GlobalVoices ReFeed

Israel: Mixed Messages from Conference

Amira Al Hussaini — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:59:35 +0000

Daniel Levy, from Israel, shares his thoughts on the results of the Annapolis peace conference here.

Originally from Global Voices Online » Middle East & North Africa by Amira Al Hussaini reBlogged on Nov 29, 2007, 8:12PM

Palestine: Peace So Far

Amira Al Hussaini — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:59:31 +0000

“Annapolis summit ended, but yet, no real changes are to be seen here in Palestine…Is Bush really believes that this illusion summit can solve the occupation problem??” writes Palestinian blogger Asad Al Nimr, from Ramallah.

Originally from Global Voices Online » Middle East & North Africa by Amira Al Hussaini reBlogged on Nov 29, 2007, 8:18PM

Egypt: Syrian/Iranian Alliance

Amira Al Hussaini — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:59:07 +0000

“Interesting interview with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leader, suggesting Syria would abandon Iran alliance if the regime fell,” notes The Arabist, which links to the interview here.

Originally from Global Voices Online » Middle East & North Africa by Amira Al Hussaini reBlogged on Nov 30, 2007, 1:41AM

A series of unfortunate events

Desert Pundit — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:57:05 +0000

Last week has bee rather eventful, all but one of the sad kind, and they had an adverse effect on my outlook and disposition.

The massacre on the beach in Gaza: I could not help but tear up at the sight of Huda Ghalia, the 11 years old girl that lost almost all of her family, their only crime was being Palestinian and imagining that they are entitled to a family picnic on the beach. The Israeli shells sought to end that transgression, to the result we all saw. My dad have met the girl in Gaza City 3 days ago and told me that she is totally dazed and lucid, very sad indeed.

The death of Zarqawi was the only positive development of the week, while it is not right to celebrate a state sanctioned murder, if anybody deserved it, that murderer did. I am against the American occupation of Iraq, but if Zarqawi is the alternative, I never want the Americans to leave. His victims were mostly innocent Iraqis, and his takfiri discourse is the most dangerous element in the Iraqi swamp. I will shed no tears on account of this zealot, I actually had a toast to the F16 that caught the bastard, even that I felt bad about it afterwards.

The shameful chaos and internal fighting in Palestine is driving me into depression, insane acts as torching the parliament building, shooting at a security HQ, firing those idiotic rockets at Israel that bring back ample death, the media war, the people left without salaries, the desperation, the Israeli pleasure at our situation, I could go on for ever, I am just sick of it. I am actually dreading my trip back to Ramallah in late July.

I will post again when I am in slight better state of mind.

Qais

Originally from Desert Pundit by Desert Pundit reBlogged

Democracy but no democrats!

Desert Pundit — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:56:52 +0000

One of the sayings of Azmi Bishara that stuck with me (I am not a Bishara fan usually) is that you cannot create a true democracy in the Arab World without democrats, i.e. a political class that believes in and practices democratic values, most importantly the concept that the power resides with the people.

That is especially true in Palestine today, with the simmering crisis over the referendum to be called by President Abbas, for the life of me I cannot understand how Hamas can explain their opposition to it. A party elected to government by the people should not fear consulting them about a major decision, especially when it can serve as a face-saving way to make a compromise that is anathema to the dogmatic bunch in Hamas leadership.

An absolute majority of the Palestinian people inside the West Bank and Gaza support a recognition of Israel within the Green line in return for a Palestinian in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza and a just solution to the refugee issue. A Palestinian in Tul Karem does not need much imagination to recognize that Israel exist, he can see it with his own eyes.
While the counter argument that the Palestinians outside Palestine are the majority and they should have a vote is valid as well, the politics of dispossession inside the camps and the realities of the 'host" states makes consulting the whole population impossible, besides, the people under the occupation are for better or worse, the last standing presence on historical Palestine, and hence, they are its custodian, almost by default.

Mahomud Darwish once commented on the difference between "Al-haq" what is right, and "Al-haqiqa" the reality, the reality is, through a great historical inequity, our land was taken from us unjustly, but in order for us to continue to exist as a nation, we must recognize the current realities, and realize that Israel cannot be "wiped off the map", once we do that, we have a frame of reference of a compromise with our "neighbors". This does not imply that we have accepted their historical right to what is our land, but we have accepted the fact that they are there right now, and we have to live next to them, rather than to die under their fire.

In this light, the Hamas dogmatic stance stands hollow, they refuse to acknowledge the majority acceptance of the realities, and are fiercely against a referendum that will formalize the public will and turn it into a de facto national policy. They cannot claim public mandate without listening to the people.

I am afraid that this argument will be settled with guns rather than by compromise, which is why the referendum is a good idea, and that is exactly what scares Hamas.

One thing that you can say about Palestine is that there are never dull moments.

Originally from Desert Pundit by Desert Pundit reBlogged

Chalabi for the Nobel Peace Prize...

river — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:55:59 +0000

We woke up this morning to a huge explosion. I was actually awake and just lying there, staring at the ceiling, trying to decide if today would be a good day to go shopping for some things we need in the house. Suddenly, there was a loud blast and the house shuddered momentarily. In a second I was standing in front of the window in my room, hands pressed to the cool glass. I couldn’t really see

Originally from Baghdad Burning by river reBlogged

Anti-Annapolis Protests

الفلسطينية — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:43:30 +0000

I first took a look at this pic and assumed that the guy in the helmet an his friends were with the IDF. Turns out they are part of the Palestinian Security Force putting down an anti-annapolis protest. i guess they might as well be the IDF; what difference does it make here?

ps. what's with the word 'security'? Security Fence. Palesetnian Security Forces. Israel's Security. Interesting choice of words- but not nearly as popular as the all time favorite: terrorism!

