and the foreigners were carrying out the activities of the state from ordinary issues to the parliamentary election affairs. “In such conditions what does formation of high council for peace mean,” he questioned.

“Formation of a new shura in the name of peace is a repeat of the former failed experiences. The shura makers and its members are slaves of others and they have no power,” he remarked.

The spokesman repeatedly said that neither the Afghan authorities had the power nor the peace council would have the supremacy, adding Afghanistan had been occupied and the foreigners were running everything.

Asked by the AIP that if the aforesaid shura was given power and authority, then would the Taliban be ready for negotiations with the shura, he said the real reason behind the conflict was presence of foreign forces. “All problems are because of the presence of occupying forces. All the problems will be resolved after the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan.”

September 7, 2010 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | Leave a comment

Barghouthi: “Construction Continues In Dozens of Settlements”

By Saed Bannoura – IMEMC & Agencies – September 04, 2010

Palestinian Legislator, Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, stated that while Israel is heading to peace talks with the Palestinians, its government continues its illegal settlement activities in the occupied West Bank and in occupied East Jerusalem.

Dr. Barghouthi added that Israel never even froze its settlement activities in Jerusalem and its suburbs, and is ongoing with the construction and expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

He further stated that settlers grabbed by force 130 Dunams of Palestinian farmlands that belong to residents of Qaryout village, south of the northern West Bank city of Nablus, and that they brought construction equipment to build homes.

Dr. Barghouthi also revealed that Israel is planning to build 3000 homes for Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank and that settlers built, three days ago, a new illegal outpost on lands that belong to Al Baq’a village near the southern West Bank city of Hebron.

He considered Israel’s declaration of freezing settlement activities as a new scam that aims at deceiving the international community especially since the Israeli government approved last month the construction of 23 school rooms in eight West Bank settlements.

Over the past several months, Israel started the construction of 390 units in different West Bank settlements, and also built 223 units in addition to 167 mobile homes placed by the settlers.

Hundreds of units are currently being constructed in Beitar Ilit settlement, Yirkan settlement, Penze settlement and Shi’are Tikva.

Israel is currently building 40 units in Givat Zeev settlement, 24 in Mitzpe Yeriho, 22 in Ariel, 21 in Maaleh Adumin, 20 in Kfar Ezion, 18 in Kfar Adumim, 12 in Itamar, 11 in Eli, 9 in Oranit, 9 in Tzufim, 7 in Beitar Ilit, 6 in Elkna, 6 in Finuel, 5 in Eliezer, and 5 in Yakir.

Dr. Barghouthi said that heading to direct talks with Israel before it halts all of its settlement activities is a wrong decision under the current circumstances.

September 6, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Hebron: soldiers convert Palestinian home into military base

Israeli soldiers have erected tents on the roof of the Salayma family’s home and are occupying the building

6 September 2010 | ISM Media

Al Baqa’a, HEBRON – On Friday the Israeli army raided a Palestinian house in Hebron and converted it into a military base, forcing a family of 14 to move into the first floor of their home.

The following day the soldiers took over the roof as well. Yesterday an ISM activist visited the Salayma family in Al Baqa’a, east of Hebron, and spoke to Salem Salayma about the situation.

He said that now the roof has been taken over, soldiers have been on and off the roof constantly. Yesterday morning, at about 8am, six soldiers carried out some kind of exercise around our house, running up the hill, sitting in shooting positions and moving up and down the road. He added that sometimes the army move around in the area, walking or driving, and all the families in the area are very scared. When they see soldiers, they close the house, and stay inside because they fear the soldiers themselves – as well as the settlers who have been moving around the area regularly since the shooting of four settlers last week, and have carried out several attacks on Palestinians.

Salayma, who is in his forties, lives with his family who in total number 14, including 4 children. At present 5 family members are living on the second floor of the occupied house, and 9 are on the first floor. Now, the family has been ordered to vacate the upper floor by next Sunday, so the soldiers can expand their military base. The only reason given for the takeover of the Salayma home has been “security reasons” and no alternative provisions have been made for the family. Since their arrival soldiers have been using the house’s bathroom, water and electricity, without asking.

United Nations personnel logged a report from the family yesterday and Salayma says he wants to hire a lawyer to prevent the military from taking over his house. However, any court case would not happen for at least two weeks and by that time the military occupation of the house will likely be complete.

