Sunday, 24 January 2010

Terrorist Haven or Chess Piece? Something About Yemen

Silver Lining

Posted on January 23, 2010 by realistic bird

{Looking for Al Qae'da-Yemen} by Al Sabeel newspaper-Jordan

By CONN HALLINAN, counter punch

“The instability in Yemen is a threat to regional stability and even global stability”
— U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Yemen is a regional and global threat”
—British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
“Yemen could be the ground of America’s next overseas war if Washington does not take preemptive action to root out al-Qaeda there”
—U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn)
Yemen—a country slightly smaller than France with a population of 22 million—perches on the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. It is the poorest country in the region, with one of the most explosive birthrates in the world. Unemployment hovers above 40 percent and projections are that its oil—which makes up 70 percent of its GDP—will run out in 2017, as will water for the capital, Sana, in 2015.
It is a bit of a patchwork nation. It was formerly two countries—North Yemen and the Democratic People’s Republic of Yemen (south), which merged in 1990 and fought a nasty civil war in 1994.
The current government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh is corrupt, despotic, and presently fighting a two-front war against northern Shiites, called “Houthis,” and separatist-minded southerners. Based in the north, Saleh’s government has limited influence outside of the capital. Whoever runs the place, according to The Independent’s Middle East reporter Patrick Cockburn, has to contend with “tribal confederations, tribes, clans, and powerful families. Almost everybody has a gun, usually at least an AK-47 assault rifle, but tribesmen often own heavier armament.”
To make things even more complex, Yemen’s northern neighbor, Saudi Arabia, has sent troops and warplanes to back up Saleh. According to Reuters, “The conflict in Yemen’s northern mountains has killed hundreds and displaced tens of thousands.” Aid groups put the number of refugees at 150,000. The Saleh government and the Saudis claim the Shiia uprising is being directed by Iran— there is no evidence to back up the charge—thus escalating a local civil war to a regional face off between Riyadh and Teheran.
And this is a place that Hillary, Gordon and Joe think we need to intervene?
In a sense, of course, the U.S. is already in Yemen, and was so even before the attempted bombing Christmas Day of a Northwest Airlines flight by a young Nigerian. For most Americans, Yemen first appeared on their radar screens when the USS Cole was attacked in the port of Aden by al-Qaeda in 1990, killing 17 sailors. It reappeared this past November when a U.S. Army officer linked to a Muslim cleric in Yemen killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Colorado. The Christmas Day attacker said he was trained by al-Qaeda, and the group took credit for the failed operation.
But U.S. involvement in Yemen goes back almost 40 years. In 1979, the Carter Administration blew a minor border incident between north and south Yemen into a full-blown East- West crisis, accusing the Soviets of aggression. The White House dispatched an aircraft carrier and several warships to the Arabian Sea, and sent tanks, armored personal carriers and warplanes to the North Yemen government.
The tension between the two Yemens was hardly accidental. According to UPI, the CIA funneled $4 million a year to Jordan’s King Hussein to help brew up a civil war between the conservative North and the wealthier and socialist south.
The merger between the two countries never quite took. Southern Yemenis complain that the north plunders its oil and wealth and discriminates against southerners. Demonstrations and general strikes by the Southern Movement demanding independence have increased over the past year. The Saleh government has generally responded with clubs, tear gas and guns.
When Yemen refused to back the 1991 Gulf War to expel Iraq from Kuwait, the U.S. cancelled $70 million in foreign aid to Sana and supported a decision by Saudi Arabia to expel 850,000 Yemeni workers. Both moves had a catastrophic impact on the Yemeni economy that played a major role in initiating the current instability gripping the country.
In 2002 the Bush administration used armed drones to assassinate several Yemenis it accused of being al-Qaeda members. The New York Times reported that the Obama administration launched a cruise missile attack Dec. 17 at suspected al-Qaeda members that, according to Agence France Presse, killed 49 civilians, including 23 children and 17 women. The attack has sparked widespread anger throughout Yemen that al-Qaeda organizers have heavily exploited.
So is the current uproar over Yemen a case of a U.S. administration overreacting and stumbling into yet another quagmire in the Middle East? Or is this talk about a “global danger” just a smokescreen to allow the Americans to prop up the increasingly isolated and unpopular regime in Saudi Arabia?
Maybe both, but at least one respected analyst suggests that the game in play is considerably larger than the Arabian Peninsula and may have more to do with the control of the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea than with hunting down al-Qaeda in the Yemeni wilderness.
The Asia Times’ M.K. Bhadrakumar, a career Indian diplomat who served in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Turkey, argues that the current U.S. concern with Yemen is actually about the strategic port of Aden. “Control of Aden and the Malacca Straits will put the U.S. in an unassailable position in the ‘great game’ of the Indian Ocean,” he writes.
Aden controls the strait of Bab el-Mandab, the entrance to the Red Sea though which passes 3.5 million barrels of oil a day. The Malacca Straits, between the southern Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian island of Sumatra, is one of the key passages that link the Indian Ocean with the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
Bhadrakumar says the Indian Ocean and the Malacca Straits are “literally the jugular veins of the Chinese economy.” Indeed, a quarter of the world’s sea-borne trade passes through the area, including 80 percent of China’s oil and gas.
In 2005 the Bush Administration pressed India to counter the rise of China by joining an alliance with South Korea, Japan, and Australia. As a quid pro quo for coming aboard, Washington agreed to sell uranium to India, in spite of New Delhi’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. Only countries that sign the Treaty can purchase uranium in the international market. The Bush administration also agreed to sell India the latest in military technology. The Obama administration has continued the same policies.
China and India have indeed beefed up their naval forces in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Beijing is also developing a “string of pearls”— ports that will run from East Africa to Southeast Asia. India has just established a formal naval presence in Oman at the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf.
According to Bhadrakumar, the growing U.S. rapprochement with Myanmar and Sri Lanka is aimed at checkmating China’s influence in both nations, and cutting off efforts by Beijing to reduce its reliance on ocean-borne energy transportation by constructing land-based pipelines. China just opened such a pipeline to Central Asia.
“The U.S., on the contrary, is determined that China remain vulnerable to the choke points between Indonesia and Malaysia,” writes the former Indian diplomat.
Checkmating China would also explain some of the pressure that the Obama administration is exerting on Pakistan.
“The U.S. is unhappy with China’s efforts to reach the warm waters of the Persian Gulf through the Central Asian region and Pakistan. Slowly but steadily, Washington is tightening the noose around the neck of the Pakistani elites—civilian and military—and forcing them to make a strategic choice between the U.S. and China,” writes Bhadrakumar.
This would help explain the increasing tension between China and India over a Himalayan border region that has sparked a military buildup in Chinese-occupied Tibet and India’s Arunachai Pradesh state. Former Indian Air Marshall Fali Homi told the Hindustan Times that China was now a bigger threat than Pakistan, and former Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra predicts an India-China war within five years.
“Energy security” has been at the heart of U.S. foreign policy for decades. The 1980’s “Carter Doctrine” made it explicit that the U.S. would use military if its energy supplies were ever threatened. Whether the administration was Republican or Democratic made little difference when it came to controlling gas and oil supplies, and the greatest concentration of U.S. military forces is in the Middle East, where 60 percent of the world’s energy supplies lie.
Except for using Special Forces and supplying weapons, it is unlikely that the U.S. will intervene in a major way in Yemen. But through military aid it can exert a good deal of influence over the Sana government, including extracting basing rights.
The White House has elevated the 200 or so “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” members in Yemen into what the President calls a “serious problem,” and there are dark hints that the country is on its way to becoming a “failed state,” the green light for a more robust intervention.
However, as Jon Alterman, Middle East Director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues, “The problems in Yemen are not fundamentally problems that military operations can solve.”
But then the “problems” of Yemen may be simply a prelude for a much wider and potentially dangerous strategy focused on China.
“The U.S. cannot give up on its global dominance without putting up a real fight,” says Bhadrakumar. “And the reality of all such momentous struggles is that they cannot be fought piecemeal. You cannot fight China without occupying Yemen.”
Filed under: Caricature, Politics

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Yallah, ...Yallah ... Aleppo's & Syria's rediscovery!