Originally from الفلسطينية | al-falasteenyia by الفلسطينية reBlogged

A Foundation not an Afterthought: Upholding International Law at Annapolis

umkahlil — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:42:01 +0000

AL-HAQ JOINT OPEN LETTER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
REF.: 29.2007E
26 November 2007

A Foundation not an Afterthought: Upholding International Law at Annapolis

Joint Letter to Negotiating Parties by Palestinian Civil Society Organisations*

As Palestinian human rights and civil society organisations, we the undersigned, are deeply concerned by the lack of a clearly articulated legal framework for the upcoming diplomatic negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) to be held at Annapolis on 27 November. While the process of negotiation is inherently political, the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people to dignity, territorial sovereignty and self-determination as enshrined in binding international law may not be made the subjects of negotiation.

Following 40 years of occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and numerous rounds of failed diplomatic initiatives, international law must at last be understood to be the essential over-arching framework for negotiations. International law not only provides a means of dispassionately assessing Israel’s existing policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), but also limits the discretion of the negotiating parties, and their sponsors, in deciding certain fundamental issues. Under the terms of Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention), the Palestinian civilian population of the OPT are “protected persons.” By virtue of this status, they are entitled to certain protections that may not be undermined or disregarded in political agreements. This is clearly set forth in Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which establishes:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
This provision seeks to address the obvious imbalance of power between the occupied and the occupier in any negotiation process. It recognises that an Occupying Power can, by virtue of its occupation, seek to legally validate through “negotiation” the unilateral imposition of facts on the ground that violate international humanitarian law and harm the civilian population. As noted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its authoritative commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, there is in the case of occupation, “a particularly great danger of the Occupying Power forcing the Power whose territory is occupied to conclude agreements prejudicial to protected persons.” This danger is clearly present in the context of the current negotiations, and is most obvious in relation to Israel’s settlement policy.
Throughout the 40 years of the occupation, Israel has used its effective control over the OPT to implant some 149 settlements, currently home to over 470,000 settlers, which control over 40% of the West Bank, including essential agricultural and water resources. The current planned route of the Wall will incorporate some 69 settlements, home to 83% of the settler population, on 12.8% of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, that will remain on the western side of the Wall. Under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an Occupying Power is prohibited from transferring parts of its civilian population into occupied territory. Israeli settlements in the OPT are in flagrant violation of this prohibition. Further, the construction and expansion of settlements, and their associated infrastructure, requires the extensive appropriation and destruction of property, and severe movement restrictions which are further violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.
In March 2006 Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated his intention to make the Wall the new border of the State of Israel, incorporating settlements in the OPT and annexing Palestinian land. To accept Israel’s retention of the settlement blocs as part of a negotiated solution clearly deprives the Palestinian civilian population of the benefits of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as it would validate Israel’s violations thereof. As such any agreement recognising the settlements is in flagrant violation of Article 47.

In the event that negotiations were to lead to recognition of Israeli settlements in the OPT as part of the State of Israel, this would amount to the endorsement of the acquisition of territory by force. The illegality of the acquisition of territory by force is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community as a peremptory norm of international law -- a norm from which no derogation is permitted.

The right of all peoples to self-determination is also considered a peremptory norm of international law. The retention of settlements and their associated infrastructure by Israel would not only amount to the illegal annexation of territory, but would also fragment the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, into isolated geographical units. This would severely undermine the meaningful exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable right to self-determination by limiting the possibility of a contiguous territory and the ability to freely dispose of natural resources, both of which are required for the meaningful exercise of this right.

Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, “a treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.” This therefore casts severe doubt on whether a negotiated solution that accepts Israel’s retention of settlements and de facto annexation of territory would be valid under international law.

Other State parties accessory to the negotiations are also obliged to duly consider their international law obligations in relation to these negotiations. Under common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, the High Contracting Parties “undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” As specified by both the ICRC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this provision entails an obligation on all State parties, whether or not they are a party to the specific conflict, to take all possible steps to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are respected. In respect of the current negotiations, it is important to note that the ICJ, in its Advisory Opinion on the Wall, found all States to be under “an obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in [the Fourth Geneva] convention.” Similarly, and as also noted by the ICJ, under customary international law all States have the duty not to recognise or to assist in the creation or maintenance of illegal situations. Such illegal situations would clearly include the acquisition of territory by force, the denial of the right to self-determination and the construction of settlements in occupied territory.
.
To date, all diplomatic initiatives have ignored international law as the essential foundation of any solution to Israel’s occupation of the OPT, thereby allowing for the proliferation of violations. To cite but a few examples, in spite of former negotiations, Palestinians saw, inter alia, the imposition of draconian movement restrictions and unrestrained settlement construction and expansion, during the Oslo Process. Similarly, since the “Road Map” was initiated in 2002, Palestinians have seen the further entrenchment and expansion of settlements and the unilateral creation of a de facto border between Israel and the would-be Palestinian state through the building of the Wall.