Salaymi, has not been out of the house since the soldiers came, because he fears for his family. He is also deeply worried however because this means he is losing the income he needs to support his family since he has not been able to go to work. He has also been unable to attend prayers.

September 6, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | Leave a comment

Is the World Bank deliberately concealing disappointing West Bank economic “growth” figures?

By Ali Abunimah | September 2, 2010

An August 31 press release from the World Bank states:

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has achieved strong results in recent years, but the resurgence of growth remains dependent on donor assistance.

  • in the first half of 2010, the economy saw 7% real growth;
  • in the West Bank, unemployment in the fourth quarter of 2009 fell to 18% from 20% in the same quarter of 2008;
  • unemployment in Gaza also dropped, falling from 45% in the fourth quarter of 2008 to 39% in the last quarter of 2009;
  • the PA has unified its cash transfer programs into one consolidated program that has greatly increased the efficiency of the PA’s social safety system and is one of the most advanced in the region;
  • the PA has improved its budgeting process, budget execution and financial reporting capacity; and introduced commitment controls to reduce spending.

What is very interesting is that the press release provides no breakdown for growth in the West Bank separate from the Gaza Strip. What we have instead apparently is a 7% overall growth figure.

In June a highly informed source who has since been proven correct on a number of other issues told me:

World Bank figures due to be published in coming weeks are likely to show that economic growth in the Gaza Strip in the first quarter of 2010 has exceeded that in the West Bank. While virtually all economic growth in the West Bank is a result of foreign aid, much of the growth in Gaza is attributable to a “parallel economy” that has emerged thanks to the tunnels. This has even created a small new class of nouveaux riches in Gaza.

At the time the source told me that what we’d probably see as a result is the World Bank and PA emphasizing the overall growth figure, rather than dwelling on disappointing results in the West Bank — where a huge politically-motivated aid effort has been aimed at shoring up the Israeli-backed collaborator regime of Mahmoud Abbas and illegally-appointed “prime minister” Salam Fayyad.

Could this be what is happening here? Perhaps the World Bank has provided a West Bank/Gaza breakdown somewhere else? (I haven’t had time to conduct a thorough search yet, but a quick search didn’t reveal it). But I do think its significant there is no breakdown in the press release. It’s a safe assumption that if there had been stellar performance in the West Bank, the World Bank would have emphasized it.

The whole narrative of “Fayyadist” state building depends on the notion that the West Bank economy is booming. There are claims, for example, of a “property boom” in Ramallah, which as I explained tells us nothing about the true state of the West Bank economy.

Indeed a recent Save the Children study found that outside the Ramallah bubble, poverty conditions across much of the West Bank are even worse than in Gaza. My recent Los Angeles times op-ed references that and debunks more “Fayyadist” myths.

September 4, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Mitchell’s Quick-fix Fake Peace

By Stuart Littlewood | September 2, 2010

On the eve of the silliest peace talks in history, the big question is this. What makes Obama’s envoy George Mitchell, a negotiator of high repute, say there is ‘no role’ for Hamas?

The talks are silly because they seek to overturn what the United Nations has already decided for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict and drive a bulldozer through the building blocks of justice.

It might be music to Zionist ears, but to people of good will it’s a cruel, futile and immensely damaging ploy.

The talks are also silly because they bring together two people who by no stretch of the imagination could qualify as partners for peace. And they sit down under the auspices of a third party with an appalling track record in the Middle East and whom no-one trusts to act fairly.

So Mitchell has been dealt a terrible hand. The former US senator, we’re told, has had an illustrious career in politics. Honours have been heaped upon him for his part in the Northern Ireland ‘Good Friday’ agreement.

Accepting one of those awards – the Liberty Medal in 1998 – Mitchell said: “I believe there’s no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended… No matter how ancient the conflict, no matter how hateful, no matter how hurtful, peace can prevail. But only if those who stand for peace and justice are supported and encouraged, while those who do not are opposed and condemned. Seeking an end to conflict is not for the timid or the tentative. There must be a clear and determined policy not to yield to the men of violence…”

How about that? Conflict can be ended only by supporting those who stand for peace and condemning those who don’t. But does he know – has he really taken the trouble to find out – who actually stands for peace and justice in the ever-escalating obscenity of the Israeli occupation of Palestine? And is he absolutely clear who “the men of violence” are? Get it wrong and matters are made worse.