Friday-Lunch-Club


In the NYTimes/ here


"... Yet, as tensions between Damascus and Washington begin to ease, a new wave of visitors is rediscovering this ancient trading center, eager to take advantage of its low prices, spicy cuisine and maze-like bazaar.
In September, tourism in Syria was up by more than a third from the same month a year earlier, and the recent loosening of visa restrictions with Turkey means that Aleppo is being flooded with traders and tourists from across the border....."


Posted by G, Z, or B at 11:44 AM
River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

“Israel’s” troop surge ups tensions at Lebanon border

Press TV

Posted on January 23, 2010 by realistic bird

Lebanese resistance fighter
Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Press TV

A new report said that Hezbollah has tightened security measures along the border with Israel as Tel Aviv beefs up its forces along the northern frontier.

Citing Lebanese sources, the London-based A-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper reported Friday that Israeli troops were called up to the northern borders to carry out “military maneuvers.”

According to the report, the resistance movement put its forces on high alert to retaliate in the event of “surprise attack” by Israel.

The daily quoted a Hezbollah source as saying that “Israel has accustomed us to aggression and we are used to being vigilant and on the lookout all the time. That is what we are doing.”

The source, however, did not confirm the security alert on border. The paper said Syria had also called up reservist soldiers, including Syrian natives residing in Lebanon.

A senior Israeli army officer, however, denied reports about an upcoming military drill along the border. He also denied any plan to attack Lebanon.

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem warned Thursday of an Israeli attack, which could place at any time.

“The resistance is preparing and working persistently in order to face such a possibility, whether it was delayed or sudden at any given moment,” Lebanon’s Naharnet quoted him as saying.

In 2006, Israel fought the 33-day war to destroy Hezbollah’s military power but eventually left southern Lebanon without achieving any of its objectives.

Filed under: Politics

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Gaza wall: "...Angering the US & Israel may lose Egypt its privileged negotiating role at a time of declining regional influence..."

Via Friday-Luch-Club

OxfAn Excerpts:


"... Egypt's intensifying anti-smuggling measures and the erection of a border wall are at odds with its claim to back the Palestinian cause. It has several reasons for doing so -- chiefly its distaste for Hamas, and US pressure -- but its reference to national security is unlikely to be credible to the domestic audience. As the situation in Gaza deteriorates, Egypt's opposition could mobilise public opinion on the issue in the context of upcoming elections and expected presidential succession........
A year after Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, the construction by Egypt of a wall along its border with Gaza and measures taken against tunnel smuggling highlight Egypt's cooperation with Israel in blockading the Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory. This position opens the regime to both domestic and foreign criticism, (as) the blockade of the Gaza Strip is threatening its healthcare systems and putting patients' lives at risk
ANALYSIS: When Israel launched its attack on Gaza in December 2008, the repercussions on Egypt were vast:

  • Hamas and its allies -- Iran, Syria, Qatar and Hizbollah in Lebanon -- launched the harshest criticism publicly levelled against Cairo since former President Anwar al-Sadat signed the Camp David agreement.

  • That criticism stung, and Egypt responded by launching its own media offensive while, on the domestic front, it followed in Sadat's footsteps by making the case for an 'Egypt first' policy that put national security concerns above solidarity with Palestinians.

  • Boosted by Western support, Cairo was put at the centre of the process that brought that war to an end -- then dubbed the 'Egyptian initiative', although its initiator had been French President Nicolas Sarkozy .....
Despite shock at Israel's tactics in Gaza, many Egyptians responded to some extent to the 'Egypt first' argument. Doing otherwise was discouraged, since activities showing solidarity with Gaza were brought under heavy security scrutiny.
Dual policy. A year later, Cairo continues to offer the only official mechanism for negotiating a permanent truce, a prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel, and inter-Palestinian reconciliation. At the same time, Egypt is a key enforcer of Israel's Gaza blockade through its refusal to open up the Rafah crossing ....
Motives. There are several possible explanations for Egypt's decision to go ahead with such a highly criticised project:

  • Egypt may want to strengthen its chokehold on Hamas in the context of its refusal to sign a Palestinian reconciliation agreement favourable to Fatah.

  • It may simultaneously want to continue to narrow Hamas' room for manoeuvre, and present its removal from power as the only solution for Gazans to improve their lot.

  • Moreover, Egypt is under heavy Israeli and US pressure to put an end to smuggling -- currently Gaza's main lifeline -- and is rewarded for its cooperation by being maintained as the only internationally-sanctioned channel for negotiations with Hamas, and by the improvement of US-Egypt ties. Congress recently approved unprecedented economic aid to Egypt and a major sale of F-16 fighter jets -- previously, Congress had withheld 100 million dollars in aid, in part because of the tunnels.
A mixture of these explanations is plausible, combined with the reality that angering the United States and Israel may lose Egypt its privileged negotiating role at a time when its regional influence is already declining. Moreover, alternative policies may reward Hamas, possibly encouraging the Islamist current across region and in Egypt itself.
Justifications. For much of 2009, Egypt was able to pursue this policy discreetly without encountering significant domestic opposition, pushing the 'Egypt first' line against any dissenting voices. However, media attention over the wall construction has put Cairo on the defensive, particularly as it coincided with worldwide demonstrations marking the one-year anniversary of the Gaza offensive and brought attention to the territory's inability to rebuild due to the blockade.
The Egyptian government has deployed several arguments to back its stance:
1. PNA absence. ......Palestinian National Authority (PNA) representatives must be present at the border. Since this is not possible without Palestinian reconciliation, Cairo has blamed the Palestinian factions (and Hamas in particular).
2. Passengers only. Egypt also insists that Rafah will remain a passenger terminal only, with commercial traffic to Gaza redirected via Israel. According to an Egyptian diplomat, this will remain the case (with a few humanitarian exceptions) until a permanent settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This argument reflects Egypt's desire to clear itself of any responsibility for Gaza, which it argues is entirely Israel's responsibility as an occupying power, and its fear of Israeli attempts to turn Gaza into Egypt's problem.
3. Security. National security was again invoked to justify the wall in light of Hamas' breach of the previous border wall in January 2008. Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit described the wall as a "defensive measure", and the upper house of parliament, the Shura Council, issued a report approving of its construction. Religious sanction was also obtained from al-Azhar, the highest religious authority in Egypt, which issued a fatwa defending the wall.
Criticism. Nonetheless, there is clear domestic opposition to the scheme: it had been widely criticised in the media and in parliament by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including by some who claim that it is part of an attempt to gain US approval for the potential presidential succession. Activists claim that the absence of a wider uproar is due to the regime's zero-tolerance policy over protests for Gaza. During the past year, several Egyptian activists have been arrested and foreigners involved in the pro-Gaza movement have been refused entry into the country. Should the humanitarian situation in Gaza further deteriorate due to the blockade, activists may brave the security clampdown.
A linkage of domestic opposition with regional criticism provoked a strong reaction from Cairo during the Gaza offensive and is doing so again. Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Mufid Shehab (who is often used as a government spokesman) last week launched a vitriolic attack on Al-Jazeera over its coverage of the Rafah wall. Likewise, pro-regime television was mobilised to defend the erection of the wall.
Even so, the arrival of two major groups of international activists for Gaza -- the Gaza Freedom March and Viva Palestina -- in the last week of December embarrassed Egypt, which refused most of the first group entry to Gaza, leaving hundreds protesting in Cairo. It also made the second group rearrange its route and backtrack its humanitarian goods convoy from Aqaba, Jordan, to Lattakia, Syria.
Hamas response.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshal visited Riyadh on January 3 and asked Saudi Arabia to become more involved in inter-Palestinian negotiations, a move Cairo will see as threatening its monopoly over these talks. Should Qatar and Syria join the chorus against the wall in earnest, there could be a repeat of the Arab political and media 'cold war' seen during and in the immediate aftermath of the Gaza war. Such a revival would damage both Egypt's claim of regional leadership and influence its domestic image...."