Most recently, on 19 September 2007, Israel declared the Gaza Strip an “enemy entity,” and began the imposition of further sanctions on the already beleaguered Palestinian civilian population therein. Having no basis in international law, the designation of the Gaza Strip as an “enemy entity” represents a clear effort by the Israel, the Occupying Power, to negate its responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip under the terms of Fourth Geneva Convention. The sanctions, which further exacerbate an already dire humanitarian situation, further amount to unlawful reprisals and the collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

In this context, we urge the parties to approach the upcoming negotiations with a renewed sense of purpose, giving due recognition of the international legal obligations incumbent upon them, including UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions addressing Palestinian refugees. The task which they face is a heavy one, as any final agreement must reflect a commitment to the principles of international law, justice in addressing wrongful acts, and respect for human rights. The fundamental rights of the Palestinian people are matters of binding international law, not political bargaining chips. Their implementation must not be left to Israel’s beneficence, but rather established as the foundation of any just and durable solution to the conflict.

Al-Haq
Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights in Gaza
Addameer Prisoner’s Support and Human Rights Association
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
Defence for Children International – Palestine Section
Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center
Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Palestinian Counselling Center
Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO)
Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies
Women’s Studies Center

*The letter was sent on 26 November 2007 to key negotiating parties including the President of the PNA, the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and EU and UN Officials.

Originally from umkahlil by umkahlil reBlogged

The Day After Annapolis

Jameel @ The Muqata — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:47:21 +0000

Received the following via Lee Wunsch from the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston

I moved to Israel 23 years ago and within a month of arriving, we had already signed a contract to build our home in Karnei Shomron. We took out a mortgage which we are still paying and committed nearly all our savings to the home. We moved in more than 20 years ago, with three children. Two more were born after we already lived in Samaria. Our children are mostly out of the house now, at least during the week, but they come home for Shabbat, to the home and community that they have always known. On Shabbat, we go to synagogue and visit with friends, catching up with what is happening to everyone in the community.

As I watched Bush, Olmert and Abbas on television I looked to the walls next to our television and saw the bookshelves, where our books are overflowing on the shelves. Years of accumulation. I looked at the pictures on the wall, most of which have been painted by my very talented daughter. Years of activity.

And I looked straight at Bush, Olmert and Abbas and asked them: What is it about my house, my family, my community that is an obstacle to peace? What is it about our lives that prevents the Arabs in the neighboring villages from enjoying peace and security, from living their own lives. If my son gets married and wants to live nearby, should he be asking Abbas and Bush for permission to build a new house?

I have written a great deal about our right to this land, about the history of the conflict, about an alternative way to solve the humanitarian problems of the Palestinian Arabs. Today, I want to write about the people who actually live in this land, the so-called settlers that everyone loves to hate.

We live in Judea and Samaria and we love it here. We have taken rocky, barren land and turned it into a paradise. We have planted trees and gardens, built schools and shops and raised our children to love the land as we do. The world has gathered at Annapolis, in part to solve the Palestinian refugee problem. But, in so doing, they have put forward a plan that will create an enormous Jewish refugee problem.

I am not willing to be a refugee. I tremble at the thought of going through what my friends from Gush Katif went through. I came to Israel to set down roots in my own homeland, roots that cannot be set down by a Jew anywhere else in the world. I set down my roots in Samaria. I built my home on land that did not belong to any Arab, that had not been cultivated by anyone for centuries, on the same spot where Jews lived thousands of years ago. How dare anyone try and take that away from me?

Sondra Oster Baras was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio in an Orthodox Jewish home. She was educated at the Hebrew Academy of Cleveland, a religious all-day school sponsored by the Cleveland Jewish community. Upon graduation from high school, Sondra studied religious studies at the Jerusalem College for Women in Israel. She completed her B.A. in history and English at Barnard College in New York. She obtained her J.D. at Columbia University's School of Law. In 1984, after practicing law in New York for a short time, Sondra moved to Israel. Sondra continued her legal career in Israel, after being accepted to the Israeli bar. Sondra Oster Baras currently resides in Karnei Shomron, together with her husband Edward, a computer programmer, and their five children.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael

Originally from The Muqata by Jameel @ The Muqata reBlogged

Palestine is STILL the Issue

Ayman Haykal — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:44:26 +0000

An excellent documentary by John Pilger:

Originally from T H E . D A M A S C E N E . B L O G by Ayman Haykal reBlogged

Do the Democrats have a different answer on Iran?

Haitham — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:35:41 +0000

You should not miss this interview with Noam Chomsky. This is the best description to the situation when it comes to Israel, US Policy, Media and war on Iran.

Transcript:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: The vote over the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, the Senate resolution to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, essentially was followed up on by the administration when they did declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and issued sanctions against three major Iranian banks. The reaction in the Democratic Party was interesting, Senator Clinton being the only presidential candidate in the Senate that voted for the resolution. All the other candidates both in and out of the Senate opposed it—quite a significant split, I would say, with Joe Biden and Senator Webb, who were very, very vocal, vocally against the resolution. What do you make of what this next Democratic, well, I should say, between now and the election, the leadership of the Democratic Party? And if we are looking at Senator Clinton as the next president, which if all things remain the same we probably are, what do you make of the Democratic Party and Iran?

