Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 24 October 2006
In a frightening but long expected move, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has brought the Yisrael Beitenu party into his coalition government. The party's leader, Avigdor Lieberman, is to be vice prime minister and, as "Minister for Strategic Threats," a key member of Israel's "security cabinet" in charge of the Iran portfolio.
Yisrael Beitenu is a dangerous extremist party with fascist tendencies that has openly advocated the "transfer" of Palestinians, including the transfer of Arab towns within Israel to a Bantustan-like future Palestinian entity. It has made clear that a Jewish supremacist state is more important than a democratic one. The party, whose strongest base is among Russian immigrants brought to Israel in the 1990s, surged at the Israeli election earlier this year, taking eleven seats in Israel's 120 seat Knesset.
Last summer, Israel launched a disastrous war of destruction against Lebanon, and continues its siege and onslaught against Palestinians in the occupied territories which has killed nearly three hundred people in three months and left hundreds of thousands without sufficient food, water and electricity. Lieberman has advocated even more harsh and criminal measures against the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors.
It is dismaying that the European Union, a key international actor, seems set to maintain warm, normal relations with this extremist government, thus giving it encouragement and legitimacy.
"You will understand that we cannot interfere with the setting up of a foreign government. This is a matter for which the concerned State alone is responsible," wrote Cristina Gallach, the official spokesperson for Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for foreign policy, in an email responding to a query about whether the EU would impose sanctions on Israel if Yisrael Beitenu joined the government.
Gallach added that "We think that both Israel and the Palestinians are aware of the responsibility they have in creating the favorable conditions for reactivating the Peace Process with the ultimate goal of having two States living side by side in peace and security." Other than such bland and cynical platitudes, Solana's spokesperson offered no hint of EU concern about the horrifying political developments within Israel that are certain to bring about further violence, escalation and needless suffering.
In an interview with an Israeli newspaper in September, Yisrael Beitenu leader Lieberman said: "The vision I would like to see here is the entrenching of the Jewish and the Zionist state...I very much favour democracy, but when there is a contradiction between democratic and Jewish values, the Jewish and Zionist values are more important." (Scotsman, October 23, 2006)
In addition to espousing ethnic cleansing, Lieberman has a long history of inciting discrimination, hatred and violence against Palestinians within the Jewish state and living under Israeli military occupation in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. When he served as minister of transport in a previous government, Lieberman called for all Palestinian prisoners held by the Israeli occupation authorities to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses ("Lieberman blasted for suggesting drowning Palestinian prisoners," Ha'aretz, July 11, 2002). He has proposed to strip the citizenship of, and expel any Palestinian citizen of Israel who refuses to sign a loyalty oath to the Jewish Zionist state ("A Jewish demographic state," Ha'aretz, June 28, 2002).
In 2002, Lieberman declared, "I would not hesitate to send the Israeli army into all of Area A [the area of the West Bank ostensibly under Palestinian Authority control] for 48 hours. Destroy the foundation of all the authority's military infrastructure, all of the police buildings, the arsenals, all the posts of the security forces... not leave one stone on another. Destroy everything." He also suggested to the Israeli cabinet that the air force systematically bomb all the commercial centers, gas stations and banks in the occupied territories (The Independent, March 7, 2002). And, he has proposed bombing Egypt's Aswan Dam, despite that country's peace treaty with Israel since 1979. What will he propose to do to Iran?
Hebrew University professor Ze'ev Sternhell, a leading Israeli academic specialist on fascism and totalitarianism, was quoted by the Scotsman newspaper as terming Lieberman "perhaps the most dangerous politician in the history of the state of Israel."
Urgent action is needed to stem the growing threat to international peace and security that Israel presents. Rather than do anything of the kind, the office of the EU High Representative has set a new low standard, offering only appeasement and accommodation for Israeli extremism and apartheid. The claim that the EU does not interfere in the internal affairs of foreign governments is just a fig leaf for political cowardice and unwillingness to stand up to Israel or its backers; it is not remotely consistent with past or present practice in other cases.
Most glaringly, since Palestinians under occupation elected Hamas to lead the Palestinian Authority last January, in the Arab world's most free election ever, the EU has interfered in their affairs in the most irresponsible manner, imposing a total siege and cut off of aid that has directly penalized the Palestinian population, causing widespread hunger and deprivation. This siege is explicitly intended to force the Hamas-led authority to abandon the platform on which it was elected, or to force it out of office completely. (The EU claims it wants Hamas to recognize Israel and end violence, even though Hamas has observed a 22-month one-sided truce, halting attacks on Israel, and its leaders have issued repeated statements in favor of reaching a long-term agreement with Israel on the basis of equality and mutual, not one-sided, recognition.) The European Union, under Solana's personal stewardship, orchestrated this gross interference in the development of Palestinian democracy and punishment of those who tried to practice it.
And in 2000, EU countries took the unprecedented measure of imposing diplomatic sanctions on one of their own member states, Austria, after the far-right Freedom Party joined the government following elections. Although many voices criticized the EU for meddling in the internal affairs of a democratic country, one of the most vocal supporters of the sanctions was none other than Javier Solana, who on that occasion declared "I think Europe has given a very good example of how in important things -- things that have to go with principles, with values -- there's no possibility of compromise." ("Sanctions hit Austria," Reuters, February 4, 2000).
But when it comes to EU member states discharging their responsibilities to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violations of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the Fourth Geneva Convention, numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, and basic human decency, the principles that Solana and many powerful others are so proud to boast of are nowhere to be found.
In this moral and political vacuum, it is ever more urgent to heed the call of Palestinian civil society to join the growing global campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.
Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of "One Country - A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse" (Metropolitan Books, 2006)
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
HIS EMINENCE THE VERY REV. CHARLES J. EDGBASTON, D.D., Ph.D.
Dear Charles,
May God forgive you. For you know not what you do.
Angela
Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, Action Advocacy Officer
The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Jerusalem
"The people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs"
Arundhati Roy in The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire
Watch THE IRON WALL on google video at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4866316426876380615
-----Original Message-----
From: charles edgbaston [mailto:cedgbaston@hotmail.com]
Sent: 25 October 2006 04:03
To: angela@icahd.org
Subject: Your Attacks Against the People of Israel
To: Angela Godfey-Goldstein
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL SENTENCE
Madam:
The Terror Victims Support Center in Jerusalem has informed me that you are engaged in activities detrimental to the holy state of Israel and its holy Jewish people, violating the terms of your Israeli citizenship.
A review by our investigations department of the evidence submitted in your dossier clearly reveals that the views and actions you have adopted in collusion with the enemies of Israel are heinous, immoral and criminal. We have also taken note that as 200 Darfur African blacks are being daily slaughtered in apartheid Arab Sudan, such that this Palestinian-supported genocide has to date taken 250,000 lives, you prostitute yourself as a sycophant of the Palestinian Islamic terrorists, engaging in a smear campaign against Zionist Israel.
I want you to realize that your appalling behaviour is unforgivable. Zionist Israel is a revolutionary micro-state surrounded by 21 Arab countries dominated by a jihadist, imperialist culture seeking Islamic hegemony over the Middle East and beyond. Along with the Hamas Palestinian Authority, these Arab regimes daily oppress their populations and incite them to support their quest for the genocide of the Jews in their ancestral homeland. They have now been joined by the Persian imperialist Shi'ites of Iran and the Hezbollah imperialist Shi'ites of Lebanon in this goal.
Your active support of these fascists and their murderous agenda is a result of your absorption of the nefarious new left ideology which has hypnotized the effete intellectual classes into supporting the Islamic fundamentalists in the Holy Land and their terrorist masters in Damascus and Tehran. This is utterly revolting.
We have also found that you do not demonstrate any originality in your hideous assertions that the Arabs of the Land of Israel, who have conducted pogroms of extermination for three centuries against the native Jews of the Holy Land, are victims rather than aggressors. You merely parrot the sacrosanct mythology invented by the Arab League and recycled by the Palestinian Arab war criminals in Ramallah and Gaza.
Everyone knows that the homeland of the Arabs of Palestine is Arabia. In 638, they stole by force the Holy Land from the aboriginal Jews living there continuously since 1200 B.C. In quick order, they dispossessed the Jewish peasants that had tilled the land there from time immemorial and installed the worst apartheid regime the world has ever known against Jews and Christians. Untold thousands of Jews were massacred in Safed, Tiberias, Hebron and Jerusalem over the centuries by these barbarians. Indeed, the Arabs built their mosques on stolen Jewish land in Jerusalem where the two temples stood. Karl Marx reported on these atrocities in the 1850s. The Turkish and Syrian archives are overflowing with details of these genocidal massacres committed by the fellaheen Arabs of Palestine.
Furthermore, the remaining Jewish survivors, especially in Nablus, Gaza and Tulkarem became the objects of a wholesale ethnic cleansing campaign until the Western Powers intervened on their behalf. Finally, in collusion with the British imperialists during World War I, the Arabs were allowed to steal 78 per cent of the Holy Land and rename it Jordan, leaving the Jews with 22 per cent. In their war of aggression in 1947-8, the Palestinian Arabs militarily sought 100 per cent of the Holy Land but were repulsed by the virtually unarmed, gallant and successful Hebrew resistance fighters. However, the terrorist Arabs' goal to this day remains a land grab of 100 per cent of the Land of Israel.
In addition, the brutal Arab population of the Holy Land convinced their brethren in the nearly two dozen other Arab countries to massacre and ethnically cleanse their lands of Jewish inhabitants who lived there before the Arabs ever came on the scene -- nearly a million Jews were brutally tortured and expelled from their homes in Yemen, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon and Bahrain. These refugees were never compensated and the right of return was denied to them.
In light of the above, it is therefore concluded that the "facts" you adduce to justify the terrorist atrocities committed against the Jews of Israel by the maniacal Palestinian Arabs are patently fictitious and malicious fabrications. Israel never seized Palestinian-owned land as you claim. It was owned by Jordan and Egypt, Great Britain, and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire all of whom forfeited the land either due to defeat in wars of aggression against Israel or as a result of the Versailles Peace settlement of 1919. Palestine had been left desolate by the Arab Bedouin marauders and was a malarial swamp until the Jews bought properties and drained them. When that happened, thousands of Arabs flocked to Palestine from the Hauran and Egypt to cash in on the booming economy of the early 1900s.
Further example: Your assertion that Israel maintains an illegal occupation is baseless. The United Nations has affirmed that Israel is in conformity with the international law of legal occupation following a war of self defence. And, most of the occupied territories it once held have been retroceded in peace treaties which the Zionist state negotiated with the Arab states of Egypt and Jordan. The violent Arab population of Palestine, unfortunately, is not interested in peace. It is solely interested in murdering every Jew and Christian in the Holy Land. Having just returned from Samaria and Gaza, our parishioners have seen with their own eyes how the Palestinian Arabs savagely desecrated and demolished the Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches there as well as the Qalqilya YMCA because their imams incited them against Pope Benedict. The Palestinian Christian underground can no longer bear the racist apartheid policies of its Muslim neighbours and will be forced into taking extreme measures, unless groups such as yours change their focus and help the real underdogs in the Holy Land. Neither Jews nor Christians can stand idly by while the Palestinian Arabs Islamicize the Holy Land, particularly by erasing the Christian presence and destroying ancient Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount and demolishing Jewish holy shrines such as Joseph's Tomb in Nablus and the Jericho Synagogue. How utterly depraved their violence is in light of the explicit injunction of Allah in the Koran that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews.
Demolition of the Palestinian hate structure provides the only context for Jew and Arab to live together on the basis of peace, equality and harmony. The model for this are the 1.2 million Palestinian Arabs holding Israeli citizenship who live and work in Israel and enjoy the highest living standards and the highest level of civil liberties in the Arab and Muslim worlds. They did not succumb to the bloodthirsty incitement by the five Arab invading states in 1948 to wage war against the Jews of reborn Israel. Nor do they today wage an unremitting terrorist war as their brethren do to demolish the men, women and children of holy Israel. In this regard, it is evident that the Palestinian Arabs cannot even live in peace with themselves as they have reverted to their traditional clan loyalties and engage in killing each other. This is not an angelic people meriting the misplaced sympathies of disoriented outsiders such as yourself. You have failed them by not providing the tough love necessary to bring them to sanity.
The checkpoints and separation wall established by Israel are the minimal requirements necessary to protect the human right to life of Israelis against the audacious suicide terrorist bombers indoctrinated by the Palestinian Arab culture. Checkpoints are in place in every civilized country at airports, border crossings and university campuses against terrorists. Separation walls are now being erected by America against Mexico, by Saudi Arabia against Iraq, and by India against Kashmir. International law also authorizes demolition of houses used by combatants.
Truly progressive forces the world over understand that the fanatic Palestinian Arabs are a key component of Islamic imperialism, which today is waging a global war to reconquer and recolonize the world it once occupied by the sword. These forces also vigorously support the international community's boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign aimed at the Hamas Palestinian entity for its continuing war crimes carried out from Gaza and other international humanitarian law violations.
It is also worth noting that the vast majority of the world's Jewish community has chosen to live in Israel. The Jewish population of Israel is today larger than America's entire Jewish population. And, the UK's and Europe's Jewish population are rapidly making their way there too because it provides a society of joy and fulfilment to each and every Jew.
After Auschwitz and the numerous other Second World War Holocaust concentration camps, no person on this earth is permitted to calumniate the holy Jewish people and their land with impunity. The holy Jewish people will never again be martyred by bestial fanatics wherever they may reside or whatever title they carry or whatever gender they proclaim. Persons like you that willingly serve as apologists for Palestinian fascism cannot escape responsibility for complicity in war crimes.
On the basis of the above evidence, it is my solemn duty to inform you that our ecclesiastical court has issued an edict inscribing you as a SLANDERER OF ZION and an ENEMY OF HOLY ISRAEL.
This means that our disciples are hereby empowered to facilitate your exit from the Holy Land. An application will be made to the Israeli authorities to have your passport cancelled and your Israeli citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism. The American and UK governments will be requested to declare you persona non grata and deny you entry to their countries. Given your unseemly cavorting with the enemies of peace, you will also be placed under a long-term monitoring program to track your activities. This indictment will be published in the British, Irish and American print media and your family and colleagues will be so informed.
This sentence is a Category One certification, indicating the utmost severity of your actions. It is accompanied by the Old Testament verse found in Genesis 12:3 in which the Lord says of the Jews:
" I will bless those who bless you
I will curse those that curse you
All the nations of the world
Shall be blessed through you."
May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Son of Mary, have mercy upon you.
You may wish to exercise your right to have this decree set aside. In such case, you are invited to submit a notarized affidavit renouncing your calumnies and activities against the holy Jewish state, circulating a statement of support for the victory of the holy Jewish people in the Holy Land against their enemies to all your affiliated organizations and publishing it in the media, both online and offline, and paying our court costs of $US 2900.
* His Eminence The Very Rev. Charles J. Edgbaston, D.D., Ph.D.
Chair, Christians for Moses Inc. and
Rector, Zion College of Canada, Penticton, B.C.
* Author:
Christians and Jews Under Arab Apartheid Policies in Conquered Palestine
The Arab Usurpation of the Holy Land
Three Centuries of Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine
A History of Palestinian Arab War Crimes, 1920 - 2003
Mufti: The Nazi Collaboration of the Palestinian Arabs (forthcoming)
May God forgive you. For you know not what you do.
Angela
Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, Action Advocacy Officer
The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Jerusalem
"The people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs"
Arundhati Roy in The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire
Watch THE IRON WALL on google video at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4866316426876380615
-----Original Message-----
From: charles edgbaston [mailto:cedgbaston@hotmail.com]
Sent: 25 October 2006 04:03
To: angela@icahd.org
Subject: Your Attacks Against the People of Israel
To: Angela Godfey-Goldstein
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL SENTENCE
Madam:
The Terror Victims Support Center in Jerusalem has informed me that you are engaged in activities detrimental to the holy state of Israel and its holy Jewish people, violating the terms of your Israeli citizenship.
A review by our investigations department of the evidence submitted in your dossier clearly reveals that the views and actions you have adopted in collusion with the enemies of Israel are heinous, immoral and criminal. We have also taken note that as 200 Darfur African blacks are being daily slaughtered in apartheid Arab Sudan, such that this Palestinian-supported genocide has to date taken 250,000 lives, you prostitute yourself as a sycophant of the Palestinian Islamic terrorists, engaging in a smear campaign against Zionist Israel.
I want you to realize that your appalling behaviour is unforgivable. Zionist Israel is a revolutionary micro-state surrounded by 21 Arab countries dominated by a jihadist, imperialist culture seeking Islamic hegemony over the Middle East and beyond. Along with the Hamas Palestinian Authority, these Arab regimes daily oppress their populations and incite them to support their quest for the genocide of the Jews in their ancestral homeland. They have now been joined by the Persian imperialist Shi'ites of Iran and the Hezbollah imperialist Shi'ites of Lebanon in this goal.
Your active support of these fascists and their murderous agenda is a result of your absorption of the nefarious new left ideology which has hypnotized the effete intellectual classes into supporting the Islamic fundamentalists in the Holy Land and their terrorist masters in Damascus and Tehran. This is utterly revolting.
We have also found that you do not demonstrate any originality in your hideous assertions that the Arabs of the Land of Israel, who have conducted pogroms of extermination for three centuries against the native Jews of the Holy Land, are victims rather than aggressors. You merely parrot the sacrosanct mythology invented by the Arab League and recycled by the Palestinian Arab war criminals in Ramallah and Gaza.
Everyone knows that the homeland of the Arabs of Palestine is Arabia. In 638, they stole by force the Holy Land from the aboriginal Jews living there continuously since 1200 B.C. In quick order, they dispossessed the Jewish peasants that had tilled the land there from time immemorial and installed the worst apartheid regime the world has ever known against Jews and Christians. Untold thousands of Jews were massacred in Safed, Tiberias, Hebron and Jerusalem over the centuries by these barbarians. Indeed, the Arabs built their mosques on stolen Jewish land in Jerusalem where the two temples stood. Karl Marx reported on these atrocities in the 1850s. The Turkish and Syrian archives are overflowing with details of these genocidal massacres committed by the fellaheen Arabs of Palestine.
Furthermore, the remaining Jewish survivors, especially in Nablus, Gaza and Tulkarem became the objects of a wholesale ethnic cleansing campaign until the Western Powers intervened on their behalf. Finally, in collusion with the British imperialists during World War I, the Arabs were allowed to steal 78 per cent of the Holy Land and rename it Jordan, leaving the Jews with 22 per cent. In their war of aggression in 1947-8, the Palestinian Arabs militarily sought 100 per cent of the Holy Land but were repulsed by the virtually unarmed, gallant and successful Hebrew resistance fighters. However, the terrorist Arabs' goal to this day remains a land grab of 100 per cent of the Land of Israel.
In addition, the brutal Arab population of the Holy Land convinced their brethren in the nearly two dozen other Arab countries to massacre and ethnically cleanse their lands of Jewish inhabitants who lived there before the Arabs ever came on the scene -- nearly a million Jews were brutally tortured and expelled from their homes in Yemen, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon and Bahrain. These refugees were never compensated and the right of return was denied to them.
In light of the above, it is therefore concluded that the "facts" you adduce to justify the terrorist atrocities committed against the Jews of Israel by the maniacal Palestinian Arabs are patently fictitious and malicious fabrications. Israel never seized Palestinian-owned land as you claim. It was owned by Jordan and Egypt, Great Britain, and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire all of whom forfeited the land either due to defeat in wars of aggression against Israel or as a result of the Versailles Peace settlement of 1919. Palestine had been left desolate by the Arab Bedouin marauders and was a malarial swamp until the Jews bought properties and drained them. When that happened, thousands of Arabs flocked to Palestine from the Hauran and Egypt to cash in on the booming economy of the early 1900s.
Further example: Your assertion that Israel maintains an illegal occupation is baseless. The United Nations has affirmed that Israel is in conformity with the international law of legal occupation following a war of self defence. And, most of the occupied territories it once held have been retroceded in peace treaties which the Zionist state negotiated with the Arab states of Egypt and Jordan. The violent Arab population of Palestine, unfortunately, is not interested in peace. It is solely interested in murdering every Jew and Christian in the Holy Land. Having just returned from Samaria and Gaza, our parishioners have seen with their own eyes how the Palestinian Arabs savagely desecrated and demolished the Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches there as well as the Qalqilya YMCA because their imams incited them against Pope Benedict. The Palestinian Christian underground can no longer bear the racist apartheid policies of its Muslim neighbours and will be forced into taking extreme measures, unless groups such as yours change their focus and help the real underdogs in the Holy Land. Neither Jews nor Christians can stand idly by while the Palestinian Arabs Islamicize the Holy Land, particularly by erasing the Christian presence and destroying ancient Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount and demolishing Jewish holy shrines such as Joseph's Tomb in Nablus and the Jericho Synagogue. How utterly depraved their violence is in light of the explicit injunction of Allah in the Koran that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews.
Demolition of the Palestinian hate structure provides the only context for Jew and Arab to live together on the basis of peace, equality and harmony. The model for this are the 1.2 million Palestinian Arabs holding Israeli citizenship who live and work in Israel and enjoy the highest living standards and the highest level of civil liberties in the Arab and Muslim worlds. They did not succumb to the bloodthirsty incitement by the five Arab invading states in 1948 to wage war against the Jews of reborn Israel. Nor do they today wage an unremitting terrorist war as their brethren do to demolish the men, women and children of holy Israel. In this regard, it is evident that the Palestinian Arabs cannot even live in peace with themselves as they have reverted to their traditional clan loyalties and engage in killing each other. This is not an angelic people meriting the misplaced sympathies of disoriented outsiders such as yourself. You have failed them by not providing the tough love necessary to bring them to sanity.
The checkpoints and separation wall established by Israel are the minimal requirements necessary to protect the human right to life of Israelis against the audacious suicide terrorist bombers indoctrinated by the Palestinian Arab culture. Checkpoints are in place in every civilized country at airports, border crossings and university campuses against terrorists. Separation walls are now being erected by America against Mexico, by Saudi Arabia against Iraq, and by India against Kashmir. International law also authorizes demolition of houses used by combatants.
Truly progressive forces the world over understand that the fanatic Palestinian Arabs are a key component of Islamic imperialism, which today is waging a global war to reconquer and recolonize the world it once occupied by the sword. These forces also vigorously support the international community's boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign aimed at the Hamas Palestinian entity for its continuing war crimes carried out from Gaza and other international humanitarian law violations.
It is also worth noting that the vast majority of the world's Jewish community has chosen to live in Israel. The Jewish population of Israel is today larger than America's entire Jewish population. And, the UK's and Europe's Jewish population are rapidly making their way there too because it provides a society of joy and fulfilment to each and every Jew.
After Auschwitz and the numerous other Second World War Holocaust concentration camps, no person on this earth is permitted to calumniate the holy Jewish people and their land with impunity. The holy Jewish people will never again be martyred by bestial fanatics wherever they may reside or whatever title they carry or whatever gender they proclaim. Persons like you that willingly serve as apologists for Palestinian fascism cannot escape responsibility for complicity in war crimes.
On the basis of the above evidence, it is my solemn duty to inform you that our ecclesiastical court has issued an edict inscribing you as a SLANDERER OF ZION and an ENEMY OF HOLY ISRAEL.
This means that our disciples are hereby empowered to facilitate your exit from the Holy Land. An application will be made to the Israeli authorities to have your passport cancelled and your Israeli citizenship revoked for supporting terrorism. The American and UK governments will be requested to declare you persona non grata and deny you entry to their countries. Given your unseemly cavorting with the enemies of peace, you will also be placed under a long-term monitoring program to track your activities. This indictment will be published in the British, Irish and American print media and your family and colleagues will be so informed.
This sentence is a Category One certification, indicating the utmost severity of your actions. It is accompanied by the Old Testament verse found in Genesis 12:3 in which the Lord says of the Jews:
" I will bless those who bless you
I will curse those that curse you
All the nations of the world
Shall be blessed through you."
May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Son of Mary, have mercy upon you.
You may wish to exercise your right to have this decree set aside. In such case, you are invited to submit a notarized affidavit renouncing your calumnies and activities against the holy Jewish state, circulating a statement of support for the victory of the holy Jewish people in the Holy Land against their enemies to all your affiliated organizations and publishing it in the media, both online and offline, and paying our court costs of $US 2900.
* His Eminence The Very Rev. Charles J. Edgbaston, D.D., Ph.D.
Chair, Christians for Moses Inc. and
Rector, Zion College of Canada, Penticton, B.C.
* Author:
Christians and Jews Under Arab Apartheid Policies in Conquered Palestine
The Arab Usurpation of the Holy Land
Three Centuries of Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine
A History of Palestinian Arab War Crimes, 1920 - 2003
Mufti: The Nazi Collaboration of the Palestinian Arabs (forthcoming)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
ABU MUSA
As Israel continues its harsh sanctions in the Territories, boycott of Hamas and withholding of Palestinian tax monies, it also denies responsibility for those under its occupation. This criminal negligence under the Geneva Convention is all too obvious. Take the hospitals. Take Abu Musa Jahalin. Take today at Hadassah Mount Scopus Emergency Room. It was chaos.
The doctors aren’t coping. They can’t cope. They’re turning away people who don’t have money for treatment (most Palestinians don’t have work or income by now). They’re turning them away, sometimes to die. Which is against the Hippocratic Oath: “Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice. I will keep them from harm and injustice. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” Oh pity the doctors of Hadassah Mount Scopus and Hadassah Ein Karem. More and more are volunteering on days off as volunteers with Physicians for Human Rights in the OPT. Putting fingers in dykes to stop the flood. Putting out small fires, as pyromaniacs run around with flamethrowers setting forests ablaze.
Abu Musa had to go back to his shack, under threat of demolition and ethnic transfer by the Wall and army (the very un-Civil Administration!), to find 20,000 shekels for treatment. If he does, he can go back and try to save his leg and life. Then start saving $15,000 for a back operation he hasn’t been able to afford to undertake for the past 2 years, without which he won’t get back on his legs -- if one hasn’t had to be amputated by then. He’s only 52. His heart is starting to go. Wouldn’t yours?
Yet again, innocent civilians are caught up in megapolitics: Jimmy Carter, who knows the situation better than most and is the only person to have brokered an Arab-Israeli peace, says Israel’s current policy in the territories is “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” In a separate passage in his new book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, the former president says “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.” Carter also aims at the “pro-Israel” lobby: “Because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned.”
Writing in The Forward, Jennifer Siegel quotes Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat leading House Democrat efforts to woo Jewish voters and donors. “The reason for the Palestinian plight is the Palestinians. Their leadership has no regard for the quality of life for their people and no capability of providing security or enforcing peace, and they have no one to blame but themselves.” Explain this to Abu Musa and look him in the eyes with his death sentence.
Abu Musa was told long ago by an Israeli professor that he needed an operation on his back. Having been badly beaten by Israeli Border Police, when homes – tin and cardboard shacks -- were bulldozed on his hillside. Those shattered places in his body are returning now to haunt him. He hasn’t walked for months. All muscles in his legs have gone. He’s down to 36 kilos, a wasted shell. The wounds are going septic; amputation a possibility. Not having money to stay in the Emergency Room, now he’s in sleepless pain in the tin hut on the hill. Makassed, a Palestinian hospital in Jerusalem, is so de-developed, so dried up, they say it’s dangerous.
Abu Musa is mukhtar (leader) of a group of Negev refugees dumped in the West Bank by Israel in the Fifties, when they were driven off their own land. As a West Bank ID holder, he can’t go home and certainly can’t be free in any way, even though freedom for Bedouin is their most sacred value. He can’t even go into nearby Jerusalem, to pray or work or seek a doctor or a hospital – an Israeli smuggled him in this time (a hospital security guard tried to evict him!).. Settlement expansion pushes his people into ever tighter ghettoes. The Wall slices through the area; a huge new police base occupies the next hill.
If we can’t raise the shekels Israel should be responsible for, as occupying power, thoughts of Abu Musa’s future are pure theory. (And as to global warming warnings, they imply a need for specialists in desert survival, so a day will probably come when we’ll regret this folly of shortsightedness, as we deculture indigenous people and “civilize” them…)
Please help.
Money may be sent to the following account which has been set up specifically:
First International Bank (031),
Talpiot Branch (074),
A/c 309893
Account holder: Angela Godfrey
SWIFT: FIRBILITXXX
Cheques may also be sent to:
Angela Godfrey
POB 10039,
Geulim,
Jerusalem 91100.
Please email notice of cheques posted or transferred to me
angela@icahd.org
Thank you.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
The Lebanon conflict – Precursor to War or Peace ?
by Prof Paul E M Reynolds
The recent escalation of the ‘Middle East conflict’ in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel may or may not provide an opportunity for a final settlement and peace. It depends on your interpretation of events. At the very least in order to save lives in the short term, it is worth considering how to make the ‘peace opportunity’ more likely to be pursued - and subsequently successful.
At one point on the compass you have the official Israel-USA version; a terrorist organization having usurped territory in Southern Lebanon, attacks an Israeli border post and captures two Israeli soldiers, and then fires hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Israel, using its right to defend itself, attacks Hizbullah assets, fighters and Lebanese-Hizbullah ‘re-supply’ infrastructure. To all intents & purposes, Israel defeats the terrorists and agrees a Lebanon-UN military force for Southern Lebanon to ensure the terrorists cannot operate in the same way again. Israeli attacks against Gaza and armed Hamas fighters, are similarly intended to prevent rocket attacks and defeat Hamas militarily.
Under this version of events, a negotiated peace is more likely if such terrorists are defeated and Israel feels more secure – and indeed if other security measures such as the wall between Israel and the Occupied Territories (OT), and continued partial Israeli withdrawal from the OT, are completed. An Israeli-supervised peace in the OT will enable implementation of the Two State Solution, whilst keeping Israel secure, and marginalize terrorist groups and their Syrian & Iranian backers, politically and militarily. In the background in this version is the implicit military threat from both Israel and the USA against Syria and especially Iran. Also implicit is that some political regimes in the region are implacably adversarial & undemocratic and reliant on the Palestinian conflict for their ‘popular legitimacy’, thus unwilling to be genuine partners in a peace process.
A second point on the compass has Israel and the USA as partners in a long military war against the Islamic world, with the USA funding aggression against Palestine and now Lebanon, as a way of keeping the Middle East cowed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of this process, as is the role of the USA against the Islamic Courts militias in Somalia, and US pressure on Iran over nuclear enrichment. The US ‘approved’ the Israeli attacks on Lebanon because any (planned) military attacks on Iran by the USA and Israel, would bring retaliatory action from Iranian-controlled Hizbullah against Israel. The Israeli attacks on Gaza - and both the Wall and lack of contiguous Palestinian territory in the West Bank – are part of a plan to encourage Palestinians to leave the OT altogether, prior to the expulsion of non-Jews from Israel. The only response for Moslem nations is a military one, and peace will come from a probable military stalemate arising from an asymmetric war, where, as with Hizbullah recently, the Israelis are in reality defeated.
At a further point on the compass is the version of events that describes Hizbullah as a local uprising formed only a year after the earlier Israeli invasion to resist and expel the Israeli military from Lebanon – which was eventually successful in 2000. Former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, a military man, having experienced the previous defeat in Lebanon, had been wary of a full-blown conflict with Hizbullah since 2000, and small-scale skirmishes and border raids were thus ‘tolerated’ and prisoners sometimes exchanged. However, in July 2006 Prime Minister Olmert, not being a military man, was unable to resist Israeli military demands for a ‘re-match’ against Hizbullah, triggered by the next border skirmish. Olmert’s position was weakened by the Israeli military being headed by an Air Force man, who proposed an air war which would avoid the pre-2000 problems on the ground experienced by the Israeli army. When the latest border skirmish happened the Israeli Air Force’s plan was put into effect. However, in the intervening 6 years since 2000, Hizbullah’s political and military strength (and local popularity) increased, based on their success in defeating Israel. Seeing a ‘re-match’ as an inevitability, and able to collect funds and technical support from many countries, Hizbullah were well prepared against the ground invasion, that would inevitably follow a failure to defeat Hizbullah with air power alone. They were also able to add a key negotiating factor to parallel the might of the Israeli Air Force - a large stockpile of medium-range rockets fired into Israel, as well as at Israeli tanks.
In this version of events, Israel’s military credibility has been fatally dented by two defeats, and given the panic re-supply of munitions from the USA to Israel (via the UK), the credibility of the USA has been dented too – to add to the defeat of the USA in Iraq. Thus peace will come from a humbled Israel - more willing to negotiate over Palestine and to help create a viable Palestinian state, ending the current ‘strangulation’ approach to the Two State Solution. This version also describes a strengthened Iran and Mid East Shia community, following events in Iraq, since Hizbullah is largely Shia.
In order to achieve peace in the region however, somehow these different versions of events, and other versions like them, must be reconciled. There is a small time-window over the coming months to remake the path to peace.
Following the recent conflict, reconciling these different versions of the truth is difficult but not impossible. The obstacles are deep-rooted and enormously complex – but understanding them is uncomfortably necessary.
First there is the ‘victory mentality’ which has evolved over years of attrition. Any ‘peace settlement’ must now be seen in Israel as a ‘victory’. The current US Presidency has fuelled this with its amorphous political device ‘the War on Terror’. This mentality in effect ‘created’ the recent disastrous Lebanon debacle. Syria, Iran and popular street culture in Iran and many Arab states yearn for a ‘victory’ against Israel, reflected in the absurd ‘celebrations’ of a perceived Hizbullah military victory in Southern Lebanon. Overcoming the ‘victory mentality’ requires enormous political courage amongst world and regional leaders, the US, Iran and Syria included.
Second, there is the way in which long conflicts create a life of their own. Kosovo, Southern Sudan, Chechnya, and DRC are all examples. Israel receives billions of dollars in fund flows from the USA for civilian projects, many of them unhelpful to peace efforts. In addition, the sheer size of US military support and hardware shipments has a major effect on Israeli politics and real-politik power in Israeli civilian life. This can be seen in the legal position of the Israeli military with respect to Arab house demolitions in the Naqab Desert. Similarly, many conduits for munitions and social projects in and around the Occupied Palestinian Territories create a major ‘industry’ which make many Arab nationals particularly affluent. Those that benefit from peace in the Mid East – the mass of the population – have weak voices relative to the politically influential and economically power conflict-fed elites that have emerged. Political Arab nationalism is a useful tool for creating ‘legitimacy’, especially in Syria and Iran. Regimes from Iraq to the Western Maghreb play the Palestine card when they need to extract themselves from political hot water.
Third, a major obstacle to the achievement of peace is the dependence on fallible ‘world leaders’ in roles both as intermediaries between competing domestic political factions and in their role as ‘communicators’ to their populations and the world at large. World leaders involved in the conflict have not toured South Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Territories or understood local realities. They are dependent on competing military and foreign policy experts for information, most of which do not know the realities on the ground either. This gives opportunities for kleptocratic elites in the region to promote their self-serving versions of events and history. Achieving peace however requires acceptance by political leaders on all sides of some very uncomfortable truths.
The role of the USA in achieving peace has undoubtedly been weakened by their unquestioning support for Israel over the last 6 weeks. From the absence of a call for ceasefire or even restraint, to the branding of Hizbullah as terrorists, and the statement that Hizbullah has been ‘defeated’, the US has given the impression that the USA’s current regime is now following Israeli policy rather than using its clout to ensure peace. Its role as a potential ‘honest broker’ has potentially been fatally wounded. The question hangs in the air – who will ‘achieve’ peace ? It is now likely to be the EU and the new group of countries that will comprise the UN force in Lebanon.
But still there are uncomfortable realities, which require recognition as part of the equation if a new path to peace is to be established.
One is that it is likely that a key driver of the recent conflict in Lebanon and Israel was the rapid emergence of the prospects of a new path to peace during May and June this year. The conciliatory Hamas ‘Prisoner Statement’, finally accepted by the Hamas government only days before the attack on Lebanon, implied Hamas’ acceptance of the right of Israel to exist, highly worrisome for Syria and to an extent the Syrian wing of Hamas. This was also alarming for the Iranian regime which had gained a measure of mass support in the Arab world for its call for the dissolution of a ‘Jewish State’, inter alia. It would have been peace without a ‘victory’.
In parallel, parts of the Israeli military were horrified and somewhat wrong-footed by the Prisoner Statement. Worse for them were the discussions in Beirut in April, May & June this year for the implementation of UN resolutions in Lebanon, by the integration of Hizbullah into the regular armed forces, following the exit of most of the Syrian military earlier this year. A strong Lebanese army with Hizbullah included, but Syria excluded, was a perceived political and military threat for Israel, and indeed very discomforting for Syria too.
A further uncomfortable truth is the reality of progress toward the Two State Solution in the Occupied Territories, on the ground. A Hamas/Olmert-led peace would have forced this out in the open. Heavily influenced by a politically powerful Israeli military and security sector, the Israeli wall/barrier inside the Occupied Territories has created prison-like enclaves around places like Bethlehem and parts of Jerusalem, and has effectively annexed parts of the West Bank, east of Jerusalem, where local houses have been summarily demolished. The problems have been compounded by an Israeli motorway and road tunnel network in the West Bank, (on which Palestinian access is restricted), which have enclave effects and severely reduce ‘Two State’ viability. It is very unlikely that Western political leaders have sufficient awareness of these uncomfortable outcomes, and undoubtedly progress towards a peaceful ‘Two State’ settlement would create the need to reveal and address these physical viability obstacles for a Palestinian state - obstacles created by Israel with US dollars.
It is also uncomfortable for Iran and for political Islam more generally that Palestinian politics is a three-way fight between Islamists, secular-socialists mirroring undemocratic regimes in the region (often Moscow-educated ex-Tunis old school Palestinians – the ‘kleptocrats’ as some say), and the more liberal ‘European’ Palestinians. The more ‘European’ liberal Palestinian leaders broadly are those who remained in Palestine over the last 25 years and have much in common with the current Lebanese Government. There is much that is European about Palestinian society, and it is a fact that extreme Islam is not universally popular. The reality is that Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because of their religious fervour. They voted for Hamas because they were focused on direct benefits and communal services for their populations.
They also voted for Hamas because of perceptions that Fatah was a kleptocratic elite interested in using the mechanisms of state for self-enrichment and ‘party enrichment’, more than benefits for the populace - in the old model of Syria, Egypt, Iran and other states in the region.
The 3-way battle in Palestinian politics cuts across religious lines, and as uncomfortable as it is for both the US and for Political Islam, large numbers of Palestinian Christians voted for Hamas too, as the less kleptocratic option.
What’s more, the current regime in the USA is influenced by the extreme Christian right – and now by ‘Pro-Zionist’ Christian groups. This has created another absurdity – US Christian groups supporting lawful discrimination in Israel against Christian towns and villages in the ‘Holy Land’. Peace will threaten the religious contortions which underpin the Christian Right’s political stances in the USA towards Israel, and weaken key, carefully cultivated, sources of support for the US Republican Party.
The potential net effect of recent US policy is that the current Washington regime can no longer sit at the head of the negotiating table, flanked by the Europeans. The negotiating dynamics have changed. The US in effect now sits on one side of the table with Israel as a joint party to be negotiated with. Actions of the US administration are now increasingly seen as ratcheting up the strength of their side’s negotiating position, rather than steps towards peace. It may well be true that key parts of the US administration see peace efforts as naïve – the game being all about restricting Iran’s regional ambitions. However current US policy has not been successful in this respect. Uncomfortable for some, a peace agreement over Palestine, and the economic boom in the region that will follow, (and the dramatic drop in oil prices) would clearly narrow the excesses of Iranian and Syrian leaderships.
It will now, therefore, fall to the Europeans and the new ‘Lebanon Group’ to drive a broader settlement forward. The main features are already known. UN resolutions in Lebanon are being implemented by the integration of Hizbullah into the formal Lebanese military. This is already de facto underway. Israel will implement UN resolutions and agree to a phased return to its original borders, a process with wide implications for negotiations with Syria, for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and for the wall or ‘security barrier’. Perhaps more importantly, free trade and labour movement will soften siege mentality and enclave concerns. Palestinians would be given free access to the West Bank motorway and tunnel system, and access would be extended to Palestinian towns in the West Bank.
In practice a peace settlement would consist of an overall regional economic settlement including labour movement, resource access and external/internal transport communications – which would increase economic interdependence (not unlike the Bosnia process). It would also include several issue-specific agreements covering Golan, Israeli West Bank settlements, and refugees inside and outside the region. Some innovations may emerge such as the conditional offer of Palestinian citizenship to Israeli settlers, and the repeal of Israeli legislation that discriminates against non-Jewish citizens; Christians, Moslems and others.
The current US administration (and its successor), have a choice to make too. They could take this window of opportunity to throw their weight behind an overall internal and regional settlement, an end to violence, and several problem-solving processes. This would certainly help with the problem of the sheer extent of groups with an interest in the conflict continuing. It would also save the US from the continuing fallout from the recent Lebanon debacle, which is damaging to US interests. The beneficiaries of a settlement however will be Israeli citizens, more secure and prosperous, a viable and increasingly ‘European’ Palestinan state, and a rapid reduction in regional poverty as the economic boom gains strength.
The recent escalation of the ‘Middle East conflict’ in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel may or may not provide an opportunity for a final settlement and peace. It depends on your interpretation of events. At the very least in order to save lives in the short term, it is worth considering how to make the ‘peace opportunity’ more likely to be pursued - and subsequently successful.
At one point on the compass you have the official Israel-USA version; a terrorist organization having usurped territory in Southern Lebanon, attacks an Israeli border post and captures two Israeli soldiers, and then fires hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Israel, using its right to defend itself, attacks Hizbullah assets, fighters and Lebanese-Hizbullah ‘re-supply’ infrastructure. To all intents & purposes, Israel defeats the terrorists and agrees a Lebanon-UN military force for Southern Lebanon to ensure the terrorists cannot operate in the same way again. Israeli attacks against Gaza and armed Hamas fighters, are similarly intended to prevent rocket attacks and defeat Hamas militarily.
Under this version of events, a negotiated peace is more likely if such terrorists are defeated and Israel feels more secure – and indeed if other security measures such as the wall between Israel and the Occupied Territories (OT), and continued partial Israeli withdrawal from the OT, are completed. An Israeli-supervised peace in the OT will enable implementation of the Two State Solution, whilst keeping Israel secure, and marginalize terrorist groups and their Syrian & Iranian backers, politically and militarily. In the background in this version is the implicit military threat from both Israel and the USA against Syria and especially Iran. Also implicit is that some political regimes in the region are implacably adversarial & undemocratic and reliant on the Palestinian conflict for their ‘popular legitimacy’, thus unwilling to be genuine partners in a peace process.
A second point on the compass has Israel and the USA as partners in a long military war against the Islamic world, with the USA funding aggression against Palestine and now Lebanon, as a way of keeping the Middle East cowed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of this process, as is the role of the USA against the Islamic Courts militias in Somalia, and US pressure on Iran over nuclear enrichment. The US ‘approved’ the Israeli attacks on Lebanon because any (planned) military attacks on Iran by the USA and Israel, would bring retaliatory action from Iranian-controlled Hizbullah against Israel. The Israeli attacks on Gaza - and both the Wall and lack of contiguous Palestinian territory in the West Bank – are part of a plan to encourage Palestinians to leave the OT altogether, prior to the expulsion of non-Jews from Israel. The only response for Moslem nations is a military one, and peace will come from a probable military stalemate arising from an asymmetric war, where, as with Hizbullah recently, the Israelis are in reality defeated.
At a further point on the compass is the version of events that describes Hizbullah as a local uprising formed only a year after the earlier Israeli invasion to resist and expel the Israeli military from Lebanon – which was eventually successful in 2000. Former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, a military man, having experienced the previous defeat in Lebanon, had been wary of a full-blown conflict with Hizbullah since 2000, and small-scale skirmishes and border raids were thus ‘tolerated’ and prisoners sometimes exchanged. However, in July 2006 Prime Minister Olmert, not being a military man, was unable to resist Israeli military demands for a ‘re-match’ against Hizbullah, triggered by the next border skirmish. Olmert’s position was weakened by the Israeli military being headed by an Air Force man, who proposed an air war which would avoid the pre-2000 problems on the ground experienced by the Israeli army. When the latest border skirmish happened the Israeli Air Force’s plan was put into effect. However, in the intervening 6 years since 2000, Hizbullah’s political and military strength (and local popularity) increased, based on their success in defeating Israel. Seeing a ‘re-match’ as an inevitability, and able to collect funds and technical support from many countries, Hizbullah were well prepared against the ground invasion, that would inevitably follow a failure to defeat Hizbullah with air power alone. They were also able to add a key negotiating factor to parallel the might of the Israeli Air Force - a large stockpile of medium-range rockets fired into Israel, as well as at Israeli tanks.
In this version of events, Israel’s military credibility has been fatally dented by two defeats, and given the panic re-supply of munitions from the USA to Israel (via the UK), the credibility of the USA has been dented too – to add to the defeat of the USA in Iraq. Thus peace will come from a humbled Israel - more willing to negotiate over Palestine and to help create a viable Palestinian state, ending the current ‘strangulation’ approach to the Two State Solution. This version also describes a strengthened Iran and Mid East Shia community, following events in Iraq, since Hizbullah is largely Shia.
In order to achieve peace in the region however, somehow these different versions of events, and other versions like them, must be reconciled. There is a small time-window over the coming months to remake the path to peace.
Following the recent conflict, reconciling these different versions of the truth is difficult but not impossible. The obstacles are deep-rooted and enormously complex – but understanding them is uncomfortably necessary.
First there is the ‘victory mentality’ which has evolved over years of attrition. Any ‘peace settlement’ must now be seen in Israel as a ‘victory’. The current US Presidency has fuelled this with its amorphous political device ‘the War on Terror’. This mentality in effect ‘created’ the recent disastrous Lebanon debacle. Syria, Iran and popular street culture in Iran and many Arab states yearn for a ‘victory’ against Israel, reflected in the absurd ‘celebrations’ of a perceived Hizbullah military victory in Southern Lebanon. Overcoming the ‘victory mentality’ requires enormous political courage amongst world and regional leaders, the US, Iran and Syria included.
Second, there is the way in which long conflicts create a life of their own. Kosovo, Southern Sudan, Chechnya, and DRC are all examples. Israel receives billions of dollars in fund flows from the USA for civilian projects, many of them unhelpful to peace efforts. In addition, the sheer size of US military support and hardware shipments has a major effect on Israeli politics and real-politik power in Israeli civilian life. This can be seen in the legal position of the Israeli military with respect to Arab house demolitions in the Naqab Desert. Similarly, many conduits for munitions and social projects in and around the Occupied Palestinian Territories create a major ‘industry’ which make many Arab nationals particularly affluent. Those that benefit from peace in the Mid East – the mass of the population – have weak voices relative to the politically influential and economically power conflict-fed elites that have emerged. Political Arab nationalism is a useful tool for creating ‘legitimacy’, especially in Syria and Iran. Regimes from Iraq to the Western Maghreb play the Palestine card when they need to extract themselves from political hot water.
Third, a major obstacle to the achievement of peace is the dependence on fallible ‘world leaders’ in roles both as intermediaries between competing domestic political factions and in their role as ‘communicators’ to their populations and the world at large. World leaders involved in the conflict have not toured South Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Territories or understood local realities. They are dependent on competing military and foreign policy experts for information, most of which do not know the realities on the ground either. This gives opportunities for kleptocratic elites in the region to promote their self-serving versions of events and history. Achieving peace however requires acceptance by political leaders on all sides of some very uncomfortable truths.
The role of the USA in achieving peace has undoubtedly been weakened by their unquestioning support for Israel over the last 6 weeks. From the absence of a call for ceasefire or even restraint, to the branding of Hizbullah as terrorists, and the statement that Hizbullah has been ‘defeated’, the US has given the impression that the USA’s current regime is now following Israeli policy rather than using its clout to ensure peace. Its role as a potential ‘honest broker’ has potentially been fatally wounded. The question hangs in the air – who will ‘achieve’ peace ? It is now likely to be the EU and the new group of countries that will comprise the UN force in Lebanon.
But still there are uncomfortable realities, which require recognition as part of the equation if a new path to peace is to be established.
One is that it is likely that a key driver of the recent conflict in Lebanon and Israel was the rapid emergence of the prospects of a new path to peace during May and June this year. The conciliatory Hamas ‘Prisoner Statement’, finally accepted by the Hamas government only days before the attack on Lebanon, implied Hamas’ acceptance of the right of Israel to exist, highly worrisome for Syria and to an extent the Syrian wing of Hamas. This was also alarming for the Iranian regime which had gained a measure of mass support in the Arab world for its call for the dissolution of a ‘Jewish State’, inter alia. It would have been peace without a ‘victory’.
In parallel, parts of the Israeli military were horrified and somewhat wrong-footed by the Prisoner Statement. Worse for them were the discussions in Beirut in April, May & June this year for the implementation of UN resolutions in Lebanon, by the integration of Hizbullah into the regular armed forces, following the exit of most of the Syrian military earlier this year. A strong Lebanese army with Hizbullah included, but Syria excluded, was a perceived political and military threat for Israel, and indeed very discomforting for Syria too.
A further uncomfortable truth is the reality of progress toward the Two State Solution in the Occupied Territories, on the ground. A Hamas/Olmert-led peace would have forced this out in the open. Heavily influenced by a politically powerful Israeli military and security sector, the Israeli wall/barrier inside the Occupied Territories has created prison-like enclaves around places like Bethlehem and parts of Jerusalem, and has effectively annexed parts of the West Bank, east of Jerusalem, where local houses have been summarily demolished. The problems have been compounded by an Israeli motorway and road tunnel network in the West Bank, (on which Palestinian access is restricted), which have enclave effects and severely reduce ‘Two State’ viability. It is very unlikely that Western political leaders have sufficient awareness of these uncomfortable outcomes, and undoubtedly progress towards a peaceful ‘Two State’ settlement would create the need to reveal and address these physical viability obstacles for a Palestinian state - obstacles created by Israel with US dollars.
It is also uncomfortable for Iran and for political Islam more generally that Palestinian politics is a three-way fight between Islamists, secular-socialists mirroring undemocratic regimes in the region (often Moscow-educated ex-Tunis old school Palestinians – the ‘kleptocrats’ as some say), and the more liberal ‘European’ Palestinians. The more ‘European’ liberal Palestinian leaders broadly are those who remained in Palestine over the last 25 years and have much in common with the current Lebanese Government. There is much that is European about Palestinian society, and it is a fact that extreme Islam is not universally popular. The reality is that Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because of their religious fervour. They voted for Hamas because they were focused on direct benefits and communal services for their populations.
They also voted for Hamas because of perceptions that Fatah was a kleptocratic elite interested in using the mechanisms of state for self-enrichment and ‘party enrichment’, more than benefits for the populace - in the old model of Syria, Egypt, Iran and other states in the region.
The 3-way battle in Palestinian politics cuts across religious lines, and as uncomfortable as it is for both the US and for Political Islam, large numbers of Palestinian Christians voted for Hamas too, as the less kleptocratic option.
What’s more, the current regime in the USA is influenced by the extreme Christian right – and now by ‘Pro-Zionist’ Christian groups. This has created another absurdity – US Christian groups supporting lawful discrimination in Israel against Christian towns and villages in the ‘Holy Land’. Peace will threaten the religious contortions which underpin the Christian Right’s political stances in the USA towards Israel, and weaken key, carefully cultivated, sources of support for the US Republican Party.
The potential net effect of recent US policy is that the current Washington regime can no longer sit at the head of the negotiating table, flanked by the Europeans. The negotiating dynamics have changed. The US in effect now sits on one side of the table with Israel as a joint party to be negotiated with. Actions of the US administration are now increasingly seen as ratcheting up the strength of their side’s negotiating position, rather than steps towards peace. It may well be true that key parts of the US administration see peace efforts as naïve – the game being all about restricting Iran’s regional ambitions. However current US policy has not been successful in this respect. Uncomfortable for some, a peace agreement over Palestine, and the economic boom in the region that will follow, (and the dramatic drop in oil prices) would clearly narrow the excesses of Iranian and Syrian leaderships.
It will now, therefore, fall to the Europeans and the new ‘Lebanon Group’ to drive a broader settlement forward. The main features are already known. UN resolutions in Lebanon are being implemented by the integration of Hizbullah into the formal Lebanese military. This is already de facto underway. Israel will implement UN resolutions and agree to a phased return to its original borders, a process with wide implications for negotiations with Syria, for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and for the wall or ‘security barrier’. Perhaps more importantly, free trade and labour movement will soften siege mentality and enclave concerns. Palestinians would be given free access to the West Bank motorway and tunnel system, and access would be extended to Palestinian towns in the West Bank.
In practice a peace settlement would consist of an overall regional economic settlement including labour movement, resource access and external/internal transport communications – which would increase economic interdependence (not unlike the Bosnia process). It would also include several issue-specific agreements covering Golan, Israeli West Bank settlements, and refugees inside and outside the region. Some innovations may emerge such as the conditional offer of Palestinian citizenship to Israeli settlers, and the repeal of Israeli legislation that discriminates against non-Jewish citizens; Christians, Moslems and others.
The current US administration (and its successor), have a choice to make too. They could take this window of opportunity to throw their weight behind an overall internal and regional settlement, an end to violence, and several problem-solving processes. This would certainly help with the problem of the sheer extent of groups with an interest in the conflict continuing. It would also save the US from the continuing fallout from the recent Lebanon debacle, which is damaging to US interests. The beneficiaries of a settlement however will be Israeli citizens, more secure and prosperous, a viable and increasingly ‘European’ Palestinan state, and a rapid reduction in regional poverty as the economic boom gains strength.
Ehud von Olmert (Uri Avnery on Lieberman)
Uri Avnery
19.10.06
THE NAME of Franz von Papen is familiar to everyone who knows the history of the German republic that was born after World War I and that died when Hitler came to power.
What made him deserving of a place in history? Not his talents. On the contrary, during his short term as Reichskanzler (chancellor), he was as much a failure as his predecessors. Neither was he a very interesting person - just an ordinary politician from the minor nobility ("von"), a member of the "Zentrum", a German party like our own "National-Religious Party", before it lost its mind.
No, the name of von Papen is remembered only because he paved the way for the Nazis to take over Germany. It was he who advised the President of the Reich, an almost senile Field Marshal, to appoint Hitler as Reichskanzler. Von Papen told him that Hitler was just another demagogue with a big mouth, who, once in power, was sure to moderate his views. And anyhow, for safety's sake, all the important positions - War Minister, Foreign Minister etc. - would be given to non-Nazis. Hitler would be Kanzler in name only, unable to move.
Well, everybody knows what happened next. After getting his foot in the door with the help of von Papen, Hitler stormed into the building, instituted a reign of terror, threw his opponents (including the assistants of von Papen himself) into concentration camps, changed the law and established the dictatorship that led Germany to disaster.
Now there is a danger of Ehud Olmert becoming the Israeli von Papen.
I HAVE always been careful to avoid the example of the famous shepherd who used to cry "Wolf! Wolf!" just to tease the others.
Many times, this or that Israeli politician has been accused of being a fascist. But to be a fascist, it is not enough to espouse extreme nationalist views or to carry out racist policies.
There is no scientific definition of fascism. But from experience one can say that it is a combination of world view and personality type, radical nationalism, racism, a cult of violence, dictatorship and more. When asked who is a fascist, I answer: When you see one, you will know.
Or, as the Americans say: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
More than once, Menachem Begin was called a fascist, but he was far from it. He was indeed an extreme nationalist, but also a confirmed democrat, with decidedly liberal views (like his guide and master, Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky). Rehavam Ze'evi, who advocated "voluntary transfer" of the Arab population, came close to the definition, but he lacked the special character that makes the fascist.
The only leader in the history of Israel who can accurately be defined as a fascist was Meir Kahane. He did not grow up in this country but was an import from the US. He was and remained alien in appearance and style, and failed to impress the general public.
Now Israeli democracy is threatened by a much more dangerous individual.
AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN is a clever person. It is not easy to nail down his views. They are always formulated in a slick and elusive way. But the rule applies to him: When you see him, you will know.
When he came to Israel from the Soviet Union, he already brought with him a racist outlook. He wants a purely Jewish state, with no Arabs. For this, he is prepared, so he says, even to give up Israeli territory in which a dense Arab population is living. He proposes to get these citizens out of Israel, together with the land they are living on. Not a second Naqba, God forbid: the Arabs will not be driven from their lands, as then, but will be expelled together with their land. In return, Israel will annex the territories on which the settlers, one of whom is Lieberman himself, are living.
What's wrong with that? The basic idea is wrong: the turning of Israel into a state "cleansed" of Arabs. In German that would be called "Araber-rein". (Actually, it's an inversion of the Nazi phrase: not Juden-rein, but Rein-für-Juden. That is clearly a racist slogan, which appeals to the most primitive instincts of the masses.
The chances of this actually happening are, of course, nil. But the very voicing of this idea prepares the way for something even worse: the simple expulsion of the masses of Arabs from Israel proper and the occupied territories. Without euphemisms, without exchanges of territory, without any kind of spin. Once the fascist genie gets out of the bottle, no power can stop it before it leads to disaster.
The annexation of the settlements will, of course, put an end to any chance of peace.
But the menace of Lieberman lies not only in his acknowledged or unacknowledged views. It is imprinted in his character. Witness: he is the sole leader of his party, which is almost entirely composed of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Like previous waves of immigration, this is a group of people who did not grow up in a democratic society, and tend to have an oversimplified view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many of them live in Israel as if on an island, read only the local Russian-language press (almost entirely far to the right), and are isolated from the liberal and democratic tendencies in the country. They have pushed out Nathan Sharansky, who looks too weak, and vote for a tough, authoritarian leader whose main election slogan, even in Hebrew-language broadcasts, was "Da, Lieberman!" (Yes, Lieberman!) What does that remind one of?
Lieberman does not hide his intention of totally changing the structure of the Israeli political system and establishing an authoritarian regime, headed by a strong leader (himself). As a first step, he has submitted a bill for the establishment of a "presidential" regime, in which the president would have almost dictatorial powers. He would not be dependent on the Parliament, which would become unimportant, and would control all the instruments of power himself. The immediate model is Vladimir Putin, the gravedigger of Russian democracy, but it seems that Lieberman is far more extreme.
WHY DOES Ehud Olmert court this man? Why does he insist on including him in his government and agreeing to vote for his proposals? Why is Liebermania fast becoming the hottest topic in Israeli politics?
Simply: Olmert, completely bankrupt, is clutching at straws.
Only seven months after becoming Prime Minister by a stroke of luck - Ariel Sharon's stroke - he is left with nothing, and right with nothing, too, it seems:. The public already understands that the Lebanon War, in all its facets, was a total fiasco. His refusal to appoint a Judicial Commission of Inquiry has deepened the feeling of defeat. The central slogan of his election campaign - "Convergence" - has become a bad joke. From the famous "Social Agenda" nothing has remained. Olmert & Co. have been left without any plan, any mission, except one: to hold on to power at any price.
One of the hallmarks of a person like Lieberman is a talent for sensing and exploiting the weaknesses of others. He is making Olmert a seductive offer: he would join the government and bring with him his 11 votes in Parliament - without anything in return. Literally for nothing.
In the past he has demanded the post of Minister of Defense, or at least Minister of Police (officially "Minister of Interior Defense"). Now he talks about a nebulous title: "Minister in Charge of Long-Range Strategy" (translation: the bombing of Iran). But he does not insist even on that. He is prepared to be a minister without portfolio, not even demanding that two or three of his colleagues also become ministers, as the size of his party would justify.
An offer that cannot be refused. Lieberman knows that the title is unimportant. What is important is to get his foot in the door and gain legitimacy as a minister. The rest will come in due course.
For the despairing Olmert, out to hold on to power, this looks like a gift from heaven. He has opponents in the government, especially in the Labor Party. His parliamentary majority is not safe. And here comes Lieberman and provides him with complete security in office. People have sold their souls to the devil for less.
The official justification is: "One cannot reject any Zionist party" (a wording that automatically counts out all Israeli Arab parties). Adapting the famous words of Dr Samuel Johnson, it could be said: "Zionism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Olmert wants to gain some more years - or months, or weeks - in power. Power for its own sake. Power for no cause or purpose, for no idea, for no action. In return, he is ready to open the door to the forces of darkness. What does he care? After him the deluge.
I HAVE said more than once that I believe in Israeli democracy. The immigrants from the Soviet Union are not the only ones who grew up in a dictatorial system - almost all Israelis, or their parents, grew up under tyrannical regimes. But Israeli democracy, the miracle that has no logical explanation, is holding up even in these difficult circumstances.
However, we cannot ignore the dangers that threaten our democracy now. Years of a brutal occupation have corrupted the state and the army, racism is flourishing in our daily life - not only against the inhabitants of the occupied territories, not only against the Arab citizens of Israel proper, not only against foreign workers. There exist in our society deep schisms that can be exploited by fascism in its search for power.
When Rome was in danger from the approaching Carthaginian army, the cry went up: "Hannibal ante portas!" We should now raise the cry: "Lieberman at the gate!"
Ehud Olmert will be a passing episode in the annals of Israel. In a few years, nobody will remember him. Unless he acquires the status of the Israeli von Papen.
19.10.06
THE NAME of Franz von Papen is familiar to everyone who knows the history of the German republic that was born after World War I and that died when Hitler came to power.
What made him deserving of a place in history? Not his talents. On the contrary, during his short term as Reichskanzler (chancellor), he was as much a failure as his predecessors. Neither was he a very interesting person - just an ordinary politician from the minor nobility ("von"), a member of the "Zentrum", a German party like our own "National-Religious Party", before it lost its mind.
No, the name of von Papen is remembered only because he paved the way for the Nazis to take over Germany. It was he who advised the President of the Reich, an almost senile Field Marshal, to appoint Hitler as Reichskanzler. Von Papen told him that Hitler was just another demagogue with a big mouth, who, once in power, was sure to moderate his views. And anyhow, for safety's sake, all the important positions - War Minister, Foreign Minister etc. - would be given to non-Nazis. Hitler would be Kanzler in name only, unable to move.
Well, everybody knows what happened next. After getting his foot in the door with the help of von Papen, Hitler stormed into the building, instituted a reign of terror, threw his opponents (including the assistants of von Papen himself) into concentration camps, changed the law and established the dictatorship that led Germany to disaster.
Now there is a danger of Ehud Olmert becoming the Israeli von Papen.
I HAVE always been careful to avoid the example of the famous shepherd who used to cry "Wolf! Wolf!" just to tease the others.
Many times, this or that Israeli politician has been accused of being a fascist. But to be a fascist, it is not enough to espouse extreme nationalist views or to carry out racist policies.
There is no scientific definition of fascism. But from experience one can say that it is a combination of world view and personality type, radical nationalism, racism, a cult of violence, dictatorship and more. When asked who is a fascist, I answer: When you see one, you will know.
Or, as the Americans say: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
More than once, Menachem Begin was called a fascist, but he was far from it. He was indeed an extreme nationalist, but also a confirmed democrat, with decidedly liberal views (like his guide and master, Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky). Rehavam Ze'evi, who advocated "voluntary transfer" of the Arab population, came close to the definition, but he lacked the special character that makes the fascist.
The only leader in the history of Israel who can accurately be defined as a fascist was Meir Kahane. He did not grow up in this country but was an import from the US. He was and remained alien in appearance and style, and failed to impress the general public.
Now Israeli democracy is threatened by a much more dangerous individual.
AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN is a clever person. It is not easy to nail down his views. They are always formulated in a slick and elusive way. But the rule applies to him: When you see him, you will know.
When he came to Israel from the Soviet Union, he already brought with him a racist outlook. He wants a purely Jewish state, with no Arabs. For this, he is prepared, so he says, even to give up Israeli territory in which a dense Arab population is living. He proposes to get these citizens out of Israel, together with the land they are living on. Not a second Naqba, God forbid: the Arabs will not be driven from their lands, as then, but will be expelled together with their land. In return, Israel will annex the territories on which the settlers, one of whom is Lieberman himself, are living.
What's wrong with that? The basic idea is wrong: the turning of Israel into a state "cleansed" of Arabs. In German that would be called "Araber-rein". (Actually, it's an inversion of the Nazi phrase: not Juden-rein, but Rein-für-Juden. That is clearly a racist slogan, which appeals to the most primitive instincts of the masses.
The chances of this actually happening are, of course, nil. But the very voicing of this idea prepares the way for something even worse: the simple expulsion of the masses of Arabs from Israel proper and the occupied territories. Without euphemisms, without exchanges of territory, without any kind of spin. Once the fascist genie gets out of the bottle, no power can stop it before it leads to disaster.
The annexation of the settlements will, of course, put an end to any chance of peace.
But the menace of Lieberman lies not only in his acknowledged or unacknowledged views. It is imprinted in his character. Witness: he is the sole leader of his party, which is almost entirely composed of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Like previous waves of immigration, this is a group of people who did not grow up in a democratic society, and tend to have an oversimplified view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many of them live in Israel as if on an island, read only the local Russian-language press (almost entirely far to the right), and are isolated from the liberal and democratic tendencies in the country. They have pushed out Nathan Sharansky, who looks too weak, and vote for a tough, authoritarian leader whose main election slogan, even in Hebrew-language broadcasts, was "Da, Lieberman!" (Yes, Lieberman!) What does that remind one of?
Lieberman does not hide his intention of totally changing the structure of the Israeli political system and establishing an authoritarian regime, headed by a strong leader (himself). As a first step, he has submitted a bill for the establishment of a "presidential" regime, in which the president would have almost dictatorial powers. He would not be dependent on the Parliament, which would become unimportant, and would control all the instruments of power himself. The immediate model is Vladimir Putin, the gravedigger of Russian democracy, but it seems that Lieberman is far more extreme.
WHY DOES Ehud Olmert court this man? Why does he insist on including him in his government and agreeing to vote for his proposals? Why is Liebermania fast becoming the hottest topic in Israeli politics?
Simply: Olmert, completely bankrupt, is clutching at straws.
Only seven months after becoming Prime Minister by a stroke of luck - Ariel Sharon's stroke - he is left with nothing, and right with nothing, too, it seems:. The public already understands that the Lebanon War, in all its facets, was a total fiasco. His refusal to appoint a Judicial Commission of Inquiry has deepened the feeling of defeat. The central slogan of his election campaign - "Convergence" - has become a bad joke. From the famous "Social Agenda" nothing has remained. Olmert & Co. have been left without any plan, any mission, except one: to hold on to power at any price.
One of the hallmarks of a person like Lieberman is a talent for sensing and exploiting the weaknesses of others. He is making Olmert a seductive offer: he would join the government and bring with him his 11 votes in Parliament - without anything in return. Literally for nothing.
In the past he has demanded the post of Minister of Defense, or at least Minister of Police (officially "Minister of Interior Defense"). Now he talks about a nebulous title: "Minister in Charge of Long-Range Strategy" (translation: the bombing of Iran). But he does not insist even on that. He is prepared to be a minister without portfolio, not even demanding that two or three of his colleagues also become ministers, as the size of his party would justify.
An offer that cannot be refused. Lieberman knows that the title is unimportant. What is important is to get his foot in the door and gain legitimacy as a minister. The rest will come in due course.
For the despairing Olmert, out to hold on to power, this looks like a gift from heaven. He has opponents in the government, especially in the Labor Party. His parliamentary majority is not safe. And here comes Lieberman and provides him with complete security in office. People have sold their souls to the devil for less.
The official justification is: "One cannot reject any Zionist party" (a wording that automatically counts out all Israeli Arab parties). Adapting the famous words of Dr Samuel Johnson, it could be said: "Zionism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Olmert wants to gain some more years - or months, or weeks - in power. Power for its own sake. Power for no cause or purpose, for no idea, for no action. In return, he is ready to open the door to the forces of darkness. What does he care? After him the deluge.
I HAVE said more than once that I believe in Israeli democracy. The immigrants from the Soviet Union are not the only ones who grew up in a dictatorial system - almost all Israelis, or their parents, grew up under tyrannical regimes. But Israeli democracy, the miracle that has no logical explanation, is holding up even in these difficult circumstances.
However, we cannot ignore the dangers that threaten our democracy now. Years of a brutal occupation have corrupted the state and the army, racism is flourishing in our daily life - not only against the inhabitants of the occupied territories, not only against the Arab citizens of Israel proper, not only against foreign workers. There exist in our society deep schisms that can be exploited by fascism in its search for power.
When Rome was in danger from the approaching Carthaginian army, the cry went up: "Hannibal ante portas!" We should now raise the cry: "Lieberman at the gate!"
Ehud Olmert will be a passing episode in the annals of Israel. In a few years, nobody will remember him. Unless he acquires the status of the Israeli von Papen.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Overview of the Water Situation in Palestine
by Susan Koppelman
Introduction:
The Middle East region is recognized as the driest and most water scarce region in the world. The most significant sources of fresh water in Israel and Palestine are trans-boundary. Currently, Palestinians are facing extreme water scarcity, with an average per capita consumption well below WHO recommendations of 150 L/person/day.
Thirteen percent of the population in Palestine is not connected to the water network. Even communities connected to the network are not able to receive water thru their pipes. Mekorot, the Israeli water company who supplies 58% of Palestinian water used for domestic purposes often turns the water off during the summer months when it is the scarcest. Israeli settlers also tamper with the supply of some villages, turning the water off completely or tampering with the pipes so that only minimal water may flow thru. The Separation Barrier is separating many communities from their wells and springs. Inability to receive water thru the network, from local wells and springs, and lack of funding regionally to build enough rain harvesting cisterns forces families to purchase tanked water at prices double to water purchased thru the network.
Despite the aridity of the region, the water scarcity afflicting Palestinians is due primarily to inequitable distribution of resources. Capacity to manage water sustainably in Palestine is circumscribed and limited by Israeli control of the majority of the resource under the terms of Oslo II, and by Israeli Occupation practices. Sustainable water management must be a cooperative venture based on equitable distribution of resources, not domination and oppression.
The roots of the crisis:
In 1967, Israel took control of all water resources in the West Bank and Gaza with a series of military orders, establishing laws that forbid Palestinians from drilling new wells and rehabilitating old wells without approval from Israel. Since 1967, Palestinians have been denied any access to the water of the Jordan River. The Gaza-Jericho Agreement (1994) ceded control of the water resources underlying the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Oslo II officially recognized Palestinian water rights in the West Bank but deferred definition and quantification to the Final Status Negotiations. Temporary provisions were made to provide an additional 28.6 MCM (million cubic meters) water yr-1 to the Palestinians, whilst each party maintained ‘current utilization’. The future needs of the Palestinians in the West Bank were set at 70 – 80 MCM water yr-1, and it was agreed that Palestinians had permission to develop 78 MCM from the Eastern aquifer.
Problems with Oslo II:
In reality, Oslo II did not confer much control over water resources to the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). The West Bank Water Department (WBWD), in conjunction with Mekorot, retained control over a large proportion of water resources and infrastructure. Widespread poverty in the Palestinian population makes non-payment for water very common. High dependency on foreign funding has eroded the authority of the PWA and decentralized control over planning and development of infrastructure and resources. Even after Palestinians’ water rights were recognized under Oslo II, still no development of resources can take place without the approval of the JWC (Joint Water Council) – i.e. Israeli approval. The Water Officer of the Israeli Civil Administration retains an absolute veto over Palestinian development plans, even if they have been approved by the JWC.
Moreover, there are serious doubts that Palestinians can extract the water quantities specified in the agreement from the Eastern aquifer. There is an average annual drop of more than 25 cm in the water table level that is raising alarm about the sustainable yield of this aquifer. It is believed that the maximum amount that could be extracted is 15-25 MCM yr-1 (well below the 78 MCM yr -1 mentioned in Oslo II).
Allocations under Oslo II were supposed to be temporary, and were not to prejudice final status negotiations. These negotiations should have taken place before 2000. Allocations do not take account of long term population expansion, or make allowances for industrial and agricultural development.
Current Water Supply in the West Bank:
•Total yield from Palestinian controlled water sources is currently 104.9 MCM yr-1, this is 11% less than in 1995.
•26% of total water consumed (58% of domestic use water) is purchased from Mekorot.
•Palestinians are losing access to large numbers of wells and springs due to the building of the Separation Barrier.
•More than 13% of the population are not connected to any form of water network.
•Between 30-50% of water is lost thru the network due to leaks
•Tanked water costs twice as much as water purchased from the network.
Crisis in the West Bank:
Water shortage continues to be a problem for many communities in the West Bank. There is an urgent need to develop new resources, expand the distribution network and rehabilitate the old networks. The sewage treatment sector is seriously under-developed. Since Israel continues to veto or stall the development of new water resources and the rehabilitation of old networks, and, moreover, is withholding tax revenue belonging to the PA, there is a need for both advocacy and investment.
Current Water Supply in Gaza:
•Extraction from the Gaza Aquifer is about twice the available recharge.
•The water level is dropping by around 20-30 cm per year.
•Only 10% of drinking water wells meet WHO standards.
•Mekorot has reduced supply of water to communities in Gaza since 2000, breaching the Oslo Agreement.
•Wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate and 80% is discharged untreated into the environment.
Crisis in Gaza:
It was widely recognized in the 1990s that the environmental situation re: the Gaza Aquifer was urgent and needed to be addressed. A plan was drawn up in 2000 by engineering consultants funded by USAID, for integrated Aquifer Management. Since the outbreak of the Intifada, no progress has been made on implementing it, and USAID have since pulled out of the sector.
Operation Summer Rains:
Operation Summer Rain has put back the process of Water Sector Development in Gaza by several years. Several major drinking water and sewage pipelines are known to have been hit. Destruction of the Gaza Electric Power Station has put sewage treatment plants and drinking water wells and pumping stations out of action. Most Gazans only have three hours of water per day. It will cost millions of dollars simply to return systems to the state they were in before June 2006. Direct damage to the water systems is probably less serious than the derailing of development projects that would have prevented further degradation of the Aquifer.
Options for Gaza:
•Import water from Israel/Egypt
•Build desalination plants for brackish water and seawater
•Treat wastewater and reuse it for irrigation
•Increase rainwater harvest
•Build a pipeline between the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Options for the West Bank:
Increase rainwater harvesting.
•Harvest surface run-off.
•Treat and reuse wastewater for irrigation.
•Continue to develop the Eastern Aquifer.
•Negotiate with Israel to gain water rights to the Mountain Aquifer and Jordan River.
Options for Israeli Concessions:
•Stop extracting water from inside the West Bank (60 MCM /year), or compensate Palestinians with an equal amount from the Israeli National Water Carrier (e.g. for Gaza/Jenin).
•Quit-claim on the Eastern and Northern Aquifers, which are predominantly inside Palestinian territory (143 MCM/ year).
•Quit-claim on the Western Aquifer (340 MCM/yr).
•Recognize Palestinian water rights on the Jordan River (approximately 240 MCM/yr).
Options for Israel:
Any water concession to the Palestinians will necessitate Israel either using less fresh water or finding alternative resources. The Israeli farming sector uses a very large amount of fresh water each year (580 MCM), but contributes only around 2% to the GDP. Israeli wastewater treatment and reuse technology is state of the art. Israel could increase wastewater treatment/reuse or decrease irrigated agriculture. Israeli desalination technology is also fairly advanced and could be used to provide more water. Import of water from Turkey and/or Egypt and the building of a canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea are two other highly costly and unsustainable options that Israel has been seriously considering.
Conclusions:
Communities in Palestine are suffering from a water crisis that is a direct result of inequitable distribution of resources. In reality, the majority of water resources are under Israeli control. The amount of water available to Palestinians is being steadily reduced: by military closures, confiscation of wells, the Separation Barrier, and directly by Mekorot. Israeli Military actions are deeply destructive to water infrastructure. This has been the case throughout the Intifada, and in particular, more recently in Gaza. There is an urgent need to address the situation in Gaza, where there is simply not enough water to meet the basic needs of the population. Water needs to be made available from other sources.
Lack of access to water is severely damaging the Palestinian agricultural sector, and as a result, both the food security and economic well-being of the population. Given that Oslo II was a temporary agreement, Palestinian water rights must be renegotiated to allow equitable and reasonable utilization, in line with international law. These negotiations cannot wait for a more comprehensive peace agreement to be reached. In fact, negotiation of the water situation is integral to peace in this region.
Palestinian water rights to the Jordan River need to be addressed within a multilateral framework, with participation from all riparians to ensure protection and sustainable utilization of the resource. Sustainable management of resources shared between Palestinians and Israelis cannot be achieved without cooperation from Israel. This provides an opportunity to foster peace and cooperation in the region. However, given the history of past attempts at ‘cooperation’ and the urgency of impending and existing humanitarian and environmental crises, the participation of the international community in brokering deals and monitoring compliance is necessary.
Introduction:
The Middle East region is recognized as the driest and most water scarce region in the world. The most significant sources of fresh water in Israel and Palestine are trans-boundary. Currently, Palestinians are facing extreme water scarcity, with an average per capita consumption well below WHO recommendations of 150 L/person/day.
Thirteen percent of the population in Palestine is not connected to the water network. Even communities connected to the network are not able to receive water thru their pipes. Mekorot, the Israeli water company who supplies 58% of Palestinian water used for domestic purposes often turns the water off during the summer months when it is the scarcest. Israeli settlers also tamper with the supply of some villages, turning the water off completely or tampering with the pipes so that only minimal water may flow thru. The Separation Barrier is separating many communities from their wells and springs. Inability to receive water thru the network, from local wells and springs, and lack of funding regionally to build enough rain harvesting cisterns forces families to purchase tanked water at prices double to water purchased thru the network.
Despite the aridity of the region, the water scarcity afflicting Palestinians is due primarily to inequitable distribution of resources. Capacity to manage water sustainably in Palestine is circumscribed and limited by Israeli control of the majority of the resource under the terms of Oslo II, and by Israeli Occupation practices. Sustainable water management must be a cooperative venture based on equitable distribution of resources, not domination and oppression.
The roots of the crisis:
In 1967, Israel took control of all water resources in the West Bank and Gaza with a series of military orders, establishing laws that forbid Palestinians from drilling new wells and rehabilitating old wells without approval from Israel. Since 1967, Palestinians have been denied any access to the water of the Jordan River. The Gaza-Jericho Agreement (1994) ceded control of the water resources underlying the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Oslo II officially recognized Palestinian water rights in the West Bank but deferred definition and quantification to the Final Status Negotiations. Temporary provisions were made to provide an additional 28.6 MCM (million cubic meters) water yr-1 to the Palestinians, whilst each party maintained ‘current utilization’. The future needs of the Palestinians in the West Bank were set at 70 – 80 MCM water yr-1, and it was agreed that Palestinians had permission to develop 78 MCM from the Eastern aquifer.
Problems with Oslo II:
In reality, Oslo II did not confer much control over water resources to the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA). The West Bank Water Department (WBWD), in conjunction with Mekorot, retained control over a large proportion of water resources and infrastructure. Widespread poverty in the Palestinian population makes non-payment for water very common. High dependency on foreign funding has eroded the authority of the PWA and decentralized control over planning and development of infrastructure and resources. Even after Palestinians’ water rights were recognized under Oslo II, still no development of resources can take place without the approval of the JWC (Joint Water Council) – i.e. Israeli approval. The Water Officer of the Israeli Civil Administration retains an absolute veto over Palestinian development plans, even if they have been approved by the JWC.
Moreover, there are serious doubts that Palestinians can extract the water quantities specified in the agreement from the Eastern aquifer. There is an average annual drop of more than 25 cm in the water table level that is raising alarm about the sustainable yield of this aquifer. It is believed that the maximum amount that could be extracted is 15-25 MCM yr-1 (well below the 78 MCM yr -1 mentioned in Oslo II).
Allocations under Oslo II were supposed to be temporary, and were not to prejudice final status negotiations. These negotiations should have taken place before 2000. Allocations do not take account of long term population expansion, or make allowances for industrial and agricultural development.
Current Water Supply in the West Bank:
•Total yield from Palestinian controlled water sources is currently 104.9 MCM yr-1, this is 11% less than in 1995.
•26% of total water consumed (58% of domestic use water) is purchased from Mekorot.
•Palestinians are losing access to large numbers of wells and springs due to the building of the Separation Barrier.
•More than 13% of the population are not connected to any form of water network.
•Between 30-50% of water is lost thru the network due to leaks
•Tanked water costs twice as much as water purchased from the network.
Crisis in the West Bank:
Water shortage continues to be a problem for many communities in the West Bank. There is an urgent need to develop new resources, expand the distribution network and rehabilitate the old networks. The sewage treatment sector is seriously under-developed. Since Israel continues to veto or stall the development of new water resources and the rehabilitation of old networks, and, moreover, is withholding tax revenue belonging to the PA, there is a need for both advocacy and investment.
Current Water Supply in Gaza:
•Extraction from the Gaza Aquifer is about twice the available recharge.
•The water level is dropping by around 20-30 cm per year.
•Only 10% of drinking water wells meet WHO standards.
•Mekorot has reduced supply of water to communities in Gaza since 2000, breaching the Oslo Agreement.
•Wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate and 80% is discharged untreated into the environment.
Crisis in Gaza:
It was widely recognized in the 1990s that the environmental situation re: the Gaza Aquifer was urgent and needed to be addressed. A plan was drawn up in 2000 by engineering consultants funded by USAID, for integrated Aquifer Management. Since the outbreak of the Intifada, no progress has been made on implementing it, and USAID have since pulled out of the sector.
Operation Summer Rains:
Operation Summer Rain has put back the process of Water Sector Development in Gaza by several years. Several major drinking water and sewage pipelines are known to have been hit. Destruction of the Gaza Electric Power Station has put sewage treatment plants and drinking water wells and pumping stations out of action. Most Gazans only have three hours of water per day. It will cost millions of dollars simply to return systems to the state they were in before June 2006. Direct damage to the water systems is probably less serious than the derailing of development projects that would have prevented further degradation of the Aquifer.
Options for Gaza:
•Import water from Israel/Egypt
•Build desalination plants for brackish water and seawater
•Treat wastewater and reuse it for irrigation
•Increase rainwater harvest
•Build a pipeline between the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Options for the West Bank:
Increase rainwater harvesting.
•Harvest surface run-off.
•Treat and reuse wastewater for irrigation.
•Continue to develop the Eastern Aquifer.
•Negotiate with Israel to gain water rights to the Mountain Aquifer and Jordan River.
Options for Israeli Concessions:
•Stop extracting water from inside the West Bank (60 MCM /year), or compensate Palestinians with an equal amount from the Israeli National Water Carrier (e.g. for Gaza/Jenin).
•Quit-claim on the Eastern and Northern Aquifers, which are predominantly inside Palestinian territory (143 MCM/ year).
•Quit-claim on the Western Aquifer (340 MCM/yr).
•Recognize Palestinian water rights on the Jordan River (approximately 240 MCM/yr).
Options for Israel:
Any water concession to the Palestinians will necessitate Israel either using less fresh water or finding alternative resources. The Israeli farming sector uses a very large amount of fresh water each year (580 MCM), but contributes only around 2% to the GDP. Israeli wastewater treatment and reuse technology is state of the art. Israel could increase wastewater treatment/reuse or decrease irrigated agriculture. Israeli desalination technology is also fairly advanced and could be used to provide more water. Import of water from Turkey and/or Egypt and the building of a canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea are two other highly costly and unsustainable options that Israel has been seriously considering.
Conclusions:
Communities in Palestine are suffering from a water crisis that is a direct result of inequitable distribution of resources. In reality, the majority of water resources are under Israeli control. The amount of water available to Palestinians is being steadily reduced: by military closures, confiscation of wells, the Separation Barrier, and directly by Mekorot. Israeli Military actions are deeply destructive to water infrastructure. This has been the case throughout the Intifada, and in particular, more recently in Gaza. There is an urgent need to address the situation in Gaza, where there is simply not enough water to meet the basic needs of the population. Water needs to be made available from other sources.
Lack of access to water is severely damaging the Palestinian agricultural sector, and as a result, both the food security and economic well-being of the population. Given that Oslo II was a temporary agreement, Palestinian water rights must be renegotiated to allow equitable and reasonable utilization, in line with international law. These negotiations cannot wait for a more comprehensive peace agreement to be reached. In fact, negotiation of the water situation is integral to peace in this region.
Palestinian water rights to the Jordan River need to be addressed within a multilateral framework, with participation from all riparians to ensure protection and sustainable utilization of the resource. Sustainable management of resources shared between Palestinians and Israelis cannot be achieved without cooperation from Israel. This provides an opportunity to foster peace and cooperation in the region. However, given the history of past attempts at ‘cooperation’ and the urgency of impending and existing humanitarian and environmental crises, the participation of the international community in brokering deals and monitoring compliance is necessary.
BBC NEWS: Middle-East conflict informs game
I might regret this, but I think that you can do a game about anything
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Serious Games Interactive
A game based in the midst of the conflict in the Palestinian territories is set to be the latest release in the trend of politically-conscious gaming.
The player must navigate between different Palestinian and Israeli sources to get to the truth of a story.
"You can take a pro-Palestinian angle, a balanced angle, or a pro-Israeli angle," said Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen, of Serious Games Interactive.
Mr Egenfeldt-Nielsen told the BBC's Culture Shock programme: "The game is much more about the personal experience; the emotional experience."
The player walks around a city resembling Jerusalem and its surrounding areas talking to people. As the conflict intensifies, however, the situation becomes increasingly complex and exposes some of the reasons for the ongoing violence.
Global Conflict: Palestine, which is released early next year, follows music channel MTV's internet-based Darfur Is Dying, which went online earlier this year and had 700,000 players in its first month.
Later, tens of thousands of players sent e-mail messages to politicians to urge action over Darfur.
Game designers believe that gaming is one of the most effective ways of teaching people about complex situations - and yet keeping them engaging. They hope the game will not only reach mature players seeking intellectual stimulation, but also the school market.
"The Palestine topic fits very well with what you need for making a game," said Mr Nielsen. "It has conflict, different perspectives - people are interested in it.
That was the initial starting point, that Palestine would make a good game. I might regret this, but I think that you can do a game about anything - it depends very much on your framing and your approach to it."
Sheila Moorcroft, a futures research consultant based in the UK, said she understood that on one level people could feel that making a game out a conflict situation "trivialises" it. But she added that younger people are not engaged with traditional politics, and additionally get their information about the world in new ways. This actually makes games a good platform for exploring the complexity of an issue, she said.
"An awful lot of what is in the media today is simplistic - it's headlines, it's soundbites," she said. "People don't actually have a chance to explore the complexities of some of the situations of a conflict. In the Darfur Is Dying game, you're someone collecting water and you've just got to use your arrows and space bar to hide from the patrols. Suddenly you realise - as happened, because people started phoning up - this is for real, this is serious. So you can actually begin to enter somebody's reality."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6059026.stmPublished: 2006/10/18 07:34:26 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Serious Games Interactive
A game based in the midst of the conflict in the Palestinian territories is set to be the latest release in the trend of politically-conscious gaming.
The player must navigate between different Palestinian and Israeli sources to get to the truth of a story.
"You can take a pro-Palestinian angle, a balanced angle, or a pro-Israeli angle," said Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen, of Serious Games Interactive.
Mr Egenfeldt-Nielsen told the BBC's Culture Shock programme: "The game is much more about the personal experience; the emotional experience."
The player walks around a city resembling Jerusalem and its surrounding areas talking to people. As the conflict intensifies, however, the situation becomes increasingly complex and exposes some of the reasons for the ongoing violence.
Global Conflict: Palestine, which is released early next year, follows music channel MTV's internet-based Darfur Is Dying, which went online earlier this year and had 700,000 players in its first month.
Later, tens of thousands of players sent e-mail messages to politicians to urge action over Darfur.
Game designers believe that gaming is one of the most effective ways of teaching people about complex situations - and yet keeping them engaging. They hope the game will not only reach mature players seeking intellectual stimulation, but also the school market.
"The Palestine topic fits very well with what you need for making a game," said Mr Nielsen. "It has conflict, different perspectives - people are interested in it.
That was the initial starting point, that Palestine would make a good game. I might regret this, but I think that you can do a game about anything - it depends very much on your framing and your approach to it."
Sheila Moorcroft, a futures research consultant based in the UK, said she understood that on one level people could feel that making a game out a conflict situation "trivialises" it. But she added that younger people are not engaged with traditional politics, and additionally get their information about the world in new ways. This actually makes games a good platform for exploring the complexity of an issue, she said.
"An awful lot of what is in the media today is simplistic - it's headlines, it's soundbites," she said. "People don't actually have a chance to explore the complexities of some of the situations of a conflict. In the Darfur Is Dying game, you're someone collecting water and you've just got to use your arrows and space bar to hide from the patrols. Suddenly you realise - as happened, because people started phoning up - this is for real, this is serious. So you can actually begin to enter somebody's reality."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6059026.stmPublished: 2006/10/18 07:34:26 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Viable Solutions for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (on Jeff Halper Lecture)
by Sonia Nettnin
Wednesday October 18 2006
________________________________________
"The implementation of Israeli Government policy is the occupation of an estimated four million Palestinians, who are imprisoned in what Halper describes as a complex, control matrix of checkpoints, roadblocks, watchtowers, terminals, trenches, settler-only roads, patrolled roads, fences, and a wall that stands 26-feet high. Israel’s wall is five times longer than the Berlin Wall." ________________________________________
Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Professor Jeff Halper spoke about the Israel-Palestine conflict and viable solutions to bring peace to the Middle East. Halper is Coordinator of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, an Israeli, direct-action organization that resists nonviolently the demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories. According to Halper, Israeli forces have demolished over 14,000 Palestinian homes since 1967. The ICAHD brings Israelis, Palestinians and internationals together to rebuild Palestinian homes.
“In Israel’s framing the land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people - Arabs reside there by sufferance and not by right,” Halper said. “Israel appears as a Western country but it’s not.” The issue of exclusivity is the underlying principle of Zionism and Israeli Government policy. However, it does not necessarily reflect the predominant views of the Israeli public, whose main concern is security. The implementation of Israeli Government policy is the occupation of an estimated four million Palestinians, who are imprisoned in what Halper describes, is a complex, control matrix of checkpoints, roadblocks, watchtowers, terminals, trenches, settler-only roads, patrolled roads, fences, and a wall that stands 26-feet high. Israel’s wall is five times longer than the Berlin Wall.
Israeli occupation controls Palestinian lives and confiscates Palestinian land for Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. As a result, Palestinians in the West Bank live in a truncated mini-state – a Bantustan – which has 70 enclaves in three, noncontiguous cantons of land.
In April 2006, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented his convergence plan (also referred to as the consolidation plan and later coined the realignment plan) in the U.S. where it was accepted by U.S. Congress. The bottom line of the plan is that Israel would maintain vast settlement blocks within the West Bank, which are on top of the richest agricultural lands and on water aquifers. These Israeli settlement blocks are beyond the 1967 borders and cut deep into the West Bank (also referred to as Judea and Samaria by Israelis). According to Halper an estimated 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank. Construction of the wall and Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley continues unabated.
“It’s hard to believe this is a long-term sustainable solution,” Halper said. Palestinians would have no border with an Arab country. Moreover they would have no water, territorial contiguity, or any control of air space, communication spheres, which Halper explains, “is really a prison state.”
So what does Halper and the ICAHD see as viable solutions to the conflict? They believe there will be no solution or security without the following conditions: national expression for both peoples (nations); economic viability; conformity with human rights international and UN resolutions; refugees’ rights (acknowledgement, just resolution, regional approach); and regional security concerns addressed for both Israelis and Palestinians.
And what are the options that would bring peace to the Middle East? According to the ICAHD, option one is a viable two-state solution. More than 60 per cent of Palestinians are under 18 and a future Palestinian state has to provide an economy, jobs, and a future with no violence. Halper says there would need to be healing and reconstruction - trauma therapy in a national sense. The issue of viability is just as important as sovereignty because the people need access to Jerusalem, the epicenter of the Palestinian economy, along with territorial contiguity, water, air space etc. He added that the Palestinian Diaspora is affluent and highly-educated and they are a great resource for rebuilding a Palestinian state.
ICAHD’s option two is Apartheid - a threatening but real possibility. Israel’s convergence plan locks Palestinians into a Bantustan. “We have to oppose this kind of so-called solution to emerge because it’s not sustainable,” Halper added.
Option three is one democratic state, which Halper sees as a nonstarter for Israel. “I love the one-state idea,” Halper said. “I think it’s a real challenge for all of us, how to live together, a nice idea, but the international community may not agree…Israel being transformed from an ethnic state to a democratic state.”
The final option is a regional confederation with Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon as the confederation’s members. Halper calls this the “two-stage” solution. This regional economic confederation would enable people to live and work within these countries regardless of their citizenship. There could be regulations as to how long a person could work in a neighboring country and the confederation’s members would determine the parameters. For example, thousands of Polish people from Poland live and work in France, but they have no plans to live in France permanently. Halper believes Europe could adopt the Middle East regional confederation plan as a project. Why? Europe has a lot of experience in developing mechanisms to protect weaker economies, and Europe can help the Middle East work together as a confederation for regional economic prosperity. “Europeans should take this as a project with American US support,” Halper said. “It would be exciting.”
However, such a regional confederation requires integration, which would be a hard sell to Israel despite the potential economic opportunities. Halper sees the regional concept as an inspiring vision of the relationship between a person’s roots and the global village because “…it could be a model for how to address tensions and conflicts.”
In the meantime, the ICAHD focuses on what they call “pro-active meta-campaigns,” which involves reaching out to civil society. Through informational campaigns the ICAHD discusses issues such as boycott, divestment, arms sanctions on Israel (fourth in arms exports worldwide), the Palestinian narrative, occupation, convergence as Apartheid, impact of conflict on US/global interests, and anti-apartheid campaigns. Halper hopes these initiatives will bring peace to the Middle East.
The American Friends Service Committee nominated Halper for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.
Wednesday October 18 2006
________________________________________
"The implementation of Israeli Government policy is the occupation of an estimated four million Palestinians, who are imprisoned in what Halper describes as a complex, control matrix of checkpoints, roadblocks, watchtowers, terminals, trenches, settler-only roads, patrolled roads, fences, and a wall that stands 26-feet high. Israel’s wall is five times longer than the Berlin Wall." ________________________________________
Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Professor Jeff Halper spoke about the Israel-Palestine conflict and viable solutions to bring peace to the Middle East. Halper is Coordinator of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, an Israeli, direct-action organization that resists nonviolently the demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories. According to Halper, Israeli forces have demolished over 14,000 Palestinian homes since 1967. The ICAHD brings Israelis, Palestinians and internationals together to rebuild Palestinian homes.
“In Israel’s framing the land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people - Arabs reside there by sufferance and not by right,” Halper said. “Israel appears as a Western country but it’s not.” The issue of exclusivity is the underlying principle of Zionism and Israeli Government policy. However, it does not necessarily reflect the predominant views of the Israeli public, whose main concern is security. The implementation of Israeli Government policy is the occupation of an estimated four million Palestinians, who are imprisoned in what Halper describes, is a complex, control matrix of checkpoints, roadblocks, watchtowers, terminals, trenches, settler-only roads, patrolled roads, fences, and a wall that stands 26-feet high. Israel’s wall is five times longer than the Berlin Wall.
Israeli occupation controls Palestinian lives and confiscates Palestinian land for Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. As a result, Palestinians in the West Bank live in a truncated mini-state – a Bantustan – which has 70 enclaves in three, noncontiguous cantons of land.
In April 2006, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented his convergence plan (also referred to as the consolidation plan and later coined the realignment plan) in the U.S. where it was accepted by U.S. Congress. The bottom line of the plan is that Israel would maintain vast settlement blocks within the West Bank, which are on top of the richest agricultural lands and on water aquifers. These Israeli settlement blocks are beyond the 1967 borders and cut deep into the West Bank (also referred to as Judea and Samaria by Israelis). According to Halper an estimated 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank. Construction of the wall and Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley continues unabated.
“It’s hard to believe this is a long-term sustainable solution,” Halper said. Palestinians would have no border with an Arab country. Moreover they would have no water, territorial contiguity, or any control of air space, communication spheres, which Halper explains, “is really a prison state.”
So what does Halper and the ICAHD see as viable solutions to the conflict? They believe there will be no solution or security without the following conditions: national expression for both peoples (nations); economic viability; conformity with human rights international and UN resolutions; refugees’ rights (acknowledgement, just resolution, regional approach); and regional security concerns addressed for both Israelis and Palestinians.
And what are the options that would bring peace to the Middle East? According to the ICAHD, option one is a viable two-state solution. More than 60 per cent of Palestinians are under 18 and a future Palestinian state has to provide an economy, jobs, and a future with no violence. Halper says there would need to be healing and reconstruction - trauma therapy in a national sense. The issue of viability is just as important as sovereignty because the people need access to Jerusalem, the epicenter of the Palestinian economy, along with territorial contiguity, water, air space etc. He added that the Palestinian Diaspora is affluent and highly-educated and they are a great resource for rebuilding a Palestinian state.
ICAHD’s option two is Apartheid - a threatening but real possibility. Israel’s convergence plan locks Palestinians into a Bantustan. “We have to oppose this kind of so-called solution to emerge because it’s not sustainable,” Halper added.
Option three is one democratic state, which Halper sees as a nonstarter for Israel. “I love the one-state idea,” Halper said. “I think it’s a real challenge for all of us, how to live together, a nice idea, but the international community may not agree…Israel being transformed from an ethnic state to a democratic state.”
The final option is a regional confederation with Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon as the confederation’s members. Halper calls this the “two-stage” solution. This regional economic confederation would enable people to live and work within these countries regardless of their citizenship. There could be regulations as to how long a person could work in a neighboring country and the confederation’s members would determine the parameters. For example, thousands of Polish people from Poland live and work in France, but they have no plans to live in France permanently. Halper believes Europe could adopt the Middle East regional confederation plan as a project. Why? Europe has a lot of experience in developing mechanisms to protect weaker economies, and Europe can help the Middle East work together as a confederation for regional economic prosperity. “Europeans should take this as a project with American US support,” Halper said. “It would be exciting.”
However, such a regional confederation requires integration, which would be a hard sell to Israel despite the potential economic opportunities. Halper sees the regional concept as an inspiring vision of the relationship between a person’s roots and the global village because “…it could be a model for how to address tensions and conflicts.”
In the meantime, the ICAHD focuses on what they call “pro-active meta-campaigns,” which involves reaching out to civil society. Through informational campaigns the ICAHD discusses issues such as boycott, divestment, arms sanctions on Israel (fourth in arms exports worldwide), the Palestinian narrative, occupation, convergence as Apartheid, impact of conflict on US/global interests, and anti-apartheid campaigns. Halper hopes these initiatives will bring peace to the Middle East.
The American Friends Service Committee nominated Halper for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.
CARTER BOOK SLAPS ISRAEL WITH "APARTHEID" TAG, PROVIDES AMMO TO GOP
Jennifer Siegel | THE FORWARD, Tue. Oct 17, 2006
As Republicans step up their efforts to paint Democrats as increasingly hostile toward Israel, former President Jimmy Carter is releasing a book on the Middle East, titled “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”
Judging from an advance review manuscript of the new work, published by Simon & Schuster and set for release November 14, Carter places the bulk of the blame on Israel for its continuing conflict with the Palestinians. But critics of the former president probably will be most offended by his use of the word “apartheid” in the book’s title and text.
Israel’s current policy in the territories, Carter writes in the book’s summary, is “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” In a separate passage in the advance draft, the former president stated that “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.”
In addition, Carter takes what is being interpreted by some critics as a swipe at the pro-Israel lobby. “Because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned,” the former president writes.
Carter’s book comes as the Republican Jewish Coalition is already waging a nationwide media campaign to convince Jewish voters that the Democratic Party no longer can be counted on to provide unflinching support for Israel. (See story on Page A6.) One of the recent RJC ads features a large image of Carter and quotes the former president as saying, “I don’t think Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.”
Simon & Schuster spokeswoman Elizabeth Hayes confirmed the substance of the quotes from Carter’s book, but said that the wording could change in the final edition. With less than three weeks left before Election Day, Jewish Democrats have been quick both to disavow Carter’s views and to assert that Carter is a marginal figure within the party on the issue, despite being a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. At the same time, however, the Democratic National Committee included him in a list of past pro-Israel presidents in an advertisement this week that was aimed at shoring up support among Jewish voters. The ad features a 1977 quote from Carter describing the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, and saying that “it’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.”
The RJC’s executive director, Matt Brooks, told the Forward that he has yet to see Carter’s new book; however, he seemed confident that it would provide additional ammunition for his organization’s campaign to woo Jewish voters. “We certainly have not shied away from shining a light on some of his misguided and outrageous comments about Israel in the past, so we certainly have to see what this book holds,” Brooks said. “Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there’s been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable.”
The book was originally slated to be released November 1 — six days prior to this year’s congressional elections — but now it will be available in stores November 14, according to Hayes, the Simon & Schuster spokeswoman. Jewish Democrats say that they were pushing for a later release date. But, according to Hayes, the date was pushed back to allow Carter time to work in more material from last summer’s conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
Democrats involved in efforts to boost Jewish support were quick to criticize Carter’s views. “I disagree with President Carter fundamentally,” said Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who is leading the efforts of House Democrats to reach out to Jewish voters and donors. “The reason for the Palestinian plight is the Palestinians. Their leadership has no regard for the quality of life for their people and no capability of providing security or enforcing peace, and they have no one to blame but themselves.” Israel added that the “book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party; it reflects the opinion of one man.”
“Democrats who support Jimmy Carter’s views on Israel? Now that’s a convention you could hold in a phone booth,” wrote Ira Forman, executive director of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in an e-mail to the Forward. “Jimmy Carter is out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party when it comes to his views on Israel.” Aaron Miller, a former State Department official who has consistently advocated a greater American role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, said that Carter’s book would not influence key decision makers in the administration. But he added, “the one thing that I assure you is that Carter’s book will be read” by a wider audience.
Carter has a “demonstrated track record of success,” said Miller, now a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, referring to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty that the former president helped broker at Camp David in 1978. “He’s the only American president that’s succeeded in brokering a permanent status agreement between Arabs and Israelis, the only one, and you know, he deserves an enormous amount of credit for that, whatever his current and latest views are — and I don’t agree with a lot of them, on the Israel-Arab issue.”
_______________________________________
As Republicans step up their efforts to paint Democrats as increasingly hostile toward Israel, former President Jimmy Carter is releasing a book on the Middle East, titled “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”
Judging from an advance review manuscript of the new work, published by Simon & Schuster and set for release November 14, Carter places the bulk of the blame on Israel for its continuing conflict with the Palestinians. But critics of the former president probably will be most offended by his use of the word “apartheid” in the book’s title and text.
Israel’s current policy in the territories, Carter writes in the book’s summary, is “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” In a separate passage in the advance draft, the former president stated that “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.”
In addition, Carter takes what is being interpreted by some critics as a swipe at the pro-Israel lobby. “Because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned,” the former president writes.
Carter’s book comes as the Republican Jewish Coalition is already waging a nationwide media campaign to convince Jewish voters that the Democratic Party no longer can be counted on to provide unflinching support for Israel. (See story on Page A6.) One of the recent RJC ads features a large image of Carter and quotes the former president as saying, “I don’t think Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.”
Simon & Schuster spokeswoman Elizabeth Hayes confirmed the substance of the quotes from Carter’s book, but said that the wording could change in the final edition. With less than three weeks left before Election Day, Jewish Democrats have been quick both to disavow Carter’s views and to assert that Carter is a marginal figure within the party on the issue, despite being a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. At the same time, however, the Democratic National Committee included him in a list of past pro-Israel presidents in an advertisement this week that was aimed at shoring up support among Jewish voters. The ad features a 1977 quote from Carter describing the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, and saying that “it’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.”
The RJC’s executive director, Matt Brooks, told the Forward that he has yet to see Carter’s new book; however, he seemed confident that it would provide additional ammunition for his organization’s campaign to woo Jewish voters. “We certainly have not shied away from shining a light on some of his misguided and outrageous comments about Israel in the past, so we certainly have to see what this book holds,” Brooks said. “Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there’s been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable.”
The book was originally slated to be released November 1 — six days prior to this year’s congressional elections — but now it will be available in stores November 14, according to Hayes, the Simon & Schuster spokeswoman. Jewish Democrats say that they were pushing for a later release date. But, according to Hayes, the date was pushed back to allow Carter time to work in more material from last summer’s conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
Democrats involved in efforts to boost Jewish support were quick to criticize Carter’s views. “I disagree with President Carter fundamentally,” said Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who is leading the efforts of House Democrats to reach out to Jewish voters and donors. “The reason for the Palestinian plight is the Palestinians. Their leadership has no regard for the quality of life for their people and no capability of providing security or enforcing peace, and they have no one to blame but themselves.” Israel added that the “book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party; it reflects the opinion of one man.”
“Democrats who support Jimmy Carter’s views on Israel? Now that’s a convention you could hold in a phone booth,” wrote Ira Forman, executive director of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in an e-mail to the Forward. “Jimmy Carter is out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party when it comes to his views on Israel.” Aaron Miller, a former State Department official who has consistently advocated a greater American role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, said that Carter’s book would not influence key decision makers in the administration. But he added, “the one thing that I assure you is that Carter’s book will be read” by a wider audience.
Carter has a “demonstrated track record of success,” said Miller, now a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, referring to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty that the former president helped broker at Camp David in 1978. “He’s the only American president that’s succeeded in brokering a permanent status agreement between Arabs and Israelis, the only one, and you know, he deserves an enormous amount of credit for that, whatever his current and latest views are — and I don’t agree with a lot of them, on the Israel-Arab issue.”
_______________________________________
My letter to the Canadian Prime Minister, following his "pro-Israel" comments
Dear Ms. Godfrey-Goldstein:
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail regarding the situation in the Middle East.
Please be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed.
Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.
L.A. Lavell
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
From : Angela Godfrey-Goldstein
Received : 19 Oct 2006 05:21:46 PM >>>
Sir, my country, Israel, is descending ever more deeply into a deeply disturbing state of apartheid, and consistently refusing to negotiate with Palestinian partners and Lebanese and Syrian neighbours who want peace. It is simply not true to say there are no partners for peace among our neighbours; those of us working for peace meet those willing Palestinian partners - almost the entire population - on a daily basis. And we read of Syrian overtures that are rejected, just as the Saudi Initiative offering full peace and regional integration was ignored. Whilst our Lebanese neighbours have been completedly and deliberately alienated and radicalized. Nor is framing this conflict as a War on Terror an accurate translation: the Israeli Occupation is the corrupting influence which causes resistance and aggression - legitimate resistance to occupation under international law.
Israel's ever expanding settlement enterprise (almost half a million settlers now live on occupied Palestinian land) means that the chances for a negotiated settlement are disappearing. Food aid is no solution.
Will you come to the funeral party, or dance at the Wake? And then ask whether when there was time, we all did enough to guarantee real peace and a viable Palestinian state? Because that funeral party will also celebrate the demise of Israel. Those of us living here already mourn for a country that has lost its morality, its liberalism and its caring nature. Fascism, as personified in ascendant politicians such as Lieberman and others, is a natural outcome to years of committed militarism and racism and rejectionism.
A sustainable Israel is simply not feasible if the current Israeli policies do not change drastically. Only a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians (and not a win-lose solution) will bring a future for all of us. Please help us to get our government to that negotiation table.
The deprivation and de-development being deliberately caused to the Palestinians is a crime. It has been policy for the past 40 years of Occupation, especially since the beginning of the Oslo 'peace' process, when settlements doubled as did the number of settlers, especially in strategic settlement blocs. That policy (Sharon's hideous legacy) shows what the real agenda always was - for example, to take all the water, to prevent the Palestinians from having Jerusalem as a shared capital, and even indeed from ever having a viable state.
My country, Israel, badly needs saving from itself. It cannot have escaped your notice that since its recent failed enterprise in Lebanon (in which war crimes were committed, not least by the disproportionate nature of the Israeli blitzkrieg on the Beirut power station and other major infrastructure before the Hizbullah rocket attacks started), Israel has not moved towards negotiations.
Those of us who work for peace hope you will reconsider your statements, and start getting the parties to the table. Israeli resistance to negotiation
is the major issue here. And the settlement blocs. Please watch THE IRON
WALL on google video to see what it is really all about.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4866316426876380615
Sincerely,
Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, Jerusalem
'The people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs'
Arundhati Roy in The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire
Watch THE IRON WALL on google video at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4866316426876380615
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail regarding the situation in the Middle East.
Please be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed.
Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.
L.A. Lavell
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
From : Angela Godfrey-Goldstein
Received : 19 Oct 2006 05:21:46 PM >>>
Sir, my country, Israel, is descending ever more deeply into a deeply disturbing state of apartheid, and consistently refusing to negotiate with Palestinian partners and Lebanese and Syrian neighbours who want peace. It is simply not true to say there are no partners for peace among our neighbours; those of us working for peace meet those willing Palestinian partners - almost the entire population - on a daily basis. And we read of Syrian overtures that are rejected, just as the Saudi Initiative offering full peace and regional integration was ignored. Whilst our Lebanese neighbours have been completedly and deliberately alienated and radicalized. Nor is framing this conflict as a War on Terror an accurate translation: the Israeli Occupation is the corrupting influence which causes resistance and aggression - legitimate resistance to occupation under international law.
Israel's ever expanding settlement enterprise (almost half a million settlers now live on occupied Palestinian land) means that the chances for a negotiated settlement are disappearing. Food aid is no solution.
Will you come to the funeral party, or dance at the Wake? And then ask whether when there was time, we all did enough to guarantee real peace and a viable Palestinian state? Because that funeral party will also celebrate the demise of Israel. Those of us living here already mourn for a country that has lost its morality, its liberalism and its caring nature. Fascism, as personified in ascendant politicians such as Lieberman and others, is a natural outcome to years of committed militarism and racism and rejectionism.
A sustainable Israel is simply not feasible if the current Israeli policies do not change drastically. Only a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians (and not a win-lose solution) will bring a future for all of us. Please help us to get our government to that negotiation table.
The deprivation and de-development being deliberately caused to the Palestinians is a crime. It has been policy for the past 40 years of Occupation, especially since the beginning of the Oslo 'peace' process, when settlements doubled as did the number of settlers, especially in strategic settlement blocs. That policy (Sharon's hideous legacy) shows what the real agenda always was - for example, to take all the water, to prevent the Palestinians from having Jerusalem as a shared capital, and even indeed from ever having a viable state.
My country, Israel, badly needs saving from itself. It cannot have escaped your notice that since its recent failed enterprise in Lebanon (in which war crimes were committed, not least by the disproportionate nature of the Israeli blitzkrieg on the Beirut power station and other major infrastructure before the Hizbullah rocket attacks started), Israel has not moved towards negotiations.
Those of us who work for peace hope you will reconsider your statements, and start getting the parties to the table. Israeli resistance to negotiation
is the major issue here. And the settlement blocs. Please watch THE IRON
WALL on google video to see what it is really all about.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4866316426876380615
Sincerely,
Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, Jerusalem
'The people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs'
Arundhati Roy in The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire
Watch THE IRON WALL on google video at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4866316426876380615
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Israel and the Palestinians: Key terms - A new BBC Guide
The BBC Governors' independent panel report on the impartiality of BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology.
Words in bold indicate a cross-reference.
Assassinations
Barrier
Border
"Cycle of violence"
East Jerusalem
Fence
Gaza Strip
Green Line
Intifada
Jerusalem
Jewish
"Middle East expert"
Occupied territories/occupation
Outposts
Palestine
Palestinian Land
Palestinian Territories
"Peace process"
Relative calm
Right of return
Settlements
Settler numbers
Terrorists
Wall
ASSASSINATIONS
The BBC's responsibility is to remain impartial and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments.
Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements.
If an event falls within the dictionary definition of assassination, then we can use the term but the word "killed" or "killing" may be perfectly adequate.
Plain simple language is preferable to more complex or emotive language. If we have more precise details of exactly why or how the killing took place, we should communicate that in an equally straightforward way. The phrase "targeted killing" is sometimes used by Israel and should be attributed.
BARRIER
BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute.
The BBC uses the terms "barrier", "separation barrier" or "West Bank barrier" as acceptable generic descriptions to avoid the political connotations of "security fence" (preferred by the Israeli government) or "apartheid wall" (preferred by the Palestinians).
The United Nations also uses the term "barrier".
Of course, a reporter standing in front of a concrete section of the barrier might choose to say "this wall" or use a more exact description in the light of what he or she is looking at.
BORDER
Be careful with this word. Do you mean boundary? See Green Line.
"CYCLE OF VIOLENCE"
It is better to avoid clichés wherever possible. This one does nothing to explain any of the underlying causes of the conflict and may indeed obscure them.
EAST JERUSALEM
Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1981 but its claim to the area is not recognised internationally. Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.
For example, the Foreign Office says it "regards the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. We recognise no sovereignty over the city".
We should seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded.
Avoid saying East Jerusalem "is part" of Israel or suggesting anything like it. Avoid the phrase "Arab East Jerusalem", too, unless you also have space to explain that Israel has annexed the area and claims it as part of its capital. East Jerusalem is sometimes referred as Arab East Jerusalem, partly because it was under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine.
The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story.
For example: "Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory."
FENCE
See Barrier.
GAZA STRIP
In 2005, Israel completed the withdrawal of all its troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip. It retains control of the airspace, seafront and all vehicle access - including deliveries of food and other goods.
All movement in and out of the Gaza Strip is controlled by Israeli authorities, except, officially, the pedestrian-only crossing between Gaza and Egypt which is meant to be controlled by Palestinians and Egyptians with the presence of EU monitors.
The situation is, however, fluid - Israel has been able to force its closure since the capture of Corporal Shalit in 2006.
Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there.
We need to be careful with our language so as not to give the impression that the BBC is favouring one side's position. In BBC programmes it is more accurate to talk about an "end to Israel's permanent military presence" rather than the end of occupation.
GREEN LINE
The Green Line marks the boundary between Israel and the West Bank. It is properly referred to as the 1949 Armistice Line - the ceasefire line of 1949.
The exact borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state are subject to negotiation between the two parties. The Palestinians want a complete end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and use the phrase to mean a return to the pre-4th June 1967 borders.
In describing the situation on the ground take care to use the most precise and accurate terminology.
The Green Line is a dividing line or a boundary. If you call it a border you may inadvertently imply that it has internationally recognised status, which it does not currently have.
To that end, we can call the Green Line "the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank."
INTIFADA
The usual guidelines about paying due regard to the context in which words are used should be carefully considered if we are referring to the causes of the uprising.
Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. So, for example, it is preferable to say that "Sharon's visit and Palestinian frustration at the failure of the peace process sparked the (second) intifada or uprising" rather than it "led" to it or "started" it.
JERUSALEM
The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Between 1949 and 1967, the city was divided into Israeli controlled West Jerusalem, and Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.
That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.
See East Jerusalem.
JEWISH
Be careful over whether you mean "Israeli" or "Jewish": the latter might imply that the story is about race or religion, rather than the actions of the state or its citizens.
"MIDDLE EAST EXPERT"
Some "experts" may have a history of sympathising with one cause or another even if they have no overt affiliation.
It is preferable, where time and space allow, to provide a lengthier indication of the contributor's views on past issues so that the audience might calibrate his or her statements for themselves.
In all reporting we should avoid generalisations, bland descriptions and loose phrases which in fact tell us little about a contributor or event. The phrase "Middle East expert" implies the BBC thinks this person's views have weight and independence. If we can defend that judgement - that's fine. If not it may be better to avoid the phrase.
Overall, we should seek a precise description - for example, what job does this person hold? Who employs them? Where do they stand in the debate?
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES/OCCUPATION
The general phrase "occupied territories" refers to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and strictly speaking the Golan Heights. However, it is not usually understood to refer to the Golan Heights (unless it is in a story specifically on the 1967 war or Syrian-Israeli relations).
It is advisable to avoid trying to find another formula, although the phrase "occupied West Bank" can also be used.
Try not to confuse the phrase "occupied territories" with Palestinian Land or Palestinian Territories. (See those sections for the reasons why.)
The Israeli government's preferred phrase to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip is "disputed territories" and it is reasonable to use this when it is clear that we are referring to or explaining its position.
OUTPOSTS
Be careful that you don't mean settlements. They are very different. Outposts are usually little more than a few caravans occupying a hilltop.
They serve a dual purpose - firstly to create new facts on the ground and expand the land included in the adjoining settlement; secondly, to defy the Israeli government and show the strength of the settler movement.
Some of these outposts are called "unauthorised outposts" by the Israeli government - generally meaning no permission was granted for them. You can describe an outpost as unauthorised by the Israeli government if that is accurate and relevant to the specific case you are considering.
It is generally advisable not to refer to "illegal" outposts (they are all illegal and if you call one illegal some may assume that others are not).
Generally it's a good rule to question the use of any adjective. Use it only if it is vital to the understanding of the story and you are confident that it precisely applies in this context.
PALESTINE
There is no independent state of Palestine today, although the stated goal of the peace process is to establish a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel.
So be careful with the use of the word "Palestine" as its meaning can depend on the context.
For example, it can refer to historical Palestine or it can refer to a future state of Palestine living side by side with Israel as envisaged in the Roadmap.
PALESTINIAN LAND
This phrase has become more widely used by politicians and broadcasters to refer to the Occupied Territories, for example to explain why the construction of settlements is considered illegal by the UN.
Critics of the phrase say it is not strictly accurate because, for example, the West Bank was captured from Jordan in 1967.
The BBC Governors considered this issue in a complaint which was referred to in the programme complaints bulletin of July 2004. Their decision was that, although the complainant objected to references to "Palestinian land" and "Arab land", these terms "appropriately reflected the language of UN resolutions."
PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
Strictly speaking, the phrase Palestinian Territories refers to the areas that fall under the administration of the Palestinian Authority.
They are difficult to work out, because of the way the West Bank was divided into complex security zones under the Oslo Accords and because of changes on the ground since the outbreak of violence in September 2000.
The phrase is not the most accurate shorthand for the Occupied Territories although President Bush referred to "Palestinian territories" in his 2005 State of the Union address.
"PEACE PROCESS"
This phrase, in the wrong context, can suggest the two sides are returning to the negotiation process of the 1990s, when they would sit down and try to hammer out an agreement.
An attempt to rebuild trust and relations is not quite the same as proper negotiations.
So it is better to avoid the term entirely unless it is in an historical sense - referring to the discussions of the 1990s, or to a revival of talks at that level.
"RELATIVE CALM"
It is better to avoid cliches wherever possible. People may die each day, in small numbers, in "periods of relative calm" so that the cumulative death toll is actually larger than the casualties involved in a single high profile news event such as a bomb attack.
There may be times when the phrase is accurate. So use it carefully when the facts tell us that there really is such a period of quiet.
RIGHT OF RETURN
We should try to specify who would like to return and to where.
There is a Palestinian demand that Palestinians "who fled or were forced out of their homes" during the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars have the right to return to their homes.
There is a dispute between the two sides over why they are refugees, so the previous phrase is a useful one that reflects the two different views.
Israel has Right of Return legislation, which allows Jews to settle in Israel and receive Israeli citizenship.
SETTLEMENTS
Settlements are residential areas built by Israelis in the occupied territories. They are illegal under international law: this is the position of the UN Security Council and the UK government among others - although Israel rejects this.
When writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that "all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this".
SETTLER NUMBERS
It is best, wherever possible, to be precise about geography when putting a figure to the number of Israeli settlers.
Because of disputes and sensitivities about the status of East Jerusalem, the following construction is useful: "There are thought to be around 430,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and another 20,000 in the Golan Heights."
TERRORISTS
Note the BBC producer guidelines which state: "We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like "liberate", "court martial" or "execute" in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunmen", "kidnapper", "insurgent" or "militant.""
Our responsibility is to remain impartial and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
WALL
See Barrier.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm
Words in bold indicate a cross-reference.
Assassinations
Barrier
Border
"Cycle of violence"
East Jerusalem
Fence
Gaza Strip
Green Line
Intifada
Jerusalem
Jewish
"Middle East expert"
Occupied territories/occupation
Outposts
Palestine
Palestinian Land
Palestinian Territories
"Peace process"
Relative calm
Right of return
Settlements
Settler numbers
Terrorists
Wall
ASSASSINATIONS
The BBC's responsibility is to remain impartial and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments.
Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements.
If an event falls within the dictionary definition of assassination, then we can use the term but the word "killed" or "killing" may be perfectly adequate.
Plain simple language is preferable to more complex or emotive language. If we have more precise details of exactly why or how the killing took place, we should communicate that in an equally straightforward way. The phrase "targeted killing" is sometimes used by Israel and should be attributed.
BARRIER
BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute.
The BBC uses the terms "barrier", "separation barrier" or "West Bank barrier" as acceptable generic descriptions to avoid the political connotations of "security fence" (preferred by the Israeli government) or "apartheid wall" (preferred by the Palestinians).
The United Nations also uses the term "barrier".
Of course, a reporter standing in front of a concrete section of the barrier might choose to say "this wall" or use a more exact description in the light of what he or she is looking at.
BORDER
Be careful with this word. Do you mean boundary? See Green Line.
"CYCLE OF VIOLENCE"
It is better to avoid clichés wherever possible. This one does nothing to explain any of the underlying causes of the conflict and may indeed obscure them.
EAST JERUSALEM
Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1981 but its claim to the area is not recognised internationally. Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.
For example, the Foreign Office says it "regards the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. We recognise no sovereignty over the city".
We should seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded.
Avoid saying East Jerusalem "is part" of Israel or suggesting anything like it. Avoid the phrase "Arab East Jerusalem", too, unless you also have space to explain that Israel has annexed the area and claims it as part of its capital. East Jerusalem is sometimes referred as Arab East Jerusalem, partly because it was under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine.
The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story.
For example: "Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory."
FENCE
See Barrier.
GAZA STRIP
In 2005, Israel completed the withdrawal of all its troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip. It retains control of the airspace, seafront and all vehicle access - including deliveries of food and other goods.
All movement in and out of the Gaza Strip is controlled by Israeli authorities, except, officially, the pedestrian-only crossing between Gaza and Egypt which is meant to be controlled by Palestinians and Egyptians with the presence of EU monitors.
The situation is, however, fluid - Israel has been able to force its closure since the capture of Corporal Shalit in 2006.
Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there.
We need to be careful with our language so as not to give the impression that the BBC is favouring one side's position. In BBC programmes it is more accurate to talk about an "end to Israel's permanent military presence" rather than the end of occupation.
GREEN LINE
The Green Line marks the boundary between Israel and the West Bank. It is properly referred to as the 1949 Armistice Line - the ceasefire line of 1949.
The exact borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state are subject to negotiation between the two parties. The Palestinians want a complete end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and use the phrase to mean a return to the pre-4th June 1967 borders.
In describing the situation on the ground take care to use the most precise and accurate terminology.
The Green Line is a dividing line or a boundary. If you call it a border you may inadvertently imply that it has internationally recognised status, which it does not currently have.
To that end, we can call the Green Line "the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank."
INTIFADA
The usual guidelines about paying due regard to the context in which words are used should be carefully considered if we are referring to the causes of the uprising.
Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. So, for example, it is preferable to say that "Sharon's visit and Palestinian frustration at the failure of the peace process sparked the (second) intifada or uprising" rather than it "led" to it or "started" it.
JERUSALEM
The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Between 1949 and 1967, the city was divided into Israeli controlled West Jerusalem, and Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.
That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.
See East Jerusalem.
JEWISH
Be careful over whether you mean "Israeli" or "Jewish": the latter might imply that the story is about race or religion, rather than the actions of the state or its citizens.
"MIDDLE EAST EXPERT"
Some "experts" may have a history of sympathising with one cause or another even if they have no overt affiliation.
It is preferable, where time and space allow, to provide a lengthier indication of the contributor's views on past issues so that the audience might calibrate his or her statements for themselves.
In all reporting we should avoid generalisations, bland descriptions and loose phrases which in fact tell us little about a contributor or event. The phrase "Middle East expert" implies the BBC thinks this person's views have weight and independence. If we can defend that judgement - that's fine. If not it may be better to avoid the phrase.
Overall, we should seek a precise description - for example, what job does this person hold? Who employs them? Where do they stand in the debate?
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES/OCCUPATION
The general phrase "occupied territories" refers to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and strictly speaking the Golan Heights. However, it is not usually understood to refer to the Golan Heights (unless it is in a story specifically on the 1967 war or Syrian-Israeli relations).
It is advisable to avoid trying to find another formula, although the phrase "occupied West Bank" can also be used.
Try not to confuse the phrase "occupied territories" with Palestinian Land or Palestinian Territories. (See those sections for the reasons why.)
The Israeli government's preferred phrase to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip is "disputed territories" and it is reasonable to use this when it is clear that we are referring to or explaining its position.
OUTPOSTS
Be careful that you don't mean settlements. They are very different. Outposts are usually little more than a few caravans occupying a hilltop.
They serve a dual purpose - firstly to create new facts on the ground and expand the land included in the adjoining settlement; secondly, to defy the Israeli government and show the strength of the settler movement.
Some of these outposts are called "unauthorised outposts" by the Israeli government - generally meaning no permission was granted for them. You can describe an outpost as unauthorised by the Israeli government if that is accurate and relevant to the specific case you are considering.
It is generally advisable not to refer to "illegal" outposts (they are all illegal and if you call one illegal some may assume that others are not).
Generally it's a good rule to question the use of any adjective. Use it only if it is vital to the understanding of the story and you are confident that it precisely applies in this context.
PALESTINE
There is no independent state of Palestine today, although the stated goal of the peace process is to establish a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel.
So be careful with the use of the word "Palestine" as its meaning can depend on the context.
For example, it can refer to historical Palestine or it can refer to a future state of Palestine living side by side with Israel as envisaged in the Roadmap.
PALESTINIAN LAND
This phrase has become more widely used by politicians and broadcasters to refer to the Occupied Territories, for example to explain why the construction of settlements is considered illegal by the UN.
Critics of the phrase say it is not strictly accurate because, for example, the West Bank was captured from Jordan in 1967.
The BBC Governors considered this issue in a complaint which was referred to in the programme complaints bulletin of July 2004. Their decision was that, although the complainant objected to references to "Palestinian land" and "Arab land", these terms "appropriately reflected the language of UN resolutions."
PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
Strictly speaking, the phrase Palestinian Territories refers to the areas that fall under the administration of the Palestinian Authority.
They are difficult to work out, because of the way the West Bank was divided into complex security zones under the Oslo Accords and because of changes on the ground since the outbreak of violence in September 2000.
The phrase is not the most accurate shorthand for the Occupied Territories although President Bush referred to "Palestinian territories" in his 2005 State of the Union address.
"PEACE PROCESS"
This phrase, in the wrong context, can suggest the two sides are returning to the negotiation process of the 1990s, when they would sit down and try to hammer out an agreement.
An attempt to rebuild trust and relations is not quite the same as proper negotiations.
So it is better to avoid the term entirely unless it is in an historical sense - referring to the discussions of the 1990s, or to a revival of talks at that level.
"RELATIVE CALM"
It is better to avoid cliches wherever possible. People may die each day, in small numbers, in "periods of relative calm" so that the cumulative death toll is actually larger than the casualties involved in a single high profile news event such as a bomb attack.
There may be times when the phrase is accurate. So use it carefully when the facts tell us that there really is such a period of quiet.
RIGHT OF RETURN
We should try to specify who would like to return and to where.
There is a Palestinian demand that Palestinians "who fled or were forced out of their homes" during the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars have the right to return to their homes.
There is a dispute between the two sides over why they are refugees, so the previous phrase is a useful one that reflects the two different views.
Israel has Right of Return legislation, which allows Jews to settle in Israel and receive Israeli citizenship.
SETTLEMENTS
Settlements are residential areas built by Israelis in the occupied territories. They are illegal under international law: this is the position of the UN Security Council and the UK government among others - although Israel rejects this.
When writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that "all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this".
SETTLER NUMBERS
It is best, wherever possible, to be precise about geography when putting a figure to the number of Israeli settlers.
Because of disputes and sensitivities about the status of East Jerusalem, the following construction is useful: "There are thought to be around 430,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and another 20,000 in the Golan Heights."
TERRORISTS
Note the BBC producer guidelines which state: "We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like "liberate", "court martial" or "execute" in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunmen", "kidnapper", "insurgent" or "militant.""
Our responsibility is to remain impartial and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
WALL
See Barrier.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