Posted by G, Z, or B at 11:56 AM
River to Sea  Uprooted Palestinian

Israel Has Right to Exit

ISRAEL minus PALESTINE

Oil on canvas  “Israel minus Palestine” by Dora McPhee, January 2010
Via Australians For Palestine

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Abbas’s militias kidnap six members of Hizb Attahrir in Al-Khalil


PIC

[ 24/01/2010 - 06:37 PM ]

AL-KHALIL, (PIC)-- Mahmoud Abbas’s militias kidnapped Saturday evening six members of Hizb Attahrir (the liberation party) during raids carried out in the towns of Dora and Daheria, south of Al-Khalil city.

The party said that Abbas’s intelligence apparatus kidnapped five of its members in Al-Daheria town and another one in Dora town, and tried to capture others but failed.

The party noted that among those who were detained was a young man who heckled envoy of the international quartet Tony Blair and called him a terrorist during his visit to the Ibrahimi Mosque in Al-Khalil four months ago.

It added that Abbas’s militias recaptured its members despite there was a court decision to release them.
In a separate incident, Abbas’s militias reportedly kidnapped four Palestinians affiliated with Hamas in Nablus and Al-Khalil districts on Saturday and transferred a prisoner in its jails called Hasan Al-Zagha to Rafidia hospital as a result of his exposure to severe torture.

Zagha is a human rights activist especially in the field of prisoners’ affairs and has spent more than nine years in Israeli jails.

In Tulkarem, local sources reported that Abbas’s militias kidnapped on Thursday Yousuf Al-Hasri, a professor at Al-Quds open university, as he was leaving the campus in the presence of students and took him to their headquarters in the city.


River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian

Canada redirects funding for UN relief agency to Ramulla Traitor


The Star Logo

Link

January 15, 2010

Antonia Zerbisias

Is Canada pulling the plug on the UN's Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides education, health and other social services in 59 Palestinian refugee camps in the Middle East?

Will UNRWA's Canadian funding be diverted instead to training Palestinian police forces and building courthouses and prisons?

That's certainly what was suggested on Wednesday by Treasury Minister Vic Toews in both the Jerusalem Post and a news release from B'nai Brith Canada. Toews, who met on Monday with senior Palestinian Authority (PA) officials in the occupied West Bank, is quoted by the Post saying, "Canada is not reducing the amount of money given to the PA, but it is now being redirected in accordance with Canadian values."

Yesterday, the Canada-Israel Committee also released a statement applauding the government's reallocation of UNRWA's funding to ``direct food aid to the Palestinians."

In the wake of the government's defunding of the humanitarian and activist KAIROS last month which, as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney indicated to a Jerusalem audience, is an anti-Semitic organization, Canada's refusal to fund UNRWA, should that be the case, would come as no surprise.

UNRWA is controversial because, as its critics note, its mandate supports the Palestinian right of return. It also has been accused of hiring terrorists. That despite a report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) that said the organization has "strengthened'' its operations to avoid providing support to UN-recognized terrorist groups.

"Canadian funding of UNRWA has always been problematic due to the fact that numerous reports spelled out the degree to which Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations have infiltrated UNRWA,'' Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, said in a statement on Wednesday. "We are grateful that Canadians have a government that truly understands the situation in Israel and the territories and has acted to redirect funding from UNRWA to specific projects in the Palestinian Authority.''

While saying he finds the reports in the Post and in other media confusing on the funding issue, UNRWA's New York City-based Andrew Whitley, who is responsible for the organization's relations with Ottawa, flatly denies any terrorist associations.

"We know that there is a vocal pro-Israel lobby in Canada,'' he told me in a telephone interview. "I have met a number of the groups, especially the Canada- Israel Committee, on several occasions and so have the commissioner general and deputy commissioner general of the organization. They have chosen to continue to criticize us unfairly and often quite erroneously making quite false statements – guilt by association – which is not correct."

Like KAIROS, UNRWA receives funding via the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), which is overseen by Bev Oda, the minister of international cooperation.

Note that the justice funding and UNRWA contributions come from different budgets. But, despite repeated attempts to get clarification from both Toews' and Oda's offices, the exact state of UNRWA's future Canadian contributions remains vague.

That said, Toews' communications director, Christine Csversko, said in an email yesterday that Canada is honouring its five-year, $300 million commitment to Palestinians, a pledge made in late 2007, to "support security, justice sector reform, private sector development and humanitarian assistance."

In 2009, said Whitley, Canada gave UNRWA $20 million, 3.7 per cent of the funding it receives from governments. It's too early to tell how much, if any, of an allocation will be made for 2010, he added. The amount Canada contributes varies from year to year, depending on emergencies and UNRWA infrastructure projects.

Toews' statement in the Jerusalem Post that Canada has "pledged $20M towards training prosecutors, judges and police and building up the Palestinian judicial sector'' is in keeping with what Canada has been doing elsewhere, notably in Haiti. There, Canada has been building prisons and training police forces as opposed to the usual forms of humanitarian aid.

But, considering the warring Palestinian factions in Gaza and the West Bank, one has to wonder if Canada has taken sides in the internal conflicts – and will help the PA jail its political enemies.

Antonia Zerbisias is a Living section columnist. azerbisias@thestar.ca.