NOAM CHOMSKY, PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS, MIT: The Democratic Party is somewhere in between the administration and overwhelming world opinion. I mean, the world is just appalled at the thought that the United States might invade Iran, attack Iran. Now, even in the region, you know, where the countries don’t like Iran at all-Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan hostile to Iran in many ways-but, nevertheless, the population in the region, which has been polled, prefers Iran to have nuclear weapons than to having any war, even though they definitely don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. When you go beyond, opposition is simply overwhelming. In fact, you can’t find any corner of the world, I think, outside of Israel where there’s any support for the U.S. policies. In fact, the American population is overwhelmingly opposed. About 75% of the population-at least a few months ago, before the huge propaganda offensive-75% of the population was against any threats against Iran. So the Democratic Party is sort of hovering in between almost universal world opposition to even the threats of war.

JAY: There seems to be a division amongst at least the leadership of the Democratic Party on this question. Webb, Biden on one side and some others, certainly, you know, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel. But in terms of leadership there seems to be a serious split with Senator Clinton signing on to this resolution.

CHOMSKY: There’s a split between Gravel, Kucinich, and others like them and the rest of the Democratic Party, and then there’s a split between them and the extreme hawks like Lieberman. But the question is one of degree. I mean, every viable candidate-I’m not talking about Gravel and Kucinich or Ron Paul-every viable candidate has said we have to keep the options open, meaning they are continuing the threats of military action against Iran. I don’t know if anybody cares, but there is something called the U.N. Charter, which is a valid treaty that we’re committed to which bars the threat or use of force. So they’re all in violation of the Charter and they don’t seem to care. The media don’t seem to care. I mean, the media and the political class are isolated from both world opinion and even domestic opinion. And, yes, there are some variations within the Democratic Party over this as to how extreme they are. But its, all, almost all of it is just kind of like off the wall from an international point of view, except for people like Gravel and Kucinich.

Share This

Originally from Sabbah's Blog by Haitham reBlogged

Rightist manifesto: Settler evacuation is ‘crime against humanity’

Haitham — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:56 +0000

* * * NOT SATIRE * * *

Rightist manifesto: Settler evacuation is ‘crime against humanity’
By Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondent

By: Carlos Latuff

About 150 right-wing activists, including academics and Israel Defense Forces reserves officers, have signed a manifesto to be published Friday calling on security forces to refuse evacuating West Bank settlers on the grounds that it is a “crime against humanity.”

The declaration comes a week before the U.S.-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. Rightists fear that the conference will bring upon a mass evacuation of settlements, which they say will strike a blow to the legitimacy of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government.

“The Jewish people in Israel and the world will not recognize the international obligations of Israel’s government to disconnect from every part of the land of Israel, will declare it null and void and do what they can to foil it,” reads the manifesto.

According to the manifesto, Olmert and his government will use the upcoming Annapolis conference “to divide Jerusalem and give the Temple Mount to the Muslims, for a full withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, to build in the heart of Israel a terrorist Palestinian state and to carry out a mass expulsion of Jews.”

Signatories on the declaration include Professors Natan Netanyahu and Daphna Netanyahu, relatives of opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, former MK Moshe Peled and former Yesha Council spokeswoman Emily Amrusi.

For God sake, if evacuating occupiers from the Occupied Land is a ‘crime against humanity‘, then what do we call the ‘Ethnic Cleansing‘ of Palestinians from the +500 destroyed villages and all the Palestinian refugees who were thrown out from all around Palestine by Israel terrorist gangs? ‘A picnic in Diaspora’?

[Hat tip: Andrew]

Share This

Originally from Sabbah's Blog by Haitham reBlogged

Impact of Israel’s fuel and electricity cuts to Gaza

Haitham — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:48 +0000

The Israeli human rights organization Gisha has just issue a fact sheet on Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the impact of the electricity and fuel cuts.

Facts regarding Israel’s Fuel and Electricity Cuts to the Gaza Strip
( http://snipurl.com/1u3ps )

Regarding the fuel cuts:

* On Sunday, October 28, Israel’s military ordered the private fuel company, Dor Alon, to provide 15% - 20% less fuel than the quantity ordered for Gaza residents.Gaza residents purchase fuel from Dor Alon via an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, and the fuel is transferred through Nahal Oz, on the Gaza-Israel border. Israel does not permit fuel to enter Gaza via the sea, the airspace, or the border with Egypt.

* Essential services, including purifying and pumping drinking water, treating sewage, operating garbage collection trucks and ambulances, and operating the generators that power hospitals and other public buildings depend on fuel and the electricity generated by fuel.

* According to the deputy director of the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), in the month of October 2007, the CMWU had a deficit of 40,000 liters of fuel, needed to power generators that provide drinking water to homes and pump sewage away from residential areas. Without sufficient fuel to power the generators, the CMWU has been forced to close wells that provide drinking water to tens of thousands of people. See the affidavit of the deputy director of Gaza’s Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, submitted to Israel’s Supreme Court on Nov. 6, 2007.

* Updated information indicates that since fuel supplies have been cut, every day, on a rotating basis, 50,000 residents are not receiving clean water to their homes because there is not enough fuel to operate the generators that help power Gaza’s water wells.

* In total, because of difficulties getting spare parts through the crossings controlled by Israel, the fuel deficits, and other systemic problems, 250,000 people in Gaza are not receiving an adequate amount of drinking water.

* The fuel cuts also prevent the European Union from providing industrial diesel to power Gaza’s electrical power plant. For details, see Gisha’s letter to European Union officials.

Regarding the electricity cuts:

* Gaza residents purchase approximately 63% of their electricity from Israel, primarily through tax moneys collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. An additional 28% is produced locally, and 9% comes from Egypt.

* Israel’s claim that it can cut electricity without harming hospitals and other vital services is inconsistent with the facts on the ground. In Gaza, main lines of electricity serve hospitals, water wells, pumping stations, treatment plants, schools, pharmacies, and local clinics, as well as ordinary homes and buildings, without differentiation. As a result, when power is cut to the main lines, ensuing electricity outages also impact essential public services.

* Since Israel bombed Gaza’s power plant in June 2006, Gaza has suffered a deficit of electricity (currently about 18%), causing the distribution company to institute rolling blackouts. Those blackouts already affect hospitals and other vital services. Further decreases in electricity supply will further prevent hospitals from conducting operations, water and sewage pumps from operating, waste treatment plants from conducting basic sanitation, and ordinary residents from preserving perishable foodstuffs and operating home medical devices.

Israel cannot control or monitor the extent of the damage. In a November 19, 2007 submission to Israel’s Supreme Court, the Israeli military based its claim that the cuts do not harm vital services on speculative arithmetic, using data from 2005, showing that in theory, there is enough fuel in Gaza to power essential humanitarian services. In doing so, the military is ignoring distribution problems and mounting evidence that the additional pressure on Gaza’s fragile public services is already harming the health and well-being of Gaza residents.

Cuts in power and electricity, by definition, harm Gaza residents. In this case, they are presented by Israel as a response to the firing of Qassam rockets by militants inside Gaza.

Firing Qassam rockets on civilian targets in Israel is illegal, and it must stop. But it does not justify deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza in response.

International law forbids any kind of collective punishment, regardless of its severity. This is a moral and legal red line.

Israel controls the borders of Gaza - land, air, and sea - and does not permit supplies to enter Gaza through any border but its own border with Gaza. Restricting the supply of humanitarian relief violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which require all parties to facilitate the provision of humanitarian relief and especially require an occupying power to take active, positive steps to facilitate the proper functioning of Gaza’s civilian institutions. For a more detailed discussion of the legal prohibition on punitive measures against Gaza residents, see this correspondence between Gisha’s executive director Sari Bashi and former New York mayor Ed Koch. See also Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza.

Particularly disturbing is Israel’s deliberate prevention of humanitarian assistance, funded by the international community and designated for Gaza’s 1.5 million residents who have been living under a near total siege since June 2007. See Gisha’s reports, Commercial Closure: Deleting Gaza’s Economy from the Map and Israel Undermines Higher Education - and its own best interest - in Gaza.

The decision to cut fuel and electricity and to restrict the movement of goods in and out of Gaza stems from Israel’s September 19, 2007 Cabinet decision authorizing punitive measures against Gaza residents. It is a dangerous intervention into Gaza’s already-fragile humanitarian systems.

Gisha calls upon Israel immediately to cancel the fuel cuts, to refrain from implementing electricity cuts, and to open Gaza’s borders for the regular and sufficient supply of goods, including spare parts and other supplies necessary to ensure the health and well-being of Gaza residents.

Share This

Originally from Sabbah's Blog by Haitham reBlogged

O, Annapolis Part 1: two cousins cover the Conference from inside and out

Miriam (Egypt/Israel/USA) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:33:40 +0000

It’s 9:30 am and I am sitting in Union Station en route to Annapolis, cursing my cousin Ben for telling me to bring a raincoat. It is a balmy 60 degrees and there’s even some sun today; perhaps Someone would like to make our visiting Middle Eastern Heads of State feel at home.

Not likely, though, because every analyst of Annapolis seems to agree on one thing: this conference is an exercise in futility. I’m reminded of a boy I went to elementary school with who was slow and a bit of a bully and therefore not well-liked by the other kids. One year, his mom threw a big party for him. Everyone came and patted him on the back and told him how great he was…and the next day, everyone went back to shunning him and his bellicose ways in the schoolyard.

Sound familiar? Our Great Leader Bush along with Momma Condi has sent out an invitation no one wants, but no one can refuse. So Syria sends a deputy foreign minister (his picture ran in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz’s online edition under the headline, “the Foreign Minister, it is not”) and Abbas and Olmert and Erakat and Livni muster their negotiating teams to maybe craft a statement that will sort of hint at the possibility of resuming negotiations at some unspecified time in the future.

What a great use of our taxpayer dollars, almost as good as our pet wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So…should Annapolis have been cancelled?

In a talkback after the play MASKED on November 20th, Urgent Conversations Curator Mari Brown asked Meretz USA head Charney Bromberg, Egyptian journalist Mona Al-Tawahy, author Deborah Kanafani and Ofer Gutman of the World Zionist Organization this very question. Here are their responses:

DK: Although I think Hamas should have been included I would not. I was in Gaza when Clinton came and Gaza was full of Palestinians waving American flags, and now they burn our flags. They go where there is hope. And I hope GB doesn’t get to take credit.

