Dec 31, 2010

gulfnews : Gaza war victims live in sorrow and silence

The only sound that is heard in the Al Haddad house is that of a canary chirping in one of the rooms.

  • By Nasser Najjar, Correspondent
  • Published: 00:00 January 1, 2011
  • Gulf News

  • A victim of Israel’s war of 2008, Mohammad Al Haddad is just not returning to complete his studies in the university. His relatives visit him and his aunt brings him home-cooked meals.
  • Image Credit: Supplied

Gaza: It has become clear that not even two whole years after the war on Gaza are enough to either heal the pain or reduce the sorrow of those residing in this afflicted strip. One of such families is that of Al Haddad.

In southern Tel Al Hawa, 26-year-old Mohammad Al Haddad lives in a four-storey building along with his 18-year-old brother, Salam. In the 2008 Israeli offensive in Gaza, the rest of his family members were killed.

There is complete silence in the normally chaotic house, with the only sound of a chirping canary coming from one of the rooms.

"We were mistaken to believe we were safe here," Al Haddad told Gulf News.

Tel Al Hawa, in south eastern Gaza City, had always been a relatively affluent residential area with wide streets and multi-storey apartment buildings when the Israeli army resolved on advancing into this neighbourhood with troops and tanks on the January 14, 2009.

During the war, the Israeli army used to announce three hours of a temporary ceasefire so that Gazans could buy their basic needs.

"On January 15, my younger brother Salam did not mind waiting for the announcement of the Israeli army concerning the temporary ceasefire at 1:00 pm, but rather set off to my grandfather's house early in the morning. Just as we got into our car and drove no more than 100 meters from our home to the intersection at the end of the street, when we were hit," Al Haddad recounted.

"The power of the explosion flung me far from the car where I lost consciousness and later found myself in the hospital," he said.

"Our neighbours later told us that he was struggling to reach the car but was prevented and taken to the hospital instead while others tried to put out the fire with no success," Al Haddad's uncle Sami said.

In hospital

Al Haddad lost his left eye, fractured his jaw, and suffered from third degree burns on his legs, hands and forehead. He remained in the hospital for four months after the incident.

After two years of recovery, Al Haddad is just not returning to complete his studies in the university. His relatives visit him and his aunt brings him homecooked meals.

Since the beginning of the second Intifada in 1999, Israeli troops have injured more than 12,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Almost half of this number was a result of the Israeli offensive at the end of 2008.

Most Palestinians had to seek treatment abroad through charitable offers, but most injured people living in Gaza cannot afford proper treatments and rehabilitation services.

"The Israeli army shoots with the intention to either kill or handicap. In fact, the majority of the Palestinians wounded either become handicapped or disfigured; a lot of them can't afford the costs of medical treatments while others can't find it in Gaza,"

Thareef Abdo Al Fatah from Assalama society explained.

"International support helps during major conflicts but it tends to dwindle down during periods of relative calm," he said.

"After the war, several Arab officials took photos with me with the promise of supporting me in both my medical treatments as well as education. However, it's clear that they haven't lived up to their word as much as their benefits," Al Hadded said.


gulfnews : Gaza war victims live in sorrow and silence

ei: Israel forces Palestinians to demolish their own homes

Report, The Electronic Intifada, 31 December 2010

Palestinian women from Lyd sit on top of the rubble of their home after it was destroyed by Israel, December 2010. (Oren Ziv/ActiveStills)

More than 100 Palestinian protesters and their supporters blocked a main street in the city of Lyd on 28 December, demonstrating against the recent demolition of Palestinian homes and what residents say is a rise in racism and police brutality.

On 13 December, officials with the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), the government agency that manages and leases state land, entered the Palestinian section of the segregated city flanked by bulldozers and hundreds of municipal, riot squad and border police forces. The bulldozers then demolished seven homes all belonging to the Abu Eid family in Lyd.

The demolition, which took several hours, subsequently displaced 67 members of the entire family, including dozens of children, during one of the worst rainstorms of the season. Dozens of other Palestinian homes have been demolished over the years in Lyd, which is a few miles east of Tel Aviv inside the state of Israel.

Lyd is a so-called "mixed city," as is the neighboring city of Ramle, with significant Palestinian minority communities living alongside the Jewish majority. Palestinian residents of these communities have been chronically discriminated against and brutalized by police.

Oren Ziv, a photojournalist with Israeli-based photography collective ActiveStills, witnessed the demolitions of the Abu Eid homes and told The Electronic Intifada that the family knew that the ILA had issued demolition orders against their homes, but they were given no notice of exactly when the destruction would take place.

"During the destruction, I climbed onto the roof of a neighboring house and I saw several bulldozers demolishing the fourth house," Ziv said. "Many neighbors and a few activists were watching it all happen. I've been documenting [home demolitions] for seven years and this was one of the biggest demolitions I've ever seen."

Ziv added that when the bulldozers finished demolishing the seventh house, children were starting to come back from school only to find their homes reduced to rubble.

"People were trying to salvage their papers and belongings from underneath the destroyed homes," he said. "It was hard to find a solution for the family, especially during the terrible weather. They built a protest tent and a tent camp."

Ma'an News Agency reported that the homes were among more than 100 in the city "under immediate demolition orders" following a decision in the Israeli parliament to destroy an estimated 4,000 "illegal" housing structures "in a plan said to cost millions of shekels" ("Family takes stock after mass Lod demolition," 13 December 2010).

The ILA claims that the homes and structures that were demolished, or are facing demolition, were built in an "agricultural" zone, and have therefore denied retroactive building permits to residents of Lyd.

Members of the Abu Eid family told Ma'an that they had "paid rent for decades to a state-owned company to use the land, but [were] only allowed to build up to 100 square meter homes since it was zoned as agricultural ... As the family grew, it requested but was declined approval to expand their houses." After they lost a series of appeals, the family was told by the local court to expect demolitions.

Ziv said that after the destruction, the Abu Eid family placed a banner alongside the tents declaring it the "Abu Eid refugee camp."

He added that the presence of the Israeli border police, usually designated to areas along checkpoints and during demonstrations in the occupied West Bank, was a stark indication of how the Israeli government views Palestinian communities -- whether inside Israel or in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

"In the last few years, Israel has been bringing in the border police to deal with Palestinian communities, or poor communities [in Israel]," he said. "I think it shows where the real borders are inside Israeli society -- they're not where you would expect. Israel brings them to guard the borders between Tel Aviv and Jaffa, and within communities in Lyd."

Ziv added that Israeli police returned to the area a week later, with the clear intention of destroying the Abu Eid family's tent camp, but residents and solidarity activists blocked the police forces and prevented the destruction.

Following the 28 December protest, residents and activists in Lyd vowed to stage similar demonstrations on a weekly basis.

Arafat Ismayil, a leader of the popular committee in Dhammash, a Palestinian village beside Lyd that is under constant threat of home demolitions, told EI that the recent activism has strengthened solidarity between his community, Lyd and Ramle.

"What happened in Lyd is the same as what will happen in Dhammash," Ismayil said. "We feel that the homes that were demolished in Lyd were our homes, and the Abu Eid family are our family too. If we are together in solidarity, hopefully the Israeli government won't demolish another home. We're hoping to inspire more activism within our communities."

Meanwhile, home demolitions continued in the Negev region, and in numerous places around the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Negev

On 29 December, Israeli forces bulldozed several homes belonging to one family in the "unrecognized" Bedouin village of al-Sadir, according to Ma'an News Agency ("Israel continues Negev home demolitions," 29 December 2010).

More than 80,000 indigenous Palestinian Bedouins live in dozens of so-called "unrecognized villages" in the Negev region, communities that the Israeli government refuses to acknowledge despite the fact that they have existed before the state's establishment in 1948. People living in such villages are denied social services, including running water and electricity, and face regular home demolitions.

Less than a week earlier, the Bedouin village of al-Araqib was destroyed for the eighth time since July 2010. Arab News reported that Israeli bulldozers returned to al-Araqib on the morning of 23 December, flanked by dozens of police officers who "acted violently" towards villagers who attempted to prevent the destruction of their homes ("Israeli Bedouin village razed for the 8th time," 24 December 2010).

Police declared the area a "closed military zone" and prevented access to journalists. Afterwards, residents and solidarity activists working with the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, a political representative body for Palestinian citizens of Israel, once again helped rebuild the homes and structures that were destroyed, Arab News reported.

The Jewish National Fund (JNF), an Israeli land institution, has been a driving force behind the destruction of al-Araqib and many other Bedouin communities in the Negev.

The JNF plans to build a forest on the village land, continuing a historic policy of cutting off indigenous populations from their land since Israel's establishment in 1948.

As The Electronic Intifada has reported, international human rights organizations have openly condemned the repeated destruction of al-Araqib and Israel's policies of violent dispossession of indigenous populations.