River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian

I Have a Dream, by Ayman Quader


Voice From Gaza

This is Ayman Talal Quader, a Palestinian living in the Gaza Strip, where its people have been besieged for almost 4 years. I was born in July, 1986. I received my education in the UNRWA schools since my childhood. Then I finished my studies from the Islamic University of Gaza from the English Department in 2008.

As a Palestinian who truly loves his homeland and believes that peace and justice will cover my people; I have been looking forward to helping my people especially in the cruel condition they are passing through in the present time. I have significantly been different fields' pre and post of my university studies for almost 4 years. I have worked as volunteer in civil societies where I practiced tasks to help people and educate children. Since August 2008, I have been dedicating my life to helping my needy people through joining one of the international humanitarian organizations that based in the Gaza Strip. Additionally, I have launched a blog peaceforgaza, through which I have been trying to bring my people suffering to be seen by people internationally.

Where and when have I granted the scholarship?

I have been recently accepted to an academic scholarship program at the Universitat Jaume I (UJI) in Castellón, Spain for the International Masters in Peace, Conflict and Development Studies (PEACE Master). I have been successfully granted a Spanish student visa in order to complete my academic program that begins February 2010 and runs all the way through to May of 2012.

What are the senses of suffering?

Since the first day on my acceptance in Nov 2009 at the university, the hardship starts. As the Gaza strip brutally lives under a total siege, I have been getting worried from the very beginning. The main cause that gravely makes me worry is how to get out from Gaza. I have been forcing myself several times to get myself calm down till I get the visa keeping in my mind the hardship that I will be passing through when I get the visa. I have been granted the student visa recently, then I have come to the really suffering entitled "Rafah Border".

Why am I deprived from my basic right?

All I aspire is my fundamental rights to learn and study; rights that are supposed to be guaranteed and recommended by all the international resolutions and the United Nations. I am not asking for a miracle, it is my reserved right. I am handling all my documents, visa, and acceptance letter from my university and supporting documents. Why I am being prevented from leaving Gaza and prevented access to Spain? I am actually paralyzed whom to ask and consult in regard to my exit from Gaza. I have been knocking all the doors, asking for help and advice to bring me out so as to receive my education in Spain.

The conditions of the borders have become extremely complex, making it almost impossible for Palestinians living in Gaza to leave under any circumstances, including for medical treatment, to visit relatives or on academic scholarship to study abroad. The borders, including the Rafah border - the only throughway between Gaza and Egypt - are all controlled by Israeli Security Forces, although Israel's control of the Rafah border is more indirect than the borders leading out of Gaza and into "Israel Proper" (as defined by the 1967 armistice lines; see UN Resolution 242). The Israeli government practicing a collective punishment of a civilian population, contrary to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions (1949), by neglecting much needed humanitarian aid and building supplies into the strip, pre and post Operation Cast Lead. The result is thousands of homeless and starving Gazans left with nowhere to turn but the international community.

I am growing increasingly worried as my studies are due to begin at the beginning of February and my flight is booked for February 1.

I am appealing and calling lawyers, politicians, journalists and all activists for human rights to join the fight for me and my right to the education that I have always dreamed of.


- Ayman Quader, in Gaza City

Posted by Ayman T. Quader at 05:13


River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian

JEWBONICS ~~ NO ARABIC ALLOWED!

DesertPeace

January 24, 2010 at 1:17 pm (From The Media, Israel, Occupied West Bank, Palestine, Second Class Citizens, zionist harassment)



This kid was lucky there were no IDF attack dogs on the bus….

Ariel College student says taken off bus for speaking Arabic

Israel-Arab claims she was humiliated by two security guards who ordered her off bus after hearing her speak Arabic on cell phone. College: First such incident in 15 years

An Arab-Israel student at the Ariel College in the West Bank claimed she was told to get off a bus because she “dared” to speak Arabic on her cell phone.

Hanin Muslah said that during Thursday’s incident she was also subjected to a full body search.

Muslah, who is originally from the Wadi Ara area and is studying for a degree in engineering at the establishment’s architecture and interior design department, said two armed security guards boarded the bus near a checkpoint as it was leaving Ariel. She claimed that the guards questioned her after hearing her speak Arabic and eventually ordered her to get off the bus.

“As I was talking on my cell I noticed they were pointing at me,” said Muslah, who takes the same bus home every day. “I started to cry. I have never been so humiliated in my entire life. They took me off the bus in the middle of nowhere. I told them, ‘I’m an Israeli, just like you are, so why are you treating me like this? Why take me off the bus in such a degrading manner?”

Read the rest HERE


River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian

Two British Citizens Stranded in Gaza

[Press TV News] Two British Citizens, Part of Viva Palestina, Stranded in Gaza



Palestine Video - A Palestine Vlog


River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian

Canadians Protest Against PM Stephen Harper

Pulse

On January 23rd tens of thousands of Canadians gathered all across the country to protest Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s December 30th decision to prorogue parliament, a move widely interpreted as an attempt to avoid scrutiny over a number of issues, including allegations of a  Conservative party cover-up of Afghan detainee abuse.  Having also prorogued parliament last winter to avoid a confidence vote that he seemed bound to lose, Harper and his recently reshuffled cabinet (composed of racist and opportunistic people like Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day) have been making a mockery of Canada since they took office in 2006.

Among Harper’s recent accomplishments are his denial of Canada’s colonial history, reacting to the importance of environmental issues with contempt, putting increasing limitations on free speech in the name of ‘security’ (see the case of George Galloway and Amy Goodman), publicly announcing that Canadians don’t care about Afghan detainee abuse, and cutting off aid to several charities in response to Zionist lobbying (see here and here).  Of course, proroguing parliament is within Canadian consitutional bounds and technically results in a tax-payer funded extended vacation for parliamentarians, but while past prime ministers have traditionally prorogued after the majority of legislative work was completed, Harper has done it with more than enough work still on the table.

At this point many Canadians will agree that Harper’s successful attempts to shut down parliament to avoid criticism is establishing a dangerous precedent which amounts to making parliament accountable to him, rather than the other way around.  That being said, Harper likely continues to assume that following an appropriate amount of ‘downtime,’ Canadians will simply forget about their woes with his governance, and he will be able proceed accordingly with less challenges.  In the best case scenario, events would occur during the prorogation period that would distract Canadian citizens from the reality of the increasingly distressing state of their country, and in this sense Harper has been lucky. The earthquake that struck Haiti has enabled him to play the savior card by sending aid to the devastated country while completely ignoring Canada’s shameful role in bringing Haiti to the disparate state it was in prior to the quake. And even better, news broke yesterday of an alleged Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breakup, an event that will no doubt take the attention of many and grace front page headlines for days to come.  Of course, the growing presence of thousands of Canadians online and on the streets protesting against the Harper government is not something that can be ignored indefinitely, especially since Canadian mainstream news press has been banking on the growing public outrage, and recent polls indicate a drop in approval ratings.