Mitchell is such an awesome peace-monger that he has become a visiting Professor at Britain’s Leeds Metropolitan University’s School of Applied Global Ethics, and the University is developing a new Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution bearing his name.

If Mitchell is so clued up you have to wonder why he took the job – a veritable poisoned chalice. And you’d think a person with his vast experience would stick to accepted rules of engagement for conflict resolution and peace-making. I’ll mention just three:

• Talk directly with the people who are concerned or with whom there are concerns.
• Attack the issues, not the people with whom there is disagreement.
• No issue can be ‘off limits’.

There is no-one more concerned than Hamas. As the democratically elected authority they are the principle stakeholder on the Palestinian side. Obviously they must be allowed to represent the Palestinian case. It matters not one jot or tittle that the White House has “identified” Hamas as a terrorist organization. They have legitimacy. Besides, millions outside the White House can point to Israel’s much worse terror crimes.

Mitchell, besides barring Hamas, bends even further to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s demands and has ruled there must be no pre-conditions. Which means that Israel’s criminal conduct such as settlement construction, dispossession, ethnic cleansing, the land and sea blockade of Gaza, the occupation, the strangulation of the economy and their taste for piracy and extra-judicial killing, and their trampling of human rights including those of self-determination, are allowed to continue while the hapless Palestinians face them across the table.

And never mind that Netanyahu is permitted to enter these talks with his own pre-conditions, saying that the return of Palestinian refugees to the homes they were forced to flee, and the continuing occupation of East Jerusalem including the Old City, are not for discussion, and threatening to resume the (temporarily suspended) illegal settlement building.

If Mitchell is truly a person of integrity and a champion of “global ethics” how could he show such favour to one side?

What, I wonder, will he be saying to the Israeli team about UN Resolution 181 of 1947, which deals declares that “the City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum“ administered by the United Nations?

What will he say to them about Resolution 242 (1967) by the Security Council and therefore fully binding? This insists on:

(i) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) termination of all claims or states 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 recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

242 also emphasizes the need for:

(a) guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

Will Mitchell bang the table to demand long overdue action on Security Council Resolution 338 (1973), which called on the parties concerned to start immediate implementation of Security Council Resolution 242?

Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) leaves absolutely no wriggle room. It “determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace… Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”

It’s all there, Mr Mitchell, in black and white. The UN has set it out. The world is waiting for the UN to implement it.

Israeli foreign policy is driven by manifesto promises like:

• “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”
• “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.”
• The claim to a national and historic right to the Land of Israel “in its entirety” and the pledge to keep Jerusalem and the settlements.

Netanyahu’s belligerent coalition government probably won’t survive unless he uses all means to achieve these unlawful and hugely provocative aims and resists demands to give back Israel’s ill-gotten gains. A thief is clearly no partner for peace.

Neither is the PLO’s Abbas, who dances to America’s tune and whose authority is in question. Any agreement he makes will be open to challenge by his own people.

Obama is US president courtesy of the pro-Israel lobby. He is like putty in their hands. And he’s so ill-informed that he told AIPAC it’s OK for Israel to grab the hallowed City of Jerusalem and turn it into the permanent headquarters of the Zionist regime. Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,” he blurted. When it dawned on him that he’d made a monumental blunder he tried to wriggle out: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations… And I think that it is smart for us to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem, but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.”

A legitimate claim? Who says? And negotiate what? Has the President forgotten that the UN decided long ago that Jerusalem, along with Bethlehem, was to become an international zone?

And how can it be right for weak, unarmed and impoverished Palestinians to have to negotiate with a brutal, lawless military regime for their universal rights and freedoms, which are supposed to be guaranteed by the international community but have been denied them for decades?

Obama is clearly no genuine peace-broker.

And George Mitchell, despite his awesome reputation elsewhere, has so far failed in the Holy Land. He and his boss are getting desperate. Staging farcical, lopsided talks in order to achieve a fake, temporary peace will no doubt save a few worthless political skins for the time being. But they benefit no-one else. And they don’t do an envoy of Mitchell’s calibre any credit. He would be better employed banging heads together at the United Nations, to finish the unfinished business there and ensure all the resolutions they have passed and all the other solemn declarations they have endorsed are implemented. No need for conflict resolution, judgment has already been handed down.

Then peace talks can begin, if genuine partners and an honest broker can be found.

It’s called justice, Mr Mitchell. There’ll be no real peace until justice is delivered.

September 2, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

Meshal: Most Palestinians, from elites to regular people, reject the talks

August 31, 2010

Excerpted from an interview by Shamine Narwani of Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus:

KM: These negotiations are taking place for American and Israeli considerations, calculations and interests only. There are no interests at all for us as Palestinians or Arabs. That’s why the negotiations can only be conducted under American orders, threats and pressure exerted on the PA and some Arab countries.

The negotiations are neither supported nationally nor are they perceived as legitimate by the authoritative Palestinian institutions. They are rejected by most of the Palestinian factions, powers, personalities, elites, and regular people — that is why these “peace talks” are destined for failure.

This represents a perfect example of how the US administration deals with the Arab-Israeli conflict — how American policy appears to be based on temporary troubleshooting instead of working toward finding a real and lasting solution.

Consecutive US administrations have adopted this same policy of “managing conflict” instead of “resolving conflict.” This can be useful for American tactical and short-term purposes, but it is very dangerous on the long-term and the strategic levels. This approach will ultimately prove catastrophic for the region.

SN: There is debate about whether Hamas accepts the premise of a two-state solution — your language seems often vague and heavily nuanced. I want to ask if you could clarify, but I am also curious as to whether it is even worth accepting a two-state solution today when there has been so much land confiscation and settlement activity by Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

KM: Hamas does accept a Palestinian state on the lines of 1967 — and does not accept the two-state solution.

SN: What is the difference between the two?

KM: There is big difference between these two. I am a Palestinian. I am a Palestinian leader. I am concerned with accomplishing what the Palestinian people are looking for — which is to get rid of the occupation, attain liberation and freedom, and establish the Palestinian state on the lines of 1967. Talking about Israel is not relevant to me — I am not concerned about it. It is an occupying state, and I am the victim. I am the victim of the occupation; I am not concerned with giving legitimacy to this occupying country. The international community can deal with this (Israeli) state; I am concerned with the Palestinian people. I am as a Palestinian concerned with establishing the Palestinian state only.

SN: Can you clarify further? As a Palestinian leader of the Resistance you have to give people an idea of what you aspire to — and how you expect to attain it?

KM: For us, the 20 years of experience with these peace negotiations — and the failure of it — very much convinces us today that the legitimate rights of Palestinians will be only be gained by snatching them, not by being gifted with them at the negotiating table. Neither Netanyahu nor any other Israeli leader will ever simply gift us a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority has watered down all its demands and is merely asking for a frame of reference to the 1967 borders in negotiations, but Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to accept even this most basic premise for peace. Nor will America or the international community gift us with a state — we have to depend on ourselves and help ourselves.

As a Palestinian leader, I tell my people that the Palestinian state and Palestinian rights will not be accomplished through this peace process — but it will be accomplished by force, and it will be accomplished by resistance. I tell them that through this bitter experience of long negotiations with the Israelis, we got nothing — we could not even get the 1967 solution. I tell them the only option in front of us today is to take this by force and by resistance. And the Palestinian people today realize this — yes, it has a steep price, but there is no other option for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people tried the peace process option but the result was nothing.

September 1, 2010 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

What the wall has done

Jamal Juma’, The Electronic Intifada, 31 August 2010
Palestinian women walk past Israel’s wall in the West Bank. (Luay Sababa/MaanImages)

Israel began constructing the wall in June 2002 following its invasion of cities in the West Bank, which it dubbed “Operation Defensive Shield.” In retrospect, the invasion appears to have been a prelude to the construction of the wall and no one recognized the significance of the invasion’s code name at the time. The immense scale of the 2002 invasion — characterized by the destruction of Palestinian civilian infrastructure, mass arrests, assassinations and massacres — ensured that the construction of the wall would commence with as little resistance as possible.

Accompanied by hundreds of military checkpoints, the wall solidified the dismemberment of the West Bank’s major population centers into Bantustans, separated from each other and segregated from occupied East Jerusalem. Israel’s actions were intended to enhance its control over the Palestinian people and block the establishment of a Palestinian state. The wall intentionally blurs the “Green Line,” the internationally-recognized armistice line between Israel and the occupied West Bank, thus overriding international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). Instead of relying on international law, Israel has substituted negotiations over “disputed” territories for which it sets the terms under an American shield.

Today, Israel’s “facts on the ground” clearly display the realities of its system of apartheid:

  • The wall, which will reach 810 kilometers in length, isolates 46 percent of the occupied West Bank and divides it into three large cantons and 22 small Bantustans. It cements Israel’s control over 82-85 percent of Palestinian water resources in the OPT.
  • A 1,400 kilometer road network is dedicated exclusively to Israelis and separated from Palestinian roads by 48 tunnels.
  • Thirty-four military checkpoints control the movement of people and goods between the different cantons and the movement of commercial traffic with Israel and the outside world.
  • Industrial zones, agricultural areas and crafts workshops have been established along the wall. These Israeli, joint and international ventures aim to transform the Palestinian people into a cheap labor force dependent on the Israeli economy. Raw materials and exports are entirely Israeli while the capital is international, Israeli and Palestinian.

Palestinian civil society’s response

Grassroots and peaceful resistance against the wall started three months after construction began. The delay was due in large part to the impact of the 2002 invasion on Palestinian society. Popular committees were formed in the villages and cities of the northern West Bank where the first stage of the wall was under construction. Activists organized events, documented damages and violations and organized international campaigns, communicating and coordinating with international solidarity activists who formed human shields at key areas around the West Bank. Dozens of rallies and activities were organized in the towns and villages across the northern and central West Bank. These protests occurred throughout the week and were coordinated with visits by international solidarity activists.

The demonstrations and other events attracted international attention. The images of the wall and its route, which clearly showed the extent of Israel’s theft of vast agricultural lands and water resources as well as the immense environmental and agricultural destruction, shocked observers around the world. However, the Palestinian Authority (PA) remained indifferent to these activities, angering many Palestinians. The PA’s silence was particularly glaring given the numerous letters and appeals by farmers, local councils and popular committees for a response. Eventually, the indifference of the elected leadership raised questions and cast doubts among Palestinians and two rallies were organized outside the prime minister’s office to protest this stance.

Following the 2003 conference convened by the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in New York, the Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign met with Nasser al-Qidwa, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) permanent observer at the UN. The Grassroots Campaign provided al-Qidwa with a detailed power point presentation about the wall and its consequences for the “peace process.” Al-Qidwa took action and coordinated with international organizations, seeking information from the committees, civil and formal institutions, and international institutions that monitored Israel’s violations in the OPT.

In December 2003, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to refer the case to the ICJ to seek its opinion about the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of the wall. Prior to the 14 February 2004 ICJ meeting, peaceful popular marches across the occupied West Bank increased and were met with violence and repression by the Israeli army. Five Palestinians were killed and hundreds were wounded in the villages northwest of Jerusalem, specifically from Beit Duqqu and Biddu. In anticipation of the ICJ meeting, Israel altered the route of the wall in Baqa al-Sharqiya in the Tulkarem Governorate and Beit Sourik and Qatana in the Jerusalem Governorate, restoring thousands of dunums of land it had previously confiscated (a dunum equals approximately 1,000 square meters). Meanwhile, the Israeli high court issued a ruling stating that the army should take the “human impact” of the wall on Palestinians into consideration.

Before the ICJ was due to announce its ruling in July 2004, then member of the Israeli Knesset Dr. Azmi Bishara organized a sit-in in cooperation with the Grassroots Campaign. A tent was erected at the northern entrance to Jerusalem and stood for ten days, attracting hundreds of solidarity delegations and popular committees from across historic Palestine as well as foreign and international organizations, diplomatic missions and dozens of media outlets. The tent was packed with hundreds of people around the clock and lectures and presentations were organized. However, the PA abruptly and violently shut down the tent. The PA claimed that the tent was no longer needed after the ICJ passed its ruling on 9 July 2004. In reality, the tent was becoming a source of embarrassment to the PA because it was attracting attention in the media and the public.

The ICJ opinion and its implications

The ICJ’s advisory opinion was a great boost to the Palestinian people, particularly those living in the villages, cities and communities closest to the path of the wall.

The ICJ also found — by a vote of 13-2 — that the international community was obliged not to recognize the situation resulting from the construction of the wall or to provide assistance to maintaining the status quo. It is interesting to recall that a similar conclusion over three decades ago with regard to South Africa’s occupation of South West Africa led to sanctions against the apartheid state.

In addition, the court called for all parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to compel Israel to implement its decision and reaffirmed the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the OPT. By a vote of 14-1, the ICJ called on the UN to “consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall and the associated regime.”