Mona: I would cancel it. Today is the 30th anniversary of Sadat visiting the Knesset. Then he was called a traitor for breaking rank with Arab unity. Over the past 30 years all the current leaders lack the vision that Sadat had. Olmert does not have a mandate to agree to anything bold or visionary. If I could hold peace talks, I would hold it between the Palestinians. Two of my uncles fought in 1973. Then there was the tragic civil war in Gaza this summer. I would sit Abbas and Haniyah together and make them sign a treaty. Bush is one of the weakest presidents in a long time. On a positive note, I did a couple of stories to mark the 20th anniversary of Sadat’s visit, and I spoke to Jihan Sadat. “Do you realize it is your life?” she asked her husband when we was on his way to be the first Arab leader to address the Israeli Knesset. “Yes, but it is my duty to do it.” Upon his return and before his assassination at the hands of a military coup, Sadat said “I saw Israeli mothers holding up their babies and crying and I could imagine them saying, please make peace because I don’t want to lose my child.” At the Knesset, Sadat felt that his gesture was not met with reciprocity and felt insulted. He turned his back to Begin and wouldn’t talk to him. They then held a night of emergency whisky diplomacy. Thank god it worked. Whether it’s going to work in Annapolis or not, I don’t know.

Ofer: Too bad most Muslims don’t drink…as an Israeli I am looking forward to this summit. I don’t think Hamas should be there, I don’t think they want peace. The fact that Palestinians killed each other in a civil war, that I really can’t understand where it’s coming from. The fact is that Kassam rockets are falling every day on children in Sderot, that people there live in fear even though Israelis left Gaza strip totally. As Israelis we don’t have any other choice. We have to try, even if Olmert and Abbas are not the strongest leaders, we have to take this opportunity because we saw what the alternative is.

Charney: You asked us, “Will you go?” I am going on the 27th. A whole group of organizations are going to welcome the leaders to do the work that they are going to do. I believe that the disaster of the last 7 years has robbed the conflict of the center of gravity, weight and influence through which we could have reached a solution and without which we will never reach a solution. The role of US is crucial, it must be serious about what it has started. There is now strong communication between Olmert and Abbas. There is agreement on all basic issues, each side knows each other’s red lines. At stake is the support necessary for a solution that each leader can take back to his constituency. [In response to a question about Hamas not being invited:] Israel over the years has negotiated with entities that have not acknowledged right to exist through third parties, and it has been in Israel’s interest. A continuation of the situation in Gaza is in threat to everything that might come out of Annapolis. Hamas doesn’t belong at the negotiating table and doesn’t want to be at the table.

Mona: I disagree. It is naïve to think that Abbas can sign something on behalf of all Palestinians. Someone should be there to be the interlocutor between Annapolis and Hamas. Perhaps this is where Egypt can take a role, it has been diminished and no longer plays a constructive role and hasn’t succeeded. Perhaps the Saudis as well. Unless you involve that, Hamas has a mandate. You might not agree with their policies, but how can Abbas sign anything and pretend to represent all Palestinians. There has to be a way to be realistic and acknowledge that!

My cousin Ben and I will post again after the day’s end. He calls Annapolis Naptown. Let’s hope that nickname doesn’t prove prophetic.

Share This

Originally from Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead by Miriam (Egypt/Israel/USA) reBlogged on Nov 27, 2007, 3:10PM

Playing for Peace: PeaceMaker

Eliesheva (Israel/USA) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:33:16 +0000

This is going to be a bit of a cross post, as the original story is located on one of my personal blogs. But it’s too relevant not to share it here, so here we go…

Yesterday, the Peres Center for Peace released a computer game called PeaceMaker. It’s an attempt - made in Arabic, Hebrew and English - to build a creative campaign for understanding an tolerance and even what I might call ‘virtual contact’.

In the game, you choose which side you want to play (Palestinian President, Israeli Prime Minister or other world leader) and you basically go about your term trying to win approval ratings from both Palestinians and Israelis. It’s a game displaying the negotiation process more than a long-term peace process, but hey, that’s reality, isn’t it.

Actually, the game is above superficial and the graphics and depth are impressive. It’s an excellent try, and I’m sorry that the center is charging $19.95 for the game (although, they are a non-profit and provide services for the conflict-ridden populations).

Anyway, to get my full opinion on it, see the original article, including screen shots.

Share This

Originally from Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead by Eliesheva (Israel/USA) reBlogged on Nov 28, 2007, 7:36PM

Umm, I Have A Question…

D.B. Shobrawy (Egypt) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:32:27 +0000

What the hell is this!?

Seriously?! George W. Bush is Mr. Palestine? I didnt know things had gotten so bad, I mean I knew that a productive peace plan was nearly impossible but I didnt know George W. Bush of all people on this earth was the only chance for peace. Imagine that, and I thought George Bush was the antithesis of peace. I wouldnt have a problem with this cover if it wasnt for the line, “The Only Man Who Could Make It Happen”. (ok and maybe I’m sincerely disturbed by the name “Mr.Palestine”) I’ve lost so much respect for The Economist, I used to be a big fan, I even have a link to them on my site.

This isnt an issue of whether or not you like Bush, this is simply the essence of ignorance mostly because it places undue faith on the Annapolis Peace Conference or just “Annapolis” as the Arab newspapers call it, peace doesn’t really belong in the title. There is no peace without discussing the key issues.

-Right of return for Palestinian refugees.
-Jerusalem.
and
-The settlements.

As you probably already know, these issues were left out of the talks. (Israel said they will not discuss them) and so the Arab leaders started to pull out, boycotting essentially and why shouldnt they? They’ve since been compelled to attend but we know nothing will come from the conference and when it fails the Arabs will be blamed, just wait for it. If it wasnt for the glossy texture of this magazine cover I’d wipe my ass with it.

Share This

Originally from Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead by D.B. Shobrawy (Egypt) reBlogged on Nov 29, 2007, 9:17AM

Circumventing the Gatekeepers

Esra'a (Bahrain) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:32:17 +0000

This is my latest article for the Arab Press Network. I thought I’d share it here, considering its relevance:

Internet has become a place where young people in the Arab world can discuss and obtain information about a number of taboo subjects such as sexuality, poverty and human rights issues. Bahraini blogger Esra’a Al Shafei gives her perspective on this new trend.

The internet is becoming increasingly accessible in the Arab world. It seems as though the existing digital divide is slowly but surely disappearing. Thousands of people in the region rely on cheap internet cafes to participate in cyber activities such as blogging, local forum discussions and video sharing. Such things are no longer limited to people with advanced technical skills or those who can afford a computer and an internet connection.

Taher is a 17-year-old student from Bahrain. “I learned about the advantages of the internet mostly from friends. At school I only used it for games and fun. Now I have learnt how to use it in another way. I read what hundreds of Bahrainis are thinking about many different issues, and in particular two of my passions: politics and cars.”

Taher participates in local discussion groups and visits video sharing sites like YouTube because “it shows me a side of the world that I could only dream of seeing in reality.” He never traveled abroad. “My parents cannot afford to provide me and my siblings with many opportunities. I’ve asked them many times to buy me a computer, which is not very expensive these days, but they would rather save the money for my higher education.” For young people like Taher, the internet is a visual eye-opener. He may not be able to travel, but for now, he says “I have the internet,” a mental equivalent of traveling the world.

Due to the accessibility of the internet, a huge amount and diversity of content becomes available from every corner of the region and the world. People are using the net primarily to share and interact, as opposed to just consume. One of the biggest advantages the internet has over other media is the fact that it is instant and for the most part, censorship-free. An incident can happen and in less than an hour a video of it will be available to the world to witness. The power of such instant participatory technology is determined by the difference it can make on a local scale. Videos exposing rallies, police brutality, poverty, and human rights violations can travel via blogs, mailing lists, and social networking platforms and sometimes even end up receiving news coverage in pan-Arab networks such as Al Jazeera.

There are many taboos in the Arab world that are rarely discussed, including homosexuality. There are several blogs and message boards dedicated to homosexuality and gay rights activism within the Arab and Muslim world. The internet gives these groups a prominent and necessary voice in the region, as they seem to be shunned or considered “irrelevant” by our societies.

Another taboo is sex, which includes the need for sex education in the region, primarily for health purposes. Today there are journalism students who are tackling this taboo and who use blogs and YouTube for this. For instance, the “UAE students” blog published a video which discusses sex education in the Arab-Muslim world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9mmsT29OLc). Baraka TV has a YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/barakattv) which includes videos that cover topics such as AIDS and drug use in Arab societies. These videos target important issues, and point out how much damage we are doing to ourselves by not talking about them publicly.

Videos give power and recognition to these issues and are for the most part more compelling and easier to sit through than news articles or blog entries. Furthermore, many of the regional television networks consider these issues too sensitive or controversial for their public. It is therefore safe to predict that video casts will be the new generation of blogs, and within the near future we should expect a rise in video blogs emerging from the Arab world. With videos being easily convertible and compatible with mobile technology, allowing people to send them via Bluetooth and SMS, it makes it even easier to both share and receive videos with people regardless of whether or not they are anywhere near a wired computer.

As noted initially, the increasing use and technical accessibility of the internet has helped many local authors, readers and activists in terms of media outreach. For once we are facing less obstacles in expressing our opinions and sharing our human rights efforts with the world, either via blogs, forums, or videos. Even those who cannot afford their own computer find a way to access the internet, realizing the importance it has in our societies where not all issues make it past the gatekeepers of our media. Internet is by far one of the most “threatening” media that our governments have ever had to deal with, particularly because it is almost impossible to silence.

Link to original article.

Share This

Originally from Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead by Esra'a (Bahrain) reBlogged on Nov 29, 2007, 9:29PM

Pre-Eminent Middle East Scholar: Annapolis Foredoomed

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:31:27 +0000

The pre-eminent scholar of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, says the Annapolis conference is "foredoomed":

Is the Israel-Palestine Conflict about the Size of Israel, or About Its Existence?

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab states, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much-discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways - Hindus and others from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement - Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland into Germany.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by UN funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.

Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose - to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

Originally from IRIS Blog reBlogged

Annapolis Semi-Open Thread

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:13:44 +0000

In Annapolis, Maryland, USA, another round of peace efforts commences in the Great Intra-Semite Parking Space Quarrel ("You have 22 other parking spaces!"/ "Well, you're not really a car!"/"God stamped this ticket!"). It -- the conference not the quarrel -- will last for "as long as [Rice] feels there is a good, solid and productive discussion." Have at it.

Originally from 'Aqoul reBlogged on Nov 27, 2007, 2:43PM

Great Expectations

Nimr — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:12:03 +0000

* Is it just me or does everyone think the Annapolis conference guaranteed to be a success? All sides have lowered expectations so much that if the handshakes are "firm" the summit will have wildly surpassed our greatest hopes.

* Arabs really are at the forefront of equality, what else would you expect? Too many men in the Middle East smoke, the solution? Yeah, get those women smoking too! Are we placing unrealistic expectations on womens' bodies? Let the plastic surgery craze include the men!

“This surgery (breast reduction) is common among Qatari men.” Embarrassment over the size of their breast is believed to be the driving force for this increase and is most popular among men who are overweight or middle aged. These men are uncomfortable going to the swimming pool or even going shirtless at home. Other popular plastic surgery procedures for Qatari men include rhinoplasty (nose jobs) and stomach reduction.

* On a serious note, the Kalima Project has decided to translate 100 "great works" into Arabic. At first I was a little skeptical when I heard about this project, or at least the article, as it seemed a tad condescending. Every mid- to large- sized Arab city I have been in (which includes 11 countries) is littered with book shops, many of which carry foreign books translated into Arabic. Additionally, every major Arab city I have been in has at least one massive annual book fair. Yeah, it sucks that Clash of Civilizations is omnipresent and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is relatively easy to find, but there does tend to be quite a range of titles. However, from the article:

"The choices reflect what we consider are the real gaps in the Arab library," said Karim Nagy, the founder and chief executive of the project, which was launched yesterday in Abu Dhabi. "We shy away as far as possible from best-sellers."

The list is very interesting and not at all what I expected it to be (Great Expectations is actually not on the list). Although my guess is some books I have seen are translated without permission and sold on the black market, this statistic from the article is a bit depressing:

One of the triggers which led to its creation was a widely-circulated statistic from the 2003 UN report into human development in the Arab world. It estimated that more books (about 10,000) were translated into Spanish every year than had been translated into Arabic over the past millennium.

It is also worth noting that the project plans to start translating Arabic books into English, which is also very important. Looking at the list, you can tell the the head of the project has a literary/consulting background. What books would you like to see translated into or from Arabic?

Originally from KABOBfest by Nimr reBlogged

Annapolis: The Road to Palestinian Fascism?

Will — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:11:56 +0000

If this is any sign of things to come, I'd rather not have a Palestinian state:

Witnesses said Palestinian police used water cannons and beat demonstrators with clubs and rifle butts.

More than 300 Palestinians turned out in defiance of a ban on public demonstrations issued by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) for the day of the conference. Demonstrators carried signs expressing opposition to the US-backed conference and demanding the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

We do not need a Palestinian sub-contractor to do Israel's bidding. One journalist compared the climate to Hamas's police state in Gaza.

I received reports that the PA forces also beat and arrested Palestinian activist Haithem El-Zabri, the proprietor of the Palestine Online Store. This is an absolute outrage.

Originally from KABOBfest by Will reBlogged

The One-State Declaration

Will — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:10:57 +0000

A diverse group of activists, academics and scholars put out this statement on the one state solution for Israel-Palestine: a state for both people living with equality. Some dismiss this as idealistic and propound the two-state solution. In my opinion, two states, the idea of a sovereign independent Palestine next to Israel, Jordan, and Egypt is even more idealistic. I support this declaration.

THE ONE STATE DECLARATION
The Electronic Intifada, 29 November 2007

For decades, efforts to bring about a two-state solution in historic Palestine have failed to provide justice and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli Jewish peoples, or to offer a genuine process leading towards them.

The two-state solution ignores the physical and political realities on the ground, and presumes a false parity in power and moral claims between a colonized and occupied people on the one hand and a colonizing state and military occupier on the other. It is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.

The two-state solution entrenches and formalizes a policy of unequal separation on a land that has become ever more integrated territorially and economically. All the international efforts to implement a two-state solution cannot conceal the fact that a Palestinian state is not viable, and that Palestinian and Israeli Jewish independence in separate states cannot resolve fundamental injustices, the acknowledgment and redress of which are at the core of any just solution.

In light of these stark realities, we affirm our commitment to a democratic solution that will offer a just, and thus enduring, peace in a single state based on the following principles:

- The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status;

-Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities;

- There must be just redress for the devastating effects of decades of Zionist colonization in the pre- and post-state period, including the abrogation of all laws, and ending all policies, practices and systems of military and civil control that oppress and discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or national origin;

-The recognition of the diverse character of the society, encompassing distinct religious, linguistic and cultural traditions, and national experiences;

-The creation of a non-sectarian state that does not privilege the rights of one ethnic or religious group over another and that respects the separation of state from all organized religion;

-The implementation of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194 is a fundamental requirement for justice, and a benchmark of the respect for equality.

-The creation of a transparent and nondiscriminatory immigration policy;

-The recognition of the historic connections between the diverse communities inside the new, democratic state and their respective fellow communities outside;

-In articulating the specific contours of such a solution, those who have been historically excluded from decision-making -- especially the Palestinian Diaspora and its refugees, and Palestinians inside Israel -- must play a central role;

-The establishment of legal and institutional frameworks for justice and reconciliation.

The struggle for justice and liberation must be accompanied by a clear, compelling and moral vision of the destination - a solution in which all people who share a belief in equality can see a future for themselves and others. We call for the widest possible discussion, research and action to advance a unitary, democratic solution and bring it to fruition.

Madrid and London, 2007

Signed:

Ali Abunimah
Naseer Aruri
Omar Barghouti
Oren Ben-Dor
George Bisharat
Haim Bresheeth
Jonathan Cook
Ghazi Falah
Leila Farsakh
Islah Jad
Joseph Massad
Ilan Pappe
Carlos Prieto del Campo
Nadim Rouhana
The London One State Group

Originally from KABOBfest by Will reBlogged