Finally, I came across this interesting piece on Harper some days ago by accident.  Admittedly, it was the picture of Harper with a smug expression on his face (a stark contrast to promotional images like these and this) that caught my attention at first.  As Gerald Caplan suggests, beneath Harper’s seemingly dull interior is a somewhat intelligent man who is strategically manipulating an entire country into giving him what he wants.  Begins Caplan:
Although he wasn’t trying to hide his extremist views in those days, he came across on TV as rather bland, not unduly radical or even ideological. Off-camera I recall us chatting amiably enough, if not with any particular substance or purpose. There was nothing about him to make you think he was hell-bent for the top of the greasy pole. In short, as a panelist, a TV personality, a political spokesperson, a leading right-wing conservative figure, and even as a guy, he was simply dull. Bland. Entirely unmemorable.
Baby, look at him now.
*For citizen run, up-to-date information on the Harper government’s increasingly authoritarian rule, join Facebook pages like this.  You can also find a downloadable version of the Stephen Harper poster displayed above on Rabble.ca.  If you are Canadian, remember to write to your parliamentary representatives as well as to Harper and his friends expressing your dissatisfaction.  Elected representatives need votes – make them work for them.

Written by Jasmin Ramsey
January 24, 2010 at 11:45 am
River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

The Lessons Of Boycott, Divestment And Sanctions (BDS)

Intifada Voice

By Stephen Lendman


Palestine boy used as a human shield on an Israeli Occupation Jeep to protected the Israeli occupation soldiers from possible attacks by Palestinians.
22 January, 2010

Established in 1989, the MA’AN Development Center is “an independent Palestinian development and training institution….work(ing) towards sustainable human development in Palestine” through its various programs. On October 31, it released a publication on the Palestinian BDS campaign titled, “Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions: Lessons learned in effective solidarity.”

It’s another of the many BDS initiatives multiplying to support Palestine. In July 2005, a coalition of 171 Palestinian Civil Society organizations created the global movement for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights” for Occupied Palestine, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinian diaspora refugees.

MA’AN covers BDS history and outlines current efforts and challenges to be overcome. Past Palestinian boycotts showed they work. The 1936 six-month strike against the British Mandate demanded a representative government in Palestine, prohibition of land sales to Jews, a cessation of Jewish immigration, and immediate elections. The strike brought the economy to a halt and got the Peel Royal Commission to recommend limited Jewish immigration and plans for eventual partition.

In 1948, the Arab League banned all commercial and financial transactions between Israel and League members.

In 1951, each nation set up a national boycott office, linked to the Damascus headquarters. It maintained a central blacklist of companies.

In 1973, OPEC embargoed oil to America and other countries that supported Israel in the October war.

In November 1975, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 “determine(d) that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Under pressure from GHW Bush and Israel as a condition of its Madrid Peace Conference participation, Resolution 46/86 revoked it (in December 1991) saying only that:

“The general assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of November 1975.”

In 1977, Arab boycott efforts began when the Carter administration called them illegal for US companies. In 1978, the Camp David Accords began normalizing Israeli-Arab relations, effectively undermining boycott efforts.

The First Intifada (1987 – 1993) reactivated them, effectively in Beit Sahour where residents took control of public affairs. Underground schools were established. The community refused to pay taxes. Military ID cards were returned, and all Israeli products were boycotted. Beit Sahour got a 1990 Nobel Peace Prize nomination and continued resisting until the Palestinian Authority (PA) took over in 1995.

In 1993, the Oslo Accords and subsequent Paris Protocols generated immediate normalization. The 1995 Taba summit decelerated boycott efforts further. The outbreak of the 2000 Second Intifada failed to reactivate them. Today, grassroots efforts lead the global BDS movement.

What Is Normalization”

As agreed on during the first Palestinian 2007 BDS Conference:
“Normalization means to participate in any project or initiative or activity, local or international, specifically designed for gathering (either directly or indirectly) Palestinians (and/or Arabs) and Israelis whether individuals or institutions; that does not explicitly aim to expose and resist the occupation and all forms of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people.”

Specifically, this includes projects:
– not supporting Palestinian rights under international law;
– implying equal Israeli and Palestinian responsibility for the conflict;
– denying Palestinians are victims of Israel’s colonial project;
– refusing Palestinian rights to self-determination and the right of return and compensation under UN Resolution 194; and
– supported by or partnered with Israeli institutions not recognizing Palestinians’ legitimate rights.

Boycott As a Grassroots Movement

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu said “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor,” to wit: the Quartet (US, EU, Russia and UN), the Arab League, and most other nations with few exceptions. To achieve justice, global grassroots movements must pressure official bodies to change.

In August 2002, Palestinian civil society called for a global boycott Israel campaign:
“for the sake of freedom and justice in Palestine and the world….upon the solidarity movement, NGOs, academic and cultural institutions, business companies, political parties and unions, as well as concerned individuals to strengthen and broaden the global Israel Boycott Campaign.”

The campaign against South African apartheid began in 1963 when 45 prominent British playwrights refused performing rights anywhere “where discrimination is made among audiences on grounds of colour.” By the 1980s, it became a near-total cultural exchange ban.

In 1965, 496 UK academics protested South Africa’s racial discrimination and pledged not to accept a position in the country. Other movements advocated against bank lending, South African products, and for divestment. In the mid-1980s, students demanded their universities divest from companies doing business in or having operations in the country. Hampshire College was the first success. Others followed until apartheid finally ended in 1994.

Cultural and Academic Boycott

On April 6, 2002, UK professors Steven and Hilary Rose first presented the idea in an open letter to the London Guardian, saying:

“Despite widespread international condemnation for its policy of violent repression against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government appears impervious to moral appeals from world leaders. (For its part, America) seems reluctant to act. However, there are ways of exerting pressure from within Europe….many national and European cultural and research institutions….regard Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts. Would it not therefore be timely (for a pan-European moratorium of all further support) unless and until Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians (along the lines of proposed) peace plans.”

By July, 700 signatures were registered, including from 10 Israeli academics. Other initiatives followed despite start-and-stop efforts and enormous opposition. They remain viable and have spread globally.
On February 1, 2009 in Occupied Palestine, the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds University said it no longer would cooperate with Israeli academic institutions to:

“pressur(e) Israel to abide by a solution that ends the occupation, a solution that has been needed for far too long and that the international community has stopped demanding.”

It followed Israel’s Gaza attack and addressed decades of occupation and continued efforts to subvert peace and negotiations to achieve Palestinian self-determination.

Earlier in October 2003, Palestinian academics and intellectuals called on their colleagues in the international community to resist repression and injustice by boycotting Israeli academic institutions. In April 2004, the campaign was consolidated by PACBI’s founding (the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel).

Palestinian academics and intellectuals launched it by “buil(ding) on the Palestinian call for a comprehensive economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel issued in August 2002 (followed by further calls) in October 2003.”

Its statement of principles read:

– “to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions until Israel withdraws from all lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem;
– removes all its colonies in those lands;
– agrees to United Nations resolutions relevant to the restitution of Palestinian refugee rights; and
– dismantles its system of apartheid.”
PACBI’s call got wide support from Palestinian academia and civil society.