After it was referred to the UN, an overwhelming majority of members of the UN General Assembly endorsed the ICJ’s opinion. However, over six years later, the UN Security Council has yet to review the advisory opinion.

The advisory opinion has had implications at both the official and popular levels. In spite of the victory at the ICJ, PA officials have deliberately disregarded the advisory opinion. Each year they justify their negligence by maintaining that the political circumstances are unfavorable and that the Europeans and the Americans would not support their request to resort to the UN Security Council. While it is evident that there is considerable pressure from Israel and the US, the PA has not utilized the advisory opinion as an effective bargaining chip. Instead of relying on international law it has continued to bet on the negotiations sponsored by successive American administrations. Thus, the PA is caught in a vicious cycle: the very negotiations that they rely on for international recognition are used by the US and Israel to pressure them to abandon Palestinian rights.

The PA’s approach has had implications internationally. Because it represents the “official” Palestinian position, no nation — however friendly to the Palestinian people — is able to advocate forcefully on behalf of the Palestinians or its leadership. In other words, they cannot be “more Palestinian than the Palestinians.”

By contrast, the popular position has been and remains well ahead of the official position. From the earliest days of the wall’s construction, the Palestinian public recognized it as a colonial and racist project aimed at imposing a new geopolitical and security reality on the ground that would dramatically alter the West Bank and tighten Israel’s grip. Therefore, the strategy underpinning popular action was based on resisting Israel’s goals on the ground, creating broad international support with solidarity movements, and demanding the enforcement of international law and resolutions.

That popular resistance soon included moves toward boycotting Israel. Since 2003, civil society activists, including the Grassroots Campaign and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel have worked for an international boycott against Israel. The ICJ’s advisory opinion not only reinforced the Palestinian boycott efforts but also enabled Palestinian civil society to continue pressuring the PA to challenge Israel in international forums. Moreover, international solidarity movements began to base their demands for dismantling the Wall and settlements and ending the occupation on the ICJ’s advisory opinion.

On the first anniversary of the ICJ opinion the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) was launched by 171 Palestinian coalitions, associations, trade unions and organizations within and outside historic Palestine. This call, which is the first Palestinian consensus document since the founding of the PLO, seeks to boycott and impose sanctions against Israel to ensure its compliance with international law. Over the past five years, the BDS movement has grown in size and strength around the world and has become the international reference point for all solidarity initiatives and movements globally. The BDS call has been followed by subsequent declarations such as the 2009 Kairos Document issued by a coalition of Palestinian churches that called on churches around the world to boycott Israel. Moreover, these actions by Palestinian civil society were welcomed by international solidarity groups who were eager for a nonofficial Palestinian grassroots initiative.

The popular resistance embodied by the BDS movement and the weekly protests against the wall are the foundation upon which international solidarity is built. These grassroots efforts have pushed the confrontation with Israel’s occupation to a vital battleground: the international arena with its media, civil and official institutions, organizations, trade unions, activists, universities and even the private sector. The impact and implications of these efforts has not gone unnoticed. A recent report by the Reut Institute, an Israeli think-tank, argued that BDS represented a strategic threat to Israel.

Recommendations

These recommendations stem from the experience of the past eight years of struggle against the wall.

  • The PA must end its compliance with US dictates and fully engage in the international battle against Israel as an occupying state, demanding that the UN Security Council and General Assembly implement the ICJ’s advisory opinion as well as other relevant resolutions.
  • Greater coordination and organization of the BDS movement is needed internationally in order to maintain pressure on Israel.
  • Within the Arab world, it is crucial to revive the Arab Boycott Committee, bringing more Arab grassroots organizations and unions on board with the BDS movement and pressuring the Arab League to withdraw its support for negotiations until the ICJ ruling is implemented in full.
  • Grassroots resistance needs to be expanded to include all contact points along the wall and alongside Israeli settlements. At the same time all forms of formal and popular normalization must be stopped.
  • The Palestinian citizens of Israel must resort to international judicial means to end the racism and discrimination they have been suffering for more than six decades.
  • This is the way to end Israel’s occupation, dismantle the wall and destroy the deep-seated racist mentality of Israel’s leaders. This is the way to make Israel recognize that it is part of rather than above the international community.

Jamal Juma’ is a founding member of the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees, the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange and the Palestinian Environmental NGO Network. Since 2002, he has been the coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign.

This article was originally published by Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network

August 31, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »