IDF Redefines Palestinians West of the Fence
By Amira Hass, Palestine Monitor/Ha'aretz 10/14/2003
One of the questions raised immediately after it became clear that for the most part, the separation fence would not be built along the length of the Green Line, but in fact somewhere to the east of it, was the fate of the Palestinians living to the west of the fence. As of now, this fate is shared by approximately 12,000 persons living in 15 Palestinian villages and towns, from Salim in the northern West Bank to Mas'ha, to the south of Qalqilyah (near the settlement of Elkana). They are shut in between the separation fence to the east, and the Green Line to the west. As construction of the fence continues, deep into the territory of the West Bank, more Palestinians will find themselves in this situation.
Additionally, the fence affects the lives of tens of thousands of other people, whose homes are east of the fence, and whose land, on which they earn their livelihood, is to the west. All told, according to the findings of the Palestinian Department of Negotiations, the route that the first stage of the fence will take (up to Elkana on the south) has so far cut off from the West Bank about 100,000 dunams (25,000 acres) of Palestinian-owned land, some of which is settled, most of which is farmland.
...Permit Required From Age 12: At the end of last week, residents of the villages that are trapped between the fence and the Green Line, in the Tul Karm and Qalqilyah districts, found that the army had distributed forms that bore the heading: "Israel Defense Forces, Security Directives Order (Judea and Samaria) (No. 378) 1970." They found the forms taped to the gates of the separation fence, or on electricity poles, or on the concrete blocks of the manned army roadblocks, or tossed next to the door of the local grocery store.
Rafah in miniature
The Guardian 10/20/2003
"The tragedy that has befallen Tom and our family is a microcosm of the wide-scale terror felt by thousands of other families in the occupied territories." - Six months after my son was shot by Israeli troops, the British government has yet to condemn the act -- Last Thursday, I delivered a letter to Mr Blair expressing my despair at the Israeli government's lack of response to our call for a full inquiry into the death of my son, Tom. While working as a photojournalist, Tom was shot in the head by an Israeli commander in Rafah, Gaza. He had been walking down a calm civilian street where 20 children were playing when snipers began shooting at them. He was carrying the children to safety when he was shot, and was wearing a fluorescent human rights jacket. He posed no threat. His brain is severely damaged and he will not recover.
Following our traumatic seven-week stay in Israel as we watched our son on the verge of death, we submitted a report to Israel's judge advocate general through the British Foreign Office, and requested a fully transparent inquiry. We included 13 eyewitness statements and considerable photographic evidence of Tom just before and after he was shot.
It has now been six months since Tom was shot, and three-and-a-half months since his case was handed to the Israeli judge advocate general. As yet, we have heard nothing apart from a collection of unutterably bland excuses. "The complexity and subtleness of the examination process," we are told, "demand due consideration and considerable time"; and "There was another suicide bombing and so he [the judge advocate general] has a lot to deal with."
Rightist cynicism
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz 10/20/2003
Not since the Camp David summit of 2000, when then-premier Ehud Barak tried to reach an agreement with Yasser Arafat (or maybe merely "expose his true face") have the Temple Mount and the right of return been so celebrated. Rightist hawks, with the help of a few plucked doves in the Labor Party, are pouring fire and brimstone on the "Geneva criminals" who had the temerity to even consider handing the Holy of Holies over to the Muslims. Government ministers and MKs worked day and night to find that Yasser Abed Rabbo and his colleagues did not sign on to the words "We hereby give up the right of return." Such weighty issues, of course, deserve penetrating public debate. But before that, it's worth noting how those critics cynically exploit Zionist ideology.
Let's assume that instead of Yasser Arafat, some collaborator instructed the Waqf to hand over the keys to Al Aqsa mosque to the chief rabbinate: Would Prime Minister Ariel Sharon then make the painful concession and bring home the settlers of Netzarim, who are guarding the beaches of Gaza for us? Let's assume that the Palestinian National Council were to decide that only Jews who fit the halachic definition had the right of return: Would Ehud Olmert then be ready to give up his former subjects in Jerusalem from the neighborhood of Kfar Akub?
The return of Arabophobia
By Neil Clark, The Guardian 10/20/2003
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are only the latest in a long line of Arab bogeymen -- First, they tried to dismiss Iraqi resistance as the work of "Saddam loyalists". Then they sought to blame "outside forces". Now, as it becomes clear that Iraqis of all sects oppose the occupation, a third explanation has arisen. Terrorism, anarchy and criminality are prevalent in Iraq because ... er ... terrorism, anarchy and criminality are what Iraqis do.
Arabophobia has been part of western culture since the Crusades, with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden only the latest in a long line of Arab bogeymen. For centuries the Arab has played the role of villain, seducer of our women, hustler and thief - the barbarian lurking at the gates of civilisation.
In the 20th century new images emerged: the fanatical terrorist, the stone-thrower, the suicide bomber. Now, as the Project for a New American Century suffers its first major setback in the back streets of Baghdad and Basra, Arabophobia has been given a new lease of life. "I read TE Lawrence before I came here," a British officer was quoted in the Mail on Sunday. "A century ago he recognised dishonesty was inherent in Arab society. Today is the same. They do nothing for love and nothing at all if they can help it."
The attitudes of the officer, shocking though they are, only mirror those of the people who sent him to war. Scratch a neo-con and you find an Arabophobe. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, has berated Arabs on the "need to change their behaviour". Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defence for policy, has talked of Israel's "moral superiority" over its neighbours. And the veteran foreign policy hawk Richard Perle, when asked about the fears Egyptians had of the Iraq war provoking an Arab backlash, replied: "Egyptians can barely govern their own country, we don't need advice on how to govern ours."
Could relocation be translated as transfer?
By Danny Rubinstein, Ha'aretz 10/20/2003
"...there are signs lately of a genuine fear in the Palestinian public of transfer. The Palestinian reports tell of enormous damage being caused by the separation fence along the seam line in Samaria and the Sharon region, claiming that sooner or later it will force the Palestinian population harmed by the fence to simply get up and leave their homes." -- The Palestinian reaction to the Israeli decision to move 15 administrative detainees (though the Palestinians say there are 18) from the West Bank to Gaza, appear exaggerated. The prisoners, who have not faced trial, are in prisons in the West Bank and the minute they are moved to Gaza, they will be set free. But in Palestinian eyes, freedom, in this context, doesn't count. "As far as every Palestinian is concerned, exile, being removed from land and family, is worse than jail," said Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat. Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia declared the Israeli decision to expel the detainees as a step that could destroy the efforts to calm things down, while Yasser Arafat said that the Israeli conspiracy to expel the Palestinians from their land begins with the transfer of the 15 detainees. The Palestinian media copied Arafat, with the headline of the Palestinian Authority newspaper Al Hayat Al Jadida speaking of transfer.
On the other side, official Israeli spokesmen did not regard the decision as particularly dramatic. An IDF legal advisor explained that the term expulsion is only appropriate when a person is moved for one country to another, and in this case, the Palestinians remain in their country, but will reside elsewhere. It's "relocation," said army spokesmen, enriching the IDF intifada lexicon with a new term.
Atrocities of War: Qalqiliya and the Apartheid Wall
By Mina Hamilton, Dissident Voice 10/20/2003
Atrocity: A word to handle with care. Used too often the word loses its power, slips into insignificance.
Over the years memories of unpopular or controversial wars tend to coalesce around a signature atrocity, one particularly brutal episode. The event becomes the perceived norm for the war. It's the act or sequence of acts that we know, even without proof, was repeated in other less publicized, but equally appalling, acts of annihilation.
...Alas, humans in their ingenuity have designed many kinds of deaths. There is the quick, bloody snuffing out of physical murder. Then there are the slow, excruciatingly slow, deaths. The death may be the bitter attrition of a population starved of jobs, food, water, and hope. It may be being imprisoned, surrounded by towering slabs of dark gray concrete. It may be the oppression of living day by day with a terrible injustice.
Such is the building of the Apartheid Wall at Qalqiliya in Palestine, such is the immense concrete cage around Qalqiliya. The residents of this city of 42,000 can only leave through one -- yes, that's one -- military checkpoint. This checkpoint is supposedly open from 7 AM to 7 PM. It's often closed at the whim of the occupying soldiers.
What's happening in the ghetto-ized city of Qalqiliya, is certainly one of the signature frightful events of the Israeli-Palestinian War.
Handwriting on the wall
By Octavius Pinkard, Jordan Times 10/20/2003
IT IS because Washington always says yes to Israel that Israel can consistently say no to the Palestinians. No to dismantling illegal settlements, no to halting new settlement activity, no to an equitable distribution of water resources and no to the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state. Few things demonstrate this reality more clearly than Israel's insistence on building its wall of separation, the recent Israeli attack on Syrian territory and the lack of an official US condemnation of either operation. And while Israel manipulates American memories of Sept. 11 to rationalise its own war on terror, the Palestinians continue to suffer the terror of war.
By now, it should be evident to all that suicide bombings are really to the detriment of peace, no matter the locale. The one executed in Haifa on Oct. 4 is a prime example, as it has led to an escalation in both tensions and senseless violence.
...Where is the American concern for Palestinian human rights and the systematic, unrelenting oppression they have had to endure? Supposedly, the ideals of human rights and liberty were among the reasons for attacking Iraq militarily (the weapons claims have proved false, so these alternative justifications have been identified and promoted by Washington). Are the Palestinians any less deserving of the sympathy and, more importantly, the protection of the United States than the Kurds and Shiites who suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein or, say, the Bosnian Muslims or Kosovar Albanians who suffered so tragically in the Balkans?
Beilin's 'Unofficial' Peace Plan Raises Hopes, Ire
By Chemi Shalev, Forward 10/17/2003
JERUSALEM — An unofficial but comprehensive peace agreement, hammered out by groups of informal Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, is fueling Israel's fiercest political debate in years and could ultimately redraw the political map here.
Supporters of the so-called Geneva Understandings, which were initialed at a ceremony in Jordan this week, say the 60-page document could serve as the basis of a future Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty. Its completion follows two years of talks between an Israeli team led by onetime justice minister Yossi Beilin and a Palestinian team led by former information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, a confidante of Yasser Arafat. Supporters say it is meant to dispel the widely held view that Israel has no partner for peace on the Palestinian side.
Prime Minister Sharon and his allies are responding furiously to the document, accusing the Israeli negotiators of damaging Israel's interests and helping the enemy in wartime. Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a close Sharon adviser, charged that the negotiators "knowingly want to act as levers in the hands of foreign powers in order to put pressure on Israel."
Olmert called the project "pathetic" and "grave," noting that several negotiators were Knesset members who should not be "negotiating with a foreign entity."
The Geneva Agreement: Pros and Cons
By Clement Leibovitz, Miftah 10/20/2003
We must first recognize that the Geneva Accord is a serious document. The authors have obviously invested a lot of time in research and thought to ponder on the multiple considerations it involves.
I have not yet seen the maps. Let us suppose that they are consistent with the Security Council resolution 242 which forbids the acquisition of territory as the result of war.
The West Bank territories, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem would become a separate Palestinian state. That is great! Some violations of Palestinian sovereignty on the territory are mentioned, such as Israel's right to use Palestinian airspace for their air force practice. Other violations have a temporary character.
The main objection is that the agreement does not implement the right of return of Palestinian refugees. It offers a number of choices to the refugees except the choice to go back to Israeli territory, even if one is native of the land on which Israel will have sovereignty. Still, the refugees will get compensations, will receive citizenship in Palestine, or in hosting countries, will be able to have a passport and to travel. Palestinians having an Israeli citizenship would no longer be discriminated against.
Israel's trails of deception: The government's relationship with Palestinians has parallels with U.S. treatment of Indians
By M. Reza Behnam, The Register-Guard 10/19/2003
The history of modern Israel and its war with the Palestinians began with a historical struggle for control of inhabited lands. The history of the United States began with a similar struggle to dominate land controlled by Native Americans.
The language of force, the rhetoric of justification and the idiom of violence are strikingly analogous. Both histories reveal broken promises, trails of deception, asymmetrical force and indigenous populations pushed to the margins of society by the conquests.
No historical analogy is perfect. Indeed, the differences in the experiences of Native Americans and Palestinians are many and profound. The conquest of the Americas, for instance, was not accomplished by people who had a previous connection to the land, and Palestinians have a linguistic and cultural unity that Native Americans lacked. Geography, time and culture separate the two people.
Yet framing the plight of the Palestinian people within a historical experience more familiar to American readers should help illuminate the depth of their grievances and explain the ferocity of their resistance to Israeli occupation. Through the presentation of parallels, inexact though they may be, the desperation of the Palestinian people may become comprehensible.
The Malaysian prime minister shouldn’t blame it on the Jews
By Marwan Bishara, Daily Star 10/20/2003
One can only shake his head in outrage and frustration listening to Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad accusing the Jews of controling the world by proxy and asking the representatives of 1.3 billion Muslims at last week’s annual meeting of the Organization of Islamic states to confront the international Jewish menace, albeit nonviolentenly.
Designating the world Jewry as “the enemy” is deceiving and morally reprehensible. It’s also an easy escape from confronting the real challenges stemming from America and the West in general.
Instead of charting a new way forward to tackle the dangerous post-Sept. 11, 2001 misperceptions about Muslims, Mahathir’s populist discourse will further exacerbate religious tensions and geopolitical instability.
His utterance was even more surprising considering his 22 years distinguished career as a modern statesman during which he succeeded in bringing Malaysia to 17th trading country in the world and in putting forward many intelligent and bold ideas on the development of the Third World. He should know better than to use the Jews as a scapegoat for the Muslims’ trouble. This rings particularly hollow in the West.
Truth is Least Pertinent in the Gaza Bombing Case
Palestine Chronicle 10/19/2003
It matters little whether the mastermind behind the killing of three Americans in Gaza on Wednesday, October 15, was a Palestinian group or Israeli intelligence. What’s of relevance, however is that the Palestinian people, their leadership, resistance and aspirations will wholly bear the brunt of the incident.
Censuring the weakest party - that unable to withstand the cruel scuffles and accusations of the ever-hasty media - is an attribute that has infected the ongoing Middle East conflict for decades. To illustrate, despite its vehement racism and palpable inhumanity, Palestinian parents, were, and are still being customarily accused of recruiting their own children for ‘martyrdom’ for the sake a cheap return: some funneled dollars provided by Arab governments or for the sake of merely blemishing Israel’s image. With the inimitable trickery of the charismatic, mostly US media, such utterances, possibly purported by an unknown right wing Israeli fanatic, rapidly transform themselves to define a critical stage, and serve as a satisfying rationalization offered, even championed by top officials on Capital Hill.
Nevertheless, Palestinians very much could have been the perpetrators. They are fumed and anger often stipulates, even demands vengeance. To comprehend such a value, one must see this equation, not from an American newspaper editorial point of a view, utterly textual and out rightly judgmental, but from the tatters of a tent, pitched by a Palestinian refugee in Rafah, made homeless once again, purely for being a Palestinian that has the misfortune of dwelling next to an Israeli settlement that was built illegally in Gaza.
Chaos
Editorial, Miftah 10/18/2003
Over the past five months, Palestinians looking for a way out have been unable to look to their government for guidance. The reason is that the political situation has become unbearably confusing. It takes a full time job trying to keep track of resignations rumored, presented or withdrawn and whether or not a government has been formed. Those filling ministerial posts have become sitting ducks simply awaiting their respective government formulation to collapse.
The disagreements boil down to power. A crisis arises every time questions on the authority of the prime minister, president or security minister are brought up. President Arafat’s reluctance to give up any of his powers is directly related to U.S. and Israeli efforts to sideline him. Having acquiesced to international demands to create the post of prime minister, Arafat is weary of having his powers swept from under him. Arafat can not survive as an ordinary human being. He has always been symbolic, larger than life, a figure of power. Take that away and there is no Arafat and so his resistance to sharing power is one of survival.
The post of prime minister was created with two intentions in mind, as far as the U.S. and Israel are concerned, sidelining Arafat and cracking down, with force, on Palestinian militants. This is the flaw that will doom any person appointed to the post. Arafat is aware of the strategy behind the appointment of prime minister. Both Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmed Qurei had no room to maneuver. Both were forced to demand more power in response to American pressure to take certain actions, and thus they were involuntarily pushed to clash with Arafat.
|