Church Divestment

Christian churches in America, the UK, Canada, and elsewhere have begun to call for boycotting and divesting from companies profiting from the Israeli occupation. Examples include:
– in 2005, the United Church of Christ (UCC) endorsed divestment, not as yet implemented;
– in 2005, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) adopted a “positive investment” policy to foster regional peace and cooperation;
– in 2006, the United Church of Canada’s Toronto branch began boycotting Israeli products and companies doing business with its military;
– in 2006, the US Presbyterian Church urged various companies, including Caterpillar, ITT, Motorola, and others to invest in West Bank and Gaza companies;
– in 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire passed a resolution for divesting in companies supporting and/or profiting from the Occupation; and
– in 2009, the Church of England divested from Caterpillar stocks, the company whose bulldozers and equipment is used to demolish Palestinian homes.

Student Campaigns

Students led international protests against Operation Cast Lead. On January 13, 2009, they occupied a University of London building, igniting student occupations at 29 US and UK universities in solidarity with Gaza. They called for:
– condemning the attack;
– divestment in companies doing business with Israel, especially ones providing military weapons, munitions, and equipment;
– sending computers and books to Gaza students and providing scholarships; and
– arranging lectures and debates about the Occupation.
Other civil society initiatives included participants at a July 2005 UN International Civil Society Conference in support of Middle East peace unanimously adopting the Palestinian Call for BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions). In November 2007, the first BDS conference was held, and the Boycott National Committee (BNC) formed in the same year to build and spread boycotts as a central form of resistance.

Targeting Israeli Companies with Colonial Operations

Agrexco is the most prominent, a 50% state owned company exporting fresh fruit, vegetables and herbs from Israel and its West Bank locations. It’s one of the three largest Israeli companies exporting from Occupied Palestine while labeling their products “made in Israel.”
The campaign began in 2005 when activists blockaded the company’s depot in Middlesex, UK, stopping all deliveries for over eight hours. Other actions followed and continue. Protestors accuse Agrexco of complicity with crimes of war and against humanity and cite the destroyed Palestinian economy forcing West Bank workers, including children, to survive on 30 shekels a day with no unions or benefits.

Lev Leviev was also targeted, the Israeli diamond mogul and real estate baron who finances Israeli colonies in the West Bank. In November 2007, a surprise protest was held at his Manhattan boutique. Others followed in different countries against his real estate partner Shaya Boymelgreen’s company Green Park, including a Bi’lin village $2 million suit for building and selling settlement housing on village land in violation of international law.

“Key to the success so far has been the level of coordination and the involvement of Palestinian villages and organizations in the campaign” to:
– engage the press;
– attract Hollywood celebrity endorsers;
– get the UK government to boycott Leviev over his West Bank construction ;
– have UNICEF cut ties with him;
– Oxfam International and the US Carousel of Hope charity to refuse his donations;
– get the Arab League’s Damascus Boycott Office to consider adding his companies to its boycott list; and
– have Dubai refuse to let him open new stores there under his name.

Economic Isolation Works

Western governments supported South African apartheid until civil society group actions got corporations to divest, paving the way for government boycotts and sanctions. “The timeline of action “during the Gaza massacre suggests a similar pattern:”

– on January 13, 2009, the Greek government announced that a ship with munitions for Israel wasn’t welcome; students at 29 US and UK universities protested for divestment and severing cultural and academic ties with Israel;
– on January 14, Amnesty International (AI) called for a global arms embargo against Israel; the EU and European Commission announced a freeze in upgrading relations with Israel;
– on January 16, Qatar closed Israel’s trade office in Doha and gave Israeli officials a week to leave the country; Mauritania suspended trade relations as well;
– on January 20, the Stockholm community council announced that the French company, Veolia, lost a future eight-year contract to build and maintain a railway through East Jerusalem that connects Israeli settlements in the West Bank;
– on February 1, Belgium ended arms exports to Israel;
– on February 5, South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) dockworkers refused to offfload a ship carrying Israeli goods;
– on February 9, 23 vicars encouraged the Church of England to divest;
– on February 12, Hampshire College became the first US university to divest from companies involved with the Occupation;
– on February 26, UK-based Cardiff University divested all shares from BAE Systems and GE’s aerospace arm over their IDF dealings;
– on April 2, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, the New York Campaign to Boycott Israel and others got Motorola to sell its Government Electronics Department, a unit that supplied military-related items to Israel;
– on April 13, the Dutch Labor Party sought sanctions against Israel;
– on April 14, French corporation Veolia’s transportation branch lost a Bordeaux contract worth 750 million euros; it’s lost business now totals over $7.5 billion.

Israel’s Tarnished Brand Name

When sustained with enough pressure, economic boycott works. In February 2009, the Israeli Export Institute reported that 10% of 400 exporters got order cancellations over Operation Cast Lead. In March, the Israel Manufacturers Association said 21% of 90 local exporters questioned reported a drop in demand due to boycotts, mostly in UK and Scandinavian counties.
In Europe, supermarkets are re-labeling Israeli products made in Cyprus or Spain because “made in Israel” no longer sells.

The Challenge of Dependency

Since 1967, Israel forced dependency on the Territories by controlling its ports, land crossings, and airports, compounded by hundreds of West Bank checkpoints and the Separation Wall. As a result around 90% of it is with Israel, while 75% of imported goods are Israeli-made. Conditions are especially acute in Gaza because of war and closure, meaning only Israeli-approved goods can enter, and too few of those under siege.

A Working BDS Framework

Just as civil society-led boycotts ended South African apartheid, so can they end decades of Israeli crimes of war and against humanity against Occupied Palestine. They work, more than ever after human rights reports on Operation Cast Lead documented what no longer can be tolerated. The task is to build global outrage to critical mass enough for change.

Organizations in 20 countries now participate under the banner of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine (ICNP). Formed in 2002, it calls itself “a body of civil society organizations….under the auspices of the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.”
Its mission “is to strengthen the role of civil society in supporting and demanding, of governments and international institutions, the full implementation” of all Palestinian rights under international law, including to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty.