Occupied West Bank

Jerusalem

The Palestine News Network (PNN) reported that Israeli forces destroyed an agricultural storehouse, a gas station and other industrial structures in the village of Hazma, near Jerusalem, on 29 December ("Israel Demolishes Industrial Buildings North of Jerusalem, Settlers Uproot 30 Olive Trees," 29 December 2010). PNN added that at the same time, Israeli bulldozers razed sections of land in the Sheikh Anbar district near the Mount of Olives in East Jerusalem.

In the at-Tur neighborhood, also on 29 December, Ma'an News Agency reported that several structures were demolished by Jerusalem municipality police as bulldozers uprooted dozens of olive trees ([Arabic only], 29 December 2010.)

Several days earlier, two Palestinian families were forced to demolish their own homes in Sur Bahir village. The families had received demolition orders from Jerusalem Municipality officials three days before, citing "illegal construction" ("Two Palestinian families demolish own homes under municipal orders in Sur Bahir," SILWANIC, 25 December 2010).

Maryam Iraqi, a member of one of the families, told the Wadi Hilweh Information Center (SILWANIC) that they were forced to destroy the homes themselves, or would face a huge bill if the municipality demolished it. "When they would come to demolish [our home]," Iraqi added, "we would not be able to take the furniture out. The municipality gave us a one-week period in which to destroy our home ourselves."

SILWANIC added, "The Israeli state does not provide alternative housing or financial compensation to Palestinian families whose homes are ordered to be demolished, going so far as to actually charge families for demolition costs."

According to Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem are faced with discriminatory housing and building policies, forcing residents to build homes without obtaining building permits -- thereby designating the homes as "illegal" and subject to demolition ("East Jerusalem: Policy of discrimination in planning, building and land expropriation").

In Ras al-Amoud, 13 Palestinians were left homeless after being forced to demolish their own home on 21 December, following a demolition order posted on their door by Israeli police. The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) reported that the families were faced with the decision either to demolish their own home and pay a fine of 60,000 shekels (approximately $17,000 US) "or refuse, and watch as soldiers demolish their house and punish them with a fine of 120,000 shekels ($34,000)," ISM stated. "Soldiers showed up outside with a bulldozer. Finally, on 21 December, they tore down their own house" ("13 homeless after home demolition in Ras al Amoud," 24 December 2010).

After their home was razed to the ground, the family constructed a few tents with their possessions stacked to one side.

United Nations officials visited areas of occupied East Jerusalem last week, and condemned Israel's ongoing policies of home demolitions in the city, according to Agence-France Presse ("UN envoys criticize Israel home demolitions," 23 December 2010). Barbara Shenstone, a field worker with the UN Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA), which oversees services for Palestinian refugees, admonished Israel's policies as "cruel and distressing."

"While children around the world are enjoying the holiday season in their homes, these children have suffered the trauma and indignity of watching their homes destroyed in the presence of their parents," Shenstone added.

The day before, Maxwell Gaylard, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the occupied Palestinian territories, said that "The government of Israel must take immediate steps to cease demolitions and evictions in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem."

The United Nation's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) released a report documenting the destruction of 49 homes and structures over a one-week period in the West Bank's "Area C," which includes East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, encompassing nearly 60 percent of the West Bank ("Report: Protection of Civilians," December 8-14, 2010 [PDF]).

Under the Oslo accords signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the mid-1990s, the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip were carved up into areas A, B and C, the latter of which indicates full Israeli control. Under the Oslo regulations, Area C, which includes East Jerusalem, is administered and controlled by the Israeli government and its military. Approximately 40,000 Palestinians live in Area C.

In its report, UNOCHA said that between 8 and 14 December, 29 buildings, including homes, animal structures and an elementary school, were demolished in Khirbet Tana, near Nablus in the northern West Bank. The demolitions resulted in the displacement of 61 Palestinians, including 13 children. "This is the third time this community has suffered extensive demolitions since 2005," UNOCHA stated.

The report added that 14 water cisterns were destroyed in the Bedouin communities of Umm ad Daraj, Khashem ad Daraj, both near Hebron, and eight trees were uprooted as four vegetable stalls were destroyed in one area of the Jordan Valley.

In addition, UNRWA released a similar report on 23 December stating that there has been an increase in demolitions in the West Bank including East Jerusalem.

In all of 2010, states the report, "396 Palestinian structures were demolished in East Jerusalem and other areas under full Israeli control in the West Bank. This compares to 275 in the previous year -- an increase of almost 45 percent. As a result this year, 561 people have been displaced, including 280 children, and the livelihoods of over 3,000 people have also been affected" ("The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, condemns Jerusalem home demolitions and assists affected families," 23 December 2010).

Days earlier, leading international human rights advocacy organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a 166-page report documenting the effects of Israeli policies of dispossession and discrimination, and called on Israel "in addition to abiding by its international legal obligation to withdraw the settlements, to end these violations of Palestinians' rights ("Israel/West Bank: Separate and Unequal," 19 December 2010)."

HRW stated in its press release on the report that it "looked at both Area C and East Jerusalem and found that the two-tier system in effect in both areas provides generous financial benefits and infrastructure support to promote life in Jewish settlements, while deliberately withholding basic services, punishing growth, and imposing harsh conditions on Palestinian communities."

"Such different treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin that is not narrowly tailored to legitimate goals violates the fundamental prohibition against discrimination under human rights law," HRW reported.

Al-Baqaa

East of Hebron in the southern West Bank, four commercial structures were destroyed in the of al-Baqaa valley on 20 December, according to the Alternative Information Center (AIC) ("Israel Demolishes 2 East Jerusalem Homes, 4 Hebron District Commercial Centers," 21 December 2010). Al-Baqaa is near the illegal Israeli settlement colony of Kiryat Arba in Hebron.

In the same report, the AIC stated that Israeli forces destroyed a home in the Numan village, between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, on 21 December.

Settlements expand

As the US-brokered peace talks remain dead in the water, illegal Israeli settlement colonies continue to expand in the West Bank including East Jerusalem.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported on 15 December that construction began in a new settlement near the Mount of Olives in East Jerusalem ("E. Jerusalem apartment construction begins," 15 December 2010). Twenty four housing units are being built for students attending a nearby orthodox Jewish yeshiva named after American millionaire Irving Moskowitz, who has bankrolled numerous right-wing settler movements and financed settlements in and around Jerusalem.

In a front-page article in the New York Times, Hagit Ofran of the Israeli settlement watchdog group Peace Now stated that there are 2,000 new housing units currently under construction since the ten-month settlement moratorium officially ended at the end of September, while an additional 13,000 are "in the pipeline" that do not require special government-issued building permits ("After freeze, settlement building booms in the West Bank," 22 December 2010).

The Palestinian Authority (PA), led by Mahmoud Abbas, drafted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council, demanding that the international body formally declare Israeli settlements to be illegal and call for a halt in construction and expansion, according to the Associated Press ("Palestinians target Israeli settlements in UN resolution," 29 December 2010).

The PA called the settlements an obstacle to peace, but did not demand sanctions be placed on the Israeli state for its violations of international law. The Associated Press added that the United States, for its part, "has already balked at the resolution and might veto it."




Latest articles on EI:

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: The Electronic Intifada Campaign: Help keep our reporting strong in 2011 (8 December 2010)
Palestine : Human Rights: Israel forces Palestinians to demolish their own homes (31 December 2010)
Palestine : Development: Latin American nations recognize a Palestinian state (31 December 2010)
Palestine : Art, Music & Culture: Book Review: Europe's Alliance with Israel (30 December 2010)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: Role of Israeli firms raises boycott concerns about Rawabi (30 December 2010)
Palestine : Activism News: Students for Justice in Palestine condemns US government witch hunt (29 December 2010)
Palestine : Human Rights: Photostory: Volvo equipment used in house demolitions (part 2) (29 December 2010)
Palestine : Business & Economy: Gaza farmers pack strawberries and hope for export (29 December 2010)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: China imports Israel's methods of propaganda and repression (28 December 2010)
Palestine : Art, Music & Culture: Book review: correcting mistaken notions on Arabs in America (28 December 2010)

ei: Israel forces Palestinians to demolish their own homes

More than half Palestinians live in the Diaspora at the end of 2010

[ 31/12/2010 - 03:49 PM ]

RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- A press release issued by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) stated that the projected number of Palestinians in the world at the end of 2010 is 11 million, more than half of whom live in the diaspora.

The distribution of the Palestinians according to the report is as follows: 4.1 million Palestinians were in the 1967-occupied Palestinian territory (of which 2.5 million were in the West Bank and 1.6 million in Gaza), 1.4 million Palestinians in 1948-occupied Palestine, 5 in Arab countries and 600 thousand in other countries.

The report also stated that 44% of Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are refugees (18% in the West Bank and 26% in the Gaza Strip).

Number of Palestinians in historical Palestine will exceed the number of Jews over time…

The number of Palestinians in historical Palestine amounts to 5.5 million at end of 2010. The number of Jews living in historical Palestine amounts to 5.7 million. The number of Palestinians and Jews will reach about 6.1 million for each at the end of 2014 providing current growth rates remain the same. However, the number of Palestinians in historical Palestine will reach 7.2 million compared to 6.7 Jews at the end of 2020.


More than half Palestinians live in the Diaspora at the end of 2010

PressTV - Israel denies detainees lawyer

Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:27PM
Share | Email | Print
Human rights organizations have criticized Israel for mistreating Palestinian detainees and forcing them to sign confessions in exchange for access to legal advice.


The Palestinian Prisoner Society and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel have revealed in a joint report that up to 90 percent of West Bank Palestinians held in Israeli jails are denied access to a lawyer and are often physically and psychologically tortured, a Press TV correspondent reported on Friday.

The report also criticized Israeli civil and military law which allows authorities to deny Palestinian prisoners a lawyer for six month -- which can be extended for an additional six months -- during which the Palestinian detainees are subject to harsh interrogations by Israel's internal security agency Shin Bet.

According to the report, Palestinian prisoners will be allowed to visit a lawyer or contact their family only after they confess to the crimes that they are accused of. The study condemns these interrogations for being against international laws.

The Palestinians detainees, who testified, say during the interrogations they were exposed to excessive torture and psychological abuse including "painful and prolonged shackling to a chair, painful cuffing of the hands, sleep deprivation, repeated threats to harm the detainee and his family, the conditioning of meeting an attorney with confession, giving of false information to the detainee and intentional deception of the detainee."

"I asked [repeatedly] for them to inform my mother that I am alive. The interrogator said he would allow this only after I confess … the interrogator took me to the interrogation room and shackled me to the chair with handcuffs. I stayed until 3 a.m. and was then returned to the isolation cell. Around 8 a.m. I was taken to interrogation," Ziad Shanti, who was arrested in October 2006, said.

The authors of the study have unfolded that between 70 to 90 percent of the detainees in the years 2005 to 2007 were forbidden to meet a lawyer in order to provide council and assistance prior to signing a confession. The average time prisoners were isolated from the outside world was 16.7 days. Shin Bet has refused to reveal the number of detainees who had no access to legal services.

The Public Committee Against Torture has called for new rules on when prisoners can be denied access to a lawyer and for cameras to be placed in interrogation facilities to monitor questioning in the hopes that basic human right will prevail.

HM/HGH/MMN
Related Stories:

PressTV - Israel denies detainees lawyer

Knesset Approves NIS 2 billion to Settlements in the New Year's Budget - International Middle East Media Center

Friday December 31, 2010 16:49author by Ane Irazabal - IMEMC & Agencies Report post
The Israeli Knesset approved its 2011-2012 budget on Wednesday, which includes two billion shekels (approx. US$ 564 million) to settlements construction, services and security, Israeli daily Haaretz reported.

Har Homa settlement (photo from www.upi.com)
Har Homa settlement (photo from www.upi.com)

According to the budget, in 2011, 200 new housing units will be marketed in the settlement of Maaleh Adumim, west Jerusalem, and other 500 units in Har Homa, in the occupied territory that lies across from Bethlehem, beyond the Green Line. A total of 238 million shekels will be spent on Har Homa by 2012.

In addition, a large amount of money will be transferred to roads, mainly, to join different settlements with other areas. 180 million will be spent on the road between the Jerusalem settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev and Tel Aviv, which human rights group Peace Now recently called “a clear obstacle to peace.”

Also, some NIS 225 million will be transfer to repair the road between the Adumim plain and the Good Samaritan junction, and Pisgat Ze’ev and the Zeitim intersection.

With regard to East Jerusalem, the budget for settlers living in the occupied area, defined as a security expense, represents a rise of 40 percent in the new budget, reaching NIS 3,160 per settler.

In addition, the state will compensate the loss incurred by exporters from settlements to the European Union with NIS 22 million, due to settlement produce no longer recognized as from Israel by the E.U., and thus losing free trade status under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement.

The budget also shows a contradiction between the information provided by the Central Bureau of Statistics and the World Zionist Organization, due to while the first organization indicates 120 official settlements in the West bank, the WZO claims 136 "communities", which indicates that the WZO could support at least 16 illegal outposts.

The protection for settlers will be also responsibility of the state's expenses; as the "overall reinforcement and security ingredients in settlements and conflict zone areas reaches over NIS 630 million." Haaretz quoted.

Every settler may request the state to have an extra protection in his personal car and subsidies for public transport for settlers and the ultra-orthodox will reach NIS 31 million per year. In addition, the protected buses with window frames will cost another 10 million NIS.


Knesset Approves NIS 2 billion to Settlements in the New Year's Budget - International Middle East Media Center

Lowkey - Long Live Palestine (Lyrics)

PNN - Palestine News Network - Protesters in Bil’in Remove Parts of Israel’s Wall, Troops Critically Injuries A civilian

31.12.10 - 15:39

Ghassan Bannoura – PNN – On Friday, hundreds of protesters marched in the village of Bil’in, central West Bank, to protest the Israeli built wall on villagers' lands and in a surprising development, dismantled part of it.

Image
Protesters Removing the Wall in Bil'in
Despite an Israeli army blockade on the village since early morning, Israeli and international supporters managed to join the protest. Even Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, joined the protesters this week. Fatah supporters also joined this week action to mark the creation of their political group.

As has been the case for the past six years , the protest started after midday prayers at the village mosque ended. As soon as people reached the wall, local youth managed to dismantle parts of it. Israeli soldiers stationed at the nearby gate separating local farmers from their lands fired tear gas.

One person was hit in the face with a tear gas canister and rushed to Ramallah for treatment, and many were treated for the effects of tear gas inhalation.

Image
Bil'in Today
“Today the wall was dismantled in Bil’in, soon it will fall all over the West Bank," said Ayad Burnat, head of the local branch of the Committee Against the Wall and Settlements, told PNN in a phone interview. "Bil’in will continue its popular resistance.”

The Israeli High Court ruled that the path of the wall in Bil'in is illegal and must be rerouted more than three years ago. The court ruling gave the villagers 800 dunums of the 2300 dunums of land it took to construct the wall and the nearby settlement. The Israeli army still refuses to remove the wall.

Even the Bil’in protests are typically nonviolent, in most case they have been meet with force from the army. In September 2009, Israeli soldiers shot and killed Bassem Abu Rahma while he protested.


PNN - Palestine News Network - Protesters in Bil’in Remove Parts of Israel’s Wall, Troops Critically Injuries A civilian

PNN - Palestine News Network - Soldiers Use Tear Gas to Suppress Anti-Wall Protests in the West Bank

31.12.10 - 16:09

Bethlehem – PNN – Anti-wall protests were reported on Friday at the village of Nil’in and al Nabi Saleh in central West Bank, in addition to al Ma’ssara in the south.

Israeli and international supporters joined the villagers at all three locations. The protests started shortly after the midday prayers.

In the village of Al Ma’ssara, protesters were stopped by the army at the village entrance before they reached the lands taken by Israel from the village to build the wall. Soldiers then used tear gas to force people back to the village.

Image
PNN Archive
Meanwhile Dozens of protesters from the central West Bank village of al-Nabi Saleh, joined by several internationals, demonstrated today against the wall and the nearby Israeli settlement of Halamish. Many from outside the village were prevented from entering by a military blockade.

The protesters were met with an instant show of force from Israeli troops, who fired tear gas and sound bombs. The protest ended later in the afternoon.

In the nearby Nil’in village the protest this week ended peacefully. Villagers and their supporters marched to the wall then protested for some time. The group left without being attacked by the army this week.


Related news items:
PNN - Palestine News Network - Soldiers Use Tear Gas to Suppress Anti-Wall Protests in the West Bank

Fars News Agency :: Cairo Refrains from Issuing Visa for Iranian Members of Gaza-Bound Convoy

News number: 8910100586

15:05 | 2010-12-31

World

Printable Version Send to a friend

Cairo Refrains from Issuing Visa for Iranian Members of Gaza-Bound Convoy

TEHRAN (FNA)- Members of the Asian Aid Caravan to Gaza said that the Egyptian authorities granted visas to 120 activists but refused entry to several members, including seven Iranian MPs.



Cairo denied entry to seven Iranian members of parliament on board. Several activists, from over 18 countries, were also denied entry.

"From 160 activists of Asia2gaza, only 120 members got Egypt visa," the group said on Thursday.

Egypt's approval is required to reach the Gaza Strip through the shared Rafah crossing, particularly since Israel's blockade on the Gaza Strip was tightened in 2007.

Seven Iranian lawmakers were due to travel with the group to Syria and from there to Gaza via the Rafah crossing in Egypt to display their solidarity with the Palestinian people in their resistance against the Israeli regime.

Mahmoud Ahmadi Biqash, Avaz Heidarpour, Parvi Sarvari, Ali Motahhari, Ali Asqar Zare'i, Hassan Qafourifard and Shabib Jooyjari were the seven Iranian MPs that intended to join the Asian Gaza Convoy.

A number of 200 members of the Iranian parliament had earlier in a statement voiced support and solidarity with the Asian continent's first humanitarian aid convoy to Gaza which arrived in Iran earlier this month.

The Iranian lawmakers also donated part of their salary to the Palestinian people.

Laden with relief supplies, Asia to Gaza Solidarity Caravan of Asia is now in the port city of Latakia in the Northwest of Syria.

The convoy, which currently has activists from 18 different nationalities onboard, began its journey from the Indian capital, New Delhi and traveled through Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Lebanon.

The activists say they want to display solidarity with the Palestinian people in their resistance against Israel. The Asian peace activists hope that the move would provide a good opportunity for breaking the siege of Gaza.

The move came nearly seven months after Israeli forces raided the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31. Over 100 Israeli soldiers supported by military choppers boarded a Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, leading the six-ship convoy in international waters.

The Israeli commandoes killed 20 international human rights activists and wounded 80 more. Nine of the victims were Turkish nationals. Some members of the European parliaments, former western diplomats, reporters and human rights activists were among the victims of Israel's brutal act.

The siege of Gaza started in June 2007 when Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip. This was supported by the governments of Egypt and the US.

The blockade consists of a land blockade along Gaza's borders with Egypt and Israel and a sea blockade. It immediately followed the 2006-2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority following the election of Hamas to the Palestinian government.

The blockade has attracted criticism from many Human Rights organizations. September 2009 UN fact-finding mission found that the blockade of Gaza "amounted to collective punishment" was likely a war crime and a crime against humanity and recommended that the matter be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC).


Fars News Agency :: Cairo Refrains from Issuing Visa for Iranian Members of Gaza-Bound Convoy

PressTV - How Zionist lobby shapes UK politics

Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:6PM
Share | Email | Print
The wealthy Jewish lobby in Britain working under the title of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) has been tipped as the Conservative Party's paymaster.


The CFI as described by British political analysts is beyond doubt the most well- connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups. It works in support of the interests of the Israeli regime.

The CFI's finances may be legal but they are hardly transparent as the lobbying group is an unincorporated association. This is how the British media report about CFI's financial transactions.

The register of MPs' interests shows that CFI board members and their businesses gave the Conservatives over 2 million pounds in the last 8 years.

The reports also say more than 30,000 pound from CFI members went to campaign funds of the members of Prime Minister David Cameron's team when he was first elected as the party leader in2005.

Also in 2005, Cameron himself had received 15,000 pound from a pro-Israeli lobby facilitator. The facilitator had also donated 50,000 pounds to the Conservative Central Office.

“Donations from all CFI members and their businesses to the Conservative Party of Britain have topped over 10 million pounds over the past 8 years”, according to reliable sources inside the UK.

Here's an example of how the pro-Israeli lobby works in the UK.

After the 22-day Israeli war on the Gaza Strip a fact-finding team was appointed to conduct an inquiry into the war and identify the culprits.

A few weeks since the UN was to vote on a resolution following judge Goldstone's report who condemned Israel for abusing human rights in Gaza, the CFI ran up to now foreign secretary William Hague office and after consulting with David Cameron, he gave them this quote:

“Unless the draft resolution is redrafted to reflect the role that Hamas played in starting the conflict we would recommend that the British government vote to reject the resolution”.

But, it was under former Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Israel lobby first acquired real influence in government.
Former chairman of the Labour friends of Israel John Mandelson boasted:

“Zionism is pervasive in new Labour, it's automatic that Blair will come to Labour friends of Israel's meetings”.

Shortly before Blair became Labour party leader in 1994 he met Michael Levy the pop music millionaire at a social event arranged by the Israeli embassy. They became friends, played tennis and Levy became Blair's fundraiser. It's estimated that he raised almost 15 million pounds for Labour before the row over cash for peerages.

When Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997, he awarded Michael Levy a life peerage and made him his special envoy to the Middle East, but because Levy was unpaid and working directly to the prime minister, what he negotiated between the Israeli entity and Arabs on behalf of Britain was kept secret.

MOL/
PressTV - How Zionist lobby shapes UK politics

The Enemy Within | Dissident Voice

The phrase “enemy within” brings to mind the image of a shadowy spy stealing military secrets. That was the case for Israeli master spy, Jonathan Pollard, jailed for 1980s espionage that compromised U.S. Cold War strategy.

That phrase also describes those involved in a form of psy-ops that is not easily detected because it operates so brazenly. For instance, the well-timed release of diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks displaced reports of Israeli obstinacy in peace talks with reports of a need for war with Iran.

That operation relied on editors at four major newspapers chosen by WikiLeaks to manage the releases. Despite the delight at their impact voiced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, mainstream media failed to mention the possibility of undisclosed bias by those who chose what to release and when.

The bias of The New York Times is well known. Less clear is the role of Ian Katz, Deputy Editor at The Guardian (London) and Executive Editor Sylvie Kauffman at Le Monde in Paris. The geopolitical success of the WikiLeaks operation suggests an enemy within.

Israeli duplicity often operates through what U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes as “the people in between.” When waging unconventional warfare, those people are the most dangerous combatants, particularly those operatives in mainstream media.

The People in Between

For systems of governance reliant on informed consent, nothing could be more perilous. The “people in between” routinely target media — freedom’s greatest vulnerability — as a means for displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe.

How old is this duplicity? How long have false beliefs been used to manipulate behavior? Modern technology — particularly media — enables deception on a global scale. Between the American populace and the facts they require to protect their freedom — that’s where this enemy within imbeds its operatives.

The false intelligence claiming Iraqi WMD was a people-in-between operation. Judith Miller at The New York Times fed us a steady diet of front-page news that we now know was fixed around Israeli goals promoted by Ahmad Chalabi, a London-based Iraqi expatriate who, like Israel, sought regime change in Iraq.

Pentagon insider, Richard Perle, developed Chalabi over two decades. A Jewish Zionist, Perle has long been a strategically well-placed “person in between.” Miller left The Times and joined Fox News and then Newsmax.

Yet the impact of complicit media pales in comparison to the enemy within that brought the U.S. economy to its knees and undermined national security at its financial core.

Imbedded Inside

The most devastating in this chronicle of enemies is the most difficult to see. As with other “in between” operations, this too succeeds by displacing facts with false beliefs. Only in this case, those beliefs were imbedded in education and over decades worked their way into law.

Known as the “Washington Consensus,” this widely shared perspective shapes economic policy worldwide. At the heart of this generally accepted truth is found the belief that money should be accountable only to itself.

In this mindset, financial freedom is an article of faith. Instead of the civil rights refrain, “Let my people go,” its proponents insist: “Let my money go.” Allow money the freedom to work its will worldwide and everything will work out fine.

That shared belief works “in between” in the same way that Jonathan Pollard undermined national security, WikiLeaks shifted attention to Iran and Judith Miller induced us to war in Iraq. Only in this case a false belief has been so thoroughly internalized that it’s difficult to see because this shared mindset has become that with which we have been educated do our seeing.

A Global Sanhedrin

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are the primary apostles of this consensus faith. The World Trade Organization (WTO) now seeks to take this belief to global scale by enforcing unrestricted free trade not only in goods and services but also financial capital.

The WTO operates like a global Sanhedrin akin to a Jewish high council accountable only to itself. What’s now emerging as a global enemy within is a finance-guided form of transnational governance marketed as free trade but accountable only to itself.

That ‘self’ traces its origins to an internalized mindset in which financial freedom serves, by consensus, as a proxy for personal freedom. That mindset was decades in the making.

This modern-day Mindset Warfare is being waged by an enemy that is truly within. Fast globalizing financial forces now induce us to freely embrace the very forces that undermine our freedom.

By waging war on us from the inside out, the originators of this money-myopic mindset dismantled the U.S. economy, enabled vast financial pillaging and induced us to fiscal ruin.

Those wielding this weaponry operate from our internal shadows as the Zionist entity within.

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk, and The Ownership Solution. Read other articles by Jeff, or visit Jeff's website.


The Enemy Within | Dissident Voice

Islam Times - Abbas: Draft to Condemn Israeli Settlements Designed to Win US Support

Friday 31 December 2010 13:51
Share/Save/Bookmark
Abbas: Draft to Condemn Israeli Settlements Designed to Win US Support
Islam Times - Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas said his new attempt to get the United Nations to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank was specifically designed to win U.S. support...
Abbas: Draft to Condemn Israeli Settlements Designed to Win US Support
Islam Times reports from Al-Manar: Speaking in Brazil Thursday, Abbas said the Palestinian draft used the "same words" as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has in criticizing settlements.
He says he "doesn't see why" the U.S. would veto the move.

The Palestinians have drafted a proposal and are lobbying for a Security Council resolution that would declare West Bank settlements illegal and an obstacle to “peace."
The U.S. has said it does not support the move. Israel has said it's an attempt by the Palestinians to evade negotiations.

The PA President was in Brazil for the cornerstone-laying ceremony for a Palestinian embassy in the Brazilian capital of Brasilia, the first state-level Palestinian diplomatic mission in Latin America. Brazil recently recognized the state of Palestine.
Abbas is expected to take part in the event and later attend the swearing-in ceremony of Brazilian President-elect Dilma Rousseff, AFP news agency reported.
Islam Times - Abbas: Draft to Condemn Israeli Settlements Designed to Win US Support

A'arouri: circle of hunger-strikers in W. Bank jails might be expanded

[ 31/12/2010 - 11:19 AM ]

DAMASCUS, (PIC)-- Saleh Al-A'arouri, member of Hamas political bureau, said Thursday that the circle of hunger-strikers among Palestinian political detainees in the West Bank jails might be expanded further to include other prisoners.

A'arouri also confirmed that Hamas was serious about not holding any reconciliation meeting with Fatah unless the later releases all political detainees who are on hunger strike for more than one month now in the PA jails.

"Hamas wants to achieve national reconciliation because it was the party that initiated it; however, let no one expect us to ignore the agonies of our brothers and sons incarcerated in Fatah jails, and to sit in futile marathon meetings with Fatah while this issue isn't resolved yet," said A'arouri in an interview with the PIC on Thursday.

"I think that Hamas won't resume talks on this track without real changes on the ground being made regarding the file of the political detainees in the PA jails", he added.

When asked on whether the hunger strikers halted their strike, A'arouri, who handles the prisoners file in Hamas Movement, replied, "They are still on hunger strike, and they have clear and fair demands … they want the orders of the Palestinian Supreme Court on their case be carried out".

In this regard, A'arouri didn’t rule out the possibility of expanding the circle of the hunger strike to include hundreds of political detainees in the PA jails in the occupied West Bank.

He also commented on the possibility of including names of Hamas political detainees in Fatah jails with those already on the prisoner-exchange list and incarcerated in Israeli occupation jails, A'arouri explained that the PA security forces in the PA left no options for Hamas and closed all doors for national reconciliation, saying that Hamas was mulling that option.

"I want to send clear message to leaders of Fatah that if you push us to take up such an option, then you would put yourselves and the Fatah Movement in an unpleasant situation," the Hamas official pointed out.

Moreover, A'arouri vehemently denied allegations of Fatah that Hamas detains political prisoners affiliated to Fatah faction in the Gaza Strip, stressing that Hamas and the PA government in the Strip welcomes any committee comprising Palestinian factions and human right institution to check the jails there and to find out whether those allegations are true.

In this regard, A'arouri underscored that Hamas is the West Bank is still strong and even stronger than before contrary to what detractors of Hamas would like to believe.

"The depth and strength of Hamas Movement is in the West Bank, and the popularity of the Movement there is broader than before that no one could uproot, and I would like to say that if transparent and independent PA elections is held now, Hamas would reap more than what it had reaped in the 2006 legislative elections… Hamas is great in the West Bank," the Hamas official underlined.

As far as the future of the Palestinian resistance is concerned, A'arouri stressed, "the Palestinian people have no option but to resist the occupation of their country, and I firmly believe that a new and stronger Palestinian Intifada in the West Bank is only a matter of time".


A'arouri: circle of hunger-strikers in W. Bank jails might be expanded

Gaza PM meets representative of the Jordanian Chief of Staff

E-mail Print

Ismail HaniyehThe Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza has met a representative of the Jordanian Army Chief of Staff. The delegation which met Ismail Haniyeh was headed by Major General Mahmoud Forayhat, the head of military operations in Jordan.

Mr. Haniyah told his Jordanian visitors that the Palestinian cabinet in Gaza "cannot accept what is claimed to be the Palestinians' alternative homeland" by Israelis wanting to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by "transferring" the population across the River Jordan. "There can be no solution for the Palestine question at the expense of Jordan or Jordanian territory under any circumstances," he added.

In praising the efforts of the Hashemite Kingdom, Mr. Haniyeh said that they were appreciated by every Palestinian. He went on to emphasise the significance of Jordan’s position in the current political situation, and called upon King Abdullah II and the heads of all Arab states to curb any Israeli escalation. "The role of His Majesty the King is important in preventing any escalation that the Israeli occupation authorities can think of."

The visit of the delegation to Gaza coincided with the second anniversary of Israel’s brutal war on Gaza in 2008/9. "The repercussions of that war are ongoing," said Mr. Haniyeh, "especially the homes that were destroyed and damaged and have not been rebuilt." As an ally of the Palestinians, he added, this requires Jordan to pay special attention to the issue of reconstruction in the Gaza Strip and to search for suitable means to reach this end.

In response, Major General Forayhat hailed the Prime Minister’s stance against the suggestion of an "alternative homeland", and explained that this is shared by the Kingdom. He also praised the resolve of the Palestinian people during and since the Gaza war.


Gaza PM meets representative of the Jordanian Chief of Staff

Haneyya government opens first secondary school for the blind in Gaza

[ 31/12/2010 - 11:34 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Dr. Mohammed Askool, the education minister in the PA government in the Gaza Strip, has inaugurated Thursday the first secondary school for the blind in Gaza Strip.

In his speech during in the inauguration ceremony, Askool confirmed that his ministry backed by the PA government of premier Ismael Haneyya would continue the process of reform and construction, and would focus on the education sector despite the unjust siege on the Gaza Strip, and the great challenges the Haneyya government faces.

He added that the opening of the school indicates the great attention the ministry pays to the education sector, and the keenness of the government to let the blind feel that they are part of the education process and equal to other students.

Askool also thanked the Kuwait-based Arab Fund for Economy Development for supporting and financing the school, urging more Arab and Muslim support to the Palestinian people.

For his part, Atef Al-Ghusain, the representative of the fund, vowed to bring more financial support to the education and development sectors in Palestine.


Haneyya government opens first secondary school for the blind in Gaza

PACBI-Listen to Our Voice!

PACBI | 30 December 2010

Listen to Our Voice!

Ramallah, Occupied Palestine, 30 December 2010

From time to time, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) brings to the attention of BDS activists, both in Palestine and abroad, Palestinian-Israeli joint activities that, while purporting to further “peace,” in fact pursue an agenda that is harmful to the realization of just peace and Palestinian rights. One such effort, which includes campus talks by Palestinian-Israeli teams in the United States and the UK, is organized by OneVoice, a US-based joint Israeli-Palestinian organization with chapters in North America and extensions in Europe. The Palestinian branch in Ramallah, OneVoice Palestine, appears to be the recruiting ground for Palestinian youth for the joint Palestinian-Israeli speaking tours, through a program of training workshops organized in the West Bank.

From PACBI’s perspective, which is grounded in the principles of the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and supported by a majority of Palestinian civil society organizations and bodies, [1] there are several objectionable features to the OneVoice platform in general, and its youth activities in particular. These objections pertain to the logic of OneVoice’s political analysis and program, its main objectives, and the forms of action stemming from these.

PACBI bases itself on its 2004 Call for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel [2], which follows the same logic as the Palestinian civil society BDS Call. In light of the hundreds of UN resolutions condemning Israel’s colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal; in view of the failure of all forms of international intervention and peace-making to convince or oblige Israel to comply with humanitarian law, respect fundamental human rights and end its occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people; and inspired by the South African anti-apartheid struggle, international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world are urged to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.

It is worth noting that the logic of BDS has become increasingly compelling to Palestine solidarity activists around the world. Today, the global movement for BDS is making great inroads into the political mainstream, pointing to the fact that this long-term strategy of resistance and solidarity is indeed viewed as the most effective means to fight injustice and work towards upholding international law and the realization of the UN-sanctioned Palestinian rights as a necessary condition for achieving a just and comprehensive peace.

It is clear from an examination of the underlying logic and political analysis employed by OneVoice, and its Palestinian branch, that it is neither the logic of pressure on Israel nor a concern about justice for the Palestinian people that fuels their work. While paying lip service to “ending the occupation,” the overriding imperative is to serve Israel’s basic interest in remaining an apartheid state while promoting a form of a Palestinian state in order to secure that end. The philosophy of one of the leading Israeli youth activists, as showcased on the OneVoice website, “is that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state equals a more secure Israel, requiring less money toward its defense and security, and more toward civic and social development.” [3] Simply put, it is the interests of the occupier that drive the mission.

Indeed, OneVoice declares that “by working in parallel, [it] can appeal to the nationalistic enlightened self-interest of Israelis, through the work of OneVoice Israel in Tel Aviv; and Palestinians, through the work of OneVoice Palestine in Ramallah. For Israelis, it’s about building an understanding that the occupation hurts rather than enhances Israeli security, and poses a threat to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. For Palestinians, it’s about building an understanding that violence and extremism hurts [sic] Palestinian national ambitions, providing a convenient excuse to those who wish to perpetually delay the establishment of a Palestinian state.” [4]

This unabashedly Israel-centered approach (framed as even-handedness), unfortunately adopted by the Palestinian branch as well, conveniently ignores the dynamics of the oppressor and the oppressed, the colonizer and the colonized. In reality, this approach takes as given the interests of the Israeli state and polity as they are constituted today. The OneVoice platform is devoid of any affirmation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, principally the right to self-determination. There is no mention of Israel's grave violations of international law, in many cases amounting to war crimes. Nowhere is there a discussion of the institutionalized and legalized system of racial discrimination in Israel, nor is there any recognition of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes from which they were forcibly expelled in 1947-1948, in accordance with the norms of international law and UN resolutions. The latter right is at the very core of the Palestinian national consensus. Ignoring it puts OneVoice Palestine solidly against this consensus.

More significantly, the Israel-centric nature of OneVoice is exemplified by the way the concept of “the conflict” is defined and centrally located to inform the organization’s mission. OneVoice,, like many other well-funded dialogue and “peace” groups (Seeds of Peace is one of the most visible), is dedicated to “conflict resolution.” However, “the conflict” is defined symmetrically and trivializes the struggle of the Palestinians for self-determination. The organization describes itself as “an international movement of people fed up with the ongoing conflict” [5], as though this on its own is meaningful no matter how the “conflict” is defined and without taking into account whose rights are violated. “The conflict” paradigm, as used by OneVoice and many other “peace” groups, in reality de-centers the Palestinian struggle and creates parity between occupier and occupied, not to mention that it also ignores Israeli state violence in response to Palestinian resistance.

PACBI finds the framing of the colonial and apartheid reality in Palestine as a symmetric “conflict” without specifying the nature and scope of the domination and oppression that characterize the relationship of the Israeli state with the Palestinian people to be problematic, to say the least. It implies that a resolution of the conflict is a matter of replacing misunderstandings with more empathy and a concern for the predicament of the “other side.”

Nowhere is there any discussion of the roots of this “conflict,” what it is about, and which “side” is paying the price. OneVoice glosses over the historic record and the establishment of a settler-colonial regime in Palestine following the expulsion of most of the indigenous people of the land. The defining moment in the history of “the conflict” is therefore not acknowledged. The history of continued Israeli colonial expansion as well as dispossession and forcible displacement of Palestinians is conveniently ignored.

OneVoice prefers to forget the past, the recognition of which, we believe, holds the key to the future. Instead, OneVoice declares that “the idea of focusing on the future instead of clinging to the past is paramount to the philosophy of both OneVoice members and its programs. This is none the more prevalent than in OneVoice’s Imagine 2018 campaign, aimed to create a more future-oriented discourse among the grassroots. Israelis and Palestinians are being asked to envision what the future will look like if there is a peace agreement versus maintaining the toxic status quo or worse.” [6] A closer examination of the campaign reveals the Israel-centeredness of the much-advertised “Imagine 2018,” “a multiplatform campaign that depicts visions by Israelis and Palestinians of 2018.” It is significant that while OneVoice Palestine “targets former flashpoint cities with visions of a peaceful future” in the form of wall murals, OneVoice Israel asks Israelis what they hope for on Israel’s 70th birthday. The choice of the year 2018, not immediately clear from reading the Palestinian promotional material, becomes understandable if one looks at the Israeli website. [7] That it is all about Israel is abundantly clear!

To put PACBI’s objections to OneVoice and similar ventures in perspective, we refer to the PACBI guidelines for the academic and cultural boycott [8] dealing specifically with joint Palestinian-Israeli projects. According to these guidelines, Cultural events and projects involving Palestinians and/or Arabs and Israelis that promote “balance” between the “two sides” in presenting their respective narratives, as if on par, or are otherwise based on the false premise that the colonizers and the colonized, the oppressors and the oppressed, are equally responsible for the “conflict,” are intentionally deceptive, intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. Such events and projects, often seeking to encourage dialogue or “reconciliation between the two sides” without addressing the requirements of justice, promote the normalization of oppression and injustice. All such events and projects that bring Palestinians and/or Arabs and Israelis together, unless the Israeli side is explicitly supportive of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and unless the project/event is framed within the explicit context of joint opposition to occupation and other forms of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, are strong candidates for boycott. Other factors that PACBI takes into consideration in evaluating such events and projects are the sources of funding, the design of the program, the objectives of the sponsoring organization(s), the participants, and similar relevant factors.

It is clear that OneVoice is one of those projects that bring Palestinians and Israelis together, not to jointly struggle against Israel’s colonial and apartheid policies, but rather to provide a limited program of action under the slogan of an end to the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state. In essence, however, and by ignoring the history and reality of the apartheid and colonial system in place, OneVoice and similar programs serve to normalize oppression and injustice. The fact that OneVoice treats the “nationalisms” and “patriotisms” of the two “sides” as if on par with one another and equally valid is a telling indicator. Announcing a series of talks in the UK, OneVoice recently declared that “our youth leaders are uniquely placed to be able to approach these taboo topics with an unparalleled level of authenticity and a singular and previously unheard voice of moderation and pragmatism; bringing a strong, nationalistic and patriotic perspective from both sides of the conflict.” [9]

PACBI believes that the acceleration of OneVoice’s youth work in North America and Europe is meant to counter the growing movement for BDS on campuses in these regions. OneVoice describes its international education program, in the framework of which Palestinian and Israeli youth leaders address North American and European university audiences, as being “designed to help those outside the Region to dispel polarization, extremism, and hatred in their own communities.” Specifically, OneVoice Europe, established in 2006 and based in the UK, “was set up to fundraise for the ongoing work of OneVoice Palestine and OneVoice Israel in the region. Very quickly, however, it became clear that there was a need for the organisation to combat the increasingly extreme positions that pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian communities were taking within Europe; with UK university campuses being the most glaring example of where action was needed. OneVoice Europe’s mission is to help combat this polarisation amongst the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian communities in Europe, and to engage peoples’ energy and passion over Israel-Palestine away from hatred and towards helping moderates in the region; those looking to end occupation and all forms of violence and find a way out of the conflict.” [10]

It is not difficult to link these oblique statements about “polarization” and “extremism” to efforts to combat the growing BDS movement among UK student activists, especially the courageous campus occupation movement spearheaded by students there during the Israeli war of aggression on Gaza. OneVoice’s judgment is clear: “On UK campuses the war in Gaza led to an entrenchment of positions of advocates for either respective side. We aim to reconnect Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli activists with the grassroots of those societies so their advocates reflect the will of the people in the region.” [11]

Finally, one of the features of the OneVoice youth speaking tours is the showcasing of Israeli “moderates” alongside those from Palestine. The Israeli speakers, based on media reports and their own testimonies, do not appear to challenge the dominant colonial and racist Israeli institutions, paramount among which is the army. The army is a natural part of the landscape in the highly militarized society that is Israel, and the culture of violence, criminality and impunity that pervades the Israeli army is not considered remarkable. In the words of a senior youth leader, “[f]or 3 years I served as a tank commander and did so out of respect for my country, my family, and those we have lost. I am still in [sic] active in the reserves. It is difficult to find any soldier who would choose to connect with someone they once called an enemy. But as a representative of OneVoice Israel, this is exactly what I did. What I learned from this experience is that any soldier or policymaker around the world would benefit from an experience like this. If they did it would have a truly positive effect on the world.” [12]

This is not the first time that PACBI addresses the harmful normalization activities of OneVoice. In 2007, PACBI issued a call urging Palestinian and international artists and public figures not to participate in and be associated with a OneVoice-organized public event that was to be held concurrently in Jericho and Tel Aviv billed “A Million Voices,” “to mark the first time that massive numbers of Israelis and Palestinians gather simultaneously to unite against violent extremism.” The appeal, endorsed by tens of cultural and other civil society organizations in Palestine and the Arab World, called “on the Palestinian public and international supporters of a just peace in Palestine not to take part in this public relations charade that conceals a misleading political program that falls significantly short of international law tenets and the Palestinian national program.” [13] As a result of mass mobilization against this typical normalization event, it was canceled.

PACBI continues to appeal to Palestinians, especially youth and students, to carefully examine what OneVoice stands for, and to reject a deceptive political agenda that does not in any way address the minimum requirements for justice for Palestinians, and instead is aimed at shielding the Israeli system of apartheid.

PACBI supports the appeal issued by student councils and youth organizations in Palestine in commemoration of the anniversary of the Nakba in 2010. The appeal mentioned “Seeds of Peace, OneVoice, NIR School, IPCRI, Panorama, and others that specifically target Palestinian youth to engage them in dialog with Israelis without recognizing the inalienable rights of Palestinians, or aiming to end Israel’s occupation, colonization, and apartheid.” [14] It is indeed time to listen to the voice of Palestinians.

PACBI
www.PACBI.org
pacbi@pacbi.org

[1] http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/52
[2] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=869
[3] http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/2010/11/iep-spotlight-eliran-eyal-finds-partners-for-peace-on-the-palestinian-side.html
[4] http://press.onevoicemovement.org/2010/02/one-voice-looking-for-hope-in-an-endless-blame-game
[5] http://www.onevoicemovement.org/about-onevoice
[6] http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/2010/11/iep-spotlight-mohammad-asideh-devotes-civic-service-to-palestines-future-generations.html
[7] http://www.onevoicemovement.org/Imagine2018Temp/index2.php
[8] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1108 and http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1047
[9] http://www.onevoicemovement.org/programs/onevoice-europe.php
[10] http://www.onevoicemovement.org/programs/onevoice-europe.php
[11] http://press.onevoicemovement.org/2010/02/onevoice-makes-itself-heard-for-peace
[12] http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/2010/12/traveling-to-the-united-states-and-speaking-on-the-onevoice-international-education-program-tour-with-mohammad-asideh-was.html
[13] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=612&key=million%20voices
[14] http://pyan48.wordpress.com


PACBI-Listen to Our Voice!

palestinefreevoice: The British Foreign Policy towards the Palestinian Issue with Special Reference to Resolution 242

December 31, 2010

The British Foreign Policy towards the Palestinian Issue with Special Reference to Resolution 242



by John McHugo

This document was presented by Mr. John McHugo at the Conference on "The Eurpean Foreign Policy towards the Palestinian Issue" that was held by Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations in Beirut, on 3-4/11/2010

The Balfour Declaration

Britain has had a longer involvement with the Palestine issue than any other Western country, going back to the Balfour Declaration. This is not a history lecture, and I take a background in the basic history of the Palestinian issue for granted when addressing this distinguished audience, but I would like to begin by drawing attention to a certain vagueness, an imprecision, in that specifically British document: the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

The Declaration begins by stating that “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object....” It then continues with a safeguard: “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...”

The single sentence that makes up the declaration is stuffed full of ambiguity and a lack of clarity. “Palestine” is not defined, and there was no single Turkish administrative unit or group of administrative units that could be said to unambiguously constitute “Palestine” in 1917. “Palestine” is therefore unclear. It is also unclear whether the intention is that the declaration should apply to the whole of “Palestine” or just a part of it. Perhaps even more crucially, it did not say what it meant by “a Jewish national home”. Note that it did not say “the Jewish national home”.

The words “national” and “home” are not spelled with capital letters, so there is no reason why it should not just have been referring to one of several “Jewish national homes”. Another element of lack of clarity is introduced by “the Jewish people”. Note also that, once again, there is no capital letter before the noun “people”.

Did Balfour mean by his “national home” for the Jewish people a sovereign, independent State? This is far from clear from the text of the Declaration itself, and at least one key British official, Sir Ronald Storrs, was able to delude himself that a sovereign Jewish State was “just the idea of a few extremists” among the Zionists. One could indeed argue that the safeguard in the Declaration “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” might suggest a Jewish sovereign state was never intended.

Constructive Ambiguity

Nevertheless, we all know that the establishment of a predominantly or exclusively Jewish State was always the intention of the Zionist leadership. The lack of clarity in the Balfour Declaration gave them an open door at which they could push. Perhaps, over half a century before Henry Kissinger, it was a case of so-called constructive ambiguity.
The idea behind constructive ambiguity is that wording is agreed that will allow each party to maintain a position which is incompatible with that of the other party. Each party’s face is thus saved for the time being, and – if we are optimistic - perhaps other points of disagreement will be resolved, thus defusing the contentious issue. It may even happen that the importance of the contentious issue will diminish with the passage of time, and it will become irrelevant.

Nevertheless, the risks are great: hopes that the contentious issue will be subsequently resolved may be dashed, and these shattered hopes may cause the acrimonious breakdown of negotiations. Each party may become more entrenched in its own view of the contentious issue as time passes, which may make a resumption of serious negotiations harder. Even worse, constructive ambiguity can lead to perceptions of bad faith and a breakdown in trust between negotiators.

I came across a case in which this happened when I was working on the boundaries between two Gulf states. A no doubt well-meaning but slightly devious and not very intelligent British political officer brokered an agreement between two rulers. This agreement was written in 1944 - again, well before Henry Kissinger, the arch-practitioner of “constructive ambiguity”. It was an agreement for a return to a status quo ante, with neither party accepting the claims of the other. It was a disaster, and led to a breakdown of trust and much acrimony over the next two generations.

Resolution 242 as another example of constructive ambiguity

I will now fast forward to Resolution 242 and ask whether the same ambiguity and lack of clarity can be found in it as in the Balfour Declaration, because the question unfortunately needs to be posed: has Britain’s policy on the Palestine issue been tainted throughout with constructive ambiguity, and is Resolution 242, exactly half a century after the Balfour Declaration, another example of it? Certainly, 242 is frequently cited as an example of constructive ambiguity, and many discussions of constructive ambiguity, including the Wikipedia entry on the topic, begin with an examination of 242 as a case study.

My analysis of the text

Nevertheless, as some of you may know, I made the case some eight years ago in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly that 242 is a clear and unambiguous document. I will pause here to summarise the arguments I adduced in 2002:

(1) The crucial wording is the phrase “Withdrawal of Israel (sic) armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. Now the absence of the words “all” or “the” in front of “territories” does not mean that the words “some of the” should be supplied instead. To infer that less than total withdrawal was intended by this wording would establish a very dangerous precedent. In my article I suggested an imaginary notice: “Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park” as an example to prove my point. Common sense tells us that the notice applies to all dogs and to all ponds.

I still stand by my example, but you might like also to consider the wording of the armistice agreement that ended fighting on the western front at the end of the First World War. It is entitled “Conditions of an Armistice with Germany”. Article One reads as follows: “Cessation of hostilities on land and in the air six hours after the signature of the Armistice”. Did this mean “a complete cessation” or “a partial cessation”? Did it refer to “all land” or to “some land”? Did it refer to “all the air” or just “some of the air”? Could anyone seriously suggest it only intended a partial cessation of some, but not all, hostilities? Obviously, the answer to all these questions is “no”. The actual wording of the Withdrawal phrase in 242 does not, I submit, imply that a partial withdrawal is the intention. This is my first argument.

(2) My second argument is as follows. The wording of the Withdrawal phrase must be interpreted in the light of both the immediate context in which it occurs (the text of the Resolution when taken as a whole) and the less immediate context (the statements made in the Security Council debate and the battle of drafts in the history of the drafting process – the travaux prepratoires). Both contexts, I argue, support my interpretation. These statements and the travaux preparatoires make the intentions of the members of the Security Council clear, and my analysis passes the test contained in the rules of interpretation set out in Articles 30-3 of the 1969 Vienna Convention.

(3) My third argument is of a general nature. A clear interpretation -if it is possible to arrive at one- must be preferred over an ambiguous one. The Israeli interpretation was inherently ambiguous, but I believe that I showed conclusively that there was no need to reach an ambiguous interpretation since a clear interpretation was available. Therefore, it is wrong in principle to prefer the ambiguous interpretation.

In addition to these three arguments, which are really three limbs of one single argument, there was yet another argument set out in my article. This that the words “Withdrawal of Israel forces” refers to troop movements, nothing more. The question of territorial sovereignty is dealt with elsewhere in the Resolution, in the words “Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” which incorporate a provision of customary international law directly into the Resolution. This wording provides that Israel cannot acquire sovereignty over occupied territory by unilateral acts. It means that, even if Israel’s argument over the Withdrawal Phrase were sustainable, it would be irrelevant.

The lack of reaction

After my article appeared, I waited to see what the reaction would be. The article was well-received by some scholars, and the Negotiations Affairs Department of the PLO obtained permission from the publishers for it to be placed on their web-site. But did it lead to a debate? No, it did not. As this conference is about European policy – as well as British policy – you may be interested that in June 2007 the highly respected Konrad Adenauer Stiftung organised a conference in Jerusalem on Resolution 242 jointly with Dore Gold’s self-styled Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

It was an egregious Propagandafest, if you will excuse my language. There was no serious attempt to investigate what 242 really meant: it was an occasion for what I have called the Right-wing Israeli interpretation of the withdrawal provision in 242 to be celebrated and uncritically propagated to the world. Rather than attempt to deal with my arguments, the organisers of the conference ignored them.

Michael Lynk’s work

The Canadian scholar Michael Lynk revisited 242 in 2007 in his article Conceived in Law: the legal foundations of Resolution 242. He went into the question more thoroughly than I had done in 2002 and came to broadly the same conclusion as myself. He looks at the attempt by scholars favourable to the official Israeli position to argue that 242, “does not compel Israel to make more than a partial withdrawal from the captured territories; that the waging of a defensive or pre-emptive war does not force Israel to surrender the lands that it conquered; and that Israel’s occupation is legal until a final peace agreement establishes ‘secure and recognised borders’.”

His analysis of their work shows how these scholars who have attempted to give respectability to the Israeli position have only been able to do so “by cherry-picking the diplomatic record and diluting the liberal purposes of modern international law”. Like the speakers at the 2007 conference in Jerusalem, they can only do this by ignoring and refusing to engage with the arguments which their opponents – such as Lynk and myself – have produced. As Lynk has eloquently put it, “In all of the 1967 territories, Israel settled its civilians in state-subsidized colonies as a prelude to claiming permanent control and title over the lands, an act expressly forbidden by international law. Israel remains in deliberate non-compliance with a number of clearly expressed Security Council resolutions that flow from 242, including its annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and its civilian settlements in the occupied territories.

Viewed through this good faith requirement, Israel’s constricted interpretation and application of the withdrawal provision is less the product of a genuine and rationally-held (albeit minority) interpretation of international law, and more the disfigured reading of law to justify the deliberate evasion of legal responsibilities.”

I believe that my work and that of Lynk has shown that there is a real difference between the Balfour Declaration and 242. The latter is clear, the former is not.

Pushing at an open door

During the Mandate, the Zionist leadership used the text of the Balfour Declaration as an open door at which it could push. The ambiguities of the Declaration led to the acceptance by the Mandatory authorities that the Jewish Yishuv and the Palestinian Arabs should be treated as two separate peoples, to the first proposal for partition of Palestine by the Peel Commission in 1937, to the abandonment of the 1939 White Paper, to the UN partition resolution and ultimately to the establishment of the state of Israel. It was successful in gaining these advantages precisely because of the Declaration’s ambiguity.

Israel tries to do the same today with Resolution 242. It uses its interpretation to back up its propaganda campaign that it has the right to annex parts of the territories it occupied in 1967. The ambiguity which Israel claims to find in Resolution 242 thus lies behind its illegal annexation of Jerusalem, its sectarian settlement policy, its pillaging of the occupied territories of their resources, and its blatantly racist attempts to draw a distinction between the land of the territories and the indigenous people who inhabit it.

I strongly suspect that it is because of this alleged constructive ambiguity that Israel has agreed to the use of Resolution 242 as the basis of attempts to negotiate peace. Indeed, perhaps this is a successful example of “constructive ambiguity” in its true, if cynical, meaning. Thus, there is a special reference to 242 in the preamble to the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, while Article 1 of the Declaration of Principles between Israel and the PLO of 13 September 1993 begins by stating that the negotiations “will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338”. I strongly suspect that Israel was happy to accept the reference to 242 in the 1993 Declaration of Principles precisely because it believed this gave it an open door at which it could push.

When constructive ambiguity is not ambiguous

But, as has been shown above, the truth of the matter is that Resolution 242 is incapable of sustaining the Israeli interpretation. This brings us to two questions:

(1) What is the position when a party decides to rely on what it considers to be constructive ambiguity, but there is actually no constructive ambiguity in the case in question – or it subsequently transpires that it was mistaken in its view that there was constructive ambiguity?

(2) What is the position when that party relies on alleged constructive ambiguity for its own, self-seeking purposes, and is able to do so to the detriment of the other party because it is politically and militarily by far the stronger?

The answer to the first question is, I think, simple. If two parties to an agreement dispute its meaning and go to court – perhaps years after the agreement was signed – they are bound by the meaning which the court finds to be the right one, and must implement it. This is surely self-evident. A mistaken interpretation of Resolution 242 cannot be used by Israel to support policies which are unacceptable in terms of the text of the resolution, or under international law.

By arguing a position of ambiguity, and relying on its own interpretation of the ambiguity to the detriment of the other party, I would also suggest it should be precluded, or estopped, from denying the rights which the true meaning of the resolution accords to the other party.

We need to look more closely at the second question. The Zionist exploitation of the ambiguity in the Balfour Declaration was successful because the Zionists were the stronger party viz a viz the Palestinian Arabs, something that is amply demonstrated by their ability to bring greater influence to bring to bear on the conduct of the Mandatory power than the Palestinian Arabs, as well as by the Zionist successes in the fighting on the ground during the last six months of the Mandate.

The future state of Israel would be the beneficiary of all this. Now the fact that Israel is today a sovereign state for the purposes of international law, and the fact that the PLO has accepted the 1949 cease-fire lines in a manner that constitutes a waiver of Palestinian claims to sovereignty over the territory on the Israeli side of those lines, mean that the ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration is no longer of relevance in the search for a peace settlement.

But what about Resolution 242? If the Yishuv was the stronger party during the Mandate, how much more powerful is Israel compared to the Palestinians during the period from 1967 until today! In its attempts to use 242 as an open door at which it can push, Israel has been systematically abusing its position as an occupying power in international law.

Yet the Security Council, in its subsequent pronouncements, has left Israel no wiggle-room. The Resolutions condemning Israel’s purported annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights all re-iterate the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war – in other words, they are consistent with the interpretation of Resolution 242 which both Lynk and I have put forward, but not with that of Israel.

Although the provision in the Resolution which calls for every state in the area to have “the right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force” may lead to a renegotiation of boundaries, and some diplomats involved in negotiating Resolution 242 (including the British representative, Lord Caradon) subsequently stated that the old armistice lines needed adjustment, only adjustments which are on the basis of freely agreed territorial swaps would be consistent with Resolution 242.

British policy

This brings us, at last, to British policy. What is Britain’s position on Resolution 242? On two separate occasions in the Security Council debate Lord Caradon, stated that the wording was clear. He also implied (in his comments on the Latin American draft Resolution which expressly provided for a complete withdrawal) that he supported a complete withdrawal, and explicitly linked the withdrawal phrase with the emphasis on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war in the preamble, both of which provisions he regarded as “clear”.

On this basis, I felt confident stating in my ICLQ article that Britain was one of the ten members of the Security Council that went on the record to the effect that the Resolution gave Israel no right to acquire any of the territories it occupied in 1967. We must now ask, does subsequent British policy confirm this?

To answer this question, I searched under Resolution 242 on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s web-site, because I am well aware that all statements put on the web-site will have been carefully scrutinised to ensure that they reflect current government policy. I also looked at Dr Rosemary Hollis’ s study, Britain and the Middle East in the 9/11 Era, which was published this spring and deals with Britain’s policy towards the Peace Process, Iraq and other questions concerning the Middle East throughout the premiership of Tony Blair.

I found twenty-two references to Resolution 242 on the FCO web-site. They were all published on it during the period 2008-10 and are thus positions which the British government wishes to emphasise today, although some of them are statements by British ministers made on earlier occasions going back to 2002. Most of them need not detain us, and are merely statements to the effect that Resolution 242 is one of the foundations for a just peace, but without specifying what it provides.

Thus, David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, stated that Resolutions 242 and 338 provided “the agreed foundation for progress” at the Annapolis summit in 2007. Yet, interestingly, his predecessor, Jack Straw, stated at a reception in 2002 that a comprehensive settlement between Israel and Palestine should involve a two state solution “with borders based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338”, and the Israeli country profile on the web-site is adamant that the British government’s view is that the provisions concerning withdrawal of Israeli troops apply to East Jerusalem.

These seem to me to point to my interpretation of 242 being shared by the British government. Jack Straw did, however, spell this out a little more in the parliamentary debate before the vote was taken to invade Iraq on 26 February 2003. Trying to defend Britain against the charge of double standards over Palestine, he said:

“We deal with this charge, however, not by ignoring outstanding United Nations obligations, but working ever harder to see them all implemented. The key ones on Israel/Palestine – 242, 338, 1397 – impose obligations on three sets of parties, on the Palestinians to end terrorism, on the Arab countries to end the support of terrorism and to recognise the State of Israel, on Israel fully to cooperate in the establishment of a viable State of Palestine with borders broadly based on those of 1967...”[emphasis added]

Even more significant, is the report of an interview given by the British Consul-General in Jerusalem, Mr Barry Marston, to Al Quds newspaper on 30 May 2006 contains the following, highly significant statement in response to a question about settlements: “All settlements on the Palestinian territories are illegal. UN Resolution 242 calls for the dismantling of the settlements”.

Now you know as well as I do that the words “dismantle” and “settlements” do not occur in Resolution 242. What was Mr Marston referring to? It can only have been to the following position, which we are entitled to assume is that of the British government: Resolution 242 forbids the acquisition of territory by war. This therefore makes all the settlements automatically illegal, and Israel is under an obligation to dismantle them. No arguments brought on the basis of Israel’s spurious and dishonest interpretation of the Withdrawal phrase in 242 can affect this.

Conclusion

International humanitarian law, in the form of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, of course also prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory. Mr Marston could have referred to this provision if he had wished, and it would have given him sufficient authority for his assertion. But he chose instead to base his statement on Resolution 242.This can only have been intentional. It shows that the British Government’s policy is to uphold the clear and unambiguous effect of Resolution 242 which I have set out above. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the British Government could take just one more small step and say this in so many words?

_____________________________________

John McHugo is the chair of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine and a member of the Executive of the Council for Arab British Understanding (CAABU).

McHugo is, so far as I know, the only man to re-examine the actual UN debates on 242…a most elucidating paper…McHugo mischievously adds…’ – Robert Fisk, The Independent.
palestinefreevoice: The British Foreign Policy towards the Palestinian Issue with Special Reference to Resolution 242