ICNP coordinates global campaigns; facilitates communication; aids local organizations’ plans civil society conferences; and mobilizes global BDS support. It strives for representation on every continent in many more nations than the following now participating:
– Australia;
– Belgium;
– Canada;
– the autonomous Catalonian northeast Spanish community and its capital, Barcelona;
– Denmark;
– France;
– Egypt;
– Greece;
– Iceland;
– Italy;
– Netherlands;
– Norway;
– Scotland;
– South Africa;
– Spain;
– the UK; and
– US.
BDS initiatives include:
– academic and cultural boycotts to tell Israel that its “occupation and discrimination against Palestinians is unacceptable;” Israel practices militarized apartheid combined with religious fundamentalist bigotry; non-Jewish voices are excluded; Israeli children are taught to deny a Palestinian identity; through close monitoring, Israel cracks down hard against non-compliers;
– consumer boycotts through bad publicity, building public awareness, pressuring stores to remove Israeli products, encouraging companies to stop buying Israeli technology, and overall creating an inhospitable climate for Israeli commerce;
– sports boycotts to highlight Israeli oppression and discrimination and stop its self-promotion as a “fair player” in bilateral and international competition; at the same time to promote a Palestinian presence in these events to support their right to identity and self-determination;
– divestment/disinvestment in Israel and companies globally that support its occupation and oppression; encourage and pressure individuals, businesses, organizations, universities, pension funds, and governments to shed their Israeli investments to exert pressure for change;
– sanctions, starting with open debate and raising awareness on applying them; followed by implementing comprehensive economic, political, and military measures to isolate the Jewish state; ending Israel’s membership in economic and political bodies like the UN, WHO, Red Cross, WTO, and OECD;
– end cooperation agreements under which Israel gets preferential treatment on trade, joint research and development, and various other projects; Israel’s Export and International Cooperation Institute reported in 2006 that participation of its companies in global 2005 projects grew by 150% over 2004 – from $600 million in to $1.5 billion; Israel is the only non-European country participating in the EU’s Sixth Framework Programme for R & D and gets preferential treatment as a member; many international agreements have clauses that bind participating countries to human rights, international law, and democratic standards; Israel disdains them, and must be challenged and excluded as a result;
– efforts at the local, regional, and institutional levels to build greater individual awareness and support;
– ending military ties over Israel’s role as a serial aggressor; militarism and violence define its culture; confrontation is practiced over diplomacy, and peaceful coexistence is a non-starter; despite its own technology, it’s heavily dependent on America and other nations for hardware and munitions supplies; breaking that connection can curb its crimes of war and against humanity; heightening public awareness is crucial to accomplishing this goal;
– involving faith-based bodies and institutions regarding moral and human rights issues, not religion; and
– working cooperatively with trade unions; Palestinian ones faced Zionist attacks since the 1920s, especially from the Histadrut General Federation of Laborers in the Land of Israel; it’s replaced Arab workers with Jewish ones; in 1965, the General Union of Palestinian Workers (GUPW) was founded to organize West Bank, Gaza, and diaspora labor; in 1986, the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) grew out of Occupied Palestine’s labor movement; today it’s ineffective given condition under Occupation and Israeli discrimination against its Arab citizens, consigning them to low wage, few, or no benefit jobs; Histadrut represents only Jews.

Beyond Boycott

Boycotting Israeli products successfully needs a transition to Palestinian ones, but much work is needed to achieve it, including effective promotion. Several organizations doing it include:
– PalTrade: an organization mandated to promote Palestinian products locally and internationally;
– Palestinian Federation of Industries (PFI) and “Watani:” they support local producers to upgrade quality and urge government and institutions to enact policies to back local production; and
– Intajuna: a three-year project to get Palestinians to prefer locally-produced products.
These initiatives along with a committed, grassroots global BDS movement is crucial to ending decades of subjugation under an oppressive occupier that won’t quit until forced by committed pressure. BDS is the tool to do it.
Source: Countercurrents.org


Stephen Lendman
Stephen Lendma n is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
************************************************
January 23, 2010 Posted by Elias

River to Seazion
 Uprooted Palestinian

Jim Traficant: “Israel Control United States Government.”


Intifada Voice



Congressman Jim Traficant speaks about AIPAC and the control of American political Parties. The former Congressman  was interviewed  on Current Issues TV with Hesham Tillawi says Israel control United States government.
About: Hesham Tillawi is a Palestinian-American TV and Radio talk show host: www.currentissues.tv and www.Republicbroadcasting.org
January 23, 2010 Posted by Elias

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

JAROUR: The environmental impact of Israeli military activities in the occupied Palestinian territory

Australians For Palestinians
territory
January 24, 2010
House demolitions
by Maysaa Jarour  -  The Palestine Telegraph -  23 January 2010

An often-overlooked factor in the field of sustainable development and resource management is the impact of the military on the environment and unfortunately this is no exception in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). Whilst there have been many studies and reports on the economic, social and political repercussions of the continued Israeli occupation, there has been scant attention paid to the detrimental effects on the environment from Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) activities and the military infrastructure which supports them. This is in no small part because of the lack of information provided by the Israeli authorities and the high level of secrecy surrounding the IOF. For example, whilst conducting research for this paper it was not possible to view any images of the military bases in the oPt post 2004 because all sources have been doctored to erase any evidence of their presence.
Nonetheless, this report will strive to provide a historical background and legal framework to the IOF presence in the oPt and assess some of the consequent environmental implications.

A historical perspective

With the routing of the Arab forces in June 1967 the Israelis began their illegal occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. During more than 40 years of occupation the Israelis have confiscated a considerable proportion of the territory in the oPt under the auspices of military needs. This is in addition to the extensive settlement developments which currently house around half a million illegal settlers in the oPt.
Israel has confiscated approximately 1000km2 of land to create closed military zones, which amounts to more than 20% of the West Bank territory. Excluding the areas that fall between the green line and the segregation barrier, Palestinians are barred entry to all of the military zones which are mainly on the eastern slopes of the Bethlehem and Hebron Governates in the Jordan Valley. In 2004 the Israeli authorities declared a buffer zone of 150-200 meters around the segregation zone resulting in an additional 252km2 of territory becoming inaccessible to Palestinians. Map 1 on the following page illustrates how the closed military zones compromise large chunks of the eastern west bank and strategic areas along the green line.
In these lands reside some of the most vulnerable Palestinian communities including large numbers of small scale herding farming communities. As well as severely impacting upon the livelihoods of these communities it is also forcing them to overgraze on their diminished territories leading to desertification of the terrain. According to recent research by OCHA the expansion of existing military zones or the creation of new ones continues. In May 2009 over 300 people, including 170 children, were issued with evacuation and demolition orders because of the expansion of the Israeli military zones in the West Bank[i].
________________________________________
[i] Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA , . ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories – Humanitarian Update, May 2009.’ (17 June 2009): n. pag. Web. 13 Jan 2010.
http://www.unionaidabroad.org.au/projects/mideast/news/1246958000
If you are interested you can access Full Report by Clicking Here
Source: ARIJ (Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem)
UMD – POICA project

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

Israel’s diabolical hybrid: Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak

Redress Information & Analysis

By Uri Avnery

24 January 2010

Uri Avnery highlights the future and present dangers posed by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, the former an openly racist settler who advocates the expulsion of Israel’s Arab citizens and the latter a criminal who has just awarded university status to a settler college in the occupied West Bank.
”The Spanish government has already declared a boycott of the Ariel college and cancelled its participation in an international architectural competition run by Spain. 

“I hope that more governments and academic institutions will follow this example and declare a boycott on this ‘university’.

“...an academic institution cannot be indifferent to a boycott by its peers around the world. And if the Israeli academic community does not rise up against this prostitution of its ideals by the setting up of a university of the settlers under military auspices – it is inviting a boycott on all Israeli universities.”

The business is registered in the name of Binyamin Netanyahu. But the reality is different.

Netanyahu has never been more than a slick patent medicine salesman. That is a type that appears frequently in American Westerns and sells an elixir that is good for everything: against the flu and against tuberculosis, against heart attacks and against lunacy. The main weapon of the vendor is his tongue: his stream of words builds castles in the air, blows up glistening bubbles and silences all doubt.

Since the election almost a year ago, his biggest (literally) achievement has been the setting up of a cabinet: 30 ministers and a bunch of deputies, most of them without any perceptible duties, some of them in charge of ministries for which they are the most unsuited of all possible candidates. From then on his main occupation has been the one in which he is most adept: political survival.

In this governmental zoo, the one really important creature is the Liebarak – a two-headed monster that terrifies all the other animals. This animal is 50 per cent Lieberman, 50 per cent Barak, 0 per cent human.

When Lieberman first appeared on the stage, many looked on him with disdain. Such a person, they decided, has no chance in Israeli politics...

The last elections put an end to this belief. Lieberman’s party won 15 Knesset seats, two more than Barak’s party, and became the third biggest Knesset faction. Not a few “real” Israeli youngsters, Sabras through and through, voted for him. They saw him as a good address for their protest vote.

The establishment was not too upset. OK, so there was a protest vote. In every Israeli election campaign there appears an election list from nowhere that wilts the next day, like the gourd of the prophet Jonah. Where are they all now?

But Lieberman is not General Yigael Yadin, who created the Dash party, or Tommy Lapid, the leader of Shinui. He is a man of brutal power, lacking any scruples, a man ready to appeal – as Joseph Goebbels put it – to the most primitive instincts of the masses.

We may yet see in Israel a coalition of all the malcontents and the angry, as the Bible says about David when he fled from King Saul: “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves around him, and he became a captain over them.” (1 Samuel 22:2). Lieberman’s home turf is the community of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who have not been absorbed into Israeli society and who live in a spiritual and social ghetto. They may be joined by other sectors: the settlers, the Oriental Jews who feel that the Likud betrayed them, young people who see him as a man who expresses openly what they believe in secret: that the Arabs should be expelled from the state, and from the entire country.

Lieberman’s un-Israeli appearance may yet turn out to be an advantage for him. A person who is so un-Israeli may become the ideal leader of a camp united by its hatred of the “elites”, the Supreme Court, the police, the media and the other pillars of Israeli democracy.

The police investigations, too, may elevate him in the eyes of this public. They believe that he is being persecuted by the hypocritical elites. The dark cloud of suspicion did not deter Netanyahu from giving him control of both the Ministry of Police and the Ministry of Justice, the two ministries charged with upholding the rule of law, which are now under the direction of his lackeys.

This danger should not be underrated. Other historical leaders of his ilk were at first considered clowns and ridiculed, before they came to power and wrought havoc.

But the second head of the Liebarak is more dangerous than the first. The danger of Lieberman lies in the future. The danger of Ehud Barak is immediate and real.

This week, Barak did something that should turn on a another red light. On the demand of Lieberman, Barak accorded the settlers’ college in Ariel the status of a university.

Unlike the “foreign” Lieberman, Barak comes from the epicentre of old-time Israel. He grew up in a kibbutz, was a commander in the elite “General Staff commando” and speaks perfect Hebrew with the right intonation. As a former chief of staff and a present minister of defence, he represents the might of the most formidable sector in Israel: the army.

Lieberman has not yet succeeded in hurting the chances of peace, except by talking. Barak has acted. I once called him a “peace criminal”, in contradistinction to a “war criminal” – though nowadays many would accord him this distinction, too.

The fatal blow dealt by Barak to the chances of peace came after the 2000 Camp David conference. To recount briefly: when he was elected in 1999 with a landslide majority, on the wave of enthusiasm of the peace camp and with the help of clear peace slogans (“Education instead of Settlements!”), he induced Presidents Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat to meet him at a summit conference. In a typical mixture of arrogance and ignorance, he believed that if he offered the Palestinians the chance to found a Palestinian state, they would give up all their other claims. His offers were indeed more far-reaching than those of his predecessors, but still far from the minimum acceptable to Palestinians. The conference failed.

Coming home from Camp David, he did not make the usual announcement (“Much progress has been achieved and negotiations will continue…”), nor an unusual one (“Sorry, I was wrong, I had no idea!”) Rather, he coined a mantra that has since become the centre of the national consensus: “I have turned every stone on the way to peace / I have offered the Palestinians everything they could ask for / They have rejected everything / We have no partner for peace.”

This declaration by the leader of the Labour Party, who often calls himself “the head of the peace camp”, dealt a mortal blow to the Israeli peace forces, who had hoped so much from him. The vast majority of the Israelis believe now with all their heart that “we have no partner for peace”. Thereby he opened the way for the ascent to power of Ariel Sharon and Binyamin Netanyahu.

Throughout his time in office, Barak established and enlarged settlements. On his orders, the commanding officer of Central Command issued a permit for a radio station of the settlers (which has lately started to broadcast, after a long delaying fight by Gush Shalom against it). In this respect, too, he has trumped Lieberman. His decision about the Ariel university fits into this pattern.

“Wait a minute!” a sensible person may ask. “What has this to do with Barak? He is the minister of defence, isn’t he, and not the minister of education!”

Ariel is occupied territory. In the occupied territories, the army is the sovereign power. Barak is in charge of the army. The directive to upgrade the Ariel College was given by Barak to the commanding officer. As Yossi Sarid, a former minister of education, pointed out, the “Ariel University Centre” is the only civil university in the democratic world set up by the army.

An Israeli academic institution has to go a long way before being accorded university status by the competent authorities. There are many colleges in Israel, far more outstanding than the Ariel College, which aspire to this status. In the occupied territories, a general’s approval is enough.

This fact throws light on the unprecedented Israeli invention: the eternal occupation.

An occupation regime is by its nature a temporary situation. It comes into being when one side in a war conquers territory of the other side. The occupying power is supposed to rule it, under detailed international laws, until the end of the war, when a peace agreement must decide the future of the territory.

A war may last some years, at most, and therefore the occupation is a temporary matter. Successive Israeli governments have turned it into a permanent situation.

Why? At the outset of the occupation, the then minister of defence, Moshe Dayan, discovered that the occupation is really an ideal situation. It gives the occupier absolute power without any obligation to accord the inhabitants any citizenship rights whatsoever. If Israel were to annex the territories, it would have to decide what to do with the population. That would create an embarrassing situation. The inhabitants of East Jerusalem, which was formally annexed to Israel in 1967, did not receive citizenship, but only the status of ”residents”. Successive Israeli governments have been afraid that the world would not accept a “democratic” state in which a third of the population have no rights.

A status of occupation solves all these problems. The inhabitants of the occupied territories have, de facto, no rights whatsoever – neither national, nor civil, nor human. The Israel government builds settlements wherever it sees fit, also contrary to international law, and now it is setting up a university, too.

(Lately an original proposal was put forward by Sari Nusseibeh, the president of the Palestinian al-Quds University in annexed East Jerusalem: the Palestinians should demand that Israel annex all the occupied territories, without demanding citizenship. Nusseibeh hopes, so it seems, that in the long run Israel would not be able to withstand international pressure and would be compelled to accord them citizenship, and then the Palestinians would already be the majority in the state and able to do what they want. I appreciate Nusseibeh very, very highly, but feel the gamble would be too risky.)

The Spanish government has already declared a boycott of the Ariel college and cancelled its participation in an international architectural competition run by Spain. 

I hope that more governments and academic institutions will follow this example and declare a boycott on this “university”.

True, the Liebarak couldn’t care less. This two-headed monster is indifferent to boycotts. But an academic institution cannot be indifferent to a boycott by its peers around the world. And if the Israeli academic community does not rise up against this prostitution of its ideals by the setting up of a university of the settlers under military auspices – it is inviting a boycott on all Israeli universities.


Